Part Two: Russia’s Strategy: A Course Toward Multipolarity
Chapter V: Official Doctrines and Concepts
Russia’s National Interests
The definition of Russia’s national interests as “the aggregate of balanced interests of the individual, the society, and the state” in all spheres of social life is a pretty but absolutely empty phrase, for a reason that didn’t even occur to any of the authors. The interests of the individual, the society, and the state cannot be balanced in principle because it is precisely their “imbalance” that makes these phenomena distinct. Furthermore, all talk about state, society, and individual is an empty abstraction until definitions are given: what state, what society, and individual in what system? Which kind of democracy is to be strengthened, out of a dozen different historical types? What in the world is a “social state”? Can you name even one “nonsocial state”? Apart from everything else, all this has nothing to do with national security; these are matters of a country’s domestic policy.
Now let us proceed to the foreign aspect of national interests. It too is formulated in a silly fashion. “Russia’s national interests in the international sphere lie in the protection of sovereignty; in the strengthening of Russia’s position as a great power and one of the influential centers of a multipolar world; in the development of equal and mutually profitable relations with all countries and integration entities, including CIS member states and Russia’s traditional partners; in the universal observance of human rights and liberties, without allowing the use of double standards in that area.”
How can Russia possibly strengthen its position “as a great power” in a multipolar world if that world doesn’t exist? (The authors themselves mention it in the beginning as only a trend.) What is a “great power”? Give us the parameters for one. As for “human rights and liberties,” this phrase must have been inserted as a joke, considering that in Russia itself, these same rights, especially the right to life, and liberties are restricted as in no other country in the world.
The authors demonstrate their complete lack of understanding of the subject in the following sentence: “Russia’s national interests in the military sphere lie in the protection of its independence, sovereignty, state and territorial integrity; in the prevention of military aggression against Russia and its allies; in the securing of conditions for a peaceful, democratic development of the state.” The authors don’t understand that independence, sovereignty, and state and territorial integrity are not national interests in the military sphere; rather, they are describing the military policy of securing national interests that consist of such-andsuch. They are missing the logic (or structure) of interconnections between national interests and the policy of securing them. This is why they start listing national interests in the “borders sphere,” in the “ecological sphere,” and so on. I would advise them to include the “sexual sphere” and especially the “brains sphere” for completeness of the package. Let us not waste any more time on empty talk.
The 21st Century: The World Without Russia
(Philosophical-sociological Essay)