Tweet
VLADIMIR YEVSEEV: THE INTERESTS OF SEPARATE CORPORATIONS IN FOREIGN POLICY OF RUSSIA SOMETIMES ARE PUT ABOVE THE STATE ONES
Interview of Director of Moscow Centre for Public and Political
Studies, Vladimir Yevseev, with Arminfo news agency
by David Stepanyan
Tuesday, June 11, 14:31
One of the deputies of the ruling Republican Party of Armenia has
recently said that "Moscow will always raise gas price for Armenia
to depend on it more and more". Doyou share such a viewpoint? How
do you assess Russia's policy regarding its only ally in the South
Caucasus, Armenia?
Unfortunately, sometimes interests of separate corporations and
companies in foreign policy of Russia are put above the state
interests. The situation a little bit differs in Armenia, as in
Azerbaijan certain circles want to resolve the Karabakh conflict
with a help of force. Nevertheless, the Kremlin feels the problem of
vulnerability of security in the South Caucasus. And the last visits
by Russia's Defence Minister Sergey Shoygu and commander of General
Headquarters, Valeriy Gerasimiv, to Armenia are evidence of that.
Their purpose was to enhance Russian military presence in the South
Caucasus, where Armenia's significance for Russia can hardly be
overestimated. Now the point is not how to strengthen dependence of
Yerevan on Moscow and to hinder strengthening of the western vector
of its foreign policy, including the relations with NATO. It is
more important not to let regional war in the South Caucasus with
unpredictable consequences. I think that Israel's bombing-missile
air attack upon Iran's nuclear and military objects may become a
favorable start of the regional war. Saying that Russia has got
the military presence in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the expert
emphasized that the potential of the troops deployed there is limited,
as because of several reasons Moscow is not interested in creation
of the fully-fledged military bases there. This military presence
principally differs from the military base deployed in Gyumri.
According to the non-official information, some missile complexes
"Iskander M" and "Tornado-G" were delivered to the 102-nd Russian
military base in Gyumri. What is the reason of it, taking into
consideration the all-regional tension?
If these missile complexes were really delivered, it means that
Moscow is concerned about the situation being formed in the sphere of
regional security. Russia has obligations on protection of Armenia
in case of the military threat, although it does not have similar
obligations regarding Nagornyy Karabakh. Nevertheless, presence of
the above-mentioned weapons in Armenia are of the stabilizing nature,
as they will stop Azerbaijan and Turkey to settle the Karabakh conflict
with a help of force.
What are the tendencies of extension of US and Europe's influence in
the South Caucasus? What are the scenarios of possible integration
of Armenia?
At present, the South Caucasus is not a priority of foreign policy
of the USA. Of course, in Washington they would like to weaken the
relations of Russia with Armenia. But they understand that extension
of US influence in Armenia will require its involvement in the Karabakh
conflict settlement, that is to say, the USA will be forced to support
Yerevan's position in this matter and enhance its security.
However, this will result in worsening of US relations not only
with Baku but also with Ankara, which is more important. Washington
cannot let it. For this reason, the Americans will not initiate true
rapprochement with Yerevan. Instead of that, they will support the
seeming enhancing of relations like an element of imposing pressure
upon Moscow. At present Europe is in a hard situation as it suffers
financial and economic crisis, resulted in decrease of GDP. This
means that Brussels does not own big financial funds to be invested in
the states of the South Caucasus region. We have got some uncertain
development of Georgia after premier Bidzina Ivanishvili's coming to
power. In such conditions Brussels will occupy a waiting position, as
it is concerned about the local problems. Taking into consideration
all above-mentioned, development of the Russian-Armenian relations
has no alternative, but not because Moscow wants that very much,
but because of the created foreign political conditions.
Several events happened in the Russian-Azerbaijani relations for the
last years and even months, such as - the Russians left Gabala. What
are the tendencies of the relations between Moscow and Baku?
I think that till October 2013, that is to say, before holding of
presidential election in Azerbaijan, the relations with Russia will
not become better. To improve the bilateral relations, they need the
high level meeting. Only within the frames of such a meeting, they
can remove all the accumulated tension regarding several issues,
in particular, Baku's intention towards force settlement of the
Karabakh conflict, the increasing purchase of Israeli weapon and
the increasing growth of this country and its secret services in
Azerbaijan, as well as, sharp worsening of relations with Iran, the
fact that Moscow supports alternative organizations of Azerbaijani
diaspora, stopped buying Azerbaijani oil, etc. But the meeting of
president of Russia and Azerbaijan has not been scheduled yet.
The displeasure of Iran with the temporality nature of the Azerbaijani
state is one of the reasons of the bad relations between Baku and
Teheran. What are the tendencies inthese relations?
I think that further development of relations between Baku and Teheran
are linked with the forthcoming presidential election in Iran on 14
June. It is very much possible that Said Jalili or Ali Akbar Velayati
will gain a victory.
Anyway, the influence of the current president Ahmadimejad will be
nullified. In its turn, this will create favorable conditions for
certain improvement of bilateral relations, but only after the expected
victory of Ilham Aliyev at the presidential election in Azerbaijan.
What are the reasons of local instability in Turkey? How can they
threat the region? And what is the possible scenario of their
development?
I think that having taken the course for islamization of the country
and started actively mediating in the armed conflict in Syria, Prime
Minister of Turkey Recep Erdogan made two serious mistakes. The fast
islamization required withdrawal of servicemen from the true levers
of power. This resulted in the situation when Erdogan himself lost
ground within the country, although strengthened his personal power.
As for an active mediation in the local conflict in Syria, it has
led to worsening of Erdogan's relations not only with opposition but
also with wide layers of local population displeased with deployment
of foreign rebels at the territory of the country. Nevertheless,
I think that the situation in Turkey will be improved soon. And
disorders in Turkey will turn Erdogan into a more careful politician
when conducting local as well as foreign policy.
The Syrian conflict seems to gradually pass to another field. What
impulses we have to expect from the events in Syria in the near future?
The Syrian problem has faced a stalemate. The opposition is extremely
split, but it receives financing and weapons from the countries
pursuing various and often contradictory interests in Syria. In
such situation, it is extremely difficult to achieve any progress in
resolution of the given problem. The point is not just the destructive
role of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but also the West's two-faced policy
that calls for dialogue but prepares for military interference under
a vain pretext, for instance, application of chemical weapons by the
Syrian army.
Enjoying monopoly of information resources, the West and its partners
in the face of Arabian monarchies, can easily create a background
necessary for armed interference. However, the USA does not want it,
while Britain and France lack resources for a military operation.
Turkey cannot think of an armed conflict at present either. The
upcoming conference in Geneva will hardly be a success, because Iran
will not be invited to it or will not be allowed to decision making,
which means that it will be impossible to reinforce even the plan
coordinated with other participants. In the meanwhile, it is Tehran
that supports the current authorities in Damask. The recent 4 billion
dollars aid to Damask is the best evidence of that.
The Syrian Army will probably achieve certain success fighting the
armed opposition shortly. It may even restore control over Aleppo
and lift the blockade of the Syrian-Iraqi border, which is the main
corridor of aid for Damask. However, it will hardly manage to fully
suppress the armed opposition and will be reluctant to seek a dialogue
with it, but, this time, maybe on better terms for Damask.
http://www.arminfo.am/index.cfm?objectid=24F8C200-D282-11E2-BA940EB7C0D21663
From: Baghdasarian
Interview of Director of Moscow Centre for Public and Political
Studies, Vladimir Yevseev, with Arminfo news agency
by David Stepanyan
Tuesday, June 11, 14:31
One of the deputies of the ruling Republican Party of Armenia has
recently said that "Moscow will always raise gas price for Armenia
to depend on it more and more". Doyou share such a viewpoint? How
do you assess Russia's policy regarding its only ally in the South
Caucasus, Armenia?
Unfortunately, sometimes interests of separate corporations and
companies in foreign policy of Russia are put above the state
interests. The situation a little bit differs in Armenia, as in
Azerbaijan certain circles want to resolve the Karabakh conflict
with a help of force. Nevertheless, the Kremlin feels the problem of
vulnerability of security in the South Caucasus. And the last visits
by Russia's Defence Minister Sergey Shoygu and commander of General
Headquarters, Valeriy Gerasimiv, to Armenia are evidence of that.
Their purpose was to enhance Russian military presence in the South
Caucasus, where Armenia's significance for Russia can hardly be
overestimated. Now the point is not how to strengthen dependence of
Yerevan on Moscow and to hinder strengthening of the western vector
of its foreign policy, including the relations with NATO. It is
more important not to let regional war in the South Caucasus with
unpredictable consequences. I think that Israel's bombing-missile
air attack upon Iran's nuclear and military objects may become a
favorable start of the regional war. Saying that Russia has got
the military presence in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the expert
emphasized that the potential of the troops deployed there is limited,
as because of several reasons Moscow is not interested in creation
of the fully-fledged military bases there. This military presence
principally differs from the military base deployed in Gyumri.
According to the non-official information, some missile complexes
"Iskander M" and "Tornado-G" were delivered to the 102-nd Russian
military base in Gyumri. What is the reason of it, taking into
consideration the all-regional tension?
If these missile complexes were really delivered, it means that
Moscow is concerned about the situation being formed in the sphere of
regional security. Russia has obligations on protection of Armenia
in case of the military threat, although it does not have similar
obligations regarding Nagornyy Karabakh. Nevertheless, presence of
the above-mentioned weapons in Armenia are of the stabilizing nature,
as they will stop Azerbaijan and Turkey to settle the Karabakh conflict
with a help of force.
What are the tendencies of extension of US and Europe's influence in
the South Caucasus? What are the scenarios of possible integration
of Armenia?
At present, the South Caucasus is not a priority of foreign policy
of the USA. Of course, in Washington they would like to weaken the
relations of Russia with Armenia. But they understand that extension
of US influence in Armenia will require its involvement in the Karabakh
conflict settlement, that is to say, the USA will be forced to support
Yerevan's position in this matter and enhance its security.
However, this will result in worsening of US relations not only
with Baku but also with Ankara, which is more important. Washington
cannot let it. For this reason, the Americans will not initiate true
rapprochement with Yerevan. Instead of that, they will support the
seeming enhancing of relations like an element of imposing pressure
upon Moscow. At present Europe is in a hard situation as it suffers
financial and economic crisis, resulted in decrease of GDP. This
means that Brussels does not own big financial funds to be invested in
the states of the South Caucasus region. We have got some uncertain
development of Georgia after premier Bidzina Ivanishvili's coming to
power. In such conditions Brussels will occupy a waiting position, as
it is concerned about the local problems. Taking into consideration
all above-mentioned, development of the Russian-Armenian relations
has no alternative, but not because Moscow wants that very much,
but because of the created foreign political conditions.
Several events happened in the Russian-Azerbaijani relations for the
last years and even months, such as - the Russians left Gabala. What
are the tendencies of the relations between Moscow and Baku?
I think that till October 2013, that is to say, before holding of
presidential election in Azerbaijan, the relations with Russia will
not become better. To improve the bilateral relations, they need the
high level meeting. Only within the frames of such a meeting, they
can remove all the accumulated tension regarding several issues,
in particular, Baku's intention towards force settlement of the
Karabakh conflict, the increasing purchase of Israeli weapon and
the increasing growth of this country and its secret services in
Azerbaijan, as well as, sharp worsening of relations with Iran, the
fact that Moscow supports alternative organizations of Azerbaijani
diaspora, stopped buying Azerbaijani oil, etc. But the meeting of
president of Russia and Azerbaijan has not been scheduled yet.
The displeasure of Iran with the temporality nature of the Azerbaijani
state is one of the reasons of the bad relations between Baku and
Teheran. What are the tendencies inthese relations?
I think that further development of relations between Baku and Teheran
are linked with the forthcoming presidential election in Iran on 14
June. It is very much possible that Said Jalili or Ali Akbar Velayati
will gain a victory.
Anyway, the influence of the current president Ahmadimejad will be
nullified. In its turn, this will create favorable conditions for
certain improvement of bilateral relations, but only after the expected
victory of Ilham Aliyev at the presidential election in Azerbaijan.
What are the reasons of local instability in Turkey? How can they
threat the region? And what is the possible scenario of their
development?
I think that having taken the course for islamization of the country
and started actively mediating in the armed conflict in Syria, Prime
Minister of Turkey Recep Erdogan made two serious mistakes. The fast
islamization required withdrawal of servicemen from the true levers
of power. This resulted in the situation when Erdogan himself lost
ground within the country, although strengthened his personal power.
As for an active mediation in the local conflict in Syria, it has
led to worsening of Erdogan's relations not only with opposition but
also with wide layers of local population displeased with deployment
of foreign rebels at the territory of the country. Nevertheless,
I think that the situation in Turkey will be improved soon. And
disorders in Turkey will turn Erdogan into a more careful politician
when conducting local as well as foreign policy.
The Syrian conflict seems to gradually pass to another field. What
impulses we have to expect from the events in Syria in the near future?
The Syrian problem has faced a stalemate. The opposition is extremely
split, but it receives financing and weapons from the countries
pursuing various and often contradictory interests in Syria. In
such situation, it is extremely difficult to achieve any progress in
resolution of the given problem. The point is not just the destructive
role of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but also the West's two-faced policy
that calls for dialogue but prepares for military interference under
a vain pretext, for instance, application of chemical weapons by the
Syrian army.
Enjoying monopoly of information resources, the West and its partners
in the face of Arabian monarchies, can easily create a background
necessary for armed interference. However, the USA does not want it,
while Britain and France lack resources for a military operation.
Turkey cannot think of an armed conflict at present either. The
upcoming conference in Geneva will hardly be a success, because Iran
will not be invited to it or will not be allowed to decision making,
which means that it will be impossible to reinforce even the plan
coordinated with other participants. In the meanwhile, it is Tehran
that supports the current authorities in Damask. The recent 4 billion
dollars aid to Damask is the best evidence of that.
The Syrian Army will probably achieve certain success fighting the
armed opposition shortly. It may even restore control over Aleppo
and lift the blockade of the Syrian-Iraqi border, which is the main
corridor of aid for Damask. However, it will hardly manage to fully
suppress the armed opposition and will be reluctant to seek a dialogue
with it, but, this time, maybe on better terms for Damask.
http://www.arminfo.am/index.cfm?objectid=24F8C200-D282-11E2-BA940EB7C0D21663
From: Baghdasarian