Alexander Kazakov. Eurasian "northern umbrella"

Eurasian "northern umbrella"
Russia's new foreign policy course in detail

Alexander Kazakov

Publication date: December 3, 2001

The loading of a nuclear reactor for the Iranian nuclear power plant in Bushehr in the St. Petersburg port, despite Washington’s objections, once again raises questions about the fundamental basis for the rapprochement between Russia and the United States in the “post-September” period. What is it anyway - strategy or tactics? Can we say that the Kremlin has made a choice between the Euro-Atlantic and Euro-Asian development models in favor of the first? Since Boris Yeltsin made it clear in 1997 that a rapprochement between Russia and China could become a real counterweight to the only superpower - the United States - and a significant step towards a multipolar world, Western experts have been closely monitoring the development of relations between Moscow and Beijing. Concern about the intensification of ties between Russia and China was one of the reasons for such wild joy over the rapprochement between Russia and the West, which emerged after the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. However, according to the American political scientist K. Blaker, the essence of a “balanced” foreign policy for Russia is the following: “rapprochement with the East while continuing to move towards the West .” Not God knows what discovery, of course, but it once again confirms that the Kremlin’s new foreign policy course is understood not only at home , but also abroad. Let's start with the “movement towards the West”.

"Greater Europe"

Vladimir Putin said his main words regarding the West during his Berlin speech on September 26, which German Chancellor Schröder called “historic” for a reason. In this keynote speech, the Russian president spoke of the need to bury the “old system of values” and finally end the Cold War. Putin also mentioned the Berlin Wall - this, in his words, “a terrible symbol of a deep split in Europe” - which must be destroyed not only physically, but also - most importantly! - spiritually. Putin tried to convince Germans and Europeans that the Berlin Wall still divides the soul of Europe at a time when the world has changed dramatically. “The world,” Putin recalled, “is no longer divided into two hostile camps.” It has become much more difficult.

From these words it is one step to the recognition that the bipolar world has turned into a unipolar one with America in the center and all other countries on the periphery. And after that, Putin tried to “buy” the Europeans, who themselves are already burdened by American hegemony, not just with images of a multipolar world, but more specifically with the prospect of creating a real counterweight to the United States on the Eurasian continent.

Despite Putin’s words that “no one questions the high value of Europe’s relations with the United States,” this is precisely what Western (especially American) observers saw in GDP’s speech—an attempt to create a split between Europe and the United States. And they did the right thing, because this is exactly what Putin called on Europe to do: to leave America alone with its “fifty-first state” - Great Britain (it’s not for nothing that they joke about Tony Blair that he is an American, but only speaks with an accent) - and take care of his own home, which was significantly called not only “united”, but also “Greater Europe”. VVP knew who he was talking to. In the minds and hearts of listeners - especially in France - the mention of “Greater Europe” should have evoked the image of the great European Charles de Gaulle, who never tired of talking about a united Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals, which Putin, however, extended to the Bering Gulf.

“I am simply of the opinion,” Putin continued to rub salt in the wounds of Europeans, “that Europe must firmly and permanently strengthen its reputation as a powerful and truly independent center of world politics.” It's just a matter of little things - we need to embrace Russia, that is, "to unite our own capabilities with Russian capabilities - human, territorial and natural resources, with the economic, cultural and defense potential of Russia." By European opportunities, Putin apparently meant primarily financial resources - according to the principle “your gasoline, our ideas.”

Did GDP count on the understanding of European leaders? Of course, especially if we bear in mind the leaders of France and Germany, who - and even American political scientists and geopoliticians are forced to admit this - “are strong and assertive enough to exert influence over a wide range of action” (Z. Brzezinski). Both France and Germany strive for leadership in a uniting Europe, although they have different geopolitical vectors. France seeks to become the core of the Mediterranean-North African group of countries, while German interests are focused on Central and Eastern Europe. At the same time, “both France and Germany believe that they have the responsibility to represent the interests of Europe when doing business with Russia, and Germany, due to its geographical location, even adheres to the grand concept of special bilateral agreements with Russia” (Z. Brzezinski). So we can safely say that European leaders and Russia have mutual interest in each other.

As for Europe's relations with the United States, it is enough to listen to de Gaulle's heirs, who do not mince words. François Mitterrand also said: “Perhaps not the entire population of France knows this, but we are in a state of war with America. Yes, a constant war, life and death, economic war, war without end. Yes, they are very strong, These Americans, they absorb everything, they want to have power over the world that is not shared with anyone." Jacques Chirac is not far behind Mitterrand, extolling the future victory of “European values” over the ideology of American conservatism. German leaders, if they don’t say it, then think exactly the same.

In general, we can assume that the European-Russian union has excellent prospects. But the newly emerging strategic line Paris-Berlin-Moscow does not end in Moscow. The Kremlin is trying to extend this thread to Beijing and, possibly, Delhi.

Great East

The strategic partnership with China began under Boris Yeltsin. After the first visit of Chinese President Jian Zemin to Moscow in September 1994, huge arms deals were made between Moscow and Beijing. And in 1997, Yeltsin already said that strengthening ties with China was a real countermeasure to NATO’s expansion to the East. Not only military, but also economic ties between Russia and China are growing stronger. Mutual trade grew from $3.8 billion in 1994 to $7 billion in 2000, and the goal is to increase this figure to $20 billion. Of particular importance is the decision to build a gas pipeline from Siberia to China, as well as the extension of the Trans-Siberian Railway to the Pacific ports of South Korea . These pipes and rails will connect Russia with the Asia-Pacific region stronger than any declarations.

The authors of the acclaimed book "China - Grand Strategy" (Beijing, 1997) believe that China should develop cooperation with Russia in every possible way, since it will lead to the fact that "in the future, the position of the PRC in the competition of world powers will become a win-win." So in the East, Moscow also meets with complete understanding in matters of “strategic partnership, equality, mutual trust and mutual coordination”...

True, there is one difficulty. The Americans, who, due to their self-confidence, calmly look at the possible construction of a “Greater Europe” from the Atlantic to the Bering Strait, are by no means so calm on the issue of Russian-Chinese rapprochement. Back in 1993, Secretary of State William Christopher declared that “no region in the world is more important to American interests than the Asia-Pacific region.” Former Clinton adviser Prof. M. Mandelbaum from Johns Hopkins University writes much more clearly: “After the end of the Cold War , the two most important countries for the United States are Russia and China . The explanations for their importance are simple - size, economic potential and military power. This fact is extremely important for American foreign policy "that, despite important differences between themselves, these two nuclear powers pose a challenge to the power of the United States ."

That is why the famous American political scientist, an employee of the Brookings Institution, Fiona Hill, answering a question on the eve of the Shanghai OTEC summit in October about the attitude of official Washington to the intensification of ties between Moscow and Beijing, noted “some concern” of the American side in this regard - which, of course, gave There is a special piquancy to the fact that Putin and Bush met in China.

By the way, about the "umbrella"

Putin’s “luggage” includes powerful developments for the construction of the strategic line Paris-Berlin-Moscow-Beijing (and most likely this “line” will also end in a “triangle” Moscow-Beijing-Delhi ). And in line with the main topic of today - the fight against the “terrorist international” - American geopoliticians cannot help but admit that this line is becoming a kind of “northern umbrella” over today’s most troubled “belt of violence” from the Balkans to Afghanistan. If you look at the globe from above, then this line separates (=defends) North America from the warlike South. By the way, ever closer ties with Iran may lead to the “umbrella” having a “leg.”

Constantly emphasizingthe economic benefits of its foreign policy moves , the Kremlin is becoming increasingly entangled with its Eurasian neighbors through pipelines and power lines. On the eve of that Shanghai OTEC summit, Igor Ivanov said: “it is necessary to create a network of gas and oil pipelines, as well as energy bridges in the direction of China, Japan and Korea.” With the help of these pipes, wires and rails, Russia can take a big step in the process of “contracting the Eurasian space.” And bringing together the European West and the Far East will make it possible to more successfully resist disintegration processes in Russia itself, when Primorye is already perceived as almost another state.

So, perhaps, we should admit that in the geopolitical game in which all more or less powerful world powers are participating today, Russia has good trump cards in its hands. By playing the tactical card of an anti-terrorist alliance with America and at the same time squeezing out maximum benefits for itself, Russia, from a strategic point of view, can more or less calmly engage in the construction of that very Eurasian “northern umbrella”, which in the future risks becoming the most powerful geopolitical union.