Russia in the International System

Conference Report

01 June 2001

CR 2001-02

The views expressed in this conference summary are those of individuals and do not represent official US intelligence or policy positions. The NIC routinely sponsors such unclassified conferences with outside experts to gain knowledge and insight to sharpen the level of debate on critical issues.

All photographs were provided by NIMA Ground Photography.

Contents

Panel I - Russia's Evolution
Panel II - Russia's Foreign and Security Policy
Luncheon Roundtable: Impressions from Russia's Regions
Panel III - Russia Viewed From the Outside
Panel IV - Russia Viewed From the Outside (Continued.)
Panel V - Russia in the Global Context
Panel VI - Concluding Session: Highlights and Implications for the United States

Introduction


Russia (map)

In February 2001, the National Intelligence Council sponsored a conference that examined Russia's evolution and its role within the international system over the next three to five years. The conference brought together approximately 100 government and outside experts. It consisted of six panels with presentations by more than 20 US and European nongovernmental experts, followed by question-and-answer sessions. The purpose of the conference was not to arrive at a consensus but to deepen understanding of Russia and how it interacts with the outside world. The views expressed are those of the individual participants and do not represent in any way official US intelligence or policy positions.

This conference report consists of the précis of each speaker's on-the-record presentation, which were provided by the speakers, and a summary of the ensuing not-for-attribution discussions. The report is intended to capture the salient points and original arguments of the proceedings. During the panel discussions, no attempt was made to ascertain the general view of the panel or audience. Many of the points highlighted in this report were noted because they were thought-provoking or outside the conventional wisdom. They illustrate the richness of the discussion, but they do not necessarily reflect accepted or prevailing views at the conference.

Executive Summary

Russia's Foreign Policy
Russian foreign policy in the coming years will be characterized by weakness; frustration--primarily with the United States as the world's preeminent power--over Russia's diminished status; generally cautious international behavior; and a drive to resubjugate, though not reintegrate, the other former Soviet states.

The Outside World's Views of Russia
Russia does not have any genuine allies. Some countries are interested in good relations with Russia, but only as a means to another end. For example, China sees Russia as a counterweight to the United States but values more highly its ties with the United States. Some countries see Russia as a vital arms supplier but resent Russia also selling arms to their rivals (China-India, Iran-Iraq). Pro-Russia business lobbies exist in Germany, Italy, Turkey, and Israel (one-fifth of whose population now consists of Soviet émigres), but they do not single-handedly determine national policies.

Russia's Weakness
Russia's weakness stems from long-term secular trends and from its domestic structure. In essence, the old nomenklatura and a few newcomers have transformed power into property on the basis of personal networks and created an equilibrium resting on insider dealings. These insiders may jockey for position but have a vested interest in preserving the system. The public does not like the system but is resigned to it and gives priority to the preservation of order. As for the economy, it is divided into a profitable, internationally integrated sector run by oligarchs and a much larger, insulated, low-productivity, old-style paternalistic sector that locks Russia into low growth.

Hope for the Future?
The best hope for change in Russia lies with the younger generation. Several participants reported that under-25 Russians have much more in common with their US counterparts, including use of the Internet, than with older Soviet generations. But there was some question over whether the new generation would change the system or adapt to it.

Dissenting Views
Some participants dissented from the overall forecast of depressing continuity.

Panel I
Russia's Evolution


Graphic

This panel examined the current internal situation in Russia, analyzing the political system, the economy, ethnic nationalism, and public opinion. The panel also explored how Russia's domestic landscape is likely to change in the next three to five years.

Chairman: George Kolt
National Intelligence Council


The Political System: From Soviet Past to Post-Yeltsin Future

Geoffrey Hosking
School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University College London

The comparison of post-Soviet Russia with Weimar Germany is often made, and there are good reasons for it. But there are two overriding reasons why, overall, it fails to convince:

For historical reasons, Russia has built up its state system not through institutions and laws, but through persons. Owing to its over-stretched and vulnerable geopolitical position, from the sixteenth century onwards Russia's rulers have had to improvise the mobilization of resources in situations of emergency, and they have done so by using whatever means lay at hand, usually the power of local strongmen, rather than through institutions and laws. This is what I call the statization of personal power.

In tsarist Russia, the networks of personal power ran from the court outwards through landed nobles, provincial governors and police chiefs; in Soviet Russia, the networks ran through the nomenklatura appointments system controlled by local party committees and were directed from the top by the Central Committee of the Communist Party. At each level of political and professional life every employee depended greatly on the personal power and patronage of his superior or employer, not just for pay and conditions of work, but also for housing, food supplies, education, medical care and other basic facilities necessary to everyday life. The Soviet Union was not, as planned, an egalitarian society of abundance, but rather an unequal and shortage-ridden society whose hierarchy was determined by the devices needed to get around the shortages.

The political history of the Soviet Union is the story of the attempts of its various rulers to combat the excesses of the nomenklatura system that they themselves had created. As a result, certain restraints did operate: the NKVD, Gosplan, the party hierarchy itself. Under Gorbachev and Yeltsin, however, those restraints were finally removed. Nomenklatura appointees, especially those at the mid- and lower levels, were able to use their position to turn administrative control into personal possession and to exploit the resources of Soviet society to make considerable personal fortunes. In the process, they allied themselves with operatives from the old underground extra-legal "black" economy, an alliance which helps to explain the widespread criminality that characterizes the post-Soviet economy.

So the contours of post-Soviet society are, literally, post-Soviet. The economy is grouped around large corporate conglomerates, led by individual "oligarchs," who typically have a stake in industry, commerce, finance, and the media. The political system revolves around loose and fluctuating coalitions of activists, each led by an individual, rather than around political parties. In the provinces, the elected governor becomes his own oligarch in both the economy and politics. Society is fragmented and poorly organized to respond to or resist initiatives coming from above.

This political and economic system has now become rather stable, and it may be time to talk of the end of the "transition." Russia has a democracy and a market economy of sorts, even if we in the West do not approve of many of its features.

If that were all there was to say, then one would have to be pessimistic about the future. But there is another side to developments in Russia. That is that Russia is becoming a nation, which it has never been before. Wholly contrary to the intentions of its leaders, the Soviet Union did a great deal to advance the cause of the national consciousness of its constituent peoples, both Russian and non-Russian.

However, the sense of nationhood thereby generated is still incomplete. Few Russians regard the present Russian Federation as constituting what they understand as Russia, and some of the gains of the Soviet period in education and social security have been jeopardized.

Putin would like to strengthen this new Russian state and give it a firmer identity, but the methods he has chosen are contradictory, as will come out later in this conference.

There are dangers in the growth of Russian national feeling. In the past it has tended to be imperialist rather than national. However, I believe there are good reasons for believing this is not necessarily the case right now.

The Economic Transition

Pekka Sutela
Institute for Economies in Transition, Bank of Finland

It was always known that Russia's economic transformation would be more arduous than that of countries outside the former USSR. Historical, mental, geographical and economic "distance" from a market economy was longer. Contrary to other countries, socialism was endogenous: it had been established, developed and defended by the Russians themselves. What is more, in many respects the Soviet Union was the proudest achievement of Russia. Its geographical expansion, military might and global position were stronger than ever before. Even more importantly, contrary to the Central European countries, there was no widely shared understanding of the systemic goal to be adopted.

For the Central Europeans, the overarching goal of "returning to Europe" meant joining the European Union, NATO, the OECD and the rest of the Euro-Atlantic alphabet soup as soon as possible. Joining these clubs with their sometimes hugely detailed membership requirements--the EU Acquis run to some hundred thousand pages--sets a strict conditionality upon the institution-building and policies of the applicant countries. This conditionality may not be the best imaginable, but it has a degree of consistency and proven applicability in other countries. Therefore, though governments and other decisionmakers have changed, the Central European countries have had a high degree of policy consistency, which may have made the most important single contribution to their unexpectedly positive economic and social progress.

Such conditionality was not available to Russia and the rest of the USSR. The European nations have--perhaps unwisely, at least after the status of Turkey as a potential member has been reasserted--denied Russia the prospect of eventual EU membership, usually giving the size of Russia as the reason. By doing this, the incentives of the only unifying goal that Russia might have had were abolished. Most Russians, on the other hand, have been keen to emphasize that Russia has never been and never will be a "normal European country." But like earlier in history, they have been unable to provide the nation with any other consistent and well-defined goal. And like the Cheshire Cat taught Alice in Wonderland, if one does not know where to go, any road will take one there. The conditionality of the international financial institutions has been almost the only one available. Even under the best of circumstances, it will be narrow and technical. In Russia's case, the circumstances were not the best ones, as the IFI's have been under much unfortunate political pressure to use money.

This is probably the single most important explanation for the divergence of Russia's economic performance from that of the Central European countries. The lack of a well-defined and widely accepted goal has tended to shorten decisionmaking horizons and has facilitated the frequent capture of policies by established interests. On one hand, the state has been weak in the sense of lacking a strategy and being unable to act in a consistent way. On the other, it has remained the major route toward power and privilege, disposing of even the seemingly most entrenched persons and groups when their services are no longer needed. Still, Russia has not chosen "any road." The return to the previous regime was never an alternative seriously supported by a major political force. Russia was always in a transition to something new, but it remained unclear what this "something new" would be. Also, the Russian elites have been able to learn from their mistakes. It was possible to argue in the early 1990ís that large budget deficits and high inflation were a means to provide jobs and welfare. Such arguments have lost all credibility. This was shown by the chasm between the rhetoric and actual policies of the Primakov-Maslyukov government. The set of possible policies has shrunk over time. Most talk of some specific Eurasian system has died away. There is a wide consensus on basic macroeconomic policies, but a clear-cut model of institutions and legislation is still missing.

Clearly, this is not a situation where piecemeal social engineering should be attempted. But quite as clearly, arguments about the weakness of the Russian state have been used to justify the lack of consistency and comprehensiveness. This still remains the case. The attempt to combine economic market orientation and political authoritarianism, together with the actual weakness of the presidency hidden behind rhetoric and symbolism, produce hesitancy, a lack of decisions, and a tendency to balance conflicting interests. Equaling the restoration of Russia's might with an unchallenged prestige of the president adds the dimension of attempted "verticalization" of the society, with little room left for an independent society and media. In the economic sphere, the outcome is an almost complete lack of meaningful structural reform.

Russia has become a market economy, but a market economy that is unique in many respects.

These peculiarities of the Russian market economy may well be systemic and not just the unfortunate consequences of the macroeconomic circumstances of 1985-1998. They do seem to characterize an economic system of some consistency and, therefore, staying power, but one that is badly suited for efficiency, equity, growth and welfare. If so, Russia would tend to remain what it is today: an economy the size of a smallish European nation; a factor in the global economy much weaker than, say, Sweden; and a country of large welfare gaps and little dynamism. It would sustain itself by exporting basic commodities and by subsisting on goods and jobs created by protected home market industries. The outward capital flow might well continue to dwarf the inward flow, as is the case now. There would be links between domestic and world financial systems, also some necessary inward productive investment, but as a whole Russia's economic marginalization would continue. Only the most optimistic spokesperson of globalization would argue that this is an impossible outcome. A nation can still step aside from the great change underway.

This is an outcome that the Russian authorities fear. Economic marginalization cannot support great power ambitions. Vladimir Putin has been very explicit on this, but the track record of 2000 tells of an inability to make and implement the needed reforms. The Russian economy may in a sense be less virtual than a couple of years ago, but Russian economic policies remain very much so. The Putin regime had in 2000 a great chance to create the foundations of Russia's future growth. After 2001, that chance may not come again.

The final downside of Russia's economic transition is the inability to address the underlying trends that have been there for so long. The list of these ills is all too long and well-known. Current forecasts for medium-term growth are coming down to three percent annually. If at best the economy will grow quite modestly, the struggle over the meager additions to available resources will to a great extent determine Russian politics in the coming years and decades. As the increase available will in any case be insufficient to cover all urgent needs and there is little reason to expect highly rational decisionmaking and implementation, the probability of ruptures, disconnects and fissures increases alarmingly. The international community has already learned that the possibilities of making a crucial difference in Russia's development do not exist. If the arguments outlined above have any value, then the question will increasingly become one of damage control and limitation.

Ethnic Nationalism and Russia's Republics

Graphic

Emil Pain
The Kennan Institute

The problem of ethnic separatism is undoubtedly of primary significance among the ethnic problems that directly influence Russia's political stability. The main reason for this is the interrelation between federal authorities and the non-Russian-majority republics. If there is a probability of the dissolution of Russia, it is related to these republics.

Accepted public opinion would have us believe that under President Yeltsin, anarchy grew between Moscow and the republics of the Russian Federation, while President Putin has brought order and stability to the situation. An examination of Putin's relations with the republics shows that this is not true. Yeltsin became president of Russia at a very critical period in its history. Russia was feeling the consequences of, and the inertia resulting from, the disintegration of the USSR. He managed, however, to stabilize the situation by making concessions to the republics in exchange for their cessation of separatist agendas. This stability has begun to unravel since Putin began to exert pressure on the leaders of the republics. In response to this pressure, they have revived their nationalist and separatist tendencies. The leaders of the republics do not exhibit their negative sentiments toward Putin's policies openly. Instead, they secretly allow nationalistic movements in their republics to develop.

The creation of the seven federal regions has already created new tensions in the governmental structures of the country. Federal ministers are suspicious of attempts by the President's regional representatives to control the flow of finances from the center to the regions and refuse to cooperate with Moscow's efforts to coordinate the activities of the regional offices of their ministries.

This kind of competition during Nikita Khrushchev's leadership in the USSR led to the collapse of his favorite brainchild, the sovnarkhoz--the prototype of the present-day administrative region. The sovnarkhozy were comprised of 3-4 oblasts, republics, or krays and were often very large territories that were poorly governed. The present-day administrative regions are even bigger (comprising 12-13 regions) and more poorly governed due to the disappearance of the Soviet command hierarchy that had previously provided discipline through the Communist party.

This alone condemns Putin's administrative system to failure. The power of regional leaders should be limited. However, this should be done from below, through the development of municipal self-government, rather than from above, at the risk of concentrating even more power in the Kremlin. Putin's reforms aim to compensate regional leaders for a loss of power on the federal level by giving them more control over the municipalities. This could lead to a further weakening of the already insignificant role that municipal authorities play.

The situation of local self-government is worsening as a result of the changes Putin has made in the proportion of revenue going to federal and regional budgets. Before the changes, the proportions were almost equal: 51 percent went to the center and 49 percent to the region. That 49 percent included 32 percent that went to the municipalities. Today the federal share has increased to 63 percent and the regions' has dropped to 37 percent. But it was the municipalities that got hit the hardest, with their share cut in half, to only 17 percent. At the same time, the municipalities' expenses did not decrease--they retain responsibility for almost three-quarters of the entire housing and municipal infrastructure. As a result, local budget deficits are growing, and many cities have no money to pay for electricity, gas, and coal. It is mainly because of these financial difficulties that many Russian cities and villages (especially in the Urals, Siberia, and the Far East) spent months without electrical lighting and heat this past winter. Municipalities do not have sufficient means to make needed repairs to heating and ventilation systems, and as a result the number of accidents is growing.

Concentration of resources in the federal budget destroys commercial spirit and stifles initiative on the part of regional leaders. The Russian government is fooling itself into believing that regions thus controlled will be easier to rule as they become more pliant. In reality, the opposite is true--less money for regional and municipal budgets means less responsibility on the part of their leaders, and so less can be demanded of them. It should be expected in the near future that the residents of the provinces will increasingly direct their displeasure toward the Kremlin. For the non-Russian peoples, that means a growth of anti-Russian sentiment because federal rule is seen as
Russian rule.

Such feelings were seen in the results of an opinion poll taken in January 2001. Only 5 percent of respondents thought that relations between different nationalities in Russia had improved since Putin's reforms, while 37 percent thought that they had worsened.

The war in Chechnya has contributed significantly to the perception that center-region relations have worsened. Since the beginning of the war, solidarity with Chechnya has grown among non-Russian populations. Practically all Caucasians, including those who traditionally do not like the Chechens, are experiencing some of the same pressures as the Chechens: for the majority of the Russian people, all Caucasians have one face--they are all "dark" and "terrorists."

Even in a strictly military sense, there is little probability of a victory for Moscow in Chechnya, and there is even less probability of an economic victory there. The history of colonial wars in the 20th century shows that when a war drags on for a long time the intervening party will not win for the following reasons:

The changing ethnic composition of the population is the biggest challenge facing Russia. In almost all of the republics of the North Caucasus, Russians are already in the minority. In the Far East and in Siberia, Russians are in the minority only in Tuva, but they will soon become the minority in Buryatiya and Yakutiya. According to some projections, within 10-15 years, there will be about 10 million Chinese living in Siberia and Russia's Far East. This would make them the predominant nationality in this--the largest--area of the federation. But the main danger lies in the Povolzh regions, where Russians already are in the minority in Chuvashiya and soon will be in the minority in Tatarstan and Bashkortostan. The Tartars and Bashkirs increasingly speak of uniting to create one federation. If they were to form such a federation--in the very middle of the country--Russia could split into two poorly connected pieces.

The threat of the disintegration of the country could lead the Russian government to adopt one of two fundamentally different political doctrines. The first is consolidation based on a multicultural society. Unfortunately, I can say that the idea of a multicultural society is absolutely foreign to the present Russian authorities. For this reason, the government probably will use the second doctrine--consolidation based on the growth of Russian nationalism. The last gubernatorial elections left no doubt that the Kremlin is exploiting Russian nostalgia for the Soviet Union and nationalist sentiments in hopes of receiving support in the regions from former Soviet officials and generals.

Current trends in the development of Russia's economy--in particular, the protection of national industry, overdependence on oil and gas, and the arms trade--will also lead to the strengthening of nationalism and imperialist sentiments. These trends, especially in the arms trade and arms production, increase the role of social groups that are the main carriers of the Soviet imperialist mentality and foster a confrontational attitude toward the West. These sources of economic development are unstable, and Moscow may be tempted to explain away a worsening of the economic situation as interference by external enemies, thereby inflaming Russian nationalism to support the consolidation of society.

