We've all lived through this period, but let's remind ourselves of the radical changes that took place so quickly in succession. From a book by Andrei Tsygankov, Professor at San Francisco State U
First and foremost, it is important that in adjusting to new external challenges and solving its more specific domestic problems, Russia should stay engaged with the world in general and the West in particular.
Lack of acceptance by the West should not prompt Russian leaders to take an Isolationist Path; rather, it should encourage them to double their efforts to explain their international policies as consistent with their vision of a global world. Isolationism cannot be practical in a world that has grown increasingly global in terms of both new opportunities and new threats. Russia should not deprive itself of new opportunities to participate in global flows of information, capital, and labor. Nor can it fully shield itself against new diseases or types of violence, or other crises of a transnational nature.
The feeling of Isolationism, particularly an anti-Western one, remains strong in Russia. Hard-line Civilizationists, as well as some Statists, continue to argue that Russia is destined to oppose the West’s civilizational and political influences across the globe. These forces insist on viewing the world in black-and-white terms and refuse to acknowledge that many of Russia’s interests are best accomplished through participation in international organizations and joint activities. They continue to practice the old maxim “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” by recommending that Russia support anti-Western forces and work against those who are supportive of the West.
Putin’s attempts to contain Western influences in the world would have only a limited effect if they are pursued from weak domestic foundations and without coordination with major non-Western powers. In addition, within the globalized world, staying engaged is not just an option but a foreign policy imperative.
The vision of Russia as Eurasia, if pursued at the expense of Russia’s ties with Europe, is also a flawed one. Insistence on Eurasia as anti-American and anti-European did a disservice back in Primakov’ time. Even if his own approach was more refined and pragmatic than that of the hard-liners, embracing Eurasia as a traditionally geopolitical notion added to Western perceptions of Russia’s new foreign policy as essentially isolationist and could not resonate with the majority of the Russian public. “Western” and “Eurasian” coexist and overlap within the Russian psyche. Russia continues to be a multicultural, multiethnic, and multireligious community that has coexisted and interacted with the Asian and Middle Eastern region. That alone qualifies it to be a “Eurasian power.” Putin’s new initiative of building the Eurasian Union therefore has a certain public appeal and a chance to be sustained if it is pursued not at the expense of Russia’s European-rich experience.
Following a National Path
It is no less important that in staying engaged with the world, Russian leaders do not lose sight of what has historically made Russia a special cultural community. Historically, Russia has played a vital role in European developments while preserving special relations with Asia and the Muslim world. This special geopolitical and geo-cultural location has not harmed Russia’s own identity development—the Russians have learned from their neighbors while remaining a community with a distinct culture and history.
Some cautions and conclusions by the same author,
Staying Engaged
First and foremost, it is important that in adjusting to new external challenges and solving its more specific domestic problems, Russia should stay engaged with the world in general and the West in particular.
Lack of acceptance by the West should not prompt Russian leaders to take an Isolationist Path; rather, it should encourage them to double their efforts to explain their international policies as consistent with their vision of a global world. Isolationism cannot be practical in a world that has grown increasingly global in terms of both new opportunities and new threats. Russia should not deprive itself of new opportunities to participate in global flows of information, capital, and labor. Nor can it fully shield itself against new diseases or types of violence, or other crises of a transnational nature.
The feeling of Isolationism, particularly an anti-Western one, remains strong in Russia. Hard-line Civilizationists, as well as some Statists, continue to argue that Russia is destined to oppose the West’s civilizational and political influences across the globe. These forces insist on viewing the world in black-and-white terms and refuse to acknowledge that many of Russia’s interests are best accomplished through participation in international organizations and joint activities. They continue to practice the old maxim “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” by recommending that Russia support anti-Western forces and work against those who are supportive of the West.
Putin’s attempts to contain Western influences in the world would have only a limited effect if they are pursued from weak domestic foundations and without coordination with major non-Western powers. In addition, within the globalized world, staying engaged is not just an option but a foreign policy imperative.
The vision of Russia as Eurasia, if pursued at the expense of Russia’s ties with Europe, is also a flawed one. Insistence on Eurasia as anti-American and anti-European did a disservice back in Primakov’ time. Even if his own approach was more refined and pragmatic than that of the hard-liners, embracing Eurasia as a traditionally geopolitical notion added to Western perceptions of Russia’s new foreign policy as essentially isolationist and could not resonate with the majority of the Russian public. “Western” and “Eurasian” coexist and overlap within the Russian psyche. Russia continues to be a multicultural, multiethnic, and multireligious community that has coexisted and interacted with the Asian and Middle Eastern region. That alone qualifies it to be a “Eurasian power.” Putin’s new initiative of building the Eurasian Union therefore has a certain public appeal and a chance to be sustained if it is pursued not at the expense of Russia’s European-rich experience.
Following a National Path
It is no less important that in staying engaged with the world, Russian leaders do not lose sight of what has historically made Russia a special cultural community. Historically, Russia has played a vital role in European developments while preserving special relations with Asia and the Muslim world. This special geopolitical and geo-cultural location has not harmed Russia’s own identity development—the Russians have learned from their neighbors while remaining a community with a distinct culture and history.
.