I find the Economist’s views on Russia to be quite validating
Tuesday, September 30, 2008 at 3:34AM EDITORIAL: “Europe stands up to Russia: The European Union has wobbled woefully, yet Russia too will pay dearly for its Georgian adventure,” The Economist, 6 September 2008.
BRIEFING: “Cold comfort: The European Union unites in rather mild and belated criticism of Russia’s war in Georgia,” The Economist, 6 September 2008.
Very sensible editorial. Detailing Russia’s financial losses and stating that:
… the most useful cure for the Eurowobbles over Russia lies not in diplomacy but in Europe’s internal market: liberalizing the EU’s energy markets and where possible connecting up its internal supply lines. It makes economic sense and does not involve picking a needless fight with Russia.
The key ending:
But what Russia may come to regret losing most is something Mr Putin longs for: the opportunity to become an accepted European power. He likes to skip over communism’s mistakes and dwell on Russia’s tsarist grandeur. But what did for both was imperial overstretch, a rotten economy and, like Russia’s today, a mostly unaccountable ruling caste that led a proud country to disaster.
The majority European position is clear enough:
They blame Georgia, seen as an irresponsible American protégé, for starting the war but object to Russia’s precipitate diplomatic recognition of Georgia’s two breakaway territories, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and the lingering Russian military presence in buffer zones. Above all, they are glad that a row with an important trading partner has cooled.
The key international response, though, has been the cool reactions from traditional friends, all of whom worry about the separatism precedent created, especially China, which created the Shanghai Cooperation Organization to combat this specific danger more than anything else.
Calm, reasonable stuff from a calm reasonable source.
Reader Comments (3)
Numerous observers, like Robert Kagan, will argue the divergence between America, Russia, and the PRC results from their inherently conflicting ideological stances -- the United States is the champion of democratic capitalism while the PRC and Russia espouse authoritarian mercantilism. While postulating another global ideological conflict is tantalizing, characterizing current international affairs this way is misleading.
By linking the two countries on the basis of their similar regimes, Kagan is obscuring a key point of divergence between them.
The PRC leadership has been historically reluctant to assert the nation’s growing heft on the world stage, traditionally protesting Western interference in underdeveloped countries and, more recently, asserting its ascendance constitutes nothing more than a “peaceful rise.” Russia, under Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, is far more ambitious and fully expect to restore the nation to its historical greatness. Furthermore, the Russian leadership has determined the nation’s resurgence and re-establishment as a major player grants it the opportunity – and the right – to emulate America’s example.
when Russia defiantly defended its invasion of Georgia in the face of Western opposition and expected support from the PRC and other anti-Western states, the leadership was rebuked. Russian President Dmitri Medvedev turned to the PRC-led Shanghai Cooperative Organization (SCO) for diplomatic support and called for its conversion into a counterweight to NATO. Instead, the SCO declined to support Russia’s recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the two breakaway Georgian regions, and instead the members issued a declaration “[reaffirming] their commitment to the principles of respect for the historical and cultural traditions of every country and to efforts aimed at preserving the unity of each state and its territorial integrity."
Kagan’s bloc of autocratic states is not monolithic and the divergence between Russia and the PRC presents an opportunity for the United States.
The PRC, in contrast to Russia, has embraced globalization and connectivity, making a sustained and comprehensive attempt to modernize and integrate with the global economy. Conversely, Russia has declined to diversify its petroleum-based economy and has permitted the political elite undue control over major sectors. Furthermore, the PRC leadership is violently opposed to liberalization, but espouses non-interference in other states; China has its own share of Kosovos within its borders and Iraqs on its borders and does not need the principle of intervention legitimized.
By signaling an intent to curtail un-sanctioned unilateral intervention abroad, the US can shape an understanding with the PRC based on the firm commitment to respect a state’s sovereignty going forward. Proceeding accordingly can result in cooperative efforts to constrain Russian irredentist impulses. Moreover, the US will regain credibility with other rising states, such as Brazil and India (especially), which may have sympathized with American objectives in Iraq, but could not countenance the manner in which America pursued them.
If Russia persists, its isolation will only worsen as well as face economic consequences the market is more than prepared to mete out -- Russia will be denied entry into the World Trade Organization and the Russian stock index, RTS, already declining since May 2008, fell even further just two weeks after the invasion of Georgia, reaching its lowest point in two years . On Sept. 26, Moody's Investors Service assigned a “negative” outlook to the country's banking system as it grapples to contain its worst crisis since the 1998 default.
This morning (09/30) AP reports regulators quickly halted trading on Russia's two major stock exchanges Tuesday after share prices dropped sharply in response to the economic bailout turmoil in the United States. "Globally, investors are running from risk," Moscow-based UralSib bank said in a note to investors. "With the price of crude crashing back ... plus worries about the outlook for stability within the country's financial system, Russia is firmly in that category."
To me, right now, it's a league of capitalists, not democracies, that needs to come together and work the progressive agenda on globalization.
Too much at risk.