From the Archives | Russian Strategic Narratives 2022-2023

Olena Snigyr

The failure of the Russian blitzkrieg plan in the 2022 full-scale invasion  of Ukraine heightened official Russian rhetoric to such an extent that  narratives surfaced clearly—devoid of ambiguity. This condition  made it possible to integrate these narratives into a cohesive framework that  can elucidate the primary objectives of the Russian government, particularly  in the realm of international politics.  Russian strategic narratives are systematized (Figure 1) according to  Queen’s University Belfast Professor Alister Miskimmon’s classification of  strategic narratives into three levels: 1) international system narratives  (describing how the world is structured, who the major players are, and how  it operates), 2) national narratives (outlining a state or nation’s story, values,  and goals), and 3) issue narratives (explaining the necessity and desirability  of a policy, along with its successful implementation). [2]

Figure 1 | Strategic Narratives

Therefore, the Russian strategic international system narrative is  “The international order is changing and the West (the liberal world) is  trying to maintain its hegemony”; the national narrative is “Russia is a  sovereign and self-sustained, original civilization, based on traditional  values, a center of the Russian world / leader of regional integration (Big Eurasia)”; and the issue narrative is that “The new world order requires  conceptual, systemic and structural changes.” 

Within this framework, Russian strategic narratives encompass sub narratives that elaborate and support the main narrative. Key sub-narratives  at the international system narrative level include:

• Denial of sovereignty of Europe (European states)
• Conflict of values
• Russia as the leader of the non-liberal world
• Russia as a victim of the West

Quantitatively, the sub-narrative “Russia as a victim of the West”  stands out as hegemonic among all other narratives. It receives the most  extensive coverage and is explored in great detail. This sub-narrative forms  the foundational framework for Russia’s narrative concerning the war with  Ukraine. 

The strategic national narrative, “Russia is a sovereign and self sustained, original civilization, based on traditional values, a center of the  Russian world / leader of regional integration (Big Eurasia),” is the least  represented in the analyzed texts. It is complemented by the sub-narrative  “Russia is the leader of a non-liberal world,” which also belongs to the  international system narratives. 

The strategic issue narrative, “A new world order requires  conceptual, systemic, and structural changes,” is conveyed through the  following sub-narratives: 

• Multipolarity / regionalism
• Rights of illiberal regimes/supremacy of state sovereignty over  human rights
• A new system of international institutions and a new international  financial system based on national currencies.

The context of the war significantly impacted the dominance of the  sub-narrative that “Russia is a victim of the West” within the system of  Russian strategic narratives today. It is an integral part of the Russian international system strategic narrative, “The international order is  changing, and the West (the liberal world) is trying to maintain its hegemony,” which interprets contemporary international developments as a  shift from a unipolar world, dominated by the West, to an emerging  multipolar order that the West “is attempting to obstruct.” These changes  are presented in Russian narratives as inevitable, and various conflicts,  including Russia’s war with Ukraine, are seen as byproducts and  consequences of the transformation of the international system. 

According to the Russian international system narrative, the current  unipolar world order embodies an unfair system of material goods  distribution, stemming from modern Western neocolonialism and a  continuation of the colonial policies of Western nations from previous  centuries. Furthermore, this narrative asserts that the unjust system is upheld  by a set of international legal norms imposed by the West and is enforced  through existing international financial institutions. 

As Vladimir Putin declared at the signing of treaties on the accession  of Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics and Zaporozhye and Kherson  regions to Russia on September 30, 2022, 

The West is ready to cross every line to preserve the neo-colonial  system which allows it to live off the world, to plunder it thanks to  the domination of the dollar and technology, to collect an actual  tribute from humanity, to extract its primary source of unearned  prosperity, the rent paid to the hegemon. The preservation of this  annuity is their main, real and absolutely self-serving motivation.  This is why total de-sovereignisation is in their interest.”[3]

According to the Russian narrative, the ultimate objective of the  Western powers is to establish complete dominion over the world and  supplant the existing “UN-based” system of international relations and  international law with a “rule-based order.” President Putin underscores that  Russia acknowledges only one guiding principle in international affairs— international public law. During his address to the 10^th St. Petersburg  International Legal Forum on June 30, 2022,

There is only one rule that must be observed, and that is public  international law. These are agreements between countries that are  some kind of compromise, and which are signed by the respective  states. And if someone came up with these rules for themselves in  order to impose them on other countries, then they will never work…”[4]

The Russian narrative asserts that genuine sovereignty within the  collective West is concentrated solely in the United States. Consequently,  the liberal world order is fundamentally framed as “the American liberal  world order.” Under the guise of the so-called rule-based order and other  dubious concepts, they (the Western countries) are trying to control and  direct global processes at their own discretion and are pursuing a course  towards creating closed blocs and coalitions that make decisions that are  beneficial only to one country, the United States.  

Russian authorities contend that the West, in its pursuit of global  dominance, leverages the framework of the liberal democratic order to  curtail the progress of “other civilizations” while advancing its own  economic interests. This perspective posits that the West exhibits a lack of  tolerance for the sovereignty of other nations and peoples and categorizes  the world into “authoritarian” and “democratic” regimes—imposing a  specific form of liberal democracy while denying other states the autonomy  to make their own choices. Russian authorities label this imposition of  liberal values as an expression of Western self-assuredness, characterized as  having a racist and neo-colonial underpinning. 

The Russian authorities assert that the West, in its pursuit of  preserving its influence and upholding the global liberal order, employs a  range of tools including the imposition of sanctions, the destabilization of  international markets and the global financial system, the incitement of color  revolutions, and the orchestration of coups, among others. The texts under  examination provide instances of these tactics, such as the ongoing Russian  war against Ukraine, the escalation of tensions regarding Taiwan, and  disruptions in global food and energy markets. The Russian narratives depict liberal democratic values, coupled  with the West’s technological advantage and the mechanisms of “global interdependence,” such as standardization and unification, as instruments  employed by the West to assert control over the rest of the world. These narratives accentuate the presence of double standards within the West.  They suggest that while the West proclaims universal rules for all, it  simultaneously nullifies favorable globalization rules for countries that reap  benefits from globalization. Furthermore, the West employs sanctions as a  means of deterrence against those who oppose Western dominance. This  approach is framed as a violation of the fundamental principles of a market  economy. As examples, the Russian narratives point to the policies of  Western countries concerning Serbia and Kosovo, Iraq, and Libya. 

The sub-narrative of “The conflict of values” within the Russian  narrative characterizes the conflict between Russia and the West as having  an irreconcilable and existential nature. In this narrative, Western liberal  values are pitted against traditional (illiberal) values, which, according to  Marlène Laruelle, George Washington University professor, have become  the cornerstone of Russia’s strategic narrative. Laruelle identifies the value  system promoted by Russia as conservative, noting that “The meaning of  this conservatism remains blurry not only by default but by design.” [5] Russian authorities and ideologues define Russian traditional values  as spiritual and moral values that encompass traditional Christian values and  the cultural heritage of Russian society. However, significantly, the term  “conservative” is not explicitly used in the texts of Russian officials and  political scientists. Instead, the term “traditional” is widely employed. This  choice of terminology may reflect the Russian political elite’s alignment  with the ideas of the Traditionalist or Perennialist School. [6] It could also be an effort to make the term “traditional values” more accessible and  adaptable for a broader audience of international actors. Consequently, this  term doesn’t categorize values as part of an ideology but rather indicates  their belonging to a particular society. 

According to the Russian narrative, a war of values exists between  the liberal-democratic West and traditional societies, where both parties aim  to expand their sphere of influence while limiting the influence of the other.  This framework contends that liberal democratic values, through the  Western concept of human rights and freedoms, erode societies with  traditional values and destabilize their state systems. 

