Как появилась Путин Стать Лидер мировой консерватизма ?

Dmitry Abzalov, President of the Center of Strategic Communications By the end of the political season we had prepared our report. The report mainly concerns international agenda. We pointed out that the agenda which was presented by the Russian side, directly the President of Russia, seriously correlates with international demands. The most significant direction of 2013 was the Middle East. Moscow and the Russian President initiated several major projects, the main one was the Syrian issue. What is a peculiarity of the situation over Syria? Of survey showed that Moscow’s initiative was aimed at preservation of the conservative balance in the region. Actually most of players who are involved into the big conflict are interested in maintenance of the status-quo. Iran which got the new president was interested in intensification of talks with Washington. The USA which intensified their Southeast agenda in their foreign political direction began to withdraw from the Middle East, and they were searching for an opportunity of peacemaking agreements through their allies. Israel wasn’t interested in serious radicalization of the situation in Syria as well, especially of Salafi movements which became active in the north of the region. Thus, the majority of players were not interested in a radical change of the situation. Actually the conservative scheme which was suggested by Russian diplomacy appeared to be beneficial for everybody. It freed hands of the players who were interested in its implementation anyway. In this direction we could see peculiarities of our foreign policy in 2013, i.e. preservation of a conservative outline. Unlike neocons who are well-known from the American foreign policy the model requires non-violent schemes. Along with a conservative component which calls on traditional values an important factor was rationalism in policy. We can say that rational economic arguments were major in the situation over Syria, in Southeast Asia’s direction, in the post-Soviet space. Moscow relied on rationalism of its position, firs of all. The most significant moment in the post-Soviet space was the row over Ukraine. However, much earlier our foreign policy toward Belarus was changed. We can say that by 2009 Moscow’s policy in the territory was focused on intensive support of financial resources, political resources there. But in recent years a rational component of the support has intensified. And it brought first results. In early autumn Belarus finally declared about privatization of its assets and an active phase of integration into the common economic space; moreover, it signed basic documents. As for Ukraine, due to Moscow’s efforts, it actually disavowed the association agreement which was unbeneficial for Ukraine from the economic point of view due to its foreign economic export structure. The third key component of the position is coherence. Coherence is an important aspect of modern political relations. For example, the talks over START-2 showed that coherence in signing documents is an important component in realization of the position. For instance, the document which was agreed with Russia failed to pass the US Congress. The same thing was about the accords on Iran, which were tried to be ban at the parliamentary level in America few days ago. Coherence is an important factor in realization and establishing of the position. We can see it in the Syrian issue, in the North Korean issue where Russia was one of few states which didn’t change its position during the negotiations. We were the only country which launched sanctions after certain international decisions. Coherence, which is very much in demand today, especially in Europe, is also a very important aspect of foreign policy.