Russia and the Global Crisis

Edward Lucas on the Russian Threat and the New Cold War:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccCmxdTSwfs&feature=PlayList&p=A9F9F30BCF7C1C1C&index=1

Senator Bill Bradley, “Russia: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow”. Speech at Princeton University, Dec. 2008 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h170Z0ylNvY

Signs of global crisis The Great Recession Climate change Energy security Food security Water security Political conflicts, viability of states Wars

In this new time of troubles, what role is Russia playing in the world?

Russia’s international rankings The world’s largest country 1/3 or more of global natural resources World’s 8th largest economy (In 2008, its GDP was over $2

trln., measured in PPP, compared to US GDP of $14.4 trln., India’s $5.3 trln. Japan’s $5 trln., China’s $4 trln., Germany’s $3.4 trln., UK’s $2.3 trln. and France’s $2.2 trln.[i])World’s 3d largest assets in gold and hard currency

A nuclear superpower A space superpower A permanent member of UN Security Council A member of G8 A key international actor across Eurasia (involved in more

international organizations and projects than any other state except US)

“The World in 2008”. Economist Intelligence Unit - http://www.economist.com/theworldin/forecasts/COUNTRY_PAGES_2008.pdf

"Russia is never as strong as she looks; Russia is never as weak as she looks." Attributed to Talleyrand, Metternich, and Churchill

Putin, May 2002: "Russia has never been as strong as it has wanted

to be and never as weak as it is thought to be."

Pierre Morelle, EU Special Rep to Central Asia: “I am struck by the contrast between our interdependence

and the problems in our relations which remain unresolved. It is a contrast between practical cooperation and psychological confrontation. Ties between the two worlds are strengthening on a scale which was unthinkable in the past – and yet psychological tensions remain. Even though experience implies that it is better to learn together – and even if we experience disappointments, we will achieve a lot if we move forward working together.”

Март 2008 :: Пьер Морель. По одну сторону стола. http://sr.fondedin.ru/new/admin/print.php?id=1206353430&archive=1206354399

Why this psychological confrontation? No one in 1999 expected that Russia would experience this

turn of fortunes And no one expected that the West would be confronting

such a formidable array of challenges as today – from the economic crisis to Afghanistan to climate change – without ready solutions to deal with them

So, on the Western side, there is discomfort and unease about Russia’s resurgence

And a desire to find ways to delegitimize it (“Russia is not playing by the rules”)

In Russia, there was a recovery of self-confidence – until the end of 2008

And a a belief that while being a Western client was bad for Russia, putting Russia’s own interests first and driving hard bargains with the West does bring results

But also: like winning huge in a lottery and scrambling to find ways to spend the money

Assertiveness mixed with insecurity, a fear that this moment is fleeting, that things may change for the worse very quickly

Russia’s resurgence and Western troubles can be too easily pictured as a zero-sum game

But it is anything but a zero-sum game Tremendous exaggeration of:

The degree of differences between interests And of the ability to succeed without cooperation from

the other side Russia cannot, and does not plan to, thrive on Western

troubles Neither can the West hope to gain by undercutting Russia’s

resurgence Win-win is possible – but both sides do need new thinking

And then came August 2008…

Western concerns Russia is authoritarian again A revival of Russian imperialism Russia is using energy resources as tools in the struggle

for influence

Conclusion: Containment of Russia is necessary NATO is a natural instrument for this It may become a new Cold War

Russian concerns The West wants to undermine the current regime – that is,

push Russia back into chaos The West wants to prevent the rise of Russia’s influence The West wants to control Russia – in particular, to grab

Russia’s resources The West is not playing fair NATO continues to expand, despite Russian objections –

or even because of Russian objections

Conclusion: Russia needs to be strong and vigilant. Confrontation with the West is not desirable, but Russia must be prepared to defend its interests

Both sets of concerns do reflect some realities On both sides, there are forces which see the world

through the prism of zero-sum games And they feed on each other And there are vested interests feeding this Manichean view And there is the organizing power of simplistic, binary

thinking – Us vs. Them Ironically, both believe in American omnipotence Perhaps, this is the cardinal flaw

But, apart from the logic of zero-sum thinking, the accumulating weight of Western and Russian mutual interests is a fact of life –

And these interests stem from the fact that important changes have taken place, while thinking and policies on both sides have not caught up with these changes

The West is much less confident about the future Russia is more confident about the future But we are much better equipped today to develop new

security concepts and new international policies through joint efforts - dialog, negotiations between Russia and the West, Russia and NATO

So, let us discuss both sets of concerns to see where they are coming from – and what follows from them

1. Russia is authoritarian again Yes, 20 years after Gorby persuaded the Communist Party

to hold competitive elections, democratic governance in Russia remains a thing of the future

Is it a matter of concern? Of course – BUT: Has a communist system been restored? Do Russians feel unfree? What are the exact parametres of Russia’s new

authoritarianism? Why has the authoritarian regression taken place? How far can it go? What can be expected in the coming years? What should the West do?

