Новини

Russian diplomats ordered expelled by Britain over a nerve agent attack on British soil are preparing to leave the country.

Russian media are reporting a moving van was seen outside the Russian Embassy in London on Tuesday.

Britain ordered the expulsion of the diplomats last week, blaming Russia for the poisoning ex-Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in the British city of Salisbury earlier this month.

Russia retaliated by expelling 23 British diplomats, who are expected to leave Moscow in the coming days.

Russia denies involvement in the poisoning.

British officials say father and daughter remain in critical condition. A policemen who was among the first to try to help the pair is still in hospital but is now in stable condition.

As the dispute between Britain and Russia continues to mount over the poisoning of Skripal, Russia’s Foreign Ministry came up with yet another theory about the origin of the toxin used.

Russia’s foreign ministry listed four European countries as the most likely source for the Novichok nerve agent British officials say was used. Topping the list was Britain itself — the other three, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Sweden.

British Foreign Minister Boris Johnson told his European Union counterparts at a meeting in Brussels Monday that Russia’s denial of its involvement in the poisoning on British soil is “a classic Russian strategy of trying to conceal the needle of truth in a haystack of lies and obfuscation.”
…

Two days before President George W. Bush gave the go-ahead for the U.S.-led invasion of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq — a ‘shock and awe’ assault that would topple the Iraqi autocrat — U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice called the Kremlin.

Russian government officials raised objections, offering eleventh-hour arguments against the invasion. “But even though we disapproved, we didn’t leak what Rice told us, or what was planned,” a Kremlin insider recalled.

He cited the conversation to illustrate how perilous relations are now in the wake of the British allegations that the Kremlin approved the nerve agent poisoning on British soil of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter, saying Russian leader Vladimir Putin now believes there’s a permanent fracture between Russia and the West, which can’t be repaired.

“Back then in 2003 even though relations between us were strained there remained a level of trust. There is none now — there is zero trust between Russia and the West,” he said. He flatly rejects British allegations of the Kremlin sanctioning a nerve-agent attack, saying “Putin is rational and had no reason to approve such a thing.”

The insider, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, occupied a senior position in Boris Yeltsin’s government and went on to become a core member of Vladimir Putin’s team. He remains connected but no longer fills an official position. His assessment of future relations between Russia and the West is bleak and reflects Putin’s own appraisal, auguring badly for any reset bid during Putin’s next term in office.

“He doesn’t think it is possible and he has given up trying.” The Kremlin insider pointed to the expansion of NATO eastwards to take in the former Communist Baltic states as a key moment in the fraying of relations.

Another flashpoint he said came with Western objections to Russia “establishing closer ties” with its former Soviet republics, which triggered a screaming argument face-to-face between Putin and Rice during a meeting in Sochi, in which the then U.S. Secretary of State insisted the former Soviet republics were now independent states and should determine their own future without what she saw as Russian intimidation.

The final blow came with the 2013-14 Maidan unrest that led to the ouster of a Putin ally, Ukraine’s Viktor Yanukovych. The Kremlin remains adamant that the Maidan protests were Western-fomented and not a popular uprising. “Now what? The Ukraine problem won’t be solved for a century, the conflict in the Donbas region will remain frozen and Crimea [the Ukrainian peninsula annexed four years ago by Moscow] will remain Russian. And so are we going to remain hostile to each other — two nuclear-armed nations with their missiles pointed at each other? That is very dangerous,” said the Kremlin insider.

The blaming of the West for the return of Cold War-like enmity, and the sense of pessimism, illustrates how difficult it will be to bridge a rift that’s widening rapidly and suggests relations with the United States and Europe are likely to remain sharply antagonistic as the Kremlin reacts unpredictably to what it perceives as a U.S.-led conspiracy to curb its influence, which has seen Russia re-emerge as a power broker in the Middle East.

Writing in Britain’s Daily Telegraph Tuesday about the Skripal poisoning British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson accused Russia of “resorting to its usual strategy of trying to conceal the needle of truth in a haystack of lies,” placing the nerve-agent attack on Sergei Skripal in the English town of Salisbury in a long line of hostile Russian acts towards the West.

“When I met my European counterparts in Brussels yesterday, what struck me most is that no one is fooled,” he wrote.”Just about every country represented around the table had been affected by malign or disruptive behavior.” On Monday, at the meeting referenced by Johnson, European Union foreign ministers expressed “unqualified solidarity” with Britain over the nerve-gas attack and called on Russia to provide urgent answers to questions raised by London. The ministers stopped short of endorsing Britain’s assessment that Moscow was responsible for the attack, but said they took the British conclusion “extremely seriously.”

Among other aggressive behavior, say Western officials, is meddling in Western elections and politics, notably the 2016 U.S. presidential race, and the funding and encouragement of disruptive far-right and far-left populist parties and mounting of social media campaigns as part of an effort to destabilize the European Union.

On March 15, the Trump administration blamed Russia for carrying out a series of cyberattacks targeting U.S. and European nuclear power plants and other utility infrastructure, including water, aviation, and critical manufacturing sectors. A security warning issued by the Department of Homeland Security and FBI characterized the cyber-attacks as a “multi-stage intrusion campaign by Russian government cyber actors who targeted small commercial facilities’ networks where they staged malware, conducted spear phishing, and gained remote access into energy sector networks.”

On Monday, the head of NATO warned Russia is increasingly prepared to use nuclear weapons, urging the alliance to strengthen its defensive capabilities and willingness to act in the face of what he argued was Moscow’s aggressiveness and unpredictable actions. Jens Stoltenberg said the Russian military was giving more weight again to nuclear weapons in its doctrines and exercises to accompany its development of hybrid warfare, such as the use of non-uniformed troops such as in Ukraine’s region of the Donbas.

The Kremlin insider, though, argues the escalating tension is coming deliberately from the West, and he warns both sides are becoming locked in confrontation. “Maybe all that can be done is to do smaller things together to try to re-create trust,” he says. “If we can’t do that maybe we will wake up one day and someone will have launched nuclear missiles,” he added.

Analysts and officials here also see little chance of a sharp reversal in the unfolding confrontation, arguing Kremlin officials see no trusted Western interlocutor to help de-escalate tensions. “It can’t be [German Chancellor] Merkel,” said a Russian official. “Putin and Merkel set each other’s teeth on edge,” he added. Some officials point to French President Emmanuel Macron as the most likely interlocutor.

The French president was the only Western leader to call Putin to congratulate him on his presidential election win Sunday and despite what both Russian and French officials characterized as “tough talk” between the two leaders over the Skripal affair, Macron escaped denunciation by the Kremlin for urging Putin in the words of French officials “to clarify the circumstances of the unacceptable attack in Salisbury.”
…

For the first time in history, hamburger sales in France have soared higher than the classic baguette jambon-beurre sandwich as French diners surrender to the American fast-food favourite.

Burgers were on the menu at 85 percent of restaurants in France last year with a whopping 1.5 billion units sold, according to a study by Paris-based restaurant consultants Gira Conseil.

More worryingly still for the defenders of French cuisine, just 30 percent of the burgers were sold in fast food joints, with the majority sold at restaurants with full table service.

Le burger has almost become French, often served with some of the country’s most famous cheeses like Roquefort rather than plastic cheddar.

This is big news for a country that takes great pride in its national culinary culture, and which for years resisted the global burger onslaught.

“We’ve been talking about a burger frenzy for three years. This year, we don’t know how to describe the phenomenon. It’s just crazy,” Gira Conseil director Bernard Boutboul told AFP.

There was a nine percent jump in burger sales last year. “That’s phenomenal growth,” Boutboul said.

In 2016, hamburger sales were on a par with the jambon-beurre, or ham-and-butter baguette — which is still the most popular sandwich in France.

“But in 2017, for the first time, [burgers] overtook [the French classic] by a long way,” Boutboul said, with jambon-beurre sales at 1.2 billion units.

“One wonders whether the burger might even overtake our famous steak frites in France,” he said.

‘Beating record upon record’

There, Boutboul may have hit a nerve. While the French see their food culture as unique, the truth is a lot of it is based on meat, bread, salad and potatoes — not a far cry from what makes up a U.S. burger meal.

“Where is the country going to?” one Twitter user sighed at the news, with another raging that “we will all end up wearing Mickey Mouse ears in their rubbish theme parks,” in a reference to Disneyland Paris.

The only silver lining for foodies was the gradual demise of junk food, with high quality, fresh alternatives on the rise in a growing number of French gourmet burger restaurants.

More broadly, however, fast food joint sales were “beating record upon record”, Gira Conseil found, making 51 billion euros ($63 billion) in 2017.

But the big trend was for a more gastronomic experience, the consultants found, often using France’s rich palette of traditional ingredients.

Despite a series of headline-grabbing attacks on its branches by angry farmers two decades ago, France is now McDonald’s most profitable market outside the US, with more than 1,400 restaurants.

 ‘I sold my soul’

The Golden Arches has adapted to French tastes with the McCamembert and McBaguette burgers with emmental cheese, Dijon mustard, various French salads and even macarons for dessert. Customers can also drink beer with their meals.

Jean-Pierre Petit, the man credited with helping France fall in love with “McDo”, is one of the brand’s most influential executives, pioneering McDonald’s attempts to adapt itself to local tastes.

In his 2013 book, “I Sold My Soul to McDonald’s,” Petit admitted that he had not eaten his first hamburger until he was 30.

In 2005 Frenchman Denis Hennequin, who introduced the Parmesan burger in Italy and the Shrimp Burger to Germany, became the first non-American to lead the McDonalds brand in Europe.

But a lot of the fast food that does best in France is high quality — and fairly pricey.

Food truck culture, another import from the US, has spawned a number of hip burger chains such as Le Camion Qui Fume (roughly translated as the Smoky Truck).

Some joints take pride in serving burgers made from premium quality beef, along with a glass of French red wine.

“Even the Americans are keeping an eye on what we’re doing in our gastronomic fast food sector,” Boutboul said.
…

Russian President Vladimir Putin said he is “not planning any constitutional reforms for now,” even before the final tally in a presidential election that critics have dubbed a predestined spectacle.

Putin laughed off questions about whether he will run again in six years, when he will be 71 years old.  Russia’s constitution limits service in the Kremlin to two consecutive terms.

“What, do you think I will sit until I’m 100 years old?” he chuckled.

Jokes aside, before Russians headed to polling stations Sunday in an election marred by allegations of vote-rigging, Moscow was already abuzz with speculation about what Putin might be planning after his election victory.

“There’s a growing sense that this election is less about the future as it is about the end,” Valery Solovei, an academic at the Moscow State Institute for International Relations, said ahead of voting.

