The Other Russia response to the July 28, 2009, Hearing of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Europe

On July 28, the US House of Representatives House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Europe held a hearing with the title, “The Reset Button Has Been Pushed: Kicking Off a New Era in U.S.-Russian Relations.” The witnesses before the committee were Philip H. Gordon, of the State Department and Celeste A. Wallander of the Defense Department

The hearing contained several items of interest for the members of our pro-democracy coalition in Russia, several members of which met with US President Obama during his visit to Moscow in early July. Mr. Gordon’s positions were generally robust and we laud his unequivocal support for human rights and free media in Russia as well as the territorial integrity of Russia’s neighbors.

THE MYSTERIOUS $29 MILLION

There was also one item in Mr. Gordon’s submitted testimony that received tremendous attention and publicity from the Kremlin-controlled media in Russia. This was Mr. Gordon’s statement that, quoting his submitted testimony, “… the U.S. Government is providing over $29 million in assistance to advance democracy and human rights in Russia, most of which is targeted to strengthen civil society, independent media and the rule of law.” Every state-controlled media source, which is to say every major media outlet in Russia, gave this number as the only piece of information from the hearing. The obvious implication in these stories was that the US was fomenting trouble in Russia, if not outright treason and revolution.

Mr. Gordon cannot be blamed for the Kremlin’s propaganda. But since it is the members of our coalition who bear the impact of the Medvedev/Putin regime’s persecution, we must highlight that we are unaware of any significant pro-democracy projects funded by the monies Mr. Gordon mentioned. We have thousands of members and allies in groups all across Russia and nowhere have we seen or heard of independent media receiving such funding. In fact, it is a generally understood here that a great deal of USAID funding in Russia – substantially more than $29 million by their own numbers – ends up in the hands of authoritarian government officials and various middlemen.

Mr. Gordon’s “$29 million” statement was not made during the hearing itself, which is unfortunate because we imagine several House members would have been interested to hear exactly how this money is being spent, if indeed Mr. Gordon has such information. In fact, Congressman Inglis (R-SC), to his credit, asked Mr. Gordon if there was anything that could be done to aid the people of Russia who want to see an end to the murders and kidnappings of those who oppose or investigate the Kremlin regime. Mr. Gordon gave a vague response and declined to mention the $29 million in US aid outlined in his submitted testimony.

DATA POINTS: — USAID partners with the Russian Central Bank and the Russian Foreign Ministry. — The Senate Foreign Operations Committee recommended a $20 million increase over the $47 million aid request for Russia. — In one appropriation footnote the Committee recommends $500,000 to support the work of the US Forest Service in the Russian Far East. — Sources: http://bit.ly/nb6Ch ; http://bit.ly/BlJOQ

WHERE IS THE MONEY?

This is directly related to another aspect that was ignored during the subcommittee hearing, that of the Kremlin’s virulent internal anti-American propaganda campaign. In his opening remarks, Congressman Delahunt (D-MA) expressed frustration that two-thirds of Russians polled have a negative view of the United States. Mr. Gordon declined to explain that the Kremlin-controlled media, from which 80% of Russians get their news, has for many years constantly portrayed the US as an enemy intent on weakening and controlling Russia.

If the US government is going to make claims about aiding pro-democracy causes in Russia, claims that lead to crackdowns against our members here, we must demand there be some accounting as to how and where that money is being spent. There are many worthy and beleaguered organizations in Russia dedicated to returning our country to the rule of law and to the international stage as an independent and equal partner to the West with free markets and a free media. If it is confirmed that US taxpayer money is instead going to support the oppressive Medvedev/Putin regime, this must cease.

THE KREMLIN’S MAN IN WASHINGTON

During the hearing Congressman Rohrabacher (R-CA) vociferously promoted the Kremlin party line as well as any paid Putin spokesman. He criticized the US and NATO for extending protection to the Baltic states and criticized the fact that such protection had made the Baltic states less vulnerable to “compromise” with Russia; he worried that sanctions against Iran might damage Russian interests; he endorsed Russia’s practice of turning off gas supplies to Ukraine and Europe; and most shockingly, Mr. Rohrabacher stated that the US should partner with “a giant” (Russia) instead of being concerned with an “alliance with Lilliputians” (the Baltic states) and that the US couldn’t depend on its European friends. That he further invoked President Ronald Reagan to defend this attitude of allying with the strong at the expense of the weak was even more startling.

Congressman Rohrabacher also stated there are “opposition parties and opposition newspapers” in Russia, which revealed him to be ignorant of the reality of the Putin regime, where only token symbols of opposition are allowed. Finally, Mr. Rohrabacher referred to the recent kidnapping and murder of rights activist and investigator Natalia Estemirova as “just one journalist” whose brutal killing did not merit the attention it received relative to the Chinese suppression of the Uighers. (Our appreciation to Mr. Gordon for bluntly rejecting this cynical line of reasoning.) Many colleagues, many dozens of Russian activists and journalists – all in some way involved in activities unpopular with the government – have been killed during the Putin regime without a conviction to show. If Mr. Rohrabacher desires more information he can consult the partial list of the names of political prisoners and victims that opposition leader Garry Kasparov presented to President Obama in July. We fear that no number of such murders would be enough for Mr. Rohrabacher to realize that the police state Mr. Putin has created is not deserving of his passionate endorsement.

Moscow, Russia
www.theotherrussia.org
Inquiries to: mgreengard@theotherrussia.org

Theotherrussia.org presents our interview with United Civil Front chairman Garry Kasparov after his meeting with US president Barack Obama. Kasparov was one of a group of Russian opposition figures to meet with Obama Tuesday afternoon in Moscow. (Download the interview in PDF format.)

Interview with United Civil Front Chairman Garry Kasparov after meeting with President Barack Obama
July 7, 2009 – Moscow

Q: You said at the press conference after the meeting with President Obama that his speech today was “less than what we wanted but more than what we expected.” What did you mean?

Garry Kasparov: Ideally he would have named names. He made some strong statements about democracy being the solution and the failure of totalitarianism, far stronger than anything we heard from the last two administrations. But he avoided directly criticizing Putin and Medvedev, the core of our dictatorial system. Nor did Obama mention Mikhail Khodorkovsky, whose jailing by Putin and continued imprisonment by Medvedev symbolizes everything Obama was criticizing about authoritarian states.

But he was strong and gave a consistent message. He repeatedly emphasized that the important relationship between America and Russia is about the people, not their regimes. That got a very positive reception here. Obama opened direct lines of communication instead of dealing only with official Kremlin channels.

Q: Aside from Obama’s tone, what about specific positions or policy proposals?

GK: It looks like Putin and his gang have finally met someone who won’t play their little game of give and take. Obama’s tough and he didn’t back away from the most difficult issues. Sovereignty of Russia’s neighbors, mentioning Georgia and Ukraine in particular. He refused to link missile defense to Iran or anything else.

In fact, I don’t see anything that Obama gave up, which likely came as a surprise to Putin, who expected the new American president to be eager to make deals to have a success to report back home. Obama likely surprised some Republicans in the US as well. Before he started his trip, several conservative GOP members wrote an open letter to Obama with recommendations. Not linking missile defense to nuclear arms reduction, defending the rights of Ukraine and Georgia, and meeting with the opposition. From what I can tell, Obama followed each one.

Obama seems like a man who doesn’t try to solve problems that don’t have solutions. He saves his energy and political capital on realistic goals. If there’s a big obstacle he simply takes it off the table and deals with what can be done. Perhaps more importantly he is honest about saying that is what he’s doing. For example, instead of making a lot of meaningless statements about Iran, where Putin’s interests are in direct opposition, Obama moves on to areas where progress can be made. I have to admit I found this practical approach attractive in the end.

Q: What was Obama’s message to the opposition members at your meeting this afternoon?

GK: I think he left a positive impression and I felt he was being open and direct with us. He said he “didn’t live in the abstract, he lived in history,” and that he had to protect the interests of the people who elected him. When he said he wouldn’t make any deals that compromised American principles he sounded more like Reagan than what we have heard from US administrations over the past twenty years. And he kept his word to invite opposition figures from across the ideological spectrum instead of just a few liberals who are considered pro-American.

In my statement I quoted the American civil rights leader John Lewis about not being patient when waiting for freedom. Obama told a story about his time in the state senate of Illinois, how the Republicans were in charge for six years. He felt irrelevant in the opposition, like he couldn’t change anything meaningful. Things change, he said. Then [Communist Party leader Gennady] Zyuganov said that was exactly the way things are now in the Russian Duma! Zyuganov also told Obama he’d done a good job nationalizing the banks and auto companies. It was all he could do not to say, “You’re on the right track, comrade Obama!”

Q: In your statement you mentioned Khodorkovsky and a Senate resolution Obama signed about him in 2005.

GK: Yes, yes, and I was not the only one. Yelena Lukyanova and Boris Nemtsov also brought up Resolution 322 in our meeting. And it was not only Obama, it was also Biden and McCain – something of a coincidence, no? In the resolution they express concern that the case is politically motivated and that it shows the Russian court system is corrupt. And now here we are four years later with Khodorkovsky still in jail and being tried again for even more absurd charges. Obviously Obama’s concerns from 2005 have been more than validated.

So why isn’t the name of this prominent political prisoner a topic? I think the term “political prisoner” is too powerful and brings up heavy memories from the Cold War and the USSR. But it is also accurate, so the truth must be spoken. Several of our activists were arrested for protesting in front of the hotel where our meeting took place today, simply for standing there with a sign.

Q: Several members at the meeting broached the topic of the US improving relations with Cuba. What was Obama’s reaction?

GK: That came from Ilya Ponomariov and Zyuganov. Obama said his administration was open to contacts with the Cuban government and the opposition. He pointed out, however, that unlike in Russia, it was unlikely the Cuban opposition to Castro in the United States would be eager for the US to have closer relations with Cuba. He also frankly admitted there are political restraints on establishing such contacts.

Q: Did you have any parting advice for President Obama? Or he for you?

GK: Well, we both agree it is not for the United States to interfere in Russia. He said “we are watching but not interfering.” I suggested that he have his staff keep an eye on the Russian translations of his remarks, as the Kremlin likes to make little “corrections” to create the image they wish to present. I also presented Obama with a list of victims of state oppression. It helps that Obama’s top advisor on Russia, Mike McFaul, is extremely capable and knowledgeable, and that Obama relies on him.

“2009 will be a year of radical change in Russia and we are already seeing the countours of how this change will occur. The discontent of the people is rising and they know where to direct their anger. The stockpile of cash the Putin regime stored up from a decade of record energy prices is disappearing rapidly. Without it, they will be unable to maintain the illusion of a successful economy.

“Unemployment is already in excess of 10 million without taking into account the ‘hidden unemployment’ of those kept on the payroll by government subsidy and the countless, and uncounted, people who are trapped in marginal jobs or the gray market economy. The numbers are only going to get worse. In a democratic country, those responsible for such a disasterous situation would be voted out of office. In Russia, there is no such option, so the people become increasingly frustrated.

“Such a situation is volatile, and I see the role of the democratic opposition to prevent the country from falling into chaos when the Putin regime falls or flees as the crisis peaks. The regime has no interest in administering the country in a normal way. They are only trying to loot it for as long as possible. Our empty treasury will be an additional hurdle to overcome as we attempt to build democratic institutions.”

Kasparov said the United Civil Front would continue to be on the forefront of shaping the political agenda of the opposition.

From The Moscow Times:

Undercover pro-Kremlin agents have worked in opposition groups across Russia to provide the presidential administration with information on opposition activists and rallies, a self-described handler said Thursday.

Anna Bukovskaya, a St. Petersburg activist with the pro-Kremlin Nashi youth group, said she coordinated a group of 30 young people who infiltrated branches of the banned National Bolshevik Party, Youth Yabloko and United Civil Front in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Voronezh and six other cities.

The agents informed Bukovskaya, who passed the information to senior Nashi official Dmitry Golubyatnikov, who in turn contacted “Surkov’s people” in the Kremlin, Bukovskaya told The Moscow Times. Vladislav Surkov is President Dmitry Medvedev’s first deputy chief of staff.

The agents provided information on planned and past events together with pictures and personal information on activists and leaders, including their contact numbers, Bukovskaya said by telephone from St. Petersburg.

They were paid 20,000 rubles ($550) per month, while she received 40,000 rubles per month, she said.

She said Nashi, which is believed to have been created by Surkov, had nothing to do with the project and speculated that Kremlin officials might be behind it.

The latest example comes from “The Daily Beast,” a major new news site, with a short piece on how various despot foreign leaders have responded to Barack Obama’s ascension to the US presidency.

The Daily Beast: Putin keeping good company

After landing, Timoshenko saw that his bag had been opened up. The cup, which is named after the famous Georgian chess player Nona Gaprindashvili, was broken and the stone had vanished.

The group carrying the cup had flown through Frankfurt on their way back to Kiev. It was in Frankfurt that they were forced to check the cup into baggage. On the previous flight from Dresden they were allowed to take it onboard as a carry-on piece.

The president of the Ukranian Chess Federation, Viktor Petrov, has already filed a report with the police.

Mikhael Kravets, Deputy director of aviation security at Boryspil Airport, said that Georgians might be involved in the theft.

“Going into the the things of our passengers is widespread among Georgians,” he said. “We’re wrestling with this problem, but defeating evil that has been accumulating for many years is difficult.”

If you are also wondering how could this theft be be blamed on Georgians, comparing this story to the Russian original reveals the slip. The word for baggage handlers at airports is “gruzchik”, while Georgians in Russian are called “gruzin.” Obviously it is the baggage handlers at the Kiev airport who are suspected of stealing the diamond, not “Georgians.”

A simple error, perhaps, but it says volumes that the editor of the story found nothing odd about accusing Georgians of baggage theft out of the blue.

As parliamentary and presidential elections in late 2007 and early 2008 approached, the administration headed by President Vladimir Putin cracked down on civil society and freedom of assembly. Reconstruction in Chechnya did not mask grave human rights abuses including torture, abductions, and unlawful detentions.

International criticism of Russia’s human rights record remains muted, with the European Union failing to challenge Russia on its human rights record in a consistent and sustained manner. . . .

While many global leaders expressed concern over developments in Russia, such as restrictions on civil society, human rights issues remain on the margins of Russia’s bilateral and multilateral relations, with many key interlocutors failing to press Russia to reform or to challenge it on continuing problems, especially Chechnya.

The EU held two rounds of human rights consultations with Russia, meetings ultimately undermined by the lack of high-level Russian participation and adequate follow-up mechanisms. Human rights did not figure prominently in the broader EU-Russia agenda. Although the German EU presidency raised human rights issues at the May EU-Russia summit, particularly around freedom of assembly, this stance was compromised by subsequent statements made by the Portuguese presidency equating the raising of human rights issues with inappropriate “lecturing.” Due to a standstill over concerns unrelated to human rights, the EU made no progress on strengthening the human rights component of its Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with Russia, set to expire in December 2007.

The United States government issued several strong statements on human rights but lacked the leverage to challenge Russia meaningfully on its worsening human rights record.

Russia has served on the new United Nations Human Rights Council since its inception in May 2006. However, the government has not fulfilled its obligation to cooperate fully with UN human rights mechanisms, including the UN special rapporteur on torture, who has remained unable to visit the country due to the government’s continued failure to allow a visit in accordance with the mandate’s terms of reference.

In March 2007 the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) took the rare step of issuing a public statement on its 2006 visits to the North Caucasus, expressing concern about torture, unlawful detention, and a failure to investigate allegations of abuses, as well as lack of cooperation and improvements by Russia. Russia remains the only Council of Europe member state that regularly fails to voluntarily allow the publication of the CPT’s reports. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe failed to reverse its misguided 2006 decision to discontinue the assembly’s monitoring mandate on Chechnya.

Human Rights Watch makes the critical distinction between “strong statements” from foreign governments, of which there have been several, and action, of which there has been little to none. The Putin regime — of which the coming Medvedev government will be only an extension — knows well from years of experience that the West doesn’t care enough about human rights and democracy to even suggest repercussions for his continued abuses.

The 2008 HRW Report discusses why authoritarian regimes around the world bother to hold elections at all when their hold on power is nearly absolute.

Karimov heads a government that has imprisoned some 7,000 people for political and religious reasons, routinely tortures detainees, and as recently as 2005 massacred hundreds of protesters in Andijan. He is hardly a democrat, and he faces no real opponents in December 2007 elections because no one dares mount a serious challenge to his rule. Even a constitutional prohibition against a third seven-year presidential term has not stood in his way.

Yet this brutal president finds utility in holding electoral charades to legitimize his reign. So do, among others, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia, and Vladimir Putin of Russia. . . .

Part of the reason that dictators can hope to get away with such subterfuge is that, unlike human rights, “democracy” has no legally established definition. The concept of democracy reflects the powerful vision that the best way to select a government and guide its course is to entrust ultimate authority to those who are subject to its rule. It is far from a perfect political system, with its risk of majoritarian indifference to minorities and its susceptibility to excessive influence by powerful elements, but as famously the “least bad” form of government, in the words of Winston Churchill, it is an important part of the human rights ideal. Yet there is no International Convention on Democracy, no widely ratified treaty affirming how a government must behave to earn the democracy label. The meaning of democracy lies too much in the eye of the beholder.

This is precisely why in a recent article in the magazine Foreign Affairs, Garry Kasparov explained the need for what he called “a Global Magna Carta” to unite truly democratic nations and to set standards. As long as Vladimir Putin and those like him can be called democrats (and Putin still allowed to be a member of the G-7), the word has no real meaning.

Hillary Clinton, campaigning, ponders Putin’s soul
By Ellen Wulfhorst

HAMPTON, New Hampshire (Reuters) – Sen. Hillary Clinton, campaigning on Sunday ahead of New Hampshire’s critical presidential primary, declared in response to a voter’s question that Russian President Vladimir Putin “doesn’t have a soul.”

“Bush really premised so much of our foreign policy on his personal relationships with leaders, and I just don’t think that’s the way a great country engages in diplomacy,” Clinton said to voters in Hampton, New Hampshire. The state holds the nation’s first presidential nominating primary on Tuesday.

“This is the president that looked in the soul of Putin, and I could have told him, he was a KGB agent,” Clinton said. “By definition he doesn’t have a soul. I mean, this is a waste of time, right? This is nonsense, but this is the world we’re living in right now.” . . .

Putin, named Time magazine’s “Person of the Year” for 2007, has promoted a big military build-up in Russia and verbal attacks on the West reminiscent of the Cold War. He was a former KGB spy in East Germany.

Clinton’s remark came in response to a question about foreign relations. In her answer, she talked about nations that offer safe havens to terrorists and about deterrents to so-called “loose nukes,” or unprotected and unaccounted-for nuclear material that could be used to make weapons.

Putin is a somewhat popular topic with U.S. presidential candidates. Republican Sen. John McCain, in a newspaper interview last month, said: “I looked into his eyes and saw three letters: a K, a G and a B.”

Last month Republican candidates Romney and McCain both spoke harshly of Time’s decision to select Putin as ‘Person of the Year.’ Romney said to CNN, “he imprisoned his political opponents. There have been a number of highly suspicious murders. He has squelched public dissent and free press. And to suggest that someone like that is the man of the year is really disgusting. I’m just appalled. [. . .] So a good dictator — I guess Raul Castro will get it next. A good dictator that imprisons or murders political and media opponents and therefore brings stability, I mean, there’s nothing like the stability that martial law provides or dictatorship provides. I find it a truly appalling designation.”

