This article is a translation of "De VS en Rusland moeten dringend gaan onderhandelen!"
The
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists of last month
carried a number of essays expressing concern about the rising tensions between
the West and Russia. Without exception the authors emphasise the urgent need of
a return to the negotiating table. The most striking opinion piece is that of
Fiona Hill, research
associate at the Brookings Institute.
Usually it is the
´hawks´ that speak for this think tank. They are seeking an escalation of the
wars in Syria and Ukraine. In this company Fiona Hill on the other hand belongs
to the ´doves´.
She warns that a single misreading of the Russian leader can have catastrophic consequences. That is why, according to Hill, it is of the utmost importance that we get a proper assessment of this man, the most persistnt challenger of the US-led world order since the end of the Cold War.
Hill traces the misunderstanding
of Putin primarily in his style of administration. In contrast to his
predecessors, such as former Soviet leader Yuri Andropov, Michail Gorbatsjov,
the last president of the USSR, or the first post-Soviet leader of Russia,
Boris Yeltsin, Putin´s career was not one in the Communist Party. Neither did
Putin have any administrative experience prior to his move to Moscow in 1996.
Putin moves within a very small circle of people. He consults with friends, but
we don´t know whether he takes their advice to hear. He is truly a selfmade president who since his
assumption of power in 2000 has merged intelligence,
security, politics, and the supervision of key sectors of the economy into an
administrative structure organised from the Kremlin and rooted in informal
power networks, Hill argues. According to her, Putin does not contend with rival interests
anchored in either economic or political powers; in the final analysis it is
Putin who makes all the decisions.
Hill seeks to make
clear that it is this autocratic style of government that sows so much
confusion in the West. Western politicians with the backgrounds in party
politics, in business, or in the war industry, do not understand why Putin is
so different. He is a mystery for them. Truly? I can´t recall that any American
governments had or are having difficulty in their dealings with autocratic or
dictatorial regimes.
The informed
reader will of course already have drawn the conclusion that the real problem is Putin´s refusal to
conform to the neoconservative agenda of the Americans. That impression is only
refinforced when she paints a picture of Putin as a paranoid guy who chases
phantoms when he contemplates the NATO
expansion. Fiona Hill does not blame the West for the conflict in Ukraine
either. Russia is the agressor. The difference is merely that she wants to
explore a political solution, and that should be applauded. Her opinion piece
echoes an earlier
comment by Hill's colleague, Michael O’Hanlon, on Syria.
It reinforces the suspicion that Western elites are profoundly divided about
Syria and Ukraine. One can only hope that this doubt and disunity will incease.
Henk van der Keur
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten