Friend or foe? The great Russian debate

The sending of Russian bombers to test-fire missiles in the Bay of Biscay yesterday comes as a debate rages in Russia about how the country should regain its national pride.

Argumenty I Fakty, the respected weekly newspaper read by 3m Russians, asked last week whether Russia should, in effect, become a 'second America' and attempt to return to its former Soviet greatness by arming itself as though it were still a superpower? If so, this would mean flexing military might at every available opportunity.

Or should Mother Russia accept that she cannot hope to equal or beat America and that perhaps social and commercial development ­ - not brute force - ­ are the solution?

In Argumenty I Fakty, Alexander Dugin (right), director of Russia's Centre of Geopolitics, argued that Russia must crush her enemies and do whatever is necessary to become a military adversary to America. "Looking at our territory, resources and history, Russia is never going to become a quiet, 'vegetarian' country," he wrote. "Russia must become America's equal. The alternative is simple: either we become our own masters ­ or our fate will be in someone else's hands."

If the US can invade Iraq and get away with it, he added, Russia should not be afraid to protect her own interests ­ as in Georgia, for example. "In order for America not to beat Russia we will need to be as cruel and aggressive as the Americans." Russia, he believes, is not far off becoming a great European empire.

In reply, the liberal Nikolai Zlobin, US-based director of the Institute of World Peace, argued that Russia is making dangerous allies by siding with Iran, Syria and North Korea at the moment - and that the US and Europe should not be Russia's enemies but her business partners.

"There is nothing worse in politics than unpredictability," wrote Zlobin (right), "and at the moment no-one knows what Moscow will do next. We are ruining our relationship with Europe and America." In the meantime Western investors are pulling out of Russia, he warned. "We can never beat America: it's an uneven fight. We can only learn lessons from the US."

There are other ways to build a proud and strong country, Zlobin went on: by developing a healthcare system which is the envy of the world, by producing goods the whole world wants to buy and by eliminating corruption. Russia, he implied, is a long way off all these goals ­ and could do with concentrating on her considerable domestic problems before expanding the defence budget.

The renewed debate about Russia's future as a world power was sparked by the Kremlin's decision in December to suspend its participation in the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty (CFE), a move over which Nato expressed 'deep regret'. The CFE is an arms control agreement which goes back to the Cold War and imposes limits on weaponry and troop movement across Europe. Russia is no longer happy to sign up to it in the light of US plans to establish missile defences in central Europe.

Many Russians saw Russia's withdrawal from the CFE as a positive, belligerent sign. The same people applauded Putin's resumption of long-range bomber patrols last year, which culminated yesterday in the RAF scrambling jet fighters as Russian Tu-160 bombers approached British airspace en route to the Bay of Biscay.

The conclusion so far? Argumenty I Fakty announced its verdict in an editorial: "Now the world considers our [Russia's] politics aggressive. But were we any better off 10 or 15 years ago when we were considered weak and lowly, dancing to the West's tune?" Aggression, it seems, is always better than weakness. ·