His argument is not about rebellion against the Kremlin, but about how Russian business can survive after Western-led globalization

The publication in The Economist magazine ofan articleby Russian billionaire Andrey Melnichenko is, by today's standards, highly unusual.

Here is a major businessman who continues to operate in Russia, doesn't set himself against the Russian authorities and is under Western sanctions because of it. However, it would be naive to think that a leading British publication with a clear ideological outlook printed such an article purely out of devotion to pluralism.

Naturally, Melnichenko's candid reflections on the challenges facing Russia have been presented as evidence of a split in the Russian ruling class, or as a sign of rebellious sentiment among big business, but the real logic of his argument is of little interest to the British audience. Moreover, it's inconvenient, because it disrupts a neat and comforting picture of the world, and that picture may be the most interesting part of the reaction to his article.

Russia's business community was formed in the era of globalization and not because Russian entrepreneurs were all desperate to become part of transnational business, but because the collapse and self-dissolution of the Soviet Union coincided with the worldwide spread of liberal globalization. The Russian Federation, carrying out economic reforms in emergency conditions during a profound social and economic crisis, immediately found itself inside that global context.

There was no alternative model on offer, thus the global cosmopolitan economy was treated as the natural order of things and whether one liked it or not, it appeared to embody the famous "end of history" where the global West, with its ideas about what was right, inevitable and modern, had been crowned for an indefinite reign.

That's where the assumption came from that any serious business class, in any country, could exist only if it was integrated into the Western system and accepted the rules written there, while those rules, of course, favored those who had written them.

It would be too simple to describe this only as malice or greed by the hegemon and nothing personal, as victors have always written the rules and, in this case, the rules weren't even especially predatory. Globalization did offer opportunities to many, though in measured doses and according to rank, but the main beneficiaries were always supposed to remain those who had created the system.

The erosion of that system began when it became clear that the dividends could also flow to others, above all China. The rollback of liberal globalization wasn't caused mainly by revisionist powers but driven by those who had designed and built the system, then found themselves unpleasantly surprised by growing competition within it.

The wider history of globalization is a separate subject, but the rapid shift in the global balance of power, rising anger over inequality and political imbalances, and shocks such as the pandemic have all undermined the supposedly correct model of the world economy. The "end of history" has given way to historical infinity and unipolarity hasn't simply been replaced by multipolarity, but by a far wider range of possible futures.

This has a direct bearing on Melnichenko's article and on its reception in a British magazine. In the West, the crisis of globalization is now acknowledged, albeit reluctantly, and there is even a growing acceptance that there may be no return to the old order, that the world is not guaranteed to move along the "right" path, and that new methods and strategies are needed.

But when it comes to Russia, a rigid ideological assumption still operates where Moscow, having turned away from the correct path, has supposedly headed into the abyss and written itself out of the future. Salvation, in this view, can only come through repentance and a return to the previously prescribed track. Since this can't happen under the current Russian leadership, the leadership must change, and so signs that this is approaching, whether real or imagined, are therefore eagerly sought or manufactured through crude interpretation.

Meanwhile, the real discussion in Russia about its problems and its uncertain future is taking place in a very different context and with very different aims, and it's not always uplifting, but it's also no longer framed by the old assumptions.

Whether Western leaders intended this or not, the punitive measures imposed on Russia since 2022 have transformed the Russian business community. Russian business itself became a target of sweeping Western pressure, while its rights and interests in Western countries largely ceased to be respected and, as a result, the globalized model of activity and consciousness that had taken shape since the end of the last century is simply no longer viable.

This isn't only a Russian story because the system of no-alternative globalization has failed more broadly, which means the question facing all major economic players is now how to defend their interests and secure development in an increasingly fragmented, though still closely interconnected, world. It won't be possible to continue as before, but how to act differently remains to be worked out, because the current world system is both highly conflict-ridden and still indivisible and in many respects, there is no historical precedent to follow.

This is what Melnichenko is writing about.

Russian big business has ceased to be globalized, if globalization means integration into a single system with one center of authority. It's lost any illusion of equality with Western players, if such illusions ever existed. It has not, however, stopped being international and it doesn't accept isolation. The key point now is reliance on Russia's own national base, and the expansion and development of that base.

This is not to be done against the rest of the world, but in search of acceptable forms of coexistence and cooperation. That's an entirely new objective compared with the era of liberal globalization, which has ended and in which the goals were different.

It would be foolish to claim that sanctions and other punitive measures haven't harmed Russia or created new problems. They have, but they've also produced a different core and a different understanding of strategic development interests. After the phase of acute military confrontation, the next stage will begin and it will be no less important, and perhaps more important, with national construction suited to the realities of a future world unlike the one to which we had grown accustomed.

The experience of the 1990s through the 2020s may help Russia understand the situation and avoid repeating some mistakes, though even that's not guaranteed. But as a practical guide, that experience has largely exhausted itself.

The Soviet legacy has fully faded and the orientation toward the West, with the aim of becoming part of it, has long ceased to be relevant, while orientation toward China, with the risk of becoming an appendage of a very powerful partner, is dangerous and autarky is impossible.

What remains is accelerated self-development in building resilience and self-sufficiency through the diversification of interests and partnerships, rather than isolation. This doesn't apply only to Russia, and it's now the approach of almost everyone, but the difference is that each country has a different level of potential.

Russia's potential is enormous, but it will have to be realized in a different way. That's what Melnichenko is writing about. What's more, this isn't a tactical question, but a strategic one, and the strategy has yet to be worked out.

This article was first published byRussia in Global Affairs, translated and edited by the RT team

(RT.com)