Discussing Russia's past is indeed too long. I just start since the Soviet Union collapse (communist) in the decade of 1991's. Yes. After the Cold War (1947 - 1991), Russia was about to "out of business" and was almost becoming a failed state. Inflation skyrocketed, economic collapsed and dominated by a class of oligarchs, criminality and mafia crime was rampant, social system was very messy, etc.
When in January 2000's President Boris Yeltsin appointed Vladimir Putin as Prime Minister, almost the majority of the Russian people had not known him. Just as the mythical leader expected by various groups in the world, in Russia, apparently Putin was the right person for it. He is not only a great leader for the Red Bear country, but also a strategist.
There were two main things that drove his success. First, the rise of world oil prices above 90 dollars per barrel was Putin luck. Russian oil production reached 10 million barrels per day. Russia is able to meet its own energy needs, especially gas. European countries are highly dependent on Russian gas exports.
Second, his firmness leadership. He is surrounded by reliable people of St. Petersburg, his home region. This is very different when compared with the previous regime, in which the Yeltsin children and his law always intervened in politics.
In his tenure of two terms (8 years) ago, nearly 20 million people in Russia alleviated from poverty, then the education system as well as health improved, strategic industries nationalized, unemployment reduced, corruption could be reduced, taxpayers increased, the foreign debt of 200 billion dollars paid, the ruble strengthened, foreign exchange reserves to 450 U.S. dollars (number three in the world in the decade of 2007's). And the happiest was Putin judged by the people managed to rebuild the dignity of the Russian Kingdom and respected by the world.
Based on The Wall Street Journal, 2007, level of satisfaction and popular support for Putin was relatively stable: 85%. The percentage of fluctuation of 2000: 80% 2001: 84% 2002: 86% and 2003: 85%. From the survey results had implied a meaning, that the Russian people "familiar" with the authoritarian regime. They were afraid if the situation would re screwed as in the 1990s. People did not care whether the system implemented by Putin was democratic or not. The important thing was that people felt prosperous and the image of the country was very prominent.
Admittedly, the "art" of leadership which was applied received a lot of criticism from various parties (mainly from Western countries) for many years because it was considered very authoritarian. Even Freedom House (2006) assessed Russia as an "unfree" state. But Russia did not care about it, because its own people more wanted stability and welfare rather than democracy. Stomach problems was considered more important than just freedom. Putin capital at that time was the background and experience of Russia people in the past had been accustomed to the authoritarian system. Perhaps this is a legacy of history, that the political participation of society in Russia from 1991 until now is very minimal and elitist. Nearly two- thirds of people never directly participate in politics. Thus, it is natural that the civil society hitherto has never appeared yet. Apparently, people just want to have a strong state that can guarantee the rights of individuals, their security and their welfare.
Therefore, "revolution" by Putin who made Russia as super-centralized state through almighty leadership to run a dictatorship of law accepted by majority of the people, because individualism and liberal humanism does not have strong roots in Russia. In contrast, collectivism and corporations always be above individual rights. Paternalism put the public interest above individual rights. "The state of lawlessness will weaken the state. Individuals are not free and can not defend themselves. Thus, the stronger the state, the more free the individual as well ", Putin said.
Putin first step with Russian-style democracy was "stripping" the governor power, of the previously elected directly by people, converted into direct appointment by the president and could be approved or rejected by the Parliament. Many opinions expressed, the appointment of governors by president considered undemocratic, but strangely now many western known as democratic countries (Belgium, Finland, Portugal, etc.) actually do the same thing. Finally, opinions stocked by the West like wailing in a vacuum. Between being and not. Only echoed but does not affect anything.
Yes. Putin steps considered by the West was very authoritarian : State control of the media, raising the electoral threshold from five to seven per cent which led to smaller pro-liberal parties supported by the West be excluded. But Putin did not care. His people were not affected by "the winds of heaven" of Western-style democracy.
The power of any model anywhere in the world and undoubtedly recognize the checks and balances. It may be lacking in Russia. Presidential power is so dominant. He's at the top of the executive power (run by the Prime Minister and Cabinet) and legislative (Duma and the Supreme Council / Council of the Federation), while the judiciary is controlled by the president. And the president directly oversees the armed forces, police, attorney general, secret service and the war against terrorism. But the Russian-style democratic system makes Russia not only prosper physically, even its people are now allowed to go abroad for the purposes of business, tourist, religious and other, the taboos on previous authoritarian regime.
Through the dictatorship of law --- not the supremacy of law --- law is enforced. Although not entirely successful because of mafia crime is still strong, but, at least, Russia stability have been materialized under Putin's leadership. As Person of the Year 2007 by the Time magazine is the world recognition for Putin leadership who is able to bring Russia back into a first-class country on earth.
In the Putin era, Russia exit policies tend to be non ideological. This is contrary to previous regimes. There is good agreement in the fields of military, diplomatic and energy between Russia, Arab countries and Israel without favoring one, including its closeness to Hamas and Iran.
Through pragmatism, his focus is more on the traditional role as a supplier of weapons, as well as access to the widest possible market for energy companies. When previously only buy oil from Iraq and then sell back to Europe and the U.S.,Russia has now gone further, either to Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Jordan and Israel and others.
During Putin's leadership, non-ideological cooperation with Israel runs significantly. In addition to the fields of energy, heavy industry, aviation and medicine, even since late 1989 nearly one million Jews from the former Soviet Union have immigrated, making up 20% of Israel's population. When terrorism occured in Beslan in 2004 which killed over 300 people, Israel denounced the terrorists and expressed condolences to Russia.
Besides continues to unravel cooperation with Israel, Russia also maintains relations with Hamas and Iran, for example, six projects of Iran's nuclear reactors worth $ 10 billion is considered a "blessing" because it employs thousands of Russian scientists and revive the shrinking market of nuclear technologies. The relationship grew close when Iran bought satellite communications, fighter jets and the emergence of the idea that the Iranian oil and gas projects were managed entirely by Russian companies, as well as the sale of weapons to Syria and others.
There are several reasons for Israel to be concerned over the harmonious relationship between Russia and Syria, Hamas and Iran, including Putin's refusal to include Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations and allows money to flow freely from Russia to the two enemies of Israel. That's the art of Putin. An attitude of "hypocrisy" is displayed for an intimate relationship with the "terrorists" who just want the destruction of Israel. Although the relationship still looks "okay", but some in the Israeli Defense Community suspicious of Russia's attitude so far in the Middle East, there is even a mention as "deception". Therefore, in 2002 Putin had promised, that he would not help Israel's enemies.
There is a growing nostalgia in the ranks of Arab countries that Russia's policy in the Middle East should be more "Soviet" again. The aspirations and desires, often appear either through public statements and private. Even when giving a lecture at the State Institute of International Relations, Moscow (2005), Bashar al-Assad said, "... The role of Russia in the world is very large and has a colossal authority, especially in Third World countries. There is great hope in the countries that Russia will return the starting position in world affairs."
Tit for tat, Algeria also expressed the same hope. Not because of the motivation of Soviet-era debt forgiveness of $ 7.5 billion, but only for the sake of "cooling" in the heat of Middle East due to Israel stretching as an organ-breaking in the Arabian Peninsula, according to the version of Henry Bannerman. British Prime Minister (1901).
Another interesting thing in Russia is Putin's strong alignments to Islam. It can be seen from the statements and policies to close the mass media which published cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad when Hamas visited Moscow, he declared, "Russia has always form the most loyal defender, reliable and consistent with the interests of Islam". Undeniably, that the birth rate and the development of Islam in Russia now is higher than ever.
Russia political dynamics also looks dramatic. Indeed, every relationship does not last in a vacuum. With Israel, for example, there is undoubtedly a direct and indirect effect. Or with Iran, Syria, Hamas, and so on. Be logical when its "national interest" would take precedence, associated with the non-ideological policy in the Middle East. It should be realized together.
Under Putin, Russia's economy is on the rise. Russia successfully modernize its armed forces in phases, in accordance with the pattern of threats faced and the strategies adopted. Even in the era of Dmitry Medvedev's presidency, Russia continued to develop its military forces, including missiles and producing a new generation of nuclear submarines.
In May 2007, Russia successfully tested an RS-24 missile, a new generation which was able to shed the U.S. missile shield. Even Medvedev had deployed short-range missiles to counter the U.S. missile shield in Poland.
Russian defense posture increasingly respected by his opponents of Western Europe in April 2007 when one of the 12 new Borei-class submarines (Project 955) launched. The submarine which then began operation since November 2008 equipped with 12 new Bulava missile, which is a missile capable of carrying six warheads.
Indeed, Russia has reason to show its power back in the military dimension. This fact finally succeeded in triggering the fears of NATO countries, so that on June 27, 2012 NATO agreed to re-establish military cooperation with Russia after a gap during ten months.
This is a clear evidence that the reputation of Russia in Eastern Europe still respected and taken into account as fairly dangerous opponent. NATO thought that by embracing Russia in strategic cooperation would prevent Russia to play its own scheme in the Eastern European region.
Russia's military offensive into Georgia to protect the two provinces which intended to break away from Georgia, namely South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Sergei Lavrov had urged NATO to appreciate the aspirations of the two provinces in Georgia to secede from Georgia, as when Georgia secede from the Soviet Union.
In addition, Russia also does not seem to be afraid to protest its partners from Western Europe for its decision to accept the membership of Ukraine and Georgia as a NATO member countries. Understandably, Georgia and Ukraine seems indeed to challenge Russia, and openly invite the support and assistance of the U.S. and its allies from Western Europe. Even, coincided with the victory day of the Soviet Armed Forces to destroy Germany in World War II, the U.S. and NATO seemed to deliberately provoke Russia to hold joint military exercises in Georgia that borders Russia's sovereign territory.
That's not all. Even Russia criticized the U.S. plan to build a missile shield in the Czech Republic and Poland. Russian judged all of this was not only a provocation against Russia, but also could endanger the territorial integrity of Russia as a whole.
Therefore, when there were signs of Georgia would destroy South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Russia sent its military forces attacking Georgia. This was for the first time Russia deploying troops abroad after the Soviet Union collapse in 1991. And NATO seemed to think twice to fill the coffers of Georgia to help it to hit back Russia.
Well, Russia under Putin's leadership has returned to restore its reputation as a superpower in the military field.
And the most important thing of all, Russia dared to oppose NATO plans to build a missile shield in Europe and judged it as an inhibiting factor to a new direction of the Russia-US-NATO relationship.
For the U.S. and its western allies, obviously this is quite crucial development, so that Washington and its western allies are always waging propaganda through the mainstream media sponsored by the giant conglomerate in the U.S., that the Russian leadership style ala Putin is unacceptable and contrary to democracy.
But Putin -- ever since his earlier presidency -- is equally hard to fight back America. Putin repeatedly warns the U.S. not to be the sole force that dominates the world unilaterally. Because according to Putin, American hegemony will bring the world into imbalance.
Maybe this makes "Obama's spell" in Russia does not work at all. This is seen clearly when Obama visited Russia, was greeted in cold. Obama criticism that Putin still think in terms of the Cold War -- in the eyes of Russia people -- just shows that Putin has intuitive sense in reading the international political constellation.
Putin can read the signs that behind the Obama rhetoric for Russia to break away from the mindset of Cold War, there is a hidden agenda to recast American hegemony in the international world stage. Therefore, the Obama's confrontational statement -- which attacked Putin as a leader whose one of his legs still in the Cold War era -- doesn't seem to help much to dilute the political communication between the U.S. and Russia.
Politically, economic and military, Russia deserves to be a substitute for the U.S. superpower, because in addition to having energy security (anti-embargo), Russia also can meet its energy needs without having to import, as well as its technological advancements in various fields, and especially its military power is reliable.
Thus, Bricmont assumption is still valid for Russia, but Putin distills them into, "Domination system indeed depends on military force!".
Not only that. For me -- who is waiting for the birth of the leader and the new leadership in 2016 -- Putin's figure as a leader will be an inspiration to bring back the figure of leadership who is able to animate the aspiration of his people and his nation.
***
[CZ-lacalifusa031914]
No comments:
Post a Comment