“America offered Putin’s regime more or less a veto right over a US missile defense system. So again, this is your business, because it’s your country, but I think it was absolutely wrong to bring Putin’s regime to the same level, because what we saw, Obama and Medvedev signing the treaty, is like a recreation of the Cold War era with Nixon and Brezhnev or Gorbachev and Reagan. There is no need for America to elevate an undemocratic Russian regime to the same level of importance.”

Now, missile defense negotiations between Russia and NATO have broken down – possibly definitively – and Russia continues to threaten to pull out of New START altogether.

As Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reports:

For a while now, well out of the limelight, Russia and NATO have been negotiating about how to cooperate on missile defense. On Wednesday we got the announcement that the talks have broken down. For good? Hard to say. But the atmospherics don’t sound promising.

There is, potentially, a lot at stake. The Russians have been dropping hints that they might pull out of New START, the much-ballyhooed treaty on nuclear arsenals that went into force earlier this year, if a deal can’t be reached. Even President Dmitry Medvedev, not usually known as a saber-rattler, has allowed himself a few dire predictions. In May he warned about the possibility of a “new Cold War” if talks on missile defense were to fail. (This actually shouldn’t come as such a surprise. It was Medvedev, after all, who vowed to shift Russian short-range missiles to Kaliningrad a few years back in order to deter construction of the European missile shield.)

If the Russians were to make good on this threat, it would effectively scupper the signal foreign policy achievement of the Obama Administration – the “reset” in Russian-American relations that followed a few years of cool in the later stages of George W. Bush’s term in office. New START, signed by both presidents last year in Prague, is the centerpiece of this rapprochement. Judging by some of President Obama’s statements in recent months, a positive outcome on missile defense talks with the Russians was going to be the next big take-away.

The irony is that the current White House managed to get to this point in part by watering down the Bush Administration’s more ambitious missile defense system plans. Soon after he came into office, President Obama declared that the U.S. would opt for a system based on shorter-range mobile missiles rather than fixed-site interceptors. The Russians (and many Europeans) initially reacted with relief. But the mood has soured since then.

It’s hard to know precisely what NATO was offering the Russians to make them feel better about the missile defense project. The Russians don’t like the idea of a European missile defense system at all, since they fear that it undercuts their own nuclear deterrent. They want NATO to give them pledges that the system won’t be used against their own missiles – essentially giving them a veto over the defense system’s operation. Plus they want a whole host of other reassurances:

Russia wants a treaty on the matter to include information on the total number and the kinds of missile interceptors that would be deployed in the shield as well as their speed and deployment locations, Kommersant reported.

Moscow also wants a joint “sectoral” defense with both NATO and Russia at the controls, giving the Kremlin a “finger on the trigger,” as it were. But it’s extremely hard to imagine any NATO countries signing up for that. NATO General Secretary Anders Fogh Rasmussen has repeatedly stated that that’s not what NATO wants:

What we have in mind is cooperation between two independent missile defense systems. If we achieve this, if will be a tangible demonstration that NATO and Russia can build security together, rather than against each other.

The Americans and their allies have talked about giving the Russians a role as a “stakeholder” in the existing system (whatever that means). But what these negotiations actually seem to have done in practice is to expose just how deep the gulf between the two sides remains.

Some experts also wonder whether the Russians are really ready to make good on their threats to pull out of New START. Carol Saivetz, a Russia expert at the Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, says that Moscow needs the treaty more than Washington does since so much of Russian nuclear arsenal is either outdated or under-maintained. Meanwhile, the restart has benefited the Russians by effectively taking NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia “off the table.” She notes that the collapse of the missile defense talks has gone largely unmentioned in the Russian media.

Still, you can’t help but wonder whether the premise of these negotiations was flawed from the start. How do you design an effective European missile defense that the Russians would really be willing to swallow? Sure, I understand the argument that a system designed to protect against a small number of missiles from Iran won’t be effective against a large-scale attack from the Russians – meaning that the proposed NATO missile defense doesn’t really undermine Moscow’s strategic deterrent. But it’s also easy to imagine all sorts of political and strategic reasons why the Kremlin would never want to be seen accepting such a thing without getting a whole lot in return. Europe needs a missile defense system. Russia will probably have to find a way to live with it.

So let’s see what happens when Robert Gates meets his Russian counterpart, Anatoly Serdyukov, for talks today. Perhaps there will be more news then.

– Christian Caryl

In a statement on Thursday to the Russian news agencies Interfax and RIA Novosti, law enforcement sources said that the murder had been solved and a killer had been identified. The killer has not, however, been detained, and a search is currently underway. Investigators, the sources said, are also still working to establish the identity of the person who ordered the murder.

Oleg Orlov of the Memorial human rights center, where Estemirova had worked, has already refuted the announcement. Speaking to Gazeta.ru, Orlov said that his colleagues at Memorial have spoken with representatives of the groups investigating Estemirova’s murder, and that these representatives denied that the announcement was true. “They said that they haven’t established the name of the murderer,” said Orlov.

While Gazeta.ru was able to obtain an unofficial confirmation from sources in the Chechen Investigative Committee that the culprit has been identified, all official sources proved to be unreachable on Thursday. The Investigative Committee of the Prosecutor General of Russia refrained from commenting, and the official representative of the Chechen Investigative Committee was out of the office and did not answer her cell phone throughout the course of the day. The newspaper was also unable to reach the press secretary of Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov, who had promised to monitor the course of the murder investigation.

The 50-year-old Estemirova had been the lead member of Memorial’s office in the Chechen capital of Grozny, and had worked to investigate kidnappings and murders of people in Chechnya. She was kidnapped herself not far from her home in the capital on June 15 of last year, and was later found shot dead in the Nazranovsky district of Ingushetia.

Memorial, which soon after announced that it was shutting down operations in Chechnya, blamed Estemirova’s murder on President Kadyrov, claiming that the volatile situation in the republic was the president’s responsibility. Kadyrov successfully sued Orlov for slander, and a Moscow city court fined Orlov 70 thousand rubles (about $2300). In the beginning of February, after experiencing pressure from public officials and a particularly public dressing-down from his mother for failing to respect his elders, Kadyrov dropped all further suits against other human rights activists, including the prominent 82-year-old Lyudmila Alexeyeva.

The news of Estemirova’s murder had a powerful resonation throughout the world. In particular, United States President Barack Obama issued a statement calling on the Russian authorities to investigate the murder and punish those responsible. Russian President Dmitri Medvedev said that he did not believe that Kadyrov had participated in the tragedy, and considered the murder to be an act of provocation against the government.

Kadyrov, however, gave several interviews after the murder in which he spoke out harshly against the slain activist. Defending himself on Radio Liberty and saying that he took no part in the killing, the Chechen president said that he “had no reason to kill a woman who nobody needed.” Referring to her place on a public council under the Grozny city administration, he added that “she has never had any honor, dignity, or a conscience, and all the same I named her as a council representative.” He also did admit that he had later dissolved the council.

When asked if he thought the murder would ever be solved, Orlov stated that the politics tied up in the Estemirova’s case made it hard to say. “In naming this or that person as having participated in the murder, or in naming the person who possibly ordered the murder, the investigators and prosecutors are invariably stepping into a type of political realm,” he told the Kasparov.ru online newspaper.

Memorial member Aleksandr Cherkasov noted the 2002 murder investigation of an outspoken Chechen village leader, Malika Umazheva, as a cautionary tale. An official investigation blamed the killing on militants who it turned out had long been dead, and also on people who had only issued confessions under torture. Memorial’s own investigation established that Umazheva had been murdered by federal security forces, likely in retaliation for the leader’s fervent criticism of the ongoing Russian federal raids in her village.

Writing for the Wall Street Journal, Russian opposition leader Garry Kasparov calls for President Barack Obama to face the reality of Russia’s interests in continued high tensions in the Middle East, and to take a serious stance in talks with Moscow over Iran’s nuclear program.

Russia Worries About the Price of Oil, Not a Nuclear Iran
The Obama administration’s foreign-policy goodwill has yet to be repaid in kind.

By GARRY KASPAROV
October 18, 2009
Wall Street Journal

Last Wednesday in Moscow, the remaining illusions the Obama administration held for cooperation with Russia on the Iranian nuclear program were thrown in Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s face. Stronger sanctions against Iran would be “counterproductive,” said Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, just days after President Dmitry Medvedev said sanctions were likely inevitable. This apparent inconsistency should remind us that Mr. Medvedev is little more than a well-placed spectator, and that Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who discounted sanctions in a statement from Beijing, is still the voice that matters.

This slap comes after repeated concessions—canceling the deployment of missile defenses in Eastern Europe, muted criticism of Russia’s sham regional elections—from the White House. Washington’s conciliatory steps have given the Kremlin’s rulers confidence they have nothing to fear from Mr. Obama on anything that matters.

