#23 - JRL 2008-70 - JRL Home
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008
From: Stephen Shenfield <sshenfield@verizon.net>
Subject: Contribution to the debate on "Russophobia"
I agree with Tsygankov that the propaganda war between Russia and the West
reflects a real conflict of material great power interests, although many of the
foot soldiers in this war are no doubt perfectly sincere in their concern for
human rights, democracy, and so forth. But I would like to clarify what I see as
the essential nature of the great power conflict.
Yeltsin enjoyed the full support and indulgence of Western ruling circles not
because he was such a great democrat but because he obeyed the dictates of the
IMF, allowed Western "advisers" to take control of domestic economic policy, and
kept Russia open to Western capital as an export market and field for
investment. When keeping Russia on this course seemed to require firm action,
they encouraged Yeltsin to stage a coup and shoot up his own parliament. So much
for democracy!
At this time it appeared that Russia was going to be absorbed into the brave
new world of capitalist globalization as one local administration among many
others at the beck and call of supra-national Western capital. In this context
it was possible to indulge Russian pretensions to a sphere of influence in the
post-Soviet space. After all, what difference did it make if all the post-Soviet
countries were to be open to the "globalizers" in any case?
Putin has, in essence, withdrawn Russia from globalization and established
national capital, based on an alliance between the state and "patriotic"
oligarchs, as master in its own house. Conditions have been created for Russian
firms to compete on the home market and the role of foreign capital in key
fields of investment has been drastically curtailed.
So now there is a real question about the position of Ukraine, Belarus, the
Southern Caucasus, etc. Will they be extensions of the newly independent Russian
market or will their ties with Russia be severed in order to facilitate their
globalization? The conflict of interests in this zone has become much clearer.
Looking to the future, it must be borne in mind that the US is quite
incapable of sustaining the global role it has assigned to itself. For some
decades the US has been a declining power in relative terms. This is a long-term
trend. The contrary impression caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union was
largely an illusion, because the decline of the US has little to do with
whatever happens in Russia: it is a function of the rise of Europe, Japan,
China, India, etc.
The US decline is now accelerating. It could have been spread out over a
longer period, but Bush in his wisdom decided to act in such a way as to
accelerate it. The dollar is rapidly losing its position as the world's trading
and reserve currency. Together with the massive and still growing national debt,
this is right now triggering a recession on a scale unseen in the postwar era.
Nor is it only a matter of a bankrupt economy. The long-neglected domestic
infrastructure (bridges, etc.) will be undergoing progressive collapse. The wars
in Iraq and Afghanistan have already exhausted and demoralized most of the army,
and if Iran too is invaded that is sure to finish the job.
So however self-deluded some US politicians may be, they will have no choice
in the matter. They will be forced by events to abandon the dream of
globalization and world power and pull back from all areas of the world except
those they regard as most vital (which does not include Russia or the former
USSR) -- and perhaps even from those. "Russophobia" will no longer be relevant.
They will have many much more pressing things to worry about than Russia
(actually they already do).
So in the unlikely event that the Russian rulers and those who advise them
were to ask for my advice, I would say this. Stay calm. Play for time. If
together with China you can deter Bush from attacking Iran in the next few
months, many people throughout the world will be greatly beholden to you. By
this time next year you may well be facing a very different US -- much
chastened, much less cocky, much more inward-looking (a very suitable
orientation in the circumstances). It is high time to start giving serious
thought to what the "post-American" world will be like and how we are going to
cope with its problems.
|