Powerful words. Talk, however, is famously cheap. We were optimistic when Merkel and Sarkozy replaced Putin lapdogs Schröder and Chirac. But despite their stronger rhetoric regarding Putin’s destruction of democracy in Russia, policy has largely remained unchanged. Putin still sits in the G-7 and the new generation of European leaders appear as eager as their predecessors to suck up to Putin in order to make business deals. Most of the American candidates are running as agents of change. Will any of Bush’s potential successors have the backbone to stand up to Putin’s successor? (That is, to Putin.)

NEW YORK — When Time Magazine chose Russia’s Vladimir Putin as its Man of the Year, a lot of folks were outraged.

Time answered back that their pick wasn’t an endorsement of Putin. After all, they chose Adolf Hitler as Man of the Year in 1938, even though they were appalled by what he was doing. But Hitler used Time’s designation as an endorsement, propagandizing that it elevated his status as a statesman.

And according to Garry Kasparov, Putin’s doing the same thing. The Kremlin’s ad men are using the Time cover at home to portray Putin as a class act.

That got us thinking. Why didn’t Time put Garry Kasparov on the cover as Man of the Year?

Kasparov’s battle with Putin is the kind of David and Goliath story that Time used to love. Kasparov is a former world chess champion who could easily sit back with his millions, living the lush life in Paris or New York. Instead, he puts his freedom and his life on the line, fighting against a former KGB bully, who uses the full force of a powerful state to crush all competition.

Now we admit we’re biased, because we know and like Kasparov. And we also recognize that one guy trying to reform a state like Russia is the long shot of all time.

But because Scoreboard loves long shots and genuine class acts, we pick Garry Kasparov over Vladimir Putin as our Man of the Year.

Man of the Year?

By GARRY KASPAROV — December 22, 2007; Page A11

Ever since President Vladimir Putin took office eight long years ago, the political and media leadership of the West have had a full-time job trying to look on the bright side of Russia’s rapid turn from democracy.

The free press has been demolished, elections are canceled and rigged, and then we hear how popular Mr. Putin is. Opposition marches are crushed, and we’re told — over and over — how much better off we are today than in the days of the Soviet Union. This week Time magazine named Mr. Putin its 2007 “Person of the Year.” [Vladimir Putin] Vladimir Putin

Unfortunately, there is no silver lining to Russia’s descent into dictatorship. If anything there is a look of iron to it.

Condoleezza Rice, hardly a Putin critic, said recently that Russia “is not an environment in which you can talk about free and fair elections.” A good start, but this comment was not made where one would imagine — perhaps at a press conference insisting that Putin’s Russia be removed from the G-7 for making a mockery of democratic practices. No, her remark came as a side note to her very early endorsement of Mr. Putin’s handpicked heir to the throne, Dmitry Medvedev.

The most revealing moment in Ms. Rice’s comments came when the topic of Mr. Medvedev as the next president was first broached. The official transcript reads: “SECRETARY RICE: Well, I guess, they’re still going to have an election in March. <Laughter.>”

Perhaps my sense of humor was dulled during the five days I spent in a Moscow jail last month for protesting against these sham elections. Or maybe it was reading about the constant persecution of my fellow activists across the country that did it. Madam Secretary went on to speak approvingly of Mr. Medvedev, making the undemocratic nature of his selection sound like a minor annoyance. The last remaining element of democracy in Russia, the transition of power, will be destroyed. Will Mr. Putin and his successor still be welcomed with open arms in the club of leading democracies?

In the early days of our opposition activities last year, when members of Other Russia were harassed and arrested, the “bright siders” in the West said it could be worse. Later, when our marchers were badly beaten in St. Petersburg and Moscow, Mr. Putin’s fans in the West said at least the police weren’t killing us in the streets.

Last week, 22-year-old opposition activist Yury Chervochkin died in hospital after several weeks in a coma. He had been beaten nearly to death an hour after making an anxious cellphone call to our offices saying he was being followed by members of the organized-crime task force known as UBOP, which has become the vanguard of the Kremlin’s war on political opposition. A witness saw him clubbed repeatedly by men with baseball bats.

