The Russian name for any home-made distilled alcoholic beverage is called samogon, literally translated as "self-distillate". The most popular source for samogon is sugar as it is quite effective. Other sources include beets, corn, potatoes and even plywood (Fictional sort of samogon, called Tabouretovka, which has to be made from wooden tabourets. Recipe of it was sold by Ostap Bender to ingenuous American tourists. Possible origin of this myth - early industrial alcohol was often made from wood scraps).
Samogon of one distillation only is called pervach (ru: первач), literally translated as "the first one" - it is well known for its impressive smell. The production of samogon is widespread in Russia. It is legal only for personal use, and sale is prohibited. Samogon often has a strong repulsive odor but, due to relatively cheap and fast production and ability to personalize the flavor of the drink, it is of relative popularity. It was common during the Soviet era, when products were scarce and supply unstable. Samogon of 2-nd and 3-rd distillation, filtered through birch charcoal loses its specific smell and taste and can hardly be distinguished from Vodka by taste.
zondag 9 november 2008
Alcoholism in Russia
ST. PETERSBURG (Reuters) - Russia should revive the Soviet-era practise of compulsory treatment for alcoholics, the interior minister said on Friday.
Minister Rashid Nurgaliyev told President Dmitry Medvedev that there were 253,000 alcoholics registered with police but that the actual number must be higher.
"The real picture is much worse," he told Medvedev at a meeting of law enforcement agencies in St. Petersburg.
The Moscow Serbsky Institute for Social and Forensic Psychiatry says more than 10 percent of Russia's population of 142 million could be alcoholics.
"I propose returning to the idea of compulsory treatment for alcoholism," Nurgaliyev said, adding that alcohol-related crime was an acute problem.
Russians are some of the world's heaviest drinkers.
Demographers often cite high alcohol consumption as a major factor in the low life expectancy of Russian men.
Russians consume the equivalent of 15 litres of pure alcohol per head each year, chief public health official Gennady Onishchenko said in a newspaper interview last year.
The Kremlin has for decades tried to get a grip on the problem but Russians' love of vodka and illegally made liquor -- known as samogon -- has always overcome government measures to combat alcoholism.
In the 1960s, alcoholics were forced into labour camps. Soviet authorities said hard work would cure alcoholics.
Minister Rashid Nurgaliyev told President Dmitry Medvedev that there were 253,000 alcoholics registered with police but that the actual number must be higher.
"The real picture is much worse," he told Medvedev at a meeting of law enforcement agencies in St. Petersburg.
The Moscow Serbsky Institute for Social and Forensic Psychiatry says more than 10 percent of Russia's population of 142 million could be alcoholics.
"I propose returning to the idea of compulsory treatment for alcoholism," Nurgaliyev said, adding that alcohol-related crime was an acute problem.
Russians are some of the world's heaviest drinkers.
Demographers often cite high alcohol consumption as a major factor in the low life expectancy of Russian men.
Russians consume the equivalent of 15 litres of pure alcohol per head each year, chief public health official Gennady Onishchenko said in a newspaper interview last year.
The Kremlin has for decades tried to get a grip on the problem but Russians' love of vodka and illegally made liquor -- known as samogon -- has always overcome government measures to combat alcoholism.
In the 1960s, alcoholics were forced into labour camps. Soviet authorities said hard work would cure alcoholics.
Russia's discontent
RUSSIA'S response to the election of Barack Obama came in an address Wednesday to Russian legislators by Vladimir Putin's handpicked successor, President Dmitry Medvedev - a discourse truffled with threats and allegations. If he is wise, Obama will resist the temptation to respond to the Russian rant. He should keep his own counsel because he is not yet president, because Medvedev was playing to a domestic audience, and because anything Obama might say now could complicate the task of undoing the knots President Bush has tied in US-Russian relations.
Medvedev threatened to station missiles in the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, near Poland, if the United States went ahead with Bush's plans to install a defective missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. He attributed the August war with Georgia to the "arrogant course of the American administration." And for good measure, he blamed America for Russia's market collapse and drastic capital flight, saying, "a local emergency on the US domestic market" was the cause of declining financial markets worldwide.
France vs Russia
In a move which was partly an audacious bluff and partly a complex legalistic gambit, the French president faced down determined opposition from Lithuania and Poland to open the door to normalizing the EU-Russia relationship three months after the Georgian conflict.
The European Union's French presidency has said the bloc is in a position to relaunch Partnership and Cooperation Treaty talks with Moscow that were broken off in the wake of the war between Russia and Georgia.
The announcement by French President Nicolas Sarkozy that Russia has complied with EU demands in Georgia stunned some Eastern European leaders who were in Brussels for an EU crisis summit on the global economy.
The talks are now all but certain to resume on November 14 when the EU and Russia meet for a summit in the French city of Nice.
Eastern European Opposition
In a move which was partly an audacious bluff and partly a complex legalistic gambit, the French president faced down determined opposition from Lithuania and Poland to open the door to normalizing the EU-Russia relationship three months after the Georgian conflict.
Lithuanian President Valdas Adamkus had arrived at the summit threatening to veto any such move. In an article published on November 6 in the Brussels weekly, "European Voice," he said it would be a "disaster" to act before Russian forces had quit all of Georgian territory.
Adamkus had the public backing of Polish President Lech Kaczynski, and the sympathy of a number of other leaders.
Addressing a post-summit news conference on November 7, Sarkozy effectively said Adamkus and his supporters misunderstand what they had agreed to on September 1, when an emergency EU summit broke off talks.
"Let me remind you that these negotiations were never suspended -- because [the EU] points the way here -- because if there had been a suspension, there would have had to be a summit decision," Sarkozy said. "Together with [European Commission] President [Jose Manuel] Barroso, we simply postponed the date."
However, the EU said in a summit statement on September 1 that "till troops have withdrawn to the positions held prior to August 7, meetings on the negotiation of the Partnership Agreement [with Russia] will be postponed."
As it turns out, "postponement" can be read to mean that EU member states never withdrew their prior underlying consent for the negotiations, leaving it up to the bloc's executive -- the presidency and the European Commission -- to proceed as it sees fit.
Any decision as momentous as this one requires some justification, however. Recognizing this, Sarkozy on November 7 resorted to a fudge -- or something which unkind observers might be inclined to see as an act of diplomatic vandalism.
He said Russia had met all the commitments it had undertaken under EU mediation with respect to Georgia: they implemented a ceasefire, allowed EU observers to deploy, and launched international talks on the future of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Russian Withdrawal
But, most controversially, Sarkozy also said Russia has fully complied with the requirement to withdraw its forces to pre-conflict positions, as required by the EU-mediated accords of August 12 and September 8.
"The second commitment -- the retreat of Russian forces to pre-conflict borders before the crisis on August 8. Has this been fulfilled? Yes," Sarkozy said.
Everything hinges on Sarkozy's substitution of the word "borders" for the original -- and correct -- term, "lines." According to Sarkozy's interpretation, Russia was never obliged to remove any troops from the separatist regions.
Georgian claims to areas held by its forces before the conflict within Abkhazia and South Ossetia are thus also without merit.
The impression that Sarkozy's remarks -- appearing as they did as an afterthought in the margins of a summit devoted to an entirely different subject -- are part of a carefully crafted master plan is borne out by reports that behind closed doors, the French leader placated his opponents with a different view.
One official present at the meeting said Sarkozy had assured his EU colleagues he would express the bloc's dissatisfaction with Moscow's insufficient compliance with the bloc's terms when the two sides meet in Nice on November 14.
The French diplomatic offensive was assisted by European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, who said he had warned the Lithuanian and Polish leaders that, if prevented from acting in concert, individual member states would start striking separate deals with Moscow.
Aiming his news conference remarks directly at Warsaw and Vilnius, Barroso said, "You may not like the common EU position entirely, but it is in your own interest to have one rather than three or four different positions."
Both Barroso and Sarkozy represent a school of thought within the EU which holds that keeping lines of communication open with Moscow is crucial for the bloc's broader interests, which range from securing energy provisions to cooperation with Russia in the UN Security Council on issues such as Iran.
Conceding defeat, Lithuania's and Poland's backers in the EU said they would now set their sights on the November 10 meeting of the foreign ministers in a bid to secure a joint statement which makes clear that although the partnership talks will continue, Moscow has not fully met EU conditions.
Fearing intractable divisions, France is resisting the adoption of any EU statement at the meeting.
Estonian Prime Minister Andrus Ansip told RFE/RL that he and like-minded leaders within the EU will also strive to get the bloc to acknowledge that pragmatic cooperation, not a fully fledged partnership, is the most it can hold out for Russia.
"We can talk about cooperation with any country in the world. In Russia's case, we're not in a position now, considering its military attack on a sovereign neighbor, to talk about a partnership or the sharing of common values," Ansip said.
Adamkus emerged from the summit insisting that there could be no talk of renewed partnership talks with Russia before it has withdrawn its troops from all of Georgian territory, but he did not elaborate.
The European Union's French presidency has said the bloc is in a position to relaunch Partnership and Cooperation Treaty talks with Moscow that were broken off in the wake of the war between Russia and Georgia.
The announcement by French President Nicolas Sarkozy that Russia has complied with EU demands in Georgia stunned some Eastern European leaders who were in Brussels for an EU crisis summit on the global economy.
The talks are now all but certain to resume on November 14 when the EU and Russia meet for a summit in the French city of Nice.
Eastern European Opposition
In a move which was partly an audacious bluff and partly a complex legalistic gambit, the French president faced down determined opposition from Lithuania and Poland to open the door to normalizing the EU-Russia relationship three months after the Georgian conflict.
Lithuanian President Valdas Adamkus had arrived at the summit threatening to veto any such move. In an article published on November 6 in the Brussels weekly, "European Voice," he said it would be a "disaster" to act before Russian forces had quit all of Georgian territory.
Adamkus had the public backing of Polish President Lech Kaczynski, and the sympathy of a number of other leaders.
Addressing a post-summit news conference on November 7, Sarkozy effectively said Adamkus and his supporters misunderstand what they had agreed to on September 1, when an emergency EU summit broke off talks.
"Let me remind you that these negotiations were never suspended -- because [the EU] points the way here -- because if there had been a suspension, there would have had to be a summit decision," Sarkozy said. "Together with [European Commission] President [Jose Manuel] Barroso, we simply postponed the date."
However, the EU said in a summit statement on September 1 that "till troops have withdrawn to the positions held prior to August 7, meetings on the negotiation of the Partnership Agreement [with Russia] will be postponed."
As it turns out, "postponement" can be read to mean that EU member states never withdrew their prior underlying consent for the negotiations, leaving it up to the bloc's executive -- the presidency and the European Commission -- to proceed as it sees fit.
Any decision as momentous as this one requires some justification, however. Recognizing this, Sarkozy on November 7 resorted to a fudge -- or something which unkind observers might be inclined to see as an act of diplomatic vandalism.
He said Russia had met all the commitments it had undertaken under EU mediation with respect to Georgia: they implemented a ceasefire, allowed EU observers to deploy, and launched international talks on the future of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Russian Withdrawal
But, most controversially, Sarkozy also said Russia has fully complied with the requirement to withdraw its forces to pre-conflict positions, as required by the EU-mediated accords of August 12 and September 8.
"The second commitment -- the retreat of Russian forces to pre-conflict borders before the crisis on August 8. Has this been fulfilled? Yes," Sarkozy said.
Everything hinges on Sarkozy's substitution of the word "borders" for the original -- and correct -- term, "lines." According to Sarkozy's interpretation, Russia was never obliged to remove any troops from the separatist regions.
Georgian claims to areas held by its forces before the conflict within Abkhazia and South Ossetia are thus also without merit.
The impression that Sarkozy's remarks -- appearing as they did as an afterthought in the margins of a summit devoted to an entirely different subject -- are part of a carefully crafted master plan is borne out by reports that behind closed doors, the French leader placated his opponents with a different view.
One official present at the meeting said Sarkozy had assured his EU colleagues he would express the bloc's dissatisfaction with Moscow's insufficient compliance with the bloc's terms when the two sides meet in Nice on November 14.
The French diplomatic offensive was assisted by European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, who said he had warned the Lithuanian and Polish leaders that, if prevented from acting in concert, individual member states would start striking separate deals with Moscow.
Aiming his news conference remarks directly at Warsaw and Vilnius, Barroso said, "You may not like the common EU position entirely, but it is in your own interest to have one rather than three or four different positions."
Both Barroso and Sarkozy represent a school of thought within the EU which holds that keeping lines of communication open with Moscow is crucial for the bloc's broader interests, which range from securing energy provisions to cooperation with Russia in the UN Security Council on issues such as Iran.
Conceding defeat, Lithuania's and Poland's backers in the EU said they would now set their sights on the November 10 meeting of the foreign ministers in a bid to secure a joint statement which makes clear that although the partnership talks will continue, Moscow has not fully met EU conditions.
Fearing intractable divisions, France is resisting the adoption of any EU statement at the meeting.
Estonian Prime Minister Andrus Ansip told RFE/RL that he and like-minded leaders within the EU will also strive to get the bloc to acknowledge that pragmatic cooperation, not a fully fledged partnership, is the most it can hold out for Russia.
"We can talk about cooperation with any country in the world. In Russia's case, we're not in a position now, considering its military attack on a sovereign neighbor, to talk about a partnership or the sharing of common values," Ansip said.
Adamkus emerged from the summit insisting that there could be no talk of renewed partnership talks with Russia before it has withdrawn its troops from all of Georgian territory, but he did not elaborate.
Fire on Russian nuclear submarine kills at least 20
At least 20 sailors and shipyard workers have died following a fire on a Russian nuclear-powered submarine which was undergoing sea trials. A further 21 were injured when a fire extinguishing system in the bow of the vessel failed, and they have been ferried ashore by support vessels.
The submarine has been ordered to suspend trials and return immediately to port in Russia's far-eastern Primorye territory.
The name and class of the vessel, and its location when fire broke out, have not been released. But it was assisted by the Russian destroyer Admiral Tributs,which is normally based at Vladivostok, Russia's main Far Eastern naval port on the Sea of Japan.
The fire broke out in the nose of the vessel and its nuclear reactor, situated in the stern, was not affected by the fire, said Russian Pacific Fleet spokesman Captain Igor Dygalo. There were no radiation leaks, he added.
"I declare with full responsibility that the reactor compartment on the nuclear-powered submarine is working normally and the radiation background is normal," he said.Of the 208 people on board when the fire broke out, 81 were servicemen.
The Admiral Tributs took some of the injured back to port.
Russian president Dmitry Medvedev was last night being kept abreast of developments, and Deputy Defence Minister Alexander Kolmakov and Navy Commander-in- Chief Vladimir Vysotsky were flying to the scene.
Russia's worst submarine disaster was the sinking of the Kursk,which went down in the Barents Sea in August 2000with the deaths of all 118 people aboard. The submarine, which was the most sophisticated nuclear-powered in the Russian fleet, was swept by a fierce fire after one of its torpedoes exploded. Temperatures would have reached 8,000C. Looking at the twisted wreckage which had been raised from the sea bed, Russian Prosecutor-General Vladimir Ustinov described what happened in the affected compartments as "hell".
The submarine was found 108 metres down the day after losing contact with Russia's Northern Fleet Command, and survivors were heard knocking on the hull. Three days later, unofficial reports claimed the knocking had ceased. Ten days after the explosion, Norwegian divers found the hull flooded and the Russian Navy declared the crew dead.
Efforts to rescue survivors would have been futile, Mr Ustinov said. They had died of carbon monoxide poisoning or would have drowned as water seeped into the damaged hull, filling the vessel within hours of the explosion.
Relatives of the dead crewmen protested after Mr Ustinov's two-year inquiry found that no-one was directly to blame for the accident, and claimed the authorities had tried to silence them.
The inquiry ruled that a fuel leak in a faulty torpedo caused the disaster, but that because no-one could have forseen the accident, naval commanders could not be prosecuted for the loss of the ship or the death of its crew.
The submarine has been ordered to suspend trials and return immediately to port in Russia's far-eastern Primorye territory.
The name and class of the vessel, and its location when fire broke out, have not been released. But it was assisted by the Russian destroyer Admiral Tributs,which is normally based at Vladivostok, Russia's main Far Eastern naval port on the Sea of Japan.
The fire broke out in the nose of the vessel and its nuclear reactor, situated in the stern, was not affected by the fire, said Russian Pacific Fleet spokesman Captain Igor Dygalo. There were no radiation leaks, he added.
"I declare with full responsibility that the reactor compartment on the nuclear-powered submarine is working normally and the radiation background is normal," he said.Of the 208 people on board when the fire broke out, 81 were servicemen.
The Admiral Tributs took some of the injured back to port.
Russian president Dmitry Medvedev was last night being kept abreast of developments, and Deputy Defence Minister Alexander Kolmakov and Navy Commander-in- Chief Vladimir Vysotsky were flying to the scene.
Russia's worst submarine disaster was the sinking of the Kursk,which went down in the Barents Sea in August 2000with the deaths of all 118 people aboard. The submarine, which was the most sophisticated nuclear-powered in the Russian fleet, was swept by a fierce fire after one of its torpedoes exploded. Temperatures would have reached 8,000C. Looking at the twisted wreckage which had been raised from the sea bed, Russian Prosecutor-General Vladimir Ustinov described what happened in the affected compartments as "hell".
The submarine was found 108 metres down the day after losing contact with Russia's Northern Fleet Command, and survivors were heard knocking on the hull. Three days later, unofficial reports claimed the knocking had ceased. Ten days after the explosion, Norwegian divers found the hull flooded and the Russian Navy declared the crew dead.
Efforts to rescue survivors would have been futile, Mr Ustinov said. They had died of carbon monoxide poisoning or would have drowned as water seeped into the damaged hull, filling the vessel within hours of the explosion.
Relatives of the dead crewmen protested after Mr Ustinov's two-year inquiry found that no-one was directly to blame for the accident, and claimed the authorities had tried to silence them.
The inquiry ruled that a fuel leak in a faulty torpedo caused the disaster, but that because no-one could have forseen the accident, naval commanders could not be prosecuted for the loss of the ship or the death of its crew.
zaterdag 8 november 2008
Russian foreign policy
WASHINGTON — To the extent that he focused on Russia at all, Barack Obama’s attention was concentrated primarily on the need to keep Soviet nuclear weapons stockpiles out of the hands of terrorists.
But now, President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia has thrown down a gauntlet intended to demonstrate to the American president-elect that the post-cold war era may not be so post after all.
On Wednesday, while leaders around the world were falling over themselves to hail Mr. Obama’s election, Mr. Medvedev delivered a harsh welcome-to-the-new-cold-war speech in Moscow.
He never mentioned Mr. Obama by name, but Mr. Medvedev said he would deploy short-range missiles near Poland capable of striking NATO territory if the United States pressed ahead with plans to build a missile defense shield in Europe, something that Mr. Obama has said he supports.
Mr. Medvedev put Mr. Obama on notice on the Georgia crisis as well, vowing that “we shall not retreat in the Caucasus.”
Even his one-paragraph congratulatory telegram to Mr. Obama was brusque. “I hope for a constructive dialogue with you, based on trust and consideration of each other’s interests,” Mr. Medvedev wrote.
“It was a giant, ‘Hey, welcome to the game,’ ” said George Friedman, chief executive at Stratfor, a geopolitical risk analysis company. “While Obama would like to deal sequentially with Iraq, Afghanistan and, when he gets to it, the Russians, the Russians themselves want to be a burning issue at the top of his list.”
Mr. Obama, for his part, has yet to respond to the Russian chest-thumping, and he probably will not do so until after his inauguration, his advisers said.
“We only have one president at a time,” Mr. Obama said during a news conference on Friday, responding to a question about whether he would soon meet with foes of the United States. “I want to make sure that we are sending the world one message.”
Since winning the election, the Obama team has taken pains not to say anything publicly that could signal Mr. Obama’s thinking on the many major foreign policy issues lined up before him.
The reasons are twofold.
Many of those advisers are privately hoping for positions in his administration, and they do not want to jeopardize their chances by talking freely with reporters.
More significantly, Mr. Obama himself is still making the transition from campaign oratory — and in the case of Russia, very strong campaign oratory — to the more nuanced approach that many advisers say will be necessary for him to navigate what are bound to be contentious relationships.
But some of his comments during the campaign may already have boxed him in.
When Russia invaded Georgia in August, Mr. Obama’s initial response, drafted just before he left for vacation in Hawaii, was nuanced, urging both nations to exercise restraint. His statement was similar to the State Department’s initial, equally nuanced response, which also did not immediately blame Russia.
The Republicans’ presumptive nominee, Senator John McCain, responded with a hard-line approach, saying that Russia had crossed “an internationally recognized border into the sovereign territory of Georgia” and should “unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces.”
When the McCain camp criticized Mr. Obama’s response as too measured, Mr. Obama hardened his position. His next statement accused Russia of encroaching on Georgia’s sovereignty. The next day, he said that Russia bore responsibility for the escalation.
By the time of the presidential debates in the fall, Mr. Obama had moved even closer to Mr. McCain on Russia and Georgia, voicing support for Georgia’s entry into NATO, a line in the sand that Russia had dared the West to cross.
Stephen Sestanovich, who was President Clinton’s ambassador at large for the former Soviet Union from 1997 to 2001, said that Mr. Obama’s election may have caused some disquiet in Russia.
“This is a leadership that is not super-comfortable with grass-roots politics,” Mr. Sestanovich, a senior fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations who advised the Obama campaign, said of the Russians. “I had a Russian friend e-mail me right afterwards, a short e-mail, and one of the one-word sentences used was ‘envy.’ So that’s how a real democracy works.”
Mr. Obama has options to distance himself from his hawkish remarks on Russia during the campaign, foreign policy experts said. For one thing, while he can continue to support the idea of Georgia becoming part of NATO, the reality is that for now the Europeans will not go along.
Beyond that, Mr. Obama could try to strike more benign agreements that Russians might find soothing, like pushing again for Russia’s entry into the World Trade Organization and working with Moscow toward a way out of the missile defense morass. One possibility would be to offer to delay deployment of a missile shield in Poland until an Iranian nuclear threat — which Washington says is its reason for existing — has actually materialized, instead of doing so immediately.
The Bush administration might even lend a hand; it offered several new proposals to the Russians on Friday, including an offer for Russian military officials to inspect the new installations planned in Poland and the Czech Republic for the new missile defense system.
What Mr. Obama will not be able to do, foreign policy experts said, is cede the former Soviet republics and satellites in Eastern Europe back into the orbit of what the Russians like to call their near abroad.
It is a full plate, and all a long way from Mr. Obama’s first dip into Russia policy, when he joined the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee and traveled to Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan on a 2005 summer tour with Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, the Republican foreign policy statesman.
At the Council of Foreign Relations later, the men described their trip, during which they hiked through nuclear weapons storage sites, picked through piles of mortar rounds and land mines, and toured missile elimination facilities.
Mr. Obama deferred to Mr. Lugar often, according to people who attended the session; it was clear, they said, who was the old foreign policy hand, and who was the junior senator. Shortly after, Mr. Obama joined Mr. Lugar in introducing legislation designed to keep stockpiles of weapons in the former Soviet Union from getting into the hands of terrorists.
Mr. Obama’s focus on “loose nukes,” foreign policy experts say, seems almost quaint today.
But now, President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia has thrown down a gauntlet intended to demonstrate to the American president-elect that the post-cold war era may not be so post after all.
On Wednesday, while leaders around the world were falling over themselves to hail Mr. Obama’s election, Mr. Medvedev delivered a harsh welcome-to-the-new-cold-war speech in Moscow.
He never mentioned Mr. Obama by name, but Mr. Medvedev said he would deploy short-range missiles near Poland capable of striking NATO territory if the United States pressed ahead with plans to build a missile defense shield in Europe, something that Mr. Obama has said he supports.
Mr. Medvedev put Mr. Obama on notice on the Georgia crisis as well, vowing that “we shall not retreat in the Caucasus.”
Even his one-paragraph congratulatory telegram to Mr. Obama was brusque. “I hope for a constructive dialogue with you, based on trust and consideration of each other’s interests,” Mr. Medvedev wrote.
“It was a giant, ‘Hey, welcome to the game,’ ” said George Friedman, chief executive at Stratfor, a geopolitical risk analysis company. “While Obama would like to deal sequentially with Iraq, Afghanistan and, when he gets to it, the Russians, the Russians themselves want to be a burning issue at the top of his list.”
Mr. Obama, for his part, has yet to respond to the Russian chest-thumping, and he probably will not do so until after his inauguration, his advisers said.
“We only have one president at a time,” Mr. Obama said during a news conference on Friday, responding to a question about whether he would soon meet with foes of the United States. “I want to make sure that we are sending the world one message.”
Since winning the election, the Obama team has taken pains not to say anything publicly that could signal Mr. Obama’s thinking on the many major foreign policy issues lined up before him.
The reasons are twofold.
Many of those advisers are privately hoping for positions in his administration, and they do not want to jeopardize their chances by talking freely with reporters.
More significantly, Mr. Obama himself is still making the transition from campaign oratory — and in the case of Russia, very strong campaign oratory — to the more nuanced approach that many advisers say will be necessary for him to navigate what are bound to be contentious relationships.
But some of his comments during the campaign may already have boxed him in.
When Russia invaded Georgia in August, Mr. Obama’s initial response, drafted just before he left for vacation in Hawaii, was nuanced, urging both nations to exercise restraint. His statement was similar to the State Department’s initial, equally nuanced response, which also did not immediately blame Russia.
The Republicans’ presumptive nominee, Senator John McCain, responded with a hard-line approach, saying that Russia had crossed “an internationally recognized border into the sovereign territory of Georgia” and should “unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces.”
When the McCain camp criticized Mr. Obama’s response as too measured, Mr. Obama hardened his position. His next statement accused Russia of encroaching on Georgia’s sovereignty. The next day, he said that Russia bore responsibility for the escalation.
By the time of the presidential debates in the fall, Mr. Obama had moved even closer to Mr. McCain on Russia and Georgia, voicing support for Georgia’s entry into NATO, a line in the sand that Russia had dared the West to cross.
Stephen Sestanovich, who was President Clinton’s ambassador at large for the former Soviet Union from 1997 to 2001, said that Mr. Obama’s election may have caused some disquiet in Russia.
“This is a leadership that is not super-comfortable with grass-roots politics,” Mr. Sestanovich, a senior fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations who advised the Obama campaign, said of the Russians. “I had a Russian friend e-mail me right afterwards, a short e-mail, and one of the one-word sentences used was ‘envy.’ So that’s how a real democracy works.”
Mr. Obama has options to distance himself from his hawkish remarks on Russia during the campaign, foreign policy experts said. For one thing, while he can continue to support the idea of Georgia becoming part of NATO, the reality is that for now the Europeans will not go along.
Beyond that, Mr. Obama could try to strike more benign agreements that Russians might find soothing, like pushing again for Russia’s entry into the World Trade Organization and working with Moscow toward a way out of the missile defense morass. One possibility would be to offer to delay deployment of a missile shield in Poland until an Iranian nuclear threat — which Washington says is its reason for existing — has actually materialized, instead of doing so immediately.
The Bush administration might even lend a hand; it offered several new proposals to the Russians on Friday, including an offer for Russian military officials to inspect the new installations planned in Poland and the Czech Republic for the new missile defense system.
What Mr. Obama will not be able to do, foreign policy experts said, is cede the former Soviet republics and satellites in Eastern Europe back into the orbit of what the Russians like to call their near abroad.
It is a full plate, and all a long way from Mr. Obama’s first dip into Russia policy, when he joined the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee and traveled to Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan on a 2005 summer tour with Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, the Republican foreign policy statesman.
At the Council of Foreign Relations later, the men described their trip, during which they hiked through nuclear weapons storage sites, picked through piles of mortar rounds and land mines, and toured missile elimination facilities.
Mr. Obama deferred to Mr. Lugar often, according to people who attended the session; it was clear, they said, who was the old foreign policy hand, and who was the junior senator. Shortly after, Mr. Obama joined Mr. Lugar in introducing legislation designed to keep stockpiles of weapons in the former Soviet Union from getting into the hands of terrorists.
Mr. Obama’s focus on “loose nukes,” foreign policy experts say, seems almost quaint today.
Split over Russia grows in Europe
BERLIN, Nov. 7 -- Russia sent President-elect Barack Obama a message this week when it threatened to "neutralize" the proposed U.S. missile defense shield in Eastern Europe. But analysts said the tough talk from Moscow had another aim as well: to exploit a festering divide within Europe.
Many Eastern European countries have become increasingly alarmed over what they consider Russia's aggressive attempts to re-create a sphere of influence over satellite states of the former Soviet Union. Such concerns soared after Russia sent troops into Georgia in August, sparking a brief war.
The worries worsened Wednesday when Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said the Kremlin would move short-range missiles into Kaliningrad, a sliver of Russian territory on the Baltic Sea bordering Poland and Lithuania, if the United States proceeds to base parts of a missile-defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. Lithuanian President Valdas Adamkus called the Russian threat "beyond comprehension."
In contrast, Germany, France and other countries in Western Europe play down any security risks posed by Moscow and instead see Russia foremost as a lucrative -- if unpredictable -- trading partner. These countries, which former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld once derided as "Old Europe," generally consider the U.S. missile defense project to be an unnecessary irritant.
Peter Struck, a former German defense minister and now parliamentary leader of the Social Democrats, one of Germany's two ruling political parties, called Medvedev's speech "understandable" and blamed the Bush administration for provoking Moscow. In a radio interview, he said he hoped Washington would soften its "intransigent position" on the missile shield.
As a protest over the war in Georgia, the European Union withdrew in August from negotiations with Russia over a "strategic partnership" agreement. On Wednesday, just hours before Medvedev gave his speech in Moscow, E.U. officials reversed their position and indicated they would soon resume talks. The shift was led by French and German officials who argued that engagement with Russia was more likely to succeed than isolation.
In Brussels on Friday, during a European summit on the global financial crisis, French President Nicolas Sarkozy defended the diplomatic approach. He said that he had already raised objections to Medvedev's speech but that fueling public tensions with Russia would be counterproductive. To "raise questions, it's better to see one another and talk," Sarkozy said.
In Eastern Europe, however, some leaders have lobbied for a harder line. In a joint statement this week, the presidents of Poland and Lithuania said negotiations should remain frozen because Russia has not lived up to an E.U.-brokered agreement to defuse the military conflict in Georgia.
"There is a general feeling that the Western allies are too tolerant, especially France," said Oldrich Cerny, director of the Prague Security Studies Institute and a former Czech national security adviser.
The U.S. military says the shield is designed to track and shoot down any ballistic missiles fired at Europe or the United States from a "rogue state," such as Iran.
The system would be built on several legs, with components in the United States, Britain and Greenland. More controversial has been the Pentagon's effort to place 10 interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar station in the Czech Republic.
Moscow has objected vehemently to the plan, saying that the system could be converted into an offensive weapon and aimed at Russia someday. U.S. officials say that Russia's fears are groundless and that the shield would be overwhelmed by Russia's enormous stockpile of nuclear and conventional missiles.
The Bush administration has invited Russia to participate in the shield, but talks have fizzled.
Russia has previously threatened military reprisals against Europe for supporting the shield. In August, a Russian general said Poland was "exposing itself to a strike -- 100 percent" if it agreed to host the interceptors. But Medvedev's comments were the first time that the Russian government itself has made a tangible threat to take military action against Europe since the end of the Cold War.
Russia's statements have led to increased support for the shield in Poland. After months of fitful negotiations with Washington, officials in Warsaw signed a preliminary agreement in August to accept the base.
Slawomir Debski, director of the Polish Institute of International Affairs, said public opinion shifted in favor of the shield after Russian troops moved into the Caucasus.
"Prior to the crisis over Georgia, the public was rather skeptical, and the government hesitated quite a bit," he said in a telephone interview from Warsaw. "The concern is that the rhetoric of Russia may not just be words, but that deeds may follow."
Officials in Prague also signed a preliminary accord this year to join the missile shield. But the Czech and Polish parliaments still need to approve the deal. Passage is particularly uncertain in the Czech Republic, where surveys show that a majority of residents are opposed.
Adding to the uncertainty is the forthcoming change of administrations in Washington. Obama has expressed skepticism about the project. In an interview with Fox News in September, he said the shield was "appropriate," but added, "I want to make sure it works, though."
Polish and Czech officials said they would not seek legislative approval until Obama gave his full support. For the moment, they said they are assuming the project remains on track.
"We haven't so far received any signals that the project may be changing in a negative way for us," Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said Wednesday at a news conference.
Poland, the Czech Republic and the Baltic states belong to NATO, and officials acknowledge that Russia is highly unlikely to invade.
At the same time, each of the countries is dependent on Russian gas and oil, and they fret that Russia might turn off the valves someday as political retribution, just as it did to Ukraine in the winter of 2006.
Germany also relies heavily on Russia for its energy supplies. But rather than pull away, Berlin has tried to strengthen ties with Moscow in recent years and has been reluctant to criticize the Kremlin in public. Former German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, for instance, heads a consortium of energy companies that reports to the Kremlin and is building a giant pipeline that will connect Russia to Germany under the Baltic Sea.
Klaus Segbers, a political science professor at the Free University of Berlin, said Eastern European countries should take a lesson from Germany and tone down their anti-Russian rhetoric. He said that although it may not be easy to deal with the Kremlin, there is no real alternative.
"We cannot get rid of Russia," Segbers said. "You can't put the Russians in a cage. To keep isolating Russia for an unspecified period of time is not something that will bring us any gains."
Many Eastern European countries have become increasingly alarmed over what they consider Russia's aggressive attempts to re-create a sphere of influence over satellite states of the former Soviet Union. Such concerns soared after Russia sent troops into Georgia in August, sparking a brief war.
The worries worsened Wednesday when Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said the Kremlin would move short-range missiles into Kaliningrad, a sliver of Russian territory on the Baltic Sea bordering Poland and Lithuania, if the United States proceeds to base parts of a missile-defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. Lithuanian President Valdas Adamkus called the Russian threat "beyond comprehension."
In contrast, Germany, France and other countries in Western Europe play down any security risks posed by Moscow and instead see Russia foremost as a lucrative -- if unpredictable -- trading partner. These countries, which former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld once derided as "Old Europe," generally consider the U.S. missile defense project to be an unnecessary irritant.
Peter Struck, a former German defense minister and now parliamentary leader of the Social Democrats, one of Germany's two ruling political parties, called Medvedev's speech "understandable" and blamed the Bush administration for provoking Moscow. In a radio interview, he said he hoped Washington would soften its "intransigent position" on the missile shield.
As a protest over the war in Georgia, the European Union withdrew in August from negotiations with Russia over a "strategic partnership" agreement. On Wednesday, just hours before Medvedev gave his speech in Moscow, E.U. officials reversed their position and indicated they would soon resume talks. The shift was led by French and German officials who argued that engagement with Russia was more likely to succeed than isolation.
In Brussels on Friday, during a European summit on the global financial crisis, French President Nicolas Sarkozy defended the diplomatic approach. He said that he had already raised objections to Medvedev's speech but that fueling public tensions with Russia would be counterproductive. To "raise questions, it's better to see one another and talk," Sarkozy said.
In Eastern Europe, however, some leaders have lobbied for a harder line. In a joint statement this week, the presidents of Poland and Lithuania said negotiations should remain frozen because Russia has not lived up to an E.U.-brokered agreement to defuse the military conflict in Georgia.
"There is a general feeling that the Western allies are too tolerant, especially France," said Oldrich Cerny, director of the Prague Security Studies Institute and a former Czech national security adviser.
The U.S. military says the shield is designed to track and shoot down any ballistic missiles fired at Europe or the United States from a "rogue state," such as Iran.
The system would be built on several legs, with components in the United States, Britain and Greenland. More controversial has been the Pentagon's effort to place 10 interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar station in the Czech Republic.
Moscow has objected vehemently to the plan, saying that the system could be converted into an offensive weapon and aimed at Russia someday. U.S. officials say that Russia's fears are groundless and that the shield would be overwhelmed by Russia's enormous stockpile of nuclear and conventional missiles.
The Bush administration has invited Russia to participate in the shield, but talks have fizzled.
Russia has previously threatened military reprisals against Europe for supporting the shield. In August, a Russian general said Poland was "exposing itself to a strike -- 100 percent" if it agreed to host the interceptors. But Medvedev's comments were the first time that the Russian government itself has made a tangible threat to take military action against Europe since the end of the Cold War.
Russia's statements have led to increased support for the shield in Poland. After months of fitful negotiations with Washington, officials in Warsaw signed a preliminary agreement in August to accept the base.
Slawomir Debski, director of the Polish Institute of International Affairs, said public opinion shifted in favor of the shield after Russian troops moved into the Caucasus.
"Prior to the crisis over Georgia, the public was rather skeptical, and the government hesitated quite a bit," he said in a telephone interview from Warsaw. "The concern is that the rhetoric of Russia may not just be words, but that deeds may follow."
Officials in Prague also signed a preliminary accord this year to join the missile shield. But the Czech and Polish parliaments still need to approve the deal. Passage is particularly uncertain in the Czech Republic, where surveys show that a majority of residents are opposed.
Adding to the uncertainty is the forthcoming change of administrations in Washington. Obama has expressed skepticism about the project. In an interview with Fox News in September, he said the shield was "appropriate," but added, "I want to make sure it works, though."
Polish and Czech officials said they would not seek legislative approval until Obama gave his full support. For the moment, they said they are assuming the project remains on track.
"We haven't so far received any signals that the project may be changing in a negative way for us," Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said Wednesday at a news conference.
Poland, the Czech Republic and the Baltic states belong to NATO, and officials acknowledge that Russia is highly unlikely to invade.
At the same time, each of the countries is dependent on Russian gas and oil, and they fret that Russia might turn off the valves someday as political retribution, just as it did to Ukraine in the winter of 2006.
Germany also relies heavily on Russia for its energy supplies. But rather than pull away, Berlin has tried to strengthen ties with Moscow in recent years and has been reluctant to criticize the Kremlin in public. Former German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, for instance, heads a consortium of energy companies that reports to the Kremlin and is building a giant pipeline that will connect Russia to Germany under the Baltic Sea.
Klaus Segbers, a political science professor at the Free University of Berlin, said Eastern European countries should take a lesson from Germany and tone down their anti-Russian rhetoric. He said that although it may not be easy to deal with the Kremlin, there is no real alternative.
"We cannot get rid of Russia," Segbers said. "You can't put the Russians in a cage. To keep isolating Russia for an unspecified period of time is not something that will bring us any gains."
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)