To run again in 2024, Putin would have to alter the Russian constitution. Some analysts say he may shake up the whole system and fashion a state or revamped federation council that he would chair until his death.

Will he go in for such an exercise in radical change? Or appoint a tame placeholder, as he did in 2008 when he led Russia as prime minister, returning as head of state later?

“I don’t think he has made up his mind. He doesn’t know himself,” a Kremlin insider, who requested anonymity, told VOA. “He likes to postpone decisions, generally. He will keep all possibilities open, and delay. He has at least three years before he has to start making up his mind, giving him three years to implement any decision.”

He added that Putin has only two options: Rewrite the constitution, or switch jobs and become prime minister again. Asked if Putin might consider a third option of simply retiring, the insider chuckled. “He’s not going to do that,” he said.

Others with connections to the Kremlin said Putin may decide he has to retire — if only semi-permanently. He won’t want to end up a geriatric president like the long-serving communist leader Leonid Brezhnev.

“He won’t want to become the butt of bad jokes like Brezhnev,” said Sergei Markov, director of the Moscow-based Institute of Political Studies. “I am sure this will be Putin’s final term and that during it, he will choose a person he can recommend to the Russian people.”

Nonetheless, Markov sees a role for Putin, even after he relinquishes the top position “maybe as speaker of the upper house or as chairman of a revamped federation council.”

In six years, Putin may well face the same dilemma his predecessor, Boris Yeltsin, had to confront. Ailing and increasingly in poor shape, Yeltsin was desperate to relinquish power but feared doing so would leave him, his family and his inner circle of advisers and plutocrats vulnerable to retribution.

In the end, he resigned, after oligarch Boris Berezovsky fashioned a new governing arrangement, with Putin coming in as successor. The Yeltsin family was left untouched. But to the surprise of Berezovsky and other oligarchs and businessmen who had profited under Yeltsin, they were unable to control Putin. He turned on them, stripping them of much of their wealth and businesses, and imprisoning some.

Nervousness among elite

Despite the swagger of government officials Monday, relieved they had accomplished in the election what Putin wanted — a voter turnout of at least 70 percent, with at least a 70 percent vote for him — there’s nervousness among the elite at what the next six years will hold for them.

The last time there was uncertainty was in the years leading up to 2008, when Putin had to decide whether to rewrite the constitution or trade places with his prime minister, Dmitry Medvedev. Power struggles were triggered within the Kremlin, as major players maneuvered to ensure their own safety or jockeyed for the chance to succeed Putin, if he decided to quit.

By delaying a decision, there were casualties in the factional struggle for supremacy — something Putin seemed to encourage — allowing those who thought they could succeed him, or wanted to anoint a successor themselves, to start intrigue.

By 2006, to Putin’s irritation, “a close-knit group of kindred souls was beginning to establish an independent existence in the corridors of power,” wrote Mikhail Zygar in the book All the Kremlin’s Men. Putin cracked down, reshuffling the ambitious prosecutor general, Vladimir Ustinov, and making clear to the Kremlin’s inner circle who remained boss.

Markov doesn’t discount that happening again. “Those who have power and property are smart and tough people — sometimes cruel — and they will fight for power,” he said. “But I don’t think Putin will tolerate it getting out of hand, especially when the country needs to be unified in the face of the hybrid war the anti-Russian West has launched against Russia.”

Analysts are wondering if Putin may reshuffle the top political players quickly, which would indicate what might be on his mind for the future. Once again, they believe, Putin may play factions against each other, giving one faction its head, only to cut it down to size.

He could favor the old guard, or nurture the sons of the old guard, who, like their parents, are divided roughly between a security faction (the siloviki) and rivals who gravitate toward the more technocratic Anton Vaino, Putin’s chief of staff.
…

A French employee of France’s Consulate in Jerusalem is under arrest for allegedly smuggling dozens of weapons from the Gaza Strip to the West Bank, Israel’s domestic security agency said Monday.

The Shin Bet said the man, identified as Romain Franck, 23, was part of a broader Palestinian smuggling ring. It said he used his consular vehicle, which is subjected to more lenient security checks, to transport the weapons through Israel’s tightly secured border with the Gaza Strip. It said he took part in the ring for financial gain and that his employer was unaware of his actions.

The French Embassy in Israel issued a statement confirming that a consulate employee had been arrested, saying it was treating the incident with “great importance,” but wouldn’t discuss the case itself. The embassy said it was in contact with Israeli authorities and the suspect’s family, and was opening an internal investigation into the matter.

On Monday, Israel charged Franck with conspiracy to commit a crime and multiple weapons offenses, among other counts.

“This is a very serious incident in which the privileges and immunity granted to foreign missions in Israel were cynically exploited to smuggle dozens of weapons that could be used in terror attacks,” the Shin Bet statement said.

The Shin Bet said Franck transferred a total of 70 handguns and two assault rifles on five occasions over recent months. It said he received the arms from a Gaza man employed at the French cultural center in Gaza and brought them to someone in the West Bank, where they were then sold to arms dealers.

The Shin Bet said Franck, who was arrested in February, confessed to the charges. A gag order on the case was lifted Monday.

According to the indictment, Franck was a driver for the consulate and would ferry diplomatic staff between Gaza and Jerusalem. He would transport the arms in packages or suitcases in the trunk of the consular car and lie to Israeli security guards at the Gaza border crossing when asked if he was carrying any weapons. The indictment said Franck earned thousands of dollars for moving the guns.

Israeli officials believe that consular immunity would not apply in this case.

The Shin Bet sent reporters a picture of what it said was the consular vehicle, a silver SUV. It was not clear from the photo whether the vehicle carried the white license plates of the consular corps.

Nine people, including Franck, were arrested, the Shin Bet said. Among the suspects is a Palestinian security guard at the French Consulate in Jerusalem.

The Shin Bet said French authorities were kept aware of developments on the case during the investigation.

Israel has previously accused Palestinians employed by the U.N. or non-governmental organizations of participating in hostile activities, including collaborating with Gaza’s militant Hamas rulers. But allegations against international staffers are rare.
…

France urged the European Union on Monday to consider new sanctions on Iran over its involvement in Syria’s civil war and its ballistic missile program, as Paris tries to persuade Washington to preserve a 2015 nuclear deal with Tehran.

U.S. President Donald Trump has given the European signatories a May 12 deadline to “fix the terrible flaws” of the deal, which was agreed under his predecessor Barack Obama, or he will refuse to extend U.S. sanctions relief on Iran.

In response, the three European signatories — France, Britain and Germany — have proposed new EU sanctions targeting Iranians who support Syria’s government in that country’s civil war and Tehran’s ballistic missile program, according to a confidential document seen by Reuters.

“We are determined to ensure that the Vienna accord is respected,” French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian told reporters on arrival for talks with his EU counterparts, referring to the city where the 2015 deal was signed.

“But we must not exclude [from consideration] Iran’s responsibility in the proliferation of ballistic missiles and in its very questionable role in the near- and Middle East,” he said. “That must also be discussed to reach a common position.”

The confidential document cites “transfers of Iranian missiles and missile technology” to Syria and allies of Tehran, such as Houthi rebels in Yemen and Lebanon’s Shi’ite Hezbollah.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry criticized Le Drian’s comments, saying there could be no negotiation over what Iran says are purely defensive weapons.

“We were hopeful that after his recent visit to Tehran and negotiations with Iranian officials, he would understand the realities of the Islamic Republic’s defence policies,” Fars news agency quoted Iranian spokesman Bahram Qasemi as saying.

Sanctions

The United States has unilateral sanctions on Iran over missile tests it says violate a U.N. resolution against developing weapons capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

Any EU-wide measures would be the first significant punitive steps since the bloc lifted broad economic sanctions on Iran last year following the 2015 accord to curb Tehran’s nuclear ambitions for at least a decade.

But new sanctions would need the support of all 28 EU member states and could complicate new business deals with Iran.

Some EU countries, including Italy and Greece, are keen to rebuild a business relationship that once made the EU Iran’s top trading partner and its second-biggest oil customer.

U.S. Senator Bob Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on Sunday he expected Trump to pull out of the nuclear agreement in May unless European governments “really come together on a framework.”

EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, who chaired the final stages of the nuclear negotiations between Iran and Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States, stressed that there was no formal EU position on new sanctions.

But other foreign ministers in Brussels hinted at discussions that diplomats said were underway in EU capitals.

“We have to explore all the possible measures to have the same type of pressure as we had in the nuclear dossier,” Belgium’s Foreign Minister Didier Reynders told reporters.
…

The United States and European powers are negotiating over a possible “supplemental” agreement to the Iran nuclear deal that would address Iran’s ballistic-missile development and involvement in Middle East conflicts, a U.S. diplomat said.

U.S. envoy Brian Hook said the allies had “very good” talks about a “supplemental” accord in Vienna on Friday as Reuters reported that Britain, France, and Germany have proposed new European Union sanctions against Iran over its ballistic-missile program and its role in the Syrian civil war.

Hook said U.S. President Donald Trump wants to reach a side agreement with the three European signatories to the 2015 nuclear deal to address the missile program and Iran’s interventions in conflicts in Syria and Yemen.

Trump also wants the side deal to correct what he has called “disastrous flaws” in the nuclear agreement, in particular its limits on inspections of potential Iranian nuclear sites by a U.N. watchdog, and the scheduled expiration of some of the key curbs on Iranian nuclear activities such as uranium enrichment after 10 years under the deal.

‘Good discussions’

“In order for the United States to remain in the deal, the United States and Europe must come to an agreement to address sunsets, inspections, and long-range ballistic missiles,” Hook said.

“We are taking things one week at a time. We are having very good discussions” he said. “There is a lot we agree on, and where we disagree we are working to bridge our differences.”

Hook said Trump has asked the negotiators to come up with an agreement by May 12, when the president must decide whether to once again extend U.S. sanctions relief to Iran as required under the nuclear deal in exchange for the curbs on Iran’s nuclear activities.

Hook said the U.S. goal in pushing for curbs on Tehran’s involvement in regional conflicts is “to bring about a change in the behavior of the Iranian regime.”

Iran objects to changes

Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqhchi, who attended a separate meeting of signatories to the nuclear deal in Vienna on March 16, said that Tehran strongly objects to the changes sought by Trump.

“We made clear that in our eyes, the blocking and constant ultimatums by the U.S. are a clear violation of the deal,” he said.

Araqhchi said Iran will not agree to renegotiate the nuclear provisions of the treaty, but he indicated that Tehran may be willing to hold discussions about missiles and regional conflicts if it feels that the nuclear pact is being fully implemented.

A Russian diplomat at the Vienna meeting on Friday on the nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, said no “supplemental” accord is needed, but Moscow would not object if U.S. and European powers reach a side agreement that has no impact on the 2015 deal.

“The way I see it, Western countries are alarmed by the Iranian missile program, and they are seeking to push it into the framework they would find suitable,” Russian envoy Mikhail Ulyanov was quoted as saying by state-run TASS news agency.

“If all the parties concerned suddenly develop a wish to make some additional agreements, which would not be immediately linked to the plan of action and would not be detrimental to it, this will be a matter of their political will and preparedness. But still we think there’s no need for whatever supplementary agreements today,” he said.

Satisfying Trump

European powers are negotiating with Washington over a possible side deal in an effort to address concerns raised by Trump and prevent him from making good on his threats to withdraw from the nuclear deal.

Meanwhile, Reuters on Friday reported that new EU sanctions proposed by Britain, Germany, and France are also aimed at satisfying Trump’s demands and keeping him “committed” to the nuclear deal.

Reuters, citing two people familiar with the matter, said a document outlining the proposal was sent to EU capitals on Friday to measure the level of support for fresh sanctions. According to EU rules, all 28 members must agree to any such sanctions.

The document said the new sanctions would be targeted against individuals and organizations involved with Tehran’s ballistic-missile development and its role in supporting Syria’s government in a seven-year civil war with Sunni rebels.

Reuters said the document mentions that Britain, France, and Germany are involved in “intensive talks” with the Trump administration to “achieve a clear and lasting reaffirmation of U.S. support for the [nuclear] agreement beyond May 12.”

The document suggested the new sanctions would “target militias and commanders” and build on the bloc’s existing sanctions related to Syria, which include travel bans, asset freezes, and a ban on conducting business with public or private companies.

This article contains material from Reuters, AFP, AP and dpa.
…

In a Russian presidential campaign season in which Kremlin officials have insisted that candidates abide by federal election laws, numerous news outlets have reported President Vladimir Putin’s exception to the rule.

Barred from leveraging so-called “administrative resources” — the bureaucratic machinery of various state-backed media, security and educational institutions — to promote their respective candidacies, presidential hopefuls, such as Grigory Yavlinsky of the liberal Yabloko Party, rely instead on the “Kremlin-orchestrated circus” of reality TV-style debates defined by water-throwing, name-calling and threats of physical violence.

Only the incumbent himself remains above the fray, exempted from debates in exchange for fawning 90-minute documentaries by Rosiya-1 state television, police patrols that guard only his campaign billboards against vandalism, and university auditorium lectures on why his re-election is the correct choice for the state.

Russians go to the polls Sunday for an election that is certain to allow Putin to retain his grip on power. He is expected to bring in more than 50 percent of the vote, but his election team is hoping for 70 percent.

While exploitation of state resources to bolster the candidacy of an established leader is a time-tested feature of Russian politics, this year it is completely different — and exactly the same — says Maria Lipman, editor of the Moscow-based Kontrapunkt (Counterpoint), an open-access Russian-language journal of politics and society published by George Washington University.

During previous presidential elections, Lipman said, Putin either used administrative resources himself or allocated them to his hand-picked, temporary successor, former President Dmitry Medvedev.

“The notion that Putin is a leader beyond competition was created at the very beginning of his presidency,” she told VOA. “Even in 2008, it was clear that whichever candidate Putin proposed to his fellow citizens as a successor would be accepted, supported and voted for by the nation simply because Putin recommended him.”

​An evolving strategy

That strategy, Lipman added, is part of what Russian experts sometimes call the “super-majority” approach to maintaining political power in Russia.

“In such a system, public administration and power are concentrated virtually in the hands of one person,” she said. “This person should be beyond competition. He should not simply be one of the candidates, but a ‘super candidate’ elected by ‘super majority.’ It is necessary to demonstrate such an overwhelming superiority that no one has the slightest doubt that this is the right order of things in Russia.”

But ensuring Putin’s sustained super majority rule in Russia — where the 65-year-old leader enjoys substantial popular support, especially outside of major cities — requires a constant updating of strategies, which have evolved over time.

“In 2008, legitimization was achieved due to revenue growth: oil prices increased and Russia’s economic growth was quite substantial, which led to a significant decrease in the number of poor people in Russia,” Lipman said. “But today legitimization is achieved by promoting a ‘besieged fortress’ image” of a nation economically beset by myriad Western sanctions.

“This particular way of legitimization was even apparent in 2012, when Putin’s colossal advantage over political competitors was less obvious, and his rating fell to little more than 60 percent,” she said. “We remember the protests that accompanied his return to the presidency in 2012, so, this time, the super majority is critical to restoring his political legitimacy.”

​Privileged coverage, ‘safe candidates’

One distinct feature of the super majority turnout strategy for 2018, says Grigory Melkonyants, co-chair of the independent election monitor Golos, is deployment of federal media resources at home and abroad.

“Alternative forces proposing different approaches to the country’s development cannot get on federal TV channels or work with the population,” he told VOA. “As soon as a politician gains some momentum, he or she is immediately forced to interact with the courts and law enforcement agencies.”

A case in point: the one-time candidacy of anti-corruption crusader Alexei Navalny, who in December was disqualified from the race because of a conviction for embezzlement, which the European Court of Human Rights dismissed as politically motivated.

“He was attracting volunteers for a whole year, created campaign headquarters, and began to score points, and now we see what they did to him,” Melkonyants said, referring to the Russian courts upholding the conviction, giving Navalny a suspended five-year sentence.

“Others watch this and understand that if they overplay their hand or attempt to sit atop the pedestal occupied by [Putin], there will be problems,” Melkonyants said. “Therefore, the candidates remaining in the race are safe ones.”

The image of Putin as the leading candidate is “formed by the federal media and then picked up by regional media,” the Golos official said.

“Our media monitoring initiative has not recorded a single negative mention of Putin, although one can always find grounds for criticism of a leader who has been in power for so many years,” Melkonyants said. “The whole campaign looks like this: a giant facing down scores of political dwarves.”

Even abroad, in the territorially disputed Black Sea peninsula of Crimea, outlets such as The Washington Post have reported on Russian state broadcasters calling themselves “informational warriors.”

‘Political technologists’

Lilia Shibanova of Russia’s Presidential Human Rights Council says the most distinct feature of the 2018 strategy to secure the super majority turnout is that state media actually run Putin’s campaign.

“The candidate himself solely acts as the president,” Shibanova said, calling footage of Putin campaigning among average Russian voters virtually nonexistent.

“Media here operate as political technologists,” she said, explaining that news media analysis shows opposition candidates cast in a negative light, whereas Putin is portrayed as infallible.

“Any comments about other candidates serve a very specific purpose,” she said.

This story originated in VOA’s Russian Service. Translated from Russian by Sasha Milentey.
…

Britain should consider a limited extension to its exit process from the European Union if needed to ensure details of its future relationship with the

bloc are agreed, a committee of lawmakers said in a report.

Prime Minister Theresa May formally notified the EU of Britain’s intention to leave by triggering Article 50 of the membership treaty on March 29, 2017, setting the clock ticking on a two-year exit process.

Britain has said it wants to have the basis of a trade deal set out with the EU by October, but the Exiting the EU Committee said in a report published Sunday that deadline would be tight.

“In the short time that remains, it is difficult to see how it will be possible to negotiate a full, bespoke trade and market access agreement, along with a range of other agreements, including on foreign affairs and defense cooperation,” the committee said.

“If substantial aspects of the future partnership remain to be agreed in October, the government should seek a limited extension to the Article 50 time to ensure that a political declaration on the future partnership that is sufficiently detailed and comprehensive can be concluded.”

The report also said it should be possible to prolong, if necessary, the length of any post-Brexit transition that’s agreed upon by Britain and the EU.

Britain has said it is confident it can reach a deal on the transition period at an EU summit this month. It expects the transition to last around two years after its departure date, although the European Union has said it should be shorter,

ending on Dec. 31, 2020.

The Exiting the EU committee, made up of lawmakers from all the main political parties, also called on the government to present a detailed plan on how a “frictionless” border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland would work.

The Irish border is a key sticking point in negotiations between the U.K. and the EU, as Britain has said it wants to leave the customs union but does not want a “hard” land border with customs checks.
…

Greece’s coast guard said Saturday the bodies of six people were recovered from the sea off a Greek island in the eastern Aegean following the sinking of a suspected migrant smuggling boat.

A massive search and rescue operation was underway to locate about a dozen more people believed missing.

The bodies of four children, one man and one woman were recovered off the island of Agathonisi, south of the island of Samos, the coast guard said. Three people, two women and a man, managed to reach the coast and alert authorities.

The three told authorities they had been in a wooden boat that sank with an estimated 21 people on board. The reasons for the sinking were not immediately clear, and authorities said the total number of people who had been on board was also not clear.

Three aircraft, Greek navy and coast guard vessels, a vessel from the European border agency Frontex and private boats were scouring the area to search for the missing.

Despite a two-year deal between the European Union and Turkey designed to stop the flow of migrants and refugees into Europe using the popular route from the Turkish coast to nearby Greek islands, dozens and sometimes hundreds of people continue to make the journey each week. Most cross in rickety inflatable boats or other unseaworthy vessels.
…

Russia’s government is expelling 23 British diplomats and threatened further measures in retaliation in a growing diplomatic dispute over a nerve agent attack on a former spy in Britain.

The Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement that it is also ordering the closure of the British Council in Russia and ending an agreement to reopen the British consulate in St. Petersburg.

It ordered the diplomats to leave within a week.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry summoned the British ambassador to Russia on Saturday to before making the announcement.

The statement said the government could take further measures if Britain takes any more “unfriendly” moves toward Russia.

Russians expelled

British Prime Minister Theresa May this week expelled 23 Russian diplomats and severed high-level contacts over the poisoning of ex-spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia. They remain in critical condition in hospital.

Britain’s foreign secretary accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of personally ordering the poisoning of the Skripals, who remain hospitalized in critical condition after the March 4 attack. Putin’s spokesman denounced the claim.

While Russia has vigorously denied involvement in the attack, Western powers see it as the latest sign of alleged Russian meddling abroad. The tensions threaten to overshadow Putin’s expected re-election Sunday for another six-year presidential term.

​British police said there is no apparent link between the attack on Glushkov and the poisoning of the Skripals, but both have raised alarm in the West at a time when Russia is increasingly assertive on the global stage and facing investigations over alleged interference in the Donald Trump’s election as U.S. president.

EU meeting Monday

The source of the nerve agent, which Britain says is Soviet-made Novichok, is unclear, as is the way it was administered. Russia has demanded that Britain share samples collected by investigators.

Top EU diplomats were expected to discuss next steps at a meeting Monday, with some calling for a boycott of the upcoming World Cup in Russia. British Prime Minister Theresa May is seeking a global coalition of countries to punish Moscow.
…

In June 2017, Montenegro, once considered a Balkan stronghold of pro-Russian sentiments, quietly celebrated its entry into NATO, infuriating the Kremlin. Before joining NATO, Montenegro sent its first cadet to West Point. Nevena Nikolic and her international peers at West Point are getting an opportunity to see the world and America through the lens of its prestigious military academy, where officials believe having foreign cadets is crucial. Milena Djurdjic of VOA’s Serbian Service has more.
…

Britain, France and Germany have proposed fresh EU sanctions on Iran over its ballistic missiles and its role in Syria’s war, according to a confidential document, in a bid to persuade Washington to preserve the 2015 nuclear deal with Tehran.

The joint paper, seen by Reuters, was sent to European Union capitals on Friday, said two people familiar with the matter, to sound out support for such sanctions as they would need the support of all 28 EU member governments.

The proposal is part of an EU strategy to save the accord signed by world powers that curbs Tehran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons, namely by showing U.S. President Donald Trump that there are other ways to counter Iranian power abroad.

Trump delivered an ultimatum to the European signatories on January 12 that they must agree to “fix the terrible flaws of the Iran nuclear deal” — which was sealed under his predecessor Barack Obama — or he would refuse to extend U.S. sanctions relief on Iran. U.S. sanctions will resume unless Trump issues fresh “waivers” to suspend them on May 12.

“We will therefore be circulating in the coming days a list of persons and entities that we believe should be targeted in view of their publicly demonstrated roles,” the document said, referring to Iranian ballistic missile tests and Tehran’s role backing Syria’s government in the seven-year-old civil war.

Analysts say the nuclear agreement, touted at the time as a breakthrough reducing the risk of a devastating wider war in the Middle East, could collapse if Washington pulls out.

The document said Britain, France and Germany were engaged in “intensive talks with the Trump administration to “achieve a clear and lasting reaffirmation of U.S. support for the [nuclear] agreement beyond May 12.”

The European powers and the United States held several rounds of talks this week on the issue, diplomats said.

Sensitive

The document referred to sanctions that would “target militias and commanders”. It proposes building on the EU’s existing sanctions list related to Syria, which includes travel bans and asset freezes on individuals, and a ban on doing business or financing public and private companies.

The issue is highly sensitive because the 2015 pact between Iran and six major powers — Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States — lifted international sanctions that crippled Iran’s oil-based economy.

While the EU retains some sanctions on Iranians over human rights abuses, it rescinded its economic and financial restrictions on Iran in 2016 and does not want to be seen to be reneging on the agreement.

While Iran signed up to limits on its uranium enrichment activity, which it has repeatedly said is for peaceful power generation, not atomic bombs, it has refused to discuss its missile program, which it says is purely defensive.

The Islamic Republic has dismissed Western assertions that its activities in the Middle East are destabilizing, and also rejected Trump’s demands to renegotiate the nuclear accord.

In the joint document, Britain, France and Germany set out questions and answers that seek to show that legally, the European powers would not be breaking the terms of the nuclear deal. It said that they are “entitled to adopt additional sanctions against Iran” as long as they are not nuclear-related

or were previously lifted under the nuclear agreement.

The European powers said new sanctions are justified because Iran “did not commit further to stop undertaking ballistic missile destabilizing activities” under the nuclear agreement.

The nuclear deal’s terms did not cover ballistic missile activity. Iran has said its effort to develop ballistic weaponry is solely for defensive purposes and has nothing to do with its nuclear energy ambitions.

Reporting by Robin Emmott and John Irish.
…

For years an anti-corruption activist and outspoken opponent of the Russian government, Alexei Navalny was disqualified from the presidential race in December because of a conviction for embezzlement. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the conviction was politically motivated, but it was upheld in Russian courts. Navalny was given a suspended five-year sentence.

Accused by Putin of being Washington’s pick for president, Navalny has long predicted that Russian authorities will resort to widespread fraud to deliver a Putin landslide and has spoken of organizing post-election protests of the kind that roiled Russia after Putin’s last election victory in 2012.

In a Thursday phone interview, VOA’s Danila Galperovich asked Navalny how he and his supporters plan to monitor and protest this weekend’s election, which he calls illegitimate. The following translated excerpt has been edited for brevity and concision. The full-length Russian language interview is available here.

VOA: How are you going to observe the elections? We know that the Central Election Committee rejected accreditation of your observers, but you continue to call for observation. How are you going to do it?

Navalny: The main thing that we have done now: we created the largest network of observers in the history of Russia. We called out to the masses, called for all our volunteers. More than 60,000 people enrolled, 18 percent of them minors, which, by the way, we are very proud of. But we will offer them a different job—to monitor streaming public access video footage of individual polling stations that anyone in Russia can access online. Given that, of course, we do not expect that all enrolled will come out to actually observe. Somewhere around 25,000 to 26,000 people will be actively monitoring polling stations in the districts. And, most importantly, for the first time we will make at least 20 percent coverage on these “zones of regional anomalies”—the North Caucasus, Mordovia, Tatarstan, Bashkortostan [regions that traditionally produce extremely high voter turnout and equally high results for pro-Kremlin incumbents]. We are trying to do this, and we will do it, but we can already see that absolutely unprecedented measures are being taken to destroy our network: people are being arrested every day, they are withdrawing our accreditation, closing our headquarters. Another wave of arrests is in motion. And it is connected, of course, with our supervision of polls.

