I feel I will have to provide a few disclaimers throughout this article to be able to pull this argument off, but I’ve never been afraid of a challenge…
Disclaimer: This is not an article in support of Russia or to garner any sympathy for the country – I know that its government is steeped in corruption, especially in terms of its internal politics and diplomacy. It has not won many PR battles recently for a reason (nor do I think its government cares to).
My point is this, considering Russian history, is Russia not justified of being sceptical of the West? Are they not justified at least in the temptation to project their might and use hostility to ward off military, economic and political encroachments by the West at its borders? I guess the pertinent question is, if you were Putin, what would you do if you saw US missile silos pointed at you from Eastern Europe, the Baltic and a clutter of military bases strewn across the Middle East and Central Asia? What would you do if your naval ports are so easily blockaded and you are effortlessly isolated in the event of an international crisis?
Here me out – I am not saying that Russia has handled its international relations ethically or ‘consociationally’ over the last two decades of Putin’s reign (or maybe ever). All I am saying is, as a realist, how can one blame the Russian Government for being at least a little suspicious? It is not like the West was accused of sainthood throughout the Cold War and US foreign policy has, undoubtedly, been much more intrusive, by far, in recent years.
Look, the invasion of Crimea and the ongoing conflict in Eastern Ukraine is disgusting, unnecessary and immoral. However, are Ukrainian – Russian relations much different than former French Algeria or the Philippines under the control of Spain or the US? Did the Japanese not do the same to the Koreans or the British in Ireland and India? Are US troops still in Iraq because that administration adhered to the truth?
All I am saying is, “Take the plank out of your own eye” – international relations and foreign policy need an unbiased and less ethnocentric platform to be evaluated on. The Western media could do a much better job of providing that platform. However, for the foreseeable future, I am sceptical of seeing much change.
Disclaimer: This article is not centred on domestic policies. There is no doubt that countries like the US and the UK provide better lives and more opportunities for their citizens. While corruption exists, as it does everywhere, the governments in liberal, Western democracies tend to be more transparent and are not swept up in a frenzy of blatant censorship, corruption and bribery that is endemic and even accepted in Russian society (though the current US Administration certainly makes my argument less potent).
However, in regards to foreign policy, they are only following the same road map carved out by the European colonial powers going back to the 15th Century (in which, the Russian Empire and, later, the Soviet Union would join this list too). The media tends to report on politics based on who holds the influence and power — and who can relate, culturally, to those in power. If the US, or a country like Luxembourg, for example, does something unethical abroad, if it is even reported at all, it is not given the same narrative if Russia, Pakistan or China had committed the same crime. But, is a crime different just because it was committed by someone less relatable to you?
If a Russian fighter jet buzzes a US spy plane in the Black Sea, the narrative is, “Why would Russia do that? That could be construed as an act of aggression!” Instead, one could easily ask the question, “What was a US spy plane doing in international airspace in the first place (Disclaimer: yes, I realise that this happened recently and, yes, the US spy plane was within its rights to be in international airspace, but I still feel there is a point to be made here)?”
You may recall the row over China creating military installations on artificial islands in the South China Sea. Western media outlets and the US government condemned this and treated it as an act of aggression – 800 global military bases and the US kicks off about China creating a few small islands?! I fail to see the logic here…
US Global Military Installations:
Politico, 2015
Russia has been invaded by the Mongols, Napoleon, the Japanese and the Germans twice and spent the 20th Century in an arms race against the US, in which they lost and the Soviet Union dissolved. Considering this and the internal crises it has been plagued with over the last several centuries, you would expect them to be suspicious by nature. When you combine that with the fact that the United States owns the aforementioned 800 confirmed military bases in 70 countries around the world (Britain, France and Russia, by contrast, have about 30 foreign bases combined), with some of their most formidable weapons, personnel and technology planted on Russia’s doorstep (Politico, 2015), put it this way: I would be sceptical! They have limited access to the world’s oceans, having to travel through NATO waters from its European ports and is confronted by the US’s Pacific Fleet and its close ally, Japan, where it has ocean access out east. The Arctic Ocean is simply frozen most of the year. Relations between what could be its only formidable ally, China, have never remained congenial enough to warrant a worthwhile partnership.
Since Russia’s ascendance as a superpower on the world stage, it has always kept a buffer zone between itself and Central Europe. Russia’s interference in other Eastern European nations, such as Moldova and the Baltic States, is completely unethical. They have exerted influence in many of these countries by manipulating identity politics, interfering in elections (something the West has done just as often than Russia over the past century) and using the leverage of its energy supply — shutting off natural gas resources and forcing these nations to continue their Pro-EU vs Russian political deadlocks — stalling any hope for sustained internal progress.
Russia is certainly not prone to doing themselves any favours for its reputation abroad, but international sanctions as a result of the country’s foreign meddling have done little to deter Russia from flexing its muscles. The unfortunate timing of the writing of this article coincides with this awkward and confusing relationship between the Trump and Putin Administrations – I would have preferred to write this prior to this development, as it has taken an already controversial subject to a much more perverse level.
I guess what I am trying to say is, Russia has been guilty of crimes against humanity, both domestically and internationally. It is a corrupt bureaucracy that ill-affords its citizens much opportunity in life and its current administration is swept by greed and the monopolisation of power. However, the financial crisis and subsequent banking industry bail outs in the West were also due to greed and corruption of both public and private funds, and were publicly supported in powerful countries like the US and Britain, but also in places with excellent reputations, like Ireland. I do not think that anyone who supports the Iraq War can honestly demonise Russian involvement in Ukraine without coming across as a complete hypocrite.
Moreover, just as the West has every right to be suspicious of Russian military involvement in/near other European nations, does Russia not also have the same right, considering the weaponry pointed at them and ongoing Western intervention in dozens of countries, to have doubts about the ‘best intentions’ of the West? I don’t think so.
Perhaps it is true what they say, “Russia is always the enemy.” But, as far as foreign policy is concerned, they may be a little closer to home than we would like to admit.
Sources:
Vine, D. (2018) Where in the World Is the U.S. Military?, Politico, July/August. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/us-military-bases-around-the-world-119321