Paul
Goble
Staunton, September 4 – Moscow’s
harsh policy toward Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine is effectively shutting down
traffic across its borders to the West even as it continues to keep its borders
with Central Asia open, a pattern that Moscow commentators suggest is having
the effect of making Russia ever less European and ever more Asiatic.
In an article on the “Svobodnaya
pressa” portal today, entitled “Russia is closing its borders with the West but
leaving them open for the East,” Andrey Ivanov surveys this view, one that
points to Russia “in the near future” becoming
“an Asiatic power … not only by mentality and power structure but by
population” (svpressa.ru/politic/article/73642/).
If Ukraine signs an association
agreement with the EU and Moscow continues to respond harshly to it, Ivanov
says, then the Russian Federation will lose its customs advantages and
visa-free regime with a country between it and the EU even as it continues to
allow Central Asians to flow into Russia and acquire Russian citizenship.
This has profound consequences: “Every
third Russian citizen has a relative in Ukraine, and every second Ukrainian has
one” in Russia. Breaking these ties as Moscow’s reaction to Kyiv’s plans is
certain to do will harm many families, but it will harm Russia’s links with
Europe even more.
Aleksy Albu,a Ukrainian political
scientist, says that the fault lies entirely with Moscow. Ukrainians are not
turning to Europe “in the search for paradise.” They are doing do because they
are profoundly disturbed by Russia’s political system. They see themselves
culturally linked to Russia, but they do not want to be economically integrated
and thus subordinate. Thus, they support the turn to Europe.
According to Valery Korovin, the
director of the Moscow Center for Geopolitical Expertise, Russia is “losing the
initiative” not only in Ukraine but elsewhere as well to other states. The
problem is not just “weakness in the mechanisms of economic cooperation but in
the complete lack of any clarity in
[Moscow’s] foreign policy.”
Korovin continues: for Ukraine and
its neighbors, “integration with Europe is more predictable than integration
with Russia where a change of power means a change of course. Over the last two
decades, [Russia] has gone from a liberal pro-western course to the complete
oppose, with the recognition of America as the main enemy.”
“For the former Soviet republics
it is not clear how Russia will behave in the future,” he says. “The Soviet
project has its own ideology, its own terms of reference, its own understanding
of the development of the state as a whole.” Moscow’s current “project” for
Ukraine and the others lacks all of these things.
Thus, it is no surprise that they
are turning to others, Korovin concludes.
A third commentator, Andrey
Savelyev, agrees. He sees Russia becoming “a peripheral Asiatic despotism. The
closure of the borders with Ukraine and the opening of the borders with the
countries of Central Asia completely corresponds to the economic model” Russia
has adopted.
Moscow has little interest in Ukraine or
any other foreign country. Its “entire policy”is based on the sale of raw
materials abroad. “Everything else is just for show.” Even its atomic arsenal
falls into that category, to be used for show.
“In essence, statehood in Russia has disappeared on its own.”
Today, Savelyev says, “the chief
strategy of the Kremlin can be expressed by the slogan: “Our task is the
pipeline” to export oil and gas. But
because of that, Moscow does not recognize that its closing of borders to the
West and keeping them open to the east is transforming Russia into something
even most Russians do not want.
No comments:
Post a Comment