Tweet
Georgian political expert: Putin has put his mind on implementing
Primakov Doctrine
ArmInfo's Interview with Prof. Nika Chitadze, Doctor of Political
Science, Head of the Georgian Center for International and Security
Studies
by Emmanuil Lazarian
Saturday, March 7, 13:27
Over the past year the situation on the geopolitical map of Eurasia
has unpredictably changed. Russia is building a multipolar system of
international relation. The dividing lines are deepening, though they
were outlined long ago. Don't you think these are the explicit signs
of a new protracted cold war amid local conflicts?
I am deeply convinced that the cold war has never ended. What we see
today is its new cycle when Russia, which has economically
strengthened over the past 10 years due to the high prices of energy
resources, is contending for the status of a superpower again. Over
the past post-Soviet years, Russia tangibly weakened, lost a great
number of partners, and considerably reduced the sphere of its
influence in Central and Eastern Europe. Now that it has only two or
three "modest" partners within the CSTO, it is violating the
international law principles and actively interfering in the domestic
affairs of the post-Soviet states. In some cases, that interference is
shaped as "soft power", but in the case of Ukraine (and earlier in the
case of Georgia) it vividly uses "brutal force".
The thing is that even when it was weak, Russia was trying to recreate
a multipolar world with its own active participation and these
attempts turned into elaboration of the so-called Doctrine of
Primakov, who replaced Andrey Kozyrev as the foreign minister. The
latter recognized the dominant position of the United States and
confined Russia to the status of a regional power. The Primakov
Doctrine received a new impetus following the United States'
intervention in Yugoslavian events. The Doctrine reached its pinnacle
in Vladimir Putin's speech in 2007 in Munich, where the Russian leader
blamed the USA for creating a unipolar system of international
relations and it was a direct message saying that Russia has its own
serious claims to such a policy. Today we see what those claims have
grown into.
And what have they grown into?
The CSTO is unable to replace the Warsaw Pact, which has fallen into
oblivion, the cooperation with China and the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization and BRICS countries is far from being a military and
political union, the oil market conditions are deteriorating. As a
result, Russia that has been using the oil needle for all these years
is weakening and, consequently, applying more aggression in an attempt
to resist the unipolar nature of the West and to defend its imperial
interests, I think.
I think that most of the Western experts' publications contain
emotions and hysteria rather than a real analysis of what is going on.
For political experts, historical studies are not chemistry or
microbiology, but the basis of any expert assessments and forecasts.
History has repeatedly confirmed that the more pressure the West
exerts on Russia, the more unpredictable and aggressive Russia may
become. On the other hand, it is clear that Russia is not Armenia or
Belarus; it is a nuclear power with strong armed forces and
geopolitical interests. These interests have seriously been infringed
over the past 10 years. The matter concerns the Iraqi campaign, the
so-called "Arab spring", the developments in Ukraine, etc. At least,
the Kremlin says so when substantiating Putin's behavior. One cannot
ignore the fact that Russia will never fall on its knees. On the
contrary, it can become a serious pain in the neck for the whole
Western world.
I should mention that Russia is not the only one to have such a
status. When the great powers of the West would economically weaken
they would become more liberal, more flexible, less aggressive and the
same time they would acquire imperial hang-ups and it would take them
much time and sometimes even human blood to overcome the hang-ups. For
instance, neither Great Britain nor even France has overcome these
hang-ups so far. Japan and even Germany are still experiencing such
hang-ups. The USA is a new power and it has become such a power due to
the stunning economic prosperity. It ensures almost half of the global
gross product. When a state becomes economically strong, its ambitions
and desire to control more global resources are also growing. The USSR
was also such a country, but it weakened in the late 1980s when the
budget deficit rose 5-fold. It was then that the Soviet leadership
agreed to make unprecedented concessions - to withdraw the troops from
Afghanistan and Eastern Europe. The problem is that the Russian
ambitions grew along with the oil price growth. Moreover, the West
imposed no sanctions on Russia following the latter's aggression
against independent Georgia, but suggested a "reset" policy. However,
it has given no specific results. On the contrary, Russia has started
thinking that its opinion is already taken into consideration. You are
right, Bismarck also spoke of Russia's unpredictability, though I
think that sanctions, together with low oil prices, are able to weaken
Russia's imperial ambitions. Russia will have to overcome its imperial
hang-ups, to put up with the reality, and to start taking serious
measures to diversify its economy and improve the socio-economic
condition without relying on oil.
The impression is that history cork-screws and this cannot help
causing concerns.
I guess imperial Russia's motion path in the modern context will be
adjusted. Russia has all resources and opportunities for that. I mean
the country's switch to the policy of a liberal empire, which will
allow it to normalize relations with the West on the one hand and to
retain its geopolitical and ideological influence at least in the
post-Soviet space on the other hand. I am deeply convinced that this
idea of liberal Anatoly Chubays is far more efficient and realistic.
Russia has all the necessary material and intellectual resources for
that. This will enhance the confidence in the Russian Federation.
Otherwise, Russia will game away within the long-term outlook.
One of the cold war causes was the ideological confrontation. Now the
matter concerns geopolitical interests only. Russia wants the world to
take the Russian interests into consideration. The West is not going
to do that. This is the basis of confrontation.
Anyway, the Russian approach should not be based on violation of
international law principles. This causes the discontent of the whole
Western community.
Not long ago, the United States also neglected the international law
principles when unleashing a bloody war against Iraq without the UN
Security Council's sanctions. The entire security system is collapsing
and one can do nothing to stop it.
We can also point out the example of Syria and Ukraine. One can say
that the USA is not an angel. Here we can also bring the example of
Kosovo. There was an obvious genocide there, but Russia exercised
veto. So, where is the fundamental, the basic principle of
international law that concerns protection of human rights and human
lives? Why did Russia neglect 7 chapters of the UN Charter with its
veto?
But peoples' right to self-determination is also one of the
fundamental principles of international law. It was observed in
Kosovo, but in other cases it wasn't. The reason is the different
specificity of the conflicts, but no one has any idea of that
specificity.
Yes, double standards are applied. On the one hand, the matter
concerns the self-determination of Abkhazian and South Ossetian
peoples. On the other hand, 2 wars in Chechnya claimed 200,000 lives
for the sake of the country's territorial integrity. Russia is
conducting the policy "What is permissible for Jove is not permissible
for an ox".
Have you got your own vision of reformation of the international
security system? No wonder the League of Nations collapsed before
WWII. Is it the UN's turn now? Is it possible to find new principles
for peaceful co-existence of nations?
The time is ripe for reformation of the UN security system. This is a
very complicated issue. One thing is clear: when 5 permanent members
of the UN have the right of veto, with the other 10 non-permanent
members of the Security Council lacking it, and when no decision is
taken without the consent of any of the permanent members, the matter
concerns spheres of influence, as a matter of fact. So, it is
senseless to speak of a sovereign equality of the states. In our
world, the political realism prevails over liberalism and political
idealism.
Everyone speaks of "realpolitik" and condones the bomb attacks...
Not always. From the viewpoint of realpolitik, Russia should display a
more pragmatic approach to other countries, including Georgia. Russia
is de facto controlling Abkhazia and the former South Ossetian
autonomous region though it could control the entire territory of
Georgia unless its brutal intervention in the conflict. Controlling
20% of Georgia, Russia keeps laying claims to Georgia, which is
striving to join the North Atlantic security system and to integrate
into the EU. That's nonsense! Russia itself has done its best to make
Georgia unambiguously turn its face towards the West. Where is
realpolitik here? The same concerns the Karabakh conflict. On the one
hand, Russia plays the role of a mediator and a peacekeeper; on the
other hand, it is not interested in the conflict resolution because it
wants both Armenia and Azerbaijan to depend on Russia and does not
want to see the OSCE Minsk Group co-chair countries as its real
competitors.
It is hard to agree with you. I think it is a seeming scheme. In fact,
there would probably be no peace but for the balance of forces in the
region secured by the presence of Russia's interests. This is also
realpolitik.
Yes, but if that conflict is resolved on the basis of mutual
concessions of the conflicting parties, nothing will hinder the
process of unification of the South Caucasus. It will not be hard then
to guess whose values the residents of the region will be guided by.
http://www.arminfo.am/index.cfm?objectid¢2E05C0-C4B4-11E4-B1B50EB7C0D21663
Primakov Doctrine
ArmInfo's Interview with Prof. Nika Chitadze, Doctor of Political
Science, Head of the Georgian Center for International and Security
Studies
by Emmanuil Lazarian
Saturday, March 7, 13:27
Over the past year the situation on the geopolitical map of Eurasia
has unpredictably changed. Russia is building a multipolar system of
international relation. The dividing lines are deepening, though they
were outlined long ago. Don't you think these are the explicit signs
of a new protracted cold war amid local conflicts?
I am deeply convinced that the cold war has never ended. What we see
today is its new cycle when Russia, which has economically
strengthened over the past 10 years due to the high prices of energy
resources, is contending for the status of a superpower again. Over
the past post-Soviet years, Russia tangibly weakened, lost a great
number of partners, and considerably reduced the sphere of its
influence in Central and Eastern Europe. Now that it has only two or
three "modest" partners within the CSTO, it is violating the
international law principles and actively interfering in the domestic
affairs of the post-Soviet states. In some cases, that interference is
shaped as "soft power", but in the case of Ukraine (and earlier in the
case of Georgia) it vividly uses "brutal force".
The thing is that even when it was weak, Russia was trying to recreate
a multipolar world with its own active participation and these
attempts turned into elaboration of the so-called Doctrine of
Primakov, who replaced Andrey Kozyrev as the foreign minister. The
latter recognized the dominant position of the United States and
confined Russia to the status of a regional power. The Primakov
Doctrine received a new impetus following the United States'
intervention in Yugoslavian events. The Doctrine reached its pinnacle
in Vladimir Putin's speech in 2007 in Munich, where the Russian leader
blamed the USA for creating a unipolar system of international
relations and it was a direct message saying that Russia has its own
serious claims to such a policy. Today we see what those claims have
grown into.
And what have they grown into?
The CSTO is unable to replace the Warsaw Pact, which has fallen into
oblivion, the cooperation with China and the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization and BRICS countries is far from being a military and
political union, the oil market conditions are deteriorating. As a
result, Russia that has been using the oil needle for all these years
is weakening and, consequently, applying more aggression in an attempt
to resist the unipolar nature of the West and to defend its imperial
interests, I think.
I think that most of the Western experts' publications contain
emotions and hysteria rather than a real analysis of what is going on.
For political experts, historical studies are not chemistry or
microbiology, but the basis of any expert assessments and forecasts.
History has repeatedly confirmed that the more pressure the West
exerts on Russia, the more unpredictable and aggressive Russia may
become. On the other hand, it is clear that Russia is not Armenia or
Belarus; it is a nuclear power with strong armed forces and
geopolitical interests. These interests have seriously been infringed
over the past 10 years. The matter concerns the Iraqi campaign, the
so-called "Arab spring", the developments in Ukraine, etc. At least,
the Kremlin says so when substantiating Putin's behavior. One cannot
ignore the fact that Russia will never fall on its knees. On the
contrary, it can become a serious pain in the neck for the whole
Western world.
I should mention that Russia is not the only one to have such a
status. When the great powers of the West would economically weaken
they would become more liberal, more flexible, less aggressive and the
same time they would acquire imperial hang-ups and it would take them
much time and sometimes even human blood to overcome the hang-ups. For
instance, neither Great Britain nor even France has overcome these
hang-ups so far. Japan and even Germany are still experiencing such
hang-ups. The USA is a new power and it has become such a power due to
the stunning economic prosperity. It ensures almost half of the global
gross product. When a state becomes economically strong, its ambitions
and desire to control more global resources are also growing. The USSR
was also such a country, but it weakened in the late 1980s when the
budget deficit rose 5-fold. It was then that the Soviet leadership
agreed to make unprecedented concessions - to withdraw the troops from
Afghanistan and Eastern Europe. The problem is that the Russian
ambitions grew along with the oil price growth. Moreover, the West
imposed no sanctions on Russia following the latter's aggression
against independent Georgia, but suggested a "reset" policy. However,
it has given no specific results. On the contrary, Russia has started
thinking that its opinion is already taken into consideration. You are
right, Bismarck also spoke of Russia's unpredictability, though I
think that sanctions, together with low oil prices, are able to weaken
Russia's imperial ambitions. Russia will have to overcome its imperial
hang-ups, to put up with the reality, and to start taking serious
measures to diversify its economy and improve the socio-economic
condition without relying on oil.
The impression is that history cork-screws and this cannot help
causing concerns.
I guess imperial Russia's motion path in the modern context will be
adjusted. Russia has all resources and opportunities for that. I mean
the country's switch to the policy of a liberal empire, which will
allow it to normalize relations with the West on the one hand and to
retain its geopolitical and ideological influence at least in the
post-Soviet space on the other hand. I am deeply convinced that this
idea of liberal Anatoly Chubays is far more efficient and realistic.
Russia has all the necessary material and intellectual resources for
that. This will enhance the confidence in the Russian Federation.
Otherwise, Russia will game away within the long-term outlook.
One of the cold war causes was the ideological confrontation. Now the
matter concerns geopolitical interests only. Russia wants the world to
take the Russian interests into consideration. The West is not going
to do that. This is the basis of confrontation.
Anyway, the Russian approach should not be based on violation of
international law principles. This causes the discontent of the whole
Western community.
Not long ago, the United States also neglected the international law
principles when unleashing a bloody war against Iraq without the UN
Security Council's sanctions. The entire security system is collapsing
and one can do nothing to stop it.
We can also point out the example of Syria and Ukraine. One can say
that the USA is not an angel. Here we can also bring the example of
Kosovo. There was an obvious genocide there, but Russia exercised
veto. So, where is the fundamental, the basic principle of
international law that concerns protection of human rights and human
lives? Why did Russia neglect 7 chapters of the UN Charter with its
veto?
But peoples' right to self-determination is also one of the
fundamental principles of international law. It was observed in
Kosovo, but in other cases it wasn't. The reason is the different
specificity of the conflicts, but no one has any idea of that
specificity.
Yes, double standards are applied. On the one hand, the matter
concerns the self-determination of Abkhazian and South Ossetian
peoples. On the other hand, 2 wars in Chechnya claimed 200,000 lives
for the sake of the country's territorial integrity. Russia is
conducting the policy "What is permissible for Jove is not permissible
for an ox".
Have you got your own vision of reformation of the international
security system? No wonder the League of Nations collapsed before
WWII. Is it the UN's turn now? Is it possible to find new principles
for peaceful co-existence of nations?
The time is ripe for reformation of the UN security system. This is a
very complicated issue. One thing is clear: when 5 permanent members
of the UN have the right of veto, with the other 10 non-permanent
members of the Security Council lacking it, and when no decision is
taken without the consent of any of the permanent members, the matter
concerns spheres of influence, as a matter of fact. So, it is
senseless to speak of a sovereign equality of the states. In our
world, the political realism prevails over liberalism and political
idealism.
Everyone speaks of "realpolitik" and condones the bomb attacks...
Not always. From the viewpoint of realpolitik, Russia should display a
more pragmatic approach to other countries, including Georgia. Russia
is de facto controlling Abkhazia and the former South Ossetian
autonomous region though it could control the entire territory of
Georgia unless its brutal intervention in the conflict. Controlling
20% of Georgia, Russia keeps laying claims to Georgia, which is
striving to join the North Atlantic security system and to integrate
into the EU. That's nonsense! Russia itself has done its best to make
Georgia unambiguously turn its face towards the West. Where is
realpolitik here? The same concerns the Karabakh conflict. On the one
hand, Russia plays the role of a mediator and a peacekeeper; on the
other hand, it is not interested in the conflict resolution because it
wants both Armenia and Azerbaijan to depend on Russia and does not
want to see the OSCE Minsk Group co-chair countries as its real
competitors.
It is hard to agree with you. I think it is a seeming scheme. In fact,
there would probably be no peace but for the balance of forces in the
region secured by the presence of Russia's interests. This is also
realpolitik.
Yes, but if that conflict is resolved on the basis of mutual
concessions of the conflicting parties, nothing will hinder the
process of unification of the South Caucasus. It will not be hard then
to guess whose values the residents of the region will be guided by.
http://www.arminfo.am/index.cfm?objectid¢2E05C0-C4B4-11E4-B1B50EB7C0D21663