AWAD AL-BADI, (Saudi Arabia) Center for Islamic Studies. King Faisal

Keywords: Russia, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia( KSA), Persian Gulf countries, politics, ideology

Needless to say, we are witnessing regional and international instability, the ultimate results of which hardly anyone can predict. The nature of the phenomena that we have observed and are currently seeing, and their increasing rapidity over the past three years, have thrown the Region (the Persian Gulf countries) and the entire world into a state of confusion, and have caused profound changes in the nature and dynamics of local, regional and international politics, and the final outcome of this major shift is difficult to predict, because any turn is possible.

The instability of the situation is not easy for Russia, as well as for other regional and international forces, in such a situation it is not able to develop a long-term strategy or claim that it has achieved its strategic goals in the Region. But at the same time, turbulence seems to give it a strategic chance to manipulate events, the situation and politics here and use the existing strategic gaps that are emerging in its national interests, to increase its role, to create an international and regional order of things that will allow it to maintain its significance and put all this at the service of its desired international an authority.

This is exactly what Russian foreign policy has demonstrated over the past period, because due to the turbulence in the Region, as a result of the "Arab Spring" and the ongoing Syrian crisis, Russia has found a chance to confirm and record its assessment of what happened and determine its position in the Region and in the international arena, which it has tirelessly expressed at every opportunity In this case, especially when it felt that America's weakness under the current administration was a fait accompli and created a strategic vacuum that would allow it to actively strengthen its position.

At first glance, it seems that Russia has successfully managed to use the current situation in the Region to become a decisive factor in regional and international politics.

Everyone was inclined to her main idea that the solution to the Syrian problem can only be political. In the Security Council, it successfully prevented the legalization of the use of military force against the Syrian regime, and failed the US attempt to force the Syrian regime to give up its chemical weapons by military force.

It has successfully resisted new decisions to impose additional sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program. It has successfully pursued a policy of smoothing out the contradictions between the West and Iran over the nuclear program, which, as a result, was recorded in the interim Geneva agreement on this issue.

It seems that many in the world have become convinced that Russia has achieved these successes in the international arena thanks to its foreign policy and that these successes have returned Russia to the sphere of international politics in earnest and for a long time.

Are these successes enough to convince us that the Russian Federation has become the pole of world politics, which will continue to play the former role of the Soviet Union? Does this mean that the states of the world should be ready for a new order in which Russia will have one of the leading positions?

Fyodor Lukyanov, one of the most prominent experts on Russian foreign policy, editor of the magazine "Russia in Global Affairs" and chairman of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, answers this question in this way:: "The Russian leadership understands the significance of international instability better than others, and it uses this understanding to its advantage. But as soon as it achieves another success, its understanding of what to do with this success decreases proportionally... Russia does not know what it wants to become in the future, what it wants to implement, what priorities it should choose for itself, and this is what is important. Russia has developed a concept of peace that allows it to achieve tactical success, but it clearly lacks-equally-a balanced concept of its own existence, the concept that defines strategy. Tactics are good, but they are limited in the short term."*

* Lukyanov F. Waiting for the future / / Ogonyok. 02.12.2013, N 47, p. 8; see also: Russia in Global Politics - http://www.glo-balaffairs.ru/redcol/V-vyzhidanii-buduschego-16224. The citation is given in reverse translation, because the article names only the author of the citation, there is no reference (note: an interpreter).

This assessment is probably correct in the sense that it indicates the absence of an ideology that determines the political image of the state, its opinion about itself and the world, which means that the above is reflected in the external steps of the state. Ideology alone is not enough to shape geostrategic interests and behavior in the international arena.

In a broader context, Russia is a leading Power by virtue of its position, geography, history, civilization, and culture. It was one of the leading factors in world politics in tsarist times and in the Soviet period. President Putin's vision of Russia and its importance in the world, which he wants to revive, is based on these considerations. Since its entry into the Russian political arena in 1999, it has not ceased - starting from national positions-to instill in the minds of a number of truths that have formed a kind of ideological framework for Russian foreign policy and its way of acting in the international arena:

- Russia is a stable Euro-Asian civilization, it has an established living space that it will not allow anyone to violate, it has common interests both in the east and in the West. If the collapse of the Soviet Union was a huge historical mistake, then there should be a structure that would unite the fragments of the states that were formed on Soviet territory, and this structure should be the CIS.

- The sovereignty of the state is a fundamental principle, and no matter what the reasons and motives, no one has the right to interfere in its internal affairs. Any international decisions concerning any State must take into account the principles of international law that protect the sovereignty of the State.

- It is unacceptable for Russia that the world is governed by any one state, whatever it may be, the international system should be a system of real cooperation.

