A pragmatic new foreign policy may be a plus, but it does not mean that Russia is ready to make any changes at home

Another poorly written unti-Russia artcle.

Here are a couple of examples:

"Russian troops remain in part of Georgia" - lie, Russian troops remain in independent republics of Obhasia and South Osetia. How the Kosovo case is different?

"Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the former Yukos boss, is still in jail." - he is a criminal charged with numerous criminal code violations. How Berny Merdoff is different?

"Russia has not abandoned its claim to a privileged interest in the neighbourhood". Super. That's economy. Does the EU act differently: "Brussels has warned Ukraine that, were it to join this customs union, it would jeopardise its partnership with the EU." That's greenmail.

"After a decade of rising oil prices and budget surpluses, Russia is running a deficit and looking to borrow money." All countries sometimes run deficits, sometimes proficits. That's life. How much did Russia borrow? US$ 5bn? % of GDP? I see.

"After years of exploiting differences between old and new members of the European Union, Vladimir Putin, Russia’s prime minister, has realised that EU solidarity is more than mere rhetoric." Wishful thinking. Which solidarity are we talking about? I haven't noticed much recently, when real problems came to play.

"The foreign-ministry document talks of the need to project the image of Russia as a democratic state with a socially oriented market economy—but says nothing about the need actually to become one" - Since when the Foreign Ministry works to resolve internal matters? In which country? This is laymenship.

Very very short-sighted and illiterate article. I thought the Economist could be better than this.

Very good article on the perils inherent in Putin's Russia, and the fact that the "neigbours" may not feel secure still totally with Russia's proclaiming a "privileged interest" to those countries conquered either by the tsars or communists.

I liked the author's "The main problem is not that Russia defends its own values (it has few) but that its leaders think the values gap does not exist and the West is hypocritical to talk of it. The risk is that when modernisation fails, Russia will blame the West for sabotaging it."

This Russian inability to look for problems within its own corrupt regime and to always blame the West for everything wrong is deep-seated amongst many Russians. When economic downturns happen in the U.S., the American people do not go and run and blame some "Russian" conspiracy which would be ridiculous. But in Russia this is different. For Stalin, it was saboteurs. For modern Russia, it is the West. I especially like the sharp comment that Russians view Western talk of "values" as hypocritical, because Russians have no major values to add to the world community themselves: the rule of law? NO The Division of Powers in authority? NO Spreading democracy and rule of law? No.

But Putin plays on his Russian subjects' paranoia to strengthen his authoritative grip on power. Medvedev may mouth words, but Putin decides how if any plans for modernization will proceed. The Reporters without Borders organization clearly puts Russia in the lump at the back of countries with no free press. And Putin, just not too long ago, I believe had the audacity to claim the Poles set the precedent themselves for concentration camps!, to avoid having Russia face Katyn fully. Russians have to face their bloody past, warts and all.

Do the common Russian people really feel and enjoy having their press censored? How can a country democratize and liberalize when there is no transparency allowed! It is impossible. Modern, powerful countries need economic transparency in order to invest, solid property rights, and a society where the Courts are NOT subservient to the top Vertical Power. And a country that doesn't want to give up its dream of Empire, in the 21st century, is lost.

The Economist's writer is also spot on when the correspondent writes: "Barring a few appeasers, most governments in Europe, including Germany’s, have no illusions left about Mr Putin’s Russia: its weak property rights, high corruption and the symbiosis of state power with private financial interests." In which country are so many members of the state so bloody rich from this symbiosis of syloviki and oligarchs.

When the EU stands up for its members in united fashion, as behind Poland, it forces Putin to stop his neo-Soviet approach to that democracy, and forces him to play nice, as opposed to launching threats. Without Germany standing up for its ally Poland, Russia under Putin would have continued bullying Poland. A bully will only stop when he faces a united opposition to his bullying. Maybe the era of cyber attacks on Europeans states and energy blackmail are coming to an end?

As the author judiciously notes: "the Russian shift has occurred without significant change inside the country. Russia has not become less corrupt or more democratic. Russian troops remain in part of Georgia; Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the former Yukos boss, is still in jail. Russia has not abandoned its claim to a privileged interest in the neighbourhood." Neighbourhood? The country can barely get its own act in order.

As the article states, the Russian state should lose its taste for "Stalin" and work to change itself to a modern, civilized state. Nine years under Putin has not allowed this. As long as Putin stays and all power is vertical in Russia with no competing civil society allowed to operate, things will look grim for Russia and also for its neighbours who have to live by the Russian authoritarian regime which regime sees the whole foreign engagement as a O sum game, just as it did during Soviet times.

Another ignorant article written by the Economist on Russia. let's go through some of the claims
Russian troops remain in part of Georgia
The Economist blasts Stalin but yet it legitimizes one of his decisions .Ask any ossetian or abkhaz and they will tell you they dont want to be with Georgia and they always resented Stalin's decision.The Economist talks about democracy and yet denies the will of these two minorites whilst at the same time supporting the rights of albanians to independence.
"Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the former Yukos boss, is still in jail."
Why the Economist continues to defend this man baffles me.In 1998,it wrote an article implicating him in the murder of a Siberian mayor.Common sense will tell you that he is a thief and a brutal one at that, after all the man became a billionaire at a time when the country's GDP shrank by 60%.I ask you how is this possible if not through asset stripping.The man has more or less admitted that he broke laws.As a matter of fact he never denied that he committed the actions he was accused of in the first trial ,only insisting that his means were legal and that everyone was doing it which is not the case as there were laws against what he was doing.Futhermore as we now know ,Khodorkovsky was looking to buy off duma deputies so that he could get laws passed in his own favor.The economist mentions how he financed opposition parties but forget to mention that he also financed united Russia.
"Russia has not abandoned its claim to a privileged interest in the neighbourhood".
Does n't the US continue to live by the monroe doctrine almost 200 years after it was introduced?What do you think America's response will be if a great power tries to extend its influence to the Western hemisphere?Read the recent western media articles about events in Ukraine and Krygzstan.Don't they talk about how it is the west's loss and Russia's gain.I mean is anybody really naive to think that spheres of influence dont exist anymore?The only reason that it has not been talked about until recently is because obviously the US has not had any serious rival for influence in any part of the world.Only since the south ossetian war in 2008 has any competitor for influence with the US emerged (in Russia's own backyard).
"Barring a few appeasers, most governments in Europe, including Germany’s, have no illusions left about Mr Putin’s Russia"
Which is why France is discussing to sell ships to Russia,EU countries now snub Saakashvili in favor of Russia,Russia has concluded a number of deals with Turkey,a number of countries have signed up to join South Stream and relations with a number of countries is strong.
"The main problem is not that Russia defends its own values (it has few) but that its leaders think the values gap does not exist and the West is hypocritical to talk of it. "
What part of this is not true?People get beheaded in Saudi Arabia and there are a lot of restrictions on other rights .The west is silent about human rights abuses here ,in China and in allies such as Egypt,it makes noises about elections in Russia but is quiet about electoral fraud in Afghanistan.It blasts Russia over Stalin but is quiet about slavery ,the genocide of the Native Americans and american war crimes in the conquest of the phillipines and about the fact that Nazi veterans are celebrated as heroes in the Baltic states.It talks about respecting Georgia's territorial integrity whilst forgetting about it in Serbia ,it talks about Russia being aggresive after it launched a war in iraq on a false pretext and it talks about Russia's torture of Chechen rebels whilst at the same time it ignores what happened in Abu Gharaib and Guantanmo.
"Dmitry Trenin, head of the Moscow Carnegie Centre, argues that Russian foreign policy under Mr Putin has always been more defensive than offensive. It is shaped more by vested financial and political interests than by ideology or geopolitics. Russia’s return to business as usual was made easier by Barack Obama’s reset policy (seen in Moscow as an admission of past mistakes) and the shelving of NATO expansion."
Any idiot can see this is the case.After September 11 th ,Putin was the first to call Bush.Things changed when Bush began expanding Nato to Russia's borders and started building an ABM shield at its doorstep.It is funny how the Economist takes into account the history of Eastern European countries dealing with Russia but ignores the fact that Russia was subjected to a number of invasions in the past 1000 years (Mongols,Swedes,Napoleon ,Germans) all of which were brutal and left a fear of invasion.Even Gorbachev is against NATO expansion.Is it a coincidence that relations have improved since NATO expansion is no longer possible?
In conclsuion,this article yet again shows the Economist's one sided approach and lack of objectivity regarding Russia.Nothing that Mr.Putin does is ever good enough for the Economist.

I think many here have missed a crucial point about Russia – it is currently a carcass of its passed greatness. One trip to Moscow and you will gain a sense of walking in the capital of an Empire with all the cultural trimmings. Statues that commemorate past great people from writers to revolutionaries; statues commemorate great events and let’s not forget this “was” a country of technological marvel from its great tall tower, through its own Concorde to even its own space shuttle (yes you read it right – Russia built a few Space Shuttles too).

Russia doesn’t want to modernize as a “nice” polite country (that happens to have the largest geographic area in the world). Russia wants to come back with a strong say at the table. It wants to be a mover and shaker in the world arena. It wants to have those glory technological inventions that give its people a sense of pride in returning to its former greatness.

When we (as foreigners) talk about Russia, I can’t help but sense that average Russians are insulted that we view them as a “spent force” and a “developing nation” which is still not able to come in line with “modern” or “Western” principles.

My personal belief is that most Russians don’t get it – democracy comes with rules such as transparency, freedom of speech and property rights. It’s not just about that “voting and Capitalist thing”.

Russia has only gone through its first democratic revolution (to get the voting and capitalist thing sorted). Russia’s second democratic revolution is showing to be more painful and difficult (that freedom of speech, freedom of association, transparency and property rights).

If Russia truly wants respect at the table it simply has to come to terms with the fact that it is ingrained into Westerners mindsets and DNA that without the second revolution characteristics, in the eyes of Westerners, Russia will remain relegated to “developing status”.

Westerns are stubborn about this mindset. Western history has made this concept a foundation of our democracies and we simply won't budge on this principle - granted some of our leaders may falter, but the principle makes sure we return to the right path.

Russians are truly marvelous people every bit as capable as anyone else to achieve greatness, but until they have gone through their second democratic revolution, they must come to terms that they will face push back from westerners.

As a classic case example, Blake 123 has probably summarized the Economist article in light of the “Western Principles” in the best way whereas in contrast Vladimir from Moscow has best characterized the pre-second-democratic-revolution Russian view.

The Economist: "Russia’s new détente implies no political change at home".

In fact, it seems that Russia considers countries like Georgia or Eastern Romania (Rep. Moldova) ... as home. Maybe EU should ask Russia ... "Just please tell us how many countries do your consider as your home, and which ones."

That was always problem with that "smiling face": it has no values, so it feels at home everywhere!

another anti-russian economist article. what is new? blah, blah, blah. i mean, i know what your dream is: having a multitude of weak easily controlled banana republics 9kind of like georgia or "eastern romania" instead of a powerful state like russia. keep on suckers.
ioan: eastern romania? there is no such country. stop dreamin. and transistria ( what u referring too) has never been a part of any romania

@Plen:

Very impressive analysis of Russia, the Western mindset, and the Russian take on things.

I'll (mildly) disagree with the term "second democratic revolution", while entirely agreeing with your basic points, because "freedom of speech, freedom of association, transparency and property rights" (and a few other things) are essential for the "voting and Capitalist thing" to have any meaning, for voting to be anything other than a charade, and capitalism to be anything other than more efficient exploitation of the many by the few.

@Vladimir:

Spot on about certain of the preconditions for liberalization in law and politics, but to them add one thing more, the most important thing. Individual persons must feel that they have a right to be act independently, and to publicly demand redress when government orders them about or suppresses their voices.

The concern that many of us foreigners have about Russia is that the current regime is not merely doing nothing to advance Russian citizenship, as citizenship is understood in the rich world, but that it is systematically suppressing the efforts of Russians to learn how to be citizens by acting like ones.

Whether through politically-motivated trials under laws never debated in any parliament, the secret murder of journalists and activists who say inconvenient things, the ever-changing rules governing business, the government and academic culture of secrecy about history, or simply through his obvious drive to control the entire political space, Putin's always made it clear to ordinary Russians that they don't run Russia - and if they try to solve the problems they see around them on their own, someone big and powerful will stop them.

If, Vladimir, you wonder why so many of us foreigners keep saying such hurtful things about your country, there are essentially three reasons:

1) The Russian government is not merely brutal and authoritarian, but is doing a good job of making sure it never gets replaced by any government that isn't both of these things,
2) Russia is big, angry, nationalistic, well-armed, wants more from its neighbors than they are happy to give, and
3) We've never known a case in history where the combination of #s 1 and 2 didn't eventually get a lot of folks killed.

As soon as a new article has been published by the Economist the process of presenting the same stale "Whataboutism" as a bright stroke of some newly discovered Russian "wisdom" is invariably repeated. What we are witnessing again on this forum is a coordinated campaign by a few Russians to infiltrate any discussion forum flooding it with their half-baked "Whataboutimistic" arguments.

As a reminder, here is a partial quote from a recent statement by the Reporters without Borders:

"Government supporters are quick to react to criticisms posted online, “drowning” the latter in a sea of positive comments. The most virulent among them formed a group called the “Brigade,” of which some of them are paid members. They notably infiltrate discussion forums and sometimes discuss matters very harshly, not even hesitating to use insults and threats."

Sounds like what we find on the Economist forum, doen't it ?

There is one and only one reason that Russia nowadays appears more friendly with the West - deceipt
It wants to leave the West with the impression that it wants to re-consolidate ONLY its old sphere of influence in the Former Soviet Union (minus the Baltics) - it has done this with big strides, the most prominent of which - the latest elections in Ukraine (I don't count the revolution in Kyrgyzstan - the country had nowhere else to go; nevertheless having it cuts the options of Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan to link with China efficiently). Kazahstan and Belarus are firmly in the bag with the new Customs Union and I expect that Ukrain and the small stans will be joining it soon.

If you appear hostile, you would raise concerns in Europe but if you appear friendly to the Europeans, then you would be the good guy and the Americans - the war mongers. Russia realises that at present it stnads no chance of imposing its will on the former Soviet satelites (all NATO and EU members) but when it consolidates back the former USSR, things will change. And all the while it will support the EU - in order to appear more friendly and roll back American influence (something that Germany and France will not mind at all).
But Russia has no interest in a strong and consolidated EU in the long run - the EU has twice the population of the former soviet countries and ten times the economy. If it became a consolidated military force Russia will be in toruble
Russia will therefore consolidate the former USSR and then it will come back with a vengance. Because it cannot allow for the EU to consolidate.

Poor Europeans, so much hatred... I guess these are true European values. Hatred and Imperialism.

Facts: The EU is an expanding land empire brining 'freedom' to the world, just like 'Faith' in the Crusades.

I guess the Europeans never learned to abandon their imperialistic ideas and to live freely and happily. Well, any land emprire falls apart - that's in the history books. And when the true European hatred for others breaks out - the EU will fall apart. And I guess they will blame Russia for subbotaging the EU, as usual.

Ioan,

It seems more likely that Romania considers Rep Moldova as home. Unfortunately, you can feel at home only in Moldova.

From EU's side less hypocrisy and more of a rational, pragmatic approach, please!

""The main problem is not that Russia defends its own values (it has few) but that its leaders think the values gap does not exist and the West is hypocritical to talk of it. ""

Perhaps the West needs to shut up and let people run their own lives instead of trying making the rest of the world like them? if that is not imperialistic what is?

For many posters, Anti-Russian means anything that stands in its way as it seeks to become an empire once again. With Chinese partnership and no change from the old governance-by-fiat values of the 20th century, we can all be sure of how an SCO run world would look: much like domestic governance in the RF or PRC. Not credible.

It is time for the members of NATO, the EU and US to get together and hammer out replacement defense and foreign policy organizations that are not infiltrated by Eastern intelligence services as the EU and UN have been. There cannot be balance in Asia, Eurasia, Europe or the western hemisphere without secure organizations in parity. That means that lines must be drawn, firm principles enforced, and no more appeasement of Cold War build-ups in the East while drawing down in the West. There must be a fair exchange which tips to the constitutional democratic record of governance and legitimacy. Failing that, the PRC and Russia will set the trend from autocratic cores.

My blog: Analyst Bluepapers at www.analystblues.com

Russia however is experiencing a great demographic decline and it doesn't have sound economic fundamentals. Any union it might patch up will not last long because the people in that union will not be living well and will demand change, no matter how hard Moscow will attempt to crack down on them.
Previously the Soviet Union had against it declining and senile West European empires, tired of war against each other and took advantage, but now it has a virile and relatively young power that only realised itself as global a little more than half a century ago. A power that cannot be meanigfully threatened in its own hemisphere; is one of the leaders in innovation and technology; comprises a quarter of the world economy; third largest population (if we don't consider the EU a single power, which it is still not); and has a defnece budget larger than the rest of the world combined. Plus all its allies in Europe - the UK, the Scandinavian countries and the former soviet satelites - from Estonia to Bulgaria.
I don't think that Russia will survive this century consolidated - it almost disintegrated because of the ruble crisis a little more than a decade ago but the Wast stepped in to help.
I'm not sure it'll come to the rescue next time

What do you mean by "the West"? Because Russian relations with France, Germany, Spain, Italy or Greece have been very good during the last decade. Just remember Schroder, Chirac and Berlusconi friendship with Putin...

By "the West" you mean obviously just the U.S. and the U.K. which is the more marginal nation inside the European Union as demonstrated by their rejection to any support to other nations of the E.U. if given the chance.

Ths same way as in your article about Brazil and Iran, you are completely wrong because for Spaniards and Portugues Brazil is as much "the West" as America. In fact, I thing that America is becoming a non-Western nation as Huntington foresaw.

@Plen

Fair enough. Your western history teaches us that the 'second democratic revolution' comes when people have something to lose in terms of property and wealth (no matter how significant), while the 'first democratic revolution' gives them the opportunity to amass such wealth (again, no matter how significant).

Well, give Russia some time to amass its wealth and don't make Russia angry in the meanwhile (one thing most of European politicians consider a must to do to score politcal points) - will cost a lot (in economic terms) in the future once the Great Russian public is a little richer.

The article states "when modernisation fails..." but this begs the question of what Russia would regard as a successful modernization. Primarily, there is a gap between Western assumptions of what the word means (a structural alteration in the economy towards sustainable innovation based on property rights) and what Russia probably means (a sustainable one-way transfer of intellectual property enabling an endless succession of home-made lower-cost copies of products developed elsewhere). If the Russian perspective is adopted, it is by no means obvious that such modernization will fail. It is entirely plausible to imagine a world in which Russian consumers enjoy an ever-wider range of domestic goods provided both by Western and Russian companies, and even that Russian companies can generate significant revenues by means of exporting such knock-offs to a great many other countries in turn. While this might not be a very good outcome for Western companies (because innovation generally doesn't happen fast enough for them to remain competitive in the face of lower-cost producers) it would be a very satisfactory outcome for Russians.

Medvedev seems to be nice guy but while Putin is in charge, nothing much will change...

one more thing
"Russia’s rapprochement is fragile since it hinges on an idea of modernisation that is unlikely to succeed without liberalisation. "
Never mind that this has taken place in taiwan,south korea,spain,china ,chile and singapore.