Tweet
Real Eurasian Option
Igor Muradyan
http://www.lragir.am/index.php/eng/0/politics/view/28153
Politics - Friday, 23 November 2012, 19:37
Russia has faced the Eurasian idea as an option since it set to oust
nomads from the Great Plains and perhaps earlier Russia had faced the
necessity to choose a capital - Vilnius, Kazan or Moscow.
Although, the Eurasian option has never been limited to geopolitics
but also political and ideological problems. Those who view the
Eurasian idea as a somewhat simplified scheme of problem solving are
doomed to a funny marginal status. The bid is higher than some
supporters of the Eurasian people had thought. The choice is not made
at the sacral corners of Eurasia although the `corners' hold an
important position in the general arrangement of the game.
The Eurasian choice and actual aspect indicates the choice of Russia
and is not related to metaphysical Eurasia but to the world actors -
with whom and in what role to be, with China or the Atlantics or both.
The Americans do not worry about the Russian-Chinese relations which
are wavy and diverse and cannot achieve sufficient completeness and
credibility because there will always be serious disagreement and
earlier inherited Barack Obama's administration and has a constant
supra-party importance for politics and national interests of the
United States.
Currently, the United States and their Euro-Atlantic partners are
interested in Russia, as well as the CSTO. No doubt the Euro-Atlantic
community would like to attract the CSTO to its side and then absorb
it fully. Will CSTO be subject to the Atlantic alliance or will they
set up a partnership which will depend on the CSTO? Should they enter
into a confrontation with China or continue to boost the potential of
Shanghai Cooperation Organization? Or the question is a little
different or fully different, namely observance of the balance in
relations.
By the way, for such a selection of options Russia needs the status of
a subject in Eurasia. It is difficult to plan a long-term policy in
the framework of metaphysical and real Eurasia without this verified
and legitimate status. In addition, two Eurasias will replace one
another from time to time.
In any case, even after withdrawal of the coalition troops from
Afghanistan (which has not been confirmed yet) the role of the Black
Sea and Caspian-Central Asian regions will be retained in the U.S. and
NATO strategy and geopolitics. In addition, different states of the
region will be involved in this foreign policy.
One way or another, Turkey cannot be listed among the actors of this
strategy with such unreliable and suspicious behavior of this country
which has cornered a lot of politicians and policy makers of the
United States, Europe and NATO. The United States and NATO will
certainly accept any service function from Turkey but not partnership
with Turkey.
Different attempts to equalize and put Turket and Russia on the same
level in textual insinuations of the U.S. and European political
scientists have nothing to do with the reality. Despite decades of
partnership with the Atlantic alliance, Turkey cannot be considered
for the role which Russia can currently take on, namely NATO's
strategic rival.
A lot has changed. Turkey is a rival to NATO and the United States.
Russia is a potential ally. All the others are on the verge of foul
and meaningless talks. The future global community depends
considerably on what kind of cooperation Russia will choose in
Eurasia, that is the Eurasian option it will choose.
The role and importance of Iran is outlining here. It is facing a
choice. The game's importance is growing, the solution and agreement
on principles is not close, and there is time for all the participants
of the Eurasian and Near Eastern policy, even the smallest states,
should take the initiative.
Igor Muradyan
http://www.lragir.am/index.php/eng/0/politics/view/28153
Politics - Friday, 23 November 2012, 19:37
Russia has faced the Eurasian idea as an option since it set to oust
nomads from the Great Plains and perhaps earlier Russia had faced the
necessity to choose a capital - Vilnius, Kazan or Moscow.
Although, the Eurasian option has never been limited to geopolitics
but also political and ideological problems. Those who view the
Eurasian idea as a somewhat simplified scheme of problem solving are
doomed to a funny marginal status. The bid is higher than some
supporters of the Eurasian people had thought. The choice is not made
at the sacral corners of Eurasia although the `corners' hold an
important position in the general arrangement of the game.
The Eurasian choice and actual aspect indicates the choice of Russia
and is not related to metaphysical Eurasia but to the world actors -
with whom and in what role to be, with China or the Atlantics or both.
The Americans do not worry about the Russian-Chinese relations which
are wavy and diverse and cannot achieve sufficient completeness and
credibility because there will always be serious disagreement and
earlier inherited Barack Obama's administration and has a constant
supra-party importance for politics and national interests of the
United States.
Currently, the United States and their Euro-Atlantic partners are
interested in Russia, as well as the CSTO. No doubt the Euro-Atlantic
community would like to attract the CSTO to its side and then absorb
it fully. Will CSTO be subject to the Atlantic alliance or will they
set up a partnership which will depend on the CSTO? Should they enter
into a confrontation with China or continue to boost the potential of
Shanghai Cooperation Organization? Or the question is a little
different or fully different, namely observance of the balance in
relations.
By the way, for such a selection of options Russia needs the status of
a subject in Eurasia. It is difficult to plan a long-term policy in
the framework of metaphysical and real Eurasia without this verified
and legitimate status. In addition, two Eurasias will replace one
another from time to time.
In any case, even after withdrawal of the coalition troops from
Afghanistan (which has not been confirmed yet) the role of the Black
Sea and Caspian-Central Asian regions will be retained in the U.S. and
NATO strategy and geopolitics. In addition, different states of the
region will be involved in this foreign policy.
One way or another, Turkey cannot be listed among the actors of this
strategy with such unreliable and suspicious behavior of this country
which has cornered a lot of politicians and policy makers of the
United States, Europe and NATO. The United States and NATO will
certainly accept any service function from Turkey but not partnership
with Turkey.
Different attempts to equalize and put Turket and Russia on the same
level in textual insinuations of the U.S. and European political
scientists have nothing to do with the reality. Despite decades of
partnership with the Atlantic alliance, Turkey cannot be considered
for the role which Russia can currently take on, namely NATO's
strategic rival.
A lot has changed. Turkey is a rival to NATO and the United States.
Russia is a potential ally. All the others are on the verge of foul
and meaningless talks. The future global community depends
considerably on what kind of cooperation Russia will choose in
Eurasia, that is the Eurasian option it will choose.
The role and importance of Iran is outlining here. It is facing a
choice. The game's importance is growing, the solution and agreement
on principles is not close, and there is time for all the participants
of the Eurasian and Near Eastern policy, even the smallest states,
should take the initiative.