Around Russia

The results of the year. Change of rhetoric

January 1, 2010 Alexander Golts

Summing up the results of the year, you are always looking for an image, a quote, a fact that the contradictions and the main trends of the past 12 months would most clearly affect. This time I was lucky. Here is a quote, perfectly describing, in my opinion, changes that have occurred in Russian foreign policy: “Modelity is important in determining and defending national interests ... Experience showed: excessive maximalism and unreality of proclaimed national interests and goals, the desire to realize them at all costs of realizing a confrontation foreign policy, leading to the undermining of the economy and a complete crash of falsely understood ideals.” What do you think, who owns this purely affected text, aimed at ensuring that our Great Fatherland never rises from the knees? Prospering researchers, such as Lilia Shevtsova or Dmitry Train (by the way, in the past year, each of them wrote from a wonderful, deep book on Russian foreign policy)? Miserable political margins who jamming at the gates of foreign embassies?

It was not at all. Words, the meaning of which boils down to the fact that the legs should be extended exclusively by clothing, belong to Mahmuth Akhmetovich Gareev, Army General, President of the Academy of Military Sciences. I must say that for more than the first decade I carefully follow what this military leader does and says. The trick is small in the general line with the general line. The strategic talent of Mahmuth Akhmetovich lies in the unique ability to predict ... No, not the actions of the enemy, but the words that are about to break from the language of the main Russian chiefs. Gareev felt in 2001 Putin's irritation to the state of affairs in the military sphere and timely proposed a completely liberal draft military reform. And a few years later, he turned 180 degrees and began to talk about how Russia could respond with military means to non -military threats, such as “information pressure” and “orange revolutions”. Moreover, Gareev then claimed that the United States is already unable to "carry the burden of the world leader." And that the time of Russia has come to perform is no more than nor less - as in the role of the “geopolitical arbitrator” in the conditions of the confrontation of the United States and the rest of the world.

And now, it turns out that the role of the “geopolitical arbitrator” in Moscow is not for money. Actually, the whole year has gone to the realization of a simple fact. In early 2009, Vladimir Putin was ready to spend a billion dollars in order to realize his dream and force the Kyrgyz authorities to throw the American base from the territory of the republic. The attempt ended with the most humiliating way for Russia - President Bakiev took money and limited himself to renamed the American base into a certain “Transit Center”.

And then there was very little money. And even the faithful Alexander Grigoryevich Lukashenko began to “throw” over and over again: he refused to recognize Abkhazia with Southern Ossetia, and with joining (purely formal) to participate in the collective forces of operational response, he simply pulled indecently long for a long time. Lukashenkovo ​​difficulties can be understood - the Belarusian father every time decides which tranche from Moscow will be the last. And the Kremlin is forced to endure it.

Further - more.

The drop in oil prices had a serious impact on the Putin foreign policy strategy. It consisted in artificially forcing the leaders of the leading countries of the West to return to the agenda of the 80s and discuss military security issues with the Kremlin. Moscow diligently pretended that she seriously feels a threat. It is from the part of the United States that were going to expand the elements of the global missile system (it turns out that ten American anti -tanks could threaten hundreds of Russian nuclear weapons from Poland). That from the side of NATO, which increases superiority in ordinary weapons. At the same time, keeping similar calculations, Russia clearly claimed to take the place of not even the Soviet Union alone, but of the whole Warsaw treaty.

It should be recognized that at first Putin's politics was quite successful. Guided by the logic “whatever the child is amused”, the Western leaders began to discuss issues that, in general, were not interested in them. However, it soon became clear that Moscow practically has nothing to reinforce his claims. It turned out that the domestic economy is capable of functioning only with foreign investments. And for some reason it became uncomfortable for Western investors (who lost the opportunity to receive super-profits in Russia) in the country, which from time to time threatens the “preventive use” of nuclear weapons.

And the vocabulary had to decisively change. Speaking at a conference in Yaroslavl, Dmitry Medvedev encroeded the holy of the holy Putin's foreign policy. The “junior king” suddenly took and stated that foreign states have the right to criticize the domestic policy of individual countries. And it looked like a direct attempt on the approach of the “senior king”, which started all these military games with the West only in order to prevent enemy intervention in our intimate internal affairs, such as a specific system of transferring power, rights and freedoms of citizens. True, daring to such a decisive statement, Medvedev immediately played back, saying that such criticism would be fair only if all countries agree on the general criteria of what is allowed and what is not. With this approach, Great Britain will have to develop joint criteria for democracy along with North Korea and Sudan.

Thus, the obvious international result of the past year is a change of not politics, but rhetoric. Moscow no longer threatens the West, it demonstrates a desire to cooperate. And now the Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is squeezing out a statement that Russia, scary to say, is interested in the success of the US and NATO operation in Afghanistan. One trouble: the Kremlin does not want to move beyond the change of rhetoric or cannot.

Wanting to make Moscow pleasant, Washington agreed to put a work under a new agreement to reduce strategic offensive weapons in the Center for Bilateral Relations. After all, it was about the only area in which our countries have more or less equal potentials and capabilities. However, if the United States clearly wanted to conclude a contract quickly (they have other foreign policy priorities), then Russian negotiators are trying to stretch pleasure. Let the whole world look as long as possible, how cool and powerful we are, how we discuss mutual restraint with the most powerful country in the world. In December, plans for signing a new contract were broken three times. And judging by the fact that the new round of negotiations will begin only in mid -January, it is unlikely to wait for quick progress.

It is significant that, having refused for a while from the dental rhetoric, the Kremlin prepared the corresponding, lightweight reason for future grievances to the insidious West. If before we declared a military threat allegedly coming from the United States and NATO, now - feel the difference - we will blame partners for ignoring peaceful Russian proposals. It is, of course, about the draft European Security Treaty. It is unlikely that anyone will seriously relate to a document that actually gives Russia a veto right for any NATO decisions. The fate of the project became obvious during the recent visit to our country of the Secretary General of NATO Anders Fog Rasmussen. I must say that this politician is clearly determined to develop relations with Russia. His first performance in a new position was devoted to this topic. During the visit, he did not hide how much the Alliance is interested in the fact that Moscow assisted NATO operation in Afghanistan. But with all this, Rasmussen made it clear that he did not intend to participate in the many years of felting the fool around the European security agreement.

Thus, in Russian foreign policy, little has changed. She still has no clear pragmatic goals, and therefore there are no reliable allies. Moscow still sees in international affairs, first of all, a tool for PR. Only it seems that the positioning is somewhat changes. Until recently, Russia appeared before the world in the form of a kid from the St. Petersburg gateway, who with pleasure demonstrates to all the “Finn”. Now we are offered the image of a beautiful -hearted dreamer, whose noble impulses are not understood and not appreciated by selfish partners. Which, in general, is not bad. True, nothing interferes with the quick return to the “Finnish”.

Photo by RIA Novosti