Russia In A Multipolar World

Fyodor Lukyanov has an interesting article in the Spring/Summer 2010 issue of the Journal of International Affairs, published by Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs.  We had a recent post about the Nord Stream gas pipeline and its importance for the growing Russo-European relationships. 

The author notes that Russia "has not acquired a new identity on the world stage since the break up of the Soviet Union."  I think this is the key to understanding why the Russo-American bilateral relationship has been foundering for the last three U.S. Presidencies. 

The old Soviet Union controlled the vast swath of the Eurasian land mass.  When the Soviet Union collapsed, 25 million ethnic Russians did not have a home in the new Russia, something that was inconceivable a decade before.  The consequences of the collapse, the author points out, are not yet known or understood.

The press images portraying President Putin as the black belt judoka capable of standing up to the weak and scurrilous leaders of  the U.S., Western Europe and China  never made much of an impression outside Russian boundaries.  Instead, there remains widespread dismay about how "modern" the new Russian republic really is.

The widespread crackdown and violent killing of Russian journalists is something that is anathema in many countries beyond the U.S. and Europe. While U.S. universities fall all over themselves establishing relationships with their Chinese counterparts, a similarly strong relationship with Russia would seem just as natural for the U.S., but it doesn't exist.  The images of Russian oligarchs duelling in a British court room about the division of billions in value to which they were not entitled seems other worldly.  None of these policies and  images are worthy of a true leader in a multi-polar world. 

For all the talk about a multi polar world, it remains just that: empty talk. Lukyanov dismisses the notion of a world of networked international relationships, without discrete polar focal points.  He rightly points out that our world has yet to find a suitable organizational replacement for the nation state model. 

The European Union was supposed to be the paradigm for the Brave New World in which national sovereignty was sacrificed on the altar of common currency and shared economic benefits.  We now know where that train is headed. Alternatively, the author notes we've had a number of multinational, humanitarian interventions, where a small number (as small as one) of states have acted to counteract evils such as ethnic cleansing. A particular nation's sovereignty was sacrificed because they were being bad actors on the humanitarian stage.  This kind of instrument, as we know, is subject to abuse, and this model has limited application.

To be fair, U.S. conduct of foreign policy has been abysmal through the past three administrations.  The author points out the lasting suspicion and distrust sown by the U.S. unilateral withdrawal from the ABM Treaty in 2001, without consultation or discussion with the Russians.  I don't know if we are capable of having a sustained, rational foreign policy position, but there's always hope.

In Asia, there are many actors vying for leadership positions, such as China, Russia, Japan, and India to name a few. Russia desperately needs a more economically modern, humane and enlightened identity in order to exert meaningful leadership in an emerging multi-polar world.