The age of portraying Russia as the “Empire of Evil” is nearing the end, perhaps not forever, but certainly in connection with two long-term factors. First of all – a change in the hierarchy of American goals and, secondly, the reorientation (possibly reorganization) of the European Union.
Indeed, the question is whether today’s Russia will avenge China for the diplomatic pin-pong of Presidents Mao and Nixon – which remains one of the most important geopolitical issues in the world and in history.
Should the Russians decide to accept a fairly clear offer from America, taking the position of US assistant in a battle with reactionary industrial capitalism a la Donald Trump against the new emerging center of financial capitalism in Beijing and Shanghai – they will probably again (as in other occasions in history) solve the global gameplay for a long time.
In this option, however, it would not only be a problem of resetting, but something much more – the current division between the west and the east ceases to be valid, Moscow should be recognized as one of the equal capitals in the economic and political system (perhaps …).
Such a solution is supported by the still strong Westernization trends in Russian political leadership (the new За́падничество), as well as by the character of the Russian economy. It is well known that we, as central Europeans, are now convinced of this option, and that is why we are kept near Washington, so we are especially obedient to the instructions coming from this direction.
Well, but contrary to what the Americans say to the Russians – the number of points of dispute between Moscow and Beijing is negligible, actually, frankly there are none. So why should Russia, in conflict with the West (as it turned out, in fact, not very aggravating) – open a new one in the Far East, a much more developed and future-oriented area?
But even for this rhetorical question, a simple answer was found. There are some significantly consolidated circles trying to convince the Russians that they are … “dependent on China”. So, they say, to break this addiction, join our efforts, say in Central Asia, in short – to behave more or less in China as Poland and Lithuania do today in relation to the Russian Federation.
Well, of course, Russia is not a western state, and probably will not be, so the comparison may seem to be wrong – but also Polish or Romanian examples should be sufficiently repulsive for decision-makers. Russians should get over these “good tips” this time.
On the other hand, Russia, moreover, is not willing to take opposing actions, for example to engage in any international Anti-Americanism. This traditional diplomacy lesson was well understood in the Kremlin and the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs – about the only and best alliance with the army and their fleet.
Thanks to them, Russia is today one of the decisive players in the Middle East, which in turn helps, for example, Turkey in making a geopolitical and independent move. This is just a possible, but real, solution to a armed Ukrainian crisis (if someone starts playing the book of Kiev again) – due to which escalation in this region of the world has been stopped, (we should all be grateful to the Kremlin for that). Above all, continuing to exercise its own power gives Russia what it needs.
Russia needs time to accelerate internal modernization, to increase its own social sphere and infrastructure to the level already reached by the political sphere. Therefore, the establishment of peace at the borders is in the interest of Moscow. But not with the price of entering into other conflicts and in general, not at any cost. As it is increasingly seen by the official media – modern diplomacy no longer denies that principle. It is agreed that reciprocity remains essential, but no one is able to emphasize what else Western Russia can offer (apart from voltage reduction).
All that remains to the agitators is the fact that, in Moscow, the charm of the discourse on “giving Western barbarians the proof of Western values”, which was still working 300, 200 or 30 years ago, still works. But let’s hope that the Russians remember that, until now, when “good friends” distracted Russia from the Eastern problems and dragged them back to Europe , the situation resulted in major difficulties, losses, destruction and the need to start over.
Well, the Russians will decide for themselves whether this situation will benefit them and on what terms. But what will be the conclusions for us, the inhabitants of the rest of Europe?
The general conclusions are clear and correct – in one way or another, but finally, there is a global relaxation in relations with Russia. If not in the style of Donald Trump, that’s because the Old Union is also trying to do it, but with France and Germany in the forefront. This change is mainly due to the crisis of the whole EU and its basic components, but it is also due to the need to solve the growing social and ethnic problems, the pressure from society, which asks, for example, what President Putin already does, it focuses on its own problems, not on a polarization-alienation plan or continuous propaganda.
However, supporters have also had to change their expectations and refocus their strategies. Just as President Trump wants to have a good relationship with Russia, in order to draw him into his conflict with China, so too George Soros would like Russia to be part of the New World Order, a project of globalization on the principles of capitalism.
Global financial slogans on liberal democracy and an “open society” are used. If not, at least not support the enemies of this project, as previously thought by Russia. “Peace for democratization” – this was Soros’s offer until recently, or, more precisely: “peace in exchange for capitulation and alignment”. Today, however, the smashing of Soros’s western center would make that an absurd transaction,
For the Brussels version of the European project (still dependent on America, but slightly different from the US, from an ideological point of view) to survive, it must strengthen and change its priorities, but not in terms of international issues (as Trump has to do it), but in terms of internal issues.
That is why Paris and Berlin, and after them other smaller and less dependent centers of America, no longer see the meaning of maintaining an attitude of confrontation with Russia. Especially when in France, Germany, but especially in Italy, the tendency is towards a direct cooperation with Russia more and more, based on the values, content and interests very different from those on which the state of Brussels was built.
And this is the answer to the question in the title. America wants Russia (and, to a lesser extent, other power centers, including Europe ) to participate in such a transition that would maintain as much of the unipolar form as the world has now . Or Washington at least needs to secure the US position in multipolar realities.
This is certainly a much more attractive offer than the current situation and relationship, but is it the only one? Well, we can’t ignore the existing threats. The European elites represent a descending, defensive, but still dangerous project – replacing unipolarity with globalization, based on Popper’s liberal notion.
Is it possible for a third project, a project based on the sovereignty of people, on their true identity? For many, this seems to be still a utopia – perhaps this is a new mission of Russia (as in 1812 and 1945). However, it can only be achieved through our awareness and participation of all.