If the author of these lines lived at the turn of XIX - XX centuries and he would have had to determine the most influential centers of power, he would list exactly those countries that now run the show of world politics, i.e. the U.S., England, Russia, Germany, France, Japan and China. In the twenty-first century the question is only what is called each of these countries: the nation-state or large space?

The captains of the twenty-first century

The United States has entered the third Millennium in the form of economically exhausted, but still the most influential of the Imperial formation, which has a chance to save (for the next twenty years) a decisive role in Latin America, Europe, the middle East and Japan only dividing power in Eurasia, with two players - Russia and the European Union. The decline in the purchasing power of the dollar, coupled with rising national debt and the budget deficit will be from year to year to reinforce the concern of the US monetary authorities; they will with greater zeal to observe the increasing on this background, pound and Euro, which for the first time in history will create the Alliance of America and Russia (on the basis of Russian gold reserves) which replaced the former Alliance between Washington and London imposed on the results of the last two world wars.

In this coordinate system, Russia remains a Eurasian great power, the successor of the ancient Slavic culture, the fate of the key intrigue of our day. In a historical sense, our country is a modern equivalent of the Mongol nomadic Empire, connecting the steppes of Central Asia with the Old world, now thirsting for emancipation. Despite the disastrous "restructuring" and the chaos of the 1990s, Russia still resembles Atlas, holding on his shoulders the responsibility for Northern Eurasia and, as a consequence, the entire supercontinent. And always will be, regardless of the quality of the Russian elite, the degree of dedication and intelligence. The formed the world order, Moscow has still not determined the borders in the West and the East; and this should be addressed by the leadership of the country in the next decade. We have to re-recreate the Imperial project, United under his banner more than 200 million people, which will allow to protect domestic business from foreign attacks, to reduce its dependence on external markets and target earned capital on the development of internal infrastructure. Only in this case the Russian people will be able to fully disclose the advantages of their culture and realize their own historical mission.

As expected, the European Union, which absorbed the twenty-seven nation States will become in the twenty-first century as an indispensable platform for the application of imperialistic plans of Germany, that this time will happen with the help of financial and economic power in German industry and banks. France, driven by strategic interests on the continent and commitment around a single currency will strengthen the cooperation with Berlin, it will keep Albion from the ideas of complex integration. The Commonwealth will become the last hope of the Bank of England to an independent existence from the ECB and the fed.

In geo-economic terms, the increasing dependence of EU countries on external supplies of energy (primarily Russian gas) will only accelerate the political rapprochement between Russia and Germany, will stimulate the struggle for gas and oil fields of Iran and Syria that will bring havoc on the whole space of the greater Middle East.

These circumstances will make further adjustments to the strategy of China; the world order formed in Beijing will be extremely vulnerable due to eksportoorientirovannoj its economic structure. Slow recovery of global demand after the crisis will only increase the internal pressure on the regime. The only strategic goal of China in the first half of the present century - not an aggressive foreign policy, as claimed by some Western and Russian experts, and the preservation of the territorial integrity of the country through the re-orientation of products on the domestic market. Endogenous problems of China (including ageing of the working population) will make it more pliable in negotiations with the United States [1].

In turn, minimization of direct threats from Beijing Tokyo will provide freedom to maneuver: Japan will continue to increase military capabilities at sea and in the air, secured trade and communication. Technological and financial strength of Japanese corporations will liken the country of Britain 1920-1930-ies, which was not so powerful to shape the world order in their own way, but not so weak to submit to external circumstances without large-scale armed conflict.

By mid 2020-ies in Asia will loudly declare themselves another leader, India, with the greatest potential (amongst the rest of the BRICS) economic growth: the decline of the working age population will happen much later than it is to take place in China (population policies of Mao Zedong) and Russia. The numerical advantage of the Indians in the workforce will be accompanied by the cheapness of their intellectual resources (relative to the countries of the Big eight), which will allow new Delhi to make a breakthrough in the technological development of the economy. From a strategic point of view, cautious of China's foreign policy in the region (Pakistan, with its territorial ambitions towards India will still lose the support of Beijing) will only strengthen the resolve of Hindus to build power superiority over potential adversaries [1].

