Tens of thousands of demonstrators poured into the streets of Moscow to protest new laws passed by the Russian government restricting public assembly on the grounds of maintaining order. The new laws dramatically increasing fines for participating in unauthorized demonstrations.

This winter, opposition protests against Putin’s expected ascension to the presidency bloomed, followed by a string of unauthorized protests this May. But Putin promised a crackdown on the movement after he took office, following through by approving the new law and raiding the homes of activists yesterday ahead of Tuesday’s march. But that didn’t stop the crowd — estimated by the opposition to be between 60,000 and 70,000 people — from turning out.

Reuters has a photo from today’s rally, courtesy of Der Spiegel:

Russians defied the very fear that the new laws were meant to instill in them. “I am not afraid I will be fined. I am not going to fight or scream, why would they fine me? And if they do, I won’t pay, I’ll go to jail and be considered a political prisoner,” Nina Lobachyova, a 73-year-old economist, told Reuters. Some even turned the tables: “They are scared of the people’s protest,” opposition leader Boris Nemtsov told the rally.

The crowds chanted, “Russia will be free,” “Russia without Putin,” and “All power to the people,” according to reports.

Police, whose lower estimate put the crowd at only 18,000, met protesters with 12,000 police clad in full riot gear.

The new laws were introduced in reaction to unexpected protests in early May when then-Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin was set to retake his seat as president. Russian gay rights activists held two unsanctioned protests later that month.

With negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program moving to Moscow next week, a draft letter to be circulated among Senators for signature calls on the Obama administration to not offer Iran major concessions without a comprehensive deal on its nuclear program. The draft letter, obtained by ThinkProgress, says that, should the Iranians not take certain steps demanded by the Senators, the U.S. should “reevaluate the utility of further talks.”

Authored by Sens. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Roy Blunt (R-MO), the draft letter outlines the “absolute minimum steps” Iran must take in Moscow: shutting down its Fordow enrichment facility, ending enrichment of uranium to high levels, and shipping out its stockpile of high-enriched uranium. The letter says that Iran’s agreement to these steps would “justify continued discussions,” but doesn’t outline any other possible concessions.

While that leaves the door open for other possible lesser concessions, the Senators rule out acceding to a key Iranian goal until Iran agrees to the full spectrum of Western and U.N. demands. The New York Times reported that, in Baghdad, Iran asked for “an easing of the onerous economic sanctions imposed by the West,” something the Iranians have “relentlessly” pursued. But the Senators refuse to consider such steps without a comprehensive deal. In the draft letter, they write:

Barring full, verifiable Iranian compliance with all Security Council resolutions and full cooperation with the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], including a new, far more intrusive inspections regime under the additional protocol, we see no circumstances under which Iran should be relieved from the current sanctions or those scheduled to come into effect at the end of this month.

That restriction could, in effect, stymie moves toward a “confidence-building” deal. A deal identical to the one mentioned by the Senators — demanding the “absolute minimum steps” but offering little sanctions relief — was on the table in Baghdad. After it failed to advance, an Iranian diplomat told the Christian Science Monitor that Iran would not “accept these things this way.”

Read more

Hiring veterans is good for business, according to a series of interviews conducted by the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) with 87 representatives from 69 companies. CNAS, which compiled their findings into a report released on Monday, found that companies articulated 11 reasons for hiring veterans, including: leadership and teamwork skills; character; structure and discipline; expertise; effectiveness; and loyalty.

However, while businesses cited many benefits from hiring veterans, they also reported challenges regarding veterans’ difficulty in translating their military experience to the civilian workplace and concerns about future deployments by National Guard members and reservists.

“Changes to government policy could alleviate some of these challenges,” write the report’s authors, Margaret C. Harrell and Nancy Berglass. “The deployment concerns warrant a change in law, while others require the participation of companies, nonprofit organizations or veterans themselves.”

And despite the general positive perception of veterans in the workplace, veterans continue to experience at least a one percentage point higher unemployment rate than their civilian counterparts, a fact explained in the report as stemming from companies’ desire to hire veterans but only being able to do so when there is a “business-related motivation.” Younger veterans, ages 18 to 24-years-old, experience even higher unemployment rates. Nearly one-in-four were out of work last month.

The report, “Employing America’s Veterans, Perspectives from Business,” besides offering a the business case for hiring veterans, also recommends several steps to increase veteran employment [PDF]:

The Department of Defense (DoD), the Department of Labor and veterans themselves should become more adept at translating military experience into qualitative skills and characteristics for civilians employers.

The DoD and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) should form public-private partnerships with companies and nonprofit organizations that specialize in employment and supporting veterans.

Congress should take steps to revise the Uniformed Serves Employment and Reemployment Rights Act rules pertaining to prolonged and repeated voluntary overseas deployments.

DoD should create a resume bank in which service members who are leaving military service can participate.

The report’s authors conclude that while companies benefit from hiring veterans, “Veteran employment is also important to national security, as stable and supportive civilian employment enables reservists and guardsmen to serve as our nation requires.” Moreover, “Hiring veterans serves those who serve the nation. It is also plain good business.”