The collapse of the Soviet Union

Russia’s imperial agony

The cost of the Soviet collapse has been huge and ongoing

Dec 3rd 2011 | from the print edition

Post-Imperium: A Eurasian Story.By Dmitri Trenin. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; 270 pages; $49.95 and £34.99.Buy from Amazon.com, Amazon.co.uk

8 Pieces of Empire: A 20-Year journey Through the Soviet Collapse. By Lawrence Scott Sheets. Crown; 313 pages; $28. Buy from Amazon.com

“THE dying process has begun”, wrote Alexander Kugel, a journalist and theatre critic, a few months after the bloody Bolshevik revolution of 1917. “Everything that we see now is just part of the agony. Bolshevism is the death of Russia. And a body the size of Russia cannot die in one hour. It groans.” The agony lasted over 70 years. On December 25th 1991 Mikhail Gorbachev, on television, relinquished his duties as the last president of the USSR. The hammer and sickle flag was lowered from the Kremlin without fanfare. The empire expired with a sigh.

There was almost no blood on the streets of Moscow that year; the only deaths were those of three young men killed on the night of the failed coup in August 1991. (Today almost no one in Russia remembers their names or celebrates their sacrifice.) The disintegration of the Soviet empire was “relatively peaceful and orderly”, as Dmitri Trenin writes in a sober and analytical book, “Post-Imperium”. It could certainly have been worse, but the collapse unleashed civil and ethnic wars on the periphery—in the Caucasus, Moldova and the most deadly one, Tajikistan. Estimates vary, but about 200,000 people are believed to have died in the post-Soviet conflicts.

“8 Pieces of Empire” by Lawrence Scott Sheets, an American reporter who spent 20 years covering the post-Soviet conflagrations for Reuters and National Public Radio, is a powerful reminder of how relative the words “peaceful and orderly” really were. His book takes the reader inside some of these wars, which were largely ignored by a world preoccupied with the reunification of Germany and the disintegration of Yugoslavia. Different in genre and scope, both books are nonetheless shaped by personal experience.

Mr Trenin, who heads the Carnegie Moscow Centre, served the empire as a military officer in East Germany. Mr Sheets, who now works for the International Crisis Group in South Caucasus, went to the Soviet Union to study Russian in 1987 and returned shortly before Mr Gorbachev’s final presidential speech, hoping to become a foreign correspondent. His book is an invaluable eyewitness account of the traumas of the Soviet collapse told through the lives of those who were caught up in it and often buried under it. The book is written with a disarming honesty, sympathy and humility.

The “pieces” in the title refers not only to geography but to people who were scattered: a Bulgakov-loving, rebellious racketeer in Leningrad; a Russian officer left behind at a forlorn border post between Armenia and Turkey, guarding a foreign frontier with another foreign state and trying to flog snake venom to passing journalists; an ageing former Soviet foreign minister, Eduard Shevardnadze, who helped to end the cold war but failed to prevent a hot one from starting in his native Georgia, which he came to rule in the 1990s.

Stalin’s birthplace, the “wine-and-song-filled Georgia”, was one of the first to descend into anarchy. In 1992 two gangsters (both with artistic backgrounds) pushed out a crazy nationalist president (himself a former writer) and roamed into an autonomous Abkhazia on the pretext of having to guard passenger trains with tanks. Soon, a nasty ethnic war consumed this former Soviet playground. It was a “war that nobody started”, as a Georgian put it at the time. It lacked a plan, strategy, front line or regular armies, but it had plenty of vandalism and ethnic hatred.

The tragic absurdity of the war comes alive in the detail. A bunch of armed men calling themselves “knights” and “guards” downed chacha(moonshine) while they waited in the sweltering heat for a pilot to fly them and their tethered lamb to Abkhazia. “Sweaty with gregariousness, they act like they’re going to a party,” writes Mr Sheets. “Or a funeral pyre for the empire.” A few weeks later he flew back from Abkhazia on another rickety plane, this time overloaded with zinc coffins and lucky refugees jammed in the toilet.

Russia’s intervention in 1993 resulted in Georgia’s defeat. But the wounds left by the wars never healed, in part because they continued to be prodded by all sides. They were reopened in 2008, when Russia attacked NATO-aspiring Georgia over South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The consequences of Russia’s own two wars with Chechnya, north of the Caucasus Mountains, have also been grievous. Mr Sheets ends his book with a description of one of the most horrific episodes of those wars: the school siege in Beslan in 2004, when more than 1,000 people, mostly children, were taken hostage by terrorists. In the worst Soviet tradition, the state lied about the number of hostages and the terrorists’ demands. After two days government forces stormed the school, using tanks and flame-throwers. Mr Sheets met hostages emerging from the inferno, wounded, filthy and in shock. A wailing teenage boy tried to call his dead sister on Mr Sheets’s mobile phone.

“Feeling at best an interloper and at worst a tragedy speculator, I put my equipment away,” he says. Writing for nearly 20 years about people being killed “is a bit like exposing oneself to radiation”; both mind and body are affected. Today Mr Sheets works to prevent more conflicts. It is in this capacity that he warns darkly in the last paragraph of the book that the Russian empire could easily fragment still further.

This might seem odd when so many are worried about Russia’s neo-imperialist rhetoric. Yet as Mr Trenin convincingly argues, Russia is not a neo-imperialist state, but a post-imperialist one that lacks both vision and appeal, and the economic and human resources for any expansion. With a shrinking population, that accounts for only 2% of the human race, and a declining share of former Soviet trade, “the Russian empire is over, never to return.” Mr Trenin sees Russia’s policy as pragmatic and responsive, perhaps transferring his own sensibility onto the government. But he remains honest in his analysis. The current system which is based, he says, on economic growth without development, capitalism without democracy and great-power policies without international appeal, is unsustainable. Russia’s main threat is not to the outside world, but to itself.

from the print edition | Books and arts

The cracks appear

Dec 9th 2011, 17:07

The following is originally written to comment on last issue’s “Books and Art”. Reading this article, I rectify some sentences and post my suggestion on this issue’s comment.

The majority of people in the world twenty years ago thought that Gorbachev’s this decision was helpful and of benefit for the world. And shortly after Gorbachev’s farewell speech, Boris Yeltsin very fast built the first Russian democracy and the reputation for competing with then U.S. President Bill Clinton, letting Russia still be the world Top 3 rank in various sides. Mr. Yeltsin had some strategy and humour to deal with various kinds of discrepancy. In contrast, his successor Vladimir Putin, the former KGB intelligent leader and incumbent Prime Minister, does not do better than Mr. Yeltsin in the peaceful border concerned until now, such as the military action to Georgia in 2008-2009 and the dispute of Japan’s northern 4 island in 2010-2011(moreover, the scout plane flied in Japan’s sky). In addition, this agony affects Afghanistan, where many foes, blood and tears still exist now.

There has ever some sounds wanting the return of past honour because Mr. Putin’s personality, including fox-like hesitancy which make Mr. Putin manipulate self-centred and conservative system of national security, was the main cause of Russia’s recent decline, although it has proved that Russia owns the large potential energy that can incite the future economic growth especially near Arctic Ocean until 2050. And many people prefer some customs under one-party rule and memorize the steadily whole environment of society and political system. In reality, there is no one having the ability to substitute for Mr. Putin to be the leader of Russia. Therefore, many observers are inclined to show the pessimistic attitude towards Russia, whose leader Mr. Putin still be hard to deal with a mess and condescend to compare with the weaker three - Brazil’s Dilma Rousseff, India’s Manmohann Singh and China’s Wen Jia-Bao - the so-called BRIC.

According to the publication in 2007 for Mr. Putin and Dmitri Medvedev, “Russia’s Surrounding World in the future ten years”, Mr. Putin’s cabinet in Moscow exercises the moderate policy and has constructive views on the surrounding Russia, holding the neatly military power, some nuclear weapons and large amount of oil concerned resulting in the ability of the local harmony. On the surface many things look very good, but more protests and more contradictions emerges with Mr. Putin’s ambiguous direction, serious corruption in his party as well as his worse international place. With a setback in last Sunday's lower house election, Mr. Putin has no choice but to yield some right to the opposition. His party still has a majority, but will no longer be able to initiate constitutional revisions on its own.

Today, when together thinking of this photo which Mr. Gorbachev was taken for farewell to Russian, we must be filled with a variety of flexible emotion - just exclaim the fall of this imperial whose rulers once vowed to Russian to defeat the evil or unite the Russia and Russian affiliation. The books (Post-Imperium: A Eurasian Story or 8 Pieces of Empire: A 20-Year journey Through the Soviet Collapse) refer to the establishment of Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) as “the death of Russia”, but I don’t nod at all of this argument. In 1917 after Aleksandr Fyodorovich Kerensky overthrew the Romanov emperor, Nicholas II, Russia experienced the Kerensky’s tyranny leading to the tumultuous and suddenly declining situation. The Bolshevik party, led by Vladimir Ilich Lenin, got so many Russian supports the formation of USSR. As a whole, for not short time the territory of USSR had kept well and complete, although there were sometimes killings or incidents like 1968’s Prague Spring.

I want to discuss with these two authors about what the social stability is more important than whether the formation of the government is democracy (of course more democratic system is needed). In this way and by the way, Chinese Communist Party, involved in 1989’s June-fourth Tiannanmen Square, gradually knows these kinds of historic lessons, especially for the relationship with Russia.

Hearing of too many scandal of Mr. Putin and his party, I remember that the occasion where Chinese well-known Professor Lee Dong-Fung once requested Kerensky at Harvard University. While Kerensky was requested for why Kerensky’s regime was overthrown but nevertheless a democracy(I don’t think so), Kerensky said that he knew the exercise of democratic system but the social welfare of massive farmers and workers only to lose most of Russian heart. Facing so severe embarrassment, Mr. Fox with his wife Lyudmila Putin, may God bless them, also for Eastern Orthodox.

    Recommended

    3

    Report

    Permalink

這篇是探討蘇俄倒下的論文集及斷代史。在俄國革命百年紀念的去年及前幾年國際間都有懷念的文章及出版品供人頌讀。這邊提到了普丁總統的獨霸俄國政壇及一本筆者用來提及俄國實力不容小覷的智庫用書- 未來十年俄羅斯的周圍世界：梅普組合的全球戰略，在中國大陸由新華出版社委由萬成才先生翻譯，分析從2007至2017的世界大勢演變，從小布希和普丁的美俄峰會為起點。這本就中共黨政方面預測有算準確，比如2017年曾經出洋至美國作研究的王滬寧當選政治局常務委員，由「受西方教育的留洋一代掌權」一句得證，代表普丁也有猜測中共人事會注意市場發展動態。之後這本數度被筆者提及，又好像阿拉伯世界如敘利亞內戰及阿拉伯之春的興起，必定有「刺激新思潮」的判斷猜測準確，及美國確定由歐巴馬當選後的美軍及白宮外交佈局作了推理。當年的這篇呢，筆者最後以黎東方博士在哈佛大學訪問時和克倫斯基作筆證所詢問，克氏當年假扮成美國大使夫人成功逃出共產黨員的崗哨，依克氏後誨不理民生指標，而一味孤行來提醒這俄國不能一錯再錯，居安思危。不喜歡年青一代第一志願是公務員的梅德韋杰夫和普丁至今至少還不是如此之流，但難說這多元社會是否有人走了資，或學起葉爾欽及一些附近原附庸國的政客趁亂打劫成功呢？像經濟學人雜誌推薦的這兩本，除了有俄羅斯干涉喬治亞問題和在車臣的危機，同時代的大南斯拉夫解體和德國的統一作為對照，來看這蘇維埃龐然大物解體造成的周邊分分合合，都應該會讓讀者有得到些許感傷或啟發。