VOA: Why do the authorities resist your observation so strongly? If, as you say, they are trying to make the elections look free and fair?

Navalny: The authorities, of course, know that their candidate will “win”—and he will indeed “win”—but they are no longer interested in his mere victory. They are interested in the recognition of elections and that … at least as many people as in 2012, come out to the polls. They are interested in turnout. They are faced with the fact that people do not want to voluntarily go to these elections under the influence of our boycott, or under the influence of the obvious fact that there is no competition, and that the result of the election is predetermined. For them, the only way to increase this turnout is to falsify it. Take, for example, the Kemerovo region. Last time it showed an 87 percent turnout. But if we put observers there, the turnout will immediately fall by 30- to 40-percent, and we can prove that the 87 percent is fake. And even without any boycott, simply just through observation, it will be obvious that the turnout has fallen. And [the Kremlin] cannot allow it—neither Putin nor the regional administrations. That is why they are fighting us so hard.

VOA: Your critics say that boycott and observation are incompatible. You have already explained the observation, can you please explain the logic of the boycott? Why, in your opinion, is this the right step?

Navalny: We do not recognize these elections as elections, but consider them a fake procedure. Because it is important not only to vote, it is important to influence politics—the opportunity to influence power, to express one’s opinion. Putin, realizing that he can achieve an overwhelming result only if he does not allow real competitors, envisioned all these scenarios and picked up the politicians under his control. We are faced with a construct in which they, the authorities, look into the eyes of the public and say: “You know, we will not allow you to choose your own people’s representatives. We offered you some people, you can vote for them.” Moreover, those whom they picked up, whatever I think about them, they did not even do anything. They did not campaign. Many of them, in general, found out what is going on two months before the election. So it’s fake, it’s a falsification, and it’s pointless to participate in the construct that from the get-go foresees Putin’s targeted “70/70” percent result. [As Washington Post contributor Christopher Jarmas reported in December: “Last year, the Kremlin’s top political technologists established a ’70 at 70′ objective for Putin’s reelection in March 2018—70 percent of the vote with 70 percent turnout.”]

VOA: It is known that the European pro-Kremlin politicians come to Russia as observers at the invitation of the State Duma. Their approval of these elections and their confirmation of the legitimacy of the favored candidate, Putin, is to be expected. How, when taking into account their connection with the Russian authorities, will the rest of the world treat such confirmation of the legitimacy of the winner?

Navalny: All those so-called European observers invited by the Duma: they are “observers” in the sense that other presidential candidates are “rivals” to Putin. Of course, this is an absolute fake. It’s ridiculous and unpleasant to look at how Putin corrupted and turned into his puppets a significant part of the European establishment. Even if we are talking about representatives of marginal parties, they nonetheless represent the European political establishment. As for legitimacy: it is not measured by any agreements or by the presence of international observers. This is a generally the populist mindset. Our task in this campaign is that as many people as possible understand that these are not elections and do not recognize them as such. That they consciously declare: “We will not go there.” And that’s how we fight it.

This story originated in VOA’s Russian Service.
…

Khadija Jafari cries as she looks at the asylum-seeker’s home in Croatia where she, her sister and their three children have spent three nights since they were deported from Austria.

The two women arrived in Austria as asylum-seekers from Afghanistan in 2016. They did their best to integrate by learning German and enrolling the children in school, Jafari said.

“I cry every day, every night, and cannot sleep. My child says every day, ‘Why am I not going to kindergarten?’” she told The Associated Press in German during an interview in Croatia’s capital, Zagreb. “We cannot stay here.”

Austrian authorities argued the family should be sent to Croatia because of European Union regulations that require asylum-seekers to apply for protection in the first EU country they reached.

The European Court of Justice agreed in a landmark July ruling that puts the residency status of tens of thousands of other refugees in doubt.

After they fled Afghanistan, Jafari, her 4-year-old son, her sister and the sister’s two children traveled through Serbia to Croatia, an EU member country since July 2013. Croatian authorities arranged transportation to Slovenia, and the sisters and their children made their way to Austria.

Christoph Riedl, a policy adviser with humanitarian aid group Diakonie, said Austria has deported hundreds of asylum-seekers under the EU’s “Dublin” agreement. But lawyers argued the Jafari family had become so well-integrated that they and others like them should be allowed to remain.

Even with the European court ruling in the sisters’ appeal, Austria did not have to deport them, Riedl said. The court stressed that the Dublin agreement permitted countries to “unilaterally or bilaterally in a spirit of solidarity… examine applications for international protection lodged with them, even if they are not required to.”

“Austria should simply have shown some heart and solidarity as the European Court of Justice demanded in its ruling,” Riedl said.

It was Sunday when Austrian authorities came for the family of five.

“We were sleeping in our room and then the police came,” Jafari recalled, wiping tears from her face. “I fled to my neighbor, and the police came to me with a dog and found us, and then they sent us here.”
…