NCSEJ WEEKLY NEWS BRIEF

Washington, D.C. April 1, 2016

Russian Jewish cemetery vandalized with swastikas

Israel National News, April 7, 2016

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/210502

According to local media reports, vandals spray-painted swastikas on many tombstones in the Jewish

cemetery of Petrozavodsk, Russia.

Dmitry Zwiebel, a community leader from the northwestern Russian city, announced that he would submit a

formal complaint to law enforcement agencies.

"Such acts have not happened in Petrozavodsk for several years. We thought that such behavior is a thing of

the past, it turns out we were wrong," said Zwiebel.

Two weeks ago, vandals painted anti-Semitic profanities on the gravesite of the father of the Musar movement,

Rabbi Israel Salanter, in the Russian city of Kaliningrad.

Limmud FSU’s Impact is ‘Extremely Important’

Jewocity, Aptil 4, 2016

http://www.jewocity.com/blog/israels-un-envoy-says-limmud-fsus-impact-is-extremely-

important/281586

PARSIPANNY, N.J., April 2 – Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon and other dignitaries

gathered here last night with more than 1,000 Russian-speaking Jews to open the Limmud FSU New York

conference, which featured the first-ever exhibition in the U.S. about Zionist leader Zeev Jabotinsky.

The sold-out Limmud FSU New York, taking place at the Sheraton Parsippany April 1-3, is a dynamic,

volunteer-driven and pluralistic Jewish festival of culture, creativity and learning. Danon praised Limmud FSU

for the impact it has made on more than 35,000 Russian-speaking Jews around the world since launching in

2006.

“What Limmud FSU is doing to bring Russian-speaking Jews closer to Israel and the Jewish people is

extremely important,” Danon said.

Though Israel faces daily challenges at the UN, he told Limmud FSU participants they should also look to the

Jewish state’s role on the world stage for inspiration. “There are many flags with crosses, and many flags with

crescents, but there is only one flag with the Magen David (Star of David), and we should be very proud,” he

said.

Other prominent figures attending Limmud FSU’s opening events included Zeev Jabotinsky, grandson of the

late Zionist leader; Dr. Joel Rappel, curator of the Jabotinsky exhibition; Member of Knesset Oded Forer;

Member of Knesset Hilik Bar; Collette Avital, chair of the Center of Organizations of Holocaust Survivors in

Israel; Izzy Tapoohi, president and CEO of Israel Bonds; and JCS Group LTD President and Limmud FSU

Board Member Michal Grayevsky.

There are an estimated 350,000 Russian-speaking Jews living in New York and New Jersey, with large

Russian-speaking Jewish communities in Brighton Beach and Sheepshead Bay in Brooklyn, and in Bergen

County, N.J. There are some 700,000 Russian-speaking Jews in the U.S. altogether.

Opening the Institute for Modern Jewish Studies in Moscow

WUPJ Newsletter, April 7, 2016

http://wupj.org.il/Publications/Newsletter.asp?ContentID=1074#OPENING

On March 30th 2016, a remarkable event took place at the Moscow Center for Progressive Judaism the debut

of the new Institute for Modern Judaism in the presence of forty guests who came from major Jewish

organizations across the city.

The initiative to establish the Institute began two years ago under the auspices and supervision of the World

Union for Progressive Judaism (WUPJ) and its main partner in this venture, Abraham Geiger Kolleg; other

partners include Potsdam University and Russian State University for the Humanities (RSUH). At the launch

event Anne Brenker, Chancellor of Geiger Kolleg, and Rabbi Edward van Voolen, Vocational Director,

represented the Kolleg.

Among the speakers were Prof. Irina Scherban, Chair of the Russian Progressive Communities, who spoke

about the importance of the program for the entire Russian-speaking Jewish community and gave it her

blessing; Dr. Alex Kagan, Director of FSU Operations for the World Union, who presented the program,

relaying a universal message not limiting the program to the Reform Movement, but rather welcoming the

Jewish community at large. He requested that other Jewish organizations increase cooperation as much as

possible in recruiting potential candidates; Dr. Anne Brenker and Rabbi Edward van Voolen spoke about

Abraham Geiger Kolleg, describing the program and its academic processes.

At the end of the presentation, Arseny Nikitenko, a student, described the deliberation process prior to

entering the Institute that led to him making this professional choice, and how both being accepted to the

program and the studies themselves have changed his life in a positive way.

The evening concluded with a question and answer session for guests, and a reception.

The following day a constructive meeting was held between Institute leadership, Abraham Geiger Kolleg

representatives and students. Students spoke about their progress during the year, emphasizing the individual

projects they are running.

The Institute offers a four-year BA degree program at RSUH, Institute for Philology and History in Moscow,

called "Art and Humanities with a specialization in Jewish Theology". Students recognized as having potential

to continue toward rabbinic studies will pursue an additional two years of study at Potsdam University and

Geiger Kolleg.

Students with high academic achievement, who are not suitable to become rabbis, will be permitted to pursue

their MA and/or PhD at RSUH or Potsdam University as a natural continuation of the program.

The World Union covers all living expenses for students, while students pay one-third of their tuition. This is a

significant amount for them, and it is required in order to demonstrate their motivation and dedication to the

program, as well as promote our continued policy of encouraging self-sufficiency.

The Institute’s programs began in September 2015 with seven highly motivated students. So far, their results

are impressive. Two students have already been selected for continuing rabbinic studies at Geiger.

Without a doubt, this program is gaining momentum and attracting significant attention from potential

candidates and the Jewish community at large. Seeing how much progress we’ve made, it is hard to believe

that only two years have passed since the idea was first discussed between the World Union and Rabbi Dr.

Walter Homolka (one of the Institute’s primary supporters).

Russia To Deliver First S-300 Missiles To Iran 'Within Days'

RFE/RL, April 6, 2016

http://www.rferl.org/content/russia-deliver-first-s300-missiles-iran-within-days-su30-fighter-jets-un-

security-council/27657049.html

Russia says it will begin the first shipment of its S-300 air-defense missile systems to Iran in the coming days,

Russian news agencies reported.

"I don't know if this will happen today, but they will be shipped," Russian Foreign Ministry official Zamir Kabulov

told Interfax on April 5.

Moscow and Tehran signed a contract for the delivery of five battalion sets of S-300 PMU1 air-defense missile

systems in 2007. But the deal was canceled in 2010 after the UN Security Council passed a resolution

prohibiting the sale of heavy weaponry to Iran.

The deal was revived last year after Iran reached a nuclear agreement with world powers, which Russia

maintains lifted the ban on sales of S-300s.

On a related matter, U.S. Undersecretary of State Thomas Shannon told the Senate Foreign Relations

Committee on April 5 that Russia is complying with its commitment not to provide Iran with ballistic-missile

equipment.

He said the United States would use its UN veto power to block any sale of Russian Su-30 fighter aircraft to

Iran.

However, Russia's Foreign Ministry said it has not submitted a proposal for such aircraft sales to the UN.

U.S. May Expand Russia Sanctions After Examining Panama Papers

The Moscow Times, April 7, 2016

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/us-may-expand-russia-sanctions-after-examining-

panama-papers/564993.html

U.S. authorities will examine documents leaked in the Panama Papers scandal to gather information on

individuals who may be helping Russia to bypass sanctions, the Bloomberg news agency reported Thursday.

It is expected that the Treasury will present an expanded sanctions list in June, when the European Union will

discuss the latest sanction extensions against Russia.

Former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Counter Threat Finance and Sanctions Peter Harrell told Bloomberg

that the Panama Papers will help the Treasury Department to gather a base of evidence on the violations

brought in relation to Russian sanctions.

"Clearly this trove of documents has the potential to give the Office of Foreign Assets Control a number of

leads and to help build the evidence to support new [additions to the list],” Harrell said, Bloomberg reported.

Harrell also expressed confidence that in June the European Union will extend sanctions against Russia for an

additional six months.

The Treasury Department refused to comment on media reports regarding Russian companies mentioned in

the Panama Papers. However, in a statement it stressed that all information sources will be used to gather

intelligence on attempts to bypass sanctions.

The Panama Papers include more than 10 million documents leaked from Panamanian law firm Mossack

Fonseca linking Russian politicians and businessmen to offshore companies including close associates of

Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Ukraine: Conflict Brings Hunger Crisis

By Rick Gladstone

New York Times, April 4, 2016

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/05/world/europe/ukraine-conflict-brings-hunger-crisis.html

The two-year-old conflict in eastern Ukraine has left about 1.5 million people hungry, including nearly 300,000

in need of immediate help, the World Food Program, the main anti-hunger humanitarian agency of the United

Nations, said on Monday. “As the conflict continues, we need to reach these people urgently,” the agency’s

representative in Ukraine, Giancarlo Stopponi, said in a statement.

The numbers of hungry Ukrainians have multiplied since the agency first intervened late in 2014 to help feed

people upended in the conflict, distributing emergency rations and cash. Ukraine was historically known as

Europe’s breadbasket for its rich soil and agricultural output. As of the first quarter of 2016, Ukraine is the only

country in Europe to require and receive assistance from the World Food Program.

Romania accuses Israelis of threatening, hacking official’s email

JTA, April 6, 2016

http://www.jta.org/2016/04/06/news-opinion/world/romania-accuses-israelis-of-threatning-hacking-

officials-email

Romania issued a warrant for the arrest of a Belgian Jew whom they said had spied with Israelis on an anti-

fraud official for a firm once headed by an ex-Mossad chief.

Justice Ministry prosecutors in Bucharest this week signed the warrant for the arrest of David Geclowicz,

according to a report published Tuesday on the blog Rise Project. The warrant said Geclowicz had illegally

spied on Laura Kovesi Codruţa, a prosecutor of Romania’s National Anti-Corruption Directorate.

Geclowicz, according to the warrant, worked for Black Cube, an Israeli firm founded in 2010 whose honorary

chair was Meir Dagan, the one-time director of Israel’s spy agency who died last month. Geclowicz, 24, has

been arrested along with another employee, Ron Weiner, according to Rise Project.

In a statement Wednesday, Black Cube confirmed their arrest but denied any wrongdoing, saying their actions

were commissioned by elements associated with the government to investigate corruption.

”In recent weeks the company has been carrying out a project on behalf of government associates in Romania

to collect proof of serious corruption in the Romanian government system. In the context of this project, two

employees who made serious advances in the case were arrested,” the statement read. “The employees were

following the law and the suspicions against them are false. We are confident that the truth will be made clear

in the coming days and the two will be released.”

The warrant said the employees, along with Black Cube co-founders Avi Zorella and Dan Yanus, were “part of

an organized group determined to commit numerous offenses of harassment and related offenses including

making multiple threat calls” and cyberattacks to “illegally gain access credentials and subsequently

compromise email accounts, an activity that was followed by unlawful violation of the secrecy of the

correspondence.”

Black Cube’s offices in Israel, Britain and France were not immediately reachable for comment.

Daniel Horotniceanu, a prosecutor working on the case, told Rise Project the investigation was in its

preliminary stages, according to its blog.

Russia's Putin reorganizes security bodies to establish National Guard

DW, April 6, 2016

http://www.dw.com/en/russias-putin-reorganizes-security-bodies-to-establish-national-guard/a-

19166011

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday reshuffled several security units under the authority of the interior

ministry, effectively creating a "new federal executive government body" aimed at safeguarding national

security.

"We are creating a national guard, which will fight terrorism and organized crime and, in close contact with the

interior ministry, will continue to perform functions that were previously performed by Special Purpose Police

units, Special Rapid Response units and so on," Putin said in a statement.

The National Guard will "participate, together with Russia's internal affairs bodies, in enforcement of public

order, maintenance of public security and emergency rule, participate in the fight against international terrorism

and ensuring the legal regime of counterterrorism operations, (and) participate in the fight against terrorism,"

said the president's decree.

In a series of executive orders, the former head of Putin's personal security service, Viktor Zolotov, was made

head of the National Guard and appointed to Russia's Security Council, effectively allowing him to report

directly to the president instead of the interior minister.

Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the National Guard will likely take part in the "suppression

of unauthorized mass actions," Russia's state-owned TASS news agency reported.

Peskov noted that the new security body is also tasked with protecting public order and guarding critical state

facilities.

The spokesman added that the latest changes to the interior ministry did not signal a crisis of confidence, but

instead aimed at creating a more efficient and effective "territorial defense" structure.

Putin's move to reorganize state security bodies under one entity comes after Moscow began a partial pullout

of Syria, where it launched an air campaign largely in support of President Bashar al-Assad.

The decree also comes ahead of legislative elections slated for September, which may prove to be a

confidence vote on Putin's handling of the economy and national security.

Solve the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict Before It Explodes

By Thomas De Waal

New York times, April 7, 2016

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/08/opinion/solve-the-nagorno-karabakh-conflict-before-it-

explodes.html?_r=0

For almost three decades, the most dangerous unresolved conflict in wider Europe has lain in the mountains of

the South Caucasus, in a small territory known as Nagorno-Karabakh. In the late 1980s, the region

confounded the last Soviet leader, Mikhail S. Gorbachev. In the early 1990s, the conflict there created more

than a million refugees and killed around 20,000 people. In 1994, after Armenia defeated Azerbaijan in a fight

over the territory, the two countries signed a truce — but no peace agreement.

Nagorno-Karabakh erupted again last weekend. It seems one of the players — most likely Azerbaijan —

decided to change the facts on the ground. Dozens of soldiers from both sides were killed before a cease-fire

was proclaimed on Tuesday. It could fall apart at any moment. The situation is volatile, and there is a danger

that the conflict could escalate further unless the international community stops it.

A new all-out Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is the stuff of nightmares. Given the sophisticated weaponry both

sides now possess, tens of thousands of young men would most likely lose their lives. Russia and Turkey,

already at loggerheads and with military obligations to Armenia and Azerbaijan, respectively, could be sucked

into a proxy war. Fighting in the area would also destabilize Georgia, Iran and the Russian North Caucasus. Oil

and gas pipeline routes from the Caspian Sea could be threatened, too.

At the heart of the issue is the status of the Armenian-majority highland enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh, which

was part of Soviet Azerbaijan. As the Soviet Union crumbled, ethnic Armenians in the territory campaigned to

join Armenia. This became a full-scale war, and the Armenians have maintained control of the territory since.

Nagorno-Karabakh has been mostly quiet, save for occasional skirmishes. Most international diplomats pay

little attention to this protracted conflict in the Caucasus, giving the impression that Nagorno-Karabakh is

intractable but not especially dangerous, like Cyprus. The hope among the international community has been

that the problem can be left alone.

That notion was shaken over the past week. More than 20 years on, nationalist hatreds have not abated. In

fact, they’ve been fed over the years by official propaganda on both sides. Meanwhile, the very geography of

the conflict makes it inherently dangerous.

The 1994 truce left the Armenian side in control not just of the disputed province, but also of a section of

Azerbaijani territory around Nagorno-Karabakh. The Armenian side has no legal claim on these lands,

regarding them as a protective buffer zone, but they were home to more than half a million Azerbaijanis, who

were made refugees. That occupation is unsustainable and unjust, but the use of force will not deliver justice.

Azerbaijan has wasted years in denunciations of “Armenian aggression” without ever offering the Armenians of

Nagorno-Karabakh credible guarantees that it respects their rights and does not merely wish to destroy them.

A just solution of the conflict will require a serious commitment by both sides to make compromises and live

together.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’s president, has blamed France, Russia and the United States, the countries

charged with mediating the conflict by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, for failing to

clean up the mess. This is wrong, too. Yes, more could have been done over the years to resolve the dispute

over Nagorno-Karabakh, but mediators mediate — they cannot alone solve conflicts between intransigent

parties.

The bitter truth is that leaders in Armenia and Azerbaijan have become trapped by their own rhetoric,

promising their publics total victory that can never be achieved. They have employed the status quo as a

weapon to shirk hard questions about their own legitimacy or to divert people’s attention from socioeconomic

problems.

A similar temptation is to identify Russia as the real villain. For sure, the Kremlin has played a role in

manipulating the ethno-territorial conflicts that emerged from the breakup of the Soviet Union. And Russia

continues to sell weapons to both Armenia and Azerbaijan. But Russia’s role in Nagorno-Karabakh is much

weaker than it is in Georgia’s frozen conflict, let alone in Ukraine. Russia shares no border with the conflict

zone, has no troops on the ground and, in different ways, supports both sides. Its ability to control what

happens in Nagorno-Karabakh is limited.

If there is one ray of hope in this bleak landscape it is that there is a peace process — albeit a faltering one —

in place already. A draft of a sophisticated peace plan, dating from 2005, promises both sides much of what

they want: a return of Azerbaijani displaced persons and restoration of lost Azerbaijani lands in exchange for

security for the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh and a promise of self-determination and perhaps, eventually,

independence.

What is missing in the South Caucasus is the political will to engage with a plan that involves doing a deal with

the enemy. What is missing internationally is the admission that there is no low-cost option to resolve the

conflict. Over the past week, mediators helped to broker a new cease-fire. But Nagorno-Karabakh requires

more than just shuttle diplomacy. A resolution requires a complex multination peacekeeping operation and

coordination between the United States, Russia and France to be joint guarantors of a peace deal.

That is a big challenge, but one dwarfed by the prospect of a new catastrophic war in the Caucasus. The big

powers could start by convening a peace conference in Minsk, Belarus, first called for in 1992, but never even

attempted. That would send the message that the world finally takes this conflict seriously — before it is too

late.

Fighting in the Caucasus: Implications for the Wider Region

By Brenda Shaffer

Policy Watch, April 7, 2016

http://washin.st/23fbEKn

As Moscow continues its pattern of fomenting conflict and carving up countries in its near-abroad, the United

States and regional players such as Iran, Israel, and Turkey will once again feel the ripples.

This week, mediators will reportedly attempt to defuse the recent outbreak of intense conflict in Nagorno-

Karabakh. Whether or not the fragile, uncertain ceasefire lasts, the implications of the fighting go far beyond

the damage to homes and lives in Armenia and Azerbaijan. The conflict zone lies at the epicenter of Russia,

Iran, and Turkey, directly affecting both Moscow's regional ambitions and U.S. policy and standing in the

greater Caspian region. If the hostilities continue to widen, they could also create threats for neighboring

Turkey and Iran, and also for Israel's activity in the region and closer to home.

BACKGROUND

The conflict over the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region first emerged on the eve of the Soviet breakup.

Located in the Republic of Azerbaijan, the region is mainly populated by ethnic Armenians. Following the

Soviet collapse, the new states of Armenia and Azerbaijan fought a war for control of Nagorno-Karabakh in

1992-1994, leaving over 30,000 dead and creating close to a million refugees. The bulk of the refugees

(860,000) are Azerbaijanis -- Armenia captured not only Nagorno-Karabakh, but seven additional districts of

Azerbaijan, driving residents out of the once densely populated region.

Although the international community still regards Nagorno-Karabakh as Azerbaijan's territory, Armenia refers

to it as a separate legal entity. Yet no UN member recognizes the independence of this "entity" -- Armenian

regular forces have long been deployed there, and no border regime separates it from Armenia proper.

Moreover, they use the same currency and postal system, and the current and previous presidents of Armenia

hail from Nagorno-Karabakh. In a 2015 speech, President Serzh Sargsyan called the region "an inseparable

part of Armenia." That said, authorities in the self-proclaimed "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" do not always fully

align with their counterparts in Yerevan, and they maintain some institutional autonomy.

Meanwhile, Moscow has been selling weapons to both sides. The several billion dollars in Russian arms

delivered to Baku in recent years have significantly strengthened Azerbaijan's position, making Armenia even

more dependent on implicit Russian security guarantees. The Kremlin has stronger influence in Armenia than

in most of the former Soviet republics due to its significant military presence there and its control of major

energy and other infrastructure.

CURRENT CLASHES

While Baku and Yerevan blame each other for the outburst of renewed fighting on April 2 -- one of the most

extreme eruptions since the first war ended in 1994 -- Moscow is the major benefactor of the escalation. The

fighting began immediately after the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan attended the Nuclear Security

Summit in Washington, where Secretary of State John Kerry met with each leader separately to discuss

potential resolution of the long-simmering conflict, among other issues. Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliyev's

visit was a milestone: this was his first trip to Washington since becoming president in 2003. In addition to

Kerry, he held bilateral meetings with Vice President Joe Biden, Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker, and

others. The visit promised to strengthen cooperation between Washington and Baku after two years of rocky

relations.

The timing of the new hostilities -- on the heels of the Washington visit and while Aliyev was out of the country -

- strongly indicates that Moscow was the instigator. If so, the message is clear: Washington should stay out of

Russia's backyard, and Baku should think twice about strengthening its relationship with the United States.

Moreover, despite attempting to claim the role of peacemaker, Moscow has publicly blamed Azerbaijan for the

fighting. A spokesman for the Russian-led Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) declared that "the

current Azerbaijani actions led to the escalation of the situation and the conflict." Russian government-

sponsored media have echoed this message, with the official news agency TASS hinting that the fighting could

lead Moscow to recognize Nagorno-Karabakh as an independent state -- bringing to mind the outcome of the

2008 war between Georgia and Russia, when Moscow recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia as

independent countries.

RUSSIA'S PATTERN OF AGGRESSION

The similarities between the previous major flare-up in July 2014 and the current clash are striking. That

summer, President Vladimir Putin pressured a number of bordering states to refrain from joining the EU-

sponsored Eastern Partnership Agreement and instead join Russia's Eurasian Customs Union. After Armenia

complied, Putin sought a similar agreement with Azerbaijan, but President Aliyev refused his offer. Days later,

while Aliyev and his defense minister were out of the country, an unprecedented escalation took place in four

spots along the line of contact between Armenians and Azerbaijanis, including in areas not adjacent to

Nagorno-Karabakh, leading to over forty deaths on both sides.

This track record is especially troubling because each former Soviet state that attempted to strengthen ties with

the West over the past decade lost major pieces of territory to Russia. Georgia lost Abkhazia and South

Ossetia following its bid to join NATO in 2008. And after Ukraine and Moldova joined the Eastern Partnership

Agreement, Russia took Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine from Kiev, and reinforced its deployments in the

Moldavian region of Transnistria, which it now occupies.

IMPLICATIONS FOR TURKEY, IRAN, AND ISRAEL

The current escalation could also draw in actors beyond the Caucasus, including in the Middle East. As

mentioned previously, Armenia shares a close alliance with Russia, which has forces deployed in the country

and runs its air defenses. Moscow recently increased its forces in the Armenian town of Gyumri on the border

with Turkey, which shares a military alliance with Azerbaijan. While Ankara and Moscow will likely take steps to

prevent direct clashes between their forces (see PolicyWatch 2599, "Is Armenia the Next Turkish-Russian

Flashpoint?" http://washin.st/1UDUelW), the close proximity of these rivals at a time of active combat between

their allies could lead to unintentional contact.

Iran likewise borders Armenia and Azerbaijan and is in close proximity to the lines of contact. Thus far it has

expressed neutral calls for "restraint" on both sides, and Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif has offered

to serve as mediator. Despite its common Shiite Muslim background with Azerbaijan, Tehran generally does

not share any special solidarity with the country. Since the latest fighting began, a mortar shell has fallen into

Iranian territory, underscoring how easily the conflict could widen.

The unfolding situation also poses new security challenges for Israel, which is a major supplier of arms to

Azerbaijan. Given that these arms are likely being used in the current fighting, Russia could pressure Israel to

abstain from sending spare parts and further supplies. Moscow successfully applied similar pressure during the

2008 war with Georgia; granted, Russian troops are not directly involved this time, but the Kremlin now has

more means at its disposal to coerce the Israelis given its ongoing intervention in neighboring Syria.

MORE FIGHTING IS LIKELY

A formal ceasefire was declared on April 5 after Moscow hosted the chiefs of staff of Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Mediators from various countries are now jockeying to play a role in further negotiations. Russian prime

minister Dmitry Medvedev discussed the issue with the Armenian leadership in Yerevan today and will travel to

Baku tomorrow (both visits were scheduled prior to the latest outbreak).

Yet both sides have reasons to continue the fight. Azerbaijan was able to change the status quo on the ground

in its favor over the past week, so Armenia will want to restore its previous positions; Azerbaijani forces will in

turn challenge any such operations. At best, mediators will probably achieve a mere timeout until the next

round of fighting.

Brenda Shaffer is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council's Global Energy Center and an adjunct professor at

Georgetown University's Center for Eurasian, Russian, and East European Studies. She has also provided

energy research and analysis to various governments and companies, including in Azerbaijan and the wider

Caspian region.

Dutch Voters Reject European Union Pact With Ukraine

RFE/RL, April 7, 2016

http://www.rferl.org/content/dutch-voters-solidly-reject-european-union-pact-with-ukraine-nonbinding-

referendum/27659278.html

The Dutch government says it may have to reconsider ratifying a treaty establishing closer European Union

ties with Ukraine after a strong majority of voters rejected an Association Agreement in a nonbinding

referendum.

Dutch broadcasters NOS and RTL reported that turnout for the referendum among the Netherlands' 13 million

voters was 32.2 percent -- above the 30 percent minimum level that makes the vote valid -- with all of the votes

having been counted and reported by municipalities to the national news agency ANP's election service.

Official results will not be known until April 12. The preliminary results show that among those who voted, 61.1

percent rejected the pact with Ukraine and 38.1 percent supported it, according to the ANP count.

European Council President Donald Tusk said he was waiting for the Dutch government's conclusions on the

referendum.

"I will continue to be in contact with Prime Minister [Mark] Rutte on this, as I need to hear what conclusions he

and his government will draw from the referendum and what his intentions will be," Tusk said in a statement on

April 7.

"The EU-Ukraine agreement continues to be applied. The EU-Ukraine agreement has already been ratified by

the other 27 member states."

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko remained upbeat despite the setback. "We will continue our movement

towards the European Union," he told reporters in Tokyo on April 7.

Poroshenko downplayed the importance of the referendum but said Ukraine should "take it into consideration."

Dutch Foreign Minister Bert Koenders said the result of the referendum was "an important political fact."

"It means that the ratification [of the agreement] cannot proceed as was expected before," he said late on April

6. "So we have to take a step-by-step approach. Now we have to talk within the [Dutch] cabinet, with the

parliament, with our European partners, also with the Ukraine, to see what the consequences of this decision

might be."

French President Francois Hollande has said France and Germany will continue to back the EU-Ukraine pact

despite the outcome of the Dutch referendum.

"As far as Europe is concerned, it will implement what it can of the association [agreement]," Hollande told a

news conference after a meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on April 7 in Metz in eastern France.

Ukrainian Ambassador to the Netherlands Oleksandr Harin, speaking late on April 6, said he was taking

positives from the referendum's outcome.

"I am looking at it from the other [angle] -- 70 percent [of Dutch voters did] not [come to] the poll and were not

participating in the vote," he said. "So, if we look at the situation from this point of view, we can say that 70

percent are not satisfied with the way the campaign [has been run in the run-up to] the referendum."

Dutch Prime Minister Rutte said in a televised reaction that "if the turnout is above 30 percent, with such a

large margin of victory for the 'No' camp, you can't just go ahead and ratify the treaty."

That sentiment was shared by Diederik Samsom, leader of the Labor Party, the junior partner in the governing

coalition. "We can't ratify the treaty in this fashion," he said.

Anti-EU activists who pushed for the referendum declared victory.

"It looks like the Dutch people said NO to the European elite and NO to the treaty with Ukraine," tweeted

popular anti-EU lawmaker Geert Wilders. "The beginning of the end of the EU."

Wilders said the Dutch referendum could act as an incentive for British voters to reject the EU in a referendum

scheduled for June.

"So it could be today that it is the start of the end of the European Union as we know it today, and that would

be very good," he said.

The vote highlighted a deep-rooted skepticism about the Netherlands' place in Europe and the EU's expansion

to the east, incorporating ex-Soviet states and allies in recent years.

Exactly what will happen to the agreement with Ukraine now remains unclear.

The deal has already been ratified by 27 other EU states, and was being provisionally implemented even in the

Netherlands after being approved last year by both houses of Parliament.

Rutte said he would not be rushed into stopping implementation. He said he will discuss the voting results with

his cabinet, the EU, and the Dutch parliament before deciding what to do -- a process he said could take "days

if not weeks."

For the EU, options for dealing with the Dutch vote include leaving the agreement with Ukraine in force

provisionally, or drafting exemption clauses for the Netherlands in the agreement.

The rejection deals a harsh blow to Ukraine at a time when its shaky government already faces a political

crisis.

It also builds on the turbulent history of such pro-EU efforts in Ukraine, as it was former President Viktor

Yanukovych's refusal to sign such an agreement in late 2013 that led to violent street protests and his eventual

ouster.

Yanukovych's downfall in turn led to Russia's annexation of Crimea, and a drawn-out conflict with Moscow-

backed separatists in eastern Ukraine that continues to dominate Ukraine's economic and political life.

The Kremlin is sure to celebrate the "no" vote, which is likely to at least slow Ukraine's march toward closer ties

with the EU.

Dutch opponents of the pact with Ukraine said the bloc shouldn't be dealing with Ukraine's leadership because

of widespread corruption in the country.

Just this week, leaked documents revealed Ukrainian President Poroshenko moved his candy business that

made him wealthy into an offshore holding company in 2014, possibly depriving the country of millions of

dollars in tax revenues. Poroshenko says the move was necessary to put his assets into a blind trust when he

took office.

Dutch supporters of the Ukraine deal argued it would provide the EU with the benefit of increased trade and

stability while helping Ukraine in its battle against corruption and efforts to improve human rights.

Ukrainiian ambassador Harin called the agreement a "plan for reforms which Ukraine has to execute in order

to become a really civilized, liberal democracy with a socially oriented market economy."

Because it strengthens the hand of anti-EU forces, the vote will reverberate well beyond Ukraine. EU

Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker had warned earlier this year that a "No" vote "would open the

door to a great continental crisis."

The implications of Dutch vote to reject Ukraine-EU pact

Timothy Ash

Kyiv Post, April 7, 2016

http://www.kyivpost.com/article/opinion/op-ed/timothy-ash-the-implications-of-dutch-vote-to-reject-

ukraine-eu-pact-411500.html

I think it is all too easy to dismiss the Dutch referendum rejecting the AA/DCFTA (Association Agreement and

Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Act) with Ukraine as meaningless and insignificant given that the Dutch

government are not obliged to abide by the result and not ratify the AA/DCFTA.

Others might argue that the vote was also hardly representative with just 32% bothering to turn up and vote.

And, finally, European Union officials have indicated that even if the Dutch fail to ratify, the AA/DCFTA remains

in force.

But already the Dutch government have made clear that they will abide by the result - all Western governments

these days are much more mindful of being seen to listen to the "will of the people" through democratic

elections.

And European Commission officials appear unclear what the technical implications of this are - how can the

AA/DCFTA be applied everywhere in the EU aside from the Netherlands?

Aside from the technical implications of this no vote which appear unclear, I do think this vote has very

profound long-term implications for Europe on so many different levels, and I attempt to sketch some of these

out below:

1 - Europe's elites detached from people

First I guess it just further shows how far Europe's elites are detached from their populations. All too eager to

embark on elite political projects, e.g. even including the single currency, without thinking through all the

implications and popular opinion. This is another vote against the establishment, and I guess affirms the crisis

at the heart of democracy which we are now seeing across the West.

The low turnout perhaps also reflects the disillusion with politics and the political process in the West, which is

also very worrying.

2 - Dutch not as liberal as we assumed

Second, and likely related to the point above, it underscores the changing political mood in Europe, the rise of

xenophobia which has come with mass immigration, and recent floods of migration. These flows are creating

seismic changes in political views and also perhaps challenging European and Western values which hitherto

were taken as given/sacrosanct. The Dutch like to view themselves as "liberal" but maybe this vote reveals that

they are not as liberal as we assumed, and opinion and values are changing, and rapidly.

It is perhaps tempting to argue that this vote reflects an ignorance of what the AA/DCFTA was about on the

part of the Dutch electorate - it was not a green light to Ukraine's EU accession, far from it. But I think this vote

was not about Ukraine specifically but a Dutch vote of frustration about the EU, enlargement and immigration.

This vote was about more than Ukraine, but the state of Europe itself.

3 - Blow to Ukrainian reform process

Third, this is nevertheless a bitter blow to the reform process in Ukraine. Remember that this vote was never a

vote on Ukrainian EU membership - the EU has never given Ukraine any real EU membership perspective. I

would argue that that is part of Ukraine's problem, as it needed an EU reform anchor to force its elites to

change, as was the case with other Emerging European countries which were told that if they abided by the

terms of the Copenhagen Treaty on enlargement from 1994 they would be allowed to join - the likes of Poland,

Hungary, Slovenia, Slovakia, et al, which have made truly remarkable change over the past two decades and

are now European and full EU members.

Reformers in Kyiv might well now find it that much more difficult to sell painful political and economic reforms to

their own populations given that the Dutch have basically closed the door to them in terms of any European

perspective, in the broadest of terms. The door has been closed, the draw bridge raised.

Actually Europeans might think that they are helping Ukraine, and are pouring huge resources and funds into

Ukraine. They are not. Loans extended have to be paid back. This vote is a wake up call that Europe has

actually done very little in reality to support EuroMaidan Revolution and the reform process in Ukraine. Talk is

cheap, Ukraine needs real and meaningful support, and a real European reform anchor and perspective. This

vote is a further step back from that.

4 - Blow to other EU aspirants

Fourth, this is not only a blow to Ukraine, but any other country in the queue for EU accession, many of whom

are already halfway down the runway, including Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania, Serbia, Macedonia,

Moldova, Georgia, Montenegro, Turkey and Kosovo. If the Dutch voted on the Ukrainian AA/DCFTA which is

not a green light for its EU accession, then surely one has to assume that the Dutch and others will hold similar

referenda on actual EU membership for these other countries. In effect this vote just closed the door, de facto,

to further waves of EU enlargement. So again, the reform anchor in these countries just weakened. And if, as I

do, you think the single biggest achievement of the EU over the past close to 60 years was that through the

real and meaningful prospect of accession, it forced political reconciliation and ensured peace, security,

stability and prosperity in a Europe, this anchor has just been pulled. This vote now raises serious questions

about whether the enduring peace in the Balkans will last, why should Turkey continue with peace talks over

Cyprus? By this vote, Europe just got much less secure and and it got more dangerous - and remember that

the Dutch and other European countries still have peacekeepers deployed across the region. They may well

now need more. Indeed, it is again incredible that this vote came from the Dutch who surely still should have

painful memories of conflict in the region after events in Srebrenica, watched on by Dutch UN peacekeepers.

5- Risks of Brexit remain high

Fifth, the Dutch no vote underscores the anti-establishment vent now appearing in Western politics. I think this

plays to the Brexit camp in the UK, with the June vote now appearing knife edge, with the risks of Brexit in my

view not suitably priced by the market.

6 - Undermines alliances

Sixth, this vote likely undermines Euroatlantic alliances, and particular NATO. From a US perspective, why

should it pay for Europe's defence when the Dutch and others are unwilling to politically, and economically,

support US strategic interests in places like Ukraine? This will play to the mantra of Donald Trump in the US

elections that Europe is a mess and not worth supporting.

7 - Huge victory for Moscow

Seventh, this vote was a huge victory for Moscow, which is eager to weaken Euroatlantic integration, the EU

and NATO, with Putin's big picture vision of redrawing the European post War and post Soviet security and

political architecture. He will be encouraged to work more effectively on this front, and Russia will likely support

Brexit, and other centrifugal forces working in Europe on the right and left. Short term Russia will likely ease

back on military intervention in Ukraine, assuming that after Brexit, and the US elections the West will offer

Russia significant concessions and a new security settlement in Europe.

It is hard to see any positive side to his vote.

Analysis: Choice of Jewish PM undercuts long-held accusations of state anti-Semitism in Ukraine

By Sam Sokol

Jerusalem Post, April 5, 2016

http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Analysis-Choice-of-Jewish-PM-undercuts-long-held-accusations-of-

state-anti-Semitism-in-Ukraine-450262

A prominent Jewish politician in Ukraine has been tapped to replace the embattled and increasingly unpopular

Arseniy Yatsenyuk as prime minister, a move that does much to undercut persistent Russian propaganda over

the past several years aimed at painting Kiev as being ruled by a junta of Nazis and fascists.

Late last month, President Petro Poroshenko announced that he was considered parliamentary speaker

Volodymyr Groysman to take the job as part of a far-ranging government shakeup that this week saw him

dismiss Prosecutor- General Viktor Shokin and enter into a new coalition with the People’s Front and

Batkivshchyna parties.

The choice of Groysman has not been without controversy, with the Kyiv Post calling the Jewish politician a

“loyalist” who “has pushed for legislation that plays into the hands of corrupt politicians, including bills reducing

the anti-corruption prosecutor’s independence, exempting corrupt officials from responsibility for fraudulent

property declarations, and allowing party leaders to get rid of elected members.”

As for the Jewish community, they showed little excitement when he was chosen as parliamentary speaker two

years ago. At the time, sources within the community confided in the Post that they did not believe that his

appointment would have any significant impact in on Jewish issues.

The ascension of the former Mayor of Vinnytsia, Regional Development, Construction and Communal Living

Minister and Deputy Prime Minister was proof that Ukraine has become a more open and multi-ethnic country

in which “every person can get any position independent of his ethnic origin,” Eduard Dolinsky, the Executive

Director of the Ukrainian Jewish Committee, a lobbying organization, said at the time.

“I think that it is just another proof that Ukraine is a normal multi-cultural society,” he told the Post.

There is no reason to believe that anything has changed since 2014 but the matter still bears significance due

to the propaganda barrage against Ukraine launched by Moscow in the wake of the 2013-2014 Maidan

Revolution, which deposed a pro-Russian President.

The Kremlin took pains to paint Ukraine as an anti-Semitic state abusing its Jewish population while as

recently as last December, Poroshenko has lobbed back allegations of Russian state anti-Semitism.

And while parliament under Groysman has passed laws honoring members of nationalist militias which

western historians have stated collaborated with the Nazis (allegations denied by Ukrainians) and some of

Kiev’s forces fighting Russian backed separatists have been linked to neo-Nazi groups, violent anti-Semitic

incidents remain rare and the government has repeatedly promised to defend its Jewish citizens.

In the end, the fact that a Jew can be nominated to serve as Prime Minister without his Judaism being a major

issue shows just how far Ukraine has come.

The West Is Enabling Graft in Ukraine

By Oliver Bullough

New York Times, April 7, 2016

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/08/opinion/the-west-is-enabling-graft-in-ukraine.html

Here in Ukraine, one revelation from the Panama Papers has attracted more attention than any other: In

August 2014, when Ukrainian soldiers were trapped under artillery bombardments during the battle of Ilovaisk,

President Petro Poroshenko, a candy magnate, was setting up a corporate vehicle in the British Virgin Islands.

While young men were dying to defend Ukraine, their commander-in-chief was looking for ways to deny

Ukraine taxes from his own business empire.

But the Mossack Fonseca files have an even bigger story to tell: Generations of Ukrainian politicians, dating

back to the earliest days of independence, have kept assets offshore. In 1998 — around the time some of the

soldiers killed in Ilovaisk were probably starting school — the company was already suspected of arranging the

affairs of Ukrainian politicians.

In 2006, a court in California sentenced Pavlo Lazarenko, Ukraine’s prime minister in 1996-97, to nine years in

prison for misusing his post to extort tens of millions of dollars from Ukrainians. By the time he was released in

2012, hundreds of millions of dollars more had been stolen from Ukraine.

It’s difficult to chart the precise dimensions of this corruption. It is a submerged leviathan, and small bits of it

are only occasionally exposed by brave Ukrainian investigators or forensic probes from abroad.

The Anticorruption Action Center, Ukraine’s most prominent anti-graft NGO, has found that prices for H.I.V.

drugs were inflated by more than 27 percent in 2013 because of middlemen scamming the health ministry. In

an investigation of the food-processing company Archer Daniels Midland, the U.S. Department of Justice

discovered that the firm sometimes couldn’t secure VAT repayments in Ukraine unless it paid up to 20 percent

of the total in kickbacks to officials.

Corruption on such a scale, economy-wide, would cripple any state, let alone one as fragile as this one. In

1991, Ukraine’s G.D.P. was about two-thirds of Poland’s G.D.P.; now, it is less than one-quarter. Corruption

has ruined this country, dooming a generation of Ukrainians to poor education, unsafe streets and blighted

careers.

If health care had been adequately funded, perhaps Ukraine wouldn’t have one of the world’s fastest-growing

H.I.V. epidemics. If Ukrainian leaders had not been so dire, perhaps there wouldn’t have been a revolution, let

alone two. If the country had not been so asset-stripped, perhaps its troops could have defended Crimea from

Russian annexation.

The blame doesn’t lie with unscrupulous Ukrainians alone: There wouldn’t be this much corruption without

offshore centers like Panama. If you steal money, you need somewhere to launder it; otherwise it’s useless.

Since the 2014 uprising that drove out President Viktor F. Yanukovych — in what Ukrainians call the

“Revolution of Dignity” — Western politicians have lined up to offer Kiev moral and technical advice on battling

both corruption and Russia. They have frozen the assets of Mr. Yanukovych and his intimates. They have

imposed sanctions on Kremlin insiders, including close advisers of Vladimir V. Putin.

When Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. addressed the Ukrainian Parliament in December, he came close to

lecturing his audience: “You cannot name me a single democracy in the world where the cancer of corruption

is prevalent.” Yet every time a Western politician makes that kind of speech, one wonders: Where exactly do

they think the dirty money goes?

The cash isn’t in Ukraine. It’s not in those tax havens either. If Panama kept what gets routed there, it would be

one of the richest places on earth. If even a fraction of the money stolen from Ukrainians stayed on the Isle of

Man, the place would not be the dour, grey lump of rock that it is.

Offshore jurisdictions are only pipelines, conduits, entrepôts. Money pours through them, but it does not stay,

except for the fraction that pays the lawyers and the accountants who handle the deals — the plumbers who

keep the system running.

If you’ve gone to the trouble of stealing millions of dollars, you want to keep them somewhere more secure

than Panama. You want the money in Manhattan, Zurich or London. You want it somewhere with excellent

hospitals, top-ranking schools, A-list celebrities and world-class events. You want it somewhere you can enjoy

yourself.

Ukraine is trying to battle this system. In late 2014 it passed a law requiring Ukrainian companies to declare

who really owns or controls them. No more anonymous holding shells registered offshore. “This is a crucial tool

for revealing the real links between politics and business,” said Daria Kaleniuk, co-founder of the Anticorruption

Action Center.

Other countries are following suit: Britain, Norway and Denmark plan to require companies to disclose ultimate

ownership, so-called beneficial ownership. As of June, the people who have significant control of companies in

Britain will have to be named on a public register. Prime Minister David Cameron is pushing for Britain’s

overseas territories to require the same. The U.S. Treasury Department is considering similar regulations, after

a pilot project to identify secret buyers of luxury real estate in Manhattan and Miami.

These laws cannot be put in place fast enough, because the main enabler of corruption in Ukraine isn’t

Mossack Fonseca, or even Panama; it’s the West. As long as the world’s kleptocrats are allowed to use

anonymous corporate vehicles to buy yachts, penthouses and mansions, lawyers will continue to set up those

vehicles in tax havens from Delaware to the Seychelles.

If Western countries start requiring transparency about corporate ownership, crooks will stop stashing their

money in the West, because they will no longer be able to hide their true identities. This will let daylight into

Western economies, and send those who prefer the dark scurrying elsewhere.

Moscow Jews Could Teach Us About Joyful Judaism

By Rabbi Shira Koch Epstein

NY Jewish Week, 04/07/2016

http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial-opinion/opinion/moscow-jews-could-teach-us-about-joyful-

judaism

Last week I found myself sitting in a hip, subterranean Jewish bar listening to a dynamic young man who

founded a successful, international Jewish arts festival. He apologized that his voice was a little weak—not

because of an early-spring cold, but because he had just undergone brit milah.

I wasn’t in the East Village or Williamsburg. I was in Moscow. Like so many of his Russian Jewish peers, the

young man only realized in his later teen years that both his parents are Jewish. Recently married and

contemplating starting a family, his circumcision affirmed his strong Jewish identity.

I grew up in the 1980s, stirred by the plight of persecuted Soviet Jews. When the Iron Curtain fell, we

celebrated, shelving our refusenik pairing bracelets and rolling up our posters. After bringing the majority of

Jews to Israel and North America, we felt that our job was done. I never expected to witness a Jewish cultural

renaissance in Russia. But now having just returned from Moscow, I realize that we still have a lot of work to

do, not in ending persecution, but in sharing our identities and love for Judaism.

My trip was a rabbinic mission to Moscow comprised of a group of New York rabbis and UJA-Federation of

New York CEO Eric Goldstein. Peering behind the curtains in this new Russia, we saw that Soviet-era subway

terminals are still works of art, and anti-Semitism is at one of the lowest levels found today in the world. Here

we discovered more than 250,000 Jews thriving and building their own Jewish identity.

In that Moscow bar, we sat with a dozen young, creative, Russian-born Jewish non-profit entrepreneurs who

have started independent Jewish projects that received grassroots grants from UJA. This was the future we

had prayed for when we rallied and fought to free Soviet Jewry. Tears of joy swelled as we heard about music

and film festivals, bat mitzvah classes, Purim Balls, disability rights programs, and camps.

The stories we heard echoed the same refrain: 70 years of Soviet rule retained a family’s Jewish nationality,

but erased the Jewish identity. As one counselor trained by the Jewish Agency for Israel said, “My parents

didn’t teach me; I am teaching them. In my family, Jewish identity starts with me.” This was the future our

Jewish community envisioned when funding these programs – a rebirth of Jewish opportunity and potential.

This was evident as we walked through a dual-language Hebrew/Russian Reggio-Emilia Jewish preschool at

the Nikitskaya JCC, as well as in a project where young adults and teens visit homebound Jewish seniors

cared for by JDC-funded Chesed organizations, recording the testimonials of their elders and learning to cook

their childhood recipes.

It is evident in a songbird-voiced woman singing Yiddish Klezmer music; a bat mitzvah class for girls; a

Chabad participant writing Russian lyrics to old Jewish liturgical melodies; upscale kosher restaurants in

shopping malls.

Later, I spoke to a boy who looked just like a gifted, defiant, self-proclaimed atheist I once trained for bar

mitzvah in New York. As I brought Jewish philosophy and Einstein to our lessons, that American student had

challenged, “Rabbi, you say Judaism is a gift. Why is it so important to you that I receive it?” I turned from

philosophy to chasidut. Reb Nachman teaches that the Jewish people are like the letters of the Torah: each

one of us has an important role to play, and the whole cannot be understood if the expression of even one

letter is missing. Our tradition is a gift that we are handed; in unwrapping it, each of us reveals a new gem that

otherwise might not have been available to our people and our world.

But there was more in Moscow than just the success of programs and grants and courage and faith. Here in

America, we often take the gift of Jewish tradition for granted. We don’t stop to enjoy the full potential and

meaning of tradition and how it can add layers of depth and meaning to our lives. In Moscow, I saw that our

Russian brothers and sisters are accepting, unwrapping, owning, and joyfully sharing the gems of Judaism with

each other.

Perhaps now it is we who need them, to help us reconnect and experience the joy of seeing the gift of Judaism

and Jewishness well loved and well-used.

As we make good on our pledges of “Next Year in Jerusalem,” it might be time to consider flights with a

stopover in Moscow.

Rabbi Shira Koch Epstein is executive director, 14th Street Y.

Putin Says Panama Papers Part Of Western Plot To Destabilize Russia

RFE/RL, April 7, 2016

http://www.rferl.org/content/panama-papers-putin-comments-destabilize-russia/27660820.html

Russian President Vladimir Putin mocked the massive leak of financial and legal documents known as the

Panama Papers that reportedly implicate several people close to him, saying the project was part of a Western

government campaign to destabilize Russia.

In his first remarks since news organizations on April 3 began publishing articles based on the leak, Putin

denied having any links to offshore accounts detailed in the trove of materials revealing vast networks of shell

companies, some apparently being used to hide sizable wealth.

"Our opponents are above all concerned by the unity and consolidation of the Russian nation, our multinational

Russian people," he told an April 7 forum for local and regional journalists in St. Petersburg. "They are

attempting to rock us from within, to make us more obedient."

Among the names reportedly appearing in the documents is that of cellist Sergei Roldugin, an old friend of

Putin's and reportedly a godfather to one of his daughters. Media reports on the Panama Papers have said

Roldugin holds hundreds of millions of dollars in offshore assets.

Putin said he was "proud" of Roldugin.

"[Roldugin] has spent nearly all the money he has earned on buying musical instruments abroad and he

brought them to Russia," he was quoted by the state-run TASS news agency as saying.

"We always welcome it when somebody does things like that, but he has gone much further," Putin added. "I

know that he has spent several months already on efforts to have the instruments registered as property of

government-financed institutions."

Putin himself is not named in the some 11.5 million documents from the Panamanian law firm Mossack

Fonseca, according to news organizations that have accessed the materials, a point the Russian president

stressed.

