Saturday, March 7 2015 10:27

 Over the past year the situation
on the geopolitical map of Eurasia has unpredictably changed. Russia is
building a multipolar system of international relation. The dividing lines are
deepening, though they were outlined long ago. Don’t you think these are the
explicit signs of a new protracted cold war amid local conflicts? 

 

I am deeply convinced that the cold
war has never ended. What we see today is its new cycle when Russia, which has
economically strengthened over the past 10 years due to the high prices of
energy resources, is contending for the status of a superpower again. Over the
past post-Soviet years, Russia tangibly weakened, lost a great number of
partners, and considerably reduced the sphere of its influence in Central and
Eastern Europe. Now that it has only two or three “modest” partners within the
CSTO, it is violating the international law principles and actively interfering
in the domestic affairs of the post-Soviet states. In some cases, that
interference is shaped as “soft power”, but in the case of Ukraine (and earlier
in the case of Georgia) it vividly uses “brutal force”.

 

The thing is that even when it was
weak, Russia was trying to recreate a multipolar world with its own active
participation and these attempts turned into elaboration of the so-called Doctrine
of Primakov, who replaced Andrey Kozyrev as the foreign minister. The latter
recognized the dominant position of the United States and confined Russia to
the status of a regional power. The Primakov Doctrine received a new impetus
following the United States’ intervention in Yugoslavian events. The Doctrine
reached its pinnacle in Vladimir Putin’s speech in 2007 in Munich, where the
Russian leader blamed the USA for creating a unipolar system of international
relations and it was a direct message saying that Russia has its own serious
claims to such a policy. Today we see what those claims have grown into.

 

And what have they grown into?
 

 

The CSTO is unable to replace the
Warsaw Pact, which has fallen into oblivion, the cooperation with China and the
Shanghai Cooperation Organization and BRICS countries is far from being a
military and political union, the oil market conditions are deteriorating. As a
result, Russia that has been using the oil needle for all these years is
weakening and, consequently, applying more aggression in an attempt to resist
the unipolar nature of the West and to defend its imperial interests, I think.

 

I think that most of the Western
experts’ publications contain emotions and hysteria rather than a real analysis
of what is going on. For political experts, historical studies are not
chemistry or microbiology, but the basis of any expert assessments and
forecasts. History has repeatedly confirmed that the more pressure the West
exerts on Russia, the more unpredictable and aggressive Russia may become. On
the other hand, it is clear that Russia is not Armenia or Belarus; it is a
nuclear power with strong armed forces and geopolitical interests. These
interests have seriously been infringed over the past 10 years. The matter concerns
the Iraqi campaign, the so-called “Arab spring”, the developments in Ukraine,
etc. At least, the Kremlin says so when substantiating Putin’s behavior. One
cannot ignore the fact that Russia will never fall on its knees. On the
contrary, it can become a serious pain in the neck for the whole Western world.

 

I should
mention that Russia is not the only one to have such a status. When the great
powers of the West would economically weaken they would become more liberal,
more flexible, less aggressive and the same time they would acquire imperial
hang-ups and it would take them much time and sometimes even human blood to
overcome the hang-ups. For instance, neither Great Britain nor even France has
overcome these hang-ups so far. Japan and even Germany are still experiencing
such hang-ups. The USA is a new power and it has become such a power due to the
stunning economic prosperity. It ensures almost half of the global gross
product. When a state becomes economically strong, its ambitions and desire to
control more global resources are also growing. The USSR was also such a
country, but it weakened in the late 1980s when the budget deficit rose 5-fold.
It was then that the Soviet leadership agreed to make unprecedented concessions
– to withdraw the troops from Afghanistan and Eastern Europe. The problem is
that the Russian ambitions grew along with the oil price growth. Moreover, the
West imposed no sanctions on Russia following the latter’s aggression against
independent Georgia, but suggested a “reset” policy. However, it has given no
specific results. On the contrary, Russia has started thinking that its opinion
is already taken into consideration. You are right, Bismarck also spoke of
Russia’s unpredictability, though I think that sanctions, together with low oil
prices, are able to weaken Russia’s imperial ambitions. Russia will have to
overcome its imperial hang-ups, to put up with the reality, and to start taking
serious measures to diversify its economy and improve the socio-economic
condition without relying on oil.

 

The impression is that history cork-screws and
this cannot help causing concerns.  

 

I guess
imperial Russia's motion path in the modern context will be adjusted.  Russia has all resources and opportunities
for that. I mean the country's switch to the policy of a liberal empire, which
will allow it to normalize relations with the West on the one hand and to
retain its geopolitical and ideological influence at least in the post-Soviet
space on the other hand. I am deeply convinced that this idea of liberal
Anatoly Chubays is far more efficient and realistic. Russia has all the
necessary material and intellectual resources for that. This will enhance the
confidence in the Russian Federation. Otherwise, Russia will game away within
the long-term outlook.  

 

One of the cold war causes was the ideological
confrontation. Now the matter concerns geopolitical interests only. Russia
wants the world to take the Russian interests into consideration. The West is
not going to do that. This is the basis of confrontation.     

 

Anyway,
the Russian approach should not be based on violation of international law
principles. This causes the discontent of the whole Western community. 

 

Not long ago, the United States also neglected
the international law principles when unleashing a bloody war against Iraq
without the UN Security Council’s sanctions. The entire security system is
collapsing and one can do nothing to stop it.

 

We
can also point out the example of Syria and Ukraine. One can say that the USA
is not an angel. Here we can also bring the example of Kosovo. There was an obvious genocide there, but Russia
exercised veto. So, where is the fundamental, the basic principle of
international law that concerns protection of human rights and human lives? Why
did Russia neglect 7 chapters of the UN Charter with its veto?

 

But peoples’ right to self-determination is also one of
the fundamental principles of international law. It was observed in Kosovo, but
in other cases it wasn’t. The reason is the different specificity of the
conflicts, but no one has any idea of that specificity.

 

Yes,
double standards are applied. On the one hand, the matter concerns the
self-determination of Abkhazian and South Ossetian peoples. On the other hand,
2 wars in Chechnya claimed 200,000 lives for the sake of the country’s
territorial integrity. Russia is conducting the policy “What is permissible for
Jove is not permissible for an ox”.

 

Have you got your own vision of reformation of the
international security system? No wonder the League of Nations collapsed before
WWII. Is it the UN’s turn now? Is it possible to find new principles for
peaceful co-existence of nations?  

 

The time
is ripe for reformation of the UN security system. This is a very complicated
issue. One thing is clear: when 5 permanent members of the UN have the right of
veto, with the other 10 non-permanent members of the Security Council lacking
it, and when no decision is taken without the consent of any of the permanent
members, the matter concerns spheres of influence, as a matter of fact. So, it
is senseless to speak of a sovereign equality of the states. In our world, the
political realism prevails over liberalism and political idealism.

 

Everyone speaks of “realpolitik” and condones
the bomb attacks… 

 

Not
always. From the viewpoint of realpolitik, Russia should display a more
pragmatic approach to other countries, including Georgia. Russia is de facto
controlling Abkhazia and the former South Ossetian autonomous region though it
could control the entire territory of Georgia unless its brutal intervention in
the conflict. Controlling 20% of Georgia, Russia keeps laying claims to
Georgia, which is striving to join the North Atlantic security system and to
integrate into the EU. That’s nonsense! Russia itself has done its best to make
Georgia unambiguously turn its face towards the West. Where is realpolitik
here? The same concerns the Karabakh conflict. On the one hand, Russia plays
the role of a mediator and a peacekeeper; on the other hand, it is not interested
in the conflict resolution because it wants both Armenia and Azerbaijan to
depend on Russia and does not want to see the OSCE Minsk Group co-chair
countries as its real competitors.  

 

It is hard to agree with you. I think it is a seeming
scheme. In fact, there would probably be no peace but for the balance of forces
in the region secured by the presence of Russia’s interests. This is also
realpolitik.     

 

Yes, but
if that conflict is resolved on the basis of mutual concessions of the
conflicting parties, nothing will hinder the process of unification of the
South Caucasus. It will not be hard then to guess whose values the residents of
the region will be guided by.