What Russia Teach Us Now - Article Example

WHAT CAN RUSSIA TEACH US NOW? A former superpower which continues to exert its influence on the global stage, Russia remains an important international actor. Russia today is the remnants of the largest state of the former Soviet Union and while Moscow today boasts the largest concentration of billionaires on the planet, the social situation in Russia today is no longer the envy of the Eastern bloc. While Russia remains the dominant regional power in Eastern Europe, its evidence may be waning as is evidenced by the growing desire of formerly socialist countries in the region to vie for NATO and European Union membership. Although Russia today is very different from the Russia of the USSR, this essay will explore the Putin era and ask whether or not Russia, in the 21st century, can teach us anything now. Seeking to explore the complexities surrounding Russia today, we must provide historical background and begin with an overview of the Cold War and the US-Soviet dichotomy which was a feature of the international system for more than sixty years. Following this we look at Russia to day with an eye to wealth and poverty in the Putin era. We then turn to an analysis of Russia involvement in the exploitation of the natural resources in the Central Asian region. Through this analysis, we shall see that in fact the West can learn from Russia when it comes to maximizing the vast potential of this region. The following will aptly situate our analysis and provide a historical overview of Russia during the Cold War (Volkov and Julia Denenberg, 2005) Historical Background: Russia during the Cold War During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union were locked in a bitter confrontation pitting two opposite poles in the international order against one another. In this period of bipolarity, state behavior was mediated by concerns regarding the stability of the international system as well as the state interest and behavior of the other major power. American values and expectations about the behavior of the Soviet Union were shaped by the Capitalist-Communist split which was a feature of the international order. Unlike other conflicts around the world, the Cold War was unusual in the sense that no direct physical violence occurred between the two main protagonists. Thus while the United States and the Soviet Union engaged in ideological, cultural and economic conflict, no war was ever fought between these two states. Violence often occurred on the periphery of the Cold War with sporadic violence brewing between client states but never brining the two main protagonists to actual war. Accordingly, the invention of nuclear weaponry added a whole new dimension to the conflict adding a new and explosive element to the Cold War. Early socialists such as Karl Marx advocated proletarian revolution and mass mobilization to correct the social inequality perpetuated by capitalism. Marxist thought inspired socialists around the globe including Fidel Castro in Cuba, Mao in China and Lenin in the Soviet Union. According, in the Soviet Union, Vladimir Lenin established an authoritarian political system, which grew out of mass discontent associated with the First World War. The October Revolution of 1917 – also known as the Bolshevik Revolution – had an enormous impact on Europe’s social, political and economic landscape and accordingly “produced by far the most formidable organized revolutionary movement in modern history” (Hobsbawm 1994, pp. 55). The Bolsheviks, led by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, viewed themselves as the shepherds of a new international communist order in necessary conflict with the old order, embodied by bourgeois liberal capitalism. A centrist planning economy necessitated activist governmental intervention in all aspects of the state’s social and economic growth. Additionally, an important component of this state’s ability to mobilize was the 600,000 member-strong, centralized and highly disciplined Communist Party. Because the Soviet Union removed itself from the global capitalist economic world system following the October Revolution, it was effectively immune to the crisis caused by the Great Depression in 1929. Through bureaucratic regulation and heavy governmental economic intervention, the Soviets worked towards the establishment of a modern, communist utopia (Hobsbawm 60-69). Controlling the means of production and severely curtailing civil liberties, the global Communist community established themselves as “the Second World” during the Cold War. Accordingly, due to an overbearing state apparatus and inefficiency inherent in the socialist mode of production, the global Communist community was severely undermined by economic and political crises which began in the late 1960s. The result was political and economic disorder. Economic crises undermined the political foundations of states like China and the USSR – particularly after the deaths of men such as Mao & Brezhnev – and the centrally planned economic systems of these countries remained under stress and increasingly precarious. The Soviet world was also not immune to global economic crises as evidenced by effects of the OPEC crisis of 1973. These aftershocks paved the way for perestroika and glasnost in the USSR, the implosion of Yugoslavia and popular Chinese dissent expressed in Tiananmen Square and captured live on camera. The political and economic fragilities of the Second World were exposed following 1968 and slowly led to political decay, leading to the eventual implosion of the Soviet Union. The fall of the Berlin Wall signaled the end of socialist experiment in much of Eastern and Central Europe and for many was the death knoll for communism and state-sponsored dogmatic socialist principles. As with the United States, the values and expectations of behavior also shaped the domestic conditions of the Soviet Union (Skidmore 207-28). During the Cold War, American values and expectations about the role of government in regulating the economy, the importance of individual freedoms and the role of the adversary in promoting global instability framed the experience of the United States during this period. Although conflict with the Soviet Union always appeared to be imminent, caution prevailed and the major adversaries, the United States and the Soviet Union, never engaged in direct physical war. This impending conflict was a feature of the international political system for more than sixty years and shaped Soviet and Russian expectations of capitalism and the Western world. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, much has changed for Russia. We now turn to an exploration of the social forces shaping Russia in the Putin era. Wealth and Poverty in Putin’s Russia Believe it or not, there is a significant minority of Russians who wish that the Soviet Union never collapsed. Pensioners and other economic clusters have not benefited wholly from the transition to capitalism and while many have benefited in the newly democratic and capitalist Russia, others have not. Divisions remain in a society which has been historically vertically structured (under the Imperial regime as well as for more eighty years under various socialist regimes). Polarization is a feature of life in a society which has just recently undergone its transition to capitalism. According to the World Bank, in 2005 20% of the Russian population lived below the poverty line, which was less than €38 per month. Poverty has reportedly risen 50% over the past twenty years and Russia’s National Statistics Office classifies more than 31 million people has “poor”. Geographically speaking, there is an income gap between the urban and rural dwellers. Unlike in many Western countries where poverty is concentrated in urban settings, in Russia in rural settings, young and old alike and more likely to be poor and impoverished. Russia’s notorious alcohol problems are exacerbated in a country where the opportunities for personal advancement and material gain are limited and curtailed in the Putin years. Russian male life expectancy is estimated at just 58 and the mortality rate has successively risen since the introduction of economic reforms in the late 1980s. Furthermore the tuberculosis rate in Russia is ten times higher than it is in the rest of Europe. As we have shown, the transition to capitalism has been difficult and fraught with challenges. From a social perspective it is evident that little can be taught to the West on the domestic stage. Can the West however learn from Russia when it comes to exploiting the natural wealth of this region? (Volkov and Julia Denenberg, 2005) Russian Interest in Central Asia The Central Asian region is politically important as it is a newly discovered source of natural resources, including oil and natural gas. Accordingly, this region has the potential to become a major exporter of oil and natural gas into the twenty first century. After more than eight years of exploration and development, in May of 2005 oil from the southernmost sections of the Caspian Sea began pumping through a new pipeline established by a British Petroleum-led consortium to Ceyhan, a seaport on the Turkish coast. Accordingly, Central Asia has become an important location for untapped natural resources since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The development of a pipeline to the seaport of Ceyhan has been completed eight years after it was devised through a concerted Western effort. In fact, Western technology, money and diplomacy successfully paved the way for the development of this pipeline. An important goal of Western powers in financing and supporting this project has been to decrease the notorious reliance of the West on the domestically unpopular oil of the Middle East and wrestle the region away from the influences of the new Russian Republic. Despite such attempts, Russia remains the leader player in the region and controls access in and out (see Yergin 1991). Control over the resources of this region dates back centuries and Russia and the West have competed for control over Central Asia since the beginning of “The Great Game”. Home to the largest enclosed body of water on the planet, Central Asia is a geographically significant and increasingly hotly contested region of the world. Accordingly, access to oil has quickly become a hotly contested issue with protagonists from East to West seeking to reap the benefits of the full-scale exploitation of what has quickly become one of the most geopolitically significant regions of the globe. All of this has its historical roots in the 17th century when Russia competed with China