The amiable yet complex diplomatic relationship between the United States and Russia has taken another turn in the last week. Former Russian President and current Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has announced that he will seek reelection in 2012 to the Presidential office, which he held from 2000 to 2008.
Putin, a former KGB operative and Communist Party member, has maintained a love/hate relationship with the United States during his time in public office. American representatives and leaders have perceived a Cold War attitude from the post-Cold War presidency.
Over the past few years, United States Presidents and President Putin have butted heads over issues such as the unofficial reunification of Soviet bloc countries, the use of natural resources—particularly natural gas—to detach Germany from the Atlantic Alliance, and the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2005 for which former President Bush called the Russian leader “cold-blooded.”
Putin has also been criticized for instances which many considered violations of human rights. In 2009, Russian attorney and anti-corruption activist Sergei Magnitsky suffered a gruesome death after being in police custody for 358 days. In 2003, billionaire Mikhail Khodorkovsky was arrested and charged with fraud, embezzlement and money laundering after giving financial support to multiple opposition parties.
Putin seems to be attempting to adapt to 21st century geopolitical realities while remaining a Cold War leader at heart. Ralph Peters of the Washington Post maintains that Putin is a successful leader in that he has somehow mastered this balance. “Not one of his international peers evidences so profound an understanding of his or her people, or possesses Putin’s canny ability to size up counterparts.”
Peters goes on to lay out Putin’s general strategy—which he calls genius—of reconciling the tactics of the Soviet Union and the realities of the current world. “You need control only public life, not personal lives.” In other words, the KGB has been replaced by the Press Service. While the instances mentioned above may prove to be counterarguments to that statement, Putin’s successful reign as President and Prime Minister are evidence of his competent leadership.
In 2008, Putin was disallowed from running for reelection in Russia due to their mandated term limits. He was replaced by Dmitry Medvedev who subsequently appointed Putin Prime Minister leading to the belief that Medvedev was merely a puppet of the former President. Walter Russell Mead, in American Interest, describes Putin’s announced run for president as the “Russian decision to take off the Medvedev mask and put Prime Minister Putin back in the top spot.”
Putin’s efforts to become president once again have put the United States in a difficult position. There are diplomatic conflicts with Russia and there are personal conflicts with Putin. But there are also areas of agreement and mutual benefit. Neither the United States nor Russia wants China to dominate Eurasia. Neither wants Islamic fundamentalists to destabilize the region.
Russia, led mainly by Putin, has used its excess of natural resources to gain influence with multiple Western countries. As Peters states, “seduced by Kremlin policies—from oil and gas concessions to cynical hints of strategic cooperation—Western leaders have too many chips in the game.” The United States and other Western countries are now dependent on Russia for natural resources, geopolitical stabilization, and United Nations support. But they must now deal once again with Vladimir Putin.
Putin’s popularity in Russia is more one of image than policy. According to Peters, he has “renewed Russia’s confidence in the country’s greatness.” He is loved and admired because he is a nastoyashi muzhik, a “real man.” A Putin presidency may be great for Russian morale, but is it good for the world?
No comments:
Post a Comment