This month provided plenty of food for thought for the Russian press. The most noise came from the long-awaited Eurovision contest, which was the most expensive in the history of the event. Emotions flared over its participants and political significance, particularly in Russia. Also, with Barack Obama’s Moscow visit imminent, many are questioning transatlantic relations in a security context.
The tabloid Moskovsky Komsomolets notes that “the British people have never had great respect for politicians… People’s reaction to their elected representatives’ behaviour is not so much disappointment as blatant anger. There’s particular indignation at the fact that they’ve been ‘living it up’ during the dark days of a crisis.”
The independent Kommersant quotes political observer John Ball: “When so many MPs turn out to be involved in something so unethical, people begin to doubt the integrity not just of individual MPs but of parliament as an institution.”
The Russian papers are covering the British scandal without any sense of Schadenfreude, and indeed, probably with a touch of envy at the fact that the misdeeds are being widely publicised.
As one Moskovsky Komsomolets reader ironically put it: “At last! They’ve got the same problem! What joy!”
In the last few days Izvestia has been publishing extensive information about how freely Russian government officials spend taxpayers’ money: “Neither the crisis nor appeals for stringent economies by the President and the Prime Minister have taught our officials anything. Many of them continue to spend taxpayers’ money on luxury items or unnecessary purchases, laying on festivities and banquets costing up to 32m roubles ($1m).” Many examples are cited, including “three chandeliers costing a total of 1.2m roubles for the parliament of Kabardino-Balkaria, a Russian republic in the North Caucasus dependent from top to bottom on state subsidies. Staff of the head of the Republic of Kalmykia, in southern Russia, ordered curtains worth 721,000 roubles for themselves, and then a further 1.4m roubles’ worth last autumn.”
Eurovision: worth its weight in gold
The Moscow Eurovision was the most expensive in the history of the contest, says Novye Izvestia, pointing out this was at the height of the economic crisis. “Moscow splashed out in an unprecedented way on this contest,” the paper says. “In 2006 Greece spent 12m euros, and last year Serbia limited it to 9.3m euros. Russia’s hospitality exceeded all conceivable limits: we’re talking about as much as 30m [euros].” If we take into account the rouble’s recent substantial fall, it means the costs are another 50pc on top of that, Novye Izvestia calculates.
Kommersant reckons Eurovision is a strange event. On the one hand the contest claims to be the biggest event in European cultural life, but on the other hand the number of winners who’ve gone on to become serious artists is not just low, but laughably so. In the 53 years the festival has been running, there have been just two: ABBA (35 years ago) and Celine Dion (21 years ago). The paper goes on to note: “With the possible exception of Ukraine, no country has taken hosting the Eurovision final as seriously as Russia. The event was virtually on a par with the Olympics or the Champions League final. The arrival of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin at Moscow’s Olympic stadium was unprecedented. Probably only the leadership of Ukraine has ever shown more serious interest in the contest: in 2005 in Kiev it was President Viktor Yushchenko himself who presented the prize to Greece’s Helena Paparizou.”
The national security strategy gets everybody talking
Russian newspapers have taken a close look at the Russia’s national security strategy to 2020 approved recently by President Dmitry Medvedev and come up with conflicting views.
The state news agency RIA Novosti notes “the West’s reaction of near panic to the section dealing with strategic assessment of Russia’s place in the world and the threats facing it, which does not rule out using military force in possible future raw material conflicts on Russia’s borders.”
“Despite the fact that the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs made it clear Russia does not plan to use military force in the Arctic shelf, Moscow stated it would defend its interests in the Arctic ‘to the end’,” wrote the independent newspaper Rossiya.
Moskovsky Komsomolets has its own view: “The way it deals with Russia’s security is completely clear – but unintelligible.” The paper finds the document lacking specific detail: “Kremlin analysts have given a very accurate ‘diagnosis’: the list of risks threatening Russia could be called accurate. Where they are less successful is in ‘writing the prescription’: instead of specific ways of avoiding strategic misfortune, the document offers words that may be right and fine-sounding but nevertheless are only general. Major powers usually expect a national security strategy to include plans for the future: what the country specifically needs to do to avoid geopolitical snares. But this new document has nothing to say about that.”
Start treaty talks
A round of Russian-US disarmament talks – the first for seven years – took place in Moscow on May 19–20. The aim is to prepare a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start 2) to replace Start 1, which expires in December.
Gazeta quotes the view of the political observer Sergey Karaganov, who believes that “reducing nuclear capacities does not really benefit Russia, since the USA is significantly ahead of it in conventional nonnuclear arms”.
Izvestiya, quoting experts, says that under the future treaty “nuclear capacities are reduced to 1,500 or 1,300 warheads. Carrier systems will also go under the knife of these reduction talks, together with the ‘surplus’ nuclear warheads. An institute for joint monitoring of the treaty’s implementation will also be set up.”
What might invalidate all the efforts of the negotiators is the American missile defence system in eastern Europe. Vremya Novostey is sure that “Moscow will try to link the Start treaty with the issue of the American missile defence system deployment in Europe. And if Barack Obama’s administration fails to reconsider the George Bush administration’s plans to deploy a third tier of missile defences in the Czech Republic and Poland, it will effectively become impossible to conclude a new Start treaty.”
The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) between the Soviet Union and the United States was signed on July 31, 1991 and is due to expire at the end of this year. It aims at drastically reducing the amount of nuclear weapons left after the cold war. The two nuclear powers began their second round of technical discussions in Geneva, Switzerland, on Monday. After three days, the talks ended without any declarations. 

Between May 19 and 21, the first discussions were held in Moscow and, according to the Russian ITAR-TASS news agency, citing Russian officials, were "constructive and successful." The talks focused mainly on the U.S's proposed missile defense system which would place a large amount of nuclear weapons is Eastern Europe. For now, the U.S. has delayed the project.

U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev will meet in July to further discuss the matter and, according to a White House Official, try to sign a new treaty by December 5, 2009. 

However, Russia Now says, quoting ''Vremya Novostei'', that "Moscow will try to link the Start treaty with the issue of the American missile defense system deployment in Europe." If the Obama administration does not reconsider the deployment, "it will effectively become impossible to conclude a new Start treaty." Top Russian general Nikolai Makarov said that there would be no reduction in nuclear missiles until the proposed nuclear defense shield in Eastern Europe is clarified. The U.S claims that the proposed shield is meant to protect Europe from a nuclear attack by Iran. "As long as the situation in the world, including the U.S. missile shield plan, remains unclear, we will not alter our nuclear arsenal," Makarov said.