And nothing matters more to Mr. Putin and his oligarchs than the price of oil. Even with oil at $70 a barrel, Russia’s economy is in bad straits. Tension in the Middle East, even an outbreak of war, would push energy prices higher. A nuclear-armed Iran would, of course, be harmful to Russian national security, but prolonging the crisis is beneficial to the interests of the ruling elite: making money and staying in power.

The Obama administration’s foreign policy has directed a great deal of optimism and good will toward friends and foes. Such a cheery outlook is commendable as long as it does not clash with reality. Unfortunately, there were several clashes in the past week.

On Wednesday, a top Russian security chief, Nikolai Patrushev, said in an interview in Izvestia, one of the main Kremlin propaganda papers, that Russia was planning to reshape its policies on nuclear force to allow for pre-emptive strikes and use in regional conflicts. Since it cannot be a coincidence that this news leaked while Mrs. Clinton was still in Moscow, it can be considered a response to Mr. Obama’s talk of a world without nuclear weapons and rescinding the deployment of missile defenses.

Also last week, Lt. Gen. Vladimir Shamanov was cleared of wrongdoing for dispatching a squad of his paratroopers to interfere with the criminal investigation of a firm owned by his son-in-law. Transcripts of the general’s phone calls demonstrating his involvement were published in Novaya Gazeta newspaper, the last print outlet critical of the Kremlin. But this was not enough to cause trouble for this idol of the second Chechen war, where his forces were repeatedly accused by Human Rights Watch and other organizations of atrocities against civilians.

Then there was the spectacle of Russia’s regional elections. They were as fraudulent and superfluous as every election under Mr. Putin’s reign, with real opposition candidates barred and the ruling United Russia party receiving its predetermined majority. This time the fraud was too blatant even for Kremlin-allowed opposition party leaders Alexander Zhirinovsky and Gennady Zyuganov, who loudly protested results that have moved Russia to the verge of a one-party dictatorship. Mr. Medvedev asserted that the elections had gone perfectly well. Meanwhile, the U.S. statement expressed the usual concerns and quoted President Medvedev’s own words on the importance of free and fair elections—as if he would be shamed by them.

From the shameless expect no shame. And from a corrupt and criminal regime, expect no changes unless real consequences are put on the table. With Russia, this would mean going after Mr. Putin’s coterie of oligarchs and hitting them where it hurts: their privileges and their pocketbooks. If the European Union and the U.S. started canceling visas and prying into finances, they would find the Kremlin far more interested in sanctions against Iran. Mr. Putin has used human rights and democracy as bargaining chips because these things matter to the West and not to him. Until the game is played for stakes with value to the Kremlin, it’s a one-sided contest.

If the U.S. is serious about preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, then Mr. Obama must get to the point and state the penalties unequivocally. Repeating over and over that it is “unacceptable” has become a joke. For more than 10 years a nuclear North Korea was also “unacceptable.” If Mr. Obama says the U.S. will do whatever it takes to prevent Iran from attaining a nuclear weapon, then we will see if Tehran blinks. At a minimum, the White House should publicly promise that any attack on Israel with weapons of mass destruction will be treated as an attack on American soil and urge NATO to make a similar commitment.

Like many Russians, I was encouraged by Mr. Obama’s inspirational speech in Moscow last July, but he must know there is more to statesmanship than printing money and making speeches. Inflated rhetoric, like inflated currency, can lead to disaster. The goodwill bubble Mr. Obama is creating will burst unless there are real results soon.

Mr. Kasparov, leader of The Other Russia coalition, is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal.

Theotherrussia.org provides glimpses into the Russian media, documenting self-censorship, spin, and other inaccuracies.

TV Channel Pulls Putin Caricature

The 2×2 television channel, which broadcasts primarily animated series, was taking no chances after it had a scare involving its license last fall.  In its latest season of the popular South Park cartoon, the channel has edited out the character representing Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, the Novy Region Information Agency reports.

Putin was shown in a scene receiving a phone call from one of the young characters in the cartoon, asking to help him blast a whale to the moon.  In the sketch, Putin thinks that he is receiving a prank call from US President George W. Bush.  The clip came from the “Free Willzyx” episode first broadcast in 2005, when Putin was the President of Russia.

2×2, which started broadcasting in 2007, faced the threat of license revocation in 2008, after a hardline Christian group filed suit for alleged extremism in 12 cartoon series shown by the station.  The channel was issued a warning from Russia’s media monitoring body, and management eventually pulled the offending cartoons.  In the end, the station managed to renew its license after a public campaign to save the channel garnered more than 50,000 signatures.  In June, Russian authorities retracted the warning against 2×2.

—

Russia Today Invents “Mystery”

Russia Today, a government-funded news channel that broadcasts in English, was meanwhile busy spinning US President Barack Obama’s meeting with the Russian opposition.  The Chessbase news blog breaks down the not-so-subtle slant in the reporting, which downplayed the political career of United Civil Front leader Garry Kasparov.

The coverage described what Russian opposition leaders said to Obama as a “mystery,” despite the fact that transcripts of the statements made by the opposition have been made publicly available.

—

Deputy Reinterprets Obama’s Words

State Duma Deputy Konstantin Kosachev was quick to reinterpret Barack Obama’s position on Georgia for the Russian public.  Kosachev, who chairs the Duma Committee on International Affairs, said the following at a July 8th press conference.  The sound byte of Obama’s supposed reversal of the US position on the August 2008 war between Russia and Georgia was then repeated frequently throughout the media cycle.  Kosachev was responding to a question on the US support for Georgian territorial integrity.

“Obama affirmed the well known US position,” Kosachev said, “but a clear assertion followed in the same statement, that this territorial integrity must not be restored through military means.  I take these words as a signal to Tbilisi.  A serious transformation of the American position has appeared here.

“Yes, we differ on this issue, but there is no longer the same absoluteness in the words of the US representatives, as there was during the time of the George Bush administration.  Barack Obama understands the haste of the judgments made in August 2008.  And during our interactions, American congressmen admit that they obviously rushed to judgement.  This affirms the truth of our position.”

—

Russian Media Imagine Agreement on Oil Price at G8 Summit

The Russian media were quick to report a statement from President Dmitri Medvedev’s office, that Medvedev had floated $70-80 per barrel as a fair world oil price.  Unfortunately, they also didn’t delve too deeply into the second part of the statement, where spokeswoman Natalya Timakova said that “G8 leaders generally agreed in their remarks.”

While news outlets spun the report as a success by Medvedev, other world leaders were more than skeptical. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown had this to say in response:

“We didn’t discuss a specific figure and we didn’t discuss in detail any price range … There’s no agreement on ranges.”

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.

Statement to President Barack Obama

Thank you, Mr. Obama, for meeting with us here today. It is odd that a meeting with the president of the United States is easier to achieve for most of us than a visit with the president of  Russia. Those of us who oppose the current Kremlin regime have ever-fewer opportunities to express our opposition – not in our fraudulent elections, our state-dominated media, or even in the streets of Russia.

I have spent considerable time in those streets in the last few years marching with thousands of others who want nothing more than to freely choose our own path. For expressing this basic desire they are called traitors and are beaten, arrested, and murdered.

These brave citizens are not troublemakers or criminals, certainly no more so than those who marched for their civil rights – for their human rights – in Selma in 1965. And our thoughts are those of John Lewis, who said “We cannot be patient, we do not want to be free gradually.  We want our freedom, and we want it now.” (Though in Russia the federal troops are on the other side, so a little patience is required.)

And yet when I travel in the West I often hear, even from high-ranking government officials, that Russians are lucky to be freer than we were in the days of the USSR. But we have crossed from a dark forest into a desert. Russia has been turned back on its road to democracy.  Once again we have political prisoners in my country, a reality I once could not imagine. There is only grief when you must explain to your children why you are not ashamed of being arrested, and why their father is not a villain.

Mr. President, your speech today was quite impressive, embracing the Russian people and distinguishing us from our current rulers. I assure you that the mainstream Russian opposition doesn’t see the United States as a threat. Anyone who considers Russia’s national interest – instead of their personal interests – realizes our real challenges, like yours, come from China and radical Islam.

You and President Medvedev are both lawyers, both young, and perhaps have other things in common. But the leaders of this Kremlin regime has fundamentally opposing interests to those of the US as well as interests that directly oppose those of the Russian people you spoke so eloquently about, and no amount of common ground will change that fact.

Prime Minister Putin and his friends have treated the Russian treasury like their personal bank, but only for withdrawals. They are selling the riches of our country from under our feet. In fact, if, President Obama, you wish to go down in history like Thomas Jefferson or William Seward, I’m sure you can get a good deal on several million acres of Russian land during your visit!

You mentioned Honduras today, but here the opposition is taking lessons from another Latin American nation, Chile in 1988, where disparate groups banded together to win a referendum against the Pinochet dictatorship. We come from every part of the ideological spectrum, united only by a desire for free and fair elections and freedom of speech and assembly.  Two days ago we hosted a meeting titled “Russia After Putin” to plan for that brighter future.

There is a great deal of conjecture about the power structure of the government in Russia today, a terrible waste of time. What matters is that it is anything but a democracy. The Russian constitution describes three branches of government. Unfortunately, all three are now contained between the walls of Mr. Putin’s office. To all of President Medvedev’s talk of liberalization, I can say only that talk is cheap. We have seen no meaningful policy changes in the past year to indicate a new course.

To the contrary, things are getting worse. President Medvedev has signed into being some of the most blatant anti-Constitutional practices of the so-called law enforcement programs. I have with me a partial list of recent victims of political oppression that I would like to leave with your staff here today. Unfortunately, even this partial list is quite long.

A single case illustrates all the ills of the regime – political, economic, and judicial. That is the case of Mikhail Khodorkovsky and his company Yukos. Mr. Khodorkovsky and several of his colleagues have been sitting in jail for years for refusing to bend to Putin’s will. In 2005, you and your then fellow-Senators Biden and McCain submitted Resolution 322, expressing concern that the Khodorkovsky case was politically motivated, a violation of Russian law, and a demonstration that the Russian judiciary was not independent. Four years of continued injustice have proven your concerns to be completely valid.

We still have hope despite these setbacks. Do not place Russia on a mythical list of countries that are not ready for democracy. No people on Earth deserve or desire to live under dictatorship. There were two Germanys, now there are two Koreas and two Chinas. The last few weeks in Iran should prove the final repudiation of the fable that some places are genetically resistant to freedom.

Mr. President, you spoke today about a strong, peaceful, and prosperous Russia. This is also my dream. But today Russia is weak, uneasy, and, despite a decade of rising energy prices, still quite poor outside a select few. Only Russians can solve our crisis, and I believe that we will. And only a Russia freed from the fetters of our dictatorial regime can play the positive role in the world you described so vividly.

Topics of discussion included the new trial against jailed Yukos oil company bosses Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev, and the US missile defense system.

During his talk, Garry Kasparov presented Obama with a list of opposition figures who have been persecuted and killed recently, as well as a list of prisoners serving politically-motivated sentences in Russia.  (Download Kasparov’s full statement in PDF format here.)

“The US president is prepared to establish relations, not just between the White House and the Kremlin, but between the American people and the Russian people,” Kasparov said at a press-conference after the meeting.

“In my address, I said that the situation with human rights has become worse since Dmitri Medvedev came to power,” Kasparov went on.  “I turned over a brief list of the Russian opposition figures who have been arrested, assaulted or killed in recent years.”

Boris Nemtsov, who jointly leads the Solidarity democratic movement with Kasparov, gave Obama materials on Russian corruption during the meeting, while attorney Yelena Lukyanova presented a list of Russian judges facing persecution for upholding the law.

Vladimir Ryzhkov, an independent politician and former head of the Russian Republican party, told journalists that the meeting was “absolutely open.”

“The subject of the second case against Khodorkovsky and Lebedev was raised,” Ryzhkov said, going on to name other topics of dicussions like “journalists and freedom of speech, the subject of political prisoners in Russia, beatings and arrests during opposition meetings.”

The fact that the meeting took place at all was also significant, Ryzhkov said.

“The last US president who met not only with authorities, but with the opposition was Bill Clinton.”

Much of the reporting has been serious and laudatory of the negotiations between Obama and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev.

The media also devoted a good deal of coverage to Barack Obama’s means of transport,  devoting considerable attention to both the White House aircraft –Air Force One—, and the armored limo used to drive Obama through Moscow.  Traffic jams caused by the visit were also heavily reported.

Read about the first day of meetings from Bloomberg.

—

State Run Television Channel 1:

“And today in Moscow, the presidents of the two countries signed new documents.  This isn’t an agreement, but in substance a declaration of intent for reaching a final agreement.  As the experts explain, today’s paper is not legally binding, but politically binding.  Moscow has made it clear that it is linking the agreement with the problem of locating American Ballistic Missile Defense in Europe.  Nonetheless, the sides are calling this document a breakthrough, because the previous US administration refused to discuss even the possibility of such an agreement.”

—

Izvestiya Newspaper:

“If, all of a sudden, [Obama] was counting on a red carpet track and a wild mob of admirers, screaming something like “We love you!” in a Hollywood manner, then nothing of the sort awaited him in Moscow.”

—

Moskovsky Komsomolets Newspaper:

“While Dmitri Medvedev spoke, those in attendance could notice an interesting feature of Barak Obama’s behavior.  During joint press-conferences, heads of state usually look from the podium into the room while their colleague is speaking, only rarely casting a glance at their counterpart.  But the president of the US steadily looked at [Dmitri Anatolyevich Medvedev], as if trying to tell him: “I’m all ears.”  One must admit: Obama was extremely charming in this manner.”
…
On the Missile Defense Shield:

“In whole, the American guest’s words sounded fairly contradictory: on the one hand, he admits that the defensive and offensive potential must be discussed in a single package.  On the other hand, he says that placing Ballistic Missile Defense in Europe should not be seen as a threat to the Russian Federation.  And in such a way notes the correlation between reducing strategic nuclear weapons and the fate of the system of anti-missile defense.

Yet the US has a suggestion: cooperate with Russia to create a system that would defend them from threats originating from third party states.  An one time, [Prime Minister] Vladimir Putin repeatedly spoke out with the proposal to cooperate in the realm of anti-missile defense.  However, the American administration at the time did not come half-way.  The position of the current [administration], as we can see, has softened.  Though it’s unclear what will come of it: Obama said, that this is a subject for more detailed negotiations.”

—

RIA Novosti News Agency:

“The optimism demonstrated by the leaders of Russia and the US in opening the summit turned out to be justified: framework agreements on reducing offensive armaments were signed.  The signed “Joint Understanding on Strategic Arms Reduction” defines the ceilings for reducing strategic arms and should become the basis for a new agreement on strategic nuclear weapons (SNW).”
…

RIA Novosti quotes two analysts in a section titled “Expert Opinion:”

Sergei Oznobishchev, director of the Institute for Strategic Evaluation:

“The meeting that took place is evidence that both presidents understand that it’s essential to move forward, and that solving international problems like nuclear disarmament, terrorism and others won’t happen if they act alone.  Of course there are certain groups that will seriously interfere with the restoration of our relations, but if the presidents have enough wisdom and opportunities, then Russian-American relations are fated to a partnership.

One can avoid this partnership as long as possible, draw it out, bring the matter to nearly the Cold War, but without a partnership between the US and RF we will have trouble in this world.”
…

Sergei Karaganov, chairman of the presidium of the Russian Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, called the agreements an “absolute compromise:”

“What is being offered is the minimal reductions as compared with 2002 agreements, which limited the number of strategic reserve nuclear warheads of each side to 1700-2000 units.  Both sides can now calmly reduce their warheads to this level, and 1675 units is a small reduction, and each side will be free, evidently, to reduce as much as is convenient.”

“Russia would prefer a deeper reduction in delivery vehicles, because this is economically to our advantage.  The Americans, who can make the greater amount of vehicles, would want a less drastic reduction.  They were prepared for a deeper reduction of warheads.  This is a normal compromise, which suits both sides and leaves all options open, while the treaty question, the negotiations process and the schedule for limiting and reducing strategic offensive armaments receives a new impulse.”

translations by theotherrussia.org

US President Barack Obama sat down for an interview with the Novaya Gazeta, an independent paper known for its in-depth journalism and criticism of the Kremlin.  During the conversation, Obama backed President Medvedev’s judicial reforms, and repeated an earlier pledge to support worldwide freedom of speech and human rights.  The complete interview will be published in full on Monday, June 6th, but Novaya Gazeta has released some excerpts.

“I agree with President Medvedev when he said that ‘freedom is better than the absence of freedom,'” Obama told the paper.  “I see no reason why we cannot aspire together to strengthen democracy, human rights, and the rule of law as part of our reset.”

Asked about the murder of Anna Politkovskaya, a Novaya Gazeta investigative journalist gunned down in 2006, Obama fell back on his inaugural speech:

“As I said in my inaugural address: ‘To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.'”

The US President also briefly answered a question about the judicial process against businessman Mikhail Khodorkovsky, an oil tycoon serving a sentence seen by many as political.  Russian prosecutors have launched a second set of charges against Khodorkovsky.

“It does seem odd to me that these new charges, which appear to be a repackaging of the old charges, should be surfacing now,” Obama said.

Obama earlier spoke about the need to improve US-Russian relations, and reiterated his administration’s hope to “press the reset button.”  Obama also noted the many issues and interests that the two countries must face jointly, including the economy, defense, terrorism, and the possibility of a nuclear Iran.

The US President also made it clear that he viewed Russia as an equal, a change from earlier administrations.

Barack Obama will visit Russia from June 6th to the 8th.  Ahead of his trip, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev admitted that US-Russian relations had fallen to nearly Cold War levels in recent years, adding that now was a time to come together.

While in Moscow, Obama will meet with Kremlin officials, as well as parliamentary and non-parliamentary opposition leaders.  Obama has invited some of the Kremlin’s fiercest critics, including United Civil Front leader Garry Kasparov and Solidarity chair Boris Nemtsov, to a Tuesday meeting.

—

TRANSCRIPT OF PRESIDENT OBAMA’S INTERVIEW WITH NOVAYA GAZETA

1. Do you agree with the opinion expressed by many Russian and European politicians that the United States is primarily responsible for the economic difficulties that their countries are now living through?

No. We all are experiencing a severe economic crisis that is affecting the lives of many people in countries around the world.  This crisis resulted from a culture of irresponsibility regarding financial matters that took hold over a number of years in the United States, Europe and elsewhere.  I am proud of our efforts to lead by reforming our regulatory and supervisory systems and promoting an era of responsibility, so that the U.S. and global economies will be stable and growth will be sustained. We of course have an obvious interest in developing policies that stimulate economic growth in the United States, but we also believe that economic growth in our country also will nurture economic growth around the world, including in Russia.
In the 21st century, we all -Americans, Russians, and everyone else – have an interest in fostering world economic growth that benefits us all. We need to spend less time thinking about who is to blame and more time working together to do what needs to be done to get all of our economies moving in the right direction.

2. Do you agree that lies and greed – –  lies about the state of markets and greed of their participants — are the main reasons for the current economic crisis?

As I said to Congress in February, our economy did not fall into decline overnight.  Nor did all of our problems begin when the housing market collapsed or the stock market sank.  We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy.  Yet we import more oil today than ever before.  The cost of health care eats up more and more of our savings each year, yet we keep delaying reform.  Our children will compete for jobs in a global economy that too many of our schools do not prepare them for.  And though all these challenges went unsolved, we still managed to spend more money and pile up more debt, both as individuals and through our government, than ever before.

In other words, we have lived through an era where too often, short-term gains were prized over long-term prosperity; where we failed to look beyond the next payment, the next quarter, or the next election.  A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future.  Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market.  People bought homes they knew they couldn’t afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway.  And all the while, critical debates and difficult decisions were put off for some other time on some other day.

3. Many experts believe that the 21st Century Financial Regulatory Reform you proposed may become the most significant innovation in the U.S. financial system since the era of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.  What do you consider to be the most important element of this reform?  Are we at the doorstep of new transparency of business and finances?

Our regulatory and supervisory reform plans, announced a few weeks ago, are sweeping and important.  The plans include three important components. First, we’re proposing a set of reforms to require regulators to look not only at the safety and soundness of individual institutions, but also — for the first time — at the stability of the financial system as a whole. Second, we’re proposing a new and powerful agency charged with just one job: looking out for ordinary consumers. Third, we’re proposing a series of changes designed to promote free and fair markets by closing gaps and overlaps in our regulatory system — including gaps that exist not just within but between nations. We are called upon to put in place those reforms that allow our best qualities to flourish — while keeping those worst traits in check. We’re called upon to recognize that the free market is the most powerful generative force for our prosperity — but it is not a free license to ignore the consequences of our actions.

4. On November 18, 2005 Senators Obama, Biden and McCain together with other Senators adopted Resolution 232 on the trial, sentence and imprisonment of Mikhail Khodorkovskiy and Platon Lebedev. The Resolution said that “in investigations that present a threat to authorities, Russian courts become instruments of the Kremlin, and cannot be responsible or independent.” Have you been following the new trial of Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev?

I do not know the intimate details of these new proceedings, though my advisors most certainly do. However, without knowing the details, it does seem odd to me that these new charges, which appear to be a repackaging of the old charges, should be surfacing now, years after these two individuals have been in prison and as they become eligible for parole. Nonetheless, I think it is improper for outsiders to interfere in the legal processes of Russia. Instead, I would just affirm my support for President Medvedev’s courageous initiative to strengthen the rule of law in Russia, which of course includes making sure that all those accused of crimes have the right to a fair trial and that the courts are not used for political purposes.

5. “Restarting” the relationship implies cooperating with Russia in those areas where it is possible. Does this mean weaker attention to Russia’s observation of civil rights and liberties, and to persecution against and murders of journalists? Specifically, to [the need to] apprehend and punish those who ordered and committed the murder of journalist Anna Politkovskaya?

Of course not. I seek to reset relations with Russia because I believe that Americans and Russians have many common interests, interests that our governments recently have not pursued as actively as we could have. For instance, I believe that Americans and Russians both would benefit from fewer nuclear weapons in the world, greater control over nuclear materials around the world, a defeat of extremist elements in Afghanistan and Pakistan, an Iran that produces nuclear energy but not nuclear weapons, and a North Korea that refrains from launching missiles and exploding nuclear weapons and instead returns to the negotiating table. I also believe that Americans and Russians have a common interest in the development of rule of rule, the strengthening of democracy, and the protection of human rights. As I said in my inaugural address: “To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.” I then emphasized in my Cairo speech that “I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things:  the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose.  These are not just American ideas; they are human rights.” These are ideas embraced by your president and your people. I agree with President Medvedev when he said that “Freedom is better than the absence of freedom.” So, I see no reason why we cannot aspire together to strengthen democracy, human rights, and the rule of law as part of our “reset.”

6. Will you sign the new START treaty if Russia conditions its signing upon non-deployment of the U.S. missile defense system in Central Europe?

In our meeting in London on April 1st, President Medvedev and I issued a joint statement on instructions for our negotiators for this new treaty. These instructions very explicitly did not mention missile defense as a topic of discussion for these negotiations.
At the same time, we understand Russian sensitivities to this issue and have sent several high-level delegations to Moscow over the last several weeks to engage in a serious dialogue about U.S.-Russian cooperation on missile defense.

My government is completing a comprehensive review of all of our missile defense programs, including those in Europe. Given the threats around the world, especially those growing from North Korea and Iran, our goal is to enhance missile defense for the United States and our allies in Europe and elsewhere. As I have said many times, such a system has to work, be cost effective, and must address the real threats to the United States and our allies, not imaginary ones. When discussing our plans for Europe, we first and foremost are seeking to build a missile defense system that protects the United States and Europe from an Iranian ballistic missile armed with a nuclear warhead. We are not building and will not build a system that is aimed to respond to an attack from Russia. Such thinking is simply a legacy of the Cold War.

We have not yet decided how we will configure missile defense in Europe. But my sincere hope is that Russia will be a partner in that project. If we combine our assets on missile defense, the United States, Russia, and our allies will be much safer than if we go it alone. I see a great potential here, and I hope to have a robust discussion with President Medvedev about these possibilities for cooperation on missile defense when I am in Moscow next week.

7. In the course of your presidential campaign, you competed with Hillary Clinton. Does this hinder your joint work now?

Absolutely not. This is the beauty of democracy. Secretary Clinton and I engaged in a hard-fought, very competitive race for the nomination of our party. By the way, without question, these primaries made me a better candidate for the general election against Senator John McCain. But in democracies, once the election is over, then all Americans who care about our country get back to work. It was because of how well I got to know Secretary Clinton during our campaign that I knew she would be such an excellent Secretary of State, and she has served our country with excellence.

“Of course, this will be interesting,” Kasparov said on the Ekho Moskvy radio station.  “The previous American administration didn’t dare to do this.”

A number of other prominent figures have also been invited, including Pravoe Delo (Right Cause) co-chair Leonid Gozman, Communist Party leader Gennady Zyuganov, attorney Yelena Lukyanova, and Federation Council chairman Sergey Mironov.

Obama will travel to Moscow on July 6th for meetings with the Kremlin as well as business and civil society leaders.  A meeting with Russia’s leading human rights advocates has been scheduled at the Metropol hotel, the location of a consultation between representatives from NGOs in the US and Russia.

Earlier, Boris Nemtsov argued that it was essential for Obama to meet with opposition forces in Russia.  “If the White House agrees to Putin’s suggestion to speak only with pro-Putin organizations… this will mean that Putin has won, but not only that: Putin will become be assured that Obama is weak,” he said.

Nemtsov, who spoke at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, said the American administration should lay their stakes on President Dmitri Medvedev, and not Prime Minister Putin.

“I believe that if Medvedev finally takes power into his own hands, we will have a chance to return to a political thaw, to democratization,” he went on.  “We are being given the chance to return to rule of law and the Russian Constitution.  Clearly, much depends on the opposition, on its energy… Which is why we alone are responsible for our future, and not Obama.”