6.4 KiB
| title | chunk | source | category | tags | date_saved | instance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primakov Readings | 3/5 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primakov_Readings | reference | science, encyclopedia | 2026-05-05T04:24:59.206615+00:00 | kb-cron |
The first session - "New Bipolarity” – Myth or Reality?” – touched upon the problems of crisis of supranational and international institutions, as well as the appropriateness of the very concept of "bipolarity" in contemporary international relations. The expert from Austria said that Russia and China are moving towards establishing a new world order; however, it is too early to talk about the formation of a "new bipolarity". The expert from the United States disagreed, stressing that "competing bipolarity" is developing in the world, which will lead to a "new multipolarity". The representative from the PRC noted that China is in isolation, which Russia helps to overcome to some extent. In his opinion, the role of the new institutions, in the formation of which China is involved, is important, and that is why China's tactics might be somehow offensive. The representative of China did not rule out the possibility of conflicts between Washington and Beijing. From the Chinese point of view, the new bipolarity is unacceptable and it is preferable to strive for the formation of blocks. According to the Indian expert, the state of world politics can be defined as "multiple multipolarity". The Russian participant of the session, in his turn, drew attention to the fact that the forming system is not only a polycentric and hierarchical, but also unstable: on the one hand, there is a growing interdependence, on the other – increasing competitiveness. This trend shows the inconsistency of the dual logic of bipolarity and encourages the need to develop a new language of diplomacy. The second session, called "Infrastructure Rivalry in the Indo-Pacific Region: on Land and at Sea", raised questions related to the fierce competition for world trade routes, ports, and natural resources in the Indo-Pacific region. In addition the presence of a number of nuclear and threshold states in the region was mentioned during the discussion. As well as the complexity of the existence of "small" states, forced to maneuver between the political and economic interests of bigger players. The Vietnamese side raised the issue of political trust. The representative from India emphasized the need for economic infusions in the region's infrastructural projects, and especially the problem of competition among those projects. The expert from China stressed that Beijing's infrastructural projects are not imperialistic. He also criticized the idea of the Indian and Pacific oceans’ connection. The US side highlighted the main obstacles to cooperation in the region: the lack of security framework between the US and China, coupled with a clash of values on which the US and Chinese foreign policy doctrines are based, the prevalence of bilateral infrastructural projects in the region and the difficulty of harmonizing interests in multilateral projects, as well as the problem of territorial issues in the South China Sea. According to the participants, one of the key and most problematic tasks is to find common grounds and to establish an institutional framework for the trade regime in the region under the conditions of a clash of interests of key players. The representative of Japan paid attention to the North Korean issue and noted that if Trump and Kim Jong-un reached an agreement, Russia and Japan could play a crucial role in the fundamental changes in the region. According to the Russian expert, a new format, combining bilateral and multilateral cooperation with an unlimited number of participants, would be the most promising scenario. From the point of view of Russian interests, according to the speaker, Chinese Belt and Road Initiative is the most perspective and realistic. Depending on what kind of the development of interaction formats prevails, the situation will lead either to an aggravation of competition or to the development of cooperation.
The third session, "New ‘Great Game’ in the Middle East", highlighted the following issues: increasing number of actors in the region (both state and non-state), abandonment of the "bipolar" logic concerning the division of spheres of influence in the economy, development of terrorism as a form of business, non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, and politicization of religion. According to the expert from Uzbekistan, there are several insurmountable factors hampering the achievement of stability in the Middle East: a crisis of confidence, a paralysis of the institutions of international security, an attempt by different actors to impose their own rules of the game in the conditions of chaos. Import of alien models and values leads to opposition from the local population and its turn towards Islamic fundamentalism. Political will of the United States and Russia is capable of bringing stability to the region and there are several points of convergence, such as common interests in the fight against extremism, as well as counteraction to radicalization of youth. The representative of India shared this view, stating that it is necessary to work out joint approaches to fighting hotbeds of tension in the region in those areas, where interests of major actors do not conflict. The US side also stressed the presence of numerous actors and the complexity of relationships between them, especially mentioning Russia's ability to find common ground between irreconcilable antagonists. The expert predicted gradual withdrawal of the US from the region. The representative from Israel noted that the weakening of state and its subjectivity occurred in the region, which has been related to dynamics of the "Arab Spring". In a number of cases, authoritarian regimes were reinforced. The weakening of the state created a vacuum, which brought an opportunity for various regional forces to intervene in conflicts. Russian participant in the session questioned the existence of the «Great Game» in the Middle East. In his opinion, there is no opposition between two "superpowers", but there are three levels of conflict: local, regional and global. A distinguished feature of Russia's foreign policy – an attempt to build mutually beneficial relations with different parties, while Moscow does not try to oust anybody from the region. However, the US has recently become the main producer of hydrocarbons and pursuing new interests.