What determined foreign policy. Foreign policy theory. Defining foreign policy

the activities of the state in the international arena, as well as public and political organizations outside national borders to fulfill their needs and interests.

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

POLICY external

this is the general course of the state in international relations. It covers the activities of the state in the international arena, regulating relations with other subjects of foreign policy activity: states, international organizations, foreign political parties and other public associations. Among the main goals of P.V. it should be highlighted: firstly, ensuring the security of this state, secondly, the desire to increase the material, political, military, intellectual potential of the country; third, the growth of prestige in international relations. The implementation of these goals is determined by a certain stage in the development of international relations and a specific situation. At the same time, the activities of the state in P.V. must take into account the goals, interests and activities of other states, otherwise it will be ineffective and will not be able to achieve its goals. The most important functions of P.V. states include: 1) defensive, counteracting any manifestations of aggression, revanchism, militarism from other countries; 2) representative and informational, which has a dual purpose - informing your government about the situation and events in a particular country and the leadership of other countries about the policy of your state; 3) trade and organizational, aimed at establishing, developing and strengthening trade, economic and scientific and technical ties with various states. The traditional forms of P.v. is the establishment of diplomatic relations between states, membership or opening of representations in world and regional international organizations, the establishment and maintenance of contacts with different parties and social movements in foreign countries.

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

There are many foreign policy theories. Of the specific foreign policy theories, the most famous is the theory of the American political scientist Hans Morgenthau. He defines foreign policy primarily as a policy of power, in which national interests rise above any international norms, principles, and therefore power (external, economic, financial) turns into the main means of achieving the set goals. Hence follows his formula: "The goals of foreign policy should be determined in the spirit of national interests and supported by force."

National interest represents an awareness of the fundamental needs of the state and their reflection in the activities of its leaders. These needs are expressed in ensuring national security and conditions for self-preservation and development of society. The concept of "national interest" was developed G. Morgenthau. He defined the concept "interest" in the categories of power. It consists of three elements: 1) nature of interest, which should be protected; 2) political environment, in which interest acts; 3) national necessity, limiting the choice of goals and means for all subjects of international politics.

Hans Morgenthau (1904-1979) believed that the foreign policy of an independent state should be based on physical, political and cultural "reality" capable of realizing the nature and essence of its own national interest. Such a "reality" is nation.

All the nations of the world in the international arena strive to satisfy their primary need, namely the need for physical survival. In a world divided into blocs and alliances, where there is an incessant struggle for power and resources, all nations strive to protect their physical, political and cultural self-being (identity) in the face of outside invasion. This opinion G. Morgenthau was relevant for the times of the "cold war", when the world community was divided into the bottom of opposing camps: socialist and capitalist. In the modern world, for various reasons, countries are interdependent and interconnected with each other, their survival and development can be ensured only through their cooperation and interaction. In these conditions, any state, pursuing its own national interest, must respect and take into account the interests of other states.

A nation can ensure its security by combining its own interests with the needs of other states. In this way national security - this is the state of protection of the vital interests of the individual, society and the state from internal and external threats and the ability of the state to maintain its sovereignty, territorial integrity, acting as a subject of international law.

National interests of Russia and their relationship with international politics is as follows. In a broad sense, speaking of Russia's national interests, they can be reduced to two main interests - security and development.

Safety includes internal political stability and territorial integrity, independence and sovereignty. Development presupposes economic growth, independent exploitation of the country's natural resources, which, perhaps, are the only hope for modernizing the economy, and participation in the international division of labor when included in international trade. All this requires certain favorable external conditions, which foreign policy is called upon to provide.

The priority of national interests serves two purposes:

• - gives foreign policy a general orientation;
• - tanov ige I as a selection criterion in specific situations. Is there a relationship between foreign and domestic policy?

Currently in science there are three points of view in the answers to this question.

* The first point of view is related with the identification of domestic and foreign policy.

G. Morgenthau, professor at the University of Chicago, believed that "the essence of international politics is identical to domestic politics. Both domestic and foreign policy is a struggle for sipa, which is modified only by various conditions in the domestic and international spheres.

* The second point of view is reflected in the works of the Polish and Austrian sociologist Ludwig Gumplovich (1833-1909), who believed that foreign policy determines domestic.

It follows that the main factor in social life is the struggle for existence. The scientist formulated a system of laws of international politics. The main law is that neighboring states are constantly fighting with each other over the border line. Secondary laws follow from the provisions of the main law. The essence of one of them is that any state should prevent the strengthening of the power of its neighbor and take care of political balance. In addition, any state strives for profitable acquisitions: for example, to get access to the sea as a means of acquiring sea power. The third law says that domestic politics should be subordinated to chains of military build-up, with the help of which the resources for the survival of the state are provided. Thus, according to L. Gumplovich, the basic laws of international politics exist and work.

* The third point of view on the priorities of national interests is presented marxism, who counts; that foreign policy is determined by internal and is a continuation of intrasocial relations.

Thus, the content of the latter is determined by the economic relations prevailing in society and the interests of the ruling classes.

Relations between states in the international arena have never been, and never will be, equal. The role of each state at all times was determined by its economic, technological, military, information capabilities. These possibilities determined the nature of relations between states and, consequently, the type of system of international relations. The typology of international relations is of practical importance, since it allows one to identify those global factors that influenced the development of both the world community and a particular country.

At its core, politics is a complex, unified and indivisible phenomenon. The political activity of the state is carried out both in the system of internal social relations and in the system of external factors, that is, the system of international relations. Based on this, the internal and external policies of the state are distinguished. These concepts have a lot in common, but each has its own specificity.

Within the framework of our topic, we will consider the content of the foreign policy of the state, which is the activity of the state at the international level, regulating relations with other subjects of foreign policy, namely: other states, public organizations, foreign parties, regional and world international organizations.

As a rule, foreign policy is based on the demographic, economic, scientific, technical, military and cultural potential of the state. The combination of cultural and scientific and technical potential determines the possibilities of the state's foreign policy activity, build a hierarchy of priorities in the initial setting, as well as further implementation of foreign policy goals.

As we have already determined, in political science and practice of international relations there is no unambiguous concept of what can be called foreign policy. So, not every external action is included in it, but only that which is associated with the achievement of general state goals. In addition, foreign policy includes not only one action, but also a variety of programs, goals and positions.

A researcher from the United States, Seabury, defines foreign policy as a set of relationships and goals through which the state, represented by its own constitutional authorities, can interact with foreign states, as well as problems of the international environment, using force, influence, and sometimes violence. Such a definition may well put an equal sign between the content of foreign policy and its goals. However, foreign policy is about more than just goals. For example, J. Modelski defines it as a system of actions that are taken to change the behavior of other states, as well as to adapt to the international environment.

In this context, there are two main types of actions, namely approaches and outputs. J. Rosnow says that foreign policy is a certain method of action, which is deliberately carried out by official representatives of the National Society, with the aim of establishing or changing the position of the state in the international arena.

The huge variety of definitions, as well as differences in the content of emphasis, can reflect the complexity of the phenomenon of foreign policy, which includes a huge set of different parameters as well as connections. Foreign policy, unlike domestic policy, cannot be determined by binding legislation, so it can be judged by a number of indicators that lead to opposite actions.

The foreign policy of one and the same state is different depending on who it deals with, as well as on certain international issues. So, we can talk about the place of the policy of cooperation with a specific country on a certain issue, or a completely different policy regarding another issue. This forces us to look for the definition that will take into account the main features of foreign policy with all its components.

As G.A. Kruglova notes, the main subjects of the state's foreign policy are:

• 1. Directly the state, its institutions, as well as heads of state and political leaders;
• 2. Non-governmental structures and organizations, or the so-called "people's diplomacy", which includes the activities of political movements and parties, as well as non-political unions and associations.

Proceeding from this, foreign policy is an activity, as well as the interaction of official subjects who have received the right on behalf of the whole society to express national interests at the international level, as well as to choose certain methods and means of their implementation.

The form of the traditional implementation of the foreign policy of the state is the establishment of diplomatic relations, or lowering their level, as well as the rupture or declaration of war, in the event of aggravation of relations between countries, and the opening of representative offices of states at regional and world organizations. Another form of foreign policy implementation is the maintenance and implementation at various levels of regular or episodic contacts with representatives of states, movements or parties with which a particular state has no diplomatic relations or friendly ties.

Foreign policy has a number of functions and goals, which we will discuss below.

The main goal of the foreign policy of a modern state is to ensure security. This goal is related to the protection and protection of the rights and interests of a particular country, as well as its citizens abroad. This goal forms a protective function, which consists in adapting the foreign policy strategy of a given state to the system of international relations. The implementation of this function, as a rule, is aimed at preventing a threat to a given state, as well as not looking for peaceful ways to prevent problems and issues.

