The states covered in this survey enjoy very different relations with Russia. Two are EU members, two are members of the Eurasian Economic Union, and four are bordering countries with no special institutional relationship to Russia. One of these, Georgia, has been at war with Russia as recently as 2008, Norway has a strong tradition of neutrality, while only Norway and Japan have never been a part of the Russian or Soviet Empires. In spite of these enormous differences, there is a surprising similarity between the tone of respondents from each of these countries. Admittedly, the respondents all operate in the academic world of universities, and as such are not necessarily representative of either official or popular views in their own countries, and it can be that academia is its own world to itself which links up opinions globally rather than reflecting views nationally. But all the same we expected a stronger divergence of views. Another factor is that, while this project was conceived before the 2014 Ukraine crisis, the questionnaires were sent and answered after Russia’s annexation of Crimea, which has featured strongly in almost all of the responses.
The responses from Georgia and Estonia were the most critical of Russia and pessimistic about futher prospects, while some of those from Belarus and Kazakhstan were least negative. Unsurprisingly, then, there is a correlation between the current state of relations and the interdependence in trade and security relations on the one hand and the attitude to Russia on the other hand. This is born out even more strongly in the analysis of the Visegrad countries and the Western Balkans in the next section. The differences are more than just based on pragmatic assessments of interdependence, however, as there are clear divergences in the assessment of Russia as an Imperial threat to Europe and the rest of the world. The view here is consistent with historical experience and emotional messages
80
about former domination and mistreatment – again, unsurprisingly it is Georgia and Estonia that hold the strongest views.
Underneath the differences, there are consistent messages however. Most respondents do not see Russia as bent simply on the recreation of the Soviet Union, but understand Russia’s actions more in terms of a desire to give itself a role in the world stage, especially in its immediate neighbourhood. Analyses of the Russian elite also tend to similarity – self-interest underlies their actions, there is no vision for the future of Russia, they are a world unto themselves with nobody able to influence them. When the topic moves from international relations to Russia itself, there is a strong consistency in expressing the notion that because of self-interest and corruption, Russia is mismanaged. It is a country with huge economic potential and a rich cultural heritage which is being squandered.
Thus a respect and regard for Russia and its people can be found in among the hostile attitudes to the present leadership. There does not, however, appear any optimism that this can change. The responses to the question about Russia’s future challenges mostly involved stopping what it was doing now, not offering much guidance as to what direction Russia should take in a positive way. There is also a strong feeling that the Russian people, as much as they are suffering from the actions of the current administration, are unable or unwilling to bring about change through action. Perhaps related to this is the often mentioned fact that Russia has no sense of identity, no clear understanding of what kind of country is and what its place in the world is. As one of the responses from Japan put it,
‘Russia is a “not” country’.
Corruption was mentioned by most respondents as a key problem for Russia. The demographic decline of ethnic Russians in relation to other parts of the population also occurred frequently, reflecting concerns often expressed inside Russia. Another shared assumption is that Russia’s neighbours have to choose between Russia or the West. Only respondents from Azerbaijan, in line with its country’s foreign policy, felt that a balanced relationship could be maintained in both directions. Kazakhstan has a similar foreign policy, but here respondents were less optimistic about the prospects for maintaining a balanced relationship in the light of developments in 2014.
While all respondents mentioned the Ukraine crisis, in most cases this was brought up as a symptom of broader directions of international relations (whether the crisis is blamed on Russia or the US and EU). Only a response from Norway and one from Japan directly referred to the Ukraine events as a cause of difficulties for Russia. From this we can read that most respondents view the annexation of Crimea as a success for Russia’s Imperial ambitions. Sanctions were mentioned but not as a serious challenge for Russia, although the broader impacts of poor relations with the West on prospects for economic development were also noted.
The surveys suggest that intellectuals even in countries which are strongly interdependent with Russia – Belarus and Kazakhstan – regret that interdependence and do not have much hope for developments in the immediate future. If this is representative, it suggests that Russia faces a kind of international isolation that will be damaging in terms of prestige as well as economically. Admittedly this kind of assessment will have been greatly strengthened by the events of 2014. Regarding the future, there is little prospect for change revealed in these responses. Respondents do not identify any likelihood of a new direction either in Russia’s internal politics or its external relations. At
81
the same time, in spite of the numerous similarities the marked differences in tone suggest that attitudes in each of these countries remain hard and inflexible, based on long-term historical understanding as much as the current state of interdependence. The strongly shared assumption that Russia’s neighbours face a choice between Russia and the West reveals perhaps the most important aspect of the failures of Russia-West relations in the past twenty-five years as well as the biggest challenge for the future.
82
Summary of Responses to Questionnaire Country Characterisation of
Russia’s foreign policy
Characterisation of Russia’s domestic policies
Characterisation of
Russian people Relations with own
country Problems faced by
Russia Prospects
Azerbaijan Role in frozen conflicts
destabilizing. Poorly governed Huge cultural and
economic potential Balanced, in line with Azerbaijan’s diversified approach. Constructive.
Demography, nationalism, corruption. Economy dependent on energy resources.
Corruption and nationalism make progress difficult
Belarus Imperial ambitions,
Great Power strivings Authoritarian Supportive of leadership
and its aspirations Total dependence on
Russia. Fails to balance
development and cultural uniqueness. Demography.
Dependence on natural resources
Pessimistic; Russia becoming like Belarus, going backwards under Putin. Russia and EU fail to pursue common interests
Estonia A danger. Elite removed from society. Internal power struggles.
Unable to influence
elites Danger of mobilizing
ethnic Russians. China is a threat. Lack of identity, demography, nationalism, corruption.
Growing confrontation internationally. No prospect of internal change.
Georgia Aggressive, imperialist. Sphere of influence in near abroad.
‘Primitive KGB methods’. Economy subordinated to politics.
Suffering Terrible Corruption, criminality,
lack of vision. Nationalism, poverty
Economic difficulties to get worse. No prospect of normal relations. Georgia must choose Russia or the West. Facing ruin.
Japan Confused,
untrustworthy. Regime stability. A Russian kind of capitalist economy.
Hard to understand.
Believe in Putin. Disengaged, hampered by territorial disputes but good prospects for trade.
Lack of identity. Territorial issues. Resolution of the Ukraine crisis.
Instability is likely. Good economic prospects depend on resolving the Ukraine crisis.
Kazakhstan A great power that wants to be taken seriously.
Poorly managed. Need to feel superior to
others. Dependence, or
interdependence.
Stable. Common interests.
Confused identity since collapse of USSR.
Dependence on energy. US foreign policy. Islamists.
Confrontation with West to continue.
Norway ‘Closed in on itself’ Growing state control. Wellbeing is ignored,
great potential Challenging, due to
Russian politics. Economic structure, Ukraine crisis, lack of pluralism.
Hard to see anything changing.