Tweet
WILL MUNICH CONFERENCE 2015 GO DOWN IN HISTORY?
Vestnik Kavkaza, Russia
Feb 9 2015
9 February 2015 - 4:04pm
Yesterday 51st Security Conference in Munich, during which the
participating countries presented their current positions on the
issues of security in Europe and beyond, has ended. The key topic of
the conference was the Ukrainian crisis, for which the usually single
point of view of the West was divided into two: German Chancellor
Angela Merkel after talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin
has proposed a soft diplomatic solution to the problem, while US
politicians continue to insist on supplies of lethal weapons to Kiev.
This Munich Conference may go down in history as well as Munich-2007,
the chairman of the Federation Council Committee on International
Affairs Konstantin Kosachev said, adding that now it's necessary that
loud statements be implemented. In general, the conference has showed
the change of Western politicians' approach to the Russian position.
"Firstly, last year's logic 'we don't agree with Russia and refuse
to talk' changed to at least 'we don't agree, but we must talk'.
Secondly, the EU, unlike the US, rules out the possibility of supplying
weapons to Ukraine. Consequently, if we ignore the public rhetoric,
the Europeans in fact back Moscow's political settlement plan rather
than Kiev's military scenario," the senator said.
Experts' opinions on the results of the Munich Conference-2015 are
divided. So, the President of the National Strategy Institute, Mikhail
Remizov, drew attention to the fact that the event itself is the only
possibility for the parties to express and to hear their points of
view, rather than substantive negotiations to take any decision.
"Therefore, the conference was of an intermediate nature, because
it took place waiting for the results of the negotiations of the
'Normandy Quartet'," he said.
"Perhaps the most significant aspect was the very unpleasant
welcome speech of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who quite
correctly and clearly voiced Russia's position and didn't go beyond
it. This was demonstrated by Lavrov's personal rejection and biased
perception of the Russian position, the desire for a certain moral
ostracism in relation to Russia. The accurate, more restrained than
earlier, rhetoric of Chancellor Angela Merkel stood out against this
background. It was clear that caution is given simply by the presence
of the negotiating process, which was initiated in Kiev, and that the
conference has once again confirmed that, regardless of the outcome
of these negotiations, the isolation policy of Western countries,
the US and its allies against Russia will continue," the expert said.
The political scientist Rovshan Ibragimov, in his turn, praised the
Munich conference as an important platform for discussions and meetings
of statesmen. "It is necessary to re-examine together any problems
or issues which the country and the region are facing now. It is no
coincidence that in parallel with the Munich conference a meeting
on Ukraine was held in Moscow of the leaders of France, Germany and
Russia. So it is rather a structural platform that addresses the
security problems," he said.
Ibragimov spoke about the presence of Azerbaijani President Ilham
Aliyev at the conference. "He had a meeting on security issues as well
as on geo-economic expectations, with the presidents of Macedonia and
Serbia. Also the issue of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict was discussed.
It is very significant that, even before his visit to Davos,
during Ilham Aliyev's visit to Germany, Angela Merkel said that the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has some parallels with the security issues
in the post-Soviet space, which is like a mirror image of events in
Ukraine. I think it's like just a new perception of the problem. So
on the basis of Munich, the expectation came that issues of permits of
perennial conflicts in the former Soviet Union will now be seen through
the prism of problems of integrity in Ukraine," the analyst said.
"Perhaps the most significant aspect was the very unpleasant
welcome speech of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who quite
correctly and clearly voiced Russia's position and didn't go beyond
it. This was demonstrated by Lavrov's personal rejection and biased
perception of the Russian position, the desire for a certain moral
ostracism in relation to Russia. The accurate, more restrained than
earlier, rhetoric of Chancellor Angela Merkel stood out against this
background. It was clear that caution is given simply by the presence
of the negotiating process, which was initiated in Kiev, and that the
conference has once again confirmed that, regardless of the outcome
of these negotiations, the isolation policy of Western countries,
the US and its allies against Russia will continue," the expert said.
The political scientist Rovshan Ibragimov, in his turn, praised the
Munich conference as an important platform for discussions and meetings
of statesmen. "It is necessary to re-examine together any problems
or issues which the country and the region are facing now. It is no
coincidence that in parallel with the Munich conference a meeting
on Ukraine was held in Moscow of the leaders of France, Germany and
Russia. So it is rather a structural platform that addresses the
security problems," he said.
Ibragimov spoke about the presence of Azerbaijani President Ilham
Aliyev at the conference. "He had a meeting on security issues as well
as on geo-economic expectations, with the presidents of Macedonia and
Serbia. Also the issue of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict was discussed.
It is very significant that, even before his visit to Davos,
during Ilham Aliyev's visit to Germany, Angela Merkel said that the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has some parallels with the security issues
in the post-Soviet space, which is like a mirror image of events in
Ukraine. I think it's like just a new perception of the problem. So
on the basis of Munich, the expectation came that issues of permits of
perennial conflicts in the former Soviet Union will now be seen through
the prism of problems of integrity in Ukraine," the analyst said.
Political analyst Ramaz Sakvarelidze also drew attention to a
parallel, which had already been drawn by Prime Minister of Georgia
Irakli Garibashvili, between the problems of Ukraine and Georgia. "He
stressed that, leaving events in Georgia without reaction, the West
has a more extensive and more dramatic situation in Ukraine. How
it will be perceived by Western countries, which have not yet been
able to find the key to solving not only the Georgian, but also the
Ukrainian hot topic, is difficult to say," he noted.
The expert added that Garibashvili would like to emphasize the fact
that "if the international community will be directed only to suspend
the process in Ukraine, and even if it will achieve this, it is
unlikely to save the world community from new surprises." "When the
bloodshed in Georgia was suspended, the international community was
calm, but now it has received new bloodshed in Ukraine. So a local
task to stop the conflict can be solved, but it is too simplistic
and does not correspond to reality," the political scientist says.
http://vestnikkavkaza.net/news/politics/66027.html
Vestnik Kavkaza, Russia
Feb 9 2015
9 February 2015 - 4:04pm
Yesterday 51st Security Conference in Munich, during which the
participating countries presented their current positions on the
issues of security in Europe and beyond, has ended. The key topic of
the conference was the Ukrainian crisis, for which the usually single
point of view of the West was divided into two: German Chancellor
Angela Merkel after talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin
has proposed a soft diplomatic solution to the problem, while US
politicians continue to insist on supplies of lethal weapons to Kiev.
This Munich Conference may go down in history as well as Munich-2007,
the chairman of the Federation Council Committee on International
Affairs Konstantin Kosachev said, adding that now it's necessary that
loud statements be implemented. In general, the conference has showed
the change of Western politicians' approach to the Russian position.
"Firstly, last year's logic 'we don't agree with Russia and refuse
to talk' changed to at least 'we don't agree, but we must talk'.
Secondly, the EU, unlike the US, rules out the possibility of supplying
weapons to Ukraine. Consequently, if we ignore the public rhetoric,
the Europeans in fact back Moscow's political settlement plan rather
than Kiev's military scenario," the senator said.
Experts' opinions on the results of the Munich Conference-2015 are
divided. So, the President of the National Strategy Institute, Mikhail
Remizov, drew attention to the fact that the event itself is the only
possibility for the parties to express and to hear their points of
view, rather than substantive negotiations to take any decision.
"Therefore, the conference was of an intermediate nature, because
it took place waiting for the results of the negotiations of the
'Normandy Quartet'," he said.
"Perhaps the most significant aspect was the very unpleasant
welcome speech of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who quite
correctly and clearly voiced Russia's position and didn't go beyond
it. This was demonstrated by Lavrov's personal rejection and biased
perception of the Russian position, the desire for a certain moral
ostracism in relation to Russia. The accurate, more restrained than
earlier, rhetoric of Chancellor Angela Merkel stood out against this
background. It was clear that caution is given simply by the presence
of the negotiating process, which was initiated in Kiev, and that the
conference has once again confirmed that, regardless of the outcome
of these negotiations, the isolation policy of Western countries,
the US and its allies against Russia will continue," the expert said.
The political scientist Rovshan Ibragimov, in his turn, praised the
Munich conference as an important platform for discussions and meetings
of statesmen. "It is necessary to re-examine together any problems
or issues which the country and the region are facing now. It is no
coincidence that in parallel with the Munich conference a meeting
on Ukraine was held in Moscow of the leaders of France, Germany and
Russia. So it is rather a structural platform that addresses the
security problems," he said.
Ibragimov spoke about the presence of Azerbaijani President Ilham
Aliyev at the conference. "He had a meeting on security issues as well
as on geo-economic expectations, with the presidents of Macedonia and
Serbia. Also the issue of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict was discussed.
It is very significant that, even before his visit to Davos,
during Ilham Aliyev's visit to Germany, Angela Merkel said that the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has some parallels with the security issues
in the post-Soviet space, which is like a mirror image of events in
Ukraine. I think it's like just a new perception of the problem. So
on the basis of Munich, the expectation came that issues of permits of
perennial conflicts in the former Soviet Union will now be seen through
the prism of problems of integrity in Ukraine," the analyst said.
"Perhaps the most significant aspect was the very unpleasant
welcome speech of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who quite
correctly and clearly voiced Russia's position and didn't go beyond
it. This was demonstrated by Lavrov's personal rejection and biased
perception of the Russian position, the desire for a certain moral
ostracism in relation to Russia. The accurate, more restrained than
earlier, rhetoric of Chancellor Angela Merkel stood out against this
background. It was clear that caution is given simply by the presence
of the negotiating process, which was initiated in Kiev, and that the
conference has once again confirmed that, regardless of the outcome
of these negotiations, the isolation policy of Western countries,
the US and its allies against Russia will continue," the expert said.
The political scientist Rovshan Ibragimov, in his turn, praised the
Munich conference as an important platform for discussions and meetings
of statesmen. "It is necessary to re-examine together any problems
or issues which the country and the region are facing now. It is no
coincidence that in parallel with the Munich conference a meeting
on Ukraine was held in Moscow of the leaders of France, Germany and
Russia. So it is rather a structural platform that addresses the
security problems," he said.
Ibragimov spoke about the presence of Azerbaijani President Ilham
Aliyev at the conference. "He had a meeting on security issues as well
as on geo-economic expectations, with the presidents of Macedonia and
Serbia. Also the issue of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict was discussed.
It is very significant that, even before his visit to Davos,
during Ilham Aliyev's visit to Germany, Angela Merkel said that the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has some parallels with the security issues
in the post-Soviet space, which is like a mirror image of events in
Ukraine. I think it's like just a new perception of the problem. So
on the basis of Munich, the expectation came that issues of permits of
perennial conflicts in the former Soviet Union will now be seen through
the prism of problems of integrity in Ukraine," the analyst said.
Political analyst Ramaz Sakvarelidze also drew attention to a
parallel, which had already been drawn by Prime Minister of Georgia
Irakli Garibashvili, between the problems of Ukraine and Georgia. "He
stressed that, leaving events in Georgia without reaction, the West
has a more extensive and more dramatic situation in Ukraine. How
it will be perceived by Western countries, which have not yet been
able to find the key to solving not only the Georgian, but also the
Ukrainian hot topic, is difficult to say," he noted.
The expert added that Garibashvili would like to emphasize the fact
that "if the international community will be directed only to suspend
the process in Ukraine, and even if it will achieve this, it is
unlikely to save the world community from new surprises." "When the
bloodshed in Georgia was suspended, the international community was
calm, but now it has received new bloodshed in Ukraine. So a local
task to stop the conflict can be solved, but it is too simplistic
and does not correspond to reality," the political scientist says.
http://vestnikkavkaza.net/news/politics/66027.html