Truly Strained Relations and Fraudulent Elections

Vladimir Putin is really steamed. This was not supposed to happen. This was his election to triumph completely over his unequal and unworthy political adversaries. Something has gone awry, and it's not because Mr. Putin hasn't made an heroic effort to present himself as an iron man of Russia in the mould that Russians admire and look up to, for he has. His various stunts of expertise and strength and bold presence have gained him respect and admiration in some quarters, just not all.

The youth of the country are less than impressed. Vainglorious braggadocio doesn't do it for them. They may have a vision of a country that more closely parallels the values of the West, of Europe, where opportunities for advancement of careers and personal finances seem more possible, and where there are freedoms guaranteed under the law that they seem to find lacking in their own country. Doesn't it always seem to the disaffected that things are better elsewhere?

The rule of law is not sufficiently universal in Russia, in any event. Perhaps it's seen as a us-too amalgam of the Arab Spring with the Occupy Wall Street franchise coming to a town square near you. In any event, a disgruntled public has not flocked to the polls - as so fervidly encouraged by Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev - as anticipated. United Russia has not united Russia as it was meant to do, and that outcome stings.

And it's a result of outside interference; namely that of the United States, which has obviously encouraged the anti-Kremlin protests that are spring up in Russia. According to a bitter Vladimir Putin. It's Barack Obama's foreign affairs emissary, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, busily criticizing the authenticity of the election, its results and its claimed fraudulent underpinnings. Couldn't be Prime Minister Putin's fault, must be President Obama's.

Actually, a Russian election monitoring body insisted that United Russia in reality had 20% of the vote, not the 49.3% they claim with disappointment, given the extent to which the vote was rigged. And actually, although that is the reality, it is also, as Mr. Putin claims, a reality that the United States has interfered with the Russian election; it has generously funded the competition, and that's outright interference of a foreign country in a sovereign country's electoral proceedings.

Does that mean that Russia wouldn't and doesn't do the same in the blink of an eye? Look at the British government funding opposition in Canada to the Government of Canada's plans for its economic future in the Alberta oil sands.

"We've seen this pattern of them trying to convince mostly developing countries to take this sort of stuff up. It was just incredible to see that it was being applied to a country like Canada, a country which by almost any standard we expect would make up its own mind on this kind of thing", complained Matthew Sinclair of the U.K. Taxpayers' Alliance.

And there's Britain threatening to veto any treaty agreement by European nations that might be seen to undermine British sovereignty: "If I can't get what I want, I will have no hesitation in vetoing a treaty ... because I am not going to go to Brussels and not stand up for our country", bellowed British Prime Minister David Cameron. This, in the face of desperate emergency measures to rescue the euro and the all-in-this-together European Union with its disparate parts drowning in insolvency.

And actually Moscow has a long-standing grievance with the United States that has not been clarified to its satisfaction. The two countries, once nuclear adversaries during the Cold War, with only MAD (mutually assured destruction) keeping them sane, are still global adversaries during this diplomatic war of global dominance. Moscow looks for legally-binding assurances that the U.S.-led missile defence system for Europe won't target them. They feel they have a legitimate concern.

They want more than casual, anecdotal assurances. They insist they need something legally binding. Washington and NATO are steadfast in their refusal. Imagine how Russia views former satellites of the Soviet Union agreeing to host missile defence and detection systems that it feels are aimed squarely at them. Something like the way the United States reacted when Kruschev and Castro threatened and began to install nuclear-tipped missiles in Cuba.