|
Russia’s ongoing attacks on Ukraine and its
persistent subversion of Western states demonstrates that Washington
and Brussels have failed to restrain Moscow’s imperial ambitions.
Engagement, criticism and limited sanctions have
simply reinforced Kremlin perceptions that the West is weak and
predictable. To curtail Moscow’s neo-imperialism a new strategy is
needed, one that nourishes Russia’s decline and manages the
international consequences of its dissolution.
Russia is more fragile than it appears, and the
West is stronger than it is portrayed. Under the regime of Vladimir
Putin, which will soon enter its third decade, the country has
transitioned from an emerging democracy to an unstable
authoritarianism.
Although Moscow has failed to modernize its
economy to be globally competitive, the Kremlin excels in one domain
— disinformation — through which it portrays the country as a rising
power on a level with the U.S.
In reality, Russia is a declining state that
disguises its internal infirmities with external offensives.
Russia’s economy is stagnating. According to World Bank statistics
for 2017, Russia’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita ranks
62nd in the world.
Even the defense budget is shrinking and barely
reaches a tenth of the U.S. Through a combination of low fossil fuel
prices, infrastructural decay, pervasive corruption and Western
financial sanctions, state revenues are declining, living standards
are falling, social conflicts are intensifying and regional disquiet
is mounting.
Although economic performance alone is
insufficient to measure susceptibility to collapse, rising social,
ethnic and regional pressures indicate that Russia is heading toward
fragmentation.
Russia has failed to develop into a nation state
with a strong ethnic or civic identity. It remains an imperial
construct due to its Tsarist and Soviet heritage.
The unwieldy Russian Federation consists of 85
“federal subjects,” of which 22 are republics representing
non-Russian ethnicities, including the North Caucasus and Middle
Volga, and numerous regions with distinct identities that feel
increasingly estranged from Moscow.
Instead of pursuing decentralization to
accommodate regional aspirations, the Kremlin is downgrading their
autonomy. This is evident in the new language law designed to
promote "Russification" and plans to merge and eliminate several
regions.
Pressure is mounting across the country, with
growing anger at local governors appointed by the Kremlin and
resentment that Moscow appropriates their resources. Indeed, regions
such as Sakha and Magadan in the far east, with their substantial
mineral wealth, could be successful states without Moscow’s
exploitation.
Emerging states will benefit from forging closer
economic and political contacts with neighboring countries rather
than depending on Moscow, whose federal budget is drastically
shrinking. Collapsing infrastructure means that residents of Siberia
and Russia’s far east will become even more separated from the
center, thus encouraging demands for secession and sovereignty.
Given Russia’s ailments, an assertive Western
approach would be more effective than reactive defense. Washington
needs to return to core principles that accompanied the collapse of
the Soviet Union by supporting democratization, pluralism, minority
rights, genuine federalism, decentralization and regional
self-determination among Russia’s disparate regions and ethnic
groups.
While Moscow seeks to divide the West and fracture
the EU and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) by backing
nationalist and separatist parties in Europe, Washington should
promote regional and ethnic self-determination inside the Russian
Federation. This would send a strong signal that the West is fully
capable of reacting to Moscow’s subversion.
The rationale for dissolution should be logically
framed: In order to survive, Russia needs a federal democracy and a
robust economy; with no democratization on the horizon and economic
conditions deteriorating, the federal structure will become
increasingly ungovernable.
To manage the process of dissolution and lessen
the likelihood of conflict that spills over state borders, the West
needs to establish links with Russia’s diverse regions and promote
their peaceful transition toward statehood.
NATO should prepare contingencies for both the
dangers and the opportunities that Russia’s fragmentation will
present. In particular, Moscow’s European neighbors must be provided
with sufficient security to shield themselves from the most
destabilizing scenarios while preparations are made for engaging
with emerging post-Russia entities.
Some regions could join countries such as Finland,
Ukraine, China and Japan, from whom Moscow has forcefully
appropriated territories in the past. Other republics in the North
Caucasus, Middle Volga, Siberia and the far east could become fully
independent states and forge relations with China, Japan, the U.S.
and Europe.
Neglecting Russia’s dissolution may prove more
damaging to Western interests than making preparations to manage its
international repercussions. To avoid sudden geopolitical jolts and
possible military confrontations, Washington needs to monitor and
encourage a peaceful rupture and establish links with emerging
entities.
The sudden collapse of the Soviet Union should
serve as a lesson that far-reaching transformations occur regardless
of the Kremlin’s disinformation campaigns or the West’s shortsighted
adherence to a transient status quo.
|
