The West speaks of a “Russian challenge” and adjusts its strategy towards Russia
Continuing to put pressure on Russia with the help of sanctions and other unfriendly actions, the West simultaneously deepens the development of the doctrinal foundations of its anti-Russian policy. One of the most significant documents of this kind was the Russian Call of the Royal Institute of International Relations (Chatham House), a leading Anglo-American think tank of the global elite, published in early June. Among the six authors of the report are two former British ambassadors to Moscow - Sir Roderick Lyne and Sir Andrew Wood.
Considering the events in Ukraine only as a reason for adjusting and tightening Western policies towards Russia, the authors of the report fix deeper discrepancies between it and the Western world, affecting, in essence, the question of different types of civilizations.
Until 2003, it was believed, the report says, that a renewed Russia could become “a constructive and healthy member of the international community,” but gradually in the West they came to the conclusion that while Moscow adheres to the current political course, it cannot be a partner or an ally. The existing differences negate any common interests of Russia and the West. What happened in 2003, why did Russia, according to people from Chatham House, drop out of the number of “healthy and constructive” partners? It turns out that such an event was the invasion of Iraq, which Moscow did not support and which, as it was recognized since even in the interventionist countries, came from false assumptions and led to sad and fatal consequences. Moral: if you want the Western world to recognize you as “healthy,” you must unconditionally join all of its actions, even insane and criminal.
An attempt to force Moscow to change its policy towards Ukraine is considered in the Chatham House report as the first, but not sufficient step towards the “recovery” of Russia. The main thread in the report is the idea of the need for regime change in Russia according to the Ukrainian model. Since an open speech with such a call is fraught with serious diplomatic complications, he is slightly camouflaged in the spirit of the traditions of the British “doublethink” described by Orwell. It is argued, for example, that "the West has neither the desire nor the means to facilitate or prevent regime change in Russia." However, the task is to prepare for the “possible consequences of the chaotic collapse of the Putin system,” since “Russia cannot be integrated into the European international order on the basis of rules recognized by all European states until the Kremlin changes fundamentally. And such a change must come from within. " To achieve such a change, according to the authors of the report, you can use the tools of "soft power". At the same time, easy life is not waiting for potential Russian applicants for the favor of the West either. The authors of the Russian Challenge report are looking for ways to weaken Russia and call for “preparing for the complications and opportunities that will inevitably appear when Russia finally has a change of leadership. It is impossible, they write, “to make concessions to Vladimir Putin, for fear that his successor will be even worse. Such an approach has already proved its inconsistency. No matter what happens - whether the current leadership will remain in power or if there will be an early change of power, there is a difficult and possibly turbulent way ahead. ”
As strategists from Chatham House say, the West must restrain and limit Russia in “attempts at coercion” in relation to its European neighbors, doing so for as long as it will be necessary, but at the same time not creating fixed dividing lines. We must leave the doors open for interaction with Russia in the future, when circumstances change. It is impossible, the authors of the report argue, to confidently expect that this will happen under Putin, but it is also impossible to predict what the next regime will be. Therefore, we must patiently explain the policy of the West in discussions with China and all former Soviet republics. As for the sanctions against Russia, their effectiveness depends on their duration and severity. Sanctions should remain in force until the final decision of the Ukrainian question. In particular, linking the lifting of sanctions exclusively to the implementation of "poorly developed and initially fragile Minsk agreements is doomed to failure." Note that such demonstrative nihilism in relation to the Minsk agreements itself is a source of tension, unleashing Kiev hands for new military adventures.
The British press, in particular the newspaper The Independent, pays special attention to the report of the Royal Institute of International Relations, which calls for the strengthening of NATO, since the "dismantling of the balance of power" that developed in Europe after the end of the cold war could lead to a "collapse" of this military unit. The report's authors recommend that the North Atlantic alliance demonstrate Russia that a limited war in this part of the world is impossible and that the response to an “unclear” or “hybrid” war will be energetic. The irresponsible recommendation, given that this is exactly the task - engaging the maximum number of countries in the hot phase of the conflict - is set by the Kiev regime, which is unable to find a common language with those who oppose it within the country.
At the presentation of the report at Chatham House, the question was raised whether the developers of this strategy did not worry that Russia would increasingly draw closer to China under increasing pressure from the West, as shown, in particular, by joint Russian-Chinese maneuvers in the Mediterranean. Having admitted that they did not seriously deal with this and did not analyze this aspect of the problem, the authors of the report thoughtlessly reacted to such a scenario as "irrelevant": they say, the Chinese will always be guided by "their own interests, not Russians." Reckless statement. China and other ascending powers reject the universalistic and hegemonic claims of the West as contradicting their fundamental national interests and leading the world to a dead end. This objectively makes the largest non-Western countries allies.
Approximately in the same direction as the British, there is a process of developing a "Russian doctrine" in the United States. 5 June Pentagon chief Ashton Carter gathered a group of military men on a hypothetical “battlefield” in Stuttgart to discuss the possibility of additional deployment of tactical nuclear in Europe weapons United States and the transfer to the Old World of other American weapons. Inside the White House, the US National Security Council is already working on an appropriate document. Some believe that the new strategy towards Russia will become an improved version of deterrence by deterrence, others do not want to admit that the United States has begun a new cold war. However, even the latter are convinced that the United States must resist Russia's actions in Europe. "We must prevent Russia from redefining its spheres of influence," said a senior American official.
The West and other countries are thinking about developing a new “Russian doctrine”, although not necessarily in the same vein as the Anglo-Saxons. So, a group of French scientists, university professors and political scientists, called on the government to create a French school to study Russia. “Russia and Europe,” the French said, “share one continent, and they cannot have separate historical trajectories. " According to the members of this group, it is time to modernize the French school of strategic vision of Russia. “The time has come to abandon the cliche about Russia, which should not be perceived as a cold-blooded monster craving for territorial expansion, or as the only tool to save Europe from liberal and transatlantic demons. The time has come for an adequate vision of Russia and the creation of new platforms on which the study of this country will be based on its historical depth, economic scale, local contexts and expressions of pluralism that exist even in Russia. Those who make decisions should be able to rely on objective analysis and be free from various lobbying structures, the number of which has grown significantly in recent years and which seek to influence our perception of what is happening. " Noting that in January 2015, 2,5 million euros were allocated in Germany to finance a new research institute, which will be fully focused on the study of Russia and Eurasia, French researchers emphasize that France should follow the example of the Germans.
On the eve of the G7 summit in Bavaria, the chairman of the German-Russian Forum Matthias Platzeck warned of the fatal consequences of a further break in relations with Russia. “I cannot imagine either a favorable development of events, nor stable security in the conditions of a break in relations with Russia,” he said. During the development of the conflict around Ukraine, relations between Europe and Russia have deteriorated so much that both sides can be a big loser, Platzek believes. “In the end, we will see that Europe has lost its share of influence, and Russia has weakened. At the same time, America will be released only stronger, and the Chinese will at least get economic benefits, ”says the chairman of the German-Russian Forum.
Considering the events in Ukraine only as a reason for adjusting and tightening Western policies towards Russia, the authors of the report fix deeper discrepancies between it and the Western world, affecting, in essence, the question of different types of civilizations.
Until 2003, it was believed, the report says, that a renewed Russia could become “a constructive and healthy member of the international community,” but gradually in the West they came to the conclusion that while Moscow adheres to the current political course, it cannot be a partner or an ally. The existing differences negate any common interests of Russia and the West. What happened in 2003, why did Russia, according to people from Chatham House, drop out of the number of “healthy and constructive” partners? It turns out that such an event was the invasion of Iraq, which Moscow did not support and which, as it was recognized since even in the interventionist countries, came from false assumptions and led to sad and fatal consequences. Moral: if you want the Western world to recognize you as “healthy,” you must unconditionally join all of its actions, even insane and criminal.
An attempt to force Moscow to change its policy towards Ukraine is considered in the Chatham House report as the first, but not sufficient step towards the “recovery” of Russia. The main thread in the report is the idea of the need for regime change in Russia according to the Ukrainian model. Since an open speech with such a call is fraught with serious diplomatic complications, he is slightly camouflaged in the spirit of the traditions of the British “doublethink” described by Orwell. It is argued, for example, that "the West has neither the desire nor the means to facilitate or prevent regime change in Russia." However, the task is to prepare for the “possible consequences of the chaotic collapse of the Putin system,” since “Russia cannot be integrated into the European international order on the basis of rules recognized by all European states until the Kremlin changes fundamentally. And such a change must come from within. " To achieve such a change, according to the authors of the report, you can use the tools of "soft power". At the same time, easy life is not waiting for potential Russian applicants for the favor of the West either. The authors of the Russian Challenge report are looking for ways to weaken Russia and call for “preparing for the complications and opportunities that will inevitably appear when Russia finally has a change of leadership. It is impossible, they write, “to make concessions to Vladimir Putin, for fear that his successor will be even worse. Such an approach has already proved its inconsistency. No matter what happens - whether the current leadership will remain in power or if there will be an early change of power, there is a difficult and possibly turbulent way ahead. ”
As strategists from Chatham House say, the West must restrain and limit Russia in “attempts at coercion” in relation to its European neighbors, doing so for as long as it will be necessary, but at the same time not creating fixed dividing lines. We must leave the doors open for interaction with Russia in the future, when circumstances change. It is impossible, the authors of the report argue, to confidently expect that this will happen under Putin, but it is also impossible to predict what the next regime will be. Therefore, we must patiently explain the policy of the West in discussions with China and all former Soviet republics. As for the sanctions against Russia, their effectiveness depends on their duration and severity. Sanctions should remain in force until the final decision of the Ukrainian question. In particular, linking the lifting of sanctions exclusively to the implementation of "poorly developed and initially fragile Minsk agreements is doomed to failure." Note that such demonstrative nihilism in relation to the Minsk agreements itself is a source of tension, unleashing Kiev hands for new military adventures.
The British press, in particular the newspaper The Independent, pays special attention to the report of the Royal Institute of International Relations, which calls for the strengthening of NATO, since the "dismantling of the balance of power" that developed in Europe after the end of the cold war could lead to a "collapse" of this military unit. The report's authors recommend that the North Atlantic alliance demonstrate Russia that a limited war in this part of the world is impossible and that the response to an “unclear” or “hybrid” war will be energetic. The irresponsible recommendation, given that this is exactly the task - engaging the maximum number of countries in the hot phase of the conflict - is set by the Kiev regime, which is unable to find a common language with those who oppose it within the country.
At the presentation of the report at Chatham House, the question was raised whether the developers of this strategy did not worry that Russia would increasingly draw closer to China under increasing pressure from the West, as shown, in particular, by joint Russian-Chinese maneuvers in the Mediterranean. Having admitted that they did not seriously deal with this and did not analyze this aspect of the problem, the authors of the report thoughtlessly reacted to such a scenario as "irrelevant": they say, the Chinese will always be guided by "their own interests, not Russians." Reckless statement. China and other ascending powers reject the universalistic and hegemonic claims of the West as contradicting their fundamental national interests and leading the world to a dead end. This objectively makes the largest non-Western countries allies.
Approximately in the same direction as the British, there is a process of developing a "Russian doctrine" in the United States. 5 June Pentagon chief Ashton Carter gathered a group of military men on a hypothetical “battlefield” in Stuttgart to discuss the possibility of additional deployment of tactical nuclear in Europe weapons United States and the transfer to the Old World of other American weapons. Inside the White House, the US National Security Council is already working on an appropriate document. Some believe that the new strategy towards Russia will become an improved version of deterrence by deterrence, others do not want to admit that the United States has begun a new cold war. However, even the latter are convinced that the United States must resist Russia's actions in Europe. "We must prevent Russia from redefining its spheres of influence," said a senior American official.
The West and other countries are thinking about developing a new “Russian doctrine”, although not necessarily in the same vein as the Anglo-Saxons. So, a group of French scientists, university professors and political scientists, called on the government to create a French school to study Russia. “Russia and Europe,” the French said, “share one continent, and they cannot have separate historical trajectories. " According to the members of this group, it is time to modernize the French school of strategic vision of Russia. “The time has come to abandon the cliche about Russia, which should not be perceived as a cold-blooded monster craving for territorial expansion, or as the only tool to save Europe from liberal and transatlantic demons. The time has come for an adequate vision of Russia and the creation of new platforms on which the study of this country will be based on its historical depth, economic scale, local contexts and expressions of pluralism that exist even in Russia. Those who make decisions should be able to rely on objective analysis and be free from various lobbying structures, the number of which has grown significantly in recent years and which seek to influence our perception of what is happening. " Noting that in January 2015, 2,5 million euros were allocated in Germany to finance a new research institute, which will be fully focused on the study of Russia and Eurasia, French researchers emphasize that France should follow the example of the Germans.
On the eve of the G7 summit in Bavaria, the chairman of the German-Russian Forum Matthias Platzeck warned of the fatal consequences of a further break in relations with Russia. “I cannot imagine either a favorable development of events, nor stable security in the conditions of a break in relations with Russia,” he said. During the development of the conflict around Ukraine, relations between Europe and Russia have deteriorated so much that both sides can be a big loser, Platzek believes. “In the end, we will see that Europe has lost its share of influence, and Russia has weakened. At the same time, America will be released only stronger, and the Chinese will at least get economic benefits, ”says the chairman of the German-Russian Forum.
- Dmitry MININ
- http://www.fondsk.ru/news/2015/06/14/zapad-govorit-o-russkom-vyzove-i-korrektiruet-strategiu-v-otnoshenii-rossii-33822.html
Information