The effective implementation of this function will depend on the ability of the state, represented by special institutions and bodies, to identify and determine potential sources of danger and threat, without admitting an undesirable course of events. Such institutions are consulates, embassies, missions, counterintelligence and intelligence.

The main task of the foreign policy of the state is to strengthen its political and economic potential. The country's economic development and political stability will depend on foreign policy, as well as the state's position at the international level. Foreign policy is obliged to contribute to the efficient functioning of the economy, as well as the growth of social welfare. Based on this, its tasks should include ensuring for the state the most beneficial participation in the division of labor, or in the search for cheap resources, in order to ensure favorable conditions for the sale of products and preserve the country's strategic resources, which creates a basis for us to conclude that foreign policy plays an economic function.

The informational function of the foreign policy of a modern state is expressed in the activities of certain bodies to create a positive image of the state in the world arena. Certain bodies inform governments about the intentions of other governments in order to ensure contact of their state with the whole world.

The function of representation is realized by influencing public opinion, as well as the political circles of certain countries, in order to ensure positive conditions for the successful solution of foreign policy tasks. This function will be implemented in the framework of scientific and cultural exchanges, as well as negotiations and the conclusion of international agreements.

Another function of foreign policy is aimed at creating favorable foreign policy conditions for the further activities of the state - this is a regulatory function. An important role in the implementation of this function is played by the activities of central foreign policy bodies, or ministries of foreign affairs, consulates and embassies.

Activities for the implementation of foreign policy in order to achieve the set goals will be implemented by various means, namely: economic, political, informational and military.

Political means include diplomacy, which is the official activity of the state represented by special bodies, receptions, events, methods that have a constitutional and legal status. Diplomacy will be carried out by visits, negotiations, meetings, conferences, multilateral agreements, and participation in international forums and organizations. Based on the opinion of A.V. Torkunov, diplomacy can ensure the national interests of the state, as well as implement the course of foreign policy through various events, among which the activities of the heads of government and states, departments, foreign ministers and other representatives stand out.

Among economic means, one can single out the use of the economic potential of a particular country in order to achieve the goals of foreign policy. A state with a strong economy will have a strong position in the world community. Even a small country in terms of territory, which will not be rich in human and material resources, based on advanced technologies, can become capable of spreading its own achievements outside the state, Japan is a vivid example of such a state. Working economic means are most favored nation treatment and embargoes, loans, investments, loans and economic assistance.

Among the military means of foreign policy can be called the military strength of the state, which includes the army, the quality and quantity of weapons, the size of the army, military bases, morale, and the possession of nuclear weapons. Military means are used as means of direct influence or indirect. The means of direct influence include interventions, wars, blockades, and the second, that is, indirect means testing new weapons, the threat of the use of force, maneuvers and exercises.

Foreign policy is associated with the development of a strategic course of society, as well as the main directions of development of the state in the international arena. The structure of the mechanism of modern foreign policy of the state can be distinguished:

• · Formation of the subject, as well as the institutional hierarchy of the state's foreign policy;
• · Development of a strategic course, as well as government decision-making;
• · Administrative tools for the implementation of management decisions;
• · State control, to ensure independent correction of the political regime, as well as feedback from other states.

The successful and consistent implementation of the external functions of the state is of great importance for its development in the modern interdependent world. The intensification of integration processes in international life, the expansion and deepening of international relations, as well as the deepening of the integration of a certain state into international politics, the economy and other spheres of interstate cooperation raises an urgent need to improve the mechanism for coordinating the foreign policy activities of state bodies and officials vested with powers in the field of foreign policy and international relations.

Its specific place in the mechanism for the implementation of the foreign policy of the state is occupied by a set of organizational institutions - state bodies in charge of the implementation of the foreign policy of the state. State bodies endowed with foreign policy powers have the necessary material base and organizational and legal means and tools for the practical implementation of relations with foreign states and other subjects of international communication.

These means and instruments should include the political, organizational and economic potential of the state, the organizational structure of these state bodies, their infrastructure both within the country and abroad, their own material base, the normative basis of their functioning.

politics national constitutional

State activity is carried out in two directions. The first is internal social relations, which are called internal politics. Second, these are relations outside the borders of the state - foreign policy. Both of these areas are focused on one task - to strengthen and consolidate the system of public relations in the state. Foreign policy has its own specifics. Its formation occurs later, and it is realized in different conditions. The foreign policy of the state deals with the regulation of relations with other countries and peoples, ensuring the fulfillment of their needs and the observance of interests in the international sphere.

Main directions of foreign policy

There are several important directions in the policy of any state. The first is the security of the country. This direction is considered one of the main ones, since without its implementation, politics outside the country cannot exist. Second, the growth of the state in the areas of economy, politics and defense. Thanks to foreign policy, it is possible to increase the country's potential. The next goal is to establish and strengthen the position of the state, its international relations and ties. In order for the prestige of the state to be at a high level, the first two directions must be fulfilled.

Foreign policy: functions

There are three priority functions that must be performed by a policy outside the country: security, representative information and negotiation and organizing. The security function implies the protection of the rights of citizens, their interests outside the country, preventing possible threats to the state and its borders. The essence of the representative and information function lies in representing the country in the international sphere through its representations, which express the interests of the state. The organization and use of contacts through diplomatic channels at external levels are the tasks of the negotiating and organizing function.

Foreign policy and its means

The main political means are considered to be: information; political; economic; military. With the help of the economic potential of the state, the policy of other countries is influenced. Military equipment, new weapons developments, exercises and maneuvers clearly show how great the state's potential is. Well-established diplomatic relations are one of the essential tools that foreign policy should have.

Functions of the state

Depending on the political orientation, two functions of the state are distinguished. External - aimed at activities outside the country. Internal - represents activities within the country. These two functions are interrelated, since foreign policy often depends on the internal factors under which the state functions. External functions include such areas as the integration of the world economy, national defense, foreign economic partnership, interaction and cooperation with other countries in solving environmental, demographic and other global problems of the modern world.

In recent years - after the annexation of Crimea, the events in Ukraine, the war in Syria - foreign policy began to directly and indirectly influence the daily life of Russians. At the same time, the logic by which the country's authorities are guided in their actions often remains unexplained. Meduza's special correspondent Konstantin Benyumov spoke with Foreign Ministry spokesman Maria Zakharova, as well as with people who have been studying Russia's behavior in the world for many years in order to find out how the system of foreign policy decision-making works in the country.

Putin decides everything

Dmitry Trenin, director Carnegie Moscow Center : “All [foreign policy] decisions in Russia - on Syria, Ukraine, Crimea - are made by one person. Another thing is that before that he receives information from different sources. The whole question is what are these sources. They are mainly in the special services. I think the president can be offered different options, but any state system is geared towards the boss. Not a single government analyst will write something that is disgusting to the boss, because then he will lose his job. I am sure that he also receives reports that differ from his point of view, however, when making decisions, there is an echo chamber effect. The position of the liberal direction is also being considered, but its weight [in foreign policy] is not as significant as, for example, in the economy. Behind the position of liberal economic experts are very important realities that no serious politician can ignore. And the position of liberal political experts is simply the position of liberal political experts. "

Andrey Kortunov, general manager Russian International Affairs Council : « The President, on the other hand, told how the decision to annex Crimea was made. In this room there was no finance minister who could say: “Let's count everything,” there was no foreign minister who could ask: “How will this affect this or that?” Apparently, these and other people were unable to take part in this discussion. "

Maria Zakharova, foreign ministry official: “The President defines the main directions of foreign policy and carries out general management of its implementation. This means that virtually all state bodies involved in making foreign policy decisions and their implementation (with the exception of the Federation Council) are in a position subordinate to the head of state. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is an executive body whose main tasks are the practical implementation of the foreign policy course and ensuring the President's activities in the implementation of his foreign policy powers, including the development of proposals on government policy in the field of international relations. "

Fyodor Lukyanov, editor-in-chief of the Russia in Global Affairs magazine: “As in any bureaucracy, [in foreign policy there is] a complex system of mutual influence. There are topics on which the Foreign Ministry has more expertise - for example, we have always had a very strong Middle Eastern school, and especially in the period from 2011 to 2015, the Syrian dossier was from the Foreign Ministry. It is clear that the president is still above everything, but on the whole it was a product of the Foreign Ministry's policy. But Ukraine is certainly not the Foreign Ministry. And on the whole, the Foreign Ministry, of course, is not an institution that determines foreign policy. He cannot be such in a super-centralized system if there is a president who, firstly, is very good at this subject, and secondly, loves him very much ”.

Dmitry Trenin, Carnegie Center: « State-owned companies and large private companies, such as Lukoil, also have lobbying opportunities. They can influence politics and push through some things. Sometimes the interests of Lukoil or even some of the state-owned companies do not coincide with the interests of state policy, and then you have to somehow agree, see what is more important and in what proportion. "

Former Foreign Ministry employee:“If Igor Ivanovich Sechin believes that it is beneficial for Russia to conclude a contract somewhere in Venezuela or Kurdistan, he does not need to consult with anyone except the president for this. In general, Vladimir Putin builds a lot on personal relationships, sometimes his friendship with some of the world leaders - Schroeder, Berlusconi or Netanyahu - can be of decisive importance in making decisions. "

Authoritarianism Has Its Benefits

Fyodor Lukyanov, "Russia in global affairs": “Thanks to its system of organizing politics and society, Russia has the ability to make quick decisions that are not particularly discussed within the country. In Great Britain, the parliament can first think for a long time, and then refuse the Prime Minister to conduct a military operation. This is not the case with us: if permission is needed, the Federation Council will give it; if it is not needed, it will withdraw it. Tactically, this is an advantage. "

Andrey Kortunov, RIAC: “Any monopoly is dangerous, including a monopoly on foreign policy. None of our foreign policy decisions were preceded by a serious public discussion. If we exclude the radical opposition, then our entire foreign policy discourse is reduced to the search for substantiation of the correctness of the decisions that have already been made. That is, we are proving why we did the right thing, why the Americans are bad, why it was necessary to enter Syria or what we did in the Donbass should be done. Our policy is perceived as an exclusively reaction to something, and the reaction is the only correct one: we do not make mistakes and do not admit. And when there is no discussion, the probability of mistakes, of course, increases. There was a discussion in the 1990s, but then it gradually faded away. Closed decision-making can affect their quality. "

Maria Zakharova, Foreign Ministry: « Our foreign policy does not contain the components of an ideological messianism. Russia is pursuing a pragmatic course dictated by its national interests. We do not impose guidelines on anyone, we respect civilizational diversity. At the same time, there are principles and traditions that we value and which form the foundation of our relationship to the world around us. "

Russia considers itself an agent of stability in the world

Maria Zakharova: “The foreign policy of our country may be subject to 'fine tuning', as the world around us is changing, the country, its capabilities and needs are changing. But the continuity of the basic principles remains: respect for international law, the sovereignty of states, the right of peoples to choose life in accordance with their way of life and traditions, as well as multi-vector, readiness for creative work with all interested partners. "

Andrey Kortunov, RIAC: “I would say that Russia is more of a status quo country than a revisionist power. But the methods she uses to maintain the status quo sometimes seem revisionist. That is, we are not talking about the interests that we are trying to protect, but rather about how we are trying to do it. Although, if we talk about the destruction of the modern world order, then many have had a hand in this, and it would be unfair to say that Russia is the only or even the main destroyer. Both our American friends and European populists have worked here, not to mention international terrorism. "

Dmitry Trenin, Carnegie Center: “Stability for the sake of stability is good for speaking at the UN. Every international player seeks to pursue its interests or to protect them. If this protection of interests requires stability in a certain region, we will maintain stability. But Russia did not need the stability of a world ruled by the United States alone. Russia did not need NATO expansion even with the full consent of the countries to which NATO is expanding. Until Russia had the means to counter this, there were [oral] protests. When opportunities to resist appeared, there appeared peace enforcement operations in Georgia, an operation to take control of Crimea, hidden but quite effective assistance to Donbass. "

Andrey Kortunov,RIAC“As Mark Twain said, if the only tool you have is a hammer, then all problems will seem like nails to you. If we have such remarkable armed forces, then, of course, we inevitably focus on those problems, on those situations where this tool may be useful. It seems to me that the problem for Russia is that it might want to maintain the status quo, but it simply does not know how to do it without going beyond the usual methods that are used for this. "

Great power status is more important than prosperity. It has always been this way

Dmitry Trenin, Carnegie Center: “What does Russia need, what kind of world order would Russia like to see as ideal? I have only one answer to this: one where Russia would have the status of a great power and not a single important decision could be made contrary to its interests. That's all. This is the Russian position at the present time. We must play with the cards we have. Status is important for the sake of status. Russia has few economic cards, and I think that they will not be added in the foreseeable future. God grant that it does not decrease. Therefore, Russia claims a role that is significantly higher than its available economic capabilities. This is the only way for her to stay in the game. Because if it acts as an economic power of the level at which it is, its role in the world will decrease significantly. "

Fyodor Lukyanov: “The collapse of the Soviet Union meant a completely unprecedented collapse of status. The USSR, regardless of how we assess ideology and everything else, was one of the two pillars of the world order. Back in November 1991, when the Soviet regime was in agony, Mikhail Gorbachev, together with George W. Bush, chaired a conference on a Middle East settlement in Madrid, which, by the way, is still considered a milestone. And already at the end of December of the same year, Russia, not even being the legal successor of the USSR, turned with outstretched hand to those with whom it had recently conducted global competition. "

Dmitry Trenin, Carnegie Center: « In my opinion, after the Cold War, Russia had two main priorities in foreign policy. One is to integrate into the Western system on terms acceptable to oneself, that is, on the terms of a “second power”. Another is to unite the post-Soviet space under the Russian flag and create a Eurasian center of power. Despite the fact that the second task partly contradicted the first, it was believed for a long time that both could be done. It all failed in 2014. We have neither one nor the other. "

Andrey Kortunov, RIAC: “Any international treaty, joining any organization means the cession of a part of sovereignty. But countries do it consciously, realizing that in return they can get something more valuable. The whole question is how we view sovereignty. Is this some kind of icon for which we should all pray together? Or is it some kind of capital that we put into circulation? "

Dmitry Trenin, Carnegie Center: “The Russian political elite does not see itself as someone else. The Swiss elite, or even the German elite, feel great where they are. But the Russian one cannot. The backbone of the German elite was broken and completely reformatted. This did not happen with the Russian elite after 1991, despite the defeat of the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Maybe the Russian elite would live better [if it ceded part of its sovereignty, following the example of the EU countries], or maybe not, but the fact is a fact, there is no getting away from it. "

Maria Zakharova, MFA: "As before, Russia is now resisting attempts to establish a world order on the basis of unilateral hegemonism or to give it neo-colonial features."

Andrey Kortunov, RIAC: “[The rhetoric about the anti-Russian conspiracy] I think reflects the mentality of a significant part of the country's leadership. Foreign policy is always a balance between security interests and development interests. Security interests are pushing for some kind of restrictions, to focus on sovereignty. Development interests usually push for integration, interdependence, and so on. We see that for quite some time the idea of \u200b\u200bsovereignty has been brought to the fore as one of the main tasks of Russian foreign policy. But imagine that the world continues to roll on an inclined plane: more and more conflicts, less stability, wars are going on, terrorism develops, uncontrolled migration, environmental crises - the worst-case scenario, as they say, is a perfect storm. In such conditions, any reasonable leader will tell you that now it is necessary to solve the problems of not development, but survival, not prosperity, but security. "

Dmitry Trenin, Carnegie Center: “I think that there were no real threats to Russian sovereignty. But they were present in people's heads. And if they were present in the heads of people, then this is also partly a reality that becomes a political instrument: you need to unite society, maintain your power, and you use various methods for this. Does an American tank in the Baltics pose a threat to Russian security? In my opinion, no. But is there a threat from the United States? Definitely yes. Simply by the fact that there is a huge amount of funds that can destroy the Russian Federation. Likewise, Russian assets that can destroy the United States are a threat. It varies depending on the political environment. Sometime it seems more serious, sometime less serious. But even when it was, as it were, at zero, during Yeltsin's time, the missiles were on alert. "

Fyodor Lukyanov, "Russia in Global Affairs": “Between what happened in the 1990s and what happened afterwards, there is no caesura, there is no gap between the presidency of Yeltsin and the presidency of Putin. [The Russian leadership was motivated by] the desire to return the state to the number of those countries on which something depends. It was a goal, and the means to achieve it could change. At first, such a means was considered "embedding": we will achieve a worthy place in the Western system, or we will agree on it. In the 1990s and even in the early 2000s, the fact that the world had become Western-centric was not disputed. The question was under what conditions we can fit into this world. As the state gained greater capacity, these demands grew. At the same time, Russia was offered a place in a new, not even global, but in a new European order. But even in the geopolitically miserable state in which Russia was in the early 1990s, it could not become part of a greater Europe. It's just a completely different scale. This was the problem: we agreed with joining Europe, not being essentially a regional power and internally disagreeing with such a status.

Conceptually, the idea that we will be part of something in common has not been questioned for quite a long time - and under Putin, too. But then there was a transition to a different worldview: no one is going to write us anywhere. The Munich speech is considered by many to be a turning point. But take two speeches of Putin delivered in Germany: in Berlin in 2001 and in Munich in 2007 - yes, they are very different in tone, but they are identical in content. The same problems - just in 2001, Putin proposed to solve them together.

And the real turning point was the Georgian war, when Russia moved from persuasion [to independent actions]. After that, there was another - an attempt to somehow normalize relations, rather from confusion. But by that time Russia had already felt the growing decline of order in the West, which naturally created both opportunities and temptations. And the most important thing is that you told us that everything is right with you, but you have the devil in Iraq, and the whole Middle East is in chaos, and astronomical debts, and banks are collapsing. And Ukraine was the apotheosis ”.

Dmitry Trenin, Carnegie Center: “With Ukraine, the Americans have gone too far. Ukraine has always been considered the last frontier: if there is a clash, then on the territory of Ukraine. Georgia is a peripheral thing; it has little strategic impact on anything. But Ukraine, which is shifting to the position of the West, from the point of view of traditional military-political thinking, for Russia is turning into a completely unacceptable threat. For many, this seems absurd, but in the minds of the military it is like this: if Ukraine becomes a NATO member, it means that large American units can be deployed there, the Ukrainian armed forces will be rearmed and can present a fairly serious force. [From the point of view of the Russian military] Ukrainians are fighters just like us. These are like two Russian armies, only one is equipped with what we can provide, and the second is equipped with the latest American innovations. And trained. This is dumb, you know. "

Fyodor Lukyanov, "Russia in Global Affairs": “[After Ukraine] everything that drove politics from both the western side and ours is over. Psychologically, it is very difficult for everyone to come to terms with this, but the situation has changed dramatically - both for Russia and for the West. What is happening in Syria is a fundamentally different level. This is no longer the use of force near its borders to pursue immediate interests, it is an application for the role of a global policeman. Russia has swung at something that, except for America, no one else has done for the last 30 years. This is not about the ambitions of a world policeman, but about demonstrating opportunities. This is an important difference. It seems to me that we do not have such ambitions - after all, the lessons of the Soviet Union have been learned to a large extent. And the fact that we in Syria, despite all the difficulties and costs, did not get stuck, as in Afghanistan, is a serious [achievement]. "

Dmitry Trenin, Carnegie Center: “Present-day Russia continues to search for itself in many ways. And in politics, and in the economy, and in the social and spiritual spheres. This is normal, such things do not appear ready-made out of nowhere, and Russia needs experience of normal, calm development in order for it to work out some serious foundations for its policy. First of all, inside the country, and then outside. Then everything that she does outside will be based on what she does inside herself. "

Andrey Kortunov, RIAC: “Many people believe that we [in the armed forces] have adjusted and now, having a well-functioning mechanism in one area, we will be able to deal with others. I would really like it to be so. But there are doubts, because in a sense, our victories have the same sources as our defeats. Let's see what percentage of our budget is military spending, and compare this with education - several times less, although in terms of volume, in monetary terms, the arms market and the educational services market are comparable.

In principle, the idea of \u200b\u200bconsistent diversification of instruments - it probably has a right to exist. But it requires very strong leadership and a vision that in 20 years, nuclear warheads will matter less than, relatively speaking, blockchain. This means that we must now intercept this tendency and adjust our priorities accordingly. And the resistance will be great, because people are used to living well, making money, and receiving government orders. So there is a danger that the inertia of the current approaches will prevent us from changing something. And the statistics, unfortunately, show that such a danger is real. "

Fyodor Lukyanov, "Russia in Global Affairs": “Considering the extremely insignificant role that Russia plays in world economic processes ... no military and political achievements will compensate for this. It is clear that there will be no miracle and Russia will not become China. But some kind of build-up of economic opportunities would make it possible to slightly change the image. The problem with Russia is that we are portrayed as a dying monster. And many in the West perceive it this way. If you are a real monster, then sooner or later they may want to start negotiating with you, so that they don't touch you. And if they think about you that you are now a monster, and in five years the economy, demography and so on will lead to inevitable degradation, then it is easier to wait until such a scare dies by itself. Therefore, of course, it would be good for us to reduce the monstrousness of the image, but it is even more important to show that the monster does not fade away. "