Russia…is it dangerous?

With constant media attentions concentrating on the meteoric rise of China, are we forgetting another possible hot spot? The wounded behemoth that is the former Soviet Union remains politically unstable…

Russia has spent much of the last century politically isolated from the world we know; yet we feel we should judge it by our own standards. Less than 15 years ago Russia ended the most significant socio-political experiment ever undertaken, and now struggles to emerge in a world it does not recognise.

Less than a hundred years ago this divided nation butchered its own royal family and dislocated itself from its own history. Tired of near serfdom the subjects had revolted and demanded change. The world’s largest country, after a bloody civil war, had committed its people to communism.

The new Soviet State had many enemies both internally and abroad. An ongoing war in the West with Germany had to be resolved, and an Imperial Japan to the East. In order to be strong Russia would have to be united. Peace in the west brought an opportunity for enormous economic growth and with Stalin’s ambitious five years plans the nation rose from its agricultural roots and became an industrial powerhouse. Stalin even enlisted one of the world’s greatest capitalist’s Henry Ford, to help him adopt modern manufacturing techniques.

Russia experienced its Industrial Revolution within the last 80 years, and became a global superpower in less than 50 years. Thousands even millions perished during the transition. But thousands died during our civil war, during our Industrial revolution, and millions have starved during the potato famine in British ruled Ireland. Yet we hold our civilisation in such high regard, and look at Russia with disdain and scorn. There can be no excuse for the murderous purges of Stalin, but he was psychotic but to judge the whole communist experiment at “evil” is ignorant. There was great progress during this time economically, but also socially. Capitalist notions of supply and demand were redundant, so no Keynesian slack in the workforce could be tolerated as unemployment was outlawed. Internal travel was cheap allowing people to visit dispersed relatives. Medicine and healthcare was provided, as was accommodation and holidays.

For one second imagine organising a project of this size?

This is not some organic capitalist model, born out of feudal rule a la Britain, France and America. The Soviet project transformed a continental sized region of the world from monarchic rule and suppression to the successful Socialist Union of the post Stalin era. We can sit pretty in our cosseted Western existence knowing that our developed societies will protect us from the harshness of the world. But we enjoy this safety thanks to the millions who perished before us on the very land we call home.

Russia again faces such a transition. Embracing liberalised market policies it has seen its resources pillaged by Oligarchs, it has seen its once great health service creak and splutter, and it has been unable to protect its many citizens who have relied on the state to provide provisions. All in the name of capitalism.

Putin is wrestling with corruption and gangsterism and has resorted to authoritarian rule naming federal rulers himself. If the social fabric of this nation was unravelling we would be shouting from the roofs for authority and the rule of law. When Putin term is up who will provide Russia with the stability it needs? Putin inherited one of globes most unstable regions in the Caucuses, where religious and tribal hatred is rife. Again Putin has to deal with terrorism, murder, and war. And as we are now finding in Iraq a mix of tribal difference and religious fundamentalism can be a cocktail of disaster. But still we expect Putin to embrace democratic accountability and western values.

Many Russians do not want democratic representation over chaos; they desire stability, safety and leadership. They have seen inflation wipe out their savings, they have seen their cities become corrupt and dangerous, and watch as Russia becomes weak abroad. This explains the rise of nationalism in Russia and the lionisation of Stalin once again. They welcome the safety and collective strength of their past. Maybe Putin is not authoritarian and aggressive enough?

Russia remains dangerous but it is because of Putin’s strong rule that it has remained relatively stable to this day. Without Putin where would the Russian people be now?

I have visited Russia (Siberia) and the people I have met are proud to be Russian. They do not want to see their country raped by the hungry international corporations and they do not want to become a lapdog to America. Putin offers his people strength and stability. He knows that isolation would mean Russia collapsing so he remains committed to protecting its regional influence against American interference (see Kyrgyzstan where US agents funded and supported pro-US political movements). There remains significant anti-Russian sentiment within Washington (this is somewhat understandable) and the power and influence of Putin is undermined and as a result he is viewed as weak at home. What does the West hope to gain from this, Russia’s total collapse and the suffering of millions?

In order for reform on a massive scale and the re-gearing of a giant economy the country cannot possibly hope to embrace the democratic freedoms that developed and stable nations enjoy. This will come eventually but for the benefit of global permanence we need to support, engage, and endorse Vladimir Putin, because the alternative is far more unsettling….