Prospects of preserving Russia as an "axial" state and the future of Eurasia, determining the place of Central Asia and Afghanistan in the development of European-Russian-Asian trade in the XXI century-these are the main subjects considered in V. I. Maksimenko's theses. The problem of new structuring of the Eurasian space is considered as another act of territorial and political division of the world in the context of"a big step in the development of communication tools". The history of Eurasian geopolitics is succinctly analyzed on the basis of a unique factual material. However, a detailed consideration of the geopolitical aspect of the problems left their geo-economic component somewhat in the shade, the project significance of which, in my opinion, is very high.

The role of Russia, the United States, China, India, Iran, Turkey, and other players in the field of redivision of the Asian space and building a new Eurasian configuration should be considered taking into account its past, present, and future.

The past creates prerequisites and trends that guide the historical course of development. The present shows and captures this development. The future sets goals and creates projects. So, the Great Silk Road (as the most ambitious project-

(c) 2003

page 119

In the previous period of history, it was a certain geohistorical matrix that defined the format of interaction between the countries of Europe, Asia, and North Africa, both geographically (spatially) and functionally (economically and temporally). Over time, the Great Silk Road, as a concrete historical and economic reality, disappeared, but its geo-economic paradigm remained. It poses a historic challenge to those powers in the Eurasian space that want to take their rightful place in a rapidly transforming world.

Until the end of the 20th century, the USSR-Russia embodied the "continental power of Eurasia". It is obvious that at the beginning of the third millennium, the Russian Federation will either have to solve the vital task of preserving its Eurasian integrity, or the Eurasian schemes closed to it will forever sink into oblivion.

The concepts and existing projects for the new redistribution of the Eurasian space with Russia's participation can be grouped into three interrelated groups: integration, allied and geo-economic.

The first two include nine conceptual schemas ¹ :

1) in terms of prevalence, influence and project development, the first place is occupied by Eurasian integration, the development of which belongs to a group of emigrants of the 1920s headed by N. S. Trubetskoy. At the end of the XX century, Eurasianism, having found a second wind, develops the theory of "bridges", but with a different content. The new Russian Eurasianism is purposefully formed as a political trend and is represented by a number of political parties. Projects of the CIS, the Eurasian Economic Community, and the Union State compete sluggishly in the post-Soviet space;

2) Pan-Slavic integration-implying the unification of all Slavic peoples under the primacy of Russia (expressed by Horvat Yu. Krizhanich in the XVII century and the Czech I. Dobrovsky in the XVIII century). In line with the concept of "pan-Slavism", the largest neo-COMECON project provides for the integration of all Slavic peoples into "Greater Russia";

3) Orthodox integration is based on the idea of "Moscow - the Third Rome", first conceptually expressed at the beginning of the XVI century by Archimandrite Philotheos, and from the time of Patriarch Nikon until 1917, it secretly determined Russia's Balkan policy. Currently, it is eclecticly implemented in the activities of a number of representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate and political parties;

4) pan-European integration was manifested in the years of perestroika from the late 1980s in the form of a project of a Pan-European House, suggesting Russia's rapid assimilation of basic European, universal values. In commercial and geopolitical terms, the project provided the opportunity to create a through trade highway from London to Vladivostok;

5) alliance with Germany as a continuation of the very old Russian foreign policy tradition, which was initiated by Peter I; option-Russia-Germany-Japan axis;

6) the alliance with France is also a long-standing tradition, systematically voiced in Russia by mostly liberal politicians, starting with Emperor Alexander II and his Chancellor A.M. Gorchakov;

7) union with the "world of Islam" (I. Gasprinsky, 1896).;

8) Union with India and China (the idea of 1998 by E. M. Primakov);

9) an alliance with the United States is a fairly popular idea between the mid-19th and mid-20th centuries. One of its last major exponents was I. A. Ilyin, who considered the United States to be the only Western country not hostile to Russia.

page 120

Each of the above-mentioned concepts corresponds to its own projects, around the implementation of which a sharp political struggle continues in the state policy of the Russian Federation. Let me just say that none of these projects, in my opinion, guarantees Russia a decent future.

