Anna Maria Rada Leenders' Blog

Alterations in history What shall Russia stand for from now on?

November 16, 2018
Print

For a very long time Russia’s role was to defend the rest of the world from Europe. Since the end of the Cold War, Russia has been trying to facilitate the maintenance of peace and the development of order in the rest of the world. In the absence of Russia, an anarchy would be unleashed in the world that the United States would not be able to manage on its own. As Trump correctly recalled for a long time Europe was living beneath the wings of the United States and Soviet Union as a way to protect itself. Europe should develop its defense forces in coordination and together with both Russia and the United States, faciliataing conciliation rather than stoking conflict and division between the former Super Powers for its own greater revision of a global war. Must we forget where the two world wars were initiated?


azp7tg285a0w4wgg4o8gk0k4s.jpg

Sourse


Two observations are made and discussed Russia has consistently had one single state policy during the previous hundred years: maintenance of peace and preservation of human life. In accordance to this aim that is the primary state interest, the Russian foreign policy has proven to be the most flexible and adaptable. Some illustrations as the broad strokes of history are

*the Russian revolution as a means of ending Russia’s participation in the First World War, *Russia as the final European country to sign a treaty with Germany and also as the country that never surrender to Nazi and cooperated in the words of Stalin with the democratic parties of the world to liberate the people all peoples,



  • Soviet foreign policy through to establishment of parity with capitalist democracies reminding the world that the ultimate communist is a pacifist, that the aim of communism is peace, that revolution is only to be national and so the Soviet Union enabled the coexistence of systems and did not resort to the use of violence,


  • that perestroika was a show of good faith with voluntary and unilateral disarmament of Soviet nuclear missiles to enable peaceful integration of all Europe and with Europe, and that the disarmament of a state ideology was intended as an opening for joint cooperation in defense, mutually secured defense with the United States


That it is only in response to the use of violence by the United States that difficultly and unwillingly, Russia has had to pivot eastward to cooperate with China that is rising peacefully and economically, rather than through military intervention.

Alas, we are not living the optimal form of the polity but a lower form of democracy and oligopoly. Leadership through values, ideals and debate, the pinnacle of Athenian democracy, American and French democracy, are having challenges arising in the increasingly dire situation created by insecurity and spirals of mutual distrust in the new millenia.

It is not the encroachment of NATO that is the problem, as Russia feels secure in its defense, but rather it is the problem of discrimination against Slavic nationalities radicalized due to impoverishment. The solution oddly appears to be first economic. Jobs is the formula of Trump, like bread and peace was the formula of Lenin. The truth is people, we must demand from our leaders what we want to live. Trump will deliver and Putin will deliver that what we demand. So we must ask ourselves, what do we wish to achieve beyond jobs and eocnomic development. If we want peace and cooperation with Russia, the United States and Europe, then the people must demand it, the bureaucrats and specialists must write the treaties of positive constructivist approaches, and the business folk will have to deal with greater market scales and increased competition.

If our media is radicalized and creates panic amongst the population, we shall have difficulty enabling our leaders to create cooperation and peace in the world. Yet I think it is completely illogical for the American people and the Russian people to be at odds with one another. This is a matter of the heart.

More rationally, All I am trying to indicate is that the United States on its path of crafting the foreign policy of the future must do so multilaterally, and certainly including Russia. The American foreign debt shall mean that China will be able to buy its global position and impose the communist party ideology in the very long term. If the United States wishes to promote the democratic system globally it should include Russian in its joint action with the EU states. Certainly these countries wish peace for at least the territories inhabited by their citizens. If the countries develop the approach together certainly the peaceful mode of governance could be implemented through the supranational institutions and the peaceful conditions would enable other countries to also gradually transform and integrate into the international order.

Perhaps it was incorrect to assume that Russia needed to be contained in the 1990s. Of course, the leadership proved unable to maintain a domestic order, and genuine fears and concern could have led the US to become concerned that the Russian leadership could behave irrationally internationally. Yelstin was not the signatory of the Gorbachev agreements, and was thus seen as unpredictable. So instead of accommodation between the two states what occurred was an accommodation of the leader Yeltsin.

What’s for sure is that the Russians wish to maintain the democratic freedoms gained, while finally achieving the modernization of the free market economy that suffered such severe crises in the 1990s. Perception and misperception may be incorrect about these issues but it certainly would be useful to reconsider and begin to create peaceful images of each other. Recalling that it is us that creates and develops our realities and foreign policies.

Share this article

Poll conducted

  1. Korean Peninsula Crisis Has no Military Solution. How Can It Be Solved?
    Demilitarization of the region based on Russia-China "Dual Freeze" proposal  
     36 (35%)
    Restoring multilateral negotiation process without any preliminary conditions  
     27 (26%)
    While the situation benefits Kim Jong-un's and Trump's domestic agenda, there will be no solution  
     22 (21%)
    Armed conflict still cannot be avoided  
     12 (12%)
    Stonger deterrence on behalf of the U.S. through modernization of military infrastructure in the region  
     4 (4%)
    Toughening economic sanctions against North Korea  
     2 (2%)
 
For business
For researchers
For students