22
Feb 16

Russia: Privatization or Desperation?

At the beginning of the month, President Putin announced that Russia would be selling off some of its public assets to individual buyers as a means of closing the widening budget gap, a sale which marks one of Russia’s most ambitious privatizations in years (Arkhipov, Biryukov). The sale was originally only open to domestic buyers, which Putin announced on the 1st of the month. However, by February 2nd, his statement was amended: shares will be available to foreign buyers too. It seems the Russian government had suddenly remembered something: their citizens have no money.   

As many of you have probably heard in the news, Russia has been in the middle of an economic crisis since 2014. There are several reasons for this: Climate change, which is causing droughts in the southern regions and stalling crop output (Flintoff); President Putin’s ongoing mission to expand the Russian military, an extremely expensive endeavor which some have pointed to as the catalyst for the country’s economic woes (Ormiston); Attitudes springing from a post-communist society, which discourage the individualism, radical thinking or competition that could create new industry or stimulate a free market economy. Perhaps the biggest blow of all has come in the form of the plummeting price of oil, exports of which has been a main pillar of the Russian economy since the Soviet era.

Since the start of this economic decline, the value of imports has fallen by over 38 percent. More than 2.3 million people have slipped below the poverty line in the past year. Inflation remained above 15% throughout 2015, with the US dollar being worth more than 70 Russian rubles by December of last year. “Right now,” Alexei Ulyukayev, Russian Economic Development Minister said in an interview in October, “you have to be a brave, even crazily brave person to open a business” (Hobson).

Despite all this, support for the Russian regime remains high throughout the country. This could be partly due to the fact that unemployment has remained low–about 5.5%. However I doubt this is the cause, considering employers were only able to preserve jobs by cutting workers’ hours and wages. Instead I believe the Russian government has kept discontent at a distance by blaming the economic crisis on external factors, or anti-Russian conspiracies–a sentiment often touted by their (state-owned and operated) TV news stations (Hobson). There’s also been some speculation over Russia’s true motives behind their recent campaign against ISIS. It’s true that the government and citizens have been rightfully up-in-arms against the organization, which shot down a Russian passenger plane in October, killing all 224 people on board. But I wonder whether Putin would have taken up against ISIS so aggressively if the economy had not been in such a sorry state.

While it seems counter-intuitive to launch a major military campaign in the midst of an economic crisis, this is actually a common political move among leaders trying to fend off public discontent. It’s a way of distracting the public and garnering support for a government which is now using its power to “protect and defend” the homeland and/or some other noble cause. This phenomenon is often referred to as a “rally-round-the-flag” strategy by political scientists, who have observed a consistent uptick in public opinion for one’s government whenever dramatic international events occur (Americans might recall the immediate and drastic increase in support for President George W. Bush immediately following the attacks on September 11, 2001). This rallying effect creates an incentive for leaders to start “Diversionary Wars,” i.e. wars with the purpose of improving conditions at home by literally diverting attention from domestic problems and providing a scapegoat for whenever those problems do become apparent. We’ve seen this strategy used before in the West, with President Bill Clinton’s 1998 Missile Strikes in Iraq following the Monica Lewinsky scandal; or more pertinently, with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s struggle in the Falklands–the victory in which bolstered her support to a degree that allowed her to be re-elected in the midst of an economic crisis. So it’s not really such a surprise that now, despite Russia’s economic weaknesses, President Putin seems to have made it his personal mission to dismantle ISIS.

What is surprising is that he would now publicly announce that Russia is selling its assets, providing evidence of the country’s economic woes. And whether this privatization as a bid for cash will work remains to be seen. You see, in order to attract investors, your company needs to look like it will grow and increase output. At the moment, Russia’s government seems to be doing to opposite. And while this may seem like an excellent opportunity to buy (normally domestically exclusive) Russian stock, a savvy economist will remind you that you only own something of Russia’s as long as their government wants you to own it. In past privatizations, we’ve seen Russian investors receive pennies back on the dollars they invested once the Russian government decided the economy was stable enough to go public once more.

Still, this may not be the case during this unusually sharp economic decline. It is rare to see a state openly declare that they are broke enough to put pieces of their public sector up for sale. In a country as prideful as Russia, it is a sure sign of desperation.

Arkhipov, Ilya and Biryukov, Andrey. “Putin Opens Asset Sales to Foreigners as the Budget Gap Widens.” Bloomberg Business. n.p., 2 Feb. 2016. Web. 22 Feb.

Flintoff, Corey. “For Russian Farmers, Climate Change is Nyet so Great.” NPR. NPR 22 Feb. 2016. Web. 22 Feb. 2016.

Hobson, Peter. “8 Shades of Crisis: Russia’s Year of Economic Nightmares.” The Moscow Times. The Moscow Times, 25 Dec. 2015. Web. 22 Feb. 2016.

Ormiston, Susan. Ruble’s Dramatic Drop Inflicts Economic Pain in Russia. CBC News, Jan. 2015.


30
Nov 15

Russia and the West are Teaming Up to Combat ISIS. What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

So there’s been a lot of stuff happening over the past few weeks regarding ISIS, Russia, and the West, and I thought it might be helpful for myself if I wrote up a quick summary of it all, because honestly it’s fairly hard to keep track of. Realizing this, I figured you all might be interested in the summary too, along with my comments as a Political Science major with plans to one day work at the United Nations. Hopefully we can hash all this out together, because I won’t lie, this is an extremely complicated with issue with lots of gray areas (#PLAIssues).

First things first, it’s important to know where everyone stands. The U.S., as you’ve probably heard, is against ISIS and the Assad regime, and is therefore supporting anyone attacking those groups. This includes the Syrian and Yemini rebels, which have been fighting against both. In fact, most of the major players we’ll be talking about are against ISIS and Assad. The only exception is Russia, who is allied with Syria, and has been working to help end the civil war. This stance I found has been confusing for a lot of people, because honestly, who wants an ally whose country is falling apart and who every other country hates? Well, it depends on what you value in your allies. Being allied with Syria, for one thing, gives Russia a foothold in the Middle East, right next to America’s major ally/foothold, Israel. Being Assad’s ally in the regime’s hour of need also makes Syria rather beholden to Russia. If you only have one ally, and they’re as powerful as Russia, you basically have to do what they say, because you can’t risk losing their help or having them turn against you. So if President Putin so desired, he could basically make Assad his puppet, and Assad really couldn’t do anything about it. The very idea is both brilliant and terrible.

Anyway, because of Russia’s support of Assad, Putin sent in troops a month or so ago to “attack ISIS,” or so they said. What American intelligence told us was that they were really focusing on the groups that threatened Assad, like our friends the rebels. After all, ISIS is attacking everyone that doesn’t agree with it–including these rebels–while the rebels are directly moving against Assad. So it was actually in the regime and its allies’ interests to leave ISIS be until the rebel threat is taken care of, since ISIS would actually be helping them fight off the direct threat. The U.S. wasn’t so happy about this, and promptly sent a team of its own soldiers into Syria to combat ISIS, as well as bolster the rebel force. For a few tense days it looked like Russia and America were heading towards another quasi war.

Then ISIS shot down a Russian passenger plane, killing close to 300 people in one day. This is when Russia’s priorities appear to change, as Putin announced Russia would now aggressively target ISIS. Apparently they meant it this time, because they basically sent a whole air-armada over to the region to drop small bombs. It was an antiquated war tactic, but hey, whatever works. It should be noted that throughout this whole Russian ordeal, the West barely batted an eye.

…Then Paris was attacked and everyone flipped out. The entire Western front was angry, and now France was in the game, sending air strikes over to ISIS strongholds. Recently David Cameron has been plugging for military intervention from Britain against ISIS, and now with their ally France under attack, you can bet on him getting it. In fact, a lot of nations now seem ready to take up the cause, since obviously ISIS isn’t discriminating by country. Who could be next?

Can I just pause and ask why ISIS thought this would be a good idea? If you antagonize every major military in the world, stirring up the West and the East, you know you’re going to get messed up, right? I mean it seems like common sense.

Anyway, while obviously irritated that the West responded way more to the attack on France then the attack on their plane, Russia realized they had a common enemy, and are now teamed up with France. America is also in support of this union, although diplomats are reasonably nervous about what will happen after ISIS is taken care of (because let’s face it, ISIS is toast). President Obama has noted that Americans will not allow the dictator Assad to stay in power even after ISIS is out of the picture, and Russia has remained (suspiciously?) mute on the subject.

Finally, the most recent development: Turkey shooting down one of Russia’s military jets. It should be noted that these two countries have been having problems with each other recently. Turkey, for one thing, absolutely hates Assad–he’s a terrible neighbor, and all of Syria’s escaped refugees have now settled in Turkey to take cover. Ending the Syrian civil war and ousting Assad is very high on Turkey’s list of priorities, but Russia for a while seemed to be helping Assad. Russia has also been flying several military aircrafts over Turkish airspace, aggravating them further. So it doesn’t come as a complete surprise that this strike happened, although the Turk’s timing is quite awful honestly and they used weapons America had given them, which is irritating to the U.S. because now we’ve been roped into what was really a bad decision.

Russia was obviously upset, and has placed sanctions on trade with Turkey that will ultimately cost the country about $3 billion dollars. Putin described the attack as “a stab in the back,” committed by “accomplices of terrorists,” and implied that America could have stopped the attack through better communication (Note that Turkey isn’t in support of terrorists, but what do you expect everyone to think when you attack a country who has publicly made it their mission to combat said terrorists?). Interestingly though, Russia has now agreed to follow along with Western attack plans, which will be lead by the United States. This is great!… Right? Well for now, we know that ISIS is going down, and that is good. But whether this cooperation will lead to a new bond between Russia and the West or ultimately more conflict, remains to be seen.

Adam, Karla and Roth, Andrew. “Moscow is ready to coordinate with the West over strikes on Syria, Putin says.” Stars and Stripes. Stars and Stripes, 26 Nov. 2015. Web. 30 Nov., 2015.

Graham, Thomas E. “Russia’s Syria Surprise (And What America Should do About it).” The National Interest. Center for the National Interest, 15 Sept., 2015. Web. 30 Nov., 2015.


Skip to toolbar