The writer is a retired lieutenant colonel of the Pakistan Army and is a PhD in civil-military relations
Is Russia really aggressing? Which view of the international politics should we subscribe to — the one publicised by Washington that has ended up destabilising global behaviour (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria) or the one being propagated by Kremlin (Putin) that wishes to shoulder the burden of serving as a counter weight against that? Putin led Russia has never shown any keenness to join a Western (US) led world order, in fact it has done quite the opposite to try and bring balance to the international system by allying with all those who don’t subscribe to it and are for varied reasons against it.
We are yet to see the deliverables of the new found ‘Trumpism’ as an American concept but ‘Putinism’ is already showing what it has done and achieved for Russia. While the world (led by the US) may think it faces a ‘Putin problem’ and President Trump’s Defence Secretary, General Mattis, may already be thinking on how to reduce the ‘cost of Putinism’ by trying to come up with a ‘Putin policy’ it is not how majority of Russians look at President Putin and how he leads Russia? — Not as a problem or a potential international spoiler but as a counter weight to US hegemony that requires not only a degree of Russian unfriendliness but also its political and military opposition to maintain the balance of power in an international system so essential to discourage the US carrying out world policing in a (failed) business as usual style.
Characteristically, Putin’s third term as President (in power now for 17 years, Stalin ruled for three decades, Brezhnev for two) is being viewed as a period that journeys through a different Russia — a Russia where unlike in the past ‘political life has woken up’. Today the world deals with a Russia where a post-Soviet generation has come of age (a new middle class of 30 million people in a population of over 142 million) which continues to benefit from a state-run welfare system allowing them to live comfortable and rewarding middle class lives. According to an estimate in this ‘Putinism infused’ Russian society, 50 percent of the Russian middle class works for the State thus enabling Kremlin to manage and sustain not only their allegiance to the State but also their loyalties.
Looking at the Russian actions from a Russian perspective Putin has not ‘tried to break Nato’ as accused by General Mattis. In fact, he has opposed its enlargement and eastwards advancement. A weak Russia would never have been able to do that. Both the European Union and Nato expansion eastwards was blocked when West’s attempts to have Georgia and Ukraine become part of Nato were blunted by Russian military action both in Georgia (2008) and Ukraine (2014). The Russian reaction to Nato’s enlargement as a military alliance can only be understood if the USA would also stay quiet and do nothing assuming China went about creating an anti-USA military alliance comprising Cuba, Mexico and Canada. The graduated and sustained Russian revival under Putin maintains the relevance of realpolitik in a world that is now seeing populism take over globalisation as the future form of international politics. Given this, any leadership including Putin will ride the wave of public support and approval to engage and control events in the name of national security and national interests (Georgia, Crimea, Eastern Ukraine and Syria).
The United States (the latest General Mattis’s barb being part of that) and the West is trying to sell to the world an anti-Putin narrative showcasing the possibility of creation of greater Russia (Soviet Union style), proliferation of nationalism to distract disgruntled Russians at home, Nato’s Baltic member states considered as Moscow’s lost provinces that Kremlin will do anything to militarily retake and two Eurasian great powers (Russia and China) trying to re-define international borders and maritime boundaries. But is it right to sell such a narrative to the worldwide audience given that the American actions themselves over a period of time have been a subject of huge criticism and world debate?
US confrontational approach towards Russia gained strength after Putin began his third term and took over as President of Russia in 2012. Otherwise, from the Obama-led American ‘Re-set Russian initiative in 2009’ to the Russian gesture of abstaining from voting and not vetoing the UN Security Council resolution that authorised the USA-led use of force against the Gaddafi regime in Libya in 2011, both the countries seemed trying to find common grounds to proceed forward in handling issues that confronted the world. That today is not the case and though Putin led Russia is being termed a mistake and accident (Russian-American journalist Masha Gessen offers in her 2012 biography, The Man without a Face, Putin’s portrait as an accident) I would rather have the world ask the question as how can such an accident remain in power for 17 long years without the popular approval and support of its people?’
The political and military challenges confronting President Putin are huge, some of them include combating economic stagnation, exercising political control over its vast and immense territory (despite the breakup of Soviet Union, Russia remains the largest country in the world) and keeping the Muslim population of Northern Caucasus integrated in Russia as the loyal subjects of the State (Muslims constitute 14 per cent of Russian population and a total of 20 million Muslims which is the largest Muslim population in entire Europe). Putin knows that Moscow cannot afford to lose control of its outlying regions neither at the hands of eastward expanding Nato nor the global jihadist organisations who given the destabilised political landscape are quick to move and take advantage in Muslim majority areas (Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan are living examples).
As Donald Trump now takes over as US President from President Obama, a very important component of US foreign policy would be how Trump works with Russia in order to find common ground to seek resolution of enduring conflicts in the world. Together with Russia and China, the US will have to find ways to reduce tensions and contain risks in many parts of the world. That will only be possible if the US follows the policy of engagement and not isolating Russia.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 22nd, 2017.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (2)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