The National Interest
Winter 2001/02

Odom's Russia: A Forum

with Martin Malia, Jack Matlock, Jr., Jerry Hough, Geoffrey Hosking, Alexey Pushkov, Robert Legvold, and Henry Trofimenko

 

Jack F. Matlock, Jr.:

. . . General Odom tells us that Russia is not a great power, probably cannot be one for a very long time, and therefore should not be treated as one. He does not, however, explain what a "great power" is in today’s world, or how U.S. behavior should be influenced by the power hierarchy he imputes to the international scene. . . .

Odom’s perception of the world, of Russia, and of American interests differs from mine. The world I see is one in which states are no longer the sole players (if they ever were). It is a world in which non-state actors have seized part of the stage, acting sometimes as tools, sometimes as partners, but sometimes also as scourges of governments and the states they rule. It is a world in which success and failure do not depend entirely or even primarily on the size of a country, or its military strength, or the affluence of its population, or any other single factor—or, for that matter, on any simple combination of factors. States can be comparatively powerful in some respects and weak in others. In today’s world, it is impossible to conjure up some litmus test that will usefully distinguish a "great power" from other states. One must first ask, "Power for what?" . . .

Jerry F. Hough:

The most fundamental problem with General Odom's analysis, however, is that it lacks perspective on the very long and difficult process of the development of markets and constitutional democracy. What we call corruption is a key part of this process, for it builds a network of people in different elite groups who have an interest in property rights, and in a government that both promotes economic growth and restrains the ruler. If a businessman brings a politician and a military officer into his project, then the government will protect and promote growth for personal reasons, and the military will support it. Members of the elite will support property rights so they can retain their wealth after they leave office, and so that their children can inherit it. . . .