Europe

By Ariel Cohen

WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 (UPI) -- Russia held joint naval exercises withVenezuela late last year to demonstrate its growing strategic reach and political clout, particularly in Latin America, which many consider the traditional U.S. sphere of influence.

Continued

WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 (UPI) -- As UPI reported, at the end of November Russia successfully test-launched its new-generation land- and sea-based ballistic missile designed to penetrate U.S. missile defense systems such as the one planned for deployment in Poland and the Czech Republic. The new Russian missile can be equipped with up to 10 warheads, including decoys, to overwhelm or mislead American sensors.

Continued

By Ariel Cohen

Despite the raging economic crisis and collapse of oil prices, Russiacontinues to push its global diplomatic offensive, which has overt anti-American overtones. At the end of November, President Dmitry Medvedev paid a week-long visit to Latin America  The trip demonstratedRussia’s growing strategic reach and political clout in a region considered a U.S. sphere of influence.

Continued

WASHINGTON, Dec. 12 (UPI) -- Russian generals have long felt they should be the ones to set military policy. They have trouble accepting civilian authority -- be it from President Dmitry Medvedev or Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov. They derisively describe the minister as a former furniture salesman and tax man, yet Serdyukov knows where the brass keep their money.

Continued

By Ariel Cohen

WASHINGTON, Dec. 1 (UPI) -- The Arctic Ocean is quickly re-emerging as a strategic area where vital U.S. interests are at stake. The geopolitical and geo-economic importance of the arctic region is rising rapidly, and its mineral wealth will likely transform the region into a booming economic frontier in the 21st century.

Continued

By Ariel Cohen

WASHINGTON, Dec. 11 (UPI) -- Implementing military reform is a challenging task for Russian generals. Understanding what’s going on is daunting for outside observers. Moscow’s military leaders seem to think that the best way to proceed is to keep their dirty laundry out of public view.

Continued

By Ariel Cohen

WASHINGTON, Nov. 21 (UPI) -- The resumption of Cold War-style patrols and increased naval presence in the Arctic Ocean by the Russian navy and air force is in keeping with the Russian Federation’s more forward posture of recent years.

Continued

‍

By Ariel Cohen

The day after Barack Obama won the 2008 U.S. presidential election, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev announced the first real test for the U.S. President-elect. In his State of the Federation speech, Medvedev threatened to station Iskander short-range nuclear-capable missiles in the Kaliningrad exclave if the U.S. proceeds with deploying anti-missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Continued

By Ariel Cohen and Lajos Szaszdi

WASHINGTON, Nov. 6 (UPI) -- The arctic is quickly re-emerging as a strategic area where vital U.S. interests are at stake. The geopolitical and geo-economic importance of the arctic region is rising rapidly, and its mineral wealth will likely transform the region into a booming economic frontier in the 21st century.

Continued

By Ariel Cohen

Until Russia can revitalize its naval forces to a much larger degree, its deployments to the Mediterranean contribute more to symbolic and diplomatic activity than being a viable military counterweight to NATO in the region. Yet the Black Sea Fleet in the Med is a significant show of force and a diplomatic irritant and a potential threat to shipping in the Suez Canal and to America’s ally Israel.

Continued

By Ariel Cohen

The fifth annual Valdai Club meeting took place against the backdrop of the conflict in the Caucasus and Russia’s recognition of the secessionist republics Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The Valdai Club, of which this author is a member, brings together policy experts and journalists fromRussia and the world for discussions with the Russian leadership.

Continued

Ariel Cohen

On Aug. 8, Russia decided to rewrite the rules of post-World War II European security. It repudiated the Helsinki Pact of 1975, which recognized the sanctity of borders in Europe, and violated the sovereignty and territorial integrity of NATO aspirant Georgia, whose troops had attacked South Ossetia the day before. In the process, Russia also tore up its own peacekeeping mandate in South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Continued

By Ariel Cohen

While all the facts of last week’s Russian-Georgian war are not clear, enough information--including eyewitness accounts--has been reported in the media to draw initial conclusions about the performance of Russian military forces and the implications of these operations for U.S. defense policies. Unquestionably, the war is a reminder that "conventional" military operations as an instrument of modern combat are far from obsolete.

Continued

‍

By Ariel Cohen

Moscow remains deaf to pleas from Washington and European capitals to cease aggression against its neighbor, Georgia. Last week, as the Olympic Games opened, the tragic and ominous conflict between Georgia and Russia erupted. On Thursday, August 7, South Ossetian separatists, supported by Moscow, escalated their machine gun and mortar fire attacks against neighboring Georgian villages.

Continued

‍

By Ariel Cohen

Alexander Solzhenitsyn (1918–2008) was a titan of 20th century Russian literature and politics. He survived the Stalinist purges, World War II, eight years in the Gulag, Communist denunciation, and even a battle with cancer. After spending 18 years exiled in America, he made a triumphant return to his homeland.

Continued

‍

By Ariel Cohen

July 2008 will mark a momentous month in the history of Russian business. This is when Sergey Chemezov, a close associate of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, consolidated control over 426 additional enterprises that are now a part of the Russian Technologies (Rostechnologii) empire. A global, state-owned Russian weapons-and-metals holding has been born.

Continued

‍

By Ariel Cohen

In the last few days, Moscow has beefed up its "peacekeeping force" in the breakaway Abkhazia on the Black Sea, claiming it is protecting Russian citizens, who are the majority population of Abkhazia. Furthermore, Russian troops are amassing on the de-facto Abkhazia-Georgia border. The Caucasus may be on the brink of a war. At the same time, Russia has accused Georgia of planning to invade Abkhazia, accusations that sound distinctly hollow under the circumstances.

Continued

By Ariel Cohen‍

Russian President Vladimir Putin began a two-day visit to Libya on April 16, the first by a Russian president to the formerly shunned country. The event was hailed by Libya’s veteran leader Moammar Gadhafi as "historic, strategic and very important." Gadhafi further stated "…given that we are both producers of gas and oil, we will work together to defend our interests."

Continued

‍

By Ariel Cohen

This coming weekend, Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin will meet for their final summit, to be held in the Russian resort of Sochi on the Black Sea at Putin’s invitation. This will mark the end of an era in a complicated relationship. The question is: Will the two leaders leave the scene while U.S.-Russian relations are at their lowest point since the Cold War, or will they attempt to rescue them?

Continued

By Ariel Cohen

Central Asia is a major area of concern for US intelligence agencies, according to an annual threat assessment presented recently by Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell.

McConnell discussed the Annual Threat Assessment -- a document representing the consensus view of 16 US intelligence agencies that covers all global security threats facing Washington -- with US senators on February 5. While Iraq remains an enduring source of concern, the reviving Islamic radical/terrorist threat in Afghanistan and in the tribal areas of Pakistan topped the list of security worries.

"We have seen an influx of new Western recruits into the tribal areas since mid-2006," McConnell told members of the Senate Intelligence Committee. "We assess that al Qaeda’s homeland plotting is likely to continue to focus on prominent political, economic and infrastructure targets designed to produce mass casualties, visually dramatic destruction, significant economic aftershocks, and/or fear among the population."

The Assessment warns that Islamic activism may grow in Central Asia as a result of mounting social and economic discontent. In Uzbekistan, a weaker economy and rising prices for commodities are a potential source of trouble for President Islam Karimov’s authoritarian-minded administration. While Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan remain stable, Turkmenistan is beginning to open up after years of self-imposed isolation, and it has made improvements in human rights. Yet, unfortunately the Assessment disregards both regime fragility and growing external meddling in the region.

On Russia, the Threat Assessment drops plentiful hints that US-Russian relations stand to become more confrontational in the coming year. It mentions the Kremlin’s aims to dominate the main oil and gas land distribution networks to Europe and East Asia. Energy has become an instrument of Russian power in terms of its foreign policy and international economic relations, the threat assessment states.

The Report mentions the gradual resurgence of Russia’s military forces in terms of better training, more units with higher rates of readiness, military exercises conducted more frequently, and a higher number of strategic bomber patrols over the Arctic, Atlantic, and Pacific Oceans.

The Assessment does not dwell at length on Russia’s aspirations to alter the global economic architecture, and to do away with the Western-dominated post-Bretton Woods system. Russian leader Vladimir Putin called for just that in the 2007 St. Petersburg economic summit. Russia, Iran, Venezuela and other energy producers are moving away from the US dollar as the principal currency of settling energy accounts.

Meanwhile, the Threat Assessment views Iran with caution, in particular the country’s nuclear program. In a report released February 22, the International Atomic Energy Agency expressed concern about Iran’s ability to build nuclear weapons. The Threat Assessment states that Iran is developing and deploying longer range ballistic missiles with the capability to carry a nuclear warhead. The report does not mention, however, the close links between Iran and Russia regarding the development of the Iranian ballistic missile program. According to the London Daily Telegraph, Russia since 2003 has been supplying ballistic missile technology, including missile production capabilities, and technical assistance by Russian engineers.

Iran is also continuing efforts to enhance its ability to enrich uranium, ostensibly for civilian purposes but with the potential for making nuclear weapons. McConnell has reported that Iran may achieve the technical capability to produce enough highly enriched uranium (HEU) for a nuclear weapon within a few years.

While the intelligence community is certain that Iran stopped in 2003 its secret work to design a nuclear weapon and to enrich uranium for military purposes, it can’t be certain if Iran has restarted these activities. But there is no doubt that Iran has the scientific know-how, the technical capacity, and the industrial capability to develop nuclear weapons at some future point, McConnell said. A lot of this know-how came from Russia.

Moscow, for example, is building for Iran a $1-billion nuclear reactor in Bushehr. The US State Department has accused Iran of using the Bushehr project as a cover for a weapons program. There are also media reports that Iran is either negotiating the purchase of, or has already acquired S-300 long-range surface-to-air (SAM) missile systems. These SAM systems would be deployed to defend the Bushehr nuclear power plant and other key sites like the Natanz nuclear enrichment facility, analysts believe.

Iran also has a chemical weapons program, and it is engaged in research on biological weapons. Teheran’s development of a ballistic missile arsenal and its acquisition of anti-ship cruise missiles are intended to serve as a strategic deterrent in the Persian Gulf, especially at the Strait of Hormuz. Iran would be capable of closing the Strait, and thereby cause considerable disruption to oil exports, in the event of a conflict. In addition, US bases and naval forces in the region would face a serious tactical threat. Iran’s arsenal could also be used to intimidate its neighbors into "withholding support for US policy."

Tehran’s development of longer-range ballistic missiles with the capacity to reach Europe might also to deter NATO countries from permitting US military forces to use bases on their territory during a potential US-Iranian clash. A significant reason why Russia might be assisting Iran’s ballistic missile and nuclear programs could be to support Tehran’s deterrence capability, thereby intimidating NATO countries that host US bases.

Russia and Iran also have similar views on using energy as a geopolitical tool, with both expressing interest in establishing a natural gas cartel, along the lines of OPEC. Such an entity would aim to challenge the established international economic system, dominated by Western industrialized countries.

While the Threat Assessment is sober-minded on many points, it avoids one obvious conclusion involving Russia’s strategic intentions; by re-emphasizing military and economic power, and challenging the West, Moscow, aided and abetted by Teheran, is seeking to change the post-Communist balance of power in Europe, the Middle East, and in the world at large, and is challenging American post-Cold War hegemony. Whether it will succeed or not is a different question. It’s also up in the air whether American policy makers sufficiently comprehend the Kremlin’s capabilities and intentions, and, if they do, whether they can muster the political will that can help frustrate Russian plans.

Lajos Szaszdi, Ph.D., has contributed to the production of this article.

‍

By Ariel Cohen

Last December Russian President Vladimir Putin chose Dmitry Medvedev, a first deputy prime minister, to succeed him in the country’s presidency. March 2 presidential elections are anti-climactic, as they are going to ratify this choice, and as Mr. Medvedev is the only candidate likely to win.

Continued

‍

By Ariel Cohen

As Yogi Berra once said, “This is déjà vu all over again.” On May 9, heavy military equipment will once again roll down Moscow’s Red Square for the Victory Day military parade. Tanks, missiles, and 6,000 troops will be joined overhead by Su-27 and MiG-29 fighter aircraft and military helicopters. The last time Moscow saw such a display of military hardware on Red Square was November 1990, before the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The world should take notice of Russia’s increasing militarism. The parade is designed to generate nostalgia among the Russian people and to signal U.S., NATO, and Russia’s neighbors that Russia’s power is back. Most importantly, it illustrates President Vladimir Putin’s emphasis on the military and security services at the expense of modern, democratic institutions.

Putin has justified Russia’s rebuilding of its military muscle in the recent speech to the State Council. Putin claimed that the new arms race has been triggered “by the world’s most developed countries” – a clear reference to the U.S. and the West. Russia’s forthcoming rearmament is not caused by Russia but brought upon it by its adversaries, Putin said. In response to this alleged challenge to Russia’s security, the Kremlin plans to produce and deploy in the next years new weapons claimed to be as good as or even better than its Western equivalents. Research and development in revolutionary biological, nano-, and information technologies with military applications will continue. Putin also wants a new defense strategy for the Russian Armed Forces, and the formation of an “innovative army” based on more professional and better trained servicemen.

What the Parade Means

President Vladimir Putin’s government is reaffirming the central role that the military and the security services play as pillars of the Russian state. This is yet another indication from the Kremlin that the so-called “power” ministries and agencies are the bedrocks of the Russian Federation—as opposed to democracy, an open society, a multiparty system, free media, fair elections, constitutional liberties, and the separation of powers.

The parade is a signal to the world and to the Russian people that the armed forces matter again, after a decade or so of decay following the collapse of the Soviet state. Strategically, the display of newly-built weapon systems—like the road-mobile Topol-M intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), S-300 mobile long-range surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), bombers, and fighters—are intended to show that the Russian military is resurging with modern, or modernized, arms. This is a hallmark of Putin’s new Russia and a revival of the Soviet and czarist tradition of showing off the country’s military prowess.

To the Russian people, the parade will convey a sense of national pride and security in the face of external threats. First, it will mark the USSR’s heroic moment: victory in “The Great Patriotic War” (1941-1945), in which more than 25 million Soviet citizens were sacrificed—millions of them brutally murdered by the Nazis. Second, the Kremlin wants to resurrect the popular belief that Russia is a great power, which lost credence after the demise of the Soviet Union.

In essence, the parade is another sign that the Russian government is going “back to the future.” It wants to return the military—as well as other instruments of state power, from oil and gas exports to secret police and a subservient judiciary—to the forefront in 21st century Russian policy. While doing so, it is disregarding modern means of governance: popular participation, democratic politics, free press, and the rule of law by independent judiciary.

Putin’s Nostalgia

Almost three years ago, Putin said, “We should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century.” Clearly, the USSR was Putin’s country. During his career as a KGB officer, he cultivated a sense of duty and loyalty to the state (and to the “guild” of espionage officers) that made the USSR’s collapse, in his words, “the greatest geo-political catastrophe of the 20th century.”.

Since becoming president, his nostalgia for the Soviet past has manifested in the re-adoption of symbols from the Communist period. When that period ended, President Boris Yeltsin resurrected national symbols from the czarist pre-revolutionary period, including the tricolor Russian national flag, the imperial double-headed eagle on the state coat of arms and the hats of military officers, the 19th century-style gala uniforms of the Kremlin guard, and the adoption by the armed forces and security services of patron saints.

Under President Putin, these symbols have been complemented by the communist Red Star, which appears on military hardware such as tanks and aircraft; the re-adoption of Stalin’s Soviet anthem tune  as the music for the Russia’s national anthem in 2000; the use of “comrade” as a form of address within the military and security services; and the placement of a bronze bust of Felix Dzerzhinsky in the courtyard of the Internal Affairs Ministry in Moscow in 2005. Dzerzhinsky was the founder of Lenin’s dreaded secret police, the Cheka, and was responsible for arresting, exiling, torturing, and executing countless victims. Moreover, Putin appears to be particularly fond of commemorating every December 20 as Security Services Workers’ Day, or Chekist Day, recalling the day in 1917 when “Iron Felix” founded the Cheka, the predecessor of Stalin’s NKVD, the KGB, and today’s FSB.

Allegedly, the coexistence of czarist and Soviet symbols is a way to connect Russia’s present and past. According to a spokesman for the Moscow Patriarchate, the use of both symbols means that “the continuity of all Russian history is restored and demonstrated.” Of course, the actions of Putin’s government show that this continuity is not limited to symbols. Putin also demonstrates his intent to restore the state’s historically central role in managing the politics, media, and economy in Russia.

Russia’s Military Resurgence

The public display of Russia’s military might reaffirms the power of that centuries-old Eurasian Leviathan, the Russian state. Russia’s resurgence is not limited to military parades, but includes military deployments and maneuvers, as well as the procurement of weapon systems. Last year, Putin ordered a resumption of regular patrols of strategic bombers deep into the Atlantic and Pacific airspace, from which they can launch cruise missiles against the United States. The already frequent ballistic missile test launches are set to double in the years ahead. The Strategic Missile Forces are deploying silo-based, mobile, and ship-based Topol-M, Bulava, and RSM-54 Sineva ICBMs. The Russian Navy is scheduled to commission the first of a new class of ballistic missile submarines this year. Moreover, on January 21–23, for the first time in 15 years, the Russian Navy staged a large-scale exercise in the Bay of Biscay, which included its sole aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, a guided missile cruiser, and strategic bombers, together with air-refueling tankers and airborne early-warning aircraft.

Conclusion

The announced rearmament, the parade, global maneuvers, and new weapon systems are designed to make others respect Russia as well as deter NATO and the U.S., which is viewed by Putin as a hegemonic superpower seeking to harm Russia. Russia wants to send the signal that it again has the military means to counter both perceived strategic threats, such as the U.S. missile defense system, and conventional military challenges such as NATO expansion and the West’s superior air power. The fanfare communicates Russian intentions to change the global “correlation of forces” in Moscow’s favor and signals Russia’s neighbors to do its bidding and not to challenge its security or its interests.

Russia is back on the world stage with all the attributes of power, including wealth and military might, for all to see. The next Administration will have its hands full dealing with resurgent Moscow.

‍

By Ariel Cohen

Russia lags behind the United States in aerospace research and development. It has yet to produce decent competitors to America’s two new, fifth-generation fighter jets, the Lockheed Martin (NYSE:LMT) F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter and the Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor.

The main Russian rivals to the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightnings are the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-35 (NATO designation Fulcrum F) and the Sukhoi Su-35 (NATO designation Flanker). The Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-35 is an upgrade of the MiG-29M/M2 and the MiG-29OVT. Both are fourth-generation jets.

The Russian government has been eagerly selling the Sukhoi fighter jets to its friends, so these aircraft are likely to be found in areas where the potential for conflict is greatest, while financing development of the fifth-generation fighter from these export revenues.

Russian analysts like to note that the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning JSF, with a maximum speed of only 1,200 mph, is slower than both the Sukhoi Su-35 Flanker -- maximum speed 1,680 mph -- and the MiG-35 Fulcrum -- maximum speed 1,587 mph. The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning’s range of 1,320 miles is below the Sukhoi Su-35 Flanker’s range of 2,260 miles as well.

While these measures make the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter seem inferior, they are actually fully consistent with its projected mission: F-35s are designed to operate in tandem with Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptors, which would clear the way for F-35s in real combat.

Moreover, the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning JSF’s reported service ceiling of around 57,000 feet is superior to the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-35 Fulcrum’s 56,000 feet and the Sukhoi Su-35 Flanker’s 55,000 feet. The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning JSF also claims a significant advantage in maneuverability because of its smaller size, advanced materials and lightweight construction.

On the record, Russian defense officials insist their Sukhoi and Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG fighters can stand up to their American rivals. But a Russian Defense Ministry expert, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told Pravda.ru that Russia "patches" its fourth-generation modifications to extend their lifespan, while most of its fifth-generation fighter program has largely remained on paper.

In fact, statistics are only the broadest indicators of an aircraft’s performance. Combat performance analysis includes maneuverability, stealth, tactics, training, avionics, situation awareness, weapons, countermeasures, interoperability and supportability as major factors.

Stealth is a major discriminator between a 5G fighter like the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter and "Gen 4 plus plus" competitors like the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-35 Fulcrum and the Sukhoi Su-35 Flanker that are essentially modernizations of their respective progenitors, the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-29 and the Sukhoi Su-27. No operational Soviet or Russian stealth aircraft has ever been reported to have entered service.

A U.S. analyst who requested anonymity said that while the Russians have some good specific system technologies, their ability to effectively integrate them often lags behind that of the West, and the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter takes integration of off-board intelligence to a step well beyond proven Russian capabilities.

"From the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union until crude oil prices recently rose to $100 per barrel, the ability of Russian aircraft designers to transition their advanced scientific knowledge through RDT&E (research, development, test and evaluation) into production-ready systems has been restricted, with funding available almost solely from sales of its legacy 4th Gen MiG-29 and Su-27 fighters to other countries," the analyst said.

With oil prices collapsing, the challenges of serial production of advanced aerospace weapons systems remains, while the Russian highly skilled military space and aviation industry labor force is pushing 60 -- beyond the life expectancy of an average Russian male.

Sukhoi Su-30 fighters bought by China and India were more advanced than those in Russian air force service, which were procured only in small quantities. Progress in completing the production development of the PAK-FA T-50, Russia’s first 5G fighter design, remains dependent on Indian funding.

While notable improvements have been made in the reliability and supportability of Russian aircraft systems, they still fall far short of Western standards. This is particularly true of aircraft engines.

Russia has a long way to go to catch up with the United States in the prestigious new generation fighter competition. Only domestic politics, such as in Europe; declining economic fortunes of potential partners; and high production costs of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter may slow down its triumphant march.

‍

by Ariel Cohen

Dmitry Medvedev’s  endorsement as a presidential candidate by four pro-Putin political parties and by Vladimir Putin himself ends months of rumors in Moscow. Medvedev’s appeal to Putin, asking him to serve as a prime minister after the March presidential elections, confirms not only that Putin will play a pivotal role in Russian politics after he steps down but that he will remain the number one politician of Russia for years to come.

Putin is most likely to be a "super prime minister," with responsibilities over foreign, security, and defense policy. It is possible that after the March elections, Medvedev will transfer control of all or some of these branches to Prime Minister Putin.

Medvedev, a Putin protégé, is perceived as a weak bureaucratic player and will require Prime Minister Putin’s support as he consolidates power in the brutal world of Russia’s politics and oligarchic struggles. In contrast to Putin and other KGB veterans, Medvedev is soft-spoken and bookish. Having been focused on domestic politics and policy, Medvedev lacks experience in foreign policy and national security and may depend on Putin’s advice and support in these areas.

Who Is Medvedev?

Dmitry Medvedev, 42, first deputy prime minister and Putin’s former chief of staff, is the son of a Leningrad (St. Petersburg) professor. He has been a corporate lawyer and a law professor. In 1989, he joined the team of the late St. Petersburg pro-democracy mayor (and law professor) Anatoly Sobchak, at the height of Mikhail Gorbachev’s glasnost and perestroika reforms. Sobchak was Putin’s mentor. When elected, Medvedev will be the youngest Soviet or Russian leader since the 28-year-old Nicholas II’s accession to the throne in 1896.

Putin has deliberately chosen as a successor a person he can rely on and trust, while he remains the number one Russian politician. He has worked with Medvedev for the last 17 years, starting in the St. Petersburg city hall, where Putin was the deputy mayor in charge of foreign relations and Medvedev a legal advisor. The two struck a fast friendship and partnership, and Medvedev served as Putin’s campaign manager in his Kremlin-orchestrated presidential bid in 2000.

Medvedev became the chairman of Russian energy giant Gazprom and presidential administration chief in 2003--but many insiders say that Putin was still calling the shots in Gazprom. In 2005, Medvedev moved from the Kremlin into Putin’s cabinet, where he supervised "national projects," including health, education, housing, food production, and demography.

The projects are funded from Russia’s energy windfall profits.

Medvedev is known for his classical liberal rhetoric in an era of increasingly harsh nationalist, anti-Western, and anti-democratic pronouncements. For example, he has openly admitted that Russia is facing the problems of excessive dependence on natural resource exports, corruption, and a declining population.

Despite being the chairman of the second-largest state-owned corporation in the world, he appears to criticize the Kremlin’s preferred economic model of state-held companies, preferring private ownership. He said in a recent interview that the state should get involved in economy "only where it was needed." He recently said that "Gazprom will not be able to ’digest’ all of Russia’s energy resources...and thank God for that. Otherwise Gazprom would become the ministry of energy, and we have been trying to pedal away from this...."

Medvedev also said that laws limiting foreigners’ access to Russia’s "strategic" economic sectors, such as energy and natural resources, should be "clear, [and] balanced, and answer practical issues." So far, however, draft legislation on strategic sectors has been murky, and the Duma has delayed the vote.

Medvedev has expressed rhetorical support for a multi-party system based on large, stable parties, while decrying the chaos of the 1990s in Russia. He rejected the usual Russian adjectives when speaking of democracy, such as "controlled" or "sovereign." Yet, he is a part of the administration that cracked down on Yukos Oil Company, kicked Royal Dutch Shell from a lucrative Sakhalin energy project, bought up and shut up almost all opposition media, and conducted the most unfair and unfree elections in Russia since 1991. Mr. Medvedev will have a hard time proving his democratic credentials by opposing the siloviki, divesting the state from media control, and allowing unhindered political activities--an almost impossible task.

Guarantees of Succession

Just as Putin secured the late President Boris Yeltsin’s retirement by granting him a pardon from prosecution and guaranteeing his and his family’s safety and security, Medvedev is doing the same to win Putin’s endorsement. But there is more: He also guarantees Putin’s future political role for years to come by giving him the prime ministership. After the March presidential elections, Putin will stay on the scene as prime minister and the hailed "National Leader," a new and undefined position. This means that Russia is moving further away from constitutional democracy and the rule of law.

The Medvedev appointment also means that Putin and Medvedev have cut a deal with the powerful siloviki ("men of power"), which includes the secret police generals who supervise the security services and the armed forces. These men wanted Putin to stay as president in order to keep their powerful posts at the top of the national bureaucracy and lucrative positions as the heads of state-owned energy and arms-trading companies. They also are the main power behind Russia’s anti-American and anti-Western policy. Their influence is not likely to vanish, as Putin remains prime minister and shares many of their anti-American positions and Medvedev will depend on their support.

Energy Geopolitics

Medvedev is the chairman of Gazprom, the state-owned energy giant with market capitalization of $345 billion, which supplies over 30 percent of Europe’s gas needs. Russia has announced that its strategic goal is to reach capitalization of $1 trillion in seven to ten years, making Gazprom the largest company on Earth. Russia will not be able to accomplish this by permanently alienating its energy customers in Europe and elsewhere, so Russia’s confrontational foreign policy will be somewhat limited by the nature of its energy exports. Yet Medvedev announced that Russia will not sell subsidized gas to its neighbors and presided over the cut-offs of gas supply to Ukraine, Georgia, and Belarus.

The New Broom

The rule of thumb is that each regime in Russia is very different from its predecessor. There are discontinuities in each. Thus, Gorbachev’s reign was different than Brezhnev’s, Yeltsin’s was different than Gorbachev’s, and Putin’s rule is different than Yeltsin’s. Gorbachev, Yeltsin, and Putin all "campaigned" as the antitheses of their predecessors. Medvedev, on the other hand, is Putin’s "official" heir and will find it impossible to shed his boss’s control and vision even if he wants to.

First, there are personal promises to keep, especially as far as Putin’s prime ministership and other personnel issues are concerned and especially in the first presidential term. Second, Medvedev, lacking a KGB, military, or other security service background, may have a hard time establishing his control over the levers of power and, therefore, need Putin’s continued support.

But even if Medvedev ever, for some reason, stands on his own two feet, he must remember that public opinion in Russia and the USSR has always been unenthusiastic--to say the least--toward weak leaders: Nicholas II, Georgii Malenkov, Nikita Khrushchev, Mikhail Gorbachev, and Boris Yeltsin all are viewed with disdain by the majority of Russians, while "strong leaders" such as Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, Alexander II and III, Putin, and even the monstrous Joseph Stalin and bumbling Brezhnev are viewed by many in a positive light. To succeed, Medvedev will need to show his mettle.

U.S.-Russian Agenda Cannot Be Delayed

The Medvedev-Putin transition should not slow down the work on the complex U.S.-Russian agenda. It requires that the two countries return to business after the dust of transition settles in the two countries in early 2009 or even before.

U.S.-Russian relations today are at an all-time low. The bilateral agenda includes the fight against proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, U.S. anti-ballistic missile deployment in Europe, restraining Iran’s nuclear program, energy security, building democratic institutions in Russia, and many other issues.

The Bush Administration should give the Putin-Medvedev administration at least a 100-day grace period after Medvedev’s inauguration--until September 2008--to sort out the transition. In the meantime, the U.S. should lay the groundwork for engaging Russia on important issues, for the benefit of the next U.S. President. Specifically, the U.S. should press forward with the next round of sanctions on Iran in the U.N. Security Council, where the Russian vote is crucial, and continue discussions over the Kosovo independence and negotiations on deployment of the missile defense interceptors in Europe.

Ariel Cohen, Ph.D., is Senior Research Fellow in Russian and Eurasian Studies and International Energy Security in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation

‍

Russia"s foreign policy assertiveness, funded by revenues from natural resources, makes many believe that a new energy empire is on the rise. The country today is ruled by post-Soviet security and military elites that have internalized the jingoistic values of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union. These elites view the outside world almost exclusively through the lens of economic and military might. They also use foreign policy as a tool to buttress domestic sup­port and to foster a perception that Russia is sur­rounded by enemies at a time when its democratic legitimacy is deteriorating.

Despite its projected might, the Kremlin is not capable of dealing with some of Russia"s critical demo­graphic, social, economic, and political vulnerabili­ties. These flaws may well challenge the current sense of stability in Russia, especially after the 2007-2008 election cycle or if the economy deteriorates.

As the proverb states, "Russia is never as strong as she appears, and never as weak as she appears."[1] Rus­sian President Vladimir Putin modified this proverb in a May 2002 speech: "Russia was never as strong as it wanted to be and never as weak as it was thought to be."[2] Russia"s strengths made the authorities and the public believe that their country is still a great power, yet Russia"s many weaknesses limit its ability to act as one. Continuing state weakness combined with an increasingly bold foreign policy is a recipe for imperial overreach and systemic breakdown.[3]

For over a decade, the Russian authorities have failed to provide a coherent and modern nation-building ideology or to overcome Russia"s nostal­gia for its lost empire. Most telling was Putin"s statement in April 2005 that the collapse of the Soviet Union was "the greatest geopolitical catas­trophe of the twentieth century."[4] Rhetorical out­breaks reflect the Kremlin"s failure to confine itself to solving pragmatic tasks and its attempts to fill the post-Soviet ideological vacuum with a mix of the Soviet anthem, the imperial coat of arms, and the tsarist flag.[5]

Because domestic factors are increasingly driving Russia"s foreign policy, Russia"s internal weaknesses cannot be easily dismissed. To play the global role it claims for itself, Russia needs to put together a complex system of economic, technological, and social resources, but not all of these are easily within its grasp.

Both Congress and the Administration need to understand that Russia is resurging as an assertive autonomous international actor. However, as long as Iraq, Iran, and the war on terrorism continue to top Washington"s agenda, it is not in America"s stra­tegic interest to challenge Russia openly. Rather, the U.S. should staunchly defend its national interests and involve Russia in resolving international crises when possible.

Specifically, the U.S. should:

Continue to negotiate and cooperate with Russia on matters of mutual concern in security and non-proliferation;

Promote Russia"s integration into the global economy, particularly the rule-based World Trade Organization (WTO) regime;

Provide technical assistance on pressing health care issues, such as the HIV/AIDS and tuberculo­sis epidemics, cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and health care management;

Increase support for civil society groups work­ing to advance media independence, rule of law, political liberalization, and tolerance in Russia;

Reach out to the Russian people through a com­prehensive public diplomacy strategy to debunk the myth of inherent American hostility toward Russia; and

Establish a comprehensive multidisciplinary project to monitor the stability, security, and health of Russia"s society and economy and how they influence Russian foreign policy.

Demographic Catastrophe

The great-power ambitions of Moscow"s current elites cannot be realized without ample, developed, and highly skilled human resources. Since the 1980s, however, Russia has experienced dramatic declines in population, fertility, and life expectancy combined with increases in mortality and disease rates, including a rise in the rates of HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis infection.

From 1995 to mid-2007, Russia"s total popula­tion dropped by 6.5 million people, down to 142 million--a decline of almost 4.4 percent.[6] Such a drop typically is the result of war or mass emigra­tion, but it is occurring in a largely peaceful Russia that has a growing economy and positive immigra­tion rate. Russia"s population is the world"s ninth-largest but is projected to drop to 128.5 million by 2025 and 109.4 million by 2050.[7]

Because of the low birthrate and the high mortal­ity rate, Russia is losing an average of 700,000 peo­ple per year. In 2006, the mortality rate was 15.2 deaths per 1,000 people, and the birthrate was just 10.4 births per 1,000 people. While the birthrate is low compared to other industrial states, the death rate, particularly among working-age males, is astonishing. Life expectancy for Russian males is only 59 years, five years below what it was 40 years ago and 13 years lower than the life expectancy of Russian women--one of the largest gaps in the world.[8] The current solution of stimulating births by paying over $4,000 per baby may create a hered­itary welfare problem where there now is none and encourage growth among both Russia"s Muslim population and its urban and rural poor.

The incidence of cardiovascular disease and can­cer in the Russian population is among the highest in the world and accounts for the surge in Russian mortality rates. External (preventable) causes, such as accidents, account for 15 percent of deaths.[9] Even with fewer cars per capita than other indus­trial states, the number of deaths in traffic-related accidents per 100,000 people is higher in Russia than in other industrialized countries. Homicide deaths reached 30,000 in 2006, equaling the num­ber of deaths from accidental alcohol poisoning, but even more died from suicide.[10] Heavy alcoholism also helps to explain the high rates of heart disease. Many Russian men seem to choose lifestyles with dire health consequences.

Deadly Epidemics. Russia is suffering from epi­demics of HIV/AIDS, assorted other sexually trans­mitted diseases, and tuberculosis. The HIV infection rate is growing faster in Russia than in any other country outside of Sub-Saharan Africa.[11] An esti­mated 1.3 million (1.1 percent) Russian adults are already infected.[12] AIDS-related deaths are hard to measure, partly because of Russia"s tuberculosis epi­demic. According to the World Heath Organization, almost 150 people per 100,000 in Russia are infected with tuberculosis.[13]

The vast majority of HIV infections in Russia are associated with intravenous drug use, which is widespread among young people.[14] According to some estimates, nearly 2 million Russians (1.96 per­cent) inject drugs.[15] A Russian drug control official has predicted that the total number of drug users will grow from over 4 million to over 35 million by 2014.[16]This dramatic rise is fueled by cheap opiate narcotics from Afghanistan and Central Asia[17]and by domestically produced synthetic drugs.

Ethnic Changes. Central Asia is also a source of Muslim migrants. While the numbers and health of Russia"s ethnic Slavs and Orthodox Christians con­tinue to decline, Russia"s Muslim population is growing, rapidly transforming the ethnic makeup of Russian society.

Fertility and birthrates are much higher among Muslim ethnic groups than among ethnic Slavs. In 2006, predominantly Muslim regions had the highest population growth rates: 1.79 percent in Chechnya, 1.16 percent in Ingushetia, and 0.65 percent in Dagestan. The national average was -0.37 percent.[18]

Since 1989, Russia"s Muslim population has increased by 40 percent, rising to 20 million-25 million. Moscow"s Muslim population of about 2.5 million is the largest of all European cities. Muslims could make up a majority of Russia"s conscript army by 2015 and one-fifth of the population by 2020.[19]

This has drastic political, cultural, and ideological implications for Russia. Ethnic Russians feel uneasy as the prevailing ethnically based notion of the Rus­sian national identity is being challenged. The changing ethnic makeup of Russian society and the growing radicalization of Islam fuel ethnic tensions among Russian citizens.

Implications of the Demographic Decline. These demographic shifts are already affecting Rus­sia"s ability to project power. The Russian military is failing to meet its recruitment targets because of a declining pool of fit conscripts and their semi-legal efforts to avoid the draft.[20] Some demographers predict that in just nine years--by 2016--the pool of conscripts will be half Muslim.[21] It is also not clear that a majority Muslim, non-ethnic Russian army will willingly take on missions to carry the Russian flag forward either in the "near abroad" (the 14 other former Soviet republics) or elsewhere.

In addition, the workforce will further shrink in size and quality. (See Chart 1.) The population is diseased, aging, and dying. In many countries, immigration has helped to mitigate the economic effects of population decline. In Russia, most immi­grants are from Central Asian former Soviet repub­lics and increasingly from China and Afghanistan. Yet, as growing xenophobia and racism in Russia suggest, ethnic Russians mostly disapprove of non-Slavic immigration.

The Russian government is unable to address the lingering health and demographic crisis. In 2004, health care spending reached a low of 6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).[22]In 2007, Russia intends to spend $10.2 billion[23] on President Putin"s "national priority projects," but so far, this funding has failed to improve Russia"s collapsed public health sector. (See Table 1.)

Ideologies and Tensions Within Russian Society

Russian society is unhealthy not only physically, but also ideologically. Russia"s history and legacy provide context for its current trends.

From its beginnings in the 14th and 15th centu­ries, Russian imperial development was driven by muscular external aggrandizement and a lack of domestic accountability. In the mid-16th century, Ivan IV (Ivan the Terrible) annexed new territories with significant Muslim Tatar populations, and Russia emerged as a multiethnic, multi-faith state, although dominated by Russian Orthodoxy. Its ideologists viewed Muscovy, nicknamed "The Third Rome," as the heir to the Byzantine Empire, which was destroyed by the Ottomans in 1453. On the domestic side, the lasting model of the omnip­otent state ruled by the czar produced generations of people who crave authority and value stability above freedom.

Since the 17th century, any moves to open Rus­sia to the West have been followed by internal reactions and aggressive expansionism. By the 19th century, Westernizers who favored European ways were opposed by Slavophiles who courted foreign Slavs, appealed to the Russian Orthodox heritage, hailed political autarky, and denounced the West as an enemy.[24] Slavophile principles were simplified and adapted by Russian ethnic nationalists. Eurasianists called for the creation of a new Russian super-ethnos from the Baltic Sea to the Pacific Ocean, including Central Asia, by amalgamating Slavs and Turks. Throughout 75 years of Soviet rule, these ideological divisions among Westernizers, imperialist Eurasianists, and ethnocentric and Christian Orthodox Russophiles has persisted in Russian foreign policy.

Ideological Vacuum. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Westernizers appeared to be ascen­dant, but only for a short time. The creation of the independent Russian Federation in 1991 was the first attempt to construct a modern Russian nation-state. Under President Boris Yeltsin, the Kremlin tried to organize a multiethnic society into a non-imperial nation-state, but without a coherent ideol­ogy or state-building strategy. By the end of Yeltsin"s term, the barely reformed post-Soviet elites were beginning to reject Western liberal models because of Russia"s domestic economic meltdown and diminished international influence.

For over a decade, Moscow has failed to articu­late Russia"s new ideology clearly. Many among the Russian political elite believe that ideas mean noth­ing in world politics and that only pure national interests matter.[25]

Putin"s United Russia party is sending a mix of "distinctly non-ideological"[26] messages for the "har­monious coexistence" of a market economy and a strong state while trying to blur the difference between Russian ethnicity and Russophone cultural orientation. The key liberal parties, Yabloko and the Union of Right Forces, have failed to gain sufficient support and are victims of political infighting. The Liberal Democratic Party of Russia and Rodina (motherland) have stuck to xenophobic slogans. Today, the major political parties are ready to use xenophobic sentiments to some degree as a means to garner popularity among voters and to justify Russia"s cantankerous foreign policy.[27]

The Kremlin"s current ideology has its roots in statism, authoritarianism, and great-power jingoism but with strong elements of capitalism. It is eerily reminiscent of the late Romanov empire but with­out its strong liberal opposition streak. As was the case after the 1905 revolution, the extremes of the ideological spectrum--ultranationalists, jingoists, and national-Bolsheviks--are heard loud and clear in public debate, while liberal voices are being hushed. The rule of law is severely lacking. The Russian experience suggests that after centuries of authoritarianism, there are no simple answers in the process of moving away from statist government involvement in politics and economic policy dic­tated by a "strong hand."

Official Patriotism. The Kremlin is trying to imbue Russia"s youth with statist, patriotic, and religious ideas through the official national patri­otic education program in schools. The Kremlin-backed parties have created youth units somewhat reminiscent of Komsomol (Communist Union of Youth), the youth wing of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. In 2005, the Kremlin endorsed the creation of the Nashi (Ours) youth move­ment to prepare a loyal mob to act against possible public protesters.

Under Putin"s guidance, high school history text­books have been rewritten. The new texts view Josef Stalin"s cruelty through the lens of strong leadership in a long line of autocrats going back to the czars. Russian history, it is said, at times demands tyranny to build a great nation.[28] The textbooks also link U.S. global "hegemony" to that of the Third Reich and compare the mass murder of Soviet citizens by their government to the U.S. using the atomic bomb against Japan during World War II.[29]

Critics warn that such an ideological historiogra­phy encourages "collective amnesia" and promotes nationalism. A recent poll showed that a substantial part of Russian youth hold positive or ambivalent views of Stalin and his legacy. The majority of respondents considered the Soviet collapse a trag­edy, as Putin expressed in 2005, and two-thirds saw the U.S. as a rival and an enemy.[30] Such distorted perception of history is inherently anti-democratic.

National Identity Crises. A drummed-upforeign threat is being used to foster national solidarity, which is otherwise threatened by ethnic diversity.In a multi­ethnic state, the discrepancy between an individual"s ethnic and political-civil identity is dangerous. Rus­sian leaders have only recently started to employ the terms "rossiyskaya natsiya" (Russian nation) or "rossiyskiy narod" (Russian people) to denote the country"s diverse population.[31]

The difficulties of defining Russia"s national identity are exemplified in the use of the termsrusskie (ethnic Russians, who are descendants of eastern Slavs) and rossiyane (Russian citizens, regardless of ethnicity). Russia"s ultranationalist movements focus on the former, while most of Rus­sia"s ethnic minorities identify themselves with the latter. Now, however, Russian-speaking persons outside of Russia"s borders can be declared russkie and protected, whether they ask for it or not. Such an identity crisis hinders the formation of a multi­ethnic, multi-faith nation as a foundation for a nation-state.[32]

While the Putin administration and Putin"s United Russia party tolerate and integrate representatives of numerous ethnic groups, staunch nationalists claim that ethnic Russians, the dominant ethnicity, should be the legitimate masters of the state. In an increas­ingly multiethnic Russia, however, ethnic Russian nationalism cannot play a unifying role, as it usually takes the form of the exclusionary ideology of ethnic Russian, Slavic, or Russian Orthodox superiority. The question remains whether the Russian elites are inter­nationalist enough to rebuild a great power empire void of ethnocentric ideologies.

