Former Vice President Joseph Biden has recently emerged as the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee who will face Donald Trump in November. Even though the outcome of the 2020 presidential election could not be more unclear, it is time to ask a question: what would a Biden presidency mean for US-Russia relations?
Last weekend, OPEC+ members struck a historic deal on a record cut of oil production to stabilize prices. However, the positive effects of the deal are offset by the slowing global economy amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Market analysts believe that the agreement was reached too late as a result of the Kremlin’s short-sighted decision to wage an oil price war against the United States.
As of April 15, Russia has counted almost twenty-five thousand coronavirus cases, with the official death toll reaching 198 people. The country has virtually been under quarantine for three weeks, and its healthcare system is increasingly under stress. Amidst this national crisis, in a classic feat of his crisis-management style, Vladimir Putin has stayed largely out of sight, deferring responsibility for tackling COVID-19 to regional leaders.
On March 26, IMR launched the “Russia under Putin” project, which includes a timeline of the country’s key political developments over the last 20 years. This factual digest serves not only to refresh one’s memory but also to retrace the Putin regime’s evolution and its modus operandi. IMR’s Olga Khvostunova highlights the key patterns of this regime and explains what they mean.
Russia’s new prime minister, Mikhail Mishustin, was tasked with pushing forward the stalling national projects amidst the political transition initiated by Vladimir Putin earlier this year. Today, as the COVID-19 pandemic and Moscow’s oil price war with OPEC hits the Russian economy hard, the chances for the projects to be successfully carried out this year are getting slim. Moreover, a closer look at the government efforts shows that even before these crises, implementation of the national projects was already problematic.
The Institute of Modern Russia is launching a new project, “Russia under Putin,” to mark the 20th anniversary of Vladimir Putin’s first election as president.
On March 16, Russia’s Constitutional Court approved the proposed amendments to the Constitution, clearing the way for Vladimir Putin to stay in power beyond 2024, with the upcoming referendum likely being a mere formality. The swiftness of the process signals that legitimacy through adherence to formal rules no longer matters to Putin, and, perhaps, never did.
A Dutch appeals court has recently overturned the 2016 decision of the Hague District Court to annul a $50 billion award to shareholders in the Yukos oil company and reinstates the 2014 ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Hailing to the rule of law, former Yukos top-manager, Israel-based businessman and IMR trustee Leonid Nevzlin points out that the Yukos case should not be measured in money.
One of the underreported stories in Russian politics is the growing tensions between the federal government in Moscow and the regions. Increasingly centralized revenues and political authority along with undue preferences given to Moscow have sparked regional crises, signaling the problem to Vladimir Putin directly. It appears that he will try to solve this problem by codifying bottom-up accountability, instead of strengthening local governance. That’s a mistake.
In an interview with IMR, political scientist Vladimir Gelman, professor of the European University in St. Petersburg and the University of Helsinki, discusses the origins of Russia’s bad governance, the goals of Vladimir Putin’s recent political initiatives, and the Western elite’s “jealousy.”
Our newsletter delivers a digest of analytical articles and op-eds published on our website, along with the latest updates on the IMR activities on a monthly basis.