President Obama in Europe: new message to Putin, D-Day: unifying history of World War Two, Spain: the rise and fall of King Juan. These hot issues hosts Sergey Strokan and Julia Lyubova are discussing at the Voice of Russia's weekly program Red Line.
Part I
BEYOND THE HEADLINES
President Obama in Europe: new message to Putin
US President Barack Obama has paid three-nation visit to Europe – already third international tour made by American leader in less than three months. The visit, clouded by escalating Ukrainian crisis and mounting tensions with Moscow was aimed at reinforcing US ties with the allies both in the Eastern and Western parts of Europe. Despite tough rhetoric, Mr. Obama said he is looking for rebuilding trust with President Putin shattered by the events in Ukraine.
Voice of Russia's studio guest, Sergei Utkin, Head of Department of Strategic Assessment at the Center for Situation Analysis at the Russian Academy of Sciences, shared his opinion on the issue.
President Obama said, he’s looking to rebuild trust with President Putin, but is that really possible these days?
It’s very hard to rebuild trust these days, of course. The crisis is still unsettled and we don’t see enough signs of de-escalation happening. But still we have some opportunities and a necessity to take the road toward de-escalation and someone has to start it. They have to go on with the dialogue even if they don’t see ways out of the crisis that can be achieved right now.
The very fact that the leaders of the countries which are currently not happy with each other, which do not like each other’s actions are ready to talk. This is already a result of these meetings. We cannot hope that the crisis will be resolved in those meetings but at least people will understand what the positions of each of the sides are. These positions will probably evolve, even thought the media sometimes shows them as carved in stone. Positions will always change and it mainly depends on the leaders how they formulate their positions.
In the last interview Putin had with the French media he sounded peaceful and open. He said that there is a necessity of a dialogue between Kiev and Ukrainian regions that could lead to better arrangements for Ukraine in terms of how the regions are administrated, what kind of authorities they have.
There are ways out. We just have to work on that and to be modest enough about the pace of development; it cannot go too fast.
How much trust really was there to start with, before the crisis in Ukraine between Washington and Moscow?
It a permanent point in the discussions about politics that people say there is a lack of trust. And it’s not just between the US and Russia. If you listen to discussions about internal issues in the EU, you will also find people who speak about lack of trust between major powers in the EU. Lack of trust is something that is always present in politics, but you have to deconstruct this notion, to understand what is behind it. On the one hand, yes, it’s not just about Ukraine and there were trust issues long before this. We recently heard a speech by Minister of Foreign Affairs Lavrov who said that this distrust between the US and Russia had been growing for quite a while, so current events aren’t a surprise. This crisis has been culminating for a long time and now it has finally erupted.
Edward Lozansky, President, American University in Moscow shared his own view on Obama's visit to Europe with the Voice of Russia.
What kind of message does President Obama want to send by his speech in Warsaw to Mr. Putin? Is he going to rebuild trust with Moscow?
Well, if he wants to rebuild trust with Moscow it shouldn’t been done in Poland or Warsaw. What you do – you sit down and talk. And I think he had a chance. So this is a good time to recall that good, as you can call them good, days when the US and Russia were allies in the World War II and sit down and find time and talk how we can rebuild our relationship and I think Putin sent a signal he wants to do it. With Obama we’ll do it another way, it reminds pressure. Judging from his speeches and his posturing in Eastern Europe I don’t think this will happen. This is too bad.
How much influence does the US have in Europe, in your opinion?
Of course, the US is still the greatest superpower. US military budget is probably equal to next 16 countries’ in the list combined. So it’s a huge economic and military power. Of course, the US has a lot leverage but I think it’s doing it wisely. So far we see only one deceit after another, you can see with Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, now Ukraine. What are the results? Where is this democracy? Do you know only if I observe these countries achieved something: only hundreds of thousands of deaths, enormous amount of money spent. US budget is now close to 17 trillion dollar debt, national debt. What kind of results do we have? I don’t think that so far the US is using its huge potential smartly. Frankly, I doubt that Obama at the end of his term will be able to reverse this. Now we only can help the new president which will have probably more realistic agenda which will be, first of all, more beneficial to the United States. At this point we are talking about what’s best for the United States. So far I don’t see that policy either of George Bush-junior or Obama serves the best interests of the United States.
What is your assessment of Obama’s visit and notes that he was taking in his speeches?
I think it was necessary for him to show that the US still supports the Trans-Atlantic Solidarity, that it will respect all the NATO commitments. Speaking about these specific views of Poland and the Baltic states I would actually like to ask a question to Mr. Lozansky. You said that they have no reasons to worry about. What is your advice to Mr. Obama? Just to assure that these countries don’t have to worry, don’t panic, that’s it? Or you think that there should be more sophisticated US policy towards those counties?
Well. Again, the best way for everyone is to talk and to look directly in the eyes. Threats, all kinds of military posturing, I don’t think will help. If any country has any worries that Russia is going to invade them (I’m talking about the Baltic states), I think they should simply have Obama and Putin together and sit down and talk. I think Putin will explain to them. I don’t see any ways that Russia is going to invade any of those countries. Actually, it’s not even invading Ukraine although it’s a direct threat to Russia’s economic and security taking into account what kind of regime is now in charge in Ukraine. Ukraine, actually, is threatening to join NATO at this point. It will be absolutely impossible for Moscow to accept it. Still Russia is not invading and still talking about negotiations. Still it’s leaning to new Ukrainian government to talk to people in South East and find a solution. Russia is going to help not only with words but with some economic assistance. Russia is prepared to give discounts on gas for the country which is threatening and calling Putin all the names it can find. Bad names. Again, I don’t know if this going to happen in future 20 or 30 years, but at this point Russia is in not in a position to invade anyone. I think what we witness now is just the opposite. It’s the opposite game to weaken Russia, its geopolitical stands by drawing more Ukraine into NATO, into Western allies. Of course, it will hurt Russian security policy, that’s why Russia is not helping too much from the point of view of Obama. If Europe and Baltic states don’t have to worry, they have to build more on economic side. Baltic states really can benefit if they trade with Russia, if they have some economic projects. And talking about increasing their military budgets, inviting US and NATO forces to the borders with Russia will not be very helpful to them, not very helpful to all of us.
Part II
BETWEEN THE LINES
D-Day: unifying history of World War Two
The 70th anniversary of D-Day was marked in Normandy to commemorate one of the key events of the World War Two. It was when US-led allied armada crossed the English Chanel to launch an offensive against fascist Germany, which before Normandy landing was fought by Russia alone. Seven decades later, former World War Two allies – Russia, US, Britain and France struggle to stick to common heritage eroded by the crises and conflicts of present-day world.
Voice of Russia's studio guest, Sergei Utkin, Head of Department of Strategic Assessment at the Center for Situation Analysis at the Russian Academy of Sciences:
This is the 70th anniversary of the World War II D-day landings but also it’s a gathering of 18 world leaders. President Obama, Angela Merkel, Vladimir Putin and others are there. What is special about this meeting? We’ve seen the G7 meeting in Brussels this earlier this week, we’ve seen the G20 Leaders Summit last year in St Petersburg. How is this meeting different? This is a world leaders’ gathering, what is special about it?
It’s a very important reminder about the historical legacy about the time when we were united as allies with some countries with which we have problems today. We had disagreements with other countries with which we are allies today. Things change with time, and this is also the remainder that the crisis we have today is not forever. We will have changes in the future and it’s also a reminder of the scale of events which we should not forget about.
Today we have people who use all sorts of historical analogies to describe their attitude towards the events that they see today. They use words like fascist, like Stalingrad, things that are in our minds since World War II. They refer them to a much smaller crisis situation which shouldn’t be exaggerated. Even with all the dramatism of events in Ukraine this is a regional crisis that concerns the fate of post-Soviet space, but it’s not a global event. It’s not the next World War, it’s even not the next Cold War. Some people say that it is the Cold War, but that was between two super powers that were practically dividing the world. It may be similar to the Cold War in terms of how people communicate with each other and there are probably some hints of the same kind of an approach to each other, but in global terms we can’t think that the current situation is similar to the Cold War when the two superpowers could actually destroy each other in a nuclear conflict.
Bobo Lo, former Head of Russia and Eurasia Program in Chatham House, London, shared his opinion with the Voice of Russia.
Is there anything which still unites West and Russia?
Yes, there are things. I think that the Second World War was such an existential conflict on such a vast scale, the sacrifice was so enormous, particularly on the Soviet side, that this is certainly shared historical experience that can’t be forgotten and has implications for today and, I would say, in the future. Unfortunately, history is not enough. Your previous guests said that this is not a Cold War. I agree with him – we don’t have a Cold War – yet, but danger, in my opinion, is in the further steady deterioration of relations between Russia and the West, where differences are emphasized, where any common interests tend to be pushed aside and forgotten. In those circumstances what I can see is a step by step degradation towards – let’s not call it a new Cold War, but towards a long-term deterioration, a long-term normative, political and strategic divide. I don’t think that we are there yet, but I think it is possible that we could still get there.
You participate actively in scientific community. What can be a constructive effort by the academic community to make the situation better?
I think one shouldn’t exaggerate the importance of the academic community in the UK or in the West on policy-makers – that’s the first thing. I think that many people in the West are hoping what president Putin will do is taking a number of relatively small steps. There are some signs that he is already doing that, for example, withdrawing Russian troops from the boarder, just as a confidence-building measure. We do see amount of assistance to cover so-called “separatists” in Eastern Ukraine, to reach out more to a new Ukrainian president Petr Poroshenko. If he could do some of those things – these are not extraordinary drastic measures, but if he could do some of those things, it would facilitate a more constructive atmosphere. I think that is what people in Western capitals are hoping for, and that is what the academic community and certainly policy-makers are hoping for.
President Obama said in his tour in Europe that Moscow must take steps to deescalate the situation in Ukraine. What is the likely reaction we are going to see from Vladimir Putin when he returns to Moscow? Can we expect Putin taking all those steps?
That is a very difficult question. I think that Western policy-makers and commentators are being constantly surprised by president Putin’s steps. So they do not have any particular predictions what he will or will not do. If he were to take some of those steps, the Western attitude will be broadly speaking positive. Of course there are differences across the West, but it is quite clear to me that Western governments have no appetite for bad relationships with Russia. They are hoping that Ukraine crisis goes away, that it becomes much less tense almost without anyone having to do very much, because, contrary to what some people in Moscow think, the West has no particular ambitions in Ukraine. I think European governments have far more important priorities, as we saw it in the latest European elections. They have enough problems to be distracted by events in Ukraine. There is no particularly European and much less American ambition in Ukraine. It is a priority, it is a preoccupation that is too much for them. They are kind of praying that president Putin will make some compromises. They do not have to be big compromises, but making some compromises will allow the atmosphere and the relationships to be improved step by step. It is clearly not going to be good relationships for a long time yet, but at least they will stop getting worse. That is already a progress.
Vladimir Mikheev, an independent political analyst:
Talking about the celebration itself in Normandy, 70 years, that’s a huge celebration taking place. How important is it or Russia to be there?
We are allies in this war, after all, we are sending the right signal, that despite all the recent hostilities in relation to the Ukrainian crisis, Russia still considers itself to be part of broad alliance of countries that were fighting for a cause, they were fighting against the most extreme ideology with the most aggressive overtones that at least the European continent has known in the last 200 years.
Part III
MAN IN THE NEWS
Spain: the rise and fall of King Juan
King Juan Carlos I, who ruled the Spanish state for nearly forty years and has overseen country’s transition from fascist rule to democracy, announced that he is abdicating the throne paving the way for his son Prince Felipe to step in as the new king. Once an icon for millions of Spaniards, King Juan was forced to leave following ongoing scandals which rocked the royal family. His departure leaves the Spanish monarchy at the crossroads with many calling it an obsolete institution, not fitting into the modern world.
Voice of Russia's studio guest, Sergei Utkin, Head of Department of Strategic Assessment at the Center for Situation Analysis at the Russian Academy of Sciences.
The king in Spain has announced that he’s stepping down, but why did it come as such a shock?
No one really expected that this would be his decision, because normally kings stay in their capacity up to their death. In this particular case he is the first one who has actually reestablished the tradition of the monarchy after the intermission related to the authoritarian rule of Franco. He had a choice, he could ensure the continuity with his own example or he could put again to question what the constitutional arrangements of Spain should be. This decision to abdicate puts these arrangements into question. People start asking themselves if they need a king if the king might leave and retire for his successor to step in his place or is it probably better to have a president who is elected by the Parliament. What would be the difference if the president would have some solemn rights and not necessarily political rights?
In this case I think people start the discussion about the future of Spain but at the same time we need to keep in mind that in Spain we have major political parties supporting the monarchy and they are not willing to change the constitutional arrangements completely and we have thousands of people in the streets demanding reform. There is room for a referendum to let people decide what will be the future of the country. In the end of the day the institution of monarchy is a bit obsolete for the XXI century. But I also know modern people that still think that monarchy is linked to the historical legacy of their countries and they also think that you shouldn’t fix what is not broken. Why should people change the constitution or any other arrangements if these arrangements are more or less fine?
Vladimir Mikheev, an independent political analyst, shared his opinion with the Voice of Russia:
I think it is not about personal scandals or scandals surrounding the royal family, that these are the actual reasons for his abdication. Definitely, as it has been the case with other European monarchs, like for instance Queen Beatrix or King Albert of Belgium, they also cited these good reasons and good excuses – age and health, but I believe that there is much more that meets the eye in this case.
After all, it is the fourth sacred political and public figure that has abdicated in the last year and a half, including Pope Benedict. So, I think what is key, is the actual social and psychological crisis that Europe is going through now. Monarchy has been regarded for centuries as sort of a psychological anchor, as a symbol of stability and unity of the people. But in case of Spain, as know, there is a rise of liberal thinking and liberal attack on conservative values. It is one thing.
The second is that the very concept of the European unity, which the King also supported very much, he brought his country into the EU, is under attack because it isn’t working properly. So, I think the main reason for these abdications and bringing forward a younger generation of royal families to rule and to reign is that the people actually need at least the perception of a change. So, to a great extent it is an attempt to change the attitude of the people to the monarchy by presenting it with a new face. A new face, a new page in history, something that is really changing. So, I believe it is more sort of a psychological and PR exercise.
As Leo Tolstoy would have put it: all royal families are all alike when they are happy, but they are different when they are unhappy. So, all the grievances which are being laid on the front porch of the royal palace of Juan Carlos, they are different from those that have been faced by other royal houses in Europe. Here we have the problem – let’s say – of very acute economic crisis and with the monarchy unable by definition to address this kind of problems.
Second is the problem of the crumbling kingdom. The referendum in Catalonia would certainly be a real challenge to the basis, the foundation of the Spanish kingdom, because afterwards there could be a possibility of a domino effect with the Basque Country trying to follow suit.
Third, as I said, is the general perception of the monarchy that cannot evolve into some sort of Brezhnev-style gerontocracy. People who are much older than 70 years old, despite all their virtues, despites all that they have done for the nation, for the country…and definitely Juan Carlos has something to be proud of – that is how he behaved during the military coup in 1981. So, despite all these virtues, despite all the shining deeds that they performed, now they cannot capitalize on that, because the situation is completely different.
