The US ambassador to the UN, Nicky Haley, said that Russia does not have good friends. Given that on the eve of voting in the UN Security Council for the Russian resolution condemning the American attacks on Syria, Kazakhstan preferred to abstain, these words sparked a new round of eternal debate: can we in principle have allies or not?
When Russia introduced a resolution to the UN Security Council condemning the US aggression against Syria, only three countries from 15 voted for it. Apart from ourselves, it was China and Bolivia. Eight members of the Security Council, led by three permanent (USA, Great Britain and France) voted against, and four abstained. As the head of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the Federation Council Konstantin Kosachev wrote after the vote, "the unpleasant news" was not in the outcome of the vote, but in who and how he voted -
"Almost without surprises. And almost without comment. Except for one item. Not expected".
There is no difficulty in deciphering the diplomatic politeness of the senator. It is clear that this is Kazakhstan. If an ally of the CSTO military bloc, the country with which we are building the Eurasian Union, behaves at a crisis moment in accordance with the principle "both ours and yours," that means that Russia in general can not rely on anyone in its foreign policy? And we do not have allies?
And then Nicky Haley, the US permanent representative to the United Nations the next day said that Russia does not have "good friends", and those that are, they also cause harm: "Russia continues to know not with those, for example, in Ukraine, supporting Maduro in Venezuela, covering Assad in Syria or interacting with Iran."
That is, you have marginal allies, as a result, and you yourself will become a marginal if you do not stop blocking them. Go on, say, to the "bright side of humanity," there you will find wealth and a universal vocation. Such an old propaganda American mantra - but against the backdrop of the "abstinence of Kazakhstan" clearly requires an answer.
Can Russia have allies? Yes and no. Now (if we talk about historical time, and not just about 2018 year), our interests objectively coincide with the interests of the overwhelming majority of humanity - and if we measure it by the heads (billions), and if we count it by country. Not by the vote of the governments of these countries in the UN, but on the national interests of the peoples of these countries. That is, on a global scale, we are on the "right side of history" (if we use the terminology of the same Anglo-Saxons). Our goal - a multi-polar multi-civilization world - coincides with the goal that all major world centers of power set themselves. Not only China, India, Iran, but also such formally pro-Western countries as Japan and Turkey, Brazil and Saudi Arabia.
But how is it - all these countries share our policy, but do not vote for us? Here you need to separate the form from the content. The same Kazakhstan, of course, behaved ugly, but in his speech, his representative, in fact, condemned the Western blows:
"Whatever measures are taken under a good pretext, they can not justify the military use of forces. Violence in response to violence will never give peace and stability. The position of Kazakhstan has always remained and continues to be the following: military actions are extreme measures that can only be used if approved by the Security Council. "
The outcome of the vote did not depend on the voice of Kazakhstan, and therefore Nazarbayev decided to give the command to abstain, hoping thereby to strengthen his position as a mediator between Russia and the United States. This can not please us, but this explains Kazakhstan's motivation.
But if Kazakhstan is a CSTO member, then Turkey is a member of NATO. At the same time, on the same Syrian issue (and not only), it has a lot of disagreements with both the alliance and with the United States. And then the blow of 14 April, as it seemed to some, brought the positions of the West and the Turks closer. President of France Makron even bragged about it when he painted the pros from his country's participation in the American raid:
"As a result of these attacks, Russia and Turkey were divided. Turkey condemned the chemical attack and supported the operation that we conducted. "
Yes, Ankara supported the blow of 14 April, but not at all with the consequences the French president spoke about. Not even a day has passed since his statement, as the Turks sharply besieged Macron by the lips of Foreign Minister Cavusoglu:
"We can have different views with Russia on any issues, but the words of the French president will not spoil our strong relations with Russia. Many of our Western friends make populist statements. We expect from him statements that are more consistent with the level of the president. "
So Turkey has shown itself to be a more sovereign state than France. Although it does not only have permanent membership in Sobies, but also nuclear weapons, military bases in Africa and overseas possessions in different parts of the world. But there is a political will of its leadership, which independently chooses how and with whom to build relations.
So - can not we have allies?
It can not - because in principle there can not be any strong and independent state. Especially, the state-civilization. Power, which itself is the center of the assembly and construction of the empire.
Can China have allies? For three thousand years, it disintegrated and reassembled, driven only by the strength of the spirit of the Chinese people - or the will of the sky, if we speak its terminology.
Are there any allies with Turkey? Japan? Germany? Have Iran? Of course, no, there are either partners or bosses. For example, Germany is both a non-independent country and the assembly center of the European Union. She has a hegemon - the US - from which she wants to be free, but has not yet the strength to do so. It has situational partners for building the EU - France and Italy - which are rattled by the fact that their role decreases every year. And it has many dependent countries, which are formally called allies in the EU and NATO, and in fact are vassals.
Russia can be allies with countries that are equal in strength to us - with China, with India - or with equal geopolitical will and power - with Turkey, with Iran. In some theoretical situation in the future - with Germany, with Japan, in that case when they will find real independence. They are not allies in the sense of "against whom we are friends", but by allies aspiring to common or near-common goals. Geopolitical (new world order), regional (where joint activity is more profitable than hostility), ideological, economic (when cooperation is more profitable than competition). No great country wants to be dependent on another, each wants to answer only for themselves. But at the same time each one's power is not enough for global, epochal changes on a global scale - hence the desire for alliances and alliances.
Russia, which combines the unique historical experience of creating the most powerful Eurasian state, with huge natural resources and a passionate people, which has the will and spirit to fight and create, devoid of arrogance, racism and greed of the Western colonialists - is, therefore, the center of the attraction of various forces in all over the world. Our main and only ally is ourselves.
The more independent, self-sufficient, autocratic, relying on their own resources, material and spiritual, historical and ideological, we will - the easier it will be for us in this diverse world. The more we will be attracted to those who appreciate our main quality - the desire and ability to provide each people with life in their way and their minds.