From: thietaniemi@cc.helsinki.fi
Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
Subject: The future of RUSSIA and FINLAND
Date: 25 Dec 92 15:49:17 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

--------------------------------------------------------------
THE FUTURE OF RUSSIA - FOUR ALTERNATIVES
--------------------------------------------------------------

According to the research published by the Finnish Institute of Foreign
Policy, there are four distinct scenarios for the future of Russia:

(1) A collective contract or agreement between bargaining groups

(2) Fragmentation

(3) A rapid movement towards market economy

(4) Return to a totalitarian regime.


A COLLECTIVE CONTRACT BETWEEN BARGAINING GROUPS might be reached
between the military staff and army intelligence, state enterprises and the
bureaucracy. It could stop - at least temporarily - the chaos that
might endanger the future of Russia. The elected institutions might
have a reduced position in the future - but Boris Yeltsin could
perhaps maintain his position.

Unfortunately, this kind of contract or agreement would not present
any solutions to the problems that Russia is currently facing.

From the Finnish point of view, this kind of agreement would not posit
any immeadiate threats, but would anyhow accelerate the need of rapid
rethinking in our foreign policy. The most decisive factor
from the Finnish point of view would be the international community
and it's attitude towards the change in Russia.



THE FRAGMENTATION means that the decision-making would be rapidly
transformed from Moscow to the republics and other local political bodies.
This would increase the developmental differencies between various areas,
but would, anyhow, lead to better coping with local features and problems.

From the Finnish point of view, the fragmentation might denote a
positive alternative: It could open new possibilities for Finnish
foreign policy, especially with Karelia and St. Petersburg. There
would be no need to change the Finnish security politics in the near
future.

But if the fragmentation would lead to military conflicts between
various Russian areas and political bodies, the situation would be totally
negative from the Finnish point of view. This would require an
accelerated movement of Finland towards various European security
organizations.


THE RELATIVELY RAPID MOVEMENT TOWARDS MARKET ECONOMY might
denote a rise in social differences and in inequality. Anyhow,
if the market economy could be established in Russia, it would bring
Russia towards the European system and essentially reduce the
military fears towards Russia.

From the Finnish point of view the movement towards the marked
economy in Russia would reduce the possible tensions in our security
politics. It would denote an intensified competition in the
economy, instead. Moreover, there would be more possibilities to
environmental co-operation between our countries.


THE RETURN TO A TOTALITARIAN SYSTEM would be a negative alternative
from both the Finnish and Russian points of view. The return might
be initiated by either the "nationalists", the military or bureaucrats.
These all alternatives were of negative nature.

The totaritarian rule in Russia would lead to isolation of Russia
from the international community. The economic problems of Russia
would mostly remain unsolved and the social problems were dealt with
THE RELATIVELY RAPID MOVEMENT TOWARDS MARKET ECONOMY might
denote a rise in social differences and in inequality. Anyhow,
if the market economy could be established in Russia, it would bring
Russia towards the European system and essentially reduce the
military fears towards Russia.

From the Finnish point of view the movement towards the marked
economy in Russia would reduce the possible tensions in our security
politics. It would denote an intensified competition in the
economy, instead. Moreover, there would be more possibilities to
environmental co-operation between our countries.


THE RETURN TO A TOTALITARIAN SYSTEM would be a negative alternative
from both the Finnish and Russian points of view. The return might
be initiated by either the "nationalists", the military or bureaucrats.
These all alternatives were of negative nature.

The totaritarian rule in Russia would lead to isolation of Russia
from the international community. The economic problems of Russia
would mostly remain unsolved and the social problems were dealt with
more discipline and order, instead. However, the impacts of Russian internal
social problems to the other countries might be temporarily reduced.
Moreover, the environmental catastrophes might be simply covered
and denied by the totalitarian regime.

From the Finnish point of view the tensions in our security politics
would be intensified: an immeadiate decision and re-thinking in foreign
politics would be required. The isolation of Russia would hinder the
development
of the trade between our countries. And the possibilities of Finland to
positively influence the future development in Estonia, Karelia and
St. Petersburg would be drastically reduced.


Comments?


Compiled from Finnish newspapers (mainly, Nykyp{iv{) by
Tapani Hietaniemi, Universitas Helsingiensis
                   urbs fennorum
Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic