Tweet
WAR IN KARABAKH 'UNACCEPTABLE' FOR RUSSIA
news.az
Sept 15 2011
Azerbaijan
News.Az interviews Ivan Radikov, Russian Doctor of Political Science.
Are the policies pursued by the Kremlin towards the South Caucasus
countries effective in terms of Russia's security?
The current security policy of the Russian Federation rests on the
recognition that the most effective ways to build security are to
build good neighbourly relations with neighbouring countries, to
seek to eliminate and prevent new tension and conflicts in adjacent
regions and elsewhere, and to search for agreement and a coincidence
of interests with other states and international associations.
Today, Russia builds its relations with all countries on the principles
of international law and on an understanding of the need for reliable
and equal security. This dominant factor in Russia's national
security policy is something new that distinguishes it from previous
years and allows it to be described as a modern, constitutional and
forward-looking state.
Forming its policy in the South Caucasus, Russia has to take into
account different levels of socio-economic and democratic development
in the South Caucasus states, different approaches to identifying
development prospects, fundamentally differing views on how to resolve
conflicts in the region and, finally, the different interests of
those states. Therefore, Russia is building a special relationship
with each of these states.
In this regard, in recent years Russia's policy of maintaining
stability in the South Caucasus can be seen as balanced, rational and
pragmatic and in keeping with national interests. Russia is interested
in maintaining stability on its southern borders and understands the
need to eliminate existing differences with the South Caucasus states.
The history of close and sometimes complicated interaction between
our peoples is the objective basis for such aspirations. From the
standpoint of national security, Russia may face danger in two areas:
firstly, in energy, and, secondly, in political and ethnic relations.
Creating a system of stable bilateral partnerships, ultimately,
contributes to both the regional and national security of not only
Russia, but each of those states.
May Moscow's recognition of the independence of Abkhazia and South
Ossetia create problems for Russia which faces similar difficulties
with separatism in the North Caucasus?
You ask one of the most difficult questions: how to relate
two fundamental principles of international law - the right of
peoples to self-determination and right of states to territorial
integrity. The fact that the International Court in The Hague set a
precedent recognizing the legitimacy of the separation of the province
of Kosovo showed that the existing danger of separatism present in
many countries today may turn into real separatism.
In this context, Moscow's recognition of the independence of Abkhazia
and South Ossetia is a conscious decision of the Russian state. It
is based on the UN Charter, the 1970 Declaration on Principles of
International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among
States, the CSCE Helsinki Final Act of 1975 and other fundamental
international instruments.
Indeed, separatism is one of the most difficult challenges that Russia
has fought against for centuries. There are no double standards in that
Russia, following examples in international practice and recognizing
the right of its constituent peoples to self-determination, advocates
the principle of its state integrity.
It is fundamentally important to ensure the constitutional and
legal unity of a space and real equality of all constituent parts
of the federation in all areas of life, to create guarantees for the
development of the language and culture of peoples across the country
and the opportunity of introducing local self-government.
How likely is Russia to recognize the "independence" of
Nagorno-Karabakh in the event that Azerbaijan decides to resolve its
territorial problem by military means?
Modern Russia believes that it is impossible to solve any problem,
including a territorial one, by military means in modern times. The
form of violence in the 21st century is changing. "Tough" force and
"the carrot and stick policy", despite recurrent use in world politics,
now enjoy less support from the peoples of democratic countries. An
extreme form of the use of force - the military - is now not only
recognized as not legitimate in relations between nations, but also
ineffective, as something that, in reality, can lead to a "Pyrrhic
victory".
However, Russia has obligations both under bilateral treaties and
the Treaty on Collective Security. In accordance with the Russian
military doctrine, Russia considers an attack on any CSTO member
state as aggression against the entire Collective Security Treaty
Organization and should take action in accordance with the Treaty
on Collective Security. It appears that Russia will do everything
possible to keep the conflicting parties from using military force.
What may be the implications and threats of a new war in Karabakh,
including for Russia itself?
I once again emphasize that Russia considers an outbreak of hostilities
in the region unacceptable. Violations of the existing cease-fire
can cause unbalanced processes and unpredictable consequences. The
most important thing here is human losses. All parties to the
conflict must realize that the Karabakh conflict cannot be resolved
by military means. The military build-up by warring parties and
bellicose statements, which have become quite commonplace, are alarming
signals. This is the worst-case scenario. You need to cool down those
seeking a military solution before war starts.
Recently President Medvedev, recalling the Russo-Georgian war of
August 2008, stated that "it is better to hold endless negotiations
about the fate of Nagorno-Karabakh, than to have five days of war". Do
you share Medvedev's opinion or do you think that the state has to
do its utmost, including to fight, to ensure its territorial integrity?
Indeed, even a bad peace is better than a good war. Let those who
do not agree with this formula ask the mothers of the thousands of
soldiers who have died in this conflict. The state must do its utmost
to protect people's lives.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
news.az
Sept 15 2011
Azerbaijan
News.Az interviews Ivan Radikov, Russian Doctor of Political Science.
Are the policies pursued by the Kremlin towards the South Caucasus
countries effective in terms of Russia's security?
The current security policy of the Russian Federation rests on the
recognition that the most effective ways to build security are to
build good neighbourly relations with neighbouring countries, to
seek to eliminate and prevent new tension and conflicts in adjacent
regions and elsewhere, and to search for agreement and a coincidence
of interests with other states and international associations.
Today, Russia builds its relations with all countries on the principles
of international law and on an understanding of the need for reliable
and equal security. This dominant factor in Russia's national
security policy is something new that distinguishes it from previous
years and allows it to be described as a modern, constitutional and
forward-looking state.
Forming its policy in the South Caucasus, Russia has to take into
account different levels of socio-economic and democratic development
in the South Caucasus states, different approaches to identifying
development prospects, fundamentally differing views on how to resolve
conflicts in the region and, finally, the different interests of
those states. Therefore, Russia is building a special relationship
with each of these states.
In this regard, in recent years Russia's policy of maintaining
stability in the South Caucasus can be seen as balanced, rational and
pragmatic and in keeping with national interests. Russia is interested
in maintaining stability on its southern borders and understands the
need to eliminate existing differences with the South Caucasus states.
The history of close and sometimes complicated interaction between
our peoples is the objective basis for such aspirations. From the
standpoint of national security, Russia may face danger in two areas:
firstly, in energy, and, secondly, in political and ethnic relations.
Creating a system of stable bilateral partnerships, ultimately,
contributes to both the regional and national security of not only
Russia, but each of those states.
May Moscow's recognition of the independence of Abkhazia and South
Ossetia create problems for Russia which faces similar difficulties
with separatism in the North Caucasus?
You ask one of the most difficult questions: how to relate
two fundamental principles of international law - the right of
peoples to self-determination and right of states to territorial
integrity. The fact that the International Court in The Hague set a
precedent recognizing the legitimacy of the separation of the province
of Kosovo showed that the existing danger of separatism present in
many countries today may turn into real separatism.
In this context, Moscow's recognition of the independence of Abkhazia
and South Ossetia is a conscious decision of the Russian state. It
is based on the UN Charter, the 1970 Declaration on Principles of
International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among
States, the CSCE Helsinki Final Act of 1975 and other fundamental
international instruments.
Indeed, separatism is one of the most difficult challenges that Russia
has fought against for centuries. There are no double standards in that
Russia, following examples in international practice and recognizing
the right of its constituent peoples to self-determination, advocates
the principle of its state integrity.
It is fundamentally important to ensure the constitutional and
legal unity of a space and real equality of all constituent parts
of the federation in all areas of life, to create guarantees for the
development of the language and culture of peoples across the country
and the opportunity of introducing local self-government.
How likely is Russia to recognize the "independence" of
Nagorno-Karabakh in the event that Azerbaijan decides to resolve its
territorial problem by military means?
Modern Russia believes that it is impossible to solve any problem,
including a territorial one, by military means in modern times. The
form of violence in the 21st century is changing. "Tough" force and
"the carrot and stick policy", despite recurrent use in world politics,
now enjoy less support from the peoples of democratic countries. An
extreme form of the use of force - the military - is now not only
recognized as not legitimate in relations between nations, but also
ineffective, as something that, in reality, can lead to a "Pyrrhic
victory".
However, Russia has obligations both under bilateral treaties and
the Treaty on Collective Security. In accordance with the Russian
military doctrine, Russia considers an attack on any CSTO member
state as aggression against the entire Collective Security Treaty
Organization and should take action in accordance with the Treaty
on Collective Security. It appears that Russia will do everything
possible to keep the conflicting parties from using military force.
What may be the implications and threats of a new war in Karabakh,
including for Russia itself?
I once again emphasize that Russia considers an outbreak of hostilities
in the region unacceptable. Violations of the existing cease-fire
can cause unbalanced processes and unpredictable consequences. The
most important thing here is human losses. All parties to the
conflict must realize that the Karabakh conflict cannot be resolved
by military means. The military build-up by warring parties and
bellicose statements, which have become quite commonplace, are alarming
signals. This is the worst-case scenario. You need to cool down those
seeking a military solution before war starts.
Recently President Medvedev, recalling the Russo-Georgian war of
August 2008, stated that "it is better to hold endless negotiations
about the fate of Nagorno-Karabakh, than to have five days of war". Do
you share Medvedev's opinion or do you think that the state has to
do its utmost, including to fight, to ensure its territorial integrity?
Indeed, even a bad peace is better than a good war. Let those who
do not agree with this formula ask the mothers of the thousands of
soldiers who have died in this conflict. The state must do its utmost
to protect people's lives.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress