Sanctions, NATO, Olympics and murder: ingredients of worsening relations between Russia and the West

(West and Russia: little friends.)

The last few weeks have been marked by increased tension between Russia and the West. From NATO to the Olympics, political, economic and military differences have placed Russians and the Weste on opposite sides and worsened the Moscow´s international situation.

I don´t intend to deepen the following facts, but give an overview of how recent events can affect the Russia´s relationship with the West and contribute to the understanding of the political climate sorrouding this relation.

(European Union renowed for another six months the economic sanctions against Russia. Red signal to the Kremlin.) 

On June 15th the European Union renewed for another six months the economic sanctions against Russia for it´s role in the conflict in Ukraine. The measure affect politics and economy personalities and Russian investiments in the continent and are valid until January 31st 2017. Nothing new in this regard since renovation was already expected. On response, Russia announced apply the principle of reciprocity and will impose sanctions to food imports from Europe. There is a lack of perspective for sanctions suspension.

(Lawmakers in the Cyprus´ Senate in the capital, Nicosia: country of Orthodox traditions with historical relations with Russia.)

On the other hand there are moves in some coutries to question the sanctions effectiveness and pressure the European Union to suspend them. Such questions start from Euroceptics and/or pro-Russia groups. One in Cyprus. On July 7th it´s Parliament called for the end of the sanctions saying they undermined trade between the two countries, were counterproductive, "unacceptable" and that the targets were friendly people of the country. Italy also has positioned against the sanctions renewal. The resolution was adopted on June 27th by the Senate at the request of Northern League, party with close links with the Kremlin (the League also urged to Senate officially recognize Crimeia as Russian territory, but this resolution was denied). Two other pro-Russia parties, Five Stars and Fuerza Itália, also supported the resolution. And a few weeks ago Italian regional governments has called for sanctions suspension. Another country that take the same measure was Greece, whose Alexis Tsipras government, the Syriza leftist coalition, has systematically opposed to the sanctions against Russia. During a visit by Putin to the country in late May, Tsipras declared once again be firmly against such sanctions. Syriza rules Greece along with the far-right party Independent Greeks, also pro-Russia. Member of both parties have close links with the Kremlin, as already mentioned in this blog.

(NATO meeting logo in Warsaw with the members countries´ flags.)

On July 8 and 9th was held in Warsaw, Poland, the meeting of the NATO countries. The members released a joint statement where say that "the Euro-Atlantic community is facing unprecedented challenges emanating from the South and East", establish agreements between the organization and the European Union to speed up the preparations of the continent´s defense and improve the exchange of informations and know how for a hybrid war. The references to the "South" and "East" are, respectively, North of Africa/Middle East and Russia, and the mention of "hybrid war" is a response to the Kremlin´s strategy of penetration into Europe through desinformation campaign, internet activism, secret service role and, in the case os Islamic extremism, terrorism. Another point of great importance was the formal approval of sending more alliance troops to Eastern Europe. A total of four thousand soldiers (one thousand in each battalion) will be allocated in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and Poland, Russia´s neighbouring countries. Despite these troops are not enough to contain a Russian invasion they are a clear message to the Moscow´s behavior, who since the annexation of Crimeia in 2014 and the infiltration of soldiers who started a war in Ukraine, has become too much more provocative.

(Vladimir Putin with the Finnish Prime Minister, Salui Niinisto: the Russian president was clear of what he thinks about a possible Finland integration to NATO.) 

A week before the NATO meeting, Vladimir Putin was in Finland where he met with country´s Prime Minister, Salui Niinisto. Given the recent tensions involving the invasion of the aerialspace in the Baltic Sea region countries by Russian aircrafts and the NATO military exercices in Poland, Finland has taken into account it´s entry into the organization. Putin said enjoy the Finnish military neutrality, but that it´s entry into the NATO would cause a response from Russia suggesting that would relocate it´s military forces on the border of two countries. The declaration was a clear message of irritation that recent aliance military moves cause in the Kremlin, and was seen by some Western media as a threat. Although Finland is militarily neutral, with the Warsaw meeting the country passed to have (as well as Sweden, another neutral country) a permanent seat for talks within the organization. If in the future the Finns move into the group, Russia will have another border (this time extensive, with 1340 km) with adversary troops. The NATO troops movement next to Russia is a nuisance factor and a challenge for Moscow, which see the need to respond to the height of the Western military presence.

(Two-time Olympic champion in Athens and Beijing, three-time world champion and four-times indoor world champion in pole vault: for Yelena Isimbayeva the bannishement of Russian athletes from track and field is the sport "funeral" and "a blatant political order".)

In sports Russia also had losses. On June 17th, International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) banned the Russian track and field athletes from Olympics 2016 in Rio de Janeiro on charge that many of them used banned substances to improve sports performance. Such uses were sistematic and were part of an doping policy state-sponsored. According to the report published by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) there were many frauds in the collection for analysis: many of them were cancelled or rejected, others were lost and urine samples were exchanged. In the later case the work would have been done by the Russian secret servisse. The ban follows the punishment suffered by the same athletes in November 2015. At the time they were suspended from all international competition due the same scandal. Investigations showed that frauds in anti-doping tests had been widespread.

The Russian Olympic Commettee (ROC) and other 68 athletes attempted to overturn the ban for the Rio Games, but so far without success. The International Olympic Commettee (COI) said that the Russian athletes could compete if they proved were clean of prohibited substances, and that their presence in the games should be under neutral flag. On July 25th, another seven Russian athletes, this time from synchronized swimming, were also banned by the International Swimming Federation (FINA, in French).

(The Moscow Olympics, in 1980, had the American boycott in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan: sports and politics were never fully separeted. The Soviets responder boycotting the Los Angeles Games four years later.) 

All-Russia Athletic Federation (ARAF) and some Russian authorities oscilated between defensive and prosecution. Vladimir Putin and Sergei Lavrov asked the sports issue was not politicized. But Lavrov complained to John Kerry the US interference on punishment of their athletes and accused American ask, through a letter to the COI by their anti-doping agency (USADA), the banishment of all the Russian delegation. The Minister called this act "provocative anti-Russian demands". Putin suspended his Sports Deputy Minister, Igor Upland, and all the names mentioned in the WADA report, but defended the Minister Vitaly Mutko, longtime political ally, and questioned what would be the reason for the US anti-doping agency and other countries ask soo hastily, based on the WADA report, the suspension of all the Russian delegation. For this part, Mutko asked that the accusation against him was "absolutely unreal and impossible".

The Lavrov and Putin´s defensives suggest, on the one hand, the widespread doping scandal is real; for the other hand criticism of anti-doping organizations in other countries suggest a political motive for the Russian athletes ban. Real or not, this attitude transfers in some extent the meaning of the ban from sports sphere to international politics. It´s an ingredient in bad relations between Russians and the West. Although the IOC is global, the international organizations are seen by the Kremlin as political tools of the West, specifically the US, and the banishment of Russian athletics of Olympics would be a political provocation. The Americans boycott to the Moscow Games in 1980 in response to the Afghanistan Soviet invasion (1978-1988) and the Soviet boycott response to the Los Angeles Games in 1984 show that sport works, too, as a international pressure instrument. If confirmed the ban on Russians for the Rio Olympics it will be the first time that a large number of athletes (more than a hundred) stay out of the competition since 1984 por doping or political reasons, and will be the third time that this kind of crisis involves the Russians.

(Pavel Shemeret and the car he was after the explosion in Kiev, on July 20th: political instability in Ukraine.)

On July 20th was murdered in Ukraine the journalist Pavel Sheremet. Although died at 44, his career was intense: born in Belarus, he was harsh critic of Alexander Lukashenko government. He was arrested in 1997 while crossing the border from Lithuania during recording for a Russian TV being accused of "receiving money from foreign agencies" and for "illegal journalistic activities". He was released early 1998. In 1999 he moved to Russia, where acquired citizenship the following year. There he was also a journalist opponent of Putin, but his situation got more difficult when Crimeia was annexed in 2014, of which became a strong critic. He openly accused Russia of illegaly annex the peninsula and support separatists in eastern Ukraine. In the same year Sheremet left the TV where he worked, Channel One, in protest to the Russian government action in the media, and moved to Kiev. There he was murdered.

The car he was exploded in city´s downtown shortly before 8 am as he went to the work. The vehicle´s owner was his wife, Olena Prytula, journalist and newspaper´s former editor where both worked, Ukrayinska Pravda. The newspaper, founded in 1990, has a history of opposition to the Ukranian government. One of it´s founders, Georgiy Gongadze, who at the time was close to Prytula, was kidnapped and beheaded in 2000 during the Leonid Kuchma government. The case had considerable repercution and helped to precipitate the "Orange Revolution" in 2004 which brought to power the Kuchma´s opponent, Viktor Yushchenko. Sheremet was Boris Nemtsov´s friend, one of the main Putin´s opponents in Russia, and became one of almost twenty journalists murdered in the country since it´s independence in 1991. A Ministry of Internal Affairs´ spokesman said it couldn´t be rouled out the possible involvement of the Russian secret service in the murder. Another suspicion was that the target was Prytula, since the bomb was put in her car. The Sheremet´s recent work addressed, too, the corruption in Poroshenko government and the pro-Ukraine Azov Battalion´s role and lead by the extermist Right Sector. Poroshenko described the muder as "tragedy" and said that he knew personally the journalist.

(The murdered Russian politician Boris Nemtsov beside Sheremet to the microphone.) 

It´s not possible to say who ordered the Sheremet´s death. From availabe informations it can make hypotheses. And many. Since the pro-Ukraine battalion to Russia´s secret service, a member of the Ukranian government to Belarus government, any of these groups or members may have connection with the murder. Journalists and opponents of the Russian and Belarussian governments mourned the Sheremet´s death and recalled his proximity with Nemtsov highlighting the role that both played by revealing the corruption schemes of the establishments of these countries; others compared the journalist´s death with the Alexander Litvinenko´s murder by the FSB in London in 2006. Both comparasion suggest that Sheremet was one more victim of the governments of the former USSR countries. Despite the suspicions of Russian involvement, two things need to be said: first that everything is still speculation, and that the Russia´s involvement is just theory. Second that, as announced some Ukranian authorities, the Sheremet´s murder worsen the political climate in Ukraine and, consequently, favors Moscow which considers illegitimate the Kiev government. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs denounced these analyses as "russophobics".

(Relashionship increasingly difficult.)

The economic sanctions renewal by the European Union against Moscow, the internal pressure of the parties and politicians allies of Russians for the suspension of these sanctions, the new NATO´s strategy towards Russia with troops allocation in the east, the fight in the informations war and a closer relashionship of the organization with Scandinavia point to a higher tension between Russians and the West. In the case of allied parties, the pressure within the European bloc strengthens the need of a reaction to the "hybrid war" promoted by the Kremlin that involves, besides of the propaganda dissemination through the media, network contacts with right-wing and left-wing extremists.

On the other hand the possibility (albeit strongly especulative) that Russia has something to do with the Sheremet´s murder only contributes to increased political tension in the region and a greater destabilization of Ukraine. But the disconfort caused by the Russian athletes banishment at the Rio Olympics demoralizes the country´s authorities to expose them to the world as deeply corrupt and unrialible. In the last two cases the historical precedent of journalists murders in the former USSR countries and the episodes of political retaliation at sporting events contributes to the increase of widespread distrust of Russia.

The request of Russian Minister Sergei Lavrov to the American Secretary of State John Kerry to the doping scandal doesn´t become in another political dispute between the two sides is one more signal that the realpolitik logic invaded all the contact channels between Russia and Western countries. Each event is solved within the problems and discordances framework between both. All care is little.**

* published in Portuguese on July 26 2016.

** "Todo o cuidado é pouco" is an expression in Portuguese that means someone need to take great care in each word, gesture and attitude.

Dugin about Brexit: victory of the Russian project and another step in the war against the West

(Alexander Dugin on Western liberalism.)

For one of the most influential Kremlin´s ideologists and leader of the Eurasian Movement, Alexander Dugin, the United Kingdom output of the European Union occured because the US began to reject the bloc, and the British, the main American ally in the region, chose to follow it´s way. Brexit was only possible because the so-called "global elite" would have allow it to happen. These ideas were presented in an interview with Katehon, Russian think thank dedicated to global geopolitics studies based on the Eurasian though.

To better understand the paragraph above, we need to keep in mind two things: 1) for Dugin there is no separation between politics and civilization. The political order of a people necessarily corresponds to their cultural characteristics (this relationship is traditional in Eurasian thought and it´s very detailed in the Marlene Laruèlle´s book Russian Eurasianism. And Ideology of Empire). 2) He identifies globalism as the Western financial elite. It´s foundations are the US, in his view the essence of own globalist movement (his positions are detailed in the book Os EUA e a Nova Ordem Mundial. Um debate entre Alexandre Dugin e Olavo de Carvalho - The US and the New World Order. A debate between Alexander Dugin and Olavo de Carvalho, it would be the name in English). The expansion of the American dominance over Europe and the world would be an artificiality susteined only by the opressive power of the globalist elite.

  

(Laruèlle´s book and the debate with Olavo de Carvalho: reveiling of the Dugin´s though  and the Eurasian Movement´s pretensions.)

For these reasons Dugin considers Brexit an extremely important event with impacts in the civilizational order and global geopolitics. In his words: 

"The UK’s withdrawal from the European Union is an event of colossal importance. The whole architecture of the world is changing, because it is not just one of the European countries, it is one of the poles of European civilization. And if England says that it is out of Europe, out of the EU, that means that the EU’s value changes. The most important thing is that no one will allow a Europe without Britain. We can say that it is the end of the civilizational space."

For him the world would be watching the "end of Europe" as described by Oswald Spengler and Slavophilies (intellectuals of Slavoplhilism, ideological trend related to Eurasianism), and that the European Union was "falling into the abyss because of it´s ultra-liberal ideology", unsustentable in the long run.

The Dugin´s analysis isn´t a mere analysis. As Kremlin´s ideologist and one of the most influential intellectuals in Russia, he considers Brexit sinal of the decadence of an Europe that will give place to Eurasia. The thinker bet on nacionalist and fascist movements (although denies this classification) as hope to dissolve the bloc and bring out "truth" Europe. Who would benefit from this globally is Russia.

(Meeting of Head of States of member countries of Shanghai Cooperation Organization, in Zhengzhou, China, in December 2015.)

During interview, when the interviwer commented that people still blame Russia for everything that gives wrong in the world, Dugin said:

"It is quite a surprise, but they are right, and at the same time as Brexit, Tashkent is creating an alternative center of a multipolar civilization - the SCO. This is more than half of the world - it is the vast majority of the population and is a nuclear power. India and Pakistan joined the SCO, and Iran partially agreed to join it. What is happening today: Brexit and the SCO, which is becoming an important force, are shifts in the center of civilizations, the center of the world order is completely in the other half of the world. This is a transition from the West to the Eurasian world. It is, in fact, our celebration. The founders of Eurasianism said: “The West and the Rest”. Brexit is the collapse of the West and it is a victory for humanity, which is opposed to the West and seeks to go its own way. And the flagship of mankind is the SCO, Russia, the current sovereign free multipolar Russia led by Putin, and those who are in the Eurasian Club."

This passage is of utmost importance. As already stated his intention is to act on the policy behind the scenes in order to influence it, Dugin admits his role as conscious agent of the global geopolitical changes. He also shows the political alternative to globalism of the West represented by US and the European Union: the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. It would be, in his view, an appropriating organization to multipolar world, that is, multicivilizational, unifying multi-core power in opposition to the homogenizing globalist project. The SCO´s main basis of cooperation are security and economic issues, and it´s major members are Russia and China. It´s characteristic of Eurasian thought give to Russia a messianic role, therefore it would be up to it the responsability of leading the organization.   

It´s possible see that Dugin´s analysis isn´t intended to unterstand the world, but to transform it according to the Kremelin´s pourposes. Dugin is an ideologist, a formulator of a "multipolar" world lead by Russia, which was destinated, for it´s unique characteristics (this is very stressed by Eurasians), to "liberate" people from the Western globalism yoke.

(Dugin with a rifle in hand in front of a South Ossetia´s war tank: members of the Eurasian Movement acted in Georgia War battles, in 2008. In the debate Olavo de Carvalho used this picture to illustrate that Dugin wasn´t a mere intellectual, but an Eurasian project agent.) 

Dugin´s ideologized worldview is evident in the debate he had with the Brazilian philosopher Olavo de Carvalho. The russian couldn´t understand why Olavo was both a conservative, a critic of the Western globalism and also a critic of the Eurasian project. Dugin saw in his opponent a lover of the tradition, a "'paleoconservative' side of the modern West" for long time politically defeated. But it was incomprehensible for him how someone with this thought was against to the "liberating"  plan of Eurasianists. Dugin "accused" Olavo de Carvalho to be the globalist side and "pretending to choose neither". 

There would be no neutrality in this struggle. This reasoning is typical of the ideological thought. The Russian say: 

"Our struggle is in some sense universal as universal is the globalist challenge. We have different traditions but defending them we confront the common enemy of any tradition. So we will explore where lie our respective zones of influence in the multipolar world only after our common victory over the Beast, american-atlantist-liberal-globalist-capitalist-Post-Modern Beast. [sic]"

And he adds:

"The West is in agony. We need to save the world from this agony and may be to save the West from itself. The Modern (and Post-Modern) West must die [emphasys added]. And if there were the real traditional values in its foundations (and they certainly were) we will save them only in the process of the global destruction of the Modernity/Hypermodernity." 

For Alexander Dugin Brexit is a step towards the destruction of globalism, of the American "Beast" and modernity in the name of the "liberation" and the peoples´ tradition around the world. The Eurasian project, lead by Shanghai Cooperation Organization, would be the alternative against the "oppression" of the West. For Dugin there is no chocie. Or you are the oppressor side, or liberating. In the ideological thought there is no middle ground or independence. Dugin has chosen his side, and for this reason he is actively working in the Kremlin to defeat the West.

Protests, political crisis and foreign interference: Montenegro between the West and Russia

(Flags of Montenegro and NATO)

Montenegro is a small country in the Balkans. With 650 thousand people (equivalent to little less than half of the population of Porto Alegre, Brazil), it became independent from Servia-Montenegro union in 2006 with support from Western countries. In last months country was shaked by protests, political tensions and interference from Russia, with the backdrop of dissatisfaction of the government in power since 1991 and the acceleration of the integration process to NATO, the Western military alliance.

PROTESTS, NATO AND RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE

(Brawl in the protests on October 17th 2015.)

First protests in Montenegro started on September 27th 2015 in Podgorica, country´s capital, with the permanent mobilization in the square in front of the national Parliament and nearby streets. The movement was lead by Democratic Front (DF), an alliance composed by oposition parties like New Serbian Democracy (NOVA), Democratic People´s Party (DNP) and Movement for Change (PzP), and other smaller parties, factions, civil organizations and the clergy of Serbian Orthodox Church. 

According organizers, the goal was the departure of the prime minister Mila Djukanovic, of Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS), and a creation of an interim government to conduct "for the first time free and fair elections". Complaints against corruption and the allegation of electoral fraud were also on the agenda. 

The Montenegrin government gave time for the mobilization was dissolved until October 10th. The deadline was not met. On 17th October in the morning, police began dismantling camp in the square, resulting in violence, but the gravest situation occurred hours later when police blocked a march to the Parliament. As well as civilians, the following brawl left hurt the vice-president of the Parliament (opposition) and at least three other members, as the leader of DNP, and the arrest of two members, two journalists and congressional aides. The two leaders of the Democratic Front, Nebojsa Medojevi (PzP) and Andrija Mandic (NOVA), would have been "brutally beaten". In adittion to opposition parties, civil groups and the Serbian Orthodox Church in Montenegro asked investigation on the police action.  

Violence came back to the streets one week later. Democratic Front sponsored free transportation to the demonstrators went to Podgorica, gathering five thousand people in the protest (photo) asking againg for output Djukanovic, an interim government and new elections. But this time demonstrators closer to the Parliament tried to break into the building, and there were violent clashes with the police again. At this time Andrija Mandic was arrested and fifteen people were hurt.

Protests and the followin brawls on 17th and 24th had huge repercussion inside Montenegrin politics and outside the country, and raised the question about the real motivators of the protests, as the Russian government, and their political agenda, which would prevent accesion of Montenegro to NATO. Since then internal political diferences on support or not the government and about entry into alliance stressed, and the small Balkan country found itself in the midst of a conflict between West and Russia.

Before protest on day 24, Djukanovic had already said publicly that he suspected that nationalist Great Serbia movement were behind the demonstrations, and that opposition, which would be getting Kremlin support, wanted to overthrow the government and cancel country´s independence in order to prevent NATO expansion in Balkans. But the Deputy Prime Minister Dusko Markovic went further: said to have on hand concrete information on financing of protests by Russia and the presence of Serb nationalists. Ministry of Foreing Affairs of Russia had deplored violence against protesters, and also commented that the entry of Montenegro into NATO would increase instability and division among it´s citizens. Branko Lukovak, former Foreign Minister of Montenegro, responded by accusing Russia of interfering openly in Montenegrin politics. After the episode of the 24th, Moscow issued a statement saying it was buffled by the charge that would be involved in the protests and that it didn´t have any basis. But this time reaction in Montenegro came in an official statement: the Ministry of Foreign Relations said that Russian declaration was a confirmation that the country would be involved in anti-NATO protests, and that the wail of Moscow by the use of "excessive force" against "paceful protests" ignored the protesters used Molotov cocktails and had tried to break into Parliament.

Both Djuokanovic and his Deputy Markovic considered Russian declarations as very clear sinals of Moscow´s involvement in the protests. According to a Serbian foreign policy expert heard by Radio Free Europe, political tensions between Montenegro and Russia increased after Djukanovic made a visit to Washington, and protests erupted after the General Secretary of the organization, Jens Stoltenberg, was in Podgorica. The visit to Washington took place on April 2014. It had been criticized by Russia. The government of Djukanovic responded by saying that his goal were about national interests of Montenegro, dealt about integration into European Union and NATO, but it wasn´t anti-Russia, and reaffirmed cooperation and longstanding respect between two countries.

Meanwhile the opposition leaders deplored the government charges that were supported by Russia, Democratic Front boycotted the meetings in the Parliament, and Medojevic (PzP) went to Brussels explain the opposition positions. Since then protests lost breath on the streets and won the Parliament galleries, this time with fewer protesters and without significant episodes of violence. At the same time discussions about the probable Russian involvement and the negotiations between Montenegro and NATO gained strenght.

(Nebojsa Medojevic, leaer do Movemente for Change (PzP) and one of the main leaders of Democratic Front.)

In an interview with a Kosovo News site, Nebojsa Medojevic said Prime Minister Djukanovic had finally shown his "dictatorial face". When asked about Russia´s support and the opposition to NATO by Democratic Front, he said his party, PzP, leader of Front, was part of European party Alliance of Conservatives and Reformists that advocates the Montenegro entry in NATO, and Russia´s support to the movement was "more than ridiculous". He said the confusion was deliberately created by people infiltrated among protesters to cause confrontation with police in front of the Parliament, and the cameras had filmed everything on site. Protesters had alerted about masked people in the crowd. According Medojevic, there are videos that show hooligans with balaclavas leaving the ruling party bulding and witnessed soccer fans already involved in others confrontations. These fans would act as agents of the regime.

Two diplomats interviwed by Radio Free Europe who made their careers in the Balkans region, Edward Joseph and Wolfgang Petritsch, had different positions regarding Russia´s interference in Montenegro. Joseph said the NATO error to continuosly keep Montenegro out of the alliance saying this, he considers dangerous, gave opportunity for Russians intervening and destabilizing the country. One reason why Montenegro had not been invited to join NATO would be the penetration of Russian secret service in the country. On the other hand, Petritsch said that despite the Balkans are second priority for Russia and it would be nice to integrate Montenegro to NATO and also EU, the main cause of the crisis was the "dysfunctional behavior" from Podgorica, which would be provocative especially in a context of increased tension between Russians and Westerns with the crisis in Ukraine. He also pointed out that Montenegro receives large Russians investments, and it´s strange now Podgorica acuse Moscow of intervation. Both countries have always been historically very close, which would be of concern to Brussels, and Russia has always opposed the entry of any country to NATO.

MONTENEGRO AND NATO: AN INCREASING INTIMACY

(Prime Minister of Montenengro, Mila Djukanovic, and General Secretay of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, in oficial meeting in Podgorica on June 11th 2015.)

The protests and the ensuing accusations that Russia would be involved in them in order to destabilize Montenegro and prevent their entry into NATO occured at a time of growing closer and intensification of negotiations between the alliance and Podgorica. According to the Serbian foreign policy expert quoted above, protests erupted after General Secretary of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, visited Montenegrin capital to treat accesion of the country.

The Stoltenberg´s visit to Podgorica took place between June 11th and 12th 2015. The purpose of the meeting with Djukanovic and government officials was to assess progress of internal reforms based on the 2010 Action Plan to join NATO. The objectives of the Plan are to focus effort especially on  security sector, intelligence, rule of law reforms, the work with the public opinion and intensify meeting between government leaders and military alliance in order to assess and accelerate necessary reforms. The intention was to complete the final entry of Montenegro to NATO in December 2015.

