The Valdai Discussion Club unites political scientists, journalists and historians with an interest in Russia. It has gathered for its seventh meeting this year. The club members come from more than a dozen countries: interesting people who visit interesting places and discuss problems in an interesting format. Each time the club holds its meetings in different places around Russia, many of them such unusual destinations that not even many Russians know them.
This time, the meeting with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin in Sochi and participation in the Political Forum to be attended by President Dmitry Medvedev were preceded by a visit to St Petersburg. The club opened its session on board of the Kronstadt cruise ship as it fought a storm and bad weather on Lake Ladoga, Lake Onega and the River Svir for four days and nights. The storm was so strong that the planned trip to Valaam had to be cancelled. However, the club's members fully enjoyed the beauty of the Russian North, especially the Island of Kizhi with its wooden churches (some of them were shut for reconstruction). They even went to the Alexander Svirsky monastery, a little-known gem. During the debates the ship's rolling symbolised our oscillations between the East and the West.
Two subjects dominated newspaper reports about this meeting: Russia's Development Index for 2009 and 2010 and the meeting with Putin.
The index, which ostensibly reflected the opinion of the entire club, attracted the media's attention by the criticism of Russia: a trend towards stagnation in the economy, science and culture, little progress in the country's modernisation, etc. Let me explain from the very start that this index was not produced by the club or even discussed at the meeting. It was based on a poll of 25 foreign members who assessed the dynamics of Russia's development according to a number of parameters during this year but not the current state of affairs. They registered no changes in most parameters. Two parameters made a small positive shift: Russia's slightly enhanced diplomatic efforts and its role in ensuring global and regional security. One parameter, Russia's political system, showed a small change for the worse. That's about all.
During this meeting the club members concentrated on Russian history. I don't know why but there is one interesting national omen. As soon as a period of liberal reforms begins in Russia, some people are very tempted to revise history and lash out at the government that had started this "thaw". Russia is the only country in the world that is exposing its own past with such ferocity. Other countries use history almost exclusively to criticise others. But that is my own observation.
At the meeting the club's members discussed a standard set of historical concepts. Some of them considered the Russian political and economic model fit for the matrix of our development in the past thousand years, whereas the others lamented that the democratic character of our nation designed to follow the Western road was permanently subjected to the mutilating influence of the authoritarian rule. There was nothing new in this debate. All of these arguments have been around since the times of the early Westerners and Slavophils. I noted that this time the majority of Western participants were more forgiving toward our history (and the present) than many of their Russian colleagues.
The club has an obvious Western tinge, and it was probably designed to have it. More than 90% of its Western members are from NATO and European Union (EU) countries and view Russia's development accordingly. During the past year the number of intellectuals who favour closer relations between the two parts of Europe has increased both in Russia and abroad. Some of them are even advocating the formation of a new union of Europe or Russia's integration into the existing European agencies. The number of such intellectuals is growing in the club as well but this idea has not yet gained popular support. Western members of the club are more sceptical about it. One of them said it would be as difficult to implement this idea as to fit an elephant into a fridge.
This time journalists and some members of the club were disappointed about the meeting with Putin. I think that maybe because he did not reply to their most urgent question – who will be Russia's next president? Putin said he may choose to take part in the elections, adding that the elections will take place in accordance with the Constitution. He did not agree with Russia's critics and emphasised that despite the economic crisis and wildfires, the country is developing normally. Nothing sensational happened. But why should Putin have agreed with them if this year all Russia's major economic indicators are better than in other countries?
Much less attention was paid to a number of important ideas voiced by the prime minister. He expressed a very high opinion of Barack Obama and the current level of Russian-US relations. Putin also asked the meeting participants "not to frighten us with China", our strategic partner. Such breadth of geopolitical ties is more typical of an elephant that lives a full life in the Savannah rather than in someone's fridge. Putin also said: "Hustle and bustle does not make history." This idea is shared by all statesmen who feel historic responsibility for their countries.
I'm sure that the club will continue to be an interesting forum, a source of ideas and political news. To perform its mission better it could accept more members from Asian and Pacific countries that represent more than half of the world's population, and also from Russia's government and political agencies that deal with the problems discussed by the club's members in practice.
* * *
I noted that this time the majority of Western participants were more forgiving toward our history (and our present) than many of their Russian colleagues.
By Vyacheslav Nikonov