The Caspian Project .04

www.moderndiplomacy.eu

HOW TO MAKE A RUSSIAN DEMONUNBIASED MEDIA / BIASED AGENDAS

KURDS, THE INVISIBLE PEOPLE

IS ONE PUTIN THINGSIN ORDER?

NUCLEAR POWERS AT PLAY:RUSSIA, PAKISTAN, NORTH KOREA

SPIEF 2015:TENDENCIES & EXPECTATIONS

GLOBAL ENERGY PRIZE AWARD

BOOKS:IDENTITY AND POLITICSIN CENTRAL ASIA AND THE CAUCASUS

conte

nts

04 THE CASPIAN PROJECTWEEKLY EDITION

www.moderndiplomacy.eu

PROJECT TEAM

DImITrIS GIaNNaKOpOuLOSDr. maTThEW CrOSSTONTEJa paLKOpETra pOSEGaLuíSa mONTEIrONINa LavrENTEvaGabrIELa paSChOLaTI DO amaraLTaYLOr mOrSEJJ harpEr

March 16, 2014 marked the day when thepeople of Crimea went to the votingbooths to decide whether they would bepart of Ukraine or part of Russia. While thereferendum was no doubt important topeople living in Crimea, I for one remainedhighly skeptical that the results would ac-tually be the ultimate arbiter on the territo-rial decisions made about Crimea. Theoutside players, namely Ukraine, Russia, theUnited States, NATO, and the EuropeanUnion, were simply too big and too influen-tial to let this small peninsula play an inde-pendent role far beyond the geopoliticalfootball that it represented. I felt deeply forthe people of Crimea, but the bitter realityand perhaps even more bitter truth wasthat high politics on the global stage willstill come off in such a blunt manner. Unfor-tunately, this type of cynical maneuveringhas been going on for literally thousands ofyears and will likely not end with the cur-rent crisis between Russia and the Westover Ukraine.

We have seen this fact by po-tential American military initia-tives today involving the Balticsand recent egregiously recklesscomments made by US repre-sentative to the UN SamanthaPowers about Russia andUkraine. Ending crises such as the one inCrimea is not only the work ofgovernments, diplomats, andmilitaries. Reporters play a cru-cial role as well. While Westernjournalists as a whole tend to bea conscientious lot, simply pur-suing an interesting story andoften putting themselves inharm’s way in order to get it, theCold War residue that remainsbetween the United States andRussia has put a grimy film overmore than just political actors. Itoften affects the way in whichstories are told, the lensthrough which ‘impartial ob-servers’ focus their attention.Unfortunately, this happensusually at a subconscious level,resulting in news stories thatwere meant to be ‘fair, free, andimpartial’ instead having a de-cidedly biased perspectivesnaking its way from reporter toreader.

A little over one yeAr Ago the world was given a founda-tional lesson in how an impartial press can unknowingly constructa partial opinion. The consequences of that lesson are still beingheard today and much to the detriment of the Russian Federation.

HOW TO Make a RUssian deMOn

Dr. MatthewCrosston

Senior Editor

Matthew Crosston isProfessor of PoliticalScience, Director of

the InternationalSecurity and Intelli-

gence StudiesProgram, and the

Miller Chair atBellevue University

WWW.MOdeRndiPLOMaCY.eU THe CasPian PROJeCT

Unbiased Media / biased agendas

Look no further than the first reporting onreferendum day from the highly respectedand august news organization, Reuters. It re-ported how, ‘thousands of Russian troopshave taken control of the Black Sea peninsulaand Crimea’s pro-Russian leaders havesought to ensure the vote is tilted inMoscow’s favor.

That, along with an ethnic Russian majority,is expected to result in a comfortable ‘YES’vote to leave Ukraine.’ These are actually twovery different perspectives conflated into asingle position. On the one hand, readerswere given the distinct understanding thatthe referendum was basically rigged, com-mandeered by Crimean leaders, who werenothing but sycophants to the Kremlin. Butthe very next sentence also accurately men-tioned that Crimea was majority ethnic Russ-ian, which should have indicated to a readerthat a free and fair referendum might end upproducing the very result the reporters toldus could not be genuine. So which was it?Was Crimea manipulated by local leadersand the Russian military or was its majorityRussian population voting its free and volun-tary will? By writing the piece so that the sus-picious manipulation theory was conflatedwith the demographically true statistic,

a reader was either left confused or pushedinto thinking the referendum itself was irrel-evant and that Russia was rather, well, evil. The piece further reported, ‘the majority ofCrimea's 1.5 million electorate support leav-ing Ukraine and becoming part of Russia, cit-ing expectations of better pay and theprospect of joining a country capable of as-serting itself on the world stage. But otherssee the referendum as nothing more than ageopolitical land grab by the Kremlin…Eth-nic Tatars, Sunni Muslims of Turkic origin whomake up 12 percent of Crimea's population,said they would boycott the referendum, de-spite promises by the authorities to givethem financial aid and proper land rights.’Again, this deftly presented evidence in amanner that delegitimized the ethnic Russ-ian majority by highlighting a small minoritygroup, ethnic Tatars, and how it would boy-cott the referendum. This is playing a bit fastand loose with the complex ethnic makeupof the former Soviet Union, portraying a pic-ture that is not entirely accurate: ethnicTatars have a long and rich history WITHINthe Russian Federation.One of the most pow-erful ethnic republics and richest regions inRussia today is Tatarstan. The idea that ethnicTatars in Crimea were protesting the referen-dum because they were somehow worriedor fearful of being part of Russia was simplyfallacious. Much more likely, given the pres-ent environment of political turmoil andopen discussions about autonomy and self-rule (let us not forget that Crimea was itselfa semi-autonomous region within Ukraineunder the Ukrainian Constitution), was thatthe ethnic Tatars saw what Crimean leaderswere doing and hoped to also earn their ownpiece of newly acquired political and eco-nomic power.

THeRe aRe enOUgH ReaL deMOnsin THe POLiTiCaL WORLd

WiTHOUT THe fRee MediaCReaTing MORe

absenT-MindedLY

Rejecting the Crimean offer of financial aidand proper land rights meant they weren’targuing about principle anymore but justhow big their piece of the pie would be. Allof this background and subtle nuance wouldhave made readers more informed and im-pressed at how complex and multi-layeredthe Crimean situation is. Instead, they wereleft with a picture that had Crimean authoritymere puppets on Kremlin strings and op-pressed minorities being politically stompedover in the process by Russian jackboots.

The Reuters piece continued to explain thesituation, stating ‘the protests began whenYanukovich turned his back on a trade dealwith the European Union and opted for acredit and cheap oil deal worth billions ofdollars with Ukraine's former Soviet overlord,Russia.’

I have written on this issue in the past and itcontinues to perplex me how the abovetransaction is only portrayed in Westernmedia as Yanukovich simply being in theback pocket of Moscow. Entering intogreater trade cooperation with the EuropeanUnion, paving the way for closer relations,also means ultimately answering to Euro-pean Union financial demands.

Perhaps we could ask Greece, Italy, or Portu-gal how that goes at times? These realities,along with the inevitably cyclical and topsy-turvy nature of the global economy, meannot all paths to the EU are paved with gold.Given such, why did Western media portrayacceptance for a credit, oil, and gas dealworth ‘billions of dollars’ for Ukraine RIGHTNOW as being akin to a Faustian bargainmade with a ‘Soviet overlord?’


I have no personal knowledge of the journal-ists who wrote and contributed to the aboveReuters piece and I am sure they take theirprofession with the utmost seriousness andhave high personal standards of integrity.The problem, as I mentioned, is a pervasivesubconscious Cold War residue that hasmajor influence on how uninformed readersaround the world learn about the situationin Crimea and Russia’s subsequent largerimage even today. For example, the 1992 constitution men-tioned above is the UKRAINIAN Constitution,not the Russian. It does indeed grant theCrimean region effective independencewithin Ukraine AND the right to determineits own path and relations with whomever itwants. Ukraine wrote those words in the im-mediate glowing aftermath of Soviet disso-lution, when, quite frankly, most in the Westfelt the true political and economic prosper-ity path shone brightest for Ukraine and NOTRussia.

What was the impact on uninformed readerswho did not know that the Russian creditdeal basically meant Russia forgave a mas-sive amount of oil and gas debt owed byUkraine? If a country was truly looking to bean ‘evil overlord’ might it not be far easier tosimply call in one’s chips without remorse,rather than offering deals that eliminate debtwith no repayment?

Finally, the piece reported, ‘voters have twooptions to choose from - but both implyRussian control of the peninsula. On the sur-face, the second choice appears to offer theprospect of Crimea remaining with Ukraine.However, the 1992 constitution which it citesforesees giving the region effective inde-pendence within Ukraine, but with the rightto determine its own path and choose rela-tions with whom it wants - including withRussia.’ The problem I have highlighted is notthat such journalists are unprofessional orhave some anti-Russian personal agenda.

Many seem to have forgotten this but anysimple source search back to the time periodwill reveal massive Western enthusiasm forUkraine’s prospects while Russia wasdeemed too large, too ethnically diverse, andtoo dependent on decrepit and degradedSoviet infrastructure. It is easy to grant ‘au-tonomy’ when authorities feel confident thatsaid autonomous chicken will never comehome to roost. But now, a generation afterthe fall of the Soviet Union, no one makescomparisons anymore between Ukraine andRussia where Ukraine is the golden-child andRussia the basket-case. So yes, it was quitetrue that the constitution recklessly gaveCrimea the opportunity to pursue the verypath it was pursuing a year ago. But thehands that wrote that problematic constitu-tion were Ukrainian, not Russian. This was areality not revealed to readers. Instead, theywere fed an opposite impression of the ref-erendum as not only being illegitimate butmanipulatively engineered by Russia andforced on the local people.

Russia, no doubt, was not guiltless. No stateis in complex geopolitics. It absolutely tookadvantage of the turmoil and instability ofthe Maidan revolution in Kiev. But it took ad-vantage of this opportunity by maneuveringwith a small peninsula that had always beenmilitarily important to and, quite frankly, po-litically and culturally aligned with Russia.Was this maneuver ‘nice?’ No, it was not. Butwas it geopolitically strategic? Yes, it mostcertainly was. Which thought process do youthink matters most to states on the globalstage, the former or the latter?

What I wish to see more of is reporting thattestifies to this inherent nature of geopoliticsand the admission that most states, no, ALLstates will be strategic before they choose tobe nice. Be warned: this won’t make for lightor fun reading, per se. But it would make formore informed and more accurate readingthan the quasi-impartial pieces that clearlypush a psychological caricature of one par-ticular side to readers who do not have thebackground to know what is fact and what isfarce. The consequence, of course, is the cre-ation of a Russian demon that is not entirelydeserved and most certainly does not serveanyone’s enlightenment or the ameliorationof conflict. There are enough real demons inthe political world without the free mediacreating more absent-mindedly.

THe PRObLeM is a PeRvasive sUbCOnsCiOUsCOLd WaR ResidUe THaT Has MaJOR infLUenCe On HOW UninfORMed ReadeRsaROUnd THe WORLd LeaRn abOUT THe siTUaTiOn in CRiMea and RUssia’s sUbseqUenT LaRgeR iMageeven TOdaY


OppressiOn, denial Of existence, prohibition ofusage of mother language in public, the press and institu-tions, forced relocations, no recognition, fear of expressingidentity, inequality, economic stagnation or decrease andfalse hopes are words that could describe the history of thelargest ethnic group in the world without their own state. Though the numbers differ, there are around 30 million ofKurds. The exact number is unknown because their exis-tence was denied even in the recent past in some countriesand because some of the authorities report of smaller num-ber of Kurdish people on their territory. In some countriesKurds are even afraid to define themselves as Kurds becauseof political oppression.

invisible people Kurds: the fourth biggest nationin the Middle east

Reports show that Kurds are the fourthbiggest nation in the Middle East behindArabs, Turks and Persian people. Everyonehas so far heard for Kurdistan but exceptthe landscape with the same name cannotbe found on the map. Kurdish destiny is de-cided by three main factors, dispersion,fragmentation and territorial policies.Kurds are people that in the past had noright to autonomy or self-determinationand were not even recognized as minoritiesin some countries. They are spread acrossIraq, Iran, Turkey and Syria restless territo-ries. Based on CIA World Factbook in 2014the biggest number of Kurds is in Turkey14.7 million (18% of the population), thanin Iran 8.1 million (10% of the population),Iraq 5.5 million (17.5% of the population)and Syria 1.7 million (9.7% of the popula-tion). History of Turkish Kurds is interacted withoppression, restriction of usage its own lan-guage publicly, political institutions, nofreedom of expression, assembly and asso-ciation, displacement as a result of conflictand confrontation with military, journalismactivity no recognition and underdevelop-ment of its territories. Economic problemsexist in southeastern part of Turkey, wheremost of the Kurds live with high unemploy-ment levels. In 2002 Ankara had madesome reforms about its very restrictive Kur-dish policy, where Kurdish broadcast onradio and television was prohibited. Thelaunch in 2009 of a public television chan-nel broadcasting in Kurdish was a step for-ward.

However, the expression of Kur-dish identity is still perceived asa threat to the country’s unitybased on the 2011 EuropeanCommission against Racismand Intolerance (ERCI) report.ERCI reported that many Kurdslive in concentrated in the poor-est remote provinces of countrywith difficult economic and so-cial conditions. Inequality is stillseen among populations whereKurds are still not equal to themajority of the population.Through time we have seen ac-tive Kurdish political movementin the country. Almost all of theparties were prohibited aftersome time. Reasons for banishment werepromoting separatism and Kur-dish nationalism among others.A lot of party members weresent to prison and even sen-tence to jail. Conflict betweenTurkey and PKK that is com-posed of various Kurdish insur-gent groups, listed also as aterrorist group by some coun-tries, are demanding separationfrom Turkey and creating an in-dependent Kurdistan or auton-omy. The conflict started wayback in 1974 and is still going indifferent phases.Both sideshave been accused of atrocitiesand human rights violations.

teja palkODefense Editor

Teja Palko is aSlovenian writer.

She finished studieson Master’s Degree

programme inDefense Science at

the Faculty of SocialScience at University

in Ljubljana.

WWW.ModerndiploMaCY.eu the Caspian proJeCt

For many years it was in fact illegal for Kurdsspeak their own language, use Kurdishnames or play their music, going even fur-ther with the Turkish government refused torecognize the existence of Kurds and namedthem Mountain Turks. The situation is yet toget resolved with many obstacles still on theway to peace and freedom. With electionsand the HDP – The People’s Democratic Partyrecorded more than 10% of the vote andpass one of the highest electoral thresholdsin the world, it will play an important role forKurdish people. It was founded as a pro-Kur-dish party in 2012. Its representatives willtake seats in parliament for the first time andmake Kurdish voices heard and improvedtheir overall situation. In my opinion thatkind of political solution is needed to helpending more than three decades lasting con-flict.Situation in Iraqi Kurdistan is different andmakes and exception in the position ofKurds. Semiautonomous region has beenachieved through economic cooperationand opened the road to prosperity. Follow-ing the first Gulf war and with the UnitedStates (US) imposing a no-fly zone in north-ern Iraq, Iraqi Kurds have managed to de-velop de facto self-government since theyear 1991.

After US invasion after 2003 after two years,followed the new constitution with emerg-ing federal state and declaring Kurdistan’sspecial status. Even though right for auton-omy comes from the constitution, Baghdadhas done much to prevent self-governmentand wants to further lead centralized politicsand control over the country.

Main problem resides with oil and gas rev-enues that are found in this area. In the lightof Turkey policy regarding large Kurdish pop-ulation of its territory and often violent dis-putes country made a shift with supportingfinancial independence of the region andstarted doing business and abandoned itsstance opposing the autonomy. Baghdad could block Kurdish-Turkish coop-eration, but that could backfire in declaringKurdistan’s independence. It looks like nei-ther side wants such an outcome where Iraqwould lose oil and gas revenues or even en-courage other provinces to do the same andthe other side challenges of independentstates. In every way the region is shiftingfrom the central order and rule to more de-centralized one with international coopera-tion.

In Iran Kurds are facing similar economicproblems as other countries, such as povertyand underdevelopment. Iranian Kurds havein the 20 century established a semi-inde-pendent state which was abolished in oneyear. Amnesty International has reported ofabuses and suppression of Kurdish people,their social, political and cultural rights andeven of big number of Kurdish citizens beingexecuted. Kurds in Iran are getting less inter-national attention than in other countries,but political repression is present every day.

Kurds are peoplethat in the past

had no right to autonoMYor self-deterMination andWere not even reCognized

as Minoritiesin soMe Countries

Iran remains second largest executer in theworld and reports from international human-itarian organizations accused Iran of unfairtrails and right violations against minoritiesand activists. Many Kurdish political prison-ers were till this day executed. In May wehave seen Kurds protests in Mahabad againstauthority, but their situation does not seemto be improving. Another country where Kurds are importantminority is Syria. Syria’s Kurds have managedto declare their own autonomous region inthe northeast part of the country. As a resultof the Syrian war and the rise of the IslamicState, Kurds in Syria have established a self-ruled region called Rojava which spans partsof northern Syria. Rojava is an inclusive sys-tem where local communities and groupshave great influence on political and socialissues. These communities are diverse and in-clude Kurds, Arabs, Turkmens, Christians andso on. Kurds have unilaterally declared

self-rule in 2012 and since then protectedterritories from Islamic State forces. The Peo-ple's Protection Unit (YPG) has been fightingagainst the Islamic State; with support fromUS-led airstrikes the PYD's and PKK's effec-tiveness in ground operations against IslamicState, most notably in the battle for Kobaniin 2014, has led some experts to call for theUnited States to remove the PKK from its listof foreign terrorist organizations.

It is not the last time we have heard aboutKurdish problems, since there are many po-tential outbreaks of the conflict possible,with unresolved situations in four differentcountries regarding the same ethnical group.With further suppression and human rightsviolations the possibility of creating greaterdisagreement and walls against opposingsides is rising. The Kurdistan remains so farunreachable Kurds distant dream, but hopesand fight against injustice never dies.

WWW.ModerndiploMaCY.eu the Caspian proJeCt

russian idoLOne of the most interesting points of viewconcerning Russia’s soft power is the oneelucidated by Joseph Nye, the scholar whocoined the terms and definitions for hard,soft and smart power. He argues that whatis intriguing is not the fact of Russia usingsoft power, but how the country conceivesits theory. Whereas America is as good in causingamazement as it is in using its weapons,Russia still cannot read the American wayof life – that is, for itself, an incredible toolof soft power – nor replicate it with facility.What the US have long understood is thatit is not about diplomacy only, not aboutgovernmental spheres. They realized it wasnecessary to foment and sell a whole sys-tem whereunto culture, education, styleand many other aspects of society convertand allure people to consume and admireit. All this enchantment caused by the Starsand Stripes does not undercover, but surelyequilibrates the hardness with which it,more frequently than likely, makes use ofthe sticks.

The Slavic country, for its turn,tends to concentrate its sourceof culture and welfare transmis-sion in the public administra-tion. On its side, at least, itcounts with a former Russian di-aspora that results in peoplecraving for identity in the neigh-bour countries. Also, communi-cation, migratory fluxes andreligion end up playing an im-portant part in its relation withfellow nations. In terms of inter-national affairs, it works for theconstruction of strong unionbetween the ex-Soviet coun-tries, through the Collective Se-curity Treaty Organisation(CSTO), the Customs Union andthe Eurasian Economic Union,that ideally would counterNATO and the EU. Russia counts on a vast commu-nication group – RT, the formerRussia Today – which is knownnot only internally, but abroadtoo. There, investments are highand the speaking languagesRussian and English, so thespreading of information is ef-fective, since the group is big inthe niche. The pieces of newsare diverse and multi biased, ina sense that many ideas are ex-pressed in different ways, alsomeaning many opinions on asame topic, which sometimesappears dizzying.

russia is not wideLy known for its outstanding abilities insoft power. That could be explained, albeit not justified, for thestrong concision characteristic of the communist regime duringthe Soviet Union years, which resulted in East European countriesin general – and Russia specifically - understanding and applyinga stricter conduct when it comes to international relations.

IS ONE PUTIN THINgSIN ORDER?

Luisa MonteiroMD Editor

Luísa Monteiro is abachelor in SocialCommunication.

Her researches areclosely linked to the

studies of internet asa democratic agoraand her latest aca-demic production

correlates thefreedom experienced

online and the(offline) social

movements.

WWW.MODERNDIPLOMACY.EU THE CASPIAN PROJECT

Besides, the country made it internationallyappealing with Rusnet (‘Russia beyond head-lines’) and influences the near countries withlocal transmission, like the First Baltic Chan-nel (FBK), that counts with millions of viewerson the Baltic region, with a flood of articles,not necessarily information. That comes,nonetheless, under the label of freedom ofexpression – showing us that the media, be -sides its advances, still has a long way to go.On the other hand, the country continues tobe a dreamland for the several migrants fromthe near countries. With more work opportu-nities and a relatively easy procedure togrant citizenship, plenty of workers fromCentral Asia go to Russia to earn a living (andare undoubtedly an important trump forRussian statesmen when it touches politicalnegotiation).Those Russian speakers share not only thelanguage, but also culture, beliefs, some -times religion. That is why traditional valuesend up having great influence, and politi-cians found an opportunity in that – a clearexample was that the dissemination of theidea that the European politics accepted andstimulated homosexual romantic relation-ships and that Western behaviours indicatedcorrupted values kept politically divided andstrongly traditional border countries from

approaching the European Union, luckilyenough for a strong and moralizing Russiathat dreams of enhancing its EEU bloc.The culture is, naturally, another instrumentfor gathering and working the national sen-timent in the peoples spread inside and out-side the Russian territory. Designed for this isRossotrudnichestvo, the State’s agency forsoft power. The Federal Agency for the Com-monwealth of Independent States, Compa-triots Living Abroad and InternationalHumanitarian Cooperation promotes eventsin memoir of historical facts that are impor-tant for the community in the Common-wealth of Independent States (especially forthose people who are abroad, that end upbeing somewhat enthusiasts and feelingcloser to their roots). Ideally, the agencyserves the objective of fostering friendly tiesand, thus, helping achieve and reinforceRussian economic and cultural development.In April, as a matter of elucidation, theagency supported the St. George Ribbonscampaign – a tradition that dates from theXVII century but gained a new meaning withthe Russian victory over the Nazi Germany inWorld War II, exact 70 years ago.

a soft spot for a hard conduct Diplomacy is not what Russia is widelyknown for, though. Amid the latest polemics,the annexation of Crimea in late 2014brought extensive criticism for the Russianaction towards Ukraine and, unavoidably,there were parallels between the situationthen and in 2008, with South Ossetia.Back in that year, Georgia had some deepseparatist issues with South Ossetia, a part ofthe population from a different ethnicity thatwanted to join North Ossetia, an autonomicrepublic inside the Russian Federation.

RUSSIAN SPEAkERSSHARE NOT ONLY THE LANgUAgE,

bUT ALSO CULTURE,bELIEfS, SOMETIMES RELIgION

THAT IS WHY TRADITIONALvALUES END UP HAvINg

gREAT INfLUENCE

It has never been proven that Russia really fo-mented the insurgents against Georgia,nonetheless history does not lie about whathappened later and its aftermaths – Russiaentered the Georgian territory, supportingSouth Ossetia and the thousands of Russiancitizens that lived there during the process ofseparation, which culminated in the creationof a new country (recognized by Russia andheavily criticized by the NATO members).Here, even though one must claim the clear-ness of the use of hard power, it can also beargued that the Russian influence came longbefore in the region, both culturally and lin-guistically. Even more than that, in peacemissions in Ossetia and Abkhazia.In Crimea, the situation was partly repeated.Hard power came with militarily intervention(claimed to be necessary to ‘normalize’ thesituation in Ukraine), however soft powerwas already there, alive and kicking. Ethni-cally, they were Russians; democratically, de-cided to join another country. It should notbe taken as sheer free will, especially becauseof the non-bellicose impregnation of Russianvalues in its neighbours;likewise, no sort ofcoercion through weaponry, vodka or Ma-trioshkas could result in a spontaneousdemonstration of willingness to belong toanother country in a plebiscite.

It is therefore to believe that a process of‘conquering’ Crimea has started many yearsbefore 2014, be that for the importance ofthat region to the former Soviet Union, bethat for the Russian population deeply dis-satisfied with the Ukrainian instability in thatmoment. It is needless to say, on the otherhand, that these measures, too, were notsupported by the EU or the USA and theyused their own hard power through sanc-tions and suspension of agreements relatedto Russia. After more than one year, the internationalcommunity still believes that the interven-tion harmed Ukrainian sovereignty. What can be taken from that is that Russiaaims to develop its persuasive politic ma-noeuvres and has been working hard to-wards it. Maybe in a more sinuous, Spartanway, that shows some points of improve-ment, but also gives the country the chanceof analysing how much it is different fromthe West and in which points it really wantsto be that distinct.


A quick review of the unclassified author-ities on arms control issues shows thatRussia has been working to modernizeits strategic forces since 1997, but other-wise is in compliance with arms controlagreements. The pace of modernizationhas been slowed significantly by the de-cline in the price of crude. The require-ment, however, is becoming moreurgent owing to the ageing of the sys-tems. The Russian strategic triad is declin-ing, say the experts at the Federation ofAmerican Scientists.One could say, Russia’s strategic positionhas similarities with North Korean andwith Pakistan.It is similar to North Korea because bothstates have the capability to start a war,but lack the capability to win it. In thecase of Russia, the war could span a con-tinent. The Europeans are the least ofRussian worries, which explains PresidentPutin’s boldness. Europe is effete, increas-ingly aged and averse to confrontation.Its will to fight was squandered inAfghanistan.

China is Russia’s existentialthreat. Russian doctrine makesclear that tactical nuclearweapons would be used to de-feat a Chinese attack. The will-ingness to use nuclear weaponsto stop a conventional attack isthe key insight from Putin’sstatement.

NATO and the US announcedthat they will position heavyequipment for armored cavalryor armored infantry units in theBaltic members of NATO. Thestated purpose is to deter anddefeat Russian aggressionagainst NATO members. The UScan move soldiers much fasterthan heavy equipment. In thissolution, the major delay is thetime it takes civil airliners to flyfrom the US to Vilnius, Riga andTallinn.

With reasonable and old fash-ioned intelligence warning,NATO could bring armoredunits with prepositioned equip-ment in the Baltics to full com-bat readiness faster than theRussians can field a combat at-tack force.

russian president putin engaged in a bit of saber rattlingwhen he announced that Russia would field more than 40 new in-tercontinental ballistic missiles this year. Most news services inter-preted the statement as a riposte to NATO’s announcement thatit would pre-position heavy armored equipment in NATO’s Balticmembers so as to deter Russian poaching.

NUCLEAR POWERS AT PLAY

eLena M.

Intelligence Analyst


RUSSIA, PAkISTAN, NORTH kOREA

NATO planners need to understand that inevery race to mobilize, NATO beats Russia,provided US equipment is prepositioned.That leads to the second part of the discus-sion. If the US and NATO are clever enoughto find a way to stop Russian conventionalforces, Russia has few military options otherthan nuclear escalation, tactical or strategic.That makes Russia’s strategic position muchlike that of Pakistan.

After three general wars and two crises thatapproached general war, it is now clear thatPakistan cannot defeat India in a generalconventional war. US intelligence analystsneed to understand this as settled lore fromdecades of US intelligence experience: Pak-istan cannot win a conventional war againstIndia.In the near-war crises of 2001-2002, Indiaachieved full combat readiness in less thanthree weeks, while the Pakistan Army, underPresident General Musharraf, failed toachieve full combat readiness. Pakistan’s fail-ure to generate its conventional militarypower meant that its leaders thought theyhad no alternative to activating Pakistan’sstrategic nuclear missile forces to stop an In-dian conventional attack.

That is the significance of Putin’s message.Russia cannot defend the national territorywithout using nuclear weapons. Pakistanand North Korea are in precisely the sameposition. That position does not imply that aconventional confrontation must go nuclear.It means that such a confrontation could gonuclear.Russia’s nuclear threats are serious becauseof the weaknesses of Russia’s conventionalforces. A key question is how will NATO re-spond.

CHINA IS RUSSIA’SExISTENTIAL THREATRUSSIAN DOCTRINE

MAkES CLEARTHAT TACTICAL

NUCLEAR WEAPONSWOULD bE USED

TO DEfEATA CHINESE ATTACk

The 10 mosT impoRTanT Things you need To know on Caspian sea Region

#CaspianDaily

Receive

your daily roundup

of Caspian Region

news and analysis

from sources

around the globe

the caspian daily

newsletter

The Forum aims to establish the frame-work for developing ties between poli-tics and business on local and theinternational level. This is a place wherebusiness faces politics and all the chal-lenges the nowadays complex interna-tional situation brings. The First St. Petersburg Economic Forumwas held in 1997 under the aegis of theFederation Council of Russia and theInter-parliamentary Assembly of theCommonwealth of Independent States.The next year St. Petersburg Forumchanged into a permanent body with aview to developing entrepreneurship inRussia, strengthening relations with in-ternational trading partners and attract-ing foreign investments. Within the next few years the Forumgrew up from a conference focused onthe CIS integration processes to a grandeconomic event encompassing a widerange of business development issuesand drawing intense international atten-tion. In 2007 the St. Petersburg Forumand the World Economic Forum signedthe memorandum on participation ofthe WEF in the work of Forum.

Many heads of states and otherhigh officials attended theForum, turning it into the eventof a global scale. Political offi-cials and businessmen sign herecooperation agreements andcontracts worth millions of dol-lars.

the president and his forum

In 2005 Vladimir Putin attendedthe SPIEF for the first time. Sincethen, unofficially called “presi-dential”, the Forum has trans-formed into a highly politicalevent. The President became anexcellent decoy for Russian andforeign political and economicelite. He is the official identity ofthe Forum. In his speeches andduring round table discussionsPutin more often considers in-ternational politics issues.

The atmosphere on the lastyear’s Forum was a perfect re-flection of the tense relationsbetween Russia and the Westover the Ukrainian crisis. In par-ticular, the economic sanctions,coming after the annexation ofCrimea, were the main subjectsto discuss.

SPIEf 2015 TENDENCIES & ExPECTATIONS

this week the saint petersburg International EconomicForum, the biggest event in business life of Russia and its investorswill take place. It is an annual gathering of influential Russian andinternational politicians and government officials, businessmen,representatives of academic community.

nina LavrentevaMD Russia Editor

Nina Lavrentevais finishing her

Master studies in“History of interna-tional relations and

integration processes:cross-border coopera-

tion” at the Instituteof Political Studies,

the University ofStrasbourg


This year the Forum expects more than 5,000of participants. “Recent changes require co-hesive actions from the international com-munity to ensure sustainable, long-termdevelopment”, President Putin says. He willhold a meeting with CEOs of big companiesand corporations, and discuss new chal-lenges for business with heads of investmentfunds. When the United States and Europehave blocked off the way to the West to anumber of Russian politicians and business-men and frozen the assets of several compa-nies, Russian business faced seriouschallenges - many large Russian companiesface difficulties in attracting European andAmerican investors, purchasing of militaryequipment and dual-use goods. Also, a num-ber of transactions in the energy sector werebanned. However, the US and Europeancompanies involved in the Russian marketare doing better than expected, althoughtheir activities are still subject to risk.

Putin claimed that so far the sanctions targetjust “his friends, the people from his inner cir-cle” and aim to “punish them, nobody knowswhy”. He also took the opportunity to denyonce again that the annexation of Crimeawas planned and the presence of Russianmilitary in the region.

Although, the St. Petersburg EconomicForum was a convenient framework for theforeign companies presented in Russia, thelarge companies decided to stay away fromthe risks and maintain their reputation. Anumber of big European and American com-panies boycotted the 2014 Forum. Amongothers, the representatives of Boeing, Gold-man Sachs, Siemens, the Coca-Cola Com-pany refused to come to St. Petersburg.Many companies reduced their representa-tion in the event. The White House confirmedthat the Administration of the U.S. Presidentadvised CEOs to ignore the Forum.

Russia has been living under the sanctionsregime for a year already and the forthcom-ing Forum might be a useful platform for re-flection on the future of Russian economicsand business. Due to the Russian politics in Ukraine, a num-ber of participants has been reduced signifi-cantly. Nevertheless, the organizers of theForum are confident: "Political confrontationdoes not affect serious business". They areready to welcome some large American andEuropean companies soon. BCG and McKin-sey & Company, Metro AG and TUI AG, Ernst& Young, Shell, BP, Societe Generale, Total,Schlumberger, Metro and Carlsberg areamong them.

new reference point - focus on asiaThe St. Petersburg International EconomicForum may be devoted to finding new allies,experts say. Most likely, they will be found inthe Asia-Pacific region and Latin America.This year, Russian companies are preparingto conclude preferential agreements on in-ternational trade with the Shanghai Cooper-ation Organization and BRICS memberstates, as well as Turkey, Israel, South Korea,India and Peru. Also the possibility of estab-lishing a free trade zone with ASEAN and fur-ther development of the Eurasian CustomsUnion are actively discussed.Already last yearthe tendency to reorient the big Russiancompanies to Asia became visible. For in-stance, Gazprom has struck the biggest bar-gain in its history with the Chinese CNPC – acontract worth $ 400 billion for 30 years. Thisyear more representatives of Chinese busi-ness are expected to attend the Forum. TheJapanese Toyota also plans to expand itspresence in Russia, although with a view to

producing vehicles for Europe but not forRussian domestic market – as ruble has be-come weaker and the purchasing power ofthe population decreased.

saint petersburg to become a businesscapital for a few days The Forum is a good opportunity to showthe attractiveness of Saint Petersburg forRussian and foreign investors. The City Ad-ministration adopted the law which benefitsinvestments in such areas as health care, ed-ucation, culture and sport, science and inno-vation. The legal procedures for licensing ofthe future investors are being simplified aswell. St. Petersburg will present its investmentprojects in transport infrastructure, scienceand innovation, energy, culture and tourism.A large part of the exhibition will be devotedto the development of the Arctic zone. Thecity will present the information about theregion and its involvement in the develop-ment of these strategic for Russia territories.The models of the newest equipment for ex-ploitation of the oil fields will be showcased.

Without any doubts the Forum promises tobe interesting. The confrontation betweenRussia and the West evolves – the WhiteHouse claimed that the U.S. Authorities ofany level will not be represented, while AlexisTsipras, the Prime Minister of Greece, is ex-pected at the Forum to discuss the “Greekquestion” with Vladimir Putin. The forthcom-ing Saint Petersburg Economic Forum willface the new challenges of today’s politicalsituation. It will show the capacities of Rus-sia’s economy to manage them.


The revolutionary inventions of two scien-tists changed the modern energy sphereand brought enormous commercial effect.“The Global Energy Prize - as repeatedlyemphasized by the President of Russia – isa prize of the new millennium. It is awardedfor exceptional scientific achievement inthe field of energy. For scientific ideas thatare not just theory, but have practical im-plementation and serve people”, - said IgorSechin, president of OJSC Rosneft, head ofthe Presidential Commission for the Strate-gic Development of the Energy Sector whoawarded the laureates on behalf of theRussian President Vladimir Putin.Professor Shuji Nakamura has invented theblue LED which allowed energy-efficientwhite lighting technology. He was alreadyawarded for his invention with the NobelPrize in Physics in 2014. "As a child I liked toread comic books. My favorite one was the"Mighty atom". Mighty atom was a robot in-vented by Professor Ochanomizu thatfought with the "bad guys".

Over the time I desired to inventmy own robot that could fightthe "bad guys". This is how I’vestarted my journey to becom-ing a scientist", - Shuji Naka-mura shared with the audience.Professor B. Jayant Baliga, whohas already been awarded bythe President of the UnitedStates with the National Medalof Technology and Innovation(the highest engineeringaward), invented the InsulatedGate Bipolar Transistor which isone of the most important in-novations for the control anddistribution of energy. His tech-nology forms the basis for fa-mous smart grids. In the last 25years, IGBTs saved over 73,000TWh of energy, over 6 trilliongas liters, and decreased CO2emissions by 49.5 billion metrictons. “The customer's savings ex-ceeded $23.7 trillion”, - declaredProf. Baliga, adding that he aimsto continue development of re-search in this filed."I am happy to be awarded withthe Global Energy Prize thisyear. For me personally it is agreat honor.

the Global enerGy prize 2015 award ceremony has beenheld as part of St. Petersburg Economic Forum. This year’s prizewas awarded to Shuji Nakamura -professor of the University of Cal-ifornia and B. Jayant Baliga - Professor of North Carolina University.

GLObAL ENERGY PRIzE AWARD

stellapapadopoulou

Journalist


But more important is that this award at-tracts the world's attention to my invention– the Insulated Gate Bipolar Transistor – andits implication for billions of people aroundthe globe. In 1969 when I came to the UnitedStates from India, my dream was to create atechnology that would benefit the whole hu-mankind", - B. Jayant Baliga said.

"Inventions of the scientists - are real globalideas, because they apply to everyone inevery country. And they really change theworld, fully complying with the concept ofthe "Global Energy", - Igor Sechin concluded.Japanese Ambassador Extraordinary andPlenipotentiary to Russia Takehito Haradaread the greetings from Japanese Prime Min-ister Shinzo Abe and pointed that this is thethird time when scientist from Japan is hon-ored by the award.

"Japan and Russia have established thediplomatic relations 160 years ago in 1855;the two countries have gone through variousaffairs, but keep on maintaining and devel-oping the bilateral relations. Following thestrategic and long-term perspective, I wouldlike to further develop our cooperation invarious spheres and raise the Japanese-Russ-ian relations to a higher level.

The mutually beneficial cooperation in theareas of energy and innovations is an impor-tant element of the Japanese-Russian rela-tions that has great potential and newopportunities "- he said.

The Global Energy Prize is an independentaward for outstanding scientific research andtechnological development in energy, whichcontribute to efficiency and environmentallyfriendly energy sources for the benefit of hu-manity. Since 2003, The Global Energy Prizehas been awarded to 33 Laureates from 10countries: the UK, Germany, Iceland, Canada,Russia, USA, Ukraine, France, Sweden andJapan. The final choice of Laureates is de-cided by The Global Energy Prize Interna-tional Award Committee, which consists of25 respected scientists from 13 countries.The nominating pool of the Global EnergyPrize is represented by 2800 scientists from83 countries of the world.The award was established in Russia with thesupport of leading Russian energy corpora-tions Gazprom, Surgutneftegas and the Fed-eral Grid Company of Unified Energy System.

The book is structured into two broadly de-fined sections, with the first half examiningthe different ways in which the combinationof domestic, regional, international andtrans-national forces worked to advance onenational identity over the others in the statesthat comprise the region of post-Soviet Cen-tral Eurasia. In the second half, chapters ana-lyze the many ways in which identity, onceshaped, affected foreign policy behaviors ofthe regional states, as well as the overall se-curity dynamics in the region. The book alsolooks at the ways in which identity, by doingso, enjoys an intricate, mutually constitutiverelationship with the strategic context inwhich it bears its effects on the state and theregion. Finally, given the special role Russiahas historically played in defining the evolu-tionary trajectory of the regional states,

the book discusses the ways in which Russiaitself and its post-cold war policies towardsits former colonies have been conditioned byfactors associated with Russia’s evolvingpost-Soviet identity.

Indeed, by bringing identity back to theagenda in the study of regional security dy-namics in post- Soviet Central Eurasia, thecollection is meant to place the region firmlywithin the realm of existing theories of iden-tity and state practices. Multicultural as it isand living through its early post- independ-ence years, Central Eurasia serves as an idealtest case to study and analyze the workingsof theories of identity and foreign policy in anon- European context. “

www.modeRndiplomacy.eu the caspian pRoJect

the MultIcultural regIon of Central Eurasia is living through its earlypost-independence years and as such serves as an ideal case to study and an-alyze theories of identity and foreign policy in a non-European context. Look-ing to re-introduce identity as a multidimensional factor informing statebehavior, this book analyses the experiences of the different Central Eurasianstates in their post-independence pursuits.

identity and politicsin centRal asia

and the caucasus

MohaMMed ayoob (ed.) andMurad IsMayIlov (ed.)

routledge- 2015

Petra Posega

Documents

The Caspian Project .04