Russia’s botched policy in its own backyard

Russia’s botched policy in its own backyard

By Anders Åslund

Published: August 17 2009 19:47 | Last updated: August 17 2009 19:47

Relations between Russia and Ukraine have always been difficult. Since Ukraine’s Orange revolution in late 2004 they have been dismal. Conflicts have involved gas, agricultural trade, the Russian naval base in the Crimea, the war in Georgia and Ukraine’s interest in Nato. Even so, politicians from the two countries rarely meet.

Last year Vladimir Putin, then Russia’s president, escalated the conflict by publicly questioning Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. He has repeated his claims as prime minister. President Dmitri Medvedev’s strident open letter to President Viktor Yushchenko amounted to a further escalation, with its declaration that Russia would not send a new ambassador to Kiev. Mr Medvedev offered no constructive proposals but listed old Russian grudges, claiming that all faults lie with Ukraine.

The language was reminiscent of Leonid Brezhnev in its detachment from reality. Mr Medvedev claimed that no Russian threat against Ukraine exists, as if he were unaware of his prime minister’s statements. He went on in Soviet vein: “Russia endeavours to be a predictable, strong and accommodating partner” to its neighbours. Well, hardly, as Mr Yushchenko noted in his response.

Mr Medvedev’s obvious aim was to influence the Ukrainian presidential elections scheduled for January, expressing hopes for improved relations with the “new Ukrainian leadership”. Mr Yushchenko is no longer a credible candidate, having proven himself an ineffective ruler. The two leading candidates are instead Yulia Tymoshenko, the current prime minister, and Viktor Yanukovich, the former prime minister, with Arseniy Yatseniuk, the former speaker, as the only other plausible contender.

But however much effort Moscow puts into the Ukrainian elections, it is not likely to achieve its aims, as the Orange revolution illustrated. Contrary to common misconceptions, no real separatism exists in Ukraine. The Kremlin has given up on Mr Yanukovich, the leader of largely Russian-speaking eastern Ukraine, realising that no serious Ukrainian politician can be pro-Russian. Recently, the Kremlin has preferred Ms Tymoshenko as somebody they can do business with, but there is no love lost.

The Kremlin’s misunderstanding of Ukrainian politics is based on the fact that, unlike Russia, Ukraine is a democracy. The Russian leaders think they can “buy” Ukrainian politicians, but in the end they must listen to their voters, not Moscow, to gain office. This is an alien thought to the authoritarian Muscovites, who believe everything is manipulated from above and by Washington. Persistent anti-Ukrainian propaganda on Russian state television also turns eastern Ukrainians against the current Russian regime.

Mr Medvedev’s statements appear to be a reflection of the rivalry between the Putin and Medvedev camps, which confuses all central policymaking in Russia at present. Ominously, Mr Putin has made Ukraine-bashing one of his trademarks and Medvedev needs to keep up. Russian economic policy is suffering as a result of this strife and Ukraine may do so too.

The broader problem for Russian foreign policy is that the country’s rulers do not know how to deal with their post-Soviet neighbours. Their policy objectives are mixed. Gazprom wants to monopolise gas supply, transportation and sales. Private businessmen aspire to expand their corporations. Agricultural interests block imports. Russian nationalists persist in neo-imperialism and populist politicians try to win domestic support by attacking their neighbours.

The result is that post-Soviet nations are trying to develop relations with anybody but Russia. Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan are opting for gas exports to China. Most starkly, Georgia and Ukraine are turning to the west, but even Belarus, the ultimate Russian loyalist, is fed up with the Kremlin and seeking other options.

For the west, the conclusion is that it needs to solidify its support for Ukraine regardless of who wins the elections. Fortunately, it is doing so. Joe Biden, the US vice-president, made this point clearly during his recent trip to Kiev, while the European Union is pursuing efforts at integration, notably through a forthcoming European Association Agreement on trade.

The writer is a senior fellow of the Peterson Institute for International Economics and author of How Ukraine Became a Market Economy and Democracy

Mikhalkov Directs Himself Back To Top Of Russian Film Industry

By Kevin O'Flynn

MOSCOW -- The Russian film journal "Iskusstvo kino" (Art of Cinema) is the oldest film publication in Europe. Founded in 1931, it outdates both Britain's "Sight and Sound," and France's "Les Cahiers du Cinema."

But its time-honored reputation wasn't enough to save "Iskusstvo kino" from being forced from its premises this month at the order of the head of the Russian Cinematographers' Union, Nikita Mikhalkov.

Editor Daniil Dondurei says the ejection was revenge for the journal's decision to back veteran director Marlen Khutsiyev, not Mikhalkov, in elections to pick a union head.

"After I didn't vote [for him] and my colleagues all voted for Khutsiyev, Nikita Mikhalkov made the decision to throw us out," Dondurei says. "We decided it was better to go out on the street but remain an independent journal. Because if we become dependent, there's no sense in it at all."

The eviction of an industry stalwart like "Iskusstvo kino" is just the latest Shakespearean twist in a bitter battle over the future of the Russian film industry.

At the center of the fray is the 63-year-old Mikhalkov -- once a beloved Soviet film actor and now one of Russia's most famous directors, whose close Kremlin ties are a reminder that culture and politics remain deeply entwined in post-Soviet Russia.

Mikhalkov is an unquestioned member of Russia's cultural royalty, born to a family of painters and poets. His brother, Andrei Konchalovsky, is himself an esteemed film director. His father, Sergei, authored the lyrics to the Soviet national anthem (as well as the current Russian anthem). Mikhalkov's family has always enjoyed warm relations with the power elite before and after the Soviet collapse.

Despite critical looks at the country's Stalinist past in works like "Burnt By The Sun" -- for which he won a U.S. Academy Award for best foreign film -- Mikhalkov is an unabashed fan of Vladimir Putin, even directing a hagiographic film about the then-president on the occasion of his 50th birthday. Together, the two men last year launched a government advisory panel on the Russian film industry that will be headed by Putin. The move sparked fears among critics and filmmakers that the Kremlin may be seeking to harness moviemaking for its own ideological ends.

Mikhalkov's most recent film, "12," may serve as a template for the future of Russian filmmaking. The film examines the consequences of Russia's wars in the North Caucasus by portraying the jury trial of a young Chechen man accused of murdering his stepfather, a retired Russian Army officer.

While "12" proved popular, many critics found the film -- and particularly Mikhalkov's own role, as a former KGB officer serving as the jury foreman, too eager to portray some Russians as paternal, understanding observers of the Chechen conflict.

Many see films like "12" as setting the tone for Russia's $500 million-plus film industry. Russia in recent years released a number of big-budget historical epics that reflect the Kremlin's drive to burnish the national image.

These include films like "Admiral," a portrait of White Army commander Aleksandr Kolchak, and "1612," a depiction of the Polish-Muscovite War.

Battle For Union Leadership

But as recently as December 2008, the cultural world was still ready to push back against political pressure. That was when Dondurei and other members of the Cinematographers' Union gathered for a congress to elect a successor to Mikhalkov, who was stepping down from the post after serving as its head for 11 years.

Delegates were already frustrated by Mikhalkov, whom they accused of mismanaging union funds and doing little to support the Russian film industry. They were further disenchanted when Mikhalkov presented his preferred successor, 39-year-old Mikhail Porechenkov.

Porechenkov, known mainly for his roles in action movies and as the host of the TV series "Battle of the Psychics," was not a popular choice. Many at the congress were incensed that an actor, and an undistinguished one at that, could be put in charge of a body previously led by the cream of the country's directors.

Opposition was growing among the 400-plus delegates. Ultimately, the congress rejected Mikhalkov's candidate, voting in 83-year-old Khutsiyev instead. Within months, however, the December vote was subjected to a court inquiry because of alleged procedural violations.

A new congress was held in March to conduct fresh elections, this time pitting Khutsiyev against Mikhalkov.

Many in the Moscow film community cried foul, including director Yuly Gusman, who refused to attend the gathering, which was held at the Gostiny Dvor exhibition center, a stone's throw from the Kremlin.

"What took place at Gostiny Dvor had so much PR support, so much administrative and financial support that it turned into a cinematic spectacle -- a televised spectacle with a two-hour report that didn't contain a single word of truth," Gusman says.

During the congress, Mikhalkov accused his detractors of being pro-Western liberals and revolutionaries. He also alleged his opponents had spent $400,000 on a press smear campaign.

A second election saw Mikhalkov returned to his former post at the helm of the union, and -- according to his critics -- ready for revenge.

"Iskusstvo kino" has not been the only victim of the election. Khutsiyev has left VGIK, the most prestigious film school in the country. Despite denials by the rector, many believe he was forced out.

For Russian filmmakers who have differences with Mikhalkov, the lesson is clear,
Daniil Dondurei says those who speak out against Mikhalkov "must be punished."

says. If you want to have a successful career, stay quiet.

"There are those who do agree with his conception; those who disagree, but keep quiet and think they will be able to survive in the world of Mikhalkov culture," Dondurei says. "Then there are those few who talk about it. Those who speak have to be punished."

Still the list of those who have spoken out against Mikhalkov is impressive, and includes such legends of Russian film such as film directors Eldar Ryazanov and Aleksei German, theater directors Yury Lyubimov and Mark Zakharov, and animator Yury Norshtein.

The election controversy has been a bitter experience for the Cinematographers' Union, which was the first of the artistic unions to rebel against attempts by Soviet authorities to impose a leader.

Union members held their first election in 1986 -- a step that Dondurei credits with helping to usher in the era of glasnost that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

But he says that now "it's going backwards. Nikita Mikhalkov names himself the head so as to go backwards and close the doors of freedom closed definitely."

Yury Bogomolov, a culture critic at official Russian newspaper "Rossiiskaya gazeta," says that it's a sign of tightening control.

"It seems the head of the union, and maybe the country, are looking for a loyal sector within the intellectuals who can be relied upon," Bogomolov says. "Not by force but by intellect."

RFE/RL's Russian Service contributed to this report