Comments 10

La racha de éxitos diplomáticos de Putin

Dec 29, 2014 Richard Weitz

CHENGDU – Desde que Rusia invadiera Crimea el año pasado, Occidente ha confiado en una estrategia que combina sanciones económicas y aislamiento internacional para obligar al Kremlin a dejar de apoyar a los rebeldes del este de Ucrania, pero los últimos éxitos diplomáticos del Presidente ruso Vladimir Putin (particularmente con Irán, Corea del Norte y Paquistán) han puesto en evidencia la ineficacia de esa táctica.

Está claro que Putin sufrió un desaire en la cumbre del G-20 del mes pasado en Brisbane, en que los anfitriones australianos y los líderes occidentales lo reprendieron en las reuniones bilaterales por violar la soberanía ucraniana y generar conflictos con sus socios económicos occidentales. Putin se fue antes de tiempo, proclamando que en todo caso las sanciones occidentales dañaban más a las economías europeas que a Rusia.

Pero no sirvieron para disuadirle, pues procedió a anunciar importantes iniciativas con países de gran importancia para Occidente en el ámbito de la seguridad, que le han ayudado a fortalecer su posición diplomática y elevar su valor ante China, su socio más importante (aunque todavía reticente). Como declarara Putin en una entrevista reciente, su gobierno está comprometido a asegurar que Rusia no quede aislada internacionalmente tras una nueva Cortina de Hierro.

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Get unlimited access to PS premium content, including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, On Point, the Big Picture, the PS Archive, and our annual year-ahead magazine.

Already have an account or want to create one? Log in

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 10 in all 10 Comments on this article

Alexander Shilyaev Jan 3, 2015

There is how the US has turned into the Lamb out of the most military aggressive nation with a wave of the hand? Quite tricky.
Just imagine, "a dangerous global security situation could become even more so" as a result of Russia's wish to decide on its own with whom to be friends, to make deals, etc.
American "experts" had already made more harm than goods here and, it's understandable, Russians don't want to be led by such "benefactors".
The US has never and to none done anything unselfishly. Moreover, the US starting their global "peace-making" initiatives quite seldom (if ever) carries them to conclusion. They [US] doesn't need "resolved problems", they need the conflicts have been smouldering for ages (but under their control; ah, such a fireplace-keeper!). That can be said about situations in Afghanistan, Iraq (just as most recent).
Today many states have to do with the US by any reason except for their own wish. And they, alas, can not allow to break these hobbles. But Russia can and will. The official America should better take this fact as a given, and sooner rather than later. Then, I suppose, "a dangerous global security situation could become even" a great deal better.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Pat McClung Jan 3, 2015

The first four words of this article reveals the author's bias. No one would say "Russia invaded Crimea" from a personal motivation, because that is such an obviously false statement. Must be some operational considerations in play. The unassailable truth is, the United States covertly subverted the elected government of Ukraine, and the people of Crimea by a massive majority (no material opposition whatsoever) freely voted to return to the status of a Russian Republic that they had rior to 1953. This was an entirely peaceful action by the Crimeans, non-violent and, in my opinion, entirely legal under international law.
Also, I am reminded of Henry Kissinger's recent telling remark, "The demonization of Putin is not a policy. It is an alibi for the absence of one.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Suheil Shahryar Jan 2, 2015

A bipolar world could be good for the world, if it brings out the strength of nations with alternate political and economic systems; but as long there is healthy competition and no threat of military conflict.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Jan 1, 2015

Richard Weitz highlights Putin's recent diplomatic success with Iran, North Korea and Pakistan, which may undermine America's efforts to deal with these countries. Obama's predecessor Bush II dubbed Iran and North Korea as part of the "Axis of Evil". To date the US has no diplomatic relations with both countries. Since the US launched attacks on the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001, Pakistan has been at loggerheads with the US over the "War on Terror" on its soil.
So how will the relationship look like that Russia intends to develop with Iran, North Korea and Pakistan?
Iran needs Russia more than the other way round - politically. Putin falls hardly over himself to help Iran become a nuclear power. In the face of a standoff in the nuclear dispute between the West and Iran, he welcomes the opportunity to be able to make himself indispensible, by brokering a deal. Russia would take on Iran's uranium for storage, hoping it be able to build more reaktors in Iran in the future. Putin's pragmatism can hardly be mistaken for friendship. After all, Russia's power games in Iran are hardly new. The Imperial Russia and Persia had had a history of conflict.
Putin's reaching out to North Korea would complicate the West's effort to get Pyongyang to ditch its nuclear ambition. When the US announced its "pivot to Asia" a few years ago, Putin had already taken steps to respond to Obama's move. He saw a sense of urgency to distance Russia from the West in recent months since the Ukraine crisis. He also felt it's time to strengthen Russia's position in Northeast Asia by forging alliances there and developing parts of Siberia. Apart from North Korea and China, Russia has no friends there, as Japan and South Korea are close to the US. By seeking ties with Pyongyang, Russia wants to reduce its reliance on China. For North Korea this relationship couldn't be better, it will embolden Pyongyang's its position towards China.
Indeed the new relationship between Russia and Pakistan is likely to be closely watched in New Delhi and Washington. The two countries have had a history of frosty relations. During the Cold War Pakistan let the US use its airbases to carry out spy missions on the Soviet Union, in return for aid. During the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan, Pakistan together with the US trained and equipped the mujahideen fighting the Soviet forces. Moscow was a staunch ally of India when Beijing and Delhi were embroiled in a boder dispute. As Russia has rekindled its friendship with India, Pakistan's arch enemy, it will be unrealistic to assume that Russia's ties with Pakistan would please Delhi. Only time can tell, what Putin has let himself in for.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jay Adams Dec 31, 2014

After mass using the US terrorism and torture in Pakistan came response terrorist movement.
If Pakistan stop contacts with the pariah country (US) - it will came social consensus and it will save from germs terrorism Pakistan itself.
Torrorizm is just a child nasty methods and sick morale US foreign policy.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Vanishing Leprechaun Dec 30, 2014

RUssia didn't invaded Crimea. Anyone having even a very little knowledge of the situation on the field knows that the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" would have remained no one second into the situation of open conflict amid Kiev and Russia. Crimeans - with the exception of a very few Tatars, are Russian and, more, feel themselves as Russian.
This outcome was easily predictable.
And sanctions are not tied to Crimea, but to the Donetsk' rebellion and the purported military support to it. Now, let me say - just to disturb the typical partisanship which characterized the way of thinking of many "western eggheads" - that I don't like in no way the Russian regime. And I'm writing what I'm writing exactly for this reason.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jane Rand Dec 30, 2014

It doesn't look that bright acrually. As one one of the top Russian bureaucrats brilliantly put it recently "We are reaping the fruits of our conquest, political victories of our country. This is a payback, the price, which both the economy and people sooner or later had to share with the president, the government, with the country. "
Some "victories"!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Brian Shannon Dec 30, 2014

Hi Richard,

Until 1954 when the Soviet Union gave Novorrusiya (literally, 'New Russia') to Ukraine as an administrative gift, it was a part of the Soviet Union and had been part of Czarist Russia even prior to the time of Catherine the Great.

At its greatest extent, Novorrusiya was larger than all of Ukraine at that particular point in Ukraine's history.

Most of the people who live in Ukraine within the boundaries of the former Novorrusiya, are ethnic Russian. They speak Russian, they have Russian customs and other common culture with Russia. More of them have relatives in Moscow, than in Kiev.

For those reasons and more, the cacophony of voices against Russia's reacquisition of Crimea (where the population enthusiastically voted 97.1% in favour of rejoining with Russia) were ever doomed to fail.

>> Separate from all of that, Ukraine is insolvent. It is not a going concern. It can't continue along the path it has taken since the breakup of the Soviet Union. It was, and is, grinding to a halt economically.

Without the huge subsidies (especially energy subsidies) that came from the USSR for decades, Ukraine cannot and will not continue, in its present form.

Everyone knows this. It's not a secret.

The only thing to be decided was, who gets what.

The Europeans like the sense of security that a layer of separation between southwestern Russia and southeastern Europe provided, but they can't afford to subsidize Ukraine in the way that the USSR did for decades.

Therefore, there is zero chance that Ukraine can make it on its own economically. Neither Russia, nor the EU, can afford to subsidize the entire country of Ukraine to the scale that the USSR once did.

It will be broken up. Of that there's no doubt. Shooting the messenger won't change any of that. It will still break up, no matter what.

The obvious thing to do, is to stop pretending otherwise.

Novorrusiya should rejoin Russia (as many there want to do, but are afraid of Western repercussions) and the rest of Ukraine should join the EU as a full-fledged member as soon as possible.

Delay on that will serve no good purpose and may add further uncertainty to the region.

Some in the West thought they could crucify Vlad Putin in the media because they didn't like the man or his country.

Well that's failed. Now we need a huge dose of pragmatism and we just need to get it done -- and move on.

There is nothing in Ukraine worth starting even a minor war over, let alone a world war.

Novorrusiya to Russia and Ukraine proper to the EU, ASAP.

And then let's get on with the important stuff.

Best regards, JBS
http://johnbrianshannon.com
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Velko Simeonov Dec 30, 2014

An interesting point of view and a well written article. The best part is that people are finally waking up to the idea that the "world" is much more than just the north-Atlantic community and is getting bigger by the hour.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

http://prosyn.org/BAMlyWo/es;

La racha de éxitos diplomáticos de Putin

To continue reading, subscribe now.

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

The Three Revolutions Economics Needs

Data-Driven Gender Equality

An African Opportunity for Post-Brexit Britain

Brexit Demands a New British Politics

The Right Investments to Address the Human Capital Crisis

Morality and Money Management

Cooperation for a New Age of Volatility

The Right Way to Rebalance Trade

Cookies and Privacy

Log in/Register