|
|
|
Last Updated: Aug 27, 2008 - 11:29:59 AM |
Russia's participation in the Georgian-Ossetian war put the
establishment on the horns of a dilemma: continue the confrontation at
the risk to its foreign assets or surrender in the diplomatic war and
irreparably compromise its image domestically and abroad.
Granted that it appears to be an adversary weaker than the late USSR
once was, Russia nevertheless has resources for a confrontation with
the West. Imported foodstuffs account for 40% of the national
consumption but it is possible for Russia itself to provide enough
bread and potatoes for its needs. Moreover, some foreign countries need
the Russian market. "Also importantly, complete blockade of Russia is a
sheer impossibility," Valery Mironov of the Development Center said.
"Some G8 countries may go so far as to suspend export to Russia, but
transnational corporations withdrew their production capacities to the
third countries like China long ago and these latter will certainly
retain trade and economic relations with Russia."
The Western community in the meantime is actively encouraged to go to
extremes and arrest Russians' foreign bank accounts. How much money the
Russian elite salted away in the last 16 years is anybody's guess but
experts suspect that sum total may vary between $300 and $700 billion.
Specialists mostly refer to bank accounts in the United States and
European Union opened in the names of beneficiaries of offshore
outfits. Political scientist Sergei Kurginjan pointed out that the
political-economic system existing in Russia nowadays was established
for integration into the West and not for a confrontation with it. It
explains a lot of decisions made by the governments of Russia,
including the one to invest the Stabilization Trust in American
securities.
It is clear after all that the Kremlin never even entertained the
thought of a confrontation with the United States when the so called
Patriotic Act was adopted in Washington. "Operations abroad necessitate
contemplation of political risks even more than economic ones," to
quote Sergei Lopatnikov of the University of Delaware. "The impression
is that the Stabilization Trust is a guarantee of political loyalty and
foreign loans to companies partially owned by the Russian state." Some
experts reckon that the future of the Stabilization Trust (and that of
private capitals) may become one of the excuses for delays with
recognition coveted by South Ossetia and Abkhazia. "The elite is at the
crossroads and divided at that," Mikhail Khazin of Neocon consulting
company said. "One the one hand, it wants safety for it assets abroad.
On the other, it knows that they will be safe only if and when it
promotes national interests."
Also importantly, existence of capitals in the West does not guarantee
freedom of their use. "Finances are confiscated with ease, particularly
when their owners lack a powerful state backing them," Lopatnikov said.
"There are lots of precedents... By and large, states exists for the
purpose of promoting interests of their elites." Stanislav Belkovsky of
the National Strategy Institute is convinced that the Russian elite
will never play games with security of its assets in the West. "Hence
existence in the elite of a formidable opposition to recognition of
South Ossetia and Abkhazia," Belkovsky said. "It is wrong to rule out
the possibility that everything will come down to bargaining with the
West and to eventual retreat from the current positions. The elite is
not prepared for a quarrel with the West that may jeopardize its assets
there. Moreover, we are talking private capitals, ones the foreign
money-laundering legislation fully applies to."
Source:Ocnus.net 2008
Top of Page
|
|
|
|