As the first anniversary of Russia’s war in Ukraine ticks by, it is worth reflecting on how we got there and what we can learn from this event.
“It’s the economy, stupid” was a mantra credited to Bill Clinton’s campaign strategist, James Carville. It becomes clearer why there is antipathy between Russia and its European neighbors if you start there.
Starting from its growing fossil fuel wealth, the Putin regime has tried to carve out its own economic sphere to rival the European Union. The problem? Russia’s economy is too small and cannot be used to provide a good alternative base for the EU.
Russia’s GDP is smaller than Italy’s and only about 10% of the entire EU. Apart from hardware, the military does not have much of a technological sector and even the military sector is dependent on imports. Economic alliances with smaller economies are hardly attractive as an alternative to a stronger bloc.
Why does Russia have such a weak economy?
Part of it is a classic example of the difficulties of the extractive economy. In recent years, oil and gas accounted for about 20% of Russia’s GDP, enough to be a significant overall influence. The extractive economy is subject to booms and busts, affecting other sectors. Example: Australia stopped making cars in 2017 after the Australian dollar was pushed to new highs by the commodity boom. As imports become cheaper, local manufacturers become too expensive to compete. South Africa during the gold boom of the 1980s was partially immune to this because we had a protective economy, especially as sanctions began to bite. But tariff barriers are very discouraging in the modern trade environment and in any case, at best, short-term benefits as protected industries in small economies cannot compete in long-term research and development.
Another factor is the huge investment Russia is making to modernize its military. Aside from the corruption that makes this less effective than it could be, it is an unproductive investment because it has no impact outside of its own sector.
More broadly, endemic corruption makes it difficult for Russia to modernize its economy. This is one of several reasons that make the economy unproductive.
Instead of solving the systemic economic problems to make it more attractive as an economic partner, the Russian state has resorted to bullying. Since Ukraine is in the news, I use that example but it is similar to other neighbors trying to assert their independence such as Georgia and Moldova. Several other small countries are between this place and Belarus, Vladimir Putin’s most trusted ally, in terms of proximity to Russia, such as Azerbaijan, Armenia and Tajikistan.
In 2010, Viktor Yanukovych was elected president of Ukraine on the promise of moving to the European Union. There have been several obstacles to this including demands that he release his main rival, Yulia Tymoshenko, from jail after she was convicted of what outsiders consider to be trumped-up charges. Polls at the time showed that agreement with the EU was three times more popular than association with Russia, with strong support for joining the EU.
So why did Yanukovych pull out of the EU negotiations and turn to Russia? The EU is a bit fussy about details like punishing political opponents when trying to join. It also has standards for corruption, and the refusal of the Yanukovych-dominated Ukrainian parliament to implement the measures that became the trigger for Ukraine’s focus on Russia. Once you’re inside, this policing may not be a big deal; Hungarian President Viktor Orbán is exploring these limits. Russia doesn’t care. And unpopular and corrupt authoritarian regimes are easier to control because they need external support from their own people, so Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko is a slave to loyalty to Russia. Originally famous as the first post-independence president to stabilize the post-Soviet economic chaos, he has become increasingly authoritarian as his popularity has declined and is now dependent on Russia to maintain his country’s security. That’s where Putin wants Ukraine; failing which, it must be removed.
When Putin evokes the history of Peter the Great and insists that Russia has the right to redraw its borders based on its past imperial glories, it is for its base. This is not the 18th century and Ukraine is a founding member of the UN, maintaining nominal independent status even during the Soviet era.
But when I heard representatives of the EU and NATO talk about how successful the “order-based rule” has been in maintaining peace, it does not surprise me that some of the developing countries are not moved. whose rules? What order? Western Europe has been remarkably peaceful since World War II and, with the exception of 9/11, the United States has managed to avoid significant attacks on its own soil (right-wing mass shootings and bombings seem peaceful).
But the rest of the world is not so peaceful, or the “rules” are constantly enforced. Chosen justice is unfair. Until such a rule-based order is consistently enforced and the rich and powerful are disfavored, it undermines the objections to rule-breakers. In the case of Ukraine, a strong argument is that the rules that apply there should apply everywhere. If they were, the Middle East wouldn’t be such a mess, for starters. And maybe some past leaders like George Bush and Tony Blair will go to jail.
But that’s not the world we live in.
What we need to do is learn from the successes and failures of others, while constantly striving for the right rule-based order. If we wait for the latter before moving, we will not solve the problem.
One clear lesson from the Ukraine-Russia conflict is the high price of corruption. If Ukraine had not become so corrupt in 2014, they would have had a more competent and less powerful military when Russia took Crimea. They have learned their lessons since and Russia hasn’t, hence the many catastrophic failures of Russia’s military over the past year. The prediction that Kyiv would fall in three days was probably accurate given the relative size of the military. Russia today whinges about all NATO weapons sent to Ukraine but, in the early days, Ukraine did not have most of the current systems.
Russia may be doing better than expected with sanctions, due to high oil prices, but many of its younger talent are either at war or fleeing to avoid conscription. Putin’s delusions of being the new Peter the Great can still cause his country to find itself in the 18th century.
For South Africa, this lesson should be clear. Basic services and infrastructure fail even without war. Ukraine, despite Russian missile strikes and strikes, has more consistent electricity availability than South Africa. Our economy is too weak for us to pursue a truly independent path. With a few more missteps, we will accept the International Monetary Fund’s structural adjustment plan.
History, geopolitics and others are important to create a debate, to place ourselves on the right side of history and to escape from the past. But we must have an effective government that serves our own national interests, otherwise we will fail our own people.
Rules based ordering? How about we do it right domestically? It is not just a concept for international relations.
Philip Machanick is professor emeritus of computer science at Rhodes University.
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official policy or position Mail & Guardians.