Military Review

Eurasian integration: major difficulties

19
Eurasian integration: major difficultiesA conference on the theme "Eurasian Integration" was held at Moscow State University. I made about such a report (the text was forgotten at home and said a lot of unforeseen). So far, I'm posting the source code.


В stories large countries, periods of strengthening connectivity and unity alternate with crises, sometimes leading to disintegration. This is especially dramatic if the country develops as an empire, including various peoples and large territories. Usually such severe crises are created by coalitions of internal "anti-imperial" forces and external geopolitical opponents of the country. Such coalitions tore up the Russian empire in February 1917, a similar alliance managed to dismember the USSR in 1991. Opponents of the country's unity always use moments of weakening its statehood and rapidly changing changes in people's worldview at such times.

We are interested in the question, what after such crises are the chances of divided parts to gather again in a single state or union of some type? Already 22, as dismembered by the USSR, but so far we have not eliminated the consequences of this disaster. A heavy blow was dealt to the economy of the whole of Eurasia, because almost the entire production system was built during the Soviet period - as one huge enterprise. Its dismemberment plunged all countries into crisis, and so far it has not been possible to get out of this crisis.

Let's look at the hostel of our peoples in the Russian Empire, its disintegration in 1917, the assembly in the USSR, its dismemberment and the prospect of reuniting the post-Soviet republics as a technical problem - disintegration and new assembly of the system of elements and connections in their movement and development.

Formation of the whole of the parts is a difficult process, the construction of a new one. “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts,” it has a special power — entelechy. Here are two empires - Russia and the United States. Both created different types of life arrangements, both carried messianic ideas, very different. The United States took the path of ethnic cleansing of the territory, and then assimilation - “digesting” immigrants into an ethnic crucible and fusing them into a new nation. The gathering of Russia was precisely integration - each new part was included in the whole, without losing its own characteristics. Every nation, entering Russia, gave this whole some kind of quality. The system turned out to be complicated, but diversity is a great value.

For us, it is important that integration is not achieved simply by sharing - you tell me, I tell you. Of course, there is an interaction between the seller and the buyer in the market, but these connections are too temporary and weak, the market does not connect the parts into a whole. Integration is always the creation of some kind of “common pot” in which each part contributes. For example, in contrast to the market in a family, everyone makes their own contributions, and they are connected, not exchanged. This connection creates the whole, which is “more than the sum of parts”. Very often, the contributions of the participants are incommensurable among themselves, qualitatively different, so that to express them in a uniform form, for example, monetary, is difficult or impossible.

When, during perestroika, the dismemberment of the USSR was carried out, it was pressed for economic advantage or disadvantage. It was a forgery, and only total control over the media did not allow him to expose. By splitting the integrity into parts, that “cooperative effect” is eliminated, which gives the main value to a large system. This effect can be enormous. Having lost the integrity of the country, we have lost such huge benefits (entelechy) that cannot be estimated with any money. But after all, the post-Soviet countries have turned into market relations. Gazprom, a state-owned company, announces that gas supplies to Belarus are only business, and nothing more. On such principles, integration is impossible. Trade is not integration. These types of relationships have different measures and criteria for benefits.

As long as the instinct of bargaining dominates in our culture, the opponents of integration will prevail. This is the first fundamental obstacle.

In a war of any type, an important goal is the violation of the enemy’s system integrity. To find the "weak spot" of the enemy means to grope in his system that node of connections that is necessary for integrity. Do not appreciate the loss of money in Russia and Ukraine from the fact that a significant part of the Ukrainians were able to turn against the Russians. In 1990, the politicization of ethnic feeling in Ukraine was the weakest in the USSR: 6% expressed the greatest significance of the national question there. Radical nationalist groups supported 1% of the population (in Kazakhstan - 2%). But for 23, the situation has changed dramatically. It is necessary to find out why, and determine what the resources are in order to reverse this process.

We have survived the disintegration of the USSR and are seeing the sluggish disintegration of the Russian Federation. The process is before our eyes, we can learn. Without this knowledge, do not reunite the lands and peoples. But so far, neither research nor training has begun. All hopes are pinned on economic benefits. Lack of knowledge is the second fundamental obstacle to integration.

Disintegration is basically a break in the connections between the elements of the system (although the elements themselves are deformed). After going through the list of connections broken in 1991, we will see the disintegration program. This is necessary in order to agree on which ties should be protected, strengthened, restored, which should be created anew and differently, which in the new reality are worthless, so that the remnants of them must be cut off and cleaned. The experience of the destruction of systems gives us tremendous knowledge, and since history has put such a cruel experiment on us, we must get the most information out of it.

The destruction of each bundle of connections is a special program and a special topic. The most important bundle of connections is created by the state - by uniform laws, a common language and ideology, with its own symbols, a variety of systems connecting people and territories (for example, the army and the school). Undermining a single state superstructure - this is the first stage in dismemberment. We must remember and think about it.

Large systems are needed for integration - transport, communications, power grids, etc. Many of these common systems are also dismembered, and parts of them are trying to be modified so that they lose their ability to merge. For example, the rejection of a common technical policy or the elimination of the domestic aircraft industry immediately facilitates the taking away of large systems by Western competitors.

The union is connected by a common language, a common school and a common cultural core. For all these entities, the forces working on the division beat. The balance of these forces in our countries is different and unstable - they take one, then the other. In general, so far there is a discrepancy between the previously single civilized image. If we watch this process apathetically, then soon there will be no chance of connecting the broken links.

Most likely, even now the hopes of reuniting at least the common economic and cultural space are illusory through the restoration of some of the old ties. The dismemberment of the Russian Empire after the February Revolution was short-term. During the Civil War, the country was again collected on almost the same territory (excluding Poland and Finland). Such a rapid reunification of parts of the country can be called reintegration. The parts have grown together along break lines - the separated surfaces have not “oxidized” yet.

Of course, the gathering of Russia in the image of the USSR proceeded with the renewal of many systems, with a common project adopted by the majority. The experience of neutralizing separatism of ethnic elites is considered in anthropology a brilliant achievement of Soviet state-building. But in the 90-ies, even today, these same ethnic elites tried very hard and tried to discredit this experience, and this is understandable - their goal is to suppress post-Soviet integration projects.

To what extent is it possible to merge broken bonds today? In the 90s, it seemed possible. But it failed. The separation forces in the republics and abroad were much more powerful. Those who collapsed the USSR for 22, seized property, financial system, media and school. They are ready for beneficial cooperation, as with other countries of the West and the East, but we are not talking about this. And supporters of integration, even if most of them, are disorganized. This is the third fundamental obstacle, also poorly understood.

Judging by many signs, the time when reintegration was possible has expired. It is no longer possible to “clean the contacts”, connect the same wires - and the machine would work. We need a new program, a new construction of the whole, the creation of new interfaces, the production of material for new type of connections, a new language, new forms and symbols of unity. So, we need a new level of diversity of integration links.

And first of all, it is necessary to change the ideas about all the entities that need to be collected into the system. These ideas are outdated, which was an important factor in weakening the coherence of the USSR. Secondly, it is necessary to change the whole discourse. New generations have grown, and appealing to their feeling of a “common historical destiny” only makes them angry. The Bialowieza Agreement has thrown many republics into a long-term disaster - the agreement on “common fate” was trampled on. As the dynamics of the set of indicators shows, until 1990, all the republics developed as members of one family, and since the end of 1991, they all began to experience disaster in different ways, and over the following 20 years, their paths diverged greatly. The reintegration scheme has become impossible, and our knowledge of the new state of the former Soviet republics is insufficient. The post-Soviet republics diverged from the destroyed civilization system, and now their connection has become much more difficult. This is the fourth fundamental obstacle.

Even the direction of integration, in which we seem to have advanced the furthest, with Belarus, is already possible only as the construction of a new Union, and not as a reunification of the two union republics. The Belarusians developed an original national project, rallied around it and almost got out of the crisis, making many important creative changes to the structures of the Soviet type. To repeat this project in the Russian Federation is now impossible. It would be dangerous for Belarus to open up to the Russian economy, and Russia would also need structures that were preserved and updated there.

The rapid integration of Russia with Ukraine is also fraught with risks. In Ukraine, there is a rapid process of ethnogenesis — changes in many features of a people, one might say, its “reassembly”. This process is poorly understood, in something even intimate. A large part of Ukrainians managed to drive him into an anti-Russian channel. If you show patience and goodwill, then almost certainly this surge of anti-Russian sentiment will collapse, people will calmly consider their long-term and fundamental interests. And if at the moment of general excitement to climb to them and argue with them, then the unrest will drag on for a long time. We must do everything that is useful for bringing our peoples closer together, and not do what is harmful. And there are a lot of people willing to do harm both there and here (just watch TV).

We need a multilateral conversation about the new forms of integration that have matured in the past decade. It is obvious that the type of the national state itself is rapidly changing, it has new “connecting nodes” for interaction across national borders. Why should we try to reproduce the old forms in completely new conditions? These attempts encounter resistance, mistrust, and require large amounts of money. It is better to identify and invent the whole list of possible forms of integration and to choose from it methods that are best for each specific case. Variety gives stability.

We need a thorough and cold-blooded (“engineering”) analysis of the reality of the post-Soviet space and its dynamics, and not a declaration with good wishes.
Author:
Originator:
http://sg-karamurza.livejournal.com/
19 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. AVV
    AVV 14 December 2013 12: 15 New
    +4
    No one speaks of accelerated integration with the same Ukraine, they Ukrainians themselves do not know anything yet, and they are trying to influence them from outside, see what delegations to the Maidan are frequent from Europe from America! Yes, and agree on something with the leadership that one to another, then to Europe, then to China, then to Russia, it will be more expensive for itself !!! They want to be plumbers in Europe, this is their choice, they want to ruin their whole industry this is their desire !!! But only then let not they say that no one warned them of anything! And nobody will deliberately destroy those production chains !!! Only at one fine time will the question arise of transferring all this production to Russia !!! Well, accordingly, those who wish to save they will be able to move work there !!! And Europe does not need the industry of Ukraine, it needs markets for its products !!! That's the whole secret for what Europe is fighting !!!
    1. Nevsky_ZU
      Nevsky_ZU 14 December 2013 15: 32 New
      +3
      In 1990, the politicization of ethnic feeling in Ukraine was the weakest in the USSR: 6% expressed the greatest significance of the national question there. Radical nationalist groups supported 1% of the population (in Kazakhstan - 2%). But for 23, the situation has changed dramatically. It is necessary to find out why, and determine what the resources are in order to reverse this process.


      Just woke up and started asking questions ?! And I thought, all the same, wait for the monument to Lenin to be dumped in Donetsk and a monument to Bandera will be erected in 2020 in Donetsk.

      The concept of total Ukrainization. Analysis

      http://fondiv.ru/articles/3/365/
      1. uhjpysq1
        uhjpysq1 14 December 2013 18: 41 New
        -2
        Do you want Russian tanks on your streets?
        1. alexng
          alexng 15 December 2013 00: 14 New
          -1
          In! Another Martian appeared or swallowed pills? Only a chronic stupid person could blurt out such a thing. Yes, and cut yourself on the nose: Russian tanks on Ukrainian streets only if such as you decide to go to war in Ukraine. Tie with dope, sub-indictor.
          1. alone
            alone 15 December 2013 00: 22 New
            0
            no! there is no need for pills here, and Mars too! this is a surrogate vodka. which apparently went to him for free. Here he sends tanks to the streets of Ukraine. Give him something to eat)))
      2. major071
        major071 14 December 2013 20: 53 New
        +5
        It seems to me that Ukraine was stuck in the 90 of the 20 century and after the collapse of the USSR, it lived and developed by inertia. It’s just the time to grow up.
  2. svp67
    svp67 14 December 2013 15: 28 New
    +3
    Eurasian integration: major difficulties
    The main difficulty is that our country is changing and developing very slowly. If we manage to move it from the dead point, then the problems of Eurasian integration will be much less ...
    1. baltika-18
      baltika-18 14 December 2013 15: 45 New
      0
      Quote: svp67
      Eurasian integration: major difficulties

      The main difficulty is the systems that exist in states. This difficulty essentially turns into impossibility.
    2. alone
      alone 14 December 2013 15: 52 New
      +1
      you think all in one fell swoop will come running to you?

      personally, we are skeptical of all kinds of alliances. It is better to have healthy bilateral relations than any obscure alliances.
      1. uhjpysq1
        uhjpysq1 14 December 2013 18: 38 New
        +3
        your tribesmen are running towards us, even as they are running. It’s time to kick out.
        1. alone
          alone 15 December 2013 20: 23 New
          0
          Just those who are running are running who don’t want to work for 24 rubles a month, but don’t understand one thing. It’s better to earn 000 rubles at home than to earn a little more, while paying for the apartment, for your food, and even paying the police , if you get caught)) and still need to send money home to feed the family. well, what can you do, people are different.
          and as for driving them, at first it was necessary not to let them into the country)) believe me, it’s much easier than catching them and deporting. And you should not forget that half of them have already become Russian citizens in different ways, having obtained a passport quite legally. how about those, will you drive them too? what
  3. kare
    kare 14 December 2013 16: 31 New
    +4
    Quote: lonely
    healthy bilateral relationships,

    Yanuk tried to be two-way, simply speaking two-faced. Now, on the Maidan, only the lazy
    1. alone
      alone 14 December 2013 16: 37 New
      +4
      that's why I wrote - healthy bilateral, not a scam.
      Many former republics only know that they receive everything from Russia and all kinds of rights are being pumped. And most of all they are inclined towards unions.
      1. xxxMYSTICxxx
        xxxMYSTICxxx 14 December 2013 20: 08 New
        +2
        Totally agree with you. A union can only be with equals, and everything else is the relationship of a slave and a lord, but no one needs this option. Before talking about reunification, Russia first of all needs to deal with its internal problems: to eradicate corruption (it is completely impossible, of course, but to cut the scale down unambiguously), to restore the economy and the army. People should respect the state in which they live, and not as it is now, many people look beyond the hill and dream of dumping them there. In such a situation, no one will respond to our proposals for an equal union, and those who are sold and bought by us themselves ... are not needed. For any integration, as the author correctly said, it is necessary for everyone to contribute, and now we have nothing to offer but resources, but they are already bought and sold ....
      2. xxxMYSTICxxx
        xxxMYSTICxxx 14 December 2013 20: 08 New
        0
        Totally agree with you. A union can only be with equals, and everything else is the relationship of a slave and a lord, but no one needs this option. Before talking about reunification, Russia first of all needs to deal with its internal problems: to eradicate corruption (it is completely impossible, of course, but to cut the scale down unambiguously), to restore the economy and the army. People should respect the state in which they live, and not as it is now, many people look beyond the hill and dream of dumping them there. In such a situation, no one will respond to our proposals for an equal union, and those who are sold and bought by us themselves ... are not needed. For any integration, as the author correctly said, it is necessary for everyone to contribute, and now we have nothing to offer but resources, but they are already bought and sold ....
    2. Andrey KZ
      Andrey KZ 14 December 2013 20: 28 New
      0
      Quote: kare
      Yanuk tried to be two-way, simply speaking two-faced

      "Two-faced Yanuca" - there is something in this!
      1. Gecko
        Gecko 14 December 2013 22: 18 New
        0
        "Two-faced Janus"
  4. Grbear
    Grbear 14 December 2013 16: 51 New
    +7
    Eurasian integration for Russia must be viewed from several angles.

    At first, Russia itself EurAsia, i.e. algorithms for solving internal issues will be indicators for potential participants in external integration.

    Secondly, Russia is self-sufficient and external integration should not be accelerated. The realities are such that the national elites, having “grabbed” a piece that was previously unattainable, will not want to share it, let alone give it to the “common cauldron” of integration (not even mentioning it “like the USSR”). Another question is how long these reserves (read the USSR's) will last and what they will be able to offer later, when Russia, one way or another, will be able to completely transfer the former external relations into internal ones or form purely market ones. This option is very painful for all "former" ones. in a world with "gingerbread" no one is waiting for them.

    Thirdly. Russia, in order to become a center of crystallization, must crystallize itself. But then, it will be another Eurasian integration.

    In principle, the current Russian policy of market pragmatism coolly sobered up hot heads, on the one hand, and on the other, scared very many. Well, Russia is not the USSR (father) and will not be a mother to everyone.
    1. aksakal
      aksakal 14 December 2013 21: 28 New
      +1
      Quote: GrBear
      it will be another Eurasian integration.
      - so half of the subject matter is said about it, that it is no longer possible to unite on the old principles. NEED TO CREATE NEW PRINCIPLES. You said the same thing in a different wording.
      Quote: GrBear
      Russian policy of market pragmatism coolly sobered up hot heads, on the one hand, and on the other, scared very many. Well, Russia is not the USSR (father) and will not be a mother to everyone
      - it is not necessary. And this is great! They probably already noticed that the members of the forum from the CIS countries (not Russia) do not like the posts at all, which assert the need "to quickly take under their wing the unreasonable STATE-TERITORIAL EDUCATION around Russia, until those stupid things have not done or even died of hunger!" No, it's over, the care of the "older brother" is pleasant, but after reaching the age of majority, such care begins to "strain" great. Here the elder brother is offered some form of partnership, and not collisions based on seniority.
  5. mountain
    mountain 14 December 2013 16: 55 New
    +1
    The more I read about clubs, unions, integrations of all kinds, the more and more questions I have. If you can’t solve a big problem, then the best way to figure it out is to imagine it on a small scale.
    But for example, take our country and see how many subsidized entities in our country and how many donors? Well, how was the whole problem solved? As donated and dated, and things are there. Here you have the whole EU in miniature.
    And even worse examples, take Bulgaria as an agrarian country at one time, was it like that and what happened to it? And take Scandinavia and what is there? And such examples, just a lot. There are empty cities - in the Baltic states. And when and how will all these problems resolve? By and large, I do not care in the EU. I'm more interested in my own country. And when will subsidized districts contribute to the overall basket?
  6. makarov
    makarov 14 December 2013 17: 07 New
    0
    Despite the fact that the paper report was forgotten at home, the main dogmas and directions of the material are pronounced. the only thing is that some points may have an ambiguous understanding.
  7. Ivanovich47
    Ivanovich47 14 December 2013 18: 47 New
    0
    Quote: We need a multilateral discussion of those new forms of integration that are ripening in the last decade.

    So what are the main difficulties of Eurasian integration? There is no answer in this article to this question. A superficial political analysis of the collapse of the former USSR is given and proposed identify and invent the entire list of possible forms of integration . Maybe in their own words the report would have been better (as at Moscow State University)? So what is this article about?
    1. uhjpysq1
      uhjpysq1 14 December 2013 18: 55 New
      0
      become about the fact that the USSR2 will not. and you need to rely only on yourself -RUSSIYA MATUSHU.
  8. Sour
    Sour 14 December 2013 18: 55 New
    0
    There are obvious common ideas, but there are also filthy "blogosphere" cliches. The article is more a minus than a plus. First of all, because integration is seen as an end in itself, and not as a means of improving the life of the people and strengthening the state. A lot of words about what should facilitate integration. But almost nothing about her specific paths. And not a word about why she is needed at all.
    Although I admit that for some people integration is necessary on its own, regardless of its economic and social results. But for them, the argument should be different.
  9. sasska
    sasska 14 December 2013 19: 05 New
    +1
    Quote: uhjpysq1
    Do you want Russian tanks on your streets?

    and you closer NATO tanks on your streets?
    continue to "Eurointegrate" according to the recipe given in the picture.
    1. uhjpysq1
      uhjpysq1 14 December 2013 19: 10 New
      -2
      ) dude. you are clearly in the wrong trench. you have integrated the campaign with you. Have you already received citizenship?
  10. sasska
    sasska 14 December 2013 20: 06 New
    +2
    Quote: uhjpysq1
    ) dude. you are clearly in the wrong trench. you have integrated the campaign with you. Have you already received citizenship?

    dude, I renounced Estonian citizenship. Now I go with a foreigner's passport.
    1. uhjpysq1
      uhjpysq1 14 December 2013 20: 20 New
      -6
      Do you want Russian tanks on your streets?
  11. sasska
    sasska 14 December 2013 21: 57 New
    +2
    uncle, and Soviet tanks on the street - during the Parade - did not bother me at all. but, at other times, they were not there.
    near the house there was a military unit (rembat), where we had enough of these "Russian tanks" in childhood. and there were also rare BTR-50. What else do boys need for happiness?
    teach materiel, salabon, as these "Russian tanks" met in the 40m year. flowers were greeted (and - not only in Estonia).
    1. uhjpysq1
      uhjpysq1 15 December 2013 02: 48 New
      -4
      yes (that's what it means to live with brakes. (a simple question - "yes", "no". And sasska half an arshin article about childhood.)) I asked you about now) move to Russia, otherwise in estonia completely stupid)
      1. sasska
        sasska 15 December 2013 11: 07 New
        0
        move to Russia, otherwise you’ll get completely dumb in Estonia)

        oyahu ...