Russia’s
Weakness Is Its Economic Policy
By Paul Craig Roberts and Michael Hudson
August 11, 2016 "Information
Clearing House"
- According to various reports, the Russian
government is reconsidering the neoliberal policy
that has served Russia so badly since the collapse
of the Soviet Union. If Russia had adopted an
intelligent economic policy, Russia’s economy would
be far ahead of where it stands today. It would
have avoided most of the capital flight to the West
by relying on self-finance.
Washington, however, took advantage of a naive,
gullible and demoralized Russian government which
looked to Washington for guidance in the post-Soviet
era. Russians thought that the rivalry between the
two countries had ended with the Soviet collapse and
trusted American advice to modernize the Russian
economy with best-practice Western ideas. Instead,
Washington abused this trust to saddle Russia with
an economic policy designed to carve up Russian
economic assets and transfer ownership into foreign
hands. By tricking Russia into accepting foreign
capital and exposing the ruble to currency
speculation, Washington made sure that the US could
destabalize Russia with capital outflows and
assaults on the ruble’s exchange value. Only a
government unfamiliar with the neoconservative aim
of US world hegemony would have exposed its economic
system to such foreign manipulation.
The sanctions that Washington imposed – and forced
Europe to impose – on Russia show how neoliberal
economics works against Russia. The policy’s call
for high interest rates and austerity sank the
Russian economy – needlessly. The ruble was knocked
down by capital outflows, resulting in the
neoliberal central bank squandering Russia’s foreign
reserves in an effort to support the ruble but
actually supported capital flight.
Even Vladimir
Putin finds attractive the romantic notion of a
global economy to which every country has equal
access. But the problems resulting from neoliberal
policy forced him to turn to import substitution in
order to make the Russian economy less dependent on
imports. It also made Putin realize that if Russia
were to have one foot in the Western economic order,
it needed to have the other foot in the new economic
order being constructed with China, India, and
former central Asian Soviet republics.
Neoliberal economics prescribes a dependency policy
that relies on foreign loans and foreign
investment. This policy creates foreign currency
debt and foreign ownership of Russian profits.
These are dangerous vulnerabilities for a nation
declared by Washington to be “an existential threat
to the US.”
The economic establishment that Washington set up
for Russia is neoliberal. The head of the central
bank Elvira Nabiullina, minister of economic
development Alexei Ulyukayev, and the current and
former finance ministers, Anton Siluanov and Alexei
Kudrin, are doctrinaire neoliberals. This crowd
wanted to deal with Russia’s budget deficit by
selling public assets to foreigners. If actually
carried through, this policy would give Washington
more control over Russia’s economy.
Opposed to this collection of “junk economists,”
stands Sergey Glaziev. Boris Titov and Andrei
Klepach are reported to be his allies.
This group understands that neoliberal policies make
Russia’s economy susceptible to destabilization by
Washington if the US wants to punish the Russian
government for not following Washington’s foreign
policy. Their aim is to promote a more
self-sufficient Russia in order to protect the
nation’s sovereignty and the government’s ability to
act in Russia’s national interests rather than
subjugate these interests to those of Washington.
The neoliberal model is not a development model, but
is purely extractive. Americans have characterized
it as making Russia or other dependencies “hewers of
wood and drawers of water” – or in Russia’s case,
oil, gas, platinum and diamonds.
Self-sufficiency means not being import dependent or
dependent on foreign capital for investment that
could be financed by Russia’s central bank. It also
means strategic parts of the economy remaining in
public, not private, hands. Basic infrastructure
services should be provided to the economy at cost,
on a subsidized basis or freely, not turned over to
foreign owners to extract monopoly rent. Glaziev
also wants the ruble’s exchange value to be set by
the central bank, not by speculators in the currency
market.
Neoliberal economists do not acknowledge that the
economic development of a nation with natural
resource endowments such as Russia has can be
financed by the central bank creating the money
required to undertake the projects. They pretend
that this would be inflationary. Neoliberals deny
the long-recognized fact that, in terms of the
quantity of money, it makes no difference whether
the money comes from the central bank or from
private banks creating money by making loans or from
abroad. The difference is that if money comes from
private banks or from abroad, interest must be paid
to the banks, and profits have to be shared with
foreign investors, who end up with some control over
the economy.
Apparently, Russia’s neoliberals are insensitive to
the threat that Washington and its European vassals
pose to the Russian state. On the basis of lies
Washington has imposed economic sanctions on
Russia. This political demonization is as fictitious
as is the neoliberal economic propaganda. On the
basis of such lies, Washington is building up
military forces and missile bases on Russia’s
borders and in Russian waters. Washington seeks to
overthrow former Russian or Soviet provinces and
install regimes hostile to Russia, as in Ukraine and
Georgia. Russia is continually demonized by
Washington and NATO. Washington even politicized
the Olympic games and prevented the participation of
many Russian athletes.
Despite these overt hostile moves against Russia,
Russian neoliberals still believe that the economic
policies that Washington urges on Russia are in
Russia’s interest, not intended to gain control of
its economy. Hooking Russia’s fate to Western
hegemony under these conditions would doom Russian
sovereignty.
Dr.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary
of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate
editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist
for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and
Creators Syndicate. He has had many university
appointments. His internet columns have attracted a
worldwide following. Roberts' latest books are
The Failure
of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution
of the West,
How America
Was Lost,
and
The
Neoconservative Threat to World Order.
Michael
Hudson is research professor of economics at
University of Missouri, Kansas City and a research
associate at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard
College |