Russia heading for the apocalypse? I think not

Post Apocalyptic Russia by myjavier007Everyone who is serious about Russian studies knows about the indispensable Johnson’s Russia List, a daily mailshot of a collection of the day’s relevant English-language stories, good, bad, and sometimes ugly. I may sometimes cavil at David Johnson’s determination to include a – to me – disproportionate selection of determinedly ‘counter-mainstream’ bloggers determined to find anti-Kremlin conspiracy at every turn, but one of the List‘s great virtues is precisely to puncture those comforting bubbles of consensus with which it is so easy to surround ourselves. We can be surprised.

And good heavens, I was surprised by a piece in the latest, ‘Putin is Here to Stay, and the Russian State Will Die with Him,’ by one Brandon J. Weichert in the American Thinker of 8 September. I confess I don’t know Mr Weichert, nor for that matter more than the name of the American Thinker. I have no idea if it is considered a purveyor of fringe nonsense or a serious intellectual powerhouse. I have my suspicions which is more likely. I could go and google it, but frankly I was more fascinated – entranced – horrified by the analysis put forward.

Let’s set aside the fact that if ‘Putin is Here to Stay’ then it becomes pretty irrelevant if ‘the Russian State Will Die with Him.’ Instead:

Even today, as Putin increases his grasp on power, the country continues fraying along its periphery.  It is only the silnaya ruka – the iron fist of centralized power – that keeps the vast expanse known as the Russian Federation together.

Really? And the evidence for that is…?

Following the autocratic ethos of one-man rule, Putin has purged Russia of any potential successors to his reign.  … The younger generation of leaders are all Putin lackeys.  Like Medvedev, they are unimaginative, and, aside from holding power in Russia, these folks are unexceptional.  …  Putin’s autocracy has neutered Russia of any competent leadership for after he leaves office.

Again, I suspect this really means “I don’t know enough about Russia’s elite to be able to identify who could be any good.” Their strengths are asymmetrical, their prospects varied, and their morals typically questionable, but I could think of a bunch of figures who could be competent presidents. Shoigu would be an interesting choice, who I think would be more Ike than Generalissimo in office. Sobyanin, for all his uncharismatic style, would be a competent manager. Shuvalov could offer some market-pleasing glitz so long as he had an enforcer, although Oreshkin would do it better. Even Medvedev would be a reasonable choice as a consensus-brokering chairman of the board. And if I could vote for Nabiullina, I would in a shot. Beyond that, who knows who is likely to emerge in the next few years. Will Vaino surprise us (I doubt it, I confess)? Will daddy’s help see Dmitry Patrushev rise (again, I have my doubts)? Which regional governor or presidential bodyguard will next catch the boss’s eye?

This is a system which does not encourage mavericks, and which virtually demands what could be described as a flexible approach to personal enrichment, but that doesn’t mean that it produces weaklings or imbeciles.

Given the weakness of potential autocratic successors to Putin, Russia will likely break up along its constituent parts.  It will become a chaos state, armed with stores of nuclear – and other – weapons of mass destruction.

Unh? If Russia survived the 1990s, can we really assume that, post-Putin, the entire federation will become a Mad Max remake?

After all, what is his closing injunction?

Dear Pentagon: Prepare for Russian Collapse and Loose Nukes

After all, apparently,

After Putin, it is unlikely that Moscow will be able to maintain central control over its military

so we can expect not just “loose nukes” but also

European leaders will have to contemplate how best to respond to the inevitable refugee flows that will emanate from a completely collapsing Russia.

But wait, in the immortal words of the advert, that’s not all

Meanwhile, Asia will have to brace for the time when China takes the lion’s share of natural resources and land from Russia’s Far East.  At that point, China will not only be an economic juggernaut, but will overnight become a natural resources superpower, thereby making it a true challenger to the United States.

russia apocalypse 1472x1121 wallpaper Art HD WallpaperSo, China gobbles up Russia east of the Urals, somehow without any of these maverick generals firing loose nukes their way, the rest breaks up into warring principalities, steadily depopulated as millions of miserable refugees flock westwards, flooding Europe. These kinds of apocalyptic fantasies were common in the 1990s, and not wholly beyond the realms of possibility. But now? I see a pretty coherent, ruthless and often quite competent elite, with little option but to follow Putin’s ‘make Russia great again’ crusade but actually pretty pragmatic. Outside the North Caucasus, it’s hard to see any serious separatism. Tatarstan and the like may want to renegotiate their deal with Moscow, but they’re not looking for secession. And the armed forces are more disciplined and possessed of a greater esprit de corps than in the 1980s, never mind the 1990s.

Look, it’s a very poor article, and on one level it is unfair to give it such a kicking, and a waste of my time to write and yours to read. Except. Except that, however much this is an extreme example, I have begun to see a new thread of such excited eschatology creeping into the fringes of the debate, and what bothers me is that precisely within other bubbles of consensus, that may begin to become canon. Russia is not teetering on the edge of collapse; it is not some vicious threat to the global order; it is not a dictatorship desperately holding back a tide of anarchy and atomisation. It’s an authoritarianism but not the worst of them, in which a kleptocratic elite preside over a country slowly returning to Europe.

