For the last two months, at every single conference I have been to, I saw experts or officials who start to be dismissive about Russia again. Many start assuming that after a few years of powerful and assertive foreign policy, Russia will again turn into a weaker and more compliant partner for the EU. A bit like in the 90s. With a fall of some 80%, Russia’s stock market was one of the worst hit in the world (worse than US, EU, China, Brazil, India and you name it); its total external debt is now bigger than its financial reserves; its pipeline ambitions and shopping spree of European assets undermined by lack of access to credits from Western banks. All this will undoubtedly affect Russian foreign policy, and it will change the rules of the game in the shared neighbourhood that comprises Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus and the South Caucasus states.
Both Russia and the EU will have fewer resources – money and political attention – to be too preoccupied with their neighbours. Their neighbourhood policies will be increasingly under strain. Russia certainly has fewer resources for the kind of expensive, uneconomical, strategic investments in has been doing in the neighbourhood for years.
However, the Russian neighbourhood policy is there to stay. Russia’s interest in maintaining a sphere of influence survived the much deeper crisis of the 90s, and will certainly survive the current one. Russia’s project for the neighbourhood was not an opportunistic and temporary endeavour fueled by high oil prices. It stemmed from a deeply engrained Russian view of itself as a pole of influence in a multipolar world. The current economic crisis will not change that. Especially because the Russian neighbourhood policy is not all about money. Many of its elements – like military presence, manipulation of secessionist conflict, church and media influence, security assistance, strong diplomatic presence – have been instruments of power in the 90s, and will remain so. The global economic crisis changes the rules and the instruments of the game, but not the game itself.
#1 by Georgi Kamov on February 25, 2009 - 2:35 pm
Totally agree. This Russian stance is a fact that many people don`t want to recognize. That`s why many of the proposed strategies towards Russia have a wrong starting point – that Russia might/must change its mind completely.
#2 by Stanislav on February 25, 2009 - 5:16 pm
If we look into the identity debate in Russia throught 90s, „near abroad” figured high on the agenda of every school of thought from liberals to eurasianists. If 90s proved something is that the Russian identity is resistent to constrains of international environment. Therefore, it is extremly naive to think that Russia’s self-assertivness (announced in Munich speech and Russian FP concept08 and performed in Georgia) will determinastically evaporate in 6 month under pressure of economic crisis. More than that Russia regards recent crisis as a window of opportunity in the post-Soviet world. Credits and financial aid poured into „near abroad” during the last 2-3 weeks and Manas base affair demonstrate clearly this stance. Besides, 40% of Russians according to latest poll think these investments are highly profitable for Russia.
#3 by Marcel Calero on February 26, 2009 - 3:28 am
Russia’s “neighbourhood policy”, whilst understandable, is inefficient. If Russia really wanted to reintegrate surrounding countries into it’s sphere of influence then it should concentrate on strengthening the fundamentals of its economy, through education and infrastructure investments, rather than just its military and petro-empire. If Russia were a wealthy, peaceful state then countries such as the Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, perhaps even Georgia at some point, would all naturally gravitate towards Moscow. They would do so for many reasons: geographic, cultural, pragmatic, historic, linguistic…
Whilst many countries might be willing to tolerate a wealthy bully that subsidizes their economy, they most certainly are less likely to tolerate a poor, bullying Russia, and will only fall back into line when forced to do so under military pressure.
Naturally this falls squarely into the filed of “soft power” and can only be considered a long term policy. It may not be as fast as invading a country, but think of how far Russia could come if it adopted an EU-NATO-style approach; in 50 years, like the EU, it could be linked to dozens of states surrounding it’s borders, all without having to fire a single shot. What’s more, it’s own citizens would be all the better for it.
#4 by Bart Van Vooren on February 26, 2009 - 4:51 pm
Russia’s neighbourhood policy is surely here to stay, but in what form? My girlfriend is from western siberia, and was recently telling me about what appears on Russian official news channels on TV. Apparently, Russians are warned not to travel to Ukraine because they should fear physical violence from angry ukrainians. Similarly, I was in Tomsk myself during the crisis in Georgia, and saw first-hand psychologists analysing whether Saakashvilii has schizophrenia and why he tried to kill himself, followed by repeated images of the humanitarian intervention in that country. The point is that it is surely wrong to become dismissive of Russia as an international power, and if state propaganda is anything to go by, surely a wounded bear is more of a problem/threat than a healthy well-fed one.
#5 by Wim Roffel on March 2, 2009 - 12:37 pm
Both the EU and the US have followed a policy of pumping a lot of money in small countries (the Baltics resp Georgia). There is no way even a rich Russia can match such pinpointed attacks as they would have to share the same favor with big neighbors like the Ukraine.
I am worried about the anti-Russian mood of the comments. In my opinion Russia is a part of Europe and it is in Europe’s interest to build the highways, railroads and trade contacts so that Russia’s people feel more connected with Europe.
#6 by Nicu Popescu on March 2, 2009 - 1:04 pm
Wim, why do you think it is anti-Russian? Of course Russia is part of Europe, and the EU have to build as many links to Russia as possible. But the questions is what kind of Europe does Russia want to see? that is not so clear…
#7 by bella on March 22, 2009 - 4:40 pm
Win, you bare absolutely right! Why do you all try to teach Russia how to lve?! Would you like to be one of those sleeping people Saakashvily orgered to shoo in August 2008?! I am from Russia but was in Tshinval those days with a group of internationa journalists. Would you like to live in constant danger?! Do you know what means GENOCIDE?! South Ossetians know it quite well!!! I am from North Ossetia and I am a Russian citizen/ But South Osstians are our brothers and sisters/ We speak the same language, have the same culture,have the same roots. Georgia doesn’t want to live in peace with the people of South Ossetia. They need only the territory of the republic.When you try to accuse Russia only try to try on South Ossetian shoes
#8 by Buy to let mortgages on April 22, 2009 - 12:49 am
It is completely naive to think that this crisis will change Russian policy for neighbouring states. Do you think Russia is incapable to implement its foreign policies? It is not exactly all about “sphere of influence”. We forget that these neighbouring countries were all members of the Soviet Union and they have a lot in common.
#9 by Josh on August 18, 2009 - 4:59 pm
If Russia really wanted to reintegrate surrounding countries into it’s sphere of influence then it should concentrate on strengthening the fundamentals of its economy, through education and infrastructure investments, rather than just its military and petro-empire.