Thursday, March 13 2014

Can we say that the Kremlin is
trying to repeat the South Ossetian scenario in the Crimea today? What are the
prospects of that scenario? 

 

Moscow's methods in the Crimea and South
Ossetia bear certain similarities. Among those methods are determination to
change the formal-legal status of the region, complete lies and propaganda of
the Russian Mass Media, secret deployment of troops and denial of the presence
of Russian troops in the region amid negligence of the international law,
application of double standards in the foreign policy, and issue of Russian
passports as a tactical step. Similarities can always be found and they are
always conditional and sometimes even delusive. At the same time, there are
also certain tangible differences in Russia's goals and approaches, in the
situation in Ukraine and the Crimea.  The
actions of the Ukrainian authorities and the West's response are also
different. Russia has strong nostalgic feelings connected with the Crimea.
Therefore, Moscow mulls Crimea's unification with Russia, while South Ossetia
was important for Russia as a military foothold and a lever of influence on
Georgia. In addition, there is growing need to distract the Russian
population's attention from the deteriorating situation in that country and
Putin's inadequacy that is becoming more and more obvious as well as the negligence
he displays towards Russia's long-term interests. 

 

Let’s put aside the twists and turns of the information war. What do you
think is really going on around Ukraine?  

 

The clash of the two ideas for development of
Ukraine is taking place: one - towards integration with the West and the other
one - joining the Eurasian project and having "sovereign" democracy
similar to the Russian democracy. On the other hand, the clash of geo-political
and strategic interests of the West and Russia is obvious in Ukraine. However,
I should specially emphasize that in the geo-political and strategic sense
Ukraine is more important for Russia than for the western community. The clash
between the "soft" force of the West and the "harsh" force
of Russia is taking place in Ukraine. In the situation in Ukraine Moscow often
ignores the international law when it comes out at the short end. 

 

Almost all the statements of
western politicians and diplomats condemning Russia’s actions in Ukraine are
actually inefficient, except US Secretary of State John Kerry’s assessments.
What are the reasons of such passivity?

 

As usually, US political figures come out from
more principal and strict positions. I do not mean only the assessments by US
Secretary John Kerry. Barack Obama's assessments of the processes in Ukraine
and the Crimea were also quite harsh. Relying on the existing sources of
information, not all European politicians make 'unprincipled' statements and
Ms. Merkel also gave quite tough assessment of Putin and his policy. The
assessments cannot be effective unless there is a threat of efficient measures.
In the given case, the USA and some other countries have already begun taking
certain measures and the EU will probably impose some economic sanctions on
Russia and freeze cooperation with that country in a range of fields. Analyzing
the reasons of why some politicians, especially in Europe, are so cautious in
their assessments, one should not forget about how fragile is the situation in
Europe, and how important are the Russian energy resources and market for
Europe. Much less important is the fear for reversal of the process
rehabilitation of European economies. Meanwhile, even a threat of sanctions
against Moscow has already led to a fall of the Russian ruble and shares. And
this is not the end yet.

 

Given Moscow’s refusal to hold direct
negotiations with the new Ukrainian authorities, Kyiv can play no role in the
confrontation of the West and Russia. May this become a starting point of
military escalation in the diplomatic war for Ukraine? Or do you think the
geopolitical confrontation will result in new agreements and a new status quo?

        

Direct military confrontation in the conflict
between the West and Russia is hardly possible. However, the West will show big
military aid to Ukraine. All this will be accompanied by speeding up
integration processes of Ukraine. The new status-quo in the world order may
appear sooner or later. However, at present we live in a rather dynamic time.
For this reason, one can say about a new status quo only relatively or within
specific frames. As regards the possible consequences of the situation around
Ukraine, I think Ukraine is likely to overcome the main existential challenges,
but the problem of the Crimea's status will still remain. Russia and Putin, in
particular, are not always predictable. So, it is hard to say for sure, how
Moscow will act regarding Eastern Ukraine. 

 

Do you think that if Moscow gives
up the project on restoration of its influence in the post-Soviet space, it
will give an impetus to western and Turkish disintegration projects in Russia’s
territory?

 

Despite Moscow's positions, I think that
disintegration processes in Russia have already started. But are the Russian
laws fully functioning in Chechnya or the Far East? All this has been taking
place against the background of the worsening demographic situation in Russia,
growth of ethnic nationalism and relative weakening of the country. The West is
hardly striving to disintegrate Russia. As for Turkey, it is entering a rather
hard time and it does not have enough resources for implementation of such a
serious project. Disintegration processes are available in Russia itself and
are stemming from the southeastern part of the country.

 

Ukraine assumed the CIS chairmanship in January
2014. How may the shift in power in Kyiv and the ambiguous situation in the
Crimea affect the prospects of the chairmanship and the prospects of the CIS in
general?    

 

This will depend on whether Russia will recognize the legitimacy of
Kyiv’s authorities in particular and on development of the Ukrainian-Russian
relations in general. Even if everything is all right formally, the CIS will
continue existing as a talkfest rather than an efficient integration
organization.