Outstanding Interview: "Problems of National Strategy" in a Multipolar World

“Interview with Director of the Department of Foreign Policy Planning of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Alexander Drobinin, published in the RISI magazine "Problems of National Strategy", No. 1, 2023,” can be found here. This same minister was interviewed along similar lines back on Feb 20, which can be found by scrolling down my wall. I'm going to preface the interview with two comments I made today relative to the arrangement secured by China between Iran and Saudi Arabia that also touch upon points raised in the interview. Actually, I'd almost classify this as a Graduate level lecture as many will find it very educational.

Comment One:

“On selling weapons to Russia, there's no need for China to do so as it does so many other things that benefit both it and Russia. There are some assets in relationships that elude having a money value assigned; in the Russia/China case it's the dual symbiotic synergy they share that cements their Strategic Relationship. Some are finally beginning to realize that sort of dynamic can arise elsewhere and even become triangulated as with Iran/Russia/China which is just in its formative stages. The West doesn't strive for such relationships as the quest for hegemony negates all else, and that's why it will fail.”

Comment Two:

“Regarding idiotic Westerners posing as analysts, none seem to have thought that wisdom was applied to both parties by what I'll term the elder brother. The aspirational interests of both Saudi and Iran require peace for fulfillment, and they won't be accomplished without the two coming to an agreement that peace is the proper course of action. The logic of the situation is impeccable, which is what confounds Westerners. And that same principle will be applied to all nations of the entire Persian Gulf Region. The entity such wisdom will confound the most is Occupied Palestine. And I'll wager it will be applied to Africa too. Xi's Good Cop messages within his Global Development and Global Security Initiatives, while not original, are being posed at a very opportune time as humanity yearns for paradigm change.”

Interview:

Question: Mr. Drobinin, speaking about global trends in international politics, which, in your opinion, are the pivotal ones that determine the framework of the possible and the impossible?

A: According to President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin, we have entered the most dangerous, unpredictable and at the same time important decade since the end of World War II. In my opinion, this phrase very accurately and succinctly defines the essence of the stage of development that now includes the world, the country, all of us together and each of us individually.

The main trend is that the structure of international relations is changing in the direction of multipolarity. Let me explain right away that we understand multipolarity as a political phenomenon. This is a special professional term for the analysis of the world order. Do not try to compare it with scientific concepts from theoretical physics or geography. Its content also has certain differences from the established reading of the concepts of "pole", "polarity" in academic terminology.

What's really important here? The possibility of domination by one country or a group of countries that gives way to the structure of the world based on the balance of forces and interests of globally significant decision-making centers is becoming a thing of the past. These can be leading states, or geopolitical macro-regions represented by relevant associations, or entire civilizational platforms that also raise their voice in world affairs through special institutions. This is a major long-term systemically important trend.

A new equilibrium has not yet been found. So far, we are witnessing a gradual dispersal of political power, the strengthening of the positions of various non-Western players who are able to choose their own path of development, and in the future become independent centers of the emerging multipolarity. Such states or their associations seek independence, or "strategic autonomy" if you will. Their economic and scientific potential is significantly strengthened, they more freely dispose of their resources.

Among the criteria that must be met by globally important decision-making centers within the framework of a polycentric world order, the following can be noted. First, the ability to implement sovereign domestic and foreign policy. Secondly, the provision of resources of any kind, which guarantees socio-economic sustainability, a high level of self-sufficiency of the national economy. Thirdly, the presence of cultural potential that is significant on a planetary scale. A person born in a particular culture or civilization should have certain opportunities for his own realization. Another fundamental criterion is the ability to project outward one's own philosophy of development and vision of international politics, to act as a point of attraction for other countries and to have the will to practically implement their own integration project. Let me emphasize that to project something outside in this context does not mean to impose it on others.

There are not very many states that meet this list in the modern world, you can count on the fingers of two hands. At the same time, such centers are not necessarily equal in economic and military power, territory size or population. Nevertheless, all of them are able to influence the global situation and its development, and most importantly, they bring their own views, traditions and preferences to the world discussion.

Here, perhaps, it makes sense to say that there is a "school of thought" whose adherents reject multipolarity as an unattainable illusion, reasoning about the world in terms of a vertical hierarchy or justifying the return of the bipolar model, this time the US-Chinese one. In my opinion, this interpretation is erroneous, no matter how it is explained. Analysis of current trends allows us to talk about the formation of a multitude of centers of world development that will look for an opportunity in multipolarity to preserve sovereignty and socio-cultural identity, to gain the freedom to determine their future and harmoniously develop as they would consider correct, based on their own interests.

Now about the obstacles on the way to a multipolar world. It is no secret that the "collective West" thinks that such a world order is unprofitable for it. In Europe and the United States, they fear that it is associated with serious geopolitical and economic losses, threatens the final destruction of the globalization scheme that was tailored according to their patterns. In other words, countries on both sides of the Atlantic are afraid of the prospect of losing the opportunity to parasitize the rest of the world. When several independent centers take shape, how will westerners ensure outstripping economic growth through unequal exchange, appropriate other people's resources, exercise a dollar monopoly, impose their standards and rules under the guise of universal ones? All of this is in question. So it is possible to understand the fears of our colleagues in a human way.

It is not surprising that the West is trying by all means to preserve the privileges that developed in the previous historical era – since the late 1980s, if understood narrowly, and over the past five centuries – in the widest possible interpretation. That is why the pressure on Russia and Belarus, Iran and China is growing, the blockade of Cuba, the sanctions pressure on Venezuela and a number of other countries continue. It is worth remembering that one of the root causes of Western aggression against the Libyan Jamahiriya was the pan-African integration projects of Mohammad Gaddafi.

To maintain the positions once won, both classical power tools and financial and economic measures, information and psychological impact, and other means of a hybrid nature are used. One of the main goals of the transatlantic strategy is to eliminate Russia as a geopolitical player and rival, which has repeatedly disrupted Washington's plans to achieve global dominance in history. There is no need to look far for examples – let's recall at least the freezing of gold and foreign exchange reserves with the prospect of their confiscation and the anti-market initiative to fix the marginal price of energy carriers. Our country and any of its independent actions are daily denigrated and demonized by literally all the leading Western media. In recent months, there have been calls for the creation of an "international tribunal" for the Russian leadership, and a huge number of politicians, political scientists, lawyers and diplomats are engaged in the development of such plans.

All these negative manifestations lead us to conclude that there remains a serious potential for further escalation of tensions in relations between Russia and the West. Ukraine remains the central arena of hot confrontation, the "battlefield", but confrontation has been introduced by opponents literally into all spheres of interstate communication – political, economic, informational, humanitarian. And the geographical component is quite capable of changing.

I would also like to mention such a key point that determines the vector of development of world politics at this stage, such as the growth of international contradictions in the Asia-Pacific region (APR). Here, the conflict in relations between the United States and China has significantly increased, their rivalry is complex. True, there is also a serious deterrent: the huge trade turnover between the two countries. In 2021 and 2022, it exceeded $ 750 billion. annually.

In the conditions of "double containment" imposed by the Anglo-Saxons, Russia and China are consolidating forces that oppose the hegemonic paradigm of the world order. In line with this process, the infrastructure of interstate relations is being formed, independent of the policy of the West and invulnerable to its pressure. This further confirms our assessments of the desire of many countries and peoples of the world not to focus on neo-colonial globalization in the American way, but to struggle to choose their own path.

In this context, Russia acts as one of the sovereign world centres and carries out a historically unique mission to maintain the global balance of power and ensure conditions for the progressive development of mankind on the basis of a unifying and constructive agenda.

Question: Recently, there have been more and more assessments of major analysts talking about the crisis of globalization, and options for "glocalization" and even a qualitative reversal of this global process are being considered. What is the reason for such phenomena? What role do such powers as Russia, the United States, and China play in the "new globalization"?

A: The crisis of the Western model of globalization is indeed deepening. The fragmentation of the world economy is due to the decline of many previous development models and instruments, irresponsible macroeconomic decisions, including uncontrolled man-made emission and the accumulation of unsecured debts.

Although it has come to a recession even in the leading countries, the world economy as a whole has so far managed to avoid a state of prolonged stagnation. Challenges in the energy, food and financial sector markets are driving solutions. Prerequisites for diversification of international trade mechanisms are being formed. New national and cross-border payment systems, alternative value chains are being introduced into circulation.

States that are accustomed to thinking and acting in the logic of global domination, first of all, I mean, of course, the United States, continue to try to restrain the technological and industrial development of competitors, deprive them of the opportunity for progressive growth, and hinder them with bans and sanctions. A classic example is the restriction of high-tech supplies from the EU and the United States to China. This technique is not new. Suffice it to recall the Coordinating Committee on Export Control (CoCom) and the so-called Jackson-Vanik amendment, directed against the socialist camp during the Cold War.

The crisis of globalization is also due to the fact that the political considerations of the United States and its closest allies have once again prevailed over economic ones. In order to maintain their competitive advantages, they began to use economic and financial instruments as weapons. This is the non-stop application of sanctions, manipulation of the currency and stock markets and even direct interference in the internal affairs of other states.

Such short-sighted actions have exacerbated structural problems in the global economy and hit the West itself. In particular, confidence in the US dollar was undermined, which contributes to the acceleration of the process of its demonopolization as the main means of international payments, savings, and investments. Let's face it: the dollar is nothing more than a "piece of paper on trust," and the U.S. government will never pay the country's galloping national debt, which recently exceeded $31 trillion. There has been an erosion of the global banking and insurance market. Europe was struck by economic problems aggravated by anti-Russian sanctions. Judge for yourself: inflation in the EU in 2022 exceeded 11%, and the share of the dollar in world gold and foreign exchange reserves over the past 20 years has decreased from 71 to 59% and continues to fall.

It is characteristic that the situation that has developed through the fault of the United States and its allies has created serious incentives for reconfiguring the global financial and economic architecture. We are seeing increased cooperation between countries under external pressure. Regional and transregional mechanisms for economic interaction and integration, as well as multi-format partnerships to address specific common development tasks, are being formed. Among the promising associations of a new type are the Eurasian Economic Union, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the BRICS group.

It is also natural that the center of world economic activity has shifted to the Asia-Pacific region. China is transforming before our eyes into an economic leader of a planetary scale. According to experts of the International Monetary Fund, by the end of 2021, the country's GDP, calculated at purchasing power parity, amounted to $ 27.2 trillion, while the United States - $ 23 trillion. In the medium term, China is likely to become an advanced technological power. This is nothing new: China has been the most technologically advanced civilization and the richest nation for centuries. Everything is back to normal.

Russia's place in the world economy and the system of international division of labor is determined by its significant resources in all areas of life and its focus on responsible leadership aimed at ensuring stable development conditions for itself and others. Our country is actively working to deepen ties with friendly states and associations on the basis of equality and mutual respect. The fact that the Russian economy and its financial system withstood a massive sanctions blow and did not collapse under the weight of "payment for sovereignty" in fact confirms the high level of economic self-sufficiency of Russia, and hence the application to become one of the "centers of attraction" in the emerging multipolar world.

Question: The principle of multilateralism contributes to the development of more balanced positions of political actors, and it also prevents a unilateral approach to resolving international problems. Do modern large states interpret this principle in the same way or do they interpret this principle differently?

A: The current tension in international relations is largely due to the difference in this understanding. Most countries of the world, to which Russia belongs, see multilateralism as an opportunity to ensure long-term stability, security and good-neighborliness while preserving cultural and civilizational identity, equal conditions for development for all states, regardless of their geographical location and size, demographic, resource and military potentials, differences in political, economic and social structure. We understand multilateralism as working together to solve a common problem. This is, figuratively speaking, one of the means of achieving and maintaining a just and democratic world order.

Countries accustomed to a privileged position in the world system continue to try to impose on others their vision of a "rules-based order, or, as it is sometimes called pharisaically, a "free and open international order." We have spoken in detail on this topic many times, so I will not go into details. I will only say that the "order" imposed by westerners, in our opinion, provides for the division of the world into a privileged minority, which establishes rules that meet its interests, and the rest, which would be in a subordinate position and would observe such rules. That is, in fact, a one-sided approach.

At the same time, the West politicizes the work of international institutions, turning them into platforms for conducting propaganda battles, mostly fruitless. Classical multilateral diplomacy is practically paralyzed or deals with secondary subjects. In established formats, where Westerners do not have a decisive vote, they go the other way – they impose equal participation in them of their "proxies". We can talk about international structures, non-governmental organizations, private companies. This is clearly manifested in the example of the UN. Thus, in Western capitals, primarily in Washington, they are trying to blur the intergovernmental nature of multilateral platforms.

Another characteristic feature of the approach of Western states is that the "multilateralism" they push, or, in other words, "multilateralism", as a rule, is directed against certain participants in international relations. Previously, these were the USSR, the countries of the socialist camp, independent players in the hydrocarbon market. Today on the agenda is opposition to "autocracies", which mean primarily Russia and China.

Our priority is to restore true multilateralism. This, in particular, implies the development of mutually beneficial and equal cooperation with constructively minded states and their associations within the framework of institutions and mechanisms of multilateral diplomacy. We offer a promising alternative to the schemes generated by the West, involving "friendship against" other members of the world community.

The key task in this area, as we see it, is to revive the UN's ability to perform the functions of a central coordinating mechanism for coordinating the interests of Member States and their actions to achieve the goals of the Un Charter.

Question: Is it possible to talk about failures in the collective security system in the current conditions, at least in the regional context? From your point of view, will the current international tensions begin to agree on new principles for the successful functioning of such a system or will the imbalance increase in the short term?

A: These failures are obvious. But the problem is also that Western countries are mindlessly destroying the collective security mechanisms that have developed in the last century in favor of opportunistic political aspirations. It is their arrogant and destructive behaviour that has brought the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to a deep impasse, undermined the arms control treaty system, contributed to the emergence of new hot spots and, in general, significantly increased the threat to global security. It is also worth recalling that Washington and Brussels rather arrogantly rejected our proposals for long-term legally binding agreements on guarantees of Russia's security, put forward in December 2021. Swiped off the table.

Even before the Ukrainian events, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov made it absolutely clear that the West cannot be taken at its word. Now, we have seen with our own example that the Westerners do not and do not plan to comply with written guarantees – the minsk agreements, political commitments through the OSCE, the norms and rules of international trade.

Today, the U.S. and its allies and satellites continue to ramp up military spending. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been thrown at pumping Ukraine's muscles. An extremely alarming trend for the whole world is the accelerated remilitarization of Germany and Japan. Tokyo plans to spend $ 320 billion on defense needs. in the next five years, which will make the Japanese military budget the third in the world after the United States and China. In turn, Germany will allocate 100 billion euros. And of course, the former hegemon can't stop. Recently, Washington approved a military estimate for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2023, which reached a fabulous $ 850 billion.

Let's be frank: the Ukrainian crisis and what preceded it clearly demonstrate the unwillingness of Our Western colleagues to work on jointly building a system of collective security. Although no one has abolished the postulate of indivisibility of security in the global and regional dimensions, they preferred to ignore it and deliberately escalated.

We had to react adequately, and we will continue to act in the same spirit. A special military operation has been launched in Ukraine, the goals of which will be achieved. As President of Russia Vladimir Putin said at the Defence Ministry board meeting on December 21, 2022, "the combat capabilities of our Armed Forces are constantly increasing and every day."

A decrease in the conflict potential and the construction of a more stable security architecture can occur only if the United States and its satellites refuse to bet on force domination, realizing that there is no alternative to peaceful coexistence and equal cooperation, including with Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Belarus, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela. This will not be easy. So far, geopolitical circumstances are not conducive to this.

Diplomacy at the current stage faces a "new old" task – to prevent a head-on clash between nuclear powers, fraught with the highest risks of escalation, the probability of which has increased significantly due to the reckless actions of our opponents. Everyone should understand that in a nuclear war there can be no winners and losers. It should never be unleashed.

Question: Alexei Yurievich, what, in your opinion, is the role of civilizational factors at the present stage of world political development, saturated with the struggle of technologies and economic confrontation? Is the "culture of abolition" that has spread in the West a sign of conjuncture or a malfunction in the functioning of American-style liberal democracy?

A: In his speech at the Valdai Discussion Forum on October 27, 2022, President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin drew attention to the issue of civilizational diversity and the importance of this factor in the processes of transforming the world order. It is civilizational communities, which often coincide with economic and geopolitical macro-regions, that will form the future appearance of international relations.

Until recently and for quite a long era, the dominant role in global affairs belonged to Western civilization. To date, however, only the façade has remained of the model of liberal democracy it has promoted. And he, to be honest, almost crumbled. The West is already dominated by neoliberal behavioral and political attitudes – aggressive and totalitarian in nature, leading to the atomization of society and the degradation of man as such.

Democracy is being replaced by "democracy" – the virtually unlimited power of the ruling elites only with formal observance of democratic norms and the preservation of deminstitutes as props. To the detriment of family values, gender-oriented approaches and LGBT themes are being imposed, as well as narco-liberalism, the cult of consumerism and permissiveness.

To "confirm" neoliberal attitudes as uncontested, the punitive mechanism of the "culture of abolition" is used – the exclusion from the public space of those who allow themselves to express a different opinion. The methods used, such as harassment and censorship, including in the digital space, are tools that are much simpler in terms of their use than a reasoned dialogue based on facts, experience, common sense and laws. Based on intellectual honesty.

Consider, for example, the war on monuments in the United States, the "Me Too" movement and "Black Lives Matter" ("BLM"), the practice of removing content from social networks. Having tested these elements of the "culture of abolition" at the national level, the Americans and their allies began to try to apply appropriate mechanisms to other countries, including Russia. The widest tools were used – from financial and economic sanctions and information campaigns to direct military-political pressure, the "abolition" of Russian culture and history.

Another aspect: Western "liberals", obsessed with the mania of globalism, not only do not shy away, but even prefer to use, as it seems to them, the most effective tools in the fight against geopolitical competitors – international terrorists and ultranationalists / neo-Nazis. I will not speak for others, but here in Russia we remember well how the West supported terrorists in the North Caucasus in the 1990s, and we see how it nurtured and today rushes with the Russophobic project of Bandera's Ukronazism.

The West seems to have forgotten that the traditional moral and spiritual values common to all civilizations are more than a set of postulates. They underlie the harmonious development of a person, are a condition for stable progress at the level of the individual, society and the state. Moving away from them is a direct path to crisis and decline, and there are many such examples in history.

There are no simple recipes for correcting the situation. We see the solution in working with like-minded people to try to shape the global agenda, to raise topical issues that are important for us and consonant with the interests of most countries, to look for ways to solve them jointly and constructively, and to work on strengthening the principles of international legality in interstate relations.

The place and role of our country in world processes is dangerous to underestimate. Russia is an original Eurasian and, as we say, Euro-Pacific civilization. Creating a continent-wide space of peace, stability and mutual trust from Europe to the Pacific Ocean and from the Arctic ocean to the Indian Ocean is the key to our development and prosperity and our security. Distancing itself from the West creates conditions for detailed cooperation with other important civilizational platforms – Chinese, Arab-Muslim, Indo-South Asian, African, Latin American, geopolitical region of ASEAN. It is there that the greatest number of our like-minded people and friends are now concentrated. At the same time, there is an increased demand for Russia as a unique country-civilization capable of ensuring global balance.

Much will depend on whether we will be able to organise a friendly broad interregional coalition with the participation of priority partners. If we can, it will largely determine the success of Russian foreign policy and the stability of international relations in the coming years.