Russian pundit warns of dangers caused by wrong moves in CIS

Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Moscow
18 Jan 05

Russia has been losing its positions in the post-Soviet area because
of incompetent Kremlin spin doctors who tend to choose wrong allies to
support. If this trend continues, Russia will find itself in a
political predicament and this may affect the pace of its domestic
reforms, argues Alla Yazkova, senior research associate at the
Institute for International Economic and Political Studies. The
following is the text of report headlined “Foreign-policy botch-work.
Russia continues to play dangerous games in post-Soviet area” by
Russian newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta on 18 January; subheadings have
been inserted editorially:

The new year 2005 promises a series of fresh surprises in the
post-Soviet area.

Moldova

The parliamentary election in Moldova is scheduled for
March. Moldova’s approach to the solution of many foreign-policy
problems including the character of its relations with Russia,
Ukraine, and Georgia and its decision to either retain its neutrality
or step up the policy of Euro-Atlantic integration will depend on the
future alignment of political forces.

It is necessary to look for ways to settle the Dniester Region
conflict. If the election in Moldova takes place amid the same
political sentiments that brought to power the liberal opposition in
neighbouring Romania, Chisinau will even more actively insist on the
observance of the decisions of the 1999 Istanbul summit, the
elimination of Russia’s military presence, and the bringing of an
international peacekeeping contingent into the conflict zone. Tiraspol
will respond to this with the further toughening of its stance. In
this case Russia, which has rendered active support for the Dniester
Region’s separatist regime over the past decade, will face equally
difficult problems in the region as the ones it encountered in
Abkhazia or even more difficult ones.

Armenia

Hotspots in the former Soviet territory appear more and more often due
to the former elites’ inability or unwillingness to take into account
the growing trends to establish democratic norms in politics and
society. In April, the Armenian opposition will celebrate the second
anniversary of the adoption of the resolution on holding a referendum
of confidence in President Robert Kocharyan in view of the doubtful
results of the vote on his candidacy in the 2003 presidential
election. The opposition’s attempts to implement this decision was
suppressed by the security structures in April 2004. All the
indications are that the same scenario will be repeated this year
also. Armenia is subject to growing international pressure due to the
lack of constructive steps to settle the Nagornyy Karabakh problem and
liberate the occupied regions of Azerbaijan. Meanwhile, in defiance
of obvious logic Russia relies on the Kocharyan regime and renders it
substantial support including in the military sphere. It is for this
very reason that, according to representatives of the opposition
gaining strength, Moscow is dramatically losing its influence and
prestige in Armenian society.

Central Asia

Growing negative sentiments in relations with Moscow do not always lie
on the surface, but exist both in the policy of the Central Asian
leaders and that of Belarusian Old Man Lukashenka. The CIS is becoming
increasingly reminiscent of a kind of discussion club, whereas the
projects promoted within the framework of this organization are hardly
feasible, as attested by attempts to form the Single Economic Area
comprising Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan.

GUUAM

It cannot be ruled out that associations such as GUUAM (Georgia,
Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, and Moldova) can step up their
activities based on specific common interests as a counterweight to
this structure. In addition, most CIS countries become increasingly
oriented towards the outer world and in this situation Moscow’s
persisting illusions and the lack of strategy based on existing
reality cause dangerous mistakes.

More and more often sensitive spots on post-Soviet territory crop up
due to the Russian political elite’s inability or unwillingness to
take into account the growing trends to establish democratic norms in
politics and society.

Ukraine

Ukraine – the country where a globally unprecedented campaign to
support a pro-Kremlin candidate was waged during the presidential
election – proved to be the weakest link in the Kremlin’s strategy and
tactics last year. In Gleb Pavlovskiy’s opinion, Russia
“insufficiently participated in Ukrainian affairs;” meanwhile, it can
specifically be reproached for its excessively active attempts to
preserve the Soviet-type regime it controlled. Nor did it hesitate to
fan separatist sentiments in the Russian-speaking southern and eastern
regions of Ukraine. However, the Kremlin spin doctors proved unable to
professionally cope even with this task and failed to get to the
bottom of interclan disagreements or comprehend the distinguishing
traits of Ukraine’s national mentality, which were vividly
demonstrated at the turn of generations. Therefore, the reputable
German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine assessed the results of
“aggressive intervention” on the part of the Russian “advisers'” as
“foreign-policy botch-work.”

Abkhazia

Russia’s interference in the election process in Abkhazia at all its
stages was even more primitive. By getting involved in the purely
internal and, in essence, illegitimate election process in the
self-proclaimed republic Russia can suffer major losses in the long
run, for it placed the interests of its own and foreign clan
structures above its national interests. So far, this interference
substantially weakened Russia’s positions not only in Abkhazia itself,
but also in Russia’s relations with Tbilisi. If Russia aspires to
become a civilized democratic country maintaining normal relations
with its neighbours, it will sooner or later have to give up support
for separatism including in Abkhazia. The sooner this happens, the
better.

International organizations

The experience of Russian policy in Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine also
exposed the threat of Russia’s increasing sliding towards geopolitical
opposition and in a number of cases confrontation with the
Euro-Atlantic structures (the EU and NATO) and in the long run, also
with the United States.

How come Moscow, which worked so hard to strengthen its positions in
the West, is wasting everything in confrontation which cannot bring it
any dividends anyway? It is, indeed, difficult to imagine a situation
where Russia, acting in line with political logic, would consider it
worthwhile to simultaneously worsen relations with the EU, OSCE, NATO
and in the long run, also with the United States. Apparently, the
temperature of Russia’s relations with the West dropped to its lowest
level since the Cold War during the Ukrainian crisis. Will Russia,
left on its own, be able to withstand even “lukewarm confrontation”
with the rest of the world? And how can this affect the continuation
of the policy of domestic reforms?

Particularly since the post-Soviet states ever more actively choose
the European direction for their development, which gives food for
thought.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress