Interview by Orkhan Sattarov, the head of the European Bureau of Vestnik Kavkaza
Berlin political scientist Heiko Langer told “Vestnik Kavkaza” about relations between Russia and Europe and post-Soviet countries.
- What do you think about the current political situation in Ukraine, including the legitimacy of the Kiev authorities?
- After the events in Odessa, Ukraine is on the edge of civil war. If Russia organized a military intervention in Ukraine, for example, to protect the Russian ethnic minority, we would have an international conflict which could threaten peace in Europe and global security. However, this cannot be an excuse for the Kiev authorities, who are suppressing protests in Eastern Ukraine by force without considering the civilian population. All sides of the conflict should reject military force and decrease tension. There is such an opportunity. It was confirmed by the recent case of the release of observers of the OSCE who were kidnapped by pro-Russian military groups and had to assess the situation in certain regions of Ukraine according to the Vienna agreement of the OSCE.
To stabilize the internal political situation in Ukraine it is necessary to hold free elections. Only under these conditions could a democratic government be composed. And I hope the radical right-wing forces won’t be represented there. Obviously the Russian ethnic minority feels a threat in Ukraine, which comes from radical nationalists from the Svoboda Party and the so-called Right Sector. These forces are escalating the violence.
The nationalistic law on regional languages, adoption of which was prevented at the last moment, wasