The Kremlin Kowtow

Why have Western leaders and intellectuals gone soft on Russia's autocracy?

BY LILIA SHEVTSOVA | JANUARY 5, 2010

At a recent meeting with Russian liberals in Moscow, a well-known European intellectual started trying to convince them that, as he put it, "Russia is not a dictatorship these days. [President Dmitry] Medvedev is trying to liberalize the system, and with time Russia will become a democracy. You shouldn't try to hurry things." Not surprisingly, this advice provoked consternation among an audience that had expected at least some encouragement from Continental liberals.

At a conference last month in Berlin, I witnessed another example of this divide. When I started to raise the question of democratic standards in Western-Russian relations, I was interrupted by another Western attendee. "You irritate us," he said. "International relations are not about values; they are about power!" If he is right, Russian liberals will have to reconsider their expectations about the Western opinion-leaders they have long counted on for moral support and understanding.

A consensus seems to be growing among Western policymakers and intellectuals that Russia is not ready for liberalism and that there are even certain advantages to dealing with the illiberal political order built by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. This may be why Western policy toward Russia has only served to shore up the Russian powers that are pursuing anti-Western interests. The results could be catastrophic -- not merely for the activists who are working to make Russia a free country, but for the moral authority of those in the West who preach liberty but practice something quite different.

The U.S. "reset button" policy demonstrates this paradox nicely. The United States, of course, needs to have a dialogue with Russia on security issues, including arms control. But turning a nuclear arms pact into the main item on the agenda only reveals how reluctant both sides are to discuss the real issues at stake -- the fundamental political differences between the two societies. Instead, Moscow and Washington revive ghosts of the past and use a Cold-War era mechanism to try to imitate cooperation. In the end, the U.S.-Russian security dialogue will do little to help President Barack Obama accomplish his goals of reining in an aggressive Iran, ending the war in Afghanistan, and advancing a nonproliferation regime. Instead, it will work in the Kremlin's favor, bolstering Russia's great-power status and making it easier to prop up the current authoritarian system.

The European Union's policy on Russia is also helping to maintain the Russian status quo, buying Russian energy resources and raw materials, and helping to finance Russia's oligarch class and strengthen the political elite. Having accepted Russia into European institutions -- the Council of Europe in particular -- European leaders try not to notice that Russia's system does not conform to the very principles these organizations are designed to promote. One could get the impression that, for the sake of advancing their economic interests, European governments have decided not to make an issue out of these principles, convincing themselves that Russia is simply not ready for them yet.

Astakhov Dmitry/AFP/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS:
 

Lilia Shevtsova is senior associate at the Moscow Center of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

RICHARDBRAC

8:50 AM ET

January 6, 2010

Russia

wow, that "What Does Russia Think" was really good. thanks for the link.

 

KVIATEK

8:24 PM ET

January 6, 2010

pragmatism and democracy

Is the EU reluctant to human rights situation in Russia?
Lilia Shevtsova questions whether Western civilization can resolve its own internal problems with democracy if it abandons its mission of promoting liberty.
I do not see here a relationship. Moreover, I do not think that the EU has problems with democracy. On the contrary, the societies are open to express their opinion, also on politics of 'promotion of liberty', which, actually, lacks the broad public support.
Thus, the 'pragmatism' of the West is the outcome of a democratic political system. Moreover, its seems that at the moment this is the only effective policy towards Russia, also with regard to promotion of human rights, whether we like it or not.

 

ANKO

6:47 PM ET

January 9, 2010

I am surprised

Guys! It is really funny you are not checking the topic of this article : )
The only thing I see here is the anxiety about good development of relationship between Russia and EU. Of course this can give concern by American politicians. Russia has resources and EU technology, could be good alliance. And in the last time American policy does not show us some convincing tenets. I beg you when dictatorship hinders USA from a profitable business with third countries? Do you really believe in democracy in Saudi Arabia or Georgia? Like nobody of you gave a shit about how to pay cheap loans before crisis, so nobody in USA cares about democracy in the world. But if Europeans are getting closer to such attractive oil barrel like Russia, of course American politicians are alarmed. And Lilia Shevtsova is going to be good and before all things cheap mouthpiece of their trumpet.

 

CPISAJIW

3:41 PM ET

January 12, 2010

Reply to AR and F1 and all Russophile apologists

I am sorry to contradict the writer of this comment but Russian imperialist autocracy is, and always will be our business, as long as closet tyrants like Putin and his puppet/proxy Medvedev are in charge, doing everything they can to undermine and persecute the voices of democratically minded Russians like the articles author, and Kasparov.

Why should the West be afraid always to stand up to the mythical Russian bear? I am always reminded of the excellent scene in the classic movie "Patton" where General Patton played by George C. Scott laments that he is not allowed to fight the Russians while all the troops are there, as "we will probably fight the SOB's sooner or later anyway". I am by no means advocating fighting the Russians, but certainly standing up to them vis a vis Putin's policies. It seems sometimes, judging by the way they behave, the Russian rulers, be they the Soviets or the current "siloviki" and "vor y zakonye" only understand it when, as Patton was fond of saying "you grab em by the nose and kick em in the pants". They certainly seem to fear and respect only a show of strength, not democracy.

Since Putin has been in power he has done nothing but solidify his position and squash the opposition. Why do we then treat him any differently than we do Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong Il? Why is he not an international pariah like he deserves to be? Why do we not support the millions of democratically minded Russians who are persecuted by him? Why do we not include the geo-strategically and politically important country of Ukraine into NATO and the EU as a natural buffer to Russian would be hegemony?

Probably for precisely the reasons that the author alludes to, namely that Russia wields it's gas and oil power as a political weapon, trying to gain every sort of leverage that it can over Germany and the EU. At the same time Putin uses the threat of shutting of gas to Russia's peaceful and peace-loving neighbors of Ukraine and Belarus as a political stick, essentially making this a policy of war by another means.

It is time for the West and especially the EU to wake up and stand up to the big bully of Putin's Russia, irrespective of their energy woes. Just as we seek other sources of energy in the U.S. to free ourselves of the centrifugal forces of Middle Eastern politics and influence, perhaps it is time for the EU to free itself from the Russian energy pimp. Only in this way can we then start using leverage on them to democratize, and join the rest of the civilized world.

 

F1FAN

4:44 PM ET

January 6, 2010

Why should western leaders care about Russia's autocracy?

That is the first question. It's articles like this that always make me shake my head. That somehow we that live in democratic nations should always tie foreign policy to exporting 'democracy' ,'human rights' and 'values'. To put it bluntly: Russian autocracy is none of our business. How Russian leaders are elected (or not) and how they wield their power in reference to their citizens (or subjects) is a purely internal matter. So while we should never be afraid to say that we don't like what's going on internally in Russia, we shouldn't be staking it to foreign policy and try to force changes from outside. If the Russian people are concerned about the direction their government is taking it is their place to change it, not ours, and if they are afraid to stick their necks out to change it then that's their business as well.

 

AR

8:17 PM ET

January 6, 2010

Glad to see someone else here

Glad to see someone else here who takes Washington's farewall address to the nation to heart.

Basically, the author, and others who are paid to spread the anti-Russian hysteria that's been going on since Putin came to power, are imperilists with a human rights cloak. The so called West shit (some still do) in the toilet that everyone is swimming in now yet has the nerve to dictate how other nations should be run.

 

CPISAJIW

1:52 PM ET

January 12, 2010

Why Should'nt They? And Why are Russian Imperialists so Afraid?

I am sorry to contradict the writer of this comment but Russian imperialist autocracy is, and always will be our business, as long as closet tyrants like Putin and his puppet/proxy Medvedev are in charge, doing everything they can to undermine and persecute the voices of democratically minded Russians like the articles author, and Kasparov.

Why should the West be afraid always to stand up to the mythical Russian bear? I am always reminded of the excellent scene in the classic movie "Patton" where General Patton played by George C. Scott laments that he is not allowed to fight the Russians while all the troops are there, as "we will probably fight the SOB's sooner or later anyway". I am by no means advocating fighting the Russians, but certainly standing up to them vis a vis Putin's policies. It seems sometimes, judging by the way they behave, the Russian rulers, be they the Soviets or the current "siloviki" and "vor y zakonye" only understand it when, as Patton was fond of saying "you grab em by the nose and kick em in the pants". They certainly seem to fear and respect only a show of strength, not democracy.

Since Putin has been in power he has done nothing but solidify his position and squash the opposition. Why do we then treat him any differently than we do Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong Il? Why is he not an international pariah like he deserves to be? Why do we not support the millions of democratically minded Russians who are persecuted by him? Why do we not include the geo-strategically and politically important country of Ukraine into NATO and the EU as a natural buffer to Russian would be hegemony?

Probably for precisely the reasons that the author alludes to, namely that Russia wields it's gas and oil power as a political weapon, trying to gain every sort of leverage that it can over Germany and the EU. At the same time Putin uses the threat of shutting of gas to Russia's peaceful and peace-loving neighbors of Ukraine and Belarus as a political stick, essentially making this a policy of war by another means.

It is time for the West and especially the EU to wake up and stand up to the big bully of Putin's Russia, irrespective of their energy woes. Just as we seek other sources of energy in the U.S. to free ourselves of the centrifugal forces of Middle Eastern politics and influence, perhaps it is time for the EU to free itself from the Russian energy pimp. Only in this way can we then start using leverage on them to democratize, and join the rest of the civilized world.

 

AR

8:36 PM ET

January 6, 2010

The so called 'West' would

The so called 'West' would like nothing more than for Russia to return to the pathetic state it was in during the turbulent 90s, when the drunk, western, stooge, yeltsin let the country go to hell and the oligarchic problem was a thousand times worse than it is today. Statements like these " But if the West loses this pro-Western minority, it will lose Russia altogether." reveal how so called 'liberals' like yourself, know so little about the international system, historical western attitudes toward Russia,and how the world works in general.

As for the gentleman that told you, "International relations are not about values; they are about power!", he is spot on! It has been this way since before recorded history and it will continue to be so. Time to wake up a smell the coffee.

http://img.moronail.net/img/5/6/1156.jpg

 

ALBAR

3:46 AM ET

January 7, 2010

It's unfortunate that you and

It's unfortunate that you and many other Russians think this way about the west. Let me tell you this: you are dead wrong about what's best for the US and Europe with regards to Russia. A crumbling, poor Russia is a Russia with an uncertain future. Indeed, one of the big features of a prosperous, liberal democratic system is that it has a stabilising effect for trade and diplomacy.
Sure, there are still people in the US that have retained their cold war sentimentalities, but they are just a remnant of the old world view and will be replaced by the coming generation and so will your ilk.

 

SOULCASE

2:13 PM ET

January 7, 2010

Russian Obscruantism

No, the West does not want a weak Russia. How typical for nationalists: bluster against straw men and paranoia-cum-hypocrisy. Idealists in the West would like to see a more liberal and open Russian society, because this means a more stable Russian society. True intellectuals may want this as well, as a stable Russia is less likely to sling its conventional and nuclear weapons around the world, and induldge in adventurism in its backyard. Realists, myself included, would rather see a prosperous, stable but oppressive Russia rather than a free, but poor and unsecure one. And drunk Russian stooges need no Western encouragement.

 

RKKA

9:31 PM ET

January 7, 2010

Ms. Shevtsova, Russians do

Ms. Shevtsova,

Russians do recall how they lived when Western-oriented Russian liberals were running things. It wasn't well.

And for those who believe the West is interested in a strong Russia, merely recall the pittance the West expended in support of democracy in Russia, after spending trillions on crushing the USSR and while spending hundreds of billions to establish global military dominance. Essentially, the US decided to have an arms race with itself rather than invest in a "strong" Russia.

Put simply, the West did not will the means to support democracy in a "strong" Russia, preferring to invest in military domination. Therefore the West cannot be said to have been at all serious about supporting a strong, democratic Russia.

At this point, the West is best ignored, and that goes double for the likes of Shevtsova, who find their only political support in Western publications.

 

SDO

12:19 AM ET

January 7, 2010

why are there so many Putin apologists?

one word:

Putintaur.
http://i49.tinypic.com/dlmgd3.jpg

 

HSCHMIDT

9:23 AM ET

January 7, 2010

Great article

What a great article. "Westerners" should be replaced with "Europeans", since this is the real point. In any case, it's about time that we start seriously considering European states as "slightly democratic" countries. If you look into what is happening in Germany regarding the old communist criminals (they live happily in wealth and regret nothing), then you might get the idea why.

 

GENNY

12:17 PM ET

January 7, 2010

just a view...

On Dec 31st, 1999 Mr. Putin was introduced to the public as a guy, who will stay here (in the Kremlin office) some time to look after it. Mr. Putin openly positioned himself as Russian secret service agent acting as (playing the role of) head of state. Basic circumstances of his coming to power are known: immobilizing strong and powerful and wide liberal movement by various operative means (no sense to list 'em here), mainly, using financial slip-knot and playing on 'vertical' controversies. He totally defeated Russian liberals. Question: Why caesar continues to play White Snow? Maybe, in the agent's instructions is written that he shan't make angry the aunt?

 

GENNY

5:18 PM ET

January 7, 2010

 

NEILSCHMEIL

6:44 PM ET

January 7, 2010

The dangers of relativsm

I think there is too much moral relativism that plagues these kind of discussions and encourages apologists. While things like a country's economic system, religion, or cultural values should be left up to the country itself, there are some values that are universal. It is not just America trying to push its values on others when it demands good governance that respects basic human rights. Allowing citizens basic freedoms, creating a society that is not in constant fear of the state, and demanding an end to corruption are UNIVERSAL values that cannot be called into question. We are often taught in the West to be accepting of cultural differences, which is a great ethic to instill in children, but sometimes we take that acceptance too far. The movie Borat illustrated that in a crude, humorous way by showing what real Americans would put up with just because they thought he was a foreigner. No, we should not invade any country that refuses democracy and no, we should not push our views without cause. But we should at least be willing to make it clear that we don't approve and that we won't unconditionally prop up governments that violate universal, basic rights and values.

 

NICU

7:26 AM ET

January 8, 2010

defending human rights

Dear Lilia,

you are in many ways right. but the problem is much broader. what you describe in relation to Russia actually happens in relations to most authoritarian states. Witness the whole China-Dalai-Lama (Obama refusing to meet him, Sarkozy being snubbed by the Chinese for meeting him, etc etc)... then the West also criticizes less and less not only Russia and China, but also much smaller states like Belarus, Azerbaijan, the states of Central Asia or Khamid Karzai for that matter. Roughly the cause for that is a sense in the West that the redistribution of power in world affairs away from the West undermines its ability to shape developments, and if the West's criticism is less relevant than ever before, why criticise at all? now, one might agree or not, but that is a very broad trend which has nothing to do with people being convinced that Putin is a great leader and all that. It is rather the rise of a self-doubting West.

A second point I would raise is the following. One should not equate democracy promotion with loud and public criticism. There are quieter and legitimate ways to care about values. sometimes Western states do use quiet diplomacy and sometimes it is more helpful than megaphone diplomacy. However, just like you, I would doubt they do even that in relation to Russia.

 

MUSICMASTER

4:57 PM ET

January 8, 2010

Reverse the logic

So according to the author trade between Europe and the US is trade between friends but when Europe trades with Russia it is supporting Putin and Russia's democratic deficits.

Reversing the logic this means that Europe should not trade with the US as that means that it is supporting Guantanamo, the death penalty and a "democracy" that has been thoroughly corrupted by wealthy interests. Allthough many Europeans worry about these tings no one would suggest eceonomic sanctions. This raises the question why we should apply a different logic with Russia.

It looks the author is a member of this Russian "liberal movement" that she promotes. This money-hungry movement has totally lost its support after its gross misbehavior under Yeltsin. Now they have fallen so far in their greed that are lobbying in the West to harm Russia.

 

ALKID

7:04 AM ET

January 11, 2010

So called "democracy" has

So called "democracy" has compromised itself in Russia during 90-s. These were the years of chaos with most of Russian people suffering. Now common people is not very happy with goverment and overall situation in country, but most of them see Putin/Medvedev goverment as INFINETELY better than Yeltsin's one.

You see, this makes some principal problem to democracy on our country, because majority of people oppose introducing western-style democracy in our country. "Returning" to democracy of 90-s for them is "returning" to life in chaos and poverty.

All this makes russians to be suspicious about motives of western powers. We do not beleive in western idealism considering "human-right rethorics" to be just another diplomatic tool to push Russia.

 

CPISAJIW

2:10 PM ET

January 12, 2010

ALLANGREEN

You should take your meds.