Russian Geopolitical Visions and Argumentation

369 Pages·2008·2.09 MB·English

SIRKE MÄKINEN
Russian Geopolitical Visions and Argumentation
Parties of Power, Democratic and Communist Opposition
on Chechnia and NATO, 1994–2003
ACADEMIC DISSERTATION
To be presented, with the permission of
the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Tampere,
for public discussion in the Lecture Room A1
of the Main Building, Kalevantie 4, Tampere,
on February 23rd, 2008, at 12 o’clock.
UNIVERSITY OF TAMPERE
ACADEMIC DISSERTATION
University of Tampere
Department of Political Science and International Relations
Finland
Distribution Tel. [phone]
Bookshop TAJU Fax [phone]
P.O. Box 617 [email protected]
33014 University of Tampere www.uta.fi/taju
Finland http://granum.uta.fi
Cover design by
Juha Siro
Layout
Marita Alanko
Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 1293 Acta Electronica Universitatis Tamperensis 696
ISBN 978-951-44-7219-0 (print) ISBN 978-951-44-7220-6 (pdf)
ISSN 1455-1616 ISSN 1456-954X
http://acta.uta.fi
Tampereen Yliopistopaino Oy – Juvenes Print
Tampere 2008
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION 15
2 RESEARCH AGENDA 22
2.1 Geopolitical tradition 22
2.2 Critical geopolitics concepts 24
2.3 Comparison of previous research 26
2.4 General research questions 31
3 BOOM IN (EURASIAN) GEOPOLITICAL THINKING 34
3.1 Modern geopolitical imagination 34
3.2 Geopolitical thinking in Russia/Soviet Russia 36
3.3 Geopolitical thinking in the Russian Federation: Westernism vs. Eurasianism? 40
3.3.1 Aleksandr Dugin as an example of extreme New Eurasianism 44
3.4 Impact of (Eurasian) geopolitical thinking 47
4 POLITICAL CONTEXT AND PARLIAMENTARY PARTIES 49
4.1 Creating the party system: the Russian and Soviet legacy and the political
elite’s decisions 53
4.2 Role of political parties and the party system 59
4.3 Russian political opposition 64
4.4 Russian parliamentary parties 68
4.4.1 ‘Parties of Power’ 69
4.4.1.1 Nash Dom – Rossiia 72
4.4.1.2 Otechestvo 75
4.4.1.3 Edinstvo 76
4.4.1.4 Edinstvo-Otechestvo -> Edinaia Rossiia 77
4.4.2 Iabloko 78
4.4.3 Kommunisticheskaia Partiia Rossiiskoi Federatsii (KPRF) 82
5 DATA AND METHODS 86
5.1 Newspaper articles and party programmes as primary data 86
5.1.1 What naturally occurring data is available? 87
5.1.2 Data collection 89
5.1.2.1 Websites of the parties 90
5.1.2.2 Databases 91
5.1.3 Party programmes as data 97
5.2 Approach to studying geopolitical argumentation 99
5.2.1 Studying texts as part of reality and as constructing reality 100
5.2.2 Critical geopolitics and Gearóid Ó Tuathail’s grammar of geopolitics 105
5.2.3 New rhetoric and Stephen Toulmin’s model of argument 110
5.2.4 Case-specifi c research questions 120
6 ARGUMENTS ON RUSSO-CHECHEN RELATIONS I 123
6.1 Introduction 123
6.2 Th e war in Chechnia 1994–1996 and its aft ermath: re-building
the constitutional order or fi ghting for national self-determination? 127
6.2.1 Party of Power Nash Dom – Rossiia: Democratic Russia is
protecting its citizens 129
6.2.2 Iabloko: Undemocratic leaders are threatening democracy and
unity 144
6.2.3 Kommunisticheskaia Partiia Rossiiskoi Federatsii (KPRF):
Russia is breaking apart and in need of salvation by real patriots 158
6.3 Comparison and geopolitical vision 169
7 ARGUMENTS ON RUSSO-CHECHEN RELATIONS II 171
7.1 Th e war in Chechnia in 1999–: a counter-terrorist operation? 171
7.2 Parties of Power 173
7.2.1 Nash Dom – Rossiia: Russia is fi ghting against terrorism 174
7.2.2 Otechestvo: Russia is defending unity but without popular support 184
7.2.3 Edinstvo: Chechnia is a hotbed of international terrorism 200
7.3 Iabloko: Chechnia is a sad example of the incompetence and power
greed of Russian and Chechen leaders 211
7.4 Kommunisticheskaia Partiia Rossiiskoi Federatsii (KPRF):
Chechnia is the most violent symptom of Russia’s illness 223
7.5 Comparison and geopolitical vision 234
8 ARGUMENTS ON RUSSIA-NATO RELATIONS 236
8.1 NATO enlargement to the East – A potential threat? 238
8.1.1 Parties of Power 241
8.1.1.1 Nash Dom – Rossiia: Enlargement equates to the betrayal
and isolation of Russia 241
8.1.1.2 Otechestvo: Speculations about Russia’s membership are a trap 247
8.1.1.3 Edinstvo 251
8.1.2 Iabloko: NATO is isolating Russia and threatening all-European
security interests 252
8.1.3 Kommunisticheskaia Partiia Rossiiskoi Federatsii (KPRF)
NATO enlargement is a manifestation of the American dictatorship 266
8.2 Severe tension in NATO-Russia relations: Humanitarian intervention
and confl ict around Kosovo 275
8.2.1 Parties of Power 277
8.2.1.1 Nash Dom – Rossiia: Intervention into a sovereign
country violates international law and is part of America’s
hegemony aspirations 277
8.2.1.2 Otechestvo: Th e goal of the NATO operation is to break
Yugoslavia apart 284
8.2.1.3 Edinstvo: NATO operation equates to one-sided aggression 291
8.2.2 Iabloko: Th e Kosovo operation is a threat to democratic
development in Russia 292
8.2.3 Kommunisticheskaia Partiia Rossiiskoi Federatsii (KPRF):
Russia should stop NATO aggression by creating a counter-bloc 303
8.3 Comparison and geopolitical vision 309
9 GEOPOLITICAL VISIONS AND ARGUMENTATION 312
9.1 Purpose of the study 312
9.2 Case-specifi c arguments and geopolitical storylines 314
9.2.1 Russo-Chechen relations 314
9.2.2 Russia-NATO relations 315
9.3 Remarks on political argumentation 321
9.4 Parties of power versus opposition parties 322
9. 5 Geopolitical visions and imagination 324
EPILOGUE 333
REFERENCES 335
SECONDARY DATA 335
Literature, articles in refereed journals and other academic papers 335
Documents and party materials 342
Newspaper articles and news 342
Web sources 344
Author’s interviews 346
PRIMARY DATA 346
Newspaper and www articles and interviews on the radio and TV 346
Party announcements, programmes and platforms 355
APPENDIX 1. Politicians of the parties and the commands of the searches used
in collecting the data in the Integrum database 358
APPENDIX 2. Newspapers used in collecting the articles 368
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. Study on geopolitical discourses: Geopolitical storylines on 9/11
and overall geopolitical orientations and parliamentary parties 28
TABLE 2. Study on geopolitical culture: Geopolitical schools/traditions
and Russian parties according to previous studies 43
TABLE 3. Party programmes of the parliamentary parties 98
TABLE 4. Grammar of geopolitics according to Ó Tuathail 107
TABLE 5. Geopolitical script according to Ó Tuathail 108
TABLE 6. Explaining the model of argument 115
TABLE 7. Our Home is Russia politicians’ grammar of geopolitics on
the confl ict in Chechnia 1995–1998 130
TABLE 8. Nash Dom – Rossiia politicians’ argument on Chechnia 1995–1998 142
TABLE 9. Iabloko politicians’ grammar of geopolitics on the confl ict in
Chechnia 1994–1998 144
TABLE 10. Iabloko politicians’ argument on Chechnia 1994–1998 156
TABLE 11. KPRF politicians’ grammar of geopolitics on the confl ict in
Chechnia 1994–1998 158
TABLE 12. KPRF politicians’ argument on Chechnia 1994–1998 166
TABLE 13. Nash Dom – Rossiia politicians’ grammar of geopolitics on
the confl ict in Chechnia in 1999 174
TABLE 14. Nash Dom – Rossiia politicians’ argument on Chechnia in 1999 182
TABLE 15. Otechestvo politicians’ grammar of geopolitics on the confl ict
in Chechnia 1999–2003 184
TABLE 16. Otechestvo politicians’ argument on Chechnia 1999–2003 198
TABLE 17. Edinstvo politicians’ grammar of geopolitics on the confl ict in Chechnia
1999–2003 201
TABLE 18. Edinstvo politicians’ argument on Chechnia 1999–2003 209
TABLE 19. Iabloko politicians’ grammar of geopolitics on the confl ict in Chechnia
1999–2003 211
TABLE 20. Iabloko politicians’ argument on Chechnia 1999–2003 221
TABLE 21. KPRF politicians’ grammar of geopolitics on the confl ict in Chechnia
in 1999–2003 224
TABLE 22. KPRF politicians’ argument on Chechnia 1999–2003 232
TABLE 23. Nash Dom – Rossiia politicians’ grammar of geopolitics on
NATO enlargement 1995–1999 241
TABLE 24. Nash Dom – Rossiia politicians’ argument on NATO
enlargement1995–1999 245
TABLE 25. Kosachev’s (Otechestvo) grammar of geopolitics on NATO
enlargement 2001–2002 247
TABLE 26. Kosachev’s (Otechstvo) argument on NATO enlargement 2001–2002 249
TABLE 27. Edinstvo politicians’ argument on NATO enlargement 2001–2002 252
TABLE 28. Iabloko politicians’ grammar of geopolitics on NATO enlargement
1994–2003 253
TABLE 29. Iabloko politicians’ argument on NATO enlargement 1994–2003 264
TABLE 30. KPRF politicians’ grammar of geopolitics on NATO enlargement
1994–2003 266
TABLE 31. KPRF politicians’ argument on NATO enlargement 1994–2003 273
TABLE 32. Nash Dom – Rossiia politicians’ grammar of geopolitics on the Kosovo
confl ict in 1999 278
TABLE 33. Nash Dom – Rossiia politicians’ argument on the Kosovo
confl ict in 1999 283
TABLE 34. Otechestvo politicians’ grammar of geopolitics on the Kosovo confl ict
1999–2001 285
TABLE 35. Otechestvo politicians’ argument on the confl ict in Kosovo 1999–2001 289
TABLE 36. Iabloko politicians’ grammar of geopolitics on the Kosovo
confl ict 1998–2001 293
TABLE 37. Iabloko politicians’ argument on the Kosovo confl ict 1998–2001 301
TABLE 38. KPRF politicians’ grammar of geopolitics on the Kosovo
confl ict 1999–2000 303
TABLE 39. KPRF politicians’ argument on the Kosovo confl ict 1999–2000 307
TABLE 40. Geopolitical storylines on Chechnia and NATO 320
TABLE 41. Geopolitical visions of parliamentary parties in the context of
an internal and an external threat 326
TABLE 42. Geopolitical schools/traditions and parliamentary parties. Old
classifi cation – new places. 329
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CIS Commonwealth of Independent States (SNG Soobzhestvo nezavisimykh
gosudarstv)
CPSU Communist Party of the Soviet Union
CSCE Congress for Security and Cooperation in Europe
DVR Demokraticheskii Vybor Russii (Democratic Choice Russia)
EPItsentr Tsentr ekonomicheskikh i politicheskikh issledovanii (Centre of Economic
and Political Studies)
EU European Unioin
FSB Federalnaia sluzhba bezobasnosti (Federal Security Service)
gosudarstvenniki Advocates of Russian statehood
GUAM Organisation for Democracy and Economic Development. Participant
countries: Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Moldova. Uzbekistan was a mem-
ber 1999–2005 (GUUAM).
IGRI Institut gumanitarno-politicheskikh issledovanii (Institute of Humanitar-
ian Political Studies)
IMF International monetary fund
INION RAN Institut nauchnoi informatsii po obshchestvennym naukam Rossiiskoi
Akademii Nauk (Institute of academic information on social sciences of the
Russian Academy of Sciences.)
KFOR NATO-led Kosovo Force
KLA Kosovo Liberation Army
Komsomol Kommunisticheskii Soiuz Molodezhi (Communist Youth League)
KPR Kommunisticheskaia partiia Rossii (Communist Party of Russia)
KPRF Kommunisticheskaia partiia Rossiiskoi Federatsii (Communist Party of the
Russian Federation)
KPSS Kommunisticheskaia partiia Sovetskogo Soiuza (Communist Party of the
Soviet Union)
KRO Kongress russkikh obshchin (Congress of Russian Communities)
LDPR Liberalno-demokraticheskaia partiia Rossii (Liberal Democratic Party of
Russia)
MČS Ministerstvo po delam grazhdanskoi oborony, chrezvychainym situatsiiam i
likvidatsii posledstvii stikhiinykh bedstvii
(Ministry of Emergency and Civil Defence)
NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
NDR Nash Dom – Rossiia (Our Home is Russia)
OSCE Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe
OVR Otechestvo-Vsia Rossiia (Fatherland-All Russia bloc)
Partiia vlasti Party of Power
PJC Permanent Joint Council
PRES Partiia Rossiiskogo Edinstva i Soglasiia (Party of Russian Unity and Con-
cord)
RHDS-ND Rossiiskii Khristiansko-demokraticheskii soiuz–Novaia Demokratia (Rus-
sian Christian-Democratic Union – New Democracy)
RPRF Respublikanskaia partiia Rossiiskoi Federatsii (Republic Party of the Rus-
sian Federation)
RSFSR Rossiiskaia Sovetskaia Federativnaia Sotsialisticheskaia Respublika (Th e
Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic or Russian Soviet Federated
Socialist Republic)
RTR Russian state-owned television channel, nowadays called Rossiia
SDPRF Sotsial-demokraticheskaia partiia Rossiiskoi Federatsii (Social Democratic
Party of the Russian Federation)
SPS Soiuz Pravykh Sil (Union of Rightist Forces)
START II Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty signed in 1993
tselostnost Integrity
UN United Nations
US United States
vlast Power, authority, executive power, those with formal or informal power
PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Th is research project might never have been realized if Vilho Harle and Pami Aalto had not
invited me to join their research project Identity Politics, Security and the Making of Geopolitical
Order in the Baltic Region. So my fi rst and foremost words of gratitude go to my supervisors
Professor Vilho Harle and Professor Pami Aalto; fi rst of all for giving me the opportunity to
start my research in their project in February 2002, and secondly and most importantly, for all
the support and advice that I have received from them during this period. Pami has patiently
commented on my texts again and again, be it for a seminar or a conference, for a scholar-
ship application, or for the PhD. He has always found new perspectives and provided me with
healthy and constructive criticism. It is also certainly true that without my supervisors’ refer-
ences I would not have received funding during my doctoral studies.
I also owe a special debt of gratitude to my external examiners Dr Peter Duncan and Pro-
fessor Vladimir Kolossov for their helpful comments. I would also like to thank Marita Alanko,
who took charge of the book’s layout, and Kathryn Rannikko and Linda Brown for proofread-
ing the book.
As we know, researchers receive their funding in bits and pieces, and not necessarily for
more than a year at a time, so I might not have been adventurous enough to start my research
had I not been given leave from my permanent post at the Department of Academic and Inter-
national Aff airs at the University of Tampere. I fi rst applied for a year’s leave, however, I suc-
cessfully applied for an extension of the period again and again, and now it has been almost fi ve
years. Th erefore, I am also grateful to the Department of Academic and International Aff airs. I
owe special thanks to Matti Jussila, the former head of the Department and to Dr Kirsi-Marja
Marnela, Director Emerita of International Education Services, who encouraged me to start
my doctoral studies. I want to thank all my former and current colleagues, in particular those
who have been my substitutes and have had to suff er from not knowing whether I would be
back the coming year or not.
When I came to the Department of Political Science and International Relations, I had
the opportunity to share an offi ce with Professor Emeritus Olavi Borg in the Attila Building.
I would like to thank Olavi for the offi ce companionship and for encouraging me in my work.
In addition, I want to express my gratitude to the Department of Political Science and Interna-
tional Relations as a whole, especially to all my researcher colleagues and to the administrative
staff . I am grateful to Dr Anni Kangas and Hanna Kaisti for their peer support. Many thanks
go also to Senior Assistant Pertti Lappalainen, who encouraged me to continue towards my