Jeju Peace Institute

Currently facing tension against the West following the Ukrainian crisis, Russia is taking an anti-US/anti-West stance on the surface under state leadership, but there is a need to focus on its behavior to become an active actor in the liberal market economy under liberal democracy as opposed to standing in its opposition. In summary, Russia clearly recognizes that it cannot reject the current (neo-) liberal international political economic order in order to prevail past the interference of core Western countries, amidst limitations in terms of Russia’s position and role within the global capitalist system. As a country that is unable to lead the global capitalist system, Russia cannot reject the (neo-)liberal order and transition into policy directions such as isolationism or nationalism, even if such changes are state-led, if it wishes to engage in development efforts for its Far East and Siberian regions or grow into a Eurasian great power that connects the Asia-Pacific region to Europe. In addition, although Russia appears to strengthen its anti-West stance and implement an Asia-centric policy, such as the establishment of the Ministry for the Development of the Russian Far East amid tensions with the West, reinforcement of its alliance with China, diversification of its oil and gas exports to non-Western regions, and participation in various international organizations such as the Eurasian Economic and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, such efforts do not constitute a fundamental paradigm shift. Therefore, Russia may use its geopolitical uniqueness as an instrument, moving against (neo-)liberalism in relation to the West while seeking cooperation under principles of (neo-)liberalism with Asian countries including Korea.

Furthermore, since Russia may also actively establish cooperative partnerships with Western state capital depending on its developmental needs, Russia’s brand of liberalism may appear as though it is pursuing two contradictory policies depending on the geopolitical and geoeconomic situation facing Russia and Eurasia. In conclusion, it seems clear that large-scale development projects in the Eurasian region are likely to a capital flow toward the real economy as opposed to the financial economy, and although countries in this region are lacking in terms of progressive discourses for development and growth, Korea must nonetheless pursue a differentiated strategy with a progressive and harmonious independent approach.

Author

CHUNG Jae-Won (Professor, Kookmin University)