RUSSIA

FIONA HILL, Brookings Institution Foreign Policy Fellow, November 7, 2001
CZIKOWSKY: What is your assessment of how well democratic reforms have been successful in Russia? To what degree does Russia’s poor economy threaten these reforms? How stable is the democratic progress that has been made, and what is your evaluation of how further reforms may be implemented and sustained?
FILL: Many members of the Russian political and economic elite see Russia’s economic success and progress in democratization as linked, and would argue that as the economy improves and Russian citizens’ material interests are addressed, political stability will increase and democratization will process. That might also be Putin’s argument.
Clearly, there has been considerable progress in expanding the political space in Russia since the collapse of the USSR. President Yeltsin. For all his faults, was instrumental in capitalizing on the reforms already undertaken by Gorbachev to entrench the concept of democratic elections, a degree of power sharing, and checks and balances, ensuring freedom of speech and assembly, etc.
To some degree some of these gains have been curbed since Putin’s accession to power, he has reined in the press as an instrument to criticize the government and the President, squeezed human rights organizations and other NGOs---or at least made it more difficult for them to operate, and clearly allowed considerable abuses of human rights to continue in Chechnya (although President Yeltsin was also very much guilty of this and was the instigator of the war). But Ptin has forged ahead with an extremely liberal agenda of economic reform, which so far seems to be having some success as well as garnering praise internationally.
President Putin’s overall goal is to strengthen the Russian state, and he has singled out strengthening the economy as the means to that end. Unfortunately in Russia, strengthening the state has traditionally taken place at the expense of society, and this is where future reforms will have to concentrate, on strengthening society in tandem with the state.
Here the U.S. and Russia’s other international partners can play a role in targeting assistance toward civil society initiatives at the grassroots level. And U.S.-supported institutions like the Eurasia Foundation, based here in Washington, D.C., are doing just that---targeting small grants to indigenous Russian NGOs and local Russian governments to assist them to expand the political space for their operations and to step in and fill some of the gaps left by the central state in addressing society’s needs. The grassroots approach has proven effective.

STROBE TALBOTT, former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State, May 23, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: It is my impression that Russia is a third world country with nuclear weapons. Indeed, it was the focus on military spending that collapsed the Soviet economy. What do you see as the future for the Russian economy, and is there hope that the Russian people will see significant improvements in their economic standing in the near future?
TALBOTT: The Russian economy is unquestionable a mess. That is largely because of the legacy of communism. For Russia to succeed economically it needs to replace a corrupt and outmoded system with a modern system f taxation, fair regulatory practices, and laws that protect private property and investment.
CZIKOWSKY: Russia relies on Iraq for much of its oil. Obviously they are concerned in the United States would ever go to war with Iraq. What energy source alternatives are available to Russia, and to what degree do you believe Russia would go towards protecting Iraq?
TALBOTT: Russia relies on Iraq not so much for oil as for money that Iraq owes Russia for years past. Russia has plenty of oil on its own. Getting Russian support for pressure and possible military action against Iraq will probably require assurances to Russia that Iraqi debts will eventually be paid.

DAVID HOFFMAN, Washington Post Foreign Editor, May 24, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: Leaving aside the irony of discussing the inequitable distribution of wealth in a former communist country, what recommendations do you have for improving the economic health of Russia? Russians have suffered from a weak economy for a long time. What will it take to give the Russian people a higher standard of living?
HOFFMAN: Good question and there are lots of answers. One big improvement would be to get a decent banking system. Banks are really important---Russia is a rich country and yet one of the key methods of making good use of that wealth is broken: the banks. You know, banks were among the first private businesses to succeed, even in the late Soviet period, thousands of them sprang up, and the field is now overgrown with weeds---hundreds of small banks that do nothing but serve one company, if that.
Some other ideas: rule of law, better corporate governance, transparency---all would help reduce the risk of doing business there, attract investment.

STROBE TALBOTT, Brookings Institution President, August 19, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: What is your analysis of how the Russian government is doing? Is the economy improving any? Have the possibilities of the communists regaining power diminished significantly?
TALBOTT: Russia has made extraordinary strides in the last decade and a half. As someone who has spent most of his career studying that place, I never expected to see the day when Russia would be developing a parliamentary democracy and a multi-party political system. That said, there are a lot of problems, including the economy. The Russian economy was beginning to turn around and even take off, but the recent showdown between some powers-that-be in the Kremlin and the so-called oligarchs has had a chilling effect on Russia’s ability to attract and retain foreign capital, which is crucial if the economy is going to continue to modernize.
My other concern about Russia is Chechnya, which is festering in a way that threatens to poison the democratization of the country as a whole.

WOLFGANG ISCHINGER, Federal Republican of Germany Ambassador to the United States, October 2, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: How concerned are you about the stability of the Russian government? Are you worried about the dramatic policy reversals that could shift Russia away from closer friendship with European nations? Or does Russia seem to have become a firm ally of Europe?
ISCHINGER: As someone who has been quite involved in our relationship with Russia, I am delighted to see how much Germany and the United States agreed today on how best to deal with Russia. We tend to believe that President Putin has embarked on a very important journey to move his country toward modernization, toward the rule of law and in a more general sense, toward the West. This decision provides a historical opportunity for the U.S. and her partners in Western Europe to create a very different relationship with Russia then the one that existed during the decades of the Cold War.
It also provides an opportunity to create what President Bush 41 called the dream of a Europe whole and free. Because at least the Western part of Russia is also part of Europe.

SUSAN GLASSER, Washington Post Moscow Correspondent, September 24, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: This may be a tad offbeat. Last week, we saw President Putin nervously admit, after telling Sir Paul McCartney that he listened to Beatles music, that he had violated the Soviet ban on their music. Then, after telling Paul he wouldn’t be at his concert, he arrives in mid-concert. In the few seconds he was shown, we could see his bodyguards slightly bopping to the music while Putin stood coldly.
My question: is this all symbolic of Putin trying to balance the Russia of the past of his KGB days, the one that rejected Western ideas, along with the emerging Russia of the future, the one that accepts Western music and Western ideas?
GLASSES: Offbeat, maybe, but very interesting analysis…In a lot of ways I think you’ve hit on one of the interesting contradictions of Putin as a politician—his balance of Soviet-era symbolism with the new rhetoric of economic reform, global integration and at least formal homage to the notion of democracy. Russians, after decades of experience in the Soviet state, are very adept at reading the symbolism of public events for themselves—they don’t need to be told what it means when Putin says he’s in favor of restoring the Soviet national anthem, for example. And Putlin listening to “Back in the USSR” in Red Square is also a powerful symbolic moment…one that is very familiar to Putin-watchers.

VALERY YARYNICH, Russian Academy for Military Sciences Professor, April 20, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Many Americans are not fully aware that Moscow has been victimized by terrorist attacks. Terrorism is essentially a global concern. Further, the sale of goods and assistance to terrorist groups often crosses borders. How well do you believe the United States and Russia will expand cooperation on preventing terrorism should the overall efforts begin to slide towards a particular direction that is more of a concern to one country than to the other?
YARYNICH: Yes, I think such cooperation would be a good idea. Both countries have suffered.

SARAH MENDELSON, Center for Strategic and International Studies Senior Fellow, August 24, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Isn’t a major problem that the Russian people have had little historical exposure to true democracy? May their attitudes towards democracy improve over time as they observe democracies that work and if their government moves closer towards a democracy that is more open to public expression?
MENDELSON: Historical legacy is an issue for every country including our own. We think that an important issue that affects the development of democracy in Russia today is in fact what George Orwell called “memory holes”. How do people understand the past? There has never been a full accounting of what happened under Stalin. When we hear educated Russians speak in focus groups about “the order” that was under Stalin, we realize they cannot possibly be speaking about the random terror of having the KGB knock on your door or your neighbor’s door and haul you off to jail. So it is not only that current problems are lack of exposure but a process of reconciliation with the past that has not gone on but which we observe as very important in places like Germany. In closing, to be clear, we do not believe that any country or society is bound to its history. So yes, their attitudes toward democracy can improve with exposure and with practice.

