Sergei Karaganov, Doctor of History, is Dean of the School of World Economics and International Relations at the National Research University–Higher School of Economics. He is also Honorary Chairman of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy.
Following the disintegration of communism in the early 1990s, there occurred what was then referred to as an unblocking of many conflicts.
With the global situation and Russia’s development vector as they are, the policy of military build-up is inevitable. The question is how and at what cost. It would be utterly wrong to spend lavishly, thereby ruining all development budgets.
A Contradiction Between the Globalization of the World and the Deglobalization of Governance Is Creating a Vacuum of Governability.
Russia has embarked on a military buildup path. The external military threat is record low. But this policy will be continued in this or other form.
Persistent downgrading of a country eventually produces a persistent image of a loser nation among its citizens – with the ensuing costs paid by future generations.
The European Union is adapting to a new reality – slowly but surely.
The macro changes in the world economy and politics, developments in the Greater Middle East, and actions (or inaction) by old great powers make further plunging of the region into conflicts almost inevitable.
If Peter the Great lived now, he would surely build the capital not in the Baltic region, but at the Pacific Ocean.
Everything in the world is changing. The fantastically fast – by historical standards – redistribution of forces is especially evident.
We must find ways to prevent the political polarization that gave rise to totalitarian systems – communist and fascist – in the twentieth century.
Russia has been unbelievably lucky in its relations with foreign powers over the past 12 years. But despite positive trends, things are looking less rosy on the country's domestic political front.
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."
At a roundtable event in Moscow, top experts debated the “hypocritical” and “insincere” foreign policies of both Russia and the West in the post-Cold War era.
Vladimir Putin has mentioned several times that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a geopolitical mistake. Although these words were often interpreted as his desire to constitute that country, there is little reason to believe this.
The April 16 referendum will focus on power distribution rather than institution building. In other words, the organizers saw it as an opportunity to expand the President’s powers and allow him to rule longer. In their turn, Turks perceived it as an institutional choice to contribute to the development of the state.
If the larger picture defies prediction, the immediate future is scarcely more transparent. In the U.S. case, the known unknowns are numerous. They begin with the question of how much deck furniture Trump is willing to overturn in order to pursue an “America First” strategy.
In the wake of the For Fair Elections protest movement in Russia in 2011-2012, the Kremlin initiated a new strategy of state-society relations that was aimed at diminishing the propensity for protest in the next election cycle.
Belarus’ traditional structural dependence on Russia is increasing, and Minsk’s freedom of maneuver continues to shrink.