If we start to treat it as some monstrous aberration, one that cannot be dealt with and can only be feared, mastered, or contained, then that does none of us any favours.

 

 

 

Advertisements
Leave a comment

15 Comments

  1. Sounds an awful lot like Ilan Berman’s Implosion: The End of Russia and What it Means for America, published 2013. Maybe Mr. Weichert read it and got a few…ideas?

    And on addressing poor articles: someone should sort through the muck before it accumulates…

    Reply
    • Mark Galeotti

       /  September 10, 2018

      I confess I hadn’t seen that book. Not sure if I should be grateful. But point taken about addressing the poor articles; I can think of this as an exercise in analytic disinfection…

      Reply
  2. In deference to George Kennan, I might argued that ‘containing’ Russia and ‘dealing with it’ are not mutually exclusive policy approaches.

    That said, from an American perspective, I’m afraid we continue to suffer the bipolarity with respect to Russia that so perplexed Kennan: the issue remains, as he suggested (sotto voce) even in the X article, how effectively Americans contain themselves.

    Which may be one of the real dangers surrounding Russian interference in U.S. domestic politics — the resulting scandal is very likely to produce increased incontinence in U.S. foreign policy.

    Reply
  3. Since I don’t subscribe to Johnson’s Russia List (a decision I had made long ago and may have to revisit) I can only judge the Mr Weichert’s piece on the basis of your review. The way you present it sounds very much like Mr Weichert is a happy practitioner of self-serving fear-mongering, the kind that blossoms on both sides of the ocean. Because of the way we, people, function, nothing sells better than bad news. So the purveyors of this sort of goods are finding their market niche without much trouble. It is also far easier to smudge everything with one big swab of color than to produce a nuanced picture, which is what you have been doing all along to my sheer enjoyment and great respect.

    Reply
  4. As a worst case scenario, Mr. Weichart probably isn’t far off the mark.
    Mr. Putin’s authoritarian government seems balanced on his shoulders – by his control of the internal and external (army) security forces, his sympathetic treatment by the ROC, and re-surging Russian nationalism. United Russia doesn’t seem to be much of a political party – other than nationalism, what is its ideology?
    The last time the Moscow center weakened, the Russian state was held together by the security forces and the vestiges of the communist party. Captive nations finally left the soyuz, but Russia held together.
    Mr. Weichart describes a condition far more similar to 1917-1921 when tsarist Russia fell apart and civil war ensued. At that time there were no nukes, few chemical or biological weapons and even fewer effective delivery systems for those munitions. Japan, rather than China, moved troops into the Russian Far East. As a young boy, I was fortunate enough to listen to first person experiences of the revolution and civil war.
    A hundred years of technological development separates Putin from Tsar Nicholas II. In terms of governance, I don’t think much separates them at all.

    Reply
  5. Sent from my iPad

    >

    Reply
  6. “it is not some vicious threat to the global order …”
    “in which a kleptocratic elite preside over a country slowly returning to Europe.”
    Are you sure? Any grounds for these statements?

    Reply
  7. PaulR

     /  September 11, 2018

    Very true, Mark. Unfortunately, the fact that it’s not immediately 100% obvious whether the American Thinker is, as you put it, ‘a purveyor of fringe nonsense or a serious intellectual powerhouse’ is indicative of just how deranged much Russia analysis has become of late. I suspect that if such stuff were to appear in a ‘serious’, ‘mainstream’ publication, 99% of readers wouldn’t bat an eyelid.

    Reply
  8. > Look, it’s a very poor article, and on one level it is unfair to give it such a kicking, and a waste of my time to write and yours to read. Except…

    Except with your wry deconstruction it was worth reading because it caused a smile and a laugh to start the morning. Thanks.

    Reply
  9. Sterling Aspen

     /  September 17, 2018

    Extending the themes in Weichart’s article, we could suggest why not? It is possible to extend an argument that the dissolution of the Russian Empire started in 1917.There were ebbs and flows over the course of the 20th century certainly. But we are, I suggest only at a mid point of a process that extends far beyond all of our lifespans .

    Rather than dismissing Weichart’s thesis, let us consider it instead as an imagined future. Much as space travel and cell phones once first apeared in science fiction, the seeds of the future are first planted in readers’ imaginations.Let’s first see see what 20 or 50 years of strong economic sanctions do to Russian ethnic cleavages.And we may then meet to revisit the question of the longer term trajectory of the fragmentation of the Russian Empire.

    Reply
    • Mark Galeotti

       /  September 18, 2018

      Fair enough, if we’re talking 20, 50, etc years in the future, it’s hard to be definitive, just as we could wonder whether the USA will break up, whether China will implode, etc. But the point is that the article was not working to such a timeframe, and was based on a degree of cluelessness that I still feel deserved to be called out.

      Reply
  1. The Week In Russia: Duels And Don'ts — Salisbury, 'Steak,' and Siloviki Slipups | Radio Free

Leave a Reply to tower2718 Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: