|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Main page > Products > Politics in Russia: power, lobby, conflicts - The weekly bulletin > Politics in Russia: power, lobby, conflicts. Issue No (28) 769 Politics in Russia: power, lobby, conflicts. Issue No (28) 769July 06 - 12, 2009 Main tendencies of political weekAs expected, the main domestic policy event last week was connected with a foreign policy event – US president Barack Obama’s visit to Russia and media interpretations around it. There was an additional element of importance in this visit as it took place at the end of a political season and the beginning of a summer season; this is the time when authors of political interpretations have a possibility to fix their positions until the late August. Overrated expectations from the US president’s visit by the radical part of Russian liberals did not come true. Unlike his predecessors, Barack Obama preferred to refrain from a lecturing manner and his speeches were in general either neutral or complimentary towards Russian authorities. Moreover, the American leader directly declared that the USA and Russia should not preach each other but should cooperate. The most conspicuous evidence of his words was the establishment of a US-Russian working group for cooperation and civil society development co-chaired by an ‘indicative’ functionary from the Russian side – first deputy head of the presidential administration, Vladislav Surkov. The significance of this appointment was confirmed by a letter signed by some Russian human rights activists asking to replace Surkov with someone else. Having agreed to the creation of such a body and a candidature of the Russian co-chair, the US side in fact agreed to the necessity of closer cooperation with Russian authorities in building the civil society. At the same time the ‘benevolent’ mood of the US side should not be overestimated. In particular, during Barack Obama’s visit attempts to test the tandem’s rigidity continued. In contrast to their previous stage, this time the attempts were made by formally independent players, e.g. journalists, rather than American officials. Despite the beginning of the summer lull, regional authorities became active; following a number of signals by the tandem members they finally started neutralizing social consequences of the crisis. In particular, in the Altai Region police officers prevented an attempt to block a federal highway by protesting workers. There is also a visible desire of some regional authorities, who previously were criticized, to act in a preventive manner not using force. For instance, there is information that in the Primorsky Region a group of law enforcement officers and civilians was formed to monitor the Internet and prevent attempts to organize mass protest actions. Major events July 06, 2009 - July 12, 2009
Volume: 12 pages
If you are interested to obtain please contact » Elena Kim Other issues: |
Special report:Nord Stream 2 and Ukraine: Costs Should DecideShale Revolution: Myths and RealitiesLiquefied Natural Gas Outlook: Expectations and RealityAnalytical series “The Political compass”:Political power in Russia after presidential electionState Corporations in the Russian EconomyPolitical Results of 2007: Russia on the Eve of Power ShufflePolitical Landscape Ahead of the Parliamentary Election 2007«Centers of influence» in the Russian politicsLeading Russian corporations and the executive power: interaction methodsForecast of political developments after the presidential election in 2008 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
About us | Products | Comments | Services | Books | Conferences | Our clients | Price list | Site map | Contacts Consulting services, political risks assessment on the Fuel & Energy Industry, concern of pilitical and economic Elite within the Oil-and-Gas sector.National Energy Security Fund © 2007 |