Russia in the New Geopolitical Context (part II)
. This is needed to occupy another region and to make use of the scare of «terrorism» to make permanent worldwide warfare an institution of sorts.
Wobbly «global governance» calls for additional efforts to reach stability. Any genuine system of international relations even if based on a single key element demonstrates an ability to regulate and reproduce itself. The war on Iraq launched in disregard of the German-French protests, has clearly shown that Washington would rather control world resources and the military marine routes leading to them than remain loyal to its obsolete allied obligations. The trans-Atlantic Yalta platform of interests survived the Soviet Unions disintegration; it was not strengthened by the movement to Belgrade and it split in Baghdad. This will probably become the starting point of anew stage of clash of civilizations that will offer new roles to old players.
There is a shared opinion in the expert community that Europe will look for new forms of opposing Americas Eurasian strategy as the latter will step up its expansionism. It depends mainly on Russia whether the first decade of the 21st century will produce a more or less equilateral triangle of the centers of force (America-Europe-Russia) as an indispensable element of the new geopolitical arrangement. A strong European role requires strong Asian politics.
It seems that Russia is gradually restoring its traditional multisided strategy — something that befits a great Eurasian power. In fact, this policy is part of Russias natural historical mission of balancing the West and the East. As soon as Russia abandoned it the world set in motion; civilizations started competing among themselves in an effort to grasp its heritage and to gain toeholds in the key regions. It was Pyetr Stolypin who said the following: «We inherited our double-headed eagle from Byzantium. One-headed eagles are equally powerful yet if we cut off the East-looking head of our eagle it will bleed to death.»
Russias balancing role that the world needs very much can be restored: Russia has not lost its strategically central position in Eurasia. It is even much more important than the naive Sakharov-Gorbachev school believed it to be and much more resilient than Brzezinski imagined it to be. His «grand chess match» was meant to do away with this role. One should bear in mind, however, that Russia will remain the political axis of the Eurasian geopolitical expanse as long as it opposes the efforts to deprive it of an access to the Baltic and the Black seas.
Russia should not be late — it should find its place in each of the system-forming or large structures. It should not afford any of its partners to use it in an opposition between America and Islam, between China and America, between India and Pakistan, and between Europe and America. The unipolar world is a temporary phenomenon of the short period of transition from the bipolar to a multipolar system. Its outlines can be seen today. China has made spectacular progress in space research while the Islamic world will obviously continue developing and consolidating.
Russia should not choose between «together with America against Europe» and «together with Europe against America.» There is no choice between confrontation and eternal friendship in international relations, either. Official anti-Americanism today would be nothing but bluff, something like the commotion around the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. While pursuing strategic aims of its own that do not coincide with those of the United States Russia needs good working relations with Washington. In his time George Kennan described the relations between the two countries in the following way: they should be “reasonably good but reasonably distant”. Translated into present realities this means: shared interests and no ideology.
In its time Prince Gorchakovs «la Russie se recqueille» (Russia is con-centrating) produced a much greater impression that Nikita Khrushchevs antics. In this connection we should bear in mind that «strategic partnership» implies «strategic rivalry.»
 K. Schmitt, Politicheskaia teologia, Moscow, 2000, p. 116.
 Emmanuel Todd, Aprиs lempire. Essai sur la decomposition
- Russia in the New Geopolitical Context
- Глава XIII. "Священная атлантическая империя" на пороге Третьего Тысячелетия: новый «передел» мира.
- Россия в новых геополитических реальностях
- Russia in the New Geopolitical Context (part I)
- Истоки поведения России
- Syria intervention: not so fast?
- Глава XII. Россия, «Mitteleuropa» и Балканы в англосаксонской «геополитической оси» современной истории