"What Will Russia Resemble after Putin?"

Interesting discussion over at cfr.org between Nikolas Gvosdev and Sarah Mendelson. In addition to the prospects for Putin and his current team, they also debate whether Russia should be - or can be - an American partner while being increasingly authoritarian in its domestic policies. And naturally the broader IR question of whether the US should be concerned at all with other countries' domestic policies, versus just concerning ourselves with their foreign policies, comes up. Representative excerpts below, but the whole discussion is worth reading (from the bottom up, blog-style).

Gvosdev: [...] Would a more democratic Russia—and here I mean not staffed by persons labeling themselves as "democrats," but a government more democratically accountable to the people—be more inclined to accommodate U.S. preferences? Agree to implement punitive sanctions against Iran? Restructure its energy industry to meet our needs? And the list goes on. [...]

Mendelson: [...] We do agree, it seems, on the chances of the post-Putin regime hanging on. That is, at least for a while. I don't expect much change in 2008. My eye is on 2012 and beyond. Here's why: A group of Kremlin insiders may get greasy, gassy, and oily living off the natural resources generously spilling forth from the ground, and the standard of living may generally improve for all, but institutional decline and dysfunction cannot be ignored indefinitely. Unless there is significant change in how the Kremlin governs, and much more investment in major public institutions, this type of regime is ultimately doomed. [...]

Gvosdev: [...] In the end, the question we need to ask is not whether the Russia that has emerged is a Russia we like—it isn’t; but whether it is a Russia we can do business with—and more importantly, whether or not the United States can achieve some of its most pressing objectives without Russian help. [...]

Mendelson: [...] In Russia today, we find none of Franklin D. Roosevelt's "four freedoms." The Western press has focused a great deal on threats to the press and journalists in Russia, and on occasion, threats to freedom of religion. Much less observed are how Russians live in fear and how want still plagues many.

Putin's Russia should not be confused with order or stability. What do I mean by this? In one survey I coauthored with Ted Gerber of the University of Wisconsin, we found 41 percent of respondents fear arbitrary arrest by the police. In many parts of the North Caucasus, the region with the largest youth population in Russia, we have seen an enormous jump in terrorist incidents since Putin has come to power. There are many other examples of lack of order and instability. Corruption is simply an everyday part of life. [...]

To sum up, Nick and I do not disagree on the diagnosis; we both characterize Putin's Russia as an authoritarian state. The difference is whether and how it matters. I believe Russia's current and near-term state bode badly for U.S.-Russia relations, and that most if not all of the twenty-first century issues we face become greatly complicated by an insular, opaque, authoritarian government. I am concerned that the government in power in Russia is neither interested in nor capable of dealing with serious internal threats, as well as the transnational ones we all face. The health crises and the endemic and growing corruption are all our problems. The lack of response by the United States and Europe, read by some as an acceptance of authoritarianism in exchange for strategic cooperation, may inadvertently fuel more extremism (and terrorism) as well as encourage aggressive regional policies in Eurasia. Let's not call independent states that border Russia the "near abroad" unless absorption is something that one is advocating. [...]