Skip to main content

Putin's Soviet nostalgia

Vladimir Putin has made a speech proposing a new Soviet, Eurasian Union for the countries of the former USSR. He suggests that working together will enhance the prosperity of all the countries of the region. Perhaps it will but, as usual, Vlad the Bad gets important details really wrong.


The European Union was constructed by states that were previously bitter enemies. As a result it insists on strict adherence to democratic values and forms. The so-called Copenhagen criteria include a deep commitment to the rule of law and human rights.


The Eurasian Union would be constructed by countries with little or no adherence to the rule of law and little or no respect for human rights. With the sole exceptions of Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia all of the putative members of the Union are rated Not Free by Freedom House, and are some of the most brutal tyrannies on the planet,


The fact is that having undermined human rights and democracy in Russia, Mr. Putin seems to be seeking to impose his will on the rest of the former Soviet Empire. In fact, as we know from his previous speeches, Mr. Putin deeply laments the passing of the former Soviet Empire.


Yet Russia lacks the capacity to impose its will inside its own borders, still less in other states that have been getting used to making decisions without reference to Moscow. As the upheaval in the North Caucasus grows, the outlook is not that Russian power will straddle new borders, but that it will shrink even inside the current Russian borders.


The reason is not hard to find: you can see it in the London High Court this week, where two of the more egregious criminals among the Russian Oligarchs are fighting it out. The fact is that the Russian regime is based upon a network of patronage and almost complete disrespect for law. The government and the oligarchs are the same people, while the lack of an viable opposition renders the regime incompetent and increasingly unstable.


The Russian veto of sanctions against the murderous Syrian regime reminds me that we should judge a man by his friends, and Putinista allies tend to be precisely such illegitimate regimes as Bashir-al-Assad, or Muamar Gaddafi, Islam Karimov, Robert Mugabe or Hugo Chavez. In the end, like them, he is building the foundations of his regime on very sandy foundations.


We can not say that we have not been warned: Vlad is an enemy of everything that the democratic West stands for and those such as Gerhard Schroder, Jacques Chirac, or Silvio Berlusconi who have been so accommodating to Russia should be regarded with dark suspicions.

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'...