Since Russia’s President Putin’s return to power, rock music in Russia has faced somewhat of an ordeal. As Moscow pronounced the punk rock band Pussy Riot guilty of hosting a political protest in an Orthodox cathedral, attracting international condemnation, it is reported that fans of Viktor Tsoi, leader of Russia’s legendary rock band Kino, are under police surveillance.

Tsoi was born on June 21, 1962 in Saint Petersburg by a Korean-Russian father and a Russian mother. He studied at Serov Artistic Academy in Leningrad from 1974 to 1977, but was kicked out for writing and performing anti-national songs. He formed the rock group Kino under the Soviet Communism. Tsoi quickly became popular among young Russians who were craving change in the Soviet Union.

Tsoi, who died in 1990, has been considered a symbol of freedom and resistance for Russian people. His 50th birthday was marked this year. Pictures of Tsoi can still be spotted in the downtown of Moscow and Saint Petersburg and many commemorative events have been held by his fans in these cities.

Since Tsoi is a singer beloved by many Russian people, his fans have called on the Russian government to name a street after him. However, instead of considering the idea, the police authority of Saint Petersburg officially announced last July that they are monitoring the fans of Kino in order to control extremist activities.

In Russia, once police authorities decide to monitor someone, they can exercise governmental power in the name of maintaining public order. For instance, the police authority of Saint Petersburg made a raid of a rock concert held at club ArcticA, which is best-known for heavy rock and folk gigs, where they detaining about 400 people for couple of hours and took their fingerprints and pictures. So-called ‘extremism prevention law,’ signed by Putin in 2006, is the foundation for this measure: signs of opposition towards Putin or other human rights activism is monitored, causing controversy among Russian citizens.

The actions of Saint Petersburg’s police authority prompts concerns about the possible infringing of human rights, and there are some people who believe Russia is changing itself to the days of the Soviet Union, when a repressive dictatorship dominated the whole country.

For example, a noted Russian scholar who asked not to be named said “It seems that the Russian government is trying to monitor fans of KINO as a warning to others. However, it shouldn’t have made a big deal out of it. It is causing harsh controversy as you witnessed rather having Russian people over.”

Tsoi died in 1990 in a car accident. However, since most of his songs were talking about freedom and resistance against the Soviet Union, there was a rumor that Tsoi was assassinated by the communist or secret government agency. Even though about 20 years past, he remains one of the idols for many Russian people.

Image Courtesy of  Aija Lehtonen / Shutterstock.com

The article Rock Music Fans under Surveillance in Russia appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Several houses and apartments of suspected protest leaders were searched by Russian authorities on 11 June 2012. The searches came shortly after Putin and his party pushed an anti-protesting law through the Duma that increases the protesting fines 150 fold.

The apartments that were searched were those of Alexei Navalny, Sergei Udaltsov, Ilya Yashin, and Ksenia Sobchak; the homes of Udaltsov’s parents and Navalny’s parernts and in-laws were also searched. Sobchak is a Russian television personality whose father was also a mentor of Putin’s. The Russian police have also noted that they plan to search former political activist Bori Nemtsov as well.

The searches lasted for as long as twelve hours and the investigators seized cell phones, computers, and tablets.

Udaltsov claims, “the authorities are in a panic…they are trying to conduct primitive, repressive actions, but I am sure they’ll only achieve the opposite effect. These sorts of searches annoy and outrage people, and people in even greater numbers take to the streets.”

US State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said the United States is “deeply concerned by the apparent harassment of Russian political opposition figures on the eve of the planned demonstrations on June 12.”

After the search the protest leaders were called in for questioning on Tuesday, 12 June 2012 at 11 AM, one hour before protests began in Pushkin Square. Many worried that if the protest leaders were not released in time for the protest, a clash between police and protesters would ensue. The protest was planned and approved by authorities for 12 June which is the national holiday, Russia Day, celebrating the day in 1990 when Russian lawmakers declared independence from the Soviet Union and gave power to Russian authorities over the Soviets.

Udaltsov ignored his summons to be questioned and led the protesters in chanting “Russia will be free.” The protests saw around 65,000 people, much greater than the original 18,000 estimated by the Russian authorities, meaning the police presence was small in comparison. Most of the protesters are white collar professionals who want more say in politics and to avoid economic stagnation according to Gulf News.

Some of the protesters explained that they were not worried about the new anti-protesting law that was passed the previous Friday after Putin signed it into law. One woman, Nina Lobachyova, 73, stated, “I am not afraid I will be fined. I am not going to fight or scream, why would they fine me? And if they do, I won’t pay, I’ll go to jail and be considered a political prisoner.”

Image Courtesy of  Nickolay Vinokurov / Shutterstock.com

The article Russian Protests Continue, Protest Leaders Questioned appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The lower house of the Russian parliament passed a controversial anti-protesting bill Tuesday, June 5th, with a final vote of 241 to 147. The bill will raise unsanctioned public gathering fines 150-fold, from 2,000 rubles to 300,000 rubles ($9000) for citizens and from 5,000 rubles ($1500) to 600,000 rubles ($18000) for government officials. These fine punishments are harsher than even the ones citizens can receive for the storage of nuclear materials in Russia.

Some protesters have attempted to avoid protesting fines in the past by not bringing signs, and instead silently marching in mass numbers. However, the bill also accounts for this possibility and includes punishments for these kinds of protests. Many worry that this bill violates the constitutional right to assembly.

The bill was edited after criticism that it was far too restrictive. Parts of the bill that were even more controversial were removed, including fines for individuals who spread the word about protests and rallies on the internet.

The bill was created after massive protests of more than one hundred thousand people protested opposing Putin’s 12-year rule. Putin’s United Russia party holds the majority in the upper and lower houses of the Russian parliament, and although opposition parties did their best to halt the bill with a slew of amendments, the United Russian party voted down all of them. Putin claims the bill is necessary for the Russian people and claimed, “we must shield our people from radical action.”

Members of the opposition are unsatisfied with this explanation. Sergei Mironov, the leader of Fair Russia opposition faction, claimed the bill will “spit in the face of the Russian people… this odious bill is an attempt to scare the people and shut their mouth.” Another member of the Fair Russia party, Gennady Gudkov warned, “in the past, tightening the screws in Russia has only caused bloodshed. This is a sure path to a civil war.” A member of the Communist Party, Anatoly Lokot argued, “instead of a dialogue you are offering a big stick.”

Even groups who normally support the Kremlin and vote with United Russia were unhappy. The Liberal-Democratic party voted against the bill and also tried to delay it with amendments.

The bill has ignited even more protests outside the State Duma building in recent days. At least twenty opposition activists, including the leader of the liberal Yabloko party, were detained on the Tuesday the bill was passed in the lower house.

Some young professionals who have regularly attended the protests have lost their jobs. One protester, Alisa Obraztsova, a 24-year-old lawyer, stated, “they thought they would discourage the protests by arresting people like me, who had never before been detained, but they only poured fuel on the fire.”

The bill passed in the upper house on Wednesday, June 6th, with only one voting against the bill and one abstaining. Now only Putin’s signature is necessary to sign it into law. The government wants the bill to be signed before a planned anti-government rally the week of June 11th.

The article Moscow Protesters Challenge Anti-Protesting Law appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Vladimir Putin, former agent of the KGB (Committee for State Security) and candidate for a third presidential mandate, tries by all means to hide his personal life. In 1999, Putin took office as acting president of the Euro-Asian country after the resignation of Boris Yeltsin. He won the elections in 2000 and was re-elected four years later.

After the end of his second mandate in 2008, the prime minister of that time, Dmitry Medvedev, was elected his successor, and only a day after, Putin took the post of the new prime minister. Paradoxically, all the political power was in his hands again. This provoked the discontent of the Russian nation to some extent.

People are well-acquainted with Putin, but his personal life is a mystery, even for his compatriots. His wife, Lyudmila Putina, hardly ever attends official public events. Putin has been in power for more than ten years, but the Russian community does not know what his daughters look like. There are contradictory speculations about where they live. In 2010, there was a rumor that his youngest heir was to marry her boyfriend, son of a retired North Korean admiral. However, this news was denied by both sides.

Putin is almost never asked questions concerning his private life. For the Russian media, it is a subject of taboo. The reason may lie in the closure of a public newspaper in 2008, after they published an article that claimed Putin had left his wife and married a 24 year-old Olympic gymnast named Alina Kabaeva, who was a deputy and a member of his party at that time.

In the totalitarian past of Russia, it was easy for politicians to stop the spread of rumors, whether correct or incorrect. However, it becomes more tricky in todays digital age. Millions of blogs and web pages post stories about Putin and his family which are, in many cases, completely made up. Last year, one rumor stated that Putin spent his life in a monastery. Of course, the Russian Orthodox Church called these speculations “nonsense”, and the spokesman of the prime minister at that time declined to comment.

Pressed by the global media society and the scandalous gossip concerning himself, Putin revealed that his daughters lead an ordinary life. However, the the Russian nation wants to know where they are. Maybe in his next mandate, he will reveal this secret. In 2010, it was said that Putin and his wife were about to divorce, but they appeared on a talk show together. However, Lyudmila was not wearing her wedding ring. That made the newspapers much fiercer in their exaggeration about the marital drama of the Putins.

American and European journalists have the freedom to delve into the personal life of their political leaders, but in Russia, authorities are protected by the law. That is why Putin will always remain an enigma for the Russian nation and the world.

Image Courtesy of  Degtyaryov Andrey Leonidovich / Shutterstock.com

The article Putin: The State Secret appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Dmitro Dzhangirov, a Russia and East Europe expert, in a recent article has stated that further bilateral relations between Russia and the Ukraine will benefit from Vladimir Putin’s 12 years of experience. Mr Putin is expected to return to the Presidency later this week following the election on March 4.

Dzhangirov said: “From point of view of the Ukrainian elite Vladimir Putin is a difficult and hard person and thus an unpleasant negotiator. What is considered to be “pragmatism” in Moscow is often perceived as “dictatorship” in Kiev. Strictly speaking, the style of Vladimir Putin’s Ukrainian policy can be described as “pragmatism of the strong towards the weak”, but that’s no help for the Ukrainian leadership.

“However, if you remember the last years of Leonid Kuchma’s presidency, within the “multi-vector” framework he was able to have a dialogue with his Russian counterpart on almost equal terms. And the current problems are consequences of mistakes and miscalculations in 2005-2009. Today Vladimir Putin meets on the Bankova Street a person who does not allow Kiev fix easily mistakes and miscalculations of the previous and disloyal to the Kremlin power.

“On the other hand, if Vladimir Putin’s return is expected with fear, the hypothetical variant of the revolutionary “Arabic-like” chaos causes well-founded fear. For the West such fear is caused, first of all, by the presence of second nuclear power in Russia. For Ukraine interruptions in delivery of energy sources and a sharp decline of exports in the east direction may become a real disaster.

“However, the apocalyptic scenario of the immediate future is rather a warning to most fervent “democrats” than a real prediction. But apart from the “stability or chaos” alternative given by the vote on March 4, the question “What is the real alternative to Vladimir Putin in Russia’s Ukrainian policy?” seems quite correct.

“Let’s start with the fact that only “parties of power” tried to build inter-party contacts with colleagues, except for the Ukrainian and the Russian communists, at the moment they are Party of Regions and United Russia. The Ukrainian National-Democratic parties, traditionally citing Lenin’s phrase that “the Russian democracy ends when it comes to the Ukrainian question”, did not even try to find partners in Russia.

The exception was Reforms and Order Party that had more or less regular contacts and even documents signed with the Russian party Union of Right Forces.

“After the “Orange Revolution” the URF party leader Boris Nemtsov was a temporary advisor to the Ukrainian President, but his active participation in the confrontation Viktor Yushchenko – Yulia Tymoshenko had nothing to do with strengthening Russian-Ukrainian inter-party relations.

One can also remember a very short “flirt” between the block of Ukrainian socialists and Motherland block in 2005, which also didn’t get further development. ”In this connection a reasonable question appears. What kind of relationship are the relative “Ukrainian democrats” looking for with hypothetical “non-Putin Russia”?

“The relationship can’t be built from scratch – the Russians have the January 2009 “gas contract” and the April 2010 “Kharkov agreements”. There is also Gazprom’s system of treaties and agreements with European partners both on the gas supply and the construction of gas pipelines.

“And all these are trumps in the hands of the President of Russia, regardless of his name and political views. Could another president of the Russian Federation take a softer position towards Kiev? Yes, he can but only after he at full scale performs all techniques of hard negotiating, starting with the simplest formula of international relations: “Pacta sunt servanda” (“agreements must be kept”).

“The fact is that for any “non Putin” the mentioned documents are a starting point for a dialogue, while for Vladimir Putin they are an intermediate result of a long 12-year negotiating process with all its uneasy and obscure moments and nuances.

“As for the potential of Ukrainian-Russian relations, it is best characterized by the following public inquiry. 64% of Russians have a “very good” and “mostly good” attitude towards Ukraine (Levada Center, the end of January 2012), and this factor should be taken into account by any Russian president.”

