Carl Thomson: The Conservative Party should welcome Dmitry Medvedev's election as Russian president

Carl Thomson is a commentator on Russian and East European affairs and a former Conservative Party Parliamentary Candidate.

When Vladimir Putin was elected president of Russia in March 2000, Tony Blair hailed him as “a moderniser, with a focused view of what he wants to achieve”.  Eight years later, Britain harbours as political refugees those who call for the violent overthrow of the Russian government, and the Kremlin is blamed for the assassination of FSB defectors on the streets of London.  A range of disagreements between Russia and the West on issues such as Kosovo, missile defence, and Iran’s nuclear ambitions have prompted many to argue that we are now in the midst of a new Cold War.

Tomorrow marks the end of the Putin era and the dawn of Dmitry Medvedev.  Mr. Putin may stick around for a few more years as prime minister, but real power in Russia lies with the presidency, and we should expect Medvedev to assert his authority quickly.  He would be wise to do so.  Elements of the influential siloviki, a term used to describe former KGB agents and politicians with a military background, remain ill disposed towards him and suspicious of his apparent liberal sympathies.

The Conservative Party should welcome Medvedev’s inauguration as Russia’s third post-Soviet president.  His election may not have the drama of Clinton and Obama, and noisy – if unpopular and extreme – opposition figures may have been ostracised, but a Medvedev presidency offers the opportunity to resolve many of the difficulties which have plagued Anglo-Russian relations in recent years.  Mr. Medvedev is likely to be more amiable to the West than Sergei Ivanov, Russia’s hawkish former defence minister and Medvedev’s main competitor for Putin’s blessing as his preferred successor until just a few months ago.  Medvedev has sent signals that he would like to see an improvement in Russia’s relationship with Britain.  He has hinted that he is willing to work with the British Council to enable it to resume its activities in Russia.  He could even be persuaded to do a deal over the extradition of Andrei Lugovoy, Scotland Yard’s chief suspect in the murder of Alexander Litvinenko.

Whereas Putin’s main aim during his time in the Kremlin was to prevent a collapse of the Russian Federation by imposing a greater degree of centralisation and state control, Medvedev’s challenge in 2008 is to push Russia in the opposite direction.  He has pledged to reduce the size of the state in Russia’s economy and stamp out corruption.  He wants to create a stable currency and strong banking sector.  A lawyer by background, he has emphasised the need to reform the judiciary and protect human rights.  He has already spoken of his distaste for “sovereign democracy”, the underlying ideology of the Putin era which emphasised Russia’s desire to follow her own path at the expense of Western norms of behaviour.

The Anglo-Russian relationship is an important one, and the Labour government has been foolish to quarrel with Russia in the way they have.  Russia’s economy is expected to equal that of Britain and Germany by 2050.  Russian tourists spend as much money in Britain as their American counterparts, and London is the destination of choice for Russian companies wishing to float on the stock market.  The European Union relies on Russia for more than a quarter of her gas imports, but the Kremlin has little interest in “energy blackmail”.  It is more interested in making money.

There will be many disagreements between Russia and the West under Medvedev.  He will, like his predecessors, resist further NATO expansion.  He is against the installation of missile defence technology in Poland and the Czech Republic.  He opposes American unilateral action in the Middle East and David Miliband’s brand of “liberal interventionism”.  He will use Russia’s growing strength to push for reform of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe.  Russian rearmament will continue apace, but it would be irresponsible for a country which has suffered more than twenty terrorist attacks in the last eight years not to do so.  This will all be inconvenient for the West, but is not in itself unreasonable.  Such is the nature of international diplomacy.

Sadly, many in the Conservative Party have been too willing to talk tough with Russia whilst neglecting to listen.  We have been quick to condemn the Kremlin for crimes in which her guilt has never been proven, such as April 2007’s “cyber attacks” against Estonia or the Litvinenko poisoning. Russia is an enemy Britain does not need.  MI5 has already warned that the fight against Islamic terrorism is being hampered by the need to counter Russian espionage in London.  It would be naive to think we were not up to the same tricks in Moscow.  The most important security issues emanating from Russia are those we need to work on together, such as securing “loose nukes” and combating drug and people smuggling across her borders.  The main threat from Russia still lies in her weakness, not her strength.

The Conservative Party already sits with United Russia, the party of Medvedev and Putin, in the Parliamentary Assembly for the Council of Europe.  Mr. Medvedev has the record, the character, and the professed intentions to show he is a man we can do business with. Regardless of what direction he takes his country, we are going to have to live with the Russian medved (bear), so we should at least try to understand him.

Comments

[John Ledbury]

It may be a bit of a sham, but at least the Russians get to elect their head of government. We should be so lucky!!

[Tony Makara]

We should certainly look to restore good relations with Russia. My great fear is that a Russia which is cut asunder from the west will inevitably look to China for friendship, and as we already know the Chinese do not much care about the internal events of a country if they can do business with them. The best was to hold Russia to account is to keep Russia close to the west. Recent years have seen relations with Russia badly damaged by poor diplomacy from the Labour government. Reports indicate that Mr Medvedev could have his hands full with an overheating economy by the time he comes to power and it will be interesting to see how he responds. Russia, to a large extent is shielded from the shocks of currency differentials, particularly because of its self-sufficency in fuel. Nontheless the halcyon days of rapid economic growth may be drawing to a close and then we will get a chance to see how Medvedev responds under pressure. Interestingly Mr Medvedev will be a jewish Russian president so I wonder if that bring a greater appreciation of problems in the middle-east and even Russian brokerage?

[Raj]

I fear this is a rather poorly analysed piece. There is a lot of concern that Putin will still be in charge and that Medvedev will generally do what he wants - such as allow him to push for a change in the constitution to run as president again (a la Hugo Chavez).

Although the new president might not be the weakling some suggest he will be, there is no guarantee he will stand up to Putin and be his own man. Currently I do not have any hopes/fears for the next presidency and will just wait to see what happens - I think it is foolish to predict one thing or the other, as no one really knows just hopes they get the 50/50 split right.

[Tapestry]

I think we will need to back up over Kosovo and negotiate if our relations are to improve. The US could benefit from a militarily cooperative relationship with Russia against Al Quaeda. The Russian foreign minister seems to be hinting at new possibilities.

[Graeme]

We have been quick to condemn the Kremlin for crimes in which her guilt has never been proven, such as April 2007’s “cyber attacks” against Estonia or the Litvinenko poisoning.

Erm? The Litvinenko poisoning is just some hypothesis, is it? That's why the government of this friendly power was so eager to co-operate with the police investigation, presumably, making the named suspects available for investigation. Oh! Of course, they didn't.

I don't think we should launch a new cold war. But neither should the party which did the most in the UK to end the last one pretend that everything's great in the Russian federation.

[Tony Makara]

Graeme, good points. That's why, as I pointed out earlier we shouldn't burn our bridges with Russia if we are serious about making sure that human rights are upheld in that country. As we know the Chinese would be more than happy to cosy up to Russia and not ask one awkward question about human rights. It worries me that the west seems either blind or disinterested in the increased mutual co-operation that is growing between Russia and China. The two countries have been engaged in military co-operation since 2004. If Russia and China were to form an anti-western block it could cause monumental problems, particularly as both countries look to expand their markets, corner energy supplies and increase their populations accordingly.

[Martin Coxall]

Vladimir Putin has been Russia's Charles de Gaulle: he took a broken, failed state, and has rebuilt its people's self-respect from the ground up.

For the first time in many decades, Russians are proud to be Russian, and they know that they owe Putin a vast debt of gratitude for that.

[Raj]

For the first time in many decades, Russians are proud to be Russian, and they know that they owe Putin a vast debt of gratitude for that.

That's the usual drivel spooned out by the Kremlin and its toady media. Russia has far more to owe to energy supplies, which is not good for the future as the Economist reported this week. In 1999 only 12.7% of Russia's GDP was based on oil and gas - last year it had shot up to 31.6%. Natural resources are 80% of Russia's exports. Petrodollars has fanned a consumer boom that can't be sustained indefinitely. Meanwhile Russian industrial production has pretty much stagnated.

If many ways the Kremlin has caused more problems for the future because of the dismantling of the democratic institutions previously set up and the lawless system we can now see. The only reason Russia isn't visibly suffering is high energy prices, which won't keep shooting up.