I think I both agree and disagree with this statement. I think the west has always been naive in the most westerners from Western Europe through Canada, the U.S. and Australia tend to believe for a long time during the Cold War that Russia could be like Europe and the U.S. when Yeltsin took over.
HOwever, they have had a completely different history than the rest of europe that likely has more in common with China than it actually does western Europe. One of the main differences has been that Order became much more important to the Russians than human rights as a culture. This is also true of China even though in many ways Chinese culture is much different than Russian Culture. But, for a variety of reasons Order is more important than human rights in both cultures.
So, it was very naive of western Europe and the U.S. to think that all Russians were just going to willy nilly embrace democratic ideals and democratic versions of capitalism and human rights. It just wasn't going to happen. Or if it did it was going to take maybe 100 years or more and the same for China to trust themselves and to engender and create enough cultural trust and systems of checks and balances for that to actually work.
So, the U.S. and european advantage economically has always been staggering for Russia to deal with. China does a lot better with capitalism than Russia does but in regard to human rights both countries are a completely disaster.
So, should the west blame itself for Putin's revanchism? Not really. But we do need to recognize our naiveness regarding Russian ideas and Russian History.
The West must not blame itself for Putin's revanchism
updated 7:24 AM EDT, Sat April 12, 2014
Putin appears to see the world through a unique prism of winner takes all and loser loses everything, says Robin Niblett.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
- There is a growing view Russia was provoked into annexing Crimea, Robin Niblett says
- This belief is prevalent in Southeast Asia, where China is asserting itself, he says
- But Niblett says China's president recognizes the logic of win-win diplomacy
- Putin's "winner takes all" approach, however, requires a strong response, he says
Editor's note: Robin Niblett is director of Chatham House
(the Royal Institute of International Affairs) and was previously the
executive vice president and chief operating officer of the
Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies. He is
the author of "Playing to its Strengths: Rethinking the UK's Role in a
Changing World" and editor and contributing author to "America and a
Changed World: A Question of Leadership." The views expressed in this
commentary are solely Robin Niblett's.
(CNN) -- There is a growing belief among many in the
West that Europe and the United States provoked President Putin into
annexing Crimea. Moscow's reaction to NATO expansion and to the EU's
efforts to bring Ukraine into its orbit was, it is said, inevitable.
In this view, Western
leaders backed Putin into a corner and, with the situation worsening in
eastern Ukraine, it is time we gave him an exit plan.
Robin Niblett
Interestingly, this is the prevalent view in Southeast Asia, a region not lacking a large and assertive neighbor of its own.
In Singapore last week,
several prominent figures told me Southeast Asia is managing better the
challenge of a resurgent China than Europe is a re-assertive Russia. But
this is a misleading comparison. China and Russia present entirely
different propositions to their neighbors.
President Xi Jinping recognizes the logic of win-win international politics.
Whilst tightening his
political control, he has overseen what is perhaps China's most
ambitious strategy for market-led socio-economic reform since the Deng
Xiaoping era, and launched an all-out assault on the rampant levels of corruption in the Chinese Communist Party.
Having failed with economic coercion, [Putin] is now also resorting
to political and military coercion to prevent Ukraine from escaping
Russia's economic stranglehold.
Robin Niblett
Robin Niblett
In focusing on growth and
modernization, Xi is aware of the importance of a stable and prosperous
regional environment, and has sought to manage the growing anxiety and
resentment that China's rise is causing among its Southeast Asian
neighbors. Relations with Japan have deteriorated to a dangerous level, but in China's southern neighborhood Xi has worked hard to improve relations.
Ties with Vietnam and
Malaysia have been bolstered, despite competing territorial claims over
islands in the South China Sea. China is increasingly active in a range
of regional multilateral institutions, and has sustained a constructive
political and economic relationship with the United States, despite
their competing strategic roles in the region.
Most importantly, China is ever more deeply integrated economically with its neighbors
across East Asia, serving as an essential engine of regional economic
growth. From a Chinese perspective, the rising tide lifts all boats.
Neighbors that are economically strong support China's growth. Given its
relative size, China's political influence will only grow as a result.
'Law of jungle'
The contrast between
this approach and that of President Putin could not be starker. Putin
appears to see the world through a unique prism of winner takes all and
loser loses everything. He represents a 19th century "law of the jungle" mentality, in the words of Angela Merkel. This makes Russia an altogether more dangerous neighbor.
Russian separatists in Donetsk dig in
NATO: Pics show Russian military buildup
Ukrainian citizens carry cost of conflict
Russia: No plan to send troops to Ukraine
As tends to be the case
with bad neighbors, Russia's belligerence stems from problems at home.
Despite recent high global oil prices, Putin presides over an economy in reverse.
Russia's current account surplus was already projected to have
disappeared this year, before the crisis over Ukraine. Capital outflows
amounted to $63 billion last year,
a figure at least matched in the first quarter of 2014. In the
meantime, growth is projected to fall in 2014 to 0.6% according to
Russian figures, after achieving only 1.3% in 2013.
Like Xi, Putin has
tightened his control over the media and political opposition. But
rather than accompanying political tightening with economic reform, his
government has side-stepped market-opening commitments made as part of
Russia's WTO accession. And rather than tackling ever-deepening corruption,
he has continued to hand his close allies the choicest parts of the
Russian economy through Kremlin-led corporate mergers and lucrative
concessions.
Regionally, Putin's
notion of national security is to surround Russia with what Karel de
Gucht, the EU Trade Commissioner, recently described as a string of
economic "black holes" (such as Ukraine and Belarus) and "frozen
conflicts" (including in Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia).
These areas remain
dependent upon Russia for their economic survival and constitute a
further hindrance to Russian economic growth. Where China recognizes the
necessity of a stable neighborhood, Putin has manufactured a volatile
and vulnerable one.
Nor does he show any
interest in exiting this spiral. Having failed with economic coercion,
he is now also resorting to political and military coercion to prevent
Ukraine from escaping Russia's economic stranglehold.
No return
Russia will not reform
under Putin's watch, as some in the West once hoped. He blames the West
for Russia's ills and wallows in victimhood. But he avoids reforming the
economic system he created, and perceives steps towards embedding the
rule of law, accountable government and more open markets around
Russia's neighborhood as threats to his and Russia's power.
If the choice now is
between trying to bring President Putin gradually in from the cold, or
containing his worst instincts towards Russia's European neighbors, the
latter is the only rational answer.
Europe and the United
States should not accept the way Crimea was annexed into Russia, and
should be prepared and willing to apply major economic sanctions should
Putin raise the stakes again over Ukraine or Transnistria. Over time,
Ukraine should be integrated into EU markets through the completion of
the Association Agreement along with substantial financial support.
There can be no return
for Putin to the G8 or business-as-usual in NATO until Russian economic
and military threats against its European neighbors are lifted and a
mutually acceptable solution is found to Crimea's status.
Putin's actions are not a
response to European and American provocations. He has painted himself
into a corner with a combination of strategic paranoia, dreams of
Russian revanche and economic illiteracy. As it seeks to present a
strong and united response, the West can ill afford to blame itself.
The views expressed in this commentary are solely those of Robin Niblett.
end quote from:
No comments:
Post a Comment