Following the recent hostage drama in Beslan, where hundreds of schoolchildren were brutally killed by terrorists, we must ask the question: “What kind of country has Russia become?”
The former Cold War enemies are still more preoccupied with a tug-of-war between themselves than with combating the new threats. How many more times will we repeat the same mistakes in choosing our priorities?
The idea of national competitiveness looks very attractive on the surface, but it makes no economic sense. The struggle for competitiveness can deal an irreparable blow to Russia’s economic development.
The depth of political changes Vladimir Putin’s latest reform will bring to Russian society and Russia’s state system is comparable to that brought about by Boris Yeltsin’s disbandment of the Congress of People’s Deputies (former parliament) and the adoption of a new Constitution in 1993. Thus far, those two events have been the fundamental political landmarks in Russia’s modern (post-Soviet) history.
If the march of events is favorable, Russia will have at least a two-party system by the next presidential term – identical to what has happened at certain stages in the history of many Western countries. There is every indication that it will be far less elegant and shapely than in those countries. Nevertheless, this future system will be better than a brutal dictatorship.
The modernization of the heterogeneous population scattered around the critically large landmass means that there exists a high probability for Russia’s breakup. The collapse of the country’s uniform ideology has predetermined its civilizational (cultural and religious) heterogeneity.
European experience has shown that stability depends on sound democratic institutions which ensure that decisions taken by policymakers have public backing. This, in turn, demands ongoing political feedback within a confident parliament and an active civil society.
The German business world is pushing Schröder into Putin’s arms. This is not surprising, since Germany has always had a special business approach to Russia, unlike other Western countries.
On a number of key points – power, the national interest and state sovereignty – Russia has more in common with the U.S.A. than with the EU member states. Most central perhaps is the understanding of the concept of “power.” There is a possibility that Russia can actually benefit from the gap between the U.S.A. and Western Europe.
There are no legal or international barriers to recognizing the independence of the self-proclaimed republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in consideration of the practices that the Western countries demonstrated toward the republics of the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. Following the breakup of the Soviet Union, the notion of territorial integrity lost its import.
Russia is Georgia’s natural ally. To make Georgia understand this, Russia must change its attitude toward its southerly neighbor. First and foremost, we must take our feet off the tabletop and stop putting on arrogant airs.
At the start of the 21st century, the countries that once made up the Soviet Union have approached a momentous point in their history. The newly independent states bordering on the mighty development centers, such as Russia, the EU or China, will have to set their priorities and decide for themselves what structures they would like to integrate into.
The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Armenians and Azerbaijanis, which broke out in 1988, was the first armed clash on the territory of the Soviet Union. The word ‘Karabakh’ became a common noun used to describe any armed conflict on the territory of the former Soviet Union.
Cyberspace offers great promise for the preservation of identity and national culture. Through computer-mediated communication, nations – especially challenged nations like the Russians in the ‘Near Abroad’ – have the ability to maintain and reinforce their identity in new and compelling ways.
The Russian Internet community has consolidated, expanded and acquired the necessary links and levers to bring pressure on the authorities. This makes everybody hopeful that any potential attempts by the government at “making the Internet clearer” would be opposed by a force powerful enough to shape public opinion.
Presently, it seems that Russian software producers are already prepared for the export of not only customized products but computer packages oriented toward end-users. Corporate customers are unanimous about Russia’s opportunities within IT market.
Within the next five to ten years, Russia and Ukraine will have to decide whether their common border will be a conventional boundary connecting their peoples, or whether it will become a new frontier of a Europe divided. Ukraine and Russia will have to make a choice on their own – and then live with its consequences.
Russia’s top political milieu is growing restive over the amassed Western penetration into Transcaucasia. The pragmatic West realizes only too well that whoever brings peace and affluence to the post-Soviet territories will have (overtly or covertly) the dominating positions there.
When the Baltic countries entered NATO and the European Union a couple of years ago, many thought it was the end of the centuries-old "red line." Euro-Atlantic organizations had crossed into the former Russian and Soviet empires.
In September 2004, the Russian city of Novgorod hosted an international conference entitled Russia at the Turn of the Century: Hopes and Reality. Its organizers were the RIA Novosti news agency, the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, Russia in Global Affairs, and The Moscow Times.