Many commentators – rightly, and including the Le Monde editorial board itself – had seen Putin’s end-of-September announcement that he would run for (and therefore win) re-instatement as president in 2012 as taking Russian political development back to the Brezhnev era, if not even back to the time of the Czars. Not so, said Medvedev yesterday on Russian television – it is “something else . . . a means to resolve the challenges we have set for ourselves.” So he’s fine with missing out on the chance to “run” for the second presidential term he himself is entitled to under the Russian constitution.

On the other hand – surprise! – he’s not happy with the current state of Russian government:

I’ve been a lawyer, and I thought that I knew very well how the state apparatus works. I was mistaken, things are much more difficult and in a certain way more frightening. That’s why we must think about how to change the system of managing the State.

Aha, so there at least is a note of dissension! But note that this comes after he admits that he has only around one year left as president, and hasn’t even indicated what political function – if any – he will fulfill after that. Medvedev’s term in office has been chock-full of ambitious pronouncements like this – that Russia must be more investment-friendly, more subject to the rule of law, etc. – that came to nothing. This is certainly just one more.

                          

At least up until now. But now BZ reporter Daria Afonina (definitely a Russian female name) tells us how the paper just received it’s “first warning” from the Ministry for Communication for allegedly spreading “fascist propaganda” through a piece it published back in January on extreme-right nationalists from an organization whose name translates to “The Russian Way.” A second warning means that the paper will have to shut down.

What Editor-in-Chief Sergey Sokolov thinks he sees in this development – if not sheer stupidity from a rogue bureaucrat, always a possibility – is an effort by the authorities to finish Putin’s work by rubbing out such independent media voices as remain. But he also vows to appeal any close-down order to “Strasbourg,” presumably meaning to the European Court of Human Rights located there (of which Russia is a member, not that that means there is much to hope for any such move).

Those still interested in the paper – while it is still a going concern – should realize that it does have an accompanying English-language version. Don’t expect a full-blown English translation of the Russian website, by any means, as the English material is much scarcer and generally out-of-date. When I visited today the left side of the homepage was dominated by an interview with Russian President Medvedev entitled “Medvedev’s declaration, 2009 year” which, yes, bore the dateline “18.04.2009.” But the tone of the questioning directed at the head-of-state was refreshingly challenging, and the rest of the slim pickings available on that homepage similarly showed why the state apparatus of which he is the head may not be too fond of the newspaper. There were namely two pieces on the Politovskaya murder case (“‘The State is showing a complete lack of interest in solving the murder of our mother,’ Vera and Ilya Politkovsky [yes, her children],” and “Second time around: The Politkovskaya murder case.”

                          

A report out of the Danish newspaper Berlingske Tidende (Hope for atomic agreement between USA and Russia, sourced to the Ritzau news-agency) largely confirms that assessment and adds further detail. For one thing, this will actually be the second time Obama and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev will discuss the subject. When they first met in London, at that G20 summit of early last April, they agreed to begin negotiations during this upcoming visit on strategic nuclear arms – which may have been somewhat of a no-brainer, as the current START-1 treaty that regulates the US-Russia strategic nuclear balance expires on 5 December of this year. In any case, it’s not like things have been quiet on this front (unfortunately); there is still that plan by the US to set up an anti-missile system in Central Europe, ostensibly aimed against Iran, with the control radar in the Czech Republic and the actual missiles in Poland, a topic which Medvedev is guaranteed to bring up into the conversations. Plus, the Russian president’s initial idea for greeting Obama’s election last November was to announce his intention to station short-range, nuclear-tipped “Iskander” missiles to the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad as a counter-move to that anti-missle system, although he has not followed through yet with the actual deployment.

But there’s another problem that the Economist article did not bring up, and that is NATO’s current difficulties with its supply line to Afghanistan. Routing provisions through Pakistan via the Khyber Pass has been a risky proposition for some time, and a few months ago it also looked like the US would be losing access to a key airbase in Kyrgyzstan, although recently the two governments signed an agreement to open it up again for American military use. Still, it would be handy also to be able to use Russian facilities – as well as Russia’s considerable influence on the Kyrgyz government – so that cooperation here would be very welcome. The BT article says American officials likewise have hopes of being able to settle this during the upcoming Russo-American summit.

                          

That was a necessary step, but not sufficient: there is considerable opposition among the Czech electorate to the building of the radar, so that agreement might not gain the necessary ratification in the Czech parliament. Further, there is also considerable political uncertainty in Poland about going ahead with the plan. (I think all the Central European leaders involved know full well that, although this is a pet Bush administration project, it is by no means guaranteed to be something an Obama administration will be very enthusiastic about – so why not just wait and see how things develop on the American side before sticking your neck out too far? But that’s a discussion for another day.)

Nevertheless, new Russian president Dimitri Medvedev made clear in public statements that his government would be upset even at just the signing of the accord with the Czechs, and would definitely be coming up with counter-measures if that went ahead. And here is counter-measure number one: according to the Danish business daily Børsen (USA Warns Russia About Cuba), the news service Izvestia recently reported that Russian military authorities were contemplating having their Tu-160 long-range bombers (nicknamed according to Børsen the “White Swan”) land on Cuba for re-fueling, as a way to increase their capabilities to patrol and project a presence generally in the North Atlantic. (The Le Figaro article adds that the Tu-95MC “Bear” bomber could also take advantage of this.)

This has brought a stern reaction from a key American official, namely US Air Force General Norton Schwartz, about to become Air Force Chief of Staff, who declared before a Senate committee (convened to examine his nomination for the Air Force’s highest post; the following is translated back to English from French) “If they do that, I think that we should remain firm and indicate that that would be something that crosses a threshold, that would cross a red line for the United States of America.”

Now, no Russian nuclear bombers have yet been sent to re-fuel in Cuba – but the agreement with Prague is signed, so that the anti-missile-shield process is going ahead. Will those Russian bombers soon show up?

                          

But that is all par for the course for a European winter; I can remember recently thinking to myself “Hmm, it’s already February – shouldn’t we have had the regularly-scheduled Russian energy cut-off crisis by now?” More interesting is that next Monday is also the evening of the going-away concert in honor of Dimitri Medvedev – Gazprom chairman now, but Vladimir Putin’s “recommended” candidate for president of the Russian Federation at the upcoming March 2 elections, and therefore also a shoo-in as the next Russian president. The concert will be headlined by the legendary English rock-n-roll band Deep Purple, and this was recently commented upon in the New York Time’s weblog “The Lede: Notes on the News,” by Mike Nizza, who notes that Putin himself will surely be present as well. Nizza was responding to an initial report from Reuters (“rock-for-gas deal“), and the story was also run in British newspapers like the Guardian and the Independent. The latter even added considerable detail to the story, such as that Tina Turner will also be performing, and that rich Russians shipping in Western celebrities to Moscow for entertainment is by no means a rare thing: among others, George Michael, Christina Aguilera, and Beyoncé have gotten this treatment – as has Paris Hilton (musical abilities form part of her ever-broad palette of talents as well, remember), whom the Independent reports a Russian “juice magnate” brought into town to entertain his 15-year-old daughter.

If all this happens to strike you as slightly . . . well, wrong, that’s because you are probably hopelessly stuck back in the old paradigm of rock-n-roll artists as youthful rebels, more likely to offer authority a raised middle-finger than take its money – especially for an event in honor of an official who supposedly is but one of several candidates in a presidential election (but everyone knows that the “system” will make sure that he wins), in what is supposedly a modern democracy (but in reality is of course anything but). Such naïve idealism! Here, let the Süddeutsche Zeitung straighten you out, in a piece (Smoke on the Gas) that I think offers the best commentary of all on this affair, even if the cynicism is laid on a bit thick. First of all, the idea of a close link between heads of government and energy concerns should not surprise or offend either the New York Times or anyone else: that has been the case in the United States government as well ever since January, 2001. And as for rock musicians “selling out” to politicians, writer Andrian Kreye provides a helpful chronology: Elvis for Nixon, Chuck Berry for Bill Clinton (I never heard of that one), Oasis for Tony Blair, the Scorpions for Gerhard Schröder (German Bundeskanzler before Angela Merkel) – and even now, apparently the Grateful Dead for Barack Obama. As for rock musicians selling out to commercial companies – please! The Who Sell Out was but a brief artistic conceit of that group’s callow youth; if you’re looking for hard reality, think instead Budweiser Presents The Who.

Joe Lynn Turner Speaks!

For a story like this – exotic foreign locale, rock music – you’d really expect the expat youngsters publishing the local English-language newspaper (here, the Moscow Times) to get the scoop. Disappointingly, though, their coverage is limited to the original Reuters wire-service report. But staff writer Kevin O’Flynn did publish only a little over a week ago a revealing interview with Joe Lynn Turner, apparently an acceptable deputy for normal Deep Purple lead singer Ian Gillan who was invited to Moscow last June along with celebrated guitarist Yngwie Malmsteen to play a sort of warm-up Deep Purple gig for Medvedev and invited guests. In the interview Turner reports that he was paid “very well” for his appearance, and was awarded a Breguet watch (usually worth between €12,000 and €700,000) as well. Then, a few months later it was the turn of President Putin and “scores of former KGB and current Federal Security Service [i.e. the successor to the KGB] officers” to hear the German band the Scorpions perform at a ceremony in honor of the 90th anniversary of the founding of the Cheka, the original Bolshevik secret police. “If the Scorpions don’t want to play the same gig next year, Turner said he’s ready,” O’Flynn reports, quoting him as remarking “I’d have no compunction” [about stepping in to substitute] – of course you wouldn’t, Joe Lynn! – “adding that he knew good KGB agents when he toured the Soviet Union in the 1980s.”