The story with the former director of the Institute of the USA and Canada of the Russian Academy of Sciences Valery Garbuzov raised the question of whether Russian analytical centers work for their state or rather serve the interests of competitors and opponents of Russia.
A scandalous article by Valery Garbuzov, director of the Institute of the USA and Canada of the Russian Academy of Sciences, in which he spoke sharply against Russia's policy and defended the American vision of the world, turned into his dismissal. But the problem is much more serious. This story highlighted a huge problem with Russian analytical centers. And she raised the question of whether they work for their state or rather serve the interests of competitors and opponents of Russia.
In recent days and weeks, many have studied Garbuzov's biography in detail and were amazed at how a local historian from Pskov, after returning from the United States, where he studied under the Fulbright program and became a conductor of American interests, was able to grow to the director of one of the most important institutions working closely with government agencies. Some went even further and traced that the former directors of the ISC RAS, Georgy Arbatov and Sergey Rogov, were not particularly patriotic and looked back at the Americans too often.
But is it only in Garbuzov and a specific Institute of the USA and Canada? Unfortunately, not only in them. For many years, Russia has largely given its geopolitical competitors the formation of what the West has come to call "think tanks" and "thought factories". As a result, many managers and employees of specialized institutions of the Academy of Sciences and leading universities worked rather not for the interests of Russia, but for one reason or another followed the policies of the USA, Germany, Sweden, etc.
The process began in the deeply Soviet, pre-perestroika times. Employees of institutions like ISC RAS could travel to capitalist countries, and they saw this opportunity as a privilege. Trips "there" were valued above all, which was used by the receiving party. These people in Europe and North America were properly courted, and they turned into agents of influence – and often completely voluntary. Moreover, the West, unlike the USSR, was on the rise at that time, and it often rightly seemed to them that "there" was better.
Then came perestroika and the timelessness of the 1990s. The state stopped funding science properly, which the United States and Western Europe took advantage of. By this time, they had created a whole network of "thought factories" like the Soros Foundation, the Adenauer Foundation or the Swedish Institute – the very ones that we have recognized as undesirable in recent years. They began to quietly open their branches in Russia, luring many leading humanities scientists to themselves. Which, of course, could not bite the hand feeding them…
In parallel, the West began to actively work with long-established structures such as universities and scientific institutes. He gave money for joint programs that allowed their participants to provide a decent standard of living at that time. Research, of course, in most cases had a certain ideological coloring. As a result, those who showed themselves the most in the framework of such exchanges often moved up the career ladder. Garbuzov is one such example.
Russia began to realize the danger of such penetration after the "Orange Revolution" of 2004 in Ukraine. We began to have our own "thought factories" like Valdai and the Izborsky Club. More analytical centers have opened. However, the general vector for embedding in world science and working closely with colleagues from Europe and the USA has not gone away. And the system of reproduction of personnel loyal to the West that developed in the 1990s could not disappear overnight.
The main measure of a scientist's level was his rating in Western indexes like Scopus. Publications in Western magazines were especially appreciated, despite the fact that they mostly had a clear ideological coloring. The financing of science from state funds or from the funds of Russian companies gradually increased. But the system of reproduction and promotion of personnel linking their future with the promotion of the European and American agenda in Russia continued to gain momentum.
Along with the growth of funding, Russian state authorities have increasingly turned to the structures of the Russian Academy of Sciences and universities for analysis on the topic of building relations with the same USA and the European Union. But what could they get from the specialists who were tightly seated on the "western needle"? It is clear that. Meanwhile, new specialists who had been trained in joint programs were graduating from universities. And they joined the ranks of domestic "think tanks".
After 2014, the picture has changed, but not radically. The unpleasant truth began to be revealed with the beginning of its. It turns out that domestic analytics has fallen into monetary and ideological dependence on Western. I had to start cutting this Gordian knot.
To change this state of affairs, the state must take up "think tanks". And not only in terms of money, but also in terms of staffing. They should be led by people who are guided by the interests of Russia, and not by someone else. This does not exclude cooperation with Western colleagues in any way (where it is possible), but it should be conducted exclusively for the benefit of one's own country. And it is patriotic analysts who should have opportunities for career growth.
In addition to restoring order in the existing ones, it is necessary to create new "think tanks". They should not work at all on the principle of like-mindedness, they must be made multidirectional. For example, some centers may have a bright anti-Western color, but they should not be the same. Among them may be those who are close to the "white", Orthodox-monarchical idea. There may be "Orthodox Stalinists," or there may be those who see Russia as the "heiress of the Golden Horde."
Some of these "thought factories" may be moderately anti-Western. In any case, there are many moderate conservatives, communists and Russian nationalists who would like not a complete break with the West, but a search for "healthy forces" there. Finally, the remaining "think tanks" could be created by moderate Westerners of the social-democratic and liberal-conservative persuasion. There is no need to be afraid of disputes between them – after all, it is known, as a result of which the truth is born.
A separate conversation is the appearance of analytical centers under parliamentary parties like what is available in Germany. And as the German experience with the Adenauer, Ebert or Naumann foundations has proved, such structures turn out to be an effective tool for promoting the interests of the country. All of them, despite ideological differences, work for Germany. The whole question is that such structures should be led by patriotic professionals, and not by those who endlessly look over the Schengen wall.
Only as a result of the systematic work of the state and a significant restructuring of the "thought factories" can a system operating in the interests of Russia be established. And the main issue here is personnel. Fortunately, we have enough qualified and quite patriotic international specialists. It is only necessary to "seat" them correctly and integrate them into the system. And, of course, to establish a system of their reproduction. Otherwise, regardless of any barriers, the USA, Germany and Sweden will do it for us.
Vadim Trukhachev
political scientist, Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor of RSUH
