How will relations between the West and Russia develop over the coming decades? What comes after Putin? Under no circumstances should there be a new Versailles treaty that humiliates normal Russians, but it shouldn’t go unnoticed for them either that they believe that a neo-Putin course could be pursued after a few years. A comprehensive overhaul of the concept of Russia and a vision for 2030 are required. So far, there are only Navalny and Chordorkovsky’s leapfrogging as an alternative, but a vision is needed for Russia that brings the Resource Empire into a new idea and not just as an international asshole and supplicant. Admittedly, that is extremely difficult and whether it is still possible at all is an existing skepticism in the West. There is also no desire to support democracy movements, as in Eastern Europe or Turkey, or to mistake them as such. which then, within the framework of a new Weimar republic or sui generis, still become nationalistic saboteurs in peaceful cooperation or in the new hostility that then follows. Lessons have been learned from PiS-Poland, Orban-Hungary, Erdogan-Turkey or Putin-Russia. Macron also makes that clear if he doesn’t want any further EU expansion to include the Balkans, Ukraine or Georgia, because the next mafia economies and nationalists have to be brought into the EU or dealt with because they block and sabotage everything. undermine and question their community of values without the EU´s option simply being able to throw them out. Now, Russia will not become a member of the EU for the foreseeable future, but the same questions remain on possible new cooperation between Russia and the West. Is a new Russia conceivable, or will it always remain this genetically and culturally located eternal authoritarian and reactionary entity that will repeatedly wage wars precisely because of its idea of being a great power and empire. Kudrin’s idea of a sovereign wealth fund from the revenue of the Resource Empire was correct. But contrary to what Kudrin thought, Putin did not invest this income in the conversion and diversification of the Russian economy in high-tech industries and an information society, essentially he only used the income of the Resource Empire to finance armament and if Hi-Tech then for any armament programs that he then proudly presented at his annual speech. Russia as an extended workbench like China under Deng Xiaoping is already over as a future, since there are plenty of such locations in the remaining world, the permanent and actually existing Resource Empire is a freak in itself, since it has exacerbated kleptocratic and oligarchic tendencies without modernization of the state, society and the economy, still wanting to work towards limiting the carbon economy worldwide or in terms of climate protection. One would have to use Kudrin’s idea of a sovereign wealth fund for modernization and a welfare state, especially since oil and gas will no longer flow to the West, but will flow more to Asia, but would continue and spur on the same modernization backlog. Instead, a mix is conceivable: the income from the Asian Pivot Resource Empire are used, market reforms are implemented and attempts are made to leapfrog Russia like Khodorkwosky wanted, i.e. not to build industrial production as an extended workbench like China, but to dare an evolutionary leap into an IT and information society . Apparently this is possible in Rwanda, and to put it in a nasty and racist way: why should only negroes in Africa be able to do that, who were planting coffee cash crops for generations and without any knowledge and education and not Russians with a broad scientific background and well-educated? But everything with Putin is unthinkable and not even Navalny has an idea apart from the reset of the neoliberal Yabloko program that led to Yeltsin’s Wild East and then the hoped-for stabilization under Putin. But that would only be a question of economic reform. But just as important, and even more important, is a political and cultural reform, and a new identity for Russia away from resource and empire ideas in general, which creates a liberal aura that can generate innovations and discussions about Russia’s future. Karaganov, the Valdai Club, Russia in Global Affairs have so far only been intellectual arsonists in the other direction and that is why the Moscow Times also demands their removal and sanctioning as ideological well poisoners in the article “Sanction the Right people”:
And the previous Russian elites have failed miserably. But so far the opposition in exile has essentially only consisted of opportunistic oligarchs, Khodorkowsky and Pussy Riot, which is just as narrow- minded and disastrous for any Vison Russia 2030. But Kudrin would only be an economic reformer. Russia needs a general overhaul in all areas. And Kudrin as president, Khodorkovsky as political and economic adviser, Navalny as vote bringer would be an option for a kind of election list Vision Russia 2030. Although Pussy Riot shouldn’t get the Ministry of Culture, since that would probably overwhelm the average Russian in terms of cultural revolution. But under Putin, this is not at all debatable or feasible in Russia, and the opposition in exile has not yet produced their own joint Vision Russia 2030 program for a post-Putin era that they could agree on. All patchwork, nothing but particular interests, not holistic or even coherent. But no wonder, since Putin wants to destroy every conceptual and organizational approach to this. Especially since such a vision should perhaps not have 1 leader, but 1 TEAMleader. The Yakunin option also failed, as did Karaganov. Russia needs a renewal TEAM with 1 TEAM leader who will comprehensively eliminate the previous system errors and fundamentally change the system and agree on a program for the opposition in exile. Dr. Rahr then said: “The president must be electable in conservative Russia. Chodrokowsky doesn’t have a chance, Navalny does, as long as he doesn’t give the West a whistle. I am for Kudrin, he knows me“. Kudrin may be eligible, but without Chodrokosky and Navalny he will not be able to bring back to Russia the intelligentsia, residual entrepreneurs, young people and creative people who are emigrating from Russia, nor will he be able to integrate the opposition. It would be better to make an election list with a modernization TEAM with 1 TEAM leader, so that the others are not excluded or brought into competition. However, this would require them to agree on a vision for Russia 2030. It is also less about Khodorkovsky as a person, but about the idea of leapfrogging formulated in his book i chapter „The Future of Russia“, which he could bring with Kudrin in an interesting synthesis with his economic reforms and use of the state fund .Maybe also as hybrid between market economy and industrial policy ideas. Navalny has no idea about the economy, just copied from the neoliberal Yabloko, then leading right-wing extremist demonstrations, which is why he was also expelled from Yabloko for fomenting nationalist-racist moods, and then to the opposite backed demonstrations by urban liberal forces and their youth . A right-wing chameleon, of whom one does not know exactly what he stands for and whether he only wants democracy and market reform or instead of Putinism a Navalnysim or Russia first. Dr Rahr added: „Yurgen would also be a solution. Ultimately also Jawlinski”. We will discuss these personal details and their importance next, but what is important is a comprehensive vision of Russia 2030 and not only economic reform and only 1 person, but also the silo wiki apparatus and the entire Russian society and its state and its identity and its international self-image, insofar as one hopes and wants in the mid- or longterm cooperation between the West and Russia again. But it is also a question of the extent to which the West will still exist as Vision 2030, as hoped for and determined at the EU summit, G-7 summit and NATO summit in June 2022, also by means of a new NATO 2030 strategy. Especially since one should also consider that there could not only be a post-Putin era, but also a post-Macron and post-Biden era under Le Pen or Trump.