Interview with Andrei Makarichev, doctor of historical science, professor of the Volgo-Vyat academy of state service.
Q: Do you think the security of the post-Soviet countries affects the level of mutual understanding between Russia and US on issues of global security?
A: Certainly. For example, the clear decrease of the US interest under Obama’s administration to Ukraine influenced changes in the foreign policy vector of Kiev under President Janukovich. Within respect to Georgia the US-Russian relations also play a key role: most experts in US are trying to actively offer the formula of the conflict settlement, which would leave chances for the US influence on Tbilisi and not annoy Moscow (in particular, one of the actively voiced proposals of the recent time is the policy of the US ‘involvement without recognition’ in relation to Abkhazia and South Ossetia).
Q: What are the current main threats to security of the former USSR-are these frozen conflicts, destabilization of situation in neighbor states (Iran, Afghanistan and others) or something else?
All these factors.
Q: Is there still a threat of NATO’s expansion to the east for Russia and is it real?
A: Neither NATO nor its expansion has ever posed a real threat for Russia. Speaking about threats, the Kremlin indeed tried to underline its importance and draw attention to itself in order not to be on the roadside of the formation of relations in the sphere of security in the post-Soviet area. When trying to block any decisions by NATO, Moscow is merely trading the most favorable terms of cooperation with NATO for itself. However, while concentrating on the territorial expansion of NATO, the Russian foreign policy structures have missed another more important process-the conceptual expansion of the concept of security which NATO will further use in its new strategic concept. The inclusion of the “soft” factors (migration, ecology, climatic changes, information security and so on) to NATO’s security concept means the indirect marginalization of Russia, since for all these “soft” parameters Russia is rather a source of problems for the West than a partner.
Q: Some believe that the August war of 2008 in the Caucasus challenged Russia’s ability to fulfill the real peacekeeping mission in the conflict area. What can you say about it?
A: If real mission implies neutral peacekeeping, then this opinion has a right for existence. The problem for Russia is that it cannot be an impartial arbiter in the post-Soviet area. Its position will always be politically motivated, that is it will support one party at the cost of others.
Q: What do you think about the prospects of the soonest resolution of the Karabakh conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia?
A: I do not see special dynamics so far. The preservation of the status quo is probably profitable for Moscow in the absence of the working script of the conflict settlement
Q: Being in a state of war with the eastern neighbor and in a quite uneasy neighborhood to unstable Russian North Caucasus, as well as Iran and Georgia, Azerbaijan is trying to hold a balanced policy both with neighbors and nonregional powers (EU, USA). Do you think any developments may force Azerbaijan to choose between its foreign policy directions?
A: I do not think so. Azerbaijan will likely continue the multivectoral policy which brought it numerous political dividends in the past.
Lala B.
News.Az
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