In particular, a geopolitical approach that combines the concepts and projects discussed above is not a miracle cure.

The entire history of the 20th century is a living experience of how geopolitical projects were implemented in Eurasia. The unity of the geo-economic space of Eurasia was ensured by geopolitical ties. As a result, the peoples of the two continents live today in a monstrous conglomeration of smoldering conflicts of every conceivable configuration and background. First of all, this is due to the current configuration of "territorial - political power" and the active military-political introduction of the United States into the region of the new Central Asia (Central Asia and the Middle East).

This does not mean that in the struggle for the Eurasian legacy, one should completely abandon the use of geopolitical tools, and this applies primarily to Asia. At the same time, it is impossible not to see that it is impossible to solve the problems of Eurasia that have arisen only by means of geopolitics: the inevitable military solution in this case is fraught with a global catastrophe (nuclear, chemical, bacteriological weapons). A weakened Russia is not today a guarantor of Eurasian balance and security, since it needs at least to confirm its Eurasian integrity. The proposed variants of geopolitical alliances not only do not exclude the emergence of conflict situations on the borders with third countries, but also directly provoke them.

In short, we need to find a new paradigm for building international relations in Eurasia. And here it is logical to turn to geo-economic conceptualism, but taken in a broader context, not in a narrow economic sense. Its particular relevance for Russia lies in the fact that it allows us to develop new "rules of the game" and at the same time make full use of such a Russian competitive advantage as innovation potential. As a result, the most difficult and painful problems for the country are being read in a new way: the creation of a national innovation system, the long-term development of regions, the resolution of issues about disputed territories, and the identification of a circle of strategic partners and competitors.

It is no coincidence that in the 1990s new Eurasian schemes of so-called transcontinental bridges were developed (L. Lyarush, S. Rogov, etc.). Their rational grain lies in the fact that they are built in the categories of geo-economic strategy and economic realities, as well as de-ideologized. However, they are too global, which is attractive, but carries an all-or-nothing dilemma. V. L. Tsymbursky made an attempt to get away from the common Eurasian determinism, who proposed the option of simultaneous deployment of the Great Silk Road as a system of three routes with meridian ties. However, Russia here turns out to be the periphery of the Pacific world, with a noticeable non-European orientation.

In my opinion, the best strategic perspective for Russia is provided by the project " Transport and Communication System of Russia "(TCS of Russia), the essence of which is the rapid deployment of meridian-latitude transport and communication complexes: a) connecting the Russian Federation with its neighbors; b) providing Russia with alternative access to the southern seas and ports;

c) linking together the trans-regional Russian organism ² .

page 121

The main novelty of the TCS of Russia project is the use of geo-economic tools in the implementation of the meridian-latitude scheme. This combination allows, while maintaining the integrity of the design, to carry out its modular implementation. Even the creation of three or four modules in the project system is already a result. At first, the availability of initial resources while minimizing costs will be crucial.

The project under consideration involves two levels of implementation - Russian and international. At the Russian level, the main strategic effect can be achieved by creating a powerful trans-regional transport and communications corporation that links the Russian space together. Achieving international advantages is associated with the formation of geo-economic unions of Russia on a mutually beneficial basis with the states of Southern Eurasia and the Greater Pacific Ring. The project can be extended to the entire Eurasian space, initially, for example, as part of the formation of a unified transport system in Eurasia. Prototypes of such cooperation are already identified projects, such as the Blue Stream project.

The geo-economic orientation of the TCS of Russia project contains serious advantages precisely because of the primacy of geo-economic rather than ideological and political nature, allowing us to build an alternative space for strategic planning and involve countries and international organizations of various ideological, religious and political orientations. This approach also allows us to get out of the vicious circle of traditional geopolitical development schemes, since it translates the problem of Russia's revival into a fundamentally different language.

