Tweet
PEOPLE LIVING IN CRIMEA AND KARABAKH SAW NO FUTURE FOR THE COUNTRIES THEY WERE ATTACHED TO
ArmInfo's interview with Sergey Markedonov, Ph.D. (History), assistant
professor at the Regional Studies and Foreign Policy department of
the Russian State University for Humanities
by David Stepanyan
Monday, April 7, 21:11
Could you give your vision of the causes of the conflict over Crimea.
Today the stances on Crimea are rather precise. Russia has proved in
the minority not because it is wrong. That is not the question. The
point is that the balance of power in the world is shifting in
favor of the U.S. and its allies for a range of issues. That is
why the situation with Crimea is interpreted in the light of the
aforementioned. And the response from both the parties of the global
conformation is tough.
Do the positions of the South Caucasus nations on Crimea reflect the
latest real politik tendencies?
Today the position of being above the struggle for the Crimea would be
the best for any Caucasus states. We see that at present the struggle
for tones and half-tones is taking place practically everywhere.
Georgia which for many years was watching Ukraine as a strategic
partner, thinks that the West is its strategic choice. But on 6 March
when sanctions against Russia were discussed in the parliament, the
"Georgian dream" did not support the project. It only criticized
that and abstained from effective measures. As for Azerbaijan, for
which Ukraine has always been an important partner in many sectors,
the current authorities of Baku do not like Maidan's ghost very much,
and they do not want to have similar Maidan in Azerbaijan. On the other
hand, Azerbaijani opposition is very much inspired by this sample,
although the Crimea has become the true price of the Maidan. Armenia
is Russia's strategic partner. But there are many cases which Yerevan
did not want to make a point of. For this reason, an open supporting
of the referendum in the Crimea by Yerevan may push the West to raise
an issue of "Nagorno-Karabakh occupation". Yerevan was not happy for
the events in Georgia in 2008. But because of the clear reasons it
did not want to support Russia. So, for all the Caucasus republics
it would be right to stay aside and not to interfere in the conflict
which is actually strange to them. No country of the South Caucasus
has vitally important interests in the Crimea or Ukraine to fight for.
The situation over Crimea is more or less clear, unlike the future
of Southeastern Ukraine. Do you have a scenario for this region?
Comparing the situations in Crimea and in the southeast of Ukraine is
wrong, as the phenomenon of the large-scale Crimean separatism existed
yet long ago. Meanwhile, Leonid Kuchma, Yulia Timoshenko, Alexander
Turchinov, Viktor Yanukovich and a number of oligarchs are from the
east of Ukraine. They are not natives of Galich. Therefore, all these
territories have always been included in the all-Ukrainian process.
Meanwhile, Crimea has always had certain selfness. As for the
southeast, it is also very different. Kharkov and Dnepropetrovsk are
more integrated in the Ukrainian processes amid pro-Russian processes
in Lugansk. In Donetsk the processes are less pro-Russian. I can
see no pro-Russian parties there to come out as Moscow's agents with
relevant messages. In the meantime, there has always been a Russian
community in Crimea. Speaking of Crimea, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, many
go in geopolitics not even noticing the views of the people that live
there. Meanwhile, no geopolitics is able to change the public opinion.
The Crimea and Karabakh issues did not originate from any geopolitical
interests, simply the people living there saw no future for the
countries they were attached to in the Soviet times without any
referendum. However, the problem of Ukraine is the problem of power.
"In any revolution, there is always a political force able to control
and monopolize violence. Ukraine, there is no such leader so far.
Therefore, the scenario of a full collapse of power in Ukraine and
Russia's inevitable interference is still possible. However, there
is also another scenario according to which Kyev finally displays
reasonability and begins to negotiate.
Transdniestria is already asking to join Russia. Some people are
also mentioning Nagorno-Karabakh. Do you think that Crimea has become
a precedent?
Russia's foreign policy is not selling boxes: Crimea's joining Russia
does not mean that the same will happen to Transniedstria. Still
many are sure that Russia's policy today is aimed at collecting
territories. In reality, Russia's policy in the post-Soviet area is
not only what it does to others but also what others do to it. When
Georgia tried to force the Russians out of the South Ossetian peace
process, they got South Ossetia. When Ukraine began defying them,
they got Crimea. But if Moldova acts differently, they will not get
Transdniestria. Growing confrontation with the West is the last thing
Russia wants. Everybody perfectly understands that one day Russian
resources may end as may the patience of the West.
Are there real opportunities to settle the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
that are being missed?
Very often they in the West mistake the wish for the reality. Some
people think that things here depend on whether the West and Russia
will be able to come to terms though the real problem comes from
the reluctance of Armenians and Azeris to make peace. The West and
Russia came to terms when they adopted the Madrid Principles but
that did not bring Armenians and Azeris closer. The problem is that
those principles contain lots of contradictions. For example, the
point concerning the interim status of Nagorno-Karabakh contradicts
the one confirming Azerbaijan's territorial integrity. With the world
community refusing to recognize Nagorno-Karabakh and its authorities,
it is not clear who will govern that region during the period of
the interim status. So, the only term for the Madrid Principles is
imitation. The West and Russia are just aiming to show that they
do have common grounds. The other aim they have in view is to keep
Armenia and Azerbaijan at the negotiating table so as to create an
illusion of negotiations and to prevent a new war.
Is there a country interested in comprehensive peace in
Nagrono-Karabakh. What are the interests of geopolitics today?
Despite absolute absence of consensus, the parties to the Karabakh
conflict should nevertheless be interested in reaching a universal
peace settlement. I think that today everybody, even Turkey and Iran,
are interested in reaching the compromise option. Not geo-politics
but the parties to the conflict should make a compromise. In that
case, Armenia will get the opened borders. And Russia will not be
forced to tack between Yerevan and Baku preserving certain influence
in both countries. However, unblocking of the border to Armenia by
Turkey without settlement of the Karabakh conflict is impossible,
taking into consideration the domestic political significance of
this issue for Turkey. The West which thinks the Bosnia and Kosovo
are its success, goes on developing the project on opening of the
Armenian-Turkish border to reach another "success". The EU has long
ago stopped producing creative ideas. The Europeans declare grandiose
success in democratizing and assure to reach bigger success. Meanwhile,
there is nothing of the kind and no democratizing is taking place. It
is good that regime has changed in Georgia for the first time for the
last 20 years, but it is not clear. what was Bidzina Ivanishvili's role
in all that. "If it is democracy, in that case, let the USA and Europe
choose the Deng Xiaoping reforms for themselves too. What democratizing
success does Azerbaijan have? If we compare Serzh Sargsyan with Robert
Kocharyan, we may probably find dynamics. Nevertheless, I still do
not see a system of the functioning democratic institutions in Armenia.
Has the Eastern Partnership program lost its prospects or will it
gain a new momentum, with all ensuing consequences for Russia?
The program has prospects but at the same time, it does not have them.
It has no prospect as its moderators do not understand true images.
Allegedly, it is a hostage of the lost capacities and invented myths
which it follows. However, it has prospects as its member-states
still have a demand for Europe. They travel to Europe and see
the situation there, but they do not understand that for becoming
Europe they have to work like Europe but not to wait for democracy
brought by the Europeans. However, if there is a demand, there are
also bilateral impulses towards Brussels. The main problem of the
"post-Soviet" countries and the European security system in general
is that they do not try to take Russia as a partner in a big European
concert. Many people say that real politics is bad. But the policy
based on the myths and illusions is even worse as many people will be
disappointed with it. Of course, Russia will not become a member of
the EU, but its voice should be heard there. Moscow does not admit
the out of control extension of NATO like an exchange for beautiful
words. Nobody has canceled competition and conflict of interests.
Is Ukraine a part of this conflict of interest? Or things are much
more complicated?
Undoubtedly, the situation in Ukraine is more complicated than it
seems at first sight. First of all, it is a test for statehood that
arose from inside from the very first day. Actually, everybody,
including Russia pass this test in the Caucasus, Povolzhye, etc.
Besides Karabakh, Azerbaijan passes this test in the Talish and
Lezgin issues too. The same has been happening in Ukraine. The point
is about the identity which fits the population of the country. For
this reason, I would offer another two volumes to Leonid Kuchma's book
"Ukraine is not Russia" - "Ukraine is not Galicia" and "Ukraine is not
Maidan". They have to understand that and all the viewpoints should
be taken into consideration. Even if Maidan gathers one third of the
population of Ukraine, it is just one third. But if Ukraine wanted to
be entire, it had to understand that before the Maidan. The Georgians
also had to understand that and create privileged conditions for the
Abkhazs so that to preserve the borders of Georgian Soviet Socialistic
Republic. Today many people blame Vladimir Putin for supporting Ramzan
Kadirov. But such is the price of the issue, the price that Moscow
pays for having Chechnya within Russia. Many people in Russia do not
like such a position. For this reason, the root of the problem should
be fist of all looked for in Ukraine. And later all the rest external
factors overlapped that.
http://www.arminfo.am/index.cfm?objectid=9961B570-BE77-11E3-BF250EB7C0D21663
ArmInfo's interview with Sergey Markedonov, Ph.D. (History), assistant
professor at the Regional Studies and Foreign Policy department of
the Russian State University for Humanities
by David Stepanyan
Monday, April 7, 21:11
Could you give your vision of the causes of the conflict over Crimea.
Today the stances on Crimea are rather precise. Russia has proved in
the minority not because it is wrong. That is not the question. The
point is that the balance of power in the world is shifting in
favor of the U.S. and its allies for a range of issues. That is
why the situation with Crimea is interpreted in the light of the
aforementioned. And the response from both the parties of the global
conformation is tough.
Do the positions of the South Caucasus nations on Crimea reflect the
latest real politik tendencies?
Today the position of being above the struggle for the Crimea would be
the best for any Caucasus states. We see that at present the struggle
for tones and half-tones is taking place practically everywhere.
Georgia which for many years was watching Ukraine as a strategic
partner, thinks that the West is its strategic choice. But on 6 March
when sanctions against Russia were discussed in the parliament, the
"Georgian dream" did not support the project. It only criticized
that and abstained from effective measures. As for Azerbaijan, for
which Ukraine has always been an important partner in many sectors,
the current authorities of Baku do not like Maidan's ghost very much,
and they do not want to have similar Maidan in Azerbaijan. On the other
hand, Azerbaijani opposition is very much inspired by this sample,
although the Crimea has become the true price of the Maidan. Armenia
is Russia's strategic partner. But there are many cases which Yerevan
did not want to make a point of. For this reason, an open supporting
of the referendum in the Crimea by Yerevan may push the West to raise
an issue of "Nagorno-Karabakh occupation". Yerevan was not happy for
the events in Georgia in 2008. But because of the clear reasons it
did not want to support Russia. So, for all the Caucasus republics
it would be right to stay aside and not to interfere in the conflict
which is actually strange to them. No country of the South Caucasus
has vitally important interests in the Crimea or Ukraine to fight for.
The situation over Crimea is more or less clear, unlike the future
of Southeastern Ukraine. Do you have a scenario for this region?
Comparing the situations in Crimea and in the southeast of Ukraine is
wrong, as the phenomenon of the large-scale Crimean separatism existed
yet long ago. Meanwhile, Leonid Kuchma, Yulia Timoshenko, Alexander
Turchinov, Viktor Yanukovich and a number of oligarchs are from the
east of Ukraine. They are not natives of Galich. Therefore, all these
territories have always been included in the all-Ukrainian process.
Meanwhile, Crimea has always had certain selfness. As for the
southeast, it is also very different. Kharkov and Dnepropetrovsk are
more integrated in the Ukrainian processes amid pro-Russian processes
in Lugansk. In Donetsk the processes are less pro-Russian. I can
see no pro-Russian parties there to come out as Moscow's agents with
relevant messages. In the meantime, there has always been a Russian
community in Crimea. Speaking of Crimea, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, many
go in geopolitics not even noticing the views of the people that live
there. Meanwhile, no geopolitics is able to change the public opinion.
The Crimea and Karabakh issues did not originate from any geopolitical
interests, simply the people living there saw no future for the
countries they were attached to in the Soviet times without any
referendum. However, the problem of Ukraine is the problem of power.
"In any revolution, there is always a political force able to control
and monopolize violence. Ukraine, there is no such leader so far.
Therefore, the scenario of a full collapse of power in Ukraine and
Russia's inevitable interference is still possible. However, there
is also another scenario according to which Kyev finally displays
reasonability and begins to negotiate.
Transdniestria is already asking to join Russia. Some people are
also mentioning Nagorno-Karabakh. Do you think that Crimea has become
a precedent?
Russia's foreign policy is not selling boxes: Crimea's joining Russia
does not mean that the same will happen to Transniedstria. Still
many are sure that Russia's policy today is aimed at collecting
territories. In reality, Russia's policy in the post-Soviet area is
not only what it does to others but also what others do to it. When
Georgia tried to force the Russians out of the South Ossetian peace
process, they got South Ossetia. When Ukraine began defying them,
they got Crimea. But if Moldova acts differently, they will not get
Transdniestria. Growing confrontation with the West is the last thing
Russia wants. Everybody perfectly understands that one day Russian
resources may end as may the patience of the West.
Are there real opportunities to settle the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
that are being missed?
Very often they in the West mistake the wish for the reality. Some
people think that things here depend on whether the West and Russia
will be able to come to terms though the real problem comes from
the reluctance of Armenians and Azeris to make peace. The West and
Russia came to terms when they adopted the Madrid Principles but
that did not bring Armenians and Azeris closer. The problem is that
those principles contain lots of contradictions. For example, the
point concerning the interim status of Nagorno-Karabakh contradicts
the one confirming Azerbaijan's territorial integrity. With the world
community refusing to recognize Nagorno-Karabakh and its authorities,
it is not clear who will govern that region during the period of
the interim status. So, the only term for the Madrid Principles is
imitation. The West and Russia are just aiming to show that they
do have common grounds. The other aim they have in view is to keep
Armenia and Azerbaijan at the negotiating table so as to create an
illusion of negotiations and to prevent a new war.
Is there a country interested in comprehensive peace in
Nagrono-Karabakh. What are the interests of geopolitics today?
Despite absolute absence of consensus, the parties to the Karabakh
conflict should nevertheless be interested in reaching a universal
peace settlement. I think that today everybody, even Turkey and Iran,
are interested in reaching the compromise option. Not geo-politics
but the parties to the conflict should make a compromise. In that
case, Armenia will get the opened borders. And Russia will not be
forced to tack between Yerevan and Baku preserving certain influence
in both countries. However, unblocking of the border to Armenia by
Turkey without settlement of the Karabakh conflict is impossible,
taking into consideration the domestic political significance of
this issue for Turkey. The West which thinks the Bosnia and Kosovo
are its success, goes on developing the project on opening of the
Armenian-Turkish border to reach another "success". The EU has long
ago stopped producing creative ideas. The Europeans declare grandiose
success in democratizing and assure to reach bigger success. Meanwhile,
there is nothing of the kind and no democratizing is taking place. It
is good that regime has changed in Georgia for the first time for the
last 20 years, but it is not clear. what was Bidzina Ivanishvili's role
in all that. "If it is democracy, in that case, let the USA and Europe
choose the Deng Xiaoping reforms for themselves too. What democratizing
success does Azerbaijan have? If we compare Serzh Sargsyan with Robert
Kocharyan, we may probably find dynamics. Nevertheless, I still do
not see a system of the functioning democratic institutions in Armenia.
Has the Eastern Partnership program lost its prospects or will it
gain a new momentum, with all ensuing consequences for Russia?
The program has prospects but at the same time, it does not have them.
It has no prospect as its moderators do not understand true images.
Allegedly, it is a hostage of the lost capacities and invented myths
which it follows. However, it has prospects as its member-states
still have a demand for Europe. They travel to Europe and see
the situation there, but they do not understand that for becoming
Europe they have to work like Europe but not to wait for democracy
brought by the Europeans. However, if there is a demand, there are
also bilateral impulses towards Brussels. The main problem of the
"post-Soviet" countries and the European security system in general
is that they do not try to take Russia as a partner in a big European
concert. Many people say that real politics is bad. But the policy
based on the myths and illusions is even worse as many people will be
disappointed with it. Of course, Russia will not become a member of
the EU, but its voice should be heard there. Moscow does not admit
the out of control extension of NATO like an exchange for beautiful
words. Nobody has canceled competition and conflict of interests.
Is Ukraine a part of this conflict of interest? Or things are much
more complicated?
Undoubtedly, the situation in Ukraine is more complicated than it
seems at first sight. First of all, it is a test for statehood that
arose from inside from the very first day. Actually, everybody,
including Russia pass this test in the Caucasus, Povolzhye, etc.
Besides Karabakh, Azerbaijan passes this test in the Talish and
Lezgin issues too. The same has been happening in Ukraine. The point
is about the identity which fits the population of the country. For
this reason, I would offer another two volumes to Leonid Kuchma's book
"Ukraine is not Russia" - "Ukraine is not Galicia" and "Ukraine is not
Maidan". They have to understand that and all the viewpoints should
be taken into consideration. Even if Maidan gathers one third of the
population of Ukraine, it is just one third. But if Ukraine wanted to
be entire, it had to understand that before the Maidan. The Georgians
also had to understand that and create privileged conditions for the
Abkhazs so that to preserve the borders of Georgian Soviet Socialistic
Republic. Today many people blame Vladimir Putin for supporting Ramzan
Kadirov. But such is the price of the issue, the price that Moscow
pays for having Chechnya within Russia. Many people in Russia do not
like such a position. For this reason, the root of the problem should
be fist of all looked for in Ukraine. And later all the rest external
factors overlapped that.
http://www.arminfo.am/index.cfm?objectid=9961B570-BE77-11E3-BF250EB7C0D21663