by Mohamed Ibrahim
The 1997 National Security Concept of Russia identified Russia as an “influential European and Asian power” and recommended that Russia maintain an equal distance in relations with global European and Asian economic and political actors, while the 2000 Foreign Policy Concept referred to the Russian Federation as its “superpower.” Responsibility for maintaining security in the world at the global and regional levels warned of a serious threat to the current structure of the international system controlled by the United States.
Russia, in its vision of its position in the international system, stems from its character as a superpower, and has maintained this position through three phases, “Tsarism, Soviet and current liberalism,” despite the threats surrounding it of being with a large geographical extension that suffers from instability in neighboring regions, and its feeling of constant threat of invasion from abroad. And difficulties in maintaining the internal unity of the state, and despite these threats, the state developed and maintained its strength and independence.
In line with the idea of Russia as a relatively independent global power center, Russian theorists have adopted the idea of a multi-directional foreign policy, including the Minister of Foreign Affairs (1996 – 1998) Yevgeny Primakov, who believed that Russia should remain a sovereign state with the ability to organize and secure a post-Soviet space and resist the ambitions of Hegemony anywhere in the world should look for dynamic alliances in all geopolitical directions, and not have its relations with the West at the expense of emerging power centers in the world such as China, India and the Islamic world.
Russians today consider the Russian state to have passed through three stages of time with three different forms of government: Tsarist Russia, communist Russia, and today liberal Russia.
Based on these stages and experiences in foreign policy, they have clear fou
ndations, and a summary of experiences for the foundations of Russia’s foreign policy and the vision of the current international system.
Policy makers have identified five key points that define Russian foreign policy
- Defend the country and order.
- Influence in neighboring countries.
- Seeing Russia as a great power.
- Non-interference in the internal affairs of independent states.
- Political and economic cooperation as an equal partner to other great powers.
Defending the country and order:
The factor of fear of external threats and exposure to attack constituted a basic framework in Russian foreign policy, in addition to the factor of domestic unrest supported by the United States in particular.
The large geographical area of the Russian lands contributed with the historical course of the wars, especially with the western periphery, and the Russian feeling that it is permanently exposed to invasion as a result of historical experiences and wars with the surrounding countries “France – Sweden – the Ottoman Empire – Germany” to establish a Russian desire to create a buffer zone between “Soviet Russia” and the West .
Stephen Kotkin, a professor at Princeton University, comments on this topic: “Russia has always felt vulnerable and has often shown defensive aggressiveness, and yet it views smaller countries on its borders more as linked to enemies than potential friends.”
After the external threat, Russian leaders see foreign enemies as permanently fomenting domestic unrest in Russia, and this context is read by Russian policy makers as interconnected. George Kennan, one of the US foreign policy planners and architect of the idea of the containment policy of the Soviet Union noted: “Opposition has always portrayed The Russian interior as an agent of foreign powers” who sought to overthrow the government of the Soviet Union, and for this reading, the Putin government enacted laws regarding foreign organizations that pose a threat to the Russian defense capacity, state security, public order or the health of the population, so the Russian leaders believe that the suppression and attack of these organizations comes In order to strengthen the regime’s strength, because the goal of these organizations is to create revolutions and protests against the regime, which are led by foreign elements.
Impact in neighboring countries:
Russian analysts refer to the term neighboring countries in the sense that they are countries that were formerly part of the Soviet Union and divide them between direct influence and indirect influence. Russia has a degree of direct influence beyond the countries of the former Soviet Union to the countries of the former communist world, especially Slavic countries such as Bulgaria and Serbia It has limited influence in countries where there are Russian minorities, such as the Baltic states.
The desired scheme of Russian influence in neighboring countries is focused on four levels:
- The first level: Belarus – Kazakhstan – Kyrgyzstan – Uzbekistan – Turkmenistan – Ukraine.
- The second level: Georgia – Armenia – Azerbaijan.
- Third level: Baltic states (Estonia – Latvia – Lithuania)
- Fourth level: Western Balkan countries (Bosnia and Herzegovina – Kosovo – Montenegro – Serbia – Croatia – Macedonia) and the former Warsaw Pact countries (Albania – Czechoslovakia – Poland – Romania – Bulgaria – Hungary)
As part of the Russian tendency to strengthen and confirm its presence as a great power and influence in neighboring countries, and in order to strengthen this presence, it began moving to impose its military presence in the near and far surroundings under the title “regional presence.” This trend appeared with its entry into the military operation for Syria 2015, and the military operation for Ukraine 2022, Proceeding from the fact that the strength of the presence in the ocean and its influence on it strengthens Russia’s position at the global level strategically, so that the Western powers cannot skip the recognition of Russia as a great power and reserve its position on the global geopolitical map.
Currently, there has been talk in Russia and the West about the term (Rossky Mir), meaning the Russian world, with its ancient identity of the Russian Empire and the peoples that are linked to Russia in terms of language or ethnicity with followers of the Russian Orthodox Church, and ties with the countries of the former Soviet Union, and the term Russian World bears the stamp of influence Regional includes:
- Collective Security Organization: Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan
- The Commonwealth of Independent States: Russia, Belarus, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan
This effect is expressed in three headings:
- These countries should not take any important decisions related to foreign policy and security without consulting with Russia.
- Demanding the leaders of these countries to abide by any decision taken by Russia.
- Cooperation between Russian state organizations.
Viewing Russia as a Great Power:
Russian officials start from talking about a multipolar world in which Russia is one of the poles and a major active power and should remain so, and even after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the bad economic situation in which Russia went through, President Yeltsin refused US financial aid in 1992 and told President Clinton: “We are a superpower, we are not We need donations.”
In 2008, Russian President Medvedev included multipolarity as one of the five principles of Russian foreign policy, saying: “The world should be multipolar. Unipolarity is not acceptable; hegemony is not permitted. We cannot accept a world order in which all decisions are made by one country, Even if it is an important and powerful country like the United States of America.”
Russia sought to strengthen its position at the international level as a great power by supporting a group of forums such as the “BRICS” and strengthening its link with China and worked with it to reduce the US military presence in Central Asia through the Shanghai Organization with security agreements on information tracking.
The Russian view as a superpower is linked to the fact that it enjoys absolute sovereignty and independence and sees itself within a small class of countries that enjoy absolute sovereignty compared to European countries that need to consult with the United States before setting and implementing its policy.
Russia seeks to pursue its greater independence and is able to achieve this by avoiding alliances or binding agreements with other powers, as well as by maintaining economic and military power.
Non-interference in internal affairs:
Russian leaders affirm that interference in the internal affairs of states is a fundamental principle of global governance and internal affairs, and they stress non-interference outside the framework of the United Nations. Influencing its surroundings as a superpower, and in the post-Cold War period, Russia stressed in its foreign discourse the issue of non-interference, especially after the Chechen crisis, and Russian leaders emphasized in the wake of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe summit held in Turkey in 1999 that Western European countries are not It has the right to criticize Russia for what happened in Chechnya and that they will make efforts to counter all attempts to interfere in Russia’s internal affairs under any pretext, and Russian officials also opposed Western intervention in Kosovo because the air campaign against Kosovo was, in the opinion of Russian analysts, opening the door to Russia on the subject of the conflict in Chechnya.
In contrast to the Russian rhetoric of non-interference in the internal affairs of countries and the Charter of the Commonwealth of Independent States, which says to respect the sovereignty of member states, and the right of peoples to self-determination without outside interference, Russian policy analysts say that Russian influence has changed from direct influence to indirect influence within these countries.
Political and economic cooperation as Russia is an equal partner of the great powers:
After the end of the Cold War, Russia sought more cooperation and partnership with the West, but this vision came under the concept of equal interaction with the major countries, and complete independence and sought to establish this clearly. In contrast, Western countries and their organizations did not see Russia from this perspective.
At that time, the Americans and the Russians tried to establish a stage of close cooperation, and Gorbachev and his team called the Americans the term “partners.” Yeltsin deepened his personal relationship with Bill Clinton, and the slogan of Russian foreign policy in 1993 became the Russian endeavor to develop the relationship with the United States to reach a strategic partnership and future alliance.
With the advent of Putin, who considered his predecessor’s policy weak, but he strengthened cooperation with the West regarding common interests, and after September 11, he was in favor of the war on terrorism. In this regard, Russian theorists Alexander Dugin and Nadezhda Arbatova indicate that the Kremlin offered its unprecedented support to the United States as an ally. A real United States in establishing a coalition against terrorism.
After 2008, President Medvedev’s view of Russia in its foreign policy was that it is the leader of a major bloc in the world and not just a strong and super country, and Russia was described as one of the three branches of European civilization (Russia – Western Europe – North America).
With the beginning of the Ukrainian crisis, a change in the Russian vision towards the West began, but the Russian official statements showed the continuation of the desire to cooperate on the basis of Russian conditions, ie (a general feeling of equality, and equally guaranteed security).
Evolution of Russian Views on the US-led Regime:
Russian analysts stress that Russia sought close cooperation with the West in the nineties, but this cooperation did not go well for Russia, and even when Russia sought to integrate with Western institutions, including NATO, the European Union and the World Trade Organization, it did not find respect for its will and independence, so the Russians understood The futility of this approach and their thinking shifted to finding and developing their own institutions, and it became clear to them that the US-led regime constitutes a permanent threat to them, especially after US military interventions outside the framework of the United Nations and the penetration of NATO and the European Union into Russia’s sphere of influence and influence.
After the Cold War, there was a belief in Russia that it would play a joint role in a new world order. This belief was encouraged by American policy makers. The Russian view at that time was partly related to a view proposed by Gorbachev on the basis of a world order in which East and West would be combined on the basis of equality. While the international relations expert Professor at the University of Washington Joshua Shifrinson revealed a secret document of a meeting of officials of the American, British, French and German foreign ministries held in Bonn May 6, 1991 about a special design for Europe during discussions with the Soviet Union to create a system dominated by the United States, with time Russian officials discovered a lie American promises and a different American policy on Russian integration and adaptation in Western institutions.
With the advent of President Putin, he had a conclusion about the policy adopted by Yeltsin towards the West, which weakened Russia’s position in the world. The third countries, and this perception reflected the frustration of the Russian elites, who were clear to them that the closest relations with the West were not in the Russian interest, and despite Putin’s violent rhetoric towards the West at the beginning of his term, he continued to seek to strengthen Russia’s relationship with the West and join NATO on the condition Recognizing Russia’s interests and being an equal partner as a great power.
The pivotal point at which the Russians stood was in 1999 when NATO launched the aerial bombardment of Serbia, which has close ties with Moscow. At first, it felt disappointed as a result of its inability to influence NATO, and insulted by the European Union, and then was surprised by the resistance of its bid to enter the WTO Globalism.
With the beginning of the second millennium, the Atlantic and American policies began to take an advanced face towards Russia with the threat to Russian national security with the color revolutions in Eastern Europe, and the American plans to deploy the missile shield, and from here the Russian view of the international system began to change, in addition to an important factor which is the improvement of the Russian economic situation As a result of restructuring the oil economic wealth that enabled it to repay Western loans. As a result of the combination of these factors, the Russians first abandoned the idea of being part of the West and turned to forming a system of their own. The Russian-American relations took a regressive path, and this was expressed by Putin in a 2007 speech at the Munich Security Policy Conference, saying: “The unipolar system does not It has nothing to do with democracy” and began a series of Russian rhetoric and negative viewpoints toward the international system led by the United States.
The successive events from Georgia to Ukraine and what happened in the Middle East from Libya to Syria came to reinforce the Russian view that the United States and the West are actually and deliberately threatening Russia. In the end, Russian views settled that Western and American activities are a real threat to Russian national interests and security.
Russian visions regarding the current international system and its components:
Russian leaders and analysts define the Russian point of view and consider that the system led by the United States and trying to expand it to include the whole world threatens Russia’s security and undermines its influence in neighboring countries. and freedom, and these activities increasingly threaten Russia’s security and vital interests.
President Putin describes the current system as unipolar and does not reflect the true balance of power in the world, that unilateral action is no longer acceptable, that the excessive use of force is uncontrollable and that the United States has overstepped its national borders. Minister Lavrov published an article in 2016 on the US attempt The United States and the Western Alliance to maintain global hegemony in all available ways, including:
- Economic sanctions
- direct military intervention
- Cyber and information warfare
- The unconstitutional change of government
He also wrote, quoting President Putin, that the new members of the European Union and NATO admit behind closed doors that they cannot take any important decision without obtaining the green light from Brussels and Washington. And the theory of colonial Western supremacy with the tint of human rights and enlightenment secularism, and Alexander Dugin notes that the West believes that the best way to lead underdeveloped countries is to integrate them into economic and political alliances that he dominates, while Fyodor Lukyanov, a Russian political scientist, questions the effectiveness of the United States’ attempt to create a monolithic system and give it to itself The political and moral rights to organize the world in the way it sees fit, causing chaos in the international system and eroding its institutions that were effective, albeit to a limited extent, in the last century.
Minister Lavrov believes that the use of force by the United States away from Security Council resolutions exposes the international system to undermining and calls the American interventions hostile acts, starting from Kosovo to Iraq and Libya. Enjoyed by the United Nations, jump over these powers especially when force is used against sovereign nations.
Nevertheless, Russian leaders stress to work under the guise of the United Nations as a framework for discussion even in situations of conflict and disagreement of world powers, and sometimes the contradictory rhetoric of Russia appears when the threat approaches the limits of its national security, for example, the military entry into Georgia, Syria and Ukraine now.
In general, Russia supports the United Nations system, and this support is based on the United Nations’ recognition of Russia as a great power, and Russia’s possession of the veto in the Security Council, which often prevents American interference in its region, and therefore Russia’s support for the United Nations mostly corresponds to the will of the United States to maintain on this international system.
Multilateral Security Agreements:
Russian policy makers and analysts see NATO’s existence and expansion as a threat to Russian security, while the Americans talk about NATO as a guarantee of freedom, democracy and stability of security. Security agreements with many European countries and to strengthen a competing institution under the name of the Collective Security Treaty Organization among the countries of the former Soviet Union.
Previously, during the discussions between the Russians and the Americans after the end of the Cold War on NATO, there was a clear statement in the Russian media that: (If NATO moves east, Russia will move west).
Since the Ukrainian crisis, the Russians have become more explicit in defining NATO as a threat to Russia when the NATO composition since 1999 has included twelve countries that were part of the Warsaw Pact, while continuing the NATO eye on the republics of the former Yugoslavia and talking about the integration of Ukraine and Georgia.
In 2015, Russian official documents showed, in the context of talking about Russian national security, the continuing escalating threat from NATO as it sought to annex many former Soviet countries. Russia is seeking to put in place enhanced security arrangements through which it has greater influence, such as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
There was a Russian tendency to support and integrate into the European Union until 2013, but Russia expressed great concerns about Europe not recognizing the Russian role as a great power, and with the expansion of the European Union towards the former Soviet countries, and the Western military move towards Ukraine, Russia supported the establishment of parallel regional organizations such as the Economic Union It took a number of economic-political-military measures aimed at undermining the European Union, and at the same time it strengthened the bilateral agreements between it and the former Soviet states, and it strengthened the Commonwealth of Independent States, whose foundation was formed in Central Asia to be on the In the words of President Putin, a bridge of communication between Asia and Europe.
After 2014, the Ukrainian crisis and Russia’s annexation of Crimea, President Putin said in a speech: “The West must have lost its political instinct and common sense not to anticipate the consequences of its actions. Russia has found itself in an irreversible position. If it pressures a person to the fullest. limit, you will receive what you do not like.”
The Russian vision of the global economic orientation:
The Ukrainian crisis showed a clear picture of the Russians in terms of Western orientation in dealing with Russia at all levels, especially at the economic and financial levels, beginning with the continued obstruction of Russia’s strong presence in the international financial institutions led by the West. managed by the West, in 2015 Russia became the third largest investor in (the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank), which constitutes a potential competitor to the World Bank, in addition to supporting the BRICS countries to establish an alternative financial infrastructure. The report of the Russian Intellectual Center of the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies went to Noting that the BRICS countries (with the support of developing countries) seek to rearrange the entire global financial architecture, including international trade, foreign exchange and financial relations, foreign investment, control of crude resources, regional markets, and advanced technologies.
Russia’s vision on arms control agreements:
Negotiations on arms control began during the Cold War and continued between Russia and the United States, and the two parties reached agreements in this regard, including:
- Nuclear weapons and warheads.
- Strategic bombers.
- Development of anti-ballistic missile systems.
- Treaty of Conventional Forces in Europe.
From Gorbachev’s era to Yeltsin’s era, he supported negotiations on arms control because the arms race exhausted the Soviet Union from an economic point of view, and thus Yeltsin’s vision was that this would reduce military expenditures on Russia.
During Putin’s rule, the dispute with the United States intensified, especially with the increase in the Western military threat to Russia, the expansion of NATO, and the United States’ quest to acquire an anti-ballistic missile system, and accusations began between Russia and the United States of violating the signed agreements regarding American missile defense, traditional American precision-guided missiles, and drones. Unmanned aerial vehicles, the weaponization of outer space, medium-range nuclear weapons, and in 2016 Russia withdrew from three agreements on nuclear cooperation with the United States against the backdrop of US sanctions over Ukraine.
Arms control agreements in general led to the reduction of American armaments in Europe, and were suitable for Russia before activating the Atlantic expansion towards its borders, and the Russians took advantage of these agreements to their advantage, but with the transformation that occurred since the beginning of the current millennium and the American endeavor to include the countries of Eastern Europe to NATO, Russia began to withdraw. Gradually from the treaties, in 2007 it decided to suspend its participation in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe and officially withdraw from it in 2015.
As a result of Russia’s vital interests, Russia applied the provisions of the treaties, and whenever it found that these treaties restricted them and gave NATO a free hand, it was withdrawing from them, and it often benefited from them, such as its demand to prevent the deployment of the missile shield in Europe, in addition to creating a Russian market for civilian nuclear products and conventional weapons, and ensuring a role for Russia in the negotiations. International (the Iranian nuclear deal as an example).
A vision on sovereignty, democracy and human rights:
Russian officials consider that the slogans raised by the United States regarding human rights and democracy are nothing but a cover for expanding its influence, and a threat to Russia’s security and its regime, given that Russia is an independent and fully sovereign state other than many countries, and it has the right to a zone of influence, which contradicts the concept of sovereignty proposed by the Americans. Which opens the door for them to external intervention, either directly or through color revolutions. For example, the US National Security Strategy in 2015 indicated that “military force may sometimes be necessary to defend our country and our allies or to maintain security and peace on the widest scale, including: This is to protect civilians who are facing a serious humanitarian crisis.”
Foreign interference:
The Russians consider that the American intervention is moving around the Russian sphere of influence from Yugoslavia to Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq, and justifies the intervention on the grounds that there are human rights violations. In many cases, the Americans have moved outside the framework of the United Nations, and this is what the Russians see as an attempt to expand the US-led regime.
Color revolutions:
Since the end of the Cold War, a series of popular protests have taken place in the countries of the former Soviet Union, and Western governments have adopted these moves as calling for democracy and freedom, while the Russians classify them as funded and orchestrated by the West, and they are organized coups aimed at overthrowing official authorities. Its goal is to limit Russian influence and reduce it outside its borders, and these revolutions, which were called “colored revolutions”, begin with incitement, financing, and finally the coup, and often the West tends to militarize these revolutions to move away from direct intervention or to open a door for it to intervene under the slogan “protecting civilians”, which means that force The military is largely hiding behind these movements, and Russian officials stress that these revolutions are among the coordinated elements of the international system led by the United States and seek to expand it.
The Russians see that the existence of a strong world order is a basic and necessary thing for Russia, but rather a multipolar world order, and it is working to strengthen its power and presence in this system because it is recognized as a superpower and has a permanent seat in the Security Council that grants it the right of veto. From this system in which the United Nations constitutes its general framework, and an attempt to establish its influence in its vital surroundings, and to enhance its presence on the global scene as a major player in international politics, and to exploit its geographical, economic and military presence to extract from the West its recognition as a fundamental and influential pillar in the global political movement, based on the geopolitical position For Russia Russian theorists repeat the idea that Russia is the heart of Eurasia and that the US regime is hostile to Russia, and that the self-sufficiency of the Russian state makes it an empire which is the natural state of the Russian political system.
In the phase that followed the fall of the Soviet Union, there appeared in Russia those who promoted the vision of Russia as a bridge of cultural communication between Europe and Asia, and viewed the international system as a multi-polar conflict of civilizations in the manner in which Samuel Huntington spoke, and there are those who spoke about the international system bearing the character of a geographical conflict The cultural bipolar, which is at the same time a conflict of continents and a struggle between the forces of land and sea, as spoke by the most prominent theorists of present-day Russia, Alexander Dugin.
In the situation that Russia has reached these days, Russian policy makers are talking about the necessity of transforming Russia into a self-sufficient country far from the influences of the Atlantic, which they consider a supra-regional system that works in favor of imposing unipolar domination globally, and therefore Russia aspires to develop the Russian Orthodox empire that the nationalists see The Russians, the last stronghold of Christianity, and the creation of a regional system on the model of the Warsaw Pact anti-Western includes China, India and Iran.
The Russian vision remains about maintaining this international order, fortifying Russia’s position in it, forcing the West to respect Russia’s priorities and preventing it from approaching its areas of influence and going to a multipolar world that guarantees a state of global peace, and that the collapse of the current framework of the international system (the United Nations Organization) may lead to What happened when the League of Nations collapsed and a world war broke out.
