U-turn away from the West… towards somewhere

04.06.2022 10:15

U-turn away from the West… towards somewhere

Divide an orange "justly"

It is difficult to disagree with the thesis that the current events indicate the beginning of a reformatting of the entire system of international relations. The prerequisites for this have evolved over the years. They were written about, talked about, argued about, warned about. They debated and discussed, as they say, “on the fact of the problem” - recognizing the objective nature of the contradictions, no recipes were offered. Sooner or later, the contradictions had to reach a critical point, and this eventually happened.

Today, one can discuss for a long time how long the operation in Ukraine will last, whether the strategy and tactics have been chosen correctly, how many settlements have been liberated, in the end, where will the new border between Russia and Ukraine, and maybe even Russia and some kind of Union of Lublin, be drawn in 2022. Regardless of the final results, the process of "divorce" between the West and Russia has become inevitable.

For the sake of objectivity, it should be recognized that the “divorce” process did not begin today or yesterday, in one form or another it has been going on since the early 2000s, and unsuccessful flirting with Europe is not only the result of miscalculations, mistakes and excessive expectations on our part ( on the part of a number of European circles too), but the finale of objective circumstances, the main of which is the failure of the current model of global governance and the institutions associated with it.

For more than fifty years, elites have been meeting and considering issues of "sustainable development" and "regional alignment", creating mechanisms for generating demand in "third countries" and allocating resources. Over the years, dozens of regulatory institutions have grown up, centers for setting common rules and norms. Many centers and institutions were created, but the main issue that underlay these processes (although not openly named) was not resolved. The world was created as an analogue of a global corporation, a closed joint-stock company, the shares in which were supposed to belong to national and transnational elites. It was not possible to divide the orange "in fairness".

Moreover, supranational institutions were not engaged in regulation according to the developed rules, but earned profit, that is, they did things that were directly opposite to their purpose. Participation in such institutions for Russia was a deliberately losing option - a share in the management of a joint-stock company equal to a real contribution to the world system would not have been allocated to Russia anyway. But it was not only in our country - none of the major players, in addition to well-known characters, could count on a fair share. The global joint-stock company has gone bankrupt, the shareholders go home to calculate losses and think about what to do next.

Management institutions have been formed for a long time - continuously since the post-war period, and during the divorce of the parties it turned out that during these periods borders and states were formed, threads of economic and political ties were woven, which are completely artificial, do not bring income to the "common world boiler", moreover, subsidized by any means possible. These connections do not take into account either social or cultural realities, they do not even take into account natural regional features. Divorce and disappointment of the participants of such a concert was inevitable.

But something else is also inevitable - the realization of the need to develop new working institutions. The question is what base?

And we'll go to the North

With the start of the military operation, with the introduction of "hellish sanctions" and even the "cancellation" of Russia by the West, our state faced a natural question: where to move on?

And the first thing that came to mind: “and we will go“ to the North ”, in the sense - to the East, if you don’t want to buy from us and sell to us - we will go to China. And we will also go to the South, the Middle East and Africa. “Upstairs” remembered that they had already drawn the projects of the “North-South” corridor three times, and it doesn’t matter what the problems were – now we’ll definitely cut through the corridor. What for? Necessary.

Maybe the author is exaggerating, but everything that happens looks exactly like this - it is strained. Because under this, obviously, there is no vision and the very project of how Russia generally sees this newest system of global institutions for itself. Without this, you can turn anywhere, you can plan any corridors and participation in the silk or silver routes, there will be no use.

Today there is a popular discussion around the fact that the world will be divided into new currency zones. Yes, it will. But the problem is that the creation of a currency zone is a superstructure, the shaping into one whole of what was created before that, naturally through multi-level political and trade ties. The currency area is the top of the pyramid, but the pyramid must have a bottom.

The world is waiting for the new Vienna Congress of the "great powers", each of which will be a representative and spokesman for the interests of its "big region". And for the right to participate in this congress, at which the parameters of shares in a joint-stock company and new rules will be determined anew, many participants will fight, and there is only one condition for obtaining an “entry ticket” - the right to represent one or another regional cluster.

This is the United States, which today is gathering its new alliance to participate in the "Congress", where Europe, Canada, Australia and Japan delegate their powers to them, fighting for the right to represent India. This is China with its positions in Southeast Asia and Africa. Great Britain, which is trying to play its "empire" and relies on influence in the Middle East. Turkey, which seeks to become a representative not only of the Turkic world (Turan), but also to grab something from the former heritage of the Ottoman Empire. Iran, which actually became the leader of part of the Islamic world. Let's not forget that Brazil, although largely under the influence of the United States, is now forming its own system of alliances, and the notorious UNASUR is only one of the bricks in this building that is currently being built.

The participants are not preparing for a great war – for a big elective conference, which, however, does not exclude escalation, but a big war is not inevitable along the way. Turning from the West somewhere to the south or east, or to the southeast, Russia, first of all, must imagine what this will give her in terms of future representation of interests. Where are the regions whose interests we will (if we will) represent and how much their interests weigh on future scales.

Today, in the opinion of the author, there is a somewhat biased and overly optimistic opinion about why our resources globally determine the situation in the markets. Note that only oil reserves of only two states - Venezuela and Iran are estimated at 33% of the world, and their implementation is largely artificially hampered. Our oil determines the situation on the markets for the reasons of the current "return price consensus", but on a new round of globalization, these production facilities will inevitably be reactivated to ensure new economic growth.

The Iranian press openly expresses fears that in the very near future their oil and gas will enter into direct competition with ours, if only because, “turning to the East”, Russia is already crowding out traditional buyers of Iran. Venezuela does not yet sell oil to the United States only because the Biden administration continues to put forward absurd conditions for J. Guaidó's participation in the process. But sooner or later reality will force us to abandon the absurd. Making plans for representation, focusing mainly on the medium-term situation in the commodity markets, is a shaky path.

Our speakers gradually accustomed us to such terms as “Silk Road”, “Southern Corridor”, “Northern Route”, etc. Only often there are no answers to the question why, despite the seeming “efficiency” of these routes, their development is extremely limited . The "Northern Sea Route", in fact, as it was the path along which our LNG and the "Northern Delivery" goes, has remained so. The North-South corridor is still a frozen project, and it has every chance to remain in this state of "permafrost". The "Silk Road", which is "One Belt", is barely moving, and not at all because there is nothing to carry along it - the fact is that this is not a trade route at all as such.

At one time, the author was present at the discussion of projects that, in theory, should have become parts of this path, and never in memory did it go further than the discussion (for years). And not because there was no elaboration - it became clear that China views the elements of this path as banal control over existing logistics. And this logic became more and more obvious due to the fact that the world trade turnover has not been growing corny for many, many years.

While the “developed countries of the West” were struggling to generate growing demand, China, in conditions of stagnation, the absence of this growth as such, was solving a different problem - taking control of existing trade routes, it collected a logistics margin from them. The sales market did not grow, but the control over logistics guaranteed income even in the face of stagnation in demand. Growing in trade routes, China made a profit even in the face of a zero growth in the demand of its consumers. That is why China could discuss this or that new project for years, but at the same time it bought entire ports (Pakistan, Myanmar, etc.) into ownership.

How many illusory pictures were shown when the prospects for overland routes from China to Europe were discussed, and few people thought that if we remove the raw material component, crushed stone, grain, bulk oil, fuel, etc., then all other transportation is tied to container lines, which cannot compete not only with road transport, but also with rail transport.

Someone, in turn, drew fascinating pictures of how container ships go in orderly caravans to Europe in the invigorating northern latitudes, they say, "it's faster." Yes, faster, but the peculiarity of container lines is that along the road container ships follow the route from port to port, unloading and loading again: container ships are mail, a mail car that stops at each station, not because the driver wants to, but so much more profitable. The flight is longer by 20 days, but among the buyers are Vietnam, India, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Arabia, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, Egypt, and then Europe. In each port, unloading and loading in each port - this is what is called a “container line”. How many buyers will the container ship meet on the Northern Sea Route, on its way to Amsterdam?

How many containers can be taken for rail transportation? 200-220, if you make an effort and work technically, then even up to 400. In the harsh reality, the numbers are more modest and significant. What about a container ship? Not the most monstrous class - 16. At the same time, goods by rail will move from China to the center of the European Union not at all much faster than a sea container ship. In recent years, rail traffic from China has increased, and significantly, but it has increased for the domestic Russian market, not for European transit.

Trojan rampart

Is it possible, in principle, to seriously talk about the fact that in the future our state will become a “great transit hub” connecting Europe and the East, if economic interaction is beneficial in reality only if we ourselves represent a powerful market, we ourselves consume from the East and ourselves sell to the East? To the East, if a new Trojan Wall is rising in the West.

At the beginning of the article, the question was raised that the future world is a system of representation of big powers in front of their regional clusters (who is closer - "currency zones"). And how do we see the basis of such representation? A transit hub that is not profitable for either the manufacturer or the end customer?

A business plan can be worked out on paper simply exceptionally, but if the very foundations of the plan are erroneous, the vision of the prerequisites of the project is erroneous, the result will be unpleasant. Building transit instead of its own market, in the opinion of the author, is an occupation, due to the peculiarities of world economic geography, unpromising, however, very capacious for those structures that draw and present such plans.

The next question is that if the future rules are determined by the states representing their economic clusters, then whom and how will Russia represent in such negotiations?

A new Trojan Wall is rising in the West, and we do not yet know where its final boundaries will lie. Turkey is preparing for a similar role in the southwest, Iran in the south, China in the Far East, in Central Asia we are at the intersection of interests of both Iran (Tajikistan, Turkmenistan), and Turkey (Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan), and China ( together). The problems that both the EAEU and the CSTO are experiencing ultimately rest exactly on this issue.

How can these forms of organization represent the interests of participants in a future global joint-stock company? What shares is Russia ready to guarantee to each of the participants in future global negotiations?

Some might say that Russia is capable of representing itself, and that is enough. Unfortunately no. The role that our country plays today in the commodity markets is determined by the restructuring of the economic model and forms of international cooperation. As soon as the world develops a new set of rules and institutions, raw material imbalances will be gradually overcome. Currency zones and regional clusters will balance each other.

The advantage of our situation is that objectively the world is in the process of divorce, the minus is that if we paint illusory pictures and think that all this is for a long time, then the world, with difficulty, of course, but will remarry, without us. And the property will also be divided without us.

The reversal from the West should not be a situational fluctuation, not somewhere to the East or the South in order to attach raw materials somehow and to someone at a discount in exchange for gray imports. Like it or not, the only way to create a competitive economic cluster that Russia can represent in future negotiations is Central and Central Asia.

Modern "information philosophers" convince us that Russia must present to the world a new set of civilizational ideologies. It is possible that in the world of the new balance there will be a lively and practical interest in this, but only on one condition - if Russia will represent the interests of other, minority shareholders in the Board of Directors of the new joint-stock company and protect them. But for this it is necessary to compete with ambitious neighbors and offer this region a model of such representation.

The difficulty is that in order to develop such a model, and, in fact, to form the current concept of a strong single market, it is extremely necessary to get rid of many of the usual mental constructs and myths. After all, our “rulers of thoughts” from the expert media environment are enthusiastically describing the “USSR 2.0 project”, quoting L.N. And it doesn’t matter that it’s not very clear in the region, if Russia has an alliance with China, then what prevents us from “cooking” ourselves in the orbit of China itself? That the so-called “national elite” does not want “back to the future 2.0” and often simply uses these narratives in internal political struggles.

And all this against the background of the fact that in objective reality the common market is growing with great difficulty, in fact, the trade turnover is artificially swaying. You cannot build a representation of interests on such a basis. After that, is it any wonder that without any narratives, China is buying up the entire economy of the region, Iran is opening convenient gates for trade with the Middle East, and Turkey is working in the military-political field?