Putin - Savior or Tyrant?

I and an uncle of mine, who has varied interests and great knowledge on middle east, had a discussion on Russia's action in the middle east, especially Syria, where the Russians under Putin had taken the fight to ISIS and the Syrian rebels in support of President Bashar al-Assad. While I agree with his assessment that what Russia does is noble and good, I didn't necessarily subscribe to his view that Russia would emerge the next super power from the ashes of World War 3.

It is rather ironic (not that much, this Wired article claims it is common at this time of the year and gives tips on how to win) that the discussion happened on Christmas when the whole world celebrated the birth of Jesus Christ, prince of peace (Oops, not the whole world, many Russian Orthodox churches celebrate it in January). So is Putin a Savior who would restore Russia to former glory or a tyrant who would run Russia to the ground. I have my own reasons, which I discuss below, as to why the latter is more likely to happen though I would love the possibility of the former happening. Who doesn't like a triumphant, underdog story?

Economy

Russia is no longer the heavy weight it used to be among the BRICS nations. In fact most nations including Brazil and China are fighting high inflation and severe slowdown in their economies. The sanctions imposed by the European Union and the USA after the Crimean annexation and subsequent play in Ukraine is also having a negative effect on the Russian economy.

The fall in oil prices, whether it is being orchestrated by Washington, Riyadh or Moscow itself, the fact remains that Russia is suffering along with the other oil economies. Saudi Arabia is likely to raise debt which would help them fill in the void left behind by the plunging oil in their treasuries. Alaska is also proposing to bring in higher income tax rates after nearly three decades to plug dwindling oil revenues. Saudi Arabia (AA-) is better placed than Russia (BB+) in ratings by S&P and hence would have a clear advantage here.

The allies also play an important role here. On Russia's side we have got Syria, Iran and Iraq for now. Syria is still battling ISIS and have conceded large swathes of land to the self proclaimed Caliphate. Iran recently won a diplomatic victory in getting the West remove crippling sanctions against it by agreeing to go slow on its nuclear weapons program and is unlikely to antagonize them again. Iraq is still rebuilding itself from the invasion by the United States and subsequent IS menace. There are other countries such as China on the fence, which is battling its own financial crisis at home and also concerned about USA's involvement with its regional rivals. The other countries are too small or economically weak to bring anything substantial to the table.

Against Russia we have Saudi Arabia and Turkey, two of the most powerful countries in the middle east. Israel can also be counted in as also Pakistan. The United Arab Emirates can bankroll the fight for long. Though these countries are economically sound if push comes to the shove they can be backed by the Americans and the Europeans with their large purses miffed by age old Soviet adversity and recent Russian action in Ukraine and Syria.

Advantage: Anti-Russia coalition

Military

The Soviet Union was a formidable military power but the same cannot be said about the Russians. When the Russians battled Georgia over South Ossetia and Abkhazia their performance was assessed and found to be lacking by both International and Domestic experts. Though their performance had significantly improved during the Ukraine and Syrian conflicts, it is still not the kind that would upset the Anti-Russian coalition. Russia's allies are also not in a very strong position. Iran has dated weaponry and is dependent on Russia for its' supplies. So is Syria and most of their weapons fell into rebel hands when Syrian soldiers defected to join the rebel ranks.

China, who is sitting on the fence on Syria, if it decides to join would be a game changer. China has weapons that are either imported or copies of some of the world's most renowned. However, the question is whether they will enter the war. Chinese economy is already in a slowdown and being a trade economy heavily dependent on exports of finished goods, war is bad news. A slowing economy doesn't augur well for domestic politics either. But if they were to enter despite these they might be aggressively engaged more locally in the South China Sea, Tibet and India. Also entering the middle east in support of the Russians and the Shias against the Sunnis may lead to loss of relationship with the Pakistanis. Moreover, the Uighur problem in Xinjiang may peak considering the fact that Uighurs adhere to Sunni practices.

Contrast this with the Anti-Russia coalition. In the middle east we have Turkey, Saudi and Israel ready to defend against Russian action. The United States and its allies would be ready with arms and ammunition to back them up. Considering that Turkey is a NATO member, any attack on them would invite NATO ire which might affect Russia closer to home than in Syria. Probably the reason why Turkey downing a Russian fighter has more or less received muted response.

While Russian performance have significantly improved since 2008 it still doesn't match its opponent and allies.

Advantage: Anti-Russia coalition

Domestic Politics

A country need stability internally to project power externally. This is important, especially in this age, when the enemy actively uses internal disturbances as a policy to attack. Russia in this front has many active instability factors - separatists, drugs, demographics, corruption, mafia and oligarchs. The fact that Russia lacks any credible opposition to highlight excesses by the Government and most of the fourth estate being owned by the Government or state run companies doesn't help either. Divergent views aren't tolerated, be it from a Journalist, physicist or from that of a Chess Grand master, they are silenced either by assassination or intimidation. In a full scale war these can be put to maximum use to divert  Kremlin's attention from the battle field.

Iran too faced protests soon after elections in 2009 like Russia did after Putin came to power in 2012. The supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, is still a central figure and a force to be reckoned with, known for his fierce anti-west tirade. Though the current Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, is a moderate, who was able to strike the deal with the west on Nuclear energy, he still is very much influenced by the Ayatollah is an open secret. There is a civil war going on in Syria and Iraq isn't exactly peaceful either.

China has a more complicated problem at hand. The bond that holds the Chinese people together is that the economy has been growing, providing opportunities, keeping them busy. So busy that they have never felt the need to fight for government services, labor incentives and freedom. The unraveling economy can have a cascading effect on the cheap labor which might make the local population to raise against the state in protest. Apart from this there is the restive province of Xinjiang with the muslim Uighurs who are fighting against the Han Chinese for autonomy. Tibetans too are protesting the presence of Chinese in their land. All this flash points could be activated if China decides to side with Russia in the war.

On the other side we have dictatorships too - UAE, Saudi Arabia, et cetera. However, these don't have an imminent threat of losing power. Turkey has a vibrant democracy so does Israel and Pakistan, at least on paper. The other American and European powers have a strong mature democracy and institutions to take care of internal issues freeing their leaders to concentrate on the war, should the need arise.

Advantage: Anti-Russia coalition

It is simple to dismiss all the above as western propaganda. But a propaganda targeting whom would be a valid question. If it is to shape public discourse to prepare them for a war then it is not happening. People today are more connected and war averse than before. And in this age of Wikileaks, Snowden, Anonymous and a free press, a propaganda of this scale, if it was one, would have been easily called out as one. Contrarily it is countries like Russia and Iran which have a press high on propaganda.

So is a great war in the offing then? I would say, NO!

Russia, Europe and America are too smart for it. The great powers have more or less understood that war creates more problems than it solves. We have seen Europe, once the world's hot spot for conflicts, kick out all misunderstandings and merging together for good. Russia went ahead and created a trade union combining Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia into an Eurasian Customs Union. USA is consolidating its friendship with Mexico and Canada and is extending a hand of friendship to even former enemies such as Cuba.

So Putin - a savior or tyrant? A savior to his people thanks to the propaganda that is going on in Russia and among the Russian people. A tyrant to the west and all who view Russia as a threat including Ukraine, Georgia, et cetera. What Putin actually is a smart negotiator, a shrewd businessman and a sly fox. His negotiation skills came to the fore when Syria was to be punished by the policeman of the world. He means business when he says he would protect Russian interests (which include ethnic Russian population in other countries) under threat using force. When the heat is on him he turns around, withdraws to negotiate and concludes his business - the French saw it during Georgia, Germany and Europe in Ukraine and the United States probably would see it in Syria.

Disclosures:

• I am a big fan of Russia, the country that demonstrated how Communism (me a fanboi) can work (albeit for a short time with all the inefficiencies).
• I also like spies (have read most works of Tom Clancy, Robert Ludlum and watched most Bond movies) and hence Putin, the KGB agent, naturally commands my admiration.
• I understand that no one can be without bias but I am working on containing mine.

NOTA, FTW !

A friend of mine recently drew my attention to a Frontline magazine article, albeit a dated one, in which Subash Kashyap, the former General Secretary of the Lok Sabha, talks about a few noted Supreme Court directives of that time. NOTA or None of the above option was one among them in which Mr. Kashyap dwells and expresses his views extensively.

NOTA, for the uninitiated, allows the disapproval of all the candidates in a voting list by the voter.

Though Mr. Kashyap has many valid points, he is not entirely convincing, at least to me. I am trying to list down the why.

NOTA helps to reduce Confirmation Bias

Confirmation Bias is the tendency to search or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions. So when I vote for a particular party in an election, I would probably not critically analyze their policies for the term they are in power. Thus I fail my duty as a citizen in my democratic right to elect without bias and arrive at a rational decision in the consecutive elections.

I had written previously too on confirmation bias and how we need to get rid of the concept of party membership. Probably shows my bias in continually supporting the existence of confirmation bias.

NOTA helps in a more informed, non-acrimonious electorate

This is linked to the first point on confirmation bias. A lot of people without confirmation bias means a lot of well informed people who tend to share their knowledge through debates and editorials making the overall electorate aware of their political masters and their shortcomings. Journalists, for example, can use NOTA while voting so that they are not swayed by party loyalty while covering news.

We see a lot of personality driven leadership in parties today. And when the leadership fails in its duty it falls on its followers to defend the indefensible. NOTA would help in easing such constraints and help enjoy and involve oneself in debates based on what one believes in rather than party or personality loyalty.

NOTA helps in bypassing compulsory voting

Mr. Kashyap made an important point in the interview that NOTA was already allowed even before its introduction. The voter can reject the candidates by simply not voting. However, with recent talks of introduction of compulsory voting by governments, NOTA would probably be the only option through which the voter can reject all candidates.

Moreover, in this age when pseudo-nationalists run amok in every street corner, an unstained indelible ink fingered individual post election date is sacrilegious. NOTA could very well save the voter from the self proclaimed nationalists.

NOTA thus is uniquely placed to provide certain benefits and hence I see it go FTW!

For a better India...

“PM Modi wins the reader poll for the TIME Person of the Year” declared the message with a barrage of punctuation marks and smileys in the WhatsApp group. Within minutes came the reply “Damn! Still he ain’t THE Person of the Year” driving home the point like a cold dagger through the heart. This has been playing out for quite a while now given that the 2014 General Election was one of the most followed and fought election on the Information Superhighway in the history of India.

However, the point cannot be missed. This doesn’t happen when a Kailash Satyarthi wins the Nobel Peace Prize or an A R Rahman wins an Oscar. Even their staunchest critics and rival nominees applaud. But when the Minister, a leader of the masses, is winning a poll, trivial or not, they aren't receiving similar support from their own citizens.

I wondered what could be the reason and arrived at two ridiculous conclusions.

A few of Indian rivers are perennial so are elections in India. Being the democratic, federal structure we live in, some part of India is always facing elections or approaching elections and given the broad ideologies of the parties, left, right or centre, the federal government either align or are opposed to the Government of India. Given the situation and the campaigning involved someone with an opposing view of governance always sees the ministers more as a party ideologist and less as an approachable minister fighting for the common man’s well being. So the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues must refrain from poll campaigning and exhibiting party affinity publicly. When the President, Governor or a Civil Servant can display neutrality while at work, the cabinet can definitely do it too.

When a stock broker buys a high conviction stock, he or she tends to follows news that reiterates his or her conviction. The same happens in an interview to an interviewer, once the candidate impresses him or her, he or she continues to question the candidate to reiterate his or her decision. This is called a confirmation bias in the psychological circles. Now when a person decides to become a member of a political party, he or she does so after a good amount of research. Now if the political party is making a mistake the confirmation bias kicks in and hinders the rational analysis of the situation. Rather, the mind looks for news that reiterates his or her belief that the party is somehow right which is exactly what the party propaganda machine would feed. So party memberships should be abolished and issue based support and volunteering by common people should be encouraged.

Brickbat or Compliment welcome at comments below.