EUGENE RUMER, National Defense University Senior Fellow, December 17, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: One would think that the Russian government learned that oppressing foreigners is too costly and that it is impossible to win the support and approval of an oppressed population. Trade through societies that respect each other creates the most stable system, and it seems that Gorbachev and Yeltsin had some understanding of this and were moving Russia towards such a goal. Is Putin of an old era KGN mentality that he wishes to reverse this, or what is it that seems to be driving Russia towards attempting towards a new era of imperialism.
RUMER: Thank you very much for your question. Now, I am not sure how to answer your question. I think we are dealing with a country that has yet to come to terms with its history. For nearly 75 years the Soviet people were taught one way. Then during perestroika they were told that everything they’d learned since 1917 was wrong and they would have to start all over again. And then the 1990s, with their chaos and the breakup of the country and its economy were very difficult. That leaves them with no clear vision. Is Putin of the old school? I don’t know/ A lot of people in Russia these days are of the old school, the new school, and the in-between school.

SARAH MENDELSON, Center for Strategic and International Studies, April 26, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: When it is stated that many Russians miss the past when their country was a world military leader, does that in fact mean there is strong sentiment to a militaristic, communist system, or is that just nostalgia and that clearer heads are likely to prevail and prevent a return to such a societal system?
MENDELSON: Russians have not entirely come to terms with the past and that what we see in part is as Anne Applebaum has written about the Gulag, “the political consequences of absent memory”. Russia and Russians could benefit from more exploration of their history (as could many Americans!)
I don’t think there is really any turning back though to the Soviet Union. I worry that public space has shrunk so much and that the trend lines are negative in Russia all pointing towards increased authoritarianism—but not toward a communist state.

CELESTE WALLANDER, CSIS Russia and Eurasia Program Director, May 18, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: This is probably an obviously dumb question, but how did a capitalist become so rich in a communist society? Were there exemptions for certain people? Was it bribery, or what?
WALLANDER: It’s an extremely good question, and the basic answer is corruption. The Soviet Union was not a capitalist political-economic system, but it was a deeply corrupt one where access to state power and state resources provided wealth and privilege. This ranged from special stores and apartments for the Politburo and top Community Party officials to petty corruption through the Soviet state and party system, such as trading access to special vacation spots for political favors. However, most of this wealth and privilege was hidden because it contracted the ideology of egalitarian communism. Nevertheless, it was there.
When the Soviet system began to break apart in the late 1980s under Gorbachev, insider access still mattered and provided an opportunity for wealth and privilege. But since the political and economic systems were shifting, the rules and opportunities were shifting, too. Khodorkovsky, for example, was well positioned to exploit the shifting rules. He was a leader within the Community youth organization, and figured out how to use that access to make money as the Soviet system experimented with limited free enterprise. But it was not really free, because he and others like him used their insider control of state and party institutions to create wealth and assets. In the words of political scientist State Solnick, there was a frenzy of “stealing the state” on the part of smart, young, insider communists, who quickly became capitalists as the rules changed.
And yes, there was a lot of bribery going on, and it still goes on today. Russia left its communist political and economic system behind, but the system and culture of corruption has persisted, and pervades all aspects of Russian life. There was a great deal of hope when Putin became President that he would tackle corruption, and his promises to do so were part of the reason for his popularity early in his term. There is now deep cynicism and disappointment in Russian society bout corruption and its persistence under new conditions. Just because Russia is a capitalist economy does not mean it is one based on transparency, rule of law, strong property rights, and other necessary features of a well-functioning market system.

PETER BAKER and SUSAN GLASSER, Washington Post reporters, June 7, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: What are the most likely scenarios you see Russia taking in a post-Putin period, and what are the major factors that will determine which of the paths Russia will end up taking?
BAKER and GLASSER: For us, one telling window into that future was the time we spent with a high school history class in Moscow which upended many of our preconceived notions. Instead of a nostalgic Soviet vintage teacher with new generation kids pushing for capitalist opportunity, we found a class here the majority thought “Lenin was right after all” and that Russia needed to revert to its authoritarian history. In the end, the teacher told us of her students “they’re not really for democracy but at least their brains are moving.”

LISA DICKEY, writer, September 27, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: What are attitudes towards Americans that you found among Russians Are there generational differences, perhaps between older Russians who grew up fearing Americans and younger Russians who have learned more about our culture?
DICKEY: For the most part, we’ve been greeted with curiosity more than anything. I’ve been surprised that, ten years later, I feel MORE exotic as an American than I did in 1995. Honestly, in Birobidzhan and Chita, it felt like we each had three heads or something---people just looked at us with very open curiosity, practically staring at us. I wouldn’t have guessed that Americans would be such a rarity these days, especially since there are so many Americans adopting Russian babies and children now. But that’s the response we’ve gotten so far.

SERGE KOVALESKI, Washington Post Staff Writer, January 17, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: Although it seems unlikely that enemies (such as former KGB agent Yuri Rastvorov and CIA agent Fred Kovaleski) could become friends, isn’t it also true that they may have had a better understanding of each other? Like soldiers from different sides who see each other after the war, there often is a mutual respect and understanding of what each had to go through. Do you think this had a part in their friendship?
KOVALESKI: Abolutely. You’ve hit on a great point! The two men, certainly early in their relationship, existed on a more intuitive and empirical level than most people do. They were both very savvy spies and keenly understood what it meant to be on the front lines of the Cold War. At the same time, my father had a lot of compassion for Yuri, knowing what he had gone through in terms of his defection.

JOHN LEWIS GADDIS, Yale University History Professor, January 31, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: Recalling the “guns versus butter” arguments in the 1960s and 1970s where it was debated if we could afford both social programs and a strong defense, would you find it ironic that perhaps that debate should have raged more strongly in the Soviet Union than within the United States? How did the economic circumstances of the Soviet Union lead to its eventual economic collapse?
GADDIS: It should of course have raged within the USSR, given the fact that they were something like 25% of GDP into military expenditures when we never put more than 10% during the Cold War—and much less than that during its final two decades. But open debate wasn’t allowed in the USSR. So yes, the inability to confront this issue certainly did contribute to Soviet decline.

PETER FINN, Washington Post Moscow Bureau Chief, Decembe 3, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: What is it about Putin that his supporters like? Are we getting an accurate picture here in America as to the reasons behind his popularity?
FINN: Putin’s supporters credit him with the country’s increased popularity, which has seen poverty levels halved and real wages increase. They also credit him with restoring Russian self-confidence and Russia’s place in the world. They look back on the 1990s and the Presidency of Boris Yeltsin as a period when Russia was enfeebled and beholden to the West. The question is: How would his popularity be affected if he was subject to open political competition and a harsh media. Probably some. But he would still win. But the Kremlin apparently doesn’t believe in the risk of open political pluralism, according to its critics. Hence the stage management of the most recent election and, more broadly, the country’s political life.

STEVEN PEARLSTEIN, Washington Post Columnist, August 13, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: About how much of oil produced in Russia stays within Russia, and how much do they sell to other countries? I presume they are troubled that they have less control over oil supplies since several oil regions broke away from them.
PEARLSTEIN: Well, they broke away but they still rely on Russian pipelines to get their stuff to market. As the owner of the monopoly pipeline, Russia takes much of the profit. SO that is why these alternative pipelines are so crucial.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, former U.S. Secretary of State, November 6, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Russia has been at a crossroads for the past several years, deciding whether to work more closely with the West or whether to consider it a potential future enemy. I should think President Obama would wish to send early indications to Putin and other Russian leaders as to how we wish to coexist. What would you advise President Obama’s first moves towards Russia be?
ALBRIGHT: I think I agree with you that the relationship with Russia is a very important one, and that Russia could play a very important role in cooperating on a number of the issues out there for the next President, and the message I personally would send is that we don’t want to return to the Cold War situation, and that it’s important not to make threatening statements. But as I said, there’s only President at a time, and in Russia President Medvedev has made some statements now about where missiles should go, and I’m sure the Bush Administration will indicate what direction it is going in.

DAVID IGNATIUS, Washingotn Post columnist, November 6, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Have we heard reports of what the Russian people think of Obama’s victory? Is there hope there could be a better degree of reconciliation between our two countries instead of our current slow drift back towards the Cold War?
IGNATIUS: One Obama priority, I’m told, is to put our relations with Russia on a sounder basis. Obama was cautious after the Russian invasion of Georgia precisely because he didn’t want to add to the New Cold War rhetoric. I would look for an early effort to explore whether (and how) the U.S. and Russia can be effective partners. The same holds for China. Obama’s people see these two relationships as baselines.