for access to the region. The strategic rivalry for supremacy in the Central Asian region has been known for more than a century as “The Great Game”. Russian encroachment in the region began during the 17th century as Russia and China made forays into Central Asia; Russian wanting to build a buffer zone and expanding through the region of Central Asia. The Russians were also interested in carrying out trade with the Chinese and other Asian peoples as they sought products such as tea, porcelain and other luxury items which would have fetched a lot of money for Russia when sold in Europe. China and Russia signed a treaty which allowed Russia access to China and giving it exclusivity during that particular period. This allowed Russia to begin its encroachment into Central Asia and by the end of 19th century the whole region had been completely occupied by Russians. In 1868 the Russians moved into Tashkent, establishing it as their capital in this region. With Russian hegemony firmly entrenched at this period – although they did face resistance from a variety of tribal factions – other great powers sought influence in the region. This included China and the British, who were expanding their territory northward. The result was years of conflict between the Russian Tsar and Victorian England, a situation eloquently described by Peter Hopkirk in his book, “The Game’. Russian influence in the Central Asian region continued for many years after the collapse of the Tsars’ dynasty. The states of Central Asia were gradually incorporated in the Soviet Union and Russia continued to benefit greatly from the resources of these countries. These resources allowed Russia to build a strong force from the gains it made from trading with the West. Even after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Central Asian states still continue to be influenced by Russia, both socially, politically and economically. Russian interests in the region have not waned with the collapse of the Soviet Union; it has continued to trade and do business with these nations though they are independent. Accordingly, the Central Asian region remains of significant social and geopolitical interest for Russia. Accordingly, any attempts to exploit the natural wealth of this region must include Russia. Russia has historically been the dominant power in the Caspian Sea region for more than a century. Russian insecurities with its present second tier position within the global political sphere have resulted in aggressive political behavior by the Russian authorities in recent time. Invasions of Chechnya and Georgia over the breakaway region of South Ossetia represent aggressive foreign policy behavior at the hands of Russian authorities and this has been cause for concern in embassies and consulates around the world. Russia controls access points as well as the strategic pipelines which ensure that Russia is intrinsically involved in any attempts to exploit the wealth of the region. The West cannot subvert Russia if it hopes to have access to the wealth of this strategically important region (Amineh 67). Concluding Remarks Russia is a former superpower who continues to exert influence on the global stage. While the transition to capitalism has been challenging Russia remains an important international actor. Russia today is very different from the Russia which has the central state of the USSR and while domestically there are many challenges for Russia, on the regional stage it continues to exert its influence and arguably remains the most important actor in Eastern Europe. While social challenges remains and the West could hardly learn from Russia with respect to the social ills of the 21st century, Putin’s Russia has continued to exert its regional influence and maintained an important foothold in the ever-important Central Asian/Caspian Sea region. As the recent controversy with the Ukraine emphatically demonstrates, Russian control of access to natural resources remains hotly guarded in a region in which the full potential is just starting to be understood. Accordingly, Russia is committed to maintaining its supreme position in Eastern Europe through its control of natural resources. Russia remains committed to maintaining its legacy importance in the realm of international affairs. Accordingly, the exploitation of Central Asian region cannot be accomplished without Russian aid and support and this is a testament to the continued desire on the part of Russia to maintain a predominate role in international affairs. Work Cited Amineh, M. Towards the Control of Oil Resources in the Caspian Region. Verlag: Berlin, 1999. Hobsbawm, Eric. Age of Extremes: The Short History of the Twentieth Century: 1914-1991. London: Abacus, 1994. Horpkirk, P. The Game: The Struggle for Empire in Central Asia. New York: Kodansha International, 1992. Skidmore, David. “Understanding the Unilateralist Turn in U.S. Foreign Policy.” Foreign Policy Analysis 1.2(2005): 207-288. Volkov, Vladimi & Julia Denenberg. Wealth and poverty in modern Russia. WSWS.com. 11 March 2005. Last Accessed October 11, 2009 http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/mar2005/russ-m11.shtml Waltz, K. Theory of International Politics. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1979. Yergin, D. The Prize. Simon & Schuster: New York, 1998. Read More