In President Putin’s signing of treaties on the accession of Donetsk  and Lugansk People’s Republics and Zaporozhye and Kherson regions to  Russia in September 2022, he said 

the dictatorship of the Western elites targets all societies, including  the citizens of Western countries themselves. This is a challenge  to all. This complete renunciation of what it means to be human,  the overthrow of faith and traditional values, and the suppression  of freedom are coming to resemble a “religion in reverse”—pure  Satanism.[7]

Furthermore, it is asserted by Putin⁸that Western elites perceive  Russian traditional values as a threat to its interests, leading to sanctions  against Russian media and cultural figures. Simultaneously, Russian  authorities argue that Western liberal values serve as a mere instrument to  achieve the “true goal of the West”: imposing Western standards and  consumer stereotypes to create favorable market conditions for Western  companies. Globalization, underpinned by liberal values, is depicted as a  process of “homogenization,” primarily centered on protecting the rights of  women and sexual minorities. The West’s refusal to recognize the right of  authoritarian and dictatorial regimes to restrict the rights and freedoms of their citizens is interpreted in this Russian narrative as a policy of  “homogenization and denial of differences.” 

The Russian narrative defines traditional or illiberal values as  reflections of the traditions and cultural-historical experiences of distinct  peoples and proposes that the protection of these values (or the protection  of regimes that claim adherence to them) should be pursued through the  principle of sovereignty. Russia aims to expand the concept of sovereignty  to encompass the equality of political regimes, irrespective of their record  on human rights, and thus to strip the principle of human rights protection  of its universal character while endowing the principle of sovereignty with  universality. This is justified as the “principle of democracy” in international  relations, drawing upon the principle of sovereign equality of states  enshrined in the UN Charter. 

The Russian interpretation of democracy plays a crucial role in its  strategic narratives. It conceives of democracy as the rule of the people  (people’s governance or democracy with specific characteristics), but  without key elements such as human rights and freedoms, democratic  institutions, and procedures.  

According to the Russian narrative, alternative forms of popular  governance exist alongside liberal democracy. However, the West does not  recognize their sovereign rights and attempts to restrain states that have  opted for these alternative socio-political systems—including autocracy.  Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov defines autocracy as a centralized  state with a strong vertical structure capable of making swift and efficient  decisions—a perceived advantage within the expected “horizon.” Ultimately, the Russian view of the conflict of values sees it as  developing into a struggle against the hegemony of liberalism, or an anti colonial liberation movement against unipolar US hegemony. Russia is presented as a leading power in this “anti-colonial movement.” The sub-narrative that “Russia is the leader of a non-liberal world”  plays a dual role within both international systemic and national narratives.  It portrays the challenge posed by the West and its dominance as a mission  for Russia—to safeguard its interests and establish a “just world order.” The  Russian authorities identify the following as Russian national interests:  preserving genuine strategic sovereignty (economic, technological, etc.);  conducting international transactions in rubles; creating a comprehensive  European security system based on consensus with Russia’s right to veto;  establishing a new international order organized into regional zones of  responsibility for major powers; developing Russian society within the  framework of its traditional values; and rebuilding the system of  international law and international institutions based on the equality of  political regimes regardless of their human rights records (sovereign  equality of states). 

Russia actively seeks allies in its “crusade against Western  hegemony” and the reconfiguration of the international order. It tries to  secure the support of as many states as possible—particularly in Asia,  Africa, and Latin America. Russia appeals to these countries’ historical  memories of colonialism, asserting that the West, through its neo-colonial  policies, seeks to hinder their development today. 

Russian narratives contend that the difficult socio-economic  situations in Global South countries are due to the influence of the unfair  global economic order imposed by the West and the unjust modern system  of international mechanisms and institutions. These narratives underscore  that the West has itself triggered global food crises (due to US  macroeconomic policies and anti-Russian sanctions) and energy crises (due  to restrictions on oil and gas prices) and does not address the issues of  inequality and injustice, which stem from its policies. 

Another argument Russia advances to convince potential allies of its  position is by asserting that most Global South countries do not share the  liberal democratic values of the West but instead align with Russia’s  understanding of traditional values, similar to those upheld by the Russian  Federation. 

ion. In this context, Russian authorities strategically employ the narrative  of a conflict of values as a means of discourse power to garner support from  various actors. They consistently seek to win the support of citizens in  European countries by highlighting that Russia is unable to forge a  partnership with a Europe grounded in liberal-democratic values. Instead,  they emphasize the potential for partnership with a Europe rooted in  traditional Christian values, pointing to Hungary under the leadership of  Viktor Orban as an example. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov emphasizes  that Russia maintains strong ties with European communities that share its  values and its interpretation of sovereignty principles. The Russian authorities try to create the perception of extensive  international support, asserting that African, Latin American, and Asian  states are eager to dismantle the unipolar system dominated by the West and  are backing Russia in its confrontation with the West. However, according to the Russian narrative, those states often find it challenging to openly  express their stance due to Western pressure. The Kremlin’s leadership is  confident that Global South nations share Russia’s objectives, which  include: advocating for unrestricted access to technologies; establishing  alternative mechanisms for international transactions; and adopting national  currencies in international settlements. Russia identifies the BRICS (Brazil,  Russia, India, China, and South Africa) countries as its primary partners  within the Global South. 

In contrast to the Global South countries, which, according to the  Russian narrative, aim to enhance their sovereignty and uphold traditional  values and diversity, the Russian authorities contend that European nations  are subservient to the United States. This perspective portrays European  countries as lacking sovereignty and agency due to their alignment with the  United States. When Sergei Lavrov was interviewed for the film Nazism Under  Investigation on November 26, 2022, he said,

Europe is “playing” together with the US. The EU has almost no  independence left—Washington has crushed Brussels under itself.  There are almost no independent voices left in the European  Union. French President E. Macron occasionally, but less and less  often, tries to recall the “strategic autonomy” of the EU. No one  will allow them to create any kind of autonomy, especially a  strategic one. [9]

The sub-narrative about non-independence and Europe’s subjection  to the United States emphasizes Russia’s role as the leader of the resistance  movement against US dominance and as the head of the “sovereignty  movement.” The denial of sovereignty and independence to European  countries also aligns with the narrative of denying the sovereignty and  independence of Ukraine, which the Russian authorities have used—and  continue to use—to legitimize their aggression against Ukraine. Thus, the  concept of sovereignty in the Russian narrative is closely linked to the  legitimacy of states. By denying the sovereignty of a particular state, the  Russian government essentially questions that country’s legitimacy, thereby  providing ample justification for its actions.

To support their arguments for non-independence and Europe’s  subjection to the United States, the Russian authorities point out Europe’s  reliance on the United States for military security and the European Union’s  inability to develop its own military capabilities, often referred to as  “strategic autonomy.” By highlighting Europe’s dependence on the United  States for security, the Russian authorities explain European countries’  positions on cooperation with Russia in the security realm. For instance,  they cite Europe’s rejection of Russia’s proposals for a new Treaty on  European Security in 2009 and 2021. Additional arguments put forth to  support the idea of the EU’s subjugation include the EU’s perceived failure  as a “guarantor of the agreements signed in 2014 between the President of  Ukraine and the opposition, as well as the Minsk agreements of 2015.” The  same failure is also applied to the EU’s handling of the agreement on the  creation of the Community of Serbian municipalities in Kosovo.  

The Russian authorities further claim that the United States is  exploiting the Russian-Ukrainian war as a means to compel the European  Union to fully relinquish its reliance on affordable Russian energy sources.  According to this narrative, such a move “should lead to the  deindustrialization of Europe, even greater dependence on the US, and the  eventual severing of all ties with Russia.” As part of this alleged strategy,  the Russian narrative attributes the explosions on the “Nord Stream”  pipelines to the interests of the “direct beneficiaries” of the destruction of  this gas pipeline, namely the United States, Poland, and Ukraine. 

During Putin’s signing of treaties on the accession of Donetsk and  Lugansk People’s Republics and Zaporozhye and Kherson regions to Russia  on September 30, 2022, he stated,

The United States, pushing through the EU’s complete rejection of  Russian energy carriers and other resources, is practically leading  to the de-industrialization of Europe, to completely taking over the  European market—they understand everything, these European  elites, they understand everything, but they prefer to serve other  people’s interests.[10] 

In parallel, Russian authorities argue that the European Union is  genuinely interested in facilitating negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, aiming for a ceasefire and cooperation with Russia to “build a  security architecture.”[11] They contend that Washington and London are  constraining the EU and Ukraine from pursuing these measures. The  Russian narrative asserts that it is solely the influence of the United States  that compels Europeans to declare their objective of aiding Ukraine in  defeating Russia on the battlefield. 

By negating Europe’s agency and portraying it as a victim of US  dominance, the Russian narrative insists that European countries still aspire  to emancipate themselves from American tutelage and influence, aspiring to  join the Greater Eurasia project—“a unified geopolitical space stretching  from Lisbon to Vladivostok in all aspects.” [12]

In an October 27, 2022, speech, Vladimir Putin stated, 

Helmut Kohl once told me that the United States would someday  take care of their own affairs, including in Latin America. Asia  would develop powerfully in its own way. If European civilization  wants to be preserved as some kind of world center, then, of  course, you need to be with Russia.[13]

The Russian authorities position themselves as leaders opposing  Western dominance and insist that the West is attempting to restrain,  weaken, and stifle Russia’s development opportunities. The Russian  explanation for the war with Ukraine is articulated in the sub-narrative “Russia is a victim of the West,” comprising three second-level sub narratives: “War with heirs of Nazis,” “Denial of sovereignty and identity  of Ukraine,” and “Protection of people who belong to the Russian World.” The Russian authorities assert that the West has long pursued an anti-Russian policy, exemplified by supporting “terrorists” in the North  Caucasus, transforming Ukraine into an anti-Russia entity, fostering anti Russian sentiments in Moldova and Georgia, and attempting to undermine  Russia’s relations with other Global South countries. They cite the constant expansion of NATO, specific efforts to draw Ukraine into NATO, and the  disregard of Russian demands in European security matters as evidence of  this anti-Russian policy. The United States, Great Britain, and most Central  European countries (except Hungary) are portrayed as leaders among  Russia’s adversaries. 

According to the Russian narrative, the primary dimension of the  Russia-West confrontation is a clash of values. The Russian authorities  expand this narrative by intertwining it with the construct of historical  memory related to the myth of the Soviet Union’s Great Victory over  Nazism in World War II, known as the Great Patriotic War. The second level sub-narrative regarding the “war with the heirs of the Nazis” attributes  to Western powers, as well as the Ukrainian authorities, an association with  neo-Nazism. Ukrainians are accused of collaboration with the Third Reich,  while Russian arguments about the resurgence of European neo-Nazism  include condemnation of European states in falsification of historical  memory of the World War II and equalizing the “politics of Russophobia”  in Europe and the Nazi policy towards other nationalities. 

When Sergei Lavrov was interviewed on 60 Minutes in October  2022, he said, 

Under German Nazism, A. Hitler united most of the  countries of Europe under his flag in order to attack and  destroy the Soviet Union. Now approximately the same group of countries, with some variations, supports V.A.  Zelensky. [14]

The Russian narratives attribute the political evolution of Ukrainian  society over the past three decades to deliberate malign influence from the  West. This influence was allegedly aimed at instilling neo-Nazism in  Ukraine and using it as an instrument of war against Russia. The Russian  authorities insist that Ukraine is under complete Western governance,  justifying its own intervention to protect individuals whom it considers part  of the “Russian World,” a cultural and ideological space shared with Russia. This was voiced as the rationale behind Russia’s occupation of part of  Ukrainian territory in 2014. The narrative also suggests that Russia launched  a “preemptive strike” in 2022 due to the constant perceived threat from  Ukraine and the West, drawing parallels with the unexpected attack of Nazi  Germany on the Soviet Union in June 1941. Therefore, the Russian  narrative frames the war with Ukraine solely as a part of the broader  transformation of the global world order, asserting that the collective West,  led by the United States is waging a war against Russia on Ukrainian  territory. Ukrainian people are depicted as part of the Russian world and as  victims of Western influence. Russia’s mission is portrayed as one of  liberating Ukrainians from Western (US) control. 

A significant element of the sub-narrative “Russia is a victim of the  West” is the second-level sub-narrative: “The denial of the identity and  sovereignty of Ukraine.” According to this narrative, the Ukrainian people  lack a distinct identity that separates them from the Russian people, along  with their own state tradition, history, or culture. Even the Ukrainian  language is deemed artificial. The idea of Ukrainian identity and an  independent state is portrayed as an anti-Russian project of the West that  lacks legitimacy. By denying Ukraine’s sovereignty, the Russian  government effectively denies its legitimacy and justifies any actions it takes  as the protection of people affiliated with the Russian world. The concept of the Russian world encompasses the entire Ukrainian  population, categorizing them as part of the Russian people and  “compatriots.” The concept of compatriots and the “policy of the Russian  Federation towards compatriots” is defined in the Federal Law titled “On  the State Policy of the Russian Federation towards Compatriots Abroad.”  According to this law, individuals who were born in the USSR and their  descendants, as well as the descendants of those born on the territory of the  Russian state, which effectively includes the Russian Empire, are  categorized as “compatriots.” The law grants the Russian Federation the  authority to protect the rights of these individuals (Article 1, Clause 3)  (Federal’nyy Zakon [Federal Law] №99-ФЗ 1999). 

Additionally, Russian authorities mention that the population of  Ukraine is divided by values and, therefore, they argue that it cannot coexist  in a single state. The Russian narrative about protecting compatriots is intertwined  with Russia’s interpretation of the right to self-determination. The Russian  government claims that its actions are aimed at upholding justice by  ensuring the population of Ukraine’s right to freely determine its own future, exercising the right to self-determination. In justifying its actions, Russia  refers not only to domestic Russian norms but also to Article 51 of the UN  Charter (the right to self-defense) and to provisions outlining the right of  peoples to self-determination.

In a newspaper interview in October 2022, Lavrov stated, 

The question of the relationship between the right to self determination and the principle of territorial integrity, after many  years of debate, was resolved in the 1970 UN Declaration on  Principles of International Law. It confirms the inviolability of the  territorial integrity or political unity of states, provided that they  have governments representing all the people living in a given  territory. We know what severe oppression the Kiev regime  subjected the Russian and Russian-speaking population to after the  2014 coup. It is obvious that the authorities in Kiev do not  represent the residents of the Donbass, Zaporozhye and Kherson  regions. The question of the conformity of referendums with the  Constitution and the legislation of Ukraine does not affect their qualification under international law. [15]

The system of Russian national strategic narratives also  encompasses a narrative that portrays “Russia as a sovereign and self sustained original civilization, rooted in traditional values, and serving as a  center of the Russian World” or a leader in regional integration, often  referred to as the sphere of influence or Big Eurasia. The modern interpretation of the “Russian idea” emphasizes that  Russia is a civilized state with a European heritage, encompassing elements  of Byzantine Christianity, political culture, and a Slavic written and  linguistic heritage. While acknowledging the colonial aspects of Russia’s  historical past, the Russian narrative also affirms and justifies policies of  coercion and assimilation against various peoples and ethnic groups in  Eurasia as essential for preserving the Russian state today. [16] While the core  of Russian civilization is often associated with the Russian ethnos, it’s  important to note that contemporary belonging to Russian civilization is  defined not solely by ethnic characteristics but also by shared values.

Within this value framework, Russians are expected to serve the state based on  principles of self-denial. “The Russian idea” is conceptualized as “the  Russian Truth,” representing the foundational worldview and a synthesis of  fundamental principles, rooted in the imperative of justice and equality.

In the Russian worldview, the concept of justice is regarded as  superior to the concept of legality, and it is considered the foundation that  lends legitimacy to any actions undertaken by the state. This perspective  places a strong emphasis on the moral and ethical dimensions of governance,  suggesting that the pursuit of justice, even if it means bending or challenging  established legal norms, is a fundamental aspect of Russian identity and  statecraft.[17] While some Russian political scientists may suggest an isolationist  approach in Russia’s global positioning, a comprehensive analysis of the  national strategic narrative, along with narratives at the international and  issue levels, suggests that a desire for expansion and influence on the global  stage persists.¹⁸ The declared emphasis on internal state and societal reform,  as well as the protection and promotion of the principle of sovereignty in  international politics, can be viewed as necessary measures aimed at  restoring resources lost during the war. These measures often include the  reorganization of society with the goal of mobilizing it for military purposes  and the removal of external restrictions, such as sanctions. 

The Russian national strategic narrative encompasses both internal  and external dimensions. The internal dimension focuses on the  restructuring of society and the state to achieve self-sufficiency and  maximum independence from the outside world. This includes a push for  the militarization of the Russian economy, seen as necessary for survival in  an increasingly chaotic global environment. The strategy also involves a  continued “turn to the East,” which should evolve into a more pronounced  “turn to Siberia,” while the western regions of Russia are considered less  important and are viewed as a buffer zone. In terms of foreign policy, there is a call for a more isolationist stance  with selective cooperation. Russia seeks to collaborate primarily with  international actors that support its interests—particularly countries in the Global South or the so-called World Majority. The overarching goal is for  Eurasian Russia to shed Western influences, especially Western values and  ideas. 

The external dimension of this narrative posits that Russia should  emerge as the focal point of Eurasian regional integration in a prospective  world divided into spheres of influence among major global players. The  concept of Eurasianism is by no means novel, as it holds deep historical  roots within Russian political thought. Presently, Russian political scholars  are endeavoring to establish it as the cornerstone of a revitalized Russian  state ideology.  

Integration within Greater Eurasia is envisaged upon the foundations  of extant projects and frameworks, supplemented by implementing novel  intergovernmental financial mechanisms and institutions designed as  alternatives to their Western counterparts. It is imperative to underscore that  Russian authorities attach great significance to the notion of Greater Eurasia  including Europe. This facet has been repeatedly underscored in official  statements, with an emphatic insistence that such inclusion can only  materialize if Europe attains full sovereignty. This would, in effect,  necessitate a severance of allied relations with the United States. 

Relatedly, in his October 2022 speech, Putin said, 

A natural part of Greater Eurasia could be its western tip—Europe.  But many of its leaders are hampered by the conviction that  Europeans are better than others, that it is not appropriate for them  to participate in some undertakings on an equal footing with the  rest.[19]

The vision of the world order that Russia aspires to and seeks to  promote to other countries is encapsulated within the Strategic Issue  Narrative titled “The new world order requires conceptual, systemic, and  structural changes.” This narrative comprises three sub-narratives that  effectively outline Russia’s foreign policy objectives, which have been  articulated by Russian authorities since at least 2007. The contemporary  interpretation includes a recognition of a values-based conflict and the  absence of potential compromise with the liberal-democratic elites of the  West.

The Russian strategic issue narrative is notably characterized by its  vague formulation. While it asserts that existing international processes and  institutions are inherently unfair and advocates for their elimination and  replacement, it does not offer a clear description of the new processes and  institutions that should replace them. Instead, it articulates guiding  principles such as justice, sovereign equality, balance of interests, respect  for all, and inclusiveness, among others.

The Russian narrative of the new multipolar order envisions a world  divided into zones of responsibility and special interests of major global  powers (regional leaders). This concept, referred to as regionalization,  stands in contrast to globalization. According to this narrative,  regionalization entails the creation of large integration blocs around regional  leaders, who represent new and emerging centers of power. Within these  blocs, Russia proposes the development of alternative international  instruments and institutions to replace existing ones. The Russian authorities  argue that this structure of international relations will afford greater  sovereignty to international actors, better serve their interests, and result in  a more balanced international order. However, the Russian narrative  introduces a degree of ambiguity and contradiction. It combines the concept  of sovereignty with the idea of dividing the world into areas of responsibility  and special interests of Great Powers, which may entail restrictions on the  sovereignty of smaller states. To address this gap, Russian authorities  suggest that states unable to exercise full sovereignty within these limits  should interpret sovereignty as an opportunity to shape their socio-political  systems in accordance with their own traditional values. 

The Russian narrative posits that the foundation of the new world  order should rest upon a balance of interests, which will be regulated by the  balance of power rather than by existing international legal norms.  Additionally, it emphasizes the principle of democratization of international  relations, which entails the equality of political regimes, regardless of their  adherence to human rights. As an exemplar of an international institution  that upholds the sovereignty of all regimes, regardless of their form of  government (besides the UN), the Russian authorities frequently cite the  Non-Aligned Movement. 

In August 2022, while being interviewed for a documentary, Lavrov commented, 

. . . there are also represented what are called democracies, and  electoral autocracies, monarchies and many other forms of government, each of which, in accordance with the UN Charter, has sovereign equality . . .[20]

The Russian narrative also underscores the principle of justice as a pivotal  element of the new multipolar system. This entails several key components:

• Creation of a new global financial system, which would be built  upon the financial frameworks of influential world states, although  the specific details of its operation and the process of creating new  institutions and mechanisms remain undisclosed in Russian strategic  narratives.
•  Introduction of a mechanism for free exchange of technology and  education in international relations.  

It is important to note that while these principles are articulated within the  Russian narrative, the concrete steps, structures, and timelines for realizing  these goals are not detailed. However, the initial step in the pursuit of this  vision involves moving away from reliance on the US dollar and the euro in  international settlements and transitioning toward the use of national  currencies. 

Conclusion 

The Russian strategic narratives discussed in this article collectively  form a comprehensive storyline that can be characterized as the Russian  Grand Narrative. In this overarching narrative, Russia positions itself as a  staunch adversary of the liberal world, represented by the West. It portrays  Russia both as a victim of Western actions and as a leader spearheading a  global movement against Western hegemony. The war in Ukraine is framed  as an integral part of this broader global confrontation. Consequently, the  antagonistic posture of the Russian government toward Western countries is  likely to persist beyond the conclusion of the Russian-Ukrainian war, as long  as the current Russian political regime remains in place.

To legitimize its actions and policies, the Russian strategic narratives  imbue Russia’s conduct with a higher purpose—defending traditional  values. Another component of this legitimization strategy is the narrative  that questions the subjectivity and identity of the target of Russian  aggression. This narrative, initially applied to Ukraine, is gradually being  extended to European states. By denying subjectivity and identity, Russian  strategic narratives lay the groundwork for framing Russia’s actions as  protective, not only of those within the Russian world, but also of those who  might seek refuge from perceived threats of liberal neo-colonialism by  turning to Russia for protection. 

These strategic narratives outline Russian foreign policy objectives,  all guided by the overarching goal of reshaping the global order. This  envisioned order involves the division of the world into spheres of influence  or regional integration led by major global powers. Russia positions itself as  the future hub of Eurasian regional integration, including Europe as part of  Greater Eurasia. This perspective underscores Russia’s view that Europe  should regain its sovereignty, paving the way for its eventual integration into  the Greater Eurasian space. 

In challenging the existing world order, Russia claims that two pillars of  the new world order should be:

• the principle of “balance of interests” that will be regulated by the  balance of power, and not by existing international legal norms.  Therefore, the global system of international law and international  institutions is to be reset to zero point and the new system is to be  established.
• the principle of democratization of international relations, which  provides for the equality and impunity of political regimes regardless  of the observance of human rights.

If Russia and its allies succeed in this normative confrontation with the  West, it could result in the erosion of the international legal system and  international institutions, including financial ones. The potential  consequences for Europe and liberal democracies worldwide might include  the rise of radical political forces, economic and political instability,  heightened internal conflicts, increased corruption, decisions at odds with  liberal democratic norms, the weakening of European and transatlantic  unity, and heightened security threats to European states.