Professor Wilfried Fuhrman, Potsdam. Exclusively for Vestnik Kavkaza
“Russia is our strategic problem,” admitted Donald Tusk, the new president of the European Council, in an interview with Financial Times. His position certainly coincides with the opinion of German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The two politicians have a unique friendship in politics. Moreover, both Donald Tusk and Angela Merkel were born in Gdansk, a former German city, currently part of Poland.
Tusk’s words preoccupy Russia. It is far beyond disputes about the territorial integrity of the country and Western efforts to integrate Ukraine into the EU and then NATO. The phrase demonstrates that the Ukrainian conflict could have been anticipated and prevented. But the conflict was included in calculations.
If the goal of Europe is the integration of the geographical European space, then Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus and Russia should be part of it. But Russia is too big for such integration and has its own vivid and acknowledged identity and understanding of its own role in world politics. The Russian Federation has its own integration initiative to engage countries in the Eurasian Union. Speculations about the “separation” of Russia into European and Asian parts provokes fears in Russia and rhetorical comebacks about Western threats, as voiced by President Vladimir Putin.
The instruments used in the geopolitical game of the EU/U.S. and Russia are peaceful. Although transformation of the situation in Ukraine into a direct military clash cannot be ruled out. This horrifying scenario will only become possible in 2-3 years. On condition that the private and state forces of Ukraine win in the conflict in the east of the country, get good military equipment and professional training. Then, after the victory in the east of Ukraine, they will certainly try to get Crimea back. The arming of Ukraine is not on the rhetorical level, the German chancellor is helping the country practically.
The decisive tool in the geopolitical confrontation has an economic nature. The economic measures called “sanctions” are a strategic and tactical means of war in economics and finance. The West has started an economic war in the light of the events in the east of Ukraine. The goal is to weaken the foe’s innovative and economic potential as much as possible, affecting its political weight. Economic power is usually the basis of political force.
Economic “warfare” in the geopolitical clash is chosen when the economic potential of one side is much greater than that of the potential enemy and when the loss of economic potential of the adversary exceeds its own losses. Integration systems of the EU-U.S. and within the EU have certain differences. Politicians pursuing national interests will back measures keeping the economies of partners more stressed than their own. Germany, just as in the Cold War times, plays the role of a disciplined scholar.
Russia can use its oil reserves to withstand Western economic pressure for three more years at best. But that is not the danger of the economic war. As many examples of modern world history show that an enemy weakened economically starts seeking victory in war.
So far, there have been no indicators of strategic military plans on either side. The intensifying military presences of Russia, Ukraine and NATO states on the border serves to intimidate and prevent the opponent from using force. Germany has recently declared construction of submarines and tanks.
The short and medium-term goals of the EU and the U.S. are to arm Ukraine and restore order in the east of Ukraine, prevent formation of the Eurasian Union, weaken Russia to make it an inferior geopolitical force in comparison with the U.S., China and the EU.
The economic war between the countries of Asia Minor and Central Asia (from Turkey to Kazakhstan) should demonstrate that the choice between Russia or the Eurasian Union is not a better economic choice. Such a war undermines the negotiating positions of the countries as bidders for membership in the Eurasian Union. It will not be a new variant of the Soviet Union in the context of their 20 years of independence. It can only be an alliance based on an institutionally-fixed idea of friendship, allowing withdrawal.
Such a union could benefit Russia and Asian states reluctant to join the Western system or the Asian system dominated by China. The problems are not only in mentalities, languages and economic development. The experiences of the countries show that Europe supports territorial integrity in its own countries but protects it with less eagerness in other states, for example in Karabakh. Maybe decisions in the countries will be made depending on the choices local economic elites make to preserve and strengthen their own influence.
Time has been working against Russia. It has been over-confident in its positions as a supplier of energy and raw materials, thinking that this makes Moscow a natural partner of the EU. Russia ignored the diversification of its own economy, falling into the trap of “resource curse” like the Arab oil exporters of the 1970s, which had started developing their own concept of industry too late.
The EU decision in favour of new methods of energy extraction (the so-called hydraulic fracturing in the U.S., Canada and other countries) will have predictable outcomes. The EU made a turn. “Russia is no longer our strategic partner,” notes Donald Tusk. Public opinion does not have much impact on geopolitical games.
The transformation of the situation in Ukraine into a direct military confrontation cannot be ruled outProfessor Wilfried Fuhrman, Potsdam. Exclusively for Vestnik Kavkaza“Russia is our strategic problem,” admitted Donald Tusk, the new president of the European Council, in an interview with Financial Times. His position certainly coincides with the opinion of German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The two politicians have a unique friendship in politics. Moreover, both Donald Tusk and Angela Merkel were born in Gdansk, a former German city, currently part of Poland.Tusk’s words preoccupy Russia. It is far beyond disputes about the territorial integrity of the country and Western efforts to integrate Ukraine into the EU and then NATO. The phrase demonstrates that the Ukrainian conflict could have been anticipated and prevented. But the conflict was included in calculations.If the goal of Europe is the integration of the geographical European space, then Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus and Russia should be part of it. But Russia is too big for such integration and has its own vivid and acknowledged identity and understanding of its own role in world politics. The Russian Federation has its own integration initiative to engage countries in the Eurasian Union. Speculations about the “separation” of Russia into European and Asian parts provokes fears in Russia and rhetorical comebacks about Western threats, as voiced by President Vladimir Putin.The instruments used in the geopolitical game of the EU/U.S. and Russia are peaceful. Although transformation of the situation in Ukraine into a direct military clash cannot be ruled out. This horrifying scenario will only become possible in 2-3 years. On condition that the private and state forces of Ukraine win in the conflict in the east of the country, get good military equipment and professional training. Then, after the victory in the east of Ukraine, they will certainly try to get Crimea back. The arming of Ukraine is not on the rhetorical level, the German chancellor is helping the country practically.The decisive tool in the geopolitical confrontation has an economic nature. The economic measures called “sanctions” are a strategic and tactical means of war in economics and finance. The West has started an economic war in the light of the events in the east of Ukraine. The goal is to weaken the foe’s innovative and economic potential as much as possible, affecting its political weight. Economic power is usually the basis of political force.Economic “warfare” in the geopolitical clash is chosen when the economic potential of one side is much greater than that of the potential enemy and when the loss of economic potential of the adversary exceeds its own losses. Integration systems of the EU-U.S. and within the EU have certain differences. Politicians pursuing national interests will back measures keeping the economies of partners more stressed than their own. Germany, just as in the Cold War times, plays the role of a disciplined scholar.Russia can use its oil reserves to withstand Western economic pressure for three more years at best. But that is not the danger of the economic war. As many examples of modern world history show that an enemy weakened economically starts seeking victory in war.So far, there have been no indicators of strategic military plans on either side. The intensifying military presences of Russia, Ukraine and NATO states on the border serves to intimidate and prevent the opponent from using force. Germany has recently declared construction of submarines and tanks.The short and medium-term goals of the EU and the U.S. are to arm Ukraine and restore order in the east of Ukraine, prevent formation of the Eurasian Union, weaken Russia to make it an inferior geopolitical force in comparison with the U.S., China and the EU.The economic war between the countries of Asia Minor and Central Asia (from Turkey to Kazakhstan) should demonstrate that the choice between Russia or the Eurasian Union is not a better economic choice. Such a war undermines the negotiating positions of the countries as bidders for membership in the Eurasian Union. It will not be a new variant of the Soviet Union in the context of their 20 years of independence. It can only be an alliance based on an institutionally-fixed idea of friendship, allowing withdrawal.Such a union could benefit Russia and Asian states reluctant to join the Western system or the Asian system dominated by China. The problems are not only in mentalities, languages and economic development. The experiences of the countries show that Europe supports territorial integrity in its own countries but protects it with less eagerness in other states, for example in Karabakh. Maybe decisions in the countries will be made depending on the choices local economic elites make to preserve and strengthen their own influence.Time has been working against Russia. It has been over-confident in its positions as a supplier of energy and raw materials, thinking that this makes Moscow a natural partner of the EU. Russia ignored the diversification of its own economy, falling into the trap of “resource curse” like the Arab oil exporters of the 1970s, which had started developing their own concept of industry too late.The EU decision in favour of new methods of energy extraction (the so-called hydraulic fracturing in the U.S., Canada and other countries) will have predictable outcomes. The EU made a turn. “Russia is no longer our strategic partner,” notes Donald Tusk. Public opinion does not have much impact on geopolitical ga
