Tweet
ONLY THE PERSON SITTING IN KREMLIN DOES NOT WANT TO SEE
Igor Muradyan, Political Analyst
Comments - 10 September 2014, 19:52
Is there a real doctrine on Eurasia? Of course, there is, but Russia's
present plans have nothing to do with this. Why?
The Eurasian doctrine is a civilization doctrine, not a badly
cooked hodgepodge, and the Eurasianism can be brought into being
as a cultural-historical bloc. Of course, one may argue what this
characteristics means but, in any case, one has to choose between a
Euro-Asian and Eastern European community.
In addition, Eurasianism in its acceptable format of a stable and
substantial community, may be set up only in the mode of close
cooperation with the Euro-Atlantic community or, at least, in the
mode of open confrontation with it.
The current invented and fully artificial "Eurasian project" is
falling apart, and only the person who sometimes sits in the Kremlin
does not want to see this. A marginal and isolated bloc, especially
in an allegedly confrontation mode, cannot come into being.
Why are Belarus and Kazakhstan increasingly demonstrating intentions
to set up new dimensions in cooperation with the West and other
global centers of power? Because A. Lukashenko and N. Nazarbayev
understand how dangerous isolation in the so-called "Russian world"
is. One can forgive such things as economic and social failures,
political failures but nobody in a normal state will forgive the loss
of national sovereignty.
The "Russian world" means loss of sovereignty for any state, whether
small or big. It is not ruled out that despite their lasting tenure A.
Lukashenko and N. Nazarbayev remain learning politicians and cannot
understand all at once.
At the same time, the U.S. administration and a number of European
countries have realized their mistakes in planning and integration of
the Western community with the countries of Eastern Europe. Mistakes
have been made but now there are sufficient signs of what stronger
centers of power in the Western community have understood that
continuing isolation and blockade of the countries of Eastern Europe
for different political-ideological and military-political problems is
meaningless, and it is time to finish with the policy of past decades.
In other words, return of "Bushism" is underway but in a different
stylistics. Not a shade of "Clintonism" has been left in the U.S.
policy. B. Obama has taken the United States so far into
pseudo-Pacifism that hardly anyone believed in such a turn but the
American establishment has demonstrated its "strategic pluralism"
once again in history.
This policy only opens up opportunities for the policy of Russia which
leads to lasting stagnation in international development. The West does
not need to recognize a completely European nation, the Byelorussians,
as a surrogate of "Eurasianism", which is neither comprehensible,
nor specific. The problem of Belarus is that hardly anyone in the
West or Russia has a good understanding of this country.
Belarus has a lot from the typical European or rather Central European
culture. It is hard for the Russians to understand that Byelorussians
are not Russians. They are close but different ethnicities and
nations. The Kazakh and Kyrgyz people are classic Eurasian peoples
who do not fit the Anatolian Levantism or European civilization goals
or Confucian cultural-historical space or the Islamic community.
These two countries do not even fit the format of Central Asia and are,
no doubt, a unique world, closer to Russia than anyone else.
However, these countries do not demonstrate a wish to lose independence
and delegate sovereignty to Russia, even in the face of Chinese
expansion.
But only elite can think so, and such thinking is a criterion of
a national elite. Armenia has neither elite nor counter-elite or
anti-elite. The notions of independence and sovereignty of the country
mean nothing to those who are now determining the future of Armenia and
are a serious obstacle to their welfare and security of their income.
The ruling regime in Russia, pretending to historical territories
and declaring protection of rights of the Russian population, would
allegedly be able to resolve if not all, at least most of these issues
over the past 25 years. However, no serious attempts were in place.
There was demagogy and money laundering based on chauvinistic
propaganda.
In reality, the "Eurasian doctrine" means depriving states of
the rights to choice of foreign policy, i.e. sovereignty. This is
considered as a factor of security of Russia.
Vladimir Putin and someone else have been made believe that Russia
is strong, it has stood up to its feet and, this conviction continues.
The question occurs whether Russia can cope with domestic problems.
However, such formulation of the issue is dilettantism. In the modern
world, the country is first brought to the necessary "condition"
and then is left to float.
One way or another, it will become clear that the Moscow-based ruling
regime is controllable despite the criticism of conspiracy theory.
However, famous suppositions on catastrophes in Russia will not
happen. It will be saved as always. In any case, Russia's chief and
basically official expert on conspiracy theory does not deny that
the general objective of the West is removal of the ruling regime
of Moscow.
http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/comments/view/32960#sthash.rfrg1mcn.dpuf
Igor Muradyan, Political Analyst
Comments - 10 September 2014, 19:52
Is there a real doctrine on Eurasia? Of course, there is, but Russia's
present plans have nothing to do with this. Why?
The Eurasian doctrine is a civilization doctrine, not a badly
cooked hodgepodge, and the Eurasianism can be brought into being
as a cultural-historical bloc. Of course, one may argue what this
characteristics means but, in any case, one has to choose between a
Euro-Asian and Eastern European community.
In addition, Eurasianism in its acceptable format of a stable and
substantial community, may be set up only in the mode of close
cooperation with the Euro-Atlantic community or, at least, in the
mode of open confrontation with it.
The current invented and fully artificial "Eurasian project" is
falling apart, and only the person who sometimes sits in the Kremlin
does not want to see this. A marginal and isolated bloc, especially
in an allegedly confrontation mode, cannot come into being.
Why are Belarus and Kazakhstan increasingly demonstrating intentions
to set up new dimensions in cooperation with the West and other
global centers of power? Because A. Lukashenko and N. Nazarbayev
understand how dangerous isolation in the so-called "Russian world"
is. One can forgive such things as economic and social failures,
political failures but nobody in a normal state will forgive the loss
of national sovereignty.
The "Russian world" means loss of sovereignty for any state, whether
small or big. It is not ruled out that despite their lasting tenure A.
Lukashenko and N. Nazarbayev remain learning politicians and cannot
understand all at once.
At the same time, the U.S. administration and a number of European
countries have realized their mistakes in planning and integration of
the Western community with the countries of Eastern Europe. Mistakes
have been made but now there are sufficient signs of what stronger
centers of power in the Western community have understood that
continuing isolation and blockade of the countries of Eastern Europe
for different political-ideological and military-political problems is
meaningless, and it is time to finish with the policy of past decades.
In other words, return of "Bushism" is underway but in a different
stylistics. Not a shade of "Clintonism" has been left in the U.S.
policy. B. Obama has taken the United States so far into
pseudo-Pacifism that hardly anyone believed in such a turn but the
American establishment has demonstrated its "strategic pluralism"
once again in history.
This policy only opens up opportunities for the policy of Russia which
leads to lasting stagnation in international development. The West does
not need to recognize a completely European nation, the Byelorussians,
as a surrogate of "Eurasianism", which is neither comprehensible,
nor specific. The problem of Belarus is that hardly anyone in the
West or Russia has a good understanding of this country.
Belarus has a lot from the typical European or rather Central European
culture. It is hard for the Russians to understand that Byelorussians
are not Russians. They are close but different ethnicities and
nations. The Kazakh and Kyrgyz people are classic Eurasian peoples
who do not fit the Anatolian Levantism or European civilization goals
or Confucian cultural-historical space or the Islamic community.
These two countries do not even fit the format of Central Asia and are,
no doubt, a unique world, closer to Russia than anyone else.
However, these countries do not demonstrate a wish to lose independence
and delegate sovereignty to Russia, even in the face of Chinese
expansion.
But only elite can think so, and such thinking is a criterion of
a national elite. Armenia has neither elite nor counter-elite or
anti-elite. The notions of independence and sovereignty of the country
mean nothing to those who are now determining the future of Armenia and
are a serious obstacle to their welfare and security of their income.
The ruling regime in Russia, pretending to historical territories
and declaring protection of rights of the Russian population, would
allegedly be able to resolve if not all, at least most of these issues
over the past 25 years. However, no serious attempts were in place.
There was demagogy and money laundering based on chauvinistic
propaganda.
In reality, the "Eurasian doctrine" means depriving states of
the rights to choice of foreign policy, i.e. sovereignty. This is
considered as a factor of security of Russia.
Vladimir Putin and someone else have been made believe that Russia
is strong, it has stood up to its feet and, this conviction continues.
The question occurs whether Russia can cope with domestic problems.
However, such formulation of the issue is dilettantism. In the modern
world, the country is first brought to the necessary "condition"
and then is left to float.
One way or another, it will become clear that the Moscow-based ruling
regime is controllable despite the criticism of conspiracy theory.
However, famous suppositions on catastrophes in Russia will not
happen. It will be saved as always. In any case, Russia's chief and
basically official expert on conspiracy theory does not deny that
the general objective of the West is removal of the ruling regime
of Moscow.
http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/comments/view/32960#sthash.rfrg1mcn.dpuf