Russia is facing disintegration. Although President Vladimir Putin is promoting an anti-US line to hold off this crisis, at a deeper level, Russia is not competing with the US, but with China.
Disintegration has taken forms such as Georgia's Rose Revolution in 2003, Ukraine's Orange Revolution last year and Kyrgyzstan's Tulip Revolution this year. This wave of revolutions has even hit areas within Russia, including Bashkortostan, Tatarstan, Sakha (Yakutia), Tuva (Tyva), Karelia and Kalmykija. Some of these areas are strategically important to Russia, and if they become independent, the country will break up.
For example, if Sakha becomes independent, northeastern regions like Chukotka and Kamchatka will be exposed to US influence, separated as they are from Alaska only by the Bering Strait.
The US, and to some extent Europe, is exploiting and even encouraging this situation. In fact, by permitting and encouraging certain ethnic minority regions in Russia to initiate revolutions, the administration of US President George W. Bush is doing much the same thing as the UK, Nazi Germany, the administration of former US president Ronald Reagan and other superpowers have done in the past -- namely, to weaken and divide Russia.
Russians are also aware of the imminent danger to their country. Last month, Presidential Administration Director Dmitri Medvedev, for the first time publicly admitted the danger. But this is not the whole story. The Putin administration has launched a national life-saving strategy: accelerating the concentration of power and sniping at the US by selling weapons to Syria and China, cooperating with Iran on nuclear technology and conducting joint military exercises with China this summer.
As long as Moscow pursues these tactics with sufficient determination, it can cause serious trouble for the US. But Putin is unlikely to stop the drift toward disintegration, because the current crisis is only a consequence of the disintegration of the USSR. And this disintegration was simply a case of a 20th-century party-state aberration failing to keep up with the times.
The breakup of the USSR was an expression of a party-state in crisis. It was not a solution to the crisis. Almost 10 years of a chaotic Boris Yeltsin administration could not completely uproot the party-state system. The Putin administration not only does not seek to eradicate the system, but has utilized its vestiges -- such as the Communist Information Bureau -- to establish its power while economically returning to the well-trodden path of strong state control. As a result, Russia has regained a superficial prosperity, such as its inclusion in the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China), which are seen as leading emergent regional economies. But the agglomeration of problems that Russia continues to experience are sufficient to bring about its disintegration.
The Putin administration has made clear that unless there is a major realignment of powers -- such as that caused by World War I -- Russia's disintegration will be inevitable.
Looking at Eurasia as a whole, clearly only the disintegration of China would be sufficient to cause such a realignment and redistribution.
Russia hopes to save itself by supporting those who resist the US, and is therefore cooperating more closely with China, among other nations. But, practically speaking, Russia is not the US' equal. So while Russia may oppose the US, this will not be sufficient to hold off its disintegration. The dialectics of history mean that China is Russia's only hope; Russia can only hope that China will collapse before it does.
Chang Hsi-mo is an associate professor of the Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies at National Sun Yat-Sen University.
TRANSLATED BY LIN YA-TI
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS