Politics
Beware the Ivanov Doctrine
Reading Time: 4 minutesBeware the Ivanov Doctrine
David J. Smith*
“ Russia is pursuing a consistent and, where necessary, even tough policy in upholding its national interests,” writes Russian Defense Minister Sergey Ivanov in the July 13 edition of Izvestia. His Triad of National Values—sovereign democracy, strong economy and military might—is a stark, comprehensive exposition of Moscow’s increasingly bellicose foreign policy. With Russian military helicopters buzzing above Zugdidi, we had better take a close look at the Ivanov doctrine.
Published as leaders of the world’s industrial democracies were winging their way to Saint Petersburg for the G-8 Summit, Ivanov’s article was also meant to discourage the distinguished guests from dwelling on matters that might embarrass Putin in his hometown.
Ivanov’s warning combined with the Israel-Hizbollah clash to stifle any serious G-8 discussion of energy security. European leaders had been concerned about Russia ’s reliability as an energy supplier since Putin’s brazen January 1 gas cutoff to Ukraine . But Ivanov’s words preempt: “ Russia ’s economic potential today makes it possible to maintain world energy stability.” Then—for anyone who failed to understand—he adds that Russia is an “energy superpower.” Accordingly, the G-8 adopted an anodyne statement on energy security and that was that—until the coming winter.
Whether we will sustain another Kremlin-inspired blackout or some other low blow, Ivanov is clear that Moscow will continue bullying. And bullying is usually rooted in feelings of inadequacy. Indeed, Ivanov’s article bewrays a manic depression that alternates bouts of defensiveness with thrusts of aggression and delusions of grandeur.
Russia, says Ivanov, “faced a real threat of losing its independence,” but “the situation began to change cardinally in the past six years,” (during Putin’s presidency, that is). Russia is again a great power—tough—“resolutely resisting any attempts to interfere in [its] internal affairs and impose standards of life that are alien.” What is that? Who is attempting to impose anything on Russia ? Insecure leaders of marginal countries intone this sort of ranting against McDonald’s restaurants. Sadly, this comes from the man who may be Russia ’s next president.
As one might expect, the defense minister’s manic depression originates close to home, in defensiveness about Russia ’s oft-criticized political system. Russia , he explains, is a “sovereign democracy…which implies the right of citizens to determine policy in their country and uphold that right against external pressure by any means, including by means of arms.”
This apparently against “those of our partners in the community of democratic states…that criticize us for not being democratic enough and even for attempts to revive authoritarianism.” (Most of Russia ’s citizens have long since given up any notion of “determining policy in their country.”)
With regard to the international critics, Ivanov is correct that “all democratic states have their national peculiarities.” Japan ’s democracy is unlike India ’s or England ’s. Italy ’s parliamentary system is different from America ’s presidential one, which is different from France ’s presidential system. And the French Fifth Republic is a marked departure from the French Fourth Republic , which somewhat resembled the Italian parliamentary system. No one begrudges Russia its idiosyncrasies.
Ivanov’s error is to qualify democracy with an adjective—sovereign—that obscures Russia’s departure from the norms shared by all modern democracies: majority rule, minority rights, rule of law, basic civil liberties, including free exchange of ideas and guarantee of private property. Moreover, it is manic to threaten critics—domestic or foreign—with force of arms.
Looking outward, on one hand, Ivanov claims, “ Russia has always tried to adhere to the principles of non-interference.” On the other hand, he declares that each world power is engaged in “a special ideological project that competes with others for the right to determine the world agenda and prospects for the development of humankind.”
Presumably, Moscow ’s attention to the world agenda underpins its protracted mischief in Transdniestria, Samachablo and Abkhazia. Its concern for humankind no doubt motivated its cutoff of Georgian energy during the dead of last winter and its embargo on Georgian wine, water and agricultural products.
Most recently, two Russian military helicopters overflew Georgia ’s Zugdidi district on August 19. A few days later, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin reiterated that Moscow regards its illegal distribution of passports to current residents of Abkhazia, which Russia recognizes is part of Georgia, as a potential pretext for even greater interference in that region. “We will not leave in the lurch our citizens who live outside Russia ,” Karasin told Izvestia.
By the way, Putin has not yet found time to reschedule the meeting with Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili that was to have been held in July.
The Kremlin is playing tough and it is plain to see why Ivanov believes that Russia needs to be so tough. In his view, there are only enemies. “In the first camp are soft opponents,” those that criticize, that “are unhappy about an independent, strong and confident Russia .” In Ivanov’s “second camp” are those that have “declared an all-out terrorist war on the whole civilized world.” Of course, this would be depressing—and from this follows the truly manic part of the Ivanov doctrine.
Russia must deter its soft opponents; repel the terrorists. “Given existing geopolitical risks we put the emphasis on the qualitative perfection of the strategic deterrence forces that are capable of effectively destroying an aggressor by a retaliatory strike or a counterstrike under any circumstances. To this end, they are being armed with Topol-M ground-based missile systems and will soon start to get the Bulava-30 sea based missile systems.”
Let us be clear about these weapons. The Topol-M, also known in Russia as the RS-12M, and to NATO as the SS-27, is a modern 10,500 kilometer-range ballistic missile. It carries a single 550-kiloton nuclear warhead, although the Moscow Institute of Heat Technology is reportedly fitting the Topol-M to carry three independent warheads. The Bulava-30 is a 10,000 kilometer-range submarine-launched version of the Topol-M, known to NATO as the SS-NX-30. According to Ivanov, these missiles “can pierce existing and future missile defense.”
Ivanov’s assertion that “a great deal of attention in military development plans is paid to strengthening general purpose forces” fails to overcome the impression that he is over-reliant on strategic nuclear weapons.
This may stem from Russia ’s January 14, 2000 National Security Blueprint that broadened the application for nuclear weapons, presumably to compensate for the weakness of Russian conventional forces. However, it also appears rooted in Ivanov’s insecurity about Russia ’s greatness in the face of “only one power center [that] seeks to dominate the planet,” a clear Cold War-style reference to the United States.
Ivanov is living in another world. His doctrine would be comical if it were not so sad and, frankly, dangerous for the world in which the rest of us live. This is unlikely to change until, to borrow Ivanov’s words, Russia is truly democratic, independent, strong and confident. Far from being enemies, most of us wish Russia success in attaining these goals—that would be in our interest too.
David J. Smith is Senior Fellow at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, Washington, and Director of the Georgian Security Analysis Center, Tbilisi. // Izvestia
A new football club has earned a leading place in the UEFA Champions League groups and starred in the headlines of worldwide football news yesterday. The Football Club Sheriff Tiraspol claimed a win with the score 2-1 against Real Madrid on the Santiago Bernabeu Stadium in Madrid. That made Sheriff Tiraspol the leader in Group D of the Champions League, including the football club in the groups of the most important European interclub competition for the first time ever.
International media outlets called it a miracle, a shock and a historic event, while strongly emphasizing the origin of the team and the existing political conflict between the two banks of the Dniester. “Football club from a pro-Russian separatist enclave in Moldova pulls off one of the greatest upsets in Champions League history,” claimed the news portals. “Sheriff crushed Real!” they said.
Moldovans made a big fuss out of it on social media, splitting into two groups: those who praised the team and the Republic of Moldova for making history and those who declared that the football club and their merits belong to Transnistria – a problematic breakaway region that claims to be a separate country.
Both groups are right and not right at the same time, as there is a bunch of ethical, political, social and practical matters that need to be considered.
Is it Moldova?
First of all, every Moldovan either from the right or left bank of Dniester (Transnistria) is free to identify himself with this achievement or not to do so, said Vitalie Spranceana, a sociologist, blogger, journalist and urban activist. According to him, boycotting the football club for being a separatist team is wrong.
At the same time, “it’s an illusion to think that territory matters when it comes to football clubs,” Spranceana claimed. “Big teams, the ones included in the Champions League, have long lost their connection both with the countries in which they operate, and with the cities in which they appeared and to which they linked their history. […] In the age of globalized commercial football, teams, including the so-called local ones, are nothing more than global traveling commercial circuses, incidentally linked to cities, but more closely linked to all sorts of dirty, semi-dirty and cleaner cash flows.”
What is more important in this case is the consistency, not so much of citizens, as of politicians from the government who have “no right to celebrate the success of separatism,” as they represent “the national interests, not the personal or collective pleasures of certain segments of the population,” believes the political expert Dionis Cenusa. The victory of FC Sheriff encourages Transnistrian separatism, which receives validation now, he also stated.
“I don’t know how it happens that the “proud Moldovans who chose democracy”, in their enthusiasm for Sheriff Tiraspol’s victory over Real Madrid, forget the need for total and unconditional withdrawal of Russian troops from Transnistria!” declared the journalist Vitalie Ciobanu.
Nowadays, FC Sheriff Tiraspol has no other choice than to represent Moldova internationally. For many years, the team used the Moldovan Football Federation in order to be able to participate in championships, including international ones. That is because the region remains unrecognised by the international community. However, the club’s victory is presented as that of Transnistria within the region, without any reference to the Republic of Moldova, its separatist character being applied in this case especially.
Is it a victory?
In fact, FC Sheriff Tiraspol joining the Champions League is a huge image breakthrough for the Transnistrian region, as the journalist Madalin Necsutu claimed. It is the success of the Tiraspol Club oligarchic patrons. From the practical point of view, FC Sheriff Tiraspol is a sports entity that serves its own interests and the interests of its owners, being dependent on the money invested by Tiraspol (but not only) oligarchs.
Here comes the real dilemma: the Transnistrian team, which is generously funded by money received from corruption schemes and money laundering, is waging an unequal fight with the rest of the Moldovan football clubs, the journalist also declared. The Tiraspol team is about to raise 15.6 million euro for reaching the Champions League groups and the amounts increase depending on their future performance. According to Necsutu, these money will go directly on the account of the club, not to the Moldovan Football Federation, creating an even bigger gab between FC Sheriff and other football clubs from Moldova who have much more modest financial possibilities.
“I do not see anything useful for Moldovan football, not a single Moldovan player is part of FC Sheriff Tiraspol. I do not see anything beneficial for the Moldovan Football Federation or any national team.”
Is it only about football?
FC Sheriff Tiraspol, with a total estimated value of 12.8 million euros, is controlled by Victor Gusan and Ilya Kazmala, being part of Sheriff Holding – a company that controls the trade of wholesale, retail food, fuels and medicine by having monopolies on these markets in Transnistria. The holding carries out car trading activities, but also operates in the field of construction and real estate. Gusan’s people also hold all of the main leadership offices in the breakaway region, from Parliament to the Prime Minister’s seat or the Presidency.
The football club is supported by a holding alleged of smuggling, corruption, money laundering and organised crime. Moldovan media outlets published investigations about the signals regarding the Sheriff’s holding involvement in the vote mobilization and remuneration of citizens on the left bank of the Dniester who participated in the snap parliamentary elections this summer and who were eager to vote for the pro-Russian socialist-communist bloc.
Considering the above, there is a great probability that the Republic of Moldova will still be represented by a football club that is not identified as being Moldovan, being funded from obscure money, growing in power and promoting the Transnistrian conflict in the future as well.
Photo: unknown
Prime Minister of the Republic of Moldova, Natalia Gavrilita, together with Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nicu Popescu, pay an official visit to Brussels, between September 27-28, being invited by High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell Fontelles.
Today, Prime Minister had a meeting with Charles Michel, President of the European Council. The Moldovan PM thanked the senior European official for the support of the institution in strengthening democratic processes, reforming the judiciary and state institutions, economic recovery and job creation, as well as increasing citizens’ welfare. Natalia Gavrilita expressed her confidence that the current visit laid the foundations for boosting relations between the Republic of Moldova and the European Union, so that, in the next period, it would be possible to advance high-level dialogues on security, justice and energy. Officials also exchanged views on priorities for the Eastern Partnership Summit, to be held in December.
“The EU is open to continue to support the Republic of Moldova and the ambitious reform agenda it proposes. Moldova is an important and priority partner for us,” said Charles Michel.
Prime Minister Natalia Gavrilita also met with Paolo Gentiloni, European Commissioner for Economy, expressing her gratitude for the support received through the OMNIBUS macro-financial assistance program. The two officials discussed the need to advance the recovery of money from bank fraud, to strengthen sustainable mechanisms for supporting small and medium-sized enterprises in Moldova, and to standardize the customs and taxes as one of the main conditions for deepening cooperation with the EU in this field.
Additionally, Prime Minister spoke about the importance of the Eastern Partnership and the Deep Free Trade Agreement, noting that the Government’s policies are aimed at developing an economic model aligned with the European economic model, focused on digitalization, energy efficiency and the green economy.
A common press release of the Moldovan Prime Minister with High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the Commission, Josep Borrell Fontelles, took place today, where the agenda of Moldova’s reforms and the main priorities to focus on in the coming months were presented: judiciary reform; fighting COVID-19 pandemic; promoting economic recovery and conditions for growth and job creation; strengthening state institutions and resilience of the country.
“I am here to relaunch the dialogue between my country and the European Union. Our partnership is strong, but I believe there is room for even deeper cooperation and stronger political, economic and sectoral ties. I am convinced that this partnership is the key to the prosperity of our country and I hope that we will continue to strengthen cooperation.”
The Moldovan delegation met Didier Reynders, European Commissioner for Justice. Tomorrow, there are scheduled common meetings with Oliver Varhelyi, European Commissioner for Neighborhood and Enlargement, Adina Valean, European Commissioner for Transport and Kadri Simson, European Commissioner for Energy.
Prime Minister will also attend a public event, along with Katarina Mathernova, Deputy Director-General for Neighbourhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations.
Photo: gov.md
Politics
Promo-LEX about Maia Sandu’s UN speech: The president must insist on appointing a rapporteur to monitor the situation of human rights in Transnistria
The President of the Republic of Moldova, Maia Sandu, pays an official visit to New York, USA, between September 21-22. There, she participates in the work of the United Nations General Assembly. According to a press release of the President’s Office, the official will deliver a speech at the tribune of the United Nations.
In this context, the Promo-LEX Association suggested the president to request the appointment of a special rapporteur in order to monitor the situation of human rights in the Transnistrian region. According to Promo-LEX, the responsibility for human rights violations in the Transnistrian region arises as a result of the Russian Federation’s military, economic and political control over the Tiraspol regime.
“We consider it imperative to insist on the observance of the international commitments assumed by the Russian Federation regarding the withdrawal of the armed forces and ammunition from the territory of the country,” the representatives of Promo-LEX stated. They consider the speech before the UN an opportunity “to demand the observance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the Russian Federation with reference to this territory which is in its full control.”
“It is important to remember about the numerous cases of murder, torture, ill-treatment, forced enlistment in illegal military structures, the application of pseudo-justice in the Transnistrian region, all carried out under the tacit agreement of the Russian Federation. These findings stem from dozens of rulings and decisions issued by the European Court of Human Rights, which found that Russia is responsible for human rights violations in the region.”
The association representatives expressed their hope that the president of the country would give priority to issues related to the human rights situation in the Transnistrian region and would call on relevant international actors to contribute to guaranteeing fundamental human rights and freedoms throughout Moldova.
They asked Maia Sandu to insist on the observance of the obligation to evacuate the ammunition and the military units of the Russian Federation from the territory of the Republic of Moldova, to publicly support the need for the Russian Federation to implement the ECtHR rulings on human rights violations in the Transnistrian region, and to request the appointment of an UN Human Rights Council special rapporteur to monitor the human rights situation in the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova.
**
The Promo-LEX Association concluded that 14 out of 25 actions planned within the National Action Plan for the years 2018–2022 concerning respecting human rights in Transnistria were not carried out by the responsible authorities.
The association expressed its concern and mentioned that there are a large number of delays in the planned results. “There is a lack of communication and coordination between the designated institutions, which do not yet have a common vision of interaction for the implementation of the plan.”
Promo-LEX requested the Government of the Republic of Moldova to re-assess the reported activities and to take urgent measures, “which would exclude superficial implementation of future activities and increase the level of accountability of the authorities.”
Photo: peacekeeping.un.org
“They are not needy, but they need help”. How Moldovan volunteers try to create a safe environment for the Ukrainian refugees
Reading Time: 3 minutesAt the Government’s ground floor, the phones ring constantly, the laptop screens never reach standby. In one...
#WorldForUkraine – a map that shows the magnitude of the world’s actions against Russian aggression
Reading Time: 2 minutesThe international community and volunteers from all over te world have launched #WorldForUkraine as a platform that...
How is Moldova managing the big influx of Ukrainian refugees? The authorities’ plan, explained
Reading Time: 3 minutesFrom 24th to 28th of February, 71 359 Ukrainian citizens entered the territory of Republic of Moldova....
Russia And Ukraine At The Beginning of 2022
Reading Time: 4 minutesThis opinion piece was written by Dr. Nicholas Dima. Dr. Dima was formerly a Professor of Geography and...
The man raising children on Nistru river
Reading Time: 7 minutesOn the Nistru, near the village of Varnița, a few colored pens with blue dots in the...
The village of the first astronomer in the Republic of Moldova
Reading Time: 5 minutesFrom eight in the morning till noon, every Thursday and Sunday, people lay their merchandise on the...
The prodigal son returns and turns his grandparents’ home in a tourist attraction on Nistru river
Reading Time: 7 minutesOn the road towards the school, a well-maintained rural house catches your eye, yellow stags painted on...
FC Sheriff Tiraspol victory: can national pride go hand in hand with political separatism?
Reading Time: 4 minutesA new football club has earned a leading place in the UEFA Champions League groups and starred...
Study// What is the reaction of authorities to journalistic investigations?
Reading Time: 3 minutes“People expect logical consequences when they see cases of undeclared assets, conflicts of interest, protectionism or proof...
Secretary General of CoE called on Moldova’s state institutions to avoid constitutional crisis. Politicians took it the way they wanted.
Reading Time: 3 minutesAt the beginning of this month, Speaker of Parliament, Zinaida Greceanii, sent a letter to Secretary General...