In the meeting Stoltenberg and Djukanovic reaffirmed the neeed to meet the objectives of the Action Plan for entry in December. The head of NATO also highlighted the financial and operational help of Montenegro´s militaries for the alliance in Afghanistan. He said the country had made a "real progress" towards reforms, the intensification of talks with NATO and political cooperation with it´s members, but stressed the need to improve the reforms of the country´s laws and increase public support.

(Public statement on June 12th 2015 where Stoltenberg mourned the death of Montenegrin civilians by NATO in 1999.)



One of the novelties of the visit took place on June 12th, when Jens Stoltenberg publicly mourned the death of civilians in the bombing of NATO to Montenegro, then part of Serbia, in 1999. It was the first time since the event which a leader of the organization expressed regret for the deaths. The reactions in Montenegro divided opinions: political parties, NGOs and supporters to join NATO welcomed what they called "Stoltenberg´s apology", explaining that it was necessary for the people to hear this request. On the other hand the Montenegrin Movement for Neutrality said that General Secretary´s words were just a small gesture to influence public opinion regarding the entry into the alliance. The main argument of the opponents of accesion is precisaly the organization´s role in civilian deaths in 1999.

On August 10th Parliament of Montenegro put on the agenda a draft resolution to support the country´s entry into NATO. The project was supported by 49 of 81 MPs and it´s goal was to strenghten support of the members of the House to integration. The resolution, however, didn´t specify how the membership would be made.

Jens Stoltenberg made another visit to Podgorica on October 15th, two days before the clashes in the streets of the city. The discussions focused mainly on reforms of law and public support. The General Secretary pointed out that the talks with Djukanovic government were "very fruitful", that country had made great strides on laws reform, contributed the the missions of the NATO and the UN and that it was likely that in less than two months the Foreign Mministers of the alliance would decide on invitation for membership. For Djukanovic, Montenegro should be a model preparation for integration to be followed by other countries.

It´s important to say that in this context of intensification of the meetings between Djukanovic and Stoltenberg, the progress of the Action Plan and the resolution supported by most of Parliament that started the permanent demonstrations. Although the deadline for the mobilization was closed until October 10th, it was only on 17th that police took action and there was violence. As for protesters it was important to show their disatisfation for Stoltenberg, for the government wasn´s good there was confusion just before the meeting on 15th. The violence on 17th was followed by already mentioned manifestation and new violence on 24th.

Until November 2015 the Montenegrin public opinion was partly divided about NATO membership. A survey commissioned by a Western agency showed that 34,8% of respondents considered joining the right path for the country, while 34,7% considered the wrong path. The remaining 30,4% had no position or didn´t know answer the question. That is: the number of people for and against the entry of Montenegro was the same. In recent months have been a drop in supporting the accesion. Most (51%), however, considered country would enter the alliance sooner or later. Regarding the protests, 27,6% saw them as positive and 47% negative (33,3% of these very negative), and 53,5% said they wouldn´t achieve their goals compared to only 15,0% who though so. Interestingly, when asked about the impact of NATO for the country, most people believed that membership could offer to Montenegro a better relation especially with the US and the EU, strengthening peace, security, stability and protection of country´s borders. The lower impact would be the relation with Russia.

We can perceive by the survey that, yes, support for the entry of Montenegro in NATO is low and has declined in recente months, but stabilized, and  that his opposition increased but also stabilized. There was a portion of the population (1/3) relatively indifferent to the question. Moreover, the negative view of the protests by majority delegitimized the opposition´s action about NATO, but also delegitimized the action against Podgorica´s government. Contrary to what´s observed in Brazil, research has shown that the government is one of the most trusted institutions by population. That is: if the support and opposition for entry into NATO were equivalente, there were many people apart of the question and especially a distrust and a negative view of the protests. In practice this meant that central government had confidence (or indifference) of a significant part of society and that it´s way on discussion a pro-NATO political agenda found resistence basically among opposition activists. The greatest concern of the Montenegrin population did not seem to be joining the aliance or the political crisis, but the socio-economic issue: 61% of respondentes being in favor of integration into the EU.

(Stoltenberg and the Foreign Minister of Montenegro, Igor Luksic, in the meeting that officialized the invitation to Balkanic country to organization. Brussels, December 2nd 2015.) 

Despite protests, the little popular support, political instability and the likely Russian interference, Montenegro was officialy invited to join NATO on December 2nd 2015. If it become member in the following months, this will be the first aliance expansion since Albânia and Croatia joined in 2009.

As expected, Russia reacted with criticism. Sergei Lavrov, which had said last September that the NATO expansion attempts was a "provocation" and didn´t help the stability in the region, said that the invitation to Montenegro was an "irresponsable" attitude. Russian senator Viktor Ozerov, head of defense and safety of the Russian Federation Council, said if the membership is confirmed Russia´s pojects with Balkan country would be cut, including military. Despite US Secretary of State, John Kerry, said that the NATO expansion wasn´t direct at Russia or any other country, alliance´s diplomats said the invitation to Montenegro was a clear message that Moscow can´t prevent the expansion of organization because it has no veto power. The background of these statement was in the Georgia War in 2008 when, with support by Russia, South Ossetia and Abkhazkia broke out from the country preventing Georgians from entering NATO. A clause of the onrganization doesn´t allow countries with territorial disputes integrate the alliance. The same occured with Ukraine on the Crimea anexation by Russians and the war in the east of the country.

Podgorica showed little worried and said tha the invitation wouldn´t be able to jeopardize it´s relations with Moscow, since Montenegro has few projects and Russian investiments. Some experts also believe that is unlikely that Russians take drastic messures against the Balkan country. Jens Stoltenberg hinted that Montenegro would officially become NATO member at the next meeting of their leaders scheduled to take place this July in Warsaw, Poland.


OPPOSITION GOES TO KREMLIN

A few weeks after the end of the street protests on October 24th, the Montenegrin opposition boycotted the meetings in the Parliament and began to publicly make plans and strategies with Kremlin members in order to block country´s entry into NATO and plan a new politicy for the country.

(Milan Knezevic, leader of the Democratic People´s Party, DNP)



Milan Knezevi, MP and leader of the DNP, the second largest party of Montenegro and integrating Democratic Front, recevied and invitation from Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to attend a forum in comemorating the centennary of the Russian Agency for International Cooperation, held between 25th and 27th November 2015. He was the only member of the Parliament of Montenegro to be invited. A week before Knezevic stated that his intention in the forum was to highlight the historical bond of friendship between Russians and Montenegrins, the later see Russia as a great ally and protector, that the population doesn´t approve sanctions imposed on the country by EU (a reference to crisis in Ukraine), and that Russia is an important global geopolitical actor able to meet the challenges of today´s world. Ideal to Montenegro would be military neutrality, that is, a non-commitment to NATO, and the strengthening of social and economic ties with both Russia and the EU were important.

(Dmitry Rogozin, Russian Vice-President and leader of ultranationalist Rodina party and Putin´s ally. Now under Montenegro and EU´s sanctions.) 



Knezevic came back to Moscow on January 30th 2016, this time with his party colleague, Petrag Bulatovic, invited by Vice President and Putin´s adviser, Dmitry Rogozin. Rogozin is founder and financer of Rodina, ally party of Russian president´s United Russia, and considered extremely nationalist (one example of the party´s radicalism occurred on September 2004 when ideologist Alexander Dugin, then it´s collaborator, moved away from the party to consider it excessively nationalistic, composed by "right-wing chauvinists" (sic) and too much close to Communist Party). The purpose of the visit was the signing of a memorandum where DNP and Rodina pladged to share positions about political situation in the Balkans and receive support of the Russians colleagues for the Montenegro military neutrality. But this time Knezevic went further: he proposed an aliance of neutral countries still with Serbia, Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. The proposal received support from the leader of the Serbian People´s Party (SPP) Nenad Popovic. Andrija Novic (NOVA)was also in Moscow following the colleagues of the opposition.

Another proposal that reinforced the idea of neutrality was making Montenegro the "Balkans Switzerland". This idea was launched by Chairman of Duma Sergei Zheleznyak in presence of Knezevic, Bulatovic and Mandic. The embassador of Slovenia in NATO, Jelko Kacin, said the meeting of three opposition leaders with members of Duma was an interference in Montenegrin politics, and that this attitude was a tipical behavior of the Russian foreign policy. Zheleznyak is under EU´s sanctions for his involvement in the annexation of Crimea by Russia.



(Sergey Naryshkin (right), receivingo Knezevic (center), and Andrija Mandic, leader of NOVA (left) in Moscow on February 1st 2016.)



Another Russian leader thar received DF members was Sergey Naryshkin, speaker of Duma and also under EU´s sanctions because of Crimea. Naryshkin is chairman of directors council of the Russian TV Channel One, where Andrija Mandic granted an interview defending opposition agenda. In another time Mandic also said that once oppostion rise to power it would lift economic sanctions that Montenegro imposed to Russia throughout 2014 and would revalue the ties with the country built by previous governments. Naryshkin criticized sanctions saying that were illegals and causing serious damage to relations between both countries.

The conclusions of the DF leaders meeting with members of Duma in Moscow was the reaffirmation of opposition to the NATO´s expansion in the Balkans, the military neutrality of Montenegro and the need to hold a referendum to decide on the entry or not the country into alliance.

The reaction in Montenegro on the journey of the Democratic Front leaders was challenged, but of little concern. The mais question was whether it would be acceptable for the country´s politicians to discuss internal affairs with foreigns while they´re boycotting their own Parliament. But the Montenegrin government gave little importance about the possible effects of the meeting. A ruling party representative, from DPS, said the oppositionist don´t have support of the population and therefore the trip to Russia wouldn´t have major impacts on country´s politics. The director of Russian Service of Radio Free Europe strenghtened the government´s position saying that the visit don´t have political weight, but it serves as propaganda to Moscow and it´s part of the Russian government attempt to create a political alliance system throughout Europe.

Despite the apparent unconcern, Montenegro adopted sanctions againt fifty Russian businessmen and politicians on February 11th 2016. One of them was precisaly Dmitri Rogozyn, who had been invited by Knezevic to visit Montenegro after the DF leaders were in Moscow. According to Foreign Ministry, the invite was done without consulting the government. Moreover, Rogozyn is known for his unfreandly attitudes as his statment, in December 2015, that Montenegro would regret entering NATO, and his visit to Serbia in next January where he met with Vojislav Seselj, founder and leader of the Serbian Radical Party (PRS), when he was still detained and on trial by International Court for the former Yugoslavia for crimes against humanity. Seselj was absolved two months later and returned to politics.

Rogozyn´s visit to Serbia and Seselj figure are relevants for politics of Montenegro. One of the groups that participated in the protests and integrates DF is Serbian Oath Keepers, Montenegrin dissent from Seselj´s PRS, whose work in the country has been since 90´s under the official name Party of Serbian Radicals. (PSR). The group´s leader, Robert Zizic, said Seselj abandoned struggle for the rights of Serbs in Montenegro, turned to socioeconomic issues and began to cooperate with parties and organizations that support the country´s integration to NATO. The new group´s proposal is rescue Serbian nationalism, campaigning against country´s integration to NATO and the EU and strenghten Belgrade and Moscow ties based on common historical and cultural values. The main support of Serbian Oath Keepers in Serbia is Serbian Zavetnici, PRS´s dissent in neighboring country led by Stefan Stamenskovski.


FAVORABLE POLITICAL CRISIS TO RUSSIA AND NEW STEPS TOWARD NATO 

(Djukanovic speaks to Parliament in the political crisis of January 2016: opposition´s boycott and empty seats.)

Three days before the DF´s leader trip to Moscow on January 30th, a political crisis rocked the government of Montenegro: the alliance that ruled the country was dissolved, comprised by the government´s party, Democratic Party of Socialistas (DPS), led by Djukanovic, and Social Democrats Party (SDP), led by Ranko Krivokapic. The break came after three days of heated debate in Parliament that ended with a vote on a motion of no confidence to the Prime Minister. Djukanovic won by very narrow margin, receiving 42 of the 81 votes, and his victory occured thanks to the votes of the smallest opposition party presented in the house, Positive Montenegro (PM) led by Darko Pajovic, which in recent years has approached to the government.

The voting had been called by Djukanovic on December 19th 2015 due to the worsening political crisis in the country. Since two years SDP has been complaining about the lack of Prime Minister´s action on reform of Judiciary and greater freedom of press. During the debates, DPS and SDP members accused each other by the political crisis, breaking of the alliance and alleged electoral frauds, one of the opposition´s issue. Corruption, votes buying against Montenegro´s independece, sale of land of the coastal region to the Russians and alliance with the late Slobodan Milosevic in the 90´s, convicted of war crimes and called "butcher of the Balkans" by Western press for his actions in Yugoslavia War (1992-1995), where other topics discussion. In the votation day, hundreds of people led by Democratic Front held a demonstration in front of the Parliament calling for departure of the Prime Minister.

(Djukanovic and the former Parliament speaker and leader of Social Democrats Party, Ranko Krivokapic before his departure.)

On February 19 the crisis had a new chapter: government and opposition didn´t reach and agreement on holding of "free and fair" elections. The main point of disagreement was about the control of the RCTG public TV channel. Opposition accused the director and editorial news program of beeing partial. Another point was the command of the National Security Agency, whose post of chief director was demanded by opposition. On 27th Djukanukovic´s government had agreed with the Parliament the Krivokapic resignation from the function of speaker for the next day. In his place came Darko Pajovic, elected under the opposition boycott. Thus the alliance between DPS and SPD was definitely ended.

(Democratic Front protest in Podgorica on February 27th 2016.)



The new crisis created by the episode on 19th made the Democratic Front call new protests for Djukanukovic output on 27th. While people were on the streets, the goverment negotiated the Krivokapic resignation. The demands included the questioned by opposition in Parliament as "free and fair" elections, the control of public TV and security agency. Some local sources said demonstrators would participate in protests wearing T-shirts with Vladimir Putin´s face. During protests flags of Montenegro and Serbia were seen. Andrija Mandic (NOVA), who had arrived from Moscow a few hours before, spoke to the crowd saying that there would be no negotiations with Djukanovic. Three other opposition parties were also criticized for don´t participate in demonstrations.

On March 15th it was the turn of Serbian nationalist right of Serbian Oath Keepers launch a campaign for anti-NATO protests in Montenegro.

Despite the new focus of the demonstrations is apparently only on internal policies issues they have continued the agenda of demonstrations in September and October last year, wich also demanded non-adherence of Montenegro to NATO. The first protests increased tension in the government and led to the no confidence motion to Djukanovic. If the Prime Minister had lost the vote in January, would be the choice of a new leader, and this could put at risk the ingretation process into military alliance.

Another relevant factor is the paralell between deepening crisis and intensification of contacts of the Democratic Front leaders to important people of the Russian government. The request for no confidence motion of the Prime minister Took place three weeks after Knezevic´s (DNP) trip at a forum in Moscow, followed by a new trip, this time accompained by his colleagues Bulatovic (NDP) and Mandic (NOVA). This new trip took place three days after the motion vote, and that inaugurated the break up of the rulling coalition then formed by DPS and SDP. Lastly, the street protests, led by Democratic Front, came back a little stronger when government and opposition didn´t come to an agreement about "free and fair" elections, the control of the public TV and the secret service, having been the later denounced by NATO of being infiltraded by Russian agentes, a factor that has delayed the country´s integration process into alliance. The question is: how far Kremlin is managing penetrate and influence the Montenegro´s policy through co-optation of allies? I´ve not this answer, but it´s clear that the evolution of these events favor Russian, and one of the key points is the relation of the Democratic Front with Kremlin in a context of political crisis in Montenegro.

(Foreign Ministers of NATO´s member countries in signature day of Adhesion Protocol of Montenegro, in Brussels. Djukanovic and Stoltenberg are in the center of the picture.)

On the other hand the integration process into NATO didn´t stop. With approval of the Foreign Minister of member countries and the signature of Adhesion Protocol, on May 9th, Montenegro was officialy invited to join the organization as "invitee", i.e., and observer. So the country now has it´s own chair to follow official meetings. According an security expert quoted in The Atlantic report, this will cause "deep political consequences" since the integration of Montenegro open one more chapter in the Balkans political evolution, traumatized by wars in 90´s. The integration also come in a "timely" of political difficulties in Europe, refugee crisis and crisis in Ukraine.

On the day of signing of the Protocol, a recent survey commented on Balkan Insight showed that Montenegrins were divided over the country´s entry to NATO, 45% in favor of it. On the other hand, a survey made by Knezevic´s DNP showed that 61% of the population were in favor of a referendum on the issue. The party leader said again that majority of population was against integration.

Since the split between DPS and SPD Djukanovic has to govern with greater difficulties. The opposition refused to joint the new gabinet of government composed after the break and even boycotted the parliamentary session anniversary of ten years of Montenegro´s independence headed by Pajovic and celebrated on June 3rd.

In the period of celebrations were disclosed in the press datas about the populations´ position on the independence. A survey highlighted by Knezevic said 50% of the country was in favor of independence and 30,9% againt; Djukanovic commented on general number, saying that around 60% of population would support the country´s independent status and 40% opposed. In neighboring Serbia a survey conducted in May showed that only 20% of the population was interested in reestablishing the unio with Montenegro. Although society isn´t as active as in political issues and most are in favor of mantaining independence status it is still socially divided, especially if taken into account the position of the large Serb minority that is around 30% of the population.



(Map of Montenegro´s ethnic compostion showing the predominant group by municipality: red = Montenegrins; blue = Serbs; other colors = minority groups.)

With the integration process into NATO in process, a serious political crisis unresolved and a socially divided population (although not very politically active) Montenegro reaches half of 2016 with many things to solve. One question we can ask is: will Russia be capable to revert NATO membership and atract Montenegro to it´s sphere of influence by the opposition? 

This would be a difficult task. Djukanovic, in power since 1991, is determined to strenghten relations with the West. A proof of this is in the country´s Constitution, adopted on October 17th 2007 when he already was ruling, where the preamble explicitly states that the country shall devote to cooperate with other countries and promote "European and Euro-Atlantic integration" and points out that it´s foreign relations must be "onde the principles and rule of international law" in order to facilitate it´s access to internation organizations. Thus, it´s up to Parliament to "decide the manner of accession to the European Union".  

The National Security Strategy is more direct about NATO and the EU:

“The Strategy confirms Montenegro’s commitment to undertake all necessary actions so as to meet the conditions for its integration into the Euro-Atlantic and other international security structures. In that context, the strategic goal of Montenegro is to become a  full NATO and EU member as soon as it is possible.”

(Pro-Putin demonstration during the visit of Russian president to Belgrade, Serbia, on August 16th 2014: political allies in the Balkans.)



