RBTH for The Telegraph in April

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Politics & Society

Analysis

Ukraine crisis

UK elections

Mutual economic interests may bring Ukraine, Russia and the West closer in the search for lasting peace

Who is Russia’s favourite British general election candidate?

RBTH examines the field ULIN / TASS VALERY SHIRIF

P.02

P.06

rbth.co.uk

Distributed with

Published with the New York Times, the Washington Post, Le Figaro, El Pais and other leading world newspapers. This eight-page pull-out is produced and published by Rossiyskaya Gazeta (Russia), which takes sole responsibility for the contents

27m

people

200 days

6000 tanks

from the USSR are estimated to have died during the Second World War, more than from any other country

was how long the Battle of Stalingrad lasted. It was a major turning point in the war that cost the lives of more than a million Red Army soldiers and civilians

and self-propelled guns took part in the Battle of Kursk in June 1943, still the world’s biggest battle of its kind

Read previously untold stories of a world at war in this issue and find out much more at UNKNOWNWAR.RBTH.COM

A TIME FOR HEROES

WE WILL REMEMBER: VICTORY DAY AT 70 On May 9, 1945, the guns finally fell silent as the USSR and her western allies celebrated the defeat of Nazi Germany and the end of the Second World War in Europe. To mark the launch of Unknown War, a unique international online project created by Russia Beyond the Headlines, this special commemorative issue reveals some of the less well-known tales of bravery, hardship, secrets and strategy from a time of remarkable heroism

FOTOSOYUZ / VOTOCKPHOTO

INSIDE SECRET STALIN: HOW THE WAR WAS WON (P.04-05); MEMORIALS TO SACRIFICE AND VICTORY (P.08)

Politics & Society P2_Tuesday, April 21, 2015_www.rbth.co.uk

April Quarterly Report Dampening tension: the Minsk agreement saw the removal of heavy weapons from the front line

BEST RUSSIAN STUDIES PROGRAMMES 2015 In April, Russia Direct will release its comprehensive ranking of Russian and post-Soviet Studies programmes in US universities, together with analysis of the current state of Russian Studies programmes in America. While bringing together leading experts (including Harvard’s Alexandra Vacroux, Georgetown’s Angela Stent and Rhode Island University’s Nicolai Petro), the report will address the major challenges facing Russian Studies programmes in the US and ways of tackling them.

AP

After Minsk: economics may be the best hope for peace DMITRY BABICH SPECIAL TO RBTH

Recent developments in Ukraine have put the Minsk agreement in question, despite assurances from all involved that observing them is vital. The parties include the Ukrainian government, the rebel “people’s republics” with capitals in Donetsk and Luhansk (DNR and LNR, or Donbass region), Russia, the US and EU. Lack of trust between the new government in Kiev and the rebels is cited as the main reason for the tensions, but the recent adoption of controversial new laws (not acceptable to Donetsk and Luhansk) by the Ukrainian parliament makes the situation more volatile.

The essence of the agreement is the preservation of the territorial integrity of Ukraine in exchange for Kiev giving a “special status” to the mostly Russian-speaking rebel territories and a general amnesty for the enemies of the new Ukrainian regime. The problem is that the agreement did not say which side should make concessions first, leading to stalemate.

For example, from Kiev it was required “no later than in 30 days” to have a parliamentary resolution“indicating the territory which falls under the special regime”with that regime presupposing“the right to language self-determination” and general amnesty for the rebels.

Instead, five days after the deadline the Rada adopted a law proclaiming Donbass a “temporarily occupied territory” and postponing the adoption of special status “until the withdrawal of all illegal armed groups and foreign mercenaries, with the re-establishment of Ukraine’s control over its territory.”

Economic blockade The border between Russia and the territory of DNR and LNR is notoriously porous and the Minsk agreement presupposed the reestablishment of Kiev’s control over it. But both Moscow and the rebels make the return of

Ukrainian customs officials conditional on the the lifting of the economic blockade Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko imposed on the “occupied territories” in autumn. Ukrainian pensioners and public sector workers on these territories do not receive pensions and salaries (Kiev stopped all banking activity in Donbass last year).

“In this situation, Russian humanitarian aid [going through the rebel-controlled border] becomes the only source of subsistence for these people, and we are not ready to have the Ukrainian customs officials entrusted with this lifeline of ours,” said Andrei Purgin, the speaker of the DNR’s parliament.

Time may not be on the side of peace, since sporadic fighting is reported on both sides of the front line

Money transfers halted The Minsk agreement obliged Ukraine to resume banking in Donbass, possibly with help from western partners. But Andrei Turchynov, head of Ukraine’s National Security and Defence Council, said Kiev“was not going to feed terrorists and separatists” by resuming banking activity. Ukraine’s prime minister Arseny Yatsenyuk said he did not consider all the pensioners and public sector workers in Donbass criminals, but the transfer of payments was not yet possible for political reasons.

So Kiev blocks money transfers and food, while DNR and LNR stop Ukrainian officials resuming control of the Russian border.

The other stumbling block is the delay in the creation of“working teams”under the Contact Group. The leaders of DNR and LNR, accusing Kiev of dragging its heels on forming Ukraine’s part of the group, said they would stop the prisoner exchange until the problem of the Contact Group is settled. This is another breach of the Minsk agreement, since point 6 stipulated the release of all PoWs, hostages and illegally arrested people.

Time may not be on the side of peace, since sporadic fighting is reported on both sides of the front line. In a sign that force could still be used, Mr Poroshenko reiterated his intention to “de-escalate,” but not to “freeze” the conflict. A “freeze” would mean creating a situation similar to the one in Moldova, where Moldova and its separatist region of Transnistria (self-proclaimed Trans-Dniseter Moldovan Republic) have been peacefully co-exist-

Concern about delays Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said he was “worried” about the delays in the implementation of the Minsk agreement. He called on France and Germany, as the guarantors of the Minsk agreement, to“apply pressure,”forcing Kiev to fulfil the agreement.

But experts are sceptical about Berlin or Paris “pressing” Mr Poroshenko. Since the beginning of the war, the Ukrainian president heard nothing but praise and standing ovations from the officials in the EU, the US and Canada.

The economic losses could help move the peace process forward. The EU announced it would keep sanctions against Russia until the Minsk agreement is fulfilled. Mr Lavrov called this“absurd,”reminding his western partners that sanctions were hitting both sides. So, this may be the last hope for the Minsk agreement – its non-fulfilment makes Russia, Ukraine, and the EU poorer every day.

Vysotskaya, is being presented as part of the new doctrine of import replacement announced by Mr Putin as an answer to western sanctions.

The project has found favour with Russia’s deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich, who backed it at a meeting on the subject ordered by Mr Putin. Keen to get in on the act, another well-known Muscovite, ex-mayor Yuri Luzhkov, offered to supply the new fast-food chain with meat and cereals, RBC reported.

The business news site says that 70pc of the cash needed for the new chain would be taken as a state-guaranteed loan and the remaining 30pc from private investors.

The project’s business plan includes two industrial kitchens and 91 restaurant outlets. The fast-food chain would also provide food to orphanages and schools. It backers say that the initial investment could be recouped within five years.

Although Russians associate Konchalovsky with the West, as he spent a large part of his career making movies in Hollywood, Mikhalkov is notorious for big-budget, patriotic films that have been panned by critics.

Mikhalkov’s films provoke intense feelings among members of Russia's liberal opposition who dislike his nationalistic, Slavophile views and the perception that he uses his Kremlin links to his own advantage. The director, whose films have been screened at many European festivals including Cannes, also thinks internet users should pay a universal copyright levy. Whether ordinary Russians will like his home cooking remains to be seen.

REUTERS

Home cooking: Russian film directors aim to open fast-food chain to rival McDonald’s

REUTERS

CO N V E RT I N G M O N O LO G U E S I N TO D I A LO G U E

AN ANALYTICAL PUBLICATION THAT FOCUSES EXCLUSIVELY ON THE COMPLEX CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES SHAPING THE US-RUSSIA RELATIONSHIP

REGISTER TODAY AND GET: • 30% DISCOUNT ON YOUR ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION • 12 REPORTS PER YEAR • FULL ACCESS TO THE PUBLICATIONS ARCHIVE

MULTIMEDIA

Scan this code to read what the Russian press is saying about Ukraine and much more

FIND MORE

RUSSIA-DIRECT.ORG

rbth.co.uk/press_review

Every week we choose what's most important. Subscribe for our weekly newsletters rbth.co.uk/subscribe

NEWS IN BRIEF

Oscar-winning film director Nikita Mikhalkov and his half-brother Andrei Konchalovsky have petitioned President Vladimir Putin for a lump sum of 900 million roubles (£11m) in order to create a “patriotic” alternative to western fast-food chains such as McDonald’s, according to the business daily Kommersant.

The project, named after popular culinary TV programme Edim Doma! (Let’s Eat at Home!) hosted by Konchalovsky’s actress wife, Julia

ing for 23 years, after a brief war in 1992. The deadlines imposed by the Minsk agreement are strict but few experts expect them to be honoured. Ukraine was obliged by point 11 of the Minsk agreement to carry out constitutional reform before the end of 2015. The “key element”of the new constitution, according to the agreement, was the “decentralisation” of Ukraine, with the regions unhappy with the new government in Kiev (mostly the Russianspeaking ones) getting more autonomy.

However, opening the first session of the Ukrainian Constitutional Commission, Mr Poroshenko said “decentralisation” should give more power to cities, towns and rural communities, not to regions. He also stressed that the Ukrainian language should remain the only state language. Mr Poroshenko rejected the idea of Ukraine’s “federalisation”, saying 90pc of Ukrainian citizens rejected this idea.

The president promised not to block a referendum on the issue, so sure was he of the result. Next day, the Rada adopted laws prohibiting praise for the Communist regime of 1917-1991 and making the Ukrainian “independence fighters” (including the temporary allies of Hitler in 1941-44) legally immune from criticism. This may further complicate the return of DNR and LNR back to Ukraine’s fold.

Police extend inquiry into Nemtsov murder

Economic issues dominate Putin’s annual call-in show

Russian police have extended the period of investigation into the killing of opposition politician Boris Nemtsov, a source familiar with the situation has told Interfax. “The investigative agencies have issued a directive on extending the period of the investigation,” the source said.

The decision was prompted by the need to carry out numerous expert analyses and determine all of the circumstances of the crime, he said.

Mr Nemtsov was shot and killed on Bolshoi Moskvoretsky Bridge in central Moscow late on February 27. Five suspects are being held on remand until at least April 28. They are the suspected killer, Zaur Dadayev and his alleged accomplices, Anzor Gubashev, Khamzat Bakhayev, Shadid Gubashev and Tamerlan Eskerkhanov.

Dadayev confessed to the crime but he later withdrew his confession, saying that it had been extracted under duress.

Russian observers have hailed Vladimir Putin’s 13th televised “direct line” public phone-in as a success, despite the president struggling with questions about the government’s fiscal decisions over the past year.

Questions about the economy dominated the live televised phone-in on April 16, with relations with Ukraine appearing to take a back seat. Mr Putin spent almost four hours answering questions from the public on various issues in the annual broadcast, which is seen by many as a barometer of the public mood in Russia.

There is a degree of fatigue over Ukraine, with public attention currently more occupied with the economic crisis at home, analysts say, although the recent strengthening of the rouble and rising oil prices are going some way toward allaying public fears.

But Mr Putin still seemed rather uncomfortable when answering economic questions, said Alexei Mukhin, CEO of the Centre for Political Information.

The president “had to find justification for the actions of the government, which many consider to be insufficient, inert and tardy. And here he had a hard time.” For example, “the president was stumped by a question about foreign currency mortgages”.

Nevertheless, Mr Putin’s answers are likely to have satisfied the Russian public, said Sergei Markov, director of the Institute of Political Studies, which has close ties to the Kremlin. “He stressed that, despite sanctions, we have slight economic growth. Though there is a drop in living standards, we will use sanctions in our own interest and stimulate growth.”

Aloud and proud: great literature in two languages

SHUTTERSTOCK/LEGION-MEDIA

Ukraine crisis Damage caused by sanctions to both sides could be key factor in ending stalemate over conflict

The British Embassy in Moscow, in co-operation with the Inter-Regional Reading Federation, is to hold Russia’s first contest in reading aloud in two languages.

Participants in the competition, Loud Allowed, will be asked to perform in public, reading excerpts from Russian and British literature aloud without any preparation. The readings will include both prose and poetry.

The Loud Allowed contest will commemorate the centenary of the First World War, with readings of works by famous British war poets and excerpts from letters from the front, as well as modern literature.

The contest aims to highlight the common history of the UK and Russia during the First World War, the rich literary traditions of both countries, and to identify Russia’s most talented narrators. The winners of national qualifying rounds will take part in the finals in Moscow in June.

Business & Finance THIS SUPPLEMENT IS SPONSORED BY ROSSIYSKAYA GAZETA_www.rbth.co.uk_Tuesday, April 21, 2015_P3

European gas contracts under threat Energy EU looks for alternatives to Gazprom amid fears that plans for an Energy Union could push up prices for consumers ALEXEI LOSSAN RBTH

Two months ago, the European Commission published a package of proposals for an Energy Union, its first significant attempt to unify and strengthen the co-ordination of energy policy in the 28 EU member states. Russian experts say the creation of an Energy Union would lead to a fundamental review of gas contracts with the Russian gas giant Gazprom.

National leaders in the EU have already backed the European Commission’s plan. It would mean the Commission would be able to influence directly commercial gas supply agreements, including those made with Gazprom.

“The creation of a single energy market is the EU countries’ attempt to present themselves as a single buyer and receive identical

contractual terms,” says Professor Ivan Kapitonov, an expert on government economic regulation at the Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (Ranepa).

That does not mean that all EU countries would benefit from the proposal, Prof Kapitonov adds, since some European countries buy gas at low prices and others at high prices.

THE NUMBERS

117

billion cubic metres: the amount of gas Gazprom sent to western Europe

reduce its consumption of Russian gas in certain circumstances, subject to the logistics of gas supply.

Sergei Khestanov, a professor of finance and banking at Raneepa, agrees:“The way in which European gas pipelines are currently arranged means the EU cannot stop Russian gas imports any earlier than 2017-18. There is a lack of alternative suppliers and infrastructure.”

Market transparency Gas market transparency is at the heart of the new agreement. To achieve this there will be a mechanism that checks the intergovernmental agreements EU countries make with countries outside the European Union, such as Russia.

The existing practice has been for European gas buyers to negotiate supply contracts individually, with the conditions of commercial agreements remaining confidential.

Under the new European rules, Brussels would be able to check intergovernmental agreements and suggest changes to them.

The UFS IC analyst Alexei Kozlov believes that the European Union would be able to

Alternative suppliers

10

billion of which was supplied to the United Kingdom

38

billion went to Germany, making it the EU country most dependent on Russian gas

He believes that finding alternative suppliers and building the necessary infrastructure would be costly and time-consuming, leading to higher prices for end users.

Dmitry Baranov, an expert at Finam Management, says the European Union is already in talks with potential alternative suppliers of gas and oil,“in the Middle East, North Africa, the Persian Gulf, as well as the former Soviet Republics, Canada and the United States”.

The talks are at an early stage with no largescale contracts in sight yet, he adds. In March 2014, Gazprom sharply increased gas supplies

to Europe and the transit of hydrocarbons through Ukraine. Experts believe that the Russian company was attempting to win loyalty from European buyers, which were planning to diversify supplies.

Russian gas transits through Ukraine grew by nearly 40pc, with more than two-thirds of the additional capacity going to Italy and the rest to southern Germany.

In addition, Gazprom nearly doubled supplies – to approximately 95 million cubic metres daily – through Nord Stream, the Baltic Sea pipeline that connects Russian gas supplies with German consumers. These new supplies of gas were almost equally distributed between Germany and North-western European countries.

Europe remains Gazprom’s biggest customer, although the company is actively working to develop its markets in Pacific Rim countries, according to the company’s press office. A key target market is China; in 2014 Gazprom sold a total of 4.5bn cubic metres of liquefied gas to customers in Asia.

Power play: the European Commission wants a unified approach to gas deals, in effect making the EU a single customer

YURY BELINSKY / TASS

Love or money? Expats face dilemma over falling salaries Migration The rouble’s fall has made Russia less attractive to foreign workers, but many enjoy life in their adopted country too much to leave BRYAN MACDONALD SPECIAL TO RBTH

Learning English can be difficult enough without the extra handicap of your teachers leaving every month. Krasnodar-based model scout Tanya Firsova has been taught by four tutors this year already. “Initially, I thought it was me, or that they didn’t like Krasnodar, but it’s obviously the rouble. At this rate, I’ll have to emigrate to Dublin to learn English,” she joked. But is the situation really so uncomfortable for expats that many of them are leaving Russia?

Juan Martinez arrived in Russia’s Far Eastern outpost of Khabarovsk in 2008, just as the economy of his native Spain fell off a cliff. Raised on balmy Andalusian nights, even after seven Siberian Januaries, he has failed to adjust to the city’s devastatingly cold winters. However, while he hated the chill, he loved the spending power the strong rouble gave him back home.

Helping to build a refinery near the Chinese border for Lukoil, Mr Martinez, 47, was paid 300,000 roubles monthly, which once translated to £6,000. Because of the Russian currency’s recent travails, it’s now £3,500. Mr Martinez returns to Europe next week. Permanently.

“I came here with 40 other Spanish engineers and administrative staff. Most of us expected to stay around six months but now about 25 of the original crew are still here and others come and go. Some of the group married locals, some stayed here with them and others took them back to Spain,” he explains. “I just kind of drifted here. I was

it’s around 65. At this rate of recovery, it’ll be back to 40 again soon enough,” she predicts.

The ambitious young architect is motivated by more than money. “I am staying because I like my job and my company, plus people have a hard time finding a job in my country. I am not here just because of the money, but work experience. And, if I’m honest, I love Moscow.”

British oil-executive John Hogan, 57, has been based in Russia on and off since 2004.

John says despite the current economic problems, he stays to do business in Russia.

“Politics aside, Russia is a great country. The people are well educated and less ignorant than the British. That said, businesses are starting to struggle and lay people off, people are staying at home instead of travelling abroad.

Also, supermarket prices have soared, probably 50pc in real terms.”

Despite reports of a mass expat exodus, John dismisses this notion: “I have not come across any foreigners wanting to leave unless they’ve had to. I’m negotiating with four oil companies right now to provide expert services and improve their margins and my UK colleagues are still very active in Russia.”

Appalling forecasts

IGOR KUBEDINOV / TASS

Hard lesson: some expats, including English tutors, have left Russia because of the weak rouble

divorced just before arriving and I’ve been sending money back to my two children,” he elaborates. “With Spain in such a mess, I just couldn’t walk away from £6,000 a month, but now that it’s half that, I’d be confident of matching it in Madrid. Some of the others are heading to a project in Chile now. I am tired of moving.”

MULTIMEDIA

Serbian stagnation While western Europe’s economic position is generally improving, the eastern side of the continent remains largely moribund.

Moscow-based Serb Dragana Tomaskovic, 24, claims that Russia would need to collapse in order to match the level of despair in Belgrade.

“Everyone keeps asking me, ‘Are you leaving?’ Russia has had some terrible publicity but things aren’t that bad. The rouble fell as low as 100 to the euro; now

Scan this code to read how the crisis is hitting the clothing sector

FIND MORE rbth.co.uk/45157

While John, Dragana and Juan are all currently in Russia, Canadian Tyler Moss had planned to return after a four-year absence. The 39 year-old former ice hockey professional and NHL veteran, played five seasons with Spartak Moscow and Amur Khabarovsk and left some of his heart in the vast country. “I love Russia,” he says.

However, there is a large “but”.

“Let’s call a spade a spade, the economy is toast and there’s no way to sugarcoat it,” he says. “When I was in Russia last time (200611) everything was on an upward curve. As a hockey player, you travelled the country and could see the improvements year on year.

Now the data and forecasts are appalling.”

The former goaltender subsequently found a fresh calling in the energy sector and was poised to market a new product in Russia for his Canadian company.

“I was going to be based in Sochi and meet people at conferences there and do a bit of travelling around. After cold winters here in Calgary, I had an image of kicking back a bit in the Russian sub-tropics.

That’s parked for now, more’s the pity.

Man, I adore Russia, but it’s got to sort itself out.”With that, he tails off.

... but the battered rouble is bouncing back VIKTOR ASTAFIEV RBTH

The rouble, which plunged alarmingly in December, 2014 has enjoyed a rapid change in fortunes. Between early February and early April 2015 it strengthened by 22.3pc, making it the world’s best-performing currency, UFS IC chief analyst Alexei Kozlov has told RBTH. The gains were higher than the rise in world oil prices, a trend the rouble usually closely follows. In the same period, the price of Brent crude oil grew by just 9.8pc, from $53 to just over $58 per barrel. According to Mr Kozlov, the rouble’s rise can be largely attributed to investors’ interest in the high yields accumulated by developing markets. The gains come after the Russian currency lost half its value against the dollar and the euro last December.

Konstantin Korishchenko, deputy head of the stock market and financial engineering department at the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, which strongly influences government fiscal policy, told RBTH that a combination of several favourable factors in past weeks had influenced the rouble rally.

Mr Korishchenko said a decision by the Russian Central Bank to grant $30bn (£20bn) of foreign currency loans to banks and cut the key interest rate from 17pc to 14pc were key factors, along with lower tensions in eastern Ukraine.“All this has made investment in the rouble and rouble assets speculatively more attractive,” said Mr Korishchenko.

Anton Soroko, an analyst with Finam Investment, says the currency may soon strengthen further if oil prices rise and there are signs that sanctions against Russia may be lifted.

However, experts are not yet convinced that the sharp increase in the value of the rouble will become a long-term trend.

Victory Day at 70 P4_Tuesday, April 21, 2015_www.rbth.co.uk_THIS SUPPLEMENT IS SPONSORED BY ROSSIYSKAYA GAZETA

Secret Stalin: how the war was won History’s view The Soviet leader has been criticised for the Nazi pact and his conduct of the war. But there is another side to the story

mocracies” by signing the pact with Hitler. On balance, the Hitler-Stalin pact was more beneficial to Russia than to Germany. Although the pact at first angered the democracies, the fact remains that Russia gained nearly two years in which to build up its inferior military and economic might.

At that time, Russia feared a possible surprise attack by Germany and Japan. On June 22, 1941, Hitler’s armies suddenly attacked the Soviet Union, turning that country overnight into a partner of the democracies. During the next three years, Stalin’s Russia became the key player confronting the Nazi juggernaut.

ALBERT AXELL HISTORIAN

The Second World War not only left more than 50 million dead, it also intimately affected the lives of hundreds of millions of men, women and children across the globe. In Russia, it is said that no family was untouched by the tragedy, and that each has its tales to tell: of suffering, courage, hate, love, imprisonment or liberation.

To mark the 70th anniversary of the end of the Second World War in Europe, Russia Beyond the Headlines has launched a unique international project, Unknown War. Over the coming weeks, a wealth of unknown and hitherto untold stories will be published online, providing analysis and the human narratives behind the more formal history of the war.

On the 70th anniversary of the end of the conflict, the ambition is to give voice to many of the people who in one way or another came into contact with the war and have stories to tell. Perhaps the tales of those who lived through the tragedy, or those of parents, grandparents or friends who were caught up in the conflict, and who recorded or recounted their experiences – and then fell silent and were forgotten.

Discover the Unknown War in the pages of this issue and find out much more at UNKNOWNWAR.RBTH.COM

The Soviet leader Joseph Stalin remains a divisive figure, in Russia and beyond. The architect of brutal political purges, mass deportations and forced labour camps, nonetheless his domestic policies ushered in a period of unprecedented modernisation, featuring great improvements in industrial output, social welfare and education.

With regard to his achievements on the international stage, many books have been published, especially in the western world, which not only attack Stalin’s wartime leadership skills, but also criticise his behind-the-scenes role as a negotiator with Hitler’s Germany in August 1939.

Here, the US historian Albert Axell draws upon his extensive research, including interviews with the men who worked with and under Stalin, to offer an alternative view of the Soviet leader’s war leadership and the nation’s role in the defeat of Hitler.

The US ambassador

The wartime US ambassador to Russia, W Averell Harriman, who knew Stalin intimately, said the following when I met him in Moscow in May 1979: “During the war we became convinced that Stalin was a great leader.” Harriman then added two extraordinary sentences: “Stalin was one of the most effective war leaders in history.”

Harriman is unique. He may be called an eyewitness to history because he not only participated in many important wartime conferences with Stalin but he also had an insider’s knowledge of Russia. In the Twenties he had received a concession to a manganese mine in the Caucasus.

During the war, Stalin sometimes jokingly referred to Harriman as “our man from the Caucasus”. Giving full support to Harriman’s view of Stalin but going one step further is the late British scholar Joseph McCabe, who recorded that when Hitler’s armies fell upon Russia in 1941, “Stalin became the West’s leader in the gravest crisis through which the world has passed since the fall of Rome.”

The Hitler-Stalin pact of 1939

The so-called “friendship pact” between Stalin and Hitler (commonly known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) signed at midnight on August 23, 1939, only eight days before the outbreak of the Second World War, continues to cause controversy. Books are published accusing Russia of “betraying our western de-

Berne affair: USSR is left in the cold

The Russian generals

Some complain that Stalin failed to use those 22 months, when the Russo-German pact was in force, to strengthen the Red Army. What are the facts?

In the late Eighties, when I was in Moscow conducting research on the Second World War, I put an important question to several senior generals who fought under Stalin: did the Soviet leader do everything to prepare for the Nazi invasion? General Ivan Shavrov, who later became a leading member of the Defence Ministry’s Institute of Military History, said: “Stalin made everything possible and even did the impossible to prepare the country for defence. If the industrialisation had not been achieved, if there had been no base created for the defence industry, we could not have managed during the war.”

He added:“But Stalin did not take specific steps to mobilise the border military regions... if Stalin had started mobilising the troops and began taking various measures in the border military districts, Hitler could have claimed that he was preparing for war.

At the beginning of 1945, the German High Command authorised Gen Karl Wolff to negotiate with the US and Britain on terms for ending the war in northern Italy.

The Americans had invited Gen Wolff to Berne, Switzerland, for secret talks with Allen Dulles, head of the US intelligence service.

Discovering this, Stalin insisted USSR representatives should join in the talks. But Stalin’s request was refused.

The Russians were angry, saying that the Berne talks were an attempt to make a deal with the Nazis behind Russia’s back.

Stalin said “the initiative in the matter... belongs to the British.’’

Army divisions weak

“Of course, Hitler’s armies would have succeeded at the very beginning in any case because our army divisions were weak and not at full strength compared to the German forces. But our casualties could have been considerably less if we had built up our strength at the border.”

I pressed him on this point: is it entirely certain that casualties would have been fewer if Stalin had placed the bulk of his armies on the border? Gen Shavrov thought for a while before replying:“If we had concentrated many more troops in the border areas – as Hitler wanted us to do – they could all have been destroyed then and there. In this sense, you are right. We could have had even more casualties at the border.”

It is little known that far from trusting Hitler, in the critical days and weeks leading up to the invasion, Stalin took steps to strengthen the Soviet armed forces and the border area.

In the words of Gen Ivan Bagramyan, these steps prove that “a titanic effort was made to prepare Russia for war”.

THE QUOTE

"

It is very fortunate for Russia to have this rugged war chief at her head. He is a man of massive outstanding personality, suited to the sombre and stormy times in which his life has been cast...”

WINSTON CHURCHILL ON STALIN

EPA / VOSTOCKPHOTO

unknownwar.rbth.com

Preparing for war

• Mid-May, 1941 – as many as 28 divisions began moving to border districts on General Staff directives.

• May 27 – the General Staff ordered the western border districts “urgently” to build up from command posts; on June 10 the Baltic, Western and Kiev Military Districts were ordered to move their front commands to the newly-built posts.

• Early June – 800,000 reservists were called up for field training and sent to reinforce the western military districts. The vital Odessa Military district (on the Black Sea) had obtained permission to do this earlier.

• Early June – instructions were given to naval vessels to intensify patrols. A number of naval bases were moved to safer locations. On the eve of the German invasion, the Baltic, Northern and Black Sea Fleets were placed on battle alert.

• June 12-15 – all military districts ordered to bring their divisions closer to the border.

• Mid-1941 – Russia’s armed forces had been boosted to more than five million, almost triple that of 1939.

DF Fleming, author of the two-volume Cold War and Its Origins (1961), concludes that “by making the 1939 pact with Hitler, the Russians

Read all about it: the news from Press freedom The remarkable story of how a Russian-language wartime newspaper remained uncensored and on sale in the Soviet Union until 1949 NIKOLAI GORSHKOV

We are inviting readers to send us their 'Untold Stories', both texts and photos, which we shall publish on and around the 70th anniversary of the ending of the war in Europe on May 9. Our principal focus will be on the earth-shattering events of the Eastern Front, of the soldiers and civilians who found themselves, together with their Soviet allies, fighting against a common enemy.

Please send your material to editors@rbth.com

“Russian forces [pounding the German armies]… are completing and epitomising a great historic feat – the emergence of Soviet Russia as the mightiest power on the European continent”.

This assessment made in November 1944 is not from a Stalinist propaganda sheet but from a British newspaper published in the Soviet Union during the war. Printed in Russian every Sunday from 1942 until 1949, the Britanski Soyuznik [British Ally] was the only western periodical available in the Soviet Union. And it was uncensored, as Burnley’s MP Wilfrid Burke told parliament: “Soviet authorities have not imposed any formal conditions with regard to the contents and it is not subject to Soviet censorship.”

Junior foreign minister Ernest Davies said: “The function of British Ally is to inform its readers of British ways, views, events and institutions, and to reflect British policy. It reproduces ministerial statements, texts of official notes, and comment from the British press on subjects likely to be of direct interest to the Soviet reader, many of which are strongly critical of Soviet policy and actions.”

A puzzling anomaly

Given Stalin’s grip on the Soviet press, such independence looked like a “puzzling anomaly” to British diplomats, who cabled back to London, that Soviet authorities subsidised the production and distribution of the British Ally, making it a “considerable rouble-earner” for the embassy. The paper sold up to 50,000 copies a week: it was so popular that a single copy would be shared by 10 people and it even reached Red Army servicemen and women.

Perhaps it was popular because it did not look like propaganda. It had all the hallmarks of a respectable broadsheet, with articles on culture, science and sport. The credit should probably go to its wartime editor, George Reavey.

Brothers in arms: British diplomats were amazed that the Soviet leadership tolerated British Ally

RGAKFD/VOSTOCK-PHOTO

SPECIAL TO RBTH

A surrealist poet, publisher and translator, Reavey was an unlikely choice for a political publication. While his literary endeavours are well documented, his three-year stint in wartime Russia is less well known. Born to an Irish father and a Russian mother in Vitebsk in 1907, Reavey went to school in Nizhny Novgorod and learnt Russian.

He fled to Belfast with his mother after his father was arrested during the Russian Civil War in 1919. He read history and literature at Cambridge and knew Joyce and Beckett, becoming Beckett’s first – but not very successful – literary agent. After moving to Paris, Reavey befriended many Russian writers and poets and translated Bunin, Mayakovsky and Pasternak into English.

After war broke out in September 1939, Reavey rushed to eastern Poland to rescue his mother when the territory was occupied

by Soviet forces, as part of Stalin’s pact with Hitler to divide the country.

There his neutrality appears to have ended as he joined the British Foreign Service and was sent to the Soviet Union to edit the paper. The only way to Russia was the Arctic convoy route to Murmansk or Archangelsk.

His boat was torpedoed and sank off Norway. Reavey was saved by Russian fishermen and ended up in Kuibyshev (now Samara) on the Volga, where British and other embassies had been relocated.

With the Allied victory over the Axis powers complete, Reavey returned to translating poetry. Back in London in 1945 he published an anthology, Soviet Literature Today, before leaving for New York to teach Russian literature. His translation of Evgeni Evtushenko’s Babi Yar, a poetic tribute to the Soviet Jews massacred by the Nazis in Kiev, is a considered one of the best.

In the words of his friend Julian Trevelyan, Reavey was a great “bringer together” of conflicting personalities, a quality he brought to the British Ally, marrying the officialese of the British Ministry of Information with contributions by literary giants such as JB Priestley, who allowed his new play An Inspector Calls to make its debut in Moscow in late 1945 rather than in London.

The British Ally was a unique newspaper in the Soviet Union not only because it was the only western one but also because it did not join the chorus singing the praises of

Victory Day at 70 THIS SUPPLEMENT IS SPONSORED BY ROSSIYSKAYA GAZETA_www.rbth.co.uk_Tuesday, April 21, 2015_P5

Four faces of war...

Eyewitness accounts From the front line to life in a Nazi concentration camp, personal tales of bravery and survival VIKTOR ASTAFIEV RBTH

War hero? the Hitler-Stalin pact gave Russia valuable time to build up her military capability

MULTIMEDIA

Scan this code for the female face of war – Soviet women and military challenges

FIND MORE

rbth.co.uk/women

instead of facing the full power of the Nazi war machine, turned Hitler back upon the West.

“They also acquired almost two years of precious time in which to prepare for a German onslaught.”

Strangely enough, the above measures to strengthen Russia’s defences during the period of the Hitler-Stalin Pact are almost never spelt out in popular books on pre-war Russia.

The Soviet hero

Marshal Georgy K Zhukov – the man with more major victories to his name than any other Second World War general and the most decorated officer in Russian and Soviet history – is considered in the West to be one of the best generals of the 20th century.

Of Joseph Stalin and the victorious Battle of Moscow in 1941-42, Gen Zhukov said: “Stalin must be given credit for the enormous work in organising the necessary strategic, material and technical resources. By his strict exactingness, Stalin achieved, one can say, the near-impossible.”

Albert Axell has written five books on Russia in the Second World War, its people, its heroes and its problems. He new book, The Greatest Lies of the 20th Century, will be published later in the year.

Britain

It was so popular that a single copy would be read by 10 people, including Red Army soldiers

Stalin. This even raised concerns among British politicians for the safety of the paper’s Russian readership, with fears being raised in Parliament that reading the paper posed a deadly risk to its Soviet readers.

It is believed the paper was the brainchild of Winston Churchill, who addressed Soviet readers in the paper’s inaugural issue in 1942: “The cause of every Russian fighting for his land and his home is the cause of all free people in any part of the world.”

The clue to Churchill’s involvement may be in a story about Britain’s commando forces, which the paper described as the “vanguard of the second front”. In 1942 the second front was a long way off. Prevarication by the Anglo-American allies in opening the front was a major irritant to Stalin. The British Ally appeared to be part of an effort to reassure Soviet public opinion that Britain was firmly on their country’s side.

Another signal of support in the paper’s inaugural issue was a feature about the Arctic convoys bringing American and British war supplies to the Red Army.

There was an ironic parallel in the way the paper and Priestley were eventually shut out of the media domain. Complaints about Priestley’s left-wing leanings forced Churchill to cancel the writer’s extremely popular wartime BBC broadcasts (more popular than Churchill’s own), while complaints about the British Ally’s anti-Soviet propaganda prompted Moscow to try to limit its circulation in the USSR. The attempt at suppression was half-hearted as the Soviets continued to subsidise the paper. “I cannot pretend to explain why the Soviet authorities permit the continued existence of this uncensored paper when, in every other sphere, news from and of the outside world is so rigidly controlled,” a secret cable from the British ambassador noted in 1949.

“It would be so easy for them to kill it by cutting off paper supplies, withdrawing printing facilities or even inducing more of the Soviet staff to resign for “reasons of conscience”.

Winston Churchill’s Foreign Secretary, Anthony Eden, wrote in the first issue of the paper in 1942: “Starting with May 22, 1942 we have publicly vowed to work in Europe together for common goals for at least 20 years.” Alas, it only took four years for Churchill to come up with his March 1946“Iron Curtain”speech that signalled the start of the Cold War. However, the only western newspaper in the Soviet Union was still published until 1949.

Boris Sokolov, 95, a highly decorated wartime Red Army cameraman is pictured aged 21 in 1945. The frontline soldier ended the war with two orders and 31 medals

William Smith, died in 2003 aged 83. in 1941 he was 21 and volunteered for the Royal Navy.

During the war he participated in the Arctic convoys

There was fear, but although our losses were big, we forgot about it as we were working. Throughout the war, a total of 258 people worked at the front, using more than 3.5 million metres of 35mm film.

One in five died. Some were wounded or shell-shocked. I’ve been asked if we were guarded when filming. There were no guards, we were left to ourselves.

There were no zooms then, you needed to change lenses for different scales. The camera weighed about 3.5kg (8lb). We also had 30-metre rolls of film but the winding mechanism could roll only 15 metres at once – this is only half a minute of screen time.

You had to replace each roll in a bag or in a dark room in order not to expose the film.

If you used a bag, it was all done by groping in the dark. Replacing the roll took at least five to 10 minutes. We could film everything, but it depended on the censors if it made it to the screen or not. I was not yet at the front when we were suffering defeats, but, according to comrades, the retreat was barely filmed. In some cases cameramen tried to capture the retreat but were asked not to, often with a threat.

The sea was violent with waves of more than 30ft east of Bear Island and we were rolling as much as 30 degrees to port and starboard.

With the deck covered in ice and snow, we had to use lifelines when going aft to the guns and depth charges. You had to fix a rope around your body with a hook attached to the lifeline and gradually move aft when the ship was steady. But when she rolled, your feet left the deck and at 30 degrees you were hanging over the sea. At maximum roll the ship shuddered for a few seconds and then came back or turned over.

The temperature dropped as low as 60 degrees below freezing. Your eyebrows and eyelashes froze and your eyes were very sore with the winds blowing into them.

The older men, who had hair in their noses, found that these froze solid and were like needles. Many men came off watch with faces covered in blood as they had rubbed their noses without thinking.

The main thing at this time was to keep the upper deck clear of ice and snow using axes and steam hoses or the ship could become top-heavy and turn over in high seas. That was an ever-present risk.

Anatoly Lifshits, 87. In 1942, he was serving as a navigator on a SKR-32 vessel that was patrolling waters near Murmansk

Pavel Rubinchik, 87, head of the St Petersburg Society of Jews.

In 1941 he was 13

On July 13, 1942, our ship was on a patrol near the approaches to Kola Bay, the main base of the Soviet Northern Fleet, when we learnt from a telegram that a lifeboat with a large number of sailors on board was about 30 miles north of us. Indeed, three hours and a bit later we saw a lifeboat carrying 50 freezing people, who had spent several days in the Barents Sea. Several were unconscious. We took them on board and gave them a drink and warm clothes.

The sailors were from the British steamer Bolton Castle, which was in the PQ-17 convoy headed for Murmansk and Arkhangelsk and which had been torpedoed eight days earlier. Among them were six Russian sailors, whose ship had been sunk

by German aircraft on its way from Arkhangelsk to England. Part of the crew, between 18 and 20 people, survived and were brought to Reykjavik in Iceland, where they were cared for in hospital. They were then sent back to Russia on the Bolton Castle. After that ship was attacked too, only six survived. They did not at first realise where they were and feared that they had been rescued by the enemy. It was only some five to six hours later, having realised that they were surrounded by Russian speakers, that they told their story.

An order was issued for the Jewish people in Minsk to move to live in the ghetto. In the orphanage we’d been fed, but it was little skeletons that lived there. I was given a wheelbarrow. And for the next two months, I took these skeletons, emaciated with hunger, and dumped them into mass graves.

