Vladimir Putin & Gerhard Schröder
Redress
The Associated Press reports that President Bush intends to punish Russia by cancelling an agreement on civilian nuclear exchanges. This is consistent with the hysterical media condemnation of Russia on both sides of the Atlantic as well as that of most of the political class who seize the photo opportunity to pose as statesmen/women, issuing threats and stern warnings to Russia. What is the effect of all this on the Russians and where will it take us? We need some predictive pointers.
As I am not a Russian expert, much of what I say is extrapolated and includes material from lectures given at the London University (LSE) in January 2008, principally by Prof. Jean Lemierre, President of the European Bank orf Reconstruction and Development, and Prof. Marie Mendras, Russian specialist at the Centre d’Études et de Recherches Internationales, Paris. These are accessable in MP3 format on the LSE link.
It is essential to recognize that the Russian view of the world is utterly different from that of the EU and particularly the US. Dr Robert Kagan of the Carnagie Endowment for International Peace, in his LSE lecture “The US – Dangerous Nation?”, describes at length the US’s aggressions but in the end, despite his apparently peaceful brief, wants us to believe that this enables the US to do great good: defeating Nazism and Japanese imperialism, helping defeat Communism, spreading democracy and opposing dictators. He believes that, until a perfect international system is invented, US dominance and power with US values are the best practical system. This is the US narrative of its role in the world. It is also the reason why the results of the current US elections are irrelevant to the rest of the world. As Kagan says, the Republicans and Democrats might debate mistakes and details of foreign policy, but both subscribe to the objective of US power, justified by its mission.
Dr Kagan’s view of US mythology is supported by Steven Ambrose, an authoritative US historian who considers that with a little help from the UK the US defeated Nazism. He describes the “turn of World War II” as the battle of Sicily in which the US engaged 65,000 Germans. Ambrose and others do not mention that at the same time the Battle of Kursk was taking place in which 1.3 million Russians engaged 900,000 Germans in a colossal clash of men, armour and aircraft. Seventy-five per cent of German forces were on the eastern (Russian) front where 75 per cent of their casualties occurred. The Russians consider that the western front was a sideshow.
The US lost about 144,000 soldiers in Europe and almost no civilians, with about the same in the Pacific war – which it ended by using two nuclear weapons. The Soviet Union lost 10.7 million soldiers plus 11.4 million civilians, or 13 per cent of its total population. For this reason, and because these enormous losses took place on devastated Russian territory, whereas US territory was untouched, we should expect the Russian perception of warfare to be very different from that of Americans. They will consider it a much more serious matter.
More recently, Western experience of the 1990s, at the time the Soviet Union collapsed, differs from that of Russia. That was a time of openness and rejoicing in the former Soviet satellites, relief in Western Europe and triumph in the US that it had defeated Communism. (In fact, the inefficient, centralized economic system, overburdened by military spending, simply collapsed.) The Russian perception was precisely the reverse of all this. It was of their country’s failure. Worse than perceptions, the general population experienced the collapse of industry, unemployment, hardship and food shortages, even involving deaths from starvation. The entire economic system had to be reconstructed. That took time and, to their credit, the US and EU assisted with loans and expert advice in working toward a market economy. Russia felt the entire experience as humiliation. The economy has still not been repaired. In a recent survey of 30,000 persons, the majority thought that before 1991 the economy was not wonderful but was not too bad. They considered that it has been terrible after that and have nothing to thank the West for.
The US failed to implant democracy in Russia, but capitalism is thriving – Russians like making money very much. The emerging middle class of about 15 per cent of the population are not worried that there is no democracy as the West knows it. They visit, have business with and know all about the West. The state leaves them alone to make money and, by tacit agreement, they do not criticize it. The government has moved from democratic beginnings toward “sovereign democracy”, an oligarchic or single party state ruled by an elite. Russians consider that this is their own business and do not take kindly to lectures from the West on democracy and human rights that they consider hypocritical, having observed Western behaviour. They see no reason why they should adopt Western models or values.
Russia does not understand the EU, take it seriously as an institution or take agreements with it very seriously. It takes large, well established nation-states with armies such as France and Germany most seriously in a rather 19th century fashion and only understands bilateral agreements with nation-states well. The European states actually encourage this by making bilateral agreements rather than reinforcing the EU.
Russia is a difficult partner for the EU. It has no experience of ever having partners and cannot understand how 27 countries can sit down and arrive at acceptable conclusions. It does not know how to behave as a partner on the basis of common values. It has rejected Western values, evidently following observation of the behaviour of the EU and the US and seeks to define its own nationalistic values and ideology. EU negotiators have realized this and are now working from the viewpoint of common interests but it appears that even this might not form a basis for partnership. To Russians, partnership = dependency = problems, which they seek to avoid.
The Russians consider that they have both a historic and security stake in certain states on their borders, particularly in Belarus and the Ukraine (as it was) where the article “the” refers to an extension of Russia. Ukraine together with other regions in which Russia considers is has legitimate interests are points of potential warfare, as we have seen in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. They expect their views to be taken into account in these areas.
It should be mentioned that ordinary Russians are very nationalistic. It could also be said that the US is also nationalistic, except that in the US it is called patriotism. The Orthodox Church is ultra-nationalistic and the nation is firmly behind Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and President Dmitry Medvedev. Television is popular in Russia and gives the government viewpoint, as in the West. The general opinion, promoted by the government, is that Russia is surrounded by enemies who wish it ill. This appears to be the genuine perception of the Russian leadership given the US’s unilaterial abrogation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty, expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe – contrary to agreement between Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan – the construction of US bases in Romania and Bulgaria and missile installations aimed at Russia in Poland and the Czech Republic. Gorbachev himself has spoken of this. There is also now the South Ossetia debacle which will confirm all Russia’s worst beliefs about the US, EU and NATO.
The Russians have observed that the US cites UN resolutions when to its advantage and ignores them when it chooses to; it promoted minority ethnic independence in Kosovo when in its interests but denied independence to South Ossetia in Russia’s interests; it praises Israel’s democracy but denies democratic legitimacy to Hamas; it supports national sovereignty in Georgia and Eastern Europe but invades countries when it chooses, and so on. Dr Kagan in his lecture admits that the US behaves like this, but from the US viewpoint such freedom from constraints is necessary in order for the US to fulfil its benevolent mission in the world.
It could be said that the general difference between Russia and the US is that the Russians want to do things their way and to be left alone; the Americans wish to do whatever is to their advantage and to impose it on everyone else. It is clear from these attitudes and recent events that further violence between the US and Russia is inevitable unless firm action is taken to avoid it. We are considering here unpredictable, open-ended warfare that could lead to the use of nuclear weapons within Europe. As the Russians will view it, the US is already moving the EU down that path.
From Dr Kagan’s lecture and our knowledge of the US which it confirms, it is not difficult to identify the US’s prime objective: The retention of its place as the most powerful nation in the world.
To achieve this, two secondary objectives follow:
1. It must control the resources that give it power, principally energy.
2. It must prevent rivals to its power developing.
The first of these sub-objectives is consistent with the US’s long-standing designation of the Middle-East as an area of “vital national interest” and underlies the invasion of Iraq and general hegemony in the area. The second is more complex but the US’s missile installations and South Ossetian provocation on Russia’s border indicates that it has identified Russia as a potential rival or at least a problem. There are two obvious reasons for this:
1. Russia tends to back Iran, whose oilfields the US covets. It is building the Iranians’ Bushehr reactor. We will recall that President Bush spoke of World War III in connection with Iran developing nuclear weapons. That is nonsense as it stands. What Bush has in mind is Russia making nuclear, oil or military equipment deals with Iran or getting involved in a war between the US/Israel and Iran.
2. The relationship between Europe and Russia could develop to formation of an oil-backed superstate with economic power that would rival the US. It would threaten the dollar’s reserve currency status and the petrodollar cycle that sustains it, among other possibilities arising from great economic power.
These are immediately obvious reasons for the US’s wish to disrupt the EU’s relationship with the Russians and to provoke them, so providing an excuse for demonizing Russia. US missiles and bases on Russia’s borders are, as I have said previously, not to protect Europe but to protect the US, primarily by making Europe an initial theatre for nuclear exchanges with Russia if it should come to that.
In such an eventuality, Israel with its nuclear arsenal might become involved on the US side. In any nuclear war the US’s primary aim would be to avoid strikes on the US homeland at any cost. Although presently supported by the US, Israelis may expect to be sacrificed if they become involved. The same is true of any of the US’s European allies. No matter what mutual protection agreements might exist, the US will not fire a single missile from its own territory to protect either Europe or Israel. NATO’s purpose is to protect the US and implement US policies in the US view. Hence its involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In these circumstances, the EU needs a Russia policy independent of the US. This means detaching from US policy in Europe and the Middle East as well. In particular it should restrain NATO’s further eastward expansion. Russia’s views on expanding the EU further should be seriously taken into account. In US eyes the EU and NATO are two sides of the same coin. They should not be. Europe needs an independent defence policy to bring to NATO as well as a Russia policy. If the EU is not now large enough or economically strong enough to have independent Russian and defence policies without hiding behind the US’s flimsy skirts, it never will be.
The EU has no option but to make an accommodation with Russia given Russian perceptions and beliefs and the road down which the US is taking it. Certainly, Russian perceptions of Western political behaviour as hypocritical and unreliable are entirely accurate. Russia has threatened no-one since the end of the Soviet Union. The Georgian/US/NATO provocation in South Ossetia was entirely unnecessary and the Russians consider their actions to be entirely justified. The EU might not agree with this, but if it wishes to deal constructively with Russia, Russian perceptions must be accepted as valid for them. Of course, if the EU desires Russia as an enemy it should continue as it has commenced.
The Russians will be seeking consistency and predictability in the EU’s dealings with it. Rather than criticism and problems, they want helpfulness and solutions. While US bases and installations are on EU territory, trade will still be possible, political agreement will be difficult, however, and partnership will be impossible. Doubtless the US is aware of this and finds the wedge that it is driving between EU and Russian relationships very satisfactory.
I have mentioned the Russian casualty figures during World War II. These resulted from Hitler breaking his non-agression pact with Stalin – another experience that probably causes the Russians to distrust partners. Partnership is possible over time but necessarily would commence slowly, given the situation at present. The essence of partnership is trustworthiness and predictability. The EU can only become a partner with Russia by showing these qualities over time. The Russians clearly believe in experience. They have accepted, from experience, that a market economy is preferable to a command economy. If, therefore, they are to be influenced toward Western values this will only be through the EU demonstrating that these values are worthwhile. Lectures and threats will be seen as insulting. Attempts at punishment, now mindlessly threatened by the US and our politicians, will be met by retaliation. The only course is to lead by example if a positive relationship is the objective.
In dealing with Russia, we should think in terms of simple Skinnerian behaviourist psychology with the firm parameter that negative behaviour by ourselves will not be used, since it is counter-productive. That was the method used by the Kennedy administration in defusing the Cuban Missile Crisis – communicating on positive aspects of the situation and ignoring negative aspects. This made a deal possible – for the Russians to remove their missiles from Cuba and the US to remove its missiles from Turkey. It worked then and will work again now, because it is good basic psychology.
If the EU should adopt a political and defence policy toward Russia independent of the US, this would not only impress the Russians but is essential to good Russian relations. This could be done within NATO by compartmentalizing EU and US interests which now clearly do not coincide. The EU will be endangered by following the US’s defence policy which is not defence of Europe at all. It is defence of the US since in the final test of NATO involving nuclear exchanges, the EU cannot rely on the US. This is so critical to Europe’s physical survival that risks cannot be taken here. Those countries that are hosting US weapons are unbelievably naïve. The US is accustomed to having wars in and devastating other countries’ territory while insulating its own population not only from any inconvenience but also the truth of what it is doing. The 9/11 World Trade Centre attack was blowback from its Middle East policy. The dangers of hosting the US’s EU/Russian policy are now obvious following the South Ossetia debacle.
Dr Robert Kagan outlined the US’s mission to aggressively pursue power in order to spread democracy and fight tyranny in the world. US culture that has developed this mission is only about 200 years old from George Washington. It could be described as an experiment deriving from European culture. Communism was another such aggressive self-justifying social experiment derived from Marx’s Jewish background and European culture. That experiment failed after causing considerable trouble. It appears that, under Medvedev and Putin, Russia is returning to its European roots, which should not be thought of as authoritarian, but as taking up from the point where Russia left off with revolution and murder of the Czar’s family. That is a firm position for a new start and should be seen as such.
United States’ Christianity includes biblical Judaism with prominence given to apocalyptic New Testament material from the Revelation, rather than Jesus’s teachings. This Jewish/European mixture is closer to Marxism in motivation than Americans might like to think. There are also indications that the US is making similar mistakes to the Soviet Union in both economic and military excesses. It appears that, despite the differing economic systems, their underlying cultural motivators are the same and the US experiment might well be approaching failure for the same reasons that the Soviet Union failed. The US’s political leaders and advisers appear to be caught up in the myth of the US’s mission and have become detached from their rational, technical institutions in legal, economic, security and military matters. Europe should not follow them.
Europe should remain true to its own ancient roots that are close to Western Russia’s roots, despite superficial appearances. These have the experience of two and a half millenia in development. It appears that the US social experiment has become detached from its European roots. It is currently under severe stress and is showing signs of lashing out at other nations which do not accept the legitimacy of its mission that is increasingly taking on a divine character.
As I have said, the US offers nothing but trouble to Europe and Russia. The EU should urgently take the initiative in understanding and working positively with Russia, not primarily for economic benefit, welcome though that would be. The matter of simple physical survival may be at issue. Primarily, however, it should do so because peaceful relationships with other countries are in principle the only way in which we should seek to live.
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
Christopher King is a retired consultant and lecturer in management and marketing. He lives in London, UK.
© 2008 Christopher King
URL: http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/09/08/working_with_russia_the_eu_needs_russia_
Source
