Spheres of Cooperation

The strategic plans of the great powers create a vision of the polycentric transformation of the international structure. The most recent Russian Foreign Security Concept (“Concept” 11.2016) and US National Security Strategy (“Strategy” 12.2017) are analyzed to identify the supplementary core of the strategies. How can relations be improved? A “consensual collective” (Shakleina) leadership, as a polycentric solution to the challenge of accommodating the interests of Russia and the US, enabling peaceful transition to the pluralistic multipolar global.

The central challenge that has arisen is that the United States continues to intensify its characterization of Russia as a threat. The challenge is for the process of global order reconfiguration to occur with cooperation between the United States and Russia, who during the previous century represented the values of equality, opportunity for self-realization and liberty. A world with a vision, dream, idea or principle to strive for, is a world of peace and productivity. The objective is to renew the “American dream and Russian idea” (Batalov, 2001, title) so that order and not anarchy characterize the international system.

The National Security Strategy indicates how the Trump administration intends to deal with Russia and China. Both are categorized as revisionist states and the Strategy clearly stipulates how the United States perceives itself as being attacked and competed against. This stance adopted for the first time in the US National Security doctrine with such detailed emphasis, reconfirms these two states as rising great powers. The cooperation and alliance of Russia with China is implied. As these regional systems are developed, and the relative power of the United States diminishes, China and Russia should be careful not to transform the United States into a revisionist power in the long term. The Sino Russian pairing may be a step towards creating a cooperation with the United States trilaterally.

Russia discusses the United States or NATO in only in these constructive terms:

“Russia expects the US to strictly abide by the norms of international law, primarily those held in the UN Charter, in its actions on the international stage.”[1]

The Russian concept, published one year earlier than the US strategy, signals the intentions of Russia as entirely opposite than how they are defined in the US strategy. Overcoming the logic of cycles of confrontation is the primary foreign policy aim of Russia. By 1994 Russia began to comprehend that the United States would not immediately integrate Russia into this global governance infrastructure. Subsequently, it became clearer that the United States was increasingly moving in the opposite direction, with support to the color revolutions or coups. Yet the United States declares:

“Through modernized forms of subversive tactics, Russia interferes in the domestic political affairs of countries around the world.”

Whereas, Russia continues to demonstrate that:

“Russia’s focus at the global level is on creating a global order”[2]

Russia posture is defensive in view of its inward and regional orientation. Russia strives to create rules in the international game as:

“Russia’s best interests is to create the most favorable conditions for the country’s internal development, minimize the costs of disagreements with other players, and ensure a high level of security within the country at a cost level that is the most beneficial and effective.”[3]

Yet, the United States perceives the opposite: “Russia aims to weaken US influence in the world and divide us from our allies and partners.”[4]

A visit to Russia clarifies that Russia has taken its transition to democracy, a multiparty system and free market very seriously. Russia reoriented to a regional leadership with BRICS as a vehicle of cooperating with regional leaders for stabilizing the Eurasian system. Shakleina fourth 2017 forecast is materializing.

“Russia and China form a multilateral strategical partnership, overcoming the existing divergence and avoiding irreconcilable competition taking a common consolidated position in important questions of world politics, will be competitive to form more democratic world order as an alternative to US centric order.”[5]

Russia is moving to realize its response to the Western strategy of limitation of Russia, is demonstrated by the realization of the fourth scenario as forecast in 2017. Russia’s quest is for liberty rather than enlargement. The international instability threatens this aspiration for liberty and innovation.

Vision for Leadership

The central question is whom will be the core of world politics[6] and how can order be created? For Russia, a foreign policy objective has always been to create durable and friendly relations with the United States. Good relations between Russia and the US “is not the aim in itself, but an important instrument in building a more secure and noble world.”[7] The central problem that has arisen is that the United States continues to intensify its characterization of Russia as a threat. The challenge is global order reconfiguration to occur with cooperation between the United States and Russia, who during the previous century represented the values of equality, opportunity for self-realization and liberty. A world with a vision, idea or principles to strive for, is a world without of strife and war. The objective is to renew the “American dream and Russian idea”[8], so that change in the international system can occur peacefully.

As confrontation between these two great powers is occurring in the information space, truth has become a commodity of high value. This contributes to the significance of the strategy and concepts for clarifying the great powers’ foreign policy and vision of global leadership. The Russian vision is strictly grounded in an international law and institutionalist approach. The American narrative emphasizes “continuous competition” from innovative economics to an imperative for reacting decisively to political and security threats with hard measures. Russia has reoriented to communications tools, especially in the sphere of public diplomacy and bolstering its international image. The US reemphasizes developing economic superiority and the use of economic statecraft through public and private channels. The roles of the US and Russia appear to have been reversed. Russia promotes orderly evolution of policy. The US supports the rapid revolutionary transformations. Vis-à-vis each other, Russia has a conciliatory tone, whereas the United States appears more aggressive.

In the Russian concept each region is given a progressive paragraph and is discussed in terms of the multilateral forms of interstate interaction and cooperation. The concept describes which formats of institutionalized cooperation Russia seeks to structure its interaction with the United States, NATO, the EU. Russia’s focus is multilateral instead of bilateral.

The United States focuses on innovation and economic competition for more than two thirds of the Strategy. Even when discussing military concerns, a link is made to the economic context referring to confrontations that occur in the technological and economic realms. The American foreign policy has an objective to “guarantee that the high living standards and the high level of security achieved by the USA by the beginning of the 21st century are preserved.”[9]A continuum of competition, “…the United States is often viewed, as being either “at peace” or “at war” when it is actually an arena of continuous competition.” This philosophical claim indicates a promising policy direction to neutralize militarized confrontation and transfer competition into the economic sphere, or focus on predominantly economic tools.

An aspect leadership is structural power, the second element is ideational. Assuming the role of great power requires a successful vision of governance of a regional system and establishing compatibility to construct “spheres of cooperation” which are to regulate regional systems and their interstices. To exercise the role of great powers, the United States and Russia can apply the new approach and vision for regional system leadership. Oceans limit hegemony regionally according to Mearsheimer. Regional centers enable the construction of a global governance systems according to Shakleina. Great powers “resolve the contradiction between …interests of individual states as elements of these system and the system as a whole.”[10]

A source of joint power is “Sharing of leadership” [11] and “the construction of a role of leader is based on structural means” [12]. Assuming “discourse and action that shape, maintain and transform the structure of interstate social relations in a regional setting.” [13] The tenuous balance between ideas and strategy in foreign policy is its identity as a bridge between East and West.[14] Russia has for centuries seen itself “as a country as intermediary, country as unifier, country as integrator.”[15] Emphasizing the overlap between interest and norms, objectives and means of realizing policy. The European and Eurasian consolidation offers an opportunity for the revision and creation of Leadership. The new Russian idea is a multicultural Eurasian vision including Europe.

The evolution of moral roles in international relations in the context of global processes demonstrates that the United States still believes to hold values and promote a policy that is superior and just to that of other states, including Russia. The Moral role pursued by Russia is to uphold the UN Charter in its foreign policy dealings and to update the UN in new areas, such as, cyber space and the critical infrastructure for information dissemination.[16] In search of values, “whom shall maintain and respect the UN values?”[17] The Russian vision is about constructing institutions through international law: “Shaping a Fair and Sustainable World Order”.[18]

Following the end of the Cold War “A logical question arises: With whom are we going to unite?”[19] These times of transition and crisis give societies the opportunity and countries the mission to redefine global role and national identity.[20] Russia made a clear decision to remove state ideology and embrace democratic multiparty governance. A distinction between ideal, idea and ideology is made. Ideology is an ideal, a distance from an ideal, and an evaluation whether it is bearable.[21] A national Idea, just as a national Dream, is different from ideology. The challenge of defining a post-ideology, a Russian idea and concept for global leadership was a project, commissioned by President Yeltsin.[22] The Russian idea has evolved as different leaders continue to shape the foreign policy agenda of Russia. A significant alteration was President Putin, who continues to revitalize and redefine Russian civilizations role in maintaining peace.[23]

International norms and law are principles of Defense for the Russian state. Russia strongly appeals to reason as the foundation for interstate relations. Russia conceives of

“Leadership as a form of realization of interests and state ambitions assuming the existence of joint interests with the leader and they, whom follows him, benevolent recognition.”[24]

Russia emphasizes the capacity for self-control, self-constraint and a mix of leadership that inspires is what defines the sustainability of leadership. The distinction between hegemony and leadership is evident for Russia.

The United States has a different set of challenges to contend with, the proclamation of the Greatness of its own responsibilities and reach. The American perspective considers

“Leadership entails a sense of direction that mobilizes others. Power for the sake of power: domination dedicated to the perpetuation of domination, are not formula for enduring success. …The ultimate destination of the global… will be either steady movement over the next two decades or so toward a community of shared interest, or an accelerated plunge into global chaos. The acceptance of American leadership by others is the sine qua non for avoiding chaos.”[25]

Brzezinski asks

“How to strike a balance between sovereignty hegemony and an emerging global community, and how to resolve the dangerous contradiction between the values of democracy and the imperatives of global power, thus remains America’s dilemma in the age of globalization.”[26]

The Ikenberry project to bind American power in institutions that persist following its relative reduction in power can only succeed if powers like Russia are included in the institutions. All the great powers have been affected by the ideational and political identity crisis that has impacted the great powers since the end of the Cold War. True “leadership needs legitimization.”^[27] Legitimization arises from holding the vision answering to the societal challenges arising globally: “The difference between leadership and hegemony in global governance is the vision.” As a new multipolar vision materializes, it’s important not to transform the United States into a revisionist power.

The formulation of Russian Idea and American Dream contribute to the norms of our global responsibility.

“Acknowledgement of complex civilizational nature of Russia means recognition of a global nature of its international behavior through restricted as compared to the globalism of American policy.”[28]

Source

Russia and the United States share and champion the characteristics of multiculturalism, pluralism, democratic and human values. The century requires new ideas to magnetize subsystems around these core great powers. The vision should be based on securing the lives of citizens, that is peace, with liberty.

The American dream was founded upon fulfilling prospects of self-realization. The Russian idea developed gradually since 1999 creates a postmodern mix of cosmic and spiritual spirit of innovation. The American dream reflected in the most recent strategy is also oriented towards innovation and infusing the United States with renewed economic might and independence. The Russian idea champions the values enshrined by the UN charter. The absence of cooperation between the United States and Russia in creating a joint governance infrastructure, has led to relative decline and increased global insecurity. Increased cooperation in the technological sphere would have ensured the continued leadership of the US and Russia towards the knowledge and information society.

Russian Foreign Affairs Concept 2016 article 74

US National Security Strategy 2017 47

Batalov “American Dream and Russian Idea” Moscow, 2001.

Shakleina, Tatiana. “Russia and the US in World Politics” 2017.

Torkunov, A.B. “On the path to the future”. Moscow: Aspect Press, 2010.