Russian thoughts

Putins recent diatribe against the US over the proposed missile defence shield is interesting in that it shows that Russia is fast becoming the principle beneficiary of American dependence on oil. Suddenly a nation that was bankrupt a decade or so ago is now awash with petrodollars & new found confidence thanks to the benefits of Energiapolitik (ok, a term I used in my BNW game, but the concept is valid).

 

But the main element picked up by the media is the prospect of nuclear war. Back to the bad old days where the “Soviets are massing their tanks in East Berlin & the Warsaw Pact is ready to drive to Paris!”, scream the headlines.

 

Or not, actually. Yes, the spectre of a nuclear war is horrific, do not doubt me, but the idea that the Russians are threatening nuclear war (the interpretation in the press) is just plain wrong. They said that they’re going to retarget their missiles on Western Europe – something that is essentially the flick of a switch. If they don’t do this routinely – even if only to test that their kit still works – I would be very surprised. Heck, we routinely target them, and we haven’t nuked them yet.

 

And over what? A missile defence shield that is conceived of being able of intercepting – at most – a dozen missiles. Hardly a major challenge to Russian security, with their 16 thousand nuclear warheads.

 

So why are the Russians doing this? And what will the Wests response be?

 

Personally I think that the Russians are pointing out that they’re still around & a big noise on the international political stage, mainly for domestic consumption. Distracting the Russians from their erosion of human rights & civil liberties by an impressive-sounding political storm is probably a sensible political move for Putin, who is almost certainly manoeuvring his designated successor to pole position when he steps down in 2008. Demonstrating that there is an international crisis & that “we need continuity” is probably his game & will almost certainly play well with the Russian electorate have experienced little other than the ‘strong leader’ variant of ‘democratic’ politics.

 

But ultimately (for the west), the Kremlins actions, whilst mildly provocative & unpleasant in tone, don’t actually amass to anything significant. Withdrawing from treaties & testing new missiles – whilst provocative – is not a significant escalation of tensions between the west & Russia that (say) shutting off oil supplies would be. Fortunately, thanks to the miracle of market economics, the Russians are as dependent on us for us to buy their petroleum goods, as we are on them to supply the same at a reasonable price. (Gosh darn it, "Capitalism means Peace" shocker!). Also withdrawing from the treaties themselves simply put us back to the negotiating table – treaties are double edged swords that benefit everyone – or no-one.

 

Moreover, a new round of negotiations can actually have some benefits – this is an opportunity to negotiate better & more technologically relevant treaties than were in place before. Of course, it takes political leadership on the Wests part to do this, but even leaving Bush aside, I can well imagine Sarkozy & Merkel champing at the bit to make their mark in this arena – and I’d be very surprised if Brown isn’t thinking along these lines as well.

 

And the Wests response? Probably a two-fold own-goal for the Russians; firstly quietly increasing the effectiveness of the missile defence shield to be able to deal with more missiles (rather than a dozen), thus making a genuine & serious dent in the Russian military arsenal, whilst also muting the Anti-Americanism that’s become rife around the world. Who do you trust? A slightly wonky, but still ultimately democratic & predominantly peaceful US, or the Russians who are making overt threats of nuclear war? Nice one, Vladimir.

 

In the longer term? What would will happen? Well, my crystal ball goes cloudy here – but Russian political clout is currently based on oil. Now, whilst Siberia is vast, its reserves are finite, so we’re probably going to see its clout diminish over the next 20 – 30 years – even if we ignore a) the desire in the EU to end their dependence on Russian oil (which varies in price, depending on what mood the Kremlin is in during the December negotiations) b) the drive around the world to diminish carbon emissions & c) the bad tone of Russian statements. Meaning, that their influence is going to wane – unless they diversify their economy away from raw-energy production & exports. And for that to happen, they need the expertise, technology and – crucially – markets that the west has to offer. And its hard sell goods to a market that you’re constantly threatening to obliterate. Its bad PR.

 

S