Translated material
And once again about Russian "strategists"
Around Russia
And once again about Russian "strategists"
23 April 2013 Alexander Shumilin
In her last text , the “hedgehog” deeply respected by me, Lilia Shevtsova, spoke out very accurately regarding our official “foreign policy strategists”. They, according to her, “offer foreign policy supports for the decaying Russian authorities,” being essentially its “guardians”. The problem is very relevant, and therefore I recently spoke out on this subject. Lilia Fedorovna concentrated on the texts of Vladislav Inozemtseva, which, in my opinion, is difficult to put into a number of the most odious “experts-guardians”. In fact, as I see, in the discussion on the “hourly” the problem is raised by a deeper and large -scale problem - the kneeling of a considerable part of the mentioned community before the authorities, and therefore the zero effect of this community in terms of generating realistic ideas about the strategic vision of the interests of Russia and as a global player and as an internal actor of the Euro -Atlantic civilizational space.
The problem is a long -standing and, apparently, aggravating over time. Her essence, briefly, in the desire of some enthusiasts to create “umbrella structures”, designed to serve as a shelter for specialized expert institutions, in a sense, unite them and close with the authorities. In other words, subordinate them to the Kremlin. (Is this possible in Europe and in the USA!)) The most vivid advice was and remains on foreign and defense policy (swap), which recently celebrated its 20th anniversary (including the formal change of traditional political scientist Sergei Karaganov to journalist Fedor Lukyanov). In fairness, we note that the swap was created in the early 90s not with the aim of “closing experts with the Kremlin”, but directly on the contrary, in order to contrast them with the “Pagly Policy of Yeltsin-Kozrev”. A frank rapprochement with the Kremlin towers began with the departure of the “hated” experts-enthusiasts by Boris Yeltsin. Well, then, as expected, the almost continuous praise of the acts of the new government rushed - both before the "Munich speech" and after it.
Attempts to “reconcile” the Kremlin grants of Zatulin-three-Markov-Markov with red-hakamads-Satar are hardly fruitful. In the best case, liberals and guards are able to drink a cup of coffee in the bar of the boarding house “Forest Dali”. The logic of the structure itself, based on the blessing of power, requires development: so it resulted in “Valdai” - a platform for attracting foreign experts in order to convince them of the correct acts of the customers of “Valdaev”. Such foreign experts from among the eminent over time seem to become fewer, since some of the Westerners who walk on the “Valdai” call this bunch “The Kremlin’s purely propaganda event”. And sometimes they are even forced to make excuses to their audiences for participating in these “walks”.
Vladislav Inozemtsev, I repeat, is not the most odious against the backdrop of swap activists. It feels a fair amount of independence and independence of judgments on a number of issues, for example, on the problem of the current line of Russia in the Syrian crisis. In Lilia Fedorovna examples, Vladislav Leonidovich can rightly be attributed to the mainstream of Skupovsky. And the theses of this mainstream, the leaders of the swap clearly expressed in the writings, are noted, including in the “Russian newspaper”, in general, they are the same (leave the quotes):
- The West is guilty that at one time he did not hasten to integrate Russia into Europe, and therefore should take part of responsibility for its current policy;
- Realpolitik increasingly prevails over idealism such as human rights and the problem of humanitarian order;
-The human rights and humanitarian factor also weakens in the context of the shift of the centers of strength and development from the Euro-Atlantic to the Asia-Pacific region (APR);
- Geopolitics, coupled with the number of nuclear warheads, determines the nature of international relations today;
- Europe declines at all (weakens, decrepit - the image of the drowning Venice), plus everything also fierce blows of the economic crisis;
- The future of Russia is more likely in Asia;
- All sorts of mass movements of the Arab Spring type return the world to the Middle Ages, and therefore they are harmful and dangerous.
This list of basic theses of swap could continue. Let's try to find among them those who would go against the theses of the official propagandists of the Kremlin and the statements of representatives of the power elite. Of course, Lilia Shevtsova’s rights in their conclusions and assessments of Russian “strategists”, referring to the aforementioned structure. But we also have alternative sites - for example, the Institute of Modern Development (Incor Igor Jurgens), the Russian Council for International Affairs (RSMD Igor Ivanov). With all the balanced and the balance of the work they prepared, it would be wrong to call them propaganda. As, in fact, what is produced in the Moscow Carnegie Center. And therefore, the question is probably true to put it like this (I apologize that it is marked in a marxist): is it not time for experts to separate in order to unite on a new basis, having left the mixing of positions and kneeling before the authorities? Based on a clear vision of the Russian development strategy - whether it is the strategy of Euro -Atlantism or U -turn towards Asia. And forget about the "blessed umbrellas for the people." Otherwise, the current expert impasse is insurmountable.