FREE ESSAY ON RUSSIA AND THE CIS

RUSSIA AND THE CIS

When the Soviet Union fell in 1991, due to many pressures both internal and external, the
ex-soviet satellites were given their independence, much to Russia's dismay. A new trend
towards sovereignty made it difficult for the largest country in the world to deny it's
former members the right to separate. However, even with the creation of the Commonwealth
of Independent States (CIS), Russia is still heavily involved with the matters of its
former soviet members. This then leaves the question, are those former states truly
sovereign?
In the following pages we will examine the many reasons as to why this question is
currently being posed. Firstly, we will look at Russia's history on the international
scene and how they have not really changed their agenda throughout the last century, up
into the present. Along with the brief history, we shall elaborate on the reasons why the
CIS was founded. Furthermore, modern day Russia seems to feel the need to impose itself
upon these new sovereign states for various reasons that we will elaborate upon. Lastly,
the members of the CIS see Russia as both a friend and foe to the organisation, which
will be shown by looking at their interests and why they have divided views. However, to
fully understand the complexities that are the Russian Empire, let us take a step back in
time to when Peter the Great was building a country of grandeur.
In the early 18th century, Peter the Great continued the expansion set forth by his
predecessors, and fought a long war against the seasoned Swedish army. With the final
defeat of their army, Peter gained control of several small countries, Latvia, Lithuania,
Ingria and Estonia. Upon his return from the war the Russian senate voted that he bear
the title of the Great and Emperor, his acceptance of the last title marked the official
inauguration of the Russian Empire.
Peter the Great continued to fight wars in hopes of expanding Russia's borders and its
economy, regardless of cost, which eventually led to mistrust within the empire. Russia
was indeed a world power, influencing and controlling its neighbours. Having built such a
vast empire was only part of Peter's public appeal, he was a very ruthless but
enlightened leader, the kind that appealed to the Russian people. In one of the bloodier
cases, he had 1000 members of a coup d'etat assassinated, a punishment that he himself
helped administer. Upon his death, many school children were then raised to see Peter as
a hero, and a model leader. Perhaps then it is not so surprising that in the decades to
follow, his accepted ruthlessness would be passed down into the next generations of
leaders, this time having stricter doctrines within the regimes.
As Karl Marx's ideas of socialism spread across a desperate nation several men stepped
forward to end the oppression and starvation of their beloved country. The Russian
revolution in 1917 seemed to be a refreshing change compared to the imperialism of the
old regime and so countries such as Ukraine, Poland and Belarus joined willingly, hoping
to find guidance for their country. Regardless of the many positive changes in the late
1920's, Joseph Stalin gained sole control of the Soviet Union and was more or less as
ruthless as Peter the great himself. He began expanding and militarising the union,
putting the state above each and every man. In the Ukraine, profitable farms were
condensed into collective farms hoping to support industrialisation, and as a result
there was a great famine and an estimated 5 to 7 million Ukrainians died. Even in
Ukraine's darker period, because of their many natural resources, they were still
considered very important to the Soviet Empire, almost its backbone. 
The Ukraine was not the only country to be used by the Soviets. Since the USSR spanned
eight time zones, the land occupied was enormous; in fact it was the largest in the
world. With such diverse landscapes there came many different natural resources which
were used to feed and house the population of the Soviet Union as well as push the
economy forward with its exports. The trees blanketing one-third of the Soviet Union
constituted more than one-quarter of the earth's forest cover, subsequently making it one
of the main exports, coming second only to the mining industry. The mineral deposits and
precious metals in the Ukrainian and Siberian areas brought in the most revenue for the
Soviets. Now it is quite evident that one of the reasons that the USSR prospered was that
upon its vast amount of land were several different resources which they had every right
to exploit, allowing access to the whole of the union, rather than one single area
within.
As the Soviet Union weakened, its last secretary general, Mikhail Gorbachev, decided that
it was time to end the socialist era in 1991.Many countries, who had relied upon the
omnipresent Soviet government for so long, were lost. New governments were appointed in
each new state, and so, the roller coaster began. At first it seemed as if a great weight
had been lifted from the minds of the people in Eastern Europe, but it was soon apparent
that a new accord would have to be signed to protect the minorities within the
neighbouring states and distribute the Soviet armed forces, among other things. 
The newly elected Russian president, Boris Yeltsin, the Ukrainian president, Leonid
Kravchuk and the Supreme Soviet Chairman, Stanislav Shushkevich, met in the secluded
Minsk forest in December of 1991 to discuss the terms for the new accord. However, as
time would later prove, there was a wide gulf in the understanding between the fathers of
the commonwealth. Boris Yeltsin would manoeuvre for Russian supremacy over the
organisation. Leonid Kravchuk would insist on an amicable separation between equal and
sovereign independent states. Stanislav Shushkevich would argue for Belarusian neutrality
and a multinational, rule-of-international-law organisation that would enable Belarus to
sow the first seeds of a separate national identity. Since these countries had been
linked so closely together for such a long time, they shared many common bonds, some of
which Russia was not ready to let go.
When the accord was created and the parties had all agreed to the terms, things appeared
to be fine. However, it took little time to realise that Russia was unsatisfied with the
direction in which things were heading and proceeded to place itself at the head of the
arena. Moscow was sick and tired of complying with the opinions of its partners and
decided to exercise the right of Big Brother to the CIS. They continued on to forbid CIS
members to pursue independent external policies. Yeltsin called it committing to their
first priority, the CIS, and to refrain from participation in unions or blocs against any
or all of the states. There is an actual clause stating that if any member of the CIS
forms an alliance outside the given states then they will be forced to withdraw from the
commonwealth, however, it is no surprise that clause does not apply, nor will ever apply,
to Russia. As stated in president Kravchuk's electoral slogan, Russia does not intend to
develop its relations with CIS countries on the basis of international law. (...) the
further integration with the Commonwealth is leading to the watering down of CIS
countries sovereignty, subordination of the interests to those of Russia, and the
recreation of a centralised superpower.
We have seen that Russia has always had interests in her neighbouring countries,
sometimes turning violent, sometimes not, but always causing tension. The many borders
surrounding the largest country in the world preoccupy its government for safety reasons.
During the Soviet reign, and most importantly during the cold war, the Soviet states
surrounding Russia were a security barrier, a guarantee the west wouldn't creep up to the
Kremlin unnoticed. However, there have been offers by NATO to several of the countries of
the CIS for membership, consequently enraging Russia, who does not want the western
organisation sitting on its doorstep. NATO argues that it is not expanding to spite
Russia and has even offered them a seat, which, was evidently refused. Even though there
is tension with the occident, North America is not what preoccupies Yeltsin the most.
With the bombings in Kosovo this past year, we can see that Moscow's concerns fall mostly
in Europe.
Because of the Kosovo bombings there have been threats by Moscow to form negative
alliances with Yugoslavia, Ukraine, Iran and China if there were to be a NATO
enlargement? L'expansion de l'OTAN qui montre sa determination a dominer la planete pour
les prochaines cinquante et une annees obligera la Russie a recreer son propre potentiel
militaire ?, ecrit Vladimir Kouznetchevski, qui ajoute : ? On ne peut arreter cette
expansion que par la force.? However, an alliance of that kind would alienate them from
the west, as well as financial aid. Albeit Russia's current preoccupation with the
eastern European NATO expansion and the bombings in Kosovo, it has never had the
intention to join the neither European Union nor NATO. Moscow has been offered, at
several occasions, a place at the EU to calm tense nerves, but like with NATO, it
refused. To join itself to either would mean subjecting Russia to the discipline and will
of its former rivals, so they have chosen to counter it. They have participated in
several European security meetings and are no stranger to dealings with the EU, but are
too proud to accept membership. To compensate for this over sized ego on the global
market, they depend on the members of the CIS, who are also encouraged to avoid contact
with NATO as well. At times Moscow has been known use pressure tactics on the countries
to get its way. 
