Tweet
Agency WPS
What the Papers Say. Part B (Russia)
May 26, 2005, Thursday
A FOND FAREWELL TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF INDEPENDENT STATES
SOURCE: Trud-7, May 26, 2005, p. 6
by Yuri Stroganov
Question: Perhaps the CIS has really outlived its usefulness as a
mode of cooperation. What if it is really just an instrument for
civilized divorce, as some political scientists and politicians
claim?
Alexei Pushkov: You know, such speculations cause surprise in some
other former Soviet countries. I was asked in Armenia if it meant
that we had been wrong to focus on unification values all these years
since the disintegration of the Soviet Union.
Question: But why try to keep an organization afloat when is sinking?
Alexei Pushkov: Because any alliance is better than a final divorce.
I dare say the Russian leadership understands this. In his May 9
speech, President Vladimir Putin made an emphasis on combat unity and
brotherhood of all our peoples in the war on Nazism. He spoke of
everything that united us and was so valuable to all. The advantages
of the CIS are well understood in many republics of the former USSR.
It is wrong to discount strong pro-Russian trends in Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, Ukraine, Belarus. They should be appreciated and
valued.
Question: Isn't the market supposed to unite us automatically? After
all, mutual benefits are apparent and undeniable. Why would official
Kiev question expediency of the United Economic Zone? Why would
Turkmenistan stand aside from the CIS? More and more complications
affect relations with Moldova. What's the matter?
Alexei Pushkov: Their government believe that a new landmark, the
West, is much more beneficial economically and politically. I'd say
that there is something childish about this behavior as well. Young
countries strive to emphasize their sovereignty and independence, to
show that they no longer depend on the former Motherland. Such
details are psychologically important, of course, but peoples of
these countries are objectively interested in close contacts with
Russia and Russian economy. Infatuation with the West may fail to
live up to expectations, while contacts with Russia already exist and
have proved their worth many times over. I'd say that interests of
CIS countries will become well-balanced soon and this demonstrative
disinclination to cooperate within the framework of the CIS will
become history.
Question: What do you think of the opinion of the words of presidents
of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko and Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev
that should Ukraine decide not to join the United Economic Zone, it
will do as well without Ukraine?
Alexei Pushkov: I'd say that they are correct. We are not going to
drag anyone in with chains. One's own willingness is needed. If you
ask me, I think that to whoever constantly emphasizes that he doesn't
need us we should say plainly that we do not intend to make new and
new offers endlessly. In my view, the Kremlin says that we should be
wiser in relations of this kind. Taking trouble over partners again
and again is naivete. Our partners should be shown exactly what they
stand to lose. They should be made understand that if they went, they
are not going to be able to return any moment they decide to. On the
other hand, the states that will stand by us will benefit from it.
Everything has its own price. Our leaders should make Ukraine feel
negative consequences of its pointed turn from Russia to the West.
Let Ukraine get what it needs from the West then. I'm not talking
about sanctions or any harsh measures. It's just that Russia needs a
policy that will show everyone that Russia is not going to swallow
absolutely everything.
Question: Some experts say that we have already become sterner. They
say that it is because of the political pressure applied by Russia
that Georgia did not slap sanctions on Russian military bases.
Alexei Pushkov: Yes, Duma's sharply worded statement that promised
sanctions against Georgia in response to illegitimate activities on
the part of its authorities, had a sobering effect on Tbilisi. I'm
convinced, however, that we should have been even sterner than that.
I'd have suspended the talks altogether for the duration of the
ultimatum. What happened instead? The Duma responded sharply but the
executive branch of the government immediately came up with a
compromise variant of the accord. It's wrong. It is these actions
that leave the impression that Russia may be talked to in the
language of ultimatums. I'm convinced that Georgia understands that
it is threading extremely thin ice, that a total row with us will
hurt it. Unfortunately, we ourselves permit them to use ultimatums in
the dialogue with us.
Question: There are rumors that America is dissatisfied with
Saakashvili's recklessness and that Bush actually visited Tbilisi to
take a look at potential successors to Saakashvili.
Alexei Pushkov: I'd say it's merely an ungrounded speculation.
Saakashvili owes his broad support in the West and first and foremost
in America precisely to his anti-Russian stand. The worse the
situation in Georgia becomes, the more actively he will play the
anti-Russian card. Precisely in order to prevent the West from
thinking that he should be replaced.
Question: So the rumors are groundless?
Alexei Pushkov: I admit that there may be some dissatisfaction with
Saakashvili in the US Administration. After all, it is not comprised
of our enemies alone. There are people in it who understand that
Georgia is not Russia's match. The way I figure it, Bush's
Administration fears that Saakashvili may drag it into his own
conflict with Moscow. America is treating us with kid gloves. It
doesn't need an open conflict with Russia, particularly over
something insignificant like Georgia.
