In an attempt to reform Russia's international associations, it is important not to make a conceptual mistake
Europe will not change its mind, will not overstrain itself, will not get tired
Over the past six months, problems related to sanctions restrictions have increasingly become the objects of public attention. If before this the discussion took place rather in positive tones (“sanctions don’t work”, “sanctions hit their authors”, etc.), then since the fall of 2023 we are increasingly witnessing more serious problems in foreign trade and in the sphere of international payments.
Refusals to work come from China, Turkey and, which, although understandable, is still quite unpleasant, from the EAEU member countries.
You didn’t have to be an astrologer-predictor to understand that sooner or later there would be restrictions on work in the field of “high-tech exports associated with the military-industrial complex” and restrictions “related to Russia’s receipt of income that could be used for operations in Ukraine "(Western initial formulations) will turn into fundamental restrictions on work in general with everything that is directly or indirectly connected with Russian jurisdiction.
The logic of the division of Europe, even on the basis of value and culture, initially assumed precisely this approach. Weaknesses and holes in the work of sanctions are more explained by the problems of administering processes in the West itself, which required introducing restrictions in parts, in packages.
The sanctions pressure will only increase quantitatively, and most importantly, qualitatively, regardless of whether D. Trump comes or doesn’t come, or how successful Russia’s actions in the fields of Ukraine will be.
This is too much of a “long strategy”, and in these conditions we must somehow get used to existing, without hoping that “Europe will come to its senses, strain itself and get tired.” He won’t change his mind, won’t stress himself out, won’t get tired. This economic and cultural space is being cut as if with scissors, not in order to later “come to their senses” and be glued back together. It's time for us to change our thinking.
In 2014–2015 a country like France canceled the contract for the supply of two Mistral helicopter carriers. Is it any wonder that we are now “hostage” in shipyards in South Korea with ice-class tankers for transporting LNG and South Korean components for tankers being built here? These are tankers, but everything follows a similar scenario in other industries.
In this regard, a question arises that only at first glance seems indirectly related to this issue – the role and prospects of international associations, as well as the logic of Russia’s participation in them.
Last year, a lot of attention was paid to BRICS, the resuscitation of the ideas of the “Global South”, “Greater Africa”, even to the point of describing that a little more - and we will have our own great alternative to the established international system of trade and finance. Later, even the most inveterate optimists realized that positive expectations were excessive.
Nevertheless, there is a rational grain in such associations. After all, they reflect not only the situational aspirations of the players, but also deeper trends. Consequently, if we take as a basis the fact that “sanctions in the most severe scenario will last for a long time,” then we need to take a closer look at what associations and what trends may allow us to survive in the future in the conditions of Russia being disconnected to a significant extent from the current trade -financial system.
However, a lot of effort is being made to ensure that new associations operate on the old correct principles, and that existing associations return to their original tasks and operating principles. And this, it seems, lies a deep and systemic error.
Under the heel of WHO
We have many associations and international organizations that need to be returned to normality, such as the UN, the WTO, in the UN Security Council we sit, as they say, on the presidium. If you can’t get it back on track, then, in theory, you need to create something new, but there are questions.
A place in the UN Security Council and the status of a founder even obliges it to demand compliance with all statutory provisions. But at the same time, it actually predetermines active participation in programs like the much talked about “digital medicine” from WHO, where, by the way, the Sarah platform (SARAH), an automated health assistant based on artificial intelligence, is already being tested.
There is no doubt that we will soon (before anyone else) have our own “digital healer Maxim” or “digital therapist Boris”. With an efficiency approximately equal to a product like the well-known “Marusya”, which, when asked by users: “Whose Crimea?”, gave the following answer: “At different times, the Crimean peninsula belonged to the Cimmerians, Greeks, Huns, Khazars, Russians, Ukrainians and many other peoples. I’m afraid to answer incorrectly and incur the wrath of the ancient Cimmerians.” Apparently, “Cimmerian Boris” will soon be making diagnoses, as well as writing electronic prescriptions based on Cimmerian practices.
Well, or if the topic of medicine is not close to someone, although it is much closer, because it is the WHO that calls to prepare for a “new terrible pandemic X”, then the UN has many other “useful” developments such as the field of education or projects like the “Global Pact for a Safe, Orderly and Legal migration”, what is it you can see here to register:, although it’s easier to just look outside. It seems that not all countries have joined the program, but for some reason everything is done exactly according to other people’s standards.
OPCW (Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical weapons) and the UN are in official cooperation, but this did not stop the openly corrupt OPCW from turning a blind eye to how jihadists poisoned people with staged videos in the Syrian city of Douma, on history with the “poisoning of the Skripals” or the recent use of toxic chemicals by the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
Return to work according to the rules?
Well, in the OPCW it is the majority that votes the way they vote, elections there follow the rules, procedures are also followed according to the rules.
That is, the problem of foreign policy associations is much broader than even issues related to strict sanctions regimes. This is a question of how ready we ourselves are to be part of a flawed model, where we ourselves sit on the presidium, but in fact we follow a path like education and medicine “for hereditary poor”, agreements aimed at resettlement, while being cut off from standard trade and financial practitioner
This is not a hypothetical question. After all, it is quite a popular opinion in our country that “the United States violated all the rules of the UN” and made the organization unworkable. But it has not been working for a long time and is producing in its departments “the policy of creating hereditary beggars.”
We like to pin our hopes on the arrival of D. Trump. But this character will be the first to launch restrictive mechanisms for the UN, but it is unlikely in cooperation “with all progressive humanity,” especially in our interests. Or will the standards be changed under D. Trump, according to which Russia will have additional advantages? Why not the other way around?
Now to demand that “the UN return to its original position” means, in fact, an even greater increase in the influence of such programs and policies that were described a few paragraphs above. There are serious doubts that this is exactly what Russia needs in the future.
Where are the guarantees that the UN, having returned to normality, will promote a more adequate agenda for Russia, if everything there is determined by the majority, and the majority has been and will be determined by the financial and political influence of major players? After all, the fact that the UN agenda is not adequate to Russian interests simply means Russia’s weak influence, and not “wrong rules.”
When today people advocate for a “return to the past normality,” they somehow lose sight of the fact that in the past normality, when even international institutions seemed to live “almost according to the rules,” we ourselves were within the framework of a very specific model of commodity exchange.
A turn from the rules of the West to the rules of the East?
In the current situation, we have turned to the East. In relations with the Global South, we say that international institutions need to “return their original positions, meaning and meaning.” China, for example, is completely in agreement with us in this regard, and there are quite pragmatic reasons for this.
Let's take an excerpt from the message of the Expert Council under the Committee on Industry and Trade of the State Duma, chaired by the head of AvtoVAZ M. Sokolov:
“If current trends continue, domestic automakers will be forced to reduce production by up to 50% due to the forced transition to a single-shift operation instead of a two-shift operation due to falling demand in their price segments, where imported Chinese cars will be presented due to large-scale discounts.”
“In such a situation, Russian companies will be forced to produce only low-tech outdated products, will not be able to finance R&D and the development of their capacities, or create new high-tech jobs. All this will negatively affect the achievement of technological sovereignty and industrial growth.”
“In such a situation, Russian companies will be forced to produce only low-tech outdated products, will not be able to finance R&D and the development of their capacities, or create new high-tech jobs. All this will negatively affect the achievement of technological sovereignty and industrial growth.”
The discussion was devoted to the issue of recycling fees for Chinese cars, as one of the measures to combat dumping, since the Chinese auto industry is moving through our market like a natural skating rink.
However, various types of restrictive duties are measures that are not welcomed within the WTO, of which both we and China are members. We and China seem to be in favor of a return to normal operation of old institutions, and the WTO is not a new institution.
In this case, China completely agrees with this. The old rules for Beijing fit perfectly with the fact that by turning to the East and changing its trading model, Russia is opening (and should, according to the rules, open) markets for Chinese cars. However, if he does not do this, then there will be no components, machine tools, and perhaps even part of the raw material sales.
So what working international institutions of the past are we advocating for a return to? After all, if you return it, then in its entirety?
Let’s imagine that all the previous rules work as they should, only in this model there is no USA and godless EU, but there is China and Southeast Asia. At the same time, it is worth noting that digital doctors with “Cimmerian medicine” have not gone away (there are hardly any discrepancies in where we will copy these tools from), but we, again, are not against the rules, we are simply protesting specifically against the hegemony of the United States and the West in general.
The “migration pact” has not gone away either. On the contrary, all these provisions need to be worked out even more carefully and “more fully”. This sounds outlandish, but this is precisely the real logic of a return to working international institutions.
There is, of course, the enchanting magic of numbers, according to which we are already at least the fifth economy in the world, although it is difficult to say how we managed to solve this magical puzzle without machines, without components, with the Chinese automobile industry and with 9 civilian aircraft produced over the past year. Perhaps some elements of statistics are simply inaccessible to us, but the World Bank confirms this. As well as answers to questions about what needs to be done in working with the East so as not to repeat the problems that arose in the international system under Western patronage.
The right BRICS instead of the wrong WTO?
The same BRICS - did they really oppose the WTO there? No, BRICS is against the openly voluntaristic use of sanctions regimes. This is positive in the moment, but in terms of the principles of constructing an economic model, is this enough for Russia’s strategy for the future? Obviously, no, not enough. No one in BRICS went against the rules and treaty norms of the WTO; on the contrary, they talked about observing them.
Now the question arises: if you create the “correct BRICS”, instead of the incorrect WTO, but on the principles of the correct WTO, will this result in more machines, cars, and airplanes “made in Russia” in Russia? Not at all a fact. The required words about “inclusiveness, transparency, multipolarity” will be available, but with the number of freight transport of our own production, the answer is much more complicated.
One gets the feeling that in its search for ways out of the Western sanctions policy, which involves the creation of new institutions and the desire to transform old institutions, Russia is gradually climbing into a serious semantic, but at the same time systemic trap.
It is not so obvious in the moment, during military and trade battles, but its underestimation can lead to the fact that even by creating new associations or achieving a “return to normality” of old associations, we will get the same thing, only from the eastern and southern directions .
Information