"Your humble servant is not in them, so there is nothing to talk about," he said. "However, there is a specific

purpose in it. What have they done? They have produced an information product. They have dug up some of

my acquaintances and friends. I will talk about them too. They've poked here and there and mashed something

up."

The Kremlin frequently criticizes what it portrays as a systematic campaign by Western governments and

media outlets to undermine Russia.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov addressed the Panama Papers days before the reports were published

after being contacted by media outlets for comment. He claimed that an effort was under way to taint Putin and

disrupt parliamentary elections scheduled for September.

At the St. Petersburg forum, Putin suggested that the U.S. government may have been behind the leak, and he

made reference to an April 6 tweet by WikiLeaks, the organization that orchestrated the massive leak of U.S.

State Department cables in 2010.

WikiLeaks suggested the U.S. government was involved because one of the Panama Papers' partners -- the

Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) -- has received funding from the U.S. Agency for

International Development (USAID), among other sources of financing.

"WikiLeaks has shown that behind, let's say, [the Panama Papers issue] there are certain U.S. officials and

agencies," Putin said.

Putin's comments also reflect a tacit Kremlin endorsement of WikiLeaks and its controversial founder, Julian

Assange, who has hosted a talk show on the Kremlin-funded TV channel RT, previously known as Russia

Today.

Moscow has also given sanctuary to another well-known leaker of U.S. government documents, Edward

Snowden.

In Washington, U.S. officials have denied involvement in the Panama Papers leak.

The Sarajevo-based OCCRP has denied any government involvement as well, saying USAID was only one

source of funding and that receiving government money was important for doing projects in regions where few

institutional donors exist.

"The idea that OCCRP is not an independent media outlet simply because it has taken some government

money, while appealing to the world view of some, is simply not true," it said.

"We accept government money knowing this may affect our credibility with some, but we chose doing some

good over not existing at all," it added.

Russian state media outlets have largely ignored reports about Putin's associates identified in the Panama

Papers, focusing instead on the offshore dealings of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko that were revealed

in the leak.

Aleksei Navalny, the opposition leader who has investigated corruption among top Russian officials, ridiculed

Putin's defense of Roldugin. He noted that the cellist's offshore companies reportedly engaged in suspicious

commercial contracts that netted him substantial profits.

Putin is a "monstrous liar," Navalny wrote on his website on April 7.

In typically wry fashion, Putin opened his remarks joking about St. Petersburg's tumultuous role in Russian

history, pointing out the city was home to three revolutions: 1905, February 1917, and then October 1917,

when the Bolsheviks came to power.

"I hope the results of your efforts won't result in a fourth revolution," he said, "but just the opposite."

Russia and U.S. Near De Facto Alliance in Syria

By Henry Meyer

Bloomberg, April 6, 2016

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-06/raqqa-siege-in-sight-as-russia-u-s-proxies-plan-

pincer-move

Fighters allied with the U.S. and Russia, long on opposing sides in the Syrian civil war, are both zeroing in on

Islamic State’s center of gravity.

After routing the self-declared caliphate in the ancient city of Palmyra March 27 with the help of Russian air

power, the Syrian army’s next major objective is cutting off the terror group’s main supply route between Iraq

and Syria. Kurdish-led forces backed by the U.S. are also getting closer to ISIS’s capital of Raqqa, raising the

possibility of a pincer movement that would bring the U.S. and Russia into a de facto alliance. That would have

the effect of bolstering Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s hold on power, analysts say.

As the U.S. and Russia step up efforts to complete a peace deal to follow a partial cease-fire they brokered in

February, their interests are converging in fighting the radical Islamist group even amid American reluctance to

legitimize Assad. A successful campaign could prove critical for Europe as it grapples for a solution to rising

terrorist attacks and the biggest refugee crisis in Europe since World War II.

After Kremlin talks involving U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry late last month, “it’s clear that there is an

understanding, even if it’s not on paper, that we need to keep the cease-fire on track as well as coordinate our

actions” against Islamic State, said Viktor Ozerov, head of the defense committee in the Federation Council,

the upper house of Russia’s parliament.

Islamic State seized swathes of land in Iraq and Syria, which it’s used as a base to expand across the region

and plot terrorist bombings from Beirut to Paris and Brussels. The group’s territory has shrunk by more than a

quarter since the start of last year as the U.S. and later Russia backed an offensive against it, according to the

London-based research group IHS. Its sources of revenue have also been squeezed because of U.S.-led and

Russian airstrikes on its oil facilities since late 2015.

The Pentagon said March 29 that it welcomed Russia’s turn against Islamic State. After President Vladimir

Putin started an air campaign in Syria in September, the U.S. complained that 90 percent of the strikes were

hitting Assad opponents rather than Islamic State and the al-Qaeda-linked Nusra Front.

“They said initially that their primary goal was to go after ISIL in Syria, and they’re doing so now,” said

Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook, using an alternate acronym for Islamic State. He said the U.S. is

“accelerating” plans to move toward Raqqa and the Iraqi city of Mosul held by the terror group.

Challenging Cooperation

While Cook declined to comment on whether the U.S would welcome a Russian-Syrian push toward Raqqa,

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Oleg Syromolotov said military officials of the U.S. and Russia are discussing

“concrete aspects” of possible coordination to liberate the city.

A U.S. military official said it isn’t really feasible now to have coordination as the U.S.-led coalition and Russia

operate separately. However, things may change given the recent evolution in the Russian approach, the

official said.

The cease-fire in the five-year-old conflict between the Syrian government and Sunni rebels has held, enabling

the government to deploy more forces against Islamic State, said Columb Strack, a senior Middle East analyst

at IHS.

The Syrian army this week seized control of Qaryatain, a strategic town to the southwest of Palmyra. The push

is backed by the Russian air force, which has deployed attack helicopters in Syria to assist fighters on the

ground even after pulling out part of its warplanes in March. An attack to break the Islamic State siege of Deir

Ezzor, a strategic crossroads about 200 kilometers (125 miles) east of Palmyra across the desert, will probably

start within a few weeks, said Anton Lavrov, a independent Russian military analyst.

Ahead of the offensive, Syrian military transport planes escorted by Russian fighters on April 6 dropped 30

tons of aid by parachute to Deir Ezzor, where 200,000 people are trapped, the Defense Ministry in Moscow

said on its website.

Increased Pressure

“This increases pressure on the West to come to a compromise with Russia over President Assad’s future, and

to enter into some form of at least tacit cooperation with Assad’s forces, if only to de-conflict operations in the

air and on the ground as the respective forces converge,” IHS’s Strack said by e-mail.

In a sign of its reluctance, the U.S. rebuffed a Russian invitation to join its efforts to clear Palmyra of land

mines, which would have involved U.S. deployments to Syrian-held territory, U.S.-based risk consultancy

Stratfor reported March 30.

Outright collaboration with the Syrian government would further strain relations between the U.S. and its

regional allies including Saudi Arabia and Turkey, said Omar Lamrani, a senior military analyst at Stratfor.

While the Obama administration has softened its demands for Assad’s ouster, it continues to insist he can’t be

part of Syria’s political future.

Still, the “U.S. will find it increasingly hard to avoid direct engagement with Russia as rebel and government

forces they respectively support end up operating in the same battlefield against Islamic State,” Lamrani said

by phone.

Vladimir Putin and Russia’s balance sheet

By Kathrin Hille

Financial Times, April 7, 2016

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/cbeae0fc-f048-11e5-9f20-c3a047354386.html#axzz45AkzMfS

In the grip of its longest recession in 20 years, Russians seem resigned to the loss of the growth and prosperity

they had come to see as the hallmark of President Vladimir Putin’s rule. Although few are seeing their lives

unravel as completely as Yaroslav, many fear a return of an era they had hoped to have left behind: the

decade of recession, economic shocks and poverty that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

“Russians have come to highly appreciate the social wellbeing achieved since 2000, and therefore it will be

extremely painful to let that go. Now that we’ve had two years of crisis there’s no prospect of growth, people

[are] reminded of the 1990s,” says Tatyana Maleva, director of the Institute of Social Analysis and Forecasting

at the Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, Ranepa for short.

“We are forced to acknowledge that the social consequences of this crisis will be like the 1990s because we

are looking at an extended, lingering, grinding stagnation,” she says.

Striking a bargain

Economic growth had slowed sharply even before nosediving crude oil prices and the impact of western

sanctions, imposed over its role in the war in Ukraine, hit Russia in 2014. Even if the recession ends next year,

growth is unlikely to be much more than flat after years of shrinking investment and falling household incomes.

Most Russians believe that the worst of the economic hardship is still to come, according to the Russian Public

Opinion Research Centre (VCIOM), a pollster frequently used by the Kremlin, in a sign that despite Mr Putin’s

stubbornly high popularity ratings, the trust in his ability to deliver a better future is gone.

Mr Putin first became president on New Year’s Eve 1999, the moment a steep and extended climb in oil prices

gathered pace. It would continue for 14 years with only a brief interruption during the global crisis of 2008-09.

In what many observers call Mr Putin’s bargain with the Russian people, the country put up with growing

restrictions on political freedoms gained after the collapse of the Soviet Union in exchange for economic

wellbeing and stability. Growth during the Putin era lifted large parts of society out of poverty, helped Russians

become healthier and live longer, and created a taste for the spoils of middle-class life such as overseas travel.

By 2014, Russia’s per capita gross domestic product, based on purchasing power parity, had more than

doubled compared with 2000. Child mortality had halved, life expectancy increased by 12 per cent and the

proportion of young people enrolled in tertiary education soared from half to three-quarters.

So far, only a small part of these social gains, widely seen by Russian society as Mr Putin’s main

achievements, has been undone. “Indicators such as income levels and poverty levels [suggest] we have been

thrown back by six years — to where we were at the peak of the last economic crisis in 2009,” says Ms

Maleva. “Wages dropped by 10 per cent last year rather than by three times, as they did in the 1990s.”

Many people, however, feel that they are taking a much larger step back: a perception fuelled by the drawn-out

nature of the current crisis. Although 2015 was the first full year of economic contraction, incomes started

falling the year before and continue to do so. In February, real household income decreased by 7 per cent

compared with the same month a year earlier, the fastest drop since December 2014.

“The increase in incomes had given people the option to get better healthcare, better education, some foreign

travel, on their own expenditure,” says Birgit Hansl, the World Bank’s lead economist for Russia. “This

allowance for some extras was the real benefit of transformation but this extended slide in incomes increases

people’s reliance on legacy infrastructure again, and they realise how bad this legacy infrastructure still is.”

While Russians paid three-quarters of private health costs out of their own pockets in 2000, that proportion had

risen to more than 90 per cent by 2014.

“People had been avoiding public hospitals like the plague.” says Ms Hansl. “Now that they have to go back

there to save money, they may feel like they’re going back to the 1990s.”

Many try not to. According to data collected by Russian newspaper RBC, 44 per cent of urban middle-class

families spend as much on healthcare as they used to, a larger percentage than on any other item. Spending

cuts on food, clothing and alcohol by far outstrip those on medicine.

To avoid state hospitals and still stay within their budgets, Muscovites have become savvy. “Patients have

started avoiding expensive procedures such as arthroplasty [joint surgery],” says Muslim Muslimov, a doctor

and owner of Clinic No 1, a midsize private clinic in Moscow. “They are also getting second opinions from other

doctors more often. If in the past, five out of 10 patients who came for a consultation would get some kind of

treatment afterwards, now it’s only two or three.”

Russia

The new frugality is pushing private clinics into fierce competition. Over the past six months, a smattering of

deals websites especially for private clinics have sprung up. On sites like Medbooking or DocDoc, which

negotiate discounts with certain clinics, patients can find the lowest price for any given treatment in their city

that day.

Experts warn that such approaches will not be enough. Ms Maleva’s institute recently found that households

were still struggling to adapt to the economic crisis and failing to balance their budgets.

“The kind of socio-economic development Russia has seen in the past decade and a half has not created any

meaningful safety reserves,” Ms Maleva says.

The working poor

During Russia’s last economic downturn, a deep but short recession in 2009, the government cushioned the

fallout with social support handouts. Now, as plummeting oil prices cut deeply into budget revenues and more

than half of the country’s regions run deficits, there is not enough money for that.

According to Russia’s Federal Statistics Agency, 14 per cent of the population lived below the official poverty

line in 2015, up from 11 per cent in 2014, and the highest percentage since 2006. Sociologists from the

Russian Academy of Sciences, however, believe the situation is worse. They estimate that the number of poor

has doubled since 2013 to hit one-quarter of the population.

Moreover, despite many years of economic growth, the country has failed to prepare its pension system for a

rapidly ageing population. This year, the government raised pensions by 4 per cent to make up for rising

consumer prices, but as the inflation rate was more than double that last month, real pension incomes are

falling.

Pensioners already have disproportionately low incomes and account for one-third of the population. That

number is forecast to equal the size of the working-age population — which is shrinking by 1m a year — by

2030. Independent economists argue that as pensions are often a cornerstone of family income, up to half of

the population is at threat of sliding into poverty.

Others warn that if the economy continues to stagnate for five years or longer, more of the gains of the Putin

years will be lost, and Russian society may get closer to the mirror image of the 1990s with its social stress,

endemic alcoholism and falling life expectancy.

For many, the threat of poverty can emerge even if they have a job. As Russia’s working population is

shrinking, employers hold on to as many of their staff as they can even during crises, but they cut salaries,

send workers on unpaid holidays, delay wage payments or hold off on social allowances.

“Our people are being squeezed, and our entire region with them,” says Alexander Alexeenko, a retired truck

driver from Ivanovo, a rural region east of Moscow whose fortunes have been deteriorating alongside the

decline of its once huge textile plant. An estimated 70 per cent of the local working-age population is now

employed in the capital, mostly in low-end service jobs.

The 63-year-old Mr Alexeenko has gained some local notoriety by blasting the government for incompetent

economic policies. He also called for Mr Putin’s resignation at a recent rally of truck drivers, organised to

protest against an electronic road toll system run by a friend of the president.

Russia

According to VCIOM, public satisfaction with the economic and social policies of the government is at its lowest

level since 2011. In January, 32 per cent of respondents said they might participate if there were protests over

economic or social issues in their home town, the highest proportion measured by VCIOM during the Putin era.

The numbers have since levelled off but are still higher than at any time since autumn 2011 — when Moscow

saw mass demonstrations against Mr Putin.

In Togliatti, Yaroslav’s home town, the anger is palpable. A city of 712,000 people, 600 miles south-east of

Moscow, it has been hit hard by the decline of the vast Lada car plant around which it was built. Sergei, a 40-

year-old taxi driver, blames Mr Putin for the fact that his grocery shop went bankrupt a few years ago. “It’s

some kind of plot of his,” he fumes. “I don’t believe Putin, and I don’t believe anyone in government. In fact, I’ll

sell this country to anyone who wants it for 10 kopecks.”

Observers are, however, sceptical about the possibility of large-scale revolt. Mr Muslimov says he senses a

wariness among Muscovites, with fewer showing an interest in politics. Even those social segments and age

groups that are generally more likely to protest are holding back.

©Reuters

To Mr Alexeenko’s exasperation, neither the truck drivers nor the Ivanovo proletariat nor the Moscow middle

class are ready to transform their dissatisfaction into political action. “When Putin started, they all put great

hopes into him and they continued to believe in him for a long time. Now nobody believes any more,” he says.

“And yet, for the sake of so-called stability, people will put up with anything.”

Growing income gap

Mr Alexeenko, who calls himself a Communist and has been organising protests for more than 30 years, says

his compatriots should follow the example of French farmers who pour milk into the streets to protest at the

drop in prices for their produce. “But no. The people here, they bow, they buckle. I wouldn’t say they are afraid.

I think they just don’t believe that they can change something,” he says.

One factor is that the middle class, historically an agent of change in other societies, has barely grown in 16

years under Mr Putin. According to Ranepa data, it has been stable at about 20 per cent of Russian society

since 2000.

Moreover, despite the country’s overall wealth gains during the Putin years, the income gap has widened. The

country’s Gini coefficient — a widely recognised measure of inequality — rose from 37 in 2000 to 41.6 in 2012,

suggesting a less equal distribution of income, which sociologists believe would lessen the effect of political

empowerment.

Other forces vital to a vibrant economic future, such as scientists and multilingual talent, have left the country

amid rising political pressures and a weaker rouble .According to the Levada Center, Russia’s only

independent pollster, the most financially secure and best-educated are likely to emigrate.

“Some people fear social unrest. What I fear more is social apathy, infantilism, indifference,” says Ms Maleva.

“With a society like that, it will be even more difficult to lift ourselves out of crisis, and it will be impossible to

make a new start.”