British post-imperial modus operandi and Russian ambitions
Empire's art of saying farewell

ANALYTICS  29 June 2022 - 11:24

Losing an Empire may be regarded as an unavoidable misfortune; failing to dissolve it graciously is sheer recklessness. This is probably the British way of looking at this unhappy situation. In Russia, it is the other way around.

Margaret Thatcher, the former British Minister, once opined that Britain and Russia were bound in the deeply-felt shared sense of loss of status as a global superpower; the difference being that the former accepted its fate and moved on, whereas the latter is struggling to reinvent itself. The Iron Lady’s words were stated in the mid-90s and still resonate today.

In his address to the participants of a Commonwealth summit in Rwanda on June 24, Prince Charles reiterated the long-held view that each member’s constitutional arrangement, as a republic or monarchy, was a matter for an individual state to decide upon and changes were to happen “calmly and without rancour”.

This remark is a new vestige in the long-standing British quest of reckoning with its past and reconstituting its ties with former colonies. There is also a particular contemporary context related to the republican sentiments in the Caribbean. Barbados was recently declared a republic. Jamaica, Belize and the Bahamas have signalled they may follow suit.

No imperial nation has relinquished its right to rule beyond the national borders at an epiphanic moment of truth. The sheer impossibility of "governing as usual" was brought upon them, in one way or another, against their primary instincts.

Some imperial entities merely collapsed, lost their hold on their territories, and no one asked their opinion. Both the British Empire and the Soviet Union chose the path of self-imposed dissolution. Both were compelled to do so by virtue of increasing awareness of the inability to rule with verve.

It was long ago that Britain said adieu to its Empire, embarking on a long, thorny, yet civilised and orderly process of transfer of power and dissolution. Today’s Commonwealth, which has its roots in the Empire, comprises 56 members, out of which 15, specifically referred to as "Commonwealth Realms" have Her Majesty the Queen as their Head of State.

This is perceived by many as the specific exhilaration of the subtle imperial spirit, not as backwards thinking based on a dismal notion that the past was great and the future lies there. This Is perhaps akin to a vision that the past's glories are worthy of remembrance if they serve the present needs.

Both Britain and Russia are inherently imperial nations, but no longer imperial powers. The condition of "being imperial" or "imperialness" does not cease at the point of abandoning an empire.

Both nations are living with the omnipresent knowledge of their past, which has shaped their present, with unavoidable implications for their future. Both want to remain a power to be reckoned with and a force for good, whatever that may mean in their respective worldviews.

Doing so and eventually becoming one requires that at least two critical conditions are satisfied. Firstly, it is vital to graciously say goodbye to former colonies or subordinate countries and readjust one’s relations with them on fundamentally new grounds, based on equality. Secondly, the former imperial metropolis should reinvent itself as a focal point of attraction and a source of new ideas of the highest civilisational import.

There must be a carefully managed retrenchment which should happen simultaneously with the transformation of the most effective elements of an imperial legacy into a qualitatively new form of influence, manifesting itself as enhanced clout in relation to both former colonies and previously subordinate nations and beyond.

Britain, for all the dark sides of the Empire, which are continuously regurgitated, re-examined and resurfaced, notably in relation to the slavery discussion, has adopted this path as maturely as it can afford. It is undeniably the case that, amongst former Western colonial powers, its example stands high.

The British post-imperial view has been based on three interlocking circles, in Europe, the Commonwealth and in the "special relationship" with the US. In all guises and modulations, the principal aspect is to remain at centre stage.

Russia’s case is different. The collapse of the Soviet Union is relatively a new historic event, yet enough time has elapsed for the Kremlin to get rid of the phantom pains. Instead of purifying itself from them, Russia has reattached itself to its legacy, propounding a new revisionist agenda on the basis of perceived threats to its national interests.

When the Soviet Union came to an end in 1991, the Russian Federation took its place in all international organisations, assuming its legal personality as a continuum.

To reassert itself in relation to former Soviet countries, Russia was indirectly and directly involved in the creation of quasi-state entities in some former Republics, offering its services in conflict resolution, albeit with self-interest at heart. It declared the post-Soviet space as its sphere of interest, muscling in militarily in certain cases, the very clear example of which is today's incursion in Ukraine.

The present Ukraine crisis is a critical page in Russia’s transformation. It is not clear where it will lead in the interim. But it is inextricably connected with the sense of wounded pride, the belief that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century and somehow justice must be served by rectifying some of its consequences.

Russia is not awfully attractive to most former Soviet republics. It is not an enthusiastically shared view amongst former Kremlin-subordinated nations that the future lies in Moscow. It is gradually losing its appeal as it is unable to offer something critical or indispensable that would have made it desirable.

Its language is still used, albeit with an increasingly lessening value. Its government practices are bureaucratic and deemed obsolete. It still has a military, the capabilities of which are increasingly questioned. Its nuclear capabilities and rich natural resources form the crux of its present forte.

As a nation with long-term and sustainable global ambitions and as a concentration of vitality, its future is yet to be defined. To be brief, Russia has failed to transmogrify itself from a former imperial force into a new burgeoning power with a worldwide appeal and reach and seems unlikely to do so in the foreseeable future.

Caliber.Az