Question: How would you comment on Bush's words about the "democratic
active response forces" that might land in CIS countries?
Alexei Pushkov: Bush isn't abandoning efforts to promote America's
strategic objectives, but he doesn't want quarrels with Russia
either. He decided to support Putin by attending Victory Day
celebrations. It showed that he had respect for the president of
Russia and Russia itself. At the same time, he made trips to some
Baltic states and Tbilisi and spoke of the "democratic special
forces." All cards are open. Lukashenko was warned that he would be
overthrown. Bush is quite straightforward here. On the other hand, it
may be a smokescreen. The United States regularly uses them.
Question: And what do we do with Belarus, our ally in the CIS?
Construction of the Union state has stalled.
Alexei Pushkov: Belarus is a sovereign state. It has its own elite,
which likes its positions of power and doesn't want them jeopardized.
Belarus doesn't want to become just a region of the Russian
Federation. That is understandable. A powerful campaign mounted by
the West and Belarusian opposition aimed at another orange revolution
is the only thing that may compel Belarus to unite with Russia. The
Belarussian elite will have no choice, you know. This is where the
danger is rooted. We may find ourselves saddled with a rebellious
republic at the moment when our own political situation may be
anything but tranquil. That is why unification in the near future
already is preferable to that in a moment of crisis.
Question: Is it possible to view the latest events in Uzbekistan in
the context of Western intrigues?
Alexei Pushkov: To a certain extent. I would not say that the United
States has been involved. In my view, Islamic centers certainly have
been involved. Different forces have a common interest. They want the
CIS split and Russia's influence weakened.
Question: Some political scientists claim that the future of Russia
depends on the future of the CIS. Does it?
Alexei Pushkov: It does, to a considerable extent. The CIS is our
last line of defense. The forces that are conspiring now to weaken
Russian influence within the CIS will not stop there. They will
concentrate on Russia itself next. Russia is a multi-ethnic
formation, just like the Soviet Union. Think about which forces would
seek Russia's disintegration. Anti-Russian circles in the United
States and Western Europe; China, which might be tempted to grab the
Russian Far East if we are week; Islamic centers that aspire to
spread their influence to some parts of Russia. The dangers are
great. Unless we put an end to the process of Russia's influence
within the CIS being reduced, we will find these dangers knocking at
our doors.
Translated by A. Ignatkin
What the Papers Say. Part B (Russia)
May 26, 2005, Thursday
A FOND FAREWELL TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF INDEPENDENT STATES
SOURCE: Trud-7, May 26, 2005, p. 6
by Yuri Stroganov
Question: Perhaps the CIS has really outlived its usefulness as a
mode of cooperation. What if it is really just an instrument for
civilized divorce, as some political scientists and politicians
claim?
Alexei Pushkov: You know, such speculations cause surprise in some
other former Soviet countries. I was asked in Armenia if it meant
that we had been wrong to focus on unification values all these years
since the disintegration of the Soviet Union.
Question: But why try to keep an organization afloat when is sinking?
Alexei Pushkov: Because any alliance is better than a final divorce.
I dare say the Russian leadership understands this. In his May 9
speech, President Vladimir Putin made an emphasis on combat unity and
brotherhood of all our peoples in the war on Nazism. He spoke of
everything that united us and was so valuable to all. The advantages
of the CIS are well understood in many republics of the former USSR.
It is wrong to discount strong pro-Russian trends in Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, Ukraine, Belarus. They should be appreciated and
valued.
Question: Isn't the market supposed to unite us automatically? After
all, mutual benefits are apparent and undeniable. Why would official
Kiev question expediency of the United Economic Zone? Why would
Turkmenistan stand aside from the CIS? More and more complications
affect relations with Moldova. What's the matter?
Alexei Pushkov: Their government believe that a new landmark, the
West, is much more beneficial economically and politically. I'd say
that there is something childish about this behavior as well. Young
countries strive to emphasize their sovereignty and independence, to
show that they no longer depend on the former Motherland. Such
details are psychologically important, of course, but peoples of
these countries are objectively interested in close contacts with
Russia and Russian economy. Infatuation with the West may fail to
live up to expectations, while contacts with Russia already exist and
have proved their worth many times over. I'd say that interests of
CIS countries will become well-balanced soon and this demonstrative
disinclination to cooperate within the framework of the CIS will
become history.
Question: What do you think of the opinion of the words of presidents
of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko and Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev
that should Ukraine decide not to join the United Economic Zone, it
will do as well without Ukraine?
Alexei Pushkov: I'd say that they are correct. We are not going to
drag anyone in with chains. One's own willingness is needed. If you
ask me, I think that to whoever constantly emphasizes that he doesn't
need us we should say plainly that we do not intend to make new and
new offers endlessly. In my view, the Kremlin says that we should be
wiser in relations of this kind. Taking trouble over partners again
and again is naivete. Our partners should be shown exactly what they
stand to lose. They should be made understand that if they went, they
are not going to be able to return any moment they decide to. On the
other hand, the states that will stand by us will benefit from it.
Everything has its own price. Our leaders should make Ukraine feel
negative consequences of its pointed turn from Russia to the West.
Let Ukraine get what it needs from the West then. I'm not talking
about sanctions or any harsh measures. It's just that Russia needs a
policy that will show everyone that Russia is not going to swallow
absolutely everything.
Question: Some experts say that we have already become sterner. They
say that it is because of the political pressure applied by Russia
that Georgia did not slap sanctions on Russian military bases.
Alexei Pushkov: Yes, Duma's sharply worded statement that promised
sanctions against Georgia in response to illegitimate activities on
the part of its authorities, had a sobering effect on Tbilisi. I'm
convinced, however, that we should have been even sterner than that.
I'd have suspended the talks altogether for the duration of the
ultimatum. What happened instead? The Duma responded sharply but the
executive branch of the government immediately came up with a
compromise variant of the accord. It's wrong. It is these actions
that leave the impression that Russia may be talked to in the
language of ultimatums. I'm convinced that Georgia understands that
it is threading extremely thin ice, that a total row with us will
hurt it. Unfortunately, we ourselves permit them to use ultimatums in
the dialogue with us.
Question: There are rumors that America is dissatisfied with
Saakashvili's recklessness and that Bush actually visited Tbilisi to
take a look at potential successors to Saakashvili.
Alexei Pushkov: I'd say it's merely an ungrounded speculation.
Saakashvili owes his broad support in the West and first and foremost
in America precisely to his anti-Russian stand. The worse the
situation in Georgia becomes, the more actively he will play the
anti-Russian card. Precisely in order to prevent the West from
thinking that he should be replaced.
Question: So the rumors are groundless?
Alexei Pushkov: I admit that there may be some dissatisfaction with
Saakashvili in the US Administration. After all, it is not comprised
of our enemies alone. There are people in it who understand that
Georgia is not Russia's match. The way I figure it, Bush's
Administration fears that Saakashvili may drag it into his own
conflict with Moscow. America is treating us with kid gloves. It
doesn't need an open conflict with Russia, particularly over
something insignificant like Georgia.
Question: How would you comment on Bush's words about the "democratic
active response forces" that might land in CIS countries?
Alexei Pushkov: Bush isn't abandoning efforts to promote America's
strategic objectives, but he doesn't want quarrels with Russia
either. He decided to support Putin by attending Victory Day
celebrations. It showed that he had respect for the president of
Russia and Russia itself. At the same time, he made trips to some
Baltic states and Tbilisi and spoke of the "democratic special
forces." All cards are open. Lukashenko was warned that he would be
overthrown. Bush is quite straightforward here. On the other hand, it
may be a smokescreen. The United States regularly uses them.
Question: And what do we do with Belarus, our ally in the CIS?
Construction of the Union state has stalled.
Alexei Pushkov: Belarus is a sovereign state. It has its own elite,
which likes its positions of power and doesn't want them jeopardized.
Belarus doesn't want to become just a region of the Russian
Federation. That is understandable. A powerful campaign mounted by
the West and Belarusian opposition aimed at another orange revolution
is the only thing that may compel Belarus to unite with Russia. The
Belarussian elite will have no choice, you know. This is where the
danger is rooted. We may find ourselves saddled with a rebellious
republic at the moment when our own political situation may be
anything but tranquil. That is why unification in the near future
already is preferable to that in a moment of crisis.
Question: Is it possible to view the latest events in Uzbekistan in
the context of Western intrigues?
Alexei Pushkov: To a certain extent. I would not say that the United
States has been involved. In my view, Islamic centers certainly have
been involved. Different forces have a common interest. They want the
CIS split and Russia's influence weakened.
Question: Some political scientists claim that the future of Russia
depends on the future of the CIS. Does it?
Alexei Pushkov: It does, to a considerable extent. The CIS is our
last line of defense. The forces that are conspiring now to weaken
Russian influence within the CIS will not stop there. They will
concentrate on Russia itself next. Russia is a multi-ethnic
formation, just like the Soviet Union. Think about which forces would
seek Russia's disintegration. Anti-Russian circles in the United
States and Western Europe; China, which might be tempted to grab the
Russian Far East if we are week; Islamic centers that aspire to
spread their influence to some parts of Russia. The dangers are
great. Unless we put an end to the process of Russia's influence
within the CIS being reduced, we will find these dangers knocking at
our doors.
Translated by A. Ignatkin