In the word the speed of the development of political processes has reached incredible rates. Where are we all heading and what can we achieve? This is what the reporter of 168-Zham discussed with the senior specialist of Carnegie Center Moscow, professor Aleksey Malashenko?
– In the recent times they more frequently speak about the new wave of the relations to be launched between the US and Russia, about the launch of the new phase. What can these big states come to?
– First of all we should understand what Barack Obama is doing and what Barack Obama is in the context of Reset (this computer term was first used by US vice-president Joe Biden to express the startup of relations of the US with Russia – 168-Zham). In my opinion he is the first US president, who is free from the complex of the soviet-US struggle and the Cold War era. Therefore this reset is not for the previous soviet but for Russia. The essence of the process is an attempt to come to a mutual understanding and compromises. No matter which direction we would look at – Europe, issues of disarmament, Islam world, situation around and in Afghanistan, there is always a process of finding edges for collaboration with the US. The resent implies platform based on not conflicts but agreements and consent. I would once again like to call attention to the fact that today an ideology is emerging, according to which reset is over. This shouldn’t be understood as a sign of deterioration of relations. Only the issues that were on the way of this process are not resolved and fulfilled. What will be offered instead of reset? Now it is logical that we should start to speak about the resumption of new relations. So will the process move forward and develop or stay at the level of reset? This is a very serious question. The answer of that depends on the inner situation of Russia and on how the things will develop in the US. But the stage that is accepted to be called reset is really fulfilled. There are certain achievements but it’s really interesting what’s going to happen afterward.
– In your opinion, what common grounds can the US and Russia find in terms of resumption and re-prioritization of relations?
– I think that first of all it will be Afghanistan and the Muslim world in general. The disarmament process will continue (despite it being a slightly archaic term nowadays). As of the soviet territory then it’s a totally different topic. In this case, as well, the rest can continue but in this region a lot depends on the behavior of certain factors and actors.
– We may say that in this whole process Washington receded the South Caucasus to Moscow and was granted Ukraine. It means that the US returned Moscow to its field of prior geopolitical interests and zones.
– I am critically against these military terms – recede and gain. A complicated game is going on and often quite unclear for us. There can be no ultimate result as this is a process. I wouldn’t say that Russia has given up Ukraine as Ukraine is a big state with big population and with its national interests. Despite the fact that the current government of Ukraine is pro-Russian their national interests are by far not pro-Russian. Ukraine is situated in the middle of Europe and Russia and the Ukrainian elite perfectly understands that despite its love to Russia, despite the fact that part of the Ukrainian population is of Russian origin they can be full and happy only with the help of Europe. This is a very complicated situation. As the people say “you have to be careful if you wish to eat the wish without the bones stuck in your throat.” For this reason I wouldn’t say categorically that Ukraine was receded. No matter how contradictive it may sound but it’s time that Ukraine makes the choice. And it has the opportunity to make a choice in the triangle for Europe-US-Russia. The situation is extremely complicated in the South Caucasus. The impression is that it is currently conserved. But on whose behalf? On the one hand it is on behalf of Russia. Sahakashvilli is a person of not too deep past. He is active and not silly but his behavior doesn’t match with the philosophy of the reset. He is a step behind that. Back in his home Georgia there are certain interesting things in his deeds. But in the issues of foreign policy (perhaps this is of benefit to some party) it is not excluded that he has to find some other approaches. But Sahakashvilli cannot do that and that is his fault and misfortune. And Sahakashvilli himself understands that. And the misfortune is that he had crossed the allowable limits, which caused the war. In the post soviet territory intolerance plays a great role. Next to the pro-Russian orientation there is also antagonism to Russia, which is being portrayed even more, for example in Abkhazia. This is where they start to speak about the idea of being independent or semi-independent. In Abkhazia they have clearly decided for themselves that it is not Russian territory and that Abkhazia has its own interests. And I don’t know to what extent Russia realizes the seriousness of this process. If we imagine that there is some “crazy” European state, such as Sweden, Romania or some other that may recognize Abkhazia’s independence, Russia will have serious issues. Besides that in Caucasus new players emerged. One of them is Turkey and here the conflict may be serious. Despite the perfunctorily attractive Russian-Turkish relations and Turkey’s friendly attitude to Russia, Turkey may become a serious competitor for Russia. And the increase of the zone of Turkey’s interests may create serious contradictions in the region. Today Turkey is the state, which is quite compatible with Russia despite its absence of possession of nuclear weapon. So we need to abide with this fact. So there is no need to say that the US is receding the South Caucasus. It’s just Obama is busy with resolving other issues. Currently for him the most important thing, despite its internal issues, is the Muslim world – Afghanistan and Pakistan. In addition to these issues, there are priorities, which resemble hierarchy. I think that Georgia and perhaps the whole South Caucasus are behind the priorities of Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
– Was Medvedev able to balance at least for some time the situation around the NKR created in the South Caucasus as a result of his visits to Yerevan and Baku?
– I don’t think so. What Medvedev did in the South Caucasus was no news. It was regular work. He visited Armenia and everything was wonderful. He signed an agreement and he explained that it got nothing to do with the NKR. And then he visited Azerbaijan and explained that Russia has special relations with Armenia but those are not directed against Azerbaijan. And the NKR conflict is a great opportunity for Russia to demonstrate that it can play the role of the mediator and balancer. It’s another question whether it can do it well or badly. Russia behaves totally normally as a mediator of the NKR conflict. It is impossible to oust Russia from this process and what Medvedev has done once again comes to prove the political course adopted by Medvedev – neither you nor us. I think this reconciles with the interests of Russia in this region. But let me mention that the clear standpoint of Russia is to exclude war. I think that a war will not break up because currently it is very dangerous to start a war.
– Is the “neither you, nor us” a conscious course or…?
– Indeed, it is. It is inevitable in the post-soviet territory. I exclude such situations as we witnessed in Georgia. But there mostly the provocation was coming from Georgia and there we have a special situation. A special situation is in Moldova as well. Here I would ask, “who is you and who is us?” Is it Transylvania or Moldova? This is a pretty serious issue. But for other matters Russia quite successfully applies this tactics. Let me mention another thing. But after the events in Georgia I’d not say that they are scared of Russia but they are not inviting the latter to submit a mediating role for example in Central Asia. In that region they will probably apply to China, Europe than Russia. For Russia the war with Georgia merely and only had negative consequences.
– You have emphasized the attitude of Turkey but in Central Asia and South Caucasus Iran starts to voice its existence more audibly.
– It is yet soon to draw conclusions around Iran. What can Iran give to Caucasus specifically? For example, it can give Armenia access to its ports. It is not right to observe the relations of Iran with a concrete country. Instead we should have observe that in a complex aspect. Because by improving relations with Iran any state can fail all the other directions. The current situation may drastically change. I don’t think that the influence of Iran on the region and its participation in the South Caucasus can be comparable with Turkey. And besides that they are simply afraid of Iran. They are afraid of its revolutions, its relations with the US. Azerbaijan is in general afraid of Iran. Georgia is the satellite of the US and it would be ridiculous to speak that Tbilisi would take any serious step to develop relations with Iran. As of Armenia then it will receive certain things from Iran but may also lose.