Russian Society: The View From Below

Vladimir Shlapentokh
Michigan State University

Before the collapse of the USSR, there was a consensus among Soviet sociologists about the opinions of the masses. Over the last decade, the situation has changed significantly. Today, there is a broad range of views among Russian politicians and intellectuals about public attitudes. These images are determined to a great extent by two questions. First, in view of the success of democratic reforms in the Baltic states, who is to blame for Russia's failure to build a new democratic society--the masses, or the ruling elite? Second, considering the character of these actors, what are the prospects for Russian democracy and liberal capitalism in the future?

There are at least three very different models for describing the Russian masses. Each is based on at least some empirical data.

The first--the "eclectic model"--suggests that post-Soviet Russians have an extremely eclectic mind, bordering on schizophrenia. Its most eloquent advocate is Boris Grushin, a famous Russian sociologist. According to various polls, it is true that the Russians maintain opinions that seem, to some degree, contradictory. They reject the Western model of life, but do not want to lose their political and economic freedoms. They accept the idea of having a market economy, yet they favor regulations on prices and upper income levels. They see America as an enemy, but they "like" Americans. They look to the Communist past as a Golden Age, but do not advocate its return. No more than 25 percent of the population votes for the Communists. Almost all Russians despise Yeltsin, yet they support Putin, who was Yeltsin's chosen successor. Furthermore, while they approve of Putin's first year in power, they complain about the rise in prices and the persistent problems of crime and corruption.

The second model--the "uncivilized model"--was developed by Lev Gudkov, a sociologist from the All Russian Center of Public Opinion Studies (VTsIOM) polling firm. This model describes the Russians as uncivilized people who are unable to live under democracy and whose opinions have no value for those who are trying to build a normal society. The masses are said to be lazy drunkards and thieves, who refuse to work hard and honestly but constantly complain about their salaries. They are seen as passive individuals, weary of change, unaccustomed to lofty motives, and prone only to deviant and deeply individualistic actions. Their vision of themselves borders on fantasy. They believe, for instance, that sobornost (collectivism) plays a central role in the life of the people. They suppose, without grounds, that the Russian people are highly spiritual, hospitable, and ready to make sacrifices for others.

Most of the data used to support these two models cannot be disputed, but the interpretation of this information is problematic. A third model is needed to better describe Russian public opinion. Labeling it the "rational model," I suggest that in general the behavior of the masses has been rational in view of the given historical context.

There is no doubt that Russians live in troubled times. Their country is faced with a deeply corrupt and immoral ruling class, to an extent unprecedented in its history. All levels of the bureaucracy--from the Kremlin to the local police--regularly ignore the law. The economy is said to be a free market, when in fact it is dictated by monopolists and criminal structures. The political system allows the Kremlin to prearrange, or even fake, the results of elections. It also allows local authorities to wield arbitrary power. What is more, considering the historical memory of most Russians, they are not prepared to counteract these forces. They see major political protests, such as riots and revolutions, as acts that will only make matters worse.

Under these conditions, the hierarchy of values in the Russian mind looks quite rational. It is only normal for people to value, first and foremost, order in society (in the Hobbesian sense). It is no less rational to sacrifice democracy for this end, especially when the country faces chaos and disintegration (at the same time, most Russians want both order and freedom). According to a VTsIOM survey conducted in 2000, the vast majority of Russians--80 percent--were ready to make such a sacrifice. The yearning for order explains why the people support Putin, even though he is the heir of despised former President Yeltsin. Russians are more concerned about a smooth transition of power and the avoidance of crisis than the leadership's adherence to democratic procedures. This is also why Putin has become known as the "Teflon" president. Any weakening of his authority generates political instability and heightened fear in society, which prompt the reinforcement of his power.

Russians understand that life under the Communist regime was better for most of them, but they realize that a return to the old system is impossible and that any attempt to do so would make life much worse. What is more, they appreciate and are fearful of losing the freedoms that came when the old system collapsed. In the same way, the Russians bemoan the collapse of the Soviet empire, but believe that it belongs only to the past and are against any attempt to use force to control Ukraine and other republics.

Russian attitudes toward the present economic system are quite rational. The majority of the people subscribe to the social-democratic ideals that hold sway in Western Europe and, to some extent, in the United States. They want both economic freedoms and state intervention. They favor a moderate level of inequality as long as there are social guarantees for those who are less successful.

At the same time, Russians would deem it utopian to believe that their society can develop along the same lines as the West. For this reason, they hope it is still possible to maintain some political and economic freedoms, combined with strong authoritarian power. They see this combination as "the Russian road to the future."

Of course, Russians are exposed to the official propaganda. As developments during the Yugoslavian crisis in March-April 1999 showed, anti-Americanism increased dramatically under the influence of this propaganda. However, a few months later the Russians returned to their semi-friendly, semi-hostile attitudes toward America, which are almost mirror reflections of American attitudes toward Russia.

There is no question that the process of desocialization--the rejection of social norms--is taking place in the country. Alcoholism is a growing problem, particularly in the countryside, as are drug abuse and the decline of morals. However, these problems are strongly exaggerated by the ruling elite, who try to shift the blame for their failures onto the masses. Putin is regarded by the people as a strong and reasonable leader, which sharply distinguishes him from the former president. Barring an economic or technological disaster, he should feel confident that the masses will remain eager to preserve order in society, and having no alternative (he and his retinue are sure to quash all competitors), they will support his reelection in 2004--this being the primary goal of the Putin regime.

Highlights From the Discussion

Stability
Putin is popular because of the perception that he has brought stability. This may be, however, a false sense of stability. Putin has been in power for only one year, and while he is enjoying widespread support at present, Yeltsin became a hated figure after three years in power.

The economic constraints and growing geopolitical threats to Russia may be indications of future instability. The conditions are ripe for the emergence of an authoritarian regime. Not even a dictator, however, can fix Russia's domestic situation, make Russia more attractive to foreign investors, and attract the massive investment needed for real economic growth.

Elites and Masses
The level of patience among the Russian people is extraordinarily high. In general, Russians do not protest. They understand the reality of their situation but fear that any action to ameliorate it could result in worsening it. To them, it is not worth the risk.

The masses do not have leaders, per se. They allow the elite to rule, even though the masses are aware of their corruption. At the same time, the masses are dependent upon the elites to keep what little order Russia currently has--they have no one else to turn to.

Economy
Progress toward a market economy in Russia seems to be at an impasse. The economy could improve if Russia were to attract massive foreign investment. Though it is difficult to imagine Russia accomplishing significant improvement to attract the necessary foreign investment, one can imagine a peaceful society. Living in the post-Cold War era has lent some air of stability--a peace dividend--to life in Russia. This may have a positive effect on the development of the economy and democratic institutions.

Russia missed the technological revolution, and, as such, has missed the opportunity to join the global economy. It has few finished goods to offer commercial markets, leaving only raw materials for export. Russia's natural resources and raw materials are currently the only incentive Russia can offer for foreign investment, but they may not be enough. Foreign investors are also looking for stability, rule of law, protection of property rights, and a predictable tax system--all of which Russia is lacking.

Panel II
Russia's Foreign and Security Policy

Graphic

This panel examined the factors affecting Russia's foreign and security policy as well as the possible progression of Russian policy in the next three to five years and implications for the West.

Chairman: Stephen Maddalena
Defense Intelligence Officer for Russia and Eurasia


Russia's Current Trajectory

James Sherr
Conflict Studies Research Centre, Royal Military Academy Sandhurst

If we seek to influence Russia's foreign policy trajectory, then changes in our thinking as well as our priorities are unavoidable. The collapse of the world system of socialism might have delegitimized geopolitical thinking in the West, but the scale of the process and the traumas engendered by it have relegitimized it in Russia. If the mnogogolosiye (multi-voicedness) of the Yeltsin era camouflaged this fact, it should now be apparent. The new leadership is acutely conscious of power relations, extremely conscious of Russian weakness, but determined to use Russian power where it exists and use it toughly.

In two other respects Putin is challenging patterns to which we have grown accustomed and comfortable. During the Gorbachev era and the first half of the Yeltsin era (when a Yeltsin policy was plainly discernible), Russia sought to create the international conditions necessary, in former Soviet Foreign Minister Shevardnadze's words, "to bring about change inside the country." Putin has reverted to a much older pattern established by Stalin and, with modifications, continued by Khrushchev. By means of change inside the country--by addressing internal weaknesses and restoring "the vertical of power"--Putin would restore Russia to its rightful position as a "great power." Internal change (not least of all Chechnya) is now "Russia's business." And our joint business, foreign policy, is not Putin's main priority.

The third discomfiting change is that the area of foreign policy that does have priority is the area closest to internal policy: relations with the "near abroad."

The "Near Abroad:" Antecedents and New Departures
The principle that Russia must be the leader of stability and security on the entire territory of the former USSR is not a new principle, and on more than one occasion it has been applied by means of force. Nevertheless, during the Yeltsin era, there was also a record of accommodation: to the emergence of normal state-to-state relations with neighbors (e.g., the May 1997 "Big Treaty" with Ukraine), to the right of these neighbors to draw closer to NATO (but not join it), and to the appropriateness (on a limited basis) of involving external powers and bodies in regional security arrangements (e.g., the US-Russia-Ukraine Trilateral Agreement, OSCE missions in Moldova, Armenia, etc).

The emergence of a tougher, more active and more aggressive Russian policy is directed not toward integration of Russia's neighbors, but rather their subordination in three areas that the Foreign Policy Concept deems essential to Russian interests: security and combating "extremism," "joint rational use of natural resources," and the "rights and interests of Russian citizens and fellow countrymen." The means to this end are as much transnational as interstate; they also include a more intense and focused active measures component. To Russian security elites, Western conduct virtually mandates such a course:

Set against these developments, the transformation of the CIS into a bloc and an internationally recognized Russian sphere of interest is seen not only as a defensive measure but as a precondition for giving Russia equality in the international system. Determination to exclude the OSCE "east of Vienna" suggests that there even might be areas outside the former USSR--Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Romania--where the future is deemed open.

Policy Toward the "Far Abroad"
To a significant degree, the policy emerging toward the "far abroad" supports the "near abroad" priority. Russian strategic partnership with the European Union, which many Americans fear is intended to distance Europe from the United States, also has more compelling, eastern dimensions: developing lucrative but also geopolitically driven gas and pipeline projects, which in themselves consolidate influence in the CIS; and securing European allies in keeping the former USSR off limits to further NATO expansion. The Shanghai Forum directly engages China--a state as resolutely opposed as Russia to overriding state sovereignty "on the excuse of protecting...human rights"--as co-guarantor of a brittle and repressive status quo in Central Asia. In rattling the saber against the Taliban, the intended audience is probably wayward Uzbekistan rather than this putative enemy (with whom, to judge from Russian initiatives in Pakistan, Russia might be seeking a form of accommodation).

Yet even if we exclude the self-evident, there are other issues which have saliency in their own right. It is now clear (contrary to some speculation in early 2000) that promoting "multipolarity" remains a transcendental cause. But unlike issues closer to home, Russian policy lacks the focus and sureness of touch that Primakov imparted to it. Relations with NATO (a more accurate term than "cooperation") are not a high priority. The proposition that relations between Russia, a single state, and NATO, an alliance of 19 states, should be based upon equality would be difficult for NATO to accept even if, contrary to its own undertakings, it were willing to recognize Russia as leader of the CIS. Yet in the absence of such acceptance, Russia treats the 44-member Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council as a theater of diplomatic struggle. Russia has not allowed dialogue to extend beyond platitudes, it has not permitted participation to affect mindsets, and in drawing up and implementing agreements--e.g., reopening the NATO liaison office in Moscow--it has been determined to keep the devil in the details. Determined for their part to get the relationship back on track, many NATO representatives have been more concerned about having meetings attended, programs submitted, deadlines met, and boxes ticked than using the Permanent Joint Council (PJC) and other forums to address issues of genuine substance.

An issue of high saliency to the United States and United Kingdom--the growing menu of relationships, open and concealed, between Russia and Iran and Iraq--is an example of promoting multipolarity not only outside Europe but within it, bearing in mind French opposition to, and German and Italian ambivalence about, the Anglo-American approach. But it also makes a more generic point: that in the absence of countervailing costs, enterprises that weaken US positions, disrupt Western unity, and bring commercial reward to Russia will be seen by Moscow as intrinsically worth pursuing. An issue of growing anxiety, Russo-Chinese strategic partnership--founded on joint views about the UNSC and excluding the US from "zones of interest," as well as on a vigorous inventory of defense cooperation--remains constrained by issues endemic to the Russo-Chinese relationship: Russia's primordial distrust of China and China's determination not to be shackled by Russia in its relationship with the United States. And on the key issue, Russia-US relations, one may doubt whether Putin has a policy at all.

Russian policy since late 1999 poses opportunities and dangers. The opportunities arise because the new Russian leadership is fatigued and irritated by the pieties of "partnership," the mechanics of "cooperation," and the courtesies that in the PJC and other forums have made it difficult to raise and pursue specific issues of substance. The lesser danger arises because after a period of romanticism, Russia became a variable in Western policy rather than a focus of policy. The greater danger arises because nine years of Western platitudes have left Russians profoundly confused about the extent and limits of Western interests and about what the West wants from Russia. Both opportunity and danger are present in the possibility--whether the issue be Iraq or Ukraine--that the West will react early, toughly, and in ways that focus Russian minds. At that point, President Putin is bound to ask us, "What do you want?" Let us hope we have answers.

Moscow's Perceptions of the Outside World

Celeste Wallander
The Council on Foreign Relations

To address Russian perceptions of its external environment, I would like to begin by outlining Russia's main threat perceptions in connection with the international system. From there, I will outline how this perception will affect Moscow's actual foreign policy in the next few years and then close with an assessment of the implications for American policy.

The current Russian leadership perceives five types of threats to its interests that involve the outside world. Four of these are familiar from discussions throughout the 1990s: national economic and military weakness, American hegemony or unilateralism, exclusion from the most influential political and economic circles in the international system, and instability and regional conflicts around Russia's Eurasian borders. A fifth perceived threat has moved into the main rank only in the last year and was articulated with the government's Information Security Doctrine, signed by Putin in September 2000: information can destabilize Russia's social and political scene, undermine the government's policies, or reveal security secrets of the country.

The first three threats, though distinct, are closely related in assessing how the outside world is perceived in Russian foreign and security policy. Various official documents--including the National Security and Foreign Policy Concepts--state unambiguously that the primary threat to Russia's national interests is its internal economic situation, as well as the failure to undertake serious and responsible reform. Nonetheless, they also state clearly that opportunities to participate in international security, political, and economic forums in the international system affect whether Russia will be able to achieve its objectives for renewal and growth.

This is why, for example, Russian relations with China, India, and Iran are not merely about trading in arms-for-influence but about sustaining and modernizing its defense industry as a component of building the post-Soviet economy. International trade--even the arms trade--is an important engine for internal economic modernization and growth. Given the link between the economy, national power, and security, Russian access to the international system is a matter of security.

Therefore, the current Russian leadership views obstacles to access as at best indifference to Russian national interests and at worst a deliberate policy to undermine the country's efforts to establish a sound economy on the path to consolidating its power and place in the international system. So, for example, American pressure to limit sales to Iran is not merely about loss of a given sale but about undermining Russia's defense industries, military reform, modernization, and so on. Even Russia's emerging problems with the European Union, especially how enlargement will extend trade restrictions and visa regimes to Central and Eastern Europe, is not merely about trade but about security and national power.

In this context, it is impossible to escape the reality that one of the main features of the international system in all its dimensions--military, political, and economic--is that American unipolarity coexists with a system of multilateral institutions (such as the World Trade Organization), regimes (such as nonproliferation), and groupings (such as the G-8) that are overwhelmingly influenced, if not quite determined, by American power and preferences.

This very modern package of national interests and the elements of globalization coexist with the perceived threat of instability, primarily in Central Asia and the Caucasus, and the concrete reality of armed conflict in Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Abkhazia, and Nagorno-Karabakh. Without doubt, Russian policy in the 1990s contributed to these threats through the use of force and interference to maintain Russian influence and presence in the region.

That misguided policy was largely a result of the Russian leadership's inability to distinguish between two variants of the threat and to prioritize them: the threat posed by weak, underdeveloped, and even failing states in the Caucasus and Central Asia, and that posed by the erosion of Russian influence and presence that attended the breakup of the Soviet Union. Despite its liberal and reformist credentials, the Yeltsin leadership never quite repudiated the latter, although it sought to meet the perceived threat posed by the loss of its southern sphere only half-heartedly. The Putin leadership has clearly rejected disentangling the two and more firmly links this regional instability with Russian weakness.

In addition, two new dimensions to this threat perception complicate Russia's policy in the region: Islam and international terrorism. The Chechens' separatist war, in this context, is just one manifestation of Islamic radicalism with international ties and terrorist means stretching from Afghanistan to the Black Sea. It is crucial to understand how instability, Russian weakness, Islam, and international terrorism are linked in the Russian perception, precisely because it means that the policies and attitudes of the outside world are perceived as directly affecting Russian interests. So far, the Putin leadership distinguishes between the regional external influence (which it views as primarily negative because it is the source of Islamic anti-Russian sentiment and the methods by which Russia itself is attacked in the terrorist campaign) and the broader international context. On the latter, the Russian perception is that the West is a potential ally against this threat, because it too has been a target. This perception is the reason Russian officials have suggested joint operations against Usama bin Laden in Afghanistan. However, this could change quickly, as evidenced by the suspicion with which Western support for Georgia is held (given that in the Russian view Georgia contributes to terrorists' access to Chechnya).

All this is recognizable in foreign policy analysis. The new threat--information security--adds a new and troublesome dimension. The Russian perception that information has a strong effect on politics and that in our globalizing world international information influences can play a large role in security is astute. However, the lesson learned appears not to be that a state cannot control information, but rather that it is all the more important to control information, especially that which complicates government policies. Instead of learning that it cannot lie about the Kursk, the Russian leadership appears to believe that you have to lie louder and more consistently and cast aspersions on the sources of alternative information.

This perspective sets up an intrinsic conflict of interest between Russia (or at least the state) and external influences. Good information is necessary for good policy of all sorts, including those central to international economics and investment. Western firms do not want to invest in Russia without access to good information on economic performance and corporate governance. The US Congress does not want to spend more money on CTR without good information about how the money is being spent and what effects the programs have. By establishing a presumption that seeking good information about Russia is a threat to Russian security, the information security doctrine could insinuate an assumption of hostility and conflicting interests in Russia's engagement with the international system.

The result of these perceptions is an ambitious Russia that seeks access and engagement for the right reasons from the American perspective--that is, for economic reform and prosperity--but from presumptions that do not quite fit with the realities of the modern international system in an era of a globalizing economy and the information age. The Russian leadership's fundamental presumption that the United States would prefer to keep Russia weak leads it to assume ill-intent and deliberate policy when problems or obstacles arise, such as desultory progress on WTO accession or criticism of Russian trade with Iran. The very real threat of instability, armed conflict on its borders, and transnational terrorism reinforces the tendency to see larger forces at work that can be met only by force and toughness rather than by long-term political and economic development.

Central to this leadership's perception is that engagement with the international system and practical cooperation with the United States are inescapable realities for achieving national interests. The United States is likely to be faced, in consequence, with a Russian foreign policy that is activist and assertive. It will be pragmatic in its readiness to make deals and to accept compromise in pursuit of its primary economic objectives. However, because these deals are likely to come in areas of Russian weakness relative to the United States and the international system it strongly influences, agreements will be perceived to favor the United States (or West) disproportionately, and therefore are unlikely by themselves to serve as the building blocks of a general improvement in relations.

Russia's Foreign and Security Policy Goals

Mikhail Alexseev
San Diego State University

Whose Goals Matter?
From the perspective of elites in Russia's executive branch, the legislature, leading businesses, state-run industries, science and the media, the goals of Russian foreign and security policy reflect the interests of a three-tiered hierarchy of actors. According to an opinion survey of these elites conducted by the ROMIR polling agency in September 2000, the upper tier is comprised of the Foreign Ministry (named as the principal actor by 92 percent of the 500 respondents) and the administration of President Putin (named by 86 percent of respondents), which incorporates the Security Council and oversees Russia's intelligence services. The second, lower tier of goalsetters is represented by Russia's business leaders (named by 56 percent of respondents) and the Defense Ministry (named by 42 percent of respondents). Regional leaders and the State Duma comprise the third tier, with 35 percent of the elites polled by ROMIR saying these actors exert influence over Russian foreign policy.

What Motivates the Principal Actors?
Delegitimation of ideology. Russia's key decisionmakers were politically socialized and advanced their careers in the context of wholesale corruption of Marxist-Leninist ideology in the Brezhnev era, the delegitimation of Leninism in the Gorbachev era, and rapid disillusionment with free market liberalism in the Yeltsin era. Delegitimation of ideological commitments weakens constraints on power-maximizing behavior. The arrival of President Putin enhanced the political legitimacy of predominantly functional, instrumental approaches to policymaking. In the words of one observer at the East-West Institute in Moscow, "Putin has no mission and is all about function."

"Effectiveness," "pragmatism," and "feasibility" have become buzzwords in formal and informal policy discourses in Russia. One of the central tenets of Russia's Foreign Policy Concept, adopted in June 2000, is that "a successful foreign policy of the Russian Federation must be based on maintaining observance of a reasonable balance between its objectives and possibilities for attaining these objectives." According to Sergey Ivanov, Secretary of Russia's Security Council, the Council used "the standard integrated 'effectiveness - cost - feasibility' criterion" when choosing among five armed forces development programs for the period up to 2010.

Institutional uncertainty (arising from persistent dependency of laws and institutions on individual preferences of the chief executive). Since his arrival in power, Putin has introduced significant changes in key government institutions, such as the Federation Council, that amount to de facto constitutional changes. Some reports suggest he has been considering rewriting Russia's 1993 Constitution.

In the absence of ideological prescriptions and institutional constraints, Russian policymakers have strong incentives for short-term, rent-seeking behavior resulting in what the economists call "institutional traps," or the emergence of small groups of actors with high stakes in preserving the uncertainty and inefficiency. Such traps make manipulative, deceptive behavior a rational norm.

"Reversed anarchy" (a situation arising when chiefs of government facing strong domestic challenges to sovereignty interact with increasingly interdependent international actors, as has been the case with post-Soviet Russia). The collapse of the Soviet bloc and the Soviet Union meant that Russia found itself without in-group identity at the international level. Moreover, Moscow's hold on power at home was challenged by separatist movements in the North Caucasus and the Volga region as well as by regional fragmentation of the domestic economy. In contrast, since the late 1980s key international actors outside Russia have become increasingly integrated economically and institutionally, especially with the enlargement of NATO and the EU. These contrasting trends have keyed perceptions in Moscow that Russia faces a twin threat of being marginalized internationally and of having its domestic weaknesses exploited by other actors. In line with such perceptions, Moscow is likely to assess the costs and benefits of international interactions with regard to their effect on the president's capacity to centralize and consolidate political power domestically.

In the context of a persistent and intractable military conflict in Chechnya, Moscow is acutely sensitive to international influences that may undermine decisionmaking centralization at home. Russia's Foreign Policy Concept denounces "attempts to introduce into the international lexicon concepts such as 'humanitarian intervention' and 'limited sovereignty'."

The Principal Actors' Goals in the Global Arena
Ideological delegitimation, institutional uncertainty, and reversed anarchy provide powerful incentives for decisionmakers to keep their commitments to policy goals fluid, flexible, and fungible. These motivations are likely to make the Kremlin seek quick political and economic gains by maximizing returns on Russia's existing strengths in the military, industrial, and science and technology sectors. At the same time, these motivations prompt Moscow to seek quick symbolic gains to build a positive image in the global arena. The pursuit of status enhancement warrants a strong preference for multipolarity, associated with a reduced capacity of the United States to influence other international actors and enforce rules constraining Russia's quick-gain strategies. Bilateral relations and ad hoc coalitions and alliances are likely to be preferred over longstanding commitments to international institutions and norms, especially those that may undermine the domestic agenda of centralization of political power.

Moscow's principal goals in foreign and security policy are 1) centralization of foreign policy decisionmaking, 2) synergy between political influence and economic gain, and 3) promotion of Russia's great power identity.

Centralization of foreign policy decisionmaking. Moscow currently seeks to reduce the number of competing foreign policy goals and agendas, especially in Russia's constituent regions and republics, seeing this effort as essential to both domestic power consolidation and Moscow's capacity to project influence outside Russia's borders. In a telling example, Russia's Foreign Ministry held a special meeting on January 30, 2001, attended by President Putin and a group of governors, at which the President criticized the Ministry for not doing a better job in coordinating foreign policy. Responding to the criticism, Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov warned the governors that they should not pursue foreign relations without prior approval from Moscow. Moreover, Ivanov criticized the governors for friendly ties with Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, stressing that "the national interests of Russia and Belarus are not identical," thus suggesting that decisionmaking centralization supercedes the stated goal of CIS integration.

Synergy between political influence and economic gain. Specifically, Moscow has sought to:

Russia's elites see economic power as crucial to forging this synergy. Thus, in the ROMIR survey of elites, 99 percent of respondents named economic interests as the top priority, well ahead of defending the Russians living abroad (73 percent) and reaching military parity with the West (68 percent). Three times as many respondents (75 percent to 23 percent) said that economic power was more decisive than military power in achieving foreign policy goals. Perceptions in the Kremlin that the Russian economy is on the rise are therefore likely to make Russia's pursuit of its stated goals more assertive.

Promotion of Russia's great power identity. Specifically, Moscow has sought to:

The Principal Actors' Goals and Public Opinion
As long as power politics in Russia ultimately depends on electoral outcomes, the elites need to take into account public opinion--if only for the reason of manipulating it. Russian public opinion is ambivalent when it comes to supporting the foreign and security policy goals of Putin's government. In January 2001, a ROMIR survey found that only 1 percent of 1,500 respondents said that Putin's primary goal should be to "recreate Russia as a strong power"at the international level. Most respondents want Putin to focus instead on raising their living standards (34 percent) and on increasing efficiency of government agencies (31 percent). My September 2000 survey of 1,010 respondents in Primorskiy Kray found the local public divided over reestablishing Moscow's control over the former Soviet space. The same survey also showed that ordinary Russians still see the United States, Canada and Australia as the best places to work (65 percent) and to live (71 percent). These surveys imply that the Russian people will ultimately judge the Kremlin's foreign policy goals by its capacity to bring living standards closer to those of the leading Western nations. Yet, to the extent that the Kremlin believes that these economic goals can be achieved without modeling free market democratic systems, these opinions are unlikely to persuade the Kremlin to make cooperative and rule-abiding behavior vis-á-vis major Western powers and their institutions one of its principal goals.

Highlights From the Discussion

Missile Defense (MD)
Opinions differed on whether there has been a change in Russian policy toward MD:

Russian Imperialism
Russia's real capabilities vis-á-vis the West are weak, but vis-á-vis its neighbors they are not and they are being used. Nevertheless, Russia faces the danger of overestimating its capabilities in the North Caucasus and Ukraine. Russia still sees Ukraine as part of the Russian state and does not realize the extent to which Ukraine will resist Russian imperialism.

Luncheon Roundtable
Impressions From Russia's Regions

Graphic

During the lunch session, a number of recent travelers to Russia shared their insights into life in the provinces and the views of average Russians:

Highlights From the Discussion

Distance Between the Government and the Governed
Average Russians feel that they cannot influence the course of the country's affairs and that they have little control over their personal destinies. Excessive bureaucracies and the inability of the government to provide basic utilities often thwart the efforts of entrepreneurs in Russia. Vague and randomly applied trade and commerce laws hamper the development of local business and impede access to Russian domestic and foreign markets.

Lack of Unifying Russian Identity
In addition to the considerable wage gap and disparate opportunities that exist in Russia today, other social tensions threaten to undermine the unity of the nation. Russians have little that connects their personal fate with that of the state. The Great Patriotic War was an effective Soviet propaganda tool until the 1970s because it was the sole experience that unified the nation with the state. Now the debate over such things as the national flag and anthem represent an attempt to rekindle that spark in the national consciousness. Posturing against NATO and the United States also symbolizes an attempt to unify public opinion and build a post-Soviet national identity. Language has been the cornerstone of Russian culture for centuries, but the re-emergence of ethnicity within Russia poses a serious challenge to the notion of Russian identity in the future. For example, in Tatarstan Russian is still the official language and is spoken by all citizens. However, the Tatar language has gained more prominence in schools, business, and local government. Tatars have begun to identify themselves by ethnicity first, rather than nationality. Most Tatars do not feel that they are being disloyal to the Russian state, but rather that they are returning to their culture and heritage after decades of oppression.

Chechnya
The war in Chechnya has produced conflicting opinions. There are segments of the population which oppose the war because they believe that it cannot be won and that Russian society is paying too high a price for fighting in Chechnya. Others see the war in Chechnya as a rallying point of national pride and a necessary effort by Moscow to control renegade
provinces.

Patience Versus Determinism
A debate arose over whether Russia's apparent passivity--as evidenced by the lack of public protests against the war in Chechnya and other hardships and social ills--represents patience or determinism in the national character. Some contend that Russians are a patient people, who will suffer quietly the transgressions of the state against its citizens. Others maintain that Russians are determinists, a people who have resigned themselves to an existence of disappointment, hardships, and injustices due to the harshness of past tsarist and Communist regimes.

Panel III
Russia Viewed From the Outside

Graphic

This panel examined how Russia is viewed by key outside actors. Specifically, panelists explored how Russia fits into the foreign and security policies of the following states and regions: Iran/Middle East; Turkey; India; and China/East Asia.

Chairman: Enders Wimbush
Strategic Assessment Center, Science Applications International Corporation


The Iran/Middle East Perspective

Geoffrey Kemp
The Nixon Center

Key Middle Eastern countries have different perspectives on Russia. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union aligned itself with radical Arab countries and provided abundant weapons, often as grant aid or at cut-rate prices. It also provided political support in international fora. Today, Russia's role has been reduced, but it remains an important actor with very different relations with a number of Middle Eastern countries.

The Soviet Union was extremely hostile toward Israel despite its early support for the state at its creation. Today, with nearly one million Russians living in Israel, the relationship has become much more fluid. The Russian constituency in Israel is growing in importance, politically and economically, and this has reverberations in Moscow. Hence, despite Israel's concern over Russian support for Iraq and Iran and its meddling in Syria and Egypt, Israel regards Russia as an important country that can, at times, be helpful in both political and economic arenas. Several of the niche markets that Israeli high-tech industry wishes to exploit have potential outlets in countries of the former Soviet Union--hence the frequent visits by Israeli businessmen to Russia and vice versa. There is every indication that Israel wishes to have good relations with Moscow and that President Putin will sustain this relationship. The Russians are well aware that adopting a hostile attitude toward Israel would hurt their interests, including their relationship with the United States. Israel also needs to cooperate with Russia to counter the criminal activities of the Russian mafia, which uses Israel as a base.

Syria and Egypt both had close ties to the Soviet Union at various times during the Cold War. They now are willing and eager to be friends with Russia, though Egypt is in no position to resume an arms relationship and has no interest in doing so. Syria would like to receive further Russian weaponry, provided that the financial dimension can be resolved. Syria still owes Russia billions of dollars for arms purchased from the Soviet Union. Likewise, Libya still retains a military relationship with Moscow and sees Russia as a supplier of weapons that it cannot get from the West.

Russia has retained close ties with Saddam Hussein despite the fact that Mikhail Gorbachev and the Soviet Union supported Operations Desert Storm and Desert Shield (though it will be recalled that in the last days before the war began the Soviet Union intervened diplomatically, hoping to prevent a war). Close ties have been particularly evident in the relationship between Yevgeniy Primakov and the Iraqi regime. Baghdad clearly regards Russia as one of the key powers capable of offsetting American pressure. Russia has been a leading voice, along with France and to a lesser extent China, at the UN Security Council to remove sanctions, or at least dramatically reduce them. Moscow has also been vague about condemnation of Iraq over UNSC violations. Russia clearly has financial motives. It is owed billions of dollars for arms that Iraq purchased from the Soviet Union. Russian companies would benefit greatly if sanctions were lifted, and Iraq would be in the position to eventually rebuild its military arsenal, if and when sanctions are removed. However, this mutual cooperation has its limitations, and one should not assume that a full-fledged alliance between these two countries is possible anytime soon, so long as the Saddam Hussein regime continues to obfuscate on the WMD issue. Yet, from the Iraqi perspective, Russia must be high on its list of foreign policy priorities.

Iran also sees Russia as a strategic ally. Mutual interests override disagreements (the latter include disputes over the ownership of the Caspian and the potential for Russia and Iran to be competitors in the energy field). The two countries share common ground in opposing American policies in the Caspian Basin. Russia is a source of military equipment that Iran cannot get from the West. It is also providing Iran with the nuclear technology to complete the Bushehr nuclear reactor. Moscow and Tehran strongly object to the American policy of promoting east-west oil and gas pipelines in the Caspian region that would bypass both Russia and Iran. Iran assists Russia by downplaying the Chechnya crisis and generally being more supportive of Armenia than Azerbaijan, which is in keeping with Russian policy. Iran and Russia share suspicions of Turkey and NATO, especially NATO expansion. Iran sees Russia as an ally in the context of its worsening relations to the east--especially with Afghanistan and Pakistan. Both Iran and Russia regard the Taliban and its supporters in Pakistan as being the pathfinder for dangerous, radical Sunni Islam movements that could spread across Central Asia and ultimately into Russia itself. Ironically, Iran, which was the object of vehement opposition in the early days of the revolution when it was spearheading revolutionary change, now sees itself as a status quo power, resisting the radicalism of the Taliban and its supporters in Pakistan. Furthermore, both Russia and Iran have good relations with India.

Despite common interests, Iran is wary of Russian behavior, particularly toward Saddam Hussein. Iraq remains the most serious threat to Iran, no matter what rhetoric it uses to demonize the United States and Israel. As a consequence, the rehabilitation of Saddam and the rearmament of Iraq would be a matter of grave concern in Tehran and would strengthen the case for both an Iranian nuclear capability and further modernization of its conventional armed forces. Supporting such programs might be tempting for Russia, but doing so would also raise problems. Russia has gotten into deep trouble with the United States over the support Russian entities have provided to the Iranian surface-to-surface missile program. Iran is aware that if Russia has to choose between the United States and Iran, it will probably choose the former. Iran recalls that China also supported Iran's nuclear industry a few years back but then cut off most of the ties once it became clear that the United States demanded that it do so.

Turkey's Perspective

Alan Makovsky
Washington Institute for Near East Policy

Among Turkey's major bilateral relationships, those with Russia are probably the most complex. There are four, often non-complementary, dimensions to Turkish-Russian ties. Ankara simultaneously sees Russia as a significant security threat; a rival for political influence in the Caucasus, Central Asia, and elsewhere in the region; an important trading partner and market for Turkish construction companies; and a crucial source of energy. These four dimensions overlap, clouding Turkey's view of bilateral ties, with one element or the other dominant at different times and for different Turkish constituencies. Leading analysts differ over how best to characterize contemporary Turkish-Russian relations. One of Europe's leading Turkey scholars, Heinz Kramer, describes it as a "cold peace;" one of Turkey's leading Russia scholars, Duygu Bazoglu Sezer, describes it more optimistically as "virtual rapprochement."

This complexity is a post-Cold War phenomenon. During the Cold War and even in the first years after it, Turkey saw Russia, almost without differentiation, as an enemy and a threat. The blossoming of economic ties; the easing of bilateral conflicts over CFE, Kurds and Chechens, and the Straits; and the reassuringly poor performance of the Russian military in the 1994-96 war in Chechnya softened Turkey's attitude, however. Turkish-Russian relations have not settled into a stable post-Cold War pattern yet, and Turks remain suspicious of Russian intentions. Nevertheless, in a post-Cold War world that has seen numerous examples of "return to history," Turkey and Russia--whose imperial forebears fought over a dozen wars--have forged hopes for manageable relations. Indeed, defying the odds of history, there has even emerged in Turkey a pro-Russia lobby of sorts, consisting of businessmen who do business in Russia and are highly influential in the Motherland Party of Mesut Yilmaz, a former prime minister and now Deputy Prime Minister of Turkey.

Probably acting at the behest of his pro-Russian supporters, Yilmaz was the driving force behind a controversial project that is emerging as the centerpiece of Turkish-Russian relations: the so-called "Blue Stream" project, a trans-Black Sea pipeline that would deliver some 16 billion cubic meters (bcm) per year of natural gas to Turkey. Turkish decisionmaking on this project, which, if realized, would probably render Turkey energy-dependent on Russia for years to come, was shaped by urgent national energy needs, as well as the pecuniary motives of Turkish businessmen centered in Yilmaz's party. However, it is also justifiable in wider strategic terms, and it is unlikely that it would have progressed as far as it has without the acquiescence of Turkey's military-dominated security establishment, which presumably views the matter strictly from a strategic viewpoint. There is still some possibility that Blue Stream could be derailed by technical infeasibility or by an ongoing corruption scandal plaguing Turkey's energy ministry, which has spearheaded the project.

Security
Turkey sees Russia as considerably weaker than it was during the Cold War but nevertheless as the strongest (and only nuclear-capable) power in Turkey's region and far stronger than Turkey itself. Less intimidated by Moscow than it was during the Cold War, Turkey is still loath to confront Russia directly. A recent regional threat assessment prepared in the Turkish War Academy was surprisingly mild regarding Russia. Taking into account Russia's "important economic, social and political internal problems," it noted simply that "uncertainties in Russian foreign policy need to be closely monitored."

Turkey provides military training and other assistance to Azerbaijan and Georgia. Yet it would not risk military confrontation with Russia in defense of either of these states. Rather than antagonize Moscow, and under US prodding, Turkey accepted increased CFE ceilings for Russian troops and armor in the Russian Caucasus in 1999 (Ankara remains discomfited, however, by Russia's ongoing troop presence in and arms transfers to Armenia, as well as its failure to meet even the enhanced CFE limits).

Whereas Ankara strongly criticized Russian actions in the first Chechnya war of 1994-96, it has been far more restrained during the more recent conflict, notwithstanding the considerable sympathy the Chechen cause evokes in Turkey, particularly among the tens of thousands of Chechen-origin citizens there. While raising humanitarian concerns, Prime Minister Ecevit has publicly acknowledged that the Chechen war is a Russian "internal affair." There are several reasons for the greater Turkish restraint. Most important and obvious is realpolitik. Ankara wants to avoid unduly antagonizing Moscow, which suspected Turkey of aiding the Chechen fighters during the fighting in 1994-96. Likewise, Turkey generally looks askance at any breakaway movement anywhere, given its preoccupation with its own territorial integrity. Moreover, Turkish restraint regarding Chechen rebels is a disincentive to Russian support for Kurdish rebels in Turkey. During Ecevit's November 1999 visit to Moscow, Turkey and Russia signed an anti-terrorism agreement, in which each side pledged not to harbor terrorist opponents (read: Chechens and Kurds) of the other's regime.

But there are other reasons for Turkish restraint on the Chechnya issue that suggest a newly perceived commonality of interests with Russia on Ankara's part. The aforementioned War Academy report acknowledges that the Chechen conflict "worries us with the possibility of a spillover into the region." Although unstated in the report, this worry probably focuses on the Islamic fundamentalist dimension of the current phase of the Chechen struggle. Many critics charge that Russia has exaggerated the Islamist threat in Chechnya, but no issue is more sensitive for the secular Turkish establishment than fundamentalism. Further, some Turkish officials privately express concern that a Russian defeat in Chechnya could inspire other breakaway movements in the Russian Federation, leading to its unraveling and ensuing regional chaos. Turkey prefers a Russia that is relatively weak but also one that is intact.

Political Rivalry
Turkey is Russia's main competitor for political influence in the Turkic-language states of the former Soviet Union as well as Georgia. Initiated by Turkey, six Turkic Summits have been held since 1992. The summits generally avoid sensitive political issues despite Turkey's initial effort to guide them in that direction.

Turkey and Russia also often find themselves at odds on various regional issues, both inside and outside the former Soviet Union. On the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute, for example, Turkey is Azerbaijan's strongest backer, while Russia is Armenia's. In the Balkans, Turkey strongly backed the Bosnians and Kosovars, while Russia backed the Serbs. Ankara also sees Russia as sympathetic to the Greek Cypriots, based on Moscow's efforts to sell them S-300 anti-aircraft missiles and the presence of considerable Russian off-shore banking activity in Cyprus. Russia is also perceived as close to Iran, Turkey's ideological foe. At one time, Turks spoke frequently of an "Orthodox alliance"--consisting of Greece, Serbia, Russia, and Armenia, with Iran and Syria sometimes cited as fellow travelers--seeking to encircle Turkey. That type of accusation has become less common, however, as Turkish-Russian relations have improved in recent years.

The arena of most intense Turkish-Russian competition concerns oil and gas pipeline routes for transporting the energy resources of the Caspian Sea. Backed by the United States and its concept of an "East-West energy corridor," Turkey has advocated a pipeline that would carry Azerbaijani Caspian Sea oil westward from Baku through Georgia to the Turkish Mediterranean port of Ceyhan--the so-called Baku-Ceyhan pipeline. Turkey has also supported the so-called Trans-Caspian Pipeline (TCP), which is projected to carry Turkmenistani gas across the Caspian and then follow the same route as Baku-Ceyhan. Russia has sought to undermine both of these projects, which would weaken Moscow's leverage over its former Soviet provinces. Russia apparently wants to monopolize the importation and distribution of Turkmenistani gas and wants a pipeline from Baku to the Russian Black Sea port of Novorossiysk to serve as the main export pipeline for Azerbaijani Caspian Sea oil.

Other areas of post-Cold War Turkish-Russian competition have eased in intensity in recent times. Compromise, facilitated by bilateral contacts, have brought Turkish and Russian positions closer regarding CFE, Turkish safety provisions in the Straits, and, as noted, the separatist threats faced by both states.

Economic Partnership
Russia has emerged as one of Turkey's most important economic partners in recent years. In fact, before its 1998 economic collapse, Russia had become the number-two consumer of Turkish goods (after Germany). Officially recorded Turkish exports to Russia reached $2 billion in 1997, with perhaps another $4-5 billion in unrecorded--so-called luggage--trade. The official figures for 1999 and 2000 were little more than a quarter of the 1997 total, and luggage trade likewise has dwindled, but overall trade volume remains high. Thanks mainly to gas purchases, Turkish imports from Russia amounted to roughly $2 billion annually from 1995 to 1999; in 2000, with gas prices soaring, the figure surpassed $3.5 billion. Turkish investment in Russia, mainly by the construction sector, remains significant; estimates vary between $6 billion and $12 billion. Economic relations with Russia mainly reflect economic interest, of course. At the same time, it has contributed to a growing sense of economic interdependence, which has eased somewhat Turkey's security concerns about Russia.

It is doubtful that Russian imports of Turkish goods will reach pre-1998 levels anytime soon. Nevertheless, Turkey and Russia are likely to remain important trading partners for the foreseeable future.

Strategic Energy Resources
Of all the bilateral economic projects, none has wider implications--nor is more controversial in Turkey--than Blue Stream. Already the major component of Turkish imports from Russia consists of natural gas. In fact, Turkey is increasingly dependent on Russia for gas to meet rising domestic energy demand. For some time, Turkey has been receiving 6 bcm of natural gas annually from Russia. This arrives via a pipeline that circumscribes the western portion of the Black Sea, traversing Ukraine, Romania, and Bulgaria on the way to Turkey. This pipeline is being expanded and soon will carry 14 bcm of gas to Turkey. If Blue Stream is successfully completed, Turkey's annual natural gas imports from Russia will rise to 30 bcm, perhaps some 80% or more of Turkish consumption. Turkish officials say this figure would gradually decrease to approximately 35% as significant amounts of natural gas from other sources--Azerbaijan, Iran, Iraq, and possibly Turkmenistan--come on line.

Blue Stream critics fret that this situation will give Russia unprecedented political leverage over Turkey, and they charge that Turkish businessmen and officials, motivated by legal and illegal gains, have effectively hijacked the nation's national security interests. Proponents offer a variety of justifications. Foremost, they cite Turkey's rapidly growing energy needs and the fact that Blue Stream, if technically feasible, offers a direct and legitimate gas route without the political complications of challenging US-led sanctions (Iran, Iraq) or arranging transit (Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan) from other sources. Some proponents deny that the project will give Russia leverage; a hard-currency-starved Russia, they say, would be just as dependent on Turkish payments as Turkey would be on Russian gas. Other advocates say that the timing of the project mitigates its strategic risks--that is, that Russia is likely to remain relatively weak and preoccupied with internal affairs during the period of greatest Turkish gas dependency. Some Blue Stream supporters even claim to see strategic advantage for Turkey in the project--as a means to foster Turkish-Russian economic interdependence and thus enhance regional stability, or as a "payoff" to Russia to encourage Moscow not to block Baku-Ceyhan.

Conclusion
Turkish-Russian relations are generally a post-Cold War success story. Ankara has developed an improved dialogue and an unprecedented level of economic ties with Russia, which gives both states an important stake in a peaceful, stable relationship and increases the prospect that they will pursue their political rivalry in the Caucasus and Central Asia without resort to overt hostilities. This more positive pattern of relations has not fully taken root, however. Ankara remains wary of Moscow's intentions and worries that it will regain its former strength. With memories of historical hostility never far below the surface, this newer pattern of ties must prove durable before mutual suspicions, now somewhat in abeyance, fully abate.

India's Perspective

Enders Wimbush
Strategic Assessment Center, Science Applications International Corporation

Many states along Russia's periphery have developed mutually convenient relationships with Russia, and occasionally even strategic alliances (for example, China several decades ago and Iran today), while for others Russia embodies all that their strategic cultures have evolved to resist (for example, Poland and Turkey). In contrast, a defining element of India's strategic culture virtually since independence has been its relationship with Russia, a symbiosis that yielded significant dividends to both parties.

Since the collapse of the USSR, this symbiosis has eroded, but the relationship has endured. However, today Indians view Russians through a different set of prisms and filters, and the image of Russia in the international system that comes through to them has a very different strategic texture from only a decade ago. One could see this clearly during Putin's visit to India last year. He was received warmly as an old friend, and much of the media commentary about the visit stressed the importance of their historic cooperation and friendship. But there was another side to the commentary in the private remarks of policymakers and strategists. "What can Russia do for India today?" they asked. Most concluded that Russia would remain a friend--even a close friend--but instead of offering a more comprehensive sense of strategic security, Russia could now only sell them arms.

Indians now have different expectations of how Russia will behave in the international system and a different way of calculating the meaning and importance of Russian behavior for India's own strategy making. Nowhere is this clearer than in what has happened to the old notion of strategic equality. During the Cold War, most Indians insisted that their relationship with Russia was one of equals, that India was not just a client state. Few outsiders accepted this claim, and it is reasonably clear that the Russians did not believe it either, no matter how ardently they proclaimed it for the Indians' benefit. India was largely viewed by outsiders as the junior partner. Today most Indians insist that the relationship is no longer one of equals, that India is preeminent because it is rising while Russia is declining. During his recent visit to Delhi, Putin was frequently characterized in Indian media as arriving with his hat in his hand, the supplicant. This played well to the Indians' sense of pride at having arrived, or at least of being well on the way toward becoming a serious power, but there was no sense of schadenfreude. Russia's decline is a serious worry to Indians.

On the one hand, Russia remains their principal supplier of high-tech weaponry and other artifacts of national security. Evidence from just the last 18 months demonstrates conclusively that the armaments umbilical cord from Moscow to Delhi is as strong as ever, perhaps even more so now that it is loaded with cash heading north. India has signed agreements to buy a large number of sophisticated SU-30 fighter/interceptors and will produce several hundred more on license. The same is true with tanks. Just this week, India signed a multi-billion dollar commitment to buy 132 fully assembled T-90 tanks--thought by many experts to be the equal of any in the world--and, again, they will build many more on license. For the navy, Russia is selling India submarines and a second aircraft carrier, the Admiral Gorshkov. These marquée items are in fact just part of a substantial technology transfer from Russia to India that covers a number of key security sectors. In this respect, an impoverished Russia that needs to sell its best assets is nicely in balance with an India that is expanding the inventory of things it needs to achieve its national security objectives and has more to spend to achieve them.

On the other hand, India worries that its advantage is fleeting because Russia is selling similarly sophisticated military equipment and associated technologies to India's principal adversary, China. Thus, while Russia remains visibly engaged in the part of the international system that affects India most, the strategic component of Russia's engagement, from an Indian perspective, is eroding from being once highly favorable to India toward uncertainty and perhaps toward a dangerous strategic schizophrenia. While Russia is still there for India, it is now also there for India's enemies.

Moreover, many Indian military specialists wish to wean India from its near total reliance on Russian hardware because Russia often cannot provide spares or repairs (currently about half of the SU-25 fleet is grounded for lack of spare parts, and to renovate their aging fleet of MiG-21s India has had to go to Israel). And while most Indian military planners will acclaim the quality of Russian armaments, most confide that they would prefer to develop new supply relationships with the West, particularly with the United States, where the technology is believed to be superior. The sense that buying Russian is buying second-rate is an increasingly powerful sentiment.

Russian efforts to put a political band-aid on these apparent contradictions--for example, by repeated offers to create a "strategic alliance" among Russia, India, and China--are transparent to Indians, who say privately that the only reason Russia proposes such things is not because it is strong but because it is so weak.

In fact, the concern one hears most frequently expressed by Indian strategists is that Russia will become too weak. Unlike other states on Russia's periphery, for whom Russian weakness is on balance a boon, for India the specter of a weak Russia is disturbing for three main reasons. First, as India's strategic counterweight to China in Eurasia, Russia, as noted, is now actively upsetting the balance or even tilting it in favor of China, which creates a new range of challenges and threats that India has never had to address and that it is currently ill-prepared to address. According to a number of Indian strategists, India's decision to become an openly nuclear power in 1998 was based in part on Russian weakness.

Second, Russian weakness in Central Asia compounds India's immediate and long-term problems there. In the short term, the chaos in Afghanistan and parts of Central Asia over which Russia might once have exerted a strong restraining influence is now free to spread, and most Indians believe--correctly it appears--that it will spread southward, infecting Pakistan and, eventually, possibly India's large northern Islamic population. In the longer term, Russian weakness in the core of Central Asia creates a vacuum, especially in energy-rich Kazakhstan, into which China will expand. Among Indian strategists, one frequently hears the term "encirclement" by China, and they view Central Asia as part of the top of a China-dominated circle of states that includes most of Southeast Asia, Burma, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. In this sense, Indian national security specialists believe that Russia's weakness encourages India's encirclement.

Third, a weak Russia leaves India with no conceivable strategic anchor in Asia, a deprivation it has never had to face. When Russia was strong, India had the luxury of not having to develop strategies and capabilities for much more than its frequent conflicts with Pakistan. Today, it faces a range of challenges that formerly might have been obviated or eased with Russian assistance--for example securing energy flows overland from Eurasia or by sea from the Persian Gulf, or securing a seat on the UN Security Council. Indian strategists tend to see Russia as grasping mightily for its slipping greatness but in fact able to provide little more to India than what India can buy from Russia with hard cash.

Indians still trust Russia, which perhaps is a residue of the genuine friendship of Cold War days, but clearly they do not trust it in the same way they once did, and they fear that weakness will propel Russia into doing things that could drive India further away. For example, one finds little support in India for Russian adventures in Chechnya or the South Caucasus, which draw the West's ire at a time when India seeks to explore new strategic relationships with the West, especially with the United States. In fact, Indian reaction to most Russian foreign policy initiatives--in the Arab world, in Iran, in Cuba, etc.--has been muted, if not ignored altogether.

India's view of Russia in the international system can thus be summarized generally as follows:

  1. Russia will continue to be a purveyor of key military equipment and technologies on a business basis. India's dependence on Russia as a supplier will remain and perhaps even grow in the short term, as it strives to address national security threats from several directions.

  2. The strategic synergies between Russia and India that formerly characterized the relationship are disappearing. Indians are uncertain where Russia is going or how it might behave, but increasingly they see Russian behavior as strategically contradictory for India.

  3. Russian efforts to entice China into an anti-American relationship, driven largely by transfers of technologies from Russia to China, are deeply worrisome to India.

  4. Russia's weakness could upset the geopolitical balance in Eurasia to India's disadvantage.

The China/East Asia Perspective

Jonathan Pollack
Naval War College

Russia at present occupies a constrained but potentially more important role in East Asian geopolitics and economics. Its liabilities and limitations as a major regional actor derive from its severely degraded political, military, and economic position within the region following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and its inability since then to reconstitute its power and position on an alternative and more sustainable basis. Its most substantial breakthroughs (but also the ones entailing the most significant longer-term risks for Russian strategic interests) concern a resurrected relationship with China encompassing negotiated border settlements; security and confidence building measures among Moscow, Beijing, and the Central Asian successor states; and the resumption of strategic ties, including political-military consultations and a growing arms transfer relationship. After a partial political pause following Vladimir Putin's assumption of power, these relations now appear to have gained additional momentum, with Russia's defense industries ever more dependent on Chinese purchases and coproduction arrangements to maintain their viability. In addition, Chinese officials proved far more prepared to explore enhanced political-strategic understandings with Moscow in the aftermath of NATO's intervention in Kosovo and the US bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. But a long-sought political breakthrough with Japan--as distinct from the development of non-adversarial relations, and upon which a truly consequential strategic transformation could well depend--continues to elude Russian policymakers.

Though many analysts assert that East Asian actors see relations with Russia as secondary to their larger strategic calculations, this judgment neglects or minimizes the prospective value that various states attach to Russia, albeit for different reasons. For the Chinese, in particular, the characterization of Russia as "strategic partner" is more than a label, though this should not be construed as providing Russia with major leverage over Chinese decisionmaking. This includes negotiations over a new political treaty that could be signed later this year. Some of China's senior leaders were educated and trained in the Soviet Union, speak Russian, and acknowledge the vital role of Soviet assistance in China's industrialization and modernization efforts of the 1950s. They also tend to view closer ties with Moscow as a prudent and necessary step in response to the predominance of American global power, though a more formal, binding coalition does not seem warranted by either under prevailing circumstances. In addition, Russia and China maintain shared interests in curbing potential dangers around their periphery, including the risks posed by ethnic and religious activism in or near vulnerable border areas.

But Russia has as yet been unable to vest China in a more durable relationship premised on complementary developmental needs. Potential development of Siberian energy resources and the investment resources, for example, constitutes a long-sought but still elusive goal for Russian policymakers. But longer-term regional energy requirements (and not only in China) would appear to favor far more meaningful Russian involvemen