Putin’s hunger to arrogate territory
However, the Russian President ought to look East for land rather than focusing on the West for the sake of annexing additional territory
It is surprising that leaders of even big powers live in the long past age of imperialism. What must be the instinct holding them a century or two back rather than growing up in step with the times today? Before the onset of the Industrial Revolution, understandably, land was the most valuable asset there was. Whether for farming on the surface, fishing around it or mining below it, any production would depend on what the land and water could yield. In those times, if Moscow had craved for territory, as is evident in Ukraine, it would have been understandable. But to lay observers today, the Russian invasion that is afoot appears to be an act of greed, or perhaps a lack of statesmanship.
Russia has no shortage of money, oil or gas. With these assets, guarantees could have been underwritten, whether with the help of Germany or France, or both. Russia could have arrived at an agreement with Ukraine, along the lines of “one country, two systems”. Moscow could have retained control over defence and diplomacy, leaving culture and economy entirely at the discretion of Kyiv. It is true that Ukraine was part of the former Soviet Union for decades together. The two countries also share historical ties from ancient times. Many Ukrainians speak Russian, especially in the eastern parts. Incidentally, the most illustrious successor of Josef Stalin was Nikita Khrushchev, a Ukrainian. Nevertheless, Russian-speaking or otherwise, most Ukrainians would be more attracted by the West European style of living and life rather than the sombre and joyless Soviet or Russian system. They could be allowed to enjoy a livelier western standard of living under a framework of “one country, two systems”, guaranteed, as mentioned above, with money and third country-underwriting. In any case, Russia has more land than virtually the entire sky, most of which is still not utilised in an optimal way.
As a Russian sympathiser, my concerns lie elsewhere than the immediate unfolding story of Russia’s military operation to its west. More serious concerns loom in the east. I often worry about the future of Siberia and beyond. China, Russia’s large and revanchist neighbour, is land hungry. Would it not be looking at Siberia wistfully? In 1969, China actually tried to invade the Soviet Union across the Ussuri river and took away a large number of islands on that river. We can recall how the State of Alaska was sold by the Czar Alexander II of Russia in 1867 to the United States of America for $7.2 million. For President Putin’s Russia, it is wiser to look East in his fixation about land rather than focusing on the West, as it is doing now, for the sake of territory.
There is a widespread impression that perhaps President Putin is motivated to recover as much of the territory his predecessor Mikhail Gorbachev had to give up in 1991, as he had to. The unworkable ideology of communism had finally taken its toll on the Soviet Union and caused its collapse. One has to recall that Gorbachev had to allow 15 of the total 16 Republics of the Soviet Union to go free. Given this historical background, and also the fact that Ukraine has tasted freedom and a greater measure of economic development for the past 30 and more years, it is not exactly fair of President Putin to expect Ukraine to return to the Russian Empire. It is this imperial mentality, which we have flagged as obsolete at the beginning of this article, which is the spoiler. At least three responsible Russians had told me in Kolkata, long before 1991, that their country needed to be more cohesive if it is to progress and not decline. At the time, there were three streams of civilisation competing in the Soviet Union — Christianity, Islam and Communism — to have their say as to how the country should move ahead. As these gentlemen saw it, the competing superpower, the US, which functioned on only one ethos, was a straightforward case.
That territory is no longer as important an economic asset as was proved by Germany and Japan in the post-WWII era. Germany, after the defeat of its Nazi regime in 1945, was divided between West and East; two-thirds and one-third respectively until 1989. Yet, West Germany took long economic strides and became one of the most prosperous countries of the world. Japan, at the end of the war, lost Manchuria, Korea, the Curil and other islands; yet became the world’s second biggest economy by the 1980s, plus a technological superpower. The situation was different when Britain, France, the Netherlands, Portugal and Belgium crossed into Asia and Africa to conquer territories in order to develop their own economies. The Industrial Revolution followed. With the advent of industrial technology and international marketing, unlimited land or territory was not necessary. Before this era, the imperial compulsion was to capture one’s neighbour and, if this was not possible, one went overseas. Before this era, Portugal and Spain went to South America and Christopher Columbus sailed to the New World, which led to the US coming into existence.
(The writer is a well-known columnist, an author and a former member of the Rajya Sabha. The views expressed are personal.)
Source: The Pioneer
