5 мая 2016
Москва: 22:55
Лондон: 20:55

Консульские вопросы:  
+44 (0) 203 668 7474  
info@rusemb.org.uk  

 

SPEECHES, INTERVIEWS, ARTICLES

02.03.2012

On latest Chatham House report on Russia

It seems that the latest Chatham House report on Russia cries out for comments by our Press Office. The authors, unfortunately, displayed an utterly biased attitude towards the subject and abysmal lack of intellectual honesty, leaving an impression that Russian politics is done in London. For the sake of comparison, the report “Engaging with Russia” to the Trilateral Commission in July 2006, represented a genuine attempt at honest analysis.

It is natural that Russia’s politics attract lots of attention. After all, their present state is a function of the new state of our society, which, in its turn, is a result of the socio-economic development of the past 12 years. Nobody is perfect. There are real issues that are hotly debated. And this makes Russia look more familiar to the Western public opinion, say, a normal country subject to general laws governing societal evolution. The remaining difference being the fact that it has always had a future, since its full potential couldn’t be made use of. It is still the case now.

We’ll pass by the authors’ effort to provoke Russia to make enemies with China. Nobody seeks that, least of all Britain. But the charges of our punching above our weight and being a spoiler in international affairs need setting the record straight.

Today’s Russia has never aspired to be treated as a Great Power or another Superpower, both categories abolished with the end of the Cold War. We deem ourselves to be a leading or major world power which accurately reflects the realities of our fast-changing world.

One can gather it from the Foreign Policy Concept of 2008, which, by the way, in its view of the world doesn’t differ much from the Foreign Policy analysis of HMG of today, and, for that matter, views expressed in the course of deliberations of Lord Lothian’s Global Strategy Forum. It is all about multipolarity, net-worked diplomacy, emphasis upon strong bilateral relationships with other major powers, pragmatism.

It is somewhat extraordinary to try to spoil the US-Russia relationship. Arrogance would be the first qualification to cross the mind. Or is it about long-standing tradition of trading the charges of bloody-mindedness, a term so difficult to translate into other languages. Certainly, the Americans and us will make our own decisions based on the enlightened self-interest as we see it. Suspicions on Germany’s count are a fresher, historically, phenomenon. We, in Russia, have got over this attitude towards Germans, partly through the Cold War experience of the GDR.

It is no wonder, still sounds bizarre, that the authors pretend to have been charged with looking after European cohesion as regards Russia. That is for the Europeans to decide among themselves, be it the Third Energy Package, blasting their environment to get shale gas or anything.

Making Russia part of the West is a more exciting subject, which betrays the chief preoccupation of the authors with Russia, i.e. its foreign policy independence, our aloofness to things we don’t believe in. Why then it wasn’t done in early 90-ies, through our membership in NATO? It was a perfect chance, which, true, required a measure of generosity and far-sightedness, and a leap of faith, of which our Western partners proved to be incapable.

We have always been open-minded and held a broad view of things, sometimes, perhaps, too broad. But we have never been cuddly. Prince John could take that for a compliment (in Walt Disney’s Robin Hood). It has never been our cup of tea. This cuddliness, one might suspect, is the reason for the known attitude of Zb. Brzezinski towards one of the former British Prime Ministers, who contributed to the former US Administration’s policies of self-destruction, both domestically and internationally. We weren’t cuddly towards Napoleon (see Dominic Lieven’s Russia against Napoleon), nor more cuddly towards Nazi Germany, than London and Paris in the run-up to WWII. The very term Phoney War and what it was about are still rare to find in British history books.

One can agree that the sense of style saved the British the trouble of infatuation with fascism, with Sir Oswald Mosley’s guys dressed for a ride, but no horse around. For sure, we’ll never deserve to adopt a retired police horse, but that needn’t be a problem in our bilateral relationship.

At the time of collectivization in the Soviet Union, there was quite often a gun on the table at which people signed up to a kolkhoz. Now, that we are plainly offered to join a Western kolkhoz and leave our history and culture by the gate, there isn’t a horse or a gun in sight. But what is there?

Another latest report, now by the European Council on Foreign Relations (entitled “European Foreign Policy Scorecard 2012”) suggests that us and the rest of the world be offered “Western model of economic and values development”. What model? Is it the one now in crisis? Nobody minds market economy and democracy. But why emulate a model, so obviously bankrupt, representing not only capitalism gone rentier, but also democracy highly dysfunctional. Entire nations are being destroyed to avoid dealing with one of Jane Austen’s universal truths, this time of inevitability of a correction by way of massive write-off of value (inflated through financial sector’s alchemy over the past 3 to 4 decades) as a prerequisite for a fresh start in Western economies. The origins of malaise are well-known, just see Tyler Cowen’s Great Stagnation, Peter Beinart’s Icarus Syndrome and others. Quite enlightening in this regard are Niall Ferguson’s memorial lecture at the Peterson Institute for International Economy on May 13, 2010, Leslie Gelb’s admission in the Foreign Affairs magazine that the West had fundamentally misjudged the situation brought about by the end of the Cold War, or Francis Fukuyama’s article in the FA latest issue. Still, Russia is blamed for European and global instability!

Brad Gregory in his Unintended Reformation traces its roots to the European history of XVI and XVII centuries, when the West gave up on Life Questions and went shopping. Although he doesn’t cite Oswald Spengler’s analysis of the West’s “Faustian soul’s flight into infinite space”, nor Russian philosophers (like Fedor Tutchev, Fedor Dostoevsky, Vassily Rozanov, Pitirim Sorokin and others), who predicted the present crisis of the Western society as based on a shaky foundation of consumerism, a social contract not sustainable enough to ensure lasting social cohesion. Our thinkers believed that to have been caused by voids in human soul left by former Christianity, that was successfully (?) overcome over the past five centuries.

On our part, we believe that human rights, as well as economy (if it is to be conducive to nations’ prosperity), have got to be rooted in traditional values, like dignity, freedom, responsibility, fairness, respect for each other etc. It is also about the Christian truths of daily bread and debt forgiveness. Maybe, had it not been for this divide between human rights and those eternal values, we would not have heard statements questioning the right of the newborn to live.

Overall, the report makes an impression that Russia is a problem, not the crisis of the West. At the hight of the Bush Administration’s folly Zb. Brzezinski in his article in the American Interest magazine (Autumn 2005) warned against putting in practice “Spengler’s notions of manipulated masses clamoring for a war willed by their leaders, Toynbee’s of suicidal statecraft that undermines its own imperial power, and Huntington’s of culturally antagonistic democratization”. One has to read Somerset Maugham’s Outstation and Sir Walter Scott’s Old Mortality to see what that means, including aggressive narrow-mindedness of religious fanaticism denying salvation to everybody else, whether by Puritan fanatics, Bolsheviks or neocons.

Minister for Europe David Lidington speaking recently in Lisbon, drew a parallel between the collapse of communism and the end of the British Empire. The crisis of liberal capitalism may well fall in the same category. Anyway, vicissitudes of Russia’s politics are nothing against the background of a bigger issue of how the West manages its relative decline. Perhaps, that is the reason why differences with Russia on a particular international issue, Syria for example, are treated in ultimate, ideological terms as something existential. This hype sounds all the more artificial that Russia’s realistic and pragmatic position (which may be accounted for by the fact that we never dominated the Middle East) could help the West to avoid the costs of another military intervention. As a matter of fact, our analysis doesn’t differ much from that of Peter Oborne, Gideon Rachman or Abdel Bari Atwan. The Syrian people deserve the advantages of a soft landing, akin to the settlement of the Glorious Revolution, i.e. an orderly transition, not a bloody one, leaving no room for politics and policies of moderation and tolerance.

England enjoyed the extremists’ choice of leaving overseas. Here it is different. So, the international community, including the West (that have explored the limits of majority democracy), ought to encourage parties to the conflict to seek a compromise of checks and balances leading to a participatory and deliberative democracy.

Now about UK being a thorn in Russia’s side. Heavy stuff indeed. Why this enthusiasm for irresponsible and inconsequential rhetoric? Russia and Britain, in the final count, have one thing in common, that is we leave nobody indifferent. We never basked in this shared uniqueness. Being homes to two greatest world literatures seems to be enough things in common to have respect for each other. W. Shakespeare was and still is your ticket to immortality, F. Dostoevsky being ours. Everything else is petty and minor. We don’t debate the state of the British society, partly out of focusing on our own business. That seems to be a top priority for every responsible member of international community. If the West had minded its business well enough, the world wouldn’t have had to confront the present crisis and its hardships. In any way, trying to live off the financial flows is as short-sighted as off the gas pipe.

We do have positive, non-confrontational ideas, both in the said FP Concept and what President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin have written or said. It is, in particular, a vision of a truly Greater Europe, or “Union of Europe”. That means bringing together all three branches of European civilization - North America/US, Western Europe/EU and Russia/Eurasia. It requires convergence, fusion and synthesis, of which we have seen numerous examples over the past 300 years, including 20th century and now, i.e. moving towards each other, combining our relative advantages and drawing lessons from our common history, and thus, addressing the real common problems. Is not it great? Or rather, too simple to be true? We don’t know. But Leo Tolstoy wrote in his War and Peace that all great truths are simple.




LATEST EVENTS

18.04.2016 - UNESCO resolution on preserving Palmyra - approved 8 April

UNESCO’ Role in Safeguading and Preserving Palmyra and other Syrian World Heritage Sites


13.04.2016 - Syrian future implies all-inclusiveness (By Ambassador Yakovenko for RT)

On 31 March, Russia circulated in the UN Security Council a draft press statement, emphasizing the need to ensure that the Syrian talks in Geneva are inclusive. The main purpose of this document was to underline that all opposition groups should join the negotiations, including the Kurds. Unfortunately the Western members of the UNSC, including UK, blocked the draft by proposing amendments that run counter to the spirit of the statement. Such a position is regrettable, especially as it contradicts the International Syria Support Group's decisions and provisions of the UNSC Resolution 2254. This step is even harder to understand, since it came from our Western colleagues. Probably it was a result of the pressure by regional players, some of whom still prioritize their ambition to have a Sunni government in Syria.


06.04.2016 - "Russia’s strategy based on diplomacy backed by force" (Letter to the Editor, FT)

Sir, In his otherwise brilliant analysis “The self-induced twilight of the west” (April 4), Edward Luce has got some things wrong. Particularly, he is uncritical of the US military’s allegation of the Russian Air Force “weaponising refugees” with no evidence provided. It is well known that the exodus of refugees from Turkey to Europe started well before we intervened militarily on September 30 2015.


23.03.2016 - Letter to the Editor of The Times, sent on 22 March

For quite a while the British Government has been referring to perceived Russia/the Kremlin’s interest in the Brexit debate. Unfortunately, Oliver Kamm makes the same point in the Times (“Brexit would play into the hands of Putin”, 21 March). What all the pronouncements of this sort have in common is the claim to know better than the Russian Government where our national interest lies and what our policies are. By the way, the “Pravda” hasn’t been speaking for the Russian Government for the past 30 years.


14.03.2016 - Talking points of Deputy Prime Minister Olga Golodets at the launch of exhibition "Russia and the Arts"

Dear Friends, It gives me pleasure to congratulate you on the opening of the “Russia and the Arts: The Age of Tolstoy and Tchaikovsky” exhibition dedicated to the 160th anniversary of the State Tretiakov Gallery. This exhibition is yet another evidence of a profound connection between our cultures. Russia and Great Britain gave the World a plethora of great artists and works. In our country, works of William Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, William Thackeray, Bernard Shaw, Arthur Conan-Doyle and other British classics are widely known. I know that in Britain they take no lesser interest in writings of Leo Tolstoy, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Anton Chekhov or music by Piotr Tchaikovsky and Dmitry Shostakovich. The new BBC version of Tolstoy’s “War and Peace” is a great example of such continuing mutual fascination.


15.02.2016 - Russian Embassy representative’s comments on Prime Minister David Cameron’s statements on Russia in Hamburg

Media question: Speaking the other day in Hamburg, Prime Minister D.Cameron referred to the perceived "Russian threat" as a reason for Britain to stay in the European Union, whatever the outcome of the alleged "sham" talks on EU reform and terms of British membership. What would you say on such a disingenuous attempt to win the upcoming EU referendum on Russia’s back? ' Answer: It became fashionable ever since the Bush Administration’s "axis of evil" to juggle with such a "troika" of threats to meet domestic and foreign policy objectives. As to our British partners, they made us part of the construction comprising "Islamic State" and Ebola. Now, like in the Lego kids game, the Ebola brick is replaced with North Korea. And the reason is our differences over Ukraine. As to the Crimea, it is a reunion. As to East Ukraine, the people are fighting a nationalistic regime for human rights of the minorities and an autonomy. All of it is about Ukraine and has nothing to do with the Baltic or any other states. So, the notion of a "Russian threat" to Europe is a false one. The real and immediate threats to Europe are different, those are the Eurozone and migration crises. Russia has not got anything to do with neither of them. The attempts to drag Russia into the British domestic debate on whether to stay in the EU does not make credit to the present Tory Government. We just wonder what other domestic problems the Government would wish to resolve at Russia’s expense.


12.02.2016 - Alexander Yakovenko for RT

Russia and the United Kingdom - these two powers, for centuries, have been tied into the most complicated relations: enemies at one time, and yet allies and cooperators at another. But now the temperature between the two is steadily going down, with Britain leading the anti-Russian sanctions and, just recently, coming out with allegations of Moscow’s involvement with a death of former FSB agent Alexander Litvinenko. What’s pushing London to make such statements? Does the Cold War-like vector of Cameron’s policy resonate with public opinion? How much is this public opinion is shaped by the voice of mainstream media? And, finally, is there a hope for a thaw? We ask the Russian Ambassador to the UK. Alexander Yakovenko is on Sophie&Co today.


12.02.2016 - Opinion: credibility of British Litvinenko Judgment Doubtful (Eurasia Review, By William Dunkerley, February 10, 2016)

A dark cloud of suspicion still hangs over a 2006 British murder mystery. The Litvinenko affair started as a London spy mystery. It made top headlines back in the day. Riveting allegations claimed Alexander Litvinenko died of polonium poisoning ordered by Russian president Vladimir Putin. Now almost ten years later, the mystery has evolved into a government political scandal. After years of false starts and inaction, an official inquiry was finally called in 2015. Getting to the bottom of things was its ostensible purpose.


11.02.2016 - Opinion: Litvinenko and the Demise of British Justice (by James O'Neill, Dissident voice)

The publication on 21 January 2016 of the report by British Judge Sir Robert Owen on the death of Alexander Litvinenko was predictably seized upon by anti-Russian elements as confirmation of their conviction that Russia in general and President Putin in particular were the personification of modern day evil.


05.02.2016 - Opinion: six reasons you can't take the Litvinenko report seriously (by William Dunkerley, the Guardian)

Inquiry points the finger at Vladimir Putin and the Russian state, but its findings are biased, flawed and inconsistent. An inquiry into the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko in the heart of London in 2006 has concluded that he was “probably” murdered on the personal orders of Vladimir Putin. This is a troubling accusation.



all messages