Where to look for "positive"?

It was at a conference in the European capital located much south of Moscow. Instead of the ice and dirty slurry that was bored during the winter - flowering wood, camellia and cherry. The sky is blue, the sun shines. I want to believe in the best. And the conference, damn it, is devoted to safety problems and Russian approaches to it. And it is quite obvious to all participants that no matter how many buttons with meaningful inscriptions Sergey Lavrov pressed, Moscow policy will not change. There will be no new agreement with the United States on strategic weapons. As there will be no new agreement on European security proposed by Medvedev, which, from the point of view of the Kremlin, should be a list of unilateral obligations of Western states. Moreover, everyone is just as obvious that Moscow only won from the war in Georgia and unilateral recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The frightened West has not only returned to the notorious Business As Usual, but even ready to talk about guarantees for compliance with some special Russian interests (which are in fact boiling to “hold and not let go”) in the post -Soviet space.

And at the same time, an obvious, of all the cracks, a climbing request of the conference organizers to the Russian participants: well, please tell us something positive. For example, that due to the erupting economic crisis, Vladimir Putin will be forced to modify the ambitions, become white and fluffy. Or - that Medvedev is as a secret liberal and should he get rid of the guardianship of the “senior king”, as he will immediately become a series of the main violins of the “pan -European orchestra”. The host severely broke off those who tried to say that nothing particularly positive was expected at all. Instead, with visible pleasure, he discussed the “initiatives”, the meaning of which was reduced to the fact that it would be nice to organize another West-Russian “Council of sages”, which certainly could develop joint approaches to security.

The presenter could be understood: the institute is funded by the government. And it is waiting for anything, just not listing their own mistakes made in the Russian direction (I well remember how four years ago diplomats from this country convinced me that Vladimir Putin would ensure the integration of Russia into a pan -European space).

Honestly, this search for positive looked if not stupid, then it is somehow very helpless. And the Russian participants began to periodically run away from the hall, in order to stand in the sun, and not to experience feelings of awkwardness.

At some point, I turned out to be with our very famous and authoritative expert. Having played plenty of the difficulties that the organizers of the conference faced, this highly liberal -minded person began to tell what wonderful ideas he managed to stick into a foreign policy report prepared for Medvedev, “well, a very serious department”. For my taste, all the transcendental courage of these proposals was reduced to things obvious, if not, banal. For example, to the statement that the actions of the West is not necessary at all the desire to humiliate Russia or damage its security. I did not hide my skepticism.

“And you, I look, completely relaxed in the sun,” my interlocutor reacted instantly. “I forgot that we have frost so far?” And they can hold out for a long, long time. In these conditions, to resemble the authorities that twice two four are already a feat. And I committed him. "

With these words, he hurried into a completely meaningless conference.

Suddenly, I realized how much he was associated with European officials, the limitations of which he had just chuckled. Both the Russian liberal and Western diplomats are well aware of what Putin's “sovereign democracy” is. They are aware that it can evolve only to even more rigid authoritarianism, and not at all to normal democracy. To educate the leaders of this regime regarding how international affairs are really arranged - the lesson is completely meaningless. Living in the representations of the 19th century Real Politik for the inhabitants of the Kremlin and the Russian White House is not just convenient-it is extremely profitable. They built all their foreign policy on denial. “Do not touch us”, “Yes, you all went” - that’s what Russian foreign policy initiatives are actually reduced to. Obviously, no positive program will be found in them, no matter how you try. Nothing will come out of nothing, as the classic used to say.

But what to do in this case, both Western officials and domestic liberals ask themselves. It is impossible to criticize the bloody regime all the time, they say in one voice (as if they were really engaged in those who were subjected to this regime to criticize). Therefore, it is concluded: in order to prevent Russia's rolling to greater authoritarianism, it should be involved in every possible way to participate in various projects that are important to all for all. And when there are no one, they must be specially invented. These initiative are called from the finger and call a positive program.

In fact, in the reasoning of both domestic liberals and Western diplomats there is an obvious flaw. They believe that the current regime is forever. Meanwhile, the rottenness of this kingdom is obvious - it is unable to act effectively during the crisis.

And to think today to both Western analysts and domestic liberals need to build a foreign policy after Putin. It's time to think about what a democratic Russia is not Putin’s in world politics. How to ensure that it becomes a worthy member of the community of Western democratic states. This, as it seems to me, is a completely non -banal task. It was not able to solve it in the 90s under Yeltsin, when both as a result of the Western egoism, and thanks to the post-Persian complexes of the domestic elite, Russia went on the road that brought it to the current impasse. Will the West be ready in the conditions of the economic crisis to provide Russia with technological and financial assistance, comparable in volume and significance with the Marshall plan? Is Moscow capable of finding a different role for itself, except for the role of the eternal opponent of the West? Is she able to refuse for the sake of prosperity from the role of nuclear superpower? Is it able to integrate into the North Atlantic community?

These are not premature issues at all. As the events of the early 90s showed, it was impossible to look for an answer to them in the conditions of an growing crisis either for Moscow or the West. A honest search seems to me fundamentally important. In the end, snowdrifts are in Moscow.