The unpredictability of Russian president Vladimir Putin has long worried the Western world. But the problem has become particularly evident in the context of the Ukrainian crisis, during which the official position of the Kremlin has changed repeatedly. Political analyst Tatyana Stanovaya speculates on Putin’s plans for Ukraine.
Today’s Russia is witnessing a lamentable but inevitable convergence of domestic and external aggression. The country’s expansion into Ukraine is accompanied by the adoption of new, repressive laws and increasing police crackdown on the political opposition and civic activists within Russia. According to author and analyst Alexander Podrabinek, given this familiar trajectory, Russian society should expect a further “tightening of the screws,” while the international community should prepare for new military conflicts with Moscow.
Speculation over the extent to which Russian president Vladimir Putin is disconnected from reality continues. In a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal, U.S. secretary of state John Kerry declared that Putin “is creating his own reality, and his own sort of world, divorced from a lot of what’s real on the ground for all those people, including people in his own country.” The Russian leader’s unpredictability frightens the global community. This is why, according to political analyst Tatiana Stanovaya, it is important to understand what Vladimir Putin’s “own sort of world” looks like.
In March, a pro-Kremlin TV commentator threatened to turn the U.S. into radioactive dust. It is clear, however, that there will be no escalation. The question remains unanswered: whom is the Kremlin trying to frighten? According to sociologist Poel Karp, the takeover of Crimea and the coming war in Ukraine are nothing but attempts by the ruling Russian elites at retaining power.
On April 23, the State Duma adopted in its second and third readings a law on liability for the public rehabilitation of Nazism. As writer Alexander Podrabinek observes, some parts of the new law repeat verbatim article 190-1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, according to which many Soviet dissidents were convicted for “spreading knowingly false fabrications” about the Soviet system.
On April 29, Russia’s Federation Council passed a law that tightens government control over the dissemination of information on the Internet and treats bloggers as journalists. A week earlier this so-called “antiterrorism package” was adopted by the State Duma. According to writer Alexander Podrabinek, this law fits in with the current trend in Russia of giving the government a free hand while imposing restrictions on citizens.
The lack of international regulation of separatist processes has resulted in a whole spectrum of interstate abuses, including the use by aggressive countries of separatist movements as a smokescreen for their objective of annexing neighboring territories. Russia’s behavior toward Crimea serves as a striking example of such an abuse. According to writer Alexander Podrabinek, the creation of an international convention on separatism could help the problem.
The annexation of Crimea is now complete. Two entities, the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, have become part of Russia. However, the global community has not and will not recognize the annexation of the peninsula, carried out as it was “at gunpoint.” According to political analyst Tatiana Stanovaya, the key issue here is not Russia’s isolation from the international community, but the long process the Kremlin faces in integrating the new territories into the state—a process that will be accompanied by various political, legal, financial, and economic problems.
The annexation of Crimea was a turning point for Vladimir Putin’s regime. The price of retaining power has increased dramatically, which in practice means that direct repressions will be used against opposition media. However, according to political analyst Tatiana Stanovaya, this trend may prove to be reversible.
Last week, the United States and the European Union imposed sanctions against a number of Russia’s high-profile officials, prohibiting their entrance into the respective countries and freezing their assets. But as writer Alexander Podrabinek argues, such sanctions are laughable and can have little real effect on the Kremlin’s aggressive policies.
Page 5 of 21
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.