Wednesday, March 12 2014

 Ukraine
assumed the CIS chairmanship in January 2014. The CIS Ministerial Meeting was
scheduled for 7 March in Kyev but was postponed due to the ‘right schedule’ of
the CIS ministers. Will the change of power in Kyev and uncertain situation in
Crimea affect Ukraine’s chairmanship and the perspectives of the CIS?

  CIS has been developing in quite unfavorable
conditions yet since the second half of 90s. The first reason was the euphoria
from the sovereignty and the growing domestic political problems. Then, many
wanted to see immediate result from integration, but the institutes set up in
the CIS worked not so much efficiently. All that hindered economic integration
and resulted in a deep crisis inside the Commonwealth, and amorphousness and
inefficiency of other fields in the CIS became more and more evident.

It was failure of economic integration that gradually
led to centrifugal trends in the military and political field in the
post-Soviet area under the influence of the West. Particularly, this affected
the Collective Security Treaty that was signed for 5 years with a right of
extension. In April 1999, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Uzbekistan refused to extend
the Treaty unlike Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrghyzstan, Russia and
Tajikistan. Thus, CST was halved.  Only 6
of the Commonwealth states remained in it. Now, in conditions of the extremely
deep domestic crisis in Ukraine, the military cooperation of Moscow and Kyev is
no longer possible.

 Further orientation of Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova
and Ukraine at the West and the neutral status of Turkmenistan seems to weaken
the military structures of the Commonwealth of Independent States. These
structures will be replaced with similar structures of the CSTO and, maybe,
NATO. This will tangibly weaken the CIS in the military-political aspect. Now
the military structures of the CIS and CSTO are certainly duplicating each
other, namely, in the filed of air defense.

 Meanwhile, the regional organizations engaged in
economy problems in the post-Soviet area unite just half of the Commonwealth
states. In this light, there is still need for a platform for settlement of
economic and political problems. So, the CIS will not be replaced so far.
Establishment of the Commonwealth became a positive factor that allowed
regulating the aftermaths of the collapse of the superpower, which is enough to
preserve the CIS in future.

 How
will the ongoing crisis in Ukraine affect the CIS activity?

 Undoubtedly, the current crisis in Ukraine will deal a
strong blow upon the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). It is more than
likely that the CIS will be preserved, just the same way as after the war in
the Caucasus in August 2008, but will be seriously weakened. First of all, I
mean the military structures of the CIS. It is very much possible that the new
leadership of Ukraine will leave these structures and the CIS just the same way
as Georgia did. In future much will depend on the situation in Ukraine. If it
manages to fully orient towards the West, which is hardly possible, and even
join NATO, in that case the CIS will become weaker from inside. The most
possible scenario is that the Crimea will de-facto become independent. This
will be accompanied by disintegration of Ukraine and central power in Kiev will
become very much weak. In such conditions, for Ukraine or its certain regions
the CIS may again start playing a positive role as a factor which hinders full
disintegration and split of the country. In this context, Ukraine will be
hardly able to effectively use its chairmanship in the CIS.

At present Kiev does not think about it. And the new
leadership of Ukraine is more anxious about the so-called problems of local
separatism and its own legitimateness. 
Although, it is not rule out that Kiev will try to use the CIS platform
to blame Russia for its position regarding Ukraine.

 What
do you think of the current processes around Ukraine?

  In Ukraine the West, first of all in the person of the
USA and certain European states, which propagate American national interests,
is trying to punish Russia for its extremely independent policy in settlement
of the Syrian and Iranian crisis.

Actually, few states are concerned about the interests
of Ukraine, which is used just as an instrument for imposing pressure upon
Russia. At the same time, the West deceives Ukrainians which want to live along
Western lines. Actually, nobody in the EU is waiting for Kiev, and nobody is
going to open its borders and take this country in tow. From the political
point of view, it is more beneficial for the West to have chaos and anarchy in
Ukraine, as this will create problems to the close Russian territories. In this
context, many people which were eager to topple 
Viktor Yanukovich's power, will be deeply disappointed. We already
suffered of that at the beginning of the 90-s when we used to idealize the policy
of the West. Unfortunately, the Ukrainians will suffer of that against the
background  of radical nationalism of the
western regions of the country.

 Unlike the West, Russia is not going to actively
interfere in local affairs of Ukraine. But Russia was put in such conditions,
when it could not but react. Certainly, one can condemn the decision of the
Council of Federation to use Russian armed forces at the territory of Ukraine
or other decisions of Vladimir Putin, but they are conditioned by the situation,
which was purposefully created by the West. However, not everything in Ukraine
was developing according to the scenario of the West, which wanted to have the
government in Kiev fully controlled by them, to limit extension of the Customs
Union and create instability near the Russian territories. But the West lost,
as it hoped that Moscow will not react at it. 
It overestimated its own political and economic capabilities and did not
take into consideration deep involvement of Russian Federation in the economy
of the EU and serious pro-Russian moods in the east and south of Ukraine. They
did not take into account the fact that in 2013 the commodity circulation
between Russia and the European states amounted to $380 billion. As a result,
the disintegration process of Ukraine as a single state started.

 

Unlike
U.S., Europe seems no so much happy with the new leadership in Kyev…

 

Berlin cannot afford a real confrontation with Moscow,
even under pro—American Chancellor Angela Merkel, given the current level of
commodity turnover, weakness of the armed forces, and insufficient
infrastructures to use the liquid gas from Qatar. Nevertheless, it does not
hold Germany from information war, which was launched in Dec 2013, from
restriction of visas and suspension of some political and cultural contacts, as
well as from termination of discussions on the free trade area between Russia
and Europe. At the same time, in Berlin they are well aware that there is no
alternative to Moscow and they are reluctant to negotiate. France is in a
similar situation, as French companies are implementing big arms supply
contracts, particularly, delivery of Mistral-clash warships to Russia. As for
the UK, there are Russian securities on the London Exchange, without those
securities, that stock exchange may face serious socks. In this light, it is
only the countries having no significant commodity turnover with Russia that
can speak of economic sanctions against Russia, for instance, the US. Reduction
of the commodity turnover with the USA will affect the USA rather than Russia,
as Moscow enjoys positive balance of that foreign turnover. Furthermore, the US
depends on Russia's low-grade uranium for its numerous NPPs, rocket engines and
others.  Meanwhile, European companies
will be happy to replace their American partners in the high-capacity Russian
market

 Is
there a boiling point in the West-Russia conformation? Will that confrontation
spiral into military actions putting an end to the current diplomatic war?
Don’t you think that this geopolitical confrontation may end in new agreements
and a new status-quo in the world order?

 

There may be no war between the armed forces of Russia
and Ukraine, Russia and NATO in general and Russia and certain states of NATO.
As a military expert, I rule out development of events in Ukraine according to
the military scenario. The main reason of such a policy of Brussels is that in
the conditions of leadership of NATO in Conventional Force sphere, Moscow will
be forced to  start using battlefield
nuclear weapons. But nobody will let it. Moreover, the armed forces of Ukraine
have been fully demoralized both by the current situation of deep local crisis
and permanent reforming over the last years. The training level of their
servicemen is extremely low...Really, at present the country can neither
mobilize nor arm the population.

For the West in such conditions the only way out from
the created situation is to make an arrangement with Russia, in an exchange to
reduction of its military presence in the Crimea. I don’t mean the military
units and facilities of the Black Sea Fleet. 
Moscow may demand concessions from Kiev regarding the radical
nationalists. Settlement of the Ukrainian crisis will not result in creation of
the new status-quo in the world order. But it will principally change the role
of Russia, the viewpoint of which will be taken into consideration during
settlement of the world and regional conflicts.

 

Do
you think that abandoning its project of factual restoration of influence on
the post-Soviet area Moscow will give an impetus to the western and Turkish
disintegration projects in the territory of Russia?

 

The key purpose of the forces, which have been trying
to fulfill the Western project in Ukraine, is to hinder any integration
projects of Russia at the post-Soviet area. Such a position is wrong and
politically short-sighted. It is not based on true assessment of the situation
and the available resources of the West. Instead of establishment of relations
between the EU and the newly set up Eurasian Union, they have a task to
counteract. At the same time, they speak much about the empire ambitions of
Russia, but nothing about the dictate of the West. Taking this into
consideration, Moscow will go on fulfilling its own integration projects at the
post-Soviet area. In the conditions of confrontation of the West, it will need
more resources. Nevertheless, Moscow may reach this goal, although it may
require extension of the political, economic and even military cooperation not
only with China but also Iran and other regional actors. It is extremely
doubtful that all this meets national interests of the USA or the West in
general.