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

Post Truth and Justice

The past decade has seen the rise of so-called "post truth" politics.  Instead of mere misrepresentation of facts to serve an argument, political figures began to put forward arguments which denied easily provable facts, and then blustered and browbeat those who pointed out the lie.  The political class was able to get away with "post truth" positions because the infrastructure that reported their activity has been suborned directly into the process. In short, the media abandoned long-cherished traditions of objectivity and began a slow slide into undeclared bias and partisanship.  The "fourth estate" was always a key piece of how democratic societies worked, since the press, and later the broadcast media could shape opinion by the way they reported on the political process. As a result there has never been a golden age of objective media, but nevertheless individual reporters acquired better or worse reputations for the quality of their reporting and

We need to talk about UK corruption

After a long hiatus, mostly to do with indolence and partly to do with the general election campaign, I feel compelled to take up the metaphorical pen and make a few comments on where I see the situation of the UK in the aftermath of the "Brexit election". OK, so we lost.  We can blame many reasons, though fundamentally the Conservatives refused to make the mistakes of 2017 and Labour and especially the Liberal Democrats made every mistake that could be made.  Indeed the biggest mistake of all was allowing Johnson to hold the election at all, when another six months would probably have eaten the Conservative Party alive.  It was Jo Swinson's first, but perhaps most critical, mistake to make, and from it came all the others.  The flow of defectors and money persuaded the Liberal Democrat bunker that an election could only be better for the Lib Dems, and as far as votes were concerned, the party did indeed increase its vote by 1.3 million.   BUT, and it really is the bi

Media misdirection

In the small print of the UK budget we find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer (the British Finance Minister) has allocated a further 15 billion Pounds to the funding for the UK track and trace system. This means that the cost of the UK´s track and trace system is now 37 billion Pounds.  That is approximately €43 billion or US$51 billion, which is to say that it is amount of money greater than the national GDP of over 110 countries, or if you prefer, it is roughly the same number as the combined GDP of the 34 smallest economies of the planet.  As at December 2020, 70% of the contracts for the track and trace system were awarded by the Conservative government without a competitive tender being made . The program is overseen by Dido Harding , who is not only a Conservative Life Peer, but the wife of a Conservative MP, John Penrose, and a contemporary of David Cameron and Boris Johnson at Oxford. Many of these untendered contracts have been given to companies that seem to have no notewo