Alphen, Netherlands. 2
March. What does the murder of Boris Nemtsov’s murder mean for Russia and
Europe’s security? A few years ago I met Nemtsov at an event in Geneva. Unfailingly courteous, even self-deprecating,
he was highly-intelligent and offered a fascinating glimpse into a better
Russia, a different Russia. Indeed, my
impressions of the man and his ideas suggested that his great country still had
a real chance of transitioning from autocracy to democracy, and through that transition,
Europe could finally become whole, free, and at peace.
Sadly, all that Nemtsov
stood for was blown away on Friday by four bullets in his back - the cynical
act of that other, all-too cynical Russia.
Many are blaming President Putin.
However, this is simply not his style, and is in any case far too close
to home. Why murder a leading opposition
figure on the approach road to the Kremlin?
It is pure speculation on my part but it is more likely to have been the
deed of the now-multiple ultra-nationalist groups that stalk Russian politics. Well to the right of even President Putin such
groups have tentacles that reach far into the so-called Siloviki, the security apparatchiks who run an increasingly
powerful security state.
The other day I had
dinner with Putin opponent Mikhail Khordokovsky, Lithuanian Foreign Minister
Linus Linkevicius, Slovak Foreign Minister Miroslav Lajcak, former Swedish Prime
and Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, and NATO Deputy Secretary-General Alexander
Vershbow. Now, I am not at liberty to reveal the content of our discussion (and
I will not). However, I was struck by
Khordokovsky’s concern for and about his Motherland. Indeed, having listened to Khordokovsky I
tore up my prepared remarks and put it bluntly to the gathered dignitaries; Europe’s
strategic vacation is over, all the comforting self-absorbed assumptions about peace,
stability and security we Europeans have clung to since the end of the Cold War
will be torn up over the next decade…and Russia will do much of the tearing.
You might say my motivation
was fairly obvious given the tragedy in Ukraine. However, I was also driven to speak by the
unworldliness of Western European politicians in particular. Too many of them seem to believe that what is
happening TO Russia, and what is happening IN Ukraine, is unfortunate, but remains
a side-show to the ‘real’ issues of debt and ‘Europe-building’. In fact, what is happening in Russia is
extremely dangerous and concerns us all.
This weekend here in the Netherlands Gary Kasparov, the former Russian
chess master, said that President Putin regards the West as weak and divided.
He is of course right. However, what is
not understood is just how weak and divided Russia is itself, and just how
dangerous such divisions are for Europe’s security.
When he started his
third term in office in 2012 President Putin set out to fulfil three parallel and
connected strategic missions: to centralise power on the President’s office via
the National Security Council; to marginalise all opposition to his rule; and
to re-establish Russian influence over the states on Russia’s so-called ‘near
abroad’, be they EU/NATO members or not.
Most commentators have assumed that the primary mission is the
re-establishment of Russia’s influence over its ‘near abroad’. In fact, President Putin is using that
mission, and the appeal to nostalgic Russian patriotism it generates, to
justify absolute control over the sprawling Russian state apparatus and, by
extension, Russian society. To President
Putin the need for a stable Russia on his terms is far more important than a
free Russia on our terms.
It is in that context
that Nemtsov and his supporters have been portrayed as a threat to the Kremlin,
because Nemtsov espoused the kind of European civil society which would see a
Russia emerge that would indeed be on our liberal democratic terms. It should be noted that in Ukraine Maidan was
triggered by an EU agreement, not a NATO agreement.
However, for all his
concerns about Nemtsov and his ilk he is equally concerned about forces to his
political right and the ultra-nationalist movements which could tear Russia apart,
and by extension Europe, if they ever gained power. Not versed in political reform as other
Europeans would know it Putin sees the greatest danger to Russia as the ‘chaos’
that would emerge if a power struggle were to break out into the open between
liberals and ultra-nationalists. In that
light Putin sees the focusing of power on himself as a move to stabilise Russia
and thus prevent Russian fracturing under the triple pressures of nationalism, globalisation
and Europeanisation.
Therefore, Nemtsov’s assassination
is clearly a function of the very profound tensions that exist at the heart of
Russian politics and society, and such tensions are likely to get worse. President
Putin has manoeuvred himself into a political dead-end. He offers Russians no political vision, no
political development, and no political evolution which would over time help
ease such tensions and create a Russia with state institutions of sufficient
strength to cope with pluralism. Rather,
he is trying to divert such tensions by appealing to Russian nationalism,
wrapping himself in the Russian flag, and by centralising all power on himself
and using an assertive displacement policy. Consequently, Putin himself has nowhere to go
but more of the same assertive displacement policy. If he fails Putin will be swept aside by the
tides of change that are indeed boiling away below the surface of the Russian
body politic. Putin’s ‘strategy’ may
not make sense to many strategically-illiterate western European politicians. However, it makes ‘perfect’ Russian sense to the
Baltic states, and indeed all states across Central and Eastern Europe who have
‘benefitted’ from past Russian rule.
Contrast all of the
above with the utterances of last week of British Prime Minister David Cameron. Amidst growing and justified concerns about
further cuts to British defence spending (and blatant attempts by Downing
Street to shut down any defence debate prior to the May general election)
Cameron assured the British people that the UK can defend itself against the
Russians. That is precisely NOT the
point, Dave, and you know it. The real
issue is whether the British armed forces will be able to fulfil their treaty
commitments to NATO and provide critical forward deterrence to Britain’s
allies. Today, the answer is just about yes. Any more defence cuts to the British
defence budget and the answer will be an emphatic no as Britain effectively ceases
to be a major power (see my new paperback – Little Britain? Twenty-First
Century Strategy for a Middling European Power.
www.amazon.com)
Here’s the strategic
cruncher. President Putin is looking at NATO anchor-states such as Britain to
see if they have the resolve to contain him.
Indeed, if I want to be really provocative (and why not) I would suggest
that in the absence of any meaningful strategic partnership Putin NEEDS the
West to contain him so he can concentrate on consolidating power in Russia, and
in his very narrow terms maintain political stability therein. However, as Gary Kasparov pointed out, Putin
certainly does not believe countries like Britain, or indeed any other European
state, are up to the strategic task he has set them. Sadly, I have to agree with President Putin.
So, will the murder of
Boris Nemtsov be seen one day as Putin’s nemesis? No.
However, it reveals a Russia that combines immense, over-centralised
power with dangerous instability. And, if what is happening in and to Russia is
not seen through the cold light of political realism Putin’s Russia could one
day be the nemesis of us all.
Wake up!
Julian Lindley-French
