Here is the beginning of the latest excellent column by Philip Stephens in the Financial Times:The conventional story about Russia has been one of power reclaimed after the fall to chaos during the 1990s. Oil, gas and autocracy have restored it to the ranks of world powers. Some of the more hyperbolic commentary has gone so far to say that, along with China, Moscow has created an entirely new model to challenge western liberalism.
Yet what most strikes me about Russia is its isolation. For all its resurgent hydrocarbon revenues and its considerable, albeit residual, military power, Moscow is essentially friendless. As for a superior system of capitalism, when was the last time you heard an international politician of any consequence hold up Russia as their chosen paradigm?
Moscow can claim the odd loyal acolyte, sure. Many of the former Soviet republics among its neighbours judge it wise to stay on side with the present regime. Last year's Russian invasion of Georgia served, in Voltaire's famous phrase, "pour encourager les autres". Beyond the post-Soviet space, mavericks such as Venezuela's Hugo Chávez see some advantage in travelling in Moscow's slipstream.
This is just a test comment...
Trying this again with "Remember personal info?" checked this time...
you can delete these - I'm just testing...
"For all its resurgent hydrocarbon revenues and its considerable, albeit residual, military power, Moscow is essentially friendless."
Absolutely true.
And nothing new about it, at all. The personnel of the US military attache's office in 1941 cheered German victores and were subdued at German setbacks.
RKKA:
Are you saying that the fact that Russia has always been hated by the world means it's OK for Russia to be presently hated by the world?
Are you saying Russians don't cheer at American setbacks (9/11 for instance) and get subdued when Americans triumph?
Isn't a concern to you at all that the Russian state has collapsed TWICE in the past century and is now on the verge of a hat trick?
It's entirely psychotic for you to suggest that it doesn't matter if Russia has powerful allies or not, and to ignore what Russia may have done to cause the world to hate it, pretending that Russia is the innocent victim of conspiracy.
You are helping Russia to remain friendless and ultimately to collapse again. As such, you are Russia's enemy.
RKKA:
Are you saying that the fact that Russia has always been hated by the world means it's OK for Russia to be presently hated by the world?
Are you saying Russians don't cheer at American setbacks (9/11 for instance) and get subdued when Americans triumph?
Isn't a concern to you at all that the Russian state has collapsed TWICE in the past century and is now on the verge of a hat trick?
It's entirely psychotic for you to suggest that it doesn't matter if Russia has powerful allies or not, and to ignore what Russia may have done to cause the world to hate it, pretending that Russia is the innocent victim of conspiracy.
You are helping Russia to remain friendless and ultimately to collapse again. As such, you are Russia's enemy.
As the saying in Czarist times went, Russia has only two allies, its Army and its Navy; both have been fully reliable in defending Russia's land and maritime borders through the centuries. This has always been the tradition; it has worked, it works and it will always work (probably would add gas/oil for today in that list). Alliances are nothing but arrangements between weak countries unable to defend themselves against external threats individually or large powers streamlining/outsourcing their defenses to weaker potentially unreliable nations so that they can focus on higher priority issues.
As the saying in Czarist times went, Russia has only two allies, its Army and its Navy; both have been fully reliable in defending Russia's land and maritime borders through the centuries. This has always been the tradition; it has worked, it works and it will always work (probably would add gas/oil for today in that list). Alliances are nothing but arrangements between weak countries unable to defend themselves against external threats individually or large powers streamlining/outsourcing their defenses to weaker potentially unreliable nations so that they can focus on higher priority issues.
Phoby, Phoby, Phoby...
Even when Kozyrev was foreign minister, and the main method of Russian foreign policy was the preemptive concession, Russia had no reliable friends.
The one valuable thing the Russian people gained from the 1990s is a clear understanding that their fate lies entirely in their hands. While other countries are happy to exploit Russia's problems to gain an advantage, none will do anything to actually help.
Unfortunately, the cost of this knowlege was millions of Russian lives.
Growing Isolation? I do not think so. It is just wishful thinking. Russia has strong economic ties with Germany, Turkey, Far East, not to mention former Soviet republics. The rest is unimportant.
Economic ties are far more shallow and shifting than ties of shared values like the US-Canada-Australia-Britain-Europe. With Russia's deplorable demographics and economic/social/infrastructure mismanagement I wouldn't be surprised in a couple generations if China doesn't own their far East and the resources there. Shipping arms to and playing mischief maker with Iran and Chavez is closer to the shared values reflected in the Putin thug state. All three are rogue thug states.
"The rest is unimportant"
Famous last words...
"its Army and its Navy; both have been fully reliable in defending Russia's land and maritime borders through the centuries."
The Whites would beg to disagree. So would Stalin, judging by his purges: he apparently thought the army and the navy were full of Russia's enemies. And that's only this century, not the previous ones...
"This has always been the tradition; it has worked, it works and it will always work."
If only Russia would want to be isolationist as you say! But it keeps sticking its nose into other people's business. Russia apparently wants enemies, that's the problem.
Other countries have been in this situation; they are now gone (remember when the US also thought it didn't need the rest of the world?).
What always worked will work further? Yes, sure. Tell that to the British empire...
"Alliances are nothing but arrangements between weak countries unable to defend themselves against external threats individually or large powers streamlining/outsourcing their defenses to weaker potentially unreliable nations so that they can focus on higher priority issues."
Precisely. And since Russia isn't doing that, it will end up losing exactly these advantages.
But OK, let's just wait and see. Russia has always tried to imitate the West one way or another while denying that it was doing so, from Peter the Great to Stalin (and now Putin). That is certainly not going to change any time soon...
The Whites lost, and were out of touch with the Russian masses. Their foreign allies proved to be ineffective at best. The Red Army and Navy did its job as Russia's most reliable allies and secured the country from multiple foreign invasions on all fronts.
Sure, Stalin did purge the Red Army, but the fact that the Red Army didn't desert and continued to be loyal and faithful to the state, triumphing militarily against Nazi Germany and successfully defending the state against all foreign threats, just shows how extremely reliable and faithful it was to the state; how many armies in the world would be that faithful under such brutal conditions? (in fact, how many nations would be that faithful under such conditions?).
It's been the Army and the Navy that have held the country together, and those are the most important and only allies Russia needs.
I'm not saying Russia would want to be isolationist and cut all ties with foreign countries, I'm saying that Russia doesn't need to rely on allies to secure its interests, period. Allies are a low priority in Russian foreign policy. It doesn't need defense guarantees as it is fully capable of defending and securing its interests alone. It doesn't need to outsource its defenses to weaker and unreliable nations, as it has seen what happens when you subsidize unreliable foreign allies (Warsaw Pact and CIS).
Just look at NATO, Article 5 was invoked for the very first time because of 9/11, and most European NATO members are still dragging their feet in supporting the US mission in Afghanistan. Imagine if there was a real war (Russia invading the Baltics), how many European NATO allies would actually join the fight other than the non-Russians in these three little small states? Zero. I also doubt the US would be able to do much, knowing it will have no support in Europe for a confrontation with Russia and knowing that risking a nuclear showdown over 7 million people living in economically failing apartheid states just ain't worth it.