Sergei Karaganov is Chairman of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy and Dean of the School of World Economics and World Politics at the National Research University–Higher School of Economics.
We should not wait till the next crisis makes all the states it will affect in North America, the European Union and the rest of Europe realize that everybody is interested in close and friendly cooperation from Vancouver to Vladivostok. The way along this track has long been determined and responsible politicians should embark upon it.
The world is getting more troublesome and increasingly challenging right before our eyes.
The new European security architecture from Vancouver to Vladivostok would be the cornerstone in maintaining peace in the whole world.
We believe that we must build monuments to all victims of the 20th century in Russia. After all, it happened that victims became executioners, and executioners became victims.
For some Russians economic movement towards Asia spells deviation from the European way of development and closer relations with Europe.
The wave around the idea of the “nuclear zero”, has not calmed down yet. The idea from my point of view was not only unrealistic, but out right dangerous.
Despite all the weaknesses of its development model, this country is viewed as a rising economy, with a prospect of becoming an economic power in the future.
NATO can survive for a fairly long time in its present condition because it is to the benefit of its participants, especially the Europeans.
Preserving the political union of the West is becoming the main function of NATO.
Russian-U.S. relations have been on a six-month-long honeymoon since last spring’s "wedding".
Whatever happens, responsible citizens must ensure that the country continue existing in any era and even in a world where things do not go better. Sad as it may seem, today nuclear weapons are the only possible and attainable attribute of the status of a great world power for Russia – even if one would like very much to believe that it is not so.
The issue of one of the main roots of Russia's problems – our inability to overcome the legacy of the horrible-for-Russia 20th century.
The anti-nuclear movement is harmful. Firstly, it may result in the reduction of nuclear armaments to a dangerous minimum, as it opens the Pandora’s Box of negotiations over the reduction of non-strategic nuclear armaments. Secondly, it distracts from the search for new ways of setting peace and stability in the new world.
The world-class strategic players, including the main one – the United States – are getting ever more confused and dismayed as they lose
the old bearings only to find no new ones.
It would make sense for Moscow to offer its own package of ideas to Washington regarding the improvement of relations, and this package should be bigger than the one proposed by President Obama. The two countries must take a course towards a “big deal” based on the analysis of vital interests of the sides and their priority ranking. The parties should pledge respect for each other’s interests in the areas where these interests are truly vital, while making concessions on secondary issues.
The unfinished nature of the Cold War and World War II is creating a dangerous vacuum. If attempts to enlarge NATO persist, Russia may
turn from a revisionist state changing the disadvantageous rules of the game imposed on it in the 1990s into a revanchist state.
The matter at hand is not just a deep financial and economic crisis. This is an overall crisis of the entire system of global governance; a crisis of ideas on which global development was based; and a crisis of international institutions.
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."
To begin with, I would like to sum up some developments. It has become obvious that the United States has lost Iraq, and that the situation there is quickly sliding down into a civil war, which will involve adjacent countries.
It is unpopular now in most of Europe, including Russia, to cite with approval anything the American president says. In his recent national security strategy, though, he put forward an idea that many of us had thought about but very few of us had dared to pronounce openly.
Russia has reached a limit in conservative evolution. If we cross
this line, we will give the “knights and pages” of the Cold War in the West
an excuse for worsening relations with Russia. These people feel lost; they simply cannot live without an enemy, nor are they able to acknowledge past mistakes.
The recent changes in the world situation have brought about several historic challenges to Russia, causing it to amend its policy. The rapid redistribution of forces on the world arena in favor of “New Asia” requires that Russia revise its economic and political priorities.
The change of power in Tbilisi offers a good opportunity to assess Moscow’s policy toward Georgia and other post-Soviet states. Russia should start pursuing a friendly and indulgent policy toward Georgia, a policy befitting a strong state. Otherwise, the Tbilisi scenario may be repeated in Chisinau, Kiev or Minsk.
The 300th anniversary of St. Petersburg provides a historic opportunity for reviewing the record of Russia’s interaction with Europe and the rest of the world. Mapping out approaches to the future is definitely impossible without specific knowledge of the past; it is no less essential that we hold realistic assessments of the world we are now living in
The European Union has still failed to define its new strategy towards Moscow. The EU, by maintaining an arms-length relationship with Russia, is seriously weakening its own international standing, especially while international security and geopolitics are regaining priority status.
