

Dear Mr. Singh:



Some very good points, but to add and disagree....



Russia – Nationalism – Neo-Imeprialism – Switch Basis to Russia’s Grand Imperial past to delink from failure of Communism, and re-establish a longer more successful legacy, but much of his actions, often detrimental to Russia’s long-term viability, stability and development are for internal actors, it can not be forgotten that the Commanding Heights of the Russian Economy were taken by former Intellignence Officals and Black marketeers, who foten cooperated during the time of the Soviet Union, and were the only ones with what used to be termed “hard” currency. So Putin’s “Greatest Tragedy” is often pandering to the ruling elite, Silovki, who often hail from both organized crime and the former intelligence services, while his firm action also appeals to the Great War, Cult of Stalin, demographic which would have been, and remains a high point in Soviet history for older demographics.



Putin has worked to re-emerge Modern Russia on its imperial roots, under a national Neo-Imperialism, which is a regionally expansive nationalism, where Russia/USSR/Tsardom had always sought internal security by pushing frontiers outward from its sovereign territory along its prone underbelly due to vast territory, unmanageable borders and far flung population centers (weaknesses).



Alternative economic and political systems; uhmmmm....there is no such thing.



Many have become so confused by notions related to globalization, global governance, rise of corporations versus the state dialogues, that they are larger over-assumptive of what the current system portends, thus largely incorrect as to what alterations, rising powers, and new projects could obtain in world that has only managed to construct a weak, multi-lateral system, since WWII.



Long will countries be fighting the compulsions of their half considered rationalizations as material difficulties within their environments (Demographic, Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Etc) challenge their rise to provide stable productive societies in which their citizens can flourish; absent such, they will be at the mercy of humans and their emotional and intellectual whims. Notions of alternative economic and political systems are merely the playthings of politicians, the tools of autocrats, elites and idealists who need satiate some thing or another (internal to themselves, or external in another human form). The system as it has evolved is a slowly evolving beast of moderate

Coordination due to the degree to which sovereign Westphalian prerogative still obtains globally over most territory, and the largely consensus or voluntary nature of many systems institutions. Notions that posit a new system, fail to see that retro-grade, or slow progress are likely the only choices. Russia, as others, has much work domestically, and there is little rationale, if much discussion, for altering, the system that has enabled many to rise, especially insofar, as the nature of its loose shifting confederation of sovereign agencies, in a world so complex, that only such as designed, could ensure to optimize participation. So notions of junior partner and similar are nothing but strategic tactics of politicians and political powers to build soft power, or to influence dialogues as trends do show the waxing and waning of different sovereigns within the loose global system that currently obtains. (While so many discuss the fall of the USd as a reserve currency, assuming it useful for the US economy, which it is not, contemplate how to get multiple powers to cooperate on something like an SDR, when they cannot even agree on carbon emissions, as 90-95% of all nations currencies, are weaker against the USD then they were in the 1990’s, as global discussion is of a weakening dollar, and currency manipulation and financial repression are tools of industrialization, that countries are reluctant to forgive, after they transit stages in their development, as all continue to seek to attach external demand, to their national domestic production, ad infinitum. A better question is what if the US rescinds the use of the dollar, and how could an alternative system evolve under such an occurrence, let alone while it is still in place, especially considering the current sovereign policies that obtain, while the global public good is being provided).



Russia might be speaking as if it intends to create a multi-polar world, which assumes one has not always existed, but again this is likely poor evaluation, or merely pandering to internal parties, and seeking linkages that can strengthen Russia’s regional position for internal stability.



It is likely that both Russia (geographic challenges) and China (access to required resources) have likely imperiled their own security via continued blocking of Western action (through UN on Syria, which is nothing but a strategy that both have practiced since the late 1990’s). This continued strategy will likely have just gone too far, I believe history will show in the case of Syria, and Iraq, although the repercussions may only be able to be surmised, as history has already taken place.



Russia looking East. Russia has vast resources that it need dispose of, others will continue to acquire them. Russia will look in each direction to do so. While needing to secure its borders by engaging politically on each of these in as balanced a fashion as possible, due to population centers, Russia is, and has always been from re-conquest against the Mongols, a European power.



As to American leadership, many ideas abound, but the world due to advances in the material capabilities of nations, states and individuals ever-more trends into difficult terrain, more people need to think about how they should assist in supporting the provision of global public goods, rather than run their heads around notions of rise and fall, beauty contest winners, and post-modern Hegelian and Kantian exercises that synthesize the wrong perspectives around the wrong ideals.











