Putin's Russia: a one-man show (and corruption... lots of it)

Winner

Diverse in Unity
Joined
Sep 24, 2004
Messages
27,947
Location
Brno -> Czech rep. >>European Union
An op-ed from NY Times. Basically, the gist of it is that Putin compensates for endemic corruption and chronic mismanagement of Russian domestic affairs with his foreign policy adventures.

Meanwhile, Russia is not getting anywhere. It's stagnating at best and now utterly dependent on energy exports for cash. In essence, Putin is paying for short-term place in the spotlights with his country's long-term future. No wonder the Ukrainians don't want to be a part of that.

What do you think the future holds for Russia? Where can you see the country in 5, 10, 20, or 50 years?

Spoiler :
Putin’s Imperial One-Man Show

By MAXIM TRUDOLYUBOV

Published: December 10, 2013

Vladimir Putin kept Pope Francis waiting nearly 50 minutes when the Russian president came to the Vatican last month to discuss world peace, family values and other issues. The pope did not seem to mind. Mr. Putin’s tardiness — attributed in this case to traffic problems — is not news. Besides, he has proved dependable in more important ways. In September, the pope wrote to the Kremlin asking Mr. Putin to help find a peaceful solution to the crisis over the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons. The Russian leader complied.

A threatened American military strike was averted. The United Nations official in charge of coordinating the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile says that the country has lost the ability to make more, and the Assad regime’s entire stockpile is sealed and set to be destroyed by mid-2014.

In the aftermath of Mr. Putin’s triumph, the American blogger Matt Drudge called him “the leader of the free world.” A commentator on the Business Insider website described him as “the Chuck Norris of international politics.” And Forbes magazine ranked him No. 1 in its 2013 list of “the world’s most powerful people,” with President Obama dropping to second place.

Since September, the Russian leader has claimed one coup after another. He played a key role in paving the way for negotiations with Tehran over curbing Iran’s nuclear program and bullied his Ukrainian counterpart, Viktor Yanukovich, into suspending talks on an association agreement and trade pact with the European Union.

Mr. Putin apparently thought that by striking a deal with Mr. Yanukovich he was also striking a deal with the entire nation of Ukraine. Thousands of protesters have been filling the streets of Kiev for nearly three weeks now, but Mr. Putin’s only reaction has been to suggest that these protests are being staged by insurgents trying to tip the balance ahead of the 2015 presidential election.

It is still unclear whether Mr. Yanukovich has signed any binding agreements with Russia, including a possible accord on Ukraine’s accession to the Russian-led Customs Union. But now that the European deal has been undermined, he can only turn to Russia for help, and Mr. Putin won’t permit any loans or gas subsidies unless he signs a binding document.

For the Russian leader, there is no such thing as independence: If a country is not a Moscow vassal, then it’s a vassal of Washington or Brussels. “The folk wisdom is that ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune,”’ Mr. Putin says. “That’s a fact.”

He scoffs at idealized visions of globalization and “value-based” international politics. Indeed, the idealism that characterized the turn of the century now seems naive. Who can imagine another George W. Bush trying to ignite an audience with the rhetoric of spreading democracy and freedom? Politicians in the United States now offer pragmatic talk mostly about concentrating on America’s domestic problems.

Developments in Germany, where a new coalition government is forming, may be another case in point. German attitudes toward Russia are torn between those who see it as a land of enormous opportunity and those who are appalled by its corruption and repression. If Frank-Walter Steinmeier, an ally of former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, returns as foreign minister, the more pragmatic stance is likely to prevail. Mr. Schröder, who was instrumental in getting Germany to sign on to a pipeline joint venture with Russia and joined the board of directors of that company immediately after leaving office in 2005, is the embodiment of business-driven politics.

Do these examples show that the world is caving in to the Russian leader’s brand of hard-core realism? Yes, to a certain extent. Mr. Putin is succeeding on the world stage as a kind of media anti-hero. This shows that there is at least some appeal for the kind of ruthless leader who brings stability to an unruly land and acts as a counterweight to the West. But though it may appear that the Putin principles are helping him abroad, they are certainly failing him at home.

President Putin has been dominating Russian news for the past 14 years. He is like a media star at the very top of the ratings, while the country he represents is slipping toward the very bottom. He has all Russia’s great resources at his disposal, yet Russia remains in the lower half of most international indices, including quality of government and control of corruption.

To be fair, the World Bank has elevated Russia’s international “Doing Business” ranking. This year the nation jumped 19 places to 92 among 189 countries. It’s important to understand, though, that this index does not consider the rule of law, only things like the speed it takes to complete paperwork, obtain regulatory permission and access to infrastructure.

Mr. Putin’s distrust of autonomous institutions, especially independent courts and political parties, is preventing Russia from developing a truly law-based state. The Russian state is in fact a maze of patron-client relationships in constant flux. The man in the Kremlin may be a business-oriented and pragmatic leader, a media celebrity who struts upon the world stage, but the fact that Russian domestic politics is a one-man show makes his country inherently unstable and dangerous — especially as a place to do business.

So does the conviction that anything foreign-funded is a threat to the Russian national interest. It has led to such absurdities as condemning many NGOs as “foreign agents,” effectively preventing foreign technical assistance and undermining research institutions that badly need international expertise.

Mr. Putin’s unconditional support of his domestic political vassals has caused a lack of accountability, fostered corruption and undermined faith in the future. Discussion of any eventual transfer of power is taboo. The country’s elites — including Mr. Putin’s cronies — consider Russia such an unpredictable place that they send their children abroad to study and to live.

President Putin has never fully focused on national issues. Leaving everyday problems like bad housing and failing infrastructure to his subordinates, he prefers the big issues — the war on terror, church politics, glamorous sporting events, and the geopolitical limelight in the Middle East and Europe. The real question for Russians is whether they will continue to accept an imperial president’s victories abroad as symbolic compensation for his mismanagement at home. How long will Mr. Putin keep us waiting?

Maxim Trudolyubov is the opinion page editor of the business newspaper Vedomosti.
 
What do you think the future holds for Russia? Where can you see the country in 5, 10, 20, or 50 years?


iron-curtain-trail.jpg


:p

Well, i doubt Russia will decline, actually. It seems to be having an ever-increasing wealth and use of its vast resources.
 
Impossible to tell. For all who knows the ME may be embroiled in a new war again, despite the US-Iranian deals, which may put Russia in a favourable position again. Maybe Russia makes a bad maneuvre which leads to an EU boycott of Russian gas and oil.
 
Well, i doubt Russia will decline, actually. It seems to be having an ever-increasing wealth and use of its vast resources.

"Seems" being the operative word here. It's "wealth" is almost exclusively derived from exporting raw materials and energy resources to the West. Instead of converting this wealth into infrastructure and investing it in education and healthcare and other things that would improve the living standards of ordinary Russians (and create basis for future development), Putin squanders it in a pointless pis*ing contest with the West and various pointless prestige projects.

In the meantime, Siberia's ethnic Russian population is being replaced by the Chinese, there are enormous troubles brewing with non-Russian non-Christians in the Caucasus, and Russia's infrastructure is falling apart.

It "seems" to me now that Putinism is a final spasm of a dying former great-power.
 
"Seems" being the operative word here. It's "wealth" is almost exclusively derived from exporting raw materials and energy resources to the West. Instead of converting this wealth into infrastructure and investing it in education and healthcare and other things that would improve the living standards of ordinary Russians (and create basis for future development), Putin squanders it in a pointless pis*ing contest with the West and various pointless prestige projects.

Actually, this is how Putin holds power: Paying off his cronies by engaging - among other things - in prestige projects.
 
Is that not what the great leaders of the early 20th century did also?
 
"Seems" being the operative word here. It's "wealth" is almost exclusively derived from exporting raw materials and energy resources...

In the meantime, Siberia's ethnic Russian population is being replaced by the Chinese,...

It "seems" to me now that Putinism is a final spasm of a dying former great-power.

Sounds a little like The Bear and the Dragon plot. The old Soviet Union dominated the Chinese in the Central Asian conflict in the 1960s, but it would be a different story today. And the USA wouldn't come riding in like the cavalry to save him. Just think, China with the resources of Siberia. Hmmm....
 
Actually, this is how Putin holds power: Paying off his cronies by engaging - among other things - in prestige projects.

The problem is that the interests of Russia =/= interests of Putin and his cronies.

This is a typical case of how the ruling elite's ambitions drag the whole country to ruin.

Sounds a little like The Bear and the Dragon plot. The old Soviet Union dominated the Chinese in the Central Asian conflict in the 1960s, but it would be a different story today. And the USA wouldn't come riding in like the cavalry to save him. Just think, China with the resources of Siberia. Hmmm....

The book was a terrible, racist crap, but the problem is real.

If Russia was a functioning, open democracy capable of integrating the Asian migrants into Russian culture, the problem would be far less severe. But as it is now, Russia is becoming more and more xenophobic towards certain ethnicities. The question is, how will Russia rule a huge region where Russians are a small minority, with China possibly stepping in as the "protector of ethnic Chinese" in case there are troubles?

Russia's leaders somehow believe that they're equals to China in the relationship they have established, but that's a fiction. China is a giant, Russia is a dwarf in terms of population (~Bangladesh) and economy (~Italy). It won't get any better as time progresses.
 
While Siberia is massive, obviously in the whole of Russia the non-russians are not a majority at all or anything near it. So it is still similar (not the same) as a breakaway region of smaller size in an otherwise clearly one-group-majority country.

Besides, how will China threaten Russia? Russia has a hundred times more nukes to begin with.
 
The problem is that the interests of Russia =/= interests of Putin and his cronies.

This is a typical case of how the ruling elite's ambitions drag the whole country to ruin.

That doesn't really matter that much, since many of his cronies control the security establishment and can indefinitely repress any opposition. The law enforcement in Russia is structurally underpaid by design, so they can be more easily bribed. Many current and historical countries with parasitical economic systems like modern-day Russia did survive for quite a long time, and were only destroyed by internal opposition - almost invariably from the same people that kept the regime in power for so long - or military defeat.
 
Besides, how will China threaten Russia? Russia has a hundred times more nukes to begin with.

Nuclear deterrence is a consideration, but how many of Russia's nukes still work? Maintenance and shelf life are problamatic.

And at some point, Eastern Siberia just becomes ethnically Chinese.
 
While Siberia is massive, obviously in the whole of Russia the non-russians are not a majority at all or anything near it. So it is still similar (not the same) as a breakaway region of smaller size in an otherwise clearly one-group-majority country.

It's not similar at all. Siberia, especially its eastern regions, is very far from the majority of Russian population and industry. Lines of communication with the Far East consist of a few bad roads and one railway. Should serious trouble arise there, it's nearly impossible for Russia to maintain its control over it, especially if support keeps flowing from China, just few hundred kilometres to the south.

Besides, how will China threaten Russia? Russia has a hundred times more nukes to begin with.

So what? Nukes are a suicide weapon, they won't be used. Against whom, anyway? If there is a major uprising in the Russian Far East by ethnic Chinese against Moscow's rule, what will Russia do? Nuke itself? :crazyeye:
 
Besides, how will China threaten Russia? Russia has a hundred times more nukes to begin with.


More like 38 times.
Anyway, that's an argument I never really understood. When it comes to nukes there isn't much difference if you have a thousand or a hundred. If your sites are secret and secure and you have second strike capabilities it doesn't matter that the other guy has ten or twenty times the number. As long as you have enough nukes to destroy maybe his ten most important cities you have an effective deterrent. I think that for this reason any potential conflict between Russia and China would almost certainly stay conventional, and while Russia may or may not still have a technological edge China has the numbers and the higher quality troops.
There's great potential for drawn out war of attrition.
 
@Winner:Hm, just how many "ethnic chinese" actually live in the Russian Far East?

I don't recall uprisings ever happening in an area as large as the entirety of Siberia, let alone with its one railroad main line. I have to assume that virtually everything east of the Urals, and west of the edge of Siberia, is very sparsely populated and not really having a sense of collective identity.

As for nukes not being used, well, if the chinese army invades, i think they would, given that the same would happen in analogous cases with the US, Russia, China and India for starters.

@Sarmatian: One has to suppose that the popular backing for the military and war will tend to go down once your 20 million-people capital is a crater a few hours into your invasion. No one would try this if they have so much to lose.
 
Well, it's not something that's likely to happen overnight. I am talking about a long-term situation - if the demographics of the region continue on the the current path, Russians will be a small minority in huge parts of Russia. Unless an effort is made to instil loyalty to the Russian state among the Chinese/Korean migrants (good luck with that), then it is conceivable that in the future they may start asking why should they pay taxes to the weird, alien and war away Moscow instead of Beijing which is 10 times closer.

Especially if China becomes even more powerful, rich and self-assured... as well as hungry for those tasty Siberian raw materials which are currently wasted on the Russians. And after all, China has always seen Russian expansion in north-east Eurasia as a part of broader European imperialism which had repeatedly humiliated China. All that's needed is to re-hash the old re-sentiments.

As for nukes not being used, well, if the chinese army invades, i think they would, given that the same would happen in analogous cases with the US, Russia, China and India for starters.

What if it doesn't invade. What if an insurgency by local Chinese settlers seizes control of large parts of Siberia with a mall help of a few hundred thousand Chinese "volunteers" who crossed the border earlier (Beijing: "We were powerless to stop them, sorry!") packing modern weaponry (Beijing: "Stolen from our ammunition depots, what a shame!") and subsequently declare independence for a "Siberian People's Republic" (Bejing: "Of course we must recognize it, it's the will of the people! *cough*")?

Nukes are really good for only one thing - to prevent other people from nuking you. They don't make you invulnerable.
 
For me, it all comes down to how strong the hydrocarbon economy is. If Russia is still pumping out globs of oil, and the world is still depending upon said oil, China will have some very big temptations up north. If not, then the only thing the Chinese will get from any sort of incursion is miles upon miles of worthless tundra.
 
[Anyway, that's an argument I never really understood. When it comes to nukes there isn't much difference if you have a thousand or a hundred. If your sites are secret and secure and you have second strike capabilities it doesn't matter that the other guy has ten or twenty times the number. As long as you have enough nukes to destroy maybe his ten most important cities you have an effective deterrent.
Yes, but deterrents only work so far, and the assumption of secret and secure launch sights is a big one. Having thousands of Nuclear Weapons means there is no hope of a Chinese Nuclear strike wiping out the Russian stockpile, while there is a significant chance the Russian's can knock out a decent chunk of the Chinese Arsenal. There's also the huge Russian advantage in tactical Nuclear Weapons, which means the Russians won't just be targeting Chinese cities.
 
Back
Top Bottom