Italy – Russia: Ambassador Paramonov, Wrong to Exclude Moscow from International Community

A new turning point in global development is characterized by the need to establish a multipolar world order capable of guaranteeing space for autonomy to all peoples and all countries

Aleksej Paramonov

It is absolutely impossible to “eliminate” or “erase” Russia from global politics because “the world needs” Russia. This was written by Russian Ambassador to Italy Alexei Paramonov in an article published in the newspaper La Repubblica under the title “Excluding Russia from International Stage is a Mistake.”

“The processes of globalization initiated by the West on its own terms,” emphasized the head of the Russian diplomatic mission in Rome, “have not succeeded in erasing the desire of most countries of the world to preserve the origins of their traditions, the foundations of culture and civilization, nor have they succeeded in getting rid of their aspirations for justice, for the democratization of international life, and for sovereignty.”

In this context, Ambassador Paramonov noted how various formats are beginning to “crystallize” in “the non-Western world,” including the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the BRICS group of countries, and other international organizations that do not want the world to be divided into blocs, but to be a truly multipolar world. The diplomat emphasized that “the West’s effective termination of its engagement with Russia has undermined what was the envisioned global agenda for key issues, such as arms control and nuclear non-proliferation, combating the militarization of outer space and cyberspace, countering global warming, and many, many other topics.”

According to Paramonov, “a new turning point in global development” is characterized by “the need to establish a multipolar world order capable of guaranteeing space for autonomy to all peoples and all countries.”

The world has begun the process of “crystallization” of alternative forums and schemes for functioning of the non-Western world through the creation of supranational associations not controlled by the USA

“Russia and the World”

Article by Mr. A. V. Paramonov, Ambassador of the Russian Federation to the Italian Republic

Source: Embassy of the Russian Federation in the Italian Republic

In 2010, the presentation of the Italian edition of the book, A World Without Russia? What Political Myopia Leads to, by Academician E.M. Primakov, a famous orientalist and Russian statesman, took place at the Events Hall of the Padua University.

Even then, the question of Russia’s removal from the world stage, as we see, was not so abstract. After all, it is for a reason that the decision to expand NATO to the East, taken by the USA in 1994, when there was no reasonable basis for it, was called by the legendary American analyst George Kennan “the most fateful in the entire period after the end of the Cold War.”

Quite naturally, at that time few people realized in what geopolitical, geo-economic, civilizational, existential deadlock we would inevitably find ourselves, if the West brought its aggressive steps against Russia to a climax.

And now this apogee of yet another 30-year “eastern campaign” of the West has arrived. What do we see? Exactly what transpired in the ancient Italian city of Padua 14 years ago. Taking Russia out of the world didn’t work. It is impossible to simply cancel a country with a thousand-years history and culture that is an integral part of the world’s heritage, a country that saved humanity from Nazism in 1945, a country with a strong, educated, multi-ethnic 150 million people, the world’s largest territory, and almost half of the world’s natural resources.

But the main reason for the West’s failure is that Russia cannot be eliminated from the world because the world needs it. It turned out that the processes of globalization launched by the West on its own terms, which, in its turn, involved the majority of the Earth’s population, and the bet of the US’s ultra-liberal elites on giving a global scope to the “liberal revolution” with all its “cancel cultures” for traditions, history, identity, gender, even life, did not cancel the aspiration of the majority of states to preserve their own traditional civilizational and cultural foundations of national existence, to justice, to democratization of international life and sovereignty.

This trend also includes the beginning of “crystallization” of alternative forums and schemes for functioning of the non-Western world through creating supranational associations beyond the control of the United States, such as the SCO, whose summit of states was recently successfully held in Astana, BRICS, and others.

It is interesting to note that at the initial stages of its formation, the EU also fit into this context as a potentially independent and quite influential player. However, the de facto renunciation by the increasingly self-perpetuating Brussels bureaucracy of its own “strategic autonomy” has so far put an end to such a prospect.

The West’s virtual nullification of interaction with Russia has collapsed the global agenda on such key issues as arms control and nuclear non-proliferation, preventing the militarization of space and cyberspace, countering global warming, and many others.

It is not Russia’s fault that the European security architecture has ceased to exist, but the West’s fixation on NATO-centricity and its complete refusal to compromise with Moscow. All of this recently prompted Russian President Vladimir Putin to come up with a forward-looking initiative to form a continental system of international security in Eurasia, open to all states of the continent, including those located in its far western part.

The new turning point in the world development is characterized by a demand for the formation of a multipolar order capable of providing a space of subjectivity for all states and peoples. This situation objectively reinforces the need for dialogue on the creation of a new organizational and normative framework for the coexistence of states and their associations. Among the main topics of such a dialog we can already point to the preservation of the foundation of modern international relations: the UN as a global platform for harmonizing interests and universally recognized principles of international law.

It is necessary to work on eliminating the systemic shortcomings of the international architecture that have persisted inertially since 1945, among which the limited influence of non-Western countries in global mechanisms stands out.

Naturally, for any new “rules of the game” in the issues of harmonizing the states’ interests to be agreed upon, any echoes of the “rule-based order” concept, which requires unconditional obedience in exchange for dosed access to the benefits and achievements of modern civilization and denies the primacy of collectively agreed, universal, i.e. binding for all international legal instruments provided for in the UN Charter, will be unacceptable. Equally unacceptable is the artificial and dangerous idea of “confrontation between democracies and autocracies.”