In the Kremlin

The mystery of one line

July 16, 2008 Alexander Golts

The state whose politics lies in permanent getting up from the knees should not change strategies and concepts. Otherwise, it enables various kinds of critics and renegades to compare the previous doctrinal documents and the current ones, and in this way as a political course changes. But Dmitry Medvedev, I suspect, simply had no choice. He was to revise the concept of foreign policy , approved by President Vladimir Putin in 2000. For the simple reason that the concept of eight years ago did not have a key phrase that appeared in the 2008 document : “The Government of the Russian Federation takes measures to implement the country's foreign policy.”

It follows that Russian foreign policy has a new old owner. And this is not a president at all, who seems to determine this policy. Dmitry Medvedev recently convinced of this. During the Japanese Eight Summit, he signed a Zimbabwe statement, where it was written in black and white: “We recommend that you appoint a special representative of the UN Secretary General to prepare a report on a political, humanitarian situation, as well as the situation in the field of human rights, the security and support of regional efforts in mediation between political parties. We will take further steps, including financial and other measures against the persons responsible for violence. ” However, when Washington and London try to embody these provisions in the UN Security Council resolution, it turned out that the Russian president is not responsible for his words, there is someone else who "takes measures to implement the country's foreign policy." And this “someone”, who for some reason, is obeyed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the representative of Russia at the UN, does not intend to declare sanctions against Zimbabwe. As a result, the question of the international authority of the head of the Russian state is no longer worth it. All interested parties perfectly understood: it is necessary to negotiate with anyone, but not with Medvedev.

However, these insignificant problems do not at all prevent Dmitry Anatolyevich from setting tasks for the diplomatic corps and signing a new foreign policy concept of the country. This rather boring document, repeating the one that was signed by Putin eight years ago, nevertheless gives a very clear idea of ​​the current state of domestic diplomacy.

In the new concept, as a mantra, the thesis is repeated that the revision of the foreign policy strategy is caused not only by a change in the international situation, but also by the fact that Russia is strengthened and that "new Russia, having risen on the solid ground of national interests, has gained a full -fledged role in global affairs."

If so, it would be logical to offer that in the process of getting up Russia, it was possible to solve at least some of the problems that were called in the foreign policy doctrine the once signed by Vladimir Vladimirovich himself. However, it turns out that everything was as it was left. The United States is still building a "single-pole" world. The West brazenly shares states by the degree of their democracy. NATO, like eight years ago, is approaching the borders of Russia and it looks like only a few dozen people in the country, including the gentlemen of Putin, Medvedev and Lavrov, they felt how their security suffers seriously. If after eight years all security threats are not only preserved, but also intensified, then it is permissible to ask what the foreign policy successes are then, which we are so stubbornly repeated.

In addition, one cannot fail to notice a few curious changes that exhaustively characterize the successes of Putin's foreign policy. Eight years ago, it was assumed that “based on the concept of heteroing and multi -level integration within the CIS, Russia will determine the parameters and nature of its interaction with the CIS participants both in the CIS and in narrower associations, primarily in the Customs Union, a collective security agreement.” Today, the roll is obvious in the direction of bilateral relations: "Russia builds friendly relations with each of the CIS participants on the basis of equality, mutual benefit, respect and accounting for each other's interests." This is especially indicative of the example of Belarus. Eight years ago, the Kremlin was sure that "the primary task was to strengthen the Union of Belarus and Russia as the highest form of integration of two sovereign states at this stage." And today, a completely different task is “to continue the agreed line to create conditions for the effective construction of a union state through a phased translation of relations between Russia and Belarus to market principles in the process of forming a single economic space”. Feel, as they say, the difference. In 2000, quite optimistic assumptions were made: “In relations with the states of Central and Eastern Europe, the task of maintaining the developed human, economic and cultural ties, overcoming the existing crisis phenomena and giving an additional impulse to cooperation in accordance with new conditions and Russian interests remains relevant. Good prospects have the development of relations between the Russian Federation with Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. ”

Today, not a word is said on this subject. There are only vague threats against those who allegedly want to revise the results of the Second World War. And in this regard, the question arises of what, in fact, the successes of Russian foreign policy are, about which everyone will be so stubbornly cooled. What country, except for Venezuela, in eight years, Russia has improved relations? Not with any.

However, for real patriots who firmly believe that Russia has only two allies - its army and fleet, this is a weak argument. It is so allowed to ask if the Kremlin had ever "forced to reckon with Russia over the past eight years." NATO expands as he considers necessary. The United States continues the deployment efforts of missile defense. Where, damn it, successes in foreign policy, about which everyone screams?

They seem to be not. And the new edition of the old foreign policy doctrine convinces of this. But this does not bother anyone. After all, the main thing has been achieved - the government, or rather its head, carry out foreign policy activities.