Xenophobia and Ethnic Nationalism. The ex­tremist movements and ideologies present an addi­tional set of challenges for the Kremlin and Russian society. Previously somewhat suppressed by Soviet authorities, ethnic nationalism and extremism have reemerged in modern Russia.

Racism and xenophobia are on the rise. Freedom House has reported on government and social dis­crimination and harassment of ethnic minorities, particularly against people from the Caucasus and Central Asia, as well as people from the rest of Asia and Africa, and an increase in racially motivated attacks by extremist groups.[33] In August 2007, 55 percent of the population sympathized with the slo­gan "Russia for [ethnic] Russians," while 57 percent believed the authorities should limit the inflow of immigrants.[34] According to the Sova Center, which tracks ultranationalist activity in Russia, there were 520 racist attacks, including 54 murders, in 2006.[35] (See Table 2.)

The main extremist movements are worth noting. Eurasianism, represented by the notorious neo-fascist Alexander Dugin, emphasizes Russia"s unique fate and inherent hostility toward the West. Dugin flirts with Christian Orthodoxy and promotes Rus­sian imperialism and extreme anti-Americanism. He opposes democracy and supports Vladimir Putin, "an irreplaceable leader," whose obligation to leave office in 2008 is "the greatest political problem for today"s Russia."[36] Dugin is a frequent guest on state television, which raises concerns about the main­streaming of fascism in Russia.[37]

Other ultranationalist movements, some favor­ing the Russian Orthodox Church and some anti-Christian, peddle racial hate and violence.

The Nationalist-Patriotic Front "Pamyat" (memory) was set up in 1987 to "lead Russian people to the spiritual and national revival" with slogans blending fascism with autocratic monarchy. Many analysts allege that Pamyat was a KGB front. Its activists have since spread to other extremist groups, and the movement has lost its prominence.

Russian National Unity (RNE) originated from Pamyat and promotes ethnic nationalism and outright Nazism mixed with aggressive anti-lib­eralism and anti-Semitism. It functioned as a political party in the early 1990s but has since stagnated and splintered into other groups.

The Nationalist-Bolshevik Party (NBP), led by the notorious Eduard Limonov, is culturally pro-Soviet and nationalistic and seeks the "protection of the Russian population in the former Soviet territory," often through overt hooliganism. Par­adoxically, it is now part of world chess cham­pion Garry Kasparov"s Other Russia movement, which draws support from democratic and lib­eral circles.

The Movement Against Illegal Immigration (DPNI) is a violent, ultranationalist, anti-immi­grant group led by Alexander Belov, a former Pamyat spokesman, that emerged in 2002 in response to the clashes between "native residents and raging immigrants."[38] In June 2007, the DPNI announced the formation of People"s Self-Defense groups to "unite native citizens for orga­nized resistance to any aggressive actions of criminal migrants."[39] The DPNI and People"s Union were at the core of the march on National Unity Day, a newly proclaimed national holiday on November 4 that commemorates the expul­sion of the Catholic Polish invaders in 1612 and replaces celebration of the Communist October Revolution of 1917.

Russian March is a neo-Nazi affair, which this year featured screaming skinheads, a white-clad young ladies" drummer band, and a keynote appearance by Preston Wiginton, a Texas white supremacist.[40]

This looks like the beginning of a new tradition: On November 4, 2005, National Unity Day, ex­tremist groups marched under the slogan "Russia for Russians" and Nazi symbols. In 2006, Russian March was banned in major Russian cities, but smaller protests occurred illegally.[41]

Racist aggression erupted in August 2006 when a deadly bomb was thrown at a Moscow produce market frequented by Azeri traders and again dur­ing the September 2006 riots in Kondopoga, a town in northern Russia. Putin has denounced the "semi-gangs, some of them ethnic," that control produce markets in Russian cities and has called for regula­tions to protect "the native population." The mar­kets are a source of tension because they are staffed mainly by non-Slavic migrants. In 2007, immigra­tion policy was changed to ease labor immigration rules in all sectors except the markets, where foreign labor was banned in April 2007. All Kondopoga attackers received suspended court sentences. Today, an estimated 8 million to 12 million migrants are working in Russia illegally.[42]

Fortunately, anti-migrant organizations in Russia are not yet electable parties. The fragmentation and internal struggle among nationalist-patriot factions compromise the very idea of Russian ethnic unity and push away potential allies. However, Slavs do not pose the only threats to Russia"s internal cohesion.

Radicalization of Russia"s Muslims. The Krem­lin faces a growing challenge in dealing with Mus­lim communities. While most Muslims in Russia are indigenous peoples of multiethnic Russia, the distinction between immigrants and citizens is often blurred in xenophobic discourse. Many Russians associate Islam with extremists, and their anti-Islamic prejudice is growing. At the same time, many recognize the more moderate nature of Tatar and Bashkir Islam. As Russia"s Muslim population grows and interest in the religion surges, its members become vulnerable to extremist ideas, even in currently moderate areas.

Proponents of radical Islam have their own expansionist and often violent agendas. Radicalism spreads in many regions because of local griev­ances--including Stalinist persecution and ethnic cleansing, poverty, and corruption--and radicaliz­ing foreign Islamic influences. Since 1991, Russia"s Muslims have been exposed to the ideas of Islamic fundamentalism, reinforced by intensive foreign penetration through education, propaganda, and financing.[43] The total number of mosques in Russia has increased from 300 in 1991 to 4,000 in 2001 to over 8,000 in 2007.[44] Private foundations in Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states have financed the construction of many mosques and have sent clerics to run them. Often, foreign clerics rejected traditional local Hanafi and Shaf"i schools of Islam and preached Salafi Islam and Wahhabisim, previ­ously unknown in Russia. Although the new prac­tices appear stricter and more radical, they continue to gain in popularity.

No accurate estimates of the strength of radical Islamists in Russia are available. As Alexey Malash­enko of the Carnegie Moscow Center has written:

An entire mythology has developed around it, created by forces within the state, jour­nalists, and the Islamists themselves. All of them, albeit for different reasons, tend to exaggerate the power of the Islamists.[45]

The authorities inflate the power of the adver­sary, while the Islamists elevate their own self-image to gain influence and attract funds. Lacking a basic understanding of Islam and its practices, the Krem­lin fails both to realize the dangers of radical Islam and to provide a coherent policy response.

The political influence of Russia"s Muslims will, however, remain limited by their cultural, ethnic, and religious divisions. The diversity of Russia"s Muslims presents both a challenge and an opportu­nity for the Kremlin.[46] It needs to work carefully to limit the spread of potentially violent radicalism without alienating the rest of the Muslim commu­nity. This is a significant challenge in a country in which national identity is still malleable.

The Role of the State. The nexus of the Krem­lin"s rhetoric, its efforts to revive national pride based on tsarist and Soviet symbols, and the hate on Russia"s streets constitute a potential source of insta­bility. Government rhetoric often hovers in the grey area between sometimes exaggerated national pride and paranoid nationalism.[47] Experts believe the Kremlin is deliberately tolerating extremism to cul­tivate an "enemy within," positioning the Kremlin as Russia"s only defense against it. Radical activists, in turn, interpret the government"s appeals for "strong Russia" as a virtual license to attack.[48]

From the pogroms of the 19th century to the intermittent Soviet racism of the 20th century, Rus­sian rulers have tried to manipulate nationalism to serve their own ends.[49] Unlike the earlier "external threats," such as imperialism or Zionism, the cur­rent "enemy" is homegrown.

The presentation of xenophobia in the Kremlin-controlled media also remains ambiguous. While primitive xenophobia and outright racism are con­demned, anti-Western, anti-Turkic, anti-Muslim, and even anti-Georgian or anti-Ukrainian stereotypes dominate the mainstream media. Increasingly crude and intense rhetoric depicts the U.S. as a "wrongdoer" and an adversary of Russian civilization.[50]

Russia"s anti-extremism laws are applied selec­tively, and critics fear that they may be used to per­secute the political opposition and undesirable civil society groups.[51] In the penal code, extremism is vaguely defined[52] and even includes slandering a government official in the performance of his duties.[53] The 2006 amendment to the election law aimed at keeping extremists out of elected offices could also be used to disqualify rivals of the Krem­lin unfairly.[54]

At the same time, the justice and law enforce­ment systems have been slow to recognize actual racist crimes and often classify them as mere "hoo­liganism." Many policemen are involved in harass­ing ethnic groups. In 2006, Amnesty International reported that the Russian "government is shirking its responsibilities" and failing to respond to the shocking regularity of racist attacks.[55]

Followers of both radical ethnic nationalism and Islamism in Russia inspire those who oppose the current state and are willing to shatter it in order to remake it in their own images. Inability to address these domestic tensions and imperial nostalgia among the pro-Kremlin elite are shaping Russia"s sometimes aggressive international behavior. The question remains: Are the state and its institutions capable of opposing extremism?

Governance: Managed Democracy

Russia looks strong, but its political institutions are weak and fragile. The Kremlin, while retaining the trappings of democratic procedures and cere­monies, essentially curtails the development of a democratic regime. The Russian government has a hyperactive presidential system and pliant state institutions, including the legislature and the judi­ciary. The executive branch manipulates political expression by strictly controlling the mass media, the political opposition, and civil society. Political freedom has mostly been replaced by the competi­tion of bureaucratic and oligarchic clans.[56] Weak­ened institutions have no independent legitimacy[57] and fail to provide institutional stability.

In the Economist Intelligence Unit"s Democracy Index, Russia ranks 102nd among 167 states sur­veyed.[58] Given its trend of curtailing civil liberties, Russia could be further downgraded after what is likely to be a flawed 2007-2008 election cycle in which election observers from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe were denied entry visas. With President Putin leading the United Russia Party in December 2007, the real power may stay with him regardless of his job description.

Ensuring Desired Electoral Outcomes. It is said that in a democracy, electoral rules are clear while the outcome is uncertain. In Russia, the out­come is certain while the rules are unclear. The Kremlin tailors the electoral system to ensure the desired outcome.

This consolidation of power through electoral change is best exemplified by the 2005 abolition of the direct election of regional governors. Under this "reform," the Russian president appoints the regional governors, who are then confirmed by their respective regional legislatures. As a result, gover­nors are no longer accountable to their constituents. Similarly, majority parliamentary districts have been replaced with proportional representation from party lists, with parties required to receive at least 7 percent of the vote to win any seats.

This severed the link between the voters and their representatives and concentrated the "man­ageable" political elite in Moscow. The reforms, in other words, have again turned Russia into a cen­tralized state.

The option to reject all candidates on the ballot and the minimum voter turnout threshold have been eliminated from the election law. A minimum turnout of 25 percent was required in the 2003 Duma election for an election to be valid. Critics say that this effort to neutralize voter apathy as a poten­tial factor in the elections is just the latest step by the Kremlin to control the political process before the key 2007 and 2008 elections.[59] Many Russians had resorted to "passive protest" by not voting--turn­outs of 30 percent were common[60]--or by voting against all candidates in the elections that did not offer real alternatives.

In 2007, for the first time, all members of the Russian State Duma will be elected by proportional representation. Banned from forming electoral blocs, smaller opposition parties have little chance of overcoming the 7 percent threshold.[61] Thus, the 2007 legislature is expected to have a large Kremlin-loyal majority in both Houses, comprised of the United Russia Parties led by President Putin and possibly Vladimir Zhirinovsky"s Liberal Democratic Party. The pro-Putin social democratic Just Russia party and the Communists may be the designated opposition if they manage to clear the 7 percent bar­rier. Just as after the 2003 Duma elections, when United Russia gained over a two-thirds majority, the parliament will serve mostly as a rubber stamp for executive branch decisions.

In the 2004 presidential election, Putin, the incumbent, won 71.4 percent of the vote in the first round. For the upcoming March 2008 presidential election, Putin is expected to name his successor. In September 2007, 40 percent of Russians were likely to vote for the anonymous candidate nominated by Putin, and 51 percent were likely to name him as the politician they trust.[62] Recently, Putin has talked of five possible presidential nominees[63]--including previously obscure Prime Minister Viktor Zubkov and two well-positioned First Vice-Premiers, Sergey Ivanov and Dmitriy Medvedev--thereby maintain­ing intrigue and his own influence over events.

The elections have put great assets at stake, exac­erbating internal frictions over power and property. A class of high-ranking officials has emerged. These new members of the elite manage, but do not for­mally own, Russia"s strategic industries on behalf of the state. They are extremely wealthy and influen­tial, but they also depend on their access to power. This means that the stakes for the 2008 elections are very high. Public offices, control over business, and even basic freedoms are at stake.

Taming the Media and Civil Society. Media outlets, owned or controlled by the state, are used as tools in shaping the desired public opinion. Sev­eral remaining radio stations, on-line sources, and the remaining printed media that are still critical of the Kremlin are under constant pressure from the authorities. Since 2000, 13 journalists have been killed, and none of these cases has resulted in a conviction.[64]

Since 2003, the government has taken control of all of the television networks, directly or through the state-owned entities. Notably, Ekho Moskvy radio station and Kommersantnewspaper, the two relatively independent outlets, are owned by state energy giant Gazprom and a Gazprom subsidiary, respectively. An estimated 27.8 million Russians (25 percent of the population) have Internet access,[65] making the Internet the main alternative information source and a medium for the opposi­tion"s mobilization.

Russia"s "managed democracy" constrains the civil space and limits public debate. Russian nongovern­mental organizations (NGOs), particularly those that receive foreign funding, have been under state pres­sure since a 2006 law imposed strict registration and reporting requirements. According to Russian human rights activists, Russia now has political prisoners convicted of criminal offenses in the absence of "polit­ical paragraphs" in the penal code.[66]

Rise of Bureaucracy and Red Tape. Critics say that many long-overdue administrative reforms have not been implemented under the Putin admin­istration and that the quality of governance has deteriorated. As one veteran critic puts it, "Russia remains one of the most criminalized, corrupt, and bureaucratic countries in the world."[67]

Russian official data testify that government bureaucracy has grown steadily. It has increased by 40 percent since 2001 and now totals 1.57 million fed­eral and local government employees[68]--roughly equal to the size of Soviet bureaucracy. Thus, Russia"s bureaucratic ratio to general population has more than doubled since 1991 because its population is less than half the size of the population of the Soviet Union in 1991. Independent experts estimate Russian bureaucracy, including municipal-level officials, at 3.5 million[69]--more than twice the official number.

Civil service salaries are dramatically higher than the average nationwide wages, and civil service pres­tige is also on the rise. Yet the quality of Russian bureaucracy remains low. A recent World Bank study of government effectiveness placed Russia in the lowest quartile of the 212 countries surveyed, based on its performance in such key areas as rule of law and control of corruption.[70] Graft, inertia, and negligence remain typical of Russia"s bureaucracy. State expansion into the private sector worries inves­tors, slows down the economy, and fuels corruption.

The remarkable intertwining of Russia"s bureau­cratic and business elites illustrates the ruling elite"s unsurpassed economic power. For example:

The Financial Times reported in 2006 that 11 members of the presidential administration chaired six state companies and held 12 state directorships and that 15 senior government officials held six chairmanships and 24 other board seats.[71]

The long list of senior officials serving on boards of major companies starts with the two First Deputy Prime Ministers: Dmitriy Medvedev, chairman of Gazprom, and Sergey Ivanov, who oversees the military-industrial complex and state holdings in aircraft, shipbuilding, and nuclear industries.

Igor Sechin, Putin"s Deputy Chief of Staff, chairs Rosneft, Russia"s largest state-run oil company.

Viktor Ivanov, Putin"s top aide, heads the board of directors of Almaz-Antei, the country"s key defense producer, and the board of directors of Aeroflot, the national airline.

Alexey Gromov, the President"s Press Secretary, sits on the board of Channel One, Russia"s main television channel.

The Economy: Commodity Dependence and State Intervention

Banking on its energy revenues, Russia has man­aged to avoid painful economic restructuring and diversification beyond the natural resource sectors. The growth of the Russian economy is due mainly to exports of raw materials (oil, natural gas, and metals). After seven years of economic growth, Rus­sia remains heavily dependent on energy exports and is vulnerable to fluctuations in global commod­ity prices. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank estimate that:

[I]n 2005 the oil and gas sector represented around 20 percent of the country"s GDP, gen­erated more than 60 percent of its export revenues (64 percent in 2007), and accounted for 30 percent of all foreign direct investment (FDI) in the country.[72]

President Putin has offered an action plan for Russia to diversify away from reliance on energy and natural resources and to become one of the world"s leading economies. His vision of Russian economic development entails growing high-tech industries, a strong service sector, and a state boost for "national champions" in key industries--vertically integrated state-owned or state-controlled global companies capable of competing with foreign corporations. However, it is not clear that Russia is emerging as a diversified globally competitive economy, given Russian commodities" competitive advantage and the Kremlin"s preference for economic regulation.

The Kremlin has steadily increased the state-con­trolled share of the economy. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development reported that the public sector"s share of the economy increased from 30 percent to 35 percent in 2005. The state"s share of major blue chip companies has quadrupled between 2004 and 2007. The state has also come to play a significant role in mergers and acquisitions. According to KPMG, two transactions--the increase in the state share of Gazprom from 38 percent to 51 percent and Gazprom"s purchase of Sibneft-- totaled $20.21 billion and accounted for half of the value of all Russian mergers and acquisitions in 2005.[73]

Although leading officials have explicitly rejected state capitalism as a model for Russia, the Kremlin is pushing to consolidate state assets in many domes­tic industries. The leaders in state intervention are the military-industrial complex and the civilian nuclear sector, which are under state command and control.

Moreover, these influential industries need inter­national instability to increase sales. The USSR and Russia at times have sold weapons to both sides in a conflict, such as to Iran and Iraq in 1980s. Russian experts are fond of saying that weapons exports cre­ate allies. "Civilian" nuclear reactors are often pre­cursors of a military nuclear program, as is the case with Iran, to which Russia sold the Bushehr reactor and is planning to sell up to five more units.

Putin envisages the state not as the great rena­tionalizer, but as the biggest shareholder in a newly privatized society.[74] The oil and gas sector has a built-in interest in keeping the Middle East unstable and oil prices high. The industry is notorious for evictions of foreign corporations and internal own­ership consolidation by state giant Gazprom. Con­solidation of strategic assets under state control is often presented to the public as restoration of national property illicitly acquired in the mid-1990s by corrupt oligarchs at deeply discounted prices. This was the stated justification for Rosneft"s 2004 acquisition of Yuganskneftegaz, the key production unit of forcibly bankrupted Yukos.

The Kremlin is also increasing its shares of the aerospace, weapons production, nuclear industry, shipbuilding, shipping, and automotive sectors. This often involves regrouping industry assets into "national champions" through acquisition of privately owned assets by major state holdings. Needless to say, the state is employing multiple administrative levers to avoid paying market prices for these acquisitions.

At the opening of the 2007 economic forum in St. Petersburg, First Deputy Prime Minister Sergey Ivanov cited state holdings as an example of innova­tive economic development. On paper, such public corporations are assigned ambitious projects such as developing nanotechnology, tripling national ship­building capacity, and promoting Russia"s civilian aircraft industry to serve 10 percent of the world market by 2020.[75] In practice, these sectors are inter­nationally uncompetitive and have demonstrated limited effectiveness even in import substitution.

Experts say that "Kremlin Inc.,"[76] a set of strate­gic industries under state control and managed by high-ranking officials, ensures the revival of the mil­itary-industrial complex once enjoyed by the Soviet Union. Such massive economic power in the state"s hands, multiplied by the oil-fueled budgetary sur­plus, could lead to a new round of massive Russian rearmament.

The Kremlin"s insistence on the legitimacy of mercantilism, which limits Western business to minority stakes in the natural resources sector, neg­atively affects the U.S.-Russian economic agenda. The pattern of government takeovers of businesses is increasing the political risk of doing business in Russia and driving away much-needed investment. Although foreign investment in Russia topped $150 billion in 2006[77] and has exceeded $70 billion in the first seven months of 2007, experts say these levels are relatively low for a country with a massive and obsolete infrastructure and an economy grow­ing at 6.7 percent annually.[78]

The investment ratio is just over half of what is needed to sustain high growth. Foreign investment will remain much lower than is needed until Russia improves its corporate governance and creates a more welcoming investment environment.[79]

What the U.S. Should Do

Congress and the Administration should under­stand that Russia is resurging as an assertive auton­omous international actor poised to challenge American leadership, particularly in Central Asia, the Caucasus, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East. It is also likely that Russia will conduct forays into the Western Hemisphere, particularly via Venezuela and its satellites, such as Bolivia and Ecuador, as well as Cuba.

However, as long as Iraq, Iran, and the war on terrorism remain high on the U.S. agenda, it is not in America"s strategic interest to pick a major fight with Russia, exacerbate differences unnecessarily, or respond tit-for-tat to each provocation. Rather, the U.S. should staunchly defend its national interests and, when possible, involve Russia in resolving international crises.

In view of pressing demands elsewhere, it is understandable that U.S. assistance to Russian democracy and civil society has been limited. In fis­cal year (FY) 2006, of $949.3 million budgeted by all U.S. government agencies for assistance pro­grams in Russia, democracy programs accounted for only $45.2 million, $23.6 million was spent on social reform, and security and law enforcement aid accounted for $860 million.[80]

The Department of State and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) may need to explore more creative ways to reach their objectives. The total NED budget has grown from $59 million in FY 2005 to $74 million in FY 2006 but was cut in FY 2007 to $50 million despite the Bush Adminis­tration"s request for $80 million.[81]

The U.S. should establish strategic goals and objectives and pursue greater engagement with the remnants of Russian civil society. Specifically, the U.S. should:

Continue to negotiate and cooperate with Rus­sia on matters of mutual concern in the areas of security and nonproliferation. Moscow and Washington have common interests in prevent­ing a new arms race and renegotiating the Strate­gic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which is up for renewal in 2009, and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which is in force indefinitely. Moscow and Washington should seek common ground in opposing the spread of intermediate-range missiles and weapons of mass destruction, nuclear proliferation, and illicit drug and arms trafficking.

The U.S. and Russia should also expand cooper­ation in civilian nuclear energy, space explora­tion, and fighting the spread of radical Islam. The U.S. should clarify that Iran"s nuclear arsenal will be even more detrimental to Russia"s security than to U.S. security and should work to limit Russian arms sales to Iran, Syria, and Venezuela. The Defense Department should continue the Coop­erative Threat Reduction of Russia"s strategic arse­nals under Nunn-Lugar funding.

Promote Russia"s integration into the global economy, particularly the rule-based WTO regime. Russia"s increasing role in the global marketplace will further expose it to economic liberalism, freedom of travel, and the free exchange of ideas. The Bush Administration should ask Congress to take the long-overdue step of "graduating" Russia from the Jackson- Vanik Amendment, which bars Russia from enjoying Permanent Normal Trade Relations (NPTR) with the United States. This amendment was overtaken by events over a decade and a half ago when Russia fully liberalized Jewish emigra­tion from the country, as demanded by the Jack­son-Vanik Amendment.

At the same time, the U.S. and its European allies should insist that Russia open its natural resources sectors, including energy, to Western investors. The U.S. Trade Representative and U.S. Department of Commerce should cooper­ate with their European counterparts to ensure a level playing field for American and other West­ern companies operating in Russia. If Russia fails to cooperate, the U.S., Japan, and European countries should review the flow of technology and investment to the Russian energy sector. The U.S. should also strive to create an Energy Consumers" Club with China, India, Japan, and Europe to balance the power of OPEC and other energy superpowers, such as Russia.

Provide technical medical assistance. Russia could benefit significantly from assistance in combating the HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis epi­demics, improving prevention and treatment for cardiovascular diseases and cancer, improving health care management, and dealing with other pressing health issues. The U.S. State Depart­ment should encourage such activities, which would offer new business opportunities for the American health care sector. The U.S. needs to demonstrate to the Russian elites that it has much to offer in their areas of concern.

Increase support for civil society groups working to advance media independence, rule of law, political liberalization, and tolerance in Russia.Russia is a signatory to the Helsinki 1975 Final Act and to the 1991 Moscow Docu­ment. Thus, Russian domestic behavior is sub­ject to these obligations. In particular, the National Endowment for Democracy and other U.S.-funded NGOs should provide greater sup­port to Russian NGOs fighting ethnic hatred and working to memorialize Stalin"s victims and the mass crimes committed under his regime. Inter­net-based projects should be emphasized as they facilitate public access to alternative sources of information that the Russian state has had diffi­culty controlling or shutting down.

Constantly and steadily reach out to the Rus­sian people through a comprehensive public diplomacy strategy to debunk the myth of inherent American hostility toward Russia. The U.S. should expand its public diplomacy efforts via the Internet, international broadcasting under the Broadcasting Board of Governors, and professional and academic exchange programs. These programs should emphasize improving business relations and the investment environ­ment, as well as cultivating ethnic and religious tolerance in Russian society, thus helping to pre­vent further radicalization and alienation of mar­ginalized groups. For FY 2008, Congress should also fund the long-delayed reorganization of U.S. Russian-language international broadcasting.

Establish a multidisciplinary monitoring project, through the U.S. government or a con­sortium of preeminent think tanks with the par­ticipation of top U.S. and international scholars, to scrutinize the dynamics of domestic stability, the security and health of Russia"s society and economy, and how they influence Russian domestic and foreign policy.

Conclusion

Russia"s foreign policy is still driven by former Soviet military and security elites who view Russia as the direct heir to the autocratic Russian Empire and the Soviet Union and who cherish Russia"s self-appointed role as America"s principal counterbal­ance on the world stage.[82] The lack of institutional checks and balances on the executive branch pre­vents the public airing of differences on foreign and security policy and makes it difficult for sober heads to voice their opposition to truculent foreign policy.

The Russian state is being progressively weak­ened by negative demographic trends, including alcoholism, HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and the result­ing decline in life expectancy. The alienation of Muslims and other ethnic groups is leading to an increase in xenophobia and violence and to further Islamic radicalization and deepening divisions in Russian society.

While Russia has become more assertive interna­tionally, its domestic policies have become more authoritarian, and state intervention in the econ­omy has become excessive. U.S.-Russian bilateral relations are at their lowest since the end of the Cold War, and many trends in Russian foreign policy are justifiably disturbing.

U.S. officials should develop a comprehensive strategy to serve America"s objectives, keeping in mind the significant internal vulnerabilities of the Russian state. The U.S. cannot afford to "lose" Rus­sia while Russia is involved in protracted conflicts in the Caucasus and is influencing the situation in Central Asia, in the Middle East, and throughout the Muslim world. Meanwhile, Russia"s cooperation is essential to restraining and reversing Iran"s quest for nuclear weapons. Although Russian elites may not always recognize it, Russia can ill afford to "lose" the West, especially in view of Moscow"s lack of stra­tegic allies and the looming power of China.

The U.S. government should address Russia"s adverse domestic trends through a sustained Amer­ican effort both to reach out to the Russian public, business sector, and intellectual community and to support the empowerment of the remnants of free media and civil society. To be a partner, Moscow needs to behave responsibly along its periphery and in the Middle East, Venezuela, and other key regions and countries. At the same time, some important areas of bilateral relations should remain open to cooperation, and the U.S. government should do its best to encourage and sustain dialogue with its Russian counterparts.

Ariel Cohen, Ph.D., is Senior Research Fellow in Russian and Eurasian Studies and International Energy Security in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation. The author wishes to thank Yevgeny Volk, Ph.D., Coordinator of The Heritage Foun­dation"s Moscow Office, for providing valuable comments on this paper. Heritage intern Olena Krychevska also contributed to the production of this paper.

[1]Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, s.v., "Russia," at www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109504/Russia (November 5, 2007).

[2]Mark N. Katz, "Is Russia Strong or Weak," SpaceWar, July 10, 2006, atwww.spacewar.com/reports/Is_Russia_Strong_Or_Weak_999.html (August 23, 2007).

[3]Alexander Motyl, "Ukraine and Russia: Divergent Political Paths," openDemocracy, August 17, 2006, at http://opendemocracy.net/democracy-ukraine/russia_ukraine_3830.jsp (August 25, 2007).

[4]Robert Fulford, "Putin"s ‘Managed Democracy,"" The Financial Post (Canada), July 15, 2006.

[5]BBC News, "European Press Review: Russia in Shock," June 11, 2002, athttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/europe/2037530.stm (July 30, 2007).

[6]Ekaterina Scherbakova, "Demograficheskie itogi 2006 goda" [Demographic results of 2006], Demoscope Weekly, March 5- 18, 2007, athttp://demoscope.ru/weekly/2007/0279/barom01.php (July 20, 2007); Russian Federal State Statistics Service, "Chislennost naseleniya" [Total acts of violence], atwww.gks.ru/free_doc/2007/b07_11/05-01.htm (July 20, 2007); and Population Reference Bureau, "2007 World Population Data Sheet," August 2007, atwww.prb.org/pdf07/07WPDS_Eng.pdf (September 14, 2007).

[7]Ibid.

[8]"Russian Health and Demography: A Sickness of the Soul," The Economist, September 7, 2006, at www.economist.com/world/europe/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=7891259 (July 20, 2007).

[9]Russian Federal Statistics Service, "Key Mortality Indicators," atwww.gks.ru/free_doc/2007/b07_11/05-07.htm (July 20, 2007).

[10]Russian Federal Statistics Service, "Koeffitsienty smertnosti po osnovnym klassam prichin smerti" [Mortality rates for main causes of death], atwww.gks.ru/free_doc/2007/b07_11/05-07.htm (July 20, 2007), and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD Economic Surveys: Russian Federation, 2006, athttp://puck.sourceoecd.org/upload/1006171e.pdf (August 20, 2007).

[11]UNAIDS, "2006 Report on the Global AIDS Epidemic," May 2006, atwww.unaids.org/en/HIV_data/2006GlobalReport/default.asp (September 13, 2007).

[12]Guy Faulconbridge, "Russia Warns of AIDS Epidemic, 1.3 mln with HIV," Reuters, May 15, 2007, at www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSL1546187520070515 (July 27, 2007).

[13]World Health Organization, WHO Statistical Information System, "Core Health Indicators," 2007, atwww.who.int/whosis/database/core/core_select_process.cfm (September 10, 2007).

[14]Yale University, Center for Interdisciplinary Research on AIDS, "Epidemiology of HIV/AIDS in Russia," 2007, athttp://cira.med.yale.edu/international/russiaepid.html (September 12, 2007).

[15]James Magee, "HIV Prevention, Harm Reduction, and Injecting Drug Use," AVERT, updated August 31, 2007, at www.avert.org/injecting.htm (September 12, 2007).

[16]"In Sad Tally, Russia Counts More Than 4 Million Addicts," Pravda, February 20, 2004, at http://newsfromrussia.com/main/2004/02/20/52421.html (September 12, 2007).

[17]Human Rights Watch, "Lessons Not Learned: Human Rights Abuses and HIV/AIDS in the Russian Federation," Vol. 16, No. 5(D) (April 2004), p. 16, athttp://hrw.org/reports/2004/russia0404/russia0404.pdf (October 31, 2007).

[18]Scherbakova, "Demograficheskie itogi 2006 goda."

[19]Michael Mainville, "Russia Has a Muslim Dilemma: Ethnic Russians Hostile to Muslims," San Francisco Chronicle, November 19, 2006, at http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/11/19/MNGJGMFUVG1.DTL (July 25, 2007).

[20]Judyth Twigg, "National Security Implications of Russia"s Health and Demographic Crisis," Center for Strategic and International Studies PONARS Policy Memo No. 360, February 4, 2005, at www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/pm_0360.pdf (August 15, 2007).

[21]Judyth Twigg, "Differential Demographics: Russia"s Muslim and Slavic Populations," Center for Strategic and International Studies PONARS Policy Memo No. 388, December 5, 2005, at www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/pm_0388.pdf (August 15, 2007).

[22]World Health Organization, "Core Health Indicators."

[23]RIA Novosti, "Russia to Raise National Project Spending 12% to $10 bln in 2007," August 23, 2007, at http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070823/73753727.html (September 14, 2007).

