Caught between a bear and a hard life

By Afghan Whig

In Russia, more than a dozen rallies were held over the weekend, calling for the nation’s leaders to resign. Fueling the fire among Russian activists are concerns over their government’s approach to the worldwide economic crisis. They’re angry about growing unemployment; half a million Russians lost their jobs in December. They’re angry about protectionist used car tariffs, which will raise the price and diminish the supply of foreign cars in Russia. They’re angry about the rising costs of food and other consumption goods, and unrelated to the economy, they’re upset about the Kremlin’s suspected murder of political dissenters. Justifiably, the Eurasian natives are becoming increasingly restless.   

On one hand, this is somewhat comforting. Russia views America as its chief geopolitical rival. In November, 2008, they conducted joint naval exercises with the Venezuelan navy, knowing full well it would provoke the United States.  Russia has also been helping Iran develop a nuclear program for years, and continues to strengthen its strategic ties to Iraq’s excitable neighbor. Dmitry Medvedev’s government is actively vying for more influence and oil (especially in the Middle East and Central Asia) and acts as if making out with America’s biggest enemies is the best way to attain those things. 

Put this all together, and it becomes apparent that a changing of the guard in Moscow would help secure America from a corrupt, powerful government tirelessly maneuvering to reclaim Russia’s past glory, if not necessarily it’s ideology. But change isn’t necessarily a good thing. 

It’s quite possible that if Russia’s internal troubles grow out of hand, they may produce something worse than what already exists. Growing domestic unrest has no doubt contributed an urgency to Medvedev’s latest social networking, and it’s not unreasonable to believe that his government may attempt to unite a slowly fracturing country by turning their collective anger towards the “true” cause of the world’s current economic woes (translation: The United States) or an America-friendly proxy, such as Georgia (again).

Despite counter-protests in support of their governance, Medvedev and Vladimir Putin are more vulnerable than one may suspect. Taking the lead in protesting the duo’s split executive rule are communist groups of varying stripes, who want to resurrect the ghost of Lenin. Putin’s popularity remains high, but history has demonstrated that nothing can match communism’s ability to exploit economic populism. The Russian revolution of 1917 is generally believed to have broken out spontaneously among an unhappy population. This left the door open for the Bolsheviks to take control in October, 1917. Putin’s state is more stable than Nicholas II’s, but a combination of worsening economic conditions and Russia’s radical traditions could pave the way for another dramatic upheaval.

This is discomforting. If the small but apparently growing percentage of Russians unhappy with the current Russian Federation ever overthrows their current rule and replaces it with something similar to what they had during most of the 20^th century, it will lead to a government even more morally bankrupt and potentially dangerous than Medvedev’s determined Russian bear. 

For the sake of Russian civil rights, I prefer their prevailing corrupt state to the radicals leading the domestic charge against him.  The top-down authoritarianism of Russia’s current government is preferable to the organic totalitarianism Russia’s most organized protestors are trying to reinstate. It’s no secret that journalists have a bad habit of getting themselves murdered under mysterious circumstances after criticizing the Russian government. But even a passing glance at Cuba, North Korea, and Venezuela will show that communist states don’t tolerate the free press any more than Putin is believed to.  

For the sake of American security, there is also no reason to prefer the resurrection of Soviet-era policies. Not too long ago, the U.S.S.R. was America’s biggest military threat. Replacing Putin with the next Stalin won’t create a government any friendlier to America’s fundamentally anti-communist republic.   

Without a viable third option, Russians are trapped between a thuggish semi-permanent regime (Putin could still become President under certain circumstances), and an opposition which desires to emulate a system which coupled militarism with economic ineptitude like no other. All of a sudden I don’t feel so bad about being forced to choose between John McCain and Barack Obama last year. 

Cross-posted at The Sword and the Olive Branch