On March 21st, 2018, students of the Tsinghua-SAIS Dual Degree Program met with Alexander Gabuev, chair of the Russia in the Asia-Pacific Program at the Carnegie Moscow Center, for the inaugural spring session of Policy Research in a Simulated Think Tank. The Carnegie Endowment’s youngest senior fellow, Mr. Gabuev has led an impressive career, having previously served as deputy foreign editor of Kommersant and deputy editor in chief of Kommersant-Vlast, both after working as a senior diplomatic reporter and member of president Dmitry Medvedev’s press corps. As a scholar, his research has focused on the ongoing political and ideological trends within Russia and China, as well as their respective policies toward neighboring countries in the Central Asia and Asia-Pacific regions. Mr. Gabuev engaged the cohort in a frank and in-depth conversation graciously arranged and moderated by Carnegie-Tsinghua’s Government Relations and Partnership Coordinator, Thena Li.
The discussion began with an examination of think tanks, specifically the conditions that give them rise and their subsequent role within society. Mr. Gabuev argued that think tanks are a unique byproduct of western bipartisan democracies, due primarily to three coexistent characteristics within these nations’ socio-political framework. First, the nature of their democracy provides those outside government with some degree of influence in shaping the nation’s foreign policy. Although decision-making power is formally limited to an exclusive few, lawmakers and policy planners are nonetheless cognizant of the need to appeal to constituents or interest groups. Within this context, think tanks exist to inform and influence the discourse between civil society and state.
Second, such democracies tend to naturally produce an abundance of funding for foreign policy research. If nongovernment actors wield the ability to shape the decision-making calculus of the state, then the range of social sectors with a stake in this process broadens dramatically. An abundance of money is therefore devoted to developing influence, with the funding of think tanks representing one of the many avenues by which to achieve this goal. However, Mr. Gabuev noted that the efficacy of think tanks as a method of social and political persuasion is difficult to measure, and their ability to ultimately change national policy is a question that remains open.
Finally, predominantly bipartisan political systems create a revolving door through which policymakers enter and exit government as power switches hands between two major parties. Think tanks are a public platform that provide these displaced officials with the ability to continue proposing ideas related to governance, or perhaps criticize the efforts of the newly empowered opposition. For those out of office, this time can be particularly conducive to developing new ‘big picture’ concepts, as the demands of governing often mean a singular focus on unfolding crises of the moment.
The conversation then turned to Russia’s domestic political climate, foreign affairs, and relationship with China. Beginning with an analysis of the recent Russian election, Mr. Gabuev proposed that the newly reelected President Putin has secured an unprecedented degree of support from the Russian public for two reasons. First, having come to power during the tumultuous years following the Soviet Union’s collapse, Putin is credited with having helped Russia survive its dramatic political and economic transition. Second, Putin is seen as a strident champion of Russian interests and exceptionalism within an antagonistic international system dominated by the United States and its allies. As a result, sanctions against Russia have in fact galvanized support behind the president, as they have reinforced public perception of the United States as a hegemonic global policeman that seeks to undermine Russia’s status as a great power.
As Russia’s resource rich export economy provides enough capital to maintain the domestic status quo for the time being, Mr. Gabuev predicted that Putin’s upcoming term will be defined by a continued focus on foreign policy alongside a determined effort in managing regime transition. Though Putin may indeed maintain influence beyond the next six years as president, his administration has already begun the process of grooming and hand picking trusted successors for key positions. Given the likely continuation of Russia’s current policy strategy, as well as the hostile domestic political climate within the United States, U.S.-Russian relations are likely to continue to deteriorate for the foreseeable future. As such, the major task for both countries should be war avoidance amidst this increasingly bitter and protracted conflict.
In contrast, Mr. Gabuev highlighted three fundamental factors that have driven Russia and China closer together in recent years. First, the economies of the two nations are complementary; Russia has an abundance of natural resources but poorly developed infrastructure, whereas China has an abundance of capital and a rapidly upgraded infrastructure, but few natural resources. Second, the domestic political systems of the two are very different from the western style liberal democracies shared by many of the world’s major powers, most notably their peers on the United Nations Security Council. The two are therefore naturally more inclined to find a common agenda on issues of governance and less likely to challenge one another in this space. Finally, a normalization of relations gives both countries the opportunity to divert resources away from balancing against each other and into newer security priorities. Most pertinently, these security challenges generally do not conflict with one another, and the two share some areas of mutual interest.
However, this is not to say the China-Russia relationship will be without challenges. Mr. Gabuev pointed to the increasingly asymmetric power dynamic between the two as a particularly problematic development. This is reflected quite dramatically in the economic sphere, as China constitutes a growing segment of Russian trade and financing, whereas Russia’s stake within China remains flat. Similarly, while Russia is currently China’s number one oil supplier, China can easily switch to another energy source. Ultimately, China’s economy is simply far more diversified. And so, while the overall potential for cooperation between the two nations suggests that a progressively isolated Russia will deepen its relationship with China, a budding dependency may make the arrangement a tenuous one.
With that, Mr. Gabuev’s presentation came to a close. The Tsinghua-SAIS cohort would like to reiterate its gratitude to both Alexander Gabuev and Thena Li for the illuminating discussion.