2. Revival of Russian imperialism What exactly is Russia doing? Russia’s military power – traditionally, a key element of

Russia’s power Contrast w. USSR and the preceding Romanov Empire Defence spending, 2006 (SIPRI) $35 bln (1.7% of GDP, USSR – 25%)

Canada – 1.1% of GDP US - $580 bln (16 times more than Russia, 4.4% of

GDP)

NATO – Russia military balance Total armed forces personnel 3:1 Military aircraft 10:1 Tanks 3:1 Artillery 2:1 Naval ships 2:1 Submarines 3:1 Aircraft carriers 19:1 How real is this picture? Partly And - Russia’s rebuilding its military Questions about Russian military power

How is Russia maintaining its influence in Eurasia? The post-Soviet space is characterized by a growing

tendency of all states in the area to assert their national interests, as they are perceived by the ruling elites – and to form partnerships and associations with other states based on these perceptions.

The post-Soviet space remains largely open for wider international cooperation. The defining pattern of international politics in the area is not centralized control exercised from Moscow, but rather a set of complex multiplayer games in which Russia is only one of the players.

Russia’s interests were not well served by some of the methods employed by Moscow and mistakes it has made in its newly assertive policy in the post-Soviet space, which have generated anti-Russian trends in the politics of several neighbouring countries

But it seems that no matter by what means Russia would have tried to reassert its interests in the area, intensification of geopolitical competition was inevitable. In that competition, Russia’s main assets are security, economic and cultural ties with post-Soviet states.

The Network Principle The Russians are discovering that what works for Russia is

networking Not hegemony, not building imperial hierarchies But networking Based on pragmatic pursuit and matching of national

interests In the growing network of Russia’s ties with the world, the

West is only one segment, even if the most important

Business expansion is top priority for the Kremlin Russian business is trying to expand into every market

available And the post-Soviet space is a natural market for it Europe, North America? Complaints about obstacles being

put in the way Moscow has tried to limit freedom of operations for foreign

multinational corporations inside Russia and in the post-Soviet space – with limited success

From time to time, Moscow tries to pressure some neighbouring countries – again, with minimal success

Withdrawing subsidies – a sign of failure of hegemony On NATO expansion, Moscow did succeed in putting a

stop, a defensive move

Sphere of influence? Are there integrative ties between Moscow and neighbours

– old and new, ties based on mutual interests? Does Moscow have a right to express concerns about

events and especially government decisions in neighbouring countries – if these decisions may threaten Russia’s security? Imagine Canada joining Shanghai Cooperation Organization

and agreeing to let Russia build BMD radars and missiles on its territory

Imagine US reaction Imagine Ottawa saying: We are a sovereign nation, you

cannot dictate to us how we assure our security

3. Energy security A bit of zero-sum game, supply-demand, market logic Role of the Russian state – typical of energy markets today Issue: not whether energy trade is “politicized” (because it

always is) – but what specific policies are pursued Boils down to the question of whether Russia is a mere

gas station or a sovereign country where the national government must have a say in how its natural resources should be used

Now to the Russian concerns

1. The West is undermining stability in Russia Oh, really? Western support of Putin has been one of the major

causes of his success – the West has helped the rise of Putin and shares responsibility for Putinism

Western critique of Russia’s retreat from democracy is fully justified – not just as a prudent policy, but also as maintenance of international legal regime re human rights

No real interference or pressure And it’s not just the West, but Russian democrats, too Russian leaders should admit that it has compromised a

number of key norms of democratic governance, for whatever reason – and they should commit themselves to restoring these norms, because Russian democracy is needed by the Russians themselves

And don’t get paranoid – it’s no longer the Cold War

2. The West wants to prevent the rise of Russia’s influence Partly true, but is there such a united policy of the West? No – not yet, at least The overall attitude remains ambivalent Different countries have different attitudes Some are traditionally wary of Russia, others not The EU-Russia cooperation has become deep and

dynamic There is both competition and cooperation If EU is looking for ways to reduce its dependence on

Russian energy supplies, it’s not an anti-Russian policy, it’s good business practice

We cannot abolish competition But we can regulate it together to prevent it from

threatening everyone’s security And we should be able to expand our cooperation Does the West need a strong Russia? Of course!

