“We are an autocratic nation: we do not go under anyone and do not let the world fall.”

– You became the president of the INF at a time that diplomats call not just turbulent, as before, but dramatic. What’s your plan?

“My plan, as President of the INF, is to give this wonderful advice a new impetus and be worthy of the challenges we meet today and that will appear tomorrow. Despite the apparent chaotic and illogicality of what is happening, you should not pretend that there was nothing like this in history. Today’s events have a feature, including through the development of technology, but the world is not the first time that passes through a period of fundamental changes. In the past, it was connected with the wars of the world. Today we are experiencing an analogue of world war. I don’t like to use the term “World War III” because it implies a continuation of the First and Second World Wars. A more accurate phrase is the “new world war” different from the first two. We must go through this period and get out of it with stronger positions and become better and more intelligent.

Are we Russia?

– Yes. But it won’t happen by itself. Everyone has a section of the front or direction of the offensive. We can be in defense, in the offensive, and in the counteroffensive. If we talk about war, you can use such terms. The INF is, as I see it, a small but unique area of Russia’s interaction on the external circuit with other states and civilizations. And I already have the first ideas for its further development, which I will now offer and promote and, if possible, implement.

– Foreign policy expertise in the Russian Federation is in demand?

I am convinced that yes, it is in demand. But, unfortunately, a significant part of the foreign policy expertise – and not only in Russia – is either not interesting or detached from reality. I communicate with the Foreign Ministry and have repeatedly heard from them that they are littered with papers, but can not always squeeze something out of them. The RIAC has many tasks, but one of the key should be to assist those who are engaged in foreign policy in practice. Such people often have less time than experts in order to dive into the causes and origins of what is happening, they are overloaded and act in conditions of time deficit. Experts should understand the essence of the issues and give conclusions and proposals that will be useful to those involved in decision-making. Here I see a place for the INF. But the council has, as I have already said, and other functions, including the promotion of our foreign policy in the world and the education of society on foreign policy issues.

– Russian think tanks have become more actively engaged in the countries of the “world majority”. The same states that are recognized as unfriendly, we are engaged less and less. Who needs to be more actively studied – friends or opponents?

– An expert in the field of international relations should focus primarily on his country – on its needs for the outside world, and the opportunities and risks that stem from this external world for it. In this sense, there is no difference between friendly and unfriendly countries for the expert. The difference is whether it is possible – and to what extent – to interact positively with a country. With unfriendly, it is now and in the foreseeable future is almost impossible. But that doesn’t mean you don’t have to study them. In war, the study of the enemy is the most important thing.

And I would start studying the enemy from Ukraine. We need to better understand the origins of her behavior. Let’s say they haven’t given up yet? It is clear that external factors play an important role here, but there are also internal ones.

We need to understand Europe better. For a long time, we have been under the charm of the West, which prevented us from more accurately assessing his intentions and actions at a time when we sought to build partnerships with him. We had – and by the way, the president himself spoke about it – illusions about the West. Now we re-evaluate many things, and it is important not just to change the plus to minus, but to deeply understand what the modern West, both its American and its European parts, is. In recent years, European countries have not once behaved as we expected.

– For example?

“As of the days of the Soviet Union, we have perceived Europeans as a kind of hostages of the United States, poor weak-willed vassals, to which Washington imposes the will. At the same time, there was a strong confidence that they are pragmatic and will not sacrifice business for the sake of politics. In this regard, for many, I think it was a discovery of how quickly European countries – including Germany, on which we had the highest hopes – went to break relations, abandoning, among other things, trade ties with Russia. Business did not become an obstacle to the anti-Russian policy of European countries.

Today, Europe continues to surprise, but in a different way. She refused to take the approaches of the administration of Donald Trump to the conflict around Ukraine and began to put sticks in the wheels. I myself generally believed that if the US president said that it was necessary to move towards peace, Europe would submit, but it resists. At the same time, we are witnessing a frond of Europeans towards the war between the United States and Israel against Iran.

It is clear that Europeans still have a lot with the United States and many in Europe hope to simply wait out the presidency of Trump, especially since they have many like-minded people in Washington among the opponents of the current president. But still, there is no need to talk about the role of vassals in relation to Europeans in many aspects – this topic requires study and rethinking. The same goes for the United States, where there are also significant changes. Opponents need to know almost as well as yourself.

And the partners?

As I said, you have to start with yourself. It is important to study your opponents. And knowledge should be relevant: the Iranian war literally changed the world in a month. The next round is the most important neighboring countries for us. States of the former USSR and the largest countries of Eurasia. We should know much better countries of Transcaucasia, Kazakhstan and Central Asia, and not just eat memories of holidays in Pitsunda or walks around Registan. This needs to be done seriously, because of our own ignorance or misunderstanding of our neighbors, we will create absolutely unnecessary problems in the immediate vicinity of our borders. Ukraine shows how dangerous such an approach can be.

Our biggest neighbour, China, is understandably worthy of the most attention. This should be done systematically. As, of course, India, to which we have developed a positive, but still quite a superficial view, and other major Asian countries – from Pakistan to Indonesia and Vietnam to Japan and the Korean Peninsula. I also consider Turkey to Iran’s immediate neighbors, with which we are united by the Black and Caspian Seas. These are, along with the leading countries of the Arab world and Israel, the most important players in the Middle East. Well, at the next frontier – the countries of Africa and Latin America. It is clear that these regions, especially Africa, are now on the ears of many, it is a fast-growing continent, which may be interesting for Russia, including in terms of the development of economic ties. I myself, however, now look at the outside world mainly from the point of view of the interests of the national security of Russia and, accordingly, I am building regional priorities.

“You and I interviewed after the release of your book “The New Balance of Powers: Russia in Search of Foreign Policy Equilibrium” in 2021. How, in the current balance – or imbalance – to build a policy?

The call to seek foreign policy equilibrium remains relevant, but fundamentally in different conditions. The book was written long before the SVO. Then it was still possible to try to do something together with the countries that were subsequently recognized as unfriendly. The situation has become more complicated since. We are forced to wage war with a significant part of the collective West. With a significant, not all, because in the same Europe we see unequal approaches to Russia, it is important to take this into account when building a policy. The difficult task of building a balance with the United States, which in fact is our opponent, since they share intelligence with Ukraine to strike at us and do a lot for Kiev. Nevertheless, under the current US administration, we should not consider America an adversary as, say, England.

Being in a historical confrontation with the West, it is important for us to maintain balance in relations with its other opponents, supporting our partners and allies, but necessarily maintaining the freedom of maneuver is an indispensable attribute of a great power. For example, with China, which in terms of demographic and economic indicators surpasses Russia at times, has achieved amazing success in the field of technology and so on, we absolutely need to maintain the equal nature of relations and remember that Russia is a great power that cannot be a junior partner.

We must contribute to maintaining a positive balance between our strategic partners China and India, preventing Americans or others from using India against China and at least indirectly against us. We must maintain balance in relations with the former republics of the USSR, build subjects-subject relations with them – and so that they bring much more benefit to Russia than the past “center-peripheral” model. And so on. It is necessary to keep the balance, standing firmly on your feet and realizing that we are an autocratic nation: we do not go under anyone and do not let the world fall.