The Russian Defense Ministry has a clear vision of its priorities in developing the army and the navy. These priorities stem from Russia’s place and role in the present system of international relations and from the new approach to military planning which now must be built on real national security requirements.
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.
Self-sufficiency in the modern world is not compatible with the notion of ‘progress.’ Russia’s involvement in numerous and versatile systems of relations provides freedom for maneuvering and does not rule out any opportunity. Partners need only to agree on the principles for conducting this multidirectional integration.
Russia’s policy in the Commonwealth of Independent States is likely to remain the focus of future discussions and a source of heightened tensions with the West until the end of 2004. The development of a realistic national strategy with regard to the CIS in general, and the European CIS countries (Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova) in particular, is still a problem for Moscow; the way this problem is solved will determine Russia-West relations and the future development of the political and economic picture in Russia.
The year 2004 is likely to become a watershed year in terms of the increased development of what is referred to as Wider Europe – a community of countries united by their close geographical proximity, shared history and cultural values. To understand what our common future will be like, it is necessary to answer one critical question: Where is Russia heading? Many in the West are questioning whether there has been a change in the direction of the development of Russia, and what consequences this change would have for its relations with the outside world.
The developed countries are acting toward the ex-Soviet property on the territory of the Russian Federation in a way that resembles a popular saying about “cooking a hare that has not yet been killed.” The hare is getting weak and has lost the ability to walk without support, but it continues talking about its role in world history and about mutually beneficial cooperation with hostile groups of hunters and marauders.
Russia’s dramatic history is setting serious tasks for this state. We must do everything in our power to ensure that any Russian – no matter where he resides or what country he is citizen of – be sure that he can rely on the support of his historic motherland.
Most politicians in Russia of today have a rather unclear vision of the essence of Eastern Orthodoxy, although one may come across some genuine believers among them. A number of people in power seem to have trust in the idea that a monolith Russian society can be recreated under the banners of the Russian Orthodox Church. They attach the role of “guardians of ideological purity” to the Orthodox bishops in Moscow and in the regions in the same way as ideological guardianship would be attached to the Communist Party committees back in the Soviet times.
The situation with the Russian mass media, despite the continuous heated debates over this issue, is fairly simple. The position of Russia’s mass media is generally congruous to the current state of its economy, politics and public opinion: they have been all drifting together since the anarchic romanticism of the last years of Gorbachev’s perestroika to the current transitional phase, to a future that is as much predestined as the general course of Russia’s development.
Russia’s economic science has proven to be unprepared for market reform. The conservatism of the domestic economic science has clearly manifested itself by the reluctance by many directors of academic institutions to accept even non-radical models of market reform. Those academicians, who hold to the old beliefs and oppose restructuring and innovations, have continuously demonstrated their archaic clan psychology and have snubbed the president’s policy.
The Iranian issue has accumulated all of the immediate problems of international policy. The way this issue is settled will largely predetermine the future course of international policies. This conclusion was drawn at a conference between the heads of the European institutes of international studies.
If we were to make a brief summary of the year 2003 for Russia, here is what it would entail: an overall favorable economic situation; general economic growth; changes in the political atmosphere which were manifest in the campaign against the YUKOS oil company and parliamentary election results; preparations for the presidential election and debates over what political and economic policies Vladimir Putin may pursue during his second presidency. Last year’s results are worthy of an in-depth analysis, as many of those events will clearly mark out a course for the coming years.
North Korea insists it is about to become a nuclear state. How serious is this threat? Why does Pyongyang need it? What are the prospects for settling the crisis? These questions were raised at a workshop held at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations and chaired by Academician Yevgeny Primakov.
Каковы варианты развития сирийского конфликта? Какую роль играют Россия, Запад и страны Востока в его урегулировании?
Грузинам, которые всегда ценили свою культуру и историю, предлагается забыть о прошлом, чтобы его химеры не мешали светлому будущему.
История Беловежских соглашений для россиян сейчас выглядит почти детской сказкой.
Как ценитель тонкой дипломатии, Генри Киссинджер находит немало поводов для восхищения Китаем.
Анализировать политические события, современником которых является исследователь, – занятие непростое.