Skip to main content

Losing Russia

It is 15 years since the beginning of the August coup which ultimately led to the breakdown of the Soviet Union. The arrest of Gorbachev which took place on August 18th 1991 triggered the immediate disintegration of the USSR as the various Republics sought to escape from the attempt by hardliners to reimpose a more centralized order upon the disintegrating state.

Since that time Russia, as the legal heir to the Soviet Union, and as the inheritor of most of its territory and all of its nuclear weapons, has struggled to come to terms with the Soviet legacy.

The Second Chechen war continues, in all its brutality. The frozen conflicts in Transnistria, In Abhazia and In South Ossetia have remained unresolved. Russia has still not ratified its border treaty with Estonia.

Domestically, the Russian army has continued the brutality of its Soviet predecessor, with hundreds of conscripts dying and thousands being horrifically mistreated. Russian demographics remain very bad, with low life expectancy and poor quality of life contributing to low birth rates. The result is that the Russian population is falling very rapidly. Meanwhile the population of unstable regions like the North Caucasus may actually expand- adding to the political pressures there.

Meanwhile, in the face of such difficulties, the Russian body politic seems to have returned to a centralized and authoritarian model. The choice of a former KGB officer to be President has undercut any chance of a moral reform of the country, that still struggles to address the issues of the Stalinist past. Political freedoms have been curtailed, the freedom of the press in particular has been essentially eliminated. In the face of these unwelcome changes, many commentators, myself included, have been increasingly hostile to the Moscow government.

Yet the West now does face a crisis in its relations with Russia, but it is a crisis that is at least partly of its own making. Cynical, and Ruthlessly pragmatic, the Putin government has not taken kindly to receiving lectures on corruption from such figures as Tony Blair (embroiled in the cash for honours scandal) or on intervention beyond its borders from the USA (embroiled in Iraq). Furthermore, in such areas as eliminating US bases in Central Asia, Russian policy has been clear, and the goal has been achieved very effectively. The West, by contrast has struggled to understand what it wishes to achieve in Russia.

The Western powers need to establish some clear basis for negotiating with Russia. Having made it clear that Russia may not join the EU, it can not be surprised if Russia seeks to establish its own power network. The fact that this includes many enemies of the West- from Chavez in Venezuela to Lukashenka in Belarus is not necessarily an ideological position, but merely a statement that Russia's rulers still believe in a zero-sum game in international politics: our gain is your loss.

The priority is to settle the borderlands of Russia- a very firm line must be drawn to protect The Baltic, Ukraine, and Trans Caucasia. This should include the settlement of the frozen conflicts that eliminates the capacity of Russia to make mischief. However the West must now try to create a quid-pro-quo. Russia has legitimate issues in the North Caucasus, and NATO should try to be helpful in dealing with the Chechen conflict. As far as Western energy security is concerned- the west should be pragmatic about the creation of the Russian national energy champions, but firm about the geopolitical threat that cutting gas supplies may pose. The Baltic Pipeline should include spurs to the Baltic and Poland, and Germany must bear in mind that the weakening of the energy security of the eastern half of Europe creates a real risk of the disruption of NATO- it must not happen.

For the future, Russia has the capacity to be helpful in Iran, and could be drawn into the process of containment of that dangerous and unstable regime. However the West must not let itself be played off against China in the growing struggle for global energy. The US-Chinese partnership was a key strategic component in the end of the USSR, but China herself is become unstable as the long economic growth curve slows down, and the legitimacy of the CPC is increasingly challenged. The threat of Chinese weakness is greater than the problems caused by the economic resurgence of that country.

Russia, fifteen years on, is a difficult strategic partner- the West should be sceptical of Russian motives in most of its dealings, but not dogmatically so. Conflict is not inevitable, and it is now the right time to address the key points of friction.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...