In past years, Vladimir Putin has hosted an annual televised call-in for Russian citizens to ask him various questions. For the first time, this year’s conference featured no such citizens, and instead took the form of a four-and-a-half-hour press conference. While the general consensus seems to be that the event was overwhelmingly boring, reactions to some of Putin’s particular statements are worthy of mention. Below are some responses to the press conference by analysts, politicians, and journalists, all gathered from Gazeta.ru and Kasparov.ru.

Aleksei Makarkin, Deputy Director of the Center for Political Technology:

The main thing in Putin’s address was the mass media. The questions did not used to be so incisive, and moreover, if the president responded, then it was a definitive response. He no longer observes these rules. Some of his answers contained counterattacks, and sometimes he said he wasn’t informed of the issue.

In regards to the anti-Magnitsky law, he gave the impression that he really wanted to sign it, but at the same time wanted to leave a little leeway to have the possibility of backing off from this law.

Not one of his statements was surprising. The goal of this press conference was to retain his supporters. When he answered a question from Gazeta.ru, he was not so much addressing the publication’s readers, but his own supporters, in order to demonstrate that the president is strong.

Mikhail Vinogradov, Director of the Petersburg Policy Foundation:

There was no clear message here.

The questions were more striking than their answers, just like during Dmitri Medvedev’s television interview. The main issue in the press conference was the rebirth of public political life; the press spoke up, and not just the servile ones like Izvestia. The situation is reminiscent of the end of the ’80s, when the press became the country’s key opposition force.

Boris Nemtsov, Co-Representative of Parnas, Member of the Opposition Coordination Council:

I really liked Putin’s statement about Serdyukov today. It turns out that he isn’t a swindler or a thief, since there hasn’t been a court decision yet. But Magnitsky is a swindler and a thief, and [Hermitage Capital Management head William] Browder is a swindler and a thief, despite the fact that there hasn’t been a court decision.

It’s obvious that the war on corruption is a complete fake; they won’t give up their own… I was also struck by [Putin’s statement] that Magnitsky had passed away, and hadn’t been tortured. Although it’s true that after his death they found marks of torture on his body, and his fingers had been crushed. These lies struck me deeply….

Sergei Obukhov, State Duma Deputy from the Communist Party:

Such boredom! Four and a half hours of banality and repetition. Nothing stuck in my memory, everything was predictable. Putin is maintaining the status quo.

In regards to the anti-Magnitsky bill – that which he organized, he answered. It is not as if the Duma came up with this bill; it was, of course, the presidential administration. All of this is psychotherapy that has nothing to do with real politics.

Ilya Yashin, Co-Representative of Solidarity:

Putin says: “We do not have authoritarianism.” And just as swiftly: “I could easily change the constitution.” This is some sort of comedy club, not a press conference.

Ilya Ponomarev, State Duma Deputy from A Just Russia:

The most striking thing to me was the female journalists who asked questions.

Katya Vinokurova, Diana Khachaturian, and Masha who said “Thanks, Vova!” all showed with the same conversational manner just how much attitudes toward the acting president have changed in this country. Secondly, it is very important that the issue of yesterday’s law [on banning US adoptions of Russian children] came up seven times, and the people who asked those questions deserve a gracious bow. Thanks to that, the chances of the president vetoing this bill have risen considerably.

Yevgeniya Albats, Editor-in-Chief of the New Times:

I was certain that he would act like this during the press conference. He basically said: we’re not going to cave to public opinion. The scariest part is that Putin genuinely thinks that how it is in Russia is how it is everywhere. That is unfortunate. He genuinely does not understand basic things.

Masha Gessen, Author and Journalist, US News & World Report:

The most common thing people say to me after my meeting with Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin: “But no, it’s impossible that he didn’t know about you and your book. He’s a security services guy! They would have had to prepare him!” But did he have to prepare for today? To repeat facts and figures, to rehearse answers to totally predictable questions? Enough overestimating this guy. There are already plenty of people who agree that he’s a miscreant. What people still need to understand is that he’s not a very smart miscreant, standing at the head of a behemoth that is utterly casting off the last vestiges of professionalism and the general ability to function. It is a state apparatus built in the image and likeness of its leader: evil and stupid.

Over the past year, society has changed course and begun moving along a course towards increased political mobilization, Kudrin believes – one that is impossible to reverse.

“The decrease in protesters might give the impression that society is returning to political stagnation,” he said. “But that would be a mistake.” On the contrary, Kudrin predicts that civil activity is only going to increase in the coming year.

The year 2012 saw an upswing in calls for political action within society. Among the most prominent examples, Kudrin cited the volunteer camps in Krymsk after that city suffered a devastating flood this past summer and electoral observation organizations.

At times, these projects were developed in spite of government actions that stifle civil activity. “There is a series of laws, such as the changes in the definition of ‘state treason’ and the stricter law on mass protests, that has led to a rise in distrust in populist actions,” Kudrin said. “The chance to reduce the tension within society that followed the parliamentary elections [in December 2011] has been missed.”

Kudrin noted that the government did take some positive measures, such as easing political party registration and a introducing a mixed electoral system, but said this was not sufficient.

The ex-finance minister had a reserved opinion about the Russian opposition’s new Coordination Council, which held elections last October. “We were interested to watch the council’s elections. It was a good experience. However, in my opinion, they should have chosen a platform and then, after that, formed a structure. The Coordination Council did it the other way around,” he said.

Kudrin had even harsher words about the negative effect on the Russian economy of the Kremlin’s anti-Western rhetoric. He argued that it is impossible to talk about Moscow as an international financial center if the government remains so suspicious of foreigners.

“The largest companies already doubt whether it’s worth expanding their staffs of international employees or whether it’s better to cut them back. These businesses haven’t been given clear rules of the game,” he said.

He also strongly criticized the work of Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev’s cabinet. “Instead of privatization, we’re seeing creeping deprivatization,” Kudrin said. “Although, the Rosneft deal to buy TNK-BP has led to the deregulation of 40 billion dollars in shares. That’s several times bigger than all of the government’s privatization plans.”

Kudrin said that Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organization was a positive step, but noted that the decision had already been made under Medvedev’s presidency, not Putin’s. He declined to comment directly on Medvedev’s decision not to run for a second presidential term.

While the economic plan that Putin put forth during his December 12 address to parliament was good, Kudrin said, “there aren’t realistic ways to implement it.” He also believes that the president still has not firmly established policy for his third term and could still change course.

One important factor to support the country’s economic growth is migrants, the former finance minister added. “The state should strictly regulate migration. Today we issue about 2 million work migration permits, but in reality we have more than 10 million migrants,” he said. “This speaks to the fact that we have insufficient regulation. We need to help migrants become legalized and attract workers while taking local communities into account. The size of our working population is shrinking.”

Kudrin, who is considered one of Putin’s closest confidants, resigned as finance minister last year just days after Putin announced that he planned to return to the presidency. At the time, Kudrin complained that he could not serve as finance minister under a cabinet led by Dmitri Medvedev, who then suggested that he resign.

In the time since then, Kudrin has founded the Civic Initiatives Committee. “It’s not a political party and it has no goals of taking over the government,” Kudrin explained. “We opened the New Government School to teach those who are interested in working for local governmental agencies. People of entirely different convictions come here, from Parnas to members of United Russia.”

Kudrin also announced that the committee was going to work to support honest journalism, the defense of businesses, and social/cultural projects.

“Why am I, an economist, doing these things? Because economic reforms are hindered by an imperfect political system,” Kudrin explained.

Citing an article in the newspaper Vedomosti, the radio station said that the leading party was preparing legislative amendments to this end in response to recent moves by oppositionists in the Duma.

The fate of the deputies would be put in the hands of the Duma Commission on Ethics as well as parliamentary leadership. If the amendments are passed, deputies could be deprived of their status simply for receiving a disciplinary reprimand.

According to the paper, the project is being spearheaded by United Russia Deputy Vladimir Pekhtin, who heads the ethics commission and already previously developed the basics of the amendments. He proposed that deputy mandates be taken away, in particular, for “malicious non-attendance” of legislative sessions, for refusing to disclose salaries, for personal travel abroad on their diplomatic passports, or for making public statements that discredit the parliament or have an “anti-state orientation.”

Currently, deputies can have their status revoked only after being convicted of a crime by a court of law. While the Duma is already closed for the rest of the summer, the measure may be considered as soon as sessions resume.

The idea for the amendment first came after a group of deputies from A Just Russia held a filibuster in June to try and delay the passage of a bill to severely increase fines for violating regulations on public protests. Eventually the measure was passed after the deputies staged a walk-out. Opposition politicians fear that Pekhtin’s measure would allow United Russia to carry out its own purge of the Duma. Speaking to Vedomosti, Communist Party Deputy Vadim Solovyov argued that it would contradict both the spirit and the norms of the Constitution.

Earlier, State Duma Speaker Sergei Naryshkin told ITAR-TASS in an interview that the opposition walk-outs constituted a threat to Russia’s parliamentary system.

From Gazeta.ru:

A new piece of legislation is in the works in the Russian State Duma to return the statute against “libel” to the Federal Criminal Code. The bill was initiated by former Justice Minister Pavel Krasheninnikov, who is generally considered to be one of the more liberal members of the ruling United Russia party, and introduced to the Duma by his party colleague, journalist Aleksandr Khinshtein. According to Gazeta.ru, the bill is targeted towards “certain individuals,” guessed by some to include human rights advocate Oleg Orlov and blogger Aleksei Navalny. As far as the advocate is concerned, it’s time to start worrying about the return of Stalin’s notorious Article 58, under which many political prisoners were convicted during Soviet times.

Krasheninnikov, who heads the Duma committee on civil, criminal, arbitration and procedural legislation, called for deputies to examine one of the legislative regulations introduced as part of former President Dmitri Medvedev’s modernization initiatives. The deputy’s bill would return the article on libel into the Criminal Code, and the fines currently associated with the article on “insult,” which is only an administrative offense, will be stiffly increased.

“We believe that nothing good has come from the decriminalization of the article on libel and therefore we’re introducing a bill that will criminalize this element,” Interfax quoted Krasheninnikov as saying.

Khinshtein then wrote on his Twitter account that the project had been introduced into the Duma. “Together with a group of colleagues I’m introducing an amendment to establish cr(iminal) liability for libel: Ar. 129 CC RF. Believed and believe it’s annulment to have been a mistake,” he wrote. Khinshtein also told Gazeta.ru that aside from himself, Krasheninnikov, and United Russia deputy Irina Yarovaya, no other parliamentarians have signed onto the bill yet.

Gazeta.ru was not able to get in touch with Krasheninnikov on Friday, but he justified the bill to Interfax:

“The decriminalization of the article on libel that was carried out as part of the liberalization of criminal policy and instituted an administrative fine of up to three thousand rubles for various libelistic falsifications, or to put it differently, for spreading false information about a person, has led to a situation where certain citizens are accusing people with impunity of the most terrible of sins, calling them bandits, terrorists, and corruptioners.”

Krasheninnikov did not specify who he was concretely referring to, but Gazeta.ru speculates that his description implies at least two well-known figures: head of the Memorial human rights society Oleg Orlov, and oppositionist blogger Aleksei Navalny. In a highly publicized case, Orlov was charged with libeling Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov, who the former accused of bearing responsibility for the murder of human rights worker Natalya Estemirova. Orlov’s remarks came long before the libel article was removed from the Criminal Code, but after it was decriminalized, the case against Orlov was closed.

For his part, Navalny is credited with authoring a popular moniker for United Russia – “the Party of Swindlers and Thieves.” Political analysts have been unanimous in assigning this nickname with significant responsibility for the party’s marked fall during the December 2011 election. Party members were unsuccessful in their attempts to bring the blogger to court over the matter. Recently, Navalny revealed a document showing a parallel between rising housing and utilities costs in certain regions and United Russia’s election results. The document, which includes the party’s logo, shows a higher growth in those costs in the regions where United Russia had poorer results. Regional party members are currently working on filing complaints to law enforcement in response, according to United Russia’s Saratov regional press service. Indeed, Navalny has found himself the target of an all-out manhunt in recent times: earlier this week, Investigative Committee head Aleksander Bastrykin publicly castigated a subordinate for closing a case against the blogger involving the company Kirovles.

Before it was decriminalized, the libel article was seen as the “journalism” article – civil servants and party functionaries often used it to settle scores with the press. Indeed, in 2009 Russia took first place for the number of criminal suits against members of the media. At the time, the Center for Journalism in Extreme Situations recorded 60 cases per year (for libel as well as other criminal statutes often used against journalists) and the number was growing. In 95% of cases against journalists, the plaintiffs were civil servants or parliamentary deputies.

Judging by Krasheninnikov’s statement, the new libel statute will be tougher than the first. Those found guilty will face up to five years in jail, as opposed to three years under the old one.

Moreover, the bill covers a gradation of types of libel based on their level of “public danger.” The harshest sentence will be given to those convicted of making false accusations that someone has committed particularly gruesome crimes, particularly ones sexual in nature.

Fines for the administrative statute on insults will also be significantly increased, but the statute itself will not be moved into the criminal code, Krasheninnikov added. Whereas the crime was previously punishable by a fine of 1-3 thousand rubles, the new bill would put it at 30-50 thousand rubles.

The libel and insult articles were both decriminalized in December 2011, and went into effect on January 1, 2012. The legislative project involved the liberalization of a whole range of criminal offenses, at the behest of then-President Medvedev and with the help of Justice Minister Aleksandr Konovalov.

Krasheninnikov – one of Konovalov’s predecessors in the post of justice minister – at the time welcomed the liberalization effort, calling it “without a doubt, timely and relevant to today’s demands.”

Khinshtein, who before his election to the State Duma was a scandalously notorious journalist, told Gazeta.ru that he always saw the decriminalizations as a mistake. “There is criminal liability for libel in the laws of every country in the world,” he explained. “There is a distinction between libel and insult. Libel involves intent, which is to say that the person knows that what he’s saying is a lie. The past six months have shown that court practice is not improving.” When asked about the court statistics on the number of people convicted of libel within the Administrative Code over the past six months, Khinshtein unexpectedly responded: “But we don’t have an administrative statute for libel.”

That is not the case: Article 5.60 of the Administrative Code is for “libel,” punishable by a fine of up to 100 thousand rubles.

Human rights advocate Pavel Chikov of the Agora association took a more ironic stance on the bill. “I’d like to remind Krasheninnikov that nothing good came from decriminalizing the article on anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda. Down with libel, let’s have Article 58! [almost four million people were convicted under this article during the Stalin era throughout the Soviet Union – Gazeta.ru] It would be nice to have time to get it back during the spring session,” he quipped.

According to the advocate, Krasheninnikov’s argument that “nothing good has come” from having the libel article in the Administrative Code for the past six months is wholly untenable. “It would be interesting to know about the practice of bringing charges for libel under the frame of the Administrative Code. But I’m guessing that there isn’t any practice,” Chikov said.

The decriminalization of the libel article is not the only Medvedev initiative that has come under reexamination following Vladimir Putin’s return to the presidential chair. In particular, before he was even elected, Putin himself publicly promised to re-institute daylight savings time, which Medvedev had gotten rid of [and which some joked was Medvedev’s only real achievement – theotherrussia.org], and on Friday the State Duma passed the first reading of a bill that would label NGOs that accept international funding as “foreign agents” – under Medvedev, on the other hand, this legislation was in the process of being liberalized.

Khinshtein, however, denies that “Medvedev’s legacy” is being reexamined.

“There is absolutely no need to speak of any revision. We’re talking about concrete, specific things. What kind of revision can we talk about if the legislation is being introduced by leading United Russia deputies?” the deputy insisted.

“The effect is that we’re looking at the practice: admitting that here we were hasty, there we rushed,” he concluded.

Translation by theotherrussia.org

According to the poll results, which were published on Monday in Vedomosti, the number of full Putin supporters is steadily declining: the same poll taken in August 2011 came up with 16 percent, and in August 2010 – 22 percent.

Respondents prepared to support Putin while he still plans to carry out democratic and market reforms numbered 26 percent, compared with 29 percent in 2011 and 30 percent in 2010.

The number of those disappointed in Putin grew from 11 percent in 2010 to 17 percent in 2012. The same number say they support him just because there is no other alternative.

Another 14 percent do not support Putin at all, and 7 percent are unsatisfied but still have a certain amount of hope in him.

About 43 percent believe that the quality of life in Russia will improve during Putin’s six-year term and that the country will become considered one of the most highly developed.

Almost the same number, 41 percent, do not believe that such development is possible and are pessimistic about the next six years.

Levada Center researchers also asked people what sort of emotions they had about Putin’s return to the presidency.

Positive emotions such as “pride in one’s country,” “joy,” “satisfaction,” and “certainty in the future” were cited by 28 percent. A group of 27 percent was “indifferent,” and 24 percent were “hopeful.”

Another 21 percent of Russian citizens said they had strongly negative emotions towards Putin’s return, including a “sense of worry and hopelessness,” “fear,” “shame,” “anger,” and “outrage.”

The poll surveyed 1600 people in 45 regions of the country between May 25 – 29.

The upper chamber of Russia’s parliament has voted 132-1 to approve a bill that raises fines 150-fold for people taking part in unsanctioned rallies. The much-debated legislation now needs only the president’s signature to become law.

The Federation Council voted after a short debate, in contrast to the lower house, where MPs discussed it for 11 hours before the pro-Kremlin United Russia rammed it through at midnight.

The opposition factions in the Duma put forward several hundred amendments in an unprecedented attempt to stymie the bill’s passage, reflecting a new willingness to stand up to the Kremlin.

The bill raises fines from the current 2,000 rubles (£40) to 300,000 rubles (£5,970). The legislation has been seen as a response to a series of anti-government protests and aimed at discouraging further street protests challenging Vladimir Putin.

Gazeta.ru has created a helpful infographic for understanding the voting process; we’ve translated it here:

“The school initiative was announced by Secretary of the Presidium of the General Council Sergei Neverov and it is to be carried out by presidium members Andrei Isayev and Aleksei Chesnakov,” a party source told the paper.

Neverov himself told Vedomosti that the party held its first meeting on the issue on May 31. In his words, the goal of the school would be to exert influence on promising young people throughout Russia’s regions and help them become true leaders.

“The first thing that will happen is the regions will be asked to nominate one promising party member, and the group of candidates to become students in the party school will hold a party primary, competing for the right to be supported by United Russia in the fall elections,” Vedomosti explained.

Courses taught at the party school will include economics, party structure, ideology, electoral campaign technology and primary procedures, psychology, public speaking skills, and skills on how to cooperate with state agencies and civil society.

Neverov added that Medvedev would possibly appear before the students personally. The prime minister was elected head of United Russia in a suspiciously unanimous vote on May 26.

A source in the Kremlin said that the presidential administration had no issue with the party initiative.

A court in Saratov fined Aleksandr Strygin 500 rubles (~17 USD) for posting the picture five times on Facebook and LiveJournal, declaring him guilty of an administrative statute against “propaganda or public demonstration of Nazi symbols.”

While the amount of the fine is not itself very damaging, Strygin worries that his planned electoral run for Saratov Regional Duma representative may now be in jeopardy. As an activist from the local branch of the unregistered oppositionist People’s Freedom Party, the blogger said that the court’s ruling might be used as an excuse to keep him from running for the post in the upcoming October election.

The case against Strygin was filed by the Saratov branch of the federal Center for Extremism Prevention, commonly known as Center “E.” The center is notorious for persecuting opposition figures under the guise of fighting extremism.

Strygin noted that when it became clear he would be charged for the posts, he came to woe the fact these are the sort of “crimes” that Russian taxpayer money is spent to uncover.

Boris Nemtsov, a former deputy prime minister and now co-leader of the People’s Freedom Party (Parnas), used Monday’s unprecedented meeting to read Medvedev a list of resolutions made at a series of massive anti-government protests that have swept through Moscow in the past few months. The resolutions call for various reforms to Russia’s political system.

The oppositionist also gave Medvedev a list of 37 political prisoners and asked for them to be pardoned, particularly noting Taisiya Osipova, Sergei Mokhnatkin, Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev.

Perhaps surprisingly, Medvedev indicated that he was at least somewhat aware of Osipova’s case.

“If anybody is pardoned, then I’ll consider the meeting with Medvedev not to have been in vain,” Nemtsov said afterwards.

Throughout the meeting, he along with Left Front leader Sergei Udaltsov and Parnas co-leader Vladimir Ryzhkov stressed the importance of free and fair parliamentary and presidential elections.

The oppositionists also made it clear that they were not looking to foment revolution in Russia. In their estimation, Russia has already had more than its fair share of revolutions, but the current government itself is provoking a revolutionary mood within Russian society because of its insistence in remaining in power.

When Nemtsov asked Medvedev to introduce an amendment banning one person from holding presidential office in Russia more than two times, the president answered that he had previously considered this and still may before the end of his term.

Besides Nemtsov, Udaltsov, and Ryzhkov, the meeting was also attended by Konstantin Babkin of the Party of Action, Russian All-National Union representative Sergei Baburin, For Our Homeland co-leader Mikhail Lermontov, Green Party leader Anatoly Panfilov, National Women’s Party leader Galina Khavraeva, and several others prominent oppositionists.

According to the party, the country’s opposition parties are “getting ahead of themselves” by holding protests against expected falsifications of the upcoming election.

Party secretary Sergei Neverov expressed certainty that both the non-systemic and systemic opposition “are looking to justify their fiascos ahead of time because they know that none of their candidates can present Vladimir Putin with any kind of real competition.”

Neverov believes that the election results will be denounced by the opposition as falsified no matter what they are. In his opinion, oppositionists “don’t need fair presidential elections; they’re prepared to use any electoral campaign as a means to discredit the existing political system.”

He also argued that opposition forces were “acting irresponsibly” and that they saw the fate of the country as “loose change.”

The complaints come a week after State Duma deputies from United Russia asked deputies from the Communist Party, Liberal Democratic Party and A Just Russia to “make a joint anti-orange revolution” resolution in response to a wave of mass protests against blatant electoral fraud in December parliamentary elections. The three parties rejected the plea.