Go here to read the rest:
‘Fearful’ and ‘encircled’ – Putin is ‘no longer a tsar’

Follow this link:
Russia – Draft electoral law provision threatens freedom of expression

Read the original post:
Russia – Human Rights Watch calls for an end to intimidation of activists, media as election nears

See the article here:
Putin ‘on a collision course’ or ‘at a fork in the road’?

Critics blame the overall culture of mismanagement and contempt for rank-and-file journalists by a small group of entrenched executives who have just proposed to cut $17 million form the VOA budget. They plan to end VOA radio broadcasts to Tibet, to eliminate the VOA Cantonese Service and to cut more than 200 positions.

Meanwhile, Voice of America broadcasts to Iran and Russia continue to attract negative attention for poor performance and, in the case of the VOA Russian Service, favoring a pro-Kremlin view while ignoring American viewpoints on human rights violations in Russia and Vladimir Putin’s autocratic rule. America’s enemies in Russia, China and Iran have good reasons to cheer. U.S. taxpayers funding pro-Putin VOA programs – Washington Examiner.

The Broadcasting Board of Governors is also being criticized for mishandling broadcasting to the Middle East by BBG-run Alhurra TV and Radio Sawa.

A Bloomberg editorial, “U.S. Broadcast for Iran Might Be Free, But Doesn’t Have to Be Cheap: View,” asks: “Programs that go on and on. Shows that lack focus. Graphics and production values that make Iranian state TV look hip by comparison. Why has the U.S.-run Persian News Network been so bad for so long?”

The Bloomberg editorial notes that the Broadcasting Board of Governors just announced a 2013 budget that would cut VOA’s allocation by $17 million. “The network should cancel them [proposed budget cuts] and focus on what it can do well,” the editorial says in reference to the VOA Persian satirical TV program “Parazit.”

The PNN web site is off-putting, the editorial notes. The Bloomberg editorial concludes that “When a well-executed show like ‘Parazit’ can begin to undercut the legitimacy of the Iranian regime, there’s no telling what a superlative network could do.”

Hussain Abdul-Hussain, the Washington Bureau Chief of Kuwaiti newspaper Al Rai, who used to work for the BBG-managed Alhurra TV, wrote in The Huffington Post article, “Alhurra and the Arab Spring,” that “VOA Arabic had a respected Arabic Service, but the Bush administration decided to replace” it with Radio Sawa and Alhurra TV, which — he argues — undermined both transparency and accountability.

“There is one thing in common between Congress-funded Arabic TV, Alhurra, and countries of the Arab Spring. Both have unaccountable leaders, who have been in place since forever, and who look like they are staying indefinitely,” the journalist wrote. He also noted that “Since then, the leaders of Alhurra and Sawa, none of them a journalist, have remained in place and have outlasted administrations and Congresses.”

Link to Washington Examiner op-ed by Ted Lipien.

Ted Lipien, a former Voice of America (VOA) acting associate director, has been warning for some time that marketing and staffing policies pushed by the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) executives have changed the focus of VOA and other BBG broadcasters from serious, accurate and well balanced journalism to ratings-chasing entertainment and sloppy reporting produced by inexperienced, poorly paid, otherwise exploited, unsupervised and unedited contractors, many without any background in American life and media.

In his latest op-ed in The Washington Examiner, Lipien makes this point again. Anticipating the expected line of defense of BBG bureaucrats, who refuse to acknowledge the problem and dismiss a recent “fake” interview on the VOA Russian website and charges of “pro-Putin bias” as atypical, Lipien cites a study by a prominent independent Russian journalist and new media scholar Dr. Nikolay Rudenskiy who found not just one but many examples of the Voice of America Russian Service website giving prominence to pro-Putin and pro-Kremlin views and failing again and again to provide an American perspective on human rights and media freedom violations in Russia.

Lipien was also interviewed by NPR’s Michele Kelemen who reported that a recent webcast on the VOA Russian Service site included a long statement from a Putin supporter in Russia without an effective attempt to counter or balance his pro-Kremlin views.

U.S. taxpayers funding pro-Putin VOA programs – Ted Lipien – Washington Examiner
If American taxpayers had any idea what kind of messages Voice of America (VOA) is sending in their name and at their expense to Russia, they would be hopping mad.

Opposition leaders and independent journalists in Russia have warned that the VOA Russian website has a pro-Putin bias and downplays human rights reporting, but the latest scandal brings the harm to a new level. The VOA site posted a fake interview and embarrassed a leading Russian pro-democracy figure.

The VOA is funded by Americans to broadcast information programs to countries without free media. A leading Russian anti-corruption lawyer and Putin critic, Alexei Navalny, wrote a scathing Twitter comment accusing VOA of “going nuts.”

He dismissed the purported interview with him on the Russian website as “100 percent fake.” He further suggested that someone in Washington should start listening and “let all these guys go.”

The VOA Russian Service removed the interview and apologized to Navalny, no doubt hoping the scandal would soon blow over.

But the story was picked up by RIA Novosti news agency and other Russian media, which reported on it in Russian and English. Significantly, the VOA English website ignored the whole incident.

What we have here is not just an isolated journalistic flop. Russian opposition leaders have known for quite some time there is something fundamentally wrong with the VOA Russian website.

In early 2011, the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), a federal agency that runs VOA, commissioned a study from a highly respected independent journalist living in Russia.

He warned that the website favored a pro-Putin line. It even downplayed a human rights speech delivered in Moscow by Vice President Joseph Biden.

The BBG bureaucrats did not highlight this damning assessment to members of the bipartisan board or to the new VOA director, David Ensor. They told them instead that the Russian Service was doing a terrific job.

On the day the Russian Service editors were getting ready to post their apology, Ensor praised them for being a model of innovation.

The fake interview was obtained by a newly hired contractor from Russia through an exchange of emails.

Someone should have known that pro-Kremlin activists have broken into email accounts of many anti-Putin leaders, but an editor, also recently hired as a contractor, gave his approval instead of doing further checking.

Even after the Russian Service apologized to Navalny, some of its staffers continued a whispering campaign accusing him of giving the interview and then lying about it.

A pro-Putin bias and scurrilous accusations against a courageous human rights activist may explain what kind of journalists the BBG has been hiring recently to manage the Russian website.

Some of them had worked for the pro-Putin media in Russia. To make room for these poorly vetted and poorly paid contractors, BBG executives retired experienced editors.

These officials also told the Russian Service not to be too harsh on the Kremlin because, according to BBG audience surveys, most Russians don’t like it. And that’s bad for ratings, they said.

They allowed VOA websites to be hacked a number of times. And, they failed to tell the Board promptly about the latest incident.

The same BBG officials are also responsible for drafting a plan to restructure U.S. international broadcasting that will be soon presented to Congress.

And, guess what, it would give them more control and turn the agency into an NPR-like structure with both international and domestic programs. It amounts to asking American taxpayers to continue paying for Putin’s propaganda.

Their latest proposal calls for ending VOA radio broadcasts to Tibet. Congressional committees with oversight functions need to step in and clean the place up before these failed bureaucrats do even more damage to America’s reputation abroad.

Ted Lipien is a former VOA acting associate director and co-founder of the nongovernmental Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting (CUSIB – www.CUSIB.org).

Link to the original article >> U.S. taxpayers funding pro-Putin VOA programs – Ted Lipien – Washington Examiner

Kelemen interviewed the new VOA director David Ensor and former VOA journalist and director of the Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting (CUSIB) Ted Lipien. Lipien also served as acting associate VOA director and placed VOA and Radio Liberty programs on stations in Russia before the Russian government of Vladimir Putin forced these stations to drop these programs. CUSIB opposes plans by the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) to cut VOA programs to Russia, China and other countries that restrict free media.

Ensor told Kelemen “So we may have been scammed, but we may never know for sure.” Ensor apologized for the incident and said the Russian service has tightened its procedures.

But NPR reported that others don’t see this as an isolated incident. Lipien said that the Russian service now relies on contractors, who aren’t familiar with American journalistic values.

“And I’m not saying that one should not hire people with fresh knowledge of countries like Russia,” Lipien says. “But if you are the Voice of America, you also need seasoned editors with other experience — American experience.”

An independent Russian journalist and new media scholar Dr. Nikolay Rudenskiy, who evaluated the VOA Russian website for the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which manages the Voice of America, concluded that it has a “pro-Putin bias” and downplays human rights reporting and American viewpoints. See: “New media scholar Nikolay Rudenskiy is author of ‘pro-Putin Bias in VOA’study.” But a Senate staffer familiar with the evaluation said there is “no smoking gun” to indicate a deliberate pro-Putin bias.

NPR’s Michele Kelemen reported, however, that in one Voice of America Russian Service webcast, the VOA host hardly pushes back in a lengthy interview with a pro-Putin youth leader, who complains that the U.S. is trying to foment revolution in his country.

Read and listen to NPR report: Russian Accuses Voice Of America Of Fake Interview by MICHELE KELEMEN

In a Washington Times Op-Ed, a Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting member Ted Lipien warned about a pro-Putin bias in the Voice of America Russian programs. Lipien reported that a highly respected independent journalist in Russia hired by the Broadcasting Board of Governors to evaluate the VOA Russian website concluded last year that it has a pro-Kremlin bias and downplays human rights reporting. BBG executives apparently failed to share the results of this study with BBG members.

On January 31, the Voice of America posted on its Russian website an alleged interview with a prominent Russian anti-corruption lawyer, anti-Putin opposition leader and blogger Alexei Navalny but had to remove it and apologize after Navalny said that the interview was “100 percent fake.” Navalny, who is viewed as an enemy by the Kremlin and has been a target of disinformation campaigns by Prime Minister Putin’s supporters, accused the Voice of America of “going nuts” and suggested that all those working for the VOA Russian Service should be let go.

BBG Watch website reported that despite issuing an apology, some staffers who were responsible for posting the fake interview have been telling VOA and BBG management that Navalny did give them an interview through an exchange of emails and then lied about it. BBG Watch reported that these staffers are recent arrivals from Russia who were hired as poorly paid contractors to replace experienced journalists who had been retired or pushed out because they were critical of Putin and may have lacked new media skills.

Asked by BBG Watch for a comment, Lipien said that in his long career with the Voice of America he did not recall a single incident where VOA would air a fake interview with a major anti-communist figure like Andrei Sakharov, Lech Walesa, or Vaclav Havel. “Had we done so due to some kind of secret police provocation, of which there were many, we would certainly not accuse these brave men of lying,” Lipien said.

The fact that this incident happened and that some VOA Russian Service staffers are still engaged in a whispering campaign of accusing Andrei Navalny of lying, as reported by BBG Watch, is extremely disturbing, Lipien said. Voice of America director should have called Alexei Navalny and issued a personal apology, which should have been posted on VOA websites in Russian and English, Lipien suggested. The fact that the Russian news agency RIA Novosti reported on the fake interview incident in both Russian and English, but the VOA English news website completely ignored the story, points to serious problems with Voice of America journalism under the guidance of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. In many ways, it is now much worse than it was when VOA was still part of the United States Information Agency but VOA journalists knew how to use the VOA Charter to demand that controversial stories be covered, Lipien said. BBG Watch has been reporting that BBG

Go here to see the original:
Washington Times Op-Ed warns about pro-Putin bias in Voice of America Russian programs

Russian oppositionist Navalny says Voice of America interview with him is 100 percent fake, Voice of America went nuts, and all those in VOA Russian Service should be let go.

Early last year, the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), a federal agency which manages the Voice of America (VOA), paid a highly respected independent journalist in Russia a few hundred dollars to review the VOA Russian news website. The journalist wrote a devastating critique, pointing out that the website and related VOA news reporting to Russia, which cost US taxpayers a few million dollars a year, have a pro-Putin bias and downplay human rights reporting. Rather than giving moral support to the pro-democracy, anti-Putin movement in Russia, the Voice of America Russian Service was in essence giving more support to the Kremlin.

BBG executives, who advocated this programming strategy as good for getting a larger audience in Russia on the assumption that strong criticism of Prime Minister Putin would drive site visitors away, apparently hid the study from bipartisan members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. They and top VOA managers assured BBG members and new VOA director David Ensor that the Russian Service was having a great positive impact in Russia. They only failed to tell them on which side.

US taxpayers spent a few hundred dollars on a study that could have save them a few million dollars and could have saved the anti-Putin opposition from further harm from VOA Russian content with a pro-Putin bias if someone within the BBG or Congress paid attention. No one did.

The evaluation by an independent opposition journalist was hidden away, and the VOA Russian was allowed to hire more Russian journalists who used to work for the pro-Putin media in Russia while a few remaining anti-Putin journalists were pushed out or quit in disgust. Opposition leaders and opposition journalists in Russia were wondering what was going on with the Voice of America but generally ignored it until the VOA Russian Service went a step further and published a fake interview with a prominent Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny.

It appears that a recently hired VOA contract employee who came to the US on a temporary visa produced the interview thorough an exchange of emails with someone in Russia. It was reportedly approved by another recently hired VOA contract employee who used to work for the pro-Putin media. Some thought that the answers could not have come from Navalny, but the interview was posted on the VOA Russian website anyway.

Navalny, who is an anti-corruption lawyer, blogger and a leading opponent of Prime Minister Putin, had enough of this kind of provocation, apparently originated by some Kremlin supporters and then published as genuine by the Voice of America. He wrote in his Twitter account that the Voice of America “went nuts,” and that the alleged interview with him was “100% fake.” Most importantly, he also wrote that someone should tell the people in Washington to let all these guys go.

It was a message of desperation from a pro-democracy leader in Russia that should have already been heard months earlier when another pro-democracy activist told the Broadcasting Board of Governors that the Voice of America Russian Service was doing more harm than good.

But such bad news has always been suppressed by BBG and VOA executives. BBG members apparently did not find out about the fake interview until they read about it on the BBG Watch website. And while David Ensor was praising the Voice of America Russian Service for its innovative programs as he spoke to mark the 70th anniversary of VOA on February 1, the Russian Service was trying to decide how to get out of the journalistic mess it created. Someone apparently failed to tell David Ensor that innovative VOA Russian programs he was praising had a pro-Putin bias and a “fake” interview. He may have also not known that the Russian Service website and blogs have been repeatedly compromised by hackers.

The Russian Service did remove the alleged “fake” interview and posted an online apology to Navalny, but those responsible still kept telling David Ensor and anybody who would listen that they did not do anything wrong and that it was Navalny who was at fault.

They still maintain privately that Navalny gave the interview and then changed his mind and said that he had not. They are in fact accusing a highly respected and brave human rights fighter who has every reason to fear for his life, considering how many opposition journalists and activists have already been killed in Russia, of being a liar. This is how brazen these Russian journalists recently hired to work for the Voice of America Russian Service have become.

We hope that Voice of America director David Ensor and members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors will immediately put a stop to this tremendous waste of US taxpayers’ money, undermining of the pro-democracy opposition in Russia, and giving support to the Kremlin in the name of the American people. But considering the track record of the Broadcasting Board of Governors we are skeptical.

That’s why the Congress should launch an investigation to determine why the Voice of America Russian Service was allowed to continue its reporting with a pro-Kremlin bias despite a clear warning from an opposition journalist who is also risking his life fighting censorship in Russia.

Meanwhile, some of those responsible for posting the alleged “fake” interview still maintain that they are not at fault, that they doing a great job, and that it’s Russian opposition figures like Navalny who are a problem. We strongly disagree and urge the Broadcasting Board of Governors to take immediate action.

Members of Congress and American taxpayers who pay for the Voice of America website should read the attached report to determine for themselves whether they should continue to support the current VOA Russian team. Had BBG members read this study in early 2011 and taken some action, the Voice of America Russian Service could have been reformed and could have helped opposition leaders in Russia with reliable news and information rather than causing them harm and embarrassment.

The quote below is from a former Voice of America Russian Service journalist who was forced out for being too critical toward Putin and his rule. In 2008, BBG executives ended VOA radio and television broadcasts and decided to rely only on the Internet for news delivery to Russia. This decision allowed them to get rid of a number of experienced VOA Russian Service journalists.

During the Voice of America Russian Service program review in 2008 conducted by BBG executives just couple of months after the war between Russia and Georgia, experienced VOA journalists who were still there but were later retired or pushed out, were accused of being too harsh on Russians and told by BBG audience research experts NOT to use words like occupation (окупация) because they were offensive to Russians?! And when those seasoned journalists asked what exactly words they have to use in this case they were told just to be quiet!

###

This is a U.S. Government, Broadcasting Board of Governors study of the Voice of America Russian website paid for by US taxpayers. It was done by a highly respected independent Russian journalist who is fighting against state censorship in Russia. The journalist who wrote the report spent some time studying and lecturing in the United States.

 
 
VOICE OF AMERICA RUSSIAN WEBSITE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE
 
 
A. JOURNALISTIC STANDARDS
 
1.       Accuracy: Is the content on the website factually correct? Did you find any errors in the posted news and feature stories, including the video reports, and photos?
 
I didn’t notice any factual errors that would be of consequence. The scene of David Kramer’s presentation (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/09_03_2011_kramer_reset-117701538.html) was wrongly identified as Washington-based John(!) Hopkins University , instead of SAIS . Kramer’s position in the State Department in 2008-2009 wasn’t indicated correctly either. Blueberry Hills (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/AI-Putin-Concert-2011-03-09-117673903.html) in Russian is Chernichnye (not Golubichnye) Holmy. There are numerous if minor errors in spelling and punctuation, which cannot possibly be listed. Capitalization and quotation marks are especially erratic. Some stylistic norms should be observed more strictly: for example, March 10 in Russian is written as 10 marta, not 10-go marta (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/US-RF-Georgia-2011-03-12-117855784.html).
An interesting example of syntax error becoming factual is here:
(http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/Libya-Russia-2011-03-18-118246844.html) Due to incorrect Russian preposition, the headline of this news story reads as Why Did Russia Refrain from Adopting the Resolution on Libya . Of course it should be Why Did Russia Abstain from Voting on the Resolution on Libya .

Many Russian users might be unhappy with the ‘politically correct’ spelling of the names of some post-Soviet states: Belarus , Moldova , Kyrgyzstan . Most publications in this country, regardless of political orientation, stick to traditional Russian spelling ( Byelorussia , Moldavia , Kirghiziya). This does not imply any disrespect towards newly independent states.
 
Overall, as far as accuracy is concerned, the website doesn’t seem much worse than most Russian online media outlets.    
 
 
2.      Objectivity/Balance: Is reporting free of bias? Are opposing and/or alternative positions fairly represented and reported on controversial issues.

Before answering this one, I would like to present some general considerations. It seems pretty obvious that, to put it mildly, today’s Russia has big problems with freedom of the press. Even in the Russian segment of the Internet, which is not controlled by the authorities as closely as big TV channels and much of the printed media, objective information and free comment on politically sensitive issues are not readily available. Therefore, in my view, VOA should primarily concentrate on such information and comment which are relatively hard to come by elsewhere for political reasons. This applies to thematic balance (see below) and to representation of various positions as well. Of course I don’t mean to say that Russian official positions on controversial issues could be ignored or underreported; however, it would seem fair that in news coverage and comment on such issues as YUKOS affair or human rights violations in the North Caucasus some kind of special consideration be given to alternative facts and viewpoints.
Now, my impression is that VOA has been too careful in avoiding anything that might look like ‘anti-Russian’ bias. A telling example of this attitude can be found in the coverage of Vice President Biden’s visit to Moscow . The reporting focused on Biden voicing support for Medvedev’s ‘modernization,’ traveling to Skolkovo etc., all of which was amply covered by national TV channels. But Vice President’s speech in Moscow University , in which he criticized Russia ‘s leadership on democracy and human rights, was clearly downplayed. The report on this event (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/russia/Biden-students-2011-03-10-117738384.html) was titled ‘Joe Biden to Moscow Students: Future is Yours’; a headline as cheerful as meaningless, reminding of Soviet newspapers. What is worse, the report failed to mention that Biden spoke about the Khodorkovsky case as an example of Russia ‘s ‘legal nihilism’  – an important fact noted both in Russia and abroad. One might suspect that the omission was deliberate. If so, that could be regarded as a case of  ‘pro-Russian’ (or, rather, pro-Putin) bias.    
          
 
 
3.      Comprehensiveness: Given the medium, does the news and information provide the essential elements needed to understand a story? Was there sufficient background, text, photos, and context so that you came away with a good understanding of the information presented?
 
Generally, stories are comprehensive enough. Some other websites (e.g. BBC) would normally provide more background information, but I don’t believe in putting too much strain on the reader. However, omissions occur. A good report on David Kramer’s comments on U.S.-Russian relations in the context of human rights (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/09_03_2011_kramer_reset-117701538.html) lacks basic facts and figures about Freedom House – not many Russian readers know enough about this organization. Perhaps additional background info, such as Russia ‘ place in Freedom House international rankings, would have been relevant, too.   
 
 
4.      Thematic Balance: Is there an appropriate selection of topics on the site, or too much political or non-political coverage?
 
The answer to this question depends on how one understands VOA’s mission. As I see it, the purpose of the VOA Russian website is to provide objective information and free comment, especially where these are limited for political reasons, and to promote American (or, for that matter, universal) values, such as democracy, human rights etc. Based on this, I don’t see much sense in trying to produce a comprehensive picture of all kinds of events all over the world (something like a ‘complete body of all arts and sciences’ at the Academy of Lagado in ‘Gulliver’s Travels’). It appears to me that the site should mostly (by no means exclusively!) focus on selected fields, above all Russian domestic and foreign politics, American life and U.S.-Russian relations. This would imply that political coverage should generally dominate over non-political themes. After all, modern Russians, especially Internet users, are anything but short of information about current developments in science, arts, medicine and other non-political fields and it’s hard to imagine many people turning to VOA’s website for this sort of knowledge.  Besides, the Science, Health and Culture sections of the site do not look appealing at all; they should be either revamped and improved or discarded, and the latter option seems more reasonable, let alone easier.
Needless to say, this suggested ‘rule’ should have exceptions dictated by events. Thus, the current focus on the disaster in Japan is only natural and could even be enhanced. At the same time, a lengthy report on the plight of animals in the Kyiv Zoo (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/ukraine/Kiyev-Zoo-03-12-2011-117857049.html) doesn’t look necessary.    
 
 
5.      Overall Impression of Journalistic Quality: Is the journalistic quality of the website at a high professional and informational level?
 
My answer is ‘sorry but no’. The site provides information of satisfactory quality, but it is mostly derived from other sources. Even the report about American Vice President’s meeting with Russian opposition figures (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/russia/Biden-opposition-2011-03-10-117733859.html) was based on Ekho Moskvy and Gazeta.Ru information (VOA’s own interview with Leonid Gozman was added later.) The selection of topics and timeliness leave much to be desired (see below.) The language, if mostly grammatical, tends to be bland and colorless, which reduces the appeal very much. This applies especially to headlines: new Russian journalism has developed a special culture of catchy and witty headlines, and an advanced user expects to find them. Many photos lack expression and appeal. (See more below.) 
 
 
B. RELEVANCE
 
1.       Market Focus: Is the content of interest to an Internet audience that uses this language? Which content topics and themes were most appropriate and which ones seemed irrelevant to intended users in the market niche?
 
Much of the content doesn’t seem of interest to the Russian Internet audience. This applies more to non-political sections (see above); for example, an interview with a retired American professor of history on Russian movies (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/russia/Menashe-book-2011-03-14-117931004.htm) is shallow and superficial. Many ‘political’ pieces are less than inspiring, too. A brief account of the presentation of a new book on Cold War (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/Analysis-and-perspectives/Cold-War-book-DC_2011-03-10-117772903.html) lacks substance. A report on Australian Prime Minister’s speech before the U.S. Congress (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/US-Australia-2011-03-10-117724264.html) may be cogent enough, but is unlikely to capture the Russian audience. Such examples could be easily multiplied. On the positive side, I would like to mention an excellent article on government corruption in the North Caucasus (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/Caucasus-Corruption-2011-03-09-117655418.html); it is particularly praiseworthy that it offers an American perspective on the issue; Fatima Tlisova is known as a prominent expert on the region, and VOA is lucky to have her as a contributor. The report on David Kramer’s presentation (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/09_03_2011_kramer_reset-117701538.html) and Galina Kozhevnikova’s obituary (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/russia/AP-Galina-Kozhevnikova-2011-03-08-117615768.html) are very good, too.
Regrettably, some interesting topics were underreported. Thus, the story of an alleged prisoner swap scheme involving Viktor Bout, which featured prominently in independent  Russian media (Kommersant and others), was only reflected in a brief news item (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/Bout-swap-2011-03-10-117750703.html) based entirely on Russian sources; an American perspective one could have expected from VOA was lacking completely. The same can be said of the scandal involving Vladimir Putin, Western stars and charity money (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/russia/AI-Putin-Concert-2011-03-09-117673903.html): VOA’s website failed to provide any information or comment from the American side, missing a good opportunity to raise its profile.
As for the ‘market niche’ mentioned in the question, I’m afraid it can hardly be located at the moment.    
    Timeliness: Is the content fresh and updated in a timely fashion, in line with your expectations for this type of website?

This is probably one of the website’s weakest points. As far as I could monitor, all big ongoing stories (Biden’s visit, Japan ‘s disaster) were reported with long delays compared to Russian online media. The piece on Biden’s planned meeting with human rights activists on March 10 was among top news a few hours after the meeting actually took place (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/Russia-Biden-Opposition-2011-03-10-117722039.html) (later the verb in the headline was changed to past tense without changing the content.) On March 12, information on the explosion at a nuclear power plant in Japan , which was distributed in the morning Moscow time, did not appear on the site till evening. The news on Russia ‘s accession to sanctions against Libya (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/world-news/Russia-Lybia-sanction-2011-03-10-117727733.html) was also reported with a huge delay. On the homepage one can see many headlines of news stories dating from a day or even two days before. This drastic situation could be reason enough to undermine VOA’s competitive position vis-à-vis ‘native’ online resources. Perhaps the problem is partly attributable to an objective factor – the time zone difference between Moscow and Washington . I don’t know whether this obstacle is insurmountable, but surely something should be done about that.  
   
 
2.      Usefulness: Does the content provided on this site increase understanding of topics or events, and does it provide a basis for forming opinions, making decisions and rendering judgments?
 
My general answer to this one would rather be negative. The site provides quite an amount of diverse information, but not all of it seems relevant to the interests of the audience. A clearer focus on specific issues linked to VOA’s mission is needed. Independent forming of opinions by users could also be encouraged by more perceptive comments by high-level contributors – this is where VOA’s competitive position is rather weak. There are few if any bright columns by good authors; the Poedinok (Single Combat) section (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/crossfire/) is entirely about international politics, doesn’t seem appealing to users and is updated at a slow rate. The Edotorial section (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/editorials/) appears somewhat more useful; I wish it carried more on human rights and democracy in Russia .

The site could potentially excel in offering objective information on different aspects of American life – especially where such information is ignored or distorted by Russian pro-government media. To give just one example: many Russians, even among the educated class, are convinced that all talk about freedom of the press in the U.S. is mere eyewash and media are effectively controlled by the government or business interests. Systematic exposure and refutation of such myths could be one of VOA’s main goals; however, the site doesn’t seem keen on this sort of work. The Otkryvaya Ameriku (Discovering America) section (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/Discovering-America/) could be helpful in forming sound views about American life, but at this point it’s not good enough: stories seem rather superficial, updating rate very slow. It’s unclear why the name of Matvei Ganapolsky (a popular host and commentator at Ekho Moskvy Radio) is seen on top on this page. And finally, this section looks suspicious in terms of ‘pro-American’ bias: seeing headlines like America Is a Land of Great Human Opportunities , America Is No. 1 Country, In America One Always Feels Change for the Better etc., a Russian Internet reader gets the impression of crude propaganda.           
 
 
C. PRESENTATION
 
1.      Usability/Navigation: Is the web site well organized?  When browsing through the site, do you find what you expect? Do you find any pleasing surprises, or do you experience any frustrations as you click?
 
In terms of navigation, the website seems user-friendly enough. Browsing brings no pleasant or unpleasant surprises.
 
 
2.      Appearance: Is the website attractive, uncluttered and contemporary?  Is the layout commensurate with local expectations for this type of website?
 
In my view, the site doesn’t look attractive or contemporary. On the home page, one would expect more expressive photos and other visual elements, with fewer headlines – especially since, as I said, headlines are rarely catchy enough. I am not happy with the top story in the left corner: as it keeps changing, you don’t immediately see what the top event is at a given moment while the “top news” headlines (glavnye novosti) in the center are far too many and not all of them seem that important. As a result, one cannot get an immediate picture of news stories ranked by importance – something that most other online news organizations provide. As for far too numerous “other news” (drugie novosti), their classification is not consistent: America, World, Russia, Politics and other sections clearly overlap, which is why on the homepage one can often come across the same news story twice or even three times. Such repetitions produce an unfavorable impression. The overall picture is anything but appealing.
Perhaps the layout could be made flexible, enabling the site to emphasize events and issues of extraordinary importance – such as Japan disaster and its implications. 
 
3.      Readability: Is the writing style modern, current and understandable? Are the fonts clear, easy to read, and the right size? Is the font type appropriate for this kind of content?
 
Having commented on this already (see A5), I’d like to add that much of the texts posted on the website are in fact translations from English. This is only natural – but, unfortunately, the Russian style of these translations is not natural enough, which might alienate many readers. A systematic effort is needed to make the language more modern, vivid and expressive – with a special focus on headlines.
The fonts are basically OK if somewhat monotonous; as I said the number of headlines on the homepage could be reduced allowing for larger and more attractive fonts.       
 
 
 
 
D. TECHNICAL QUALITY
 
1.      Functionality: Did the website work as expected? When you clicked on links did they function properly?
 
No particular problem with that.
 
2.      Search: Find a story on the web site using the search box – were you able to find what you were looking for? If not, did the results make sense?
 
 
The search box works all right.
 
 
3.      Photos/Graphics: Did the images on the website enhance your understanding of the stories presented? Do they meet the standards you expect of a news organization publishing on the web?
 
The photos are mostly all right but tend to be ‘conventional’ – very few can really catch the eye or throw more light on the story’s content.  
 
 
4.      Video/Audio: Did streaming elements on the web site and on the You Tube Channel function as expected?  Were the links accurately identified? Did files play on-demand, as expected?  Did the video and audio quality match the standards expected of an international news website?
 
The video and audio quality is good enough. Maybe streaming elements should be indicated more prominently on the homepage.
 
 
5.      Podcasts: Are you able to download and playback multimedia files from the site? Do the format options seem appropriate for this type of website? Describe your impressions about the content and presentation; do they sound contemporary and appealing?
 
Multimedia files work all right, but it seems that their function is limited to supplementing the textual content: few if any of them provide unique information or comment. One would expect them to be more original and appealing. Besides, their visibility on the homepage should be enhanced.
 
 
6.      Branding: Is the site clearly identified? Is it clear what URL you could use to easily return to the site later? Try typing that URL in another browser – does it return you to this site?
 
The URL is clear enough, but VOA (unlike, say, BBC) doesn’t ring a bell to the average Russian user. GOLOSAMERIKI.US is likely to work better than VOANEWS.COM, just as SVOBODANEWS.RU is better than RFE/RL.ORG
 
 
E. UNIQUE VOA QUALITY
 
1.      Does this site fill a clear niche that positively distinguishes it from others in the target area? Please explain.
 
Based on what I said before, my answer to this question is definitely negative. The site provides little if any unique information or bright and perceptive comment, it appears rather mediocre in terms of journalistic quality or design, and it lacks focus on the topics where it potentially could excel. Reaching somewhat beyond the scope of this evaluation, I talked to several people I know in Moscow ; some of them are professionally involved with online media, others are not, but all are avid Internet users. The result of this informal poll was about as I had anticipated: nearly half of the respondents never heard of the VOA website, others just knew about its existence, and only a couple of media professionals had a more or less clear idea about it. I don’t recall VOA being quoted or referred to in the Russian segment of the Internet including social networks or in offline media. On March 18, I found VOA ranking 219th in the Rambler.ru list of online news sources (http://top100.rambler.ru/navi/?theme=440&page=1) while, for example, Radio Liberty (not exactly the most popular website) ranked 43d.     
 
 
 
2.      What other sites do you follow for news and information? (Please list.)
 
Grani.ru, Gazeta.ru, Lenta.ru, Newsru.com, Echo.msk.ru, Svobodanews.ru, Ej.ru, Openspace.ru, Kommesant.ru, Vedomosti.ru, Washingtonpost.com, Nytimes.com…
 
 
 
3.      Please compare the VOA web site with those other sites. In what ways was VOA’s coverage or approach different from the other sources?
 
I am afraid a comparison by such basic criteria as relevance, focus on most interesting topics, timeliness, journalistic quality and – last not least – presence of renowned contributors would put VOA at a disadvantage.  
 
 
4.      Was there any information in the VOA website that you were unable to get elsewhere? 
 
I don’t think so. Perhaps the VOA website carries some information on America that is hard to come by in Russian online media, but since I can use American sources I didn’t have to rely on VOA. It can be added that as knowledge of English among Russian Internet users is expanding, many of them turn to original sources of international news. Therefore, VOA is likely to face ever tougher competition.
 
 
 
F. AUDIENCE ENGAGEMENT
 
1.      Interactivity: Do you see opportunities to comment, offer opinion through a poll, or otherwise participate with or react to the content on the web site? Were the interactive elements in line with what you would expect on this type of web site?
 
The interactive elements are there all right, but it would seem that more often than not the content is not thought-provoking enough to stimulate meaningful discussion. 
 
 
2.      Sharing: Do you see opportunities for sharing this content using social media platforms (like Facebook or Twitter)? Do the options seem appropriate for users of this language? 
 
See above.
 
3.      Blogs: Starting at the homepage, are you able to find a blog? If so, please describe:
 
Alas, my effort was fruitless. I clicked on OUR BLOGS on the homepage only to find myself on a page (http://community.livejournal.com/golos_ameriki) where I couldn’t identify individual blogs. I would recommend that most interesting blogs, especially those by notable personalities, be marked by banners on the homepage. 
 
 
(Note:  If you find a blog, please complete the expanded questionnaire at the end of this evaluation.)
 
 
G. ENGLISH LEARNING
 
1.      Are you able to find any tools or products that would help in learning American English?
 
Yes – I located Uroki angliyskogo (English lessons) on the homepage. It took some time though.
 
2.      Does this section seem intuitive, easy to use?
 
No, not really.   
 
3.      If it navigates you away from the main site, are you able to get back easily?
 
Yes.
 
4.      Are you satisfied with the topics in the English learning section? Do you have any suggestions for themes that would be more relevant?
 
Most of the topics seemed far too primitive to me. I imagine most users who would be interested in this section would prefer a more advanced level of learning. However, my opinion on this doesn’t have much value. I learned English a long time ago and my memories of the process are rather vague. Nor am have I ever been involved with language teaching professionally. I guess evaluations by learners and teachers would be more relevant.      
 
 
OVERALL IMPRESSION OF PRESENTATION QUALITY & USABILITY: 
 
What is your overall feedback about this web site?  Do you feel anything is missing?
 
 
 
Please provide at least 3 suggestions for improvement. 
 
At the risk of sounding repetitious, I’d like to stress that a radical change of the VOA website (and such a change is surely needed) must be based on a clearer understanding of the site’s main purpose – its mission, if you will. I see no point in trying to provide an all-encompassing picture of events and developments all over the world: the site doesn’t seem equipped enough to do that, and Russian Internet users are not likely to turn to VOA for such a picture anyway. And, after all, I am not sure that the United States government (or, for that matter, the American people) has an interest in informing this country’s public about everything happening in the world. In my view, the site’s thematic range could and indeed should be narrowed, enabling a better focus on the most relevant fields: a) controversial issues in Russian politics inadequately covered by government-controlled media in Russia; b) news and comments on various aspects of American life, with special attention to promoting American values and refuting widespread misconceptions about the U.S. Of course this shouldn’t look like official propaganda. America ‘s failures and shortcomings, real or alleged, must not be concealed or downplayed – attempts to do that are bound to have a negative impact on the audience.
 
It would seem that the proportion of political coverage should be somewhat higher than it is now. However, there are many non-political – or at least not entirely political – issues in Russia today that could feature more prominently on the VOA website. A systematic effort should be made to use VOA’s unique advantage (so far potential rather than real): its ability to compare and contrast problems and their solutions in Russia and America . This applies to such diverse issues as high school reform, immigration, race and ethnic relations, big city planning, health reform, legal limitations to freedom of assembly and the press, prevention of terrorist attacks, fighting organized crime and corruption, combating hate speech, reform of penitentiary system, etc. Discussion of these and other topics from both Russian and American perspectives could be very stimulating and helpful in enhancing VOA’s competitiveness vis-à-vis Russian online media.
 
History also matters. There is an apparent scarcity of historical themes on the VOA site. Meanwhile, there is a growing interest in public historical debate in Russia , and the site shouldn’t stay away from it. For example, this year will see the 70th anniversary of both Russia’s and America’s entry into World War II – a good occasion to discuss some controversial issues in the war’s history, for instance, the relative importance of the U.S. and the Soviet Union’s respective contributions to the common victory.    
 
I would also suggest that the site do something about the timeliness drawback (see B2). Perhaps it would even require moving part of the working team to Moscow in order to overcome the time zone obstacle (now the normal difference between Moscow and the U.S. East Coast is 8 hours, but soon, with the scheduled abolition of daylight saving time in Russia, it will be 9 hours.) I don’t know, however, whether it’s realistic.
 
I think something should also be done to promote the VOA website in this country. I am not an expert on advertising, but surely there must be ways to make the site better known in Russia – for example, through banner exchange with other online news organizations. Maybe Radio Liberty, whose position in the Internet’s Russian segment is much stronger, could help. Perhaps more cooperation is needed with popular Russian search engines, above all Yandex.ru.
 
And my final suggestion (again, I don’t know if it’s realistic or not) is about personalities. If the VOA website wants to become more popular in Russia , it should have more well-known people among its regular contributors. Familiar names and faces on the homepage, banners etc. seem indispensable for success in the Russian segment of the Internet.
      
 
 
BLOGS  
 
How easy was it for you to find the blogs? Would anything have made it easier?
 
Finding the blogs was anything but easy. I would recommend that a few of them – most interesting and popular – be marked by catchy banners on the homepage so that the user could reach them directly.
 
What is your overall impression of the blogs? What is the first thing that catches your eyes? What item or topic looks the most interesting? Why?
 
My overall impression of this section is rather poor. To begin with, it took me some time to understand that the VOA blogs are organized as a LiveJournal community. This seems an obsolete and ineffective way – and is definitely far from what a Russian Internet user would expect from blogs section on an advanced website. If you look, for example, at the site of Ekho Moskvy Radio (http://www.echo.msk.ru/), you will see that blogs are very prominent on its homepage, forming an increasingly important component of its content. This is primarily due to the fact that most bloggers are, in this way or another, prominent people: political figures, public activists, experts in various fields, arts and media personalities etc. – or perhaps ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances, like a Russian tourist in Japan these days. Naturally, their opinions on relevant issues and immediate responses to current events (and this is essentially what blogs are for) evoke much interest from the audience. Now, on the blog page of the VOA website (http://community.livejournal.com/golos_ameriki/), all you can find by way of orientation is a calendar, an enormous list of tags (which is no substitute for a concise list of topics and appears pretty useless), and a few most recent blog entries by some obscure authors. Even after you succeed in finding the complete list of blog hosts, or community members (http://www.livejournal.com/tools/friendlist.bml?user=golos_ameriki&nopics=1), you will see a huge list of nicks (not real names!), which is hardly helpful or stimulating either. And even to obtain this info, you will have to register and log in, which is not something everyone is willing to do. 
 
As for the topics, no wonder that some of them are ‘topical’ ( Libya , Japan etc.), but the content is hardly inspiring. At the same time, many entries don’t seem interesting to anyone except those who posted them. Such is, so to speak, the price of freedom – that is, free LJ community status.
 
 
Are the blog topics organized and presented in a clear and useful way?  What do you think of the categories of information, ease of navigation, archives and/or searchability?
 
See above. I can only add that navigation and search seem all right – the problem is that few people in Russia are likely to use these and other tools
 
What do you think of the blog hosts’ writing style and tone?  How well-written are the blog stories? Have they included links to related stories, blogs or sites if you want more information?
 
From what I read I gather the impression that most blog stories are written on a satisfactory level, but few if any of them contain original, much less unique information or ideas that could evoke wide interest or inspire meaningful discussion. It also appears that many blog hosts (as well as authors of comments at the bottom of entries) belong to the Russian émigré community in the U.S. Needless to say, I am by no means prejudiced against those people and there is no way they could be excluded from the VOA blogs. However, I don’t think they are part of the VOA target audience.     
 
What do you think of the overall attractiveness of the blogs – the design/layout?
 
I am afraid the blogs are anything but attractive in terms of design/layout. However, this matters only to those few Russian readers who actually use them.
 
What do you think of the comments at the bottom of each blog entry? Does anyone seem to be moderating the comments?
 
The comments are mostly scanty and uninspiring. Again, given the present situation, it’s hard to imagine many Russian Internet readers who would be keen on using the VOA blogs for this sort of activity. As for moderation, I noticed obscene language in some of the comments. In Russia , it is supposed to be removed, but it must be admitted that this rule is not observed strictly enough.
 
7. Do you think the content of these blogs is unique? Why/why not?
 
I haven’t come across unique content that would be of interest to a sizable audience. It may well be there – but it would take a lot of time, effort and courage to scan all the blogs in search for interesting communications.
 
8. What is your overall impression of the blogs? Do you have any suggestions for improvement, or anything else you would like to add?
 
As I said before, the way VOA blogs are organized doesn’t seem satisfactory. I would suggest that the present pattern – free LJ community – be replaced by a more modern and attractive system, like the one used by Ekho Moskvy, Grani.ru and some other Russian online resources. The key element is enlisting several (not too many – perhaps 20 or 30 could be enough for starters) regular bloggers whose names, status, expertise and other qualities would ensure real interest on the part of the Russian Internet audience. My idea is that such people could be recruited primarily among in America ‘s political, business, academic, journalistic and other circles involved with the U.S. relations with Russia , Russian studies etc. For example, the emergence of Michael McFaul or Richard Pipes as VOA blog hosts would enhance the site’s competitive position immensely. Notable members of Russian émigré community would be most welcome, too. I don’t know how feasible this idea is, but this is something to think about.      
 

Russian oppositionist Navalny says Voice of America interview with him is 100 percent fake, Voice of America went nuts, and all those in VOA Russian Service should be let go.

Early last year, the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), a federal agency which manages the Voice of America (VOA), paid a highly respected independent journalist in Russia a few hundred dollars to review the VOA Russian news website. The journalist wrote a devastating critique, pointing out that the website and related VOA news reporting to Russia, which cost US taxpayers a few million dollars a year, have a pro-Putin bias and downplay human rights reporting. Rather than giving moral support to the pro-democracy, anti-Putin movement in Russia, the Voice of America Russian Service was in essence giving more support to the Kremlin.

BBG executives, who advocated this programming strategy as good for getting a larger audience in Russia on the assumption that strong criticism of Prime Minister Putin would drive site visitors away, apparently hid the study from bipartisan members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. They and top VOA managers assured BBG members and new VOA director David Ensor that the Russian Service was having a great positive impact in Russia. They only failed to tell them on which side.

US taxpayers spent a few hundred dollars on a study that could have save them a few million dollars and could have saved the anti-Putin opposition from further harm from VOA Russian content with a pro-Putin bias if someone within the BBG or Congress paid attention. No one did.

The evaluation by an independent opposition journalist was hidden away, and the VOA Russian was allowed to hire more Russian journalists who used to work for the pro-Putin media in Russia while a few remaining anti-Putin journalists were pushed out or quit in disgust. Opposition leaders and opposition journalists in Russia were wondering what was going on with the Voice of America but generally ignored it until the VOA Russian Service went a step further and published a fake interview with a prominent Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny.

It appears that a recently hired VOA contract employee who came to the US on a temporary visa produced the interview thorough an exchange of emails with someone in Russia. It was reportedly approved by another recently hired VOA contract employee who used to work for the pro-Putin media. Some thought that the answers could not have come from Navalny, but the interview was posted on the VOA Russian website anyway.

Navalny, who is an anti-corruption lawyer, blogger and a leading opponent of Prime Minister Putin, had enough of this kind of provocation, apparently originated by some Kremlin supporters and then published as genuine by the Voice of America. He wrote in his Twitter account that the Voice of America “went nuts,” and that the alleged interview with him was “100% fake.” Most importantly, he also wrote that someone should tell the people in Washington to let all these guys go.

It was a message of desperation from a pro-democracy leader in Russia that should have already been heard months earlier when another pro-democracy activist told the Broadcasting Board of Governors that the Voice of America Russian Service was doing more harm than good.

But such bad news has always been suppressed by BBG and VOA executives. BBG members apparently did not find out about the fake interview until they read about it on the BBG Watch website. And while David Ensor was praising the Voice of America Russian Service for its innovative programs as he spoke to mark the 70th anniversary of VOA on February 1, the Russian Service was trying to decide how to get out of the journalistic mess it created. Someone apparently failed to tell David Ensor that innovative VOA Russian programs he was praising had a pro-Putin bias and a “fake” interview. He may have also not known that the Russian Service website and blogs have been repeatedly compromised by hackers.

The Russian Service did remove the alleged “fake” interview and posted an online apology to Navalny, but those responsible still kept telling David Ensor and anybody who would listen that they did not do anything wrong and that it was Navalny who was at fault.

They still maintain privately that Navalny gave the interview and then changed his mind and said that he had not. They are in fact accusing a highly respected and brave human rights fighter who has every reason to fear for his life, considering how many opposition journalists and activists have already been killed in Russia, of being a liar. This is how brazen these Russian journalists recently hired to work for the Voice of America Russian Service have become.

We hope that Voice of America director David Ensor and members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors will immediately put a stop to this tremendous waste of US taxpayers’ money, undermining of the pro-democracy opposition in Russia, and giving support to the Kremlin in the name of the American people. But considering the track record of the Broadcasting Board of Governors we are skeptical.

That’s why the Congress should launch an investigation to determine why the Voice of America Russian Service was allowed to continue its reporting with a pro-Kremlin bias despite a clear warning from an opposition journalist who is also risking his life fighting censorship in Russia.

Meanwhile, some of those responsible for posting the alleged “fake” interview still maintain that they are not at fault, that they doing a great job, and that it’s Russian opposition figures like Navalny who are a problem. We strongly disagree and urge the Broadcasting Board of Governors to take immediate action.

Members of Congress and American taxpayers who pay for the Voice of America website should read the attached report to determine for themselves whether they should continue to support the current VOA Russian team. Had BBG members read this study in early 2011 and taken some action, the Voice of America Russian Service could have been reformed and could have helped opposition leaders in Russia with reliable news and information rather than causing them harm and embarrassment.

The quote below is from a former Voice of America Russian Service journalist who was forced out for being too critical toward Putin and his rule. In 2008, BBG executives ended VOA radio and television broadcasts and decided to rely only on the Internet for news delivery to Russia. This decision allowed them to get rid of a number of experienced VOA Russian Service journalists.

During the Voice of America Russian Service program review in 2008 conducted by BBG executives just couple of months after the war between Russia and Georgia, experienced VOA journalists who were still there but were later retired or pushed out, were accused of being too harsh on Russians and told by BBG audience research experts NOT to use words like occupation (окупация) because they were offensive to Russians?! And when those seasoned journalists asked what exactly words they have to use in this case they were told just to be quiet!

###

This is a U.S. Government, Broadcasting Board of Governors study of the Voice of America Russian website paid for by US taxpayers. It was done by a highly respected independent Russian journalist who is fighting against state censorship in Russia. The journalist who wrote the report spent some time studying and lecturing in the United States.

 
 
VOICE OF AMERICA RUSSIAN WEBSITE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE
 
 
A. JOURNALISTIC STANDARDS
 
1.       Accuracy: Is the content on the website factually correct? Did you find any errors in the posted news and feature stories, including the video reports, and photos?
 
I didn’t notice any factual errors that would be of consequence. The scene of David Kramer’s presentation (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/09_03_2011_kramer_reset-117701538.html) was wrongly identified as Washington-based John(!) Hopkins University , instead of SAIS . Kramer’s position in the State Department in 2008-2009 wasn’t indicated correctly either. Blueberry Hills (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/AI-Putin-Concert-2011-03-09-117673903.html) in Russian is Chernichnye (not Golubichnye) Holmy. There are numerous if minor errors in spelling and punctuation, which cannot possibly be listed. Capitalization and quotation marks are especially erratic. Some stylistic norms should be observed more strictly: for example, March 10 in Russian is written as 10 marta, not 10-go marta (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/US-RF-Georgia-2011-03-12-117855784.html).
An interesting example of syntax error becoming factual is here:
(http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/Libya-Russia-2011-03-18-118246844.html) Due to incorrect Russian preposition, the headline of this news story reads as Why Did Russia Refrain from Adopting the Resolution on Libya . Of course it should be Why Did Russia Abstain from Voting on the Resolution on Libya .

Many Russian users might be unhappy with the ‘politically correct’ spelling of the names of some post-Soviet states: Belarus , Moldova , Kyrgyzstan . Most publications in this country, regardless of political orientation, stick to traditional Russian spelling ( Byelorussia , Moldavia , Kirghiziya). This does not imply any disrespect towards newly independent states.
 
Overall, as far as accuracy is concerned, the website doesn’t seem much worse than most Russian online media outlets.    
 
 
2.      Objectivity/Balance: Is reporting free of bias? Are opposing and/or alternative positions fairly represented and reported on controversial issues.

Before answering this one, I would like to present some general considerations. It seems pretty obvious that, to put it mildly, today’s Russia has big problems with freedom of the press. Even in the Russian segment of the Internet, which is not controlled by the authorities as closely as big TV channels and much of the printed media, objective information and free comment on politically sensitive issues are not readily available. Therefore, in my view, VOA should primarily concentrate on such information and comment which are relatively hard to come by elsewhere for political reasons. This applies to thematic balance (see below) and to representation of various positions as well. Of course I don’t mean to say that Russian official positions on controversial issues could be ignored or underreported; however, it would seem fair that in news coverage and comment on such issues as YUKOS affair or human rights violations in the North Caucasus some kind of special consideration be given to alternative facts and viewpoints.
Now, my impression is that VOA has been too careful in avoiding anything that might look like ‘anti-Russian’ bias. A telling example of this attitude can be found in the coverage of Vice President Biden’s visit to Moscow . The reporting focused on Biden voicing support for Medvedev’s ‘modernization,’ traveling to Skolkovo etc., all of which was amply covered by national TV channels. But Vice President’s speech in Moscow University , in which he criticized Russia ‘s leadership on democracy and human rights, was clearly downplayed. The report on this event (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/russia/Biden-students-2011-03-10-117738384.html) was titled ‘Joe Biden to Moscow Students: Future is Yours’; a headline as cheerful as meaningless, reminding of Soviet newspapers. What is worse, the report failed to mention that Biden spoke about the Khodorkovsky case as an example of Russia ‘s ‘legal nihilism’  – an important fact noted both in Russia and abroad. One might suspect that the omission was deliberate. If so, that could be regarded as a case of  ‘pro-Russian’ (or, rather, pro-Putin) bias.    
          
 
 
3.      Comprehensiveness: Given the medium, does the news and information provide the essential elements needed to understand a story? Was there sufficient background, text, photos, and context so that you came away with a good understanding of the information presented?
 
Generally, stories are comprehensive enough. Some other websites (e.g. BBC) would normally provide more background information, but I don’t believe in putting too much strain on the reader. However, omissions occur. A good report on David Kramer’s comments on U.S.-Russian relations in the context of human rights (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/09_03_2011_kramer_reset-117701538.html) lacks basic facts and figures about Freedom House – not many Russian readers know enough about this organization. Perhaps additional background info, such as Russia ‘ place in Freedom House international rankings, would have been relevant, too.   
 
 
4.      Thematic Balance: Is there an appropriate selection of topics on the site, or too much political or non-political coverage?
 
The answer to this question depends on how one understands VOA’s mission. As I see it, the purpose of the VOA Russian website is to provide objective information and free comment, especially where these are limited for political reasons, and to promote American (or, for that matter, universal) values, such as democracy, human rights etc. Based on this, I don’t see much sense in trying to produce a comprehensive picture of all kinds of events all over the world (something like a ‘complete body of all arts and sciences’ at the Academy of Lagado in ‘Gulliver’s Travels’). It appears to me that the site should mostly (by no means exclusively!) focus on selected fields, above all Russian domestic and foreign politics, American life and U.S.-Russian relations. This would imply that political coverage should generally dominate over non-political themes. After all, modern Russians, especially Internet users, are anything but short of information about current developments in science, arts, medicine and other non-political fields and it’s hard to imagine many people turning to VOA’s website for this sort of knowledge.  Besides, the Science, Health and Culture sections of the site do not look appealing at all; they should be either revamped and improved or discarded, and the latter option seems more reasonable, let alone easier.
Needless to say, this suggested ‘rule’ should have exceptions dictated by events. Thus, the current focus on the disaster in Japan is only natural and could even be enhanced. At the same time, a lengthy report on the plight of animals in the Kyiv Zoo (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/ukraine/Kiyev-Zoo-03-12-2011-117857049.html) doesn’t look necessary.    
 
 
5.      Overall Impression of Journalistic Quality: Is the journalistic quality of the website at a high professional and informational level?
 
My answer is ‘sorry but no’. The site provides information of satisfactory quality, but it is mostly derived from other sources. Even the report about American Vice President’s meeting with Russian opposition figures (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/russia/Biden-opposition-2011-03-10-117733859.html) was based on Ekho Moskvy and Gazeta.Ru information (VOA’s own interview with Leonid Gozman was added later.) The selection of topics and timeliness leave much to be desired (see below.) The language, if mostly grammatical, tends to be bland and colorless, which reduces the appeal very much. This applies especially to headlines: new Russian journalism has developed a special culture of catchy and witty headlines, and an advanced user expects to find them. Many photos lack expression and appeal. (See more below.) 
 
 
B. RELEVANCE
 
1.       Market Focus: Is the content of interest to an Internet audience that uses this language? Which content topics and themes were most appropriate and which ones seemed irrelevant to intended users in the market niche?
 
Much of the content doesn’t seem of interest to the Russian Internet audience. This applies more to non-political sections (see above); for example, an interview with a retired American professor of history on Russian movies (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/russia/Menashe-book-2011-03-14-117931004.htm) is shallow and superficial. Many ‘political’ pieces are less than inspiring, too. A brief account of the presentation of a new book on Cold War (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/Analysis-and-perspectives/Cold-War-book-DC_2011-03-10-117772903.html) lacks substance. A report on Australian Prime Minister’s speech before the U.S. Congress (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/US-Australia-2011-03-10-117724264.html) may be cogent enough, but is unlikely to capture the Russian audience. Such examples could be easily multiplied. On the positive side, I would like to mention an excellent article on government corruption in the North Caucasus (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/Caucasus-Corruption-2011-03-09-117655418.html); it is particularly praiseworthy that it offers an American perspective on the issue; Fatima Tlisova is known as a prominent expert on the region, and VOA is lucky to have her as a contributor. The report on David Kramer’s presentation (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/09_03_2011_kramer_reset-117701538.html) and Galina Kozhevnikova’s obituary (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/russia/AP-Galina-Kozhevnikova-2011-03-08-117615768.html) are very good, too.
Regrettably, some interesting topics were underreported. Thus, the story of an alleged prisoner swap scheme involving Viktor Bout, which featured prominently in independent  Russian media (Kommersant and others), was only reflected in a brief news item (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/Bout-swap-2011-03-10-117750703.html) based entirely on Russian sources; an American perspective one could have expected from VOA was lacking completely. The same can be said of the scandal involving Vladimir Putin, Western stars and charity money (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/russia/AI-Putin-Concert-2011-03-09-117673903.html): VOA’s website failed to provide any information or comment from the American side, missing a good opportunity to raise its profile.
As for the ‘market niche’ mentioned in the question, I’m afraid it can hardly be located at the moment.    
    Timeliness: Is the content fresh and updated in a timely fashion, in line with your expectations for this type of website?

This is probably one of the website’s weakest points. As far as I could monitor, all big ongoing stories (Biden’s visit, Japan ‘s disaster) were reported with long delays compared to Russian online media. The piece on Biden’s planned meeting with human rights activists on March 10 was among top news a few hours after the meeting actually took place (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/Russia-Biden-Opposition-2011-03-10-117722039.html) (later the verb in the headline was changed to past tense without changing the content.) On March 12, information on the explosion at a nuclear power plant in Japan , which was distributed in the morning Moscow time, did not appear on the site till evening. The news on Russia ‘s accession to sanctions against Libya (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/world-news/Russia-Lybia-sanction-2011-03-10-117727733.html) was also reported with a huge delay. On the homepage one can see many headlines of news stories dating from a day or even two days before. This drastic situation could be reason enough to undermine VOA’s competitive position vis-à-vis ‘native’ online resources. Perhaps the problem is partly attributable to an objective factor – the time zone difference between Moscow and Washington . I don’t know whether this obstacle is insurmountable, but surely something should be done about that.  
   
 
2.      Usefulness: Does the content provided on this site increase understanding of topics or events, and does it provide a basis for forming opinions, making decisions and rendering judgments?
 
My general answer to this one would rather be negative. The site provides quite an amount of diverse information, but not all of it seems relevant to the interests of the audience. A clearer focus on specific issues linked to VOA’s mission is needed. Independent forming of opinions by users could also be encouraged by more perceptive comments by high-level contributors – this is where VOA’s competitive position is rather weak. There are few if any bright columns by good authors; the Poedinok (Single Combat) section (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/crossfire/) is entirely about international politics, doesn’t seem appealing to users and is updated at a slow rate. The Edotorial section (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/editorials/) appears somewhat more useful; I wish it carried more on human rights and democracy in Russia .

The site could potentially excel in offering objective information on different aspects of American life – especially where such information is ignored or distorted by Russian pro-government media. To give just one example: many Russians, even among the educated class, are convinced that all talk about freedom of the press in the U.S. is mere eyewash and media are effectively controlled by the government or business interests. Systematic exposure and refutation of such myths could be one of VOA’s main goals; however, the site doesn’t seem keen on this sort of work. The Otkryvaya Ameriku (Discovering America) section (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/Discovering-America/) could be helpful in forming sound views about American life, but at this point it’s not good enough: stories seem rather superficial, updating rate very slow. It’s unclear why the name of Matvei Ganapolsky (a popular host and commentator at Ekho Moskvy Radio) is seen on top on this page. And finally, this section looks suspicious in terms of ‘pro-American’ bias: seeing headlines like America Is a Land of Great Human Opportunities , America Is No. 1 Country, In America One Always Feels Change for the Better etc., a Russian Internet reader gets the impression of crude propaganda.           
 
 
C. PRESENTATION
 
1.      Usability/Navigation: Is the web site well organized?  When browsing through the site, do you find what you expect? Do you find any pleasing surprises, or do you experience any frustrations as you click?
 
In terms of navigation, the website seems user-friendly enough. Browsing brings no pleasant or unpleasant surprises.
 
 
2.      Appearance: Is the website attractive, uncluttered and contemporary?  Is the layout commensurate with local expectations for this type of website?
 
In my view, the site doesn’t look attractive or contemporary. On the home page, one would expect more expressive photos and other visual elements, with fewer headlines – especially since, as I said, headlines are rarely catchy enough. I am not happy with the top story in the left corner: as it keeps changing, you don’t immediately see what the top event is at a given moment while the “top news” headlines (glavnye novosti) in the center are far too many and not all of them seem that important. As a result, one cannot get an immediate picture of news stories ranked by importance – something that most other online news organizations provide. As for far too numerous “other news” (drugie novosti), their classification is not consistent: America, World, Russia, Politics and other sections clearly overlap, which is why on the homepage one can often come across the same news story twice or even three times. Such repetitions produce an unfavorable impression. The overall picture is anything but appealing.
Perhaps the layout could be made flexible, enabling the site to emphasize events and issues of extraordinary importance – such as Japan disaster and its implications. 
 
3.      Readability: Is the writing style modern, current and understandable? Are the fonts clear, easy to read, and the right size? Is the font type appropriate for this kind of content?
 
Having commented on this already (see A5), I’d like to add that much of the texts posted on the website are in fact translations from English. This is only natural – but, unfortunately, the Russian style of these translations is not natural enough, which might alienate many readers. A systematic effort is needed to make the language more modern, vivid and expressive – with a special focus on headlines.
The fonts are basically OK if somewhat monotonous; as I said the number of headlines on the homepage could be reduced allowing for larger and more attractive fonts.       
 
 
 
 
D. TECHNICAL QUALITY
 
1.      Functionality: Did the website work as expected? When you clicked on links did they function properly?
 
No particular problem with that.
 
2.      Search: Find a story on the web site using the search box – were you able to find what you were looking for? If not, did the results make sense?
 
 
The search box works all right.
 
 
3.      Photos/Graphics: Did the images on the website enhance your understanding of the stories presented? Do they meet the standards you expect of a news organization publishing on the web?
 
The photos are mostly all right but tend to be ‘conventional’ – very few can really catch the eye or throw more light on the story’s content.  
 
