Russian political psyche: history and modernity

[AmericanPride]

Kaur,

That's part of the problem in de-centering an imperial power: where are the legitimate boundaries? Which norms make those boundaries legitimate? The Westphalian nation-state model provides some answers, but that's a different paradigm than the one under which the Russian state operates. The historical references of Moscow are not the same as those of Washington, London, etc. In the Russian experience, boundaries (and nationalities) are mobile, and state systems are less defined by their geographic scope than their political reach through networks of patronage. During the Yeltsin years, the Russian elite attempted to make this transformation from an imperial power to a Westphalian one, but that project ended in failure.

EDIT: There is not a differentiation between internal and external in an imperial system, or a recognition of subordinate but equal political units. The Westphalian model emphasizes the creation of nation-states, but Russia has historically been a single state with multiple nations. Whatever political structures were granted to these nations were subordinated to the centralized power in St. Petersburg and/or Moscow. So what the dismantling of the USSR did was create numerous issues about the territorial integrity and sovereignty of of new political units created for nations that were not, on the whole, independent historically. So what are the geographical limits of centralization? There are none because imperial power is not defined by geography. We use the Westphalian typology that makes clear demarcations between internal and external to describe the construction of states, which makes it difficult to describe the importance of the term 'Near Abroad' in the Russian foreign policy lexicon. Essentially, from Moscow's perspective, there is no difference between Ukraine and any of Russia's 22 republics.

[kaur]

AmericanPride, fact is that in Russia-Urkaine war Russian side has violated several agreements.

http://www.dw.de/bound-by-treaty-rus...mea/a-17487632

Some Russians claim that this is the beginning of new era of international relations and old agreements are not binding.

To follow your logic there must be done grand scale borders redrawing in Middle East. Let's start with Iraq and Afganistan. Sounds good?

http://www.oilempire.us/oil-jpg/afj...._map_after.JPG

Should we follow Huntington's map?

If you follow this Putin's definition I'm wondering when he intends to come to Brighton beach and liberate all Russian jews from Israel

[O]ur compatriots [sootechestvenniki], Russian people [russkiie lyudi], people of other ethnicities, their language, history, culture, their legitimate rights. When I say Russian people and Russian-speaking [russkoyazychnyie) citizens, I mean people who sense that they are a part of the broad Russian World, not necessarily of Russian ethnicity, but everyone who feels to be a Russian person [russkiy chelovek].

http://www.jamestown.org/programs/ed...c#.U7207mIaySM

[AmericanPride]

AmericanPride, fact is that in Russia-Urkaine war Russian side has violated several agreements.

Hypocrisy and deception have always been a part of politics, Russian or otherwise.

Some Russians claim that this is the beginning of new era of international relations and old agreements are not binding.

True - to an extent. Power differentials between U.S., Russia, China, and Europe are changing, and this is having different effects in their respective capitals. Russia's perception of success is dependent on its historical reference points, most recently the collapse of the USSR and the chaos of the Yeltsin years. Emerging from this period, even as an authoritarian 'sovereign democracy', is a welcome change from the Russian perspective. Moscow is more assertive because opportunities exist, and those opportunities exist because the relative power balance between the U.S. and Russia has changed in Russia's favor since 2003.

To follow your logic there must be done grand scale borders redrawing in Middle East. Let's start with Iraq and Afganistan. Sounds good?

The logic of empire in Russia is not the same as the political logic in the Middle East - and there's no universal underlying political logic in the Middle East, anyway, that contextualizes the policies of the states in that region. The Arab monarchies, Arab republics, Iranian theocracy, Israel, and Turkey all have different reference points, values, and assumptions. The problem in the ME isn't the drawing of boundaries, but the inherent weakness of the region's states that makes them incapable of monopolizing political power within their assigned boundaries. That the legitimacy of these boundaries are also questioned does not add to the region's stability. Anyway - there are some arguments out there supporting a revolutionary redrawing of the ME's borders on sectarian/ethnic lines. That's something with which I disagree since homogeniety is not a guarantor of stability (or of democratization).

Should we follow Huntington's map?

Huntington's thesis is not useful. Dividing people on sectarian basis is an assured way to drive conflict on a sectarian basis.

[kaur]

True - to an extent. Power differentials between U.S., Russia, China, and Europe are changing, and this is having different effects in their respective capitals. Russia's perception of success is dependent on its historical reference points, most recently the collapse of the USSR and the chaos of the Yeltsin years. Emerging from this period, even as an authoritarian 'sovereign democracy', is a welcome change from the Russian perspective. Moscow is more assertive because opportunities exist, and those opportunities exist because the relative power balance between the U.S. and Russia has changed in Russia's favor since 2003.

Mm, how is this Ukraine case connected with USA and China. This war started because there was revolt in Kiev that was initated because Janukovish decided not to join AA/DCFTA agreement with EU. Putin with his hawks perceived this like NATO enlargement to Ukraine. Did they miscalculate? Is EU USA Troyan horse? I doubt seriously. Russia just grabbed land violating international agreements. Should this be tolerated?

What power balance? Count the national power of both and you see that they are uncompearable. What Russia has is aggressive stance and will to use arms, that USA lacks in former Russian empire area. If will power can be calculated then I agree with you.

About Huntington. Am I stupid, but it seems that Putin with his definition is preaching that civilization thing.

[AmericanPride]

This war started because there was revolt in Kiev that was initated because Janukovish decided not to join AA/DCFTA agreement with EU. Putin with his hawks perceived this like NATO enlargement to Ukraine. Did they miscalculate? Is EU USA Troyan horse? I doubt seriously. Russia just grabbed land violating international agreements. Should this be tolerated?

That's the proximate cause but not the structural cause. Yanukovych was not inherently pro-Russian - in his first years in office, he attempted to approach the West. Ukraine's domestic politics required him to maintain his distance from both Russia and EU, and eventually the inefficiencies in Ukraine's economy (mainly the black hole of their debt) overturned the boat. Yanukovych wanted to avoid the privatization of Ukraine's economy since its ravaging would cost him his political legitimacy - the intentions of the new government were revealed in the opening days in office when they made it clear they were on a 'suicide' run to sell off state assets, including and perhaps most importantly the state's natural gas infrastructure. 'Austerity' is the price for the West's bailout of Ukraine's economy, but that was a price Yanukovych was unwilling to pay politically. So, after refusing the EU agreement upon seeing the terms he would have to meet, his time ran out. Moscow was happy to provide him cash and on generous terms and seemed for a time content with Ukraine's neutrality. Washington was never pleased with that situation since, as a great power, its interested in relative power gains made by the Russians. The crisis escalated when the Russians realized Washington's soft power grab had no back up plan - hard power trumps soft power any day. Is it worth it for Russia? Who am I to say? I will say that it's unsurprising to me how Russia responded. I've said since the beginning that Russia would not directly intervene to seize eastern Ukraine but that the conflict would persist until Ukraine formed a unity government since absent a neutral Ukraine, a divided and weakened one is prefered.