"It is inconceivable that the Georgian action in South Ossetia was not considered at Presidential level."
'So it wasn't some low-level sanctioning which failed to understand the realities?'
"Inconceivable. Any decision, such as there was, was at Presidential level."
An 'of course we support you, have you fully weighed all possible consequences?' that was taken by those who wanted to hear a 'yes,do it' as just that?'
"There may have been a failure to communicate on our side."
'So is the New American Century ending before it has barely begun?' The Russian face became what Italians describe as scuro in volto - utterly dark -
"Yes. It is the end, too, of Russia's century. The things coming out of Georgia are so bad."
Both speakers have long acquaintance with their countries' power elites, past and present. Neither Russia nor the US are monoliths; there is more than one current of belief, power centre, agenda (long and short term). It might be best if the meddling and grandstanding of some European Union state leaders was toned down, and the principals alone, in this frightening readjustment of relative strength between and within two great powers, resolved it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
Thank you for sharing this with us, HG, a weighty and valuable snippet
(for an early - and precocious - call along the same lines, see this)
it has long been Russia's fear that they would miss the boat, and that the century belongs to China et al, despised, hated and feared. I well recall being asked: we understand why the West will not invest in Russia - but why [in total disbelief and disgust] do you invest in Vietnam ?!
also, while happily riding high on petro-revenues, it is Russia's dearest wish to be an industrial super-power but they haven't a clue how to achieve this. Cue even more loathing of the Chinese, for their newfound ability to manufacture things people actually want and buy
so - deep gloom all around. But, despite the neocon goon who said on Newsnight recently that Russia was "Somalia with trees", the more apt description was always Upper Volta with rockets, emphasis strongly on the rockets ('UV' is just an old Cold-War insult). Why bait this morose but well-educated bear? Well, the lame-duck Washington regime may have its reasons ...
However disappointing it may be for them, Russia needs to figure out how to make its way in the world as a reliable provider of raw materials, and it could do worse than look to Norway for a model. Or even Australia; or Canada at a (big) stretch.
They know it in their heart of hearts. A largely overlooked announcement from last week, on the re-absorbtion of Turkmenistan into its energy-hegemony, is perhaps more of a pointer than the Georgia eruption. Russia has been working with suitable chess-playing subtlety (relatively speaking) on this step for over a decade: watch out for similar moves with Kazakhstan, and perhaps Uzbekistan, over the coming decade ...
I do recommend Fitzroy MacLean's "Eastern Approaches", for an earlier (and very witty) take on the Great Game (and the Balkans). Wonderful read.
As for Miliband, our EU Foreign Affairs stooge; who let him out of the playground? What are his qualifications to do anything? No-one can tell me. Can anyone hold major office on the UK (Sorry, "Britain") these days?
There is a view among some that Russia should be a post-industrial knowledge economy - hence massive investment in education and research, building on the excellent educational base inherited from Soviet times (it wasn't all indoctrination, lots of good science training went on too).
It isn't China and India that are feared, it is the third Asia, the former rulers of Russia centuries ago. China has rarely invaded anyone other than their 'near abroad'.
There was considerable discussion of the dangers of Russia becoming a 'Nigerian' petro-economy and political appendage of Asia - hence the emphasis on European ties and Russian-ness being essentially European.
Russia has a sovereign wealth fund of course, divided into two sectors with one specifically allotted to the future needs of Russian 'standard of life' provision. They have paid attention to Norway (I don't know about Australia. I would like to know where our provision of this kind is).
You are the expert ND on energy and its geopolitics, so I shall continue to turn to your view to understand what is going on. But the reports in our papers are very different from those to be gathered in Moscow; I thought others might be interested. The Russians seemed genuinely surprised at some western press coverage (and none-coverage of some of the news readily accessible).
New Labour, as usual, are barmy in their line-taking; even they must see that the strand of American ideology that gave us the Iraq war is on a losing wicket, short of general annihilation of course. Picking up Newsweek in Frankfurt airport I was interested by their coverage, and that of the Wall Street Journal.
One Russian remarked that, speaking personally, we are holding out our hand to Europe; we have so much to gain and to lose, and so have you, if it is not taken. So all the stuff that went before was speaking officially.
Rarely does Silvio Berlusconi get a nod of agreement, but presumably he knows an oddball political leader when he sees one and certainly he doesn't side with Georgia's howls of 'it's not fair'.
Were the view that New Labour are the irrelevant puppets of a dying ideological strand of US power politics to be advanced, Elby, it would be hard to refute. New Labour are doing scorched earth in the UK (sorry 'Britain') and the suspicion that Georgia is the same tactics from their puppet masters must arise.
As was always the case it takes two or more to start a cold war, and trying to attribute blame to who started it is usually a pretty pointless exercise. Yes there are many faults on the Russian side, but without forgetting or excusing those faults, it is probably worth paying some attention to those faults on our side which have contributed to this slide towards a cold war which has become horribly predictable over the past few years.
First of all these has been a basic lack of respect for Russia and its people. Most Russians are more than aware of their past history, but history has also taught them that they need to stand up for their country, and they do not take kindly to foreigners telling them what is wrong with their country and how they should do things. Much as we may want to to introduce democracy and other Western ideals to Russia, this will never be done by lecturing and preaching on the West's part - this was tried to spectacular ill effect after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the overall result has been that much of the Russian intelligensia is now firmly set against such ideas. Anyone with an inkling of knowledge of Russian culture and its people (who certainly in the major cities can rival most Western cities in their level of education and general literacy) will know that progress can be achieved; but it will done by Russians in a Russian way - and all the West can do is provide help and support and ideas when it is asked (at a British Council, BBC world Service and Cultural Exchange Level). Addressing Russian nationalism with overt Western nationalism will never be the right answer.
Secondly, we have failed to address the trauma felt by most Russians as a result of the breakup of the Soviet Union. This was akin to break up of the British Empire - which still colours much political thinking in the UK (e.g why do so many on the right still have problems on working on a collaborative basis with Europe), so why do we think that the Russians can get over the loss of their Empire so easily. Ethnic Russians outside Russia have suffered some pretty awful discrimination in recent years on which the West has remained pretty silent, and this is a major issue within Russia. Just because their predecessors suffered at the hands of the Russians does not entitle the Baltic Republics to take it out on their ancestors. This is an issue which will be of critical importance if there is ever to be stability within the Ukraine.
Many may want to see this as just taking the Russian side against that of the West - it isn't, in fact i don't want to be on different sides, and there is nothing wrong at all in standing up to Russia when they do not respect our standards on our territory (and most Russians will respect such behaviour). The response to Litvineko was largely correct in this regard - and if Russian companies want to list on Western stock exchanges or to take investment from the West then we should have no problem in setting out the required standards before we enter into the deal. But as for gesture politics - forget it - the Russians know we cannot do anything about Georgia - probably just as much as they cannot do anything about Poland.
The question to our politicians should be do you want to stop the slide to a Cold War with Russia - and if so how? I have my doubts whether the current Bush administration (and probably McCain - though the Alaskan perspective may be of some interest) would answer the first question in the affirmative.
'we have failed to address the trauma felt by most Russians as a result of the breakup of the Soviet Union. This was akin to break up of the British Empire - which still colours much political thinking in the UK'
This is a very interesting point, 16.02, which does not seem to be addressed much or, if it is, with little empathy or concern. The loss of empire is a powerful motivator for all kinds of behaviour. The United States is beginning to feel it, and react in unpredictable ways too.
Post a Comment