We should not wait till the next crisis makes all the states it will affect in North America, the European Union and the rest of Europe realize that everybody is interested in close and friendly cooperation from Vancouver to Vladivostok. The way along this track has long been determined and responsible politicians should embark upon it.
The world is getting more troublesome and increasingly challenging right before our eyes.
The new European security architecture from Vancouver to Vladivostok would be the cornerstone in maintaining peace in the whole world.
We believe that we must build monuments to all victims of the 20th century in Russia. After all, it happened that victims became executioners, and executioners became victims.
For some Russians economic movement towards Asia spells deviation from the European way of development and closer relations with Europe.
The wave around the idea of the “nuclear zero”, has not calmed down yet. The idea from my point of view was not only unrealistic, but out right dangerous.
Despite all the weaknesses of its development model, this country is viewed as a rising economy, with a prospect of becoming an economic power in the future.
NATO can survive for a fairly long time in its present condition because it is to the benefit of its participants, especially the Europeans.
Preserving the political union of the West is becoming the main function of NATO.
Russian-U.S. relations have been on a six-month-long honeymoon since last spring’s "wedding".
Whatever happens, responsible citizens must ensure that the country continue existing in any era and even in a world where things do not go better. Sad as it may seem, today nuclear weapons are the only possible and attainable attribute of the status of a great world power for Russia – even if one would like very much to believe that it is not so.
The issue of one of the main roots of Russia's problems – our inability to overcome the legacy of the horrible-for-Russia 20th century.
The anti-nuclear movement is harmful. Firstly, it may result in the reduction of nuclear armaments to a dangerous minimum, as it opens the Pandora’s Box of negotiations over the reduction of non-strategic nuclear armaments. Secondly, it distracts from the search for new ways of setting peace and stability in the new world.
The world-class strategic players, including the main one – the United States – are getting ever more confused and dismayed as they lose
the old bearings only to find no new ones.
It would make sense for Moscow to offer its own package of ideas to Washington regarding the improvement of relations, and this package should be bigger than the one proposed by President Obama. The two countries must take a course towards a “big deal” based on the analysis of vital interests of the sides and their priority ranking. The parties should pledge respect for each other’s interests in the areas where these interests are truly vital, while making concessions on secondary issues.
The unfinished nature of the Cold War and World War II is creating a dangerous vacuum. If attempts to enlarge NATO persist, Russia may
turn from a revisionist state changing the disadvantageous rules of the game imposed on it in the 1990s into a revanchist state.
The matter at hand is not just a deep financial and economic crisis. This is an overall crisis of the entire system of global governance; a crisis of ideas on which global development was based; and a crisis of international institutions.
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."
To begin with, I would like to sum up some developments. It has become obvious that the United States has lost Iraq, and that the situation there is quickly sliding down into a civil war, which will involve adjacent countries.
It is unpopular now in most of Europe, including Russia, to cite with approval anything the American president says. In his recent national security strategy, though, he put forward an idea that many of us had thought about but very few of us had dared to pronounce openly.
Russia has reached a limit in conservative evolution. If we cross
this line, we will give the “knights and pages” of the Cold War in the West
an excuse for worsening relations with Russia. These people feel lost; they simply cannot live without an enemy, nor are they able to acknowledge past mistakes.
The recent changes in the world situation have brought about several historic challenges to Russia, causing it to amend its policy. The rapid redistribution of forces on the world arena in favor of “New Asia” requires that Russia revise its economic and political priorities.
The change of power in Tbilisi offers a good opportunity to assess Moscow’s policy toward Georgia and other post-Soviet states. Russia should start pursuing a friendly and indulgent policy toward Georgia, a policy befitting a strong state. Otherwise, the Tbilisi scenario may be repeated in Chisinau, Kiev or Minsk.
The 300th anniversary of St. Petersburg provides a historic opportunity for reviewing the record of Russia’s interaction with Europe and the rest of the world. Mapping out approaches to the future is definitely impossible without specific knowledge of the past; it is no less essential that we hold realistic assessments of the world we are now living in
The European Union has still failed to define its new strategy towards Moscow. The EU, by maintaining an arms-length relationship with Russia, is seriously weakening its own international standing, especially while international security and geopolitics are regaining priority status.
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.