Russian Analyst Goltz: 'We Are Witnessing The Birth Of A Quasi-Ideology, That Via Confrontation With The West, Nominates Moscow For The Role Of Leader Of The Rest Of The World'

Russian political analyst Aleksandr Goltz wrote an article, titled "Ideology For New Confrontation," published by the independent Russian media outlet The New Times. In the article, Goltz asserts that during the Moscow Security Conference (April 4-5), a rationale for Cold War 2.0 was presented.

According to Goltz, the yearly conference has become a sounding board, where Russian officials articulate concepts and theories that may form the foundation of doctrinal and policy documents.[1] To support his thesis, Goltz stresses that, in May 2014, the General Staff representatives unveiled the theory at the Moscow Conference that 'color revolutions' were a new form of warfare. "After a while, this wording became part of the military doctrine and became the ideological basis for the creation of the National Guard," explains the Russian analyst.

Goltz believes that a new ideological tenet made its debut during the latest Moscow Security Conference, Russian officials provided the contours for a new Russian ideology in the making, defined as a "quasi-ideology". Whereas many intellectuals previously argued that a new Cold War was impossible given the absence of an ideological confrontation between Russia and the West, the Moscow conference shows that a new ideology is emerging whose main pillar is confrontation with the West. This confrontation starts as a need to fight a unipolar world, in order to replace it with a multi-polar one, where Russia is one of the standard-bearers (or the main one) in this new world order.

It is worth noting that the discussion about the balance of ideological power is becoming the heart of the discussion of Russia's military balance of power. Russian officials, engaged in the defense and security of the country, are at the forefront of the shaping of Russia's new ideology. During the Cold War, the CIA did engage in ideological battles against the USSR, supporting intellectual and philosophical circles and funding their activities and the Soviet Union did the same.

Below are excerpts from Goltz's article:[2]

Shoigu speaks (Source: E-cis.info)

Aleksandr Goltz (Source: Newtimes.ru)

During The Moscow Security Conference, Russian Officials Articulate Theories That Are Meant To Become The Foundation Of Doctrinal And Directive Documents

"The Moscow Conference on International Security, organized annually since 2012 by the Ministry of Defense, is becoming increasingly tedious and meaningless every time. Today, it is even ridiculous to remember that six years ago the organizers dreamed of turning this conference into an essential platform for discussing issues of international security.

"One could still talk about contacts like that before the start of the Ukrainian crisis, but after that, the dialogue naturally turned into a monologue. The quantity of delegations from Asia and Africa (our war department evidently aims at increasing the number of participating defense ministers and chiefs of staff every year) cannot possibly be transformed into quality. They are doomed either to go along with Russian invectives against the West or keep their mouths shut . Which is what we observed on 4–5 April.

"But in the last four years, another useful aspect of the conference has emerged. It is during such events that concepts and theories are sounded that may soon become the foundation of doctrinal and directive documents. Thus, in May 2014, it was during the Moscow Conference that the representatives of the General Staff clearly announced for the first time that 'color revolutions' were a new form of warfare. After a while, this wording became part of the military doctrine and became the ideological basis for the creation of the National Guard. By observing the conference proceedings, one can make accurate assumptions regarding the way our foreign and defense policy will be justified.

"This time, Russian bosses, having obviously received an order from the above, simply competed with each other in [making] maximally harsh accusations at the West. Thus, in Sergei Shoigu's interpretation, four multinational NATO battalion groups deployed in the Baltic and Poland, have transformed into a '10-thousand strong contingent possessing all kinds of offensive arms'. Wishing to emphasize NATO's aggressive activities even further, the defense minister noted that NATO aircraft constantly fly past the Russian borders: 'Starting with January, fighters of the Russian Aerospace Forces have been scrambled to intercept NATO aircraft over 25 thousand times'. If one takes into account that, according to foreign handbooks, there are 600 fighters in the entire Russian air force, this means that each of them (including those in Siberia and in the Far East) had to intercept 40 NATO planes. And if one adds that a pilot's flight time amounts to about 100 hours per year, it turns out that our pilots do nothing else but intercept NATO aircraft.

"But Shoigu, as befits a defense minister, at least tried to cite some figures, even if they were off the top of his head. Other security officials just hurled abuse. The head of the Foreign Intelligence Service, Sergei Naryshkin, tried really hard. 'We are genuinely shocked by the level of hypocrisy with which Washington and its satellites accompany this projection of the so-called Western power', he said condemning the U.S. and its allies.

"In fact, there is nothing fundamentally new in these accusations. Russian security officials have practiced vilifying the West for quite some time. But when all the foreign policy boiled down to confrontation, an obvious contradiction came to light. One needed some kind of explanation as to why Russia found itself in the situation of a new Cold War. At the same time, one could not mention the annexation of Crimea and the secret war in the Donbass as reasons – because then regardless, the Kremlin would be the obvious initiator of the confrontation. It is not coincidence that Ukraine was mentioned only once during the two-day long conference. Sergei Lavrov rebuked the West for not adhering to the Minsk agreements, which, in his opinion, are aimed at settling the 'internal Ukrainian conflict'.

'The Collective West Could Not Integrate Into The Multi-Polar World And Ganged Up On Russia As One Of The Standard-Bearers Of This New World Order'

 

"But if the reason is not the Ukrainian conflict, then it appears that two dozen Western countries, in their insatiable malice, decided to initiate a conflict with Russia, voluntarily rejecting 'peace dividends', increasing [their] military budgets, and entering an arms race. From which it followed that thousands of responsible people suddenly went mad.

"And now it looks like a general explanation for the reasons of a new Cold War has finally been developed. The presentation of this concept took place during the Moscow Conference. All the high-ranking officials began to hammer away at the same point. Nikolai Patrushev, secretary of the Security Council: 'Certain states combat the processes for establishing justice and equality in global affairs, undermine the system of international and regional security and distort and violate the norms of interstate communication'. Sergei Shoigu: 'Certain countries' claim to exclusivity are forcing a new arms race'. Sergei Lavrov: 'Our western colleagues, posing as champions of democracy-building in all other countries, assiduously avoid embedding in multilateral documents the goal of democratization regarding the global system of interstate relations.

"And, finally, Sergei Naryshkin made it all clear: 'New and influential centres of power, such as India, Brazil, South Africa and, of course, Russia and China, are emerging on the international arena and becoming stronger… In fact, the U.S. and some European states have proven to be unready for such changes. They cannot accept the inevitable weakening of their own formerly unchallenged influence. They are still trying to build their relations with other countries on the old principles rooted in the colonial system, such as coercion and diktat.'

"Thus, the collective West could not integrate into the 'multi-polar' world and ganged up on Russia as one of the standard-bearers of this new world order. Not too long ago, those who tried to prove that a new Cold War was impossible pointed to the absence of an ideological confrontation between Russia and the West. Now we are witnessing the birth of a quasi-ideology that via confrontation with the West, nominates Moscow for the role of leader of 'the rest of the world'. It is very doubtful that China or India will agree to it, but they may well allow Russia to play the role of leader. Especially if they manage to gain concessions from the Kremlin thanks to these empty words…"