Cross-border spaces in the perception of threats to Russia's National Security

Evtekhov Roman Arturovich ORCID: 0000-0003-0630-7196 PhD in History Researcher, Lomonosov Moscow State University 127474, Russia, Moscow, Seligerskaya str., 22/2 lib-lab-scan@mail.ru

Introduction. The instability of the system of international relations leads to the revision of certain principles and agreements that determine the preservation of mutual security of countries. Such a revision in world history often caused conflicts, confrontation and polarization of individual states and blocs, which in turn led to a change in the balance of relations and transformation of borders.

Objective processes of revision of borders as a result of the current political instability are increasingly aggravating the situation. Military and security resources, while continuing to be important, in some cases fade into the background. A sufficient number of signs of stability and security lie outside the force field, but in the field of conservative preservation of important aspects of the changing world – morality, religion, values, etc.

The study of the problems of border security, their fairness and variability occupied a significant place in the works of scientists of the XX century. Gradually, the issues of preserving security have gone far beyond the study of aspects of state security and found new directions. Domestic and foreign scientists have identified a significant number of security areas. Categories of food, information, energy, financial, payment and other security have appeared, each of which has become a separate subject of research. The problem of perception and protection from external and internal threats is one of the most urgent problems of our time. In this regard, the events of the end of February 2022 are subject to a whole range of assessments and definitions. If we evaluate the events from the point of view of Russia's national security strategy and the perception of the types and types of threats by the Russian elite, the problem appears in a slightly different way.

The problems of borders, their security and the impact on the inner sense of security have gone far beyond the ideas of the XX century. On the one hand, the processes of globalization contribute to the expansion of the contours of national security and force the expansion of areas of interest outside their own borders, as reference points that guarantee security. On the other hand, from the point of view of the Russian power elite, international law does not guarantee the protection and sovereignty of the country in the event, for example, of color revolutions and the slowly but steadily ongoing process of Westernization. The latter, from our point of view, is perceived by the Russian elite as the main threat to national security. The purpose of the study is to determine the nature of the perception of the transformation of cross-border spaces in the system of threats to Russia's national security.

Research overview. The topics of geopolitical problems of individual regions and their role in the security system attract the attention of researchers. It is worth noting the works that explored the region as a space of competition between great powers for the introduction of geopolitical projects, by the team of authors A.A. Irkhin, O.A. Moskalenko ^{[9, pp. 498-516; 12, pp. 258-277]}. The ideas of perceiving the region as a special area for influence and the formation of a certain world order are not only characteristic of the Russian government. Thus, the American diplomat M. Bryza quite openly spoke about the need for a purposeful policy of influence on the Black Sea region as an area with a separate political and economic identity, different from nearby territories ^{[1, pp. 37-42.]}. By the way, a number of Western researchers echoed this point of view, rightly noting that this region being in the zone of different geopolitical interests will be an area for another confrontation ^{[2, pp. 5-7; 3, pp. 243-258]}. This is largely facilitated by the perception of the Russian elite of the region not only as strategic, but also guaranteeing certain criteria of internal security.

For example, the Norwegian-Finnish cross-border areas are considered in a completely opposite way ^{[20, pp. 74-81; 23, pp. 45-53]}. The problem of security is of great importance here, but it is considered not from the point of view of civilizational and value clashes, but in a completely applied order: environmental, transport and economic spheres. The interconnections of individual cross-border regions, including in matters of maintaining security, are considered in the works of O.V. Bakhlova, A.N. Slugina ^{[6, pp. 10-30]}. The authors in the context of the Union state noted some internal detachment of Russia and Belarus. Nevertheless, they highly appreciate the potential advantages of rapprochement, especially in the key of countering political threats. The problems of Russia's integration with European countries at the level of individual regions are also studied. Thus, in the works of L.R. Rustamova ^{[15, pp. 711-733]}, first of all, a significant difference in value orientations and a difference in aspirations on the part of Russia for enlargement, and on the part of the European powers for regionalization is noted. In this Rustamova sees the inevitability of European integration of Eastern European cross-border spaces, including Ukraine. This, in turn, will have a logical effect on the forms of interaction between countries and on changing the balance of security systems.

In studies of cross-border security issues, special attention is paid to the territories of Ukraine and Transnistria. A number of scientists claim that the very fact of Ukraine's regime transformation is a threat to Russia's national security ^{[4, pp. 78-85; 11, pp. 25-34; 13, pp. 246-254; 14, pp. 5-22; 17, pp. 81-91; 22, pp. 35-47]}. The military-strategic threats associated with Ukraine's entry into various blocs, the commonwealth and the strengthening of NATO are most acutely perceived. The transformation of civilizational values is mentioned as one of the consequences, but not the threat factor itself. The authors state the open opposition between Ukraine and Russia and the clearly anti-Russian European-Ukrainian policy. The majority of modern studies considering various aspects of the impact of the transformation of the political regime in Ukraine note that the main problems of Russia's political stability are: confrontation, threats of military clashes and non-recognition of Crimea's entry into the Russian Federation. Of course, without reducing the significance of these challenges, we see that the main threat in the view of the Russian power elite is not only and not so much military, but value-civilization. The military-strategic threat to the interests of Russia's national security ranks only second in this system of values.

Research methods. The research was based on the achievements of the theory of "national borders" (researchers of the XX century: P. Buchanan, V.M. Rodachin, etc.) and the theory of "expanding security zones" (B. Buzan, O. Vever, A.A. Pershin, A.D. Sherstnev, etc.). These theories expanded the understanding of borders, in particular, asserting that that the borders of security go deep beyond the borders of the State and include border and multi-border (cross-border) spaces. Initially, the theory of national borders took into account only the formation of large national states within the boundaries of the location of such nations. Subsequent studies have gone from the formation of nations to the formation of common borders of closely related cultural communities, which are based not only and not so much on common origin, but on common cultural and historical values, religion and traditions. The undertaken research in the categories of the Russian elite's views on borders and cross-border areas was based on the principles of the theory of "natural borders" (S.N. Baburin). In its essence, the ongoing conflicts with Western civilizations are, among other things, caused by the unnatural nature of existing borders. The natural border of the Russian Federation in the west, in this concept, are the borders of the Slavic-Orthodox world. Without going into criticism of certain provisions of this theory, we believe that it is she who best describes the idea of boundaries in the value system of the Russian elite. At the same time, the theory of natural boundaries in our understanding does not fully correspond to the modern idea of boundaries.

The methods of a systematic approach, a formal legal approach were used in the work, in particular in the study of documents and individual statements of the President of Russia as the main exponent of the ideas of the political elite of Russia. The comparative approach and multilevel analysis are used. The source basis consists of separate documents such as: the decree "On the National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation", "The Constitution of the Russian Federation" as amended on July 4, 2020, the Federal Law of 12/28/2010 "on security", the doctrine of "information security of the Russian Federation", "Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation", "Fundamentals of State cultural Policy". The analysis of individual documents of political and strategic planning, compared with the official statements of the President of the Russian Federation and his political line in relation to the Ukrainian territories revealed certain aspects of the perception of cross-border spaces and their impact on national security.

We admit that these documents and individual speeches of the President of the Russian Federation cannot be a comprehensive reflection of the ideas of the Russian political elite about cross-border spaces and security threats. Given the political system of Russia, the president is an unambiguous exponent of the mass representation of the political elite on these issues, of course with certain reservations.

The results of the study. The nature of the influence of geographical factors in the system of ensuring national security in Russian science is given special attention. Popular is the opinion ^{[4, pp. 78-85; 11, pp. 25-34; 16, pp. 13-20; 19, pp. 159-164]} that the cross-border interests of the Russian state from century to century have some common geographical directions. A number of such areas are also called "areas of interest" and constitute separate elements of ensuring national security. However, these territories are recognized as integral parts of the security system only during the period of their political reorganization or territorial transformations. It is impossible to agree with the existence of certain similar areas - territories that represent an area of interest for Russia throughout its existence. The borders during the XVIII – XXI centuries were constantly changing and rearranged. At different periods, Russia's interests included the territories of modern Finland, the Baltic States, Poland, Ukraine, Moldova, Crimea, the Caucasus, and the Kuril Islands. Special areas of interest were Manchuria and the territories of modern Mongolia, Kazakhstan, etc. Some of them ceased to be perceived as areas of interest immediately after their accession. Initially, these cross-border territories were perceived by the Russian authorities as regions, for various reasons, necessary for inclusion in the state. If we talk only about certain areas of interest, it seems to us a kind of simplification, cross-border interests are quite changeable and unstable. At the same time, it is worth agreeing that these and some other regions could be perceived as areas of interest and perceived by the elite as components of the national security system due to their conviction in this.

The state of certain cross-border territories is perceived by the Russian political elite, at least through its rhetoric, as an unambiguous core of preserving Russia's national security. The reason lies in the awareness of the country's status in terms of its influence in the world, which is equated to a simple logic – more territory means more importance. Modern Russian politics focuses not on spreading and expanding the influence of its model of life, the structure of society (economy, ideas, technologies), because obviously there is no such model, but on territorial and border factors. The preservation of national security in this context is based on the preservation in these territories of belonging to the value orientations of Russia. Such values include language, religion, history, culture, traditional values, mentality. Researchers perceive the main threats to the national security of the Russian Federation primarily military ^{[10, pp. 23-38; 11, pp. 25-34; 14, pp. 5-22; 17, pp. 81-91]}, including: the location and number of NATO troops, the entry into the alliance of border countries, the deployment of certain types of weapons, etc. In our opinion, the first-order threat, from the point of view of the Russian elite, is precisely the transformation of value orientations. The statement of the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin, in response to the decision of Finland and Sweden to join NATO, that there are no problems with these countries and the expansion of NATO at the expense of these states is not perceived as a threat, indicates that, despite the border between Russia and Finland, the change in the status of the latter is not perceived as damage to national security. security. The second proof of this thesis is the preservation of complete stability in relations with these countries both before and after the announcement of their intentions. The situation on the Russian-Finnish border has not changed, at least as of October 2022, no "asymmetric responses" were applied, which were initially stated by the Russian side, only as rhetoric. Such an approach to the Russian borders of NATO, it would seem, should have been perceived as a real threat. The logical increase in the number of troops, and the location of military bases to the north of Russia is not perceived as a threat, respectively, as the next step in the entry of these countries into the NATO bloc.

The second position proving the thesis that the expansion of NATO and the increase in the number of troops in Europe is not perceived as a priority threat is actually the very fact of the announcement of the Ukrainian special operation in February 2022. It is impossible to imagine that its planning did not involve the involvement of the NATO army contingent as a response, even if the special operation was carried out as soon as possible. An increase in the military contingent is a logical step following any conflict in Europe. Even if we take into account that his growth was not always sharp, but mandatory. At the same time, the natural increase in conflict in regions with smoldering geopolitical problems, such as Nagorno-Karabakh ^{[8, p. 9-27]}, as a result of the policy, is also not perceived as a significant threat to Russia's national security. From this it follows that the transformation of not all cross-border territories is perceived as potentially threatening. And this confirms the thesis about the perception of a threat from Ukraine not of a military nature, but of the nature of introducing other, alien values.

Another example, in connection with the final withdrawal of the American military contingent from Afghanistan, the former regime was completely eliminated in the shortest possible time. And despite the complete change of power, the region where Russia traditionally had certain interests was perceived as a fait accompli, without showing obvious concern about it. A movement banned in Russia seized power in Afghanistan, but this was not the reason for blocking contacts. It can be assumed that Russian experts assumed such a development of events and it did not come as a surprise to Moscow. The new government of Afghanistan in every possible way showed readiness for dialogue and the absence of threats to bilateral relations ^{[5, p. 5-12]}. Thus, both examples illustrate that at the moment the main threat to national security is perceived not as a military threat, but rather a threat of a civilizational nature, to the multinational cultural and historical values of Russia. In other words, the greatest danger is seen in the replacement of the foundations of statehood, culture, mentality and other forms of sociality that determine the essential norms of society.

From the point of view of the Russian political elite, other "alien" ideals and values, the attempt to plant which is carried out by the United States and its allies, lead to increased disunity and polarization of national societies. Such actions destroy the foundation of cultural sovereignty, undermine the foundations of political stability and statehood. Accompanied by a revision of the basic norms of morality, which causes irreparable damage to the moral health of a person, encourages destructive behavior, creates conditions for the self-destruction of society. The gap between generations is growing. At the same time, manifestations of aggressive nationalism, xenophobia, religious extremism and terrorism are increasing ^[21]. Thus, the Westernizing values and ideals of the Russian elite today are perceived as one of the most dangerous factors destabilizing the national security system. Against the background of these problems, internal problems that are not related to security, both economic and social, have actually become secondary. The main attention is paid to the problems of foreign policy and security of the Russian government.

The above provisions are fully consistent with the doctrinal documents as the "National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation". In part: about Russia as a powerful geopolitical entity with the status of a world power … [Russia is a multi-regional power with an autonomous state regional policy, including regional national security systems [21]. It is very important in the context of the policy of 2022 to highlight the military policy (paragraph 12, section II), which is designated as a means of protection from military dangers and threats. According to the strategy, the activities of unnamed states are aimed at disintegration "in order to destroy Russia's ties with its traditional allies. A number of states call Russia a threat and even a military opponent. The risk of armed conflicts escalating into local and regional wars, including with the participation of nuclear powers, is increasing." To a certain extent, open confrontation with European powers and the United States, which are perceived as a single political entity, force the Russian elite to look for similar models for the implementation of cross-border policy in the East. The models found among undemocratic countries are declared traditional for Russian reality. It is these Eastern principles in politics that, according to the authors of the strategy, are a segment of the traditional spiritual and moral values of the Russian people, at least they are attributed to him. This is hinted at by the wording about strengthening the cohesion of Russian society and awareness of the need to protect traditional values.

Representatives of the advanced Eastern states, to which reference is made, often report completely opposite things. So at the meeting of Vladimir Putin with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, on the issue of Ukraine, the latter quite reasonably remarked: "... I know that this is not the era of wars... democracy, diplomacy, dialogue are important tools for us to find solutions..." ^[18]. The open reorientation to the eastern bloc of powers is justified in the National Security Strategy. The "Collective West" is accused of trying to maintain hegemony (section 6, II), which in turn raises the level of instability and conflict and leads to the dismantling of the system of international treaties, agreements and principles of implementation of international law (section 17, II). The search for Eastern partners forces the Russian government to pay more attention to establishing relations with these states. And this direction is again openly visible from the rainbow meetings of this 2022 of the President of Russia in: Dushanbe (June 28), Ashgabat (June 29), Tehran (July 19), Samarkand (September 15-16).

Conclusion. Based on the above provisions, it should be concluded: first, the clear priority of threats to Russia's national security, in the views of the power elite, is associated with the territories of Ukraine. The main threat in the elite's view comes not only and not so much from the military, in particular the expansion of NATO to the east, but from the transformation of Ukraine's value orientations and the accompanying change in the social paradigm and the change in the system of power. Having borders with many areas representing separate areas of interest, this region is strategically important. Due to geographical factors, it can threaten the territories of southern Russia and, first of all, the Crimean Peninsula within the Russian Federation. And although the geographical factor plays an important role here, based on the above, it is the value transformation that is seen as the main danger, since in the vision of the Russian elite it is a threat to the values of Russian civilization.

The second important conclusion is the desire and desire of the Russian authorities to change the established world order and dismantle the international agreements and so-called "rules of the game" that are unfair and do not meet the realities, from their point of view. Russia as a civilization is developing exceptionally extensively in the current conditions, expanding the close-lying zones of influence to which it is able to broadcast its experience and example of social and political development. The transformation of cross-border regions in a different ("alien") way for Russia is perceived by the elite as an attack on their own national interests. Changes in such territories are perceived by the Russian authorities most painfully, as they contradict the possibility of influencing areas of interest and undermine their own value orientations in the region.