A nationalist is a convinced misanthrope (Fazil Iskander)
September the 7th will be marked as the 20th anniversary of the disintegration of the USSR — a great power that played one of the major roles in the global history of the 20th century. The USSR was, in a sense, the heir to the Russian Empire, so its collapse had a profound impact on global geopolitics, as well as on the personal lives of common people.
Vladimir Putin called the collapse of the USSR «the biggest geopolitical catastrophe of the last century». However, Mikheil Saakashvili doesn't seem to share his opinion: he called the disintegration of the USSR «the happiest moment» of his life.
It seems that the two politicians had two different aspects in mind: Saakashvili, as well as millions of others, rejoiced as the end of the USSR marked the end of an obscure era of an oppressive communist regime. However, this doesn't mean that the aim justified the means: the disintegration of the USSR marked not only the end of communist rule, but also the rupture of millions of economic, cultural and personal ties between the USSR's republics, which had developed over the centuries of common history.
USSR politics was based not solely on oppression, but also on a certain balance between national elites' interests. Yes, the USSR was, as they say, an empire — but this term has its positive connotations: for instance, if not for the Roman Empire, the face of the modern civilization would be totally different.
Economic problems are generally considered as the main reason for the USSR's collapse. However, it's hard to agree with such a conjecture. Growing nationalism is the more likely candidate to be the principle reason. Certain members of national elites chose to put ethnic and nationalist concerns ahead of common sense and, for that matter, human rights. And these nationalists used their demagogic talents to make people believe that the rights of abstract unities such as ethnic groups should be put ahead of the rights of individual human beings.
And it is no coincidence that this contradiction manifested itself in the most destructive manner in the Caucasus. The «National movement» that started in Georgia in 1988 had a disastrous effect on the Georgian people — that is a well-established fact. Right now, however, the main force hampering peace and integration in the Caucasus is Armenian nationalism.
The issues of 20-year-old history are still urgent in the Caucasus. Current developments are still just a continuation of those processes that caused the collapse of the USSR. However, if separatist movements on post-Soviet territory are examined, one anomaly is found: the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
The picture of the recent Russian-Georgian conflict is more clear: Moscow chose to support those who fought for the preservation of a multi-national state twenty years ago and confirmed their loyalty to common goals in 2008 fighting against the separatists - Georgians.In the case of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, however, the scenario is quite different. Moreover, at a close look this bilateral conflict turns into a trilateral geopolitical problem, involving Russia as well. The above-mentioned anomaly is the following: for the first time in 20 years Moscow chose to support separatists instead of loyalists.
If we look back through the mirror of history we'll see that the year 1991 was a time of struggle for the new alliance between the Soviet republics. «Loyal» republics, such as Azerbaijan, agreed on the terms of the new alliance's constitution and were ready to sign it, while separatists called for total disintegration of the Union.
Armenia was one of the most convinced separatists: it rejected the draft constitution and conducted a referendum to support the decision of the Armenian parliament to break away from the USSR. So it is rather strange that Moscow, even though still mourning «the greatest political catastrophe of the century», is so persistent in her support of Yerevan.
So why did Russia choose to support "nationalists" against "loyalists" this time? It is important to bear in mind that the Nagorno-Karabakh separatist movement was the first one officially recognized in post-Soviet space. It pre-dates the conflicts in Georgia and Kazakhstan. Back then, the people of Nagorno-Karabakh wanted to join the Armenian SSR instead of the Azerbaijani SSR, so there was no issue of independence yet. The rogue idea of "ethnic supremacy" of Armenians was wrapped into a form of "scientific reasoning".
For example, one Armenian member of the Soviet Academy of Sciences cited some Armenian traditional tales of Armenian wisdom and wit as historic evidence of their supremacy over the Azerbaijani people.
To be continued
Georgy Kalatozishvili, exclusively to VK
