Leading Article: Poverty is Russia's biggest enemy
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.TURNING from the monolithic structure of the Soviet Union to the complexities of post-Communist Russia, the men and women who make American policy must on occasion feel nostalgic for an era when enemies stood apparent and choices were clear. Bill Clinton's summit with Boris Yeltsin presented the United States with a set of problems as challenging as any during the Cold War.
American diplomacy has justifiably shifted emphasis to take account of the evolution in Russian politics. The advent of Vladimir Zhirinovsky and the small margin by which President Yeltsin won his referendum indicated that prudence is in order. The West would prefer not to repeat the mistake of those who supposed that upon the personality of Mikhail Gorbachev hinged all Russia's hopes for reform. In such a vast and turbulent land, only a few mighty and bloodstained individuals have held power for very long.
Yet stability and continued reform are clearly in the interests of the Russian people, the country's neighbours and its erstwhile foes. What is to be done? First, Mr Yeltsin continues to deserve the support of the United States so long as he remains committed to the path of peace abroad and restructuring at home. But it is right, as America is now doing, to praise reform without canonising the reformer. Mr Yeltsin has given notice this week of his support for
progressive ministers and programmes. The chances of a capitalist and non-aggressive Russia emerging from the present disorder remain fair. At the same time, however, it would be foolish not to recognise that even moderate Russian politicians find themselves propelled towards a consensus view that Russia needs to reassert itself within a sphere of influence, and that the rights of native Russian speakers in neighbouring countries are a legitimate source of concern to Moscow. Such a policy is fraught with grim possibilities, but need not necessarily give rise to conflict.
The real source of hope for Russia is the possibility that the revolutionary destruction of Communism might yet produce material rewards for the people and give them faith in new democratic institutions. The market system is improving living standards in countries such as Hungary and the Czech republic. It is necessary to repeat the dictum once again: demagogues flourish and the gun commands where poverty and despair rule people's lives. That is why aid to Russia is still so important. There is no surer way to undermine reformers and give comfort to extremists than to utter promises and fail to live up to them.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments