"The world is in a pre-war state"

In a crisis, the authorities are trying to impress on the population: all the troubles of Russia come from abroad, but our main victories come from the external arena. Dean of the Faculty of World Economy and International Affairs at the Higher School of Economics Sergey Karaganov, in an interview with The New Times, is ready to prove that, yes, there are victories on the external circuit and they are quite real. Russia is fighting for security and sovereignty. However, the expert is also ready to admit the presence of "magnificent defeats" in the economy and foreign policy.

Professor Sergei Karaganov in The New Times, February 4, 2016

Inevitability named "Crimea"

We last met with you shortly after the annexation of Crimea (see The New Times *No. 13 of April 21, 2014), which you justified by saying that Russia allegedly did not allow events on the peninsula to develop according to the Yugoslav scenario, and therefore, from the point of From the point of view of morality and law, the comparison between Kosovo and Crimea is in favor of Crimea. You also said that Crimea is a lever of Russia's domestic policy. Almost two years have passed. Result: the economy is going through a serious crisis, the ruble has been devalued three times, cheap Western money for business is not available and will not be available in the near future, plus we got into Syria, quarreled with Turkey, we have obvious problems in the UN - this is the question of "morality and right" and so on. So was it necessary to press this "lever"? And how do you evaluate these two years? *

As a series of brilliant foreign policy victories and magnificent economic defeats. The fact that our economy will go into negative territory was clear to all competent economists not connected with the current government 5-7 years ago.

This is when we had the previous crisis - in 2008-2009?

Well, yes. In 2009, when we started to get out of that crisis, it was already clear that we would soon get into a new one. Because we have not reformed anything in the economy. Its slowdown was already evident in 2010 and 2011. So the claim about the devaluation of the ruble is not about foreign policy. This claim is against our elites, who do not pursue an effective economic and social policy, and against our people, who did not want to demand such a policy from the elites. This is the first.

The second is the fall in oil prices. When our respected elites assured that Russia would be a great energy power, I answered: this is idiocy. But the point is that all our elites, both pro-Kremlin and anti-Kremlin, have always enjoyed raw material rent. What can I say: most people in our country, with the exception of a narrow group of very poor or very efficient, received rent, not money earned. Now you have to earn.

So I want to say: against this background, our foreign policy is dazzlingly successful.

Are you serious?

Absolutely. This is true, although it looks somewhat paradoxical, because with a weakening economic base, in the end, there can be no strategically adjusted foreign policy. But what happened in Crimea was inevitable - I told you this two years ago, I will tell you now

What is inevitable - annexation?

You are talking about "annexation", and I am talking about Russia's harsh reaction to the actions of our (Western) partners before and during the Ukrainian crisis. I always - 15, 10, and 7 years ago believed (and said) that if the expansion of Western structures reaches Ukraine, there will be war. And I was afraid that there would be a big war. Therefore, I am glad that so far we have a small war. Small, despite the thousands of dead, tens of thousands of refugees. It's not Yugoslavia or Syria anyway. You need to understand that the Ukrainian conflict is one of the delayed consequences of the collapse of the Soviet Union. I was the chairman of various Russian-Ukrainian commissions from 1992 to 2001. And I did it because I knew that we could fall into war. And I built relationships, introduced everyone, made friends myself to prevent this, then I got sick of all this to death, and I fell off.

“You need to understand: the Ukrainian conflict is one of the delayed consequences of the collapse of the Soviet Union”

In general, it seems to me that the flywheel of the entire Ukrainian history was launched in 2007–2008, after we learned that the Americans, behind the backs of even their European colleagues, decided to start the process of admitting Ukraine to NATO — as far as we know, they agreed with Yushchenko ( Viktor Yushchenko, ex-president of Ukraine. - NT ), that he will submit an application, and the Americans at one of the NATO summits will put the issue to a vote. But then it was possible to prevent such a development of events. The Germans and French found out about this, were indignant and made a scandal. After that, the Americans had to limit themselves to a statement about the possibility of accepting Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, in principle, someday. And after that, Putin, having arrived at the NATO summit in Bucharest, said bluntly: gentlemen, if the question arises again that Ukraine can become a member of NATO, then there will be no Ukraine. What he promised, he fulfilled. At least partially.

The success of our foreign policy lies in the fact that over the past two years our partners have become accustomed to the fact that Russia will act the way it is acting now, based on its own interests, and these interests must be respected.

world games

The Soviet Union collapsed, despite the fact that it enjoyed considerable influence in Africa, Latin America, partly in Asia ... Russia does not have such influence.

To begin with, spheres or zones of influence are the natural state of the world. If someone rejects them, he will be punished for it.

Secondly, the Soviet Union disappeared after the communist ideology that kept it afloat faded away. Yes, the USSR in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s had influence in Africa, in Latin America. In Europe, by the way, the left forces were also strong - there was considerable magnetism in communist ideas. But by the 1980s, almost nothing remained of this influence. But it was fantastically expensive! We have already forgotten that the Soviet Union provided economic assistance in volumes greater than the rest of the world put together.

At the same time, the Soviet Union had a monstrous geopolitical position, much worse than Russia has today: on the left, relatively speaking, the consolidated West, which we opposed and which was economically much stronger, and on the right, hostile China. The world was in fact not bipolar, but tripolar: two poles against one. Now Russia's position is much more advantageous.

Are you saying that Russia, without spending money on buying influence, can be a world player?

Russia is an absolute world player. In general, there are still three of them in the world - the USA, Russia and China, perhaps in the foreseeable future there will be a fourth one - India. That's it, there are no other players.

Another thing is that Russia, unlike the USSR, is not an ideological player. Maybe someday she will become one, although I personally would not want this.

What would you like?

I would like us to be a powerful independent power, acting in accordance with our interests and with our essence.

What is our essence?

We have two national ideas. The first is independence, or sovereignty, the second is defense. President Putin recently united them under the word "patriotism." So, from the point of view of sovereignty and ensuring security and defense, we are moving in the right direction for the time being.

Correctness - that, as we are convinced on TV, "enemies are all around"? Or is it true that someone is going to attack or occupy us?

Nobody is going to occupy us. But we must always remember that as soon as NATO, the most peaceful defensive alliance of democratic powers, suddenly saw that a pistol was taken away from its temple, the role of which was played by the Soviet Union with its nuclear potential, they immediately began to bomb defenseless Yugoslavia with a democratic elected president, who was considered the Balkan Gorbachev. And then most of the members of this defensive alliance attacked Iraq, which, however, had a less pleasant president. But all the same, the country was torn to shreds, there are close to a million victims. Then there was a repetition in Libya.

“Russian foreign policy is already good because it weaned the world from one new infection called “democratic messianism”

Democracy in itself is good, unrestrained democracy is bad. The good thing about Russian foreign policy is that it is weaning the world off one new infection called "democratic messianism." We already had different messianisms - both Christian, and communist, and Islamist - and here and there we are dealing with the imposition - by force from outside - of our idea of ​​the world. Now everyone is beginning to understand that this will not happen again. And thank God, because this means that countries and peoples get the opportunity to choose their path consciously, well, or more or less consciously. And this is freedom.

And when Russia, with the help of Girkin-Strelkov, Givi and Motorola, brings the “Russian world” to the Donbass, which then takes thousands of lives in a matter of months, what kind of “messianism” can be attributed to?

A big mistake was made with Ukraine. A significant part of the Russian elite was convinced that the Ukrainian people are a brotherly people who want to unite with us, and Donbass will be only the first spark. And the Ukrainian people, as it turned out, did not want to unite with us.

And did we need the unification itself? The Russian elites did not really understand how much Ukraine had been destroyed over the past quarter century. We truly understood only when we entered the Crimea ...

Cheek Puff Solitaire

It is widely believed that the military campaign in Syria is an attempt by the Russian leadership to divert the attention of the West from Ukraine and get out of isolation with the help of the slogan of a joint fight against terrorism. Do you agree with this?

Let's start with the fact that Russia and its armed forces have been preparing for an intervention like the Syrian one for years. The operation itself was also prepared. Therefore, when someone says that this is a complete surprise for them, it means that they are either idiots or liars. The country is transferring military experts, equipment, equipment - it is repairing airfields, access roads, building housing for military personnel - why is it doing this, just to spend money? We started working on the base in Latakia almost a year before our first planes appeared there.

And we intervened in Syria for several reasons. First, we have long calculated that the Middle East will experience cataclysms in the coming decades: most of the states in the region, with the exception of ancient Iran and Israel with its exceptional self-consciousness, will fall apart in 20-30 years. The question for us is: how will the Middle East fall apart - without our participation, or we will somehow try to twist something there, based, among other things, on the fact that there are tens of thousands of potential terrorists, and it is better that they kill each other or we killed them, than they would multiply further, including to our borders.

Secondly, Russia was driven by the understanding that some kind of balance had to be maintained in the region so that it would not explode even louder. And it would definitely explode if the Sunnis or Shiites won first in Syria, and then in other places in the Middle East. It's better not to let anyone win.

Thirdly, of course, we are dealing with puffing out the cheeks. We want to be a great power. This, if you like, is another national semi-idea that we received from Peter and Catherine.

Well, and fourthly, I agree that Syria has become a way to distract from Ukraine and, accordingly, to transfer our relations with Western countries to another plane. It succeeded to the fullest.

Fully? Is everything already in order with the implementation of the Minsk agreements?

The Minsk agreements will be implemented when all the parties involved in them - including the Americans and Europeans - decide that it is time to implement them. There are no unrealizable points, including elections in Donbass and control over the Russian-Ukrainian border. It’s just that bargaining continues around Minsk-2, it’s not clear, however, what it is about.

So, back to Syria. Despite the obvious successes in the military and diplomatic theater, this war cannot be won. Syria must be ready to leave at any moment. And we need to prepare the population ahead of time for such a scenario. This is first. And secondly, it is very important not to get into another conflict along the way.

That is why I am very worried about the conflict with Turkey, which, of course, vilely stabbed us in the back. Why they decided to shoot down our plane - the answer lies partly in the peculiarities of the political culture of this region. Many of our ideas about it are inadequate, including the idea of ​​being true to one's word. But our reaction was largely emotional. As a result, no matter how the “second Crimean war” turned out.

What do we really want from Turkey?

It's easier to say what we don't want. Since we started playing there, it is quite clear that we do not want either the Ottoman Empire, or the Persian Empire, or the Caliphate.

That is, neither Iran will be allowed to turn around, nor Turkey?

You say it, but I said what I said... You see, Turkey today is morally very similar to Russia at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century. (For the same reason, by the way, they have great literature, and we have already run out). They suddenly decided that they would restore the Ottoman state - they were talking about this 5-10 years ago, there was such a general fad. And on this basis, they supported the "Arab Spring" four years ago.

Weapons of Armageddon

Having quarreled with the West, Russia turned to the East, to China. In an interview two years ago, you promised the Russian-Chinese alliance great prospects. What do you say now, when the Chinese economy is going through serious problems?

In China, as in Russia, the economy followed an absolutely predictable trajectory. Any normal and literate person should have told you three years ago: in 2016, China will have 7% growth, in five years - 5%, then 4-5%. We are talking about a structural, and, moreover, deliberately stimulated by the Chinese themselves, a change in their economy.

For example, the policy “Asia for Asia” is being implemented. That is, production is now not for the outside world and not for the West, but for the domestic market in order to develop it. Hence the idea of ​​the Silk Road, also called "One Belt, One Road" - with the aim of creating conditions for the development of the Chinese economy and industry in a western direction. Whether they succeed or not, I don't know. As a rule, predictions that the Chinese economy will collapse come from the lips of those who actually understand that China, with its economic policies, continues to win.

There has never been such a rapid change in the balance of power in the world. Such a rapid ideological change of milestones - too. Add to this the rebellion of the poor against the rich, which we call terrorism

As for our relations with China, I can assure you that there is no country more friendly to us, attentive. I am even sure that if we had strong economic development, the Chinese would lend us a lot of money. But now the Chinese comrades are saying: do something with yourself so that we can see your prospects. Naturally, they do not give money just so that we gobble it up, as we gobbled up the European money that has been going to us since 1991. By the way, even then I was against giving us money, and now we are only accumulating debts.

On the other hand, in the Far East, albeit slowly so far, something was moving. There is a restructuring towards the Asian markets. With a general decline in exports, the share of exports to Asia increased by 20%, while the share of exports to Europe decreased by 20%. In our former structure of foreign economic relations, the average consumer was not well. We bought expensive drugs in Europe or, for example, apples in Poland for kickbacks. And the fact that now we are slowly changing this system is not because it is against Europe, but because it is more reasonable.

I am not afraid that we look like China's younger brother financially and economically. If we nevertheless begin someday to develop economically and at the same time maintain our positions as the leading military-political power in the world, then I even see a very profitable marriage between Russia and China.

And what about North Korea, which just gave the world a scare by launching a long-range ballistic missile? Do we really know anything about them?

I think no. The Chinese, who have taken care of them for a long time, are also in some confusion. It seems that even the South Koreans have settled down a bit in their desire to unite with the North, realizing how painful this process will be. Therefore, the best option would be to quietly somehow educate them there and quietly guide them along the Chinese path.

Do they really have nuclear weapons with which they blackmail their neighbors and the world?

Of course, they have nuclear weapons, made with the most elementary technology, and there are enough of them to threaten or deter them. This regime sees in nuclear weapons the main and only way to preserve itself. And this regime does not consist of fifty key figures - of millions.

But I would not reduce everything to the danger posed by North Korea. The whole world, and moreover, for quite a long time, the last ten years for sure, is in a pre-war situation, and if it were not for the nuclear "weapon of Armageddon" - the war would have begun long ago. There has never been such a rapid change in the balance of power in the world. Such a rapid ideological change of milestones - too. Add to this the rebellion of the poor against the rich, which we call terrorism. This uprising did not start now, just now everyone finally saw it, especially after one and a half million God knows who drove into Europe in a year. And if not for Al-Sisi (the current president of Egypt. - NT ), then Egypt would have collapsed, and all five million would have come from the Middle East. And if Algeria collapses, which is quite possible, then in any case, several million Africans will also come to Europe.

All this is easy to calculate. It's just that no one in today's political culture - I deliberately don't say "Western", I don't want to offend them - can count on a few years ahead.

Photo: Alexey Antonenko