At the end of last year, a report prepared by the Institute of World War Economy and Strategy of the Moscow Higher School of Economics was presented at the Press Center of the TASS Agency. It is entitled Russia’s policy towards the world majoritybut the importance of this speech for the definition of future Russian politics is demonstrated not only by the topics discussed, but above all by the authors and political supporters of this study.
It is worth saying a few words first about the Institute, because it is a new institution on the Russian intellectual map, even if it seems to play an important role in the politics of the Kremlin. It is headed by Sergei Avakianc, commander of the Pacific Ocean Fleet for 11 years (2012-2023), released into the reserve in April last year, who currently heads, in addition to the Institute, also the staff of the organization responsible for the patriotic education of Russian youth. The Institute, as Sergej Karaganov, who was also involved in its work, stated in one of his recent interviews, will have to develop, together with the elites of the countries of the South of the world, a new “strategy for containing” the West, taking taking into account the lessons of the war in Ukraine, including technological changes, the importance of which for contemporary warfare is difficult to overestimate. The main author of the report is Dmitry Trenin, a well-known Russian specialist in international affairs and, until the outbreak of the war, director of the Russian Carnegie Center. During the USSR period he served for 20 years in the Russian Armed Forces, in which he reached the rank of lieutenant colonel, in the field of communications (probably intelligence) also in the GDR, was a lecturer at Soviet military universities and a participant in talks on disarmament with the United States. Last year Trenin was one of the few Russian experts to support Karaganov’s proposal that Russia, in the struggle for victory in the war in Ukraine, should resort to its nuclear potential, even if this involved the use of this type of weapons. Another collaborator of the Institute, Aleksandr Kramarenko, currently head of one of the institutes of the Russian Diplomatic Academy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and in the past long-standing director and deputy director of the Institute, also participated in the work of the report. the Strategic Planning Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The report was prepared by people who influence Russian politics, which is also confirmed by the fact that its presentation was attended by Alexei Dobrynin, who currently holds the position that Kramarenko previously held. Politicians and experts who contributed to the definition of Russian policy took part in the meetings during which the theses of this document were discussed. It is difficult to list them all, but it is worth mentioning that they included: Sergei Ryabkov, deputy head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Denis Agafonov in the Kremlin administration, as deputy director of the foreign policy department, and Timofei Bardachev, Andrei Sushentsov and Fyodor Lukyanov, program directors of the Valdai Club.
Build a network of alliances, agreements and ad hoc alliances
The authors of the report decided to describe the international situation and Russian politics from a strategic perspective, which means outlining its main contours until 2040. According to them, the current division, which arose in connection with the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, in also the Western bloc, which they call the “world minority”, a union of countries inhabited by about a billion people who have dominated the world so far, and everything else, more often called “the Global South” in Russian fiction called the “world majority”. The objective trends linked to the change in the global situation will lead to a change in the balance of power in the coming years, to Russia’s advantage. New powers such as India or Brazil, but also ambitious regional players (Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia) will emancipate themselves from Western domination. These phenomena will be favored both by the politics of China, which is beginning to build its center of power, and by the weakening of the current leaders, especially of European countries, who are beginning to sink into a multidimensional crisis: demographic, economic and concerning the world of values. The collective West will also weaken because the center of economic development is shifting to Asia, and in the next decade the importance of Africa will increase. However, this does not mean, as they point out, that the “world majority” is a natural ally of the Russian Federation, which is in bitter conflict with the West over the war in Ukraine. This is not the case because, as the authors of the report believe, the world has not been divided into warring or rival blocs. Most of the “world majority”, i.e. the countries of the South, remain neutral towards Russia’s war with the West, but from Moscow’s point of view this attitude is sufficient because it prevents the Federation from remaining politically isolated and also reduces the negative impact of the sanctions. Russia should not, in light of the proposals contained in the report, strive to build around itself a broader political configuration with an anti-Western dimension. The authors do not even believe that China can enter the game by abandoning its current cautious policy. However, the political emancipation of the Global South is becoming a fact and this element should be taken into account in Russian foreign policy over the next twelve years or so. Likewise, tough competition with the West should be considered a permanent factor. There will be no immediate reset, hostility and armed peace will persist for decades to come, especially since, according to the authors of the study, Russia will have to win the war in Ukraine. Any other solution would be dangerous to the Russian civilizational project and would certainly slow down natural and beneficial changes in the global order. The authors of the study propose that Russia strategically “shifts” its diplomacy and policy in other directions in the coming years. It has focused its efforts on building a network of alliances, agreements and ad hoc alliances with non-Western countries. In the immediate dimension, this kind of shift in effort, including a “wide-ranging maneuver on raw materials,” is, on the one hand, intended to ensure that the Russian economy can function normally despite sanctions restrictions, but it is also on the building political consensus for the Kremlin to use Russia’s nuclear potential, because this measure may be necessary to win the war in Ukraine. As they write, since “the West continues to increase the volume of military aid to Kiev until the conditions for carrying out attacks on Russian territory are created, it is advisable to prepare the ruling circles and societies of the world majority countries for the possibility of further l escalation of the conflict, also through political involvement or even – in extreme cases – direct involvement of the nuclear factor. The very discussion on this topic with the political circles and experts of the world majority countries will become a powerful braking factor for the West, breaking his will to take aggressive steps.
However, it is worth understanding the line of argument of Russian experts. Well, they believe that after several hundred years Russia has “finished its journey to the West”, which is now not only entering an era of degeneration of civilization, but, being aware of its problems and the decline of its importance , is becoming a destabilizing factor. Therefore, Muscovites no longer expect anything valuable from the West, and even to maintain their civilized and cultural specificity and ability to survive, they must separate themselves from the “rot” coming from this direction. From this perspective, Russia’s nuclear potential is destined not only to enable victory in Ukraine, because there is no other way to end the war, but above all to facilitate the creation of an armed cordon sanitaire on the western border of the Russian Federation. which will insulate “Russkiy Mir” from disastrous tendencies. This cordon is necessary because the civilizing energy of Russian society must, on the one hand, be directed eastward to develop Siberia, and on the other “inward”, because without an acceleration of technological and scientific progress, the Russia’s future will not matter in the new world. We must start building this new world now, supporting all international initiatives that could lead to a decline in the importance of institutions created by the West. The sooner the world moves away from the dollar, from American dominance in scientific research and implementation, and from international institutions that work in the interests of the West, the sooner and more easily Russia will take its rightful place in the new global order. It will not be about the network of alliances built by Moscow. The report’s authors realistically assess the prospects of such a policy and believe that we will instead be dealing with a colorful and rapidly evolving map of ad hoc alliances around pragmatically understood goals. In Asia, Russia should not only maintain current good relations with China, but also intensively “invest” in relations with India, develop north-south communications (Iran and Azerbaijan), stabilize the situation in Central Asia and strengthen ties with Vietnam and the Far East. military in the government of Myanmar. As for policy in this area, the authors of the report, which is worth highlighting, do not propose the construction of a Russian-Chinese strategic alliance, although they are obviously interested in good relations between Moscow and Beijing. Aware of the inequality of potentials, they actually advocate a balanced, multidimensional policy of balancing Chinese influence with relations with Delhi, Tehran or Hanoi. This is, of course, a vision of the game in the Asian family of nations, after the Anglo-Saxons were driven from the continent. When this happens, when it becomes clear to everyone that the Americans have lost the ability to influence the situation in Asia, then, as the authors of the report probably predict somewhat exaggeratedly, Japan and South Korea may also join the conventional.” Asian bloc”, a de facto agreement between countries interested in keeping the West away from the interests of a continent that will transform into the center of world development. This task will last decades, but for Russia to participate in the new global order, it must immediately change the institutional form of its foreign policy. It should put more effort into developing cooperation with countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, focus on the BRICS, conclude local alliances and agreements, and should not count on any warming in relations with the West. Here there will be a “winter” and hostility for decades, which means that, in light of the proposals contained in the report, Russia must be prepared for a long period of tough competition in which soft power will not count. The authors of the report even consider the emphasis on soft influence as an attempt by the West to impose on Russia ways of thinking about what tools should be used to conduct policies unfavorable to its interests, and believe that the importance of hard power is growing, especially in the new unstable times.
Conflicting West?
This attachment to military tools stems from the belief that in the coming years the West, aware of the decline of its capabilities and influence in the world, will strive to clash and become a more cohesive and aggressive bloc within itself. Currently, they believe, the “Russian bogeyman” is one of the tools to maintain the cohesion of the weakening European Union, and in the future the Americans will strive to destabilize the situation in some regions of the world, because only in this way will they be able to prevent the formation of political institutions common to the “world majority”. Russia, which, in their opinion, was the first to actively oppose Western hegemony and has no intention of giving up its sovereignty and civil and cultural identity, is for this very reason “targeted”.
Russia should be a separate civilization
If you read the report Russia’s policy towards the world majority not through the prism of controversial theses about the direction of the evolution of the world order, but in relation to the current situation, an intellectual justification of the current Kremlin line should be considered. Russia should be a separate civilization, an authoritarian state that wages or is capable of waging war at any time, because such a system facilitates survival in difficult times and actively destroys, wherever possible, the existing value-based Western order . It will also be a militarized state, which will protect itself thanks to its nuclear capabilities and will use all its potential, still considerable, to damage the West. It will become a destroyer of the existing order and will wait, just like the USSR after the Bolshevik revolution, for the opportune moment to kill the hated order. Moscow will also count on favorable, from its point of view, changes in the ruling elites of Western countries, which means constant efforts to destabilize the internal situation in NATO countries. Indeed, the “Russian turn toward a global majority” proposed by the report’s authors aims to serve one purpose: to strengthen Russia and prepare it for decades-long struggles with the West.
2024-01-01 18:30:10
#Russias #policy #world #majority