NO MORE STAKES

Relations between Russia and the West continue to deteriorate. This is proved in numerous ways and one of them is the official refusal of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) to monitor the parliamentary elections in Russia scheduled for 2 December.

We would have thought that, initially, no-one expected the OSCE ODIHR to make such a decision, as there are a few disagreements of the kind usually ignored. It was planned to accredit 450 observers, however, Russia reduced the number to 70. But even these 70 had problems getting visas. At least, this is what the ODIHR says, although Russia itself is denying this. "The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe has refused to monitor the parliamentary elections in Russia, scheduled for 2 December this year, because of obstacles created by the Russian authorities," the ODIHR said in a statement forwarded to the Central Electoral Commission (CEC) of Russia. According to the statement, the organization had repeatedly requested entry visas for their experts, but Russia kept refusing to issue them. "In this regard, the OSCE ODIHR drew the conclusion that the authorities of the Russian Federation are still unwilling to host OSCE observers and cooperate with them. The OSCE ODIHR admits with regret that it will not be able to carry out its functions in this situation," the statement says. Naturally, Russia did not keep us waiting long for its reaction. Russia flatly rejected all the accusations of the ODIHR leadership.

On the way to confrontation

In essence, Russia's actions are an open challenge, resulting from Vladimir Putin's policy of rejecting and ousting Western democracy - a policy that has been pursued since he came to power. In principle, "the leader of all Russia" has never concealed his antagonism towards the public-political values that foreign democratic institutions and states are trying to enforce in his country. The principle "you have your democracy and we have ours" has long been a banner waved by the Kremlin political establishment. This is only one link in a long chain of contradictions between Russia and the West. The position on the main, and most authoritative, monitoring organization in Europe is a continuation of the policy of confrontation and a demonstration of the Kremlin's tough position, showing that "Russia has picked up the gauntlet". This fight will be waged on all fronts without exception. It is especially important in the so-called "populist period" that accompanies the election race in Russia. Our journal has repeatedly said that it is impossible to start a dialogue "between the two worlds" during an election campaign. On the contrary, the contradictions will only increase, because it is also of benefit to the incumbent Russian leadership which is trying to draw the attention of its citizens to a foreign enemy, the fight against which frames the country's domestic political life; proved once again by the methods employed to quell the right-wing opposition - Putin's main opponents - in Russia.

A recent statement made by the Russian leader at a campaign meeting with military personnel may be quite significant in this respect. He spoke about "the need to put Russia's nuclear forces on the alert". We would like to ask - have Russia's strategic nuclear forces been on leave up to date? In that case, why is Putin accompanied by an officer carrying the so-called "nuclear case" day and night? Of course, nuclear missiles have always been on the alert. The thing is that Putin deliberately uttered this phrase in order to make sure it was heard abroad and, what is more important, inside the country, in order to terrify everyone with the "threat to Russia" from so-called "Western democratic powers". This is the basis of Putin's election campaign. So anti-Western actions and anti-Western rhetoric are more than necessary in Russian politics.

As for the accusations against the OSCE ODIHR, the Russian president demonstrated his clear and unambiguous position on this issue as well. During a meeting with the winners of the project "The Professional Team of the Country" on 25 November, Vladimir Putin clearly commented on the refusal of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights to send its observers to the parliamentary elections in Russia. "This action is probably spontaneous. It is linked to the decision of the organization itself and to the decision of its leader. According to our information, this was done on the basis of a recommendation by the US State Department again. Of course, we will take this into account in our interstate relations. Such actions cannot disrupt the elections in Russia. Their aim is de-legitimization and this is absolutely obvious. But they will not achieve their goal. For this reason, I said it is unlikely that it was a planned action because, according to absolutely reliable information, the actions of the leaders of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights were totally unexpected by many European countries. But this is their choice. This proves once again that many organizations, including the OSCE, need to be reformed. Russia has already raised the issue of reforming the OSCE. And we will persistently promote this. Our elections will be held according to plan and all parties will be able to use the legal opportunities stipulated by the law," Putin said.

Four hand game

Perhaps many of us have noticed (we have repeatedly written on this) that "touching mutual assistance and mutual support" can be seen in relations between Russia and its "Western partners": both sides will use any excuse to increase confrontation without making any attempt to find points of contact. This is the case on all issues and along the entire perimeter of political and economic relations. What is more, it is sometimes absolutely impossible to identify the line beyond which economic issues turn into political ones and vice versa… For example, the reaction of Putin's "Western partners" did not keep us waiting and was as clear as the Kremlin's actions. Here are excerpts from some foreign media on the position of international observers.

"Putin's transformation into an institution has been completed," The Wall Street Journal writes. "Currently, the elections in Russia are taking place according to a clear scenario, and Putinism has turned into an institution to such an extent that the Kremlin will hardly need to rig the elections to ensure the outcome it wants. In this context, the decision of one of the main international agencies that monitors elections not to send an observation mission to the December parliamentary elections is a recognition of reality. Russian democracy fell into a deep coma several years ago. But the aforesaid stalemate in relations with OSCE is only the freshest reminder of the serious challenge made to Europe and other parts of the world in this decade. The Kremlin is not so much concealing the imperfect nature of its elections as openly expressing its contempt for the very idea of a 'free society'," the newspaper says.

"Moscow has quite openly made the work of the OSCE impossible - an organization of which it is a member. Putin likes to warn against returning to the Cold War era - confrontation between the East and the West. However, by his actions inside the country and abroad, the Kremlin leader has done more than anybody else to put his warning into practice. The USA and European democracies, which have tended to find fault with each other in recent years, should wake up and pay attention to the growing threat. There are models worse than the single position of the West: it brought the West victory in the first Cold War," WSJ says.

In turn, The Financial Times sees a paradox in this situation. One Russia, the party ticket of which he symbolically heads, would almost certainly win free elections subjected to large-scale monitoring. What is happening now is probably, to a great extent, a reaction to the "colour" revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine. The Kremlin regards these events as coups d'etat carried out by a dirty alliance of Western observers, diplomats, special services, non-governmental organizations and exiled Russian oligarchs, who are passionately trying to achieve the same in Russia. However, in the aforesaid cases, unpopular regimes tried to remain in power by rigging the results of elections. In modern Russia, the situation is different. Even the staunchest critics of the Kremlin do not suppose that, in order to ensure the victory of the pro-Putin party, it is necessary to falsify the results of the elections. However, these critics maintain that there is a temptation to increase its domination and turnout even more, which is quite possible. The triumph of One Russia will be used to legalize a different role for Putin and even make amendments to the constitution to allow him to remain president," the head of the FT office in Moscow writes.

Germany's Handelsblatt says the following: "It has long become clear that these elections cannot be called 'democratic' - the obstacles created for the opposition are too strong, there are too many restrictions stipulated by the current election law and the targets for getting seats in the parliament are too high. Election observers from the OSCE have completely resigned their mission. No-one doubts the victory of One Russia - a party that does not conceal its pro-Putin orientation and enjoys its glory."

Spain's El Pais draws attention to "the disappointment in the ranks of the liberal opposition". "What is good for the future of democracy in Russia: for the OSCE to monitor the parliamentary elections on the spot, albeit with restrictions, or dissociate itself from them, making an unprecedented gesture which some people see as a sign of its weakness and refusal to fight for democratic freedoms in Russia?" the newspaper wonders.

Of course, this is not a full review of the Western press's reporting on what is going on in Russia, and it was conducted on just one day. The further we go, the more we see, especially after the dispersal of another "dissenters` march", accompanied by the arrest of its leaders and activists. The governments of Western states, first of all the USA, responded negatively to events in Moscow and Russia.

A storm in a tea cup

What is all this trouble about? Many people, including in Russia itself, described the actions of the OSCE as an attempt to de-legitimize the electoral process. But is there any point to it? Have Vladimir Putin's team ever been interested in the opinion of their "Western partners", or in their assessment of the parliamentary elections in Russia? I doubt this very much. It is more likely that for the Russian leadership, all this is another argument in its domestic political struggle against "foreign enemies". Does the OSCE hope that this step will really de-legitimize the Russian elections? Unlikely, though a lot will be said about it. What is the point? As the well-known proverb says - "the dog barks, the caravan goes on". Russia is not some small country for which it is of vital importance to get positive foreign assessments of its domestic political processes: Russia itself is capable of sitting in judgment on any issue, and issuing ultimatum-like responses which rule out any objections.

What is more, the West has long learnt that the right-wing, pro-Western opposition in Russia has no chance of getting a positive result, just as the fact that Putin's One Russia will gain a resounding victory and will not even have to rig anything, although this cannot be ruled out either. The "flight" of the democratic OSCE from Russia's elections, with the Kremlin's direct "support" of course, is more likely to be just an attempt to save face despite the existing realities, i.e. not to face the sad fact that it will be forced to recognize and officially acknowledge the victory of authoritarianism over democracy. Absolutely no-one cares whether the West recognizes the Russian elections as democratic or not - neither the West which is forced to deal with such a Russia, nor a Russia which realizes its power.

I should repeat: all these actions are only a mutually beneficial game in which the stakes are placed not on momentary results, but on long-term prospects which seem very vague and, hence, even more dangerous with the current zeal of the players. It is dangerous, not only to Europe and Russia, but to the whole world community. Stakes have been placed, gentlemen. No more stakes…