Clinton comeback

So, yes, we are entitled to follow the Democratic race for another couple of months. After Hillary won popular vote both in Ohio and Texas, it seems that we will even be forced to wait till August and the Democratic convention to know who will secure the nomination.
John McCain won in all four states that voted yesterday and was endorsed today by President Bush. Now Mr. McCain can focus on uniting Republicans behind himself t get ready for the final showdown in November. The victory of Mrs. Clinton guaranteed that Democratic candidates will continue fighting each other and thus making life easier for John McCain.
Mr. Obama was heavily criticised by Mrs. Clinton in the past few days. He was pushed to the wall by questions over his dealings with Tony Rezko, a businessman and a donor to his campaign, who is currently under trial over fraud charges. Also a leaked memo on NAFTA spelt bad news for Obama. In this memo a senior Canadian official says that one of the Obama's economic advisers has said to him that Obama's criticism of NAFTA was "just politics". The issue of NAFTA is very important for such states as Ohio where the free-trade agreement is blamed for big job losses. Once more the question was raised about the Obama's campaign: there's real difference between speeches and deeds, isn't it?
So we return to the core issue of this election: can a messianic message and lofty rhetoric substitute experience and substance? Here in the UK people know, for certain, they can't. Inspiration is very important, indeed, I shall say that we really need it (especially, from Gordon Brown because he really likes to figure the details rather than grasp the spirit). But they should go together - inspiration and policy. This mixture - vision and substance, insight and seriousness, rhetoric and policy, words and deeds - is what we need from our politicians in the hectic life of modern world.

Russian presidential election – outside perspectives

Today is the big election day in Russia. Millions of Russians are going to polling booths to cast their vote. While there is almost no doubt that the chosen Putin’s successor Dmitry Medvedev will won the poll, this election still attracts a considerable interest.

The big question is whether Medvedev as President will overthrow his mentor, Putin, and use the constitutional power of presidency to run the country in his own way? By now there are no signs of him conceiving that. He has worked with Putin since the beginning of the 90s when they came across each other in St. Petersburg mayor headquarters. When Putin became Prime Minister of Russia in 1999 he took Mr. Medvedev with him in Moscow. President Putin continued care for Medvedev and made him the chief man behind social reforms in last years, the so-called ‘national projects’ that were met with enthusiasm by Russian society shattered by social anarchy of Yeltsin years. For several years Medvedev along with Sergei Ivanov, Russian former defence minister, was considered as one of possible successors to Putin. A few months ago, the decision was taken and Medvedev was publicly endorsed by Putin to run for President. The ensuing presidential campaign underscored the continuity of Putin’s policy that was shored up by victory of Putin’s United Russia in parliamentary elections in December. The campaign of United Russia was based on notorious ‘Plan of Putin’ that was never seen by the majority of Russian voters but was nonetheless unequivocally supported in the poll. The magic word ‘Putin’ and the perception that he has some kind of plan for Russia’s future worked perfectly. They work today too. On the streets of Russian cities one can see various posters depicting Putin and Medvedev together and suggesting Medvedev’s role more as running mate to Putin than actual candidate for presidency.

Victory for Medvedev seems unquestionable. The opposition candidates are miserable figures comprising old Communist Zyuganov, ultra-nationalist Zhirinovsky and Bogdanov, previously unknown liberal politician who was, as many commentators suggest, covertly endorsed by Kremlin to discredit the liberal opposition. Medvedev refused to participate in debates with other candidates and has received more air time than other presidential hopefuls. By constant reporting of Medvedev’s speeches and meetings with voters by state-owned media it sometimes seems that nothing is going on in the country ‘except Medvedev’.

To make victory seem more ‘legitimate’ Kremlin will try to fix the poll stuffing ballot boxes with ballots filled in for Medvedev by personal of polling stations and ordering public-sector workers and dependents (doctors, teachers, students etc.) to vote for him. This will make Medvedev’s lead in final results more formidable and secure.

What should do the West in the aftermath of this sham election? Medvedev’s ties with Putin are very strong and although he made some liberal statements in the past, now he moves along the Putin’s lines. He supported the closure of British Council regional offices saying that these offices are rammed with spies. He was running the state corporation Gazprom and so he is responsible for using energy cut-offs as means of reaching political objectives.

Western politicians, and the Conservative party in particular, should not have false hopes about his liberal inclinations. British government should deal with him and Putin robustly and resolutely making the point of British national interests while understanding Russian interests.

Although Russia undergoes resurrection on the world stage, she still isn’t as strong as she tries to look like. Russian conscript army is inefficient, Russian economy is over-reliant on resources and though Putin has tightened his grip on the country, various social protest movements are emerging that are uneasy about high inflation, low pensions, corrupt bureaucracy and ineffective social policy. Russia depends on the West as much as the West depends on Russia and even more. Russian elite can not more imagine its life without London clubs, Paris shops or Milan fashion. Still this elite along with bureaucracy is the main pillar on which stands Putin’s popularity for these people amassed a huge wealth under Putin’s regime.

Russian rulers understand that Russia’s future lies with Europe – because of that they are still trying to represent Russia as a democracy and do not use the authoritarian Chinese model. It is often said that throughout history Russian leaders were much more pro-European than their own subjects. Putin postures against the UK and the US but this is the residue of the Cold War that is still being waged in minds of many Russians after humiliation of the Yeltsin era and this is the cause why Putin’s confrontational policy is popular. But Russians will understand that the greatest threat to the country will come not from old Europe or the faltering US but from resurgent power of China and anarchy of Muslim world. This means that the West may still forge an alliance with Russia while defending its own interests. Russia may be the British ally in fight with Islamic fundamentalism and may become a reliable source of various resources to diminish British dependency on Islamic world.

The common misconception is that you either love and yield to Russia or hate and wage war with her. But there is the third way – you can deal with Russia to the benefit of both sides. This is what the Conservative Party should do if they form a government after the next election.

US Election - race goes on

Now Hillary has everything at stake in Texas and Ohio on March 4. If she don't win there by huge margin, her hopes for presidency will be completely dashed. Yet it seems harder now taking into account Obama's 11 victories and his unstoppable momentum. Her lead in Texas has shrunk to several points, while in Ohio Obama narrows the gap too.
In order to maintain her positions Hillary has gone tough on Obama on recent rallies. She has once again praised her experience over Obama's inexperience, underlined her substance vs. Obama's abstract wording and even mocked Obama's prophetic style.

What will be the result of this bitter Democratic contest? While Democratic candidates scorn, sneer, and gibe at each other, Ralph Nader has entered the race. All this coupled can seriously undermine once well established lead of Democrats over Republicans (confirmed by the last Senate election results). In this fight it is the Republican candidate, John McCain, who can emerge as the winner. While excited by the Democratic contest, Obama's inspirational speeches and urgent demand of change, we should answer the following question: is McCain's possible win utterly undesirable for us who are not US citizens. Many people are exhausted by sometimes mad and stupid, sometimes arrogant and assertive Bush Administration but McCain is different. His stance over climate change has made him a considerable support even amongst liberals and also he criticised the Republican policy of tax cuts that was unquestionable since Reagan's era. But what seems his most important asset is his experience in foreign policy and national security. And these are the areas that should worry us as non-US citizens.
Here John McCain is on the right side of debate. He understands the current threat from Islamic extremism and he is in a good way stubborn and resolve to fight it and win. He understands an important role played by US allies and in the first row by the UK. For sure he will treat our special relationship as we deserve after our support in Afghanistan and, more importantly, Iraq. So then it will be up to our Lefties if they will put up with such a strong and confident Republican figure. I hope that his win might bolster our defence spending and army development while at the same time lead to the greater confidence of the West in the looming battle with extremism and fundamentalism of all kind that employs murdering of innocent civilians as means of reaching political objectives.
We shall see how this race will develop but whatever will be the result in November I hope that this display of democracy in action gives a good example to some countries in the world how modern people should govern themselves.