Russian foreign policy revised: some conceptual aspects

19.06.2006

Russian foreign policy revised: some conceptual aspects

Vahagn Aglyan

On January 31, 2006 the World Bank published the report titled From Disintegration to Reintegration: Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union in International Trade. The major idea of the WB’s expertise happened to be that the European continent is at the risk of being divided into the two intra-regional super blocks, with serious political and economic implications in long-term perspective. According to the analysts of the World Bank the countries of one block are inclined to strengthen and enlarge trading ties with the developed countries of the Western Europe, enjoying comparatively higher national profit, whereas the others are poorer and are inclined to get under Russia’s zone of influence.

In fact, the report prepared by the World Bank (WB) is rest on a thorough statistical analysis of trade and economic policy of the 27 former socialist countries from their emergence as independent states up to the present. The main postulate put forward by the experts of WB is the following: the current strategy of Russian Federation is aimed to entrench the recurrent division of Europe into the two huge economic zones once and forever, while preserving a principle role of Moscow as a second pole for CIS member-states. According to WB, the main goal of the policy adopted by Russia is to turn the economic blocks under its aegis into weighty and “permanent” factor of European political and geographical system, while strengthening the potential bipolarity of the Eurasian political and economic landscape. What is interesting, the report precisely pointes out the lines of continental division. The 12 member-states of the Commonwealth are on one side, and the countries, including those who aspiring EU membership and promised to get accession soon, on the other. Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovenia are among most Europe-centered countries. The list of proponents interested in closer and multi-profile integration with Russia includes Belorussia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan as they preserve comparatively isolated economic systems, legging behind in basic market reforms, while the sector of state ownership is too large and has a closed, not-competitive character.

Obviously, WB’s some propositions like division lines may seem too categorical within the context of globalization. However, the basic point here is that the major arguments of the report derive from strategic considerations, rather then of purely economic outlook. Needless to say, that the present dynamics of developments on the ground prevent one from drawing certain conclusions based on the logic of finite lines. Yet, on the other hand, some aspects of Russian strategy of neofunctionalism, employed by the incumbent administration, deserve a special attention. Russia’s persistent drive to alter the context and internal logic of integration processes within the post-soviet space present strategy inclined to logically changing the integration processes in post Soviet territory deserve special attention.

In comparison to the earlier period, the newly elaborated de facto approaches of Russian strategy toward the post Soviet space are rather close to the postulates of the so called neorealist doctrine. One of the general political reflections of this reality is the abrupt decline of CIS political significance symbolizing former geopolitical unity of the post Soviet territory. It is noteworthy to point some considerations voiced by V. Putin in April 2006: “The nations of the CIS countries represent social and cultural unity… which is their competitive advantage in present world. Essentially, at the heart of competitiveness lie the most important factors for development in our world: culture, science and education”. As a matter of fact V. Putin’s interpretation has come to prove that in strategic perspective, Moscow is inclined to make a good use of the civilization commonalities still in place to promote the CIS inclusion in a broader paradigm of global. Probably, permanent aspirations of Russian authorities “to synchronize social-economic and political processes in the CIS territory (The message of RF President to the Federal Council, 2005) are directed just to this end. The assertions of the RF president on the continuation of Russia’s civilization role in the territory are not voiced occasionally, either.

See full version of the article in Armenian

Return

Another materials of author