The project actually turns Moscow into a "port of five oceans" (the fifth is air), which makes Russia little dependent on the international situation, including political instability in certain regions of the Eurasian continent ^.3

One of the pioneers in the implementation of the first stage of the project can be the area of the Caspian Strategic sub-region, where 2-3 routes can be put into operation on an integrated basis within one to two years. At the same time, the role of the main means of organizing the continental geo - economic space will be performed by the Eurasian transport and communication corridors.

Will Afghanistan turn into "the most important geo-economic link in the development of European-Russian-Asian trade in the XXI century"? Today, it is in this space that the "Asian card"is being played. The route from Afghanistan leads to the ports of Pakistan and passes through the territory of a number of CIS countries. In autumn 2002, Uzbekistan signed an agreement on the construction of a railway through Afghanistan to Pakistan. Russia mainly supplies international humanitarian aid to Kabul through Tajikistan. But at present, Afghanistan is suffocating in the grip of geopolitics. The potential of geo-economic tools is not used and has been replaced by pseudo-geo-economics - drug production and distribution.

Unlike Afghanistan, the Islamic Republic of Iran is actively involved in Eurasian geopolitical projects. The current route of the North-South international transport Corridor (ITC) through Iran is so far Russia's only real access to the south seas. The Afghan corridor, if opened, would certainly give the entire MTK system greater stability. In my opinion, the geo-economic significance of Iran and Afghanistan is the same for Russia.

Russia is directly interested in further development of the North-South MTC routes, as this will mean: 1) reorientation of part of the transit traffic flows from Southeast Asia, the Asia-Pacific Region, the Middle East to Europe (going through

page 122

Suez Canal) to Russia; and 2) active involvement of Russian regions in international trade with the countries of Southeast Asia, the Asia-Pacific region, the Middle East, and Europe.

An urgent task is to extend the North-South International Transport Corridor to the southeast (Indian Ocean) and form a through international transport corridor to Singapore, for the delivery of goods from the countries of the Asia-Pacific region and Southeast Asia to Europe (Western Europe, the CIS, the Baltic States, Russia). Currently, the India-Iran-Russia section is operating, providing cargo transportation mainly within the framework of bilateral trade and economic relations of these three states parties to the Agreement on the North-South MTK, as well as a number of CIS countries. Cargo from Singapore, which is a key transshipment base for Southeast and Asia-Pacific countries, is sent to Europe by sea through the Suez Canal, bypassing Russia. By creating the Iran-Singapore sea link, Russia will become not only a transit area for cargo between the Asia-Pacific and Southeast Asian countries and Europe, but also a country that actively participates in international trade.

In addition to existing and promising traditional schemes, there are also outlines of new modules of international cooperation. As an example, I would like to cite the Shanghai Cooperation Organization( SCO), which reached a new level of activity after the summit of heads of SCO member States held in St. Petersburg on June 7, 2002. Currently, the organization is faced with the task of designing the selected areas of development and developing optimal forms of organization. The dynamic development of events in the Central Asian region in recent years is also an incentive for holding international actions along the lines of the Shanghai Six.

In particular, the implementation of the "Asian Forum" program could contribute to strengthening the integration of efforts of the SCO member states in the economic, political, socio-cultural fields. The strategic objective of the program is to develop and participate in the practical implementation of the continental paradigm of humanitarian and economic activity in the XXI century. Its tasks:

identification of areas of complementarity between the economies of the SCO countries (multi-profile transport corridors, oil and gas sector and energy, flow of services and investment, science and high technologies, training and education, environmental and water management issues);

preparation and participation in the implementation of targeted programs of humanitarian and economic cooperation and security within the SCO;

formation of a Russian and international scientific community capable of identifying and investigating problems of humanitarian and economic cooperation and security of the SCO member states, development of recommendations for practical use of the project results;

creation of mechanisms for supporting and promoting the project at the level of state, commercial and public structures of the SCO member states.

A special feature of the program is the study of problems of humanitarian and economic cooperation and security (political, social, military, economic, environmental, sanitary, etc.) in two aspects - theoretical and practical. Fundamental analysis of the problem is aimed at expanding the horizon of strategic forecasting; applied - at finding optimal algorithms for solving urgent problems related to the development and security of the region (tactical planning and forecasting).

Participants of the "Asian Forum" program are SCO member states (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, China, Russia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan); observer countries (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, USA, Iran, Korea, etc.); other countries, as well as-

page 123

the same international and national organizations interested in cooperation with this region.

It is clear that in the absence of an integrating component, Russia may lose the benefits of its strategic position. The future world space will be built without taking into account its interests. Then such options for dividing the Asian part of Eurasia as the allocation of Afro-Asian (Arab countries), China-Asian (Greater China), Indo-Asian (India and a number of neighboring states) and Euro-Asian worlds (CIS and EU countries) can be implemented. Iran will remain a special region of Eurasia (possibly in alliance with Turkmenistan, Armenia, and Azerbaijan).

It seems that the" Russian project " of the beginning of the XXI century should develop in a consistently formed spiritual, cultural and social context, with the involvement of all the richness of the conceptual heritage developed over the centuries of Russian history. Based on this, and taking into account the emerging weakness of the geopolitical position of the Russian Federation, it is advisable to proceed to the implementation of a geo-economic development strategy, creating a new context for international interaction. Then Russia, having (ideally) geopolitical alliances with its natural allies (France, Serbia, India, Iran, Armenia, and in the future - the United States) on the principle of "make friends not with your neighbor, but through your neighbor", will at the same time be able to solve problems with its "neighbors" (Germany, Turkey and their allies). clients in Eastern Europe and the CIS, China, Japan, and Afghanistan) using geo-economic methods.

Geo-economic cooperation is also a powerful tool for implementing dialogue among civilizations, both in socio-cultural and economic terms. Here, the theme of tourism comes to the fore, which, obviously, can become one of the most important dominants of human development at the beginning of the ^third millennia4 . As a result of the development of international tourism, a dialogical cultural and informational environment would be formed, which is also important for creating a favorable business environment, especially for geo-economic projects.

Russia's leadership in the practical solution of the most complex problems of the world economy, including in the Eurasian space, is possible only in the context of Eurasian geo-economic integration by projecting the East-West geo-economic axis, this "Silk Road of the XXI Century".

notes

¹ For more information about these concepts and related projects, see: V. Yurtaev, G. Sitnyansky. Russia in Southern Eurasia // Economic strategies. July-August 2000, pp. 40-47.

² The idea of the project was first conceptualized in 1993 by V. I. Yurtaev and A. I. Neklessa, analysts of the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia.

³ Any exclusive corridor is vulnerable. Traffic on it may be stopped by any natural disaster or malicious intent. Therefore, a country that relies only on it is also vulnerable. This applies to each of the three specified lines, taken separately. The Trans-Siberian Railway may, as in 1998, be blocked by miners or other protest movements. The Northern Silk Road, like the Southern One, is in danger of being paralyzed by the unrest of the Xinjiang Turks. Any conflict in the Gulf, especially one involving the United States and NATO, can block Iran's ports. But the system as a whole - with three independent entrances and many railway and road exits to different areas of the continent, equipped with information support that would take into account the situation on all these routes - is practically invulnerable. The outlined structure would guarantee its stability and uninterrupted functioning. (See: Tsymbursky V. L. Geopolitics for the "Eurasian Atlantis" / / Pro et Contra. 1999. Autumn, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 161-162).

⁴ The moral and political results of 2001 have shown the correctness of the United Nations 'decision to develop the idea of a" culture of peace "by means of a"dialogue among civilizations". After the events of September 11, the need for such a dialogue became even more obvious. And international tourism can become one of its most effective means.

Permanent link to this publication: