By Vestnik Kavkaza
The slump in Russian-American relations over the events in Ukraine and the Crimea referendum may change Washington’s policy in the Trans-Caucasus. Andrey Sidorov, Deputy Dean of the World Policy Faculty, believes that everything will depend on the policy of South Caucasus states.
- How will the US policy change towards the South Caucasus?
- The US has a course of relations with post-Soviet states, including the Caucasus. In the 1990s, there was the idea of the Trans-Caucasus Corridor towards the Middle Asian resources. Then, the idea was frozen during the period of Bush who supposed that the problem of the post-Soviet space needed more radical methods for solutions, that is via shift of regime. Maybe the US caught the moment of Ukraine to a certain degree today and will continue developing this move towards Trans-Caucasus until the end of the year.
- What states have experienced a possible change of policy?
- Georgia is lining up with the US and pro-NATO rhetoric will obviously intensify there, though I doubt Georgia would join the Alliance. Concerning Azerbaijan, a lot will depend on the attitude of Turkey, but it is clear that Baku would not want to aggravate relations with the West or Russia. The situation with Armenia is a lot more complicated. I do not know how strong Armenian opposition is for realization of the Ukrainian scenario with deployment of forces to weaken the government and take up a trajectory that would, if not shift the regime, at least lead to a more neutral position, less pro-Russian, less connected with development of the Customs Union, to eventually gain a vote in the favor of the European integration policy.
***
Speaking of Ukraine, Sidorov says that “the US, whipping up tensions, is realizing its global plan. Rationality of the Anglo-Saxon thought, in particular the American thought, gives me no doubts because any administration, starting with Franklin Roosevelt, insists that the main goal is security and welfare of the USA in the future. The same can be found in different variants of any president’s declarations. In this case, it seems, Ukraine was considered the weak component. It was indeed so. Ever since becoming independent, Ukraine has always been uncertain and has always used Russia against the West or West against Russia.It has never given a distinct orientation. It is not Belarus that has taken the course towards Russia and the regime is hard to shatter. Yanukovych himself talked about European integration and European choice of Ukraine. It was his choice.”
Commenting on the global American plan, Sidorov noted: “What is Russia for? If Russia formed the government it had had in the early 1990s it would need no close abroad at all. If there were a pro-American president in Moscow, there would be no need for pro-American forces around Russia. In the late 1995, it ended. In 1996, our Yeltsin turned from “the great pillar of democracy” to “a drunk and corrupt functionary.” This is when aggravation of relations with Russia started. Initially, people were watching Putin’s behaviour. Aggravation of relations with Putin started in 2005. Ascension of Obama and “the reset” inspired hopes. But “the reset” came down to one thing – let’s sign a treaty and reduce the number of warheads. Neither Obama nor anyone else in the USA has anything to offer Russia. Just one thing – recognize Kiev or just sit behind the negotiation table with these people. It was easy to analyze relations of President Putin and Mikheil Saakashvili – and he was a far less odious figure than the people ruling in Kiev. Obama has taken a more reasonable policy, calling the situation complicated. But I think that the relations will be at a low level and we will constantly be told that it is all illegitimate and everything will be very bad, that there would be sanctions.”
