Russian President Vladimir Putin will visit Ukraine, the scene of his biggest foreign policy blunder, this weekend. Given his myopic actions at home, where he seems increasingly incapable of dealing with any institution that has any degree of autonomy, this seems unlikely.
For example, Putin recently abolished elections in Russia's provinces. From now on, presidential appointees will rule a country that is as complex and multi-national as the EU or the US. That's not a recipe for sophisticated thinking.
Indeed, elected officials in Russia have become an endangered species. The Kremlin black art of manipulating elections by deception and other means -- called "political technology" by locals -- will now be used only in other countries' elections, as these are the only real elections the Kremlin has to worry about, so neutered have Russia's own votes become. The justification for canceling elections in Russia is the need to fight terrorism -- the end that now justifies all means.
How did it happen that every contemporary problem, particularly in Russia, seems to have been reduced to terrorist attacks and counter-terrorist operations? Poverty, racism and ideological legacies are just as visible now as they were three or 13 years ago. Terrorism has not exacerbated them. Security forces have not helped resolved them.
On the contrary, the "double terror" induced by terrorism and counter-terrorism distracts public attention from those problems that, as some of us still remember, produced terrorism. Palestine and Chechnya, two sites of pain and terrorist infection, have not healed. Their national independence is now more elusive than it was before the terrorist era began.
The past was, of course, far from perfect, but governments and peoples everywhere appeared more capable of tolerating failure. When battles were lost, talks began. These talks eventually resulted in the formation of respected countries, from Italy in the 19th century, to India in the middle of the 20th century, to Eritrea near that century's end.
Try to imagine Putin as Russia's leader in 1920, when Poland gained its independence from Russia, or in 1991, when Georgia did. Would he ever have engaged in peace talks? Nowadays, Rudyard Kipling's imperialist Great Game is decomposing into a vicious circle. Security forces respond to the growth of terrorism. The growth of terrorism responds to the strengthening of security forces.
The heavier the hand, it seems, the stronger the resistance; the stronger the resistance, the heavier the hand. Real issues are buried beneath the crimes of the terrorists and the mistakes of the security forces. With every turn of the circle, both parties -- terrorists and security forces -- grow closer to each other. Their common interest is continuation of the game.
Opposing parties use the same weapons, develop comparable tactics and preach increasingly similar ideals. So it goes, until the rules of the game change. But why would they?
In Russian history, there is an analogous situation. At the beginning of the 20th century, socialist revolutionaries led by Evno Asef embarked on a series of terrorist attacks against state officials. Somewhere along the line, Asef became a double agent. Sometimes he killed an official who was not on good terms with the police. At other times, the police simply did not want to betray their precious agent.
Manipulating each other, the terrorists and the security guys became indistinguishable. Call this the "Asef" effect. Once such an alliance was shaped, nothing but revolution could stop it -- in this case, the Bolshevik revolution.
So the game must be stopped, if only for the survival of innocent bystanders -- the rest of us. If you do not see humanity in your counterpart, you will not talk to him. You will either use him or kill him. So the "other" is elevated to the very center of high politics. This is the Asef effect in action.
The Bolsheviks did it to the bourgeoisie. The Nazis did it to the Jews. But classical empires learned not to do it to colonized people. Over time, they invented fascinating ways to control their subjects, combining education, bribery and force. Learning the great art of Orientalism, the classical empires knew how to keep talking while keeping their distance.
Abolishing democracy in Russia's provinces, including Muslim-populated regions such as Tatarstan and Dagestan, is a deadly act. Civil peace in these areas was one of the few accomplishments of which contemporary Russia could be proud.
So is Putin suicidal? Unfortunately not. He owes his career to Chechnya, as Bush may owe his presidency to Iraq. But Chechnya, obliging as it is, is small, poor and idiosyncratic. Converting vast areas of Russia into new Chechnyas, Putin and his clique calculate that -- sooner rather than later -- they will play out their games of terror and security with millions of Muslims in the oil-rich plains of Eurasia.
Alexander Etkind is dean of political science and sociology at the European University, Saint Petersburg, Russia.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS