Tweet
'RUSSIAN-GEORGIAN WAR CHANGED BALANCE OF POWER IN SOUTH CAUCASIA'
Aliyah Fridman
news.az
May 31 2010
Azerbaijan
Ronald Grigor Suny News.Az interviews Ronald Grigor Suny, Charles
Tilly Collegiate Professor of Social and Political History.
There is an opinion that that the war between Russia and Georgia in
2008 had a huge influence on the further developments in the South
Caucasus. What the Russian-Georgian war changed in our region?
The Russian-Georgian War of August 2008 changed the balance of power
in South Caucasia. Russia essentially used the opportunity offered by
Saakashvili's attack on South Ossetia to show that it was ready to
use force to re-establish its dominant position in the Near Abroad,
at least when actively threatened. The Russian military effort,
however, was somewhat clumsy, and Moscow is well aware of its limited
military resources and the need for reform. But what is clear is that
no solution of either the Georgian conflicts or the Karabakh conflict
will occur without Russian will and agreement. This does not mean that
the South Caucasian republics cannot act and change the situation in
a constructive way.
Do you think that Russia is really interested in the Karabakh
settlement?
Armenia demonstrated that it could attempt to improve relations with
Turkey by first gaining Russian agreement for its initiative and
then pursuing it. Russia may have been reluctant about that move, but
eventually came around. Russia has so many problems that it does not
need more troubles in Caucasia. North Caucasia is its most vulnerable
frontier, and a strategically rational Russia should move cautiously
but deliberately to resolve some of its South Caucasian problems.
Karabakh would be a good place to start.
Because many actors in Armenia and Azerbaijan are content with the
status quo, local initiative may not be forthcoming. Russian, Turkish,
Iranian, and American efforts could push the belligerents to come to
some agreement.
And what about possible influence of Russian-Turkish rapprochement?
Russia-Turkish rapprochement is good for everyone. Turkey is changing
more rapidly than any other country in the region. Its civil society
is opening up; the country is on a trajectory toward greater democracy;
the government is making overtures to non-Turkish citizens, allowing a
broad discussion of the Armenian Genocide, even demonstrations. These
are extraordinarily positive developments, and should be encouraged
by everyone.
May be NATO somehow assist stability in the region?
NATO is a dead letter in South Caucasia. It is not going to happen
for the foreseeable future. Of course, if the Great Powers thought
creatively, then there could be plans to bring Russia as well as
other former Soviet countries into a new collective security structure
under NATO.
Iran as well is trying to play its role in the Karabakh settlement?
Bringing Iran into the picture would be even better, though the
Americans have a real blind spot vis-a-vis Iran. They have constructed
it as an existential danger to peace in the Middle East, and given the
fear of the Obama administration of criticism from the Republicans
that they are weak and indecisive in security issues, it is hard to
make the kind of agreements or concessions that would bring Iran into
a larger Middle East settlement.
And finally what do you think about regional policy of US?
As for the United States, sadly it does not really have a coherent and
consistent policy toward South Caucasia. First they were interested
primarily in energy and pipelines; then they staked their hopes on
Georgia; they always have to pay some attention to Armenia because of
the large Armenian population in certain key states. But the USA has
many interests in the region that do not all run in the same direction:
placate the Armenian lobby (but don't give it too much, e.g., Genocide
recognition); democracy building (which does not seem as much of a
priority as stability of existing governments even though they are not
democratic); energy and pipelines; thwarting Iranian influence; not
antagonizing Russia. These various ambitions are hard to reconcile,
but the Obama administration, unlike the previous administration,
has cut back somewhat on the Busheviks' grandest plans for global
hegemony. This opens some space for better relations with Russia and
potential cooperation in solving the long-running conflicts in South
Caucasia before another war in a region often forgotten by the West
surprises the world.
Ronald Grigor Suny is Charles Tilly Collegiate Professor of Social
and Political History, Director, Eisenberg Institute for Historical
Studies, The University of Michigan, Emeritus Professor of Political
Science and History, The University of Chicago.
From: A. Papazian
Aliyah Fridman
news.az
May 31 2010
Azerbaijan
Ronald Grigor Suny News.Az interviews Ronald Grigor Suny, Charles
Tilly Collegiate Professor of Social and Political History.
There is an opinion that that the war between Russia and Georgia in
2008 had a huge influence on the further developments in the South
Caucasus. What the Russian-Georgian war changed in our region?
The Russian-Georgian War of August 2008 changed the balance of power
in South Caucasia. Russia essentially used the opportunity offered by
Saakashvili's attack on South Ossetia to show that it was ready to
use force to re-establish its dominant position in the Near Abroad,
at least when actively threatened. The Russian military effort,
however, was somewhat clumsy, and Moscow is well aware of its limited
military resources and the need for reform. But what is clear is that
no solution of either the Georgian conflicts or the Karabakh conflict
will occur without Russian will and agreement. This does not mean that
the South Caucasian republics cannot act and change the situation in
a constructive way.
Do you think that Russia is really interested in the Karabakh
settlement?
Armenia demonstrated that it could attempt to improve relations with
Turkey by first gaining Russian agreement for its initiative and
then pursuing it. Russia may have been reluctant about that move, but
eventually came around. Russia has so many problems that it does not
need more troubles in Caucasia. North Caucasia is its most vulnerable
frontier, and a strategically rational Russia should move cautiously
but deliberately to resolve some of its South Caucasian problems.
Karabakh would be a good place to start.
Because many actors in Armenia and Azerbaijan are content with the
status quo, local initiative may not be forthcoming. Russian, Turkish,
Iranian, and American efforts could push the belligerents to come to
some agreement.
And what about possible influence of Russian-Turkish rapprochement?
Russia-Turkish rapprochement is good for everyone. Turkey is changing
more rapidly than any other country in the region. Its civil society
is opening up; the country is on a trajectory toward greater democracy;
the government is making overtures to non-Turkish citizens, allowing a
broad discussion of the Armenian Genocide, even demonstrations. These
are extraordinarily positive developments, and should be encouraged
by everyone.
May be NATO somehow assist stability in the region?
NATO is a dead letter in South Caucasia. It is not going to happen
for the foreseeable future. Of course, if the Great Powers thought
creatively, then there could be plans to bring Russia as well as
other former Soviet countries into a new collective security structure
under NATO.
Iran as well is trying to play its role in the Karabakh settlement?
Bringing Iran into the picture would be even better, though the
Americans have a real blind spot vis-a-vis Iran. They have constructed
it as an existential danger to peace in the Middle East, and given the
fear of the Obama administration of criticism from the Republicans
that they are weak and indecisive in security issues, it is hard to
make the kind of agreements or concessions that would bring Iran into
a larger Middle East settlement.
And finally what do you think about regional policy of US?
As for the United States, sadly it does not really have a coherent and
consistent policy toward South Caucasia. First they were interested
primarily in energy and pipelines; then they staked their hopes on
Georgia; they always have to pay some attention to Armenia because of
the large Armenian population in certain key states. But the USA has
many interests in the region that do not all run in the same direction:
placate the Armenian lobby (but don't give it too much, e.g., Genocide
recognition); democracy building (which does not seem as much of a
priority as stability of existing governments even though they are not
democratic); energy and pipelines; thwarting Iranian influence; not
antagonizing Russia. These various ambitions are hard to reconcile,
but the Obama administration, unlike the previous administration,
has cut back somewhat on the Busheviks' grandest plans for global
hegemony. This opens some space for better relations with Russia and
potential cooperation in solving the long-running conflicts in South
Caucasia before another war in a region often forgotten by the West
surprises the world.
Ronald Grigor Suny is Charles Tilly Collegiate Professor of Social
and Political History, Director, Eisenberg Institute for Historical
Studies, The University of Michigan, Emeritus Professor of Political
Science and History, The University of Chicago.
From: A. Papazian