Many events of the year 2011 have explicitly demonstrated that the world has entered a phase of profound change and transformation with regard to politics, ideology, finance and economy. As the economic situation and social standards in the United States and Europe continue to deteriorate, the New World Order has been getting ever more blatant in engineering controlled chaos. This has become especially apparent since the Libya affair, when NATO allies established a very dangerous precedent for intervening in sovereign nations and sowing chaos. Today, we are seeing the same scenario played out in Syria. Where should we expect it next – in China, India or Russia?
Russia is clearly not interested in triggering global instability. It advocates transformation by way of step-by-step progress based on a positive attitude. The international situation requires an adequate response from Russia, particularly in terms of creating a defense mechanism against foreign media aggression.
Therefore, the primary task of Russia’s new leader will be to preserve the stability of state and society against a backdrop of comprehensive global transformation.
The Russian leader should primarily recognize that ideology and information are the long-standing vulnerabilities of the Russian state, which caused it to collapse twice in the 20th Century. Therefore, it would be helpful for the development of Russian statehood if the government would establish a State Ideology (Spirituality, Greatness, Dignity) and set up a special mechanism for countering foreign media aggression through a set of administrative, PR and media-related measures. This would enable Russia to become a pan-Eurasian center of gravity in both economic and spiritual terms.
In forging a Eurasian Union, Russia should do the following:
– ensure that Russia’s media scene is dominated by spiritual and moral values;
– counter the dissemination of negative coverage of Russia in the global media environment, challenging the deliberate distortion of Russian history and cultural traditions;
– replace the culture of violence on Russian TV with a culture of spirituality, knowledge and creativity;
– publicize its ethical and spiritual assessment of the privatization process of the 1990s, highlighting its injustice.
In addition, it is absolutely obvious that Russia urgently needs to reform some of its governing institutions to ensure their best performance in interacting with civil society. The reforms should be swift and assertive, but at the same time they must be deliberate and focused.
The essence of these reforms should become the topic of a comprehensive public debate involving all branches of power, all political parties and institutions of civil society. To that and, professional expert analysis would be indispensable.
The legal mechanisms for decision-making based on public dialogue are well-known and consist of the law-making function of parliament, or a national referendum stipulated by the Russian Constitution for issues deemed vitally important by the public and the government. At the same time, the new President of Russia will have to ensure that public dialogue remains strictly within legal bounds. The Russian people need protection from the kind of pressure which can be brought to bear via street protests or media coverage. The strategic objective is to ensure a social consensus while protecting the political elite (and the populace) from any negative influence.
Russia should use the social consensus to compensate the damage suffered during the deindustrialization in the 1990s. The nation has indeed managed to become the world’s Sixth largest economy in the past decade, but this was primarily thanks to its vast commodity exports including oil and gas, metals, lumber, etc. Today, Russia needs to launch a New Technological Industrialization in order to achieve an innovative breakthrough and become one of the world’s first economies to embrace a new, post-transformation development model known as the Sixths Technological Cycle, which would focus on intellectual, creative and moral development.
Russia should primarily draw the financial resources for its Technological Industrialization by enlarging its domestic market, which would make it more attractive for direct investment. Another source of finance should be obtained by selling natural resources for Russian rubles.
Another key objective is rapid progress to make careers in science and engineering popular and respected in Russia.
These should be the priority objectives for the Kremlin’s political strategists. Efficient media support would be instrumental in accomplishing these tasks.
A new technological industrialization would be a great chance for Russia, an opportunity for patriotic-minded businesspeople who did not take part in the rigged privatization of the 1990s, and also for Russia’s innovators. A technological industrialization is the only way to secure a decent place for Russia in the future world of innovation.
Another strategic objective for the new President of Russia is boosting the formation of a Eurasian Union that would stretch from Scotland to New Zealand. The first supranational building block of the Union was launched on 1 February 2012 in the form of the Eurasian Economic Commission.
In order to rescue Europe from its current crisis, it seems reasonable to propose a joint commission that would include representatives from both the EEC and the European Union. The new body should be focused on creating a common economic space stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific and from Scotland to New Zealand, with a view to forging a pan-continental common market. In the future, supranational pan-continental market institutions, such as a Continental Commission and a Continental Bank, could be established in order to provide universal regulation for the EU and the Eurasian Union and set the agenda for future development.
By implementing the above-listed measures in collaboration with all sane parties from around the world, Russia’s new leader would be able to channel the current global transformation away from controlled chaos and toward positive, constructive development.
Prof. Igor Panarin, Doctor of Political Sciences.