Dmitri Trenin, director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, once said in the TV program “Angle of View with Aleksandr Privalov” that Vladimir Putin’s statement on the role of Ukraine in World War II – that Russia could have won on its own – means that the history of Russia begins to be interpreted separately from that of Ukraine. If Russian society ventured to speak frankly about history and try to reinterpret its own identity, which automatically means a departure from the imperial paradigm, this would perhaps be the best option for geopolitical development in the post-Soviet space.
But… The comments of Russia’s new-old president on strategic foreign-policy goals and imperial nostalgia (for example, a letter of the Russian writer Zakhar Prilepin to Stalin) testify to the opposite.
A candid reinterpretation of the fundamental principles by which the Russian state has been guided for centuries on end is to a large extent dangerous for itself. After all, any reincarnation is a painful, albeit vitally necessary, process. “I don’t think Russia needs to lay claim to the role of a special foreign-policy pole. Instead, it should first of all focus on its domestic problems. It must develop its territories, especially the Far East, and eliminate terrible disproportions at all levels of life. Otherwise, the country may find it impossible to stay on within the current borders,” independent journalist Semen Novoprudsky said in comment to The Day.
Unfortunately, most of the Russians do not understand this, while the former Soviet party nomenklatura, now in power, is all the more incapable of leading the process of reinterpretation. As for the liberal milieu, the concept of Russia as a European nation state is also beneath all criticism because Russian identity is not based on a mono-ethnic principle. So how can they build a nation state – by chipping off the non-Russian pieces or, on the contrary, by unifying all and everything?
The Russian liberal milieu showed a characteristic reaction to the passage of a language law in Ukraine. One of the Carnegie Moscow Center’s leading associates noted: “I cannot agree that this domestic Ukrainian decision was dictated by Russia. The very existence and wide proliferation of the Russian language in Ukraine is the result of historical circumstance rather than pressure on the part of Russia.”
In other words, one way or another, Russia in its archaic, totalitarian, and imperial image emerges victorious. It is common knowledge that Putin’s lifetime project is reincarnation of the Soviet Union in the shape of the Eurasian Union. But any empire, especially one that is far from the peak of its development, is hungry…
According to the statistics published on the RiF agency’s website, 85 percent of Russia’s territory is not suitable for comfortable living, 40 percent of the population is below the poverty line, 53 percent are people of the retirement and pre-retirement age, and 93 out of 127 million people live at budgetary expense, not to mention the fact that the Slavic population of Russia is steadily on the decline, whereas the number of Muslims in the country has risen by 40 percent in the past 15 years. If this trend continues, there will be nobody to aim the ideas of a Russian World at.
Experts, including those in Russia, are openly warning that the Russian Federation does not have enough resources to revive the USSR. It is, first of all, about economic resources, for, in spite of Russia’s untold natural wealth, its GDP accounts for less than two percent of the worldwide GDP.
Yet, what is also no less important for Russia in the current situation is human potential. While in the 20th century the Soviet Union existed thanks to Ukrainian grain, now, in the 21st century, the status of Russia as one of the world’s poles depends on whether that country manages to defend its claim to our history and intellectual potential.
“Russia has serious problems with human resources. In the near future, it will have to address complicated demographic problems and the question of the human potential’s quality. Replenishing these resources at the Ukrainian population’s expense is a very important element,” says Valerii Chaly, deputy director general of the Razumkov Center.
The Russian question is of paramount importance for the future of Ukraine. Yet neither the disintegration of Russia nor, all the more so, the transformation of it into a new empire is the way out of the situation. According to Yevhen Zherebetsky, an expert on the problems of international security, as long as Russia retains certain positions, it will remain a deterrent factor against the expansion of China and the fast spread of extremist Islamist tendencies. But “Russia has crossed the point of no return – the Russian nation is running short of spirit and energy,” he says. “So they want to eat us to delay the agony. But they will be unable to avert the latter. In this situation, Ukraine needs proper leaders and the people who would value freedom and the possibility for their children to speak the native language more highly than lucrative wages.”
“THE COMEBACK OF UKRAINE IS A SYMBOL OF RUSSIA’S HEGEMONY IN THE POST-SOVIET SPACE”
Valerii CHALY, Deputy Director General, Razumkov Center:
“In the 21st century, there is no question of the imperial status of a state or a group of states. The question is about spheres of influence and rivalry in a globalized world. Today’s Russia is really following a line which was recently declared by President Putin and recorded in strategic foreign-policy documents – it is about increased influence on and control over the post-Soviet space. It is Russia’s official policy to try to persuade its global partners (such centers of force as the US, the EU, and China) that Russia has the “natural right” to exert more influence on the Near Abroad countries. From this angle, Ukraine is a key state. Should Russia manage to draw our state into the Eurasian project, it will get absolutely new levers of influence as a regional leader. At first, they followed this line more vigorously: there was an attempt to actively draw Ukraine into all kinds of integration structures, including the Single Economic Space, then certain documents were signed in 2003, which our parliament refused to approve unless a number of amendments had been made to them. Now it is the Customs Union and the future Eurasian Union. However, being aware now that it is difficult to achieve anything by tough methods, Russia is going to carry out a stick-and-carrot policy towards Ukraine and other CIS countries. It is not the comeback of imperial status, it is a desire to restore domination and control in the post-Soviet space.
“Speaking in the language of the ideologues of Russian statehood and Eurasianism, Russia has enormous territorial and natural resources. But there are some problems with the human potential. In the next decade, Russia will have to address complicated demographic problems, including the question of the human potential’s quality. Replenishing these resources at the Ukrainian population’s expense is a very important element. Besides, Russia badly needs access to the seas and the European Union borders on the southern flank. In essence, the Russian government does not want to have any other players between them and the EU. They would have distributed their spheres of influence in this way, but they cannot do so without involving Ukraine – territorially, we are a buffer zone between the two integrated associations. Besides, one of the important things today is symbols. Not only the ordinary people, but also, even to a greater extent, the officials and politicians of Russia have been feeling phantom limb pain after the collapse of the Soviet Union. No matter what is being done in the economy and other spheres in Russia, politicians are still endorsing the idea that the collapse of the USSR was an unfortunate event. For many, the comeback of Ukraine is a symbol of Russia’s restored might in the new conditions. These symbols can seriously affect the feelings of Russian citizens. Therefore, it is a question of not only foreign, but also, and above all, domestic policy.
“If the Russian Federation had shown, after the collapse of the USSR, some promising and attractive models of modernization, accelerated economic and innovational development, care about ordinary people’s interests, etc., this would have had quite a different effect on the space that also comprises Ukraine. Besides, this would have prompted the EU and post-Soviet countries to draw closer to each other on the basis of common interests. Out of the former Soviet republics, it is Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania that went this way. Georgia is also trying to go this way, albeit in a somewhat specific manner. But, unfortunately, there is no Russia in this line. Ukraine and Moldova, too, are unable to overcome inertia. Belarus went in the opposite direction altogether, not to mention the Asian countries. On the whole, the model of extending ‘controlled democracy’ and a tougher authoritarian regime to the neighboring countries is unlikely to be realized in Ukraine. On the other hand, this also depends on the domestic political processes in this country. What will play the key role is not the might and influence of Russia but the ability of the Ukrainian elite (we so far have the establishment, not the elite) to display and implement a more progressive model of development.
“I have never trusted bogus analysts, even those who hold top offices in Ukraine, who predict the disintegration of Russia in the next few years. Russia is a powerful country. It remains an important state not only for the region, but also, in many respects, for Eurasia as a whole. In the unresolved issues that date back to the Soviet era, such as, for example, nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, Russia is one of the key geopolitical players. It will continue to play this important role in the near future.
“Ukraine is in turn interested in a stable and predictable Russia. But, at the same time, we want Russia to be more pluralistic and democratic. The model of Russia’s further development will be sought between these two poles in the nearest time. We would like the current authoritarian style, said to be necessary for ensuring territorial integrity, to be replaced with a more democratic pattern. Naturally, there is no direct link between the level of democracy and that of economic development, but there is one between the level of democracy and freedom, on the one hand, and the social status of an individual, on the other. The convincing example of this is the EU member states (where people live far better than in Russia) which have a GDP comparable to that of Russia.
“It is very difficult to forecast the development of Russia in the next decade. There are very many domestic political challenges to which the current Russian establishment has not found a response. On the other hand, Russia is sufficiently controllable for one to be able to speak about its sustainable short- and medium-term development.”
“PROGRESSIVE COUNTRIES DO NOT WANT TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH AN OUTDATED ASIAN-RUSSIAN MODEL OF DEVELOPMENT”
Yurii SHCHERBAK, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Ukraine, political writer:
“Russia will break up, as all the other empires did in the past. This is a relentless law of history. The empires based on the oppression of peoples by a chauvinistic ‘imperial’ nation have no good prospects and eventually vanish. The same awaits Russia. The imperial paradigm of that country’s development is also a tragedy for the people who live there. If Russia attempted to build a democratic nation state, it would have certain prospects. But the imperial attitude will result in nothing but deteriorated international relations, growing hatred, and resistance on the part of the oppressed peoples. We have already seen such imperial spasms as the Caucasus War, and it is clear for us that Russia will be unable to exist in this format. It is amazing how some are offering us the Eurasian dimension without understanding what is going on in Central Asia. Uzbekistan has hurled a challenge to Russia; Kazakhstan, which is closer to China, is playing a game of its own; the border with Tajikistan, which has almost slipped out of Russian control, shows a hole through which drugs are pouring into Russia from Afghanistan. Russia is unable to form any kind of an Asian union because these are absolutely different peoples, civilizations, and attitudes. Establishing this kind of unions is an option that has no prospects. Even if this union is formally established, its format will in no way differ from that of the CIS: gentlemen will be meeting once a year to look at one another, settle some minor problems, and go home, each one guarding his own interests.
“The idea of Russia’s ‘own’ way of development and its special civilizing mission not only pervades the upper crust, but has also affected quite a considerable portion of the populace. About 60-70 percent are infected with it. Yet, according to the latest information from Moscow, where liberal ideas are more popular, fewer and fewer people support the imperial pattern of development. I don’t know what events Russia must go through to be cured of this malady. They have not yet recovered, so there may be very many conflicts caused by the attempts to remain an empire. However, the [present-day] Russian empire has no historical reasons why it should exist. It will take 3, 5, 10, or even 50 years (which is not so much in a historical perspective) for it to disintegrate.
“Great Britain also feels phantom pains about its imperial grandeur, but they have focused their efforts on restructuring the country as an influential financial center and a state that ensures extremely high standards of social security, etc. The former colonies owe very much to Britain, but the latter has managed to overcome the disease of imperialness. The US – even though not an empire formally – is also losing its clout and is forecast to lose its worldwide leading role by 2025-30.
“On the other hand, there still are some countries that dream of imperial grandeur, but they will hardly be able to embark on this path again. This idea is as hypocritical as the communist one which claimed millions of human lives in 70 years – it is totally obsolete because it is fallacious.
“The fallacious and hostile Russian imperial ideology represents a tremendous danger because it results in concrete claims to Ukraine and Belarus which are self-sufficient nations that have the right to restructure their own states. Russia categorically rejects the right of a separate Ukrainian nation, state, culture, and language to exist. They do not understand what is exactly going on here. Take, for example, the visit and speech of Navalny, widely considered in Russia as an oppositionist who proclaims liberal ideas. He showed that he does not have the faintest idea of the relations between Russia and Ukraine. Their strategy is based on hostile actions against all things Ukrainian. But this tactic will inflict irreparable damage on Russia. Even quite a large part of Ukrainian society, which has been taking a lenient attitude to our neighbors and is in fact pro-Russian, will eventually understand that it is a very dangerous neighbor, the enemy of all things Ukrainian. As the Free Trade Agreement with the CIS was ratified under a crazy and hostile pressure and threats of sanctions and wars on the part of Russia, can there be any hope of friendship and cooperation?
“Now that the other Slavs – the Poles, Bulgarians, and Slovaks – are already in the European Union and NATO, the idea of uniting the three Slavic [Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian] peoples looks crazy. Progressive countries do not want to have anything to do with an outdated Asian-Russian model of development. Putin, the main Russian imperialist, lends his ear to Dugin who foists 18th-century ideas on him and thinks they will work in the 21st century. What Russia offers is a hopeless stalemate which has nothing to do with either the Asian fast-development model (as in Japan or China) or the European development pattern. A course like this will lead to nothing but resistance, uprisings, and revolutions.
“It is possible that Ukraine will pursue, at least formally, a Russian-imposed foreign political course. When our state is ruled by humiliated slaves and cowards who are afraid of and kowtowing to Russia, everything is possible.”
“IT IS NOW VERY DIFFICULT FOR THE RUSSIANS TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THE EMPIRE BEGAN AND WHERE IT ENDS”
Andrzej SZEPTYCKI, analyst, Institute of International Relations, Warsaw University:
“In my view, there are two general factors that cause this. The first is a specific nature of the historical Russian-Soviet empire. In most of the European empires, it was very easy to distinguish the parent country – the center of this empire – from the other countries that were part of it. There was a very clear-cut difference between the center and the fringes. This was not the case in Russia, and it is now very difficult for the Russians to understand where the empire began and where it ends.
“The second factor is a specific nature of the Russian transformation. The point is that Russia has not become a democracy after the collapse of the Soviet Union. By contrast, most of the former empires are democratic states today. Russia fares quite well at the expense of its own natural resources, such as gas, which is also an instrument of that country’s imperial traditions.
“After the demise of the Soviet Union, Russia failed to find or invent a new identity, a new myth, for itself. But take, for example, France: it lost imperialness in the 1960s but hit upon a new idea – the European Union. It is through this idea that France is realizing its foreign policy ambitions.
”Russian society cherishes Soviet traditions and history. Russian politicians also willingly uphold these traditions to show that they are ruling the state very well.
“The Russian elections were followed by certain public processes. Yet they resulted in nothing. But we should remember that it took Ukraine four years to topple the Kuchma regime. Russia still has a chance to do so.”
“RUSSIA SHOULD BECOME A MULTIETHNIC SELF-SUFFICIENT STATE INSTEAD OF TRYING TO REINCARNATE THE SOVIET UNION”
Semen NOVOPRUDSKY, independent journalist, Moscow:
“The Soviet Union was the last incarnation of an empire. By the historical yardstick, the past 20 years is too short a time for the elite to calm down. A part of the elite that came to power in Russia was nurtured in the Soviet Union. Those people could not have become the elite outside the imperial paradigm. They were educated on the principle ‘we lived in and felt being part of a great country.’ Of course, this phantom pain is still there. Besides, there is also another factor: the Russian authorities have so far failed to offer the values that could knit the nation together. In this case, it is easier to exploit nostalgia, for many people still like the past. After the collapse of the USSR, the elite proved to be unable to shape and pursue a policy that would bring Russia to a new and decent place in the world.
“Unfortunately, one of Russia’s chief problems is that the authorities do not adequately assess the county’s potential. The Russian authorities are trying to hold their ground at the expense of those who they think are weaker and are not prepared, mentally, to admit their full independence. It is far more important for Russia to retain control over Ukraine and Belarus than over the Central Asian republics. Yet Russia does not so far admit that Ukraine and Belarus will never be Russian provinces no matter who is in power. The Russian authorities cannot understand that it is now impossible to restore that stage of history. Before they come to understand this, they will be trying to respond very toughly to these states’ attempts to carry out an independent policy. As for Belarus, there is also a personal factor here. It is quite obvious that Putin is mentally close to Lukashenko. Putin is following the political style of Lukashenko because the latter had come to power earlier and begun to practice the style of a dictator.
“What is Russia to do first of all? It is still trying to develop as an important geopolitical player. Its overall foreign policy pivots on the idea that it is a great country which lays claim to the role of a special foreign political pole. I think Russia should exclusively focus on its domestic problems. Russia ought to develop its territories, especially the Far East, and overcome glaring disproportions at all levels of life. Also worthy of attention are the problems of the Caucasus which is more and more breaking away from Central Russia. Otherwise, the country will be unable to remain behind within the present-day limits.
“The government is not addressing the domestic problems and pretends to be still ruling a great country which can establish or at least participate in some kind of a new world order. It is too bad. Russia must follow the example of the US in which candidates who offer some ways of solving domestic problems win the election is spite of all their geopolitical ambitions. For any American, everyday problems of his or her country are more important than any geopolitical efforts.
“Russia should now stay clear of global geopolitics and drop imperial ambitions. It should become a multiethnic self-sufficient state, instead of trying to reincarnate the Soviet Union because it has neither the resources nor the possibilities to do so.”
By Anna CHEREVKO, Ihor SAMOKYSH, The Day
