Yevgeny Primakov and the foreign policy consensus within the Russian political establishment in years 1996-98

In order to understand what was going on in Russia at the time that Yevgeny Primakov came to power, we'll have to go back to the time when it all started. It's January 1991. The current foreign minister Andrei Kozyrev, criticized heavily by a large part of Russian political establishment, as well press, finally resigns from the post (which he had been holding for 6 years, since 1990). He goes on to take a seat in the newly elected State Duma.

After Kozyrev's resignment, in January 1996 a new foreign minister is called in for that place. His name is Yevgeny Primakov.
It's obvious that Russian politicians and citizens (at least some of them) were looking for a new quality in foreign policy. Having criticized Kozyrev's ideas of "liberal Westernizing", they seemed to be yearning for a change. Russia needed to ensure itself that it's still a "superpower". There were doubts about that. It's clear that there was a need for a foreign minister, who would take a turn in that new desired direction. Who would put the emphasis on Russia's national interests and defend them in the world. Yevgeny Primakov, former Director Of The External Intelligence Service (SVR), had to become that person.

Of course it's never easy to satisfy everyone, and especially if you're dealing with the political elites. I will try to briefly explain what was the consensus in Russia's foreign policy thinking in years 1996-1998 (Primakov as foreign minister) based on. One of the main problems Primakov had to face, was restoring Russia's power in international relations on one hand, and on the other - still maintaining the status of cooperation with the West. Moreover, he had to try to balance the relations with the West and East, cooperate with USA, as well as with China. Taking into account these aspects, it seemed that there's only way to achieve all these goals. It was multipolarity - Primakov's most important idea. Multipolarity (or multilateralism) meant co-existence of several great powers that shape the international relations together. Russia was seen as one of these six players (among USA, Western Europe as a whole, China, Japan and India). This brilliant idea contained both politics of restoring Russia's position as a global power and politics of peaceful cooperation with the rest of the world. Following its assumptions, Russia should have competitive relations with the biggest powers, but at the same time form partnerships with important players, on equal terms. "On equal terms" ? that's the key. Multipolarity assumed a kind of a balance between the main powers, preventing any of them from becoming too strong. It might sound familiar if we go back in time to XIX century and recall the famous British idea of "Balance of power". Anyways, continuing, what was Russia's role in this world system?

According to Primakov, Russia was meant to play the role of a player trying to keep the balance. Moreover, it should have a role of influencing and affecting global relations, instead of confining itself to being a regional power (which it already is - in the relations with CIS countries). This whole idea sounds really reasonable to me. There's one aspect that needs to mentioned though in order to fully understand it - it-s the historical background. In the 1990's, it was obvious for almost every expert in international relations, but also to the countries alone, that the time of Russia's biggest power is gone. Clearly, gone. There was no USSR no more and after its collapse in 1991 the Cold War ultimately ended. The bipolar world order, imposed by two global powers (USA and USSR) and cultivated for over 40 years, no longer existed and Russia as an incomparably weaker successor of USSR had to understand it. The practical result was: one superpower left - and it was USA. In the post-Cold-War years, the United States started playing the role of a world's leader. No other country could even compare. Primakov saw that trend and the danger it had created for Russia. He surely couldn't accept that. Unipolarity was the main threat, almost a "public enemy number 1" for Russia. Primakov couldn't let that tendency grow, he had to try counteract and neutralize it. That's where his strict and harsh policy against NATO came from, and why he was dubbed "Anti-Western". He opposed to NATO's expansion into the former Eastern Bloc - countries like Poland, Hungary. Primakov was a hard-headed, at times stubborn advocate of Russia's national interests. His pragmatic thinking, much in the vein of Realpolitik, was an answer to USA's unilateral tendencies. It was all a balancing game.

There's also another aspect of Russia's foreign policy thinking during years 1996-98 that needs to be discussed - economic integration. Primakov was afraid that Russia would be integrated in world economy only as a supplier. The question that arose was "How to integrate?". According to Primakov, the process had to be controlled - he came up with the idea of selective integration. He knew that economically Russia is weak, so it should use political means in order to make up for those weaknesses and gain better terms of the integration.

All in all, the consensus needed to be made between those parts of establishment rooting for aggressive, anti-West policy, and the other ones, advocating for soft methods in foreign policy and continuing the line of "Westernization". The main problem in shaping the Russian foreign policy in Yevgeny Primakov's era as foreign minister (1996-98), was defending national interests and restoring the great power status, without causing a possible confrontation with other global players. He wanted Russia to recover its "God-given position" as a global power. The main key to achieving these goals was the idea of multipolarity, which included cooperation with other players and keeping the balance in international relations, furthermore, in the world order.