MUHAMMAD ALI SYED

M.S.J
19899

During his 20 years leading Russia, President Vladimir Putin has tightened
his grip on power, executed plans for expansionism and made friends and foes
at home / abroad. You are required to write an in-depth analysis on Putin’s
Russia (domestic front) and how Moscow is reclaiming its role on the world
stage.

Today’s Russian federation may have altered in terms of its former Soviet Union past, especially
pursuing free market economic reforms envisaged by the policies of glasnost and perestroika
under the last leader of the former Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev. But, the pre-Gorbachev
Soviet Union ideology to some extent in terms of foreign and domestic policies is still present in
the Russian federation signaling to the international community that the Soviet era’s legacy
lives on in the person and leadership of a former KGB spy in Communist East Germany, serving
as the nationalist leader of the Russian Federation since 20 years; Vladimir Putin.

International experts believe that under Putin, Russia has democratically backslided with the
pre-Gorbachev Stalin-Khrushchev-Brezhnev eras by applying the same measures of purging and
jailing political opponents, curtailing press freedom, and lack of reform in the electoral process
which would ensure free and fair elections. In parallel, the role of his kleptocrats ensuring
Human rights organizations and Russian activists accuse the Putin led administration of
persecution of dissenting citizens. The Putin administration is backed by the Russian Orthodox
Church, nationalists and traditionalists who see its undertakings as vital to Russia’s integrity,
national interests and its role as a major game changer in global affairs.

Putin has followed in the footsteps of his predecessors in adopting a philosophical and political
approach steeped in Russian Orthodox Christianity, nationalism and unique Russian traditions.
Known by Russia’s political circles and international observers as Putinism, it is Putin’s political
system applied through his legislative program within Russia known as Putin Legislative
Program that have effected Russia most internally. That has included a strict vertical power
structure and the merging of predominant religion’s role with the state. Putin’s deviation from
mainstream Western political administrative structures has been labeled as “sovereign
democracy” in Russia’s internal politics. The most popular examples are that of Putin exercising
influence on the Russian parliament by a constitutional referendum 2020 which allows Putin to
run for two additional six years terms as President and the issuing of a decree dividing the 89
federal subjects of Russia between 7 federal districts overseen by representatives of those
districts directly appointed by him with more power consolidated in the center. To quell
opposition to his rule or push through his anti-LGBT legislation by the enactment of Russian Gay
Propaganda Law, Putin’s employs Cossacks, a Russian paramilitary force whose origins go back
to pre-Communist Tsarist Russia.

Despite the dissolution of the Soviet Union, a rival Cold War power to the United States, the
world is once again witnessing a return of the Russian Federation as a major global actor. Many
in the West view it as political opportunism by Putin exhibited through economic, political,
scientific and technological clouts plus the U-Turn taken in foreign policy based on aggressive
hegemony. With its war with Georgia in 2008 and the annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean
peninsula in 2014, Russia has demonstrated that it is clearly in disagreement with the post-Cold
War order established by the U.S and its European allies. This new expansive phase of policy
continuing for two decades under the Russian Federation has far deeper ambitions even much
more as compared to the former Soviet Union and its foundations lie primarily in Russia’s
imperial history.

The imperial narrative much more than the Communist era Soviet narrative is used by the Putin
administration at one with the religious establishment and traditionalists to pursue an
aggressive foreign policy marking its own separate position as an independent center of power
on world stage. This foreign policy came to fruition even before Putin was elected as head of
state when Russia’s foreign minister of 1996 Yevgeny Primakov through his doctrine later to be
known as Primakov Doctrine argued of Russia contributing to the development of a multi-polar
world order as opposed to the unipolar world order led by the U.S which is now being realized
gradually through Putin.

Putin’s popularity and multiple candidacies for leadership have been exacerbated primarily by
his foreign interventions be they the annexation of Crimea, the deployment of troops and
support of the Bashar Al Assad regime in Syria, the military standoff with Western neighbors,
interference in the domestic politics of Western countries and last but not the least the use of
non-conventional warfare in multiple domains.

Even though under Putin, Russia’s economy is performing poorly coupled with the failure to
institute structural reforms, yet this factor has not impeded its foreign activism. Putin has
exploited the rifts inside the US and the EU for furthering her own geo-political interests.
Contemporary Russian policy is influenced by three factors; Russia’s quest for strategic depth,
its timely recognition as a regional and a global power, and, rivalry with lone power marred by
cooperation. The Russian leadership is particularly sensitive when it comes to Russia not being
counted as amongst the major powers.

Moscow’s current anti-Western ideology is based on a mixture of nationalist, democratic

centralism and state capitalism. Moscow is implementing the Soviet era foreign policy by
waging a hybrid war against its foes and through technology , psychological warfare and soft
power to implement foreign policy objectives. It uses a wide range of entities like academic,
cultural and political as agents of influence to champion its causes. Moscow’s foreign policy is
no different from its rivals when it comes to financing and supporting proxies and engaging in
covert operations. Moscow accuses the West of not allowing it to pursue an independent
course and is cognizant of the fact that during Russia’s course of history it is the West which has
given some of its most fatal drawbacks – especially during Cold War.

Within a decade of Putin having taken power, with economic and political restoration, Russia is
reestablishing clout over its neighbors. Moscow now has a multifaceted foreign policy at its
disposal, an accumulated over of decades of political experience. The long confrontation with
the West means that Moscow will prioritize the regime’s protection and advance the country’s
interests whilst looking towards the East for allies like China. Moscow’s ambitions coupled with
ideological toolkits inherited from its Soviet past at its disposal are bearing the mark of the
foreign policy it has.
The Iran nuclear agreement was not perfect — no compromise ever is. But
what was hammered out after more than a decade of tedious international
negotiations severely and verifiably constrained Tehran's nuclear program
for the short and medium term. You’re required to analyze the impact of U.S.
President Donald Trump’s exit from the nuclear pact with Iran.

The joint comprehensive plan of action, the Iran nuclear deal was reached in 2015 with a group
of world powers known as the P5+1 consisting of U.S, U.K, France, China, Russia and
Germany. It was a conclusion of years of suspicion that Iran was secretly developing a nuclear
weapon program, despite assurances that it was for peaceful purposes.

Under the 2015 accord, Iran was to limit its nuclear activities and allow international weapons
inspectors especially in its two nuclear sites Natanz and Fordo. In 2015, Iran had 20,000
centrifuges and under the accord it was to limit its centrifuges to 5,060 which are some of the
oldest and the least efficient until the 2026.

President Trump’s exit from the nuclear pact with Iran has taken a death blow to the years of
negotiations under former President Obama who brought a theocratic state on the negotiating
table which for decades was in the process of acquiring nuclear warheads and other weapons.
Although Trump’s decision was predicted, this unwise political move has led to years of grueling
negotiations of the U.S and its allies with Iran in dismay. It also means that Iran which had
agreed to remain in in return for the lifting of economic sanctions will now aggressively embark
on a nuclear program, revamp its military capabilities and seek new terms in the position of
equal balance of power.

The Trump administration never trusted Iran in the first place and this lack of trust leaves Iran
with no other choice but to pursue an independent course.

If Trump has ended the deal with Iran, he has also sowed the seeds of risky nuclear negotiations.
The hardliners in Iran will be emboldened and the threat of Iran’s retaliation towards the U.S and
its strategic Middle East partner Israel will invoke an arms race and a region wide conflict in the
Middle East.

Trump made the folly to walk out of the deal with Iran which he construed as politically flawed
by imposing strict sanctions. This foreign policy will produce deadly repercussions in the years
to come as several Western politicians believe the world will be less safe if, a nuclear armed Iran
makes it appearance felt.

Iranian president Hassan Rouhani has accused Trump of having a history of not honoring
international commitments. However Trump’s decision has been met with mixed apprehensions
by its allies in the Middle East. Israel and Saudi Arabia have appraised him for his risky
decision. Trump believes in his technique of applying maximum pressure on Iran just as he
applied maximum pressure on North Korean leader. This however is a miscalculation on his part
as the North Korean and Iranian regimes are diametrical to one another. Trump wants to avert
war with Iran but at the same time would work indirectly with those European countries that
have commercial interests with Iran to pressurize the Iranians so that a better deal could be made.

The limits placed by the agreement on Iran’s nuclear fuel production were inadequate and did
not address the nuclear program in its entirety. Therefore, sanctions waived off as part of the
accord have been reinstated together with additional sanctions. The Iranians will not be allowed
to use the financial markets and financial system until they give a guarantee of not having a
nuclear weapon in possession. Trump’s fears are that the current deal from which he walked out
does not take into view a number of reservations about Iran; its acquisition of ballistic weapons
alongside its nuclear program, its war in the region through proxies, and the expiration of the
deal’s provisions which terminating in 2030 would afterwards enable Iran to devise a nuclear
bomb. For Trump Iran’s compliance in the current deal is dubious.

The U.S’s exit from the 2015 nuclear deal is breaking it apart with two pronged risks; one of Iran
resuming and reinvigorating its nuclear capability and the other of a possible military clash in the
Persian Gulf as the Persian Gulf’s Strait of Hormuz controls the shipment of the world’s highest
oil and crude oil reserves. Iran has always resented the presence of American military bases in
the Middle East. When the U.S backtracked from the deal and exacerbated the crisis further by
applying sanctions curbing Iran’s oil exports and then assassinating Major General Qasim
Suleimani, Iran retaliated by resuming some of its nuclear activities and going back on most of
its commitments enshrined in the deal.

For the Iranians the nuclear deal from which the Americans walked out was in violation of an
internationally recognized agreement. Iranian officials have accused the Trump Administration
of disrupting its economic, trade and commercial relations especially foreign investment by
doubting Iran’s commitment to the agreement. Iran also holds Europe for surrendering to
American unilateralism. Since the U.S ended economic waivers for Iran by re-imposing
sanctions to curtail Iran’s oil industry bringing the oil exports down to zero depriving the regime
its principal source of revenue, Iran declared it was not bound to the nuclear deal commitments
as other partners to the agreement were in breach of it.

The Iran nuclear agreement was not perfect — no compromise ever is. But in this whole
political quagmire and blame game certain facts have to be kept in mind the chief amongst them
that since the 1950s the U.S and Britain have played a huge role in Iran’s domestic affairs and to
a large extent have influenced the course of its foreign policy. Iran much as any sovereign nation
has the right to pursue an independent foreign policy even when it comes to its nuclear program
or the acquisition of ballistic missiles. The U.S under Trump is forgetting that along with the
other Allied World Policemen much of the export of high weaponry to serve their arms sales are
being used in certain regions of the world with great devastating results. The U.S in all
agreements plays the role of an economic hitman rather than the role of a diplomatic negotiator.
The U.S more so than Iran has always displayed a characteristic bellicosity when it comes to
international agreements and nowhere is this bellicosity more apparent than the current nuclear
deal which the U.S itself exited. The agreement together with the compromise did not play out
perfectly and fully in the U.S and its European allies’ favor but then again today’s international
relations are not based on political diktats. The U.S must equally share both the pros and cons of
any agreement which it concludes with the Islamic Republic keeping in view regional factors at
work.