- First, few nations in the last three hundred years have suffered greater devastation or steeper decline in a shorter space of time than has Russia. The last century saw the loss of roughly 50 million Russians killed by war and Stalinist terror, only to see the extent of the Kremlin’s influence pushed back to the borders of Old Muscovy. For purposes of comparison, it would be like the United States suddenly reverting to the territory it held after the Lousiana Purchase. The potential for political extremism here is rife.
- Putin is popular with ordinary Russians and the elite – both the corrupt oligarchs and the democratically-minded liberal intelligentsia – are not. Russians have always preferred a tough Vozhd – a ” supreme leader” – who will ” put shoes ” on the petty tyrants who make their lives miserable. Back in 1843, the Marquis de Custine wrote in his Empire of the Czar: “There is a class of persons which corresponds to the citizen class among us, though without possessing the firmness of character derived from an independent position, and the experience obtained by means of liberty of thought and cultivation of mind: This is the class of subaltern employees or secondary nobility. The ideas of these men are generally turned toward innovations, whilst their acts are the most despotic that are committed in a despotism: this is the class which, in spite of the emperor, governs the empire” Little has changed. Russians favor the Tsar over the Boyar because the Tsar is far away.
- Russia has little of value to sell the world except Soviet weaponry, nuclear technology, natural gas, oil and its good behavior. The higher the oil prices remain the stronger the position Putin will be in to push through desperately needed reforms.
- The democratic alternative to Putin in the Duma is weak, divided and unpopular. The undemocratic alternative in the Duma is divided and unpopular but far from weak. In the provinces too, they are watching to see if Putin can clamp down on Chechnya. If he cannot, expect Russia to start unravelling as ethnic groups that few Americans have ever heard of go into revolt. This is one reason among many that Putin has reasserted Moscow’s administrative control over the governorships.
- Putin has centralized military and intelligence agency powers directly in his own hands like no Russian leader since Joseph Stalin. Putin however, is no Stalin nor does he have the extent of control over the levers of coercion that Stalin had. The system is simply too corrupt to be reliable and for all the emphasis on Putin’s KGB background, his actions indicate he trusts the SVR and FSB less than the Army.
I mention these things not because a democratic, free market, Westernized, Russia as a solid member of the Core is impossible but that we are confined to work within these realities to achieve it.
Page 2 of 2 | Previous page
Dan tdaxp:
April 19th, 2005 at 5:02 am
Great post!
The one thing I would change is that Russia’s disintegration does not have to be against our interest. So far it has been very positive.
Since at least the early 1980s Moscow has been trading geopolitical power for working capital. Every step of this journey has freed nations from Moscow’s grip and increased liberalization and connectivity with the “global” econony.
From Eastern European countries having to raise international capital, to the fall of the Soviet Outer Empire in 1989, to the fall of the Soviet Inner Empire in 1991, to Georgia’s, Moldvoa’s. and Ukraine’s recent realignments, we are winning. Even now, a free Ukraine is better than a Moscow-dominated Ukraine. As Russia falls the concern should be to connect the succssor states to us, not to save their connection with Moscow.
The center of power that, more than other other, fought globalization is being destroyed forever. It is being replaced by a number of smaller states that are much more friendly. Good.
Anonymous:
April 19th, 2005 at 12:05 pm
The problem is, Dan, that there is one gigantic lump of state that isn’t going away. Let Chechnya and a few others of what the Soviet Union called autonomous republics go, and you’ll still have an enormous state with enormous natural resources and strategic placement. And some of those will never be let go, because they’re surrounded by…Russia.
Whether Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine will turn out “free” is still open. But I suspect that you don’t care, as long as they are aligned with “the West.” And geography is destiny there, too. That “West” is more likely to be Europe than the US. They can’t pick up and move to Kansas.
The US had the foresight in the late 1940s to rebuild Europe through the Marshall Plan. A similar initiative in the 1990s for the former Soviet Union was what was needed, but the US lacked the statesman who would champion it. That option is no longer open.
So yeah Mark, we’ve got a mess in the making. I don’t see any easy answers. It will largely be a matter of working at the margins, encouraging Russia toward the West. Unfortunately, the regime-change gang in Washington doesn’t seem to understand that. Or maybe they’re distracted by all those other easier-to-change regimes.
CKR
Dan tdaxp:
April 19th, 2005 at 1:44 pm
Apologies for the double-comment. Blogspot sometimes get the better of me.
I’m not sure how big “rump Russia” is, if it would even exist. Stratfor has written on how militarily unfeasible Russia without Ukraine — is it nationally unfeasiable as well?
Real alignment with the rest requires progress towards democratic liberalism. Ukraine was already aligned with the West and America (it had troops in Iraq), while Georgia was run by a friend from the fall of the Soviet Union. But it is more important to connect the countries to the global system and increase everybody’s wellbeing.
The proximity of the former Soviet republics to Europe is a great thing. The economic integration and political stability from joining the EU has clearly helped Hungary, Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, and others. It’s not a zero-sum game, where what helps Europe hurts America.
A “Marshall Plan” for the old Soviet sphere would have been historically unprecedented. Unlike post-War Europe, where an archipeligo of liberated governments stretched from Paris to Athens, the ex-Soviet republics were often still run by the same people. For example, the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic under Speaker of the Supreme Soviet Boris Yeltsin became… the Russian Federation under President Boris Yeltsin. A better analogy would have been Occupied Japan, which also experienced the same community running the during the war as after.
Except peacefully, I don’t see any push for regime revolution in Russia.
mark:
April 19th, 2005 at 4:18 pm
Hey Dan and CKR,
The issues you have each raised require a post in themselves and not merely a comment. Bear with me a little while and I’ll have something up.
gastips:
October 11th, 2005 at 8:42 am
Nice Blog! Its great how useful the internet can be with its wealth of information. I will try and visit you blog on a regular basis to help you out.
If you want any Gas Saving Tips feel free to visit gas msnbc.msn.com price site
See ya soon.. 🙂
CreditBoom:
July 13th, 2007 at 10:34 am
I am also for democracy. But…America has been exporting democracy for several decades and there are quite a few success stories. but there are also way too many fruitless attemps. Why are such countries as Japan, South Korea, etc booming but not much has changed in formoer Yugoslavian territories? I think, most of it has simply to do with mentality and political tradition. Russians have been living in an authoritatian state pretty much the whole time of the existance of the state. And I’m not sure how much time will be needed to change the mentality.