- The West contradicts itself when it tries to put humanitarian principles into practice or calls for democracy, and what it does through interference creates anarchy and harms the interests of other states.

- Hard power remains the main component in international relations, only determination and consistency can make some people return to a sense of reality.

Based on this understanding, Putin says that the world needs a new Yalta, like the Yalta Conference of the Allied Powers in 1945 or the Congress of Vienna in 1815, when a new balance of power was found and spheres of international influence were established, in which Russia's role was defined.

This introduction to the main topic, we believe, is necessary in order to assess the impact of the Russian factor - in the light of recent international and regional developments - on Russian and our own perceptions in the Gulf States and in the KSA, in particular, its role in our perception of each other, and how it affects Russia's relations with other countries Gulf and KSA.

The experience of developing relations between Russia and the Gulf countries over the past twenty years has revealed an important truth for it: strengthening its role in our region requires a tougher force, a power policy.

Russia's relations with the Gulf states in the years leading up to the Syrian crisis witnessed unprecedented diplomatic contacts and reciprocal official visits by high-ranking officials following the collapse of the Soviet Union. These contacts culminated in high-level meetings, and the hope was born that these contacts and cooperation agreements would become a qualitatively new step, which goes beyond the usual diplomatic relations and marks a new stage, making them closer, giving them a strategic dimension, serving their national, regional and international interests, and allowing them to respond to the needs of the international community. on the challenges that constantly arise in international relations.

However, these relations have not developed to a level that would correspond to the significant international status of Russia and the Gulf states or reflect the importance that each side attaches to the other, despite the fact that the national interests of the Gulf countries and, consequently, Russia, required active actions to win the attention of the other and turn it into a kind of diplomatic capital, which increases the importance of each of the parties.

This challenge persists to this day, and relations have not risen to a strategic level, although both sides have been striving for this. Among the obvious reasons for this failure is the failure of the parties to create a solid foundation based on bilateral relations that would include politics, military cooperation, economics, science, culture, and information.

Why such a failure? What are the reasons? Is it the fault of Russia or the fault of the Gulf states? Or is it the fault of both sides?

I believe it's the fault of both sides.

If we ignore the emotional, moral and humanitarian aspects of the Syrian crisis, we will see that this crisis showed the significance of the lack of strategic rapprochement between the two sides - the Russian and the Gulf countries - in the previous period, since there was a different understanding of the essence of the Syrian crisis and how to overcome it. Russia has lost nothing significant either economically or strategically in its relations with the Gulf states, whose policies it sees as a continuation of those of the United States and the West.

And no matter how the Gulf states reacted to its steps, it would not affect its economy, politics or strategy in any way in its long-term ties with the West. Russia's strategic interests in Syria and Iran are specific and relate to its understanding of strengthening its security, role and presence in the region, which is also linked to economic and military interests.

This explains the firm position of Russia on the Syrian crisis, despite the moral losses from such a position. I would like to emphasize that it is precisely the lack of real mutual strategic interests between the two sides - Russia and the Gulf states - that has outweighed the balance in favor of the third party-Iran and Syria. This is the final result of Russia's close relations with these two countries. Their relationship has strengthened over the decades in many ways.

Is Russia really striving for such a result, i.e. seeking to have such relations at the expense of a third party? I think not, but the material, moral, political and strategic assessment of mutual interests with the Iranian and Syrian sides at all levels dictates such a course of action.

Therefore, the Russian position on the Iranian nuclear program becomes clear, its assistance in solving this problem with the West, in addressing it with soothing statements about this program, although Russia's position does not differ from the position of the Gulf states and the West on the issue of banning the transformation of this program into an atomic weapons program of Iran, since such an outcome and its strategic security, and the loss of manageability in the neighboring region.

So, is it possible for the parties, especially for Saudi Arabia, a key player in the Region, in the light of the new international situation and the situation in the Region, in the light of the mentioned history of relations between Russia and the Gulf countries, to make such progress in relations that would serve their short-and long-term mutual interests?

The answer to this question depends not only on Russia, but also on the Gulf states, as well as on the KSA specifically. What FLukyanov said about Russia's foreign policy can also be said about Saudi foreign policy: does the Kingdom know what it wants to become in the future? What role does the Kingdom want to play? What are its priorities?

I can also add the following: in the new international situation, there are no sufficient guarantees of its national security, which was provided by its former alliances and international ties. The Kingdom should pay very serious attention to this point. For the foreseeable future, at least, the United States will be in the process of reformatting its priorities and international commitments, and it is not at all impossible that it will leave the Gulf countries with their chronic and protracted conflicts, the peoples living here, to fight each other as they please, passing the baton of resolving the situation to the leading states of this Region.

It is possible that in such a situation, the United States will adopt the principle of separation of spheres of influence, when Iran and Israel, as strong and stable states, will be assigned the role of regional leaders with all the ensuing consequences for the national security of the Kingdom.

There is no logic, no hint that the United States, as a great power, will give up its dominant position and influence in the Gulf region, even if it does not need our oil, for the sake of the important role that it attaches to its strategy in Asia, its influence on China, and the guarantee of providing its allies in Asia with oil but they are likely to seek, in the light of the events of the Arab Spring and its outcome, not to link their strategic policies to the fate of political regimes in the Region, no matter how close their relations with them may be, especially after their relations with and support for the Mubarak regime for thirty years. They have not created a stable regime that serves their interests.

The sense of uncertainty that pervades the Gulf states and the world, the nature of changes in State policies, and the resurgence of multipolarity strongly dictate that the Kingdom, if it is to maintain its importance, capabilities, security, and future, should review its foreign policy, since following Western policies around the world no longer serves the Kingdom with the same effectiveness and, rather, makes it more effective. KSA is strategically vulnerable.

Such a review requires a thorough study of the changing international situation, the development of a clear strategic plan that guarantees national and regional security, allows us to respond to any changes in the situation, strengthen the internal situation and create our own capabilities that would have weight in the strategy of international politics. This is an achievable task.

I do not think that Russia wants to become an alternative to anyone, it does not seek to do so. It speaks the language of interests and clear pragmatism, so re-evaluating the importance of relations with Russia and strengthening them will serve our interests and advance our transformation.

The geography, history and many other elements of similarity between Russia and the Middle East make its presence in the Region a matter of course. It was present here before, it is present here now, it will remain here in the future. Therefore, the development of interests that are common to both states - Russia and the Kingdom - and strengthen their international and regional status, needs to raise their relations to a strategic level. But this requires both sides to use the potential of more intensive bilateral relations, which would create a solid foundation for a strategic partnership that serves the mutual good.

To create such a framework, if we had set it as our goal, I could recommend the following::

First, Russia has passed the transition period after the collapse of the Soviet Union and entered a period of internal and external self-identification. Its last spectacular appearance on the international stage is nothing less than the embodiment of its formation. The call and practical steps towards multipolarity, the absence of double standards in compliance with international regulations, reliance on international law, and the practice of using diplomacy allow leading regional Powers to play an independent role in implementing their stated goals. And if the Kingdom seeks to achieve the same goals, it would be appropriate for it to support some of Russia's positions that do not contradict the Saudi assessment, and to engage in a dialogue with it on issues that the Kingdom considers to contradict this assessment, especially on the situation in Syria.

Second, profound political, economic and social changes in Russia have led to the emergence of new political, economic, social and ideological forces that have levers of power in the life of Russian society, and they have real and direct influence on political and ideological decision-making. The most influential of these forces are oil and gas companies and military-industrial complex companies. Therefore, establishing contacts with these structures and cooperating with them is a direct way to establish contacts with decision-making centers in Russia on various issues, including bilateral relations with other states.

By strengthening economic relations,-

Cooperation with these institutions can directly influence the Russian establishment and ideological centers on issues of bilateral relations, regional and international issues. This cannot be done without a qualitative breakthrough that would break the ice in relations between the two countries. The conclusion of a major trade or military contract, as well as significant investments, could lead to this; they will open the door to close relations, allow the Kingdom to gain an important element of influence over the Russian leadership, and will indicate the seriousness of its intentions, its desire to establish close relations, as with the United States and European countries. In this regard, it should be mentioned that the lack of such an approach in previous years, although there was a long time of similar conversation on these topics, made the Russians finally convinced that the policy of the Kingdom is a reflection of the American attitude towards them.

I can also add that President Putin has made the development of Siberia a national priority as part of his policy shift to the east, while China is building strategic relations with Russia, pumping significant funds into the development of oil and gas production, transportation facilities and infrastructure there, which may be just the beginning.

Third, Russia and the Kingdom are the main producers of oil and gas, their combined production reaches a quarter of the world, and their economies and security, in different proportions for each, rely on these two products. And they, judging by all the economic data, will remain so for a long time. Therefore, our countries need coordination and cooperation in this area in order to maintain pricing that benefits their economies, avoid competition in the field of prices and production volumes, especially if we keep in mind that Russia is not yet seeking to join OPEC, both countries have powerful and rich companies for oil exploration and production. production and sales. Our countries are actively investing in these industries.

Cooperation between our companies in their areas of activity and the elimination of competition between them can provide our states with unprecedented authority and influence in the global economy, which will also mean an increase in their political importance. These relationships, which are linked to the highest strategic interests, will allow each of them to pay due attention to the interests of the partner.

Fourth: The Kingdom needs to gain strong positions in the fields of science, technology, space production, atomic research and the military-technical sphere, develop them for self-defense, and gain independence in these industries. Russia not only has all this, but also occupies a leading position in these areas, and, at the same time, it is not typical for it to impose its own conditions, as other countries with such capabilities do.

Russia has a clear interest in competing in the international arena as the owner of these technologies and occupying a special place there, which allows it to enjoy authority and influence, and provides it with the financial revenues necessary for the development of these industries.

Here we can take advantage of India's experience in relations with Russia. After all, India has successfully developed its technical potential in these industries with the help of Russia. In this regard, Russians wonder why the Kingdom does not send its students to study in Russia in a significant number, as other states do, although the Kingdom sends a significant number of them to educational institutions in countries with lower educational standards, and they see this as a political motive.

Fifth: from time to time, there is an ingrained element of distrust and misunderstanding between the Kingdom and Russia, due to Russia's relations with its Muslims, especially when there are some terrorist attacks attributed to "Wahhabis" in Chechnya, Dagestan and other North Caucasian republics.

In order to eliminate misunderstandings on this issue, we should always say that the stay of Muslims in Russia is their stay in their homeland, that they are part of Russia, that the Islamic world and the KSA consider them the golden fund of Russia in the Arab countries, and vice versa-the precious fund of Islam and the Islamic world in Russia, and that our mission is it does not contain any contradictions in their relation.

The repetition of this truth contributes positively to building trust between Russia and Islam, the trust that some world forces and Zionism are trying to destroy and break the strong historical connection between us. Confirmation of this position by the KSA, which plays a key role in the Islamic world, will serve to strengthen such confidence.

Sixth: intensification of contacts and their development in all areas with an exchange of views on the problems of mutual relations and related issues. The search for favorable opportunities for the development of relations is a necessity, but progress on this path depends on filling it with specifics in all areas. Mutual interests should be linked by joint projects that create a proper basis for the permanent maintenance of relations.

Seventh: the new Russian elite does not know the Kingdom very well, and although they have no prejudice against it, they are victims of misinformation in the Russian and Western press about the Kingdom and its situation.

In order to eliminate the distorted image of the Kingdom in the Russian media, it is necessary to establish contacts with this new elite by encouraging media representatives, intellectuals, academics and new businessmen to travel to the Kingdom and get to know it from the inside, strengthen relations with them at the humanitarian level and exchange visits. To do this, it is also necessary to establish contacts with Russian ideological centers, which have recently been created on the model of Western ones, by employees who are experts in ideology issues and have an influence on the formation of a new Russian consciousness.

Eighth: in order to develop the idea of common strategic interests and ways to implement them, both sides need to create a high-level official structure of a common plan, aiming at the future development of relations between the two countries.

There is no doubt that success in building strong relations with Russia also has additional value if we are to pursue a balanced foreign policy in the multipolar world that is emerging before our eyes.

Translated from Arabic by S. A. CHUKANOV

From the editorial office. The journal presents an article by Zh. V. Petrunina, Doctor of Historical Sciences, devoted to the importance of foreign investments, in particular, Japanese ones, for the sustainable socio-economic development of the Russian Far East.

At the same time, I would like to emphasize one geopolitical aspect, namely, the strategic importance of a balanced nature of external investment in this region. So, according to the American expert S. Blank, for Russia, Japanese capital investments (as well as South Korean ones) are of no small importance not only in geo-economic, but also in geopolitical terms, balancing the fast-growing economic ties and investments of the PRC and helping "avoid excessive dependence on China in the development of the Russian Far East." Energy is "the key to solving the ambitious task of restoring Siberia and the Far East and recognizing Russia as a great Asian power," he said. "Success in the regional development of the Russian Far East depends on the balance of foreign investment from Japan, South Korea, and especially China." So far, in his opinion, China has established itself as a " guardian of Russia's Asian ambitions." "Russia's inability to develop the Russian Far East independently through balanced foreign investment is detrimental to the achievement of its main goal - to establish itself as an independent major Asian power."*

It seems that the American expert somewhat exaggerates the economic "dominance" of China in the east of our country and its impact on relations between Russia and China - two strategic partners competing with the United States, but his analysis also shows a rational grain.

E. M. RUSAKOV, Candidate of Historical Sciences, columnist of the magazine "Asia and Africa Today" on the problems of East and South Asia

* Blank Stephen. Russia's Far East Policy: Looking beyond China. Russia. Nei. Visions 54. August, 2010, p. 4 - 6 // Russia NIS Center. Ifri, Paris - IFRI_ifriblankrussianfareastengjuly2010prooi.pdf

Постоянный адрес данной публикации: