Slizovskiy D.E., Medvedev N.P. Review of the Article “A European Defense: Europe Will Have to Defend Itself” by Professor (H.C.) Olivier Védrine, French Journalist And Political Scientist
DOI 10.35775/PSI.2019.32.2.018
REVIEW of the article “A European Defense: Europe will have to defend itself” by Professor (h.c.) Olivier VÉDRINE, French journalist and political scientist
Reviewers:
D.Е. Slizovskiy Doctor of sciences (history), Professor, Peoples' Friendship University of Russia, Moscow, Russia
N.P. Medvedev Doctor of sciences (political sciences), Professor Peoples' Friendship University of Russia, Moscow, Russia
We consider the article by Professor Olivier Védrine as a reason not only to thank the author who agreed to openly and directly express his opinions on the pages of the Russian specialized magazine discussing what they think in France regarding the necessity to create a European army and for what goals and tasks. We see this article as another opportunity to discuss this topic, to exchange views and ideas on the security for Europe and Russia and to understand that both Europe and Russia can be equally concerned about their security. But not at the expense of anyone or ignoring the security interests of anyone and not because it is possible to form an erroneous and dangerous for this very security public opinion that someone's security is obvious and real and the other subject of international relations has the right to only recognize itself as a threat, because someone strong and influential believes so. There are thus conditions for critically defending the very opportunity to present the prerequisites for security on an equal footing from the standpoint of both Franco-European and Russian interests. And with the consideration for the impact of the United States and NATO's military-political bloc on the process of international security and the nature of the discussion of this controversial and acute problem. It is very important because in the current conditions, traditional relations between the Russian Federation and the countries of the European Union, between institutions and states are limited or even interrupted and social, scientific and personal relations are disrupted. At the same time, everyone has to increasingly look for the non-standard solutions to security threats.
Professor Oliver Vedrin has published his article, we are reviewing now, at the time when not only in Russia but throughout the world, and especially in Europe, events of great importance with elements of tragic omen are taking place. Europe faces numerous processes threatening the foundations of Europe itself, its universally recognized world civilization worthy values. We, in Russia, observe with interest how the failed ideas of European security, initiated in the 1950s by Charles de Gaulle, are revived in Europe, first of all, in France and Germany. We’ve read the American point of view on this subject with genuine and pragmatic curiosity. We read with interest how "think tanks", experts and specialists interpret the object-subject and subject areas of threats for the effective fight against which the EU countries should cooperate and act in unison. And such threats to Europe, as Professor Vedrin is trying to convince us, are: "cybercrime, organized crime, terrorism, humanitarian and environmental crises." In Russia too, they reasonably appeal to such threats. But not only to the above list of threats, but also to the responsibility of global nature that will face any country or group of countries that would declare its role and readiness to provide security for itself and others.
We are well aware of the fact that once, after the summit in Paris, President Macron’s words created tension between US President Donald Trump and European allies. France hastened to state that President Macron's interview was misinterpreted by some journalists in the sense that he stood up for the creation of the European army to defend against Russia, China and even the United States. In fact, President Macron discussed the need to protect France from cyber attacks and cyber espionage involving these countries. From this point, we can well understand the position of Professor Oliver Vedrin and his desire to convey the true meaning of his President’s words. In our turn, we confirm Russia's position and to this end we cite the words of our Foreign Minister S. Lavrov: “After all, maintaining international peace and security is one of the priorities of Russia's foreign policy. Today, at the heart of our position – we have repeatedly stressed this – along with the promotion of national interests ...it is also the recognition of Russia's special responsibility for the universal security and global stability. We have our responsibilities as a nuclear power, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. That says a lot.” We, in Russia, would like to see behind that brief "that says a lot" the security problems as they are understood by the authors of the Munich Security Report 2019. And to announce that the Russian point of view on the security issues and threats surprisingly coincide with the way they are seen in Europe. In Europe they say: "The emerging multipolar security landscape and accelerating technological progress have caused an arms control crisis”.
At the very beginning of the article Professor Oliver Vedrin ties in a tight knot geopolitical context “plagued by many tensions, defense and security issues,” “facilitation of diplomatic and military cooperation” and “defense and security issues.” It is not difficult to explain how journalist Oliver Vedrin raises current problems and contradictions to the level of extremely acute political problems and contradictions, reducing them to issues of defense and security that can no longer remain within the national borders. And it’s no longer in journalistic, but in political sense that he talks about moving the European Union forward to the creation of a common defense policy.
Incomparable and subtle observer of everything that happens in Europe and in the world Oliver Vedrin not only sees what is happening, not only listens to the words and thoughts of the Europeans and Americans, he tries to understand what moves them. Trying to understand the idea promoted by him – the European Union will have to provide security and defend itself – we experience not only the highest pleasure, but also some anxiety. But our anxiety, the anxiety of Russians, is different from the feelings and thoughts of Europeans. We, in Russia, experience constant anxiety. Because we cannot understand and comprehend, for example, from whom the united army of the European Union will have to defend itself. And would it have to defend?? Maybe – attack!? What is the object against which will be directed the most powerful potential of the European army??
The European Union is also concerned, if we interpret the content of this article correctly. But these are concerns of a different kind than our Russian concerns. European concerns are not permanent, but temporary, they are caused by Donald Trump and his furious attacks on Europeans. It seems to us that a part of the temporary European anxieties will disappear as soon as another US leader comes instead of Donald Trump. We believe these are the expectations of the EU countries establishment. And the author of the article under review is inclined to think so in a hidden form. There are reasons for that. They are in the depth, in the very nature of the political system that has become and will be the basis of the American democracy, the changeability and election of the state power and the President.
We, experts and specialists in Russia, are not surprised that the author of the article, struggling with the anxieties and threats to the security of the European Union, is no less, if not more concerned about the potential and real threats that arise along with the implementation of the idea on the creation of the European army, if it is considered in the context of relations with NATO and the United States of America. To overcome such anxiety in this system of relations, the leaders of France and Germany and our author hurry to assure us that: “no, the European army is not a competitor to NATO;” “each action to develop or reinforce the military capabilities of a European country reinforces the Atlantic Alliance”.
One point is of particular concern to the author of the article and the authors of a great variety of ideas about greater EU autonomy in the field of defense. It is clear that security and defense policy and tasks in this area can only be solved either by NATO forces or, in the opinion of the leaders of France and Germany, through their own armies. It seems there is nothing tricky in it: the democracies of France and Germany will give to themselves and all their observers a picture of a healthy, normal, true development of their views and ideas about ensuring, even the possibility to ensure security for themselves. But, it turns out there is no unambiguous and only correct answer to the questions posed by them at the theoretical level. Europe has yet to answer the question whether it needs tolerance and whether the policy of protecting itself alone without looking back at the US suits it more. Qualified in this field, Professor Olivier VÉDRINE appeals in his judgments to the vague arguments of Emmanuel Macron about the European army. If President Macron has no clear idea about what kind of army Europe needs then the author of the article has no trace of the vague interpretation of this phenomenon: “we are not going to create a European army with integrated contingents.” Such army cannot be without NATO and it “will never be against USA;” “it is not a European army in the technical sense of the term.” Such reasoning connects the European idealistic judgment with a strong sense of reality. Seemingly disembodied ideas about the kind of the European army and about Europe that “must be able to assume its own destiny and no longer rely on others” go hand in hand with an empirical and realistic assessment of the purpose of that very European army, no matter how it is seen and prepared. And it is seen and prepared for one thing only – to increase the military collective potential and contribute to the strengthening of NATO.
The section of the article The European Defense today is devoted to the concrete embodiment of these ideas. With genuine passion the author of the article offers a consistent line of action for the creation of the European Union's extensive infrastructure for the development of defense potential. At first glance, the actions taken by the European Union (creation of the European Army and European rapid reaction force aimed at the settlement of sudden conflicts outside NATO, planned setting of the European Defense Fund, financing of the defense at the Community level, financing of the joint defense research, in 2021-2027 the European Defense Fund will reach 13 billion euros spending on defense over 7 years) do not contradict either the systemic principles of the EU's functioning or the strategy for its further development. Neither do they contradict the relations within the military-political bloc of NATO or with the United States of America. It seems that there are no obstacles to the creation of an army for defense, no contradictions in its strategy or in the European initiative of intervention, in the implementation of its goal – to contribute to the emergence of "the European strategic autonomy”.
But still, much of what has already been done and is planned to be done looks like improvisation. The exaggerated hopes for European defense can also be pinned down and discarded under the weight of arguments that contradict the ideas and principles on which the European strategic autonomy and its instrument – the European defense army with non-integrated contingent – will be built.
As we can see, the Europeans are making efforts to supplement the American security strategy with their initiatives and proposals. But what contradictions can grow of such attempts and efforts? Here are a few judgments in this regard.
After the statement that the future of Europe will include a "real European" or even non-integrated army, it is immediately stated that such army will not be against NATO. The creation of a European army is the ability to collectively conduct small military operations that NATO is not going to and does not want to undertake. Such army will be the most reliable tool to prevent war between the European nations. It is primarily meant to prevent war between France and Germany and partly with England. The European political beau monde firmly holds in mind only the danger of war between West European countries and remembers grief WWI (1914-1918) brought them. But for some reason they do not think of the danger or they’ve lost historical memory of the danger of war between France, Germany and Russia. The historical memory of Russian citizens of the sufferings of the military campaigns in the XX century, in which Russia and many European countries were direct opponents or allies, on the contrary, is very strong.
It is amazing how the Chancellor of Germany or the President of France, the most Pro-Atlantic leaders of the most Americanized countries in the world, declare a purely European defense and the responsibility of their countries to ensure it. We see that such statements are already supported by concrete actions. But there are specialists and experts who believe that the creation of the European army is a distant, premature, overly bold and frightening affair. The issue of the legitimacy of sending soldiers to the points and regions of military conflicts has not been resolved. So far, this is the prerogative of national parliaments. The question remains how such an army will be organized, who will lead it, how it will be managed, who and how will finance it when for many European countries even two percent of GDP on defense is a serious obstacle. There is a heated debate about whether European defense expenditures will be designed to promote European manufacturers of military equipment at the expense of American. This is one of the critical remarks of the Trump administration about the conditions for a large European defense.
A number of experts consider the political meaning of the proposals to create a European army for France and Germany in two senses: the first one is an opportunity to avoid the traditional responsibility of these countries to play a leading role in the defense policy; the second – on the contrary, is an opportunity to strengthen themselves as leading countries and thereby raise their status. There are no answers to such questions. In respect of some of them, there are even no attempts to find any intelligible answers.
If the relationships among the European countries and in respect of NATO and the United States regarding the realization of the idea of creating a European defense army are in a shifting pattern of mobilization, the question of the European defense and Russia has not yet any glimpse of a better future. The author of the article, it seems to us, presents those considerations according to which Russia, its political regime and V.V. Putin personally either do not understand the true significance of the Europe’s natural movement to ensure its European security or Russia and especially its political regime is an existential threat to the European security. The tension of the moment in respect of the European defense and ideas about it in the minds of the Russian political leadership sets the author of the article to fatalism: “Putin who is in favor of the European defense must understand that the European defense cannot be without NATO and then will never be against the USA.” “The warm Putin welcome for the European defense is only a tool used for propaganda and internal Russian policy, this is not good news for Putin and that underlines more a misunderstanding from the Kremlin about what can be an effective European defense!” It seems to us that this is an erroneous opinion, which, unfortunately, dominates in the minds of experts and in the public European consciousness. It’s a mistake to believe that V. Putin should understand the structure of relations between Europeans, NATO and the United States in the way it is interpreted by the Europeans themselves. And there is no other understanding. The European understanding of this particular process and phenomenon is fading when the possibility of a collision between Russia and Europe, Russia and the United States grows from the intersection of individual and immediate, deep and superficial circumstances of European defense and V. Putin's attitude to it. Not only Putin should be expected to understand what a European defense together with NATO and the United States is. Let’s support the idea of the author and agree with him: “Putin knows that the European defense is not in his favor”. Not only Putin but also the Russian society knows, almost all people in Russia know what lies behind President Macron's words when he says that it would take a “European army” to “face Russia, which is on our borders and has shown that it can be threatening.” Russian society and its rulers differ from many others in that they live in deep confidence that the events and considerations that accompany them and explain them are approaching the climax. And in the era of the global security movement, when Europeans doubt the US commitment to NATO and its obligations under Article 5 to ensure collective defense, Russia is focused on the coming hour without threats or mutual claims.
Once again, we thank Olivier VÉDRINE for the opportunity to launch a discussion on a politically sensitive and controversial topic. And we would like to give it a wider scope, for which we invite all interested parties.
Pryakhin V.F., Medvedev N.P. Review of the Article by A.A. Krutyko “Pragmatic Model of Russian-Kirghiz Relations in the Context of Eurasian Integration”
DOI 10.35775/PSI.2019.32.2.017
REVIEW of the article by A.A. Krutyko “Pragmatic Model of Russian-Kirghiz Relations in the Context of Eurasian Integration”
Reviewers:
V.F. Pryakhin Doctor of Sciences(political sciences), Professor of the Chair of foreign regional studies and foreign policy of the Russian state Humanitarian University, Moscow, Russia
N.P. Medvedev Doctor of Sciences(political sciences), Professor of the Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, Moscow, Russia
It is gratifying that this article has been published on one of the most important topics of Russia's foreign policy, which, in our opinion, is not properly reflected in Russian science. It is even more important that the author of the article, as is clear from its reading, has good command of not only theoretical terms, but also of the details of such a “subtle” matter of the East in a practical context.
As an aspect of political theory, the author's determination and delineation of Russia’s interests and those of its strategic partners associated with the development of integration processes within the EAEU seems to be very timely and topical. It is no secret that the very idea of Eurasian integration from the very beginning had many opponents both in the West and in the post-Soviet space. Many researchers, particularly in the United States, considered the Eurasian idea itself to be a kind of euphemism designed to hide Kremlin’s ambitions for the restoration of the USSR. In this context, it is worth recalling that for the first time the initiative to create the Eurasian Economic Union was announced by the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan N. Ah. Nazarbayev in his memorable speech at Moscow State University in 1994. Moreover, the idea did not arose any enthusiasm in Moscow. Only with the coming to power of Vladimir Putin, the President of Kazakhstan now recalls, the Kremlin fully accepted the idea of EAEU. We brought this historical insight in order to emphasize the essence and importance of the main provisions of the pragmatic model of Russian-Kyrgyz relations proposed by the author in the context of Eurasian integration.
Russia is certainly interested in promoting the integration process in the Eurasian space. This aim was put forward, in particular, by Vladimir Putin’s proposal regarding global strategic project Greater Eurasia. This project is not aimed at the restoration of the Soviet Union, but at the implementation of the concept of a democratic polycentric world order, opposing the Americano-centric model of globalization which the patriarch of American foreign policy G. Kissinger once defined as “another name for the dominant role of the United States”.
At the same time, Russia's strategic partners in Eurasian integration, including Kyrgyzstan, link the Eurasian process with their priority tasks of internal development and strengthening of the regional stability.
To characterize this kind of symbiosis of global Russian and local Kyrgyz goals, the author proposes a kind of “pragmatic model,” including recognition of the mutual influence of economies and the dependence of the levels of socio-political stability of the EAEU member states; inclusion of the resources of the UN and other influential international organizations and financial institutions in the achievement of integration goals; expansion of the Eurasian integration, pairing it with other integration projects, primarily with the Chinese project “One belt – one road.”
It is impossible not to agree with the logic of this model’s construction. However, it appears that the number of its components can and should be substantially expanded. First of all, the Kyrgyz leadership, as well as the political elites of other Central Asian States and Kazakhstan, when considering the issues of participation (or non-participation as in the case of Turkmenistan) in certain integration processes and organizations first of all assess the possibilities of these organizations to contribute to the confrontation with the main destructive component of the situation in the region – the threat of religious extremism and international terrorism.
It is especially important to emphasize this in case of Kyrgyzstan, because the so-called “civilizational split” cuts the country right along the ridges of the Western Tien Shan. This mountain system splits the country into two regions, significantly different from each other in economic, ethnic and religious aspects, giving to some researchers grounds to talk about the North – South syndrome as the main destabilizing factor of the domestic political situation in Kyrgyzstan.
Naturally, therefore, that the issues of global Eurasian integration of Bishkek and Osh (the southern capital of Kyrgyzstan) are primarily associated with the integration of their own country and strengthening the consolidation of Kyrgyz people of different ethnic and religious backgrounds.
It is very important, in our opinion, that A. A. Krutko includes cooperation between Russia and international organizations, especially the UN, in assisting the development of Kyrgyzstan in the “pragmatic model”. The size of the paper does not allow the author to go beyond a few specific aspects of such interaction. In his further works on this topic, the author should, in our opinion, reach a higher level of theoretical generalization, since an increasing role of international organizations in solving global problems is perhaps the only positive alternative to the American-centered model of globalization and the world domination by the “Washington Regional Committee.”
At the same time, it is worth expanding the scope of this research to include in addition to the UN other international organizations, in particular the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, represented in Bishkek and Osh by its field offices.
There is a stable stereotype of the OSCE in the post-Soviet space, unfortunately, not without a reason, it is viewed as a tool for promoting the policy of the Organization’s "grandees" (the USA, Great Britain, Germany and France) in the former Soviet republics. At the same time, practical experience shows that with the proper leadership and active position of the states-recipients of economic and humanitarian support, the OSCE mechanisms and means can be usefully used for constructive purposes. In particular, in the zero years, the OSCE successfully contributed to the important environmental project aimed at the utilization of the rocket fuels stored in the former-Soviet states before the collapse of the USSR.
The Eurasian aspect of this topic is especially important, as the further improvement of the A. A. Krutko’s “pragmatic model” is impossible without the cooperation of Russia and Kyrgyzstan with such international organizations as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the Collective Security Treaty Organization, ASEAN, the Program to prevent the spread of drugs in Central Asia, the Asian Development Bank, the Islamic Development Bank and others.
It seems that the author of the reviewed article made an important first step in the study of the promising topic of the political process in the Central Asian region and in the global aspect. The material presented by A.A. Krutko indicates that this task is up to him.
OLIVIER VÉDRINE A European Defense: Europe Will Have to Defend Itself
DOI 10.35775/PSI.2019.32.2.016
OLIVIER VÉDRINE Professor (h.c.), Journalist, political scientist, Paris, France
A EUROPEAN DEFENSE: EUROPE WILL HAVE TO DEFEND ITSELF
In his article, the author analyzes the European defense and security. He actualizes the solution of the tasks facing the European Union in the fight against international terrorism and cybercrime.
Key words: European army, NATO, defense, security, military cooperation, European Union.
Facilitating diplomatic and military cooperation is at the heart of the European Union's concerns. In a geopolitical context plagued by many tensions, defense and security issues can no longer be limited to national borders. Cybercrime, organized crime, terrorism, humanitarian and environmental crises: to effectively fight against these threats, countries must cooperate and act with one voice. To this end, the European Union has put in place many tools. Among the challenges facing the EU is to compensate for the loss with the Brexit of one of its two main military and diplomatic powers, to step up the fight against cybercrime and terrorism and to move towards a common defense policy. We must congratulate the editorial tweets of a Donald Trump belching against Emmanuel Macron and his proposal for a "real European army without depending only on the United States." The Trump fury has the advantage of bringing back a debate almost seventy years old, since the famous project of European Defense Community drawn up in 1952 was rejected by the Gaullists and Communists.
Each action to develop or reinforce the military capabilities of a European country reinforces the Atlantic Alliance. No, the European army is not a competitor to NATO. When Emmanuel Macron speaks of the European army, it is because there is no explicit and appropriate term that can be understood by the public to mention the European construction of defense. It is obvious that, for the general public, the term European army means something whereas this cannot be the case for "permanent structured cooperation" or "the European intervention initiative". Simple and understandable language is needed: Europe wants to defend itself. Naturally, we are not going to create a European army with integrated contingents. All the armies of the member countries of the European Union (EU) do not speak the same language on the one hand, and do not function in the same way on the other. It is not a European army in the technical sense of the term we are talking about here. On the other hand, what France and most European countries want to develop is greater EU autonomy in defense, so that it can already carry out the tasks inherent in the security and defense policy Common (CSDP). Then, indeed, the EU wants to be less dependent on the United States, which is in NATO, because it cannot count on them forever. Europe must be able to assume its own destiny and no longer rely on others. Now, the more Europeans act on their own and increase their military capabilities collectively, the more they strengthen NATO. It must be recognized that, in any case, armies and contingents, be they from the EU or NATO, are national. Each action to develop or reinforce the military capabilities of a European country reinforces the Atlantic Alliance.
The European Defense and Russia. Putin who is in favor of the European defense must understand that the European defense cannot be without NATO and then will never be against USA. The warm Putin welcome for the European defense is only a tool used for propaganda and internal Russian policy, this is not good news for Putin and that underlines more a misunderstanding from the Kremlin about what can be an effective European defense! But I am sure that Putin knows that the European defense is not in his favor but I repeat he is using it for his propaganda. The 1992 Maastricht Treaty stipulates in Article 42 that "the Union respects the obligations of certain Member States, which consider that their common defense is achieved through NATO". And Protocol No. 10 on cooperation stipulates that NATO "remains the foundation of the defense" of the European Union. On the airwaves of the French radio Europe1, on November 6, President Macron said that it would take a "European army" to "face Russia, which is on our borders and has shown that it can be threatening. And to add: "we must have a Europe that defends itself more alone, without relying solely on the United States and in a more sovereign way.”
The European Defense today. The idea of a Europe of Defense, as we know it today, first emerged in the early 1990s with the signing of the Maastricht Treaty. But there was no real turning point until 1998, during the Franco-British summit of Saint-Malo. It came to fruition the following year in Helsinki with the creation of a rapid reaction force and political and military structures within the Union. The Brexit and the election of Donald Trump marked the collapse of multilateralism, so new structures have emerged. Permanent Structured Cooperation on December 8, 2017, aims to develop defense capabilities and invest in joint projects. A European Defense Fund is to be set up in 2019 to develop the military capabilities of the Member States and to promote the strategic independence of the Union. In parallel, this time outside the Community framework, was born last June the European Intervention Initiative, signed by 10 countries including the United Kingdom. Its objective: to contribute to the emergence of a "European strategic autonomy".
The European Commission launched the European Defense Fund on 7 June 2017. This is the first time since the Treaty of Rome in 1957 that the European Union will finance defense at Community level. It is therefore a revolution. Defense is no longer made up of states, but now of the entire EU. In practice, the EU will finance defense research, almost a quarter of what the EU Member States are spending today in this area. The EU will also complement the funding of co-operative programs launched by the states, which is a strong incentive to multiply initiatives. Today, only 15% of European materials are manufactured in cooperation. With the Fund, we can hope to double that percentage in the next 10 years. The first projects to be financed by the European Defense Fund will be financed as early as 2019, and the Member States, together with the European Commission, are in the process of establishing the work program. In the draft EU budget 2021-2027, the European Defense Fund will reach 13 billion euros spending on defense over 7 years.
The Franco-German couple promotes the European defense. Europeans now doubt of US commitment to NATO, and more particularly on Article 5 and its obligations of collective defense due to the American president change of policy.
SOMAR GANEM Syrian Studies at the Institute of Oriental Studies (the 200th Anniversary of the Founding of the Institute of Oriental Studies of RAS)
DOI 10.35775/PSI.2019.32.2.015
SOMAR GANEM Post-graduate student at the Chair of theory and history of international relations, Peoples' Friendship University of Russia Latakia, Syria
SYRIAN STUDIES AT THE INSTITUTE OF ORIENTAL STUDIES (THE 200TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE FOUNDING OF THE INSTITUTE OF ORIENTAL STUDIES OF RAS)
The Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences (IOS RAS), one of the leading research centers in the world with a two-hundred-year history, conducts serious research on the Middle East issues. The Institute carries out fruitful and multilateral activities for the development of Russian Oriental studies, and its fundamental works have won recognition in the international scientific and expert community.
The interdisciplinary studies on Arab countries conducted at the Institute are of particular relevance and importance given the military-political and socio-economic turbulence in the Middle East and North Africa, as well as the fundamental geopolitical changes in the region associated with the so-called Arab Spring.
The Syrian Arab Republic is a "hub" of contradictions and an arena of conflict of interests of various political forces; it is here that a serious military confrontation is going on over the past 7 years. In this context the Syrian issue is of particular interest to scientists from the IOS RAS, as evidenced by numerous works devoted to that country. In addition to purely scientific significance, the studies of Russian Orientalists-Arabists are of practical importance also for the development of the strategy of interaction between Russia and the countries of the region.
Key words: the Institute of Oriental Studies, the Middle East, Arab countries, Syria, international relations, conflict resolution.
The Institute of Oriental Studies, founded in Saint-Petersburg in 1818 as the the Asiatic Museum under the Imperial Academy of Sciences, at the beginning of the XX century became known as the largest center for the study of the East because of the works of Russian scientists-orientalists, who specialized in history, archaeology, culture, religion, ethnography, linguistics and literary criticism of the East.
Its present name the Institute received in 1930 after a reorganization which fused the Asiatic Museum with the Turkology Group and the Institute of Buddhist Culture and into a brand new research center. Since 1950, the Institute of Oriental Studies is located in Moscow. Guided by the principles of internationalism, the right of peoples to self-determination, the Soviet leadership sought to develop multilateral relations with the countries of the East and made efforts to enlist the support of the Middle East countries for its foreign policy in the international arena.
In the 1970s, the Institute of Oriental Studies focused on the study of socio-political processes in Africa and Asia, including Arab countries. In 1980-2000, the focus was on the foreign policy sphere, many works were devoted to the interstate relations in the region, as well as Moscow's relations with the Middle East countries, which was important for establishing fruitful cooperation in bilateral and multilateral formats.
As for the St. Petersburg branch, since 2007 it began to function as a separate Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences called the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts of RAS (1).
To date, the studies of the Institute of Oriental Studies cover the whole range of Oriental issues. The study area extends from the West coast of North Africa, up to the Pacific Islands (1). A chronology of research covers all major periods of the history of the East, from ancient times to the present day.
The Institute of Oriental Studies publishes 18 periodicals including “Journal of the Institute of Oriental Studies RAS,” “Works of the Institute of Oriental Studies RAS,” “Asia and Africa today,” “Eastern Analytical studies,” “The Oriental Archive” and others.
As for the Syrian issue, the specialists of the Institute are particularly interested in both the political processes taking place in the country and the economic, social and cultural aspects of the development of Syria, taking into account the centuries-old ties between the two countries and the established close cooperation since the Soviet times. A significant contribution in this direction has been made by Primakov E. M., Director of the Institute of Oriental studies of the USSR Academy of Sciences in 1977-1985 [35].
The Syrian issues are addressed not only in scientific monographs and periodicals of the IOS RAS, numerous round tables, seminars, conferences, etc. are held on this topic, especially on the Syrian crisis settlement [24].
In 2004, the Institute of Oriental Studies published a book by Yurchenko V.P. dedicated to the problems of national security of Syria [39]. It highlighted the role of the army in the emerging concept of “defensive sufficiency,” which influenced the adoption in Damascus of foreign policy various decisions concerning Israel.
Hussein Khaled's work “Syria: socio-political development in 1963-1993” analyzed the process of making major political decisions taking into account the changes in the region and in the system of international relations at that time [20].
Orientalist Akhmedov V.M. [1] of the Institute of Oriental Studies RAS should be specially noted for his significant contribution to the study of modern Syria. In his works, he examines the politics and power of the modern Syrian Arab Republic, especially the development of the country under President Bashar al-Assad through the prism of regional modernization policy, as well as refers to the theme of the Syrian opposition movement in recent years.
A special place among the Arabists, engaged in the Syrian studies, belongs to the famous scientist Philonik A.O., who for several decades has been subjecting economic development of the Syrian Arab Republic to a thorough analysis and identified problems and promising areas for cooperation between Russia and Syria [15].
The issue of cooperation between Russia and Syria as well as Russia's position on the conflict in Syria was highlighted in the works of the famous Russian orientalist Zvyagelskaya I.D. [30]. It is also necessary to note the valuable works to Syrian problems by Professor Naumkin V.V., Director of the Institute of Oriental Studies, Academician of RAS, Doctor of Historical Sciences [8].
It is quite natural that in recent years, the researchers and experts focused on the Syrian crisis, which developed in the context of the Arab Spring. According to the experts from the Institute of Oriental Studies, the impact of the crisis crossed the national framework and reached the regional and global level, it revealed the clash of interests among the regional and global players in this Arab country and in the region as a whole, which in turn played an important role in prolonging the conflict for many years. The support by external actors of the existing armed Syrian opposition, represented by Islamic groups, stimulated the formation of a large hearth of radical Islamism in Syria. According to the experts of the Institute of Oriental Studies, it has contributed in general to the creation of numerous terrorist groups and their expansion in the region. The role and place of Islamism in the protracted war in Syria, which continues from 2011 to the present day, is analyzed in the works of Dolgov B.V. [9. P. 103-125]. The policy of the Syrian Republic in the Middle East region in different periods is studied in the works by Filonik A.O., Kosach G.G., Melkumyan E.S., Plotnikov N.D., Isaev V.A. and Krupyanko M.I. [18; 23; 28; 29; 19; 22. P. 184-204; 25].
At the Center for the study of the Middle East of the Institute of Oriental Studies, specialists in Iran conduct research on the current political and economic situation of Iran, on the specifics of the current situation of Iran in the international arena. The Iranists confirm the long-standing allied ties between Syria and Iran since the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988 [36].
The weakening of Iran, as well as the minimization of its influence in Iraq and in the region as a whole, are the strategic goals of the second bloc countries, primarily the US and Israel.
Special attention should be paid to the problem of the use of chemical weapons in the course of military actions that began in Syria in 2011. That issue has exacerbated the confrontation both within the country and in the international arena. After the events of August 21, 2013, when, according to the US intelligence, due to the use of chemical weapons by government troops more than 1.4 thousand people were killed, the countries of the second block began to accuse the official Damascus and more often began to voice the demand for the immediate withdrawal of the current President of Syria. However, according to experts, there were great doubts about the use of chemical weapons and some accused Islamists of chemical attack. Basically, the comments of the experts of the Institute coincided with the official position of the Russian Federation [14]. They stressed the need to transfer the entire Syrian stock of chemical weapons to international structures to avoid further provocations. However, despite Syria's consent to the transfer of chemical weapons with the help of active mediation of the Russian Federation, further, there were new chemical attacks in the country, and the US and its allies accused the Syrian government and, to some extent, Russia again. Experts point out that the goals of the above-mentioned blocs of countries in the Syrian conflict, as well as of the Middle East politics as a whole, are diametrically opposite. In addition, the Syrian crisis reveals the growing global confrontation between Russia and the United States along with their allies [27].
Today, there are many anti-government groups in Syria. Experts of the Institute of Oriental Studies contribute to the formation of an appropriate Russian strategy in this conflict, aimed at improving cooperation between the countries and reducing the threat of future armed clashes [13. P. 225-227]. It is noted in their works that the war in Syria supported and inspired by foreign countries gradually comes to an end. The only legitimate Syrian government controls most of the country. The Syrian opposition controls separate, unrelated parts of the Syrian land. After the restoration of control by the Syrian leadership over the entire territory of the country, the question of relations between Damascus and the countries that supported and unleashed international intervention against the Syrian people will arise, as well as the question about the relationship between Iran and Russia with the countries that sponsored and supported the intervention against sovereign Syria.
We believe that a “new” Middle East is being formed before our eyes, many countries of the world will have to accept this reality, thereby changing the policy towards Russia, Iran and Syria. It is important to support groups that resist Saudi aggression in Yemen. It is important to strengthen military and political cooperation with Libya and Egypt. It is also important to resist nationalism in Syria, Iraq and Iran.
An important place among the works published by IOS RAS is the work by Pir-Budagova E.P. “History of Syria. The XX century” [34]. The monograph analyzes the historical development of the Syrian Arab Republic, which took place during the XX century, since the Ottoman period and reaching the 90s.
An important issue is the assessment of the negative consequences of the war in the cultural and humanitarian sphere, the problem of preserving the historical and cultural heritage in the zones of conflicts and wars, including Syria. Thus, the album edited by Plotnikov N.D. and prepared by IOS RAS in 2016 under the title “Syria: a tragedy without a statute of limitations” is of great interest, it contains photographs of Syrian objects of cultural and historical heritage before and after their damage during the fighting. The book also attempts to assess the possibilities of restoration of these monuments.
Thus, the great role of the Institute of Oriental Studies in the development of both Russian and world science, as well as in building the strategy and tactics of foreign policy of the Russian Federation in the Middle East and North Africa, are proved by the results of many years of activities of talented Orientalists working in that scientific center. Fruitful work carried out by them in different areas of Oriental studies and covering different periods of human development, confirm the right of the Institute to be considered one of the best centers in the history of world Oriental studies. The special interest of the Institute's specialists in Syria, which resulted in numerous works devoted to this country, contribute to an adequate perception of its history and culture, which in turn is a necessity for the development of optimal policy in relation to the settlement of the Syrian conflict, given the complex circumstances of the international level.
NOTES:
(1) Official site of the Institute of Oriental Studies RAS. Access mode: http://ivran.ru/about-institute/history.
REFERENCES:
1. Akhmedov V.M. Siriyskoye vosstaniye: istoriya, politika, ideologiya [Syrian uprising: history, politics, ideology]. М.: Institute of Oriental Studies RAS, 2018 (In Russ.).
2. Akhmedov V.M. Konfessional'nyye i etnicheskiye aspekty siriyskogo krizisa [Confessional and ethnic aspects of the Syrian crisis] // Collected works: the Middle East and the present. 2018 (In Russ.).
3. Akhmedov V.M. Rol' konfessional'nogo i etnicheskogo faktorov v uregulirovanii siriyskogo krizisa [The role of religious and ethnic factors in the settlement of the Syrian crisis] // Collected works: Instability of the geostrategic space in the countries of the Middle and Far East. Topical problems. 2018 (In Russ.).
4. Akhmedov V.M. Vostochnaya Guta – perelomnaya tochka v siriyskoy voyne [Eastern Ghouta is a turning point in the Syrian war] // “Journal of the Institute of Oriental Studies RAS. 2018. No. 1 (In Russ.).
5. Akhmedov V.M. Iran i krizis v Sirii [Iran and crisis in Syria] // “Journal of the Institute of Oriental Studies RAS. 2018. No. 5 (In Russ.).
6. Akhmedov V.M. Vooruzhennaya islamistskaya oppozitsiya v siriyskom vosstanii [Armed Islamist opposition in the Syrian uprising] // Conflicts and wars of the XXI century. Middle East and North Africa / Akhmedov V.M., Volodina М.А., DEmchenko А.V., Dolgov B.V., Zvyagelskaya I.D., Kuznetsov V.А., Malysheva D.B., Melkumyan E.S., Minyazetdinov I.Kh., Mokhova I.М., Naumkin V.V., Podtserob А.B., Sarabiev А.V., Serebrov S.N., Philonik A.O. М.: Institute of Oriental Studies RAS, 2015 (In Russ.).
7. Arabskiy mir: kontrasty vodnogo balansa [The Arab world: contrasts in water balance] // Institute of Oriental Studies RAS. М., 2018 (In Russ.).
8. Baranovskiy V.G., Naumkin V.V., Akimov А.V., Berenkova N.А., Vasiliev А.D., Demchenko А.V., Zhigulskaya D.V., Zvyagelskaya I.D., Isaev L.М., Kuznetsov V.А., Minyazetdinov I.Kh., Plotnikov N. D., Samarskaya L.М., Sarabiev А.V., Serebrov S.N., Shlykov P.V. Blizhniy Vostok v menyayushchemsya global'nom kontekste [Middle East in a changing global context] // Institute of Oriental Studies RAS. М., 2018 (In Russ.).
9. Dolgov B.V. Siriyskiy krizis i fenomen «Islamskogo gosudarstva» [The Syrian crisis and the phenomenon of "Islamic state"] // Collected works: Arab world in the flow of events and time. М., 2016 (In Russ.).
10. Dolgov B.V. Siriyskiy konflikt: vnutrenniye i vneshniye factory [Syrian conflict: internal and external factors] // Paradigms of history and social development. 2018. No. 11 (In Russ.).
11. Dolgov B.V. Fenomen «Arabskoy vesny» 2011-2016 gg.: prichiny, razvitiye, perspektivy [The phenomenon of the Arab Spring 2011-2016: causes, development, prospects]. Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Algeria. М., 2016 (In Russ.).
12. Dolgov B.V. Siriyskiy krizis i radikal'nyy islamizm [Syrian crisis and radical Islamism] // Russia and the Muslim world. 2016. No. 7 (289) (In Russ.).
13. Dubrovskaya D.V. Institut Vostokovedeniya – proshloye i nastoyashcheye [Institute of Oriental Studies – past and present] // Historical sciences. 2018. No. 2 (In Russ.).
14. Eksperty: dannyye o primenenii v Sirii khimoruzhiya – provokatsiya oppozitsii [Experts: data on the use of chemical weapons in Syria is a provocation of the opposition] // RIA Novosti News Agency. 2013 // https://ria.ru/20130822/957897580.html (In Russ.).
15. Filonik A.O. Rossiya-Siriya: novyye realii ekonomicheskogo sotrudnichestva [Russia-Syria: new realities of economic cooperation]. Collected works: Middle East and the present. Issue 28. М.: Institute of the Middle East, 2006 (In Russ.).
16. Filonik A.O. Voyna v Sirii: ekonomicheskiye posledstviya i vozmozhnosti rekonstruktsii strany. Otsenki i idei [The war in Syria: the economic consequences and the possibility of reconstruction. Evaluation and ideas newsletter. Institute of Oriental Studies bulletin]. 2017. No. 10 (In Russ.).
17. Filonik A.O. Siriya: reformy i politika [Syria: reforms and policies] // Eastern Analytics. 2011. No. 2 (In Russ.).
18. Filonik A.O. Globalizatsiya i arabskiy mir [Globalization and the Arab world] // Middle East and the present. Issue 11. М., 2001 (In Russ.).
19. Gumanitarnaya operatsiya rossiyskoy armii v Sirii [The humanitarian operation by the Russian army in Syria]. Executive editor: Plotnikov N. D. Reviewer: Zakharov V.I. М.: Institute of Oriental Studies RAS, 2019 (In Russ.).
20. Hussein Khaled. Siriya: Sotsial'no-politicheskoye razvitiye 1963-1993 gg. [Syria: socio-political development in 1963-1993]: abstract of the thesis for the degree of candidate of historical sciences: 07.00.03 / Institute of Oriental Studies RAS. М., 1995 (In Russ.).
21. Iran v Sirii Sazhin V.I. Iran i siriyskiy konflikt [Iran in Syria Sazhin V.I. Iran and conflict in Syria] // Institute of the Middle East. 2016 // http://www.iimes.ru/?p=28373#more-28373 (In Russ.).
22. Isaev V.А, Filonik A.O. Siriya: politicheskaya evolyutsiya i potentsial'nyye ugrozy [Syria: political evolution and potential threats] // Russia and the Muslim world. 2008. No. 4 (In Russ.).
23. Kosach G.G. Mirnyy protsess na Blizhnem Vostoke: siriyskoye napravleniye [The peace process in the Middle East: the Syrian direction] // Oriental collection / Ed. Isaev V.A. М.: RAS, 2001 (In Russ.).
24. Kruglyy stol «Geopolitika siriyskogo krizisa v kontekste transformatsii sistemy mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniy» [Round table: "Geopolitics of the Syrian crisis in the context of transformation of the system of international relations" / IOS RAS] // http://ivran.ru/novosti-nauki?artid=11717 (In Russ.).
25. Krupyanko M.I. Obostreniye mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniy v Azii i Afrike i pozitsiya Rossii [Aggravation of international relations in Asia and Africa, and Russia's position] // “Journal of the Institute of Oriental Studies RAS. 2017. № 2 (In Russ.).
26. Мamedova N.М. Ekonomicheskoye sotrudnichestvo Irana so stranami Blizhnego i Srednego vostoka [Economic cooperation of Iran with the Middle East countries] // Collected works: Actual problems of the Middle East. Reviewer: O. P. Ivanov, Doctor of political sciences, Professor, Vice-rector for scientific work of the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Foreign Ministry. М., 2017 (In Russ.).
27. Mezhdunarodnaya nauchno-prakticheskaya konferentsiya «Natsional'noye primireniye i budushcheye Sirii» [International scientific and practical conference “National reconciliation and the future of Syria”]. М., 2016 (In Russ.).
28. Melkumyan E.S. SSAGPZ v global'nykh i regional'nykh protsessakh [The GCC in global and regional processes]. Moscow: Institute for the study of Israel and the Middle East, 1999 (In Russ.).
29. Melkumyan E.S. Sovet sotrudnichestva arabskikh gosudarstv Zaliva: kontseptual'nyye osnovy obespecheniya bezopasnosti [Cooperation Council of the Arab States of the Gulf: conceptual framework for security] // Security in the West, East and Russia: representations, concepts, situations / Editors in chief: Panarin S.А., Polyvyanny D.I. Ivanovo, 2013 (In Russ.).
30. Naumkin V.V., Аksenenok А.G., Zvyagelskaya I.D., Karasova Т.А., Kuznetsov V.А., Popov V.V., Sapronova М.А., Stegniy P.V., Filonik A.O., Shlykov V.P. Rossiya i Bol'shoy blizhniy vostok [Russia and the Great Middle East]. М., 2013 (In Russ.).
31. Naumkin V.V. Usiliya Rossii sygrali klyuchevuyu rol' v stabilizatsii situatsii v Sirii [Russia's efforts have played a key role in stabilizing the situation in Syria] // Institute of Oriental Studies RAS, Russian International Affairs Council. 2017. No. 4 (In Russ.).
32. Naumkin V.V. Zakrepleniye osvobozhdennykh territoriy v ramkakh «zon bezopasnosti» mozhet privesti k raspadu Sirii [Consolidation of the liberated territories within the "security zones" could lead to the disintegration of Syria] // Institute of Oriental Studies RAS, Russian International Affairs Council. 2017. No. 4 (In Russ.).
33. Naumkin V.V. Siriya: chto dal'she? [Syria: what’s next?] // Institute of Oriental Studies RAS. 2014. No. 4 (In Russ.).
34. Pir-Budagova E.P. Istoriya Sirii. KHKH vek [History of Syria. The XX century] / Institute of Oriental Studies RAS. М.:, 2015 (In Russ.).
35. Primakov Е.М. Konfidentsial'no: Blizhniy Vostok na stsene i za kulisami (vtoraya polovina XX – nachalo XXI veka) [Confidential: Middle East on stage and behind the scenes (second half of XX – beginning of XXI century)]. М.: Rossiyskaya Gazeta, 2012 (In Russ.).
36. Sazhin V.I. Iran i siriyskiy konflikt [Iran and conflict in Syria] // Institute of the Middle East. 2015 // http://www.iimes.ru/?p=26488 (In Russ.).
37. Yurchenko V.P. Siriya: problemy natsional'noy bezopasnosti [Syria: national security problems]. М.: Institute for the study of Israel and the Middle East, 2004 (In Russ.).
38. Zvyagelskaya I.D. Budushcheye Sirii: vozmozhnyye variant [The future of Syria: possible options] // Collected works: National reconciliation and the future of Syria. 2016 (In Russ.).
39. Zvyagelskaya I.D. Rossiya i «arabskoye probuzhdeniye»: vospriyatiye i politika [Russia and the "Arab awakening": the perceptions and politics] // Evaluation and ideas newsletter. М., 2013. Volume 1. No. 3 April 2013 (In Russ.).