Between Wednesday and Friday next week, NATO will hold its biggest summit ever in Bucharest, the capital of its new member, Romania. Incredibly, NATO has invited its fiercest critic, Russian President Vladimir Putin, to attend. For the first time since 2002, he will. His presence is an embarrassment to NATO, but an even greater disgrace for Russia.
The two biggest issues in Bucharest will be whether to invite Albania, Croatia and Macedonia to join NATO, and whether to offer applications to Ukraine and Georgia to start so-called "membership action plans." These questions should be decided by NATO's members, not outsiders.
In February last year, Putin, in an anti-Western tirade delivered in Munich, declared: "I think it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernization of the alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust."
So Putin's views about NATO are clear. He will scandalize the summit by seeking to intimidate the representatives of former Soviet republics in the room.
Such an aggressive attitude benefits a country's foreign policy only up to a point -- one that Putin passed long ago. Initially, he acted as an able diplomat and accommodator, but since his Munich speech, Putin has begun uniting the West against Russia.
In his speech on May 9 last year commemorating Russia's victory in World War II, Putin compared the US with Nazi Germany: "We have a duty to remember that the causes of any war lie above all in the mistakes and miscalculations of peacetime, and that these causes have their roots in an ideology of confrontation and extremism. It is all the more important that we remember this today, because these threats are not becoming fewer, but are only transforming and changing their appearance. These new threats, just as under the Third Reich, show the same contempt for human life and the same aspiration to establish an exclusive dictate over the world."
Serious politicians do not speak like that. These are the rants of Putin's few remaining friends -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Belarussian President Alyaksandr Lukashenka. At home, awareness is rising that Putin is damaging Russia's interests by insulting and intimidating everybody. He is isolating his country among the world's pariahs -- worse yet, he has achieved little.
When Putin became president in 2000, he named accession to the WTO as his foreign policy priority. He failed, because he gave in to petty protectionist interests, imposing a timber embargo against Finland and Sweden, a fish embargo against Norway, and various agricultural embargoes against Lithuania, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia and others.
Russia's foreign policy is focused on the interests of its state-dominated corporations, notably Gazprom, which has concluded agreements with many foreign countries and companies for monopolistic deliveries. But a Gazprom pipeline typically costs three times as much per kilometer as a similar Western pipeline, because of "leakage" (kickbacks and waste). The primary purpose of Russia's foreign policy seems to be to tap Russia's state companies for the benefit of Kremlin officials.
But customers do not trust suppliers who cut deliveries, raise prices unpredictably, expropriate competitors, and allow production to decrease in the way Gazprom and Russia's other state companies have done. As a result, Russia's gas exports to Europe have started declining.
Putin's foreign policy is also evidently intended to whip up populist chauvinism. Beating up on foreigners may boost his authoritarian rule, but this, too, has a price. Not only the US and Europe, but all former Soviet republics feel alienated by Putin's aggressive tactics. Many are seeking to shield themselves from Russia's capricious embargoes -- for example, by seeking alternative energy supplies.
Russia has improved its relations with China under Putin, but at the cost of acceding to China's demands for two big disputed islands over which the two countries fought in 1969. Putin's apparent aim was to secure financing for Rosneft's purchase of the Yugansk oil field, which was part of the Yukos confiscation. Yet China, too, is wary of Putin, and has been sending warm signals to leaders of former Soviet republics, such as Ukrainian Prime Minister Yuliya Tymoshenko.
Russia's nationalists are also outraged by Putin's foreign policy, because it has alienated former Soviet republics and weakened Russia's military. The nationalist Council for National Strategy published a devastating report on the decay of Russia's military under Putin. Russian military procurement, it claims, has plummeted. For example, only three new military aircraft have been purchased since 2000.
True, armaments costs have risen sharply, but only because Putin's KGB friends, who monopolize the production of weapons, have stolen inordinate amounts. Yet, despite this spending shortfall, Putin seems obsessed with making pointless and provocative gestures, such as resuming long-range nuclear bomber flights off the US coast.
In the early 1990s, many Westerners and Russians wanted Russia to become a full-fledged member of both the EU and NATO, on the condition that Russia became a full-fledged democracy. Unfortunately, the West never made that offer and Russian democracy went astray.
Anders Aslund is a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
RSS