Center for Strategic Assessment and forecasts

Autonomous non-profit organization

Home / Politics and Geopolitics / On the national idea / Other
Platform for uniting
Material posted: Publication date: 20-02-2013

About platforms to unite all healthy forces of the national-oriented society has already written more than enough. Why not unification?

Maybe because this platform is not only a product of the intellectual efforts of those or other ideologists. A unifying platform is the result of the harmonization of positions. Moreover, not all possible questions, but on matters most pressing. And, importantly, on the issues on which it is possible to find a compromise. What can and should be the procedure of negotiating positions and trade-offs?

The procedure can be a special – aimed at achieving a compromise between the political forces. And may have totally different source and purpose, but become a kind of side (although for some of the participants initially, maybe, and main) result, it would seem, originally a completely different activity.

Why I'm writing this article? Yes, because have some hope that the seemingly purely economic event – the Moscow economic forum – from my point of view, however, has a chance to become a base for such future Union. Including, because of the objective economic situation around us is so obvious, and the actual course of government is so absurd that it is for economic issues, I think, now it is easier to agree.

Let me explain.


What's wrong?

Recently was faced with a curious question: "what is wrong in the world economy?".

Indeed, what would the world economy whatever happens, we cannot say that something is wrong. For someone everything exactly the way he wants. Or, at least, there is a compromise. If not promptly destroy it, then this compromise for the most powerful in the world is acceptable. The question "what's wrong" can be important from two other perspectives:

  • with obsequiously, that is, public declarations of the purpose of the "world community";
  • from the point of view of the goals and interests of those peoples and countries who find themselves in a disadvantaged position.

Well, according to the public declarations, UN documents, etc., in this very disadvantaged no one at all should not be – the development, such as must inevitably lead to universal prosperity. But such is not, and is not expected. Not because it is impossible, but because such goals seriously no one having power and authority for themselves. And therefore to consider seriously the public Declaration and the mismatch of reality to these declarations will not. Focus only on the unacceptability of the status quo for specific peoples and States, in particular, for us – for Russia.

What's wrong for us? It is obvious: the ongoing scientific-technological and social degradation, leading to a more or less close to the prospect of a complete loss of independence and, as a consequence, the partition of the country more strong and not allow themselves to degrade. At least, the separation from it of a number of regions that the world around us, in our growing industrial and, therefore, defense of the weak, inclined to consider as storehouses of natural resources that should belong to all mankind.

If we consider the territorial integrity of their country as an absolute priority, all other problems and threats can be considered arbitrarily important, but secondary.

So, for us it not the main thing: actually now achievable direction for economic development will not only provide us security assurances, but, on the contrary, in the foreseeable future will inevitably provoke aggression of others against us. Of course, not to Rob us of our – in a modern, civilized and humane world is, like, totally unacceptable. No, we come just to pick up your – what popular at that time universally believed, quite reasonably, would "belong to all mankind". Well, so who then will take advantage of the "province of all mankind" it's clear that the one who is generally stronger. Yeah, besides, and will lead the "liberation campaign of humanity" against those who "unreasonably withhold common heritage".


What to do, what to change?

Such a clear identification of priorities and vision of the threats should refocus our entire economic strategy on the development direction, which solves the main problems and prevent critical threats. That is, no matter how pure it would be neither economically beneficial for us to work exclusively on, say, breeding sheep, but if it does not provide the same level of scientific and technological and industrial development, which will solve the problem of security from external influence, this short-term economic benefits must be sacrificed. For the development of those sectors of the national economy, which may be, and will not bring themselves to the purely economic benefits, which would have brought "sheep". But that will create opportunities to solve the main problem – the protection from external threats and preserve the integrity of the state.

What I have said above does not mean the requirements of overmilitarization economy. Anyway, in a simplified interpretation as the endless production of new weapons. If you talk about militarychannel how about the concept more complex and comprehensive, including focus on the solution of the problem advanced scientific and technological development not for purely commercial reasons, but to ensure national security, then we must admit that this "militarychannel" or more precisely, maybe this mobilization idea, of course, should be the basis of our future economic development.


Development philosophy

If we continue the philosophy of development, as it should be, from my point of view, of course, primary in relation to the questions about economic tools, as the second element of this philosophy I have chosen a renunciation of the understanding of economic activity as simply a transfer of resources, which we inherited from the ancestors, from one form (oil and gas) in another in currency, which we can then buy something in other countries. The question is not whether it is good or bad, should or should not. The issue in basic terms. We need a different understanding. On level: the economy is creating new, added value, and not a translation of the previously created or created by nature in some form.

Of course, a forced transfer of non-renewable natural resources in form of money for us, maybe some time will still be necessary and even justified. But has reached only one – direction of every dollar in its scientific and technological development, its own production of the most important things we need for life, security, defence and achievements in term maximum self-sufficiency.

Hence the third element of the philosophy of development in relation specifically to us – turn our natural resources to their own technological development. It is not about to send it only the profit from the sale of raw materials. Incomparably more important to send to domestic enterprises long-term guaranteed order for industrial and technological equipment for the extraction of raw materials, their processing and transportation. Moreover, key technologies there are dual – use.

The fourth element is a desire for maximum self-sufficiency or, at least, a balance of dependencies. And certainly cannot be considered as a winning prospect of repotting with a "needle" to the other. In particular, "oil and gas needle" to "needle in transit".

Of course, the country's transit potential, i.e., the TRANS-Eurasian freight transportation, particularly by rail, also can and should be used. But not forgetting that to realize this potential, we will be totally dependent on external forces. Therefore, it can not be among our priorities. Moreover, higher priorities than the development of its own high-tech production.

The fifth element – a clear distinction between "businesses" and the relevant sectors of the economy into two unequal groups:

  • industry, promising, at the skillful conduct of the case and the best of circumstances, unlimited profits, however, offset unlimited same risks;
  • industry infrastructure – with a radical limitation of risks, but also the corresponding restriction of profits.

As for the latter, a lot of important and also radical restriction of any non-core assets, expenditure (on football clubs, etc.), and, of course, and the income of top managers – in fact, at the level of income of civil servants. And among these last must relate, in particular, gas and electricity, railway transport, sea and air ports, utilities, etc.

The sixth element – no details, but only philosophically: either we must close the market and to protect its domestic producers of high-tech products, or are obliged to provide for the production of aggregate conditions tax, credit, leasing, level of subsidies, etc. - is guaranteed no worse than the competition.

And here, please note that the path of the first or second – it is a free choice of power. But if none of the above, then it is simply, at least, criminal negligence. And in fact, we understand betrayal.


Behind the development philosophy and economic strategy

At every opportunity, almost every public statement, I look at the ongoing preliminary section of the Moscow economic forum that as the main official event will be held at Moscow state University on 20-21 March. Have already passed sections: agricultural, financial, tax, energy. It is crucial that they involved not only traditional major parties of our "economic forums" – financiers, and raw material enterprises, but also manufacturers of real non-oil sector of the economy. The meetings of these sections (video partially posted online) convincingly showed that there was no secret as to what should be the strategy of economic development of Russia, as well as what tools should be used for its implementation, actually, no. Thus, economic alternative almost ready. Take and fulfill.

What's missing?

Lack of political will.


Watch the hands of the authorities more than in the mouths of its propagandists

Where will this will to genuine, not imitation-PR modernization of economy and social sphere?

Could this be the will of the current government, as the main scenario suggests, in particular, the "Izborsky club"? But then the current government, particularly President Putin, must cancel their own major decisions of the summer-autumn of 2012, which seems, unfortunately, extremely unlikely. It is no wonder that now, when the highest "instruction to the academics" (on the preparation of the alternative economic strategy) have already been given, however, under the Patriotic jingle, the government quietly actively promoting and JSC "Mosfinagentstvo" - prepares you for a natural "dematerialization" five trillion rubles (actually - about one hundred eighty billion dollars because these funds are kept not in rubles and in foreign currencies and liabilities denominated in foreign currency) of our state reserves. And quickens the project "the state Corporation on management of Eastern Siberia and the Far East." The analogy is an evident and understandable "world community": the British crown, as you know, ruled its colonies through, including companies like "East-Indian". If Russia follows this path, then it actually recognizes these territories colonies? So the power explicitly prepares the country to otklonenie from her site, the coveted "world community" as "common heritage of mankind"?


An alternative to dismemberment of the country

If the future development is inextricably linked with the change of government, then we have to create a broad coalition of national-oriented forces. Economic and social platform for this unification, I believe, can and should be the conclusions and recommendations of the Moscow economic forum. If we manage to agree on such decisions on main directions of economic and social policy of the state, which, though not perfectly consistent with the programs of various parties and movements, but would have been acceptable to the majority, is significantly more acceptable than the current rate, then all other tactical differences we could try to put aside.

This broad movement, an important building block in the creation of which is intended to become the Moscow economic forum, should be quite massive and powerful. In order not just to achieve superiority, but to achieve a radical margin is so rigged elections have become inefficient, or even impossible. The walls of Moscow state University. M. V. Lomonosov – a great and even symbolic exit floor ideas alternative development strategies on a wide Russian audience.


Not to expose the organizers of the forum

And the last clause - given the fact that the forum is not political but economic. It is worth noting that if the government suddenly agreed to listen to the findings and recommendations of the forum and take our strategy to execution, and not only in words but in reality, I think most forum members are not upset, but on the contrary, will gladly throw themselves into work to rebuild the country.

There would be a fairy tale ending. A great common cause – the beginning. But I personally, unfortunately, this prospect does not believe. However, to make such a reservation believed necessary.

Yuri Boldyrev


RELATED MATERIALS: Politics and Geopolitics