Sergey Markedonov: impatience from success

In today's Russian political journalism, it is fashionable to scold the West for any occasion and often for no reason. It is very convenient. Firstly, such attacks on “world imperialism” will most likely go unnoticed, which means they will not receive a serious answer. Whatever they say about the global significance of relations between the Russian Federation and the USA, Russia and the EU, their perception is “here” and “there” asymmetric character. If in the Russian media the situation in the United States or large European countries is one of the first issues of our agenda, then our Western partners are often interested in the problems of Russia not in the first place. The United States to a much greater extent pay attention to the problems of Latin America and the Middle East, and Europe is much more interested in the integration into the “single space” of new members, as well as issues of the ratio of protectionism and “free trade”. Secondly, the criticism of the “West” almost automatically gives the “accuser” patriotic glasses and the reputation of the “defender of national interests”.

Criticism of the West in modern Russia is at the level below all criticism. And the point is not that the West (the USA and the countries of Europe) has nothing to scold for. It is simply sometimes created that the purpose of the authors of articles is the criticism of the West only because it is the West.

Sometimes it seems that in Soviet times, the criticism of “world imperialism” was much more constructive and motivated than today's “thoughts”. And because it was at least ideologically justified. And because it was started not only for the sake of the internal self -party. The elders from the Politburo did not need to prove their rights to the "new term". None of the members of the Brezhnev Central Committee agreed that the West was alien to the stack of sight of values ​​(all the same they understood where Marxism came from, and that Dante and Shakespeare were not cheap mass culture). And therefore, the heroes of our soviet (and not American) childhood were Tom Sawyer, fifteen -year -old captain Dick Sand and a leather stocking with a white leader Carlos.

Today's Russian anti -shipping is the worst type of internal advertising, a one -time tool for raising a rating that appears on command and disappears on command. There is no ideological and political motivation (since the owners of the Kremlin West are very respected and revered, albeit in a limited framework). And therefore, the criticism of the West is not carried out from substantive positions (for example, what exactly is bad self-determination of Kosovo or operation in Iraq), but from the point of view of PR within some election campaign.

“I don’t know if there is a man, Dun in Kennbankport, but I am convinced that last days the road to the two presidents was not so long there as a boring one, despite the format of“ family dialogue ”and delicious lobsters. Both in the near future will be resigned from office (in the case of Bush, unconditional). With his rating below the baseboard, dreaming of the version of Franklin Delaino Roosevelt, who was re -elected four times, is not necessary. First of all, because he is clearly not Roosevelt. He not only had a thought of the “new course”, but even the “end of history”, according to the recognition of Fukiyama himself (as in the author’s text - S.M.). ” The text quoted above belongs not to the ordinary layman who does not understand the difference between the Republicans (to which the Bush Jr. belongs) and the democrats (to which the deceased Franklin Roosevelt belonged to), and the doctor of philosophical sciences Leonid Dobrokhotov. Perhaps in philosophical empires the author was simply underway to do history. Otherwise, such a passage would not have appeared in his writings: “For example, there was such a harmful Dragolli Francois Mitteran. He was proud of French independence. I did not want to return to the NATO military organization. Put the sticks in the wheels. Bush Papa invited him to a Walker-Point, fed him with lobsters, gotten it and made America ally “on all fundamental issues”. ” De Gaulle would probably have rolled over in a coffin from posthumous inclusion in the ranks of his associates of his implacable opponent Mitterin. And the plot on the TVC about the alleged “reservation” of Condolisian Rice (which supposedly instead of the word “Bush” said “husband”) and I don’t want to say. Let it remain on the conscience of the journalist, because, as every student who studied English knows that the word “husband”, i.e. "Husband" does not rhyme with Bush.

There are a great many such articles and performances in our media. And this set demonstrates that our current anti -Americanism and anti -warning are involved not just on political complexes (God would be with them), but on elementary ignorance.

