Posts Tagged ‘david satter’

13
September 2013

Putin in the Times

National Review Online

President Putin’s “plea for caution” to the U.S. in the New York Times raises two questions – one a matter of fact, the other a question of sincerity.

The factual question concerns the attack itself. Putin acknowledges that someone used poison gas in Syria but argues that “there is every reason to believe” it was the rebels. He offers no support for this key assertion.

The Russians are capable of amassing evidence. They have already done so in the case of the possible chemical-weapons attack March 19 in Khan al-Assal in which 26 persons were killed. Their 100-page report was presented to the United Nations with its principal conclusions released on the eve of the G-20 St. Petersburg summit. Why then, despite having excellent sources in the Syrian government, are they unable to provide any evidence to support their arguments in the case of Ghouta where the death toll was 1,429?

The other question raised by Putin’s op-ed is that of sincerity. Putin discourses at length about the importance of the United Nations, where Russia has a veto, and of international law. But is it reasonable to trust the stated defense of international law by a country which is itself completely lawless?

In December, 2012, the U.S. passed the Magnitsky Act which provided for a travel ban and the confiscation of assets of Russians implicated in the murder of Sergei Magnitsky, a lawyer who exposed a massive tax-cheating scheme run by high-ranking Russian officials. Were Russia a law-based state, its leadership would have been grateful to the U.S. for this added assistance in bringing criminals to justice. Instead, the leadership defended the criminals and retaliated against the U.S. legislation by banning the adoption by American families of Russian children.

Read More →

Share:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Tumblr
  • StumbleUpon
  • FriendFeed
  • NewsVine
  • Digg
02
July 2013

So much for the reset

New York Times

The news that Russia has no plans to hand over former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden casts an important light on the “reset” policy that has defined US–Russian relations for almost five years.

The Snowden case should be relatively straightforward. He has violated the laws of the US. His passport has been cancelled, and he cannot legally leave the transit area of Moscow’s Sheremetyevo Airport. The US has asked for his return. In the last five years, the US has returned 1,700 Russian citizens to Russia at the request of the government. Of these, 500 were criminal deportations.

Despite this, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that Snowden had the right to “fly in any direction” from the transit zone. This type of response was exactly what the reset policy was supposed to prevent. The policy was based on the notion that President Bush had mishandled Russia and responsiveness to Russian concerns would produce positive results. The policy, however, had a serious flaw. It failed to account for the nature of the Russian system and the psychology of the Russian leaders.

In making policy toward Russia, the US has concentrated on what are called “deliverables” — treaties, agreements, working groups. In the interest of obtaining these deliverables, the US deliberately downplayed Russian violations of human rights. When Putin was elected president of Russia for the third time in elections marked by massive falsification, Obama congratulated him. At the 2009 Moscow Summit, Obama praised the “extraordinary work” that Putin had done in Russia. He described Putin as “sincere, just and deeply interested in the interests of the Russian people.” This was done despite credible reports that while running Russia, Putin had amassed a personal fortune of nearly $40 billion and was the richest man in Europe.

Read More →

Share:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Tumblr
  • StumbleUpon
  • FriendFeed
  • NewsVine
  • Digg
21
December 2012

On the Line “Human Rights in Russia”

Voice of America

The US and Russia are sparring over human rights. Congress passed, and President Barack Obama signed, a new law that bars Russians guilty of human rights abuses from traveling to the United States. The measure was named the Magnitsky Act, after the lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, who died in a Russian jail. Russia’s Foreign Ministry denounced the law as “dangerous” and called it “interference into our internal affairs.” Russian President Vladimir

Putin called the passage of the law an “unfriendly act.” What will the Magnitsky Act do for human rights? And what will it do to US-Russia relations?

GUESTS:
Carroll Colley: Director-Russia, Eurasia Group.
David Satter: Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZLrf7LCmy0 микрозаймы онлайн hairy woman https://zp-pdl.com https://zp-pdl.com/best-payday-loans.php займы без отказа

онлайн займ на киви кошелёк срочно credit-n.ru займ без процентов на карту мгновенно
онлайн займ на карту маэстро credit-n.ru займ онлайн на киви кошелек срочно
быстро займ на карточку credit-n.ru кредит без верификации карты
займ на карту мгновенно без отказа credit-n.ru займ на кредитную карту мгновенно

Share:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Tumblr
  • StumbleUpon
  • FriendFeed
  • NewsVine
  • Digg
22
June 2012

Clinton in the WSJ Strays on Russia Relations

National Review

In her op-ed in the June 20 Wall Street Journal, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calls for the rescinding of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment that excludes Russia from permanent normal trading relations with the U.S., and argues that this will encourage a more open and prosperous Russia. At the same time, she indirectly argues against the proposed Magnitsky law (H.R. 4405) that would bar Russians involved in the murder of Sergei Magnitsky, a lawyer who investigated high level corruption, from entering the U.S.

In fact, rescinding Jackson-Vanik without passing the Magnitsky Law would be tantamount to abandoning any serious attempt to influence the internal situation in Russia and would not lead to a more “open and prosperous Russia.”

In her op-ed, Clinton refers to the “tragic death” of Magnitsky as if he died in a traffic accident. In fact, Magnitsky was deliberately tortured and murdered with the full participation of high-ranking Russian officials. She also states that the State Department has already imposed a visa ban on those implicated in Magnitsky’s death, without mentioning that the supposedly banned officials have never been named and, in the absence of a law, their ability to enter the U.S. could be restored at any time. There are also strong indications in statements from the Russian side that instead of the 60 officials that members of Congress believe are involved in the case, the State Department is prepared to ban only eleven.

Read More →

Share:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Tumblr
  • StumbleUpon
  • FriendFeed
  • NewsVine
  • Digg
28
March 2012

Obama’s Open Microphone

National Review Online

The remarks of President Obama to Dmitry Medvedev over an open microphone, in which he promised that in a second term, he will have flexibility on the issue of global missile defense, shows that when it comes to U.S.–Russian relations, Obama is a stunningly slow learner.

The relations between a U.S. president and a Russian leader often follow a depressing pattern. The American leader charms (or thinks he charms) his Russian counterpart. The Russian leader begins to engage in criminal behavior, which gets steadily worse. Finally, something big happens — the invasion of Afghanistan, the nuclear poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in London, the invasion of Georgia — and the realization dawns that the Russian is neither a Christian nor a friend and he has to be approached with realism.

Since taking office in 2008, Obama has had ample reason to reconsider the wisdom of relying on Russian goodwill, including Russia’s fixed elections and official involvement in the murder of Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky. But he persists in seeing the Putin regime as a “partner” and the real threat as coming from the political opposition in the U.S.

Obama hinted in his now-public conversation with Medvedev that he is ready to meet Russian concerns. In fact, he needs to be prevented from doing so because the steps the Russians are demanding will not lead to a real improvement in relations and are inimical to the security interests of the U.S.

Read More →

Share:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Tumblr
  • StumbleUpon
  • FriendFeed
  • NewsVine
  • Digg