By
Nika Chitadze Ph.D.
President
of the George C.Marshall Alumni Union,Georgia-International and Security
Research Center
Partnership
for Peace Consortium of Defense Academies and Security Studies Institutes.
Partnership for Peace Information Management System.
http://members.pims.org/groups/george-c-marshall-alumni-union-georgia. George
C. Marshall Center. Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany. June, 2008.
Russian
Foreign policy
Today’s world is the whole society, linked tightly with each other,
sharing different cultural values, economy, natural resources, huge flow of
information, as a result state couldn’t be viewed as an isolated, separate
entity, but as the part of the globalized world. Civilization leads us towards
globalization or may be in contrary… rejection of globalization gives nothing
but crisis, (as an example can be considered Iran, North Korea…). Modern, developed government couldn’t exist
without international relations; however here we don’t have any “world
government” the only means of regulating international relations is the
existence of international laws and regulations. Although the term itself is so
general and wide-ranging that it gives big flexibilities to the action of any
state at international scale. Therefore the foreign policy of any particular
state should be well studied, in order to understand the reason of its action,
its intentions and interests in the world system. As a result it is extremely
important to clarify the foreign policy of state of your interest if you want
to discover its character.
In this article I will try to discuss main
aspects of Russian foreign policy. What role Russia plays in today’s world, why
Russia is important for the world and in contraryJ, what are the main schools of thought leading
to the Russian foreign policy, how Russia calculates the future world… I hope I
will manage to discuss all main aspects clearly and interestingly.
To understand how important place Russia
occupies in the modern world we should first of all start with identifying it
geopolitical location. Russia became the Russian Federation following the
dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991.
Russian Federation is a transcontinental
country extending over a vast expanse of Asia and Europe. With an area of
17.075.400 sq. km, Russia is the largest country in the world and has
significant mineral and energy resources. Russia has the world’s eighth largest
population – 148.754.000. Its bordering countries are: Norway, Finland,
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan,
Kazakhstan, China, Mongolia and North Korea. It is also close to the U.S.
(Alaska State), Sweden and Japan across small stretches of water.
Russia has an extensive coastline of over 37,000
kilometers along the Arctic and Pacific Oceans, as well as the Baltic, Black
and Caspian seas. Some smaller bodies of water are part of the open oceans; the
Barents Sea, White Sea, Kara Sea, and East Siberian Sea are part of the Arctic,
whereas the Bering Sea and the Sea of Japan belong to the Pacific Ocean.
The Russian Federation stretches across much of
the north of the continent of Eurasia. Although it contains a large share of
the world's Arctic and sub-Arctic areas, and therefore has less population,
economic activity, and physical variety per unit area than most countries. Most
of the land consists of vast plains, both in the European part and the part of
Asian territory that is largely known as Siberia. The mid-annual temperature is -5.5°C. Exactly that kind of climate gave
Russia famous victories throughout the history. First thing which would come to
your mind when speaking about Russia’s geopolitics is the famous Napoleonic
invasion, in 1812, having seized Moscow, Napoleon lost and the main reason of
it was the Russian winter and guerilla. The same can be said about WWII, winter
of 1942-43 became decisive turning point for Germans fortune in the war. Its
climate and scale makes Russia unconquerable. However, exceptions are
everywhere, Mongols invaded Russia, but Mongols were nomads. I mean they were
used to the hard style of life. They haven’t got any culture, settlements, they
even slept at horses, Russian winter and cold was nothing in comparison with
their habit, at the same time separatism and their way of fighting mattered a
lot. Also it should be mentioned that in case of attacking from the east Russia
was trapped in the north and turned out to be in the deadlock, it didn’t have
anywhere to go. Still Russia geopolitically came up to be very beneficially
located. The last thing about geopolitics I want to mention is its largest
territory, stretched on the Europe and Asia, highlighting the country’s great
potential for imperialism and hegemony.
Before discussing Russia’s potential and real
power abilities we should clarify its origins, in order to understand today’s
reality and the reasons for particular issues. So let’s go through the history
and analyze what happened in Russia!
From the 1st century southern Russia
were home to scattered tribes, such as Proto-Indo-Europeans and Scythians.
Later in the 3rd century nomadic tribes (Huns, Turkish Avars)
appeared, invading steppes. Khazars
ruled southern Russia through the 8th century. They were important allies of
the Byzantine Empire. Around 9th century Slavs, who peopled the
region were the one who contributed to the name “rus”. In the 10th
to 11th centuries this state of Kievan Rus became the largest in
Europe and one of the most prosperous, due to diversified trade with both
Europe and Asia. Kievan Rus′ was an early, mostly East Slavic state
dominated by the city of Kiev from about 880 to the middle of the 12th century.
From the historiographical point of view, Kievan Rus' is considered a
predecessor state of three modern East Slavic nations: Belarus, Russia and
Ukraine. The reigns of Vladimir the Great (980-1015) and his son Yaroslav I the
Wise (1019-1054) constitute the Golden Age of Kiev, which saw the adoption of
Orthodox Christianity and the creation of the first East Slavic written legal
code, the Russkaya Pravda. The opening of new trade routes with the
Orient at the time of the Crusades contributed to the decline and fragmentation
of Kievan Rus by the end of the twelfth century. At the same time in the 11th
and 12th centuries, the constant incursions of nomadic Turkish
tribes, such as Kipchaks and the Pechenegs, let to the massive migration of
Slavic populations from the fertile south to the heavily forested regions of
the north. At that time like many other parts of Eurasia, these territories
were overrun by Mongol invaders, who formed the state of Golden Horde, under
whose rule Russian principalities were over three centuries.
On the other hand Muscovite Russia remained the
only more or less functional Christian state on the Eastern European frontier,
allowing it to claim succession to the legacy of the Eastern Roman Empire. Only
Ivan the Great eventually tossed off the control of the invaders, consolidated
surrounding areas under Moscow's dominion and first took the title "grand
duke of all the Russias". In the beginning of the sixteenth century, the
Russian state set the national goal to return all Russian territories lost as a
result of the Tatar invasion and to protect the southern borderland against
attacks of Crimean Tatars and other Turkic peoples. The noblemen, receiving a
manor from the sovereign, were obliged to serve in the military. The manor
system became a basis for the nobiliary horse army. In 1547, Ivan the Terrible
was officially crowned the first Tsar of Russia. During his long reign, Ivan
annexed the Tatars and created a multiethnic state. By the 17th
century there were Russian settlements in Eastern Siberia, on Chukchi
Peninsula, along the Amur River, on the Pacific coast, and the strait between
North America and Asia was first sighted by a Russian explorer in 1648. The
colonization of the Asian territories was largely peaceful, in sharp contrast
to the build-up of other colonial empires of the time.
Russia as an empire began developments during the Romanov’s dynasty, beginning with the
tsar Michael Romanov 1613. Peter the
Great (1672-1725) defeated Sweden in the Great Northern War. He founded a new
capital, Saint Petersburg. Peter succeeded in bringing ideas and culture from
Western Europe to a severely underdeveloped Russia. After his reforms, Russia
emerged as a major European power
Catherine the Great, ruling from 1762 to 1796,
continued the Petrine efforts at establishing Russia as one of the great powers
of Europe (Seven Years War). Russia had taken territories with the ethnic
Belarusian and Ukrainian population, earlier parts of Kievan Rus'. As a result
of the victorious Russian-Turkish wars, Russia's borders expanded to the Black
Sea and Russia set its goal on the protection of Balkan Christians against a
Turkish yoke. In 1783, Russia and the Georgian Kingdom (which was almost
totally devastated by Persian and Turkish invasions) signed the treaty of
Georgievsk according to which Georgia received the protection of Russia.
In 1812 Napoleon invaded Russia and took Moscow
but as mentioned above because of the terrible winter France was defeated. As a
result of Nicolas I conservative rule, country was defeated in the Crimean War,
1853-1856, by an alliance of major European powers, including Britain, France,
Ottoman Empire, and Piedmont-Sardinia. Nicholas's successor Alexander II
(1855–1881) was forced to undertake a series of comprehensive reforms and
issued a decree abolishing serfdom in 1861. The Great Reforms of Alexander's
reign spurred increasingly rapid capitalist development and attempts at
industrialization. The failure of agrarian reforms and suppresion of the
growing liberal intelligentsia were continuing problems. Repeated devastating
defeats of the Russian army in the Russo-Japanese War and World War I, and the
consequent deterioration of the economy led to widespread rioting in the major
cities of the Russian Empire, and ultimately to the overthrow of the Tsar in
February 1917. As a result Bolsheviks seized the power and the Soviet Union was
formed in 1922.
The Soviet Union was meant to be a trans-national
worker's state free from nationalism. The concept of Russia as a separate
national entity was therefore not emphasized in the early Soviet Union.
Although Russian institutions and cities certainly remained dominant, many
non-Russians participated in the new government at all levels. After Lenin’s
death in 1924, a Georgian guy, named Joseph Stalin eroded various checks and
balances system designed into the Soviet political system and assumed
dictatorial power be the end of the decade. Most of all old Bolsheviks were killed
or exiled. At the end of 1930s, Stalin launched the Great Purges; millions of
people, suspected of being a threat to their power were executed or exiled to
the Gulag labor camps in remote areas of Siberia. To say briefly the
totalitarian dictatorship was established.
During Stalin’s time USSR was successfully
transformed from as agrarian economy to major industrial powerhouse in an
unbelievably short span of time.
In June 22,
1941 Great Patriotic War (WWII) broke out by the German invasion. German army had
considerable success in the early stages of the campaign, but they suffered
defeat when they reached the outskirts of Moscow. The Red Army stopped the Nazi
offensive at the Battle of Stalingrad in the winter of 1942-43, which became
the decisive turning point for Germany’s fortunes in the war. The Soviets drove
through Eastern Europe and captured Berlin before Germany surrendered in 1945.
During the war, the Soviet Union lost more than 27 million citizens. Although,
the Soviet Union emerged from the conflict as an acknowledged superpower. The
Red Army occupied Eastern Europe after the war, including the eastern half of
Germany. Stalin installed loyal communist governments in these satellite
states. The Soviet Union consolidated its hold on Eastern Europe. The United
States helped the Western European countries establish democracies, and both
countries sought to achieve economic, political, and ideological dominance over
the Third World. The ensuing struggle became known as the Cold War, which
turned the Soviet Union's wartime allies, the United Kingdom and the United
States, into its foes. Stalin died in early 1953 presumably without leaving any
instructions for the selection of a successor. His closest associates
officially decided to rule the Soviet Union jointly, but the secret police
Chief Lavrenty Beria appeared poised to seize dictatorial control. General
Secretary Nikita Khrushchev and other leading politicians organized an
anti-Beria alliance and staged a coup d'état. Beria was arrested in June 1953
and executed later that year; Khrushchev became the undisputed leader of the
Soviet Union.
During
Khrushchev’s time the Soviet Union launched the world's first artificial
satellite, Sputnik 1, and the Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin became the first
human to orbit the Earth aboard the first manned spacecraft, Vostok 1.
Khrushchev's reforms in agriculture and administration, however, were generally
unproductive. Foreign policy toward China and the United States suffered
reverses, notably the Cuban Missile Crisis, when Khrushchev began installing
nuclear missiles in Cuba (after the United States installed Jupiter missiles in
Turkey, which nearly provoked a war with the Soviet Union). Over the course of
several angry outbursts at the United Nations, Khrushchev was increasingly seen
by his colleagues as belligerent, boorish, and dangerous. The remainder of the
Soviet leadership removed him from power in 1964. After Khrushchev Leonid Brezhnev came to power, he is
frequently derided by historians for stagnating the development of the Soviet
Union. On the other hand others acknowledge that Brezhnev’s era did offer a
relative prosperity to a populace.
In
the mid 1980s, the reform-minded Mikhail Gorbachev came to power. The USSR’s
economic woes were proving to be deeply systematic and hence immune to reform
within the context of the Stalinist-Soviet system. Gorbachev introduced the
landmark policies of Glasnost and Perestroika, in an attempt to modernize
Soviet communism. Glasnost meant that the harsh restrictions on free speech
that had characterized most of the Soviet Union’s existence were removed, and
open political discourse and criticism of the government became possible again.
Perestroika meant sweeping economic reforms designed to decentralize the
planning of the Soviet economy. Enforcement of these reforms resulted in
collapse of the Soviet Union. As a result Boris Yeltsin came to power and
declared the end of exclusive Communist rule. The USSR separated into fifteen
independent republics.
In
this regard I want to express my opinion about dissolution of Soviet Union. Of
course there can’t be eternality in the nature, or we may say eternal truce,
and finally Soviet Union’s dissolution was inevitable but what made it fasten,
of course Cold War really matters but the idea of internal bias can be also
discussed multilaterally. Let begin with Stalin, during dictatorial his reign
no state would dear to strike. However, dictatorship is already a mistake,
because it is based on open the persuasion and force, and it in turn will
naturally result in strikes for freedom. Although Stalin came up to be a
powerful dictator and his rule was successive. However, he left undeveloped,
fake government and as result a man like Khrushchev came in to power. And
dissolution of Soviet unions started from the day of “Secret Speech”,
criticizing Stalin’s rule wasn’t good choice at all (in my opinion), in doing
so he killed a god for great majority of population, god and the faith. On the
other hand he killed the scare of colonial states, as a result first strikes in
the Eastern Europe started (1956 Hungary), and escalated in many European
countries throughout the rest of the history of USSR. Moreover, the fact that
Khrushchev failed to prove that his rule was better that previous, the economic
crisis and number of mistakes in the foreign policy resulted in absolute
anarchy. In time of Gorbachov it was clear that the USSR needed inner reforms,
and to rule such a great territory without right system was impossible. But the
core mistake was that it was enforced at once, without any trial. And the same
reform was enforced on the whole territory of Soviet Union. I mean he might
have started with Balkan states and see how beneficially it was enforces, what
were the difficulties, etc, and taking into account different region’s
complexities, enforcing different reforms and only in this way successful
accomplishment of reforms would be possible. And it was natural that such an
inexperienced action resulted in absolute collapse. And I am sure that nobody from
government, or Gorbachev wanted this kind of results, its just came out that
way.
Since
then, Russia has struggled in its efforts to build a democratic political
system and a market economy to replace the strict centralized social,
political, and economic controls of the Soviet era. Corruption has run rampant,
and the Yeltsin government conspired with insiders to loot countless billions
in cash and assets from the State. Under Vladimir Putin, a considerable decline
of political freedoms followed.
The
1990s were plagued by armed ethnic conflicts in the North Caucasus. Such
conflicts took a form of separatist insurrections against federal power (most
notably in Chechnya), or of ethnic/clan conflicts between local groups (e.g.,
in North Ossetia-Alania between Ossetians and Ingushs, or between different
clans in Chechnya). Since the Chechen separatists declared independence in the
early 1990s, an intermittent guerrilla war (First Chechen War, Second Chechen
War) has been fought between disparate Chechen groups and the Russian military.
Some of these groups have grown increasingly Islamist over the course of the
struggle. The total number of refugees and internally displaced persons from
these territories today is about 100,000 people.
After
Yeltsin's presidency in the 1990s, the recently appointed Prime Minister (who
was also head of the FSB from July 1998 through August 1999) Vladimir Putin was
elected in 2000. Although President Putin is still the most popular Russian
politician, with a 70% approval rating, his policies raised serious concerns
about civil society and human rights in Russia. The West--particularly the
United States--expressed growing worries about the state influence of the
Russian media through Kremlin-friendly companies and law enforcement abuses.
Still the government is criticized for lack of will to fight wide-spread crime
and corruption and to renovate deteriorated urban areas.
The politics
of Russia (the Russian Federation) take place in a framework of a federal
presidential republic, whereby the President of Russia is the head of state and
the Prime Minister of Russia is the head of government. Executive power is
exercised by the government. Legislative power is vested in both the government
and the two chambers of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation. Most of
this happens in Moscow from within the Kremlin.
The country's GDP soared to $1.5 trillion in 2004, making
it the ninth largest economy in the world and the fifth largest in Europe. For
the year of 2007, Russia's GDP is projected to grow to about $1.2 trillion
nominally (31.2 trillion rubles) that would be about $2.3 trillion PPP and
would make Russia the second largest economy in Europe[1].
As a result of its great economic location, imperial past, Russia today is
a biggest country, with big population, high economic rates, but with big
problems and complex structure. Within international system, it occupies very
important role, however Russia in my opinion still has great in foreign policy,
and in the attitudes of ruling elite. First of all In order to analyze clearly Russian foreign
policy thinking, it is important to discuss such official documents which are
the guides creating state’s foreign policy principals and priorities:
NATIONAL SECURITY CONCEPTION
According to the
national security conception of Russian Federation, there is significance of
two different tendencies. On the one hand there is an evidence of many state’s
and united integration’s economic and political consolidation and
accomplishment of ruling international processes. On the other hand, there also
exists the attempt of establishing such international relation’s system, which
is based on the domination of the west with support of U.S and gives advantages
to settling world disputes only unilaterally by using force, and ignoring
international norms. It is mentioned in the conception that Russia will
encourage formation of the multilateral world ideology, according to the first
tendency. According to the document, despite of international conditions and internal
complexities, Russia, with regard of its economic, scientific-technologic,
military potential, and also unique geopolitical location on the Eurasia, plays
an important role in current world processes, and an attempt of some states to
ignore Russia’s interests at the time of settling international disputes, may
be become a threat to international security and stability.
It is mentioned in the
conception that within the international sphere Russia’s national interests
means: ensuring sovereignty of Russia, defending the positions of Russia, as
the great state and one of the influential centers of the multipolar world;
establishing equal and bilaterally beneficial relations with an united
integrations and all countries of the world, and first of all with CIS and with
Russia’s traditional partners (whose names aren’t mentioned in the document),
which should aim defending human rights and not letting bilateral standards to
be used.
The following
international issues are mentioned in the conception: some state’s attempt to
weaken existing mechanism ensuring international security, first of all the
role of UN’s and OSCE’s and also dimension of Russia’s political, economic and
military influence. Strengthening military-political blocks, NATO’s expansion
and settling foreign countries’ military near the borders of Russia; weakening
the integration process of CIS and escalating conflicts near the borders of
Russia and CIS countries; pretensions for territories of Russian federation and
economic, demographic, cultural – religious expansions of the bordering states
on the territory of Russia; international terrorism.
It is also very important to introduce with the International Policy
Conception and then compare these two documents, which both are the main
characterizers of the Russian foreign policy.
INTERNATIONAL POLICY CONCEPTION
According to the
conception, Russia, as the permanent member of UN’s General Assembly and
country of important resources and potential, is the actual member of the international policy and has an important
influence on the new formation of the world. According to the conception,
Russia’s international policy’s especial feature is the sedateness, as a result
of its great geo-strategic location. Therefore Russia is responsible for ensuring
security on the global and regional levels.
Regional priorities of
the Russia’s foreign policy are also discussed in the conception. Most of the
discussion is about CIS countries and European states. According to the
conception Russian policy towards CIS countries will be directed towards
developing good relations and strategic partnership, as for practical working,
this will depend on how the particular country will be ready for particular
issue in order to negotiate. Also it is mentioned that first of all the task of
Russian – Byelorussian relations strengthening is vital. In the CIS regions the
priorities are settling conflicts, cooperation on the issues of fighting with
terrorism and economic cooperation.
It is also mentioned,
that relation with European states is Russia’s traditional priority in the
foreign policy and its aim is establishing European security and democratic
system. It is mentioned, that EU is one of the most important political and
economic partner for Russia and in order to defend Russia’s national interests
it is very important to negotiate with Great Britain, Germany, Italy and
France. According to the conception negotiations with NATO is very important
for Russia as a result of guarantying security in Europe, though constructive
negotiations will be available only if the interests of both sides will be
taken into account and the binding obligations will be enforces. Also document
highlights that NATO’s new strategic conception contradicts with Russia’s
interests, which means using force without UN’s Security Council’s sanctions
and thus surpassing borders of the Washington Treaty. U.S and Russian
relation’s priorities are describes briefly. According to the document, Russia
is ready to overcome existing important complexities, because, despite of a
number of principal disputes, developing Russia – U.S co-operations is the
primary condition for guarantying global strategic stability and securing
international system.
About Asian policy, it
is mentioned that it is the most important issue in the direction of Russia’s
foreign policy, cause Russia as well is the part of that region, therefore,
attention must be paid about Russia’s integration with the united integrations
of Asia-Pacific (OPEC, etc). The same opinions about world policy, expressed by
China and Russia are the guarantee for regional stability. Regarding to Japan,
Russia is ready for reaching bilateral agreement about state borders. Very
briefly are discussed Iran and Indian cases. Russia wants to deepen traditional
partnerships with India and it is important further negotiations with Iran as
well.
After discussing
conceptions of national security and foreign policy of Russia, we can conclude
that there really exist significant similarities in many aspects and these
documents express existing tendencies in the modern Russian foreign policy
thinking.
Now let see how it
matches with the ideas and thinking of political elite in Russia. Historically
there have been three branches of thinking: Zapadniks,
Slyavanophils and Eurasianists. Zapadniks were western oriented
politicions, Slyavanophils very conservative, locked in the Russian
imperialism, and Eurasianists were more neutral between them, and for them
Russia and Eurasia are synonyms, and acknowledges that this territory belongs
to the unique society and at the same time for them, refusing imperial
construction means absolute collapse of Russian Empire. That was briefly about
ideological branches, now consider what theories they have and how they
interact with the modern problems and principals or we may say conditions
within the international system. As I have already mentioned in the official
documents most of the attention is paid on the SIC countries and Europe. Let
now consider what are the tendencies and opinions towards this aspect expressed
by the different branches of ideology/thinking of the Russia’s ruling elite.
RUSSIAN POLICY IN POST SOVIET SPACE
One of the most important issues of the Russian foreign policy is the
independent states on the territory of former Soviet Union. We can divide
Russian elite in several parts according to their strategic point of views.
First group basically
encompasses Slavyanophils and Evrazianists. They consider former
Soviet Union to be the “historical Russia”, and its separation is considered to
be temporary. For this group the existing status quo, the sovereignty of
existing (former Soviet) states are completely unacceptable, and resurrecting
historian Russia represents the only task for them. It is not about European
integration but about making all the independent states on the territory of
Soviet Union, again under the rule of Russia, as a result the majority of the
authors aren’t satisfied by the CIS structure.
Evrazianists Alexander Dugin and Alexei Mitropanov are the followers of
exactly that kind of thinking. In their mind – all countries of the “historical
Russia” will enjoy cultural autonomy but will be under the strategic political
control of Russia. He introduces the theory of horizontal fragmentation and
vertical integration in Caucasus region. The parts of the southern Caucasus
must be linked to the parts of the northern Russia, and as a result the
following axles will be formed Rostovi-Sokhumi-Batumi,
Stavropol-Tskhinvali-Tbilisi, etc. united Oseti must be created and Abkhazia
must remain under the full control of Moscow. He especially highlights the
importance of Armenia, which is the faithful ally of Russia, and therefore can
be used to pressure and internally destabilize Turkey. Concerning to Central
Asia creates the unites spheres of influence together with Iran. The only
exception is the Kazakhstan, which must be under the direct control of Moscow.
Almost similar ideas are expressed by Mitropanov, but in case of Caucasus he
discusses two options – concession of these territories to Iran or ruling
together. According to Mitropanov’s case there must be left only four sovereign
subjects: Russia, Iran, Armenia and Kurdistan.
We can consider Natalia
Narochnitskaia to the same group of thinking. She also calls the territory of
former Soviet Union “historical Russia” and claims that according to the
Helsinki pact, these territories are Russian military-strategic space. She
accuses the West for violating obligations of the Helsinki pact by recognizing
separation of Soviet Union and Yugoslavia.
The member of DUMA,
director of the institute of CIC (DST) states Constantine Zatulini and the
political scientist Andranik Migranian argue that Russia must fasten
integration processes with Byelorussia, in order not to let the West form
influence spheres in that territory. Must enforce pressures on Ukraine and
actualize Crimean and Sevastopol issues, encourage economic blockade of
Ukraine. In their opinion the enforcement of pipeline and transport projects in
Caucasus are really alarming, on the one hand it strengthens the influence of
the West and on the other hand strengthens the anti Russian state’s system.
Authors consider necessary the destabilization of Azerbaijan and Georgia,
encouraging separatism in these countries. In case of Georgia encouraging
Abkhazia, Samachablo, Achara and Javakheti regions. The same opinion is about
Central Asia. In their mind the post Soviet space is a vital importance for
Russia, and the future of Russian state depends on it.
Within the second group
are included authors who more or less accept the current conditions in the
territory of post Soviet Union. But they consider these territories under the
influence of Russia and they are talking about the necessity of a particular
kind of reintegration. In this group are represented as western oriented
authors also scholars who criticize the western politics. The representatives
of that group usually highlight the newly formed state’s inefficiency and
incapability to exist and peacefully settle disputes, and Russia in that case
plays the role of keeping stability. One of the representatives of this group
is the first foreign minister Andrei Kozirev, he argues that the West must take
into account the especial important role and responsibility of Russia with in
the Post Soviet Space. Current foreign minister have the same attitudes, he
argues that Russia keeps right of keeping historically formed links with that
states and encourages developing of integration processes in region. In his
opinion the post soviet space is the sphere of vital interests for Russia.
The most real and
clever attitude for me expressed by Russian scholars was the opinion of
Kamaludin Gajiev, he argues that despite of newly formed states are trying to
strengthen independence and separate from Russia as much as possible, there
will always be objective factors and that objective factors are firs of all
economic ones, which makes inevitable to keep in touch with Russia. And in his
opinion the aspiration toward Russia depends on the development of Russia’s
economy.
Ideas of George Arbatov are also acceptable for
me. In his opinion nowadays thinking about resurrection of Soviet Union is just
wasting of time, and the main is to develop cooperation with states formed on
its territory. Because of the Imperial past, newly formed states don’t trust
Russia, therefore Russia must prove them that such an mistrust has no bases. If
Russia had managed to gain trust in post soviet space than the natural power of
integration would have operated.
Third group is represented by authors who look
skeptically at the resurrection of the Imperia and at the serious integration
perspective in the post soviet space. They think that the respect of the
sovereignty of the newly formed states are necessary and developing new
strategy of relationships with them taking into account new reality and not
depending on the old imperial ambitions. The representatives of that group
acknowledges that Moscow must keep controlling post soviet space, but they
consider to use more mild measures for that. In their opinion pressures from
Russia will make more difficult to control as the tensions will grow and will
separate them eventually. Alexei Arbatov is the typical representative of that
group, in his opinion the Russian policy in the post soviet space will be
successful if it will use the following methods: 1) differential moor for each
state, to find common formula for these states is as impossible as to implement
the same policy in China and Finland. 2) Advantage must be the bilateral
negotiations towards these countries, which will make Russian policy more
realistic towards these states. 3) It must be acknowledged that post soviet
space incurs integration with bordering regions, and Russian policy towards
them must me discussed as international relations towards particular region. 4)
arrangement of ethnical and territorial conflicts are desirable, cause by their
existence the Russian influence is more diminishing and persuades the countries
of post soviet space to appeal to other states. 5) Defending the rights of
Russian language population in the countries of post soviet space.
Arbatov claims that Ukraine is
very important partner for Russia in post soviet space and therefore, Russian
interests demands that towards that state Russian policy respected its
territorial sovereignty. Regarding to Caucasian region, he thinks that Russia
mustn’t develop its relations with Armenia on the account of Georgia and
Azerbaijan. In his opinion Georgia would always remain Russia’s natural ally,
if not the Russia’s attempt to encourage separatism in Georgia. Regarding to
central Asia, from his point of view this region is less interesting for
Russia, and here attention must be paid on Kazakhstan basically
At the end of
discussing the problems of CIS countries I want to somehow analyze attitudes of
the Russian scholars. Fist group of thinking is very narrow minded – I mean
they don’t look around, talking about Russia’s control and invasion of this
territories are far away already in the modern international system, and at the
same time talking and evaluating some administrative horizontal and vertical
divisions is absolute nonsense. But the reality is that, this kind of thinking
really exists in the Russian elite, and it is considered to be quite reasonable
there, representatives of this thinking are considered to be quite respectable
statesmen, but in my opinion this kind of thinking would really make difficult
for Russia to integrate with today’s global system. Second group was more
realistic, and they can be considered to be really rational. The necessity of
economic development was really rational and practically experienced beneficial
idea. The problem of mistrust also is very vital for Russia, and it must prove
its kindness by mild and encouraging political or economic actions and not by
“punishment” and establishing economic sanctions in hope of breaking down
countries economy – this kind of diplomacy wouldn’t give Russia any benefit on
the contrary… And finally third group were the realists in the modern
international thinking. And I agree with there ideas, it is very necessary for
Russia to acknowledge and respect territorial sovereignty and encourage
settling disputes and not support separatism, it will only result in more split
between Russia and CIS countries. This was just my opinion and at the end of
the article I will again summarize and make conclusion about this aspects,
wills and opportunities of Russia.
The next issue of Russian foreign policy I want to discuss is its
intensions and attitudes towards Asia, as it was mentioned in the international
conception Asia is the most important and traditional field of Russia’s
diplomacy, it considers to be first of all part of Asia and then Europe. Let’s
introduce with the ideology of political thinking.
RUSSIAN POLICY IN AZIA: JAPAN, CHINA, INDIA, NEAR EAST.
In the Asian sector of the modern foreign policy, again we have three
branches of thinking. One part of authors considers necessary alliance with
south eastern Asian countries and with Islamic states, which are directed
against westerns. Eurasianists, Alexander Dugin and Alexei Mitropanov are
representatives of it. They give great importance to the strategic alliance
with Japan and mention that Japan with the help of Russia will be able to get rid
of U.S control, on the other hand Russia with the help of Japan will overcome
the economic crisis. Both authors are supporters of the idea of returning
Kurila’s islands to Japan. There notions are only radically different regarding
to China. In Dugin’s view China represents a traditional platform for the West
and is the natural confronter of Russia. On the contrary Mitropanov considers
China to be the ally of Russia and Japan in the struggle against West, and
thinks that Russia should encourage developments of Chinese military (exporting
military technologies) and expansion to the west till the borders of Turkey,
that will strengthen its pressures on the west. Both consider India to be
Russia’s ally, however, India isn’t characterized by geopolitical dynamics and
territorial expansion; as a result it wouldn’t help Russia in solving important
strategic tasks.
As for Iran, they think that in the Central Asia Iran is the main ally
for Russia, and strengthening Iran would result in reducing influence of U.S and
generally west in this region.
Russian former and
current foreign ministers are also talking about the importance of negotiating
with Asian states. Ivanov highlights the existing important problems in the
eastern regions of Russia, and that without its neibour countries ally, without
China development would take a long time. Sergei Karnagov considers that center
of the world politics are transporting to the Asia and highlights the economic
development of Asian states (especially China and India), and Russia with no
doubt must negotiate with that countries.
With regard to the
foreign policy in Russia, Alexei Arbatov has a different vision. According to
Arbatov, in the last 30 years there exists the tendency of close alliance
between China and Russia, but the reason of it (hegemony of U.S) is of a
short-term, and China still remains the military threat for Russia and
therefore Russia must think about reducing military support to China.
Territorial issues must be settled with regard to Japan, and that will result
in regional stability in Asia-Pacific region. He considers India to be just a
formal ally without any obligations.
Dimitri Trenin discusses Russian – Japanese relations as the opportunity
for further modernization and development for Russia. In his opinion returning
conflict regions to Japan would become the starting point for new stage of
development. He thinks that Russia must keep balancing relations towards China;
however, he doesn’t except the tendency of emerging border disputes. He highlights
the importance of keeping strategic relationship with India in the aspect of
keeping global and strategic balance.
Third group of authors
think that China and Islamic world are great threat for Russia, their ideology
can influence Russia and the territory of its federation. One of the
representatives is Natalie Narochnitskaia, she sees threat in Turkey and Iran.
Turkey, because she thinks that it still continues to keep Imperial
expansionism and tries to made Ukraine under its sphere of influence. And Iran,
because Iran was supporting Bosnian Muslims against orthodox Serbs and nowadays
it is ally of Russia just because of anti U.S orientation and it is only
temporary politics.
In this aspect most realistic and not exaggerated (because at the time
of introducing with Russian thinking I found out they really like
exaggerations) opinion was Trenin’s and I personally completely agree with him.
With regard to Metropanov and Dugin to get rid of U.S influence isn’t so easy,
however establishing good negotiations with Japan would really benefit Russia.
And about seeing threat in China, in think it brings us back to the Cold War
period, seeing threat in ones existence. Natalia Narichnickaia’s opinion
(typical representative of Sliavanophils) is completely utopia and without any
basis, the basis of this branch of thinking I might say, is only the mid 20th
centuryJ
The third direction of foreign policy I wan to talk about is relations
with European countries, with NATO and U.S. as it was mentioned in the security
conception, Russia accuses U.S for an attempt to create uni-polar system and to
be the hegemony in the world, and accuses NATO to act against the national
interests of Russia. Let’s see what kind of thinking and tendencies stand
beyond the official documents, what is the real reality.
RELATIONS WITH EUROPEAN COUNTRIES, U.S
NATO’S EXPANSION
Most of the author’s attitudes towards West (especially towards U.S) are
quite critical. This concerns both anti westerns and pro westerns as well. The
claims towards Eastern Europe and U.S include the following issues:
1) After the end of the Cold War the West induced
to Russia the model of economic reforms which wasn’t taking into account
existing conditions in Russia and which resulted in country’s
deindustrialization, economic corruption and poverty of population.
2) The West confronts with any process of
integration on the territory of former Soviet Union, attempts to establish here
geopolitical pluralism, and encourages confrontations between Russia and
Ukraine. If in West the processes of integration are actually developing, on
the other hand similar processes within the post soviet space CIS are
considered to be the evidence of Russian imperialism.
3) West is trying to settle on the platform on the
territory conceded by the Russia, in the Eastern Europe. Despite the end of the
Cold War and in answer of “New Thinking” offered by Russia, the West stays in
the Cold War period security structure. NATO is spreading on the East, and it
operates on the account of ignoring Russian national interests, and aims
Russia’s isolation or in some author’s opinion, final disintegration.
As it was mentioned above the significant portions of critical opinions
are shared by western oriented authors as well, but at the same time they think
that it is possible to settle this problem by creating needful conditions for
negotiating with West. On the other hand authors of anti western orientation
consider that West purposefully enforces the policy of weakening, isolating and
disintegrating of Russia, for which is necessary not to negotiate with west but
to find the possibility of its deterrence.
First foreign minister
of Russia Andrei Kozirev argues that the western countries are the natural
allies for democratic Russia. In his opinion West must recognize Russia as the
equal partner and respect its interests, which will encourage strengthening
democratic power positions in Russia and ends up with coming anti-western
imperialistic governments into power. Finally despite of criticizing the west,
he sees the only solution of future development in partnership with European
countries and U.S.
Also former foreign
minister Igor Ivanov argues that one of the priorities of the foreign policy of
Russia is the direction toward west! He is for developing strategic partnership
and argues that Russia is interested in consolidation of EU and strengthening
its position in the world competition. From his point of view the dispute
between Moscow and Washington are referring not to the strategic goals but to
the ways of reaching them, and as a result they can reach to the perfect
consensus with each other.
Current Foreign
Minister Sergei Lavrov thinks that there is no basis for existence of
confrontations between Russia and West, and it is by no means necessary to be
avoided irrational anti-western attitudes in Russia. He highlights increasing
partnership with U.S EU and NATO, at the same time claims that the expansion of
NATO doesn’t answers the challenges in front of which the Europe appears.
Igor Maximevich thinks
that the new members of NATO will no doubt encourage Russia’s isolation, and
despite of declared aims, the only reason of NATO’s existence in the past was
the deterrence of Soviet Union and nowadays continues to be the deterrence of
Russia. He argues that Russia will never be received in NATO, and in any case,
declaring will to joining NATO will be equal to recognizing defeat in the Cold
War, and at the same time escalating relationship with Asian nabouring
countries (first of all with China and Iran). To contradict with such process,
Russia must negotiate with Europe and especially with German, which influence
will increase significantly in the near future.
Political scientist
Yuri Davidov claims that expansion of NATO isn’t at all so threatening, and
that there exists two ways towards building security system: 1) Abolition of
NATO and creating new system under the leadership of all European countries; 2)
continuing NATO’s expansion, and at the particular stage Russia as well become
involved within alliance. He argues that the fact that NATO isn’t the enemy
should be recognized. NATO’s major aim is to defend values which made Euro
Atlantic zone to become a peaceful zone. NATO’s first function – collective
security – nowadays is less actual and the organization’s transformation
occurred. Nowadays peacekeeping issues occupies important role in NATO. Because
of its importance Russia by no doubt should become a member of NATO in other
case Russia will just become periphery of the world power system.
Second half of the
authors look skeptically at the negotiations with Europe. In this group are
represented followers of Slavianophil and Evrazianists thinking.
In this regard
political scientist Andrianik Migranian criticizes western oriented (especially
U.S oriented) foreign policy, and claims that the negotiations didn’t bring any
benefit to Russia, and Russia failed to receive any economic assistance, and
Russia is always being dislodged from the process of settling European issues
(ex. Conflict of Yugoslavia) and Russia’s integrating role aren’t recognized by
CIS and in his opinion western oriented foreihn policy would be vital for
Russia.
One of the
representative of Slavianophils – Natalia Narochnickaya – argues that there is
a serious pressures on the Russia’s historical maritime birders, and this area
are being considered to be under the interest of U.S. In the Black Sea region
the leading role is considered to take “Atlantic” Turkey. NATO spread through
the Balkan Peninsula and encourages Ukraine and Baltic states to become allies,
that in turn will make Russia deadlocked on a geopolitical scale. As a result
western politics must be maximally avoided.
These were the basic
opinions and strategies calculated by the Russia’s leading politicians and
scholars about the western politics and NATO’s expansionism. Most or we can
just freely say all of the representatives considered western policy to be
vital and against Russian strategic goals, however western oriented scholars
(Zapadniks) consider the options of negotiating with the West to become in some
degree beneficial. When others (Slavyanophils and Ecrazianists) think that
Russia must seize negotiations with the West cause it will bring nothing but
absolute defeat at the global scale. Now when introduced with the Russia
circumstances relating to the West I will try somehow to express my opinions
about concepts mentioned above.
1) Russia failed to operate economic model induced
by west, and not west was the reason of the result of poverty and economic
stagnation. Democratic model wasn’t well operated within Russia, because of
high corruption levels, and still the state is governed by “Russian Mafia”, and
by former FSB agents. Russia created Millionaires level in the society on the
expanse of poverty of population. To say briefly so called Soviet closed,
spoiled system is continuing to rule the biggest country in the world, though
in the name of new “democratic’ Russia. As a result of course the western model
would fail to operate within such Kremlin and there is no fault in West in
it.
2) Former Soviet republics are dreaming and trying
hardly to join NATO, or assimilate with European system and policy, because
they see only economic, security and social salvation in it without any
pressures from the West. On the other hand Russia is considered to keep trying
its aggressive imperial policy, by creating economic sanctions and embargoes on
its bordering countries it only increases tensions and will try to escape from
Russia and seek help from countries which are much more far away then Russia.
3) The fact that NATO continues developing doesn’t
mean at all that the West is carrying out the Cold War policy. Russia with its
views and strategies is already isolated ideologically from them modern
international system. Of course this is a great threat to Russia and it really
can turn out to become the periphery of the world policy. Joining NATO would
mean refusing Imperial goals and whole Russian policy. At any rate Russia
should gain more political flexibility in order to integrate with rapid
political changes.
At the end of the discussion of Russian foreign policy thinking and
ideology, I want to analyze today’s world globally, what kind of changes and
tendencies caused the near past (end of the Cold War), what kind of
international system do we have eventually and what place does Russia occupies
in it. And why it came out that Russian majority of politicians are still is
locked in its narrow ideology, in such a way forming, I would call it, complex
of imperialism.
BASIC CONCEPTS OF GLOBAL AND REGIONAL POLICY
IN THE FOREIGN POLICY, IDEOLOGY OF POST-SOVIET SPACE
The most frequently discussed issues of the concepts mentioned above
are:
1) The end of the Cold War
2) Modern international and world system order
3) Russia’s status within international system
When discussing foreign policy Russian politicians/authors pay major
attention at the issue of the end of the cold war, that Russia wasn’t defeated
in that war and that Russia by its will ended up with the totalitarian
communist rule, which willfully gave independence to the republics of the
Soviet Union, and was the main author for taking out military from the Eastern
Europe.
About configuration of
the modern international system, majority of the Russian authors, think that
post Cold War system is a multi-polar, or will become multi polar in the near
future. Most authors, including western oriented specialists, criticize efforts
of the U.S to create one polar world order and consider such an attempt to be
not perspective.
Also most of the authors
agree that Russia occupies especial role in the modern international system, or
will gain in the near future. As for the reason of such important status
usually are the unique geopolitical (sometimes geo-economical) location.
Accordingly small number of authors skeptically values Russia becoming one of
the centers of the world system and suppose decline of the state status.
It is interesting that
Russian first, second, third and fourth foreign ministers, Andrei Kozirev,
Evgeni Primakov, Igor Ivanov and Sergei Lavrov, have the identical opinions
about issues mentioned above. Kozirev claims that confrontations with the west
was authorized by totalitarian communist regime, not by people, and that system
was collapsed by people not by any war. He is sure that in the XXI century
there won’t be established any Pax
America, that the world will be multi polar, and Russia will again remain
the state of the world importance, because of its military power, newest
technologies, natural resources and geo-strategic location.
Political scientist
Kamaludin Gajiev thinks that after the end of the cold war influence on eastern
Europe and Japan was reduced from America, and now they are independent
centers. China and generally the region of the Pacific Ocean are becoming new
industrial states. In his opinion except traditional power centers,
international organizations and transnational corporations are becoming
powerful, which in turn excepts the possibility of developing mono-polar or
even bi-polar system. And though post-soviet crisis reduces activities of the
Russian foreign policy, in the perspective, Russia by no doubt is the great
state, because of its place in the world geo-structure and geo-political
location.
Also highlights the
importance of the geo-political structure, political scientist, Elgiz
Pozdniakov, who thinks Russia is the country which controls the “Heartland”,
and historically was responsible for world civilization balance. Accordingly in
his opinion the disintegration of Russia and separation of the heartland will
result in violating world balance.
For me the most
realistic opinion among scholars was Dimitri Trenin’s, Russia isn’t any more
universal state, or even great state. Collapse of Soviet Union defeated Russia
as well, and the politics of reconstruction of Russian Empire, which in itself
means contradictions with West, would cause great threat to Russia, as such
contradictions would end up with more biter defeat than the confrontation of
Cold War time. On the other hand the multi-polar regime also causes threats to
Russia, as Russia is not able to become first range polar, some of the regions
of Russia could come out to become under the gravity zone of any powerful
polar, which will threaten territorial sovereignty of Russia. Trenin claims
that the best solution is to concentrate on the internal developments and
modernization, instead of attempts of reconstructing the Empery.
In my opinion Russia
came out to be defeated as a result of the Cold War. And the fact that the
system was ruined from inside isn’t the argument to claim that the Cold War
came to be on the “win win” theory. Soviet Union was based on the bias system,
we can say spoil system as well, and the reforms (glasnost, perestroika) were
the attempts to survive, which again were enforced in a wrong way. It doesn’t
collapse because of people’s will, but because of weak politics. Gorbachev
himself didn’t want to end up with separation; it just came out so, again
because of the wrong and weak actions. The spoiled economy couldn’t stand any
more artificially against the war. Collapse was the result of the Cold War as
well because 70% of the economy was spent in the military, but the country
remained undeveloped, and hadn’t any immunity to stand against!
As a result of the Cold
War multi polar world system established, power is distributed among many
countries, and the balance is more obtained in such a way. Of course Russia
occupies very important geo-political role in today’s world, and for great
natural or military resources can manage to increase its influence over the
territories of its interest, but it shouldn’t be done in an invasive or
aggressive way, moreover it should implement gracious policy then the countries
wouldn’t really see the threat in negotiating with Russia, and the international
society would recognize the Russia’s role as the one of the most important
superpowers in the international world system. For the strategic development
Russia must with no doubt focus on the economic development, and democratic
concepts, reducing the level of corruption and creating fair checks and
balances system.
This were the main
ideological branches leading to formulations of Russian foreign policy, thus I
guess we clearly understand the mentality of the Russian policy and the reasons
of its political actions. In this regard I would like to mention briefly about
the couple of more progressive (in my opinion) parties, operating in Russia and
expressing these ideologies, mentioned above, in practice.
Rightist’s party
In the declaration of rightist’s foreign policy, it is mentioned that
traditional balance of power conception, mentioned in the Russia’s security
conception, only is the source of forming new threats, and party offers “Global
Contact”, which means world agreement and collective development. It is
mentioned that Russian foreign policy must be based on the particular moral
principles and it must be impossible for Russia to negotiate with the country
which violates human rights. The most important is that, it is highlighted that
Russia is the part of “great and whole European civilization” and its strategic
aim must be becoming member of NATO. In party’s opinion Russian ideology is
only giving Russia status of “international outsider” and on the modern stage
is not perspective and may cause only threats. It is said in the declaration
that global mission of Russia is to become member of “northern circle”
(Europe-Russia-Northern America) that will encourage forming developing
country’s common space. Regarding to the CIS countries, it is mentioned that
Russia is obliged to encourage freedom of policy and economy, and the expansion
of human right’s and laws supremacy in these countries. So we can see that
Rightists party is clearly representatives of Westerniks School of thinking.
Yabloko
In this regard I wan to mention also party Yabloko, (program was adopted
in 1993) which is as well western oriented but at the same time in comparison
with rightists it is more neutral, because it looks negatively at the expansion
of NATO and doesn’t consider necessary Russia to become member of that
organization. Yabloko’s position regarding to CIS countries is the analogue of
already discussed above the mild integration of Russia and enforcing
deferential politics towards post soviet space (Trenin’s option). With regard
to Asia, Yabloko is representing the schools of thought which think that with
regard to China some security measures must be used.
United Russia
This is the governing party of Russia, here the issues of foreign policy
is very briefly discussed. It is only mentioned that Russia will no doubt
become one of the centers of the world influential policy. Because of the
unique geopolitical location and huge natural resources Russia has the
opportunity of occupying especial role in the world economy. Party declares
that Russia aims establishing democratization of international relations and
rejecting bilateral standards. And Russia must defend the principle of world
cultural equality. However, talking about bilateral rejection, in its turn, it
is very difficult to talk about Russian foreign goals in itself, according to
its laconic style.
I hope I have managed
to analyze and discuss all of the important aspects and tendencies of the
Russian foreign policy, and managed to make my reader understand what style,
and direction is the characteristic of it. At the end of the article I want to
discuss current Georgian-Russian relations its tendencies in the future and how
vital it can be for both of them.
As we all know Georgia had been under Russian control and rule since the
Giorgievsk treaty, and then under the Soviet Union. Of course there had been
attempts of becoming independent from time to time, but eventually it got
independence after the dissolution of Soviet Union.
The bilateral relationship had been in a rather bad
shape since the break-up of the Soviet Union, and the conflicts in Abkhazia and
South Ossetia, in both of which Russia had been implicated and remains
involved, have marred the Georgian-Russian relations since 1992. From 1999, the
Chechen issue has also been playing a role there. Currently crisis deepened on
September 27, 2006 after the brief seizure in Georgia of four Russian military
officers accused of spying and its implications, in particular for Russian
foreign policy and U.S interests.
Lets
discuss Russian and Georgian objectives in that current conflict. Georgia’s
objectives appear decisive and ambitious. They include:
- consolidation of popular support for the Saakashvili
government (short-term);
- clearing of the way to NATO membership (medium term)
- creating conditions for the eventual restoration of
Georgia’s territorial integrity in its Soviet-era borders (long-term);
In responding to Georgia’s moves, Russia aimed to:
-
prevent an outbreak of hostilities in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and thus
avoid being directly drawn into a shooting war with Georgia (immediate);
-
undermine popular support among Georgians for the Saakashvili government
(medium-term);
-
derail Georgia’s NATO-bound train and return Georgia to the Russian traditional
sphere of influence (longer-term).
Georgian strategic goal is to have the world
to accept what Tbilisi has been saying all along, i.e. that there is no
Georgian-Abkhaz conflict, nor a Georgian-Ossetian one. Instead, there is a
conflict between Georgia and Russia, which resents Georgia’s independence and
self-determination, and wants to subjugate it again. From this perspective,
provoking Russia into strong-arm moves, ideally the use of force, though also
ideally on a small scale, would appear smart. Once the Russians start shooting,
the conflict could be transformed, and Russia would lose any pretence to being
a neutral arbiter/peacemaker, staying above the fray. Russia would also lose
any remaining “moral equivalence” with Georgia in the eyes of the Western
public.
Georgia, by contrast, would be able to turn to the
West, in particular the U.S., for support, arguing that it had become a
front-line state facing a revisionist power on its doorstep. To the West, this
would mean that the conflict would have outgrown not only the internal Georgian
dimension, but also the Georgia-Russian one. Eventually, Russia will be seen as
a rogue state on a rampage.
Russia’s strategy has been to pinch Georgia without
resorting to military threats. Thus far, Moscow has applied massive economic
sanctions, hitting Georgia where it hurts hardest: the status of the (mostly
illegal) hundreds of thousands of Georgian immigrants in Russia, whose
remittances help keep the country afloat
The Russian leadership probably believes that the
economic sanctions would eventually make the Georgian elites to realize that
they have too much at stake to trifle with Russia’s geopolitical and
geo-economic interests in the region. Georgia, the Kremlin is saying, can have
its independence and a decent relationship with Russia, and even Moscow’s
cooperation in somehow resolving the conflicts with Abkhazia and South Ossetia,
if Tbilisi withdraws its NATO application and terminates the de facto alliance
with the United States.
But
the crucial question is, whose strategy worked, and who came up to be
calculating well. At the moment Georgia’s strategy is basically working. Russia
has been sufficiently provoked to respond with an obvious overkill. Georgia has
been able to portray Russian sanctions as the economic equivalent of war, and
describe Russian police manhunt on Georgian Citizens as a case of ethnic
cleansing. This in turn resulted in those in the U.S. and EU calling Moscow’s
reaction disproportionate. Western public opinion’s sympathies toward Georgia
have been strengthened, and the criticism of Russia strengthened as well,
Georgia came out to be the victim of “authoritarian/imperialist” Russia.
On
the other hand Russia’s strategy is
largely falling. The local elections in early October which had been regarded
as a test of the Georgian government’s popularity have resulted in the support
for Saakashvili’s party growing stronger, not weaker. The Georgian president’s
political friends have certainly benefited from Russia’s ruthless,
indiscriminate reaction, and succeeded in having many people, even those not
fully pleased with the government’s policies, rally around the flag. Georgia as
a nation had moved even further away from Russia, the present crisis may become
a point of no return in Georgian-Russian relations. Of course Georgia will not
change its geographical location, but it might forever change its attitude
toward Russia. The crisis in Georgian – Russian relations continues.
In this regard I want to speak about Russian policy
spirit. As we already now, Russia traditionally was the imperial country,
trying to spread its influence, ideology and prove its supremacy. And its vary
natural, Imperialism – aspiration to be first, this is the order of the nature,
everybody tries to prove that he/she is better but using different ways: force
or diplomacy, war or peace, negotiations or sanctions, which is the best? Well
it depends but, in case of Russian current position, its diplomacy is tending
to really fail. Why Georgians or other bordering countries seek help from
countries which are far away than its nabour rich with natural resources -
Russia? Why we agree to be under the control of U.S and be influenced by them,
learn English and do far far away to study, or be marriedJ and at the same time hate Russian channels on
TV, hate Russian language, and laugh at the people influenced by Russia. Yes we
have freedom, democracy and we know that Georgia is under the U.S control, and
we like to accept it, why? I guess you should know the answer. It is diplomacy,
democratic invasion, we are not interrupted in our privet lives by U.S policy,
it doesn’t use economic sanctions of force, its just peacefully invades you and
makes you enforce issues of its interests. Wile Russia publicly announces its
dreams about Empery and wants to prove his power by economic sanctions ethnic
cleansing, saying: Hello I’m the powerful and you must obey me, in other case i
will destroy your culture your language and your population, but its not the right
and appropriate for XXI century. In that era wars are not for territory but for
human rights, and you are fighting not by using arms but by using information.
Give freedom to small country and it will always look at you for aid, help
generously and it will be under your control by its own will.
I made my article based on theory
of Russian foreign policy because it highlighted for me reasons of Russian odd
policy. Russia has great geopolitical location and great supply of resources,
GDP is high, but I don’t see developments in this country. I mean yes, Moscow
is very modernized, and this city is considered to be the city of Millionaires,
but just look at the other cities, except of Moscow and Saint Petersburg, look
at their poverty levels, unemployment, infrastructure... And Russian reputation isn’t very good in the
international society... whose fault is
it? Again U.S or NATO? I guess its all about Russian policy.
In the future taking into account
Russia’s direction, if it didn’t become more open, if it didn’t enforce more
mild politics and continues to be ambitious former “most clever master of the
world” the history will repeat the past and it will no longer stand on the
error system, “imperial Russia” with its ambitions will become just a periphery
of the dynamic global world!
Comments
Post a Comment