The impression that Russian imperialism is making more and
ground in its immediate sphere of influence has been strengthened by a number
of spectacular events recently: the rapprochement with the Yanukovych
government in Ukraine and the signing of a an accord allowing for long-term
Russian military bases there; the signing of a deal with Ankara for the
construction of a Russian nuclear plant in Akkuyu in the south of Turkey;
Medvedev's ‘brotherly' visit to Syria in May and the rumours that the
elimination of the Bakiyev government in Kyrgyzstan was entirely to the
advantage of Moscow. But is this actually the case?
Without doubt, the situation we saw in the 1990s is long gone. Then Russian experienced a very significant enfeeblement. It had lost all its old satellite states and, on the domestic front, under Yeltsin, entered an era of openly Mafia style functioning. The Russian state was urgently compelled to put both its internal and external affairs under the control of its apparatus. The accession to power of the bourgeois faction around Putin in 2000 was a significant sign of the effort to restore the strength of the Russian state and reinforce its imperialist policies.
But do the successes that Russia has achieved allow us to talk
about a triumphant forward march of Russian imperialism? Not at all. In
reality, Russia today is faced with a desperate struggle against instability in
the region of the former eastern bloc. Instability and a loss of control are a
general tendency, which most powerfully affects the USA, the world's leading
gendarme. But Russia, which aims to maintain its role as leader in this region,
and to draw long-term advantages from the weakening of the USA, is itself not able
to escape this international dynamic.
Kyrgyzstan : the extension of uncontrollable chaos
At first sight, the overthrow of the government of Kyrgyzstan in
April 2010 seems to mark a point for Russia in the imperialist game: the
government clique around Bakiyev had broken its promise to Russia to close the
country's American military base, so it would be easy to think that the new
government clique around Otunbayeva was being placed in power with the official
support of Russia, to take revenge on Bakiyev for breaking his word. But the
situation in Kyrgyzstan is rather more complex. It's not possible to reduce it
to a struggle between two bourgeois factions, one supported by the USA and the
other by Russia, as was often the case in third world countries during the Cold
War. It's wrong to imagine that with the overthrow of the Bakiyev government,
the spoils automatically fall to Russian imperialism and the situation will
calm down.
What we are seeing in Kyrgyzstan on the contrary is an extension
of chaos and conflicts between national cliques. Russian imperialism is very
far from emerging as the big winner in the situation. With the tensions in the
south of the country, in the region of Jalabad and Osh, a phase of instability
is opening up in a country which is both at the gates of Russia and shares a
frontier with China - which is an increasingly aggressive imperialism.
Kyrgyzstan is already an important point of entry for Chinese products into the
markets of the CIS. But even if Russia and China are really bitter rivals over
gaining influence in Kyrgyzstan, they still have a shared concern about this
region: the development of uncontrollable battles between regional cliques,
which often take the form of ethnic pogroms like the ones we have just seen in
Kyrgyzstan. And even the USA will not accept its military presence in
Kyrgyzstan being put into question! Kyrgyzstan is a country that is
getting more and more difficult to govern because it lacks a unified national
bourgeoisie. It is now a clear example of the danger of loss of control so
feared by the great imperialist powers. The bloody pogroms in Osh this June
clearly illustrate the delicate situation facing Russian imperialism: asked to
provide military aid by the Otunbayeva government in order stem the chaos,
Russia hesitated because it didn't want to get drawn into a second Afghanistan.
Independently of the question of the local cliques in power, it is difficult
for Russia, which is being shaken by the economic crisis, to intervene with the
aim of maintaining its influence, given the enormous military costs involved.
On top of this, Russia's efforts to play its role as regional imperialist
gendarme are being undermined by the actions of a small imperialist hyena in
the region, the Lukashenko government in Belarus which immediately tried to
throw oil on the fire by offering asylum to the exiled Bakiyev.
Election of Yanukovych in Ukraine: a great victory for Russia?
Without doubt, the elections in February 2010 in Ukraine brought
to power a bourgeois faction which is much more open to Russia. In April,
Ukraine signed a significant deal with Russia guaranteeing a Russian military
presence in Sebastopol until 2042, and massive economic concessions for
deliveries of Russian gas to Ukraine until 2019. In June, Ukraine took the
decision to halt plans to enter NATO drawn up by the previous Yushchenko
government. But relations with Ukraine are not at the point where Russia can
pat itself on the back and they present it with a real dilemma. Even though
Ukraine has been hit hard by the economic crisis and needs immediate financial
aid, the Ukrainian state is not jumping once and for all into the arms of its
big brother - and it is also asking for something in return from Russia. Russia
has to reward the temporary goodwill of the Yanukovych government at the cost
of the billions knocked off the price of gas, and this just to maintain its
military presence in the port of Sebastopol. But the real imperialist needs and
ambitions of Russia towards Ukraine go much further than the deal struck with
the Ukrainian government. From the geographical point of view Ukraine
represents a passage-way for the export of Russian gas to the west, and the
Russian economy is highly dependent on this trade. To avoid this degree of
dependence on Ukraine (and even on Belarus), Russia is obliged to undertake
hugely expensive alternative routes like the Northstream pipeline. For Russia,
a stable, long-term relationship with Ukraine is a necessity, not only on the
economic terrain of the transport of gas, but above all on the geostrategic
terrain, for its military protection. But Ukraine, with its deeply divided
bourgeoisie, does not represent a stable partner and the Yanukovych government
offers no guarantees in the long term. If the faction around Timochenko gets
back into government, new frictions won't be long in following. For the
Ukrainian bourgeoisie, which is motivated fundamentally by its own national interests,
its current political orientation is not the expression of a deep love affair
with Russia. The weakness of the European Union means that a
rapprochement between Ukraine and the EU is not an option for the former. It is
economic necessity and the need to find the cheapest source of energy which is
pushing Ukraine into a path so typical of imperialism today: immediatist,
unstable and dominated by the ‘every man for himself' philosophy.
After the war in Georgia: no stability in sight in the Caucasus
Even though in the war against Georgia in 2008 Russian
imperialism did gain ground by occupying new geographical zones, such as
Ossetia and Abkhazia, and even though the USA was unable to intervene on behalf
of its friend Georgia because it was bogged down in Iraq, Russian has in no way
consolidated its position in the Caucasus. Russia has not really been
able to take advantage of the USA's weakness. This was basically the sign of a
new stage in imperialist confrontations, since for the first time since the
collapse of the blocs in 1989 the old rivals America and Russia were once again
facing each other directly.
But this war also showed clearly that it is quite wrong to think
that in the present stage of imperialism a war automatically produces a winner and
a loser. In the end this war only produced losers. Not only from the point of
view of the working class (which always loses on both sides of any imperialist
conflict) but also among the imperialisms involved in it. Georgia has been
weakened, so the USA has lost its influence in the region but Russia is
confronted with an aggravation of chaos in the Caucasus which is proving
impossible to calm down.
In many regions of the Caucasus, in official territories of the
Russian Federation, such as Dagestan or Ingushetia, the armed forces of Russian
imperialism play the role of an occupying force rather than of a deeply rooted
state apparatus. But again the situation in this region is extremely complex:
the Russian police and army have been acting in a very brutal manner, but in
the end have proved powerless against the numerous local clans at each others'
throats.
Apart from the necessity to defend its immediate strategic and
economic interests, the aggressive stance of Russian imperialism also contains
a historical dimension. Founded on a history of permanent expansion since
Czarist times, Russia has today been squeezed back into a reduced territorial
corset - a situation which its bourgeoisie cannot accept.
The May terrorist attacks in Moscow, not far from the area of
the city inhabited by the security forces, show that terrorist actions are
aimed directly at the authority of the Russian state. The present efforts to
increase the powers of the FSB are not a sign of strength but of fear. The
situation in the northern Caucasus where Russia finds itself in a state of more
or less open warfare in its own national territory - in other words, in a
situation where it is constantly threatened with losing control and thus
providing an example to other local cliques to start contesting its authority -
shows that Russia too is caught up in a process of weakening. A situation like
this is specific to Russia. Other big imperialisms like America or Germany
don't face such problems in their own territory, or do to a lesser degree, like
China. Even if Russia is struggling manfully to overcome the historical crisis
it entered with the collapse of the Stalinist form of state capitalism, the
development of centrifugal forces in its historical sphere of influence is
continuing and getting worse.
The whole situation in Russia's sphere of influence is one more
example of the total irrationality of capitalism today. Even if the ruling
class arms itself to the teeth, it still can't control its own system.