The fact that the world has moved into the stage of acute geopolitical tectonics is obvious to many. What is the place of modern Russia in this constantly changing world, like capricious weather? Are there any priorities in the formation of international relations, and if so, how clearly can they be traced today? We will try to understand these sensitive issues.After the collapse of the Soviet Union, certain forces, with cold-blooded methodology, made control shots to the head of those states that still could not switch to a new “democratic” value system. As soon as the geopolitical arena was filled up with “corpses” of states that were considered to be losers in the Cold War together with the USSR, the era of unipolar syndrome began. The “winners” after 1991 have spent some time on their laurels, making it clear to the “losers” that it is time to choose the ideology and the lifestyle that led Western civilization to “victory”. Many countries quickly fell for this bait and suddenly switched to blind imitation of Western "democratic" principles.
The new Russia, too, was no exception, and decided with great enthusiasm to pass through itself all the pseudo-democratic feces that poured out from overseas. Well, this is when everything is allowed: from sexual liberation at any age to being trampled in the mud historical reality. We unexpectedly received a secret code that allowed us to open the door to unbridled freedom. At least, this is exactly what they explained to all of us: guys, look, what you can shit on your neighbor's soul is called not mischief and provocation, but freedom. Shit as much as you want and whoever you want, the main thing is that the sacred beast - that is, the democracies that won the Cold War - were well fed and rejoiced at how the “losers” arrange endless squabbles among themselves. The peoples, who for decades, or even centuries, lived side by side and did not look for a reason to make claims to each other, suddenly found themselves on opposite sides of artificial piles-barricades, collected from the wreckage of a once united state.
Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians were declared that they were completely different peoples, and certain conversations about historical spiritual and cultural unity were turned into fiction. The same forces used a very small firecracker to detonate the Caucasus and Central Asia. Destructive attitudes began to appear not only between individual former Soviet republics, but also between the peoples living within these republics. Millions of Russians in 90 were forced to give up everything and literally flee from Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and other declared independent states. Artificially built borders divided not just individual nations, but also often members of one family. People suddenly realized that the freedom that came from outside, in fact, is a separate manifestation of the famous principle "divide and conquer." However, not everyone realized ...
The saddest thing is that the further we move away from the moment of the cessation of the existence of a single large family, in which, like in any normal family, there were our joys and our sorrows, our successes and failures, our squabbles and their reconciliation, the less significant for many of us, the very fact of peaceful coexistence becomes. We often identify the policies of the authorities of this or that state with the policies of the peoples that inhabit the state. It seems to us that any government initiative necessarily comes from the civil depths. And until personal awareness comes that this is far from the case, we are ready to roll each other into concrete, giving rise to the very forces that led us to the abyss, for the great joy of exact execution of our strategy.
In this regard, the appearance of information on foreign policy priorities on the part of the Russian authorities looks very timely. These priorities, which Vladimir Putin designated in one of his election campaign articles, are now documented by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation. This document says that for all the complexities of relations between states in the post-Soviet space, it is the post-Soviet space itself (first of all, the CIS) that should be singled out as a priority of foreign policy.
It should be noted that Russia is the first country from the former Soviet republics, which at the highest level speaks about the priority in foreign policy of the post-Soviet segment. Measures to implement the foreign policy course were developed at the Foreign Ministry of Russia using the experience of international experts, including those who are in direct contact with the authorities of the Commonwealth states.
The concept, which a priori (even before its birth) was criticized in the West, calling Putin’s attempts to recreate the Soviet Union, is based on the fact that the partnership of states is not only an economy that today plays one of the most important roles. The concept of priority in foreign policy, aimed at interacting with the CIS countries, is also work to overcome the contradictions that were often artificially imposed by external forces. In the concept of a significant role is given to joint security. This principle is particularly significant after the world has manifested a strong desire of a certain circle of states to solve their geopolitical tasks through destabilization in certain regions of the world. And if we consider that almost all the Republics of the former USSR passed through destabilization and bloodshed in 90, 2000, then collective security cannot be perceived as a kind of contrived component.
But the whole question is, how effective can a new concept become, which has been developed by the Foreign Ministry of the Russian Federation? Could it be that this “child” is stillborn? Obviously, certain gentlemen (including Russia itself) would like that very thing.
Let us touch upon the problems in bilateral relations between Russia and the CIS countries that are taking place today. One of these problems, which emerges with unenviable regularity and concerns Russia’s relations with practically any Commonwealth state, is the so-called political bargaining. Some may say that in reality this is no bargaining at all, but the usual defense of state interests, but the pretty term often hides a completely unpleasant side. So, political bargaining sometimes crosses out all attempts to build partnerships where they should evolve by definition. Here you can talk about trade scandals, sabotaging the execution of bilateral agreements, negative political “freestyle”. In this case, the positive long-term cooperation can be crossed out by the banal unwillingness of one of the parties to compromise and attempt to shift the blame solely on his partner.
Is it possible in a situation where the price of gas or oil, the sharing of subsoil and other areas in the relationship become the subject of sharp disputes, step over your position and come to a common opinion.
In recent years, both in Russia and in Ukraine, which is a de facto, but not ratifying (non-legal) member state of the CIS, the so-called gas scandals have become wary of pain. Their most acute phase coincided with the fact that the newly elected leadership of Ukraine at one time stated that it would implement its foreign policy exclusively through the prism of European integration and the transition to purely market relations with its eastern neighbor. In response, the eastern neighbor, that is, Russia, turned on its meter: since market relations are purely, then be so kind as to pay for energy resources at world prices. Of course, official Moscow could step on its own throat and continue to trade hydrocarbons with fraternal people of Ukraine at lower prices. But it all only rested on what is called a lack of mutual understanding: Yushchenko and his companions rushed to the West, Russia was opposed in the soul, but could not resist for whom, in the majority, the Ukrainian people voted. As the saying goes: only business is nothing personal ... But the whole point is that the Russian and Ukrainian, in fact, a single people cannot base their relations solely on the financial component. After all, the spiritual foundation must also be taken into account. However, the “spiritual foundation” is the last thing that was recalled by the authorities of our states, who played too much in the offended against each other.
It would seem that after the change of power in Ukraine and the coming to power of Viktor Yanukovych, a kind of breakthrough in the rapprochement of divided countries was to take place. But this, unfortunately, did not happen. But it came to cancellation of visits, the reasons for which (cancellations) today really can not explain either in Kiev or in Moscow. So, maybe, it is worth at least one of the politicians (Vladimir Putin or Viktor Yanukovych) to step over himself and dot the i's in interstate relations. In the end, the development of relations is impossible without concessions. But at the same time, both leaders must understand (and they naturally understand this) that someone will have to take the first step, and the concessions themselves must ultimately become bilateral.
Does Vladimir Putin consider Viktor Yanukovych’s proposal to enter Ukraine into the Customs Union as the first step? - Maybe. Well, what if the Ukrainian authorities still do not dare to follow the path of such integration? After all, do not go to the unpromising pressure? This is clearly not going to be a solution, but on the contrary, it will provoke anti-Russian rhetoric, which the sponsors of orange moods in Ukraine will readily support. It turns out that it’s time to sit down at the round table, and start thinking, thinking and thinking again about how not to completely lose, as it has become fashionable to say, the spiritual bonds that bind Russia and Ukraine.
If the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation determines the CIS space as a priority in foreign policy, then it will be necessary to sweat over the resolution of questions about the development of relations with partners from Central Asia and Transcaucasus. And then the problems are even greater than in relations with the same Ukraine. The rapprochement of Russia with Armenia annoys Azerbaijan, the positive processes between Moscow and Dushanbe bring Tashkent to a white heat. How to carry out work in such a situation? Let us hope that the Russian Foreign Ministry has ideas for solving such serious problems. Although the idea here, in principle, can be only one: what is called a heart-to-heart conversation at a large round table before producing a more or less digestible result.
Naturally, expecting that the positive results of the foreign policy concept of Russia, voiced by President Vladimir Putin and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, will immediately begin to grow like mushrooms after a rain is somehow too naive. But the fact that Russia makes it clear to its neighbors that it is ready for a productive dialogue designed to bring together not only the economies, but also the peoples of the CIS countries is already a certain positive. After all, even 15-20 years ago, we had one “light” in foreign policy - the West. Let us hope that the change in the foreign policy vector and recognition as a priority of the CIS space will eventually give the first positive results.
PS If politicians find it difficult to find common points for the development of relations between states, then sometimes these points are found by other people. In particular, it is now that information has emerged that the initiative for the revival of a unified football championship can be realized in the near future. CIS Football Championship - not a step towards greater integration?
If we consider that the KHL, in which, apart from the Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, Kazakh, Latvian teams, and even teams from the Czech Republic and Slovakia play, in just a few years managed to gain serious momentum and attract the attention of millions of people, then the new football initiative can be connected with great success.