NationStates Jolt Archive

An alarmist but interesting view on Putin's leadership...


Vladimir Putin takes on democracy, the West and all-comers

10 December 2004 12:21

Firm recognition that Mr Putin is going in the wrong direction is much better than meek acquiescence.

THE drama playing out in the streets of Ukraine in recent weeks has been gripping in its own terms. But its bigger significance for the West lies north-east of Kiev, in Russia. As the tide moves towards a presidential election victory for the opposition leader, Victor Yushchenko, on December 26th, the efforts of Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, to thwart him have looked ever more cack-handed. But they have also depressed those who still hoped that Mr Putin's Russia might move, slowly and tortuously, on to a path leading to political liberalism—and that he might prove an ally not a foe of the West.

As if Russia's intervention in Ukraine were not enough, the Kremlin's anti-western rhetoric has also risen. In an excess of hypocrisy even by Soviet standards, Mr Putin and his foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, have accused the West of meddling in Ukraine in order to destabilise the region. This week Mr Lavrov attacked the Organisation of Security and Co-operation in Europe, whose monitors declared the Ukrainian election fraudulent three weeks ago. Mr Putin then widened the field of assault by criticising Iraq's interim government and its plans to hold elections next month.

*snip*

That Mr Putin is more of an autocrat than a democrat has been clear ever since he became Russia's president in 2000. Yet after the chaos of the Yeltsin years, many hoped that he would at least bring order, a respect for property rights and the rule of law—and that, in time, these might permit the institutions of a liberal democracy to take root. Such hopes led many European leaders to reach out to Mr Putin, and refrain from criticism over matters as the war in Chechnya, human rights or press freedom. In 2001 America's George Bush famously looked into Mr Putin's eyes and got a feel for his soul—and found him straightforward and trustworthy. As recently as last year, Mr Bush declared that freedom and the rule of law prevailed in Russia.

In truth, hopes that political pluralism might emerge in Russia were dashed even before Mr Putin's party swept to a two-thirds majority in Russia's lower house of parliament, the Duma, last December, and before Mr Putin himself was overwhelmingly re-elected in March. His snuffing out of all independent television and most independent newspapers, his hounding of wealthy businessmen (the “oligarchs”) who crossed him, and his rigging of elections all testified to the controlling instincts that one might expect in a former KGB officer. His connivance in the attempt to steal Ukraine's presidential election, his interference in Abkhazia, a Russian-sponsored part of Georgia, and in Moldova, and his support for the dictatorship in Belarus show that he applies these instincts not just in Russia but across the former Soviet Union, the break-up of which he has publicly regretted. Worse, his instinctive response to criticisms of Russian policy in its near-abroad has been to relapse into general hostility to the West. The West, in turn, has become frostier.

*snip*

The conclusion is inescapable. Far from being a political and economic reformer who runs an admittedly flawed but still recognisable democracy, Mr Putin has become an obstacle to change who is in charge of an ill-managed autocracy. The question is, what can the West do about it?

The short answer is, not much. However ineffectual Mr Putin's foreign policy looks after Ukraine, his authority at home is unchallenged. Indeed, there is now talk of his finding some way to run for a third term in office. Moreover, compared with the Yeltsin period, when Russia depended on the IMF, the West has few economic or financial levers to pull. Instead, its growing dependence on Russian energy may actually be putting some levers into the Kremlin's hands.

*snip*

http://putinru.com/news/item/35129.html

Yes, with regard to natural gas supply in particular, Russia will have an awesome lever over the EU. It will simply have to come to some sort of accommodation with it, I think.

Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian power. However, as you mentioned, Moscow still has plenty of economic influence that extends throughout the region. I think the EU understands that isolating Russia isn't really an option.

Looks like countries of Europe will have two fronts to fight in WW3: The fascist dictatorship of Russia in the east, and the fascist dictatorship of American States in the west.

Looks like countries of Europe will have two fronts to fight in WW3: The fascist dictatorship of Russia in the east, and the fascist dictatorship of American States in the west.

Yes because afterall thats what we really need, another war in which white people are killing white people :rolleyes:

I think that if Yushchenko wins in Ukraine, Russia can be looked at by the EU not as a threat or ally, but just as a little nuissance that will go away. You see, in Russia, democratic groups are reorganizing at a grass-roots level, and they know that a Yushchenko victory in the Ukraine means that they are given far more momentum. So I think that if any autocracy is trying to reestablish itself in Russia, it won't last past the next presidential election, and the EU should realize that. Too much money and ideas have swept Russia to keep in in a dictatorship for long, and the pro-democracy wave that has swept the world since the end of the Cold War has consumed lots of countries near Russia, and even Russia to an extent. Remember, Russia is far more democratic than it even was under Gorbachev, and especially under Yuri Andropov.

Yes because afterall thats what we really need, another war in which white people are killing white people :rolleyes:

Yes, that is always a tragedy.

Yes because afterall thats what we really need, another war in which white people are killing white people :rolleyes:

Quite... and here's the fine point of it:

It's Europe who's sitting in the middle.

Unless you want a 3-way free for all, ( and how happy would that make our arab 'friends' ) perhaps Russia and the US should become realistic... and accept that henceforth, we should simply stick to 2 out of 3 US/EU/RU decission-making.

Quite... and here's the fine point of it:

It's Europe who's sitting in the middle.

Unless you want a 3-way free for all, ( and how happy would that make our arab 'friends' ) perhaps Russia and the US should become realistic... and accept that henceforth, we should simply stick to 2 out of 3 US/EU/RU decission-making.

I imagine China might not like that arrangement.

I imagine China might not like that arrangement.

Tant mieux.

Yes because afterall thats what we really need, another war in which white people are killing white people :rolleyes:
Cam down, it's just a joke. It's not like I want or expect it to happen. I was trying to remark on how both Russia and America are becoming more authoritarian.

Cam down, it's just a joke. It's not like I want or expect it to happen. I was trying to remark on how both Russia and America are becoming more authoritarian.
And we need both: The US to garantee our security and Russia for our energy surplies (biggest oil and gas supplier of Europe).

Looks like countries of Europe will have two fronts to fight in WW3: The fascist dictatorship of Russia in the east, and the fascist dictatorship of American States in the west.

Russia a threat? Not bloody likely! They are undergoing sharp population decline, the AIDS crises is exploding, their economy sucks balls (execept for the oil and natural gas sectors), their crappy military can't even put down a tiny rebellion in Chechneya yadda yadda yadda Russia sucks.

Russia a threat? Not bloody likely! They are undergoing sharp population decline, the AIDS crises is exploding, their economy sucks balls (execept for the oil and natural gas sectors), their crappy military can't even put down a tiny rebellion in Chechneya yadda yadda yadda Russia sucks.
Russia is a great nation which should not be underestimated.
Germany in the 1920s and early 1930s was also a declining and bancrupt economy.

Russia in the late 1980s and in the 1990s certainly was in a simular position. Though in recent years Russia managed a turn-around in its economic development. The Russian economy is growing - not only in the energy sector. Growing from a low level - but it is growing.
Within 10 years it could reach its pre 1990 levels and in 20 years it could become a bigger economic player than before.
And with its strategical resources in the energy sector it is in a very important position - especially for Europe.
I rather see the prospect of a strategic partnership between Russia and the US and Russia and the major European powers.
The development of a close partnership to Russia therefore is logically top on the agenda of all major western leaders: From President Bush, to Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac, Silvio Berlusconi or Gerhard Schroeder.
Russia is an important player in stabilizing the world energy markets. And geostrategically it can serve as an additional counter-balance to China (aside India, Japan, e.g.).

I just think that the EU, Russia, and America should unite and not fight eachother ever again. And besides most Americans are Euro-Americans(meaning they have racial and cultral roots in Europe even though they live in America) and I personally would never fight in a war in which im killing my own kind... disaters like WWI and WWII should be avoided at all costs, and im sure most Americans feel the same way.

The EU, Russia, Japan and China should work together to isolate the US.

Remember, Russia is far more democratic than it even was under Gorbachev, and especially under Yuri Andropov. Gorbachev and Andropov were leaders of the USSR, not Russia as it exists today. ;)

The EU, Russia, Japan and China should work together to isolate the US.

You want to cut your own throats, go ahead.

The starvation alone would bring you back.

The EU, Russia, Japan and China should work together to isolate the US. Cornered By The West Over Ukraine, Putin Courts Allies Elsewhere (http://putinru.com/news/item/34913.html)

And we need both: The US to guarantee our security and Russia for our energy surplies (biggest oil and gas supplier of Europe).
For once you are correct.

