New Law Defining Who is a Writer May Change Little But Opens Door to Abuse, Experts Say

Paul Goble

            Staunton, July 15 – Under the terms of a law that will go into effect as of September 1, writers will be formally recognized as a distinct profession within the Russian legal system. Most observers see it as a positive step that will allow writers to formalize employment relationships and qualify for social benefits, but some see it as a potential tool for bureaucratic control.

            Nakanune journalist Elena Rychkova, in reporting on this debate, says that after the Soviet Union collapsed, “writers, composers and other freelancers lost the system of creative unions that had previously provided them with pension contributions and healthcare coverage” (nakanune.ru/articles/124847/).

            Most of the professionals who lost such standing in the legal system have already regained it, but writers are only doing so now, she continues. They will now be accruing employment hours and pension contributions, something they have not been able to do since 1992.

            But the question arises, Rychkova points out, as to “who will decide whether an author is professionally qualified or not.” Presumably most firms which employ writers, such as publishing houses, will make that determination on their own and so the new law will benefit the writers without limiting their opportunities.

            There is, however, “an even more important question,” she suggests. “Might the existence of the standard defining a writer lead to the homogenization of creative work, where meeting formal criteria becomes more significant than artistic merit.” The bureaucrats who will decide who is a writer in legal terms will thus have a powerful and perhaps adverse effect.

            That happened in Soviet times when the Writers’ Union expelled those its political masters did not approve of; and that could happen again under this new arrangement. For most writers, however, the new legal arrangement will be a net plus, although as Rychkova’s interlocutors say, abuses of various kinds remain quite possible.

World Cup Drawing Russian Viewers Away from Political Talk Shows, Mediascope Data Show

Paul Goble

            Staunton, July 15 – Even before the semi-final matches, broadcasts of World Cup matches drew Russian viewers away from political talk shows and entertainment programs and allowed the Russian sports channel Match TV to dominate ratings in recent weeks, Mediascope data show.

            Its figures, gathered in ways like the Nielsen ratings are in the United States, have been reported by the We Can Explain telegram channel (t.me/mozhemobyasnit/23670) and discussed in detail by the NeMoskva portal (https://nemoskva.net/2026/07/15/futbol-pobedil-propagandu-rossiyane-smotryat-chempionat-mira-po-futbolu-vmesto-politicheskih-tok-shou-na-goskanalah/).

            Over the past month, Match TV broadcasts of World Cup matches dominated Russian TV viewing. The clearest example was when the match between Argentina and Egypt garnered twice as many people as did the main political program hosted by Dmitry Kiselyov.

            This situation is likely to remain the case, with Match TV’s advantage over all other channels increasing as the final rounds and championship of the World Cup take place. 

Moscow and Astana Inch toward Cooperation on Second Trans-Border River Flowing into the Caspian

Paul Goble

            Staunton, July 15 – A serious controversy has arisen between the Russian Federation and Kazakhstan over the state of the Volga River which feeds the Caspian Sea (windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2025/08/russians-outraged-kazakhstan-wants.html ). Now the two countries are edging toward cooperating on a second such river, the Ural.

            The Ural, which arises in Russia’s Ural Mountains and flows through Kazakhstan before emptying in the Caspian, makes a significantly smaller contribution to the water levels of that sea than does the Volga; but progress on cooperation there could lead to progress on the other (altyn-orda.kz/rossiya-obratilas-k-kazahstanu-za-pomoshhyu-v-spasenii-reki-ural/).

            Moscow is pressing hard for an agreement that will require the two countries to work together on the Ural between 2027 and 2032, and Astana officials say they want to be involved. Complicating this situation and making it far more fraught is the effort of Orenburg Oblast officials to involve Kazakhstan specialists in this effort.

            Orenburg, on the border of Russia and Kazakhstan, was once the capital of Kazakhstan; and some argue that its recovery is essential if the nations of the Middle Volga are to achieve independence from Moscow. (On this, see windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2024/09/orenburg-corridor-arose-because-kazakhs.html).

Gas Crisis Triggering ‘a Forced Spontaneous Federalization’ of Russia, ‘Vyorstka’ Portal Says

Paul Goble

            Staunton, July 14 – Moscow still determines how much gasoline this or that region gets and has prohibited the governments of the federal subjects from trying to end run these limits, but regional officials must contain a rising tide of popular anger and so are trying out a variety of tactics that is leading to “a forced spontaneous federalization” of Russia, Vyorstka says. 

            That means, the portal adds, that governors, in moves recalling what happened during the covid pandemic in 2020, are copying each other’s strategies for handling the crisis within their territories and seeking to “outmaneuver their counterparts in the race to secure supplies” (verstka.media/kak-vlasti-regionov-boryutsya-s-toplivnym-krizisom-i-yarostyu-naseleniya).

            This situation is especially challenging for those governors who are facing elections not only because Moscow holds them responsible for containing any social discontent but also has tied their hands as far as gaining additional gas from alternative sources and has been slow to acknowledge just how serious the gas shortages now are.

            According to Vyorstka, “regional officials say that personal connections with relevant federal officials and top executives at major oil companies—as well as ‘insiders in ministries, State Duma deputies, and other lobbyists’ —quickly came into play in the ’behind-the-scenes maneuvering.’"

            This situation has forced regional governments to focus on controlling lines and offering PR stunts like shifting officials from cars to bicycles. But it is also leading many in these governments to look for someone to blame, most often not the Kremlin itself, of course, but increasingly the oil companies and firms that handle distribution.

            Such steps have done little to curb the rising tide of popular anger, and officials say that additional shortages are likely to generate even more outrage in the population and an even greater sense on the part of regional officials that they are now on their own, having already shown themselves to be more responsive to the situation than the center has been. 

Bishkek’s Registration of NGO Seeking ‘Peaceful Reunification of China and Central Asia’ Triggers Outrage among Kyrgyz

Paul Goble

            Staunton, July 15 – Kyrgyzstan’s justice ministry has registered a new NGO, led by a Chinese citizen, that seeks to promote what it calls “the peaceful reunification of Central Asia and China.” Not surprisingly, this has sparked outrage among many Kyrgyz who view it as evidence of Chinese imperialism.

            The Association for the Promotion of the Peaceful Reunification of Central Asia and China in the first instance raises questions in the minds of many Kyrgyz as to what such a “reunification” would mean (eadaily.com/ru/news/2026/07/15/v-kirgizii-zagovorili-o-mirnom-vossoedinenii-kitaya-i-centralnoy-azii).

            In itself, this NGO doesn’t appear likely to ever be in a position to achieve its goal; but the fact that it exists and that the Kyrgyz government has registered it despite Bishkek’s commitment to the territorial integrity of the country is almost certainly going to trigger a new round of Sinophobia there.

            For background on anti-Chinese attitudes and actions in Kyrgyzstan, see windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2025/11/latest-clash-between-chinese-and-kyrgyz.html, windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2020/03/beijings-repressive-policies-in.html and windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2018/12/kyrgyz-angry-at-chinas-detention-of.html.

Adenauer’s Opposition to a United Germany in the 1920s Should be Recalled by Both Those Denounced as Wanting to Dismember Russia and Those Doing Such Denunciations, Eidman Says

Paul Goble

            Staunton, July 14 – It is often forgotten that in the 1920s, Germany was divided between those who favored breaking it up into a number of separate states and those who favored a united and indivisible Russia. Konrad Adenauer, the mayor of Cologne and later chancellor of West Germany, was one of the former; Hitler, one of the latter.

            In a comment on his telegram channel, Igor Eidman says that had Adenauer succeeded in his plan for a separate Rhenist Republic, the world would have been spared the horrors of Nazism and the tragedy of World War II (t.me/igoreidman/3116 reposted at echofm.online/opinions/raschlenitel-adenauer-ili-raspad-kak-spasenie).

            That is because had those like Adenauer won out, something that did not happen because they were accused by many Germans, including the Nazis, for seeking to “dismember” Germany, “Hitler simply would not have had a unified Germany he could seize power and World War II in all likelihood would never have occurred.”

            After that conflict, Eidman continues, Adenauer “operated within the framework of the Allied decision to create a unified Western Germany,” but “he did so reluctantly and did not favor a rapid reunification with East Germany, a territory that notably included the greater part of historical Prussia,” fearing that such a combination would be militarist and imperialist.

            “By the time Germany reunified under Kohl, that threat no longer existed: the country had traveled a long path from imperial militarism and systemic nationalism to a stable democracy.”  And Adenauer,  denounced in the 1920s as a “dismemberer of Germany” is now a hero while his opponents then are “reviled as Nazi collaborators.”

            Russians today should remember this history because “present-day Russia, much like Germany in the first half of the 20^th century poses an existential threat to the outside world and to itself,” Eidman says, “The collapse of its empire is inevitable;” and the sooner it happens, the better and safer it will be for the world, for Europe, and for Russians as well.”

            Both those Russians now being denounced as dismemberers of Russia and those other Russians engaging in such denunciations need to remember that, Eidman suggests, as do others who may think that this conflict has nothing to do with them and thus they should favor temporary stability above all else.   

Over Last 30 Years, Caspian Sea has Declined in Size by an Area the Size of Sicily and People around It are Getting Sick, ‘Kedr’ Says

Paul Goble

            Staunton, July 14 – In the course of the last three decades, the Caspian Sea has declined in size by an area the size of Sicily and is projected to lose roughly a third of its current surface area by the end of this century, something with consequences all too like those which preceded the death of the Aral Sea in Central Asia.

            Many ports are now far from the coast, and many ships that had plied the waters of the Caspian are now rusting away far from water, the Kedr portal says. But most seriously, experts say, this retreat in the shoreline of that sea just as was the case with the Aral is having a negative impact on the health of the people around it (kedr.media/stories/cherty-umirayushhego-morya/).

            That is because various mineral and biological deposits that had been safely under water are now exposed and being spread into populated areas by the winds, a development that is likely to lead to a sharp increase in diseases like cancer just as has been the case with the death of the Aral Sea and the health of the people of Karakalpakstan in particular.

            Unfortunately, despite these dangers, the littoral states have been unable to reach agreement on what to do. Indeed, they are still divided between those, mostly in Russia, who think that the sea will make a comeback and that there is no need for expensive new programs; and those in the other littoral states who are convinced that is delusional.

            If that deadlock is not resolved and soon, something that at the moment seems extremely improbable, then the Caspian is on course to follow the Aral into oblivion, with the economic situation and health of the populations of the littoral states certain to suffer in significant ways in the coming years.