Subject: rf080410 Bovt-Why Moscow doesn't have a lot of friends
http://www.moscowtimes.ru/article/1024/42/361658.htm
Why Moscow Doesn't Have a Lot of Friends
04/10/2008
Some members of Moscow's political establishment considered the recent
NATO summit in Bucharest a partial victory since Georgia and Ukraine were
not invited to join the alliance. But far from saying "no,"
NATO promised that these countries would eventually become
members.
But the main questions for Moscow are: Why are two members of the
Commonwealth of Independent States so eager to join NATO? Why do our
allies want to establish closer ties with the West? Why does the prospect
of better relations with Russia hold so little appeal?
Russia currently has only two staunch allies among CIS countries. The
first is Armenia -- a country that is going through difficult economic
times, is dependent upon Russia for its energy supplies and has chilly
relations with most of its other neighbors. Russia's other ally is
Belarus, a rogue state ruled by a dictator with whom even Moscow
sometimes has difficulty maintaining a dialogue.
The Kremlin has a few theories as to why the former Soviet republics find
NATO membership so appealing. The most popular explanation is the
conspiracy theory. This scenario has the United States continuing its
Cold War struggle for global influence by displacing Russia as the
dominant player in the CIS region. According to this theory, Washington
wins the favor of the political elite in the republics and then foments
color revolutions against Moscow to prevent it from regaining power.
Conspiracy theorists believe that the United States' main objective is to
seize Russia's limitless natural resources and take direct control of the
country, or else to exercise indirect control by reducing Russia to an
"appendage of the West" that submissively supplies it with raw
materials.
According to this theory, the foreign policy of the United States and its
allies reflects a single aim: to encroach upon Russia using every weapon
in its arsenal -- propaganda, economic pressure and even direct military
intervention.
A competing theory holds that the political elite in the former Soviet
republics are the ones pushing for NATO's expansion. These leaders
supposedly view their countries as being too small to have any voice
among European nations unless they gain membership in powerful
international organizations such as NATO or the European Union. Some
among the Russian elite believe that Ukraine and Georgia fear losing
their status as independent countries unless they join NATO or the
European Union.
These different views reflect the worldviews of the various factions
within Russia's political elite. Any attempt to dissuade them from these
convictions is futile. Anti-Western, and especially anti-U.S., sentiment
has reached such heights that the Kremlin summarily dismisses worthy
arguments without even listening.
While these theorists heap scorn on the West, they don't bother to ask
whether Russia could be a more appealing partner for its neighbors. Using
the energy card as a negotiating tool against other countries clearly
won't do the trick. Neither will preaching about the virtues of a
multipolar world and the vices of a U.S.-led unipolar world, and taking
every possible opportunity to criticize the West while rejecting any
constructive proposals it puts forward.
Russia must first offer its own society -- and only later the world -- an
attractive model for development that other countries would want to
follow. The government should formulate a set of political principles
that it would be able to manifest in actual deeds, not just words. Only
then can these values and principles gradually take root in Russian
society.
Then, Moscow's foreign policy would serve as a logical continuation of
those principles practiced at home. Unfortunately, this strategy is not
part of the Kremlin's agenda.
Georgy Bovt is a political analyst and hosts a radio program on
City-FM.
Back to the
news list
 Copyright 2007. The Moscow Times. All rights reserved.
|