And, nevertheless, the West, of course, is not perfect. And his criticism is needed, if only because it is this part of the world (“Euro -Atlantic World”) that shows claims to global leadership. Not only military-political, but also socio-economic, value. It is the approaches and practices developed in the West that are declared the most successful and logically substantiated, which others should simply “transplant to their soil”.

Let's make a reservation right away. “West” is a conditional and not quite correct design for the US and its European partners. It is used by politicians and diplomats for reasons of “convenience” (as well as such designations as the Caucasus, Balkans, the Near or Far East). Both the states and the EU have many discrepancies and discrepancies in views on the prospects for the development of the same post -Soviet space and on the role of Russia in the territory of the former Soviet Union. Moreover, in geopolitical layouts, the geographical criterion is not entirely applicable at all. Türkiye, which has the second largest army in NATO and is the “Islamic ally” of the United States, of course, today (not in the context of the history of the Ottoman port) belongs to the Western world. “There are three main directions of Turkish foreign policy. This is a relationship with the EU, relations with the United States and relations with Israel. ” The words quoted above (the statement of the university professor Ankara Chagry Erhan) is very indicative for today's Turkey. By the way, the European direction of her policy became the main priority after the party of justice and development came to power, which is considered “moderately Islamist”. If we talk about the political system of modern Japan, then it can also be called the “Eastern Country” with a certain share of conventionality (except for geographical reasons). Nevertheless, the “West” is a politically relevant concept, therefore, it is necessary to understand how just the criticism of “Western” ideas and practices is justified.

The author of the article received such a largely unique opportunity recently. On June 28-29, 2007, I took part in the forum of the Council of Euro-Atlantic Partnership (CEAP) on security problems in Okrid (Macedonia). CEAP has existed for 9 years. The basis of the Council document was signed on May 30, 1997 in Sintre (Portugal). This Euro -Atlantic structure arose on the basis of the Council of the North Atlantic Partnership and the Partnership for Peace Partnership program. In fact, CEAP has become a kind of “preparatory category” for countries gathered in NATO (in 2008 it is planned to receive three Balkan states in the alliance). The second function of the CEAP, rather ideological-the distribution among NATO partner countries "Euro-Atlantic values". As the main document of the CEAP says, “the Council will be the structure within which the partners countries (it is about NATO partners - S.M.) will receive advanced capabilities of decision -making regarding the events in which they take part. The Council of Euro -Atlantic Partnership will maintain two important principles that underlined the success of cooperation between allies and partners so far. This will be a body in which the possibilities of political consultations and practical cooperation will be open to all allies and partners equally. ” June-2007 forum CEAP was dedicated to three relevant (not only for the West, but also for Russia) problems: the situation in Afghanistan, the problem of Kosovo and energy security.

The level of representative office at the Okrid forum was such that, according to its results, we may well talk about a high -quality “X -ray picture” of what the West (or the Euro -Atlantic World) considers the three problems indicated above. The forum was attended by NATO Secretary General JAP de Hop Scheffer, his assistant for political and security policy Martin Erdmann, co -chairman of the OSCE Minsk group from the United States Matthew Braise, Ministers of Defense and Economics of almost all Balkan states and countries of southern and central Europe, Austrian Ambassador to the United Nations, representatives of the World Bank (in the particular, in the particular, in the particular, in the particular. Director of Afghanistan) and the International Energy Agency, generals (in particular, the famous American "wrestler" with the Taliban Karl Eikenberry).

However, to reduce the significance of the Okrid forum to the “X -ray” picture of the “Western strategies” would be wrong. The creation of the CEAP itself in 1997 was motivated by the need for a wide dialogue. Strictly speaking, the forum in Macedonia was an attempt (not too successful, but more on that below) to organize a dialogue between officials and representatives of scientific and analytical institutions, the media, the “third sector”. Not the latest Euro -Atlantic World figures were ready to listen to criticism addressed to them. It was possible to ask questions to the same Secretary General of NATO even during the plenary meeting, and it was easier to call any minister to the conversation both during the work of individual sections and on the sidelines. I have not remember such “proximity” of experts and politicians in Russia for a long time, since the “gloomy decade” of Yeltsin, when democracy has not yet been so “managed”.

The forum also became a kind of sociological laboratory in which it was possible to observe and study the participants of three focus groups-who worked in Kosovo, Afghanistan and energy security. The fourth focus group could be considered the captivity itself, at which the general strategic approaches (as well as historiosophy) of the Euro-Atlantic World were voiced. The two -day work in this “sociological laboratory” made it possible to formulate a number of critical comments on the strategy and tactics of the West.

The first remark is due to what can be designated as a "philosophy of success." They may object to me that the philosophy of the West is built on success, on the faith that any failure, if you put hands and brains to it, ultimately overcome. All this is so. However, the “success” should not become a propaganda beuple, replacing a real analysis of the situation. Unfortunately, the speeches of senior officials of NATO and ministers of the Euro -Atlantic World were largely reminiscent of the already mentioned times of the CPSU. Whatever NATO operation is success. And Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Kosovo, and Afghanistan. NATO came to the Balkans - ethnic cleaning ceased. NATO appeared in Afghanistan - the flow of drugs has become less. In this stream of successes (and the word “Success” was repeated in Okrid almost more often than the rest), the March 2004 antenity pogroms in Kosovo were somehow forgotten (clearly later the beginning of NATO operation in the region). The fact that Bosnia and Herzegovina today is in many ways is ignored - the virtual concept, and Bosnia's Serbian leaders have froze in anticipation of the Kosovo precedent. That is, the problem of the separation of the republic by ethnic principle has not been completely solved.

Other alarming trends were forgotten. For example, the fact that 90 thousand hectares of Afghan land are intended for drug production, and the income of drug lords is measured in $ 1 billion. This is by no means secret data reported by UN experts. The growth of drug production is also obvious: in 2003 it amounted to 3.6 tons, in 2004-4.2 tons. In 2005, at the International Conference on Afghanistan, the president of this state Hamid Karzai (possessing a persistent reputation of the pro -American policy) also voiced this trend.

The 2001 Ohrid agreements were also called great success. Recall that in 2001, Macedonia was forced to sign agreements that guaranteed significant rights to the Albanian population of this former Yugoslav Republic (quotas of places in the authorities and governance, police). The signing of the agreements occurred after interethnic clashes near the Macedonian capital of Skopje in Tetovo and Kumanovo. Then the patrons and cosposers of the “Macedonian compromise” were just Euro -Atlantic structures. What is the result? Official representatives of Skopier in every possible way extol the achievements of "multi -ethnic democracy." Ordinary Macedonians (and officials and police officers - in unofficial conversations) scold the Okrid agreements for what the light stands. And as a “judgment” await the official recognition of Kosovo.

For many years fighting the USSR, the West seems to have adopted many methods of information and propaganda war from his sworn enemy. Any problem point, to which efforts were made, is declared success, and the costs simply do not take into account. However, there is a significant difference from Soviet times (as well as from the GDP era). Optimists from NATO can openly object to the notebooks. They can be put in place, presenting other numbers and facts. As, for example, did the Serbian Foreign Minister at Kosovo Section or American political scientist Barnet Barnet Rubin in Section in Afghanistan.

The second remark (it refers mainly to Afghan problems) is associated with absolute faith in democracy. It was the democratization of Afghanistan that was recognized in Okrid the most important goal of the Euro -Atlantic World. Alas, the experience of Israel has not taught anything to the United States, the EU and its partners. A few years ago, the famous Israeli political analyst Alec Epstein, discussing the prospects for elections in Palestine, wrote: “Can it be sure that Hizball and Islamic Dzhikhad will not win in the free Palestinian elections? [...] The authors - the compilers of the “road map” - proceed from the prerequisite that where democratic elections are held, liberals are sure to win. But, knowing the moods in the Palestinian territories, it is safe to say that the liberal and oriented on the peaceful settlement of the party and movement is currently hardly successful there. An attempt to impose a Western worldview to a completely different society that has another political culture, and the hope that it will work is a big mistake. ” The results of the Palestinian elections confirmed the expressed fears.

But did only Palestine demonstrated the unreliability of the "democratic scheme"? The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict entered its hot phase (1991-1994) precisely when Azerbaijan and Armenia were headed by democratic leaders chosen by their peoples. The authoritarian Heydar Aliyev, the former first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Azerbaijan, stopped the war in 1994. And if today we follow the same logic of “democratization”, then Azerbaijan will be much closer to war than to the world (more than 60% of the population of the republic advocate a military solution to the problem). Thus, the authoritarian regime of Aliyeva-son holds the country from new shocks. In the case of Afghanistan, it must be remembered that the USSR once tried to build a society of "developed socialism" there. Today, "Democratic Afghanistan" is being built by the United States, not understanding that both socialism and democracy are possible only within the framework of state rather than tribal discourse. The society, which did not have statehood (or having its only weak sprouts), can resist the "state-ownedness"-both under the red and under the star-striped flag. However, this kind of understanding cannot be based on "scientific democratism." It can only be based on realism and pragmatism with which in the West, as well as in the Russian Federation, “tension”.

I would like to identify the third remark by the name of the novel by Yuri Trifonov - “impatience”. It refers to the understanding of the situation around Kosovo. Western leaders want to see their happiness during life, and therefore rush to determine the status of the edge as quickly as possible. It turns out that the main threat in maintaining the status quo existing in the region! Not that a precedent of ethnic self -determination is created, but in the preservation of "uncertainty". And after all, this is not just about ethnic self -determination (as an abstract principle), namely about Albanian self -determination. To understand the prospects of Albanization, go to Macedonia. Fortunately, the country can be driven from one end to the other in 5 hours. You will see the flags of another state (Albania) in the Albanian villages, brand new mosques (in the center of Skopier I counted 8 of them) and the “perch” of the Albanian communities. And there is also a dynamically growing Albanian minority in Montenegro. The Albanian question is both in Greece and in the "Necos" Serbia. Moreover, the Serbs in Bosnia (insisting on the unification with Bolshoi Serbia), residents of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and the NKR will appeal to the NATO Cosques (regardless of what they think about this) will appeal to the NATO. Already today, Catalans and Basques are appealed to this incident.

So, maybe the main thing is not the status? That's what to rush with. First, it is necessary to ensure human rights (not only civil rights, but also the elementary right to life and security), establish socio-economic relations, conduct post-conflict restoration, and then choose a flag and legal status for the territory.

The fourth remark could be designated as an asymmetry of assessments, an attempt to find the perpetrator in a particular conflict. So, for example, it is on the Serbs that the guilt and responsibility for the tragedy in the Balkans (b -ling , than the Croatians, Bosnians or Kosovars), and to Russia (compared to Georgia) - for the situation in the Caucasus, are entitled. Речь не идет о пересмотре оценок, а о необходимости их взвешенности, большей объективности.

И, наконец, последнее (по порядку, а не по важности) замечание касается боязни «руки Москвы». Нигде эта боязнь так не проявляется, как в рассмотрении проблем энергетики. Запад рассматривает энергетические амбиции России как новый вид оружия (поскольку-де Москва использует энергетический рычаг для достижения своих геополитических целей).

Что ж, отрицать политическую составляющую в действиях Москвы на газовом направлении, по крайней мере, наивно. Политика играла значительную роль в российских «газовых атаках» на Украину, Грузию, Азербайджан. Но ведь аналогичные атаки были предприняты также в отношении Армении и к Белоруссии. Армения же на сегодняшний день – единственная страна на Южном Кавказе, благожелательно относящаяся не просто к российскому военному присутствию, но и к возможности его наращивания (перевод вооружения и техники с грузинских баз). Белоруссия – пока единственная из стран СНГ, провозглашающая стремление к союзным отношениям с Россией. Какие «цветные революции» усмиряла Москва в Минске и в Ереване? До сих пор ни Роберт Кочарян, ни Александр Лукашенко не были поклонниками Майдана как метода решения внутриполитических проблем.

Говорить об энергетическом наступлении России как некой «имперской стратегии» неверно. Фактически мы видим перенос внутренних правил бизнеса на внешний уровень. Ранее принципы «дикого капитализма» действовали только внутри страны, теперь, судя по всему, настало время распространить их на российскую дипломатию. Отсюда такая неразборчивость к использованию метода «газовой атаки» – от нее страдают «друзья» и «враги», «правые» и «виноватые». Политической логики в том, что происходит маркетизация поставок газа и по отношению к Украине и Белоруссии, к Армении и Грузии, нет. Зато присутствует логика строительства успешной корпорации, для которой деньги не пахнут, и источник их получения не так уж важен.

Однако самое главное в другом. «Газовые атаки» не приносят и не могут принести России никаких политических дивидендов. Западу не следует спешить с идеей «энергетического НАТО» – зачем нужна еще одна синекура для европейских чиновников с высокими окладами и низким коэффициентом полезности? Во-первых, в результате российских «газовых атак» происходит диверсификация энергетики стран СНГ, теряется их зависимость от России. Об этом применительно к Украине еще в начале года написал американский эксперт из Университета Национальной обороны Юджин Румер. По мнению Румера, Украина должна быть благодарна Москве за то, что ее таким образом натолкнули на необходимость развивать иные рынки и перестать паразитировать на российских поставках. Во-вторых, «газовые атаки» наносят прямой вред политической репутации и интересам России в СНГ в целом и на Кавказе в частности. В-третьих, использование «газового оружия» вне соответствующего идеологического проекта просто бессмысленно. Ради чего повышать или снижать цену на поставки топлива? Ради строительства демократии, «добрососедских отношений», «исламского мега-проекта», светской авторитарной модернизации или «славянского братства»? «Энергетический империализм», лишенный идейной основы (кроме невнятной ситуативной ностальгии по советским временам), не может работать как эффективный инструмент. Он будет восприниматься не иначе, как «технологическое пиратство». «Газовый империализм» России бьет мимо цели – он не приносит политических дивидендов, зато позволяет странам СНГ слезть с «российской энергетической иглы» и начать запоздалую работу по диверсификации своего рынка. А значит все разговоры про газовый «четвертый Рим» следует оставить «ястребам», нашим и западным.

Во взглядах, стратегических и тактических подходах «Евроатлантического мира» есть много изъянов и даже провалов (как теоретико-методологического, так и прикладного характера). Однако эти провалы и изъяны «у них» изучаются и критикуются. В том же Охриде я мог лично побеседовать с героем многих своих публикаций Мэттью Брайзой. Критики в этих публикациях, как нетрудно убедиться, гораздо больше, чем лестных отзывов. Однако этот факт не помешал вполне доброжелательному общению (при том, что мистер Брайза оказался хорошо знаком с содержанием моих текстов). Теперь представьте себе нашего министра или советника министра в такой ситуации.

Но критика Запада не должна превращаться в самоцель. Она может быть эффективной, только будучи, во-первых, адресной, а во-вторых, содержательной. По справедливому замечанию одного из блестящих знатоков российской политики, американского ученого Тома Грэма, «усиливающаяся озабоченность Запада действиями России – не только следствие российской политики, но и отражение нашей снижающейся уверенности в своих способностях и эффективности западной политики».

Дружественная и конструктивная критика Запада с позиции общих подходов и общих ценностей (а разве демократия, стабильность и безопасность – это не наши, а чуждые нам ценности?) могла бы гораздо больше способствовать защите наших национальных интересов, чем занятия безграмотной и безответственной антизападнической пропагандой.

Автор – зав. отделом проблем межнациональных отношений Института политического и военного анализа, кандидат исторических наук.

Discuss the article