Alexei Vlasov
Rosspen has published a book by the chairman of the scientific council of the Moscow Carnegie center, Dmitry Trenin, Post-Imperium: Eurasian History. The author discusses time passed after the dissolution of the Soviet Empire till transformation of the post-Soviet area into the current form.
The book Post-Imperium: Eurasian History begins from the dedication: “To Pyotr Trenin-Strausiv, 30-year old, belonging to first free generation of Russian citizens.” It clearly defines the audience of readers. They are young people who were born and raised at the joint of two epochs. The free generation of Russian citizens means those who witnessed the dissolution of the Soviet Empire at school; they were formed during the Yeltsin-Putin period of Russia; and according to the author, they will see time when last remains of “the Soviet epoch” will be gone.
Dmitry Trenin writes about this directly: “The Russian Empire will never exist again. The project which had lasted for centuries lost its impulse… Russia went round in a complete circle – great social schemes were replaced by numerous plans of separate people.”
20 years of living in deideological society might be not enough for stating that return to the past is impossible. Even if the rest of the book the author would devote to the problems which are not connected with the Russian contemporary situation, this phrase would be sufficient for shifting the book from the category of “fundamental scientific works” to “acute research.” It seems Trenin wants to cause attacks on him, as today the opposite ideas are in trend.
It is obvious that such a radical statement will cause heavy criticism by the opponents of the head of the Moscow Carnegie Center. For them the unexpected revival of the Eurasian idea ahead of the new term of President Putin is an effort to gain essence and reasons for future of Russia not in a private life, but in gathering lands and realization of a new great social project, but not in a Soviet manner.
Gathering of local lands is an ordinary occupation for the Russian state and society. Therefore, the question on domination of private plans of separate people over all other reasons is disputable.
However, it is difficult to argue with the author of Post-Imperium. Trenin’s conclusions are based on a firm fundament of facts. And while supporters of reviving ambitions for “a new Russian (Eurasian) project” will try to appeal to the emotional side of the problem, the author will present logical chains which give answers to difficult questions.
Even with political will and social support the resource base of Russia is not sufficient for implementation of a new empire (post-imperium) project. It is not about resources of oil, gas, uranium, and so on. The problem is in unrealized potential of contemporary Russia, as its elite relies on the human capital, the technological base, and the quality of management of the 20th century.
The author uses tough appraisals to show misbalance of the desired and the possible things: “Today the Russian Federation cannot be called an economic polar of the world on any criteria… Due to absence of a powerful industrial, technological, and financial potential, Russia is noncompetitive in other spheres of economy.”
Representatives of the opposition and a part of ruling elite are concerned with the fact that the future development of the Eurasian integration may lead to losing independence and “reviving the neo-USSR.”
The discussion of non-completed social and economic modernization of Russia leads to even more acute problem: is our country capable to be a center of attraction for the post-Soviet area in such conditions? Do our close partners and allies find the image of the Kremlin’s policy attractive? The author of the book is full of skepticism on adequateness of integration initiatives by Moscow both in the old and the new form of the early 2010s. At the same time, he doesn’t deny potential importance of integration processes with participation of Russia.
Unfortunately, media covering of the Eurasian project is so poor that the majority of the Russian citizens doesn’t understand the new integration project. The Eurasian project is a project of elites, even though the chance for success is connected with idea of turning the Eurasian Economic Union into a social project. Realization of most integration initiatives is implemented by bureaucracy which doesn’t strive for involvement of youth organizations, business, and representatives of educational structures in the Eurasian project.
Supporters of the Customs Union and the United Economic Space are talking about macroeconomic indexes which have to be achieved in 2015-2020. However, the media doesn’t cover examples of successful business stories connected with the Eurasian integration project.
Defining outlines of relations between Russia and the countries of the post-Soviet area, the author explains them as something obvious with no need in a deep system of arguments. It is especially notable in parts “Failure of Integration” and “Russia chooses loneliness.”
It is clear that “natural” integration of Russia is movement to the West for Trenin. Probably this priority, i.e. eurocentrism, will cause irritation of experts on the countries of the former Soviet Union. “Bold strokes” of the author’s picture of relations between Moscow and the CIS and the Baltic countries provide a general perception about processes happening in Central Asia, the South Caucasus, Ukraine, and Belarus, on a complex and peculiar attitude of elites of the new independent countries to the Russian policy in the post-Soviet area.
I believe supporters of the European way do not go deep in details in certain crucial moments. Probably they think that crossing of interests of Moscow, Washington, and Beijing is more interesting than analysis of difficult internal processes happening in the countries of the region where along with social and religious disputes the conflict of generations is coming.
At the same time I want to be optimistic. If elites of the post-Soviet countries don’t want to build close cooperation with Russia, restricting their interest by credits and bonuses on oil and gas, such countries as Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Ukraine, and Armenia still consider Moscow as a factor capable to provide stable development of these countries through integration and cooperation.
However, these attitudes are present among the old and middle-aged generations. That is why fighting got young people, involvement of the future elite of the CIS countries into educational, humanitarian, socio-cultural projects headed by Russia is the main task for today. We hope that this mission doesn’t contradict “private plans” of the new Russian elite.
