Russia has officially entered the hectic election period, and despite the political stability that has been reached in the country, the political campaign season has not become a routine matter. Thus, President Vladimir Putin is demonstrating a creative approach to the challenge and refuses to let the political elite relax.
When Russia stands firm in upholding its interests, or shows evidence of its independence in conduct and thinking, it is treated in the West as a signal for ideological attacks. Conflict of values is a matter of propaganda, rather than ideological, civilizational or psychological realities.
Russia could learn from the Chinese the intricate overtones of public diplomacy, even though it recognizes its own difference as a political player. Beijing skillfully lifts its partners’ concerns over the growth of China’s economic and military capability, and persistently profiles itself as a friendly country that is trying to build a harmonious world.
The concept of ‘sovereign democracy’ succeeds in confronting the Kremlin’s two ideological enemies of choice: the liberal democracy of the West and the populist democracy admired by the rest. It pretends to reconcile Russia’s urgent need for Western-type modernization and Russia’s will to defend its independence from the West. The source of the Russia-EU crisis is in the logic of sovereign democracy more than that of competing interests.
The state per se – no matter whether it is modern or post-modern – has the right to monopoly on power, for which Ivan Krastev criticizes Russia. And the European Union (like Russia) will not allow anyone to establish rules of their own on EU territory.
The ruling class has run into a perplexity it created on its own. On the one hand, there is governable life based on the apathy of some people and petty pragmatic readiness of others. On the other hand, the rulers have to retrieve the genuinely creative sections of society from dormancy. Governable life no longer satisfies the rulers themselves, while the unpredictability of awakening forces frightens them.
European integration is usually compared to a train moving toward a single destination that is known to all of its passengers. Today, however, there is a metaphor that more aptly describes European integration: a hypermarket with numerous shops, cafes, Internet outlets, beauty parlors, Laundromats, and multiplex cinemas.
The current state of EU-Russia wrangling is alarming: recurring problems are detrimental as they distract the parties from the real business of developing a truly strategic partnership that would be to their mutual benefit. These problems – which are undeniably mounting – reveal the haggling at the tactical level and the absence of a truly strategic vision of a genuine partnership.
Khrushchev was enraged over Charles de Gaulle’s statement about a “Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals.” He has given instructions to urgently clear it up with the French what their president meant, expressing ideas like that. What if he is hatching plans to break up the Soviet Union?
The approach toward the Energy Charter reflects the psychological imperative that exists for a large part of the Russian elite, which refuses to bear responsibility for the fulfillment of international rules that it did not establish. Both the Charter and a broad range of political and economic issues concerning Russia’s relations with the outside world are today viewed from the "we don’t want to be bound by any unnecessary obligations" position.
As Russia regained its power, inherent problems of conflicting interests and cultural incompatibility, which were temporarily hidden under the cover of Russia’s powerlessness, have come to the fore. The initial EU reaction to these new circumstances is to find ways to keep Russia at arm’s length, that is, to erect legal protective mechanisms along its eastern border.
The principles of the Helsinki Final Act on the inviolability of frontiers and territorial integrity indicate beyond doubt that these principles are applicable to relations between states, while the principle of the right to self-determination applies to relations between a state and a self-determining entity that exists within its borders.
Israel regards Russia’s cooperation with Syria and Iran as an indicator of the Kremlin’s willingness to regain the previously lost status of a great power in the Middle East. It hopes to achieve this, Israel believes, by replaying a system of relationships that existed before Gorbachev’s perestroika.
If Russia really wants to move toward Greater Europe, this cannot be achieved without ensuring a certain level of rights and freedoms of the individual. It is time to depart from traditions of a state dominated by the KGB or the FSB – depart gradually, step by step. There should be no illusion that this can be done quickly and easily, but this line should be maintained.
Many analysts in Moscow argue that the political and propaganda pressure being exerted by the West on Russia is the result of Russia’s growth. But this Western pressure is more of a counterattack against Russia than a direct attack, intended to prevent a further weakening of the West’s positions and possibly win them back. This counterattack is an important constituent feature of a "New Epoch of Confrontation."
The experience of recent years has amply demonstrated that no single
state or group of states has enough resources for imposing unipolarity.
This allegedly constructive simplification of interstate relations, based on a vertical hierarchy – however attractive this may seem – is utterly unrealistic. Unipolarity, quite simply, is an encroachment on God’s prerogatives.
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.