Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Russia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Putin's neo-imperial ambitions
Big Bad Pariah    3/10/2004 3:13:37 AM
Putin's neo-imperial ambitions Russia has stabilized under Vladimir Putin's watch, but should the Kremlin try to regain its superpower status? By Dmitri Trenin As Russian President Vladimir Putin's re-election approaches on March 14, it is time to take stock of his presidency. The biggest thing to happen on his watch is that Russia stabilized itself. With stability, the face of 21st century Russia was revealed. What much of the world sees in Putin's Russia is a neo-authoritarian regime based on a state-directed capitalism interlinked with the ruling bureaucracy and flanked by an immature civil society. In terms of raw power, Russia is clearly inferior to the former Soviet Union. This Russia is neither capable, nor desirous of, full integration with the West. But weakened, as it no doubt is, Putin's Russia still regards itself as a great power. The ruling elite rejects transforming Russia into a junior partner of the US or an unimportant member of the West. As far as Russia's elite is concerned, realpolitik in the 21st century is a fusion of geopolitics and geo-economics, with military might thrown in. Ideology and values play little role. Thus, Putin does not view closer relations with the West as an ideological imperative, but as a resource for Russia's economic modernization. In relations with the US and EU, Putin wants to boost Russia's status. This is what his modernization policy aims to achieve. Russian leaders no longer expect real assistance from the West. Self-help has replaced the discredited notion that foreign countries will come to Russia's rescue. Foreign investment is still viewed as desirable, but no one attaches primary importance to attracting it anymore. Russia, it is widely believed, can rely on domestic capital. The same sort of thinking holds true in military/strategic affairs. Because America only respects strong partners, Russia will modernize the components of its national power that make it comparable to the US, in particular its nuclear arsenal. Overly close contacts with NATO (let alone membership) would deprive Russia of strategic independence. Of course, confrontation with America must be avoided. But, because an alliance of equals is impossible, a flexible combination of limited partnership and local rivalry seems the most likely course. Russia's leaders clearly recognize the country's true current condition, so they accept the need to concentrate on vital interests. They remain convinced that Russia is a great power, but one that for now must act primarily as a regional one. The major objective of this strategy in the near future will come down to restoring Russian influence in the states of the former Soviet Union. Call this strategy "Operation CIS." The objective is not to revive the Soviet Union. All CIS countries -- with the possible exception of Belarus -- will retain their sovereignty. When President Alexander Lukashenko departs, Belarus may fold into Russia as East Germany was absorbed by West Germany in the early 1990s. Russia's transformation into an economic magnet for the CIS will be the major force of renewed Russian strategic influence. In exchange for economic support, the Kremlin will demand political loyalty. The criteria for that loyalty will be fairly simple -- participating in the security framework headed by Russia and eliminating the "excessive" influence of third parties (the US, EU, China, or Turkey) within CIS nations. Agreements with the CIS ruling elites will become the main instrument for implementing "Operation CIS." This will require painstaking efforts to promote pro-Russian groups and gradually weaken and neutralize pro-Western circles. This task will be lengthy, but the similarities between the CIS political and economic systems with what exists in Russia will make it easier. Besides, in most cases, Western integration is impossible for these CIS states. Many elites in these countries, because they seized power and became rich rapidly, feel insecure. Russia's support on promising terms may attract them, particularly because the matter of forfeiting sovereignty will not be raised. But Russia will encounter problems in pursuing this strategy. Putin's attempt last year to have US President George W. Bush recognize Russia's "special interests" in the former Soviet Union failed, just as former president Boris Yeltsin's bid to gain that recognition failed a decade earlier. Unlike Yeltsin, however, Putin won't give up and expects that he can take advantage of the fact that America will be too busy fighting terrorism and WMD proliferation, rearranging the Middle East and containing China to object too strongly. Russian activism in the CIS will also bring it into direct rivalry with the EU. If the Kremlin uses force to establish its regional hegemony, Europe may again see Russia as a security threat, which would bring about a renewal of the Cold War/NATO policy of containment. Likewise, China might oppose
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
Big Bad Pariah    RE:Putin's neo-imperial ambitions   3/10/2004 3:16:36 AM
My opinion: The US has provoked a Russian response by expanding into Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Relations between the two nations may be warmer these days but did the US really expect it could expand into former Warsaw Pact and Soviet republics without concerning Russia? US imperialism has caused Russia to become aggressive once again.
 
Quote    Reply

Final Historian    RE:Putin's neo-imperial ambitions   3/10/2004 11:38:59 AM
Oh please, Russia would have returned to Imperialism no matter what the US did. Wounded national pride causes that almost always.
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a    RE:Putin's neo-imperial ambitions   3/10/2004 2:38:55 PM
We "expanded" into Eastern Europe? How? I don't see any military bases in Poland or Bulgaria. Yes, they're integrated in NATO now, but maybe that's because...I don't know...they had Russian "guests" for almost 50 years, and don't want the guests to come back? As for Central Asia, we'll be out of there as soon as Afghanistan gets stablized (whenever that is). Nobody wants to stay in Uzbekistan if they can avoid it, including the Russians. This may come as a shock to you, BBP, but things happen in this world without America's consent or its influence. Humans have this thing called "free will." Unfortunately, a good many of them lack this thing called "personal responsibility," so it's a lot easier to blame America for bad things rather than do something about them.
 
Quote    Reply

roadcop    RE:Putin's neo-imperial ambitions   3/10/2004 4:34:36 PM
There are no such thing as neo-imperial ambitions in Russia. People wouldnt support any attempts to reestablish USSR by military force. Its absolutely impossible. Everyone in Russia has close relatives, friends and comrades in ex-Soviet Republics. We co-exist peacefully (may be there are some economic tensions). And if we, Russians, still think about our country as a Great Power... Well, we have some reasons. 1200 years of our existence, national culture and language. Vast resources and lands, large population. Great military victories (you still think that Eysenhower have won WW2?). And there are many unexploited possibilities for Russia to regain her traditional place in the world. And you say something about "Russian imerialism". What is it, people? Get real... The only way to reestablish old Russian Empire is by economic means and, may be, some propaganda. And such way will be very long (if possible at all). Putin is definitely not an idiot. He modernises government, economy, army, because there is an obvious need of such modernisation. We are not going to war. You must agree that any country now needs modern economy, military and government system. And only thing I can blame America is participation in occupation of my home city during 1917-1919 (in Kola Peninsula your forces, along with English and French, have destroyed or stolen equipment and goods on 950 million of gold roubles). By the way, is anyone here from Boston? I know that "Olympia" cruiser still serves as a museum there. She took part in those events....
 
Quote    Reply

Final Historian    RE:Putin's neo-imperial ambitions   3/10/2004 6:44:30 PM
Sorry about that bad part of history roadcop, but it was a needed mission. Unfortunately it was a half-assed job, and Russia lapsed into Communism. As for Russian Imperialism, I think its about as realistic as the notion of US Imperialism.
 
Quote    Reply

Big Bad Pariah    RE:Putin's neo-imperial ambitions - sentinel28a   3/10/2004 10:39:30 PM
The US is planning bases for Romania and Azerbajian. Is that not close enough to Russia? As for Central Asia, the US is not leaving anytime soon. In case you didn't realise, Central Asia is one of the most strategically important regions on the planet at the moment due to its huge oil and gas reserves. The US, Russia and China are all trying to increase their influence in Central Asia. The US cannot be blamed for Russian imperialism but the US has provoked Russian concern. Instead of isolating Russia, the US and NATO should have encouraged Russia to intergrate with the West more.
 
Quote    Reply

Big Bad Pariah    RE:Putin's neo-imperial ambitions - Final Historian   3/10/2004 10:45:25 PM
"As for Russian Imperialism, I think its about as realistic as the notion of US Imperialism." So you don't consider the US an imperialistic power? LOL! You're not much of a historian then. Why does the US have bases all over the world then? Why does it maintain such a massive military even though the Cold War is over? Why does it exploit poorer nations under the cover of 'globalization'?
 
Quote    Reply

NewGuy    RE:Putin's neo-imperial ambitions - Final Historian   3/11/2004 1:35:55 AM
"Why does it exploit poorer nations under the cover of 'globalization'?" Please: Provide unbiased evidence of this "exploitation" crap -- and no, the Socialist Daily is not an unbiased source. "Explotation" is the cover-word spread by two-bit dictators, socialist leaders and their ilk, to hide their own incompetence, greed, corruption, and failed economic/political policies. NewGuy
 
Quote    Reply

Big Bad Pariah    RE:Putin's neo-imperial ambitions - Final Historian   3/18/2004 2:56:55 AM
"Wounded national pride causes that almost always." I agree with that point.
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a    RE:Putin's neo-imperial ambitions - sentinel28a   3/22/2004 5:46:25 PM
"The US is planning bases for Romania and Azerbajian. Is that not close enough to Russia?" Really? News to me. Not saying you're wrong, but I haven't heard anything about new US bases in either country--and I keep my ear to the ground pretty well in that department. If you could provide a link, I'd be grateful. You may mean landing rights and advisors, but that's not a military base. If that's the case, then Russia has US military bases, as our aircraft do land there occasionally. "As for Central Asia, the US is not leaving anytime soon. In case you didn't realise, Central Asia is one of the most strategically important regions on the planet at the moment due to its huge oil and gas reserves. The US, Russia and China are all trying to increase their influence in Central Asia." My impression is that US bases in Central Asia are there to support operations in Afghanistan--which, BTW, has zero oil and natural gas reserves. It does have a large per capita of terrorists, however. "The US cannot be blamed for Russian imperialism but the US has provoked Russian concern. Instead of isolating Russia, the US and NATO should have encouraged Russia to intergrate with the West more." I think it would be nice to see Russia join a collective security group such as NATO or the EU. However, I don't see this happening for two reasons: one, I don't think Russia wants to join. Two, a lot of NATO and EU members remember the Cold War, and those memories of the Soviet Union are not pleasant. They'd prefer it if Russia stayed behind the Pripet Marshes, and what the US may wish (or not wish) is pretty irrevalent in that case. Russia has nothing to worry about from the US. In fact, I would argue that the reverse is more true--we have certain things to worry about from Russia.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics