How many more battles does Russia have to win in order to find a just and lasting peace and not lose this world? These questions are still facing us 80 years after the great Victory, the anniversary of which we have just celebrated. In recent days, they have been discussed again at the XVI Arbatov Readings at the Institute of the USA and Canada of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Khlebny Lane in Moscow and at the XXXIII Assembly of the Non-Governmental Council on Foreign and Defense Policy in the Lesnye Daly boarding house near Moscow.
The first conference was titled rather obliquely: "Competition for a new world order: implications for international relations and the global economy." The second is straightforward: "A time of trials: war and peace of the 21st century." But, in fact, they were talking about the same thing: military, hybrid and other conflicts (just like that, in the plural), which are fraught with the current struggle for a new world order between the collective West, clinging to its monopolistic global "leadership", that is, dominance, and the world majority, which is increasingly defending own values and interests.
In general, right according to the famous quote from Goethe's Faust: "Only those are worthy of life and freedom who go to battle for them every day!". Or according to Gorky, about the fact that "there is always a place for heroism in life." Although the answer is well known to the classics: in the form of a joking wish that such a place would not be found every day in a normal peaceful life.…
"We've been fighting"…
Actually, I observed both approaches in the same "Distances". Most of the time on the first working day of the assembly was taken up by the role-playing game "The Transformation of Europe in a changed world", in which four teams tried to predict and simulate the actions of Russia, the USA, the EU and Ukraine within the framework of the scenario set by the organizers. The goal of each of the teams, formed and prepared in advance, was to choose and defend by any means — from public and behind—the-scenes diplomacy to military, sanctions and other forceful measures - the most advantageous behavior strategy for "their" side.
The organizers tried to deliberately escalate the scenario for the sake of interest, but it never went to extremes. In the end, everyone considered themselves winners: Moscow and Washington concluded a framework agreement between themselves, Brussels and Kiev agreed on Ukraine's admission to the European Union. Fedor Lukyanov, Chairman of the SWAP Presidium, wondered aloud at such a "peaceful attitude" of the teams and jokingly linked it to the absence of Sergei Karaganov, the permanent intellectual leader of the organization, known for his uncompromising approach to the use of military force. In response, a remark from one of those present was heard from the audience.: "We've fought!"
Let me explain that both ISKRAN and SWAP conferences were held in the so-called Chatham House format. It does not prohibit the public presentation in the media of the essence of the ideas expressed, but direct quoting is allowed only with the consent of the speaker. The rule, which was born about a century ago in the UK, has long been ingrained everywhere; in our country, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov suggests calling it the "Forest Distance format."
When diplomacy "comes to life"
Lavrov is a member of the SWAP; his speeches at the assemblies in recent years set the tone for all these meetings. Of course, the highlight of the program was the current two-hour session with his participation.
In a brief introductory speech (which was the only one that took place in the presence of television cameras), the minister warned that now is indeed a time of "difficult trials" in world politics, and "no one knows how many years" they will last. It was then that he mentioned that "wars" are sometimes written in the plural. However, Lavrov added that both diplomacy and practical political science "come to life" precisely in difficult times, when there is more demand for them.
The rest was left "behind the scenes" for the press. I can only say that, of course, all the most important topics were touched upon, including the Ukrainian one. And that, for all the seriousness of the approaches to the development of events in the world, the minister did not leave his "branded" sarcastic humor.
Without caption
It can also be added that both at this meeting and on the eve of the session with the participation of Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, the discussion was based on a review prepared by SWAP experts of the military and military-political threats that Russia may face in the next 10 years.
In the discussion about him, I personally found the most remarkable thing to be the complete absence of hat—tipping sentiments, and from everyone - from military personnel and economists to the military commander and volunteers. It was emphasized that those whom we oppose in their defense have not yet seen a noticeable weakening of either morale or military-technical capabilities.
In my opinion, there were also calls to pay due attention to maritime threats in order to prevent the Black Sea from becoming more "NATO-like" after the Baltic Sea. However, this topic may have been emphasized because it was not included in the original theses.
"Window of Opportunity"
Anyway, few of our experts seem to believe in the prospect of an end to the conflict in Ukraine in the coming months. This partly surprises me, because I can roughly imagine the current mood in Washington based on comments from US leaders, media responses, and even personal feedback from an American analyst I know who came to Moscow in mid-May.
It is known that regarding the Ukrainian situation, both Donald Trump and his family have repeatedly said that they will withdraw from participating in the settlement process if tangible progress is not achieved in the very near future. According to the same analyst from a think tank close to the Trumpists, exactly the same thing — "just leave, step aside" — is advised by the owner of the White House and people whom he trusts and really listens to, for example, Tucker Carlson.
Finally, the same guest from overseas claimed that the "window of opportunity" in the US-Russian dialogue on normalization of relations would remain open until the end of this year at the most. At least because then the authorities in Washington will be busy doing something more urgent and important for them — preparing for the midterm elections to the US Congress.
With an eye on Uncle Sam
I am sure that our experts know and understand all this perfectly well, both in SWAP and even more so in ISKRAN. And anyway, based on the results of the past brainstorming sessions, I have the impression that the more we talk about multipolarity, the more often we look back at Uncle Sam.
And everyone in their own way. One of our most respected Americanists is confident that the global dominance of the United States will not go away until at least the end of this century. In his opinion, the interpenetration of America and the rest of the world is so deep and comprehensive that it is impossible to "dig out" them from each other. Another prominent military expert argues that without America, Europe is militarily worthless. And to my question about what high-profile victories the Pentagon has achieved in recent decades and why we seem to believe in their military power more than the Americans themselves, he answers: "Well, there's also the economy."…
The third, an authoritative international financier, explained in detail that the US economy is currently in a "desperate" state due to the "highly inflated" dollar exchange rate, the "irresponsible fiscal policy" of recent administrations and the colossal national debt. The fourth, a well-known Russian-Ukrainian political scientist, proves that for Russia to win on a global scale, it is enough "simply" to disconnect America from the collective West, and in the European one, Turkey from Europe. But everyone has the same guiding "North Star" (as Trump was once called by his "Snow Maiden" — the chief of staff of the White House staff, Susan Wiles).
By the way, I've also asked everyone what issue of international politics they're most interested in right now. And many replied that this was the fate of Trump and his reforms in the United States. Here is a characteristic review: "Now the whole world lives in the "Trump agenda." Suppose he disappears/exits/is excluded from the process. Will the Trumpists continue to [fulfill] his MAGA agenda? Will they keep the team? Who will lead the MAGA process? Or will everything go haywire?"
MAGA is Trump's main political slogan: "Make America great again!" Of course, we do not know the answers to the proposed questions, and we cannot know yet. But I tend to think that the prospects for American reformers are not bad. Especially if they are not let down by the economy, and they themselves will not undermine the constitutional system that ensures regular change of power in the United States. And the analyst mentioned above is sure that Trumpism will last for a long time.
"Alliance of sub-sanctions"
As for my doubts about multipolarity, they are based on the idea that was voiced at both conferences that not all countries have leadership ambitions, many are quite comfortable in someone else's fairway, and even China emphatically shuns any claims to hegemony. However, Ryabkov, to whom I turned for a public comment, easily refuted my objections by reminding me that, in addition to major powers like Russia or China, there are "collective poles" in the modern world. As an example, he cited the "community of Arabian monarchies," that is, the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Persian Gulf.
At the same time, I asked the interlocutor to clarify the idea voiced earlier in his speech at ISKRAN about the possibility of practical cooperation between "sanctioned states." In response, he recalled that "from the point of view of diplomacy and foreign policy cooperation, this idea has been implemented in various formats for several years."
"We— Russia— are concluding and will continue to conclude relevant bilateral agreements," Ryabkov explained. "There are already several of them, including with Latin American partners." There are platforms for dialogue on countering sanctions in the United Nations and BRICS.
In general, "the idea suggests itself of organizing an Alliance of sanctioned countries as an open-type association, which can be joined by those who are interested (of course, not those who pursue a policy of illegal unilateral sanctions, but precisely the objects of such a policy),— Ryabkov said. —And now we will probably promote this case more actively."
The Russian Dream
As has happened more than once at SWAP assemblies, the organizers saved almost the most delicious for dessert. On May 25 (the final working day), a draft report prepared under Karaganov's leadership, "A Living Idea is Russia's Dream. The Code of the Russian in the 21st century".
The nearly 42-page text opened with the declaration: "We are a civilization state, even a civilization of civilizations." And then, in the style of a manifesto, right up to the call for the creation of an "Institute of Man, a Russian man, exploring him and promoting the best in him."
Many opposed the drafters, including the veteran SWAP journalist Vitaly Tretyakov and the philosophers Mikhail Remizov and Boris Mezhuyev. The discussion focused on hot topics ranging from who we all are, "Russians in a civilizational rather than national sense," to attitudes towards migrants from near and far abroad, and whether we need (and are acceptable) a state and/or party ideology, to the content and quality of education.
In response to the claim that there is no starting point in our history that is as decisive for national identity as the Capture of the Bastille for the French or the Declaration of Independence for the Americans, there was a reminder that there is such an event: the Minin and Pozharsky people's militia, which in 1612 liberated Moscow from foreign invaders and stopped the Troubles. There is a holiday, National Unity Day, established in honor of this event.
I have written more than once about how the Russian dream differs from the American one. And now I am glad to try to bring this important topic up for general discussion. All the more so if, as was proposed at the assembly, a female perspective on the theme of our common dream is presented in addition and counterbalance to Karaganov's text.
The world doesn't revolve around America
Of course, I asked the current SWAP leader to summarize the results of the assembly. Lukyanov first of all stressed that "the main array of topics for discussion concerned the state of society and the state in the Russian Federation" and that it was a conscious choice of the leadership of the Council. Such an approach, in his opinion, "is most directly related to both foreign and defense policy, because in the modern international context, without internal harmony, stability and the ability to withstand any stresses, no foreign policy will work," that is, it will not be able to be successful.
In the opinion of the interlocutor, the current SWAP "has returned to its best days, when the discussion is very sharp, the views are completely different, but at the same time all opponents understand the utmost importance of these topics. Whether it's migration, demography, or the topic of society's adaptation to new conditions, most likely long-term military and political crises."
Lukyanov did not agree with my feeling that the atmosphere at the current assembly was more alarming than at last year's. As it seems to him, there was no more anxiety, but "realism in realizing what [is happening] around us and that it will last a long time."
About the "trumpocentrism" of modern world politics, the interlocutor said that, firstly, "a man of incredible talent who really generates information flows like no other" really came to the fore. And secondly, that "the overall picture is still changing" and "although America confirms its centrality, this does not mean that the whole world revolves around it."
At the end, Karaganov also publicly rejoiced that the intellectual level of the SWAP was growing and that, "thank God, different views remained in the organization."
He also expressed confidence that Russian ethnic nationalism is deadly for Russia. Along the way, he mentioned that his favorite poem has always been "The Scythians" by Alexander Blok.
And I thought, so, "we're just dreaming of peace."
