A constant theme in this blog's foreign affairs coverage is the myopia and failure of strong men with singular visions, such as Robert Mugabe, Kim Jung-il, and Hugo Chavez. Add Russian Vladmir Putin to the list, tdaxp persuasively argues. Russia's gas may provide it with leverage, and it also may have gained a measure of advantage from Georgia's foolhardy attack on South Ossetia. But it has failed to gain European support for its diplomatic initiatives, and without the cartoonish foil of Bush to position themselves against Russia is quickly finding its erratic measures to be unsustainable.
This is even clearer from the perspective of strategy in the Americas: No one is convinced, that say, a few ships on a holiday cruise in the Caribbean amounts to a strategic threat. Likewise, today's Cuba is not the springboard of revolution it once was in the region. As much as I am ashamed to say it, Michael Moore best described Cuba as a "leftover turkey leg" from the Cold War. So Russia's renewed relationship with Cuba is not really that big of a deal. And the long-term demographic and economic trends, as well as Russia's decaying political system, do seem to suggest that Putin is not going to be the Peter the Great figure that he once seemed capable of becoming.
Besides the oil, Russia does have leverage over the United States in Afghanistan. Pakistan is degenerating into chaos and no longer is a reliable means of supplying the NATO forces in Afghanistan. Russia has agreed to let us use their territory to transport supplies into Afghanistan. What this presents is a choke point that can be controlled. A decline in US position and/or European failure in Afghanistan is also likely to strengthen Russia's position--although whatever benefit it will gain will be canceled out from the instability likely to threaten Russia's Southern strategic buffer bordering Afghanistan.
To sum it up, Moscow is on a long slide to the bottom. And unless this condition is reversed, Vladimir Putin's legacy will be more akin to that of a Romanov in the final days of the monarchy than Peter or Catherine the Great.
A.E. : Much as I love your articles, I hope you ain't tryin' to salve your broken hart by writin' 'bout other troubled spots in the post - American world.
Posted by: YT | February 01, 2009 at 02:48 AM
Hah, well you'll see plenty of stuff about our own issues in the future. I do try to "stay in my lane" so to speak by writing about security and foreign affairs issues. I can't make heads nor tails of this bailout mess myself.
Posted by: A.E. | February 01, 2009 at 09:32 AM
Maybe this link might give us a better picture. I know nuts 'bout economic & financial science (if it can even be called a science).
http://donvandergriff.wordpress.com/2009/01/10/the-end-of-the-financial-world-as-we-know-it/#more-514
Posted by: YT | February 01, 2009 at 07:50 PM
Oopsie.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/opinion/04lewiseinhornb.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
Posted by: YT | February 01, 2009 at 08:05 PM
Thanks for the links.
Posted by: A.E. | February 02, 2009 at 08:39 AM