Stats
-
-
May
10
Geopolitical Imbalances
May 10, 2008 |
A state’s great power status resides in the flow of cheap oil, argues Michael Klare, author of the newly published Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet: The New Geopolitics of Energy. With oil prices hitting another high of $123 this week, and predictions of it hitting $200 over the next two years, the overall impact on American ability to project power, the dollar’s solvency, and its domestic economy may have devastating effects. Another result could be a profound geopolitical shift. In fact we are already seeing it. The rise of India and China, the reemergence of Russia, and a more independent EU are all coming at a time where American power is at best stagnant and at worse shrinking. As Klare notes, “By now, we are transferring such staggering sums yearly to foreign oil producers, who are using it to gobble up valuable American assets, that, whether we know it or not, we have essentially abandoned our claim to superpowerdom.”
Indeed, it is difficult to argue that American global power has increased in the last eight years. So much so, America’s decline has prompted some to reevaluate America’s “victory” in the Cold War. The way things are going the final assessment of the Cold War might not be who won, but who collapsed first.
As great powers fall, new ones arise. There is no doubt that Russia is one beneficiary of exploding oil prices. As its position as a energy exporter (Russia is the second largest oil exporter after Saudi Arabia) grows, its hegemony expands, especially over Europe, resulting in a shift in the balance of power. Klare writes:
As Russia has become an energy-exporting state, it has moved from the list of has-beens to the front rank of major players. When President Bush first occupied the White House, in February 2001, one of his highest priorities was to downgrade U.S. ties with Russia and annul the various arms-control agreements that had been forged between the two countries by his predecessors, agreements that explicitly conferred equal status on the USA and the USSR.
As an indication of how contemptuously the Bush team viewed Russia at that time, Condoleezza Rice, while still an adviser to the Bush presidential campaign, wrote, in the January/February 2000 issue of the influential Foreign Affairs, “U.S. policy… must recognize that American security is threatened less by Russia’s strength than by its weakness and incoherence.” Under such circumstances, she continued, there was no need to preserve obsolete relics of the dual superpower past like the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty; rather, the focus of U.S. efforts should be on preventing the further erosion of Russian nuclear safeguards and the potential escape of nuclear materials.
In line with this outlook, President Bush believed that he could convert an impoverished and compliant Russia into a major source of oil and natural gas for the United States — with American energy companies running the show. This was the evident aim of the U.S.-Russian “energy dialogue” announced by Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin in May 2002. But if Bush thought Russia was prepared to turn into a northern version of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, or Venezuela prior to the arrival of Hugo Chávez, he was to be sorely disappointed. Putin never permitted American firms to acquire substantial energy assets in Russia. Instead, he presided over a major recentralization of state control when it came to the country’s most valuable oil and gas reserves, putting most of them in the hands of Gazprom, the state-controlled natural gas behemoth.
Once in control of these assets, moreover, Putin has used his renascent energy power to exert influence over states that were once part of the former Soviet Union, as well as those in Western Europe that rely on Russian oil and gas for a substantial share of their energy needs. In the most extreme case, Moscow turned off the flow of natural gas to Ukraine on January 1, 2006, in the midst of an especially cold winter, in what was said to be a dispute over pricing but was widely viewed as punishment for Ukraine’s political drift westwards. (The gas was turned back on four days later when Ukraine agreed to pay a higher price and offered other concessions.) Gazprom has threatened similar action in disputes with Armenia, Belarus, and Georgia — in each case forcing those former Soviet SSRs to back down.
When it comes to the U.S.-Russian relationship, just how much the balance of power has shifted was evident at the NATO summit at Bucharest in early April. There, President Bush asked that Georgia and Ukraine both be approved for eventual membership in the alliance, only to find top U.S. allies (and Russian energy users) France and Germany blocking the measure out of concern for straining ties with Russia. “It was a remarkable rejection of American policy in an alliance normally dominated by Washington,” Steven Erlanger and Steven Lee Myers of the New York Times reported, “and it sent a confusing signal to Russia, one that some countries considered close to appeasement of Moscow.”
For Russian officials, however, the restoration of their country’s great power status is not the product of deceit or bullying, but a natural consequence of being the world’s leading energy provider. No one is more aware of this than Dmitri Medvedev, the former Chairman of Gazprom and new Russian president. “The attitude toward Russia in the world is different now,” he declared on December 11, 2007. “We are not being lectured like schoolchildren; we are respected and we are deferred to. Russia has reclaimed its proper place in the world community. Russia has become a different country, stronger and more prosperous.”
The same, of course, can be said about the United States — in reverse. As a result of our addiction to increasingly costly imported oil, we have become a different country, weaker and less prosperous. Whether we know it or not, the energy Berlin Wall has already fallen and the United States is an ex-superpower-in-the-making.
Popularity: 7% [?]
Comments
268 Comments so far
Another nail in the US coffin. There are so many nails there, practically no wood left. Also the corpse is missing.
Whether we know it or not, the energy Berlin Wall has already fallen and the United States is an ex-superpower-in-the-making.
How sad. Still, I’d just like to know what exactly was “the energy Berlin Wall” and how exactly did it fall?
Хоронить не спешите америку (c)
Klare’s tone on the decline of American power and rise of others is reasonably shared by numerous individuals including Zakaria and Brzezinski.
Make no doubt about it though, America will still be a dominant factor in the decades to come.
Tadic’s likely loss in today’s Serb vote relates to the changing power shift.
Globalization’s success depends on how well the US can adjust to a still prominent but declined role and the ability of rising countries to recognize their limits.
I don’t think anything said anything about “burying” the United States. It is pretty clearly a power in relative decline though. Big deal. Powers rise and fall. It’s part of history.
That’s Act I. Might Act II go something like this? The US is diminished and humble. But Russia in turn is threatened by the other strategic weapon out there. Demographics. There simply aren’t enough Russians to populate and hold the Eastern half of the country, where the oil and gas are against Chinese encroachment. One power has the will and might to help her maintain and defend possession. The USA.
Strange bedfellows, but the sooner they dive under the covers together, the better.
Chris, of course. Sometimes these days “relative decline” looks like an understatement, though at this point one can still hope it’s temporary - pozhiviom, uvidim, I guess. I actually found the passage Sean posted to be (as usual) interesting and thought-provoking, although the author is perhaps a bit selective in his memory of the US-Russia relationship in the early 2000’s (then again, if people couldn’t be selective in their retellings, there would be no such thing as non-fiction books with a point). The phrase I posted above was a bit of a joke based on the first thing that popped into my head after I read the post - click on the “(c)”.
Note to self: Click on links!
Put’ Rossii actually publishes some interesting (”patriotic” of course) stuff. They are the publishers of Drugaya Rossiya, for instance.
America’s decline has prompted some to reevaluate America’s “victory” in the Cold War. The way things are going the final assessment of the Cold War might not be who won, but who collapsed first.
Sean, we been through this a hundred times at least. USSR has collapsed and ceased to exist, end of story. From USSR ruins many liberated nations emerged, including the Russian Federation. Modern Russia can’t be equated with USSR, we all know that, don’t we by now?
Wake up, it’s a new world out there, with new exciting futures in development all over the globe. Break out of the Nation’s hacks mentality. I declare, Bush can go blue in the face explaining that we need to make the world safe for Democracy, but for Lefties it’s always about the Oil.
Candide, is the above comment really about anything of substance or is it based on the phantasmagoria called the “Left” which haunts your consciousness? Because anything that sniffs of its brimstone seems to call all sorts of platitudes and reductionisms out of you.
That, or perhaps Limbaugh’s ability to make you see little leftist devils everywhere is far more successful that we think.
Sean, could you translate your last comment, please
I’ll elaborate just to indulge you ivanov.
Basically I think Candide (and others who comment here) is haunted by a “Left” that only exists in his imagination. A troupe of devils which play mischief and cloud their ability to comprehend the world around them. So when Klare, who is hardly a radical, talks about the role of oil in America’s geopolitical power, he interprets it as “for Lefties it’s always about the Oil.” Yet when oil is at $123 a barrel and here in LA we’re paying $4 a gallon for gas, the falling purchasing power of the dollar, rising global food prices, etc, these problems aren’t real problems but because again “for Lefties it’s always about the Oil.”
But the so-called Lefty that haunts him isn’t the only one who’s saying these things. You can open the Financial Times, which is no Lefty hotbed, and find these things being talked about on a daily basis. Or when its the Times London and experts at Goldman Sachs predicting $200 a barrel, this is dismissed because people with the “Nation hack’s mentality” cite it. Because again for the venerable Candide it’s “for Lefties it’s always about the Oil.”
But I understand to a point. In my periods of frustration, I let the conservative devils haunt me to the point where I sound like a knee jerk leftist kook who just got finished listening to the mind numbing chants of Amy Goodman et al.
One more thing I’d like to add. The proof of these haunting lefty ghosts is best seen in Candide’s statement a few weeks ago that Barak Obama is a Marxist. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anything more preposterous.
Could someone really independent…he-he… translate last Sean’s comment?
In more scientific - marxizm-leninizm - terms
In 1914 during World Geological Conference scientists tried to calm down the public concerns. They explained that most important energy resource - coal - will last for the next 5000 years (even taking into account its increased consumption).
Guys, do you have any idea where you could buy coal these days? At gas stations? At grocery stores? Maybe Home Depot?
Well as this blog is about Russia - it was a good example of “expertise” by Klare, who repeats standard blames - like “exert influence over states” etc. And who also judges HISTORY with 8 years scale.
The case is not about oil price. The case is about believe in special character of USA that makes it so powerful. From my point - it was just a coincidence. Two world wars that allowed US to accumulate power. But can it generate power - this is the question!
And we’ll see it very soon - whether US could generate enough power to keep the race with China and others.
The US is in relative decline having lost a couple of away games and being held to a draw at home, but it is still 14 points clear at the top of the table. Everyone spoke of Japan becoming a new superpower in the 1990s (scaring protectionists in the US) before its economy collapsed, and China is going to have to deal with a huge number of domestic issues (not least the huge, disenfranchised rural population) before it is going to be challenging the US.
And Russia has plenty of what it has always had - potential - and will certainly take large strides towards achieving that, but ultimately will fall far short of its own ambitions, let alone matching the US.
What gives the US its unique strength is that on the domestic front - despite many, many shortcomings - the country is built on an extremely solid foundation, probably far more than any other. As with the Roman Empire, the British Empire, and the USSR, the seeds of destruction are domestic, and the US has thus far managed to avoid planting these - even when taking into consideration Watergate, Vietnam, Iraq, and Clinton’s blowjob. If China, India, or Russia can manage their domestic situations for a 50 year stretch without major upheaval, they will be in a with a shot at the title. Until then, they’re probably always going to be playing catchup.
Tim - For a member of the loony right, you talk some sense.
I think you’re probably right. Russia and others have good things happening at the moment, but their successes tend to be cyclical and there will be new catastrophes as the cycle turns. Uniquely, the US benefits throughout the cycle, with consumer-powered domestic growth when imports are cheap and then discounted debt when the dollar declines. At some stage, another will figure this out and replicate it. China maybe, although centralized control and lack of a reserve currency mitigate against it.
The US has the advantage of a largely homogeneous culture and so is not liable to internal fracture USSR-style (the reason why it’s that way isn’t so pretty, but there it is).
China’s has domestic problems big time. Most of them stemming from their rural population. Not to mention its continued political repression. There is a lot of optimism among the urban younger generation in China who are seeing a lot of benefits from the market reforms. Among them there is a hope that once the young turks take control of the reigns of power things will begin to loosen. BBC has done a series of interesting radio documentaries on China recently. I recommend them.
American decline doesn’t mean collapse, which would be a catastrophic event on a world scale. Plus any mass social dislocation in the US would produce a more right wing populism rather than a left wing one.
But Tim is right on the US overall stability and has show to be quite resilient in absorbing crises Tim has mentioned. Plus most Americans still believe in the idea of America with all the meaning that comes with it even if that meaning doesn’t correspond to reality. Still, I see the US as hopelessly politically stagnant and don’t really see any bright spots among the political class. The feeling I get is that most are happy with business as usual. In some ways, the American project seems as vapid and ideologically hollow as the Soviet project did in the 1970s.
Russia future looks bright economically, but not politically. It’s political dynamism rests in the emerging middle class, which currently seems happy to be lulled with consumerism, stability, and perceived return to national greatness.
Over all, I think the days of the lone superpower are beginning to be over. Globalization has produced a multipolar world with several interconnected centers. The old configuration of East and West doesn’t work, nor does North and South, despite antigloibalists attempts to paint it that way. It seems that most great power states contain a bit of all.
Ivanov, I’m not sure I understand your post, but I certainly don’t believe it was simply a matter of luck (if that is what you mean by “coincidence”) that the US became a such a power. Yes, it’s unique geography helped, but there was much much more to it than mere geography–as many others, including Tim and FH pointed out. In the 1830s the European Tocqueville already predicted that the US will become a major power, and before 1914 many other Europeans were predicting that because of its dynamic and resilient society the US will be a formidable power in the future. In other words, it wasn’t a surprise to anyone that the US became such a power. It’s sort of like with China now. Maybe China will unravel, but if China become the major world power in the future, nobody would be able to claim that it was an unexpected development.
(My apologies if that does not address any of the points you raised, Ivanov. As I wrote, I was sure what exactly you meant.)
Chris, I don’t know if homogeneous is the word here. US culture is quite heterogeneous, but are derivatives of the American idea. It’s a classic settler society where no one ethnic group can make a claim of a primordial nationalism so American nationalism is rooted in a supra-ethnic political ideal.
I think what you mean is that the US doesn’t have a multiethnic population where ethnic nationalism is based on territory. Here you are right since the only ethnic group that had the possibility of claiming a territorial nationalism were Native Americans, but as we all know they were virtually exterminated.
Russia’s constant problem as Geoffrey Hosking notes is the constant effort to subsume primordial nationalisms into a supra-national nationalism. I would have to say, that Russia has been more successful in doing this than many have given it credit for.
Tim - For a member of the loony right, you talk some sense.
That’s because I’m at the sensible end of the loony right.
lobalization has produced a multipolar world with several interconnected centers.
This is one reason why I think the US and China will be able to settle their differences quite rapidly and quietly. They both trade with each other far too much to risk fighting, both populations would suffer enormously from the collapse in trade alone. This is one of the reason I am a huge proponent of globalised free trade, people who trade with one another generally tend to settle their differences without going to war.
it was simply a matter of luck (if that is what you mean by “coincidence”) that the US became a such a power.
You’re right, Kolya, you’re right. But you are wrong if you think that I consider a geography as an essential factor.
By saying “accumulated” I mean all human and financial flow of XX century received by US for free. There is only one more such a lucky country - but it’s too small to count in global balance.
And keeping in mind the past situation in other countries that are capable to challenge the super-lucky power of the world - they are doing extremely well in catching up No.1
In fact - the US is no longer number 1 in many, many fields.
Well I don’t want to say that it will go down to the level of Mexico but what someone saw as increase of power in last years was an optical illusion. When you sit in the train - you suddenly see platform starts moving… then you realize it’s just your train is moving relative to platform.
Same with US - decline of other superpower caused that optical illusion. For a short time.
Let’s see if the United States of America is capable to compete with the United States of China (PRC and Taiwan)
PS. For Russia the goal would be to keep the place among first five “racers”…
people who trade with one another generally tend to settle their differences without going to war.
Really? You are utopist, Tim
Ivanov, I guess it depends from what angle you are looking at things. In all of history powers go up and down, no great power stays great forever. Nevertheless, for over thirty years now (since the Vietnam war) I’ve been reading and hearing about the immiment decline of US power. Sooner or later it will happen, but people have been predicting that for a heckuva long time.
Tim wrote:
“This is one reason why I think the US and China will be able to settle their differences quite rapidly and quietly.”
I hope so.
Actually, in the long term, I’m more concerned about the China and Russia relationship. Things are cozy now, but if China somehow copes with most of its internal problems and keeps on growing, I doubt that the China relationship with Russia will stay cozy. There is a long shared border and China has not totally relinquished its claims on some of Russia’s Fast East. Furthermore, China’s demographic pressure is quite strong.
Actually, in the long term, I’m more concerned about the China and Russia relationship.
If I was a Russian, so would I. In fact, I would be looking to improve relations with the US, and as much as possible with China, to avoid a future situation whereby China turns nasty on Russia and the US either gives China the nod or simply sits back and does nothing.
Russia, presumably for historical reasons, sees the US as enemy number 1 and orientates its foreign policy accordingly. They’d better hope that they are right.
“..is a long shared border and China has not totally relinquished its claims on some of Russia’s Fast East.”
****
The two countries signed an agreement confirming all of their prior border issues as settled.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-10/15/content_382509.htm
Churkin gloated on the ernding of the border differences between the two countries.
Of course, things like this have been known to change.
China seems to have a number of other issues like the Spratley Islands and Taiwan.
It’s quite possible that Russia and China will see the continued wisdom of peaceful realtions with each other. This has been known to happen.
At the end of WW II, the USSR could’ve stayed in Austria. Instead, it chose to honor an agreement and withdrew on the proviso that Austria remain neutral. For that matter, Finland didn’t become a Warsaw Pact nation.
Sean, I have no problems with understanding that energy problems are real and serious and require a lot of hard thinking and hard work to solve. What I have problem with is a sudden jump from this sober picture to a delirious proclamations that the US is doomed because of it’s dependence on foreign oil. This is a non-sequitur, unrelated to anything, it does not point to any solutions, it doesn’t help to understand the problem, it’s just a typical Lefty knee jerk. And it is poisonous, because it requires a miriad of little lies to support it. In particular, it requires to lie through the teeth about the state of affairs in and around the modern Russia.
That’s how we get such nuggets of wisdom as Russia bullying the helpless little states with threats of energy cut-offs. Funny thing, I was following all those energy skirmishes in Russian media and the picture was a whole lot different. In fact, it was Russians crying foul, and not without a good reason. You must know what the real story is, Sean, not the US Right wing lunacy, swallowed whole and disgorged by the ‘Nation’s defence analyst’. Of couse if you accept such ridiculous notion, sooner or later you are bound to arrive to the astonishing conclusion that the Cold War is still going on (and Russophobka is waiting for you there with a big wet smooch).
And if the selling of national oil reserves is such a great thing, how come Russians are spending so much effort trying to convince the world that theirs is not a single product economy? In fact, Russians are extremely uneasy about the whole situation and have no idea what will come out of it. I have yet to talk to a single Russian who would say how great it is to sell oil to the foreigners. For some strange reason, most Russians I talked to believe that they are being pumped dry by the West and they also believe in a quaint conspiracy theory that the US is very wise to buy oil from around the world while saving it’s own oil deposits for the future (if only it were true).
“I think what you mean is that the US doesn’t have a multiethnic population where ethnic nationalism is based on territory. Here you are right since the only ethnic group that had the possibility of claiming a territorial nationalism were Native Americans, but as we all know they were virtually exterminated.”
Yeps, that’s what I mean, better-stated. The lack of strong localization of cultural groups into geographical areas makes secessionism less likely. (Before anybody drags up the Civil War, states were sloser to being States then).
“Russia, presumably for historical reasons, sees the US as enemy number 1 and orientates its foreign policy accordingly. They’d better hope that they are right.”
I have an acquaintance who is knowledgeable in this issue, and he thinks a lot of the “anti-Western” military stuff is actually anti-China, with misdirection in order to fool Beijing.
Thank you Candide. I’m glad to read that you can do better. Now that’s substance!
“In other words, it wasn’t a surprise to anyone that the US became such a power.”
Hegel predicted that the future belonged to Russia and the United States.
“people who trade with one another generally tend to settle their differences without going to war.”
I would like to see figures on interstate trade in Europe pre-WWI.
A few questions, Candide.
In particular, it requires to lie through the teeth about the state of affairs in and around the modern Russia.
Like what for example?
Funny thing, I was following all those energy skirmishes in Russian media and the picture was a whole lot different. In fact, it was Russians crying foul, and not without a good reason.
I wasn’t following it closely. Share?
And if the selling of national oil reserves is such a great thing, how come Russians are spending so much effort trying to convince the world that theirs is not a single product economy?
And convince themselves. This is a big problem. Russia needs a second modernization. Its infrastructure is crap, it has now real modern communications system, its housing is shit. Soviet Gosplan economy will do that. If I were a Russian I would worry about the oil export addiction too. Oil is curse for sure. If the Kremlin wasn’t full of crooks then that cash could modernize a lot of the country. But as the saying goes, you have to steal money to make money.
This is also big problem for Russia future as a great power. One thing you can say about the Soviets, they had the corner on their domestic market. They produced stuff. Not a lot of it and not very good. Having an economy based on the rise and fall of oil prices is a recipe for disaster. Gorbachev found that out when global oil prices collapsed. Not that I think they will collapse (unless there is some energy revolution). Even the FT is talking about peak oil.
A lot of Russia is about oil, but not all of it. It’s increasing as a pool of skilled and cheap labor. It looks like every car company that can is moving in. Construction is drawing immigrants from all over Central Asia. I remember that there was a discussion a few months back on oil and Russia’s economy. Does anyone remember?
“I wasn’t following it closely. Share?”
Like how raising energy export prices is required for Russia to join the WTO.
“One thing you can say about the Soviets, they had the corner on their domestic market. They produced stuff.”
Russia still does. All the cars on my street are Ladas. It exports them too!
Stop reading Kagarlitsky.
Even the FT is talking about peak oil.
Unfortunately, most newspaper don’t specify whether the peak production rates are those likely to be produced under current political climes, or those that are technically possible. Production is very near a peak at the moment because OPEC restricts production (not through half as much choice as they make out, though), several major projects are facing huge delays in going online (Sakhalin II and Kashagan for example), and resource nationalism has resulted in governments denying access to those players who possess the knowledge to extract it.
The obstacles to production, causing Peak Oil, are very much political, not technical. Let the oil companies and their subcontractors at the world’s reserves through a licensing and taxed production system, and talks of Peak Oil will disappear for over a century.
I would like to see figures on interstate trade in Europe pre-WWI.
I wondered about that too. This might be an exception, unless it turned out that the empires traded internally more than with each other. I would guess Britain traded with India and South Africa more than it did Russia.
Pre-WWI European interstate trade was quite a lot despite the high tariffs of France and Germany. I would have to look it up to give specifics.
Sean wrote:
“Russia’s constant problem as Geoffrey Hosking notes is the constant effort to subsume primordial nationalisms into a supra-national nationalism. I would have to say, that Russia has been more successful in doing this than many have given it credit for.”
I don’t know whether the following is an example of what you were referring to: In “www.edge.org” in response to “what you have changed your mind about?” George B. Dyson wrote that he changed his mind about the Alaskan period under Russia. He now assesses it much more positively. Here is part of what Dyson wrote:
///Although during the initial decades leading up to the consolidation of the Russian-American Company there was sporadic conflict (frequently disastrous to the poorly-armed and vastly-outnumbered Russians) with the native population, the colonies soon entered a relatively stable state based on cooperation, intermarriage, and official policies that provided social status, education, and professional training to children of mixed Aleut-Russian birth. Within a generation or two the day-to-day administration of the Russian-American colonies was largely in the hands of native-born Alaskans. As exemplified by the Russian adoption and adaptation of the Aleut kayak, or baidarka, many indigenous traditions and technologies (including sea otter hunting techniques, and the working of native copper deposits) were adopted by the new arrivals, reversing the usual trend in colonization, when indigenous technologies are replaced.
The Russians instituted public education, preservation of the Aleut language through transliteration of religious and other texts into Aleut via an adaptation of the Cyrillic alphabet, vaccination of the native population against smallpox, and science-based sea mammal conservation policies that were far ahead of their time. There were no such things as “reservations” for the native population in Russian America, and we owe as much to the Russians as to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 that this remains true today. …
Russian America was a social and technological experiment that worked, until political compromises brought the experiment to a halt.///
http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_9.html
Tim, I agree with you on Russia and China.
Kolya, there’s a reason why the Russian Orthodox Church has a strong presence among indigenous Alaskans.
More broadly, yes I think Russia as done a superb job given the circumstances in forging supranational identity.
I agree with you, Chris. Part of the reason is that Russians didn’t have the hang-ups of, say, the English, to intermarry (or mix) with non-Russian natives. If Napoleon really said, “Scratch a Russian and you’ll find a Tatar,” he was obviously right. Whether a Turkic or Mongol Tatar. And not only Tatars, of course. Look at the Terek Cossacks. Many of them definitely look Slavic, others look very Chechen, others something in between (it goes both ways, at this point many Chechens look quite Russian). Look at pictures of Siberian Cossacks and you’ll see that many of them look very Asian. General Kornilov was a Siberian Cossack who considered himself nothing but a Russian. Judging from the pictures he didn’t look European at all. Lenin was a typical Russian: besides Slavic blood, he was also of Kalmyk, German and Jewish extraction. That’s one of the reasons why the increasing number of racial hate crimes perpetrated (or inspired by) Russian skinheads is so sadly ironic.
Sean,
You want some more Klare’s nonsense?
As Russia has become an energy-exporting state, it has moved from the list of has-beens to the front rank of major players.
When Russia was NOT “an energy-exporting state”? Russian oil was exported by the USSR, it was exported by Yeltsin period oilygarchs and it is being exported by Putin state-controlled agencies. There was never a break in oil exports from Russia. Clearly, something else had happened to promote Russia to “the front rank of major players”.
That should go together with another idiotic allegory:
Whether we know it or not, the energy Berlin Wall has already fallen and the United States is an ex-superpower-in-the-making.
There was never any ‘Wall’ in energy exports from Russia, especially not the one to contain Russia and benefit the US. Consequently, there was no ‘Wall’ breaking. Again, clearly the change has occured elsewhere.
When President Bush first occupied the White House, in February 2001, one of his highest priorities was to downgrade U.S. ties with Russia…
That must be why Butin and Push had 18(!) meetings. May be Blair had more meetings with Bush, but certainly nobody else.
… and annul the various arms-control agreements that had been forged between the two countries by his predecessors, agreements that explicitly conferred equal status on the USA and the USSR.
Once again, Russia is not USSR. US doesn’t refer to ABM treaty when dealing with Ukraine or Georgia, so why should it with Russia?
As an indication of how contemptuously the Bush team viewed Russia at that time, Condoleezza Rice, while still an adviser to the Bush presidential campaign, wrote, in the January/February 2000 issue of the influential Foreign Affairs, “U.S. policy… must recognize that American security is threatened less by Russia’s strength than by its weakness and incoherence.”
So where is the contempt? Is it not plain truth that strong and coherent Russia is better for the world than a weak and incoherent one? Rice said so, Putin and Medvedev are saying so, I bet you said so yourself quite a few times, Sean!
In line with this outlook, President Bush believed that he could convert an impoverished and compliant Russia into a major source of oil and natural gas for the United States — with American energy companies running the show.
And once again we see Bush as an agent of “American energy companies running the show”. That must be why Bush looked into Putin’s soul, to see how much oil is there for the taking. Also, that must be why Bush invaded Iraq, so he could better exploit Russia. After all, it’s all the oil, right? Just say ‘oil’ and everything becomes believable.
This was the evident aim of the U.S.-Russian “energy dialogue” announced by Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin in May 2002.
So Putin was in on this too?
But if Bush thought Russia was prepared to turn into a northern version of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, or Venezuela prior to the arrival of Hugo Chávez, he was to be sorely disappointed.
Now wait a sec here. Is the US exploiting other countries for oil, or is the US losing it’s power because depending on them for oil?
Once in control of these assets, moreover, Putin has used his renascent energy power to exert influence over states that were once part of the former Soviet Union, as well as those in Western Europe…
Yes, and women use lipstick to “exert influence” over men, and B. Obama is using his skin color for political advantage… how unfair.
Anyway,Sean, you basically repudiated Klare’s thesis when you said that oil can be a curse and a serious problem, instead of a source of some demonic unlimited power.
But if Bush thought Russia was prepared to turn into a northern version of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, or Venezuela prior to the arrival of Hugo Chávez, he was to be sorely disappointed. Putin never permitted American firms to acquire substantial energy assets in Russia.
Anyone want to have a guess how many American oil companies are the major operator of a Kuwaiti oilfield?
Anyone want to have a guess how much Kuwaiti oil gets shipped to the US?
Given how much people like to write about the oil and gas industry, it is quite staggering how little people know about it. I’m wondering if there is any other topic covered to such an extent by people who don’t even know the very basics. The film Syriana, being a case in point.
“Judging from the pictures he didn’t look European at all. Lenin was a typical Russian: besides Slavic blood, he was also of Kalmyk, German and Jewish extraction.”
He was part Chuvash too! His father (grandfather?) was active in some sort of Chuvash schools program, I forget what exactly.
The Cossacks are a case in point, but they weren’t a part of the Russian state during the formative period.
Apparently Cossacks feature as protagonists in some Chechen heroic poems. I haven’t read them, but it seems that one features as heroes a Chechen albrek and Cossack who together unite the auls and stanitsas against the Russian Empire.
Part of the reason is that Russians didn’t have the hang-ups of, say, the English, to intermarry (or mix) with non-Russian natives.
I don’t think the English had much of a problem intermarrying into those who were vaguely white, and I doubt they’d have had much problem marrying into any of the Russian ethnic groups. From what I’ve read, the English men in the colonies didn’t have much of a problem with the natives until the English wives showed up and started kicking up a fuss and I think the marrying of locals was not unheard of, albeit few got brought back to the UK.
I’m guessing the big difference is that Russians were marrying ethnic groups who looked vaguely like them and were at least on the same territory as Russia, rather than marrying women who looked completely different on a continent half a world away.
On the subject, this Kipling poem is amusing.
You are right, Tim. I was primarily (but not solely) referring to Russians intermarrying with those who like quite different from them–Aleuts, Buryats, Kalmyks and so on. While living in Venezuela my late father remarked more than once that in that respect the Russians were more like the Spanish, who readily intermarried with local Native Americans. Even before Latin America became independet from Spain ir was not unusual for promiment families of the Spanish colonies to have Native American blood. There was much less of that in the American British colonies. In any event, I’m no saying that the British did not intermarry with the locals, just that they didn’t do it as readily.
“Apparently Cossacks feature as protagonists in some Chechen heroic poems. I haven’t read them, but it seems that one features as heroes a Chechen albrek and Cossack who together unite the auls and stanitsas against the Russian Empire.”
Interesting. I didn’t know that. I have some Terek Cossack blood myself. Of the Grebens, to be precise. The ancestral stanitsa is now within Chechnya.
Interestingly, I think the Russians’ tolerance for intermarriage has deterioratd since then. I know of very few Russian men who would marry a Central Asia woman or ethnic minority such as Korean or Ainu. The Central Asian and minority men don’t seem to mind the Russian women so much, but the Russian men here on Sakhalin - and elsewhere, from what I can gather - don’t seem much interested in women of another ethnicity. A lot of them positively despise the Korean women.
1. Agree with Candid.
Oil is irrelevant (relatively) in global power balance. In lipstick terms - the color doesn’t matter when “she” is 90…
2. “Russia, presumably for historical reasons, sees the US as enemy number 1 and orientates its foreign policy accordingly.”
US got it’s first place only AFTER WWII and only because its own hostile policy towards CCCP. Historically Russia was always on the side of US (even provide military support to get rid of Brits).
There was VERY positive attitude towards US in 90s. But US did it best to get back to the first place again
ooops… forgot to close tags
US got it’s first place only AFTER WWII and only because its own hostile policy towards CCCP.
The US hostility towards the USSR post WWII was a result - not a cause - of Stalin’s extremely agressive expansionism.
“I think the Russians’ tolerance for intermarriage has deterioratd since then”
Sadly, you may well be right, Tim. I wonder why.
Would like to see some studies on that.
“Sadly, you may well be right, Tim. I wonder why.”
Well Kolya you were talking about border populations. Cossacks were runaway serfs and not part of mainstream Russian society.
Think globally, act locally.
So today I tried to talk about energy issues with as many people as I could.
Sure enough, noone is happy with gas prices. However, noone started screaming, “We are doomed!” or “The Russians are coming!”.
People would try to discuss the ways to soften the blow. Most favorite solution seems to be telecommuting, i.e. working at home.
“Sure enough, noone is happy with gas prices. However, noone started screaming, “We are doomed!” or “The Russians are coming!”.”
Like sheep to the slaughter. Mwa-ha-ha-ha!
People would try to discuss the ways to soften the blow. Most favorite solution seems to be telecommuting, i.e. working at home.
Could be also good to get rid of V6 5 liters machines to move own ass from point A to point B (cars are among most stupid inventions of the mankind)
“Cossacks were runaway serfs and not part of mainstream Russian society.”
I know you know that, but I just want to clarify that many of those who became Cossacks were NOT runaway serfs. For a variety of reasons some individuals, families and groups chose to live in the hinterlands (away from central authority)–escaping serfdom was only one of the reasons. Most of the Cossack hosts were already formed by the time serfdom was fully established.
“I know you know that, but I just want to clarify that many of those who became Cossacks were NOT runaway serfs.”
Sure, they were various groups of people who left from the various heartlands (not just Russia — Poland as well) and relocated to the border zones. Lots of criminals and Old Believers as well. Serfdom did swell their ranks considerably though. It’s a theme in Quiet Flows the Don (not that it’s a scholarly work or anything).
Do you know anything about your family’s history on the Terek? I am fascinated by the history of kazachestvo. The Cossack regions of Chechnya are actually one little-mentioned reason for the Chechen Wars.
Chris, I’m only part Terek Cossack and of what I know of that side of the family predate the times that interest you. This is not surprising if you consider that all of my four grandparents were born in the 19th Century! My maternal grandfather was born in 1879 and he was a healthy 76-years-old man when I was born. He lived for an additional 14 years, so I remember him. My other grandfather was killed in 1920–he was a White Army officer.
Although I was not too far away from it, I never actually visited the old stanitsa–which now is a run down village right in the middle of Chechnya. When I was a kid the few old Terek Cossacks I knew always spoke positively about the Chechens and always made a point that all Terek Cossacks have some Chechen in them. I guess it’s a different story now.
Candide said: “Once again, Russia is not USSR. US doesn’t refer to ABM treaty when dealing with Ukraine or Georgia, so why should it with Russia?”
Because Russia inherited the USSR’s treaty obligations, along with its seat on the UN Security Council. The USSR was a Russian project and that is why Russia is associated with the USSR.
“Although I was not too far away from it, I never actually visited the old stanitsa–which now is a run down village right in the middle of Chechnya. When I was a kid the few old Terek Cossacks I knew always spoke positively about the Chechens and always made a point that all Terek Cossacks have some Chechen in them. I guess it’s a different story now.”
Well it is my understanding that during the period of Chechnya’s Islamization in the late 1990s some Chechen teips (or members of them) sought refuge with Cossack stanitsy that they had blood or other ties with.
Hey, maybe Tolstoy hung out with some of your ancestors!
Part of the conflict in Chechnya is that you have (had) these Slavic areas that Chechen nationalists claimed should be Pure Chechen. Last I heard most Cossacks had been ethnically cleansed, but a trickle are returning.
Because Russia inherited the USSR’s treaty obligations, along with its seat on the UN Security Council.
Actually, there was CIS declaration to support Russia taking the place of the USSR in the UN followed by request letter from Yeltsin, which met no objections from the UN members thus allowing Russian Federation to take the USSR seat in the UN. I don’t think there was any vote in the US Congress about that issue, so as far as US-USSR treaties are concerned the whole situation remains in a muddle.
Btw, I have no problem with the old treaties being maintained, I’m just saying they appear to be open for revision. It is particularly dishonest to criticize Bush for trying “to downgrade U.S. ties with Russia”, because Bush was repeatedly attacked from the Left for being too cozy with Putin while both Democrat candidates are much more antagonistic toward Russia than Bush ever was.
The USSR was a Russian project and that is why Russia is associated with the USSR.
I am Russian and USSR sure as hell was not my project. And I don’t think it was the project of many millions of Russian people that died in GULag camps. And millions more who died in Civil War fighting the Bolsheviks, and millions more who escaped abroad.
Jesse,
USSR was absolutely not a Nationalist project; to the contrary, it was explicitly anti-Nationalist one. USSR was first and foremost a Ideological project,the ideology being the triumph of International Socialism on a global scale.
Even Putin is on record as saying that Lenin was not a Russian patriot. For Lenin, Russia was just a stepping stone to his ultimate goal.
USSR was absolutely not a Nationalist project; to the contrary, it was explicitly anti-Nationalist one.
As we well know intentions and outcomes are two different things. And the first mistake in understanding the Soviet experience is to reduce it to ideology and forsake reality. Referring to Lenin, Marx or whoever basically says nothing. Marxism-Leninism for the most part is an empty signifier.
The Soviets essentially created nations in Central Asia and the Caucuses in the 1920s and early 1930s. Some people are now arguing quite convincingly that the Bolsheviks were successful in making “national in form” but fell short in the “socialist in content.” There is even an argument, which I think is rather convincing, that Soviet nationality policy contained the very seeds of the USSR’s breakup. Essentially, in the end the Soviets unwittingly promoted cultural nationalism and underestimated its power in creating a desire for independent nations.
”Hey, maybe Tolstoy hung out with some of your ancestors!”
Gosh I love that book. And Hadji Murat. And right now I’m re-reading A Hero of Our Times That whole region is endlessly interesting. I’d love to visit someday but I’m a scaredy-cat (actually the wife wont let me). Did you marry a lithe Cossack woman Kolya?:-)
“Gosh I love that book. And Hadji Murat. And right now I’m re-reading A Hero of Our Times That whole region is endlessly interesting. I’d love to visit someday but I’m a scaredy-cat (actually the wife wont let me).”
You don’t have to guy to Chechnya to go to historical Cossackdom. The capital of the Don Cossacks is just a short ride from Rostov-on-Don. Take a train. I’ve been to RoD twice.
It is a great book.
Ger, I married an American WASP, but, hey, we both rode horses in the Altai. We’ve been to the Caucasus, but didn’t get to ride on horseback and play cossack while there. The only time I was in the Don region was when I passed through it while on a train. Once again, though, I only have some Cossack. As much as I would like, I cannot claim to be one.
PS Ger I have a PDF of a paper in Europe-Asia Studies from 2006 on the contemporary Kuban Cossacks if you’re interested. The author sent a summer in a stanitsa collecting anthropological data.
Sean wrote:
“There is even an argument, which I think is rather convincing, that Soviet nationality policy contained the very seeds of the USSR’s breakup. Essentially, in the end the Soviets unwittingly promoted cultural nationalism and underestimated its power in creating a desire for independent nations.”
Yes, makes sense. And since they never expected that such decisions will have much meaning, they often were quite arbitrary in how they drew (or changed) the borders within the CCCP.
”You don’t have to guy to Chechnya to go to historical Cossackdom. The capital of the Don Cossacks is just a short ride from Rostov-on-Don. Take a train. I’ve been to RoD twice.”
I’ll take your word for it. Next time I’m over I’ll head down if I have time, I’d love a look at the mountains. And to see the Cossacks!:-)
”It is a great book.”
It certainly is. Of all the books on Russia I have read, I think I liked that one the most. No, I loved it. When you read the book you are actually there on the banks of the Terek. Few books can really take you to a place like Tolstoys can. WIthout a doubt I’d be interested and I’d be grateful if you sent me that pdf, mail me at irlandyets@hotmail.com
Thanks:-) I wonder has our in-house Kavkaz expert, MA Averko, even read Tolstoy?
Kolya - well you have some bit of Cossack in you anyway! A lot more than the rest of us:-) And US women are great too. Actually women are just great, full-stop. But Tolstoy’s description just jumps off the page. Come to think of it, Russian women generally are quite lithe, you can see that even here in Ireland.
Slightly aside, can anyone tell me why Yermolov gets all the plaudits, when in fact it was Baryatinksy who first defeated the Chechens? I’ve never understood the Russian admiration for Yermolov, who was a spin-artist that would but Tony Blair to shame. He didnt win against, or even really subdue the Chechens.
Sean, what did you mean:
The Soviets essentially created nations in Central Asia and the Caucuses in the 1920s and early 1930s.?
These nations (and states) had existed there centuries (if not thousand of years) before Russia emerged.
Perhaps what he means is that the people there existed, but (for a good part) not in the developed concept of a nation state in Europe.
This might relate to why there had been some post-Soviet talk of creating a Turkestan, comprised of several former SSRs.
The northern half of Kazakhstan (essentially southern Siberia) was no doubt put into the Kazakh SSR to help boost the socio-economic standing of that republic.
Yes people existed, but not as nations and sense of themselves as Kakhaks, Turkmen, Uzbeks etc. There wasn’t even a Turkmen language (written or spoken) until linguists, ethnographers, and intellectuals cobbled it together out of several separate local dialects. For many ethnic groups, there was no written history, folk literature, and poetry until Soviet ethnographers complied it. There are now several books on the subject:
Francie Hirsch, Empire of Nations: Ethnographic Knowledge and the Making of the Soviet Union.
Adrienne Edgar, Tribal Nation: The Making of Soviet Turkmenistan
A State of Nations: Empire and Nation-Making in the Age of Lenin and Stalin, ed. Ronald Suny.
Yuri Slezkine, Arctic Mirrors: Russia and the Small Peoples of the North
Sean,
As we well know intentions and outcomes are two different things. And the first mistake in understanding the Soviet experience is to reduce it to ideology and forsake reality. Referring to Lenin, Marx or whoever basically says nothing. Marxism-Leninism for the most part is an empty signifier.
Of course intentions often lead to completely opposite outcomes. Still, intentions come first and outcomes much later. There was time in Soviet history when ideology was the reality. I understand you’ve conducted extensive research on Komsomol, so you must know how Communist dogma was ruling Soviet life in the 1920 & 30s.
For example, modern Nashi has a fashion ‘division’, intended to lure the youth to their ideology. This is political agenda adjusted to real life. Old Komsomoltsy conducted witch hunts to root out and punish anybody with any interest in fashion. This is dogma reigning supreme over real life. And Leninist dogma was supreme everywhere in the USSR for a long time.
“For example, modern Nashi has a fashion ‘division’, intended to lure the youth to their ideology. This is political agenda adjusted to real life. Old Komsomoltsy conducted witch hunts to root out and punish anybody with any interest in fashion.”
I like this observation.
I understand you’ve conducted extensive research on Komsomol, so you must know how Communist dogma was ruling Soviet life in the 1920 & 30s.
Yeah it meant something to some of the hardcore, but very little for the vast majority of the population. I can point to hundreds of newspaper and archival documents that attest to this. Also even for true believers, what “communism” actually meant was in the eye of the beholder. I can show you a letter from a guy who said being a communist meant beating up Jews because they are the bourgeoisie. The letter was passed on to the OGPU.
As far as your fashion comment, which you’ve made before, yeah they hemmed and hawed about dandies (many of which were Komsomol members), dancing the tango and foxtrot in the press, but I have not come across a single case of hunting or rooting out anyone because of fashion. Most komsomoltsy didn’t understand what the big deal was. In fact, the so called old komsomoltsy militants you bring up were denounced in the 1920s as silly dreamers. They were told to hang up their leather jackets, put away their revolvers, clean themselves up and put on ties to look respectable. In some cases they were simply called crazy invalids suffering from war trauma from the Civil War. Plus these militants were an extreme minority.
Granted kids were kicked out of the Komsomol for a lot of stupid shit, but believe me it often had little to do with the “Communist dogma” you think pervaded the Soviet body politic. Expulsions for politics, hiding one’s social origin, and other political violations were in single digit percentages. The vast majority of kids kicked out of the Komsomol was for drinking and fighting. And for good reasons, the Komsomol had a lot of real assholes.
Oh the supremacy of communist dogma. So supreme I have kids being beaten up by their parents for joining the komsomol and some komsomol organizations in the village existing underground because every time they have a meeting a group of local youth bust it up and kick their ass. This phenomenon of Komsomol meetings being broken up appears common in the 1920s.
Now I’m not saying that ideology doesn’t matter. It does, but it is never the purely functioning system you seem to think it is. Everyday life, crisis (real or perceived), personality, personal relations, etc gets in the way. There is always a space for people to pick and choose what they actually believe in. Or justify their lives within ideology that seemingly contradicts their everyday practice. Plus I always find it funny when people assume that the Soviet Union was some kind of perfect ideological state. This is a country that couldn’t produce enough shoes for its citizens, yet for some reason they scored a perfect 10 on indoctrination.
Candide, if you want to read what life was like in the 1920s, the best example I’ve found is Roger Pethybridge, One Step Backwards, Two Steps Forward: Soviet Society and Politics in the New Economic Policy. Unfortunately, this fine book is horribly expensive. For life in the 1930s, see Fitzpatrick’s Everyday Stalinism. Not a great book, but good enough.
In terms of Nashi, yeah they have their fashion but you can’t really make a comparison here with communist dogma? Sure they want to attract young people to it, but so does every other youth organization. But even the Komsomol never captured all of Soviet youth. At its height, it only had 60% of young people as its members. And if you factor in the fact that the Komsomol was more a ticket to a good career and for many members ideologically hollow, the number of true believers was probably quite minimal. And even some of them, as Alexei Yurchak points out in his excellent book, saw listening to Pink Floyd, Deep Purple, and Led Zeppelin as the true fulfillment of communist values.
Candide, thinking about how your assumptions about communist dogma and its ubiquity, I have to ask a few questions.
1) Were you once a true communist believer? Because your allergy toward one extreme and complete embrace of the other sounds like you were at some point. Religious converts tend to have similar traits.
2) Was your conversion experience to “capitalism” more like Paul or Augustine?
3) After your conversion, in what ways did you rewrite the narrative of your life to fit your new ideology and identity?
What about attitudes toward fashion etc. in the 30s? You’re talking about the NEP period here, the USSR’s Roaring Twenties, the heyday of Soviet avant-garde art.
I haven’t done much real archival research in the 1930s, but I have yet to see anything about it in any secondary literature. The Soviets were never has hardcore on this stuff as the Chinese were. What I do know is that by the mid-1930s, after you have a solid Soviet middle class coming into being, you get a more conspicuous consumption. Plus for the majority of the population, fashion really wasn’t an issue. They, as with the state, had more pressing problems. But like I said above, even if a bunch of moralists blubbered about it, that doesn’t mean that there was any kind of campaign or that anyone was paying attention.
Plus I always find it funny when people assume that the Soviet Union was some kind of perfect ideological state.
I always find it funny when people assume the same thing about the US.
The orgies Sean. Tell us about the Komsomol sex landscape!!! Was it easier to score if you were a member??:-)
For that my dear Ger, you will have to wait until the diss is done. I’ll put it this way, from the evidence I have getting laid was never a problem. The documentary evidence on so-called “polovoi raspushchennost” is quite massive.
I’ll put it this way, from the evidence I have getting laid was never a problem.
Which no doubt contributed to the success of the organisation no-end. Moral of the story: if you start a new revolutionary political movement, ensure new members find it easy to get laid.
Sean,
Now I’m not saying that ideology doesn’t matter