On October 31 – November 1, 2024, Minsk hosted the second International Conference on Eurasian Security, where the “Eurasian Charter of Diversity and Multipolarity in the XXI Century” was presented. The Forum was attended by President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who stressed that the unipolar world has ended and a new system of international security is needed. And since the West is guilty, first of all, of triggering off conflicts and offering “dead-end formulas,” a legitimate question arises – how and with whom to create a new security architecture?
Europe, as merely an offshoot of Eurasia, as Nikolay Danilevsky (Russian naturalist, economist, ethnologist, philosopher and historian) had previously noted, cannot claim a monopoly on regional security issues, although such attempts are being made in the Euro-Atlantic format (the NATO bloc, as well as the unprecedented influence of the United States on the EU). Nevertheless, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s proposal to create a single economic space from Lisbon to Vladivostok, the Greater Eurasian Partnership, is still relevant. There is no doubt that the vast majority of EU citizens would like to have constructive and friendly relations with Russia, as well as with other Eurasian countries that are under EU and US sanctions (for example, Iran and North Korea). Therefore, the main problem of Europe today is the political elites. In some countries, there is still a terrible Russophobia (the Baltic states, Poland), others try to pretend to be neutral and follow the general policy of Brussels.
Nevertheless, there are also Eurosceptic leaders who, both in words and deeds, show the adequacy of their political course. In addition to the Republika Srpska, one of the two entities within Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia stubbornly resists Western pressure, for which its leadership has to pay the risk of another colour revolution. Hungary and Slovakia are pursuing a rational and balanced policy, especially if we take into account the context of the Ukrainian crisis and the common borders of these states. It is indicative that another country with common borders is showing an obvious tilt towards euroscepticism. Thus, in Romania, in the first round of the presidential election, Călin Georgescu, who was previously associated with the radical nationalist AUR(Alliance for Uniting Romanians) party, but ran as an independent candidate, won the most votes (23%). Liberal leader Elena Lasconi came in second with 19.2% of the vote, while former Prime Minister Nicolae Ciuca and former NATO Deputy Secretary General Mircea Geoana each scored less than 10% of the vote.
It is also indicative, that Romania’s top court voided the presidential election on Dec. 6, two days before the second round. The cancellation came after state documents allegedly showed frontrunner Calin Georgescu, a critic of NATO, had benefited from an unfair social media campaign likely to have been orchestrated by Russia, accusations Moscow has denied. The court ordered that the election be re-run in its entirety. The pro-European coalition government has yet to approve a calendar for the election, although party leaders agreed to hold the two rounds on May 4 and May 18.
If Georgescu had won in the second round, he would have occupied the most influential post in Romania, with the right to appoint a prime minister, negotiate a coalition and have the final say on security and foreign policy issues. At the same time, he has always spoken positively about Russia and its president before.
Along with the convincing victory of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party in the parliamentary elections in Germany, this would have demonstrated a change in the political situation due to the growing multidimensional crisis within the EU.
And with a large number of adequate politicians, there is a greater chance that crazy decisions will not be made within the EU and NATO, which are directed against Russia and even their own citizens of EU countries.
It is also significant that Turkey, being a member of NATO, is trying to pursue a well-reasoned and balanced policy, realizing that serious economic or regional security issues cannot be resolved without Russia’s participation. But Turkey has Syrian experience and certain interests, including the creation of an energy hub with Moscow’s help. Given Turkey’s geostrategic location and control over the entrance to the Black Sea, European countries will have to take into account both Ankara’s ambitions and the changing reality.
If we move further east, there are also noticeable transformations taking place there. Although things are not stable in Iraq yet, there are prospects for a speedy improvement. This is also indicated by decisions related to investments and plans for infrastructure projects. Iran is also showing positive dynamics. Given the active cooperation with Russia in the field of security and the progressive activation of the North-South corridor, Iran as a geopolitical pole will play an increasingly important role, at the same time acting as a connecting element of the region.
Afghanistan remains a blank spot on the map of Eurasia in the sense that after the Taliban movement (banned in Russia) came to power, relations with the new government were not properly regulated. The fundamental decision to remove the status of a terrorist organization from the Taliban in Russia has already been made. On the other hand, Iran and Pakistan are also seeking to resolve differences and bring the contentious issues into a constructive direction (for Pakistan, this is a matter of border demarcation, since, despite its accepted international status, the Afghan side does not recognize the Durand Line, which was established due to the British occupation of the region at the end of the XIX century).
However, in a global context, it should always be remembered that Anglo-Saxon policy towards Eurasia follows the imperatives of Halford Mackinder and Zbigniew Brzezinski. If the West cannot directly reach the ‘Heartland’ (Russia) of Eurasia, it will try to influence Rimland (the coastal zone) and Eastern Europe. That is why the crisis in Ukraine was provoked. Therefore, attempts to incite and escalate conflicts through various proxies will continue, especially in those areas that Zbigniew Brzezinski described as the Eurasian arc of instability – this is the region of the Middle East, the Caucasus, as well as part of Central Asia up to the territory of India.
In order to counteract such destructive plans, it is necessary to expand and strengthen cooperation between the countries through existing organizations and, possibly, create new working structures. In this regard, the SCO (the Shanghai Cooperation Organization) format is unique – the organization includes several states that have territorial claims against each other, but they do not enter the active phase of the conflict. Kashmir has been a sticking point for Pakistan and India for many decades. China and India, in turn, continue to consider their part of the territory in the Himalayas. At the same time, all three states possess nuclear weapons, but they do not threaten to use them in the style of reckless Western policy.
By adding to the SCO the capabilities of the CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organization) and cooperation through BRICS (including the status of candidate countries, the work of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, as well as other initiatives), we will have an effective network of political interaction at the highest level in Eurasia and Africa (where the processes of decolonization and strengthening sovereignty are also continuing, at least among some states, especially in the Sahel region). And Eurasia and Africa are the ‘World Island’ on which the rest of the world actually depends.
All of the above indicates that it is necessary to adjust the work of outdated mechanisms and avoid imposed Western patterns, including the development of fundamentally new foundations of international law.
While the polycentric world has not taken shape and is in transition, the roaring multipolarity requires more active actions and work for the future.
Comments