In a planetary sense, the world order of the first half of the twenty-first century will feature unprecedented redistribution of power among political players. The reason for that's the infinite movement of financial resources of the American-European aristocracy in the most blighted areas of investment. Never before has America, Russia, EU, China, Japan and India all been strong at the same time; usually in international relations attended the rigid form of domination - the sole dictatorship of one state or a maximum of two (be it Britain, USA or USSR).

The BRICS or the Eurasian Union?

All integration associations compete with each other. This is the world of politics. However, with the BRICS and the Eurasian Union is a bit more complicated. The core of the first group is China, and the second - Russia. Even if we imagine a real fight, these groups (which is still incredible), our country will not hesitate to choose the Eurasian Union, where we prelubed hands will be the locomotive: the BRICS overnight will lose part of its name. For the Russian leadership, the BRICS - not that other, as a representative forum where you can meet colleagues from other countries and to discuss topical issues of bilateral cooperation. Nothing more.

As you know, the acronym BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) was proposed by analyst Goldman Sachs J. O'neil in November 2001 to calculate the economic potential of countries outside the club - Big seven. From the beginning the founder don't put it in the political sense. After accession in 2011 to the group of South Africa also changed nothing. Despite the fact that these countries occupy more than 25 % of land, concentrate 40 % of the world population and have a combined gross domestic product (GDP) 15,435 trillion. $ they (in addition to mutual consultation) do not conduct a coordinated economic policy that would protect their interests in the era of neoliberal globalization. The only thing that the members of the group try to oppose America's intention to move to national currencies in mutual trade; but further statements business is not. China and Russia can't afford such a luxury; the refusal of Beijing and Moscow at a time from the dollar will collapse the American and global economy, plunging into chaos without exception, all national States. Obviously in this scenario is not in anyone's interest. Needless to remind that the BRICS are the largest holders of U.S. government bonds, they indirectly lend to dollar hegemony [1].

The world after 2008 are still waiting for political changes no less significant than after the great depression 1929-1932 the global economic Crisis has demonstrated the inability of most nation States to determine their future. We are witnessing the strengthening of transnational institutions like the UNSC, the IMF and the world Bank, not to mention international banking networks (mainly Anglo-American), pushes through its credit policy the situation around the Eurozone and other currency systems.

Given the regional rivalry of China and India, mutual distrust of Russia and China, BRICS is unlikely to be able to build (if ever puts before itself such purpose) effective governance structure, which each participant delegates part of its sovereignty. In the case of the Eurasian Union is different: the Association has an undeniable leader to Moscow. Even Washington, with its growing ambitions in the CIS is unable to replace Russian rule: a shortage of manpower speaks for itself.

In comparison with BRICS, the Eurasian Union project has a huge potential for self-realization. This is not only the fact that the share of the countries-participants of the Union accounts for about 20% of the world's raw material resources; space of the Customs Union, EurAsEC, SES and the CSTO is based on tsarist and Soviet historical and cultural legacy. Before 1991, our Nations have been United in a single Imperial education, the power which guaranteed their security. The same BRICS countries, scattered across different continents, can not boast of similar examples of the brotherhood. Being a single land space, the Eurasian Union has the chance to become a unified Imperial education, in the words of P. Savitsky, "state-land".

Specificity and problems of Russian Eurasia

The stability of the Eurasian Union is entirely dependent on the political will of the Russian leadership, of its creative charge. If the European Union was created primarily by transnational corporations, which on its territory there are now 161, the driving force of the Eurasian project is Russia, a tightening of the economic power of affiliated with government corporations (only 7 of them have the status of TNCs).

A key threat to the Eurasian Union is the depopulation of Russia. To resolve this problem and should start. If we fail to save the gene pool of state-forming ethnos (i.e., Russian), everything else is meaningless.

Being a world nuclear power, Russia is able to defend themselves and their potential partners in the Eurasian Union against direct armed attack, but it should be remembered that missile warheads will hardly help to overcome the demographic hole and the de-industrialization of the industry. More complicated is the situation with inflationary burden of the economy: despite the fact that government officials declare 8% inflation, in reality (in terms of increasing prices), it reaches about 20%. With such indicators it is simply impossible to create integration. (For comparison, inflation in the territory of the Euro area does not exceed 1.5%). Building the Eurasian Union, we strive for autarky, which is realistic only if Russia and its partners on the future of the Union will return to the gold standard, the dream incarnate of S. Y. Witte in the beginning of XX century. It is a gold-backed ruble will allow to accumulate funds from all over the world for the construction of a Eurasian Empire, to create independent from Washington and Brussels the foreign exchange and stock markets.

Along with the above challenges, the authors of the Eurasian project it is important to remember: we don't have those fifty years, which was available to the countries of Western Europe to create the EU; the Europeans were moving from the development of economic relations to political, and we, as always, are forced to subordinate the economy to the policy. Now we are seeing the final stage of the struggle of transnational pressure groups for resources of the greater Middle East (it is a consequence of the "Arab spring" and civil war in Libya and Syria), which in the next decade is likely to push humanity in a large-scale conflict. Under such external conditions, to launch the Eurasian Union on the design capacity of the stock is 7 - 10 years, not more.

The BRICS and the Eurasian Union: the probable points of intersection

The fate of the BRICS and the Eurasian Union only intersect at one point - the United Nations. With the exception of Russia and China, the other BRICS members need the political recognition of their great power status in the Security Council, which is a matter of time. The UN, concerned about the legitimization of the decisions at the supranational level, in the next 10 - 15 years will aim at the expansion of the permanent security Council members. This focus on the BRICS is likely to become a platform, on which will be tested the idea theorists "new world order" on creation (on the basis of the UN security Council) of the Council of Management.

After all, since the beginning of the BRICS served in the role of integration associations, as the forum representing partially Eurasia, Africa, and Latin America. The number of members this club may increase dramatically (at the expense of countries outside the Western classical world); for greater representativeness of the BRICS, for example, not enough participants from North America (Canada and Mexico), Middle East (Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran), Eastern (Japan and South Korea) and Southeast Asia (Indonesia). This format, seeming now fiction may well become reality tomorrow. However, with the only condition that economic interdependence will increase in the world, and protectionist barriers of nation States, current after the global crisis of 2008 will be consigned to history. Only a multilateral commitment will help to overcome long-standing formula of our day: the more countries, the more difficult to negotiate.

However, the key problem lies not in the negotiation plane, and in the models of international economic relations, its dollars-centered nature. Despite the enthusiastic advertising of the BRICS Anglo-American mass media, positioning the club as formed the nucleus of global capitalism, this Association is still a kind of planetary factory, supplying America, Europe and Japan, labor and land (capital belongs to the West).

In this sense, the Eurasian Union, is able to accumulate the tangible and intangible capabilities of the former Soviet Union, is the last chance to reaffirm Russia's leadership role in the world order of the first half of the twenty-first century. The difference is that the Communist project of Moscow focused on Central and Eastern Europe and the Eurasian project will focus on Central and Eastern Asia. Returning to our sphere of influence Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan and Mongolia, we actually gain control of the main communication artery of Eurasia, connecting the East and West, Europe and Asia.

The most paradoxical: the EU and the U.S., have already felt the fragility of the current balance of power on the Eurasian supercontinent, will be forced to support the initiatives of unification with Russia; the humanity is on the verge of creating a planetary triumvirate.

References:

1. The future of Eurasia: the BRICS or the Eurasian Union? The sustainability of alliances // Materials of the round table, may 25, 2012
The center for strategic estimates and projections: http://www.csef.ru/pdf/3330.pdf
 

Tags: Russia , strategy , national idea , geopolitics