New Russian world order: the five principles

[dipsydoodle]

Source: BBC News

In the aftermath of the Georgian conflict, the Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has laid down five principles that he says will guide Russian foreign policy.

The new Moscow rules are not a blueprint for a new "Cold War". That was a worldwide ideological and economic struggle. This is much more about defending national interests.

The principles, with their references to "privileged interests" and the protection of Russian citizens, would probably seem rather obvious to Russian leaders of the 19th Century. They would seem rather mild to Stalin and his successors, who saw the Soviet Union extending communism across the globe.

In some ways, we are going back to the century before last, with a nationalistic Russia very much looking out for its own interests, but open to co-operation with the outside world on issues where it is willing to be flexible.


Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7591610.stm

[redqueen]

1. What kind of a headline is that?

The only mention of "world order" in the piece is here:

2. Multi-polar world

"The world should be multi-polar. Unipolarity is unacceptable, domination is impermissible. We cannot accept a world order in which all decisions are taken by one country, even such a serious and authoritative country as the United States of America. This kind of world is unstable and fraught with conflict."

[Ghost Dog]

2. To be read alongside this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7592541.stm
(Observe: This is diplomatic process).

[dipsydoodle]

3. And to be read alongside that

Russia praises EU over sanctions.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has welcomed as "realistic" an EU decision not to impose sanctions on his country over its recent invasion of Georgia.

But Mr Medvedev said it was "sad" that the EU, which held a crisis summit, still did not understand what motivated Russia into sending in troops.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7593876.stm

[nels25]

4. Any one who thinks this is a positive development

is not a student of history.

I guarantee you this will cause Barack and us headaches in the near and long future.

If China decides to assist we could have a real situation. (although this may be somewhat unlikely since if you look closely the Chinese and Russians have differences of opinions of how things in the Siberia and that area around their common border should be handled.)

[tama]

7. For any relativist

signing onto relativistic ethics instead of any fundamentalist-universalist moralism, multipolarity is naturally preferable to unipolarity ("let's not put all the eggs in the same basket"). So that in itself is of course positive. What is not so funny, of course, is if all these multipolar centers sign onto a "universalist" hobbesian ideology - as USA does and all other former European powers did.

Whether Israel is USA's sphere of influence or vice versa may be valid question, but why should any hobbesian pole (penis-pole?) of power and influence pretend AWW!!! AGHAST!!! NOT POSITIVE!!! when other hobbesian fallic poles declare their spheres of influence?

What I really like about Russian version of hobbesian dominance games is that they don't pretend to be anything else but state their intentions of international bully honestly and openly, allways open to "rational" bargaining with other multipolar centers. USA'n moralistic hubris of double standards is million times more disgusting and zillion times more dangerous, because instead of being real (as Russians are) you folks eat and believe your own bullshit to the extend of behaving dogmatically insane (e.g. "American way is not negotiable"). Period.

[frankieT]

12. thank you !

i keep repeating that russia's actions are easily understandable and rational. On the US side we live in a bizarre world of Soviet-style ideology-driven propaganda (freedom, democracy) and humanitarian bombing campaigns and invasions (serbia, iraq, etc).

[nels25]

18. I can give you that

The Russian government is being open an honest about it's intentions.

I will be interested how we as an individual country and the so called west in general handle this situation.

[oldskool]

5. We need to worry about this country

and quit trying to take over the world. Globalization will not
work.

[tama]

6. Correction

"Extending communism" ended when Trotsky was forced to flee Russia, Stalin was in no way a communist, just a nationalistic (or national socialist) big shot who shut down the communist international.

[Diclotican]

9. tama

tama

Stalin was first an nationalic man, who was using the power of the comunist party in Russia to rule the country as he deed for more then 30 year... In many ways he was the last Tsar, not crown, but he ruled in many cases like the old tsars.. And yes, he was screwing the legacy from Trosky and even from Lenin when he was taking full control over Russia (Soviet was not made before 1928!)

And he was not an russian, but from Georgia, and he was most comfortable when he was with his georgians friends.. And many of them, who was his "inside gang" was up to great power, and really feared by the rest of the Soviet union... And when Stalin finaly died in 1953, the gang who had survived him was either put into prison, shot or sendt into exile for the rest of their life..

And for the record.. Even today, stautes of Stalin are in any georgian Cities.. Long after the rest of the country had teared down their statues of Stalin, Tiblisi had one... And for the most part georgians are still verry proud of Stalin...

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language.

[tama]

10. Diclotica

No worries mate, English is neither my native language. And merry thanks for your insight!

[Diclotican]

15. tama

tama

Will do my best;).. And good to se that not just me, who have not the english language as my first language..;)

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language

[David__77]

8. 4 and 5 are imperialist.

They do not deserve support. It's the same imperialist drivel as the US puts out. Russia is objectively serving a good role only because it's a force for multipolarity. But it is just as much an imperialist power and the rest.

[tama]

11. The difference being

That Russia is imperialistic openly (meaning: in principle open to dialogue about imperialism or at least philosophical grounds of imperialism) whereas USA is imperialistic through deeply hypocritical self-deception of "manifest destiny" that is not open to dialogue in any form but strictly fundamentalist about universalism most pure and horrifying.

[frankieT]

13. i may add that russia's posture is very defensive to say the least

they stayed calm even if the expansion of nato is really threatening and lethally dangerous to them. But having very hostile military moves near their borders is the red line we must keep in mind...

[Diclotican]

14. frankieT

frankieT

In the 1990s, the Russian had no real power to do otherwise.. Now that the russian are staring to get some teeth again, then it would be not that easy to get former Soviet Union member states to be member of a new, and far larger NATO than the 12 who once started the alliance in 1949... And it is rumored that NATO, specially the american promised the russian leadership, that NATO would not start to expand east into old soviet member states... I would say with the possible member states of Ukraine and Georgia, the border is pretty well gone.. It was bad enough when the Baltic states, and many of the former eastern european country was coming into the fold of NATO. But former RUSSIAN provinces.. That is a border no sane man, with some knowledge of history would do... But I guess many american still believe that Russia are down and out.. Like many still believe that Europe is down and out.. Some still believe Europe to be a bombed out place... More than 60 year after the end of the war...

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language

[frankieT]

16. I agree

I'm not talking about uneducated people who don't know about history or geography, the general view in the media among journalists, pundits and commentators, is that Russia is the aggressor here. They cannot see the lethal progression of NATO which only aim is to encircle Russia despite promises made not to do so after the fall of USSR. Clinton pursued the Brzezinski doctrine, Bush and the neocons were even more aggressive. For example, people should know that if Ukraine gets its NATO membership that would be a strategic equivalent of 1812 or 1941 for Russia ie ENEMY AT THE DOOR of Moscow (the enemy is already at 60 miles from St-Petersburg), this would be a legitimate cassus belli.

Very good analysis from G.Friedman (Stratfor), who is a conservative analyst but a honest one at least ! :)
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/georgia_and_kosovo_single_intertwined_crisis
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/russo_georgian_war_and_balance_power

"The Western Encirclement of Russia
To understand Russian thinking, we need to look at two events. The first is the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. From the U.S. and European point of view, the Orange Revolution represented a triumph of democracy and Western influence. From the Russian point of view, as Moscow made clear, the Orange Revolution was a CIA-funded intrusion into the internal affairs of Ukraine, designed to draw Ukraine into NATO and add to the encirclement of Russia. U.S. Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton had promised the Russians that NATO would not expand into the former Soviet Union empire.

That promise had already been broken in 1998 by NATO’s expansion to Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic — and again in the 2004 expansion, which absorbed not only the rest of the former Soviet satellites in what is now Central Europe, but also the three Baltic states, which had been components of the Soviet Union.

