The west may yet come to regret its bullying of Russia
Pastor Dale Morgan
The west may yet come to regret its bullying of Russia*
Putin has no interest in a new cold war and is struggling to modernise
his economy. Yet he is rebuffed and insulted
Simon Jenkins in Moscow
Wednesday February 21, 2007
The Guardian
Countries too have feelings. So I am told by a Russian explaining the
recent collapse in relations between Vladimir Putin and his one-time
western admirers. "We have done well in the past 15 years, yet we get
nothing but rebuffs and insults. Russia's rulers have their pride, you
know."
The truth is that Putin, like George Bush and Tony Blair, has an urgent
date with history. He can plead two terms as president in which he has
stabilised, if not deepened, Russian democracy, forced the pace of
economic modernisation, suppressed Chechen separatism and yet been
remarkably popular. But leaders who dismiss domestic critics crave
international opinion, and are unaccustomed to brickbats. Hence Putin's
outburst at the Munich security conference this month, when he announced
he would "avoid extra politesse" and speak his mind.
Putin's apologists ask that he be viewed as victim of an epic
miscalculation by the west. Here is a hard man avidly courted at first
by Bush, Blair and other western leaders. After 9/11 he tolerated US
intervention along his southern border with bases north of Afghanistan.
Yet when he had similar trouble in Chechnya, he was roundly abused. When
he induced Milosevic to leave Kosovo (which he and not "the bombing"
did), he got no thanks.
When Putin sought to join Nato in the 1990s he was rebuffed. Then Nato
broke its post-cold-war promise and advanced its frontier through the
Baltics and Poland to the Black Sea. It is now planning missile defences
in Poland and the Czech Republic and is flirting with Ukraine and
Georgia. Against whom is this directed, asks Putin.
The west grovels before Opec, but when Putin proposes a gas Opec it
cries foul. America seizes Iraq's oil, but when Putin nationalises
Russia's oil that, too, is a foul. Meanwhile, every crook, every
murdered Russian, every army scandal is blazoned across the western
press. True, Russia is still a klepto-oligarchy that steps back as often
as forward, but what of America's pet Asian democracies, Afghanistan and
Iraq?
In his Munich speech Putin asked why America constantly goes on about
its "unipolar world". Does Washington really seek a second cold war?
Russia is withdrawing from Georgia and Moldova. Why is Nato advancing
bases in Bulgaria and Romania? The west is handling Syria, Iraq,
Afghanistan and Iran with the arrogance and ineptitude of 19th-century
imperialists. Is it surprising Russia is seeking allies where it can, in
China, India, Iran and the Gulf?
At an Anglo-Russian conference in Moscow last weekend I was bemused by
the talk of a return to "east-west" confrontation. Diplomats have a
habit of listing complaints like marriage counsellors inviting couples
to catalogue what most irritates them about each other. The list seems
endless, but it surely points to a proper talk rather than a divorce.
Don't they really need each other after all?
Having visited Russia three times since the demise of the Soviet Union,
I remain impressed by its progress. Debate and comment are open. Russia
is not squandering its energy wealth but setting $100bn aside in an
infrastructure fund. The links between Russia and western business are
worth $30bn in inward investment. Cultural and educational contacts are
strengthening. Moscow and St Petersburg are booming world cities, their
skylines thick with cranes.
The west views pluralist democracy as so superior that any state coming
to it fresh must surely welcome it with open arms. When there is
backsliding, as in former Yugoslavia, Ukraine, Russia and parts of
Africa, let alone the Arab world, the west behaves like a peevish car
salesman whose client has not obeyed the repair manual. If the west can
do fair elections, market capitalism, press freedom and regional
secession - after a mere two centuries of trial and error - why can
newly free states not do them overnight?
The tough response to Putin is easy. It is the one he has from
Washington and Nato. We won the cold war. You lost. Shut up. If, as
Russia's top general said last week, you want to withdraw from the
intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty, then withdraw. If you think
gas and oil enables you to play the superpower again, see what happens.
Bush and Blair may be screwing up "Islamistan", but their successors
will be more canny. Our defence budget is bigger than yours and we have
you surrounded.
All this makes for good realpolitik. But what Putin actually said in
Munich reflected not belligerence but puzzlement at the aggressive
course of western diplomacy. In the old days, he said, "there was an
equilibrium and a fear of mutual destruction. In those days one party
was afraid to make an extra step without consulting the others. This was
certainly a fragile peace and a frightening one, but seen from today it
was reliable enough. Today it seems that peace is not so reliable."
Putin is hardly seeking a return to the certainties of the cold war. He
has no more interest than the west in stirring the hornet's nest of
Islamic nationalism, stretching as it does deep into Russian territory.
His desire for "ever closer union" with Europe and Nato after 1997 was
sincere and was surely welcome.
While Putin appears to have been conducting his diplomacy over the past
decade from weakness and the west from strength, the reverse has been
nearer the truth. Britain and America have been led by essentially
reactive politicians with no grasp of history. A terrorist outrage or a
bombastic speech and they change policy on the hop. When Bush and Blair
go, they will leave a world less secure and more divided in its
leadership than when they arrived. Their dismissive treatment of
Russia's recovery from cold war defeat has been the rhetoric of natural
bullies.
Russia and the west have everything to gain from good relations. Putin
has struggled to modernise his economy while holding together a
traumatised and shrunken Russian federation. The west may feel he errs
towards authoritarianism, but second-guessing Russian leaders is seldom
a profitable exercise. This is a huge country, rich in natural and human
resources. It is hard to think of somewhere the west would be better
advised to "hug close". Instead, Putin will hand his successor an
isolated and bruised nation. Under a less confident president, it could
retreat into protectionism and alliances the west will hate. To have
encouraged that retreat is truly stupid.