Moscow’s ability to influence world politics is at its strongest since the end of the Cold War. Russia is now a key player in the Syrian Civil War and its intervention undoubtedly complicated the geopolitical realities of the region. Its encroachment on Ukrainian sovereign territory in Crimea together with its tacit support of the Donetsk People’s Republic and its threat to deploy missiles in Kaliningrad Oblast are also causing some uneasiness in Eastern Europe.
Poland bears the brunt of being sandwiched between Europe’s two major powers – Russia and Germany. Both Estonia and Latvia have large ethnic Russian populations. The fear of possible irredentism looms large in this region.
The pro-Russian sentiment is also on the rise in countries considered to be within Moscow’s sphere of influence. Parties sympathetic to Moscow are registering success at the polls, and an increasing number of governments are sympathetic towards the Russian position.
The conundrum facing many decision makers is two-fold; should they ignore or antagonise a country whose leadership they dislike and distrust or should they engage on matters of common concern without jeopardising ideals and interests? Given that Russia’s influence is here to stay for the foreseeable future, the latter is preferable to the former.
Russia’s seemingly belligerent stance needs to be placed in its proper context. The attitude of the Russian government fits well with the rising tide of nationalist sentiment across the globe. Therefore one needs to engage with the nationalistic narrative in order to gain a better understanding of what the political future may hold.
A prevailing popular view since the mid-19th century depicts Russia as the ‘Third Rome’. The idea traces its origin to the letter addressed to Vasili III in 1510 by the Russian monk Filofei of Pskov. Filofei prophesised: “Two Romes have fallen. The third stands. And there will not be a fourth. No one will replace your Christian Tsardom.”
His words were largely forgotten until the late 19th century when their sentiment captured the imagination of men of letters enthralled by the romantic nationalism ofthe period.
Philosopher and emigre Ivan Ilyin wrote longingly about Russia’s historic mission. He prophesied it would rise again. Despite opposition from other powers, a new era of prosperity and greatness beckoned. He believed in a strong state; one which was autocratic but which yet strove to work for the common good.
The attitude of the Russian government fits well with the rising tide of nationalist sentiment across the globe
Nikolai Berdyaev, a religious and political philosopher, argued that although the image of Russia as a ‘Third Rome’ failed, the Communist International encapsulated many of its supposed features.
These intellectual currents contributed to the rise of Russian exceptionalism – the belief that Russia has a unique contribution and mission on a global scale.
However, Russia’s clout and its military strength mean that such views cannot be easily dismissed. Russian President Vladimir Putin seems to have a fondness for both Ilyin and Berdyaev. Their influence can be detected in his worldview. Putin’s actions suggest he too views Russia as a possible ‘Third Rome’. However, this historical comparison can prove to be a bad omen.
Both empires were beset with internal instability. The transfer of power was rarely smooth; constant power struggles, political assassinations, and personal vendettas featured heavily in the closing days of the empires.
Economic concerns plagued both empires. The political elites proved to be ineffective guarantors of their respective empires. The Roman senate was riddled with corruption which rendered it incapable of mitigating the excesses of the emperors. In Byzantium, the lack of effective structures hindered the creation of an operational and enduring administrative mechanism.
Such parallels exist in Russia today. There seems to be no alternative to Putin, and any transfer of power is likely to be acrimonious and unpleasant. The Russian economy is expected to underperform. Real income is falling and its economic forecast had to be adjusted downwards.
Corruption is rampant. The former minister for the economy, Alexei Ulyukayev, has been charged with accepting a $2 million bribe to approve a major privatisation sale. Transparency International ranks Russia at the 136th place in its Corruption Perception Index.
Several leaders, including Donald Trump, pledged to engage with Russia on some issues. At this stage, this is a necessary development. However, it cannot come at the expense of weakening other structures which have provided a counter-balance to the geopolitical make-up.
NATO cannot be allowed to die a natural death; its role in securing the North Atlantic is of immeasurable value and remains a vital source of security for those threatened by Russian expansionism. Moreover, the West needs to question Russia’s claim that Assad is the only viable alternative to Islamic State. Such statements ignore the most complex realities on the ground.
Several states take no viable concerted position on many of the existing security and political challenges. This places Russia in an advantageous position. Without a viable counter-proposal, Putin’s hand is likely to be strengthened.
André DeBattista is an analyst, a member of the Political Studies Association (UK) and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts.