back buttonBack to Economists' Forum homepage

Why Putin’s rule threaten’s Russia and the west

February 13th, 2008 2:22am
by Martin Wolf

column illustration

By Martin Wolf

At least he made the trains run on time. That was said of Benito Mussolini, Italy’s fascist dictator from 1922 to 1943. Much the same is now said of Vladimir Putin, Russia’s authoritarian president. He may have crushed the fragile shoots of democracy, but he has at least restored the economy, the state and his country’s place in the world.

This view is shared by Mr Putin himself. He stated only last week that: “We have worked to restore the country after the chaos, economic ruin and breakdown of the old system that we saw in the 1990s.” But it suffers from a drawback: it is false, as Michael McFaul and Kathryn Stoner-Weiss of Stanford University argue in a powerful article*.

True, between 1999, the year before Mr Putin became president, and 2007, the Russian economy expanded by 69 per cent. But the economies of 11 of the 15 former republics of the Soviet Union expanded by more than Russia’s. Indeed, only Kyrgyzstan did markedly worse. A number of the former Soviet republics did, it is true, benefit from an oil and gas bonanza. But so, too, did Russia: its oil and gas exports jumped from $76bn in 1999 to $350bn last year. Even so, the Russian economy expanded by less than Ukraine’s.

The remainder of this column can be read here. Debate from our panel of economists appears below.

February 13th, 2008 2:22am in Uncategorized | Permalink | Comment

The tasks of reform Yeltsin bequeathed to his successors

April 24th, 2007 6:32pm
by FT

“A man has died thanks to whom a whole new era began. A new democratic Russia was born: a free state open to the world in which power really does belong to the people.” Thus did Vladimir Putin laud Boris Yeltsin, the man who chose him for the presidency of his country. Mr Putin was both right and wrong. Yeltsin was the most democratic ruler Russia has ever possessed. Yet what is emerging under his successor is not the vibrant democracy that many hoped for. Yeltsin’s legacy is as mixed as was his turbulent nature. Yeltsin was among a small number of leaders who have transformed the world. His name will ever be linked to that of Mikhail Gorbachev, the last general secretary of the Communist party of the Soviet Union, an organisation that played so catastrophic a part in the history of the 20th century. Yeltsin’s courage and charisma brought to an end both the party and the Soviet Union itself. His enemies will never forgive him for his role in ending the party, the state and the Russian empire in 1991. But those who lived most of their lives in the shadow of the cold war will always be grateful to him. The sight of him standing heroically against the attempted coup of August 1991 is unforgettable. It was the end of a ghastly era of human history, in which despotism went almost beyond the limits of the imagination. The remainder of Martin Wolf’s column can be read here (FT.com subscribers only). Discussion from our guest economists is free.

April 24th, 2007 6:32pm in Uncategorized | Permalink | Comment

As long as it is trapped, the Russian bear will growl

February 21st, 2007 10:52am
by FT

The Russian bear is awake. But this is not a Russia restored to past greatness. It is caught in a failed transition. So long as this continues, Russia will disturb its neighbours and disappoint its citizens. Is there a chance of something better? Yes, but it is a small one. Vladimir Putin expressed the attitudes of the new Russia, at once assertive and aggrieved, at the 43rd Munich conference on security policy this month. “I think it is obvious,” the president stated, “that Nato expansion does not have any relation with the modernisation of the alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended?” Mr Putin knows the answer to this question, but does not address a deeper one, because the answer would be too painful: why do Russia’s neighbours trust it so little? For it is they who wish to join Nato, not Nato that has forced itself upon them. This is because his country brought oppression and mass murder upon them, as it is doing now in Chechnya. The remainder of Martin Wolf’s column can be read here (FT.com subscribers only). Discussion from our guest economists is free.

February 21st, 2007 10:52am in Uncategorized | Permalink | Comment

back buttonBack to Economists' Forum homepage