News.Az interviews Dmitri Polikanov, vice president of Center of Political Studies and editor of international edition of Security Index magazine.
Can the resolution of the Caucasus problems be bound to the initiative of Russian President Dmitri Medvedev on European security. In addition, is Russia interested in the settlement of the frozen conflicts in the post-Soviet area in the light of this initiative?
The search of new approaches to the settlement of frozen conflicts is one of the tracks that Russia offers during negotiations on the new agreement. The problem is that neither Russia nor anyone else have ready solutions for frozen conflicts. But it is possible to put recepts for discussion and think over the collective settlement mechanisms within the framework of the initiative of the European Security Treaty and after its signing. The main difficulty of all frozen conflicts lies with the absence of the political will for their willing, that is, the absence of a kind of “forcing” the parties to a compromise. Formation of the new negotiation area and the architecture of the treaty will create conditions for mobilization of such a will, including in the relation to the Caucasus.
Is Medvedev’s new initiative connected with the changes in the world center of powers or is it connected with the growing Russia’s participation in the European problems?
Certainly, the treaty envisions the changes that occur in the sphere of international security. Most institutions today do not cope with their duties. New actors appeared along with the integration process in Europe. The post Soviet area has almost disappeared as a phenomenon, while quite independent sovereign states appeared in its place. Thus, the “post” stage (post-Soviet, post-bipolar and so on) has been passed. There is a need for new mechanisms that would be adequate to the modern state of development and coincide with the prospects of the leading superpowers (the gradual weakening of the US role as a world hegemon and delegation of these functions, European and Chinese ambitions and so on). These mechanisms can be fixed in a legally binding form. But this is not the most important thing. The most important is to launch discussions and a dialogue. This is the key function of the treaty. In addition, certainly, Russia which claims for important positions in the world hyerarchu can and must propose different global initiatives and its agenda. The treaty complies with this logic of formation of Russia’s image as one of the leaders of the world.
Is the proposal of former defense minister of Germany Volker Ruet about the need to involve Russia into NATO realistic under the current conditions when the relations between Russia and the Alliance cooled after the 2008 August war in the Caucasus?
The proposal of NATO membership is a remote perspective. Neither alliance nor Russia is ready to this at least today or in the nearest perspective. Nevertheless, the intensification of the expert and public discussions on the issue in Russia and abroad proves the need for a closer cooperation between Russia and NATO and in new approaches. This cooperation is developing by the principle “one step forward and two steps back”. The steps are mostly taken in the sphere of rhetoric and political statements. If Russia and NATO are planning to develop real and constructive interaction, it is time to think of the practical measures and definite at least modest joint projects and set strategic cooperation as a long-term goal confirming this with actions. Russia could limit the anti-NATO rhetoric and take measures to improve the media background, expand its participation in Afghanistan with NATO, raise the component of joint trainings and peacekeeping operations and so on. NATO could have been more consistent and strict regarding its potential candidates, support joint projects in the sphere of military cooperation, reduce anti-Russia rhetoric, including open ignoring of European Security Treaty, CSTO and so on. Meanwhile, the possbility of launching the new NATO security strategy is possible in autumn, while Russia will again be offended and say that the treaty has been ignored by the European parners and Russia is being isolated by division lines. It would rather be logical and constructive to work out a certain framework document which would give a general vision of security of NARO and Russia (a certain compromise between the NATO Strategy and EST)
As you know, the United States still consider joint operation of the Gabala radar station in Azerbaijan. Can this variant be used for the closer cooperation between Russia and NATO in case Washington accepts this proposal in the future?
When Gabala station is discussed, mostly strategic missile defense system is implied. NATO and Russia have a successful experience of working with missile defense system on hostilities area. Anyway, lifting Moscow’s concerns on missile defense system and improvement of the climate in the Russian-American relations will promote Russia-NATO cooperation. Moscow’s proposal on creation of a joint system of early warning is more than reasonable and it could be a reasonable compromise on the issue of missile defense deployment.
Can NATO’s movement to the East, in particular, inclusion of Ukraine and Georgia into the sphere of its influence lead to possible membership of Azerbaijan and Armenia in this bloc?
It is early to speak of the inclusion of Ukraine and Georgia and it is early to speak of Armenia and Azerbaijan’s membership. It is highly unlikely that NATO will admit the countries with the unsettled territorial conflicts since it would require serious investments from the Alliance to stabilize the situation. It is possible to speak of the cooperation with NATO in the nearest perspective (five years). Meanwhile, membership requires serious transformation, both political and military one, while the aforementioned countries are currently not prepared for this. The process of such transformation may take at leasr 7-10 years (considering more “advanced” Eastern European countries that have not yet completed this process)
Moscow is attempting to maintain certain neutrality in the relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia in the Karabakh conflict. Can this policy be considered substantiated taking into account Baku and Yerevan’s official expectation of definite position from Moscow?
It is difficult for Moscow to take a definite positions and avoid accusations of any party of “betrayal”, “imperialistic intentions” and so on. Therefore, Russia should take a multilateral approach that would imply the principle of collective responsibility. The internationalization of efforts on the resolution of the conflict may promote a breakthrough since there will be a conscious will of the international community that can be hardly resisted by those who would prefer a unilateral solution in favor of either Armenia or Azerbaijan. The issue of Karabakh is an issue of flexibility of the sides. The situation cannot go back to 20 years ago despite the respect to the principle of territorial integrity! This is the life of one generation! This means that the elites should find courage to agree and start working with public opinion, while the mediators-Moscow- will control the fair and complete execution of these decisions.
U.U.
News.Az