The Russians had tolerated all that, but the discussion of including Ukraine in NATO represented a fundamental threat to Russia’s national security. It would have rendered Russia indefensible and threatened to destabilize the Russian Federation itself. When the United States went so far as to suggest that Georgia be included as well, bringing NATO deeper into the Caucasus, the Russian conclusion — publicly stated — was that the United States in particular intended to encircle and break Russia."

PS: Diclotican, your english is not a problem for me, mine is not very good too, i'm french and keep coming here because i like DU and the american left.

[Diclotican]

17. frankieT

frankieT

Russia are doing exactly the same as US have been doing for decades.. And the funny thing about it, if something funny is to find in it. Is when Russia are doing it, then it is bad, but when USA is doing it, then it is good.. And after the utterly failure in Iraq, the US have no right, or power in their arsenal to get Russia into line... And even that many is feeling, and seeing Russia as the big ugly enemy who are attaching the poor Georgia, the fact on the ground are not exactly the same.. Georgia have for years working hard to get their hand of the outbreak provinces, who are full of strategic metals, and other stuff the Georgian needs to get out of the quagmire they are in economical.. Specially when you are seeing on the map, where the oil and gas pipes are been lining up.. Then you would understand far better why Georgia want this areas to be under THEIR control.. After this little war, where the russian army was sending both the Georgians a message, but also the rest of the world a message. That they are back, and would not tolerate any more misgivings about their ability to get to war.. Even if the weapons the russian was using was old, and no match for the modern warfare... It could still give a enemy big problems...

The NATO alliance who was coming to eastern and Central europe in the 1990s, was maybe less provocable, than the 2004 expansion, who was taking the alliance to the doors step of Russia.. As you point out to, US and Russia had an agreement about it, and then the west broke it.. In 1998, Russia could not do so much about it, because they have their own, larger problems to work with, than that Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic was given a pass into NATO.. But the 2004 membership, of country who traditionally have been in the Russian "sphere of influence" was something more dangerous.. I recall who Russia was against the whole expansion to the Baltic States.. But it some what fade away, when NATO assured Russia that the alliance would not have military bases on baltic ground.. They have read their history about NATO member Norway I guess.. Who in the 1949 had agreed about membership in the alliance, but not allowed foreign forces to have bases on Norwegian soil.. And it worked for the cold war.. The Russians was at least not THAT angry about it..

Russia have a long history of been attached by the west. And I would not a minute surprises if US was to plan to encircled the Russian Federation, and if possible attack Russia from the behind.. A frontal assault on the Eastern border would give Russia enough time to get their military might together for a new war.. But a attack in the back, specially in the Caucasus area would be so much more painfully for Russia to answer.. If US managed to beat Russia's large military reserves in the Caucasus, then Russia would really be in trouble... In the Cold war, the russian have been building up many bases, who could withstand a war in the caucasus for man years. But after 17 year of almost no founding, I am not sure how the bases are today... And even if they was getting their founding, it would be difficult to confront a far more modern army like the US.. To beat Georgia was no difficult task, but it is some what more difficult to defend against a far superior army like the US.. And the Russians know that... In fact even Hitler, know that if Whermact was coming to the caucasus, they could posible hit the russian from behind.. And as Hitler himself was telling his general once.. If they was coming to the Caucaus, they could hit the Russian underbelly and strike out against what ever the Russian posible could send to that front... And even too, take the posession of all the oil the german army was needing... Thankfully the russian stoped the German forces before they could reatch Caucasus, even that, the german forces was planting their flag on Elbrus montain top.. That was the last of what the german forces could do. After that, it was just pushing west for the german forces...

Cool, a french too;). Good to know:. And your english is good enough for me, and I would guess good enough for everyone else to. And I have been here on DU for many year, but have not been writing so long then, maybe a year or so. Was fidning it, before the Iraq war, and have been there since,.... And I have to say, the french had it righ when they was against the war in Iraq.. And that was posible the most of europe to..

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language