- (december 2007)
The revival of one-party capitalism.
Vladimir Putin in Russia announced that he handpicked his successor,
Dmitry Medvedev, who in turn announced that he will offer Putin the job of
prime minister. The Russian parliament will probably slightly change the laws
to make the prime minister more important than the president, and Putin will
reign again over Russia, this time for an unlimited number of years (presidents
are barred from running more than twice, but prime ministers have no time
limit). The West was slow in understanding where Putin was heading for.
Russia and China have both adopted a similar system, learning from each other.
China learned from Russia that democracy causes the disintegration of the
empire (as it happened to the Soviet Union).
China learned that you have to control information and suppress dissent
before the democratic process becomes unstoppable.
Russia learned from China that the conversion to capitalism does not require
democracy, and, in fact, may be more efficient without democracy.
China under Jiang Zemin and now Hu Jingtao has perfected a system in which
the government has absolute power over its subjects and uses that power to
establish a capitalistic society.
The previous regimes of Russia and China used to forbid capitalism.
Now, de facto, the government dictates capitalism.
There is no question that so far the Chinese and Russian model of "presidential
capitalism" or "one-party capitalism" has proven to be more efficient than the Western (or even Indian)
model of democratic capitalism. Democracy means slower decisions, continuous
bickering, ethnic and religious conflicts, painful changes of regime that
cause damaging changes of strategy. China and Russia can proceed on the path
of economic development without having to bother about their people's rights.
While it may look like China and Russia have invented a new form of capitalism,
this is simply of revival of something that already happened in the 1920s/1930s.
Mussolini and Hitler pioneered that model in Italy and Germany. Fascism was
precisely about capitalism controlled by a totalitarian government.
Later similar systems were introduced in Chile (by dictator Pinochet) and in
the Far East (by the enlightened dictators of Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea).
For a while, particularly after the end of the Cold War, it looked like the
trend was towards the Western model of democratic capitalism. Most countries
of the Far East disposed of their dictators and moved towards real multi-party
democracy. However, the successes of China and Russia, that are both rapidly
catching up with the USA and Europe while the USA's power is declining and
Europe's economies are stalling, is inspiring more and more countries around
the world. The people themselves seem to prefer that model. For example,
in Venezuela people returned Chavez to power with a landslide vote, but then
rejected a referendum to introduce socialism in Venezuela: they are happy
to have an authoritarian president lead a strong capitalist economy.
There is no question that Iraqis would welcome a strong man capable of
bringing stability to their country.
It could be that the world has reached a turning point, and that Western-style
democratic capitalism is losing its appeal because, especially in developing
countries, it means anarchy and corruption.
TM, ®, Copyright © 2007 Piero Scaruffi All rights reserved.
Back to the world news | Top of this page
- (december 2007)
Putin's referendum.
The parliamentary elections in Russia of december 2007 were widely viewed as
a referendum on president Vladimir Putin. International observers generally
agreed that they were rigged, but few doubt that Putin is the most popular
Russian leader in ages. His party won 64% of the vote. Actually even more,
because two small parties are also allied with Putin's party. In Chechnya it won
more than 99% of the vote (smile). Andrej Lugovoi, the former KGB officer
suspected of killing former spy Litvinenko in London, was elected for one
of the smaller parties allied to Putin's party. If all of this sounds like
a Woody Allen comedy about a banana republic, analysts underestimate a couple
of real facts.
The first one is that the Communist Party only got 11.6% of the vote, and
presumably mostly from the older generation. The Communist Party is getting
extinct very rapidly. Russia may return to anti-Western belligerence, but never
on the ideological terms of the Cold War. Russia is a capitalist and Christian
country that strives for a greater role in the world.
The communist ideology turned out to be a mere pretext.
Russia has a vision of itself as being more than a distant cousin of Western
Europe and more than a poor country at the periphery of the Christian world, and
certainly more than a simple vassal of the USA. This time Russia is openly
marrying the capitalist and Christian principles of the USA and of Western
Europe (in fact, even more enthusiastically than Western Europe).
However that trend is balanced by the honest fear (shared by both leaders and
ordinary Russians) that Russia may collapse the way other former Soviet
republics collapsed. The "democratic" revolutions in Ukraine, Georgia and
Kyrgyzstan did not bring stability or wealth to those people. Russians have
largely scorned (not envied) those democratic revolutions.
(The only post-Soviet successeses are those of the three Baltic countries,
that are now members of both NATO and the European Union, but the Kremlin
has been very successful in minimizing media coverage of that region).
Russians view Putin as the man who saved them after Gorbachev and Yeltsin
brought them very close to a political, economic and social collapse.
They are aware of corruption, crime and the authoritarian methods of the
government, but they see them as lesser evils in a country that has been
ravaged by much bigger evils over the last century. Few Russians doubt that
the Kremlin masterminded or at least tacitly approved the murder of several
journalists, notably the much loved Anna Politkovskaya. But they are not
willing (yet) to sacrifice the Putin order (and the Putin economic boom)
for a weak regime. And
Putin has been very good at removing from the stage any appealing alternative
to himself. Basically, the Russian people had to choose between him, the
communists and a group of democrats who promise an Ukraine-style mess.
Putin has also been careful at not scaring Russians. He has hinted at a return
to Soviet grandeur, but not to Soviet society (basically, what ordinary Russians
miss about the Soviet Union not what they deride). He has found a way to remain
in power without altering the constitution (he could have easily had parliament
approve an amendment allowing him to remain president for life). Compare with
Chavez's referendum in Venezuela: Chavez promised socialism and wanted to be
president for life. Basically, Chavez did the opposite of what Putin did.
Chavez lost, Putin won.
Basically, Russia is now a firmly capitalist and Christian nation but
determined never to be dragged into chaos again.
TM, ®, Copyright © 2007 Piero Scaruffi All rights reserved.
Back to the world news | Top of this page
- (may 2007)
The paranoia of encirclement.
The giant federation of Russia has traditionally feared to be encircled by
its enemies. Its huge borders are an obvious liability.
Today there is virtually no neighbor that is even dreaming of invading Russia,
but Russia feels that the West is trying to encircle (and choke) it on the
stage of world politics. It started with the breakup of the Soviet Union,
that saw a western drift for most of the former Soviet republics, notably
the Baltic ones. Recent events have worsened that feeling, as right-wing
politicians such as Merkel in Germany and Sarkozy in France have replaced
Russia-friendly leaders such as Schroeder and Chirac. The entire West is
now set to change attitude towards Russia. If Chirac and Schroeder were more
than willing to let hundreds of thousands of Chechens be slaughtered by
Putin's army, Sarkozy and Merkel are much more likely to complain loudly.
If Chirac and Schroeder wanted none of the trouble raised around the world
by Bush's and Blair's campaign for democracy, Sarkozy and Merkel may be very
keen to at least defend the good principles behind it. In other words, Putin
feels isolated in Europe because... he is.
Putin has two weapons against the West. One is the veto at the United Nations.
Russia has been relatively cooperative when it came to the USA's attacks against
the Islamic world, but that was out of convenience: Russia likes the Islamic
world as much as the West does. The West does not like Islam because it is
undemocratic and because (duh) Islam has attacked the West. Russia does not
like Islam because Russia has a much stronger Christian identity and because
Russia fears that Islam can be the next major force to further the collapse
of the federation (after all, it was the Islamic mujahedin that caused the
Soviet defeat in Afghanistan and, indirectly, the collapse of the Soviet Union).
Other than that marriage of convenience, Putin has showed little enthusiasm for
Western sanctions against Iran, North Korea or anything else that threatens the
West.
The second weapon that Putin can use is energy. Europe is an energy-starved
continent, and will remain so for a long time, given its people's stupid
attitude towards nuclear power. Given the uncertainties of the Islamic world,
Russia has seemed a much better provider of energy. Putin has waited a few
years to make sure that Europe was dependent on Russia's oil and gas, and now
is beginning to assert his power. He has just convinced Kazakstan and
Turkmenistan to route their European gas sales through Russia, thus doubling
Russia's importance as an energy provider to the rest of Europe.
Europe may pay a huge price for its folly.
The question is "what does Russia want"? Surprisingly, Russia wants very little.
Unlike the Soviet Union, that was trying to expand its influence all over the
world. Putin's Russia mostly wants to be left alone. Putin's Russia resents
that the West keeps expanding into the former Russian sphere of influence,
whether Serbia or Ukraine or Kyrgyzstan. After all, Putin was right to wonder
why is it so urgent to decide the status of Kosovo when the status of Western
Sahara (invaded by Morocco 30 years ago) can wait. Not only did Putin have
a good point, but Condi Rice has not provided a single word of explanation.
Putin wonders why all the republics that border Russia must adopt democracy
when the vast majority of the USA's allies in the Islamic world are tyrants.
The double standard is obvious to the Russians: anything that weakens Russia's
influence is high-priority.
Russia itself is partly to blame: it has done precious little to integrated
itself with the West. It still views the European Union as an enemy, not as
its future. The same Europeans who are reluctant to accept Turkey as a member
might be thrilled to accept Russia as a member, if only Russia were interested
in becoming part of the European Union. But, again, Russia mainly wants to be
left alone.
Ultimately, Russia continues to live the contradictions of its history and
identity. It wants to be considered European and Christian, but it antagonizes
its fellow European and Christian countries and perceives them as enemies
trying to surround it. At a higher level, Russia has not yet decided whether
it believes in the values that have been accepting by the whole of Europe
or whether it has a different set of values to propose to Europe. When it
adopted communism, it was clearly a bad choice. Now Russia has no ideas of its
own, other than to be skeptic of Europe's ideas.
TM, ®, Copyright © 2007 Piero Scaruffi All rights reserved.
Back to the world news | Top of this page
- (April 2007)
A tunnel from Russia to Alaska.
The USA media hardly reported it, but Russia has just come up with the kind
of vision that used to be a USA specialty (before Bush bankrupted it).
Russia wants to build a tunnel under the Bering Strait from Siberia to Alaska.
If France and Britain built a tunnel under the Channel, and
Sweden and Denmark built the Oresund link bridge across the Baltic Sea,
there is no reason why Russia and the USA, that are geographically very close,
should not have a link of some kind.
Not only do these projects cement solidarity and friendship between countries
that used to be at war with each other, but they greatly simplify the commerce
of goods that are vital to both societies.
The goal of the Russians would be to transport oil, natural gas and electricity to the USA.
Ironically, it would be precisely the kind of venture that the USA preached
around the world during the Cold War: Russia not as an evil empire, but as
a cunning, creative and hard-working capitalist society.
It would be a colossal project, the kind of project that the USA used to be
proud of embarking upon. Maybe that is the reason that USA media are largely
ignoring the idea: this is no longer a nation of dreamers, a nation of people
who conquer the Moon. This is now a nation
of yuppies who are more interested in buying SUVs, buying guns, shooting
schoolmates/coworkers, partying and consuming drugs than in grandiose works.
TM, ®, Copyright © 2007 Piero Scaruffi All rights reserved.
Back to the world news | Top of this page
- (march 2007)
Towards the great capitalist peace.
Russia's president Vladimir Putin is the first leader of the Russian people to
be truly loved by his people in a long long time. He has indeed solved a number
of problems, from the economy to the excessive power of the new capitalists to
the secession of Chechnya. He has slowly but steadily manouvered to steer Russia
away from the inefficient bureaucracy of communism.
At the same time that his economic policies begin to work, Putin has become
more outspoken about Russia's return to world affairs. Russia has been
relatively quiet during the confrontation between the USA and the Islamic
world (a confrontation that does not exist according to the president of the
USA, but that everybody else sees very clearly). Most likely, Putin decided
that the USA was fighting a war in Russia's interest too, and for free.
However, Putin is a lot less willing to see Russia's sphere of influence
reduced decade after decade by NATO and the European Union.
(See Russia and the European expansion).
His accusations of European and American imperialism have become louder and
louder. He has ominously warned against an inclusion of Ukraine or Georgia into NATO.
Russia's meddling into the affairs of these two countries has been very visible,
first when Putin recognized the results of a rigged election in Ukraine and then
when Putin retaliated for Georgia's expulsion of Russian spies.
At the same time, at home Putin has presided over one of the most ferocious
repressions of the opposition witnessed outside of Cuba and Zimbabwe.
Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the former chief executive of Yukos, was imprisoned in a Siberian gulap.
Anna Politkovskaya, a journalist who was a critic of Russia's policies in Chechnya, was murdered.
Alexander Litvinenko, a former spy, was poisoned.
By comparison, this makes the regime of mainland China look like a tolerant regime (no famous journalists have been murdered in Beijing, and no former spy has
been poisoned).
Putin's intolerance for dissent at home may be due to the fact that he is still
consolidating power, although his term is coming to an end.
Putin's increasing intolerance abroad, on the other hand, may be due to sincere
annoyance that the USA and the European Union keep messing with Russia's sphere
of influence when Russia is not watching.
Putin may be looking at the West's behavior towards China: nobody is even
dreaming of restoring Tibet to democracy and independence, or even of declaring
Taiwan fully independent (technically, Taiwan does not exist and is not
represented at the United Nations) or of Japan expanding its territory into the
Chinese sphere of influence. Why then the European Union keeps expanding
its territory into Eastern Europe and the USA keeps signing up NATO members
among Russia's former allies? Clearly China is being treated with more
respect and deference than Russia, despite the fact that Russia has a lot
more nuclear warheads than China.
It is likely that, sooner or later, the West will have to deal with Russia
on the same pragmatic terms that it deals with China: give priority to keeping
the region stable, even if it means sacrificing some ideological principles and
the freedom of a few million people here and there. Capitalists (whether in
the USA, Europe, China or Russia) want first of all stability.
John Hulsman and Anatol Lieven called it "the great capitalist peace".
TM, ®, Copyright © 2005 Piero Scaruffi All rights reserved.
Back to the world news | Top of this page
Articles on Russia before 2007
|