Tweet
POSITIVE RESULT MIGHT BE REACHED IN KARABAKH NEGOTIATIONS IN 2010, EXPERT
Akper Hasanov
news.az
Jan 14 2010
Azerbaijan
Zurab Todua News.Az interviews Zurab Todua, political scientist and
expert on the post-Soviet problems (Moscow, Russia).
What do you think of the report of the influential private US research
company Stratfor whose analysts say Russia may revive as one of the
leading superpowers in 2010?
I believe Stratfor analysts are too optimistic in assessing the
prospects of Russia's revical as a leading superpower. To return
this status, Russia needs to several many problems in economy,
as well as domestic and foreign policy. Meanwhile, the specialists
of this campaign were right in defining the main tendency: Russia
is on the way to revival as one of the leading superpowers. Its
strong economic growth that stood even the world financial crisis
has continued for more than 10 years. Crisis remained unnoticed
for a greater part of the population. It was just virtual for most
people. The comprehensive growth in Russia's strength will further
continue which, certainly, does not lift the task of settling sharp
current and long-term problems.
Can it be so that this Stratfor report is just a part of the
information warfare between Russia and US in the post-Soviet area?
It would be too easy to perceive the report of this organization just
as part of the information warfare which means disinformation for
"soothing" the opponent or other goals. I think the officials of this
organizations care about their reputation. Many other possibilities
exist for disinformation. By the way, everyone in the Internet can
find reports of the company and compare them with the real events
and draw conclusions.
"This year Russia will eliminate the main part of what has been left
from the influence of the West and Turkey in Ukraine, Kazakhstan,
Belarus, Armenia and Azerbaijan and try to lay basis for the creation
of a political union on a greater part of the post-Soviet area",
the report says. Is it possible to speak about possible revival of
the USSR?
No man of sense in Russia would seriously discuss the issue of possible
revival of the USSR because nobody needs it here. The Soviet Union has
many positive and negative sides (but this is a separate topic). Yet
the form of distribution of resources and material welfares existing
in the Soviet Union was irrational even for Russia.
I remember it well on the example of Moldova and Georgia where I had
to stay in the Soviet era.
The living conditions in the more remote regions of these republics
were much higher than in Russian depths. This gap former in the
60's-70's when the concept of priority development of the USSR national
suburbs was implemented. The Stratfor report speaks not of the USSR
revival but of a creation of a certain political unit which is not
the same. I think sooner or later Russia will become a center of a
new political-economic unit in the post-Soviet area and most former
USSR republics and, probably, other states would find it profitable
to join it. This may be an analogue of the European Union.
Yet it will require more time than Stratfor analysts suppose. Much
will depend on the result of the struggle for Ukraine between Russia
and the West.
To what extent are the US and Russian capacities of influencing the
situation in the world and the South Caucasus region comparable?
The comparison of US and Russian capacities to influence the situation
in the world is not at issue. No one even China is yet able to compete
the United States. Yet Russia's capacities are quite significant to
raise influence in the near abroad including in the South Caucasus.
This was obvious during the five-day war in South Ossetia, the
military defeat of Saakashvili's regime and the following recognition
of independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The United States and
the West showed a passive reaction to these events. There is a tendency
of weakening of the US position in the post-Soviet area though it is
not so obvious so far. However, the United States are seriously stuck
in Iraq and Afghanistan for long. It would be interesting to recall
the statements of some "analysts" and "experts" who predicted that
the war in Iraq will last for several weeks and the coalition losses
will not exceed 100 people (yes, there have been such forecasts!). The
hopes that after the United States settle their problems in Iraq and
Afghanistan (who would predict how much time would it take?) Washington
"will raise attention to the South Caucasus" are hardly justified. In
the 90s the United States were on the peak of their might and nothing
distracted their attention. Did it have any significant impact on the
Karabakh conflict settlement? The weakening of the military, political
and economic strength of the United States is an obvious tendency. It
causes concerns among the really serious experts and analysts which is
proven by the article of Andrew Krepenevich "Weakening of fundamental
of US strength".
And the last question: what do you think of the Russian-Azerbaijani
cooperation in 2010?
The relations between Russia and Azerbaijan are positive. Despite
the problems and some differences in the interests, Moscow and Baku
demonstrate enviable pragmatism and patience in building them. This
is especially obvious on the background of the policy held by Georgian
in relation to Russia. If there are no unforeseen failures and delays
in 2010, we can hope for the completion of Minsk Group's work at the
basic principles of the resolution of the Karabakh conflict. Under
preservation of the previous approaches of the sides and dynamics of
the negotiation process, it would be possible to further count on the
coordination of the basic principles of resolution and development
of the text of a peace agreement on their basis. It is important
to preserve everything that has already been prepared, maintain the
gained speed and then it would be possible to reach a positive result
in negotiations on Karabakh in 2010.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Akper Hasanov
news.az
Jan 14 2010
Azerbaijan
Zurab Todua News.Az interviews Zurab Todua, political scientist and
expert on the post-Soviet problems (Moscow, Russia).
What do you think of the report of the influential private US research
company Stratfor whose analysts say Russia may revive as one of the
leading superpowers in 2010?
I believe Stratfor analysts are too optimistic in assessing the
prospects of Russia's revical as a leading superpower. To return
this status, Russia needs to several many problems in economy,
as well as domestic and foreign policy. Meanwhile, the specialists
of this campaign were right in defining the main tendency: Russia
is on the way to revival as one of the leading superpowers. Its
strong economic growth that stood even the world financial crisis
has continued for more than 10 years. Crisis remained unnoticed
for a greater part of the population. It was just virtual for most
people. The comprehensive growth in Russia's strength will further
continue which, certainly, does not lift the task of settling sharp
current and long-term problems.
Can it be so that this Stratfor report is just a part of the
information warfare between Russia and US in the post-Soviet area?
It would be too easy to perceive the report of this organization just
as part of the information warfare which means disinformation for
"soothing" the opponent or other goals. I think the officials of this
organizations care about their reputation. Many other possibilities
exist for disinformation. By the way, everyone in the Internet can
find reports of the company and compare them with the real events
and draw conclusions.
"This year Russia will eliminate the main part of what has been left
from the influence of the West and Turkey in Ukraine, Kazakhstan,
Belarus, Armenia and Azerbaijan and try to lay basis for the creation
of a political union on a greater part of the post-Soviet area",
the report says. Is it possible to speak about possible revival of
the USSR?
No man of sense in Russia would seriously discuss the issue of possible
revival of the USSR because nobody needs it here. The Soviet Union has
many positive and negative sides (but this is a separate topic). Yet
the form of distribution of resources and material welfares existing
in the Soviet Union was irrational even for Russia.
I remember it well on the example of Moldova and Georgia where I had
to stay in the Soviet era.
The living conditions in the more remote regions of these republics
were much higher than in Russian depths. This gap former in the
60's-70's when the concept of priority development of the USSR national
suburbs was implemented. The Stratfor report speaks not of the USSR
revival but of a creation of a certain political unit which is not
the same. I think sooner or later Russia will become a center of a
new political-economic unit in the post-Soviet area and most former
USSR republics and, probably, other states would find it profitable
to join it. This may be an analogue of the European Union.
Yet it will require more time than Stratfor analysts suppose. Much
will depend on the result of the struggle for Ukraine between Russia
and the West.
To what extent are the US and Russian capacities of influencing the
situation in the world and the South Caucasus region comparable?
The comparison of US and Russian capacities to influence the situation
in the world is not at issue. No one even China is yet able to compete
the United States. Yet Russia's capacities are quite significant to
raise influence in the near abroad including in the South Caucasus.
This was obvious during the five-day war in South Ossetia, the
military defeat of Saakashvili's regime and the following recognition
of independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The United States and
the West showed a passive reaction to these events. There is a tendency
of weakening of the US position in the post-Soviet area though it is
not so obvious so far. However, the United States are seriously stuck
in Iraq and Afghanistan for long. It would be interesting to recall
the statements of some "analysts" and "experts" who predicted that
the war in Iraq will last for several weeks and the coalition losses
will not exceed 100 people (yes, there have been such forecasts!). The
hopes that after the United States settle their problems in Iraq and
Afghanistan (who would predict how much time would it take?) Washington
"will raise attention to the South Caucasus" are hardly justified. In
the 90s the United States were on the peak of their might and nothing
distracted their attention. Did it have any significant impact on the
Karabakh conflict settlement? The weakening of the military, political
and economic strength of the United States is an obvious tendency. It
causes concerns among the really serious experts and analysts which is
proven by the article of Andrew Krepenevich "Weakening of fundamental
of US strength".
And the last question: what do you think of the Russian-Azerbaijani
cooperation in 2010?
The relations between Russia and Azerbaijan are positive. Despite
the problems and some differences in the interests, Moscow and Baku
demonstrate enviable pragmatism and patience in building them. This
is especially obvious on the background of the policy held by Georgian
in relation to Russia. If there are no unforeseen failures and delays
in 2010, we can hope for the completion of Minsk Group's work at the
basic principles of the resolution of the Karabakh conflict. Under
preservation of the previous approaches of the sides and dynamics of
the negotiation process, it would be possible to further count on the
coordination of the basic principles of resolution and development
of the text of a peace agreement on their basis. It is important
to preserve everything that has already been prepared, maintain the
gained speed and then it would be possible to reach a positive result
in negotiations on Karabakh in 2010.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress