Vladimir Putin recently announced his plans for reforms that would reduce the powers of his successor, by watering down the presidency and strengthening parliament. This will involve giving the lower house of parliament (Duma) powers to appoint the prime minister and the cabinet.

This will be different from the current arrangement where the prime minister is appointed by the president before being approved by the parliament. Other proposed changes were: limiting the supremacy of international law, amending the rules on the presidential term and strengthening laws that prohibit presidential candidates who have held citizenship or foreign residency permits.

Prime Minister Dimitry Medvedev who resigned with his cabinet after Putin’s announcement said: “These changes, when they are adopted, will introduce substantial changes not only to an entire range of articles of the constitution, but also to the entire balance of power, the power of the executive, the power of the legislature, the power of judiciary”.

He said he was resigning together with his ministers to allow Putin to make important decisions. He had served as President several years back before switching roles with Putin, but what has left many people talking is what Putin is trying to achieve with his reforms.

Reports of plans to introduce constitutional reforms that would enable Putin to be able to cling on to power had first emerged mid last year when Bloomberg claimed that his aides and advisors were working on ways to allow him to prolong his rule. It claimed that among the changes that were being considered were electoral reforms that were to give the Kremlin control over parliament thus enabling Putin to extend his rule.

Shortly after, the speaker of Russia’s parliament Mr, Vyacheslav Volodin published an article titled ‘Living Constitution of Development’, in which he proposed changes to the Russian constitution. Among his proposals was for the parliament to be given more powers to appoint cabinet ministers and prime ministers in what he termed as “the participation of the State Duma (parliament) in the formation of the Government of the Russian Federation.”

He justified his proposals by saying, “A greater balance of power does not boil down to the task of providing checks and balances. The main thing that it should is a higher quality of interaction and coordination of the work of the state mechanism. The quality of a democratic government, which in turn is just necessary for the fullest possible realization of rights and constitutional foundations.”

Bloomberg cited two people close to the Kremlin and one legislator claimed, “Keeping a stronghold on parliament would widen Putin’s room for manoeuvrability. It could potentially allow the 66-year-old Russian president to switch roles, keeping the reign of power as head of the ruling party and prime minister with expanded constitutional authority at the expense of the presidency.”

But this appears not to be the case. Putin is not interested in extending his rule or switching roles with Medvedev to return as a powerful prime minister. He aims to leave the government at the end of his term but continue wielding power behind the scene. Why?

Professor Daniel Treisman of the University of California recently said, “For most autocratic leaders, it has been quite dangerous to leave power. Things have to be going extremely well, and the system has to be stable, to get out without any repercussion.”

Putin has a legacy, allies and interests which he will he need to protect even after he leaves the government. They are so entrenched in the Russian political system that the absence of his patronage would result in a serious disruption. Apart from that, remaining powerful could also help him avoid international legal actions that could come calling after he leaves power. Although at home, he will still enjoy immunity from prosecution under a law passed in 2001.

One state vehicle through which Putin will most probably use to pull the strings in the government after his retirement, is the State Council which he currently chairs. According to the Kremlin, “the State Council is an advisory body that assists the President in guaranteeing coordinated functioning and interaction of the various state bodies of powers.”

The composition of the council leaves no doubt about its influence. Among its members are the “Speaker of the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, the Speaker of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, Presidential Plenipotentiary Envoys to the federal districts, heads of the highest executive agencies of state power in Russia’s federal constituent entities, and the heads of the political parties in the State Duma.”

Although the work of the council has been advisory, in the latest constitutional proposals Putin wants to enshrine it formally in the constitution to give it clear and substantive powers. Leading such a powerful body would place him over his successor as a supreme leader.

One doesn’t have to be serving in the government to be in the council. As the Kremlin states on its website, “State council can be extended to individuals holding senior positions” but also people “who have extensive experience of public service”. So there is nothing to prevent Putin from serving in the council after his retirement.

A deal between Medvedev and Putin in the latest developments is something nobody can deny. The two have enjoyed close working relationship apart from being close political allies, and whatever they have under their sleeves in these new manoeuvres is still being unravelled.

L'articolo The Cabinet and the Constitution: What is Vladimir Putin up to? proviene da InsideOver.

Five years ago, the US troops stationed in Poland could fit on a bus. That was before shadowy, insignia-less soldiers crossed from Russia into the Ukraine, annexing the Crimean peninsula. Aghast at Moscow’s seizure of sovereign land, the West began a concerted, if cautious, military build-up in Eastern Europe. But now, a more decisive step forward – one thousand extra American soldiers are to be deployed on Polish soil. It’s a modest move, some believe, but one that reflects the mounting anxiety over Russian aggression. 

For a year now, Poland has been trying to coax President Trump into upping his military presence. Warsaw’s head man, Andrzej Duda, knows how to entice his US counterpart: money, loyalty, praise. He’s willing to foot the bill for a new base – around $2bn – and has appealed to the President’s swollen ego, offering to name it ‘Fort Trump’. And it seems to have paid off for the Pole – precise details of new US facilities, which, according to Mr Trump, will be “very beautiful”,  are now being firmed up.

But the White House’s commitment falls short of Duda’s ultimate goal: a permanent US deployment in Poland. Instead of an embedded division, he’s getting 1,000 extra American troops, who will join the 4,500 already rotating in and out of the country. There will be a squadron of Reaper drones, a helicopter brigade, and a smattering of special forces units also.     

Each will serve as a tripwire should Russia mount an invasion – a prospect the Poles are taking seriously. The Kremlin is “definitely very, very aggressive,” says General Rajmund Andrzejczak, Warsaw’s army chief. Unlike their Central European neighbours (and even some of their Eastern ones) Poland shares a land border with Russia. Kaliningrad, a Russian enclave, which sits on the nation’s northeast frontier, and is home to some of Moscow’s most advanced nuclear-capable Iskander missiles.  

The arithmetic is less clear for America’s mercurial leader, who seems rather fond of Mr Putin. But having grudgingly endorsed the NATO framework, Trump is keen to cosy up with his European allies – so long as they pay their bills. Alliance members are obliged to meet 2% GDP expenditure on defence, a pledge each renewed in 2014 but only a fraction fulfil. Poland is one of them, having embarked upon an American-built spending spree this summer (rocket launchers, planes, air defence systems). By 2030, the plucky Eastern European state plans to hit 2.5%.

Germany, by contrast, is lagging behind. Come January 2024, forecasts suggest just 1.5% of Berlin’s budget will be arms-related – billions of dollars short of their NATO commitments. Little coincidence then that the US troops destined for Poland will be shifted from German garrisons. Ever the wily businessman, Mr Trump is frustrated with allies not pulling their weight – the US accounts for two-thirds of NATO’s expenditure – and seems happy to punish the most egregious under-spenders.     

But not all are convinced. General Ben Hodges, a former US Army commander, believes Germany to be America’s most important European ally, having built up a complex military and bureaucratic framework in the country since 1945. To achieve any semblance of this on Polish soil would take not just time, but stratospheric sums of money. 

Indeed, the American contingent presently based in Poland endure a distinctly sub-par infrastructure. About a quarter live in a tent city near the town of Powidz, suffering spotty internet service and dismal water pressure. Duda’s accord with Trump will hope to address these shortcomings, experts say, focusing closely on development and longevity. 

“[The agreement] ensures the long-term sustainability and support of American forces in Poland,” says Ray Wojcik, Warsaw Director at the Center for European Policy Analysis. “[It also] emphasizes that more is needed to prepare for the sustained, robust, and enduring presence of US forces in Poland.”

But what Poles deem military peace-of-mind, the Russians interpret as provocation – and not without good reason. In 1997, NATO promised it would not permanently station troops in Eastern Europe, a commitment now hanging by a thread. Senior officials would argue that Russia’s Crimean land grab changed the rules of the game – but Moscow is clear in its belief that America is threatening regional stability.    