Dmitro Dzhangirov is a journalist and Russia – East Europe expert

Source: Russia Insights www.russia-insights.com

Image Courtesy of   Mark III Photonics / Shutterstock.com

The article Expert Says Putin is the Best Leader for Russia-Ukraine Relations appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Srdja Trifkovic, has said that the US and Russia must work together to fight aggression in the world, despite the recent unveiling of the US’ new Defense Strategy.

Trifkovic said: “The Obama Administration’s “Defense Strategic Guidance” (DSG) was unveiled on January 5 as part of the broader programmatic document, Sustaining US Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense. Presenting the DSG, President Obama spoke of “enduring national interests” in maintaining the unparalleled U.S. military superiority, “ready for the full range of contingencies and threats” amidst “a complex and growing array of security challenges across the globe.”

“The DSG further asserted that in the decades ahead it will be the task of the United States to “confront and defeat aggression anywhere in the world.” The ideological framework behind the concept was evident in Obama’s State of the Union address three weeks later, when he repeated Madeleine Albrigtht’s irritating dictum that “America remains the one indispensable nation in world affairs.”

“As long as I am President,” he added sternly, “I intend to keep it that way.” This is some light years away from candidate Obama bewailing “the consequences of a foreign policy based on a flawed ideology, and a belief that tough talk can replace real strength and vision.”

“The implications of the DSG for Russia’s strategic planners are clear: the rhetoric in Washington may vary from one administration to another, but the substance is constant. Obama made no attempt to support his claim that the security threats to America are growing, or to provide his own definition of “enduring national interest,” because he sees the entire world as a legitimate sphere of interest of the United States.

The DSG is intrinsically a challenge to Russia and other powers outside the U.S. orbit, and that challenge may only become more acute if Mitt Romney wins in November. A sober reassessment of the “reset” will be needed soon after V.V. Putin’s expected return to the helm of the Russian Federation. U.S.-Russian relations over the past two decades reveal a remarkable role reversal.

The Soviet Union came into being as a revolutionary state that challenged any given status quo in principle, starting with the Comintern and ending three generations later with Afghanistan. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, however, Russia has been trying to define her policies in terms of traditional national interests: stable domestic institutions, secure borders, friendly neighbors.

The old Soviet dual-track policy of having “normal” relations with America, on the one hand, while seeking to subvert her, on the other, gave way to sometimes naive attempts to forge a “partnership” with Washington.

“By contrast, the early 1990′s witnessed America’s strident attempt to assert her status as the only global “hyperpower.” This ambition was inimical to post-Soviet stabilization. Washington refused to accept that Russia has any legitimate interests in her near-abroad, while reserving the right to meddle in her internal affairs. In essence, America adopted her own dual-track approach.

“Contemporary U.S. strategic doctrine is reminiscent of an old blueprint for Soviet policy: the Brezhnev Doctrine. It was defined by its author as the principle that the sovereignty of a socialist country is limited by the will of the Kremlin: “The norms of law cannot be interpreted narrowly, formally, in isolation from the general context…”

The key difference between Brezhnev and the leaders of modern America is the limited scope of the Soviet leader’s self-awarded outreach. His doctrine applied only to the “socialist community,” as opposed to the unlimited scope of meeting “security challenges across the globe” by the “indispensable country.” No “interests of world socialism” could beat “universal human rights” when it came to determining where and when to intervene.

The “socialist community” led by Moscow stopped on the Elbe. It was replaced by the “International Community,” led by Washington, which stops nowhere. ”Under President Obama, this remains the self-referential framework for the policy of permanent global interventionism.

Sooner or later, however, U.S. foreign policy will collide with reality-Iraq and Afghanistan appear not to have been sufficient wake-up calls-and Washington, shorn of its ideological blinkers, will finally embrace the foreign policy imperative of the 21st century: Solidarity and strategic cooperation between the United States, Europe and Russia on the basis of their shared moral, intellectual and cultural foundations, as they face similar challenges in the years to come.”

Srdja Trifkovic is Foreign Affairs Editor of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, and Executive Director of The Lord Byron Foundation for Balkan Studies

The article US, Russia and Europe Should Work Together to Face Defense Challenges appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

A recent poll by the Russian Public Opinion Research Centre shows that despite protests ahead of the Russian presidential elections in March, Putin retains overwhelming popularity amongst the voters.

According to the quantitative study released in January, 52 percent of those polled claim that they would vote for Vladimir Putin if the elections were held tomorrow, with Ziuganov and Zhirinovsky lagging behind with the support of 11 percent and 9 percent of potential voters respectively.