We were sent to work building a prison for the Germans – for deserters, cowards or dissidents. After that we had to be taken back to the ghetto. We got into the truck but noticed we were travelling too long, on a forest road. The adults recognised the area and said, “We are not going to the ghetto.”

The death camp near Minsk, where they burnt and shot people, was already known.

No one came back alive. They opened the gate, and we said goodbye to each other.

Behind the barbed wire, every fifth person was told to step forward. One in three was then taken and they were hanged. We were afraid to move. A German came forward and said, “You came to a facility where we make weapons to defeat the Communists.”We were forced to work in gun workshops. We worked for 14-16 hours daily, fed once a day with soup made of herring heads. I survived thanks to a German named Paul. He brought me pots to wash. And there was some food in these pots. That was my salvation.

The Order of the Patriotic War, established in 1942, was the Soviet Union’s first military award of the conflict. Given for heroic deeds by troops, security forces and partisans, it had two versions, first and second class. Until 1977 it was the only Soviet order that could be retained by relatives after the death of a recipient. All others had to be returned to the state.

The most common Russian wartime award is the medal For the Victory Over Germany in the Great Patriotic War 1941–1945. Established on Victory Day, May 9, 1945, more than 15 million people qualified as recipients.

THE HEROES OF VICTORY ONLINE During nearly four years of fighting in what was for the Soviet Union total war, Red Army soldiers won more than 38 million awards, orders and medals for bravery and for taking part in various campaigns. Sadly, in many cases the award never reached the serviceman or woman who had earned the honour through their sacrifice and courage.

New technology now allows the families of veterans – and surviving veterans themselves – to check online to see if there are any awards due to them. In the 70 years since the end of the war, its survivors and their descendants have scattered across the world. The goal of the Zvezdy Pobedy (Stars of Victory) project is to provide a way for these far-flung former Soviet citizens to check if they have missed out.

There are more than 8,200 names listed in the database, which can be read in Russian at rg.ru/zvezdy_pobedy. With the help of readers, RBTH editors have already found the families of five women listed in the database.

If you have Russian friends who live in your country, you are an émigré or a descendant; or if any of your relatives, male or female, fought or served in 1941-1945, please visit the website and check to see whether you or they are among those still awaiting an award.

RBTH will update readers with details of those veterans who have been found through the online database. Please let us know if you think you or people who you know missed out, by emailing info@rbth.com

One of the most prestigious wartime awards is The Medal for the Capture of Berlin. Given to all those involved in the storming of the capital of Hitler’s Third Reich or its organisation, more than a millon were issued. There are also medals from other campaigns as the Red Army swept to victory across eastern Europe in 1944 and 1945.

... and one voice Radio legend Yuri Levitan was the wartime voice of the Soviet Union, whose call sign ‘Moscow speaking’ inspired a generation OLGA BELENITSKAYA SPECIAL TO RBTH

Stalin’s choice: Levitan was handpicked for the role by the nation’s leader

His was the wartime voice of the Soviet Union. The voice of Yuri Levitan, top anchor for the All Union Radio station, was known to every Russian, bringing news from across the USSR into the homes of ordinary people in the Thirties and Forties. So influential was his delivery of the reports that Hitler came to hate him; so much so that he put a 250,000 reichsmark bounty on his head – higher than that for Stalin, who came in at number two on the Nazi death list.

Fate played its hand early in Levitan’s life. At 19, in January 1934, Stalin heard his perfect diction and studied tone on air, and demanded that only Levitan read his announcements. So the trainee, thanks to the rare and expressive timbre of his voice, became the Soviet Union’s main radio anchor. On June 22, 1941, correspondents in Kiev and Minsk reported the surprise attack

by Germany. Levitan was called to work and a courier brought a package from the

Kremlin with two lines to be broadcast: “At 12 o’clock an important government announcement will be made.”

“Attention! Moscow speaking! Citizens of the Soviet Union! We are transmitting an announcement from the Soviet government.

Today at four o’clock in the morning, without presenting any claims to the Soviet Union, without declaring war, German forces invaded our country…” Levitan announced.

“Moscow speaking” became Levitan’s wartime call sign, although from the autumn of 1941 his words were broadcast from Sverdlovsk (now Ekaterinburg) after the station was evacuated – and all Moscow’s radio towers dismantled and moved east to prevent the Germans using them as bombaiming points. Levitan received instructions from Stalin and the reports from the Soviet Information Bureau in Moscow by phone. In March 1943, Levitan was transferred to Kuibyshev (now Samara), where the Radio Committee was located.

On May 9, 1945, on the day of the German surrender, Levitan was called to the Kremlin, where he was presented with Stalin’s victory speech. He had 35 minutes to prepare. To get to the studio he had to cross a packed Red Square. Levitan would later remember that he had to scream: “Comrades, let us through, we have important things to do!” Finding it impossible force his way through the crowds, he returned to the Kremlin, which had its own radio station.

At 12.55 Levitan removed the wax seal from the envelope and read: “Moscow speaking!

Fascist Germany is destroyed!”

unknownwar.rbth.com

Analysis P6_Tuesday, April 21, 2015_www.rbth.ru_THIS SUPPLEMENT IS SPONSORED BY ROSSIYSKAYA GAZETA

ART OF DIPLOMACY

IF RUSSIANS HAD A UK VOTE

Ukraine crisis: we’re facing a Cold War mindset

Bryan MacDonald INTERNATIONAL ANALYST

Alexander Yakovenko AMBASSADOR

T KONSTANTIN MALER

If the Kremlin had a vote in next month’s British general election, it would probably spoil it.

Neither of the main candidates for Downing Street makes Russian hearts rejoice but some putative coalition partners just might. But what does the poll mean for UK/Russia relations?

From Moscow’s perspective, Margaret Thatcher would undoubtedly be the best choice for prime minister. Mere mention of the Iron Lady’s name is enough to prompt a smile from older Russian diplomats, who admired her “what you see is what you get”attitude. With a swoosh of her handbag even the most wizened silovik melted. Sadly for the Kremlin, Lady Thatcher is dead and the next best thing, Meryl Streep, is not standing.

Obviously, the electorate can only play with the cards on the table. Compared to Thatcher, or even Tony Blair, that deck is short on aces.

With Russia/UK relations at close to an alltime low, Britain’s Russian community will be hoping the next Westminster administration prefers Tolstoy’s happy epilogue to the main sections of War and Peace.

To describe David Cameron as “disliked”in Moscow is probably charitable. The truth is that he’s about as popular among the Russian elite as the tax collector Zacchaeus was in Jericho. That’s probably not a shock to British readers but the reasons for it might be. Russians don’t just dismiss Cameron because of his chilly rhetoric towards their president, Vladimir Putin.

Instead, Moscow thinks he’s failing to act in Britain’s best interests and weakening his nation. They believe Cameron does this by slavishly following American diktats and alienating Britain from its European partners. Many Brits might not agree, but Russians view the Washington-London relationship as being one between master and slave. No prizes for guessing who they believe is the master, either.

Ironically, Russians would probably find Boris Johnson more palatable as Conservative Party leader. He’s perceived as being stronger and more pragmatic than Cameron. Sure, the London mayor is more anti-Europe than the incumbent Tory leader but he’s also believed to be pro-British to a greater extent and less likely to follow “instructions” from Washington.

Ironically, the only way for Johnson to become Conservative leader in the short term is if Cameron loses the election and falls on his sword.

Visit any racetrack and you’ll observe that bookmakers generally leave in more desirable cars than punters. That’s because they are rarely wrong. Bookies are putting the odds on a Labour minority government as the most likely outcome next month.

VOX POP

Ed Miliband appears to be taking George Clooney's advice on Russian sanctions

We know that Ed Miliband has a 93-yearold second cousin in Moscow called Sofia Davidovna Miliband, a celebrated Russian orientalist and historian. If Ed was taking soundings from her that would be encouraging, given her experience and knowledge. It appears that instead he’s taking George Clooney’s advice on Russia sanctions.

The Daily Mirror reported in January that Ed and George had “discussed beefing up restrictions on Vladimir Putin’s regime over a meal at a London mansion”. I doubt that Barack Obama talks Ireland with Liam Neeson or Ukraine with Mila Kunis, both of whom would know more about those issues than Clooney about Russia. I labour the point because one wonders if Tony Blair’s “showbiz” style of politics has rubbed off on Ed, who served as a minister of state under the former prime minister. If so, despite their hostility to Cameron, Russian officials might soon be pining for the certainty of his tenure. Somehow, I can’t imagine the Tory leader shooting the breeze with Clooney over Russia.

Of course, two small parties loom large over this election. Both Ukip and the SNP have a serious chance of holding the balance of power come May 8. Both are fairly well disposed to

Russia but for wildly different reasons.

The Scottish Nationalists are pretty anti-Nato and until 2012 had officially opposed the USled alliance for 30 years. Russia is useful to them as good bilateral relations prove that Scotland can maintain a foreign policy independent from that of England.

While SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon has never publicly outlined her position on President Putin, her Ukip counterpart, Nigel Farage, hasn’t been shy in expressing his admiration. Farage has described Putin as the politician he most admires. Furthermore, the Ukip chief has objected to anti-Russia sanctions. In fact, Ukraine means nothing to Farage, who believes the West should make an alliance with Moscow to combat the threat from Islamic State.

Ultimately, Russia will have to deal with whatever administration the British people elect next month. While Farage leading the government would be a dream scenario, it’s about as likely as Alexei Navalny taking power in Moscow. Instead, Russia will hope for either the SNP or Ukip to hold the balance of power.

Failing that, while Miliband at first looks less hard line than Cameron, the Kremlin may find that it’s better the devil they know.

AFTER UKRAINE, THE WEST SHOULD OPEN ITS DOORS TO RUSSIA Sir Tony Brenton FORMER DIPLOMAT

With last month marking the first anniversary of the Russian annexation of Crimea, it seems a fitting time to assess the situation. Despite odd renewed outbursts of fighting, the acute phase of the Ukraine crisis may be ending. Violence is significantly down and there have been prisoner exchanges and some withdrawal of heavy weapons. On two of the major points of contention, Ukraine will clearly not be admitted to Nato for the foreseeable future, and Kiev has begun working on autonomy arrangements for the rebel regions. Moscow and Kiev, knowing their economic fragility, also know the costs of resumed hostilities could far exceed any likely benefits.

We are not out of the woods yet. Neither side has its zealots completely under control. Each regularly accuses the other of infractions. There are outside forces, notably in Washington, who are looking for a pretext to “put the Russians in their place” (Berlin and Paris have questioned US estimates of the “threatening” build-up of Russian forces in Ukraine). And the Minsk agreement is unlikely to be implemented in full. It stipulates that the Russian border, through which support to the rebels flows, will be closed only when the rebels reach agreement with Kiev on autonomy. This will not happen quickly. The rebels are not part of the autonomy discussions. So for the immediate future, the Donbass is likely to remain an unresolved conflict, like those in Georgia, with every possibility (as in Georgia) of a renewed explosion later.

But with peace perhaps in prospect, what do we do about Russia? The first action point is western sanctions. These were always a misbegotten policy, pursued more

The West needs to find an elegant way to back out of the sanctions cul-de-sac, in parallel with Russian delivery on the peace process

in the absence of a feasible alternative than to achieve results. Their central effect has been to unite Russian behind their president and his policies – the reverse of what was intended. President Obama still argues that they will “change Putin’s calculus”. But no Russian I know (including leading members of the opposition) believes this will happen. For Putin the crisis is about national security, not money. Nor does any Russian believe there is the slightest prospect of bringing Putin down.

Recent hints of squabbles within the Russian ruling apparatus have been a sharp reminder of how irreplaceable Putin is as the equilibrator of the system. Unless hostilities resume, sanctions are not sustainable. The European consensus on which they depend is visibly eroding. The West needs to find an elegant way to back out of the sanctions cul-de-sac, in parallel with Russian delivery on the peace process.

Second, while the much-touted narrative of a “revanchist Russia” with designs on Ukraine, Estonia, Poland, etc, has virtually no evidence to support it, the Ukraine crisis does raise serious questions about European security. The annexation of Crimea was exceptional and is plainly irreversible; the vast majority of Crimeans now see Crimea as an inalienable part of Russia. But Crimea is also a sharp reminder that the world is still ultimately governed by power, not law. Nato needs to arm itself for such a world. The decisions of last summer to create a “Spearhead Force” for Nato’s most exposed members was right, but was undermined by the unwillingness of Nato’s major European members to spend more on defence.

Finally there is the question of how we relate to Russia. The predominant western view is that we are now in a “new Cold War” requiring an extended period of isolation and containment. This would be a blunder, for three reasons. First, pragmatism. Trust between Russia and the West is at an absolute low. Meanwhile, the Russians are engaged in demonstrative military activity to discourage what they

THIS SUPPLEMENT IS SPONSORED BY ROSSIYSKAYA GAZETA (RUSSIA), WHICH TAKES SOLE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITS CONTENTS AND IS WHOLLY INDEPENDENT OF THE DAILY TELEGRAPH. THE SUPPLEMENT DID NOT INVOLVE TELEGRAPH EDITORIAL STAFF IN ITS PRODUCTION. ONLINE: WWW.RBTH.CO.UK; E-MAIL: UK@RBTH.COM TEL. +7 495 775 31 14 FAX +7 495 988 9213 ADDRESS: 24 PRAVDY STREET, BLDG 4, SUITE 720, MOSCOW, RUSSIA 125993

see as a western threat. It is extraordinarily dangerous that at this tense time we have fewer military and other links with the Russians than we had at the height of the Cold War. There is every possibility of chance confrontation or catastrophic accident. Links need urgently to be rebuilt to diminish that possibility.

Second, there is the geopolitics. China has managed its relationship with Russia much better than the West. Xi Jinping is a regular visitor to Moscow and, unlike western leaders, will be in Moscow for this year’s anniversary of the end of the Second World War in Europe. Despite long-standing historical tensions between them, China and Russia both now have strong reasons to strengthen their links, and are doing so.

Last summer’s $400bn gas contract and the forthcoming joint military exercise in the Mediterranean are the most eye-catching examples. Meanwhile, US-China geopolitical competition intensifies – as underlined by the recent argument over the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank.

Russia is by culture and inclination a European country. Does it really make sense for the West to push it into China’s arms?

And third, there is the trajectory of Russia.

Until a year ago the Russian middle class was the fastest growing in Europe. That class is hungry for European standards of prosperity, governance and rights – as became clear in the demonstrations of 2011/12. The regime is determined to maintain political control but has been keen to foster the economic openness on which Russian development depends. In a wide range of other countries, from South Korea to Indonesia, the same politico/economic confrontation has produced the triumph of democracy and open markets. Russia was on the same route. The Ukraine crisis stopped that. We need to get back to the business of helping Russia become a normal European state. The way to reform Russia is to open doors, not close them.

Sir Tony Brenton is a writer and former diplomat. He was UK ambassador to Russia 2004-08

EUGENE ABOV PUBLISHER, PAVEL GOLUB CHIEF EXECUTIVE EDITOR, VIACHESLAV CHARSKIY EXECUTIVE EDITOR OF WESTERN EUROPE, ILYA KROL EDITOR, UK EDITION, ALEXANDRA GUZEVA ASSISTANT EDITOR, NICK HOLDSWORTH GUEST EDITOR, OLGA DMITRIEVA ASSOCIATE EDITOR (UK), PAUL CARROLL SUBEDITOR, SEAN HUGGINS SUBEDITOR, ANDREY SHIMARSKY ART DIRECTOR, MILLA DOMOGATSKAYA HEAD OF PRE-PRINT DEPARTMENT, ANDREI ZAITSEV PHOTO EDITOR E-PAPER VERSION OF THIS SUPPLEMENT IS AVAILABLE AT WWW.RBTH.CO.UK TO ADVERTISE IN THIS SUPPLEMENT CONTACT SALES@RBTH.COM

The views of RBTH readers on today’s hot topics. From facebook. com/russianow

Blair Carruthers on a desperately-ill Russian computer programmer’s wish to have a head transplant I wish you well Valery. May God go before you and keep you safe and give you a new start as you boldly go where no man has been before.

"

Theodore Holden on Russian interest in Ukraine A real Russian invasion of Ukraine would last 36 hours. The fact that it hasn’t happened strongly indicates that Russia does not want the place or at least not the western part, with people walking around with swastika flags.

"

Kellie Flat on the desire of Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush to be presidential candidates in the US elections She’s weak.

Putin would make mincemeat of her.

And I highly doubt that Jeb Bush would get the GOP nomination. He would never win the White House.

"

he Ukraine crisis triggered a broader crisis in the West-Russia relationship. What are the stakes and the bets today?

First, the declared objective of the EU’s Ukraine policy is to have it firmly integrated in a Greater Europe. We have no problem with that. But why act secretly and unilaterally, rather than openly and multilaterally? We had always been told by the EU that a routine Association Agreement with Ukraine was in the works. But then, all of a sudden, it turned out that a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement was going to be part of that. We were told that it was none of our business. Why, then, not full membership?

The Financial Times admitted that “in Ukraine’s case, the European Neighbourhood Policy’s mechanical approach blinded EU policy makers in 2013” and said “such mistakes should be avoided”. A report by the House of Lords EU Sub-Committee on External Affairs in February also concluded that the EU “sleepwalked” into the crisis.

Alfred Tennyson’s line “Someone had blunder’d” comes to mind. Why lay the blame for one’s errors at Russia’s door?

Second, we will never put up with a war by proxy on our border. When we got the response from Nato generals’ mouths, rather than their guns’ muzzles, it would have been laughable, had it not been for the death and destruction wrought by Kiev’s Orwellian anti-terrorist operation (ATO). The New York Times rightly described Kiev’s decision not to extend the June truce as a fateful step.

Ed Lucas, writing in The Times in August, was appalled by the prospect of the West “bankrolling indefinitely a failing state, run by corrupt politicians, oligarchs and paramilitary thugs”. So far, it looks like prophecy. Kiev still insists on the military solution, which undermines the Minsk agreement and efforts by the Normandy Four (France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine).

Third, President Obama admitted in a CNN interview in February that the US “had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine”, ie, behind the backs of German, French and Polish foreign ministers who helped reach the February 21 deal between President Yanukovych and the parliamentary opposition. For Russia, when the cause of Ukraine’s territorial integrity was lost in the coup, the interests of the people on the ground became of paramount concern.

Fourth, Russia is accused of waging effective propaganda, with the West and Brussels’ eurocrats “outgunned”. Maybe they cannot accept the truth: the ATO and its consequences. But first, the West cannot explain why Kiev has chosen war over political settlement. Where are European values and the ideas of the Maidan?

Finally, on rules-based order and Russia’s revisionism. In this particular case the EU laid down the rules of unilateralism which we thoroughly followed. There was no formal post-Cold War settlement in Europe. The Ditchley Foundation conference recently recognised the need for “a new security system” in Europe.

George Friedman of the US-based analyst Stratfor told the Chicago Council on Global Affairs that the Ukraine crisis represents America’s grand strategy to establish a cordon sanitaire to keep Russia and Germany apart. Hopefully, the Europeans will not allow their continent to be raped by divide-and-rule tactics.

The revisionism outcry betrays politics and policies of the status quo, which are challenged not only by Russia, but by the EU electorate. The present systemic European crisis testifies to the unsustainability and untenability of an order and mindset, rooted in the Cold War era.

Keep in touch with the Russian Embassy in London on these social networks: www.twitter.com/Amb_Yakovenko www.twitter.com/RussianEmbassy www.twitter.com/RussianEmbassyR (Russian version) www.facebook.com/RussianEmbassy www.youtube.com/RussianEmbassy www.slideshare.net/rusemblon www.flickr.com/photos/rusembassylondon russianembassy.livejournal.com

Letters from readers, guest columns and cartoons labelled “Comments”, “Viewpoint” or appearing on the “Opinion” and “Comment & Analysis” pages of this supplement are selected to represent a broad range of views and do not necessarily represent those of the editors of Russia Beyond the Headlines or Rossiyskaya Gazeta.

Please send letters to the editor to UK@rbth.com

© COPYRIGHT 2015, ROSSIYSKAYA GAZETA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. ALEXANDER GORBENKO CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, PAVEL NEGOITSA GENERAL DIRECTOR, VLADISLAV FRONIN CHIEF EDITOR. ANY COPYING, REDISTRIBUTION OR RETRANSMISSION OF ANY OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS PUBLICATION, OTHER THAN FOR PERSONAL USE, WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF ROSSIYSKAYA GAZETA IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED. TO OBTAIN PERMISSION TO REPRINT OR COPY AN ARTICLE OR PHOTO, PLEASE PHONE +7 (495) 775 3114, OR EMAIL UK@RBTH.COM WITH YOUR REQUEST. RBTH IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR UNSOLICITED MANUSCRIPTS AND PHOTOS.

Analysis THIS SUPPLEMENT IS SPONSORED BY ROSSIYSKAYA GAZETA_www.rbth.co.uk_Tuesday, April 21, 2015_P7

VISION OF A BETTER WORLD THAT DIED WITH PERESTROIKA edy of the bloody war in Yugoslavia, and the drama of the current civil conflict in Ukraine, were implemented. It turned out that it was easier to destroy the Berlin Wall itself than to do away with the logic that spawned it and the psychology of programmed hatred as an instrument of policy.

The preservation of old visible and invisible walls and barriers and the emergence of new ones shows that in the 21st century, politics – both of the West and the East – are not ready to get rid of prejudices and stereotypes.

Apparently, this is the reason why the Cold War was replaced by a lot of “hot” conflicts throughout the world.

And the old, faded Cold War that Gorbachev believed that he was burying for good during his meetings in Reykjavik, Malta, Washington or Moscow with US presidents has returned

Andrei Grachev

Perestroika, its outcomes and consequences, is still a controversial subject in Russia. The“paradox of Gorbachev”is that both his opponents and many of his supporters believe that perestroika -“restructuring”– ended in failure. Some people damn Gorbachev for what he did manage to achieve, while others blame him for not fulfilling all of his promises.

Most of all, the initiator of perestroika is accused of inconsistency, wavering and tactical sidesteps. His cautiousness, his yearning to let society go first by giving it the opportunity to become ripe for change, to push it from behind rather than to lead, were seen by many as inconsistent and weak.

However, if one tries to connect at least the major changes that have taken place over those years in the former Soviet Union and throughout the world with a dotted line, the slalom route Gorbachev followed pulls almost straight.

The lasting impact of perestroika can be seen as an insoluble residue. Russia took a bite from the apple of free elections, and the central tenet of glasnost –“openness”– was the right to freedom of expression and information.

Having dropped its claims to an alternative civilisation and submission of the world to its ideological doctrine, Moscow took the initiative to end the Cold War, which had almost led to a third world war. The result was the reunification of world history, which had divided into two streams in the early 20th century, following the Russian Revolution.

However, in our mortal world, everything has its price. The price that, against his will, Gorbachev paid for the transformation of his own country and world politics was the collapse of the Soviet Union and his own resignation.

The West could not resist the temptation to declare itself the absolute winner in the Cold War and the sole heir to history. As a result, Gorbachev’s western partners, on whose common sense, even more than their financial assistance, he relied, proved no more reliable allies than his former party colleagues who had betrayed him.

Today, Gorbachev blames the West not for the failure of its leaders to provide sufficient help to him (he knows that it was not them on which the fate of perestroika depended), but for its inability to reasonably use the unique chance that his new policy had opened to the world. That is, for perceiving the move of Soviet society toward democracy only as a manifestation of inner weakness.

Neither the project of the “common European home”, part of which the reformed Soviet Union was to become, nor the idea of creating new structures of collective security on the continent (including a possible security council), that would have helped avoid the trag-

It was easier to destroy the Berlin Wall itself than the logic that spawned it – the psychology of hatred as an instrument of policy

FORMER POLITICIAN

Boris Nemtsov exploded into Russia’s political space with his first appearance.

Young, handsome, clever, daring and devastatingly charming – the Soviet Union had never known the like. It was 1991. He was a young governor of Nizhny Novgorod region; I was a fledgling politician. We were both newcomers and it brought us together.

If Leo Tolstoy can be called a mirror of the Russian Revolution, then Boris Nemtsov “mirrored” all the features of the transitional period. Born in Sochi in 1959, he was an adventurer, understood Soviet deference to rank, had a romantic belief in the victory of democracy and the enthusiasm of a Komsomolets (Young Communist).

In government [from March 17, 1997 to April 28, 1998 he was a first deputy prime minister, then until August 28, 1998 deputy prime minister], he was a different person – his charisma and creative energy remained, but the Komsomol fervour gave way to the responsibility of a federal-scale reformer.

Boris gained political clout but never lost his desire to change the world for the better.

The fight against Berezovsky, the miners’ strikes near the White House, the default and eventually the resignation of the government in 1998 was a great test for all of us, but it did not break anybody – it only added more excitement and energy to us, even if we were considered political corpses.

And Boris was the first to begin to assemble a team again. For all his ambitions, the result was a top priority for him. The Union of Right Forces party, initiated by him, won the State Duma elections with its leader Sergei Kiriyenko, and Boris served as State Duma deputy from 1999-2003.

He remained the brightest figure in parliament, where it was no longer the Communists but the ruling party that had a majority and not Boris Yeltsin in the Kremlin but Vladimir Putin.

As his field of possibilities narrowed, Boris’s statements and way of working became more radical. The liberal project turned its focus to street protests.

Now its leader has been killed – pointedly and brutally. In the middle of a bridge leading to St Basil’s Cathedral and the Kremlin – the two symbols of today’s Russia.

Have these shots killed liberalism in Russia? The march in memory of Boris Nemtsov, which drew tens of thousands of people from across the country on March 1, gives us hope that they have not.

Irina Khakamada was an elected Duma representative from 1993 to 2003 and is seen as a democratic politician who is in moderate opposition to the Russian government.

Moscow could be both winner and loser if Iran sanctions are lifted

Alexander Kurdin ENERGY ANALYST

With relations between Iran and the world’s leading nations set for a thaw in the wake of the landmark agreement reached in talks on Tehran’s nuclear programme in Switzerland earlier this month, commentators are speculating when western sanctions against Iran might be relaxed and what the implications will be for global trade.

The lifting of sanctions could harm the Russian oil and gas industry, primarily because of the impact on world prices.

The Iranians lost about a million barrels per day (50 million tons per year) of oil exports because of European Union and United States sanctions imposed in 2012 and other restrictive measures.

Half of those losses were caused by the refusal of European countries to buy Iranian oil, another half by a drop in purchases by Asian consumers. The Asia-Pacific region was the main destination for Iranian oil before the embargo (nearly 70pc), and it is even more so now (about 95pc of sales).

What’s more, Asians cannot give up Iranian oil even under sanctions, despite their loyalty to the West. Oil demand in the Asia-Pacific region has grown steadily, and it will easily be enough to absorb additional supplies from both Iran and Russia.

In Europe, the situation is more complicated, but given the volume of supplies of oil and petroleum products from Russia to Europe (about 250 million tons per year), the largest Iranian supplies to the market (about 25 million tons per year) will not provide significant replacement potential.

In addition, it was not Russia that replaced the supply of Iranian oil, but other Middle Eastern countries – Libya, Iraq and

The author is a former spokesman for the first (and only) Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev.

Irina Khakamada

GRIGORY AVOYAN

GORBACHEV’S SPOKESMAN

to business as usual in Russian-American relations. If 30 years after the beginning of perestroika, it is seen by Russian society as a political failure or even as a subversive anti-national project, it means that the main motive of perestroika, actively and enthusiastically supported at the time by all classes across the Soviet Union – a project of the reunification of Russia with world history and the democratic renewal of the country – is either misunderstood or consciously rejected. As are pluralism of opinion, the rule of law, fair elections of leaders, the inviolability of human rights, genuine competition in politics and economics, and governmental transparency and accountability to the public.

Boris Nemtsov: remembering the charming man of Russian politics

Saudi Arabia. So they will have to worry, especially as they will need to maintain the total Opec production quota.

On the whole, Iranian oil is comparable to Russian oil in terms of cost of production – in both cases, the costs usually do not exceed $20-25 per barrel. However, the Russian producers have now to develop increasingly complex fields that push the price up to $30 per barrel or even more.

Over time, this situation will become more complicated. However, a more dangerous rival in this context appears to be Iraq, which has much greater potential to increase production in the long run than most other Middle Eastern countries, including Iran.

As for gas, Iran cannot yet be regarded as a rival to Russia, since Tehran does not export the fuel, barring a small supply to Turkey (fewer than 10 billion cubic metres per year) for local consumption. Export projects exist, but are still in the early stages of development. For this reason the EU embargo did not apply to gas supplies.

Oil reserves at high levels

Iran cannot yet be regarded as a rival to Russia in the gas market since it exports only a small amount to Turkey

The risk of a fall in oil prices when Iranian sanctions are lifted is indeed very real. Still, the reserves of oil and petroleum products are now at high levels, and the world market is still oversupplied. According to the International Energy Agency, oversupply could still be up to 0.5 million barrels per day in 2015, although this surplus is expected to decrease or even disappear by the end of the year.

However, an additional one million barrels per day on the market, unless offset by a decrease in production in other Opec countries, could threaten this balancing of stocks. Over time, the world market will still get rid of oversupply and surplus stocks under the influence of growth in consumption, but the return of Iranian oil may delay this transition for another year.

Meanwhile, the Russian economy has industries whose representatives may be interested in the lifting of sanctions against Tehran. Primarily, it is those that trade with Iran – exporters of grain, timber, metals, certain types of machinery and equipment, as well as importers of fruit and vegetables. The financial sanctions hinder trade and increase their costs.

Alexander Kurdin is head of the Department for Strategic Studies in Energy at the Analytical Centre for the government of the Russian Federation.

Russian ties are top of Greek agenda as Syriza sticks to its principles

Ruslan Kostyuk POLITICAL ANALYST

The recent visit to Moscow by Alexis Tsipras, the Greek prime minister, provoked a strong response from Europe’s politicians and media, although an impartial look at the facts shows little untoward to report. Even before the leftist party Syriza took power in Greece, it openly stated that its priority in government would be “to restore the sovereignty and dignity of Greece”. It was perhaps not only a question of overcoming the huge foreign debt stifling Greece’s finances, but also one of diversifying the country’s foreign economic policy.

Given that Greece’s financial reserves are running low and Tsipras urgently needs funding (according to the western European press), Greece’s new Syriza-dominated government is willing to do a deal with Brussels. But the Tsipras cabinet is not ready to abandon the left-wing principles that secured it victory in January’s parliamentary poll.

Yes, the Greek cabinet came to an agreement with the EU on extending the country’s credit line, and conceded some of the European Commission’s demands regarding its debt problems. Athens agreed to reform its tax system and do more to counter corruption and tax evasion.

But despite strong pressure from EU countries, in particular Germany, Tsipras has not abandoned his strategic objectives. In March, the Greek parliament adopted a new poverty law to provide free electricity and food stamps for the poor. Syriza’s key aim of reducing poverty and social inequality remains undiluted, despite the serious financial problems it faces.

The Tsipras cabinet has been in power less than three months. But that is long enough

Despite strong pressure from EU countries, especially Germany, Syriza’s key aim of reducing poverty remains undiluted

to conclude that at this historic juncture Syriza is not ready to break with the European Union and lead Greece out of the eurozone. Grexit would be a leap into the unknown, a prospect that frightens not only the radical left, but the better-off, too.

The government is not prepared to take the risk. At a joint press conference with President Vladimir Putin in Moscow, the Greek leader made it quite clear his country would try to solve its problems with creditors inside the EU and the eurozone, and reach a compromise with the IMF. Whether an ambitious left-wing experiment inside a single EU country is compatible with the European Union is a separate issue.

Even before his party’s victory in January, Tsipras had spoken openly about the detrimental impact on Greek farmers of the country’s support for anti-Russian sanctions. In the run-up to the elections, Syriza promised voters that it would make national foreign policy more dynamic and “multilateral”, meaning, above all, improved trade, economic and cultural relations with Russia.

Arriving in Moscow, the leader of Greece’s radical left once again confirmed the importance that his party attaches to the “Russian vector” of foreign policy.

“Today, spring has arrived in Moscow, and I think we can put spring back into our relationship,”Tsipras said. By sidestepping the issue of credit – which some experts maintain was the whole purpose of the trip – the Greek leader seems to have let down the sensationalists.

Of greater significance is the fact that in 2014 bilateral trade turnover fell by 40pc, which Tsipras is ready to do all he can to reverse. Stronger energy ties are also crucial. Both Putin and Tsipras want Greece to join the “Turkish Stream” project.

The EU is less keen, even though Russia accounts for about two-thirds of the Hellenic Republic’s gas needs and Greece would improve its standing as a transit player.

Alexis Tsipras’s recent visit to Moscow demonstrates a desire to conduct a new, more active form of economic diplomacy that is aimed not only at Russia, but China, India, Latin America and the Arab world, too. But there is no doubt that the Russian vector of current Greek diplomacy is at the top of the agenda inside the corridors of power in Athens.

Ruslan Kostyuk is a professor of historical sciences at St Petersburg State University.

Travel P8_Tuesday, April 21, 2014_www.rbth.co.uk_THIS SUPPLEMENT IS SPONSORED BY ROSSIYSKAYA GAZETA

Memorials to sacrifice and victory: how Moscow remembers its heroes Sightseeing Use this handy guided tour of the capital’s key wartime sites for an insight into the people’s resistance

BELORUSSKY RAILWAY STATION Bronze memorial at this Second World War railhead for troop trains to the front.

KIRA EGOROVA RBTH

Moscow has preserved many of its memories of the Second World War. They include the June 1941 mobilisation, the endless air raids and evacuation, the enemy’s withdrawal and the return of the soldiers from the front, and most importantly, the Victory Parade in June 1945 that marked the end of the war.

Belorussky railway station This is the terminus of the Aeroexpress from Sheremetyevo airport. The station buildings were erected in 1912 when Tsar Nicholas II ruled Russia. During the Second World War, troop trains left directly for the front from here.

Soldiers bade goodbye to their friends and loved ones in the square in front of the station.

On June 26, 1941, four days after the surprise German attack on the Soviet Union, Belorussky station hosted the first performance of a song, Svyashennaya voina (Holy war), which became a wartime anthem for the Soviet people.There is a commemorative plaque marking the busy terminus’s role in the war on the station wall.

The station also bore witness to the end of the war. It was here that people eagerly awaited the arrival of trains from Berlin that brought victorious Red Army soldiers back from Germany’s fallen capital in 1945.

Mayakovskaya Metro station

POKLONNAYA HILLS MEMORIAL COMPLEX One of the highest points in Moscow and one of the world’s biggest Second World War memorials.

To get there from Belorussky station, switch to the green Metro line and get off at the next station heading towards the city centre.

The station opened just before the war in 1938 and was awarded the grand prix at an international architecture exhibition in New York. During the war, Mayakovskaya, like other stations of the Moscow Metro, saw service as a bomb shelter.

It was here, on November 6, 1941 in a speech that was broadcast on the radio throughout the country, that Soviet leader Joseph Stalin said: “Moscow will stand. The Soviet people will not be broken!” According to the historian Robert Service, Stalin even spent some time living in the station during the war.

The Moscow Metro’s war economy allowed people to get food and medical care and even watch movies in the Metro. At Kurskaya station (on the blue line) there was a reading room supplied with books from the Lenin Library.

Although raids by the German air force, the Luftwaffe, were not as intensive as those of the London Blitz of September 1940-May 1941, during the most intensive period of bombing of Moscow in July 1941, as many as 15 million people took shelter underground. About 150 babies were born in the shelters during an average air raid.

MAYAKOVSKAYA STATION Scene of Stalin’s November 1941 radio broadcast to the Soviet Union: “Moscow will stand.” Muscovites consider this one of the city's most beautiful underground stations.

The Marshal Zhukov memorial in Manezhnaya Square To reach the monument, get off two stations after Mayakovskaya, either at Teatralnaya or Okhotny Ryad. The monument is on Manezhnaya Square next to the entrance to Red Square.

Georgy Zhukov, who grew up in a peasant family and didn’t have the opportunity to study at university, managed to become a Marshal of the Soviet Union and soon after the Second World War he earned his popular nickname “Marshal of Victory”.

At the very beginning of the Great Patriotic War – the Russian name for the Second World War – Zhukov was among the generals who stopped the enemy offensive near Moscow, spoiling Hitler’s plan for the rapid conquest of the USSR in just two weeks.

“When people ask me what moment of the war I remember most, I always answer: ‘The battle for Moscow,’” Zhukov would say.

Zhukov’s memorial was erected in 1995 to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the end of the war. It is not coincidental that the victorious Marshal is portrayed riding a horse: this was how he saluted Soviet troops at the 1945 Victory Parade.

The idea of showing Zhukov ride a horse was Stalin’s. The leader’s aides searched for a suitable mount all over the country for five days before settling on a silver grey that was nicknamed Kumir (which is Russian for idol).

Zhukov enjoyed riding Kumir for an entire month before the Victory Parade.

monuments is in Volgograd (which was formerly known as Stalingrad), where the enormous hilltop Mamayev Kurgan memorial complex is crowned by Rodina-Mat zovyot!, a huge allegorical statue of the Motherland with sword held aloft.

Kursk, the scene of a massive tank battle,

also has a major memorial. Built in 1972 at the 624km point of the Moscow-Crimea highway, it marks the site of the conflict in summer 1943.

Novorossiysk’s memorial is Malaya Zemlya.

Centred on a triangular arch 22 metres high, it depicts Russian marines exiting a landing craft.

THE GRAVE OF THE UNKNOWN SOLDIER

At the entrance to Red Square, the statue to the legendary Russian soldier provokes widely differing reactions in observers.

A couple of steps from the Zhukov Memorial at the base of the Kremlin wall. A beautiful spot to walk or contemplate.

Sentry Box No. 1 and the Grave of the Unknown Soldier, Alexander Gardens

Monuments to bravery around the country There are several impressive Second World War memorials in Russia to battles that took place outside Moscow.

Victory Square in St Petersburg is a huge monument with a permanent display to the Heroic Defenders of Leningrad beneath it.

One of the country's most important war

MARSHAL ZHUKOV MEMORIAL

Tourist venues mentioned in story recommended by

IN PARTNERSHIP WITH RBTH

To find this moving memorial, cross Manezhnaya Square from the Zhukov monument. The sentry box is on the left of the entrance to Alexander Gardens, next to the Grave of the Unknown Soldier, although Russians refer to it simply as the “eternal flame”.

The flame, which is at the base of the Kremlin’s walls, is guarded from 8am until 8pm, whatever the weather.

The changing of the guard takes place every hour, always under the rapid flash of tourists’ cameras. During their shift, the guards stand still with impressive dedication and despite attempts by some visitors to distract them from their duty by making faces and uttering strange sounds, they never move.

Poklonnaya Hill memorial complex Go to Arbatskaya Metro station (blue line) and get off three stations later at Park Pobedy. Be prepared for a long walk. The Memorial Complex opened in 1995 on the 50th anniversary of Victory Day. The main monument is in front of the Central Museum of the Great Patriotic War and has a water complex: five years of war are represented by five terraces surrounded by 225 fountains, representing the number of weeks the war lasted for the Soviet people.

Park Pobedy (Victory Park) has an outdoor exhibition dedicated to military equipment and engineering. There are more than 300 wartime armoured and heavy-duty vehicles, both Russian and German. Park Pobedy is one of Moscow’s largest recreational spaces and is an ideal place for evening walks during the summer.