Regardless of who is at fault, the permanent deployment proposition can’t escape a central fallacy: if the Russians come, a temporary detachment will serve the tripwire purpose just as effectively. Rotational or otherwise, if an American unit is engaged, a response will be forthcoming and matters will escalate. Deterrence is about force, but it can also be an exercise in diminishing returns.

This will mean little to the Poles, who value strength and security above all else. Theirs is blood-soaked history, a country carved up by bigger neighbours time and again. In Trump, they see a man who can offer permanent protection. But the cost could be high. A bump in NATO’s regional presence might be justified by Russian belligerence – but it also invites challenge. One miscalculation, and the consequences could be historic. 

L'articolo Trump Deploys More Troops In Poland Amid Russia Fears proviene da InsideOver.

In a further blow to Donald Trump’s efforts to rebuild America’s relationship with Russia and its President, Vladimir Putin, CNN has revealed that the US government extracted one of its highest-covert sources inside the Kremlin. This was confirmed by Trump administration officials with direct knowledge of the situation. A person directly involved in the discussions between the US President, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and the then-Russian Ambassador to the US Sergey Kislyak, in May 2017, said that the removal of the spy was partly driven by concerns that the Trump administration mishandled classified intelligence.

In these circumstances, the US government made the right decision to withdraw the spy immediately if their life was in danger. They were considered the highest level source for the US inside the Kremlin, high up in the national security infrastructure and they had access to Putin. They could even provide images of documents on the Russian President’s desk. The covert source provided intelligence for more than a decade and an attempt to rescue the spy, after exposure concerns, was rebuffed by the informant.

All attempts to blame Trump for the spy’s withdrawal have been rebuked by the CIA. Brittany Brammel, the CIA director of public affairs, told CNN that the President’s handling of America’s most sensitive intelligence drove an alleged exfiltration operation is ‘inaccurate.’ This was also confirmed by White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham, who accused the news channel of inaccurate reporting. Either way, the affair begs the question as to how he should handle information regarding Putin.

Many in the intelligence community are concerned that the President is mishandling information regarding the Russian President in general. At the G20 summit in Hamburg in May 2017, Trump took the controversial step of confiscating the interpreter’s notes, leading to concerns among intelligence officials that he may have discussed classified intelligence with Putin. Yet the problem is that no one can confirm or deny this is what the two leaders talked about now.

The removal of such a valuable source leaves the US increasingly vulnerable to Putin. The US intelligence community regards China and Russia as the two greatest threats to its national security, and they no longer have a source that can provide the most concrete information on the Russian President. Because of the Russian government’s supposed meddling in the 2016 election, an operation that was conducted by Putin himself according to officials, this affair may justify claims the Trump administration has links to the Kremlin.

Furthermore, it leaves the President in a difficult position as to how to approach the Russians. Although Putin and Trump established a good relationship at the 2017 G20 summit, their relations have been damaged along the way by the 2018 Salisbury poisonings that contributed to the deaths of Sergei Skripal, a former Russian military officer and double agent for the UK’s intelligence services, and his daughter Yulia Skripal. This led to the US sanctioning Moscow further. Trump also blanked the Russian leader at last year’s G20 summit after the Russian seizure of Ukrainian vessels. But at this year’s G20 summit, Putin invited the US President to next year’s Victory Day commemorative events in Moscow.

Trump has good intentions when it comes to the Russians. Relations between the US and Russia have been hostile for a considerable period of time and it helps when two of the world’s most powerful nations are cooperating with each other. But the removal of America’s top spy in the Kremlin only adds to speculation that the US President is too soft on Putin and that the former has links to the latter. It is unclear what the Russian President wants out of this relationship when he is inviting Trump to WW2 celebrations whilst attempting to undermine his allies. This is why the extraction of the US’s most useful spy in the Kremlin is a significant loss to the American intelligence community.

L'articolo Has Trump’s Relationship With Putin Suffered Another Blow? proviene da InsideOver.