This week will see the European Union’s foreign ministers gather once more in an attempt to ink a new partnership and cooperation deal with Russia. The majority of the bloc’s west European members favour a pragmatic approach, whereas the more recent member states from central and eastern Europe have consistently pushed for a tougher stance against a country which for them remains an imperial aggressor in need of containing. This stark difference of opinion is rooted in the individual member states’ differing historical experiences of dealing with Moscow and serves to highlight the problems Brussels faces in trying to formulate a unified foreign policy that will meet with the approval of all 27 members of the emerging EU mega state.
Russia looming ever larger
It is perhaps appropriate that the fallen Soviet colossus should present the biggest foreign policy challenge Brussels has yet faced as Russia has loomed increasingly large on the EU’s radar for some years now as a result of energy dependency fears and the process of eastward expansion. This renewed focus on bilateral relations with Moscow also mirrors the recent return to fashionable academic circles of Kremlinology, the once discarded art of second-guessing the inner workings of the Russian political machine via deft interpretations of Kremlin seating arrangements and newspaper announcements of politburo birthdays. The Western media has speculated at length recently over the implications of the beefed up Victory Day military parade on Red Square and scrutinised the list of Putin’s new cabinet of ministers for clues as to the future direction of the country now that it is under the nominal leadership of President Medvedev. Elsewhere, Cold War commentators who were last in demand in 1989 are suddenly finding themselves swamped with requests from editors keen to play up anything connected to resurgent Russia. Unfortunately, while interest is clearly rising, outdated thinking continues to dominate the broader debate over modern Russia. Over sixty years since Winston Churchill famously commented that Russia was like a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma, his phrase remains a fairly accurate summary of the attitudes held by many otherwise knowledgeable Western leaders. Unless European politicians can develop a more nuanced understanding of the Putin state’s aims and objectives, it is unlikely that we will be able to move beyond the stereotypes of old.
From the Wild East to Kremlin Inc.
Clearly much of the blame for the currently frayed relations between Moscow and the West must rest on the Kremlin’s doorstep. Russia’s recovery from the ashes of the 1991 collapse has been accompanied by an unapologetic swing away from democracy building and towards authoritarian, one-party rule, while over the past eight years the Putin regime has consistently played on a sense of wounded national pride and resentment at Russia’s perceived humiliation by the West to bolster support for hard line policies. All too often, Western policy has played into the hands of the Kremlin by feeding this sense of inevitable confrontation and overlooking the scale of the problems Russia has faced in the past two decades.
For many years following the break-up of the USSR Russia was widely regarded throughout the Western world as some sort of lawless Wild East populated by obscenely wealthy oligarchs and cutthroat bandits riding roughshod over the impoverished masses. This colourful image has more recently given way to the idea that today’s Russia is actually a ruthless corporate state run by Cold War warriors who imbued anti-Western rhetoric with their mother’s milk and remain unrelenting enemies of European democracy. Neither of these crude caricatures is much use when it comes to the task of actually understanding Russian actions, and far too often they have served to create obstacles to a better understanding. Russia’s perceived flair for marrying clumsy incompetence to blustering chauvinism makes it an easy target for Western politicians and commentators alike, but ultimately a more detailed appreciation of the vast challenges this former superpower faces is needed if relations are to be truly informed.
Good for Ukraine too
Ukraine could end up as a major beneficiary from any continued upswing of interest in all things Russian. Greater awareness about the legacy of the Soviet collapse should translate into a better understanding of the complex issues facing today’s Ukraine, while an appreciation of Russia’s dominant regional role cannot help but generate sympathy for the centuries-old dream of Ukrainian independence. The days when Ukraine was widely thought of as a Russian colony may well have passed, but Western leaders and opinion formers must first come to grips with the complexities of modern Russia before they can hope to grapple meaningfully with the Ukrainian issue.
