Paul Goble
Staunton, Jan. 3 – There clearly are obvious risks involved if Russia disintegrates, Vitaly Ginzburg says; but they must be considered in isolation. Rather, they must balanced against the equally obvious risks that will arise if Russia doesn’t fall into pieces Those risks are much greater.
Over the last 30 years, many around the world have had the chance to see what the disintegration of the Soviet Union has led to, the Kasparov commentator suggests, costs that have been sufficiently high that now many fear that the demise of a unified Russian Federation must be opposed at all costs (kasparov.ru/material.php?id=63B33B2D9A187).
But such an approach to risk assessment is wrong, Ginzburg continues. Few have taken the time to consider the risks the world would have faced if the Soviet Union had not fallen apart; and even fewer are now asking what risks the international community and the peoples of Eurasia will face if the Russian Federation doesn’t.
The costs to the world of the Russian Federation if that country manages to hold together are obvious, he says, if one considers the beneficiaries of its disintegration: an end to a global military threat, an end to the major source of corruption around the world, an end to the chief money launderer, and an end to the chief organization of opposition to democracy.
The costs to Russians if the Russian Federation holds to together are equally obvious and something to be avoided if possible: continued involvement in aggressive wars, international isolation, and a regime committed to repressing its own people rather than listening to them and meeting their needs.
That is not to say that there aren’t risks in Russia’s disintegration, Ginzburg says; but those are much discussed while the risks of the Russian Federation remaining in one piece typically are not. They need to be rather than simply assuming that disintegration must be avoided at all costs – and that somehow Russia can be transformed within its current borders.
No comments:
Post a Comment