Putin proposes Eurasian cooperation
Putin proposes Eurasian cooperation
Protecting the national security of all through mutually beneficial trade
Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke to the senior staff of the Russian Foreign Ministry in Moscow on June 14, 2024. He presented a vision of the common security for all nations in the Eurasian continent on the basis of mutually beneficial trade and cooperation. He maintained that the North Atlantic alliance forged at the end of World War II is no longer in the interests of Europe, because it is leading to a European economic dependency and cultural subordination to the United States. Moreover, it is driving global economic productivity toward an outdated stress on military technology, and it is distorting world politics toward perpetual conflict between the West and the rest. He puts forth an alternative vision rooted in emerging processes of mutually beneficial trade and cooperation among the nations of the vast Eurasian continent that stretches from Western Europe to the Asian Pacific, including Western European nations as well as China, Russia, India, and the nations of Southeast Asia, which overlap with emerging cooperative relations with the nations of the Global South. He believes that the consolidation of the emerging multilateral and multipolar world is inevitable, because it is consistent with the human characteristic of cultural and civilizational diversity, and because the post-Cold War unilateral world order imposed by the United States has no positive consequences for any nation, including the United States itself. In Putin’s view, European elites—in supporting the U.S.-directed unilateral world order and NATO expansionism, and in providing military aid to the illegitimate government of Ukraine—have ignored the interests and wellbeing of their peoples.
§
A changing world points to the eclipse of NATO
Putin began with the observation that the world political scenario is undergoing significant changes, in which “more countries are striving to strengthen their sovereignty, self-sufficiency, and national and cultural identity,” and in which “the countries of the Global South and East are gaining prominence.” In Eurasia, significant projects of regional integration are being developed, establishing “the foundation for the emerging multipolar and multilateral world order,” which “is an inevitable process,” because “it reflects the cultural and civilizational diversity that is inherently part of humanity.” On this foundation, it is possible to “build mutually beneficial relations and cooperation between sovereign states for the sake of the well-being and security of peoples.”
The development of such a pluripolar world was possible following the disintegration of the bipolar Cold War world order. But the Western powers, led by the United States, believed that they had the right to determine how the post-Cold War world would be organized. They were confident in their power and capacity to impose their wishes on the rest of the world, disregarding alternative perspectives. They sought to impose a world in which “strong, sovereign, and self-sufficient states simply do not belong.”
But the U.S.-led artificial unification is not based in understanding of the peoples that form humanity. It does not appreciate the peoples’ identification with their nations and cultures and their desire to develop cooperative mutually beneficial relations with one another.
The emergence of BRICS illustrates the emerging global tendencies, Putin maintains. BRICS “is based on a culture of trust-based dialogue, sovereign equality of its members and respect for each other.” There is much interest among the countries of the world in the alternative approach of BRICS, and the association is now expanding to include new members. BRICS has the potential “to become one of the core regulatory institutions of the multipolar world order.” At the same time, inasmuch as a multipolar world implies a more democratic world, there is much international discussion with respect to “the democratization of the entire system of international relations.” (See “Reforming global structures step-by-step: Expanding BRICS holds Ministerial Meeting in Russia,” June 14, 2024).
Putin declared that the biggest threat to Europe is not Russia but Europe’s “critical and increasing dependence on the United States in military, political, technological, ideological, and informational aspects.” Europe is increasingly becoming a junior partner in U.S. investments in technologically advanced drones and strike systems, central to the militarist and coercive policies that seek to maintain U.S. unilateral hegemony. Increasingly ideologically and economically dependent on the project for the maintenance of U.S. hegemony, Europe is losing its capacity to continue being an independent driver of economic development and a civilizational region in the world-economy. Europe is increasingly falling into chaos, unable to manage challenges like migration and incapable of addressing questions of cultural identity, giving rise to new forms of fascism.
Putin observes that there have been European leaders, patriots of their countries, who understood the dangers of following the political will of the United States and of thinking in accordance with the historical categories developed on the basis of the U.S. national experience. Charles de Gaulle was an important voice in this direction in the post-war period. At the time of the disintegration of the Soviet Union, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl was an important voice for an autonomous Europe, developed in part on the basis of partnership between Europe and Russia. Putin expressed the hope that new generations of European leaders will renew this European legacy of autonomous economic and cultural development and partnership with Russia.
As for the United States, Putin does not express hope for a more enlightened day. He maintains that the U.S. dead-end policy is “driven by aggressive messianism based on the belief in their own superiority and exceptionalism.” He maintains that “the never-ending attempts by the current globalist liberal elites to spread their ideology worldwide, to maintain their imperial status and dominance in one way or another, are only further exhausting the country, leading to its degradation, and clearly contrary to the genuine interests of the American people.”
§
An alternative and necessary vision for Eurasian security
Putin maintains that the emerging multipolar world gives rise to the idea and the possibility of a new approach to national security, in which security is seen as indivisible and “based on the principle that the security of some cannot be ensured at the expense of the security of others.” For Putin, this necessary concept of indivisible security was violated by NATO expansionism, which endeavored to protect the security of Western Europe by undermining the security of Russia and the nations of the Commonwealth of Independent States.
Accordingly, Putin declares that “we believe that the time has come to start a broad discussion of a new system of bilateral and multilateral guarantees of collective security in Eurasia.” He believes that the proposal for a Eurasian security system will be supported by Eurasian associations, such as the Commonwealth of Independent States, the Eurasian Economic Union, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization as well as other influential Eurasian associations from Southeast Asia to the Middle East.
In this vein, Putin supports the current initiative of Belarus to develop “a charter of multipolarity and diversity in the twenty-first century,” which will formulate not only the principles of the Eurasian architecture but also the essential international norms that would provide the foundation for a multipolar and multilateral system of international relations that “would replace the Western-centric world.”
Putin believes that in the future, with an established system for Eurasian security, there will be no need for out-of-region military contingents in Eurasia. Furthermore, Putin maintains that “a crucial part of the Eurasian security and development system should definitely be the issues of the economy, social well-being, integration, and mutually beneficial cooperation, as well as addressing such common problems as overcoming poverty, inequality, the climate, the environment, and developing mechanisms to respond to the threats of pandemics and crises in the global economy. All that is important.”
Putin maintains that the West, through sanctions and trade wars, has undermined the key market institutions that it created. It has used the IMF and the World Bank to restrain the development of the Global South, thereby undermining world political stability. The United States in particular has exerted pressure not only on its competitors, but also on its satellites.
Putin declares that the theft of Russian assets is one more step through which Western countries are destroying themselves. Such action makes it clear to all countries and companies that their assets and reserves are not safe in the West; it has caused a degree of outflow of funds from securities and bonds in Western countries. In addition, the action has fueled a previously growing distrust of a financial system based in Western reserve currencies. The countries of the South and East have been expanding the number of transactions that are settled in national currencies, and they are creating independent payment systems that bypass channels blocked or compromised by the West.
Western sanctions, trade wars, and robbery, in violation of the rules of the world order that the West itself created and imposed, make all the more necessary the turn to a Eurasian security system. Putin instructed the senior staff at the Russian Foreign Ministry to assist as far as possible the development of international agreements in all these areas. He reported that during his recent visit to China, President Xi Jinping confirmed the Russian vision for indivisible security and mutually beneficial cooperation on the Eurasian continent. Xi views the Russian proposal as consistent with and complementary to the Chinese global security initiative.
§
A proposal for negotiated settlement of the conflict in Ukraine
For Putin, the conflict in Ukraine is rooted in “the geopolitical restructuring of the world” after the end of the Cold War, in which Western elites sought to maintain control of a unipolar world order. The goals included the containment of Russia, with some figures in the United States and Europe openly advocating for the dismemberment of Russia by dividing the country along ethnic lines. Western elites sought to attain control of the political and military development of countries near the Russian border, and to this end, there have been six waves of NATO expansionism, facilitated by investment in the buying of politicians and political parties and the nurturing of neo-Nazi and radical groups.
When the Western expansionism policy arrived to Ukraine, it encountered the resistance of ethnic Russians living in southeastern Ukraine, united by the Russian language, culture, and historical memory, who advocate closer ties with Russia. To overcome this resistance, the Western politicians organized a coup that brought radical nationalists to power in Kiev. The Kiev regime and radical nationalist groups unleased a reign of terror against the Russian population in Ukraine, causing the peoples of Donetsk and Lugansk to declare independence and to establish people’s republics, which they had the right to do, according to the UN Charter and International Law. Kiev, however, launched a full-scale war against the newly proclaimed people’s republics, which the new republics were able to repel.
Talks were held, in which Russia, Germany, and France were involved, leading to the 2015 Minsk Agreement, which Russia supported, and which established a special status for Donetsk and Lugansk under the jurisdiction of Ukraine. But Kiev simply disregarded the Minsk agreement. The leaders of Germany and France later openly admitted that they had no intention of implementing the agreement, which for them was merely a stalling tactic that gave them time to bolster Ukrainian armed groups with more fighters, weapons, equipment, and supplies.
In late 2021 and early 2022, the Minsk process was buried, as Kiev, with the support of its Western handlers, were preparing a new military initiative. On February 21, 2022, Russia signed treaties of friendship, cooperation, and mutual assistance with the two people’s republics, which were recognized as independent by Russia. Russia announced the Special Military Operation in Ukraine on February 24, 2022.
In March 2022, a peace agreement was signed by representatives of Moscow and Kiev in Istanbul. But Kiev ultimately rejected the agreements, Putin says, under orders from its Western supervisors.
The political situation has changed, Putin observed, since the initiation of the special military operation. The Kherson and Zaporozhye regions and the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics have become part of the Russian Federation on the basis of popular referendums, and there will be no negotiations on this matter. “The people’s will to be with Russia shall be inviolable. This matter is closed forever and is no longer a matter for discussion.”
Since the initiation of the special military operation, the West unleashed a campaign to isolate Russia. But “it is now evident to everyone that this attempt has failed.” Meanwhile, the West continues to send arms and ammunition, seeking to extend the crisis indefinitely, as a strategy to weaken Russia, while hypocritically and insincerely calling upon Russia to negotiate.
Putin declared that Russia is prepared to negotiate a solution to the conflict. He put forth conditions to open talks immediately. First, Ukrainian troops must be completely withdrawn from the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics and the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions. In the event of a real withdrawal from these regions, Russia will guarantee unhindered and safe withdrawal of the Ukrainian troops. Second, Kiev ought to give official notification that it abandons its plans to join NATO.
In such negotiations, Russia will maintain a firm position that Ukraine should be neutral, non-aligned, and nuclear free; and it should undergo demilitarization and denazification. And the new territorial reality of the Russian Federation should be acknowledged.
Once the Ukrainian crisis is resolved through a peace settlement, Russia and partner European countries that are ready for dialogue would be able to undertake the fundamental task of “the creation of an indivisible system of Eurasian security that takes into account the interests of all the states on the continent, without exception.”
§
Further considerations
Putin’s proposal reaffirms the principles that have been emerging from the Third World since the 1950s, and that are the foundation of the alternative world order forged in theory and practice by the nations of the Global South, with China playing a leading role. And the proposal is consistent with the Russian turn under Putin to support and cooperation with China and the nations of the Global South.
The proposal for Eurasian security, however, adds a new twist, namely, a stronger appeal to Europe to come to its senses and to the defense of its national economies, its history, its cultures, and its peoples. This is consistent with Putin’s understanding of Russian history, culture, and religion as pertaining to the cultures and civilizations of Europe; however much Russia today is oriented to cross-civilizational dialogue with China and the nations of the Global South.
If key nations of Europe were to sign on to Putin’s vision of a Eurasian architecture of common security and mutually beneficial trade and cooperation, the United States of America, as the declining hegemonic power of an increasingly displaced Western-centered neocolonial world-system, would be left out in the cold. In such a world political scenario, wisdom would require the United States to accept the new reality and seek to continue to develop its still relatively advanced economy through intelligently conceived and well planned mutually beneficial trade with all the regions of the world, with particular attention to the world’s regional cultural poles as well as its closest Latin American neighbors.
A U.S. turn from imperialism to mutually beneficial cooperation would be celebrated by the peoples of the world. No one in the world has proposed the exclusion of the United States from the more just and democratic world under construction by the Global South and East.
A U.S. turn to mutually beneficial cooperation would require the emergence of new leadership in the United States. The necessary change in U.S. policy could be attained through reform from above, in which elites explain the new direction to the people. Or it could be accomplished through a non-violent people’s revolution, which takes control of national political institutions with the support of the people, who support the change on the basis of their trust and confidence in new exceptional leaders who have explained things well.
A free subscription option is available, with capacity to read, send, and share all posts. A paid subscription ($5 per month or $40 per year) enables you to make comments and to support the costs of the column; paid subscribers also receive a free PDF copy of my book on Cuba and the world-system. Ten percent of income generated through subscriptions to the column is donated to the Cuban Society for Philosophical Investigations.