3. The West wants to grab Russia’s natural resourcesRussia needs to sellIt is a matter of deals -And of regimesCurrent Western policy is, indeed, aimed at achieving

maximum market freedomAnd yes, the West would like to have unimpeded access to

resources in Russia and elsewhereSo would China and India – every country that relies on

imports of raw materials, energy, etc.But is such unimpeded access a realistic goal?Sovereign states will continue to assert their rightsWestern policy is evolving, pragmaticInternational energy security is a key interest for everyone –

and appropriate regimes need to be created collectively

4. NATO enlargement

Takes place based on shared interests

Provides security

Russia has opposed it from day one

NATO has heeded some of Russia’s concerns

But the enlargement has acquired an inertia which has generated unnecessary tensions

The Russia-Georgia war was a grim warning

And we can certainly start a new dialog about it

Let’s discuss our mutual concerns

Russia-West Is Russia needed to give “the West” coherence? But will Western interests be served by treating Russia as

a rogue state, containment of Russia? The West is confronted with huge problems none of which

would become more solvable The global center of economic gravity is shifting from

Atlantic to Pacific – and the West cannot do anything about it

How should the West respond to this power shift? Mobilizing the West against the Rest is lunacy Russia won’t be drawn into an anti-Moslem alliance It won’t be drawn into an anti-China alliance And it won’t be drawn into an anti-Western alliance Russia needs, for her own sake, peaceful, cooperative

relationships around its perimeter This makes Russia is a key element of any stable world

order – the global balancer of interests It is needed by the West, by Asia, by the Moslem world in

that role And it should be encouraged to play that role

In 2008, tensions between Russia and the West reached the highest level since the Cold War

But in the past few months, a new dynamic has emerged

In the 1990s, the West’s influence was growing both inside Russia and around it.

The result: growing opposition to Western pressures and interference

In the 2000s, Russia has been trying to become more independent

A tough, “realist” approach to IR The world seen as an increasingly anarchic place, disorder

is growing, every one has to guard their interests – but also redouble efforts at international cooperation

But at the same time, Russia has become more deeply integrated with the West than ever before

On both sides, the rise of concerns and frictions reflects the fact of that deepening of integration

A divorce is not an option

The dominant trends in Russian foreign policy thinking No desire to confront the West Recognition of Western concerns Relations with the West are top priority

But also: Primacy of national interests, emphasis on independence Multivector foreign policy

Pragmatism Emphasis on business Readiness for dialog, for development of joint solutions to

problems

Western countries, including Canada, do and will influence the ongoing debates in Moscow one way or another –

By their own actions, or inactions Both individually and collectively A key factor in these debates – assessing the state of the

world How is it perceived by Russian policy-makers, interest

groups, public opinion? There is no aspect of world politics or the world economy

which would not affect Russia in one way or another

If the idea of containment of Russia gains ground, it is unlikely to result in a more cooperative, more pro-Western Russia

Quite the contrary outcome can be expected Anti-Western elites in Russia are strong and active Let us not push Russia toward totalitarian mobilization Antagonizing Russia won’t solve any of Western problems It will only create new ones The world cannot afford zero-sum games between the

West and Russia - Because the two sides are too well-armed, and their arsenals

remain trained primarily on each other And there is no good reason why Russia and the West

should be in confrontation - Because mutual interests between Russia and the West far

outweigh any differences and considerations of competition

New forms of cooperation between states are necessary Our capability for collective action is too limited Neither Russia nor the West are interested in worsening

the global disorder Perhaps, we are coming to the real end of the Cold War

Realistic terms of the possible deal Priority of cooperation over competition Construction of a new world order Mutual security arrangements

Which means taking each other’s interests and concerns into account

No hegemony No ideological wars Competition by the rules Primacy of international law

Huge agenda for joint actions Arms control and disarmament – prospects for NPT,

START, SORT, INF, CFE? Afghanistan Global economic crisis Energy policy Climate change The food crisis The water crisis A NEW SECURITY STRUCTURE FOR THE

EUROATLANTIC REGION