 
4.      Video/Audio: Did streaming elements on the web site and on the You Tube Channel function as expected?  Were the links accurately identified? Did files play on-demand, as expected?  Did the video and audio quality match the standards expected of an international news website?
 
The video and audio quality is good enough. Maybe streaming elements should be indicated more prominently on the homepage.
 
 
5.      Podcasts: Are you able to download and playback multimedia files from the site? Do the format options seem appropriate for this type of website? Describe your impressions about the content and presentation; do they sound contemporary and appealing?
 
Multimedia files work all right, but it seems that their function is limited to supplementing the textual content: few if any of them provide unique information or comment. One would expect them to be more original and appealing. Besides, their visibility on the homepage should be enhanced.
 
 
6.      Branding: Is the site clearly identified? Is it clear what URL you could use to easily return to the site later? Try typing that URL in another browser – does it return you to this site?
 
The URL is clear enough, but VOA (unlike, say, BBC) doesn’t ring a bell to the average Russian user. GOLOSAMERIKI.US is likely to work better than VOANEWS.COM, just as SVOBODANEWS.RU is better than RFE/RL.ORG
 
 
E. UNIQUE VOA QUALITY
 
1.      Does this site fill a clear niche that positively distinguishes it from others in the target area? Please explain.
 
Based on what I said before, my answer to this question is definitely negative. The site provides little if any unique information or bright and perceptive comment, it appears rather mediocre in terms of journalistic quality or design, and it lacks focus on the topics where it potentially could excel. Reaching somewhat beyond the scope of this evaluation, I talked to several people I know in Moscow ; some of them are professionally involved with online media, others are not, but all are avid Internet users. The result of this informal poll was about as I had anticipated: nearly half of the respondents never heard of the VOA website, others just knew about its existence, and only a couple of media professionals had a more or less clear idea about it. I don’t recall VOA being quoted or referred to in the Russian segment of the Internet including social networks or in offline media. On March 18, I found VOA ranking 219th in the Rambler.ru list of online news sources (http://top100.rambler.ru/navi/?theme=440&page=1) while, for example, Radio Liberty (not exactly the most popular website) ranked 43d.     
 
 
 
2.      What other sites do you follow for news and information? (Please list.)
 
Grani.ru, Gazeta.ru, Lenta.ru, Newsru.com, Echo.msk.ru, Svobodanews.ru, Ej.ru, Openspace.ru, Kommesant.ru, Vedomosti.ru, Washingtonpost.com, Nytimes.com…
 
 
 
3.      Please compare the VOA web site with those other sites. In what ways was VOA’s coverage or approach different from the other sources?
 
I am afraid a comparison by such basic criteria as relevance, focus on most interesting topics, timeliness, journalistic quality and – last not least – presence of renowned contributors would put VOA at a disadvantage.  
 
 
4.      Was there any information in the VOA website that you were unable to get elsewhere? 
 
I don’t think so. Perhaps the VOA website carries some information on America that is hard to come by in Russian online media, but since I can use American sources I didn’t have to rely on VOA. It can be added that as knowledge of English among Russian Internet users is expanding, many of them turn to original sources of international news. Therefore, VOA is likely to face ever tougher competition.
 
 
 
F. AUDIENCE ENGAGEMENT
 
1.      Interactivity: Do you see opportunities to comment, offer opinion through a poll, or otherwise participate with or react to the content on the web site? Were the interactive elements in line with what you would expect on this type of web site?
 
The interactive elements are there all right, but it would seem that more often than not the content is not thought-provoking enough to stimulate meaningful discussion. 
 
 
2.      Sharing: Do you see opportunities for sharing this content using social media platforms (like Facebook or Twitter)? Do the options seem appropriate for users of this language? 
 
See above.
 
3.      Blogs: Starting at the homepage, are you able to find a blog? If so, please describe:
 
Alas, my effort was fruitless. I clicked on OUR BLOGS on the homepage only to find myself on a page (http://community.livejournal.com/golos_ameriki) where I couldn’t identify individual blogs. I would recommend that most interesting blogs, especially those by notable personalities, be marked by banners on the homepage. 
 
 
(Note:  If you find a blog, please complete the expanded questionnaire at the end of this evaluation.)
 
 
G. ENGLISH LEARNING
 
1.      Are you able to find any tools or products that would help in learning American English?
 
Yes – I located Uroki angliyskogo (English lessons) on the homepage. It took some time though.
 
2.      Does this section seem intuitive, easy to use?
 
No, not really.   
 
3.      If it navigates you away from the main site, are you able to get back easily?
 
Yes.
 
4.      Are you satisfied with the topics in the English learning section? Do you have any suggestions for themes that would be more relevant?
 
Most of the topics seemed far too primitive to me. I imagine most users who would be interested in this section would prefer a more advanced level of learning. However, my opinion on this doesn’t have much value. I learned English a long time ago and my memories of the process are rather vague. Nor am have I ever been involved with language teaching professionally. I guess evaluations by learners and teachers would be more relevant.      
 
 
OVERALL IMPRESSION OF PRESENTATION QUALITY & USABILITY: 
 
What is your overall feedback about this web site?  Do you feel anything is missing?
 
 
 
Please provide at least 3 suggestions for improvement. 
 
At the risk of sounding repetitious, I’d like to stress that a radical change of the VOA website (and such a change is surely needed) must be based on a clearer understanding of the site’s main purpose – its mission, if you will. I see no point in trying to provide an all-encompassing picture of events and developments all over the world: the site doesn’t seem equipped enough to do that, and Russian Internet users are not likely to turn to VOA for such a picture anyway. And, after all, I am not sure that the United States government (or, for that matter, the American people) has an interest in informing this country’s public about everything happening in the world. In my view, the site’s thematic range could and indeed should be narrowed, enabling a better focus on the most relevant fields: a) controversial issues in Russian politics inadequately covered by government-controlled media in Russia; b) news and comments on various aspects of American life, with special attention to promoting American values and refuting widespread misconceptions about the U.S. Of course this shouldn’t look like official propaganda. America ‘s failures and shortcomings, real or alleged, must not be concealed or downplayed – attempts to do that are bound to have a negative impact on the audience.
 
It would seem that the proportion of political coverage should be somewhat higher than it is now. However, there are many non-political – or at least not entirely political – issues in Russia today that could feature more prominently on the VOA website. A systematic effort should be made to use VOA’s unique advantage (so far potential rather than real): its ability to compare and contrast problems and their solutions in Russia and America . This applies to such diverse issues as high school reform, immigration, race and ethnic relations, big city planning, health reform, legal limitations to freedom of assembly and the press, prevention of terrorist attacks, fighting organized crime and corruption, combating hate speech, reform of penitentiary system, etc. Discussion of these and other topics from both Russian and American perspectives could be very stimulating and helpful in enhancing VOA’s competitiveness vis-à-vis Russian online media.
 
History also matters. There is an apparent scarcity of historical themes on the VOA site. Meanwhile, there is a growing interest in public historical debate in Russia , and the site shouldn’t stay away from it. For example, this year will see the 70th anniversary of both Russia’s and America’s entry into World War II – a good occasion to discuss some controversial issues in the war’s history, for instance, the relative importance of the U.S. and the Soviet Union’s respective contributions to the common victory.    
 
I would also suggest that the site do something about the timeliness drawback (see B2). Perhaps it would even require moving part of the working team to Moscow in order to overcome the time zone obstacle (now the normal difference between Moscow and the U.S. East Coast is 8 hours, but soon, with the scheduled abolition of daylight saving time in Russia, it will be 9 hours.) I don’t know, however, whether it’s realistic.
 
I think something should also be done to promote the VOA website in this country. I am not an expert on advertising, but surely there must be ways to make the site better known in Russia – for example, through banner exchange with other online news organizations. Maybe Radio Liberty, whose position in the Internet’s Russian segment is much stronger, could help. Perhaps more cooperation is needed with popular Russian search engines, above all Yandex.ru.
 
And my final suggestion (again, I don’t know if it’s realistic or not) is about personalities. If the VOA website wants to become more popular in Russia , it should have more well-known people among its regular contributors. Familiar names and faces on the homepage, banners etc. seem indispensable for success in the Russian segment of the Internet.
      
 
 
BLOGS  
 
How easy was it for you to find the blogs? Would anything have made it easier?
 
Finding the blogs was anything but easy. I would recommend that a few of them – most interesting and popular – be marked by catchy banners on the homepage so that the user could reach them directly.
 
What is your overall impression of the blogs? What is the first thing that catches your eyes? What item or topic looks the most interesting? Why?
 
My overall impression of this section is rather poor. To begin with, it took me some time to understand that the VOA blogs are organized as a LiveJournal community. This seems an obsolete and ineffective way – and is definitely far from what a Russian Internet user would expect from blogs section on an advanced website. If you look, for example, at the site of Ekho Moskvy Radio (http://www.echo.msk.ru/), you will see that blogs are very prominent on its homepage, forming an increasingly important component of its content. This is primarily due to the fact that most bloggers are, in this way or another, prominent people: political figures, public activists, experts in various fields, arts and media personalities etc. – or perhaps ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances, like a Russian tourist in Japan these days. Naturally, their opinions on relevant issues and immediate responses to current events (and this is essentially what blogs are for) evoke much interest from the audience. Now, on the blog page of the VOA website (http://community.livejournal.com/golos_ameriki/), all you can find by way of orientation is a calendar, an enormous list of tags (which is no substitute for a concise list of topics and appears pretty useless), and a few most recent blog entries by some obscure authors. Even after you succeed in finding the complete list of blog hosts, or community members (http://www.livejournal.com/tools/friendlist.bml?user=golos_ameriki&nopics=1), you will see a huge list of nicks (not real names!), which is hardly helpful or stimulating either. And even to obtain this info, you will have to register and log in, which is not something everyone is willing to do. 
 
As for the topics, no wonder that some of them are ‘topical’ ( Libya , Japan etc.), but the content is hardly inspiring. At the same time, many entries don’t seem interesting to anyone except those who posted them. Such is, so to speak, the price of freedom – that is, free LJ community status.
 
 
Are the blog topics organized and presented in a clear and useful way?  What do you think of the categories of information, ease of navigation, archives and/or searchability?
 
See above. I can only add that navigation and search seem all right – the problem is that few people in Russia are likely to use these and other tools
 
What do you think of the blog hosts’ writing style and tone?  How well-written are the blog stories? Have they included links to related stories, blogs or sites if you want more information?
 
From what I read I gather the impression that most blog stories are written on a satisfactory level, but few if any of them contain original, much less unique information or ideas that could evoke wide interest or inspire meaningful discussion. It also appears that many blog hosts (as well as authors of comments at the bottom of entries) belong to the Russian émigré community in the U.S. Needless to say, I am by no means prejudiced against those people and there is no way they could be excluded from the VOA blogs. However, I don’t think they are part of the VOA target audience.     
 
What do you think of the overall attractiveness of the blogs – the design/layout?
 
I am afraid the blogs are anything but attractive in terms of design/layout. However, this matters only to those few Russian readers who actually use them.
 
What do you think of the comments at the bottom of each blog entry? Does anyone seem to be moderating the comments?
 
The comments are mostly scanty and uninspiring. Again, given the present situation, it’s hard to imagine many Russian Internet readers who would be keen on using the VOA blogs for this sort of activity. As for moderation, I noticed obscene language in some of the comments. In Russia , it is supposed to be removed, but it must be admitted that this rule is not observed strictly enough.
 
7. Do you think the content of these blogs is unique? Why/why not?
 
I haven’t come across unique content that would be of interest to a sizable audience. It may well be there – but it would take a lot of time, effort and courage to scan all the blogs in search for interesting communications.
 
8. What is your overall impression of the blogs? Do you have any suggestions for improvement, or anything else you would like to add?
 
As I said before, the way VOA blogs are organized doesn’t seem satisfactory. I would suggest that the present pattern – free LJ community – be replaced by a more modern and attractive system, like the one used by Ekho Moskvy, Grani.ru and some other Russian online resources. The key element is enlisting several (not too many – perhaps 20 or 30 could be enough for starters) regular bloggers whose names, status, expertise and other qualities would ensure real interest on the part of the Russian Internet audience. My idea is that such people could be recruited primarily among in America ‘s political, business, academic, journalistic and other circles involved with the U.S. relations with Russia , Russian studies etc. For example, the emergence of Michael McFaul or Richard Pipes as VOA blog hosts would enhance the site’s competitive position immensely. Notable members of Russian émigré community would be most welcome, too. I don’t know how feasible this idea is, but this is something to think about.      
 

Original post:
Russia and the West: why democracy threatens Putin

We have just heard that the chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors Walter Isaacson is stepping down from his post at the BBG. He is not responsible for any calls for censorship against BBG Watch and is regarded as a supporter of transparency. Our sources report, however, that the same cannot be said about at least one other member of the BBG. Here is what our sources, which want to remain anonymous, tell us.

This could be a great story for the Kremlin’s external propaganda television channel Russia Today (RT), which is available in English on some U.S. cable systems and has recently hired WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to help Mr. Putin and co. fight the information war, which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the U.S. is losing.

It seems that rather than worrying about how to counter Mr. Putin’s propaganda, at least one member of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), a federal agency in charge of promoting democracy and free speech abroad through U.S. government-funded international broadcasters like the Voice of America (VOA), is also deeply concerned about Americas who dare to criticize BBG officials for mismanagement and incompetence in carrying out the information war.

BBG Watch sources confirmed that a member of the Broadcasting Board of Governors lashed out in private against domestic U.S. critics of BBG government officials, calling these critics “cowards” for using anonymous inside sources and taking advantage of the Internet and social media to anonymously post information and comments.

The BBG’s stated mission is “to inform, engage and connect people around the world in support of freedom and democracy.”

The BBG website states that U.S. international broadcasting serves “as a trustworthy source of news and as an example of a free, professional press in countries that lack independent media.” It also announces that “BBG broadcasters engage with audiences and promote dialogue through interactive programs and social networking.”

What could be only described as a glaring example of hypocrisy in public diplomacy, the same U.S. government official who calls his critics “cowards” then publicly rejoices when critics in Cuba, China, and Russia use anonymous new media to expose human rights violations and organize against their authoritarian regimes. The BBG member referred as “cowards” to American citizens who anonymously questioned the judgement of BBG executives involved with the unsuccessful BBG push in Congress to end VOA radio and TV broadcasts to China. Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress put a stop to the BBG China plan.

This and other BBG members have been publicly calling on Congress to give the agency more money to fight Internet censorship in China and Cuba so that Chinese and Cuban citizens can view Voice of America, Radio Free Asia, and Radio/TV Marti websites and post anonymous news and comments. Congress gave the BBG $10 million for this purpose.

But in private, one BBG member urged his colleagues to do something to counter anonymous U.S. domestic criticism of BBG executives on the independent BBG Watch website run by current and former BBG employees and other volunteers, most of whom prefer to remain anonymous.

Hypocrisy and bad public diplomacy setting a terrible example for pro-democracy and free speech activists abroad — BBG Watch sources say that a presidentially-appointed member of the Broadcasting Board of Governors is guilty on all counts.

This kind of behavior also confirms that BBG employees are absolutely right in trying to hide their identity while exposing poor judgement and mismanagement on the part of top level BBG officials. They have good reasons to fear the anger of this particular BBG member and the anger of BBG executives who no doubt urged this presidential appointee to take some kind of action to counter their critics, some of whom are their own employees who rate them in official surveys as the worst leaders and managers in the entire federal government.

We’re happy to report, however, that there may be still after all some First Amendment protection of free speech at the BBG, although we would not advise the internal critics to reveal their identities just yet. Our sources tell us that other members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, including BBG Chairman Walter Isaacson, who is stepping down from his post, and senior Republican member Victor Ashe, apparently ignored the call for action from the BBG member who was deeply offended by BBG Watch news commentaries.

We are told that Isaacson and Ashe have tried to make the BBG more transparent but have encountered strong resistance from the BBG and the International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB) senior staff and from a few of their colleagues on the Board.

As we pointed out in our earlier commentary,  ‘Old white guys’ meet ‘cute young intern’ and First Amendment at the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that anonymous free speech is protected and allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority,” the U.S. Supreme Court said.

China, Cuba, Russia … a Broadcasting Board of Governors member … U.S. Supreme Court. We stick with the last option.

See the article here: 
Kremlin attack on US envoy highlights ‘Made in America’ fixation

See the article here:
‘Paranoid’ Kremlin tries to curb opposition, as pro-democracy US envoy sworn in

Visit link:
Putin’s ‘Ceausescu moment’? Maybe not, but ……

Read the rest here:
Re-run election, says Gorbachev; support Russia’s democrats, says bipartisan group

The rest is here:
What Russia’s election was really about……..

RFE/RL analyst Charles Dameron took issue with another of Putin’s claims in the same interview. Putin said that NTV’s Vladimir Kulistikov’s move to state television from Radio Svoboda is evidence of Russia’s liberalization. Kulistikov was one of the reporters asking questions.

The RFE/RL analyst pointed out that dozens of journalists in Russia have been killed during Mr. Putin’s rule because they offended the authorities.

Ted Lipien said that there was a clear purpose to Vladimir Putin’s comments linking Radio Svoboda to spying on the USSR during the Cold War. Such comments, Lipien said, are designed to intimidate both journalists and Radio Svoboda’s potential audience in Russia, in addition to reassuring Prime Minister’s Putin’s nationalistic supporters.

Read more on CUSIB:

Follow this link to BBG Watch:
Putin goes after Radio Svoboda on Russian TV — CUSIB

RFE/RL analyst Charles Dameron took issue with another of Putin’s claims in the same interview. Putin said that NTV’s Vladimir Kulistikov’s move to state television from Radio Svoboda is evidence of Russia’s liberalization. Kulistikov was one of the reporters asking questions.

The RFE/RL analyst pointed out that dozens of journalists in Russia have been killed during Mr. Putin’s rule because they offended the authorities.

Ted Lipien said that there was a clear purpose to Vladimir Putin’s comments linking Radio Svoboda to spying on the USSR during the Cold War. Such comments, Lipien said, are designed to intimidate both journalists and Radio Svoboda’s potential audience in Russia, in addition to reassuring Prime Minister’s Putin’s nationalistic supporters.

Read more

Originally posted here:
Putin’s ‘ominous’ self-elevation could generate crisis of legitimacy and protest movement?

See the article here:
History repeats itself at Russia’s ruling party congress

See the article here:
Has Russia ‘squandered its chance at democracy’?

Corti, an Italian journalist and writer who had been Director of Radio Liberty Russian Service, said that political power in Russia is still split between Medvedev and Putin, democracy is heavily “managed,” and Russia has not moved significantly beyond the model of state capitalism. According to Corti, Medvedev’s “modernization program” and his other suggested reforms are still in the early stages of implementation. A decisive anti-corruption drive has yet to be launched, and the judiciary, as Medvedev has himself admitted on several occasions, is not independent, Corti said.

Mario Corti told RIA Novosti that if Medvedev really stands by his agenda and if he is truly confident that his reforms are a priority for Russia, then he must run for the second term, even if this means running against the powerful prime minister.

http://en.rian.ru/valdai_op/20110506/163884507.html

Free Media Online (FreeMediaOnline.org) supports media freedom and independent journalism. Mario Corti serves as one of Free Media Online directors and is a member of its International Advisory Board.

New York, February 23, 2011–In advance of key
meetings on Thursday between the European Commission and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, the Committee to Protect Journalists urges European Commission President José Manuel Barroso to address Russia’s record of rampant impunity in resolving the killings of journalists.

Read more

TedLipien.com, Truckee, California, USA, January 03, 2011 — Who is the leader of the Free World when democracy is under threat?

For a moment on New Year’s Eve 2010, I thought the leader of the free world was still George W. Bush. The President of the United States reads a message of solidarity with the people of Belarus, whose rights and freedoms have been once again trampled by an authoritarian ruler. Except that those reading the message were a former U.S President and a former U.S. Secretary of State, both Republicans. They were joined other world leaders, former statesmen, and human rights activists — courageous individuals like former Czech President Vaclav Havel, human rights activist Yelena Bonner, the widow of Soviet-era dissident Andrei Sakharov, Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg, and many others.

Former President Bush read the names of five Belarusian presidential candidates still being held in a KGB prison. The other participants read the names of other political prisoners in Belarus. But there was no high-ranking member of the Obama administration among the participants in the “Voices of Solidarity” project.

Most Americans and millions in the rest of the world expect the President of the United States to speak up forcefully when democracy abroad is under major attack. When shortly before Christmas 1981, General Wojciech Jaruzelski imposed martial law in Poland, there was not a slightest doubt that President Reagan would appear in front of television cameras to express the support of the American people for the Polish independent trade union movement Solidarity and its imprisoned leader Lech Walesa. In the last weeks of 2010, few expected President Obama to act forcefully and effectively in face of yet another attack against freedom and democracy in Belarus.

Both attacks on democracy supporters happened during a holiday season. President Reagan, who was in 1981 much older than President Obama is now, had showed remarkable energy, determination, and leadership in letting the world know what the United States thought about a communist dictator like General Jaruzelski. Much younger Barack Obama left Washington for a family vacation in Hawaii.

If you do not see the video of President Reagan’s Christmas address to the American people in 1981, try this link.

When elections in Belarus were stolen and democracy supporters beaten and imprisoned just before Christmas 2010, the White House issued a short written statement. Granted, the severity of repression in Belarus now has not reached the same level as in Poland in 1981, but presidential leadership in the U.S. was still woefully and significantly inadequate. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and European Union High Representative Catherine Ashton issued a statement on the post-presidential elections situation in Belarus. It was short and, as the title suggests, without much bite. Again, it does not compare in any way to President Reagan’s numerous statements and speeches after the imposition of martial law in Poland.

If you cannot see the video of President Obama’s Christmas 2010 address, click here.

President Reagan with Pope John Paul II in Fairbanks, Alaska, 1984. In his numerous efforts to help Solidarity, President Ronald Reagan consulted with Pope John Paul II.

One could presume it was yet another of President Obama’s public diplomacy blunders, but unfortunately it is much more than that. This and other acts and omissions reflect his deliberate decision, taken at the outset of his presidency, to give up for all practical purposes the role of the leader of the Free World.

After two years, it is now obvious that President Obama assumed the office determined not to upset totalitarian dictators. Operating under the illusion that by avoiding an overly confrontational posture he’ll be able to negotiate concessions and help them to reform later, he has emboldened dictators and insulted numerous loyal U.S. allies.

Former Solidarity Leader, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and former Polish President Lech Walesa.

Many, especially those who had lived or still live under communist and other totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, knew perfectly well that this approach would result in a retreat for democracy. Vaclav Havel, Lech Walesa, and other leaders in East-Central Europe even sent a warning letter to the White House early into the Obama presidency. Still some pro-democracy and human rights activists, especially in Western Europe, were initially impressed with his soft power diplomacy as a welcome alternative to military interventionism of George W. Bush. Granted, President Obama has not started any new costly and unnecessary wars, but a series of public diplomacy disasters over the last two years, culminating in his weak response to repression in Belarus just before Christmas 2010, have exposed him at home and abroad as an ineffective U.S leader.

President Obama’s public diplomacy strategy stems from his view of America as a threatening power, a popular theme among his left-wing friends and among revisionist academics who became his advisers on Russia and the Middle East. I became concerned that U.S. public diplomacy under his presidency was in crisis when not a single U.S. diplomat or any other official was able to advise him that announcing his unilateral decision to end George Bush’s anti-missile program in Central Europe on the day of the anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland would be received by the Poles as an ultimate insult.

But the first real sign that confirmed to me President Obama’s intention to relinquish his role of leading the Free World in defending democracy was his refusal to meet Dalai Lama in an apparent effort to avoid upsetting the aging communist leaders in China. Former Czech dissident, human rights activist, statesman, playwright, and Nobel Prize winner Vaclav Havel said, after learning that President Obama had refused to meet the Dalai Lama, “It is only a minor compromise, but exactly with these minor compromises start the big and dangerous ones, the real problems.”

When President Obama finally received Dalai Lama, the media released a photograph showing the Tibetan spiritual leader being ushered out of the White House by a side entrance, passing by a pile of trash bags. It was yet another example that no one in the administration was in charge of public diplomacy.

The answer to wielding influence abroad in defense of democracy is not blind, uninformed military interventionism of George W. Bush being pushed into war by advisers with a hidden agenda, but neither is it “resetting” of relations with ex-KGB spies and other opponents of democracy. President Obama could learn a lot from the leadership style of Ronald Reagan, who knew what he stood for and knew how to select and control his advisers and communicate his message to the American people and the world. But to be like Reagan, President Obama would have to first change his political philosophy and his vision of America. I don’t think that is likely to happen.

It is fairly clear by now that the Free World will have to wait for a new leader until the end of President Obama’s presidency. That role cannot be assumed by George W. Bush or Senator John McCain. Only the President of the United States, as the elected leader of the most powerful nation in the world, can assume this role, but only if he wants to. It is now obvious that President Obama does not want that role. In fact, he is ashamed of it, as he has demonstrated many times, delighting dictators and instilling fear among U.S. allies.

Snapshot from RFE/RL Website, January 02, 2010.

It’s a shame that public diplomacy on behalf of the American people, American values, and America’s long-term interests around the world is now being conducted not by the administration but has to be pursued by former U.S. leaders like George W. Bush, who is not particularly popular abroad. But if President Obama won’t find time to become a public voice in support of freedom, at least the former president has shown what many Americans think and that demonstrated that they won’t be silent when democracy abroad is in danger even if the current occupant of the White House prefers to stay on the sidelines.

RFE/RL President Jeff Gedmin

Interestingly, the initiative of conducting U.S. public diplomacy in defense of freedom has been taken up also by the U.S.-funded broadcaster Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), which had played a major role in helping to bring down the communist system. I have been in the past critical of RFE/RL, especially its treatment of its own journalists, but many of these policies had been imposed on the station by former members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) and the BBG’s executives in Washington, D.C. Under the leadership of Bush-era appointed president Jeff Gedmin, RFE/RL has been trying to fill the gap created by the lack of a long-term U.S. public diplomacy strategy in East-Central Europe. RFE/RL has been broadcasting messages of support for the people of Belarus and providing news about the struggle for democracy to a number of countries in Eurasia.

Unfortunately, without a high-profile support from the White House and the State Department, RFE/RL’s work will never have the same impact as it had during the Cold War. If anything, it further demonstrates the crisis of U.S. public diplomacy by sending a message that any change in American human rights policy and in relations with the countries of East-Central Europe will not come until the end of the Obama presidency. At least, RFE/RL is making it clear to its audiences that not all Americans agree with President Obama and his vision of America and the world.

Still it is unfortunate that practically the only voice on behalf of the majority of the American citizens who had voted against the Democratic Party in November 2010 and indirectly voiced their opposition not only to President Obama’s economic policies but also his foreign policy, is a radio station which is practically unknown to most Americans. Although it is funded by the U.S. Congress, RFE/RL is based in the Czech Republic and most of its employees are foreign journalists who have never been to the United States.

RFE/RL’s primary role has always been to serve as a surrogate domestic radio in the countries to which they broadcast. The role of explaining U.S. foreign policy and any opposition to it among Americans has always been assigned to the Voice of America, another U.S. government-funded international broadcaster which is based in Washington, D.C. and managed by the same U.S. Federal agency, the Broadcasting Board of Governors.

Snapshot of VOA English Service Website on Jan. 02, 2011.

Yet it appears from a quick review of its English and Russian websites that the Voice of America did not even report on the RFE/RL’s Belarus initiative or the fact that George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice participated in it as the most prominent Americans. A search for “Bush, Belarus, and RFE/RL” on the VOA websites did not return any results.

If these two stations, working under the same BBG management, cannot consult with one another, it’s rather obvious that no one in Washington is in charge of coordinating public diplomacy and international broadcasting.

What a big difference compared to Christmas time in 1981 during Ronald Reagan’s presidency, when I received numerous phone calls at home late at night from officials of the now defunct United States Information Agency (USIA) who wanted to know what kind of assistance the Voice of America’s Polish Service, where I was a managing editor, needed to expand immediately its medium wave and shortwave radio broadcasts to Poland.

The Voice of America has not had any programs in Belarusian. It used to broadcast, however, radio programs in Russian, a language which is widely understood in Belarus. What made VOA largely ineffective in East-Central Europe was the BBG ‘s decision to terminate Russian radio programs in 2008, just 12 days before the Russian military attack on Georgia. The BBG also ended all VOA programs in Central European languages.

The VOA English Service in the meantime has been broadcasting numerous news reports in support of President Obama’s “reset” policy with the Kremlin with very little balancing input from Republican lawmakers and other responsible critics of the administration — a legal requirement for VOA journalists under the VOA Charter approved by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President Gerald Ford.

One particularly one-sided VOA English Service analysis of U.S.-Russian relations, which completely ignored any Congressional and other U.S. criticism of President Obama’s approach to managing relations with the Kremlin, was first broadcast in English and then translated and put on the VOA Russian website. It was also translated by other VOA language services which lack resources to originate their own, more balanced reporting.

And while democracy supporters in Belarus were still being rounded up and independent media outlets raided by the secret police, VOA and BBG officials issued a self-congratulatory press release bragging about VOA’s ability to communicate with the audience in Belarus through the Internet and social media. They failed to mention that social media sites were blocked in Belarus by the regime during the contested elections and the violence that followed. They also failed to note that Internet access in Belarus is still very limited, and that the number of visitors from Belarus to the VOA Russian Service website, if they even can be accurately counted, is statistically insignificant.

Only a few days after the issuing of the deceptive press release, there was nothing left on VOA Russian Service website home page Sunday to indicate that Belarus was still a significant U.S. foreign policy concern. In fact, there was not a single news item on Belarus. Neither VOA Russian or VOA English home page features any banners with a link to more coverage of dramatic events in Belarus — something human rights defenders would certainly welcome.

The State Department website, state.gov, when I checked it on Sunday, January 2, had nothing on its home page on Belarus. Another State Department website, America.gov, had on its home page only one link to the statement on presidential elections in Belarusdelivered by the charge d’affairs of the United States Mission to the OSCE. Again, it was short and without any bite: “The United States has made clear throughout its engagement with the government of Belarus that the government’s respect for human rights and the democratic process is at the center of our bilateral relations. The actions taken by Belarusian authorities following the elections represent a clear step backwards on these issues.” There were no “Solidarity with Belarus” banners of any kind on the State Department websites, but then U.S. diplomats should not be expected to do anything that President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would not want them to do. The example has to come from the top.

The Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Judith McHale

The Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, who — according to the State Department website — “leads America’s public diplomacy outreach, which includes communications with international audiences,” is Judith McHale, appointed to this position by President Obama. But one could also say in her defense that nothing she did not do President Obama really wanted to be done. He certainly did not show much interest himself in the tragic events in Belarus. State Department officials are pursuing his public diplomacy, not necessarily public diplomacy serving long-term U.S. interests.

In 1981, VOA Polish Service did not have a website, but millions listening to our radio programs knew that the United States was fully behind the people of Poland. But then there was also no doubt what President Reagan, the White House, and the State Department stood for.

During Ronald Reagan’s presidency, U.S. public diplomacy had a powerful message in support of freedom, and U.S. international broadcasting played its journalistic role of reporting on it. While I can understand that VOA English and Russian services cannot report on something that the Obama White House and the State Department are NOT doing to keep Belarus in the news, they could at least report more on what others outside of the administration have been doing to draw attention to the violations of human rights which continue everyday, even when U.S. officials and many VOA and BBG managers are on a holiday vacation.

In light of all these developments, the initiative of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty to broadcast the message to Belarus from former President George W. Bush and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is highly commendable. It’s vastly better than the totally ineffective public diplomacy outreach to Belarus from the Obama administration. Let’s hope that RFE/RL’s creative initiative will do some good, especially when Bush and Rice are heard alongside of many non-American statesmen and human rights activists.

But the participation of George W. Bush and the prominent placement of his photo on the RFE/RL’s website — but not on the VOA website — also send another powerful public diplomacy message, and not a very good one: the pilot of the Free World is still missing from the plane. The people in Belarus and in other countries under dictatorships are justified in asking who will be leading America in its support for human rights and democracy for the next two years. Unfortunately, they have already concluded, that it is not going to be President Obama.

We should be grateful that we still have Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Americans like George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice, but these are not U.S. institutions and leaders who can have the greatest possible impact on public opinion abroad. The leadership in support of democracy has to come from the President and the White House to be taken seriously by dictators and authoritarian rulers like Russia’s ex-KGB spy Vladimir Putin. That type of leadership has been missing for the last two years.

As a former United States Information Agency and Voice of America employee with over 30 years of U.S. government service, my unofficial and subversive — from the perspective of the current White House and the State Department — public diplomacy message for foreign audiences is that President Reagan’s response to events in Poland in 1981 was much more typical for what most American’s would want now than President Obama’s practical non-response to the assault on democracy and human rights in Belarus.

Another unofficial public diplomacy message — again for what it’s worth since I have absolutely no current connection to the administration — is that President Obama’s foreign policy should not be always identified with the desires of the American people. In other words, democracy supporters abroad should not blame the American people and the United States for President Obama’s weak support for human rights. It is also worth remembering, especially in light of the results of the 2010 U.S. Congressional elections, that Barack Obama may no longer be president in 2013 and that American voters may soon help bring U.S. foreign policy back on its more traditional course.

About Ted Lipien

Ted Lipien is a former Voice of America acting associate director. He was also a regional BBG media marketing manager responsible for placement of U.S. government-funded radio and TV programs on stations in Russia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries in Eurasia. In the 1980′s he was in charge of VOA radio broadcasts to Poland during the communist regime’s crackdown on the Solidarity labor union and oversaw the development of VOA television news programs to Ukraine and Russia. After leaving U.S. government service, he founded Free Media Online (FreeMediaOnline.org), a California-based NGO which supports media freedom worldwide.

He is also author of “Wojtyla’s Women: How They Shaped the Life of Pope John Paul II and Changed the Catholic Church”(O-Books – June 2008). The book, which describes Pope John Paul II’s views on feminism, also includes evidence of the importance of Western radio broadcasts during Karol Wojtyla’s life in communist-ruled Poland and in the first ten years of his papacy. The book also has references to the efforts of the KGB and other communist intelligence services to place spies in the Vatican and to influence reporting by journalists covering the Polish pope.

This commentary by Ted Lipien may be republished in full or in part with attribution to FreeMediaOnline.org.

Related posts:

1. Why U.S. Public Diplomacy No Longer Works and Can It Be Fixed?
2. US Public Diplomacy Failure to Reach Out to the Russians After Terrorist Attack in Ingushetia – FreeMediaOnline.org (Free Media Online Blog)
3. Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty Faces Ethnic Discrimination Charges at the European Court of Human Rights – Free Media Online Blog (FreeMediaOnline.org)
4. Walesa on Obama’s Missile Diplomacy – American Diplomacy Failed Obama in Poland Update
5. American Diplomacy Failed Obama in Poland

 Sourced from: TedLipien.com

Go here to see the original:
Khodorkovsky sentence shows rule of law lipstick on Putin pig

Link:
Putin’s Remarks on Khodorkovsky Show Blatant Disrespect for Rule of Law

Read the rest here:
New civic activism challenges Russia’s ‘virtual mafia state’?

Opinia.US Truckee, CA, December 6, 2010 — The Guardian newspaper in the U.K. has released and commented on a number of leaked U.S. cables dealing with Poland. There needs to be a much greater scrutiny of these cables by mainstream U.S. media and political pressure from Polonia voters to force President Obama to change his course on Poland. The cables describe shameful treatment of an important U.S. ally by the President naively obsessed with Russia and Iran. The cables show that nearly all of the White House decisions, which weaken Poland’s security — such as providing a Patriot battery without working missiles – are designed to keep the Russian leaders happy with President Obama’s “reset” of relations with the Kremlin.

U.S. Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Ellen Tauscher and the Ambassador [U.S. Ambassador to Poland Lee Feinstein] made it clear  [ to Foreign Minister Sikorski and Defense Minister Klich] that the Patriots would not be integrated into Poland’s air defense system. Such a move would require a U.S. Presidential decision, and the President has made no such decision. It would be important for Poland to work with the United States to cultivate realistic public expectations for future Patriot rotations.

However, this is a good juncture to point out the most glaring gap in understanding between us and the Poles. The Poles have not been told that the battery will rotate without actual missiles — i.e., not only will the rotation not be operational in the initial phase (due to C4ISR and other issues) but it will also not be operational, and certainly interoperable, at any point in our current plans. This will be a question of basic definitions for the Poles: is it a Patriot battery if it doesn’t have live missiles? The Poles think the Patriots will become not only operable, but interoperable, over time – thus enhancing Poland’s air defense. When told last Fall that the Patriots would not be operational, at least at first, Deputy Defense Minister Komorowski angrily responded that Poland expected to receive operational Patriot missiles, “not potted plants.”

Waszczykowski was less adamant about Patriots, stating that Poland and the U.S. had a binding political agreement on security matters, which he hoped the United States would respect. He added that Poland “wants U.S. boots on the ground” — not necessarily as a tripwire, but as a deterrent. Nowak similarly stressed Poland’s strong interest in “deepening” military cooperation, ideally to include a large U.S. footprint in Poland. He mused that one Patriot battery and ten MD interceptors do not constitute the “impressive presence” that Poland is hoping for.

 

Presidential Advisor Waszczykowski reacted more emotionally. While Washington is entitled to talk to Russia, to work toward a solution to the Iranian threat, and to make its own decision about the MD initiative, the U.S. should take care not to undermine Poland’s security. He then wondered aloud, “How long will it take you to realize that nothing will change with Iran and Russia?” Waszczykowski asserted that Moscow is trying to regain its sphere of influence and stressed the critical importance of an increased U.S. or NATO presence for Poland’s security. He added that Russia continues to deny its historical wrong-doings against Poland, imposes economic sanctions against Poland at will, and frequently disrupts the flow of oil and gas.

Waszczykowski, who served as Poland’s Ambassador to Tehran (1999-2002), agreed that Iran poses an increasing threat to the United States and Europe. He said that the Iranian regime has no incentive to warm relations with Washington because the regime has built its own legitimacy on the cornerstone of anti-Americanism.

Komorowski was skeptical that a regional approach to contingency planning was the best way ahead. Komorowski said Warsaw would prefer a unique plan for Poland, although he allowed that Warsaw could accept the notion of two complementary chapters for Poland and the Baltic States within EAGLE GUARDIAN.

Opinia.US Commentary

President Obama runs the show and uses Poland  in his naive game to win over Russia and change Iran. He has found an ally in Secretary of Defense Robert Gates who sees benefits for the military establishment and private military contractors by steering Obama toward expanding military operations in Afghanistan with the help of Russia.

U.S. officials visiting Poland have no authority to negotiate anything beyond what the President wants. Some U.S. officials appear unsold on Obama’s Utopian vision, but they are powerless to correct his policy. The leaked U.S. State Department cables show Polish officials as frustrated, embarrassed and resigned since Poland has no choice but to accept whatever President Obama is willing to offer.

Except for Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Poland has never been treated in such a shameful way by any other U.S. administration. Looking on the bright side, President Obama’s foreign policy and his treatment of Poland are not typical of what the U.S. and the American people stand for and are not likely to survive his presidency, just as FDR’s appeasement of Stalin did not survive his. Barack Obama may very well be only a one term president.

Unless forced to do otherwise, the Obama Administration will be treating Poland as a country that only needs to be placated with empty gestures (Patriot battery without live missiles, sending Vice President Biden to Warsaw).

The only thing that can change the White House policy on Poland is sufficient public relations and political pressure from U.S. media, Polonia voters, and voters of other Central European backgrounds, that President Obama, his advisers, and the Democrats will fear and will not be able to ignore.

The Polish government should already have in place a public diplomacy campaign to explain and promote its views directly to the American public and the members of Congress.

 Sourced from: Opinia.US

According to the text of the Poland-related cable disclosed by WikiLeaks, an unidentified U.S. diplomat in Moscow repeated Russian media reports and subsequent statements by Russian officials, which distorted comments about Russia and the Russian military made by Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski on his visit to the United States in November 2009. The Russian media reports referred to Minister Sikorski’s request for U.S. forces on the ground in Poland to “protect against Russian aggression” — a phrase he never used in his speech delivered at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

Unlike some of the other leaked cables from the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, which show a healthy amount of scepticism on the part of U.S. diplomats about the real intentions and behavior of Prime Minister Putin and President Medvedev, the cable’s author in this case repeated and did not question doubtful claims made by Russian media and government officials.

Any sophisticated journalist or diplomat, however, would have good reasons to doubt whether the Polish Foreign Minister could have made such a provocative public statement. In fact, the cable’s author mentions in passing without any comment that Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told the press that he did not believe that Sikorski had actually made the remarks. On the day the cable was written, Opinia.US was already reporting that comments attributed by the Russian media to Minister Sikorski were completely made-up.

Opinia.US reported in November 2009 that the Russian media used falsified quotes from Minister Sikorski’s speech in Washington, which were then repeated by irate Russian officials who attacked the Polish foreign minister for being anti-Russian. These attacks were then picked up by American and other Western media and, as we now know, by a U.S. diplomat, and broadcast to a much larger audience.

The Russian news agency responsible for releasing made-up quotes eventually apologized for its false reporting, as did the Russian Foreign Ministry, but not before negative media publicity around the world and diplomatic reports reaching Washington and possibly other world capitals.

This particular U.S. Embassy Moscow cable seems unusual, not only because it accepts at face value nearly everything that the Kremlin-controlled media and Russian officials were saying about Minister Sikorski’s non-existent comments, but also for its own unbalanced commentary reflecting the Kremlin’s position:

“Unfortunately, the Polish government had seeded some of this Russian response through their sponsorship of and statements in support of the EU’s Eastern Partnership Initiative (Ref C) [reference to a different diplomatic cable] and show of support to Georgia during the 2008 Russia-Georgia War. Further, the Polish MFA [Ministry of Foreign Affairs] has established a Bureau of European Security, which Polish diplomats jokingly refer to as the ‘Office of Threats from the East.’”

The title of the report is also quite telling: POLISH PM SIKORSKI REOPENS OLD FIGHTS. It seems to suggest an attempt to identify Sikorski with Cold War mentality, which the Obama White House and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had criticized earlier while promoting a ”reset” of relations with Russia. The author may have been trying to make herself or himself look good to her or his superiors in Washington but managed to make  a mistake in the title of the cable: PM stands for Prime Minister, whereas Sikorski is Poland’s Foreign Minister. The leaked cable also includes the following final, and also unbalanced comment, suggesting that the Kremlin has every reason to be critical of Minister Sikorski while Poland has no reason to be afraid of Russia:

“Comment: The GOR [Government of Russia] will take some time to digest Sikorski’s comments, and evaluate whether or not to alter the current positive trend in bilateral relations. Russia has many levers, including delaying the approval of a pending gas deal (Ref D). Sikorski has given anti-western elements in Russia ammunition against improved Russian relations with NATO and even with the U.S.”

The cable was signed by the U.S. Ambassador to Russia John Beyrle who is an experienced career diplomat, but it does not necessarily mean that it was written or even seen by him prior to being sent to Washington, as most embassy cables are sent under the ambassador’s signature. Judging by the simplistic style and analysis, the cable’s actual author was more likely a junior diplomat, but we simply don’t know.

It could have been also a subtle and sophisticated way for a senior U.S. diplomat in Moscow who may favor the “reset” of relations and sides with the Putin/Medvedev team to get the State Department to put pressure on the Poles to soften their warnings about Russia and its military. Such a sophisticated scheme seems, however, unlikely, but the cable’s author’s use of the word “unfortunately” and a reference to Polish diplomats’ joke is a subtle way of conveying to Washington that the Russian media and Russian officials may have good reasons to be critical of Minister Sikorski’s comments and to attack Polish foreign policy.

There are two possible explanations how media disinformation originates in Russia. It could have been a mistake by a careless or overzealous Russian reporter. Another explanation points to a carefully organized disinformation campaign designed to undermine Poland’s credibility in Washington and around the world by portraying Polish officials as anti-Russian and irresponsible.

Even if the Russian Foreign Ministry has to apologize later for repeating inaccurate statements, the public relations damage is already done and can never be fully reversed. The costs to the real perpetrator are low or non-existent since the original source of disinformation will not be identified. As we now see from the leaked cable, the lie introduced into the public domain can also influence U.S. foreign policy if American diplomats fall for it, which in this case, at least one diplomat who wrote the cable and those who cleared it, apparently did.

One way Russian intelligence operatives use to pass on disinformation is to cultivate junior and less sophisticated U.S. diplomats who then report false facts and misleading claims to Washington. These operatives may pose as journalists, diplomats, academics, or other experts.

A former U.S. diplomat speculated that this method may have been used to get the Obama White House to pick the anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland to announce the cancellation of the Bush missile defense system.

The historically symbolic timing of the announcement would have increased a sense of insecurity in Poland and convinced the Poles that the United States under President Obama has abandoned its ally as it did at the end of World War II under President Roosevelt. Russian diplomats, the Kremlin-controlled media, and Russian intelligence operatives in Poland could then exploit this both real and psychological Polish vulnerability to force a change in Poland’s foreign policy away from Washington and in favor of Moscow. This in fact has happened to some degree as Polish officials seem highly confused by the Obama Administration’s foreign policy and uncertain about their strategic options.

It is also doubtful that such sloppy and biased diplomatic reporting, as seen in the cable from the U.S. Embassy in Moscow about Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski, would have occurred if it were not for President Obama’s well-known preference for a “reset” in relations with Russia, which he has tried to achieve — so far without success — by depriving Poland of some of the U.S. missile defense plans and guarantees extended to Warsaw and other U.S. allies in Central Europe by the George W Bush Administration.

The author of this cable may be, however, an exception in her or his pro-Kremlin bias. Most of the other cables released so far by WikiLeaks show U.S. diplomats in Moscow pointing out, albeit in subtle ways, that President Obama’s hopes for a Russian quid pro quo in dealing with Iran, Afghanistan and other international issues are based on highly naive assumptions.

This report can be republished with attribution to Opinia.US.

Below is a copy of one of Opinia.US November 2009 reports which sets the background for this story.

Russia Attacks Sikorski on Comments About U.S. Troops in Poland

Opinia.US SAN FRANCISCO — A member of the Russian parliament has criticized Polish foreign minister Radoslaw Sikorski for his comments during his visit this week to Washington, but the Polish foreign ministry has disputed the accuracy of Russian news reports quoting Sikorski’s statement. The point of dispute is whether Sikorski has publicaly asked for U.S. troops to be stationed in Poland, and what he actually said. There is little doubt that Poland wants more American soldiers on its territory as a protection against Russia. Sikorski met in Washington with Obama administration officials, but his scheduled meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was postponed when she decided to extend her diplomatic trip to the Middle East.

According to the Polish foreign ministry, the Russian news agency Interfax dispatch of November 5 2009 attributed “to the Minister comments which, in fact, he never made: ‘We would desire to secure American troops, deployed in our country as a shield against Russian aggression.’” The Polish foreign ministry said that this appears to be an intentional manipulation. “The passage at issue is in the form of a quotation, so there can be no question of it being distorted through an inaccurate interpretation or a lack of journalistic diligence. It would have been easy to check if the quoted statement had ever been made by examining a recording of the conference,” the Polish foreign ministry said.

During a panel discussion in Washington on Wednesday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Radoslaw Sikorski spoke about recent Russian large scale military exercises near Poland’s borders, which alarmed Polish officials. This is what he said in response to a question about security assurances from the Obama administration in light of the potential threat to Poland from Russia.

Listen to Foreign Minister Sikorski’s remarks

You can convince people by words. And we’ve just had a very good trip by the Vice President [Joe Biden]. And the words are convincing. But the point is — well, I’m a former defense minister — and what really convinces are the capabilities. And as I mentioned in my introduction, we’ve just had the largest Russian military exercise on the NATO border, on our border, in 20 years, using 900 tanks.

NATO planners used to say that God created Poland for tank warfare. And so these tanks that were exercising were 250 kilometers of flat ground from our capital city. We don’t know what kind of message the Russian Federation was trying to send to us, but you can imagine what we heard. And, as Zbig Brzezinski said — and he wasn’t the only one — what really reassured Germany, for example, during the Cold War was not Article 5 [NATO Treaty], which is in fact, you know, quite vague, but the presence of 300,000 American troops in Germany. Now, we have, I think, at the latest count, six American troops — one, two, three, four, five, six — outside the [U.S.] embassy. [Laughter] If you had, on the one hand, 900 tanks, and on the other, six troops, would you be convinced?

While the Polish foreign ministry statement focused on an apparently inaccurate quote in the Interfax news report, there is little doubt that Polish government officials would like to see more U.S. troops in Poland as an extra protection against Russia, and that this has been a subject of behind-the-scenes negotiations with Washington.

Revealing their ambition to influence and control military and foreign policy of former Warsaw Pact nations, Russian officials object to such talks between Poland the the U.S. Responding to the Interfax news report, a member of the Russian parliament said that Sikorski’s statements are “absolutely unacceptable.” Konstantin Kosachev threatened that Sikorski’s comments may lead to cooling of Russian-Polish relations.

Konstantin Kosachev, who heads the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Russian State Duma, was quoted by the Russia Today international television channel as saying that “Sikorski de facto calls on the US to review agreement between NATO and Russia, which provided that no large military contingent will be deployed on the territories of new NATO members.”

According to foreign minister Sikorski, there are now only six U.S. soldiers based in Poland. There is no doubt that the Polish side would like to see this number increase in light of the Russian attack on Georgia last year and the most recent Russian military maneuvers near Poland’s borders.

Polish and British media reported that Polish news magazine Wprost disclosed it has seen documents which show that troop exercises near Poland’s border in September portrayed Poland as “a potential aggressor.”

According to the Polish news magazine, 30,000 Russian troops practiced not only defensive manoeuvres but also rehearsed landings on the beaches of Kaliningrad – a Russian controlled corridor linking it with the Baltic Sea – which was used to simulate Poland’s northern coast. Russian aircraft also practiced the use of nuclear weapons in the attacks, the magazine reported, but these reports could not be independently verified.

Mainstream media in the U.S., including The Washington Post and The New York Times, have not reported on the Russian military maneuvers. The Obama administration had no reaction — something that would be almost automatic during previous administrations. There was also no report by the Voice of America English service, which also ignored Sikorski’s visit to Washington. VOA has not been broadcasting radio programs to Poland for a number of years. In fact, most of the international coverage of Sikorski’s visit to Washington came from the Russian government-funded Russia Today television channel.

During his stay in Washington, Sikorski was interviewed by Associated Press but few U.S. newspapers and other media outlets used the AP news story based on the interview. He was also interviewed by Foreign Policy magazine.

This is how foreign minister Sikorski explained his current thinking about the Obama administration missile defense plans for Central Europe and about Poland’s view of Russia.

Radoslaw Sikorski: The administration has now explained its position more thoroughly, and we are now satisfied and want to go where the U.S. is leading, toward a more adaptive and more proven system. [The new system] will take longer to construct, but will create fewer tensions in our region. I think we’re now on the same page with the U.S., and we are ready to address the details and the amendments to the agreements I signed with the previous administration.

Sikorski also responded to a question whether the Obama administration’s “reset” with Russia is worthwhile?

Radoslaw Sikorski: I would only advise that the more you talk to Russia, the more you should talk to Russia’s neighbors, who sometimes feel vulnerable, particularly after what Russia did in Georgia a year ago. We would like relations between Russia and the U.S. to be better than they are. We don’t want to be a front-line state. Russia is our second largest trading partner. If there were a return to confrontation, we would be much more adversely affected than the United States. The trick is to persuade Russia that she can be a significant partner without using 19th- or 20th-century instruments that have been tried with such tragic consequences.

 Sourced from: Opinia.US

The timing of the announcement has been seen around the world as a public diplomacy disaster for America and was described with ridicule in U.S. and foreign media reports. Needless to say, not only the decision itself, but also the historical symbolism of the date when it was announced, greatly upset the Polish Government and Polish Americans. It turned out to be a major embarrassment for President Obama.

The U.S. Embassy in Moscow cables released so far by Wikileaks and examined by Opinia.US still do not shed sufficient light on the timing of the announcement. Neither do the Wikileaks released cables originating from the State Department in Washington.

We do know, however, that a cable sent from the State Department to U.S. Embassies gave American ambassadors advanced warning of the September 17 announcement. Conceivably, one of the hundreds, if not thousands of U.S. diplomats and other State Department officials and officials of other U.S. Government agencies who had seen the cable could have warned Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama that releasing this news on the anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland was not a particularly bright idea. Unless someone, perhaps a U.S. Presidential adviser, deliberately wanted to send a message to the Poles that they should rely less on U.S. support and should seek an accommodation with the Kremlin.

Another theory is that Russian intelligence media specialists deliberately planted the September 17 announcement idea with historically-clueless American diplomats who somehow got the White House to fall for this clever ruse designed to make the Poles feel more vulnerable, and therefore more likely to adopt a more pro-Moscow attitude.

We still do not know if anyone sounded a warning but we do know that President Obama made his announcement on September 17.

The talking points in the leaked secret cable signed by Mrs. Clinton (The cable was not written by her, but most outgoing State Department cables bear the signature of the Secretary of State.) were addressed to U.S. Embassies except for those in Warsaw and Prague. We have learned from the leaked cable that separate talking points on missile defense were prepared for Poland and the Czech Republic, but Wikileaks has not yet put them on their website, assuming it has them. Also, no cables from the U.S. Embassy in Warsaw have been released by Wikileaks so far.

What we do know is that the Obama Administration had not negotiated a priori any concessions from the Kremlin for making this important decision, which severely undermined the sense of security of Poland and other U.S. allies in the region. We also found out that government officials in France had warned a high ranking U.S. diplomat that the Russian leaders would pocket this unilateral gift from the Obama Administration without giving Washington anything in return.

It also emerged from the leaked cables that one of the strongest advocates for the concession on missile defense to the Kremlin was U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. We also learned that he badly wanted Russian help in moving U.S. military supplies to Afghanistan. (It would be interesting to find out which U.S. private military contractors would benefit from these transports through Russian airspace and territory and what are their links to current DOD officials.)

The ever-so down-to-earth and cynical French warned an American diplomat that the Russians might actually help Washington in this particular area because the Kremlin wants to see the U.S. bogged down in the Afghanistan quagmire. It was also clear that President Obama expected Moscow’s help in dealing with the nuclear issue in Iran in exchange for his unilateral concession on missile defense in Central Europe.

It is incredible but not surprising that ideologically-driven and inexperienced U.S. President failed to get a firm deal with the Kremlin on this point ahead of time. In any case, both French and even U.S. diplomats had warned, according to the leaked cables, that the current Russian leadership would have no interest in helping the U.S. in Iran, and in fact is very much interested in keeping the Iranian crisis simmering on indefinitely for a number of good reasons related to their perception of Russia’s national interest. One of them is the high price of oil, from which Russia (read: the state energy sector controlled by Mr. Putin and to a lesser extent Mr. Medvedev) benefits economically.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, a holdover from the Bush Administration, emerges from the cables almost as naive about dealing with Prime Minister Putin and President Medvedev as President Obama himself. In one of the cables from Paris, he is describes as informing the French Defense Minister, apparently with a straight face, that Mr. Putin had once told him that Iran represents the greatest threat for Russia. Apparently both Secretary Gates and President Obama bought this story from Mr. Putin, one of the most sophisticated ex-KGB disinformation experts Russia has ever produced. When it comes to diplomatic intrigue and safeguarding your own and your country’s interests, neither Mr. Obama nor Mr. Gates are a match for Mr. Putin, and not even Mr. Medvedev.

Of course, Mr. Putin’s perception of Russia’s interests are not really what the Russian people would benefit from if they had full democratic freedoms and were allowed to develop normal, mutually beneficial relations with America and the rest of the free world.

The leaked cables also show that U.S. diplomats were too timid to challenge vigorously what they knew to be the President’s views, but at least some brave souls tried to point out, albeit weakly and indirectly, that Mr. Obama’s plans with regard to Russia were based on rather naive assumptions. Overall, the American diplomatic service again failed the President and the American people. But with President Obama in the White with his progressive view of international politics, similar to that of President Roosevelt in his dealings with Stalin, the U.S. diplomats probably did not have much of a chance to influence his thinking. That job is now left to the American voters. Let’s only hope it is not too late.

This op-ed may be republished with attribution to Opinia.US.

Ted Lipien, a writer and journalist, was in charge of the Voice of America radio broadcasts to Poland during the Solidarity-led struggle for democracy. He is now president of Free Media Online (FreeMediaOnline.org), a California-based NGO which supports media freedom worldwide.

Opinia.US

View original post here:
US and EU must defend Russia’s civil society, media

Read more here:
Russia: can democrats checkmate ‘greatest thief in world history’?

Window on Eurasia: Putin Speaks the Language of ‘a Tatar Khan,’ Michnik Says

Paul Goble

Staunton, September 10 – Adam Michnik, the editor in chief of Warsaw’s “Gazeta Wyborcza,” says that many Russians he has encountered in his recent visit to Russia for the Valdai Club and Yaroslavl Political Forum are clearly 21st century people, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is out of step with them and “speaks the language of a Tatar khan.”

That was just one of the observations Michnik, who has long described himself as “an anti-Soviet Russophile,” made in the course of an interview published today in Moscow’s “Novaya gazeta” about both the current political situation in Russia and the ways in which the West is reacting to it (www.novayagazeta.ru/data/2010/100/05.html).

Michnik said his coming to the two events was opposed not by his Polish friends but by his Muscovite ones, who feared that his appearance along with other Western commentators and experts would “legitimate” Putin’s regime, given that the Valdai Club is “a circus organized in order to improve” Moscow’s image in the West.

Indeed, the Polish editor said, such views reflect the notion among some that anyone who comes is playing the role of Leon Feuchtwanger who visited the USSR in 1937 and wrote an approving book about it. But that analogy is wrong. Feuchtwanger “lied about the Moscow trials,” and comparing today’s Russia with that of 1937 is “nonsense,” Michnik argued.

“My task,” the longtime Polish dissident continued, “was never to legitimate any regime, only to listen and express my opinion,” given that “except under extraordinary conditions, one should not completely refuse from taking part in a dialogue with the powers that be.” But that is not to endorse those who attend such meetings and then praise their hosts to the skies.

Michnik said that he had been most impressed by many Russians he met prior to Putin’s appearance, by the way in which they discussed openly their problems in a way that would be the envy of any country, including his own. But when Putin spoke, it became clear that there is not “one” Russia but “two” very different Russias.

The former is very much part of the 21st century, he said, but meetings first with St. Petersburg Governor Valentina Matvienko and then Putin made him feel that he had “returned to the times of 25 years ago” and was seeing “the classic style of the Polish apparatchik[s] of socialist times.”

Citing President Dmitry Medvedev’s observation about “legal nihilism” in Russia, Michnik said he asked two questions, one about the popular protests over the Khimki forests and the other about whether Mikhail Khodorkovsky might be released as an indication that Russia was “overcoming” this plague.

Michnik said he was “shocked” by the change in Putin’s visage when he heard the second question: “With passion, [Putin] began to say: ‘the chief of his guards killed people! How could he not know about this? He has blood on his hands.’” Up to that point, Putin was a cool professional, but in this case, he “displayed deep emotions,” suggesting a “personal” tie.

The reason he asked about Khodorkovsky, Michnik said, was because “here is the very important issue of trust.” “When did trust in Gorbachev appear? When he telephoned [Andrey] Sakharov in Gorky.” At that moment, “it became understandable that all this was serious and not simple a playing with words about perestroika.”

“I think,” Michnik said, “that today trust in the Russian powers that be [with their announced intention to modernization] depends on the fate of Khodorkovsky.”

After he had asked his questions, Michnik said, Piotr Smolar of “Le Monde” followed up with questions about the Russian Constitution and the rights it provides. On the one hand, he said, the Russian basic law clearly does not run in Chechnya where shariat plays a bigger role. And on the other, he asked Putin about the handling of public demonstrations.

Putin responded to the second the way a Polish communist official would have 30 or more years ago, the Warsaw editor said. “What are we talking about?” Putin asked. “People have take part in unsanctioned demonstration? They have. They’ve provoked the militia? They have done so. Well, they’ll get it in the head. What would be different in London or Paris?”

“I was shocked,” Michnik continued, “that none of his advisors had explained to him that one must not speak in such terms, that this is the language of a Tatar khan and not of a politician of the 20th century.”
(The Polish commentator noted that “the last question” was an easy one, asked by Natalya Narochnitskaya, who is notorious for her attacks on any Western criticism of Russia. She asked Putin where he found “the strength” to go on. Putin responded that this “is a serious philosophical question” and said that “one must believe in Russia.”)

Asked what had “most surprised him,” Michnik suggested that this was that Putin “had subjected to doubt the bases of a functioning democracy while suggesting that he is not doing that. Under Brezhnev, it was said that we and the West had different systems of values. … But Putin says that in Russia everything is as it is in the West and vice versa.”

Not only did Russian prime minister suggest that in his comments about demonstrators, but he repeated it when asked when Lenin might be removed from the mausoleum on Red Square. Having learned that the individual who asked that was from Britain, Putin asked in turn “But don’t you in London still have a monument to Cromwell?”

Posted by Paul Goble at 10:44 AM

Read this article:
Will Putin be hit on the head by history?