This move of Montenegro clashes with the new actions of Russian foreign policy. Since mid-2006-07 Russia has taken more assertive atitudes to challenge of "unipolar world" lead by the US and tried to strenght it´s leadership in it´s sphere of influence. For this it created and strenghtened institutions, media and network of contacts around the world, mainly in Europe, a kind of alternative globalization (see also here). Since 2014, with the crisis in Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea, the country went to what two experts called "open confrontation with international order". For them the "Putin doctrine" advocates a Russian exceptionalism, an affirmative position of Russia in the world order. The main confrontation would be between the "Russian world" and the West emphasizing it´s values and civilizational principles. In this context the Balkans are highlitghted by historical ties of Russians with Serbs and Montenegrins, and theirs Greeks, Romenian and Bulgarian neighbors, all with predominantly Orthodox population.

Montenegro, because of it´s small size and popuation, is at mercy of the strong Russian influence in the region through issues such as energy resources (with the expansion of the pipelines network competing to Western projects), economic ties, political alliances, diplomatic efforts, military presence (the instalation of a Russian military base on Montenegrin coastline was denied) and religious-cultural activism. Russian investiments in the country, receiving a lot of Russian tourists, the great Serb minority and criticism of some experts about recent change direction in foreing policy show that until recently Podgorica had an closer relationship with Moscow. Therefore it´s clear that Djukanovic changed the country´s foreing policiy and is now trying to get out of the Russia´s sphere of influence.
   
Alliances with Serbs, Bulgarians, Bosnians and Greeks; investiments, diplomatic ties and energy networks that run through Greece, Bulgaria and Croatia; increased military presence in the Black Sea (especially after annexation of Crimea); and the national Orthodox churches (especially from Serbia) are factors that can influence Montenegrin politics. Althoug of 32% of the investiments in Montenegro are of Russian origin, this doesn´t seem to be in charge, and the Orthodox Church of the country has a low level of confidence compared to Serbian Orthodox Church (29,0% and 48,4%, respectively). Therefore, the greatest challenge of Montenegro is in it´s domestic politics with an opposition allied to Kremlin. That´s the only asset that Moscow can use without directly affecting neighbouring countries. The haste with which Montenegro enters NATO and the European Unin and the ability of the Democratic Front to turn the game, either with street protests or parliamentary pressure, will determine the near future of the country.

* published in Portuguese on june 13th 2016.

Brexit: good for Putin. But what about Europe?

(Journalist Brian Whitmore and his blog´s logo in Radio Free Europe: tough Kremlin critic.) 



Radio Free Europe journalist Brian Whitmore, responsable for reporting and analysis about Russia in his blog Power Vertical and a harsh critic of Putin´s regime, said** that British decision to get out of European Union gave a "big reasoned smile" to the Russian president.

In his comment, Whitmore said it´s importante to remember that at the moment British choose to get out of the European Union until recently Ukranians struggled in Euromaidan for their integration to the continent. He highlighted maybe it has been the firts time in History that people gave their lives for an "idea of Europe", a reference to more than one hundred dead in the protests in 2014, and that they continue to die for the same ideia in the battles in Donbass. At the same time British are voting to get out of the EU, "Ukranians are dying, quite litteraly, to get in". The jornalists highlighted that even with the fear of a block colapse by it´s leaders beacuse of Brexit, the "idea of Europe is something people are still willing to give their lives for".

(Euromaidan: the struggle for an "idea of Europe".)

For Whitmore European Union forms the "idea of Europe". The bloc is the picture to which many people around their eyes, like in Eastern European nations and, particularly, in Ukraine (or at least in part of the country) hoping to be part of what they call "Europe".

The important point in the Whitmore´s comment is the meaning of these events for Vladimir Putin. He said that for his regime the Ukranians actions are "deeply disturbing" and 'deeply threatining", not the acts themselves, but for what they claim. The models of transparent governance and consensual integration are seen by Russian president as threat to his "autocratic expansionist cleptocracy". For the journalist Brexit is a "victory for Vladimir Putin and a kind of politics he represents". Anything that divides Europe would be cheered by his government, said Whitmore, and concluded that with Brexit "the British just gave to the Kremlin leader a big reasoned smile".

The defense that journalist makes for European Union isn´t only a defense for democratic societies of the West, but also for resistence that bloc is for Putin´s Russia. An united Europe under a strong European Union would be the best defense and, consequently, the best fight against Kremlin´s estrategy. The logic is that the more democratic is the continent, most outsiders would be willing to fight for the "idea of Europe" threatening the contrary claims of Russia. This is what part of Ukranians would be doing.

The question I do is: if an united, transparent and democratic Europe is a threath to the Putin´s strategy, then why the same Europe cannott prevent, as so often commented on this blog, the Russian penetration? I agree with Whitmore there was no Russian interference in Brexit, althoug a Moscow ingerence would be possible (during the referendum for Scotland´s independence in 2014 here was a suspicion that Russians observers tried to discredit electoral process). But the most importante point is the emergence of new "brexits" by Kremlin´s allies. The countries exit from European Union isn´t necessarily a bad thing given the sucessives economic crises, hard crisis in Greece (that brought Putin´s allies to power) and the bloc difficulty for reaching a consensus on what to do with two millions refugees from Middle East an Northern Africa, but it will be bad if exit is headed by leaders and pro-Russia movements like Marine Le Pen´s Front National.

Immediately the exit of the British people decrease the European Union´s pressure on Russia´s actions, especially on the country´s involvement in crisis in Ukraine. United Kingdom was one of the main supporters of the economic sanctions imposed by the bloc against Moscow.

(European cultures and the new Russian policy: the defense of democracies depends on values that they can´t create.)

I think the main point isn´t the existence of a democratic and transparent Europe, but the values that underpin this same system and that system can´t create. I speak in general on culture, tradition and national sentiment. That´s precisaly the Vladimir Putin´s fight, who in recent years have sought to define a new Russian national identity and insert it into a civilizational struggle. That´s what do Eurasian Movement in acting behind the scenes of Kremlin and fomenting allies in Europe and Asia. It´s goal is to reshape global geopolitics. So declares Alexander Dugin: "An example [of world order] can be found in the Eurasian Project (aka 'multipolar', aka 'great spaces') proposing the alternative model of World Order based on the principle of civilizations and great spaces", cinting including European Union as an formal example of this idea.

(Brexit supporters in front of the British Parliament: the path of a country doesn´t depends on democracy, but what they do through it.)

Putin has preference for democracy provided for his purposes. His values are other. Brexit is an example of how democratic system can be used based on values that, in essence, will define Europe´s future. Democracy isn´t a strenght in itsfel. It depends on what they do whit it.

* published in Portuguese on June 25th 2016.
** because of my unperfect English, words may not be exactly what Whitmore said in his podcast.