Editor’s note: Alexander Darchiev, ambassador of Russia, made a rare public speech at Carleton University in February. To provide a look at Russia’s official positions on current conflicts and issues, we reprint an edited version of his speech here.
First of all, I would like to thank Carleton University and Larry Lederman [chairman of the Ambassador Speakers Series] for inviting me to address such a distinguished audience and have a chance to refresh past memories of that sweet time when I was an academic, with no dress or speech code imposed on me.
In my capacity as research fellow at the U.S.-Canada Institute in Moscow, before I switched in 1992 to the Russian foreign ministry to become a seasoned bureaucrat, I had the luxury to study for a decade the liberal left or democratic (with a small “d”) left in the United States — an “endangered species” at that time, but topical and successful nowadays, as Bernie Sanders was hard on Hillary Clinton’s heels at the Iowa caucuses, and he soundly won in the New Hampshire primaries.
Keeping in mind that brevity is the soul of wit, I will do my best to follow this adage, but given the magnitude of the topic — “priorities and challenges of modern Russia” — something can inevitably be missed or omitted, so you are invited to ask questions afterwards.
Since the early 1990s, Russia has undergone dramatic change, which involved a drastic transformation of the economic system from a state-run to a market one, as well as political transition to a strong elected presidency, reminiscent of a blended American-French model, to a vibrant legislative and judiciary and expanding civil society.
Of course, the last 25 years were overwhelmed with turbulence, delusions and misconceptions, especially in the late 1990s, an extremely uneasy and hard time, when the very statehood was threatened, when terrorism was spilling over from our southern borders to Moscow, when painful reforms sometimes went too far, throwing out the baby with the bath water.
But, through trial and error, one simple truth is now consensual and largely prevailing: excesses, whether ideologically coloured or not, extreme right or extreme left, are dead wrong; that it’s a path to nowhere to write off our past, that Russian and Soviet history, both bright and dark, will forever be with us as a source of patriotism and inspiration, as well as grief and reflection. And in terms of economic policy, the welfare state is not an antithesis to a free market: We could have the best of two worlds by nurturing a socially oriented market economy.
It’s a real challenge to fine-tune the political and social system in a way that will harmonize traditional values, a deeply rooted sense of truth and justice, adherence to and expectation of state protections with individual freedoms, local self-governance and self-reliance.
A lot has changed; the process is ongoing, and looking back to where the starting point was, one could assert positively — the beef is there, “because it’s 2016.” Our party system, with a classic divide between the left, the centre-left and centre-right will soon be tested again at parliamentary elections this September. And, most important, the general public now agrees that, along with being proud of and paying tribute to our heroic past, especially the enormous sacrifices in the war against Nazism, which we call the Great Patriotic War, we need to build a more dynamic society on that foundation.
Western sanctions against Russia
There are many bumps in the road, both of an external nature caused by global economic disturbance and a looming world recession, and of domestic origin, given a huge — up to 10 times or more — income gap between the top rich and the poor, with the middle class squeezed.
With the drastic fall of oil and gas prices, as well as other export commodities, the Russian economy suffered a serious blow in 2015 that resulted in the GDP dropping by 3.7 percent.
It’s true that western sanctions added to that negative trend, although to a much lesser degree than our systemic dependence on lavish natural resources revenues, which is not alien to Canada, as well.
Obviously, sanctions, as a double-edged sword, while unable to meet their intended goal, dear to some of our counterparts, of cornering or isolating Russia — which is “mission impossible” — or even bringing about a regime change, have had the backlash effect of hitting European producers who lost billions of euros, with some economic fallout experienced in this country, too.
Keeping in mind that “every cloud has a silver lining,” the current unfavourable conjuncture is not that bad, being rather a wake-up call to promote domestic production, due to our national currency devaluation against the U.S. dollar, which is a wake-up call to diversify by encouraging resourcefulness as opposed to over-reliance on resources.
At the end of the day, while acknowledging things are not serene at all, it should be recognized that the current storm has been weathered rather well. Some sectors, such as agriculture, do demonstrate modest, three-percent growth, industrial production is slightly up this year (again, three percent in the Russian Far East), while finances and the labour market are stable and the trade balance is positive. This promises, with many ifs, and although 2016 is already marked by severe budget constraints, it will be better than the year 2015.
Hard times come and go, but, most important, in an extremely difficult environment, we have kept our economy open, setting as a major priority to maintain an encouraging business climate for foreign investors, while providing incentives and stimulus to national industry, small and medium businesses, as well as guarantees to support low-income and vulnerable groups.
In a changing world, where terrorism, at its ugliest medieval, barbaric form in which mass beheadings and executions are routine, can come at any moment to our doorsteps, the pressing challenge for the West and Russia is to join efforts, as we did in an anti-Hitler coalition more than 70 years ago, putting aside disagreements and animosities until the common enemy was totally defeated.
Unfortunately, fallacies and misjudgments of the early 1990s epitomized in the “end of history” belief that liberal capitalism and western-style democracy are universal prescriptions for nation-building and social transformation, have still precluded sober recognition that the notions of (American) exceptionalism, of a single-polar world, dominated by one indispensable power, are no longer relevant.
Instead of a serious and equal dialogue on new threats and challenges, the U.S., as the leading force of the West, intoxicated by a delusional belief in winning the Cold War, can hardly accept the new reality of a multi-polar world, recognizing other key players as equals.
It’s high time to accept that the world is not as black-and-white as neocons would like it to be, that the old “real politik” is more relevant now than the irresponsible political and social engineering imposed by force through circumvention of the United Nations for the sake of ideology.
Revolution’s aftermath: ’hangover, blood, chaos, crush and wasteland’
We badly need history back, to avoid a situation when new demons of ISIS and the like are created as an “unintended consequence,” according to President [Barack] Obama’s understatement with regard to George Bush’s invasion of Iraq. So, one simple truth should be accepted: By sponsoring change in a Trotsky-type “permanent revolution” fashion, be ready to face the forces of extremism that will one day turn into a deadly, uncompromising enemy.
It’s true for Iraq, it’s true for Libya bombed into total chaos, as well as for Syria, where the U.S.-led coalition, obsessed with toppling Bashar al-Assad, armed and equipped Islamists to find out one day that they were out of control.
In retrospect, the West stepped on the same rake in Afghanistan during the 1980s, where the CIA trained and equipped mujahedeens to fight the Soviet army — only to face them two decades later, reincarnated as al-Qaeda, and to discover that former “freedom-fighters” employed acquired battle experience in attacking their former sponsors.
Despite differences and peculiarities, scenarios of forcefully imposed change — supporting the enemy of my enemy — repeated themselves, with deplorable results.
To effectively fight terrorism, this pattern should be changed. It is important to give up the temptation of easy solutions, to avoid endless repetition of what is at the core of any revolution, whether Bolshevik or Maidan or “coloured” or Arab Spring turning into a dark and cold winter, when first comes the spiritual elation, bolstered by illusions, and afterwards a hangover, blood, chaos, crush and wasteland.
Yes, there is now a strong demand for a more just and equal international order. Russia is open to constructive engagement based on recognition of national interests and mutual respect; and we all know, when Russians and Americans work together, the world is a safer place. When they are at loggerheads and Russia is targeted instead of joining efforts, there are high chances that the case will be lost.
We do have positive examples of mutually beneficial co-operation, most notably after 9/11, when President Vladimir Putin called then-U.S. president George W. Bush right after the attack, suggesting help.
Russia afterwards assisted the U.S. in Afghanistan, providing vital intelligence and supporting the Northern Alliance, both an American and Russian ally.
This was a classic “I do for you, you do for me” in degrading the Taliban and al-Qaeda, thus averting their far-reaching plans to infiltrate Central Asia. I can also mention a similar Russian-American joint effort in withdrawing Syrian chemical weapons, the recent agreement on the Iranian nuclear program, political settlement in Syria by bringing together, or dragging together, with the door periodically slammed, government authorities and opposition members, who speak with many, sometimes conflicting, voices.
In the world we are living in, where a terrain of chaos along the axis of instability from North Africa to Afghanistan is rapidly expanding, complacency and misguidance cannot be afforded. We need to move forward with a political settlement in Syria, coming to terms with this, despite resistance by some regional powers that pursue their own agenda of catching fish in muddy water and providing cover for their “good terrorists,” who bear little or no difference to ISIS and the like.
Russians unhappy with NATO expansion
So, defining our national security, we prioritize engagement with the U.S. (and, I should add, Canada), with the European Union on an equal and mutually respectful basis. We give preference, quite naturally, to co-operation with our partners, first of all, in the Eurasian Economic Union, as well as the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), the Shanghai Co-operation Organization and Asia-Pacific.
In Russian-American relations, while recognizing limits and seemingly insurmountable obstacles to our engagement, we would like to act co-operatively where it’s possible and where there is mutual interest although no illusions are harboured, given that in the past our many concerns, for instance, over missile defence, were routinely ignored, followed by advice to trust America’s verbal assurances (instead of legally binding papers, as we insisted).
We believe that deep reassessment is needed to make our multipolar world more secure and just; this should be an honest two-way dialogue with the acceptance of the simple fact that the West does not speak for the whole of the international community, only a part of it, while BRICS countries and other players stand for their vision of world order as more just and domination-free.
Don’t forget about the wider Asia-Pacific, Latin America, about Africa, which is a victim of global inequality, doomed to survive on a subsistence level with no chances for even getting closer to the “golden billion.”
Unfortunately, an old Cold War mentality is still there. Dire predictions by some western officials and media are in abundance and Red Scare scenarios are back, while in pure figures, NATO potential by any count, be it manpower, artillery, tanks and aircraft, exceeds Russian armed forces several times. The U.S. military budget, for instance, is more than a half trillion U.S. dollars, while Russian military expenditures are less than 60 billion U.S. dollars.
Yes, Russians are unhappy with NATO expansion, given that above-mentioned superiority and the fact that we are declared enemy No. 1. But it’s not we who came to the alliance’s doorsteps, it’s NATO building up its infrastructure in closest proximity to our borders.
Nonetheless, there is no other alternative than keeping the dialogue on security issues going and coming to terms with items such as the Russia- and U.S.-sponsored UN Security Council Resolution 2254 on Syria. Joint efforts are badly needed to politically counter the North Korean rocket launch which, some say, was actually a covert missile test, in stark violation of UN resolutions.
We are standing at the frontier to make a choice between co-operation and tragic inability to face the clear and present threat of terrorism, of other challenges of a global nature, risking a slide into a misjudged confrontation and diverting attention and resources from the major danger.
Terrorists do not distinguish between Americans, Russians or Canadians; an attack can happen anytime, anywhere, regardless of geography or a country’s significance or insignificance in world affairs. It could be indoctrinated “lone wolves” who are extremely hard to detect, it could be recruited fighters, determined to kill, like the ones arrested in early February in Russia’s Ural Mountains [those planning an attack on Moscow and St. Petersburg.]
Intelligence information-sharing ‘pivotal’
We need to destroy the hotbed of terrorism in Syria and Iraq, removing the cause of the problem, rather than face, sometimes helplessly, its consequences. ISIS and the like are international terrorists: Remember Jihadi John, speaking perfect cockney, and other radicals from many European countries. There are up to 3,000 Russian citizens fighting in the ranks of Islamists of every ilk in Syria and Iraq. Better to degrade them there than allow them to show up in the Northern Caucasus, Moscow or St. Petersburg. Some of ISIS’s rank-and-file could shuttle between the Middle East and Canada, so intelligence information sharing is critical.
I will not discover America, as goes one Russian saying, if I take the liberty to suggest that talking is better than not talking. It’s the ABC of diplomacy which, sometimes, somewhere, has been ignored for quite a while, with the deplorable end result of name-calling and brinkmanship statements in abundance, to no avail in terms of pragmatism and common sense.
By any count, it’s highly impractical to demonize your opponent. Henry Kissinger, the patriarch of “real politik,” who has visited Moscow recently, spoke eloquently on the need to revitalize multilateral diplomatic efforts.
So, heeding that advice, another simple truth is to be remembered: Sacrificing diplomacy to domestic consumption and parochial calculations could backfire; by being polite, you will win much more than pretending to be rude, because of a high risk to become a laughing stock on social media.
What comes to my mind, as an exemplary case of a negotiating technique, is how Kissinger, in his capacity as national security adviser and secretary of state, maintained a confidential channel of communication with Soviet ambassador Anatoly Dobrinyn.
To save time for substantial discussion, they agreed to fix principled positions of both sides on paper, designating them numerically; so, at their encounters, Kissinger simply referred, say, to the U.S. argument No. 5, while Dobrinyn cited appropriate Soviet argument No. 5, and after that exchange, to fulfil instructions, they were turning to the real business of bargaining — something in demand nowadays.
It’s very encouraging, I should say, that Canadians voted for change last October, which opens a window of opportunity for a fundamental shift from self-isolation to engagement in foreign policy, for a stronger and constructive Canadian voice in the international arena.
Canada could indeed do more, given its record of mediation (Cuban-U.S. rapprochement is one example), and by sharing its own experience; for instance, advising Ukraine to transform itself from a current unitary state into a federation. It can urge authorities in Kyiv to implement the Minsk Accords in earnest, in their entirety of interrelated measures, through direct dialogue with leaders of the Donetsk and Lugansk republics to define their special status as a “société distincte,” where Russian is recognized as a state language, with political and economic rights guaranteed.
EEU market: $2.2 trillion GDP
As an ambassador whose mission is to make relations with the host country better, I hope for the better, for bringing dialogue back, as opposed to an ideologically charged monologue, for restoring channels of communications to engage in tough, but promising bargaining.
We can agree to disagree, proceeding from the premise that traditional diplomacy has no alternative, if serious business is meant; Russia is ready for a comeback to “business as usual,” though “business unusual” or “no business at all” was not our choice.
While acknowledging differences and recognizing each other’s considerations, our countries as neighbours across the North Pole have a vested interest in restoring normalcy, at least in such areas of pragmatic co-operation as the Arctic, anti-terror and business ties.
The northern dimension is of particular importance, given our adherence to the principle of sovereignty, as well as rights and responsibilities of Arctic powers, given determination to secure national interests, be it the Canadian Northwest Passage or the Russian Northern Sea Route.
Interaction cannot be avoided within consensual multilateral fora, starting from the Arctic Council and Arctic Economic Council, major business venues strongly supported by both countries, to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. A promising new format, worthy of mention in this context, is the Arctic Coastal Guard Forum.
As for business co-operation, which is now on a downward trend due to negative developments in the last two years, we have the potential to make our bilateral trade more robust by harnessing the opportunities that exist in the huge Russian and Canadian markets.
Bilateral trade, to be precise, is around US $1.3 billion, which is the lowest point in a decade and three times less than our 2008 peak (US $3.2 billion).
On that bleak background, some bright spots do exist, including more than 14 Canadian-Russian joint ventures established only during the last two years in a wide range of areas, as well as the increase, due to Russian currency depreciation, of imports from Russia to Canada by 20 percent.
Special praise goes to the mining sector, which has always been an excellent example of our bilateral co-operation, flagshipped by successful operations in Russia of such well-known companies as Kinross Gold, Silver Bear Resources and Global Cobalt. We could also make headway in our agricultural co-operation as well.
Doing business with Russia these days means substantial expansion to a larger market of a relatively new, but fast-expanding integration entity of Eurasian Economic Union, which is a joint co-operative effort by Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Russia, comprising 15 percent of the world’s land mass, with goods and services, as well as a labour force, shuttling freely between member states.
It’s a market of more than 183 million people, with a gross domestic product of US $2.2 trillion (or more than $4 trillion, if counted by purchasing power), an integration project formed in strict accordance with WTO rules, following a principled approach of inclusion, not exclusion, and proceeding from the premise that regional trade agreements, such as the TPP, should supplement, not substitute for, the existing global trade system.
Ladies and gentlemen, I am an optimist, and an optimist, by definition, is an informed pessimist. So my symbol of faith is that both sides of every story should be heard, that common sense will prevail in the final run, although change does not happen overnight; it’s a process which, I believe, could unfold rapidly or step-by-step, but surely in a positive direction.