[24]Encyclopædia Britannica Online, s.v., "Slavophile," 2007, atwww.britannica.com/eb/article-9068172 (August 23, 2007).

[25]Konstantin Eggert, "Amerika v poiskakh Rossii, Rossiya v poiskakh sebya" [America is in search of Russia, Russia is in search of herself], BBC News, July 4, 2007, athttp://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/hi/russian/russia/newsid_6271000/6271308.stm (August 24, 2007).

[26]Peter Lavelle, "Russia: Unified Russia"s ‘Ideology-Lite,"" Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, December 2, 2005, at www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/12/9e265611-7d9e-4fce-81d8-240d54115271.html (August 24, 2007).

[27]Galina Kozhevnikova and Alexander Verkhovsky, "Posevnaya na polyane russkogo natsionalizma" [Sowing the field of Russian nationalism], Sova Center, July 27, 2007, athttp://xeno.sova-center.ru/29481C8/96A2F47 (August 15, 2007).

[28]Andrew E. Kramer, "New Russian History: Yes, People Died, But...," International Herald Tribune, August 15, 2007, atwww.iht.com/articles/2007/08/15/news/letter.php (August 20, 2007).

[29]Mark H. Teeter, "The Matter with History," The Moscow Times, July 16, 2007, atwww.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2007/07/16/007.html (August 20, 2007).

[30]Reuters, "Russian Youth: Stalin Good, Migrants Must Go: Poll," July 25, 2007, atwww.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL2559010520070725?feedType=RSS&rpc=22&sp=true (July 30, 2007).

[31]Valery Tishkov, "Self-Determination of the Russian Nation," International Trends, Vol. 3, Issue 2(8) (May-August 2005), at www.intertrends.ru/seven_e.htm (September 13, 2007).

[32]Ramazan Abdulatipov, "Sozdanie rossiiskoi natsii: proekt dlya XXI veka" [Creation of the Russian nation: Project for the XXI century], Rossiiskaya Gazeta, August 28, 2003, atwww.rg.ru/2003/08/28/Sozdanierossijskojnatsii.html (August 23, 2007).

[33]Freedom House, Freedom in the World: Country Reports, s.v. "Russia," 2007 ed., atwww.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&country=7258&year=2007 (August 25, 2007).

[34]Levada Center, "Natzionalizm i ksenofobiya" [Nationalism and xenophobia], August 29, 2007, at www.levada.ru/press/2007082901.html (September 15, 2007).

[35]Galina Kozhevnikova, "Radikalnii natsionalizm v Rossii i protivodeistvie emu v 2006 godu" [Radical nationalism in Russia and counteraction to it in 2006], Sova Center, January 4, 2007, at http://xeno.sova-center.ru/29481C8/8F76150 (July 30, 2007).

[36]Boris Reitschuster, "After Putin Is the Same As Before Putin," InoPressa, September 14, 2007, at www.inopressa.ru/focus/2007/09/17/12:04:33/putin (September 16, 2007).

[37]Andreas Umland, "‘Neoevraziistvo", vopros o russkom fashizme i rossiiskii politicheskii diskurs" [‘Neoeurasianism," the issue of Russian fascism and Russian political discourse],Zerkalo Nedeli,No. 48(627), December 16-22, 2006, at www.zn.ua/1000/1600/55389 (July 25, 2007).

[38]Dvizhenie Protiv Nelegalnoi Immigratsii, "O dvizhenii" [About the movement], atwww.dpni.org/about/o_dvizheni (September 17, 2007).

[39]Dvizhenie Protiv Nelegalnoi Immigratsii, Sluzhba Informatsii, "Vstupai v narodnuyu camooboronu DPNI!" [Join DPNI"s people"s self defense!], June 26, 2007, athttp://dpni.org/articles/novosti_dp/2802 (October 31, 2007).

[40]Natalya Krainova, Kevin O"Flynn, and Nabi Abdullaev, "Racist Chants Undercut Day of Unity," The Moscow Times, November 6, 2007, p. 1, atwww.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2007/11/06/002.html (November 7, 2007).

[41]Claire Bigg, "Russia: Counterrally to Defy Ultranationalist March," Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, November 3, 2006, at www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/11/b08c1e9c-99ff-4203-897b-bf38073f079f.html (July 30, 2007).

[42]"Immigrants in Russia: Market Forces," The Economist, January 18, 2007, atwww.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8562029 (August 23, 2007).

[43]Alexey Malashenko, "The Situation Inside Russia," Bitterlemons-international, Vol. 4, Edition 13 (April 6, 2006), at www.bitterlemons-international.org/inside.php?id=516 (October 31, 2007).

[44]Dmitry Gorenburg, "Russia"s Muslims: A Growing Challenge for Moscow," Center for Strategic and International Studies PONARS Policy Memo No. 421, December 8, 2006, atwww.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/pm_0388.pdf (August 15, 2007).

[45]Malashenko, "The Situation Inside Russia."

[46]Gorenburg, "Russia"s Muslims."

[47]"Russian Xenophobia," The Economist, February 17, 2005.

[48]Yuri Zarakhovich, "Inside Russia"s Racism Problem," Time, August 23, 2006, atwww.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1304096,00.html (August 23, 2007).

[49]"Russian Nationalism," The Economist, May 11, 2006.

[50]Umland, "‘Neoevraziistvo", vopros o russkom fashizme i rossiiskii politicheskii diskurs."

[51]Press release, "OSCE Media Freedom Representative Asks Russian Authorities to Review Extremism Laws," Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, July 27, 2007, at www.osce.org/item/25791.html (July 30, 2007). For example, Putin critic Andrei Piontkovsky is on trial for "extremism" due to his anti-Kremlin books Unloved Country andFor the Motherland! For Abramovich! Fire! The Kremlin claims that the books incite violence against Russians, Americans, and Jews. Piontkovsky joked that this is the first time the Kremlin has looked out for Americans.

[52]Kozhevnikova and Verkhovsky, "Posivnaya no polyane russkogo natsionalizma."

[53]Freedom House, Freedom in the World.

[54]Press release, "OSCE Media Freedom Representative Asks Russian Authorities to Review Extremism Laws."

[55]Zarakhovich, "Inside Russia"s Racism Problem."

[56]Human Rights in Russia, "Managed Democracy Is a Straight Road to Dictatorship and Fascism," at www.hro.org/ngo/discuss/march.htm (September 17, 2007; unavailable November 5, 2007).

[57]Nikolai Petrov, "From Managed Democracy to Sovereign Democracy: Putin"s Regime Evolution in 2005," Center for Strategic and International Studies PONARS Policy Memo No. 396, December 14, 2005, at www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/pm_0396.pdf (September 19, 2007).

[58]Laza Kekic, "The World in 2007: Democracy Index," Economist Intelligence Unit, 2007, at www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_INDEX_2007_v3.pdf (August 10, 2007).

[59]Associated Press, "Russia Scraps Election Turnout Threshold," The Washington Post, December 7, 2006, at www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/07/AR2006120701106.html (September 15, 2007).

[60]Petrov, "From Managed Democracy to Sovereign Democracy."

[61]Russian Federation, "Federalnii zakon o byborakh deputatov gosudarstvennoi dumy federalnogo sobranniya rossiiskoi federatsii [Federal law on the election of deputies to the state duma of the federal assembly of the Russian Federation], May 18, 2005, No. 51-F3, atwww.cikrf.ru/cikrf/law/2/zakon_51.jsp (September 18, 2007).

[62]Levada Center, "Vybory 2008" [Elections 2008], at www.levada.ru/vybory2008.html(September 19, 2007); "Prezident: Odobrenie i doverie" [President: Approval and trust], atwww.levada.ru/prezident.html (September 19, 2007); and "Reitingi doveriya" [Trust ratings], September 2007, at www.levada.ru/polotiki0907.html (October 31, 2007).

[63]C. J. Chivers, "Putin Sees ‘Real Choice" in Election," International Herald Tribune, September 14, 2007, at www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/15/europe/15russia.php (September 15, 2007).

[64]Freedom House, Freedom in the World.

[65]Public Opinion Foundation, "The Internet in Russia/Russia on the Internet," Population Poll, 19th Release, Spring 2007, published June 23, 2007, athttp://bd.english.fom.ru/report/map/projects/ocherk/eint0702 (August 23, 2007).

[66]Moscow Helsinki Group, "Politzaklychennye putinskoi Rossii" [Political prisoners of Putin"s Russia], 2004, at www.mhg.ru/publications/4D61A27 (July 29, 2007).

[67]"Russia Under Putin: The Making of a Neo-KGB State," The Economist, August 23, 2007, at www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9682621 (September 18, 2007).

[68]Nikolaus von Twickel, "Red Tape Reaching Its Soviet Heights," The Moscow Times, August 7, 2007, at www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2007/08/07/001.html (November 7, 2007).

[69]Ibid.

[70]The World Bank, "Country Data Report for Russia, 1996-2006," athttp://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi2007/pdf/c187.pdf (September 15, 2007).

[71]Neil Buckley and Arkady Ostrovsky, "Back in Business--How Putin"s Allies Are Turning Russia into a Corporate State," Financial Times, June 19, 2006, atwww.ft.com/cms/s/0/d776a916-ff2f-11da-84f3-0000779e2340.html (September 20, 2007).

[72]U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, "Country Analysis Briefs: Russia," April 2007, at www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Russia/Background.html (September 20, 2007).

[73]Buckley and Ostrovsky, "Back in Business."

[74]Nick Paton Walsh, "Meet the Chief Exec of Kremlin Inc...," The Guardian, July 6, 2005, at www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,2763,1522191,00.html (September 20, 2007).

[75]RIA Novosti, "Russia Among Top 5 in Terms of GDP by 2020--Ivanov," June 9, 2007, athttp://en.rian.ru/russia/20070609/66970013.html (September 20, 2007).

[76]Walsh, "Meet the Chief Exec of Kremlin Inc..."

[77]RIA Novosti, "Russia Among Top 5 in Terms of GDP by 2020."

[78]American Chamber of Commerce in Russia, "The Economy and Investment Climate in Russia," April 6, 2007, at www.amcham.ru/publications/investment_reports/ir2006 (July 17, 2007).

[79]Keith Bush, "Russian Economic Survey," U.S.-Russia Business Council, May 2007, atwww.usrbc.org/pics/File/EconSurvey/SurveyMay2007.pdf (July 17, 2007).

[80]U.S. Department of State, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, "U.S. Assistance to Russia--Fiscal Year 2006," May 11, 2006, at www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/66166.htm (August 20, 2007).

[81]U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Resource Management, "FY 2007 Budget in Brief: Related Appropriations," February 6, 2006, atwww.state.gov/s/d/rm/rls/bib/2007/html/60316.htm (August 20, 2007).

[82]Ariel Cohen, "How to Confront Russia"s Anti-American Foreign Policy," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2048, June 27, 2007, atwww.heritage.org/Research/RussiaandEurasia/bg2048.cfm.

‍