FP Passport (USA): Putin supports new term limits…for the next guy Vladimir Putin says he wouldn’t mind amending Russia’s constitution to prevent future presidents from doing what he did — returning to the presidency for a non-consecutive third term: On Wednesday, during a Q&A session in Parliament, Putin said it would be “reasonable” to remove the mention of consecutive terms. But he added that this would not affect him because such a legislation cannot be retroactive — implying that his third term would considered his first term under the new law. “Once it’s passed, I will have a chance to work for the next two terms. There’s no problem here,” he said in televised remarks. Now he tells us. 
View Separately

FP Passport (USA):

Putin supports new term limits…for the next guy

Vladimir Putin says he wouldn’t mind amending Russia’s constitution to prevent future presidents from doing what he did — returning to the presidency for a non-consecutive third term:

On Wednesday, during a Q&A session in Parliament, Putin said it would be “reasonable” to remove the mention of consecutive terms. But he added that this would not affect him because such a legislation cannot be retroactive — implying that his third term would considered his first term under the new law.

“Once it’s passed, I will have a chance to work for the next two terms. There’s no problem here,” he said in televised remarks.

Now he tells us. 

A Good Treaty (USA): Nationalism and the possibility of a ‘color revolution’ in Russia With Russia’s sixth presidential election having reached its preordained conclusion, what remains unclear is how Moscow’s already seething political opposition will respond to the prospect of six more years of Vladimir Putin. If the protests continue, will they be met with harsh reprisals? That was the route taken in Belarus when Alexander Lukashenko won a fourth consecutive presidential term in 2010. Police intervened as soon as demonstrators assembled the night after the election, and hundreds of protesters along with seven presidential candidates were jailed. Alternatively, could we see a repeat of Ukraine’s 2004 “Orange Revolution”, when demonstrators camped out in downtown Kyiv and the authorities backed off, allowing a re-run of the election, which the opposition won? In the Russian case, neither wholesale repression nor revolution is likely. After the State Duma elections triggered demonstrations last December, the Kremlin cannily abandoned its initial response of arresting protesters, and started issuing permits for demonstrations. Since then, the opposition has generally cooperated with the authorities in limiting their protests to officially sanctioned locations and times. The March 5 demonstration was approved for Pushkin square, about one mile from the Kremlin, and participants were only arrested after the officially-designated time had elapsed. If protests continue in their current pattern — peaceful gatherings at approved locations — then the opposition movement is likely to subsume into the background noise of Russian urban life. Opposition figure Aleksei Navalny has suggested that the time is ripe for escalating the level of confrontation, by protesting directly in front of government buildings and daring the authorities to crack down. Last week he wrote on Twitter, “Only Lubyanka. Only hardcore.” (read more)
Pop-upView Separately

A Good Treaty (USA):

Nationalism and the possibility of a ‘color revolution’ in Russia

With Russia’s sixth presidential election having reached its preordained conclusion, what remains unclear is how Moscow’s already seething political opposition will respond to the prospect of six more years of Vladimir Putin.

If the protests continue, will they be met with harsh reprisals? That was the route taken in Belarus when Alexander Lukashenko won a fourth consecutive presidential term in 2010. Police intervened as soon as demonstrators assembled the night after the election, and hundreds of protesters along with seven presidential candidates were jailed.

Alternatively, could we see a repeat of Ukraine’s 2004 “Orange Revolution”, when demonstrators camped out in downtown Kyiv and the authorities backed off, allowing a re-run of the election, which the opposition won?

In the Russian case, neither wholesale repression nor revolution is likely. After the State Duma elections triggered demonstrations last December, the Kremlin cannily abandoned its initial response of arresting protesters, and started issuing permits for demonstrations. Since then, the opposition has generally cooperated with the authorities in limiting their protests to officially sanctioned locations and times. The March 5 demonstration was approved for Pushkin square, about one mile from the Kremlin, and participants were only arrested after the officially-designated time had elapsed.

If protests continue in their current pattern — peaceful gatherings at approved locations — then the opposition movement is likely to subsume into the background noise of Russian urban life. Opposition figure Aleksei Navalny has suggested that the time is ripe for escalating the level of confrontation, by protesting directly in front of government buildings and daring the authorities to crack down. Last week he wrote on Twitter, “Only Lubyanka. Only hardcore.”

(read more)

In Moscow’s Shadows (New York): Putin vs the opposition: Famed activist’s husband sentenced to 5 years in labor camp The decision today to convict Alexei Kozlov on fraud charges and sentence him to 5 years in a labor camp, seemingly as retribution against his wife, the activist journalist Olga Romanova, raises a crucial issue in terms of Russian reform. I appreciate that I am unfashionable in being mildly optimistic about police reform in Russia and the prospect that — over years, not overnight — it might lead to the emergence of a force concerned less with protecting the interests of the state and the elite and more with upholding the law and providing security for all. However, that will be impossible or meaningless without a corresponding change in the nature and culture of the Russian court system. If the courts are corrupt and/or subject to undue political influence, then police reform will be largely irrelevant: the guilty can arrange for themselves to be released, even if arrested, through bribery and blat (influence, connections), while the innocent who fall foul of the state or the elite will still be at risk. As is, time and again the courts appear to be — as in Soviet times — nothing more than instruments of factional and elite interest, from denying environmentalists their rights to characterizing efforts to confront homophobia as ‘extremism.’ (read more)
Pop-upView Separately

In Moscow’s Shadows (New York):

Putin vs the opposition: Famed activist’s husband sentenced to 5 years in labor camp

The decision today to convict Alexei Kozlov on fraud charges and sentence him to 5 years in a labor camp, seemingly as retribution against his wife, the activist journalist Olga Romanova, raises a crucial issue in terms of Russian reform. I appreciate that I am unfashionable in being mildly optimistic about police reform in Russia and the prospect that — over years, not overnight — it might lead to the emergence of a force concerned less with protecting the interests of the state and the elite and more with upholding the law and providing security for all. However, that will be impossible or meaningless without a corresponding change in the nature and culture of the Russian court system. If the courts are corrupt and/or subject to undue political influence, then police reform will be largely irrelevant: the guilty can arrange for themselves to be released, even if arrested, through bribery and blat (influence, connections), while the innocent who fall foul of the state or the elite will still be at risk. As is, time and again the courts appear to be — as in Soviet times — nothing more than instruments of factional and elite interest, from denying environmentalists their rights to characterizing efforts to confront homophobia as ‘extremism.’

(read more)

Ballots & Bullets (UK): Notes on Putin’s victory: Is Russia changing? In the end, for all the fevered discussion of recent months, Putin’s third presidential election victory on March 4, 2012 looks on face value much like his previous two: a first-round landslide that surpassed all his opponents put together; the communists in a distant second, and a rag-bag of liberal, nationalist and pro-regime candidates polling in single digits. What’s more, Putin’s result comfortably surpassed the 49 percent score for the pro-regime United Russia party in December, the 50 percent threshold for avoiding a second-round and his 53 percent support in 2000. Of course, this score was likely massaged: it’s notable that Putin was the only candidate whose final tally surpassed the exit-poll estimate given by VTsIOM (58.3) and FOM (59.3), and even Russia-watchers who are not normally particularly anti-Putin (such as Anatoly Karlin) estimate the rate of fraud at 3-4 percent. Still, such peripheral fraud is nothing new to Russian elections and a support base of nearly 60 percent is enviable for a leader entering his twelfth year at the political apex. But Putin’s post-victory tears (though he blamed them on the bitter wind) indicate that this was Putin’s most emotional and hard-fought victory yet, and perhaps one that he was never fully sure of until the count. So is the initial impression of business-as-usual merely illusory? How much has actually changed? (read more)
Pop-upView Separately

Ballots & Bullets (UK):

Notes on Putin’s victory: Is Russia changing?

In the end, for all the fevered discussion of recent months, Putin’s third presidential election victory on March 4, 2012 looks on face value much like his previous two: a first-round landslide that surpassed all his opponents put together; the communists in a distant second, and a rag-bag of liberal, nationalist and pro-regime candidates polling in single digits. What’s more, Putin’s result comfortably surpassed the 49 percent score for the pro-regime United Russia party in December, the 50 percent threshold for avoiding a second-round and his 53 percent support in 2000.

Of course, this score was likely massaged: it’s notable that Putin was the only candidate whose final tally surpassed the exit-poll estimate given by VTsIOM (58.3) and FOM (59.3), and even Russia-watchers who are not normally particularly anti-Putin (such as Anatoly Karlin) estimate the rate of fraud at 3-4 percent.

Still, such peripheral fraud is nothing new to Russian elections and a support base of nearly 60 percent is enviable for a leader entering his twelfth year at the political apex. But Putin’s post-victory tears (though he blamed them on the bitter wind) indicate that this was Putin’s most emotional and hard-fought victory yet, and perhaps one that he was never fully sure of until the count. So is the initial impression of business-as-usual merely illusory? How much has actually changed?

(read more)

Moderate Left (USA): Santorum and Obama big winners following last round of primaries Santorum is clearly the big winner, and not just because he beat Mitt Romney. No, almost bigger was the fact that Santorum knocked of Newt Gingrich in two southern states, one of which borders Newt’s home state of Georgia. That Santorum — a northerner from Pennsylvania — was able to come into the south and win does damage to Newt’s raison d’être. If Newt can’t win in the south, where can he win? Make no mistake, the delegate math is still against Santorum. He’d have to win roughly 66 percent of the outstanding delegates to win a first-ballot nomination. Considering that last night — on a good night — he got around 35 percent of delegates at stake, that’s going to be tough. But Rick doesn’t have just one path to the nomination. If he can keep Mitt from getting to 1144 delegates, Santorum has a chance to win at the convention, especially if he’s the candidate of the party faithful. That’s not out of the question. But he’ll have to surprise in some places, like Puerto Rico, where he has a puncher’s chance in an open primary. And he probably has to win the winner-take-all Wisconsin Primary on April 3, and steal a win in California or New York. If he can do that — and it’s a big if – he can keep Romney under 1000 delegates, and give himself a chance to go into Tampa with a plausible case for the nomination. … Obama benefits from a long, drawn-out Republican Primary, and he got that last night. While the math still favors Romney, it looks increasingly likely that the primary will go on through at least late April, and possibly all the way to California in June. This is fantastic news for Obama, as every dollar Mitt Romney spends attacking Rick Santorum is a dollar he can’t spend attacking Barack Obama. (read more)
Pop-upView Separately

Moderate Left (USA):

Santorum and Obama big winners following last round of primaries

Santorum is clearly the big winner, and not just because he beat Mitt Romney. No, almost bigger was the fact that Santorum knocked of Newt Gingrich in two southern states, one of which borders Newt’s home state of Georgia. That Santorum — a northerner from Pennsylvania — was able to come into the south and win does damage to Newt’s raison d’être. If Newt can’t win in the south, where can he win?

Make no mistake, the delegate math is still against Santorum. He’d have to win roughly 66 percent of the outstanding delegates to win a first-ballot nomination. Considering that last night — on a good night — he got around 35 percent of delegates at stake, that’s going to be tough.

But Rick doesn’t have just one path to the nomination. If he can keep Mitt from getting to 1144 delegates, Santorum has a chance to win at the convention, especially if he’s the candidate of the party faithful. That’s not out of the question. But he’ll have to surprise in some places, like Puerto Rico, where he has a puncher’s chance in an open primary. And he probably has to win the winner-take-all Wisconsin Primary on April 3, and steal a win in California or New York. If he can do that — and it’s a big if – he can keep Romney under 1000 delegates, and give himself a chance to go into Tampa with a plausible case for the nomination.

…

Obama benefits from a long, drawn-out Republican Primary, and he got that last night. While the math still favors Romney, it looks increasingly likely that the primary will go on through at least late April, and possibly all the way to California in June. This is fantastic news for Obama, as every dollar Mitt Romney spends attacking Rick Santorum is a dollar he can’t spend attacking Barack Obama.


(read more)

Balloon Juice (USA): Romney on Planned Parenthood: “We’ll get rid of that” Just as he bashes “Obamacare” with more fervor than any of the other candidates (in order to distract from the fact that he was for the individual mandate before he was against it), Romney is bashing Planned Parenthood—and, by extension, all women—to repent for his former support of women and reproductive freedom, and to wash away the stain of his prior pro-choice, pro-Roe viewpoints. (read more)
Pop-upView Separately

Balloon Juice (USA):

Romney on Planned Parenthood: “We’ll get rid of that”

Just as he bashes “Obamacare” with more fervor than any of the other candidates (in order to distract from the fact that he was for the individual mandate before he was against it), Romney is bashing Planned Parenthood—and, by extension, all women—to repent for his former support of women and reproductive freedom, and to wash away the stain of his prior pro-choice, pro-Roe viewpoints.

(read more)