Only 16 percent say that they would under no circumstance vote for Putin, and Putin is also rated as the most trustworthy of all Russian politicians, with his closest rival being the incumbent President Dimitry Medvedev.

It was also found that among those involved in the December protests, a fifth are as yet unsure of who they will vote for in the upcoming elections, whilst Yavlinsky and Prokhorov were each the preferred candidate for 17 percent of the protesters.

Valery Fedorov, the general director of VTsIOM, commented: “It is clear that there is no obvious alternative to Putin, even for those vehemently opposing his candidacy for President. The opposition is extremely heterogeneous and has little shared vision for the country’s future. This is reflected in the confusion of the Russian public.”

It was further found that the protestors felt secure about their financial well-being. A third regarded their standard of living as good or very good, and only 9 percent were dissatisfied with their current economic well-being. This echoes the general sentiment among the Russian population. Fedorov adds: “With the Russian economy registering year-on-year growth, Russia is weathering the financial crisis far better than its neighbors in Europe.

“The results show that despite the crisis in the Eurozone, 58 percent of Russians say they believe that their standard of living will improve in 2012. At the advent of the financial crisis in 2009, only 48 percent of Russians were optimistic about their future. The ten percent rise in optimism can be accredited to the stability of the Russian economy.”

The Presidential elections will be held on March 4, only a few months after the results of the general elections brought thousands of protesters onto the streets of Moscow. The protesters questioned the margin by which the ruling United Russia party won the elections and claimed that election rigging had taken place. United Russia continues to hold a majority in the State Duma.

Image Courtesy of  magicinfoto / Shutterstock.com

The article Putin Has Majority of Russian Voters’ Support, Poll Says appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

At the click of a single button, Russian Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin, opened the first Nord stream gas pipeline this week. The pipeline is located at the portovaya compressor station, along at the Russian-Finnish border.

The 1220 km Nord Stream Pipeline was constructed in order to deliver gas directly from Russia’s Vyborg to Germany’s Greifswald across the Baltic Sea. Thus far, the Nord Stream is a twin pipeline, which cost $12.5 bn to build. On completion of the second pipeline by 2013, the system will be able to move 55 bn cu m of gas per year, according to the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC).

According to Putin, for the next 50 years, the Nord Stream will supply an annual of 55 billion cubic meters of gas not only to Germany but also to the United Kingdom, Denmark and Netherlands.

Many see the benefits of this new tactic. “Nord Stream is important as it will reduce supply uncertainty and price volatility in the winter,” John Fahy, managing director of London-based consultants Eras Ltd., said in an e-mail, according to Businessweek.

Prior to the Nord Stream, Russia relied on land based transit and transportation of gas via Ukraine. The Ukraine and Russia often disagreed. A major conflict in 2006 between Russia and the Ukraine occurred when Ukraine failed to agree with Russia on a price issue.

According to Russian authorities, Ukraine often refused to pay the prices that Russia asks for; this battle has been an on-going issue from the time of movement the Soviet Union collapsed. Russia also accuses Ukraine of siphoning gas to cover its own shortages. In 2009 the battle over gas prices between Russia and Ukraine reached an extraordinary scale.

These conflicts resulted in Russian stopping the supply of gas in winter to Europe, during the coldest temperatures. This left many European customers shivering without heat. According to Reuters, the pipeline will lesson Russia’s reliance on Ukraine who currently transports close to 80 percent of its exports to Europe.

With a lucrative market for its natural resources, many forecast that Moscow will profit off this new system. Meanwhile, the Ukraine is showing concern over the situation, feeling as though Russia is backing out on their working relationship. “You cannot just unilaterally break a contract,” Ukraine’s Deputy Prime Minister, Igor Sechin, told reporters at the Nord Stream launch.

Sechin is a close ally of Putin, Reuters said. At the launch, Putin commented on the circumstances. “As with any other transit country, there is always a temptation to exploit its unique transit status” and that, he said, is ending. Businessweek reported that the Nord Stream pipeline will carry enough gas to supply 26 million European home.

Completion of the first phase of Nord Stream has increased doubts of Ukraine’s future gas purchases from Russia and the process of negotiation is also under doubts. Construction of Nord stream is not the only blow to transit nations since Russia also unveiled plans for construction of a South Stream which will run from Southern Russia to Bulgaria under the Black Sea.

Some say supply disruptions will be the thing of past upon the completion of second and third phases of the project.

The article Russia Launches New Gas Link, Blow to Ukraine? appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.