Thursday, August 11, 2005
Russia In The Balance
During last night?s lecture from Hugh Hewitt here on the cruise, he made some rather pessimistic comments concerning the future of Russia. I have debated it with him a little, but would like to take a little blog space to continue the discussion.
Essentially, Hugh thinks Russia will be of little concern for the foreseeable future because of the endemic corruption and the lack of equal applicability of the law to all its citizens.
Hugh is correct in his analysis that these things will prevent Russia from becoming a great nation, but I do not think they will keep it from being a nation of gravest concern to the world. Russia has never been a great nation, but it has been a terribly important player in world affairs and will be again. I think Hugh neglects three factors in his analysis.
1) Russia remains the second largest nuclear power on the planet. Despite the decay in its infrastructure to support this capability, and the now widely known unreliability of many of its delivery systems, this is not a factor to be trifled with. They can still lay waste to much of the planet should they wish.
2) Russia contains immense, currently untapped, natural resources. The oil reserves alone could keep the world running for years to come. These resources are very difficult to reach because of geological, infrastructure and in some cases, political concerns, but our ever-hungry world will need these resources at some point ? likely sooner rather than later.
3) Russia?s presence in world affairs has always stemmed not from reformers, but from those in leadership that were willing to harness the corruption ? which generally means they are individuals more corrupt than the nation as a whole. Those willing to do so can drag the nation onto the world stage. Such plays always result only in short-term gain, but such leaders generally care about little else.
The path back to world player for Russia is, to my mind, a fairly straightforward one. The first step would be for the government to crack down and reassert tight controls. This is happening. In recent months we have seen Yukos (the oil company) nationalized. Pravda, never officially, given autonomy by the Kremlin, has steadily shifted its editorial policy from the lurid tabloid to the chest-thumping of the old Soviet state. ? Readers of this blog?s weekly ?Best of Pravda? column are aware of this trend. Just a few weeks ago, this blog chronicled the implementation of ?Putin Youth? camps this summer across Russia.
Once the government has firm control reestablished, which could only take another year or so at the recent pace, I would begin doing contracts with western firms to develop the natural resources. In those contracts, I would go for very little profit in exchange for the western firms 1) developing infrastructure for the harder to reach resources, and 2) making payments to the government to rebuild the military to protect those firms from the political problems that plague many of the resource rich areas.
Within a relatively short time, we would find a world as dependent on Russian oil as it currently is on Middle Eastern reserves. In fact, we might even become more so because of the current problems in the Middle East. At the same time an anti-American whispering campaign throughout the very proud nation of Russia would plant the seeds for the next, more risky move.
Would the US risk, or go to, war with a revitalized Russian military to protect those investments; should Russia decide to nationalize them? Keep in mind we will have a new administration by this time. Depending on the US administration a move like this really might not be so risky for the Russian leader. Think about the ayatollahs in Iran ? it proved no risk at all under Carter.
If you think about it, regardless of the outcome, Russia would be a very important world player again. In some senses that is all they want. Russians are an enormously proud people. Americans generally sacrifice pride for profit; Russians are exactly the opposite ? consider the Russian victory over Napoleon, or the siege of Leningrad by the Nazis, to get an idea of what Russians are capabile of doing and sacrificing for the sake of nationalism.
What I am saying is that I agree and I disagree with Hugh. I do not think Russia has what it takes to be a great nation ? they won?t for several generations, and if what I have laid out here happens, it will take several more generations than that. However, I think they will forever be a nation of considerable concern to the US and the world. We set them to the side at grave risk.
Essentially, Hugh thinks Russia will be of little concern for the foreseeable future because of the endemic corruption and the lack of equal applicability of the law to all its citizens.
Hugh is correct in his analysis that these things will prevent Russia from becoming a great nation, but I do not think they will keep it from being a nation of gravest concern to the world. Russia has never been a great nation, but it has been a terribly important player in world affairs and will be again. I think Hugh neglects three factors in his analysis.
1) Russia remains the second largest nuclear power on the planet. Despite the decay in its infrastructure to support this capability, and the now widely known unreliability of many of its delivery systems, this is not a factor to be trifled with. They can still lay waste to much of the planet should they wish.
2) Russia contains immense, currently untapped, natural resources. The oil reserves alone could keep the world running for years to come. These resources are very difficult to reach because of geological, infrastructure and in some cases, political concerns, but our ever-hungry world will need these resources at some point ? likely sooner rather than later.
3) Russia?s presence in world affairs has always stemmed not from reformers, but from those in leadership that were willing to harness the corruption ? which generally means they are individuals more corrupt than the nation as a whole. Those willing to do so can drag the nation onto the world stage. Such plays always result only in short-term gain, but such leaders generally care about little else.
The path back to world player for Russia is, to my mind, a fairly straightforward one. The first step would be for the government to crack down and reassert tight controls. This is happening. In recent months we have seen Yukos (the oil company) nationalized. Pravda, never officially, given autonomy by the Kremlin, has steadily shifted its editorial policy from the lurid tabloid to the chest-thumping of the old Soviet state. ? Readers of this blog?s weekly ?Best of Pravda? column are aware of this trend. Just a few weeks ago, this blog chronicled the implementation of ?Putin Youth? camps this summer across Russia.
Once the government has firm control reestablished, which could only take another year or so at the recent pace, I would begin doing contracts with western firms to develop the natural resources. In those contracts, I would go for very little profit in exchange for the western firms 1) developing infrastructure for the harder to reach resources, and 2) making payments to the government to rebuild the military to protect those firms from the political problems that plague many of the resource rich areas.
Within a relatively short time, we would find a world as dependent on Russian oil as it currently is on Middle Eastern reserves. In fact, we might even become more so because of the current problems in the Middle East. At the same time an anti-American whispering campaign throughout the very proud nation of Russia would plant the seeds for the next, more risky move.
Would the US risk, or go to, war with a revitalized Russian military to protect those investments; should Russia decide to nationalize them? Keep in mind we will have a new administration by this time. Depending on the US administration a move like this really might not be so risky for the Russian leader. Think about the ayatollahs in Iran ? it proved no risk at all under Carter.
If you think about it, regardless of the outcome, Russia would be a very important world player again. In some senses that is all they want. Russians are an enormously proud people. Americans generally sacrifice pride for profit; Russians are exactly the opposite ? consider the Russian victory over Napoleon, or the siege of Leningrad by the Nazis, to get an idea of what Russians are capabile of doing and sacrificing for the sake of nationalism.
What I am saying is that I agree and I disagree with Hugh. I do not think Russia has what it takes to be a great nation ? they won?t for several generations, and if what I have laid out here happens, it will take several more generations than that. However, I think they will forever be a nation of considerable concern to the US and the world. We set them to the side at grave risk.