Yury’s sin was not chanting Nazi slogans or praising the deeds of Josef Stalin, activities that regularly go unremarked in Russia these days. No, he had been caught throwing leaflets that read “The elections are a farce!” That was enough to make him a marked man. Now, for agitating for real democracy in Russia, he is dead.

The stakes have been raised to the highest level, and what bright side will be found now? Where is the line that cannot be crossed without a serious response from the West? So far Mr. Putin hasn’t found it — and he has good reason to suspect such a line simply does not exist. It is for the leaders in Washington, D.C., Paris and Berlin to decide what it means to denounce the Russian elections as fraudulent, only to then embrace the winners as democratic partners.

Lesser tragedies than that of Yury Chervochkin are occurring on a regular basis in Russia today. Last week journalist Natalya Morar was denied entry into the country on secret orders of the FSB security force, after writing investigative articles on financial deals with Kremlin connections. Lyudmila Kharlamova, a political organizer for Other Russia, was arrested after heroin was planted among her possessions in Orenburg. Activist Andrei Grekhov suffered a similar fate in Rostov, though the police chose to plant bullets instead of drugs in his pockets.

This is a good opportunity to remember Anna Politkovskaya, the investigative journalist who was murdered on Oct. 7, 2006, Putin’s birthday. The police investigation into this infamous assassination has stalled and talk of it has died down. The Kremlin is counting on the same thing happening with “minor” cases like that of Yury Chervochkin.

In a recent speech, Mr. Putin said “the enemies of the state must be wiped out!” It has been made quite clear that by “enemies” he means anyone who opposes his total authority. It is no surprise that his words are taken at face value across the country, and acted on by security forces eager to prove their loyalty and enthusiasm.

The presidents and prime ministers of the West seem just as eager to bow down to the Kremlin and the great god of business as usual. Nicolas Sarkozy raced to congratulate Mr. Putin on his party’s election victory, despite the overwhelming evidence of massive fraud at the polls. A few days later France’s Renault picked up a 25% share in Russian automaker AvtoVaz, a purchase made from Sergei Chemezov and his arms-dealing company Rosoboronexport. Why should Mr. Putin and his oligarchs worry about democracy as long as the money keeps rolling in?

Time magazine, of course, took obvious pains to explain that its award to Mr. Putin is “not an endorsement” and that it goes to the person who made the most news “for better or for worse.” Nonetheless the article praises Mr. Putin for restoring his country to prominence in the international arena, dispelling “anarchy” and recovering national pride. The magazine does express concern about his “troubling” record on human rights.

The same things could have been said about Adolf Hitler in 1938, when he took his turn as Time’s Man of the Year. “Fascism,” Time wrote then, “has discovered that freedom — of press, speech, assembly — is a potential danger to its own security.” Again these words apply equally well to this year’s winner.

Most of the criticism leveled against Mr. Putin regards “alleged” abuses or comes directly from known critics. This abdicates the journalist’s role to report the facts as facts.

Consider the timing of this announcement, right after the counterfeit parliamentary elections that added to Mr. Putin’s record of eradicating democracy across Russia. The Time article will be trumpeted by Kremlin propaganda as an endorsement of Mr. Putin’s policies. The man on the street will be told that even America, constantly blasted by the Kremlin as an enemy, has been forced to recognize the president’s greatness.

Internationally, the focus will be on the myth that Mr. Putin has built a “strong Russia.” In fact he and his cronies have hollowed out the state from within. Most of the power now resides in the super-corporations like Gazprom and Rosneft, and among the small group of loyalists who run them.

The Putin regime has taken Russia from a frail democracy to an efficient mafia state. It was an impressive balancing act — behaving like a tyrant while at the same time staying in the good graces of the West.

After each crackdown, with no significant international reaction forthcoming, Mr. Putin knew it was safe to take another step. As ever, appeasement in the name of realpolitik only encourages would-be dictators. And such moral weakness inevitably leads to very real costs in human life.

Mr. Kasparov is a former world chess champion and a leader of The Other Russia, a pro-democracy coalition. He is the author of “How Life Imitates Chess,” recently published by Bloomsbury USA.