The EU, Russia, Japan and China should work together to isolate the US.
I think the Americans are doing a pretty good job of that themselves.

You want to cut your own throats, go ahead.

The starvation alone would bring you back.
Wow! Just like it is when working-class Americans vote Republican!

The EU, Russia, Japan and China should work together to isolate the US.

Why?
And how?
It's silly... sooner or later, Russia and China will.. argue about who controls Siberia. Such an alliance is unstable.

As for Japan.. who cares what they think or do? Geopolitical non-entity

Japan and the U.S. are quite close at the moment. Therefore is seems more logical for the U.S. to divide Europe, appease Russia, prevent China from emerging to challenge us, and pull out of Iraq ASAP to avoid further troop losses.

Perhaps the world at large should question if democracy is a viable possibility in Russia at all. The size of the country, the variety of ethnic groups, and the generally insular and secretive culture (second only to those in the Far East) may very well may democracy hard to achieve at best and completely unworkable at worse.

It seems that since the Soviet Union fell, the series of governments that have come after it have moved back toward a more centralized autocracy or oligarchy. And looking at Russian history it is easy to see how the citizens of Russia would be of an easier mind under this system. After all, what else have they known? The tsars were autocrats, the Soviets' and their Politburo the same, and now so are the Russian "republicans" and their private supporters.

Russia may present a unique opportunity, where a free market--or relatively free market, certainly almost as "un-regulated" as the United States' free market economy--may coexist with something other than a parliamentary or republican form of government.

The supposed Russian outrage against Putin may very well be overrated as by the West. After all, if he was causing such dissent among the Russian populace it would no doubt be reflected quickly by the Russian citizenry. Especially since the police forces of the Russian state now are no where near as oppressive or omnipotent as they were fourteen years ago. By not protesting, or at least by not raising an outcry that is being actively supressed, the Russians are granting Putin carte blanche by doing nothing to oppose him.

Also, to say that the European Union can ever fully challenge or check Russia is somewhat foolish. The EU is a perfect example of having too many leaders and not enough followers. It is most likely impossible that in the immediate future any of the major European states will willingly become subservant to another. Look at how much problems were raised by trying to make the euro the common currency, and the fact that it is still not wholly the common currency. Another factor that must be considered is Russia's traditional fear of a powerful westward European state--it's certainly justified. Every time the a Western European state has been powerful it has invaded Russia: Napoleonic France, Imperial Germany, and Nazi Germany to name a few. And the Russians are not exactly a trusting lot.

There's no need to isolate the US, apart from her military adventurism in Iraq there is a simple economic reality to face, the US is not as powerful as it once was (and a simple look at the fact that the US couldn't persuade much less force its allies into the Iraq war).

Within the next few years, and even now, the world economy is shifting away from the US and towards Eurasia (the EU, Russia, India, Japan and China in particular) and leaving the US isolated and far away from the geographic centre of the new world economy.
These countries provide most of the US' financial and industrial needs, seeing as the US is economically dependant on investment (bonds and stocks) and foreign capital transfers (profit repatriation) to fund its over-consumption (in this case I refer to exports vs. imports rather than the fact America sucks up other resources) to the tune of $500 billion in 2003.
That being said, these countries need the US to export their products to (and isn't it sweet irony that in the land of the free market, they end up performing the role of a giant Keynesian government??:D ) .

As to Russia, for all the bellicose nature of her posturing at the moment, it would seem rather obvious to me that Russia will be moving towards the EU (Turkey and India as well) in the near future with the eastward expansion of the world's largest trading bloc making both Russia and the EU more interdependent on each other (the EU supplying capital and expertise in return for natural resources as just one example). Apart from that, Russia is obviously still looking for allies in the post-Soviet era and the EU is a natural choice, especially now with members that share even more cultural, political and economic ties.

I've been saying since 2000, Putin was gonna be trouble. He abolished democratic election of governors in favor of appointment earlier this year...for "terrorist" concerns.

Gorbachev and Andropov were leaders of the USSR, not Russia as it exists today. ;)
Of course, but Russia was a huge part of the USSR. In fact, the USSR was Russian dominated.

I really don't know what else people expect from Russia. Putin is an old KGB man who wants to reestablish the old USSR.