Putin: Nursing Russia’s Political Ego
By Dave Eberhart, NewsMax
Monday, March 11, 2002
"It’s one thing for he and me to have a personal relationship,” President George Bush said of Russian President Vladimir V. Putin last November. "The key is that we establish a relationship between our countries strong enough that will endure beyond our presidencies.” The apparent bonding between the two leaders became the newest image of the moribund Cold War. But at least one analyst now looks forward to more substance than form – from both sides.
Lilia Shevtsova of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is one of the preeminent interpreters of the Russian political scene. In an inteview this month, she concluded that U.S.-Russia relations lack substance, which has a negative effect on Russia’s "political ego,” spawning nostalgia for the past days of empire and growing fears of irrelevance.
The key to more substantial relations, argued Shevtsova, is to achieve at least one high-profile example of cooperative success. She proposed a U.S.-brokered agreement between Russia and Japan over the nettlesome Kuril Islands.
Shevtsova further predicted that U.S.-Russian relations would follow one of two models:
In the first, the West and Russia cooperate on some issues, such as terrorism, while the West benignly tolerates Russia’s quasi-authoritarian regime. In the second, a constructive partnership is made possible by broader cooperation and Russia’s acceptance of liberal democratic rules of the game.
Which model wins out depends very much on the West’s ability to reciprocate and engage Putin, Shevtsova said.
Redefining Roles
In the meantime, said Shevtsova, both the U.S. and Russia are in the process of redefining their roles in the world.
"Mr. Putin proved to be an ideal president of the era of modest expectations and vague apprehensions. But whether the ‘survival ideology’ will be able to help Russia break into the hi-tech world is a good question.
"Russia can remain in this state for another five years or so. But the world around us has already changed -- new technologies and existential challenges have emerged, and we're still thinking according to templates dating back to the 1970s.
"If we fail to radically change the obsolete system of state administration, Russia will never catch up with the leading world powers.”
The old Russia never would have accepted junior partner status or diminished power in the near abroad, Shevtsova said, and such a stance by Putin amounts to a revolution in Russian foreign policy.
"The West, for its part, does not know what to make of this redefined Russian role. Having expected to bestow on Russia the title of partner as a reward for prolonged obedient behavior, the U.S. and others were disconcerted to see Russia declare itself a loyal partner far ahead of schedule….
Lack of Resources
"Motivating this change were a lack of resources, which precluded any other path, as well as a keen understanding of the power asymmetry between the two countries and a willingness to accept and deal with that asymmetry.”
The current cornerstones of the tenuous Russian stability, she said, rest upon approval ratings in the 70 percent range for Putin and world oil prices above $15 per barrel.
To avoid future collapse, she advocated an advanced, economic structural reform and a political administrative reform to divorce "business from bureaucracy, economy from power,” and to break down the vertical centralization of power.
From the West, she said, Russia needs an outstretched hand and "delicate, strong” pressure to change the political and economic rules of the game.
For example, she proposed, if the West can formalize an operational agenda for military logistical cooperation in Tajikistan, the breakthrough in bilateral relations would be second only to the dramatic changes of 1991.
Military Reform
Military reform, however, Shevtsova predicted, would take 10 to 15 years, comparable to the time France needed to regroup after Algeria. Russia, she maintained, needs an army of volunteers, not draftees, and must shift its garrisons in European Russia to its southern Eurasian borders.
Putin’s declared support last month for U.S. Iraq policy, Shevtsova said, is motivated by a desire to avoid a repeat of the humiliation Russia faced over Yugoslavia, when it sided with Milosevic -- until the last minute.
"With Iraq, Russia knows it has no realistic alternative to siding with the U.S., so any zigzagging in policy will take place within a narrow corridor,” she added.
After last September’s attacks, Shevtsova maintained Putin made a strategic choice in favor of the West. However, she maintained, "the [Russian] nation demands that the president show some strength, but I believe he feels that any door slamming would only result in another humiliation for Russia.”
In the watershed month of September, President Putin ended an era, but the Taliban movement crumbled rapidly under the U.S. onslaught and "Washington has developed the illusory idea that it does not need Russia,” she said.
Commenting on the ubiquitous clan conflicts in Russian, Shevtsova said: "Given the current system of government in Russia, power struggles are inevitable, since they compensate for the absence of restraints.
"Clan clashes are becoming a key factor in President Putin's survival…. [Putin] has so far been careful to steer clear of the main threat -- the threat of becoming a hostage to any of the warring clans.
"To all appearances, the president has a well-developed self-preservation instinct -- and also the feeling of having been chosen for a great mission. Without this feeling, his pro-Western maneuver would have been impossible.”
newsmax.com |
