Chapter two: the bear's croquet ground.

• Author: Gvosdev, Nikolas K.
• Position: Great Powers in Wonderland - Critical essay

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

"If I lose my temper, you lose your head.... Sentence first, verdict later."

UPON BECOMING foreign minister in 1996, Yevgeny Primakov declared his motto to be "Russia was and remains a great power. Her foreign policy should correspond to that status." This remains a guiding principle today.

No one suggests restoring the Soviet Union; there is broad agreement across the political spectrum that Russia cannot afford the burdens of being a superpower. Instead, Russia should be the predominant power in the Eurasian space and be consulted on all major international matters.

A 2006 poll conducted by the St. Petersburg Times noted that 55 percent of Russians define the country as a "great power." But what does that mean? Speaking at a forum at the 2006 St. Petersburg G-8 summit, Russian commentator Aleksei Pushkov identified three factors that he felt justified Russia's inclusion as one of the great powers of the globe:

The first was Russia's ability to devastate large portions of the globe as a result of its nuclear- and conventional-weapons arsenal--a traditional definition of "great power" status as defined by military might and the ability to wreak destruction on a massive scale.

The second was Russia's vital importance to the continued growth and progress of the global economy, in this case, by its possession of significant reserves of various types of energy (endowments of natural gas, oil and a significant nuclear power industry), making Russia an "energy superpower"--and then with the attendant results, such as large acquisitions of currency reserves.

The third was Russia's "indispensability," in part due to its geopolitical location, for solving critical world Conflicts in Asia and the greater Middle East. And here it is important to note that this did not imply that the burden was on Russia to provide leadership, but that there could be no effective solutions without both Russian acquiescence and participation. One critical point: Russia's view of itself as the "indispensable nation" differs greatly from the formulation put forward by Madeleine Albright for the United States. It is an indispensability defined in negative terms--namely, that the absence of Russian help, even if that assistance is small in quantity in comparison to what others are providing, will...