In 2012, Russia was acting on the international stage in the spirit of vulgar geopolitics, when the results get unceremoniously. Despite condulet foreign policy for Russia 2012 was a successful, well-known Russian analyst Sergei Karaganov.
Sergey, what, in Your opinion, were the main trends of Russian foreign policy in the past year?
Russian foreign policy in 2012 has evolved in the spirit of the trends of recent years. That is, Moscow has behaved in the international arena, to put it plainly, quite dirty, but very successful. But if we speak in political terms, very traditionalist, in the spirit of XVIII-XIX centuries. In fairness, I note that our partners are conducting the same policy, however, terrified at the scope of several large appearances (though these appearances, if you look at their actions in the middle East, there is little left). In this situation Russia is acting quite skillfully, believing that the rest of the world slips into vulgar politics. Structurally, is it? No. Is it right? I do not know. However, in the current coordinate system, Russian policy was more winning and far more successful than any other major country except China. Yes, and he began to get involved in the conflict.
What is evident in relations with the West?
Obviously, Russia's foreign policy became increasingly annoying part of the Western partners, first, rigidity, and secondly, deliberate defiant disregard towards their views and interests. In the West's relations with Russia in the past year was characterized by the disillusionment caused by the four-year reign of Dmitry Medvedev. For many, it was very comfortable. He allowed them painless to pretend that Russia is not what it actually is. She modernizarea. Though actually, perhaps, the fastest de-modernization in Russia since the revolutionary crisis of the early 1990-ies has taken place in the last four years. It is, however, not due solely to the actions and decisions of Dmitry Medvedev. All of us it was nice to do nothing. And curlykat about modernization. However, with his departure to lie to myself and others has become impossible, and the dissatisfaction with Russian foreign policy came to the surface.
Domestic policy, meanwhile, has developed a well-known way: spot the repression of the opposition and partial political liberalization. On the above background, targeted repression, and created a situation, when was considered, that Russia is indecent to operate in the open (although cooperating at all). In addition, it is hoped that Russia can exert pressure. The "Magnitsky act", of course, would not be developed in the U.S. Congress and the Russian Parliament. But it is a reflection of deeper trends in relations between Russia and the West. This does not mean that we do not need to do anything in connection with cases like the story of Sergei Magnitsky. An investigation by the Council on human rights under the President, leaves little doubt that there was. But despite the outrageousness of this story, the "Magnitsky Act", unfortunately, is not care about human rights, but a political signal against Russia. And attempts to undermine Obama's "reset". The answer is exactly the same political signal on the principle of "fuck you". It reminds me of not fighting for some principles, and the competition of two boys who then spit. It is a pity that we have yet again slipped into my bad, but a cheerful youth.
However, the ban on adoptions by Americans of Russian children, including the sick who are abandoned in Russia — in fact (but not de jure) offer to exchange the refusal to prosecute possible criminals for refusing to give sick children — causes heavy feeling. The ruling elite lost the moral sense. We, despite partial economic and political revival, still spiritually sick country.
In Russia, few people take seriously the criticism of the West — first, because we are now independent, and secondly, because, unfortunately, the West has suffered several moral, economic and political failures. And may lose the aura of a moral leader and a winner, on which you want to be. It's sad for Russia. In it from time immemorial wanted to live "like in Europe". The lost moral leader.
How effective would You consider to be the Russian position in the most acute conflict 2012 — Syrian?
Russian policy on Syria was just masterful. We have not got into a conflict, have not joined any one party. We are not "cheated" of a person, perceived by our client. Although he was rather, like all local relatively enlightened dictators, a client of the West. But, on the other hand, nobody can say that we supported Assad. We were such a policy, which compared to other looked the most reasonable. It is no coincidence that she has the support of the greater part of the non-Western world and is well understood even in Israel. Another thing is that in the West, whose policy in the middle East is desperate madness, would after Gaddafi "to throw" Russian hands, and even Assad, to show that the West is still strong. Let me remind you that behind the attempts to overthrow Assad are not only outraged by the corruption and authoritarian regime to the masses as the most conservative and reactionary Sunni regimes of the Persian Gulf, which overthrow one by one the corrupt, but secular regimes in the middle East, plunging into a spiral of degradation. Russia, I repeat, do not got into a conflict, and one of the partners, who will get, once again, remember to constantly forget the truth — "who climbed to the middle East, he lost." It happened with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, with the US and NATO in Afghanistan and Iraq. Even in Libya, the victory was largely Pyrrhic — is the collapse of the country and complete degradation of the social order, and as a result, of course, will come the anti-Western forces. And Iraq is falling apart.
Another acute problem is the controversy over the U.S. missile defense...
A very curious story about us ABOUT. It occupies a disproportionately large place in Russian public consciousness and in the current policy. The European missile defense system, which, of course, is no threat to Russia to present in the foreseeable future can not. This is easy to see, if you carefully read even the statements of our military: they talk about the third and fourth phases of the European missile defense in the style of "when pigs fly". It seems to me that the debate ABOUT Russia just imposed in order to eliminate the need to negotiate the reduction of nuclear weapons. We not going to cut it, but, on the contrary, more rely on them in a situation of deep reform of the Armed forces.
Not turn this, as You say, discussion of a new arms race?
No race, of course, will not. Another thing is that in the almost total absence of serious discussion of military construction there is a growing risk that arms purchases in Russia will get out of control. Of course, before extravagantly of the Soviet era will not come — there it was on the amounts ten times larger. The whole country was a military camp. However, it's a shame if such mistakes will be made. But this is the problem of our political system. Even in the late Soviet times, the discussions on defence policy were more.
I don't think the change of defense Minister, which was appointed to do exactly what I did (I'm not talking about possible violations), will result in any significant change of course for a radical reform of the Armed forces. The course will continue, and this means that we will create Armed forces ready to deal with conflicts low and medium intensity in all directions. That is, in fact, Armed forces will leave and they are leaving from, you might say, centuries-old traditional focus on confrontation with the West. For containment of the West and any other obstacles we will have a nuclear weapon. However, the West and don't need to hold back — he's got no strength for any serious action. The vast majority of the European countries Armed forces and military spending reduced so powerfully and confidently that their military potential is already close to the symbolic level. With the United States we have, apparently, no such large differences, which could lead to real political conflicts. Although beyond the horizon anything can happen. In any case, I have repeatedly had occasion to notice that the Armed forces in the current world that is becoming more unpredictable, necessary, and it is clear that their role begins to grow quiet again. But Russia is in the coming years will be in a unique position: for the first time in more than thousand years of history she really does not threaten anybody. This is a very unusual situation, we see how difficult the Russian ruling elite, and the Russian population is adapting to this reality. We've learned that we are all the time someone is in danger, and are willing to organize themselves only in response to external threat, and have to organize themselves without it. And need to organize themselves. We need to stand together and fight for a new Russia. Rather than continuing to share the rent, envying those who steal her pieces, get the pieces and became frondeurs, eat her crumbs and shut up. We are ringing in the ideological and moral emptiness and inaction. As the world develops. And we — and the country, and society is rapidly losing competitiveness.
This is the main problem of Russian foreign policy. But the questions are not to the mid — to us.
Source: Daily journal
- 11-03-2019How to change the world, when the Earth's population will reach 10 billion
- 09-09-2018Le Monde (France): We come to the point where globalization is too expensive
- 02-05-2018Technology: 35-forecasts to 2018
- 22-03-2018"Digital state": how they have evolved
- 08-03-2018Welcome to the new world: a map of the opposing blocks of the XXI century
- 04-07-2012Russia cooking oil blockade and the collapse of the scenario of the 80-ies
- 23-12-2012The Vedic understanding of state policy
- 22-11-2013In the archives of the "world government"
- 08-01-2014Of a mega-Church and their communication strategies
- 08-11-2012The main threat to peace or a recipe for success