Who will survive the Ukrainian earthquake?

Ihsan Bal Head of USAK Academic Counci

14 March 2014

The events in Ukraine contain many lessons for foreign policy and security experts. I think Russia is the first actor that needs to take lessons from it. The “strong Putin, strong Russia” image which has been forming for many years was tested in Ukraine. The collapse of the Soviet Union was a tragedy for Putin as it was for many other Russians. In his own words, “the collapse of Soviet Union was the biggest catastrophe of 20^th century.” Russia’s transformation from a superpower to a country that can hardly even sustain its economy was a big humiliation. Boris Yeltsin’s term was an era of uncertainty and instability in Russia. The Moscow government was unable to solve the Chechnya problem, restore the economy, and realize administrative reforms.

Russia rises from the ashes

A former intelligence officer, Putin had witnessed this situation and gained popular support with his promise of a manageable, powerful Russia. The Putin-Medvedev administrations straightened up Russia’s house. Russia was able to resolve the Chechnya problem through a muscular approach. The economy was growing, military investments were impressive, and Russia was becoming more visible in world politics.

Putin’s Russia did not have big achievements in R & D or education but it did get rid of its leadership weakness. The notion of a “strong Putin, strong Russia” came to enjoy prestige.

As Russia was feeling more confident, it became more visible in world politics. Its war with Georgia and its Syria policy are very clear indicators of this. At Geneva I and Geneva II Putin played a global role rather than regional, and according to some more extreme commentators he gained the upper hand over Obama by taking initiative.

Considering the foreign policy of Putin’s Russia the Ukrainian crisis has reflections that go beyond Ukraine. “Putinism” is known in domestic politics, but its foreign policy equivalent is still being formulated from the predictions of experts. The most extreme of these predictions see the revival of the Soviet Union and Russian expansionism, and have thus brought the term “new Cold War” into circulation. There are some people who interpret Putin’s references to 19^th century Russian nationalist thinkers like Berdyaev, Solovyov, and Ilyin, as a reflection of his foreign policy understanding and historical romanticism.

Russia’s Achilles' heel

It seems there are few ways to resolve the Ukraine crisis. Economic diplomacy is being focused on as a counter to Russia’s military presence. In other words, both EU and the U.S. are trying to build their policies through economic and political instruments rather than militaries. This is the first time that economics and trade are considered the best way to solve this kind of problem. As Director of European Leadership Network Ian Kearns puts it, “you can convince Russia with its weakest side.” One of the supporters of this idea is Alan Greenspan, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve. He said that the only way to prevent Putin from reviving the Soviet Union is through economic measures that badly hurt the Russian economy. The West will most likely try to leverage the Russian economy’s dependency on natural resources. Therefore the soundness of the financial structure and the diversity of the economy will attract more attention in the coming days. The tension between the West and Russia is the latest example of the struggle between smart power and hard power. The damage that the parties will face will be shined out by how they set their power parameters in accordance with requirements of the time.

This article was firstly published in Habertürk Newspaper on 10 March 2014.