Great information. Thanks. It's why I keep coming to this site.

This whole thing regarding the nuclear stockpiles in Russia is, to no end, frustrating.

Click here for info

As always, excellent roundup.

I have to say though that I disagree with Gandelman and feel that too many Westerners are focusing on appearances over realities in Russia. Putin's no angel, but he's not the devil he's made out to be.

In my opinion, intervening in the territories of the former Soviet Union to the detriment of Russia is like stealing a bone from the mouth of a hungry dog. It's trouble.

Everybody who has power in Russia now grew up with maps that said this land was all their, under the Tsars and under the commissars. There were no border guards to tell Russians to present their papers because they were foreigners in these lands. Yes there was tyranny, but there was also patriotism and something very like imperial pride. Losing all that hurts. It's foolish to expect that the Russians in their hearts to be at peace with this.

And it's more foolish to think that they will comfortably accept America being the ruling power in the region. And it's three times foolish to assume that the Russians will accept with sincere grace that the preferred form of American diplomacy will be alliances with countries that used to be part of Russia, potentially (or by implication already) against Russia.

You can say the Russians shouldn't multiply the problems of the Americans, as they have interests in common, and a common enemy in the Islamists. I even agree. But it makes emotional sense for them to do so.

And before anyone assumes that the Russians gave to "get over it" soon, I have a question: how quickly is China "getting over" Taiwan?

When you make yourself the ally and guarantor of a breakaway province against the center, you put yourself in a very provocative position, whether you think so or not. Had the British intervened in the American Civil War and succeeded in making the Confederacy independent of the Union and their client state, would the Union be "over it" and all smiles, even now? I suspect not.

South Ossetia is even more of a mess than Taiwan, as the South Ossetians ethnically are like the North Ossetians and want to be part of Russia. Are the Russians supposed to write them off? Maggie Thatcher refused to write off the Falkland Islanders, and that was on the other side of the world.

Are the Russians supposed not to notice that the Americans are lined up with Georgia on this?

In my opinion the impulse to cultivate every newly created state, effectively defending them against larger powers that want their territories back, is a dangerous one. Yes it weakens Americas great power rivals if wherever there is a split you insert a wedge to prevent forced (or in the case of the South Ossetians willing!) reunification. But it costs friction that in the long run may not turn out to be inconsequential.

(rant mode off)

(and back on)

On Putin's re-centralising power grab, I think it's too soon to judge what he is doing. I don't deny it looks awful. I just want to know what connects to it. After all, it might be worse than it looks. :\

I see three possibilities. And none of them are "this is just stupidity," because I think Putin is a planner, and I do not think he has chosen to move on from Beslan without a plan.

First possibility: when Putin talked about unity as a necessity for Russia's war on terror, this is what he meant, and nothing more. In this case, nothing much follows. In terms of worrying change this is the smallest option, but it means Russia is in big trouble, because what is happening is essentially about a politician grabbing more power for himself and disregarding the real needs of the war and the nation.

I don't believe that's true. I don't believe even that fox Putin has such a stone heart that he's going to make fighting for Russia's children and the Motherland totally subordinate to a purely bureaucratic power grab. But I'll just have to wait and see.

Second possibility: this is one of a number of essentially parallel changes that Putin wants, and at least some of the others are visible and substantially about unity in some sense relevant to fighting the war. In that case of course I want to see how this adds up.

Third possibility, the most hopeful but also by far the most frightening. In this case Putin has his mind fully on the war, and he intends to do seriously radical things about it.

The Russians have tried the Tsarist play-book for dealing with problems like mad Chechens, and just as you'd expect that play-book as proved inadequate. Just as you'd expect because the war is fully international, the ideology and indoctrination is international, and above all the money is foreign, so the mad rebels have in effect sanctuaries protected by the United States of America.* Even if Russia had an army worthy of Russia, it would be hard to tell the Saudis to shut their Wahhabi ranting and turn of the terrorist money tap or else, because Saudi Arabia is also an ally of America. The Tsarist play-book is completely inadequate to such novel problems. Mere counter-kidnapping and so on, however adequate such cruel tactics once were, misses the point now.

And so Putin, ex-KGB (and you can take the boy out of the KGB, but can you take the KGB out of the boy?) is now looking though the Stalinist play-book. If so, everything Putin has done and proposed so far is merely to shut down alternate power bases and clear the way for his this-far hidden agenda to proceed unopposed. In this case, what looks like a disaster for federalism will be a mere prelude.

• Is this a fairly paranoid point of view? Yes, it is typically Russian.

Two things, but overall I do not disagree with you:

"There were no border guards to tell Russians to present their papers because they were foreigners in these lands."

No, but there was no travel conducted within the borders without explicit, documented permission.

"On Putin's re-centralising power grab, I think it's too soon to judge what he is doing. I don't deny it looks awful. I just want to know what connects to it. After all, it might be worse than it looks. :\"

There is no doubt what he is doing. He has not denied he believes in a controlled democracy. I think someone said he is retaining democracy, but moving away from Federalism. I agree with that premise most, although I remain skeptical.

If I read you right, you're saying it may not be a bad thing. I don't disagree with that either. History shows Russia thrives under more direct/directive (not sure of the proper descriptor here) rule - since before the Byzantine empire, I would submit. Whether it is good or bad geopolitically is another matter altogether. That is a "wait and see" I guess.

"Is this a fairly paranoid point of view? Yes, it is typically Russian."

Bang on!

The elements of Putin’s emerging regime can be still be identified within the spectrum of the institutions of democratic nations. It would seem Putin is attempting to marry the concept of the Institutional Party (e.g. the PRI of Mexico or the LDP of Japan) with the Strong Presidency and dirigisme of France. Whether this combination can legitimately be considered a democracy may be fairly debated.

The trick for America will be to navigate the shoals of self righteous irrelevance on the one hand, and amoral realpolitik on the other. Russia is too big to let fail without affecting us profoundly. The danger is that Putin’s “reforms” may not cure the debilitating Russian corruption, but exacerbate it. Pluralism is a means to an end, and neither the fate of the Czarists nor the Stalinists speak well of the alternatives.

Hi, Joel (No Pundit Intended).

"If I read you right, you're saying it may not be a bad thing."

My list of outcomes in order of preference goes something like this:
1. Russia wins the war and solves its demographic crisis. It does so using American-style means, using America as a model (the way other Eastern European states seem to see Western Europe as a model), and without getting in America's way in the Global War on Terror too much.
2. Russia wins the war and secures a future by bad means. This includes not only bad, inhumane or undemocratic actions but picking an inferior model for the state. Still, in this outcome there are enough ethnic Russian children and they are masters in their own house (Russia, and to some extent its near abroad), and future generations can try again and may do better.
3. Least preferred option: Russia loses.
My bottom line is not democracy, even though I favour democracy. My bottom line is: Russia must win.

And I am sympathetic to the desire of the Russians, fighting as they now are for their land and their children, to use proven ideas from their history.

lewy14: "Pluralism is a means to an end, and neither the fate of the Czarists nor the Stalinists speak well of the alternatives."

Yes.

"It would seem Putin is attempting to marry the concept of the Institutional Party (e.g. the PRI of Mexico or the LDP of Japan) with the Strong Presidency and dirigisme of France. Whether this combination can legitimately be considered a democracy may be fairly debated."

There is a more specific problem. Russia has gigantic issues with crime and corruption. The Institutionalised Revolutionary Party model is one of the weakest you can pick from this point of view.

The model Putin wants is the Chinese one. He doesn't need democracy. He, however, does need a free-market--or rather capitalist (not necessarily very free)--economy. Actually, maybe not even that: what he needs if foreign investment. He anticipates that just like in China, a lack of democracy won't be a serious impediment to attracting western foreign investment; the West will look the other way and jump in as soon as there's money to be made. A curious fact: just as russian capital flees, western comes in: he made it clear that foreign investment is safe, while the locals aren't quite sure what to expect (minding the fate of Khodorkovsky.)

The two things (democracy and capitalism) do not necessarily go together; and Putin does have a (small) point that different countries have different histories which fact does affect their development; you can't mechanically transplant a political system with no regard to political/cultural realities of the target society--and he can, of course, point to the significantly deleterious outcome of Yeltsin's reforms (although it's far from clear whether their failure has been a (partial) result of Russian incapability of democracy, or happened by design to compromise the idea while robbing the state of its property.) But at least on the surface of it, it is possible that Russia is not ready for democracy; at least based on the destructive chaos that followed the reforms of the 90s (they've also voted for Putin in the last election, like 71%, even though he was realistically the only candidate; Pipes is of the opinion that Russians don't want democracy; he's written an article to that effect recently in Foreign Affairs, if memory serves; in my opinion, the article is nonsense, but I do defer to Pipes a bit here.)

Finally, the US will always be Russia's enemy, at least potentially (just peruse russian boards, and you'll see what I mean: Americans (and Jews, who are supposed to be running the US, and of course, Russia too: all the "oligarchs" happen to be Jewish, which even I admit, is strange) are strongly disliked by a lot of people there and there seems to be quite a bit of organized-looking chauvinistic and anti-western propaganda. I can't ascribe it to Putin, but someone does finance and runs those boards and media. Their parties: United Russia is neutral but it's a Kremlin puppet though; Communsts are anti-western (and especially anti-US, quite in the old style), and the so-called Liberal Democrats (who are nothing of the kind) under Zhirinovsky are anti-US too. There are no other players worthy of notice. With the change in their electoral laws the crowd will become even sparser.

And I can't help suspecting that in some measure this is reciprocated, at least looking at the post-perestroyka geopolitical developments (in Georgia, Central Asia, and somewhat in Chechnya)... the West is obviously forcing Russia out of some of their traditional areas where they used to predominate--so it's hard to tell who's (more) guilty here. It's probably natural for the world we live in. Russia and the US are very similar in many respects (ambitions, definitely) and in the absence of an invasion by Martians, will probably always be at loggerheads to some degree.

Putin is doing the normal thing for Russian leaders. Whatever is going on the moment is grounds for him having more power.