It would seem that Russian influence is as important to Moscow as the nation's security.
In the Caucasus, Moscow is supporting both Karabakh and Abkhazia, two nations who have
had longstanding disputes. This move allows Russia to play both sides and still remain
influential. Their fear is this; if quarrelling countries are able to resolve their
conflicts, then Russia will have no say and will see its power and influence over the
region diminish. Overall, Russia's crisis management has been known to be self-serving,
resembling more the tactics of dividing and ruling than integration. Georgia and Armenia
are currently addressing the possibility of peace settlements, but they are both hoping
that Russia's direct role in their business is finished, as unlikely as it seems.
One of the reasons for which Moscow is so busy with external affairs is that its own
country is in shambles. La corruption financiere sans limites, la degradation nationale
et le cataclysme economique dans lesquels se debat la Russie depuis l'arrivee au pouvoir
de M. Boris Eltsine en 1991 n'ont pas de precedent dans l'histoire du capitalisme au XXe
siecle. En huit ans, les apparatchiks du president, la nouvelle oligarchie et leurs
mentors americains ont ruine le pays. Experts have compared modern Russia to Chicago in
the 1920's because of the extreme crime rate. It is well known that Russian Mafia play a
large part in the running of the country, with influence in the surrounding areas as
well, and as such the people have lost faith in their government. There is not only a
problem with crime however, the economy is much worse. Boris Yeltsin is trying to
strengthen his appeal to voters by giving them what they want, a strong Russia.
Throughout Russia's history, there has always been a legacy of strength and power. When
the USSR failed and the government became democratic, the people believed that it would
bring them prosperity. However, it brought them corruption, in the greatest sense of the
word. As mentioned above, inner turmoil and bankruptcy are tearing Russia apart. Unpaid
salaries are among the dozens of hardships the Russian population is facing, but seeing
as they are a democratic nation, the impoverished masses are voters, and will decide
Yeltsin's fate. He is trying to win over his people by getting Russia involved in
international situations. Take for instance the conflict in Kosovo; there have always
been tensions between Moscow and Yugoslavia, but Yeltsin rallied his people against the
American bombings. Regardless of the tension, the masses are focusing their anger towards
anti-American propaganda because it is all they have. La crise des Balkans agit sur
l'evolution du paysage politique russe de maniere multiforme. Si, jusqu'ici, le theme du
? complot americain contre la Russie ? ne rencontrait qu'un echo assez modere, la crise
du Kosovo survient dans un contexte en pleine evolution. Moscow needs to fuel the fire to
keep people's faith. Pour beaucoup de Russes, la guerre menee par l'OTAN confirme la
volonte des Americains de mettre leur pays a genoux. D'autant qu'ils sont sensibles a
leur isolement croissant.
The recent conflict in Chechnya is yet another instance where Russia refuses to let go.
They have asked for their independence on countless occasions since the reign of Peter
the Great and have always been refused. Just recently, there has been some activity
around the Russian-Chechnyan border causing panic throughout the state. Unfortunately
though, Moscow has played the situation to it's fullest, bombing their own civilian
buildings and placing the blame on Chechnyan terrorists, subsequently winning over the
Russian people. Just like in the Russian Tsarist and Stalinist periods, Yeltsin is using
force to appeal to the Russian public. Instead of giving the small nation their
independence, the Yeltsin government has pushed them over once again, only this time
bombing civilians and creating thousands of casualties. Moscow is disregarding the
suggestion for peace by CIS members and justifies the bombings for its own gain. It would
seem that the CIS only matters when it will profit Russia.
The members of the CIS also have issues with Russia. It is known that Moscow uses the
Commonwealth for its own purpose but its members are not wholly ignorant. Some countries
need Russia, or have been led to believe they do, and some know they do not need Russia
but can't seem to shake them off. During the Soviet period many Russians emigrated all
over its territory, settling families and lives. Today that is causing many problems with
countries that would choose to oppose Russia, the Ukraine for instance. 
There are nearly 15 millions Russians within Ukraine's borders, and as such they are a
heavy minority. They represent enough of a pull for the government not to disregard them
in matters of the state. Russia has much say in Ukrainian dealings because of that
specific minority, albeit president Kravchuk's disapproval. It is known amongst the
ex-Soviet states that the Russians overlook other nationalities with an undue degree of
ethnic superiority, creating tensions. Ukraine has a problem with this but can say
nothing because of the repercussions it would cause between them and Russia, especially
since there is enough tension there already. The Ukraine also relies heavily on Russian
fuel and has strong cultural links so it wouldn't be able to find allies elsewhere
without being cutoff of a vital supply. In 1995, Russia threatened to call the Ukraine a
bankrupt country and demand their debt be paid off in Ukraine assets. Moscow is using its
imports, exports and past debts to manipulate other countries.
Another country stuck in Russia's economic grasp is Kyrgyzstan. The Kyrgyz government
believes that to be truly independent economically, they must depend on Russian support.
The president stated, If we break these relations, there is a risk that the Kyrgyz will
return to their traditional nomadic life as cattle breeders. They rely on fuel material,
lubricants and equipment provided by Russia, which, if they were to be taken away, would
greatly affect Kyrgyz agriculture. Also, reforms in the mid-Asian state also depend on
Russia, or so believe the president of Kyrgyz, it will be impossible to achieve reforms
in Kyrgyzstan without close cooperation with Russia. There is a fear throughout many
mid-Asian countries that if they turn their interests to the south or west for economic
purposes, they will lose all support from Russia. This does not leave them much choice in
the matters of their states. They have been dependant on their northern ally for such a
long time that it would appear they know no better than to agree with whatever decision
comes their way.
We can see that through manipulation and the image of power, Russia tends to get its way,
all the while impeding on the sovereignty of its neighboring states. Russia today is not
that different from the Russia back in the 19th century, doing what it can to form a
superpower, at which they are the head country. Even as Russia is in its darkest economic
period they have not let go of their pride, rallying the people to support the Kremlin's
decisions, as well as manipulation the other countries into believing Russia is the
beginning and the end of eastern European politics.
Many scholars believe that the CIS is in fact Russia is piecing together its former
federation, a fallen power desperate to hold on to everything it has, or can have for
that matter. Russia does not have to be strong to possess power, Kissinger once wrote
that the perception of power is as manipulative as power itself, something the Kremlin
knows well. Current academic works have already begun replacing the term Commonwealth of
Independent States with a much simpler term, Russia. It will be interesting to see in the
coming years where such a country will be. With the failing economy and internal politics
turned inside out by crime, one would think not to far, but Russia still has enough kick
to get by and maybe what the critics say is true, with the help from the west, Russia
will rebuild its empire to one day stand again.
Bibliography
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1-Bremmer, Ian, Russia's Total Security, World Policy Journal Volume XVI No.2 Summer
1999
2-Brzezkinski, Zbigniew- Sullivan, Paige, Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent
States- Documents, Data and Analysis, Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data,
New York, 1997, 855 pages
3-LE MONDE DIPLOMATIQUE - Ukraine, une societe bloquee MAI 1998 - Page 8
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/1998/05/PFLIMLIN/10467.html
4-LE MONDE DIPLOMATIQUE - Tempete politique en Russie JUIN 1999 - Page 10
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/1999/06/RADVANYI/12117.html
5-Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2000, Interactive software, 1999
6-The National Russia and Election 2000 September 6/13, 1999
http://www.thenation.com