olivier védrine

Russia is the biggest country in the world stretching over 9,000 kilometres and with a surface area 35 times that of France (17 million square kilometres).  Russia has an unmatched wealth of natural resources and a population of over 140 million (eighth most populated country in world rankings).  These parameters alone make it a major player on the international geopolitical scene.

73% of the population live in urban areas and 80% of these inhabitants live to the west of the Ural mountain chain and consequently in Europe.  Russia boasts one of the best literacy rates in the world (99.5% in 1999) and despite the many ethnic groups speaking more than 70 dialects, most inhabitants are bi-lingual.  The fact that Russia is a federation allows it to manage the diverse ethnic groups spread over the vast area of the country. The population is young with 75% under the age of 45, however the death rate currently exceeds the birth rate despite policies introduced which favour the young.

The climate in Russia is subject to extremes between summer and winter months resulting in an average annual temperature of minus 5.5°C. The seasons of spring and autumn are almost non-existent.  The lowest recorded temperature of minus 70°C was taken in the town of Verkhoiansk and the average winter temperature hovers at around minus 25°C. Average summer temperatures vary between 20°C in the north and 38°C in the south. 

The climate has a direct influence on lifestyle and economic activity.  In some areas, the permafrost, which means that the soil sub-strata never de-frosts, creates financial and technical constraints for the construction and petroleum extraction industry.  

Since the break up of the USSR in 1990, Russia has had to face two major challenges: the transition from a closed Soviet economy to a liberal capitalist economy and to the acceptance of an economy ruled by the market resulting from supply and demand.

Russia is a member of the G8 group of industrialized countries with its economy ranking eleventh in the world according to the World Bank statistics of 2007.

Russia experienced an average growth in GDP of 6.8% from 1999 to 2004(after a financial crisis in 1998).  However its economic performance is based largely on the success of its natural resource industries, especially oil and gas.  This has led to the company Gazprom becoming a key element in Russian foreign policy.

90% of Russian oil is extracted from two major basins: Western Siberia (Tyumen area, 2144 kilometres east of Moscow) and the Volga-Ural (the Samara region, 860 kilometres south-east of Moscow and the autonomous Republic of Tatarstan).

Russia is classified as an emerging market but it qualifies as a special case for various reasons:

Firstly, it is the only country in this category not to be a newly industrialised country: for much of the 20th century it was the ideological and industrial heart of the military superpower, the USSR.

Secondly, it is a country which makes up a part of continental Europe. The capital city Moscow is situated before the Ural mountain range and it shares a common history with other European countries. 

Thirdly, Russia, unlike other emerging market economies, has an ageing population in common with its European neighbours. This decline will soon become a problematic issue when considering the growing Chinese presence in Eastern Siberia.

Politically, Russia is governed by a democratically elected government with a semi-presidential system.  The president and the prime-minister both have important roles regarding domestic decision making and in foreign policy.

For many reasons, often unjustifiable, Russia instils fear in Western countries, who would like to see this newly democratized country behaving according to the political norms of the old democracies of Western Europe.  We must beware of making ethnically based political judgments of third countries. In the case of Russia, the trials and tribulations of the past 20 years appear to have been forgotten.  The end of the USSR brought anarchy and the collapse of Russian influence in the Yeltsin years, a fall in living standards and demographic decline. A new state was created with the election of President Putin heralding a successful return to the international political scene (G8 membership) and real economic success (several years of high economic growth).  We must leave it for the Russians themselves to choose their path to democracy and the time to develop their own democratic model.  None of the old Western democratic models can be transferred from one state to another. Just imagine imposing French style democracy on the British and vice versa.  Russian democracy is targeted repeatedly by Western media, often demonstrating ignorance of Russian history and culture.  

This lack of comprehension leads to misunderstandings which can only be negative for Europe as a whole and could lead to a new political barrier running across the heart of Europe.  In these times of global geopolitical uncertainty we do not need new divisions in Europe but a tightening of the ranks behind a united front!

The history of Russia began in the 9th century in an area shared today by Ukraine, Belarus, and Western Russia. It was the time of the Kievan Rus’, founded by the Varangians, Vikings who came from Scandinavia and who were ruled by the Rurik dynasty. The Kievan Rus’ ruled over a federated state of oriental tribes with slave status.  In 988 AD, the Grand Prince Vladimir converted to Orthodox Christianity, the religion of the Byzantine Empire. Orthodoxy became the state religion and a major factor in maintaining Russian national unity. The thirteenth century Mongol-Tatar invasion put an end to the Kievan Rus’ and began the State of the Golden Horde. This state was founded by the Mongols in the south of the Volga and all the defeated Russian Principalities were forced to pay tribute and recognize Mongol Sovereignty which lasted for three centuries. Russia considers, certainly rightly, that its suffering and sacrifice under Mongol rule saved Europe from the Tatar- Mongol Yoke of servitude and allowed Western Europe to enjoy freedom and prosperity giving it the history it has today.

From the 13th to the 16th centuries, one Russian Principality, Muscovy, whose Capital was Moscow, took the lead in the revolt against the Mongols and created Russia.  This marked the beginning of the end of Mongol rule and the integration of the independent Russian principalities of Novgorod in 1478 and Pskov city-state in 1510.

Ivan IV also called Ivan the Terrible was the first prince to call himself Tsar seizing the remaining Mongolian kingdoms and extending the territory of Russia to the East without any obstacle.  Ivan IV considered himself to be the sole heir of Prince Vladimir.

Troubled times followed the end of the dynasty of the descendents of Rurik (dating from the Varangian Princes), until the creation of the Romanov dynasty in 1613. An era of great rulers followed: Peter the Great (1685-1725) who founded St Petersburg and declared it the new capital in 1712, symbolizing the openness of Russia to Europe.  Catherine II (1762-1796) called Catherine the Great, enlightened autocrat, patron of the arts, literature and education (based on the Encyclopaedia of Diderot and Alembert). She corresponded with Voltaire and invited Diderot to the royal Court. The Russian nobility became westernized through the influence of German philosophers and the French language. Some were enthusiastic about the ideas of the era of Enlightenment and even by the French Revolution. 

Russia entered the 19th century as a great powerful nation thanks to the reign of Alexander 1st who played an important role in the Napoleonic wars and the Holy Alliance.  Alexander II (1818-1881) also referred to as Alexander the Liberator, attempted to reform Russian society by proposing changes to the constitution in order to bring about the abolition of serfdom, reform to the judicial system and the laws of censorship, changes to the electoral system and even the military. He was assassinated for his efforts on the 13th March 1881 before he had realized his dreams. Alexander III ascended to the throne following the assassination of his father and led a series of contra-reforms in reaction to his fathers` violent death.  During his reign, industrialization of Russia grew rapidly thanks to foreign investment and the expansion of the rail network to over 30000 kilometres of track by 1890.  Russia continued to expand its sphere of influence covering China and Korea right up to Japan.

The defeat suffered by Russia in the war against Japan triggered the first Russian revolution in 1905.  Nicholas II (1868-1918) who became Tsar in 1894 was obliged to seek other opportunities for expansion of its sphere of influence.

Russia entered the war against Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1914 in defence of its Serbian ally.  The Russian forces attacked Eastern Poland and suffered humiliating defeat.  Social unrest erupted in February 1917 leading to the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II and the declaration of a Russian republic.  The October Revolution triggered by the Bolshevik political party on the 25th October 1917 led to the execution of the Royal family on the 17th July 1918 at Yekaterinburg.  A civil war between the Bolsheviks and the White Russians (Republicans or Monarchists) lasting three years ended with victory for the Bolsheviks on the 22 December 1922.  The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was established with Russia as a member state.

In the ensuing period, the USSR became a world power and one of the victors of the Second World War. With end of the war in 1945, the USSR and the USA divided the world into two powerful political spheres.  The battle of Stalin-grad (January 1943) was a key turning point in the war bringing the Soviet army to Berlin.  Europe was divided in two and the so called Iron Curtain remained in place until the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.  On December 21st 1991 the CPSU was dissolved by Mikhail Gorbachev and the Soviet Union collapsed.  As the main successor of the USSR, Russia has its place in International Institutions and a permanent seat at the Security Council of the United Nations.  A political and economic union, the CIS was created in 1991 in an attempt to retain ties between former members of the USSR.

The election to power of President Putin in 2000 brought about a Russian revival and a return the world political scene, after the period of political and economic collapse marked by the Yeltsin years.

Today we see Russia re-instated as a great nation participating in international decision making and an important player in geopolitics. 

During the 1990`s, the West was judged to have hurt the feelings of the Russian people by underestimating them as a nation.  With the arrival of Putin in 2000 a deep distrust developed towards the European Union mostly as a result of the “Colour Revolutions” and the ensuing encroachment on the traditional Russian sphere of influence.  Before this time, the Kremlin had been seeking an arrangement with the EU to counter American influence in Europe especially concerning the missile shield project, which had served to deepen the humiliation felt by Russia after the collapse of the Warsaw pact.  The limits of Russian tolerance were reached with the case of Georgia and Ossetia, where the Georgian President Saakachvili was under the illusion that he could act with impunity due to alleged re-assurances of support from third countries.  The Russian response was rapid and meant to send an unequivocal warning to the USA and to certain European countries.  Russian emerged from this political crisis with its place in the Caucasus firmly repositioned and its political role as the dominant player in the area reaffirmed.  It is without any doubt the first combined military and political success story for Russia since the collapse of the USSR.

If we wish to avoid a face-off between the European Union and Russia and a new rift dividing Europe, we must seek to define a mutually agreeable space to work in together. Failure to do so will weaken the influence of Europe as a player on the stage of world geopolitics and give pleasure and advantage to our political and economic competitors.

We need to work together to build a strategic partnership using a model of the project based on the four “Common areas”. Following the Saint-Petersburg Summit in May 2003, Russia and the EU made a joint declaration for the creation and establishment of four common areas relating to, Economics, freedom, justice and security, external security and research.  The road maps of the four areas were adopted at the Moscow Summit on the 10th May 2005 due to the personal involvement of the Russian President Vladimir Putin.  These were for Brussels and Moscow, real working documents, less restrictive than International treaties and brought an important political dimension to co-operation between Russia and the EU.  Whilst certain criticisms have been directed at these roadmaps, they do nonetheless serve as a starting point for the building of a truly Pan- European shared space in economic, political and cultural issues.

A Europe reflecting the vision of General Charles de Gaulle: From the Atlantic to the Ural passing through the axis of Paris-Berlin-Moscow!
 

Olivier VEDRINE

Professor at the IESEG School of Management, Catholic University of Lille.
Lecturer of the European Commission (TEAM-EUROPE France).
President of The Atlantic-Ural College.

On May 7^th and 8^th , the Czech presidency of the European Union was able to reunite  the key players of Eastern Europe in the hopes of reestablishing ties between the EU and its ex-Soviet Union neighbors (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldavia and Ukraine) to help reinforce their independence and assure new sources of energy supplies.  The EU is trying, on a basis of pragmatic cooperation, to maintain European presence in these countries, which has lead to speculation that it is about to encroach on the sphere of Russian strategical interests.  But appearances are deceiving.

To begin, Europe does not have a strategic global vision, and it would be wrong to view the whole new oriental partnership as an attempt to diminish Russian influence.  Two factors support this point of view:

-         Firstly, the EU is not yet a powerful political/military force and prefers to cooperate with Russia in the handling of crises;

-         Secondly, the economic ties between Russia and its immediate neighbors are sufficiently strong, and the latter doesn’t want to risk such a market, which absorbs their industrial and agricultural products as well as millions of migrant workers, for a project whose future is still uncertain.

Although certain elements of the partnership remain promising, it is a long way off from making a useful contribution to the emergence of an economic pole in geopolitical pluralism within the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). It is more likely destined to promote relations between the EU and its partners and reinforce their integration in different means of cooperation but at the same level of interaction as with Russia. It is more a matter of complementarity of cooperation than of competition and more about reinforced integration than membership. It is for this reason that the affected States of the ex-USSR adopt a more reasonable approach even if Ukraine still hopes for full membership pure and simple.  The greatest weakness of this partnership is in fact the lack of means for its goals and above all, its incentives in terms of membership. 

Also, the new international context, which is linked to the multilateral approach and to the more pragmatic international policy of the new Obama Administration, tends to put Russia at ease. The new president is fixed on two priorities – Iran and Afghanistan – and is looking, in contrast to his predecessor, to avoid unnecessary provocations by notably abandoning the pursuit of the new version of the containment policy. This policy is aimed at reducing Russian sway by promoting “revolutions of colors”in the ex-Soviet sphere of influence, which were considered to be “natural steps” in the strategic vision of the Kremlin. This approach seems to suit Moscow, as it would be more advantageous for it to adopt a cooperative approach under the condition that it maintains its dominant position in its old guarded domain.  Behind this point of view, one can find a point of equilibrium in the relations between Russia and the United States. For example Washington renounced its unilateral initiative of antimissile shields in favor of a common project with Moscow, in which they engage in problematic affairs, such as those found in Iran and Afghanistan. This could allow for a reconfiguration of the power struggle, and it would assure Russia that it remains the major force in that region, allowing everyone a piece of the pie. Indeed, the help that Russia could bring the Iranian question would be enormous and fundamental for regional and international security. Iran seeks to become a regional power, putting itself in competition with NATO member and EU candidate Turkey, in order to, among other things, contain the influence of the UnitedState. The first trip of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad after his reelection took him as invitee to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Summit in Yekaterinburg in the Ural. This organization was created in 1996 by Russia and China to be an alternative to NATO and in response to US influence in central Asia. Four central Asian countries are members, all the former Soviet republics: Kazakhstan, Kirghistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. Iran holds an observer status. It is important to note, that in October 2007, the Caspian Summit in Teheran, held during the peak of the nuclear crisis, has been a success for Iran as well as for Russia.

            This agreeable arrangement with Russia could also contribute to the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Indeed, one goal of the Obama Administration is to improve the American image in the Muslim world. In this context, Turkey is an ally not to be ignored in connecting American interests of becoming a regional player in the Middle East and also in the South Caucasus. Hence the American incentives to normalize relations between Turkey and Armenia, that have been broken off in 1993 following the occupation of 20% of the territory of Azerbaijan by Armenian military forces. But this issue pre-requires diplomatic progress in finding a peaceful solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which demands a more active role of the United States and Russia. However, the Russian motivations are different: first, by excluding such a possibility for the resolution of the Ossetian and Abkhazian conflict, Moscow continues its efforts to bring the Saakhashvili regime to its knees, again to ensure direct access to Armenia, its stronghold in the South Caucasus; then in the setting of a potential rapprochement between Turkey and Armenia, the Kremlin thinks about balancing its relations with Azerbaijan, while encouraging them to sell the bulk of its natural gas to the Russian gas giant "Gazprom", which aims to challenge the European gas pipeline "Nabucco".

            Contrary to what one might think, Azerbaijan has not attempted to use its energy weapon as a means of diplomatic pressure in the process of normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia. But it suggested to lead the two negotiations in a single process and to push the progress in resolving the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh towards the rapprochement between the two countries. The historical and cultural ties that bind the Turkish people to those of Azerbaijan and the popular reaction that Ankara's policy has sparked in both countries, has made the Turkish government aware that without eliminating the causes that led to the closing of the borders, no action can be taken to remedy the effects. This position has relieved Baku and “dispelled all suspicions" as declared by the President Ilham Aliyev, following the visit of the Turkish Prime Minister on May 13, 2009. Azerbaijan considers its demand legitimate due to the fact that 20% of its territories are still under Armenian occupation. It has called on Turkey and the international community as a whole to adopt a common position and to stand firm in this situation, rather than to consolidate the Armenian position at the round table negotiations demanding open borders between Turkey and Armenia.

Azerbaijan has yet to give in to Russian requests to purchase all of its gas as they are looking to ensure the security of their resource routes by diversifying the pipelines in multiple directions. This is the reason for which, in the past, they postponed the exploitation of the second phase of the Shah Deniz well, expected to produce over 16 billion cubic meters of natural gas per annum. Under the circumstances, Azerbaijan, which already exports gas to Turkey and Greece, was favorable towards the “Nabucco” pipeline project to transport the majority of its gas, although they can no longer infinitely await the Europeans. Furthermore, with its increased gas production, it is in need of markets and competitive prices which only Russia is taking the initiative to offer. During President Medvedev’s visit to Baku on the 29^th of June 2009, Gazprom proceeded to sign an agreement of purchase with the Azerbaijanis state petrol company (SOCAR) concerning 500 million cubic meters of gas as of the 1^st of January 2010. For Baku, this contract is based on commercial considerations with prices as high as 350 dollars per 1000 cubic meters of gas. For the moment though, the volume in question is too insignificant to be a fatal blow by depriving “Nabucco” of a reliable and vital source. In any case, the danger is not far off if the Europeans do not soon decide the fate of their projects and do not rapidly offer purchasing contracts to Azerbaijan. Wasting time could, in effect, put an end to this project. Even more so as the key actor in the region, which is Azerbaijan, constitutes a strategic transit zone for Central Asia which is among the top suppliers of “Nabucco”. Azerbaijan’s eventual change of course could incite the Central Asian countries, such as Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan, to turn to Asia instead.  Let us be reminded that after the recent explosion on the pipeline between Turkmenistan and Russia, Turkmenistan has been made more aware than even of the vulnerability of their dependence on their large neighbor to the north. It is no coincidence that Turkmenistan’s authorities have recently proposed new opportunities to western companies in the exploitation of hydro-carbons. In this colossal game, the realization of “Nabucco” does not depend on Russian opposition with their competing projects such as “South Stream”, but largely on the engagement of European partners. In this relationship, the European Union has two strategic imperatives, the first being an improved level of cooperation with Russia, which is part of Eastern Europe, and the second being the continuation of the adhesion process for Turkey. It is in the strategic, balanced position that the right path can be found to its policies and the defense of its energy interests.

Olivier VEDRINE

President of the Atlantic-Ural College

Paris, FRANCE

Lecturer of the European Commission

(TEAM EUROPE France)

Fazil Zeynalov                                                         

Political scientist                                             

Baku, Azerbaijan

This text is also available at: http://blog.multipol.org/post/2009/08/01/ANALYSE-%3A-The-Oriental-Partnership-the-Geopolitical-Stakes-and-Azerbaijan

Will the results of the European elections be characterized by the great victory of the extremes? Will the economic crisis push European citizens to turn towards simplistic solutions from the past? Within its member states, the EU can see the return of nationalistic fallback movements. The flourishing economy of growth did not erase these old derivatives, making the political Union appear more than desirable.

Europe was paralyzed for fifty years by both the Cold War and the occupation of Eastern Europe by the USSR. After the fall of the Soviet model, came the explosion of Yugoslavia, this conflict threw the south-east of the Balkans into a fratricidal war for more than ten years. NATO and the international community had to intervene to put an end to this tragedy. This war was sparked by the use of religious and ethnic differences by politicians who sought to reach their own personal goals.

Within the EU, the return of nationalism on a political level can often be explained by the fear for the loss of national identity due to the expansion of Europe as well as globalization. The lack of politicization of the European debate over the last few years helped fuel these fears. Thus the proposal of a political vision for Europe is urging, a grand and noble social project.

The phenomenon of the return of nationalism has nothing to do with the extremism of the 1930’s. To begin with, these movements did not appear in the industrial cities hit by unemployment but rather in the prosperous region, home to the bourgeoisie. There we could find low level executives and employees of dynamic SME’s (Small and Medium sized Enterprises) or employees of the tourism sector, which represents a lucrative economic activity. Already, this “neo poujadism” saw only waste and exploitation of its labor in the redistribution on a state or European level. At the time, “the extreme right exploited the egoism of a wealthy electorate which sought only to defend its privileges and which was not at all concerned with solidarity.” (Vincent de Coorebyter, director of the centre for research and sociopolitical information.)

These movements were born during an economically prosperous age. What would happen to us if the crisis we are currently undergoing was to endure? What if the EU did not meet the expectations of its member states? An outburst?

To begin with we must respond in a collective, European way to this crisis with a very pedagogic explanation of the decisions taken on behalf of the citizens and parallel to this, create a desire for Europe: Europe must make us dream!

How to make people dream in order to make them join?

“An important psychological factor also contributed to the imperial power: no assertion of identity could compete with the civis romanus sum (“I am a Roman citizen”), source of pride and of aspiration for many. Finally conceded to the subjects of non-Roman birth, the coveted status of “citizen” expressed a cultural superiority which made expansion of the empire a true mission. Wherever it was imposed, the law of Rome found its legitimacy and encouraged those who lived by it to wish for assimilation in the imperial structures. The cultural superiority, obvious to the eyes of the Masters and acknowledged by the subjects, reinforced the established order.” (Zbigniew Brzezinski: le Grand Echiquier, l’Amérique et le reste du Monde).

This Empire, one of the historical cradles of Europe, proposed to the world a federative civilization project. The European Union must, for the sake of its member state citizens, elaborate a new society so as to federate, without reviving an imperial vision. A social humanistic project could fuel the creation and development of a constitution. It is an opportunity to seize for our continent in a world that is becoming multi-polar. There are multiple development and social models and the primary objective is to co-exist comfortably. The European Union could propose a project that would combat instability (essential in times of crisis!), that would respect the environment and that would allow each citizen to indulge in their own search for happiness. We must admit, in a pragmatic way, that the market economy is the only model that works, even though, as the current crisis has shown us, we must rethink it so that the economy serves man and not the other way round.

Let us hope that the destiny of the EU will differ from that of an ancient Greek League which, once the Persian peril gone, collapsed.

We have all the means necessary to become a great power, able to influence in the future of the world and thus our own future. We are still missing the political will; the crisis can be a chance to impose this political will. The Lisbon Treaty is necessary to advance in this success story which is the European construction. Furthermore, a constitution would be the zenith of this long road, it would have the same strength and would symbolize the same as the constitutions proposed in France in 1791 and the United States in 1787.

"If to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterwards defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair. The event is in the hand of God." – George Washington. Comments at the First Continental Congress on May 14, 1787 at Philadelphia .

This desire for Europe must be one of the major objectives of the political debates concerning the European elections; it will create the necessary tools for the construction of a fully-fledged European Union, and effectively oppose all types of extremism.

Olivier VEDRINE