Does Russia Reel back or fight back?
Read more: Cold War, Ukraine, EU, NATO, Russian elites
BOVT Georgy far can the confrontation between Russia and the West go? There is a line where the two sides will stop before you start with a clean sheet? So far, the confrontation was only growing. The Cold War II can start any day, if not already in progress. It seems that the West and the Kremlin have no answers to these questions. They leave everything to chance. No country stopped to think that the world will be like in the mid-2020s, nor is anyone developing a short term policy, according to a long-term strategy. They forget that there are limits beyond which can grow dangerous confrontation.
Take Ukraine. It seems EU officials underestimated the Kremlin and Putin's determination to avoid calling Euro integration. Do not be fooled by their sovereign choice words about the Ukrainians. "EU officials may express his outrage at Putin's" blackmail "poor Yanukovych as much as they want. But when they and the Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland visit opposition from Kiev, Independence Square, to shake hands with the protesters and distribute breads between protesters and police, as did Ms. Nuland, the Kremlin definitely see this as fresh evidence that the unrest in Ukraine is being financed by external forces and it is directed against Russia.
The Russian ruling class firmly believe that nothing happens without a reason, and that most of what happens is directed against Russia.
Does anyone consider the integration of Ukraine if not for its eastern neighbor and its president? Who would have the courage to say "no" to this question?
According to the predominant, or better, the only belief in the Kremlin next stop after Ukraine NATO European integration would, with tanks and missiles block, let alone the defense system against ballistic missiles deployed near Belgorod and Kursk . Not even the girls administrator in western Kremlin guarantees confidence that the BMD system is not directed at Russia.
The Russian ruling class believes that the loss of Ukraine, and that is how your "escape" to the West, either via European integration or otherwise, is seen, is a threat to the survival of Russia, which must be fought by all available means, even by military force if all other methods fail.
Unfortunately, the Russian ruling class traditionally sees the world around him as a conglomerate of threats, large and small, rather than opportunities.
One can explain this by post-imperial complexes, theories that work well for all types of seminars held in centers of business pleasant five star hotels. When the Kremlin denounced eastward expansion of NATO through Georgia and Ukraine as an unacceptable threat, few people in the West thought Moscow would resort to military force, as it did in 2008, and would even consider marching all the way to Tbilisi. But that's what happened, and at a time when Russia-West relations were better than they are now and a different president sat in the Kremlin.
Will the authorities in Brussels, keep this in mind when they say they will not discuss the problem of Ukraine with Russia in a trilateral format, because "colonial era" is past, and refuse to admit that Moscow has an area of interest National? These may be the right words, but they are good only for the bright future when, as Mikhail Gorbachev put it, the world will be ruled by a new political thinking. But this age is not nothing but a dream. They can refuse to admit it, but EU officials do not see the Ukrainian bid as part of their big game with Moscow? EU policy in Ukraine is not limited to this game, but it is certainly an aspect of its policy, mainly at the insistence of former allies of Russia Warsaw Pact.
Putin is not the most popular politician in the West, and his government do not incorporate the values that form the basis of the Euro-Atlantic civilization. Moreover, Putin has changed since the early 2000s. He now says that Russia has its own set of different values and do not live according to Western values.
Interestingly, there is a parallel between the current complaint of "tolerance asexual" and accusations of "rootless cosmopolitanism" in early 1950.
Does this mean that Putin's Russia should be controlled to give the wrong step and subsequently forced to become one of the calls rogue nations? This is the number of people in the Russian ruling class to evaluate the current situation, because they are always ready to find evidence of this in both objective reality and the things that only exist in a paranoid mind. Many believe that Russia is pushing in that group of nations with their own unhealthy actions. But when EU officials encouraging a boycott of the Sochi Olympics, has to wonder why they do it. Moscow has troops deployed in Afghanistan again?
It is true that the Russian authorities often use obsolete methods appropriate to the 1960s or even worse, in the Middle Ages to fight the generally recognized standards of behavior in the economy, cooperation and human rights. But this is not the point. The question is: What happens when Russia is pushed out of the group of major nations, to the delight of his enemies in the West and, as a result of the persistent efforts of the Russian kleptocracy? Will the world order be ideal with a marginalized and ostracized Russia?
Moreover, being a rogue country is not so bad. For example, Iran has threatened to destroy Israel, denounced the United States as the Great Satan, and has worked to create a nuclear bomb. The international community imposed sanctions against him, of course, but Iran still earned dollars 69,000 million in revenues from oil exports in 2012.
This is still not a war, but there is no notion of unacceptable damage, and the damage threshold for Western civilization, with its "tolerant asexual" and comforts of consumption, is getting smaller. Now it is much lower than during the Berlin Crisis in 1948, or the missile crisis in Cuba in 1962. They say Putin is the Big Bad Wolf, who imprisoned Pussy Riot and hates gays. At the same time, they are strangely euphoric about the new president of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, who smiles and calls almost daily Barack Obama, unlike his predecessor. They are happy that he seems willing to discuss the Iranian nuclear program. These smiles, photos of secretary of state John Kerry shaking hands with well-educated and Western-educated hopes Chancellor naive and Iran that the Iranian thugs will eventually embrace "new thinking" overshadowed the essence of the Geneva meeting, which recognized Iran's right to develop a nuclear program.
This means that the worse you behave the more readily the world will shake hands with you if you promise to mend his ways?
The North Korean dictator is almost the darling of the West. Pakistan can do anything, provided you keep nuclear weapons away from the Taliban. India a wonderful young democracy, forbade homosexual sex and no one in the West as much as turned a hair. It is a strange logic that underlies Western actions.
President Putin probably do not know how far it goes in its confrontation with the West. But the logic of his actions shows that he became disillusioned in cooperation with the West as he saw in September 2001, he suffered the consequences of their hypocritical policy of double standards, and is preparing for a long conflict and increasingly intense .
This explains the policy sovereignization elites. In the not so distant future, we may find that in 2013 we were only at the beginning of this difficult path and that sovereignization of elites, or the Orthodox Taliban as some describe this process, also affected the general public and is becoming manifest in politics, the economy and everyday life. The public increasingly feel the weight of the new spiritual values, and views of people like St. Petersburg politician Vitaly Milonov, who tried to establish the law of God, attacking homosexuals, will become the dominant ideology.
One element of this new policy is the focus on rearmament. It is interesting to note, however, that the armies are never reset, so as to create new jobs and new technologies, but in preparation for a war.
Putin did not say a word about foreign investment in his speech to parliament in 2013. But he spoke of the return of capital to the country, which is another element of the dependency of power and resources of a policy. More and more bastions counter-advertising are appearing in the imagination of the Western Front, and they will soon appear in the Russian-speaking Internet in the form of firewalls prohibitive.
Many Western officials responsible for policy towards Russia and on Ukraine and the entire post-Soviet space, believes that Russia is weak and many of their economic interests (ie the interests of the ruling bureaucracy) are located in the "potential adversary countries." They think there will come a day that the Kremlin will reel back, swallow your pride and accept his new role, humiliating before crawling away - figuratively and literally - in Europe and pro-European values and to the East.
These arguments are supported by rational economic calculations and comparisons of technological achievements. But what if rationalism is a bad counselor, in this case, as in the West turns out to be wrong?