Archived Articles

Simeon Mitropolitski is a Canadian analyst, of Bulgarian origin, and a former syndicated columnist with the Bulgarian News Agency (BTA). He is the author of several hundred articles dealing with hot political and economic topics, both national and international.

He was part of the first group of Bulgarian intellectuals and students that began the opposition movement that finally put an end to the communist regime in this country in 1989, and in 1996-1997 participated in international observation teams during the elections in several Balkan countries - Romania, Albania and Bulgaria.

In 2002 Simeon and his family moved from Bulgaria to Canada where they live now in Montreal, province of Quebec. Simeon is a Master of Political Science from McGill University and a B.A. of Political Science and History.

Global Real Estate Project
News Index

Directories
  Int'l Realty
  US Realty

The U.S. and the Russian presidents G. Bush and V. Putin had a meeting of their minds. They took what they needed most and left what they needed least at their summit meeting in Bratislava, Slovakia. Bush will have Russian support on the Iranian and the North Korean nuclear programs, on the fight against the terrorism, on the peace building in Afghanistan and Iraq. Putin will have free hands to do what he wants to in reforming Russia and also will have the American support in joining the WTO. Choosing between more security for his country and defending the democracy in Russia Bush opted for the former. Choosing between strengthening his regime and making international troubles to the American superpower Putin also opted for the former. The result will be more stable world dominated by the U.S. with more authoritarian and arguably more prosperous Russia ruled by Putin and his team of former KGB colleagues. The only unclear point so far is the fate of some former Soviet Union republics, whether or not they will be given a right of free development.

To begin with, the U.S.-Russia political summit was not between two governments or two states. It was between one state and one regime. What's the difference? The state acts as or at least tries to act as a unitary actor. It calculates the states' best interests in terms of security and power and acts accordingly trying to maximize its benefits and minimize its costs. The regime also acts as a unitary actor. Its main goal isn't to benefit the state but only the regime. To put it more simply, if a state has to choose between the interests of the state and the personal interests of its top politicians, it would prefer the state interests, or at least this is in theory. If a regime has to make the same choice, it would always choose the interests of preserving the regime even if this contradicts the state interests.

In Bratislava Bush was ready to sacrifice the Russian democracy because the political regime in Russia doesn't make per se the U.S. more or less secure. What Bush wasn't prepared to sacrifice was the U.S. security, the issues of Iran and North Korea. Putin was ready to sacrifice its old-new allies Iran and North Korea. They are useful when there is a need to bother the Americans. They become useless when the Americans are ready to acknowledge the Putin's regime. What Putin wasn't ready to make a compromise on was his own regime. If in Bratislava the talks were between two regimes or two states, the technology of negotiations would have been very different. Here around the table there was only one state and only one regime; it was easy to make a deal provided the state gave up its intentions to change the regime.

The results of Bratislava may surprise only those who have believed that Bush would press Putin to democratize Russia. To democratize Russia would mean to make the Putin's regime less stable, which on the other hand would make Russia less predictable in dealing with sensitive issues like Iran and North Korea. Once Bush has made clear that he doesn't want a regime change in Russia Putin was ready to make reciprocal concessions. Bush may count on the Russian support on Iran and North Korea; Russia may count on the U.S. support for joining the WTO, no more fresh investments, and on stabilizing the regime. Only one point remains unclear. What will be the fate of some former Soviet Union states that haven't been already included into the western structures? Will they become a part of the Putin's new Russia? Or of new Europe? Or will hey be divided like Eastern Europe between Stalin and Churchill in late 1944? Do you remember the famous "50% for us, 50% for you"?