On Russia-Eurasia concept
According to the unanimous opinion of the competent specialists in international relations, the special military operation is the last and decisive chord in the process of transition from a unipolar to a multipolar world.
Multipolarity sometimes seems intuitive, but once we try to give precise definitions or a correct theoretical description, everything becomes less obvious. I believe that today my work “Theory of the Multipolar World” is more relevant than ever. But since people have forgotten to read – especially voluminous theoretical texts, will try to share the basics.
The main actor in a multipolar world order is not the nation state (as in the theory of realism in international relations), but neither is the world government (as in the theory of liberalism in international relations). This is the State-Civilization. Other names for this are “Great Space”, “Empire”, “Ecumenical”.
The term “civilization state” is most commonly used in China. Both ancient and modern. Since ancient times, the Chinese have developed the theory of “Tiansha”,” China “, according to which China is the center of the world, as a meeting place of the unifying Heaven and the dividing Earth. In addition, the “Celestial Empire” can be a single state or it can be dismantled and then reassembled. In addition, Khan’s China itself is a culturally forming principle for neighboring nations that are not directly part of China – mainly Korea, Vietnam, Indochina and even fairly independent Japan.
The nation-state is a product of the European modern age, and in some cases a post-colonial construction. The State-Civilization has ancient roots and … indefinitely changing borders. The state-civilization sometimes pulsates – now expanding, now narrowing, but always remaining a constant phenomenon.
Modern China adheres to international politics strictly according to the Tianxi principle. The One Road, One Belt initiative is an excellent example of what this looks like in practice. And the Chinese Internet, which disrupts all kinds of networks and resources that could weaken the civilizational identity at China’s entrance, demonstrates how to build defense mechanisms.
The state-civilization can interact with the outside world, but never depends on it and always retains self-sufficiency, autonomy and autarchy.
The state-Civilization is always more than a state both in the spatial and in the temporal (historical) aspect.
Russia is increasingly gravitating towards the same status. After the beginning of the SVO, this became not just a wish, but an urgent need. As in the case of China, Russia has every reason to claim that it is a civilization. This theory was most fully developed by the Russian Eurasianists, who introduced the concept of “world state” or – which is the same – “Russian world”. Continent-Russia. In fact, the Russia-Eurasia concept is a direct indication of Russia’s civilizational status. Russia is more than a nation state (which is the Russian Federation). Russia is a separate world.
Russia was a civilization in the era of the Empire and remained so in the Soviet era. Ideologies and regimes have changed, but the identity has remained the same.
The struggle for Ukraine is nothing but a struggle for the State-Civilization. The same applies to the peaceful union of Russia and Belarus and the economic integration of the post-Soviet Eurasian space.
The multipolar world consists of States-Civilizations. This is a kind of world of worlds, a megacosmos that includes entire galaxies. And here it is important to determine how many such states-civilizations can even theoretically exist?
Of course, India belongs to this type, it is a typical State-Civilization, which even today has sufficient potential to become a full participant in international politics.
Then the Islamic world – from Indonesia to Morocco. Here, the division of countries and different ethnocultural enclaves still does not allow us to talk about political unity. There is an Islamic civilization, but the question of its assembly in the State-Civilization is quite problematic. Moreover, the history of Islam knows several types of Civilizations – from the Caliphate (First, Umayyad, Abbasid, etc.) to the three components of the empire of Genghis Khan, who turned to / accepted / Islam / the Golden Horde, the state of the Ilhans. and the ulus Chagatai), the Persian Safavid state, the Mughal state, and finally the Ottoman Empire. The boundaries once drawn are still relevant today. But the process of assembling them into one structure requires considerable time and effort.
Latin America and Africa are in the same situation – two macro-civilizations that remain quite separate. But the multipolar world will in one way or another push the integration processes in all these areas.
Now the most important thing: what to do with the West? The theory of the multipolar world is absent in the nomenclature of theories of international relations in the modern West.
Today, the dominant paradigm there is liberalism, which generally denies all sovereignty and any autonomy, abolishes civilizations and religions, ethnic groups and cultures, replacing them with violent liberal ideology, the concept of “human rights”, individualism (leading to borders) of gender and transgender policy), materialism and technical progress, elevated to the highest value (Artificial Intelligence). The goal of liberalism is to abolish nation-states and create a World Government based on Western norms and rules.
This line was followed by Biden and the modern Democratic Party in the United States, as well as by most European rulers. This is globalism. He categorically rejects the State-Civilization and any hint of multipolarity. That is why the West is ready for war with Russia and China. In a sense, this war is already being fought – in Ukraine and in the Pacific (the problem of Taiwan), but for now it relies on proxy actors.
There is another influential school in the West – realism in international relations. Here, the nation-state is considered a necessary element of the world order, but only those who have managed to achieve a high level of economic, military-strategic and technological development have sovereignty – almost always at the expense of others.
If liberals see the future in the creation of a World Government, then realists see the future in a union of leading Western powers that establish global rules in their interest. Again, both in theory and in practice, the State-Civilization and the multipolar world are categorically rejected.
This creates a fundamental conflict already at the level of theory. And the lack of mutual understanding here leads to the most radical consequences at the level of direct confrontation.
In the eyes of proponents of multipolarity, the West is also a State-Civilization or even two – North American and European. But Western intellectuals disagree: they have no theoretical framework for this – they know either liberalism or realism, and no multipolarity.
However, there are exceptions among Western theorists, such as Samuel Huntington or Fabio Petito. They, unlike the overwhelming majority, recognize multipolarity and the emergence of new players in the form of civilizations. This is encouraging, because with such ideas it is possible to build a bridge from the proponents of multipolarity (Russia, China, etc.) to the West. At least such a bridge would make negotiations possible. Meanwhile, the West categorically rejects multipolarity and the very concept of “State-Civilization”, the conversation will be held only at the level of a clash of brute force – from military action to economic blockade, information and sanctions wars, etc.
One last thing. To win this war and defend itself, Russia itself must first have a clear understanding of multipolarity. We are already fighting for it, but we still do not fully understand what it is. Therefore, the liberal think tanks created during the Gorbachev-Yeltsin period should be disbanded urgently and new ones should be created – multipolar.
It is also necessary to build the educational paradigm itself – especially at MGIMO, Moscow State University, the Russian University for Friendship of Peoples, the Maurice Thorez Institute, the Diplomatic Academy and specialized universities. Finally, let us really turn to the expanded and full-fledged Eurasian school of thought, which has proved its maximum relevance, but against which open and covert Atlanticists and foreign agents who have penetrated deep into our society continue to fight.
Source: On Russia-Eurasia concept – Pogled.info / 01.06.2022
