The program for the so called “civilized revenge” actually appears to be a new version of authoritarian state policy. Can a state living without rules and organized by the will of one person be economically efficient? The answer is definitely no. The current state system is, in fact, a system of self-preservation and of status quo, but not of development. It can only guarantee to run around in a circle which must produce the illusion of movement.
Russia has everything that is required for developing a normal consolidated democracy: private ownership, a pluralistic political system and an enlightened leadership which understands all the difficulties and obstacles that a course toward totalitarianism or authoritarianism can entail. It also has the support of the consolidated West to steadily encourage it through the democratic process.
There is no clear distinction between a policy aimed at strengthening state control and property expansion (which corresponds to the classical idea of ‘state capitalism’), and the creation of ‘crony capitalism’ based on tightly intertwining interests of the state authorities and certain business entities.
“You are all future jailbirds” was a slogan addressed to the business magnates whom the Russians refer to as the oligarchs; it became a leitmotif of the December 2003 Russian parliamentary elections. The root cause of this new type of social radicalism lies, first and foremost, in the feeling of being deceived.
Russia has a natural potential for fundamentally modifying its foreign trade structure since it is the only genuinely Eurasian nation. Russia’s geographic location as a transit nation is unique. But any speculation on Russia’s geopolitical intentions will harm its prospects for creating a Eurasian transit corridor.
Russia and the European Union have recently experienced a cooling-off in their relations. The partnership model, which the parties adopted ten years ago to achieve their gradual integration, is now obviously in conflict with reality. The reality is that Russia and the EU represent different political and economic systems that are not integrable in principle.
The relations between Russia and the EU are at a stage which requires highly proficient specialists with cutting-edge knowledge in those fields which pertain to European integration. Based on the standard regulatory framework and the practice of lobbying interests in various EU structures, Russia should work out a system of effective representation of its businesses in Brussels.
Lithuania is joining the European Union with its own unique heritage: a rich and diverse legacy of neighborly relations with Russia. We have learned from our own experience that by showing respect for each other’s interests and positions, both Lithuania and Russia are capable of finding mutually acceptable solutions.
There is barely a government in the world that has not thought about how it should build its relations with Beijing in the new century. As a rule, the choice is in favor of broad cooperation in all areas. We will see that a strategic partnership between Russia and China, and one that is based on trust, will be an enduring value in the 21st century.
Almost two decades of Chinese reforms have brought about essential changes in its society and, at the same time, produced unprecedented problems, the kind of which the Chinese leadership had never faced before. On the heels of great success have followed new difficulties and disproportions. In other words, the ‘new China’ is a challenge not so much for its neighbors or external partners as for its own government. Such was the conclusion of the situation analysis chaired by Sergei Karaganov.
The world is entering a fundamentally new stage in the proliferation of nuclear weapons – the most destructive and dangerous of WMD. But as distinct from the Cold War years, public opinion in the U.S., Western Europe and Russia has overcome its fear of nuclear weapons and no longer worries about nuclear disarmament prospects.
The Bush administration seemingly doubts the efficiency of the non-proliferation regime. This may explain why the U.S. administration has opted to resort to the pre-emptive use of force. At the same time, Moscow has developed new approaches toward counterproliferation. These factors are indicative of Moscow’s and Washington’s drift away from control and observance of the non-proliferation regime toward practical measures to prevent WMD from falling into the wrong hands.
In the eyes of many, the possession of the nuclear bomb is a symbol of special military-political might and of belonging to a select group. The experience of the difficult negotiations with Ukraine, in the course of which Kiev was persuaded – in the long last – to give up the nuclear arsenal it had inherited from the U.S.S.R., can be of use to those who now have to address similar problems with other countries.
In the coming years, economic growth in Russia will largely be promoted by ‘new’ companies formed in market conditions and targeted at exacting consumers. The state, for its part, should create the prerequisites and support such companies.
The Russians are anxious for a renaissance of their country, which would entail the restoration of its role, power, and national dignity. The source of these sentiments is the same: they derive from a demand for revenge.
When the Baltic countries entered NATO and the European Union a couple of years ago, many thought it was the end of the centuries-old "red line." Euro-Atlantic organizations had crossed into the former Russian and Soviet empires.
In September 2004, the Russian city of Novgorod hosted an international conference entitled Russia at the Turn of the Century: Hopes and Reality. Its organizers were the RIA Novosti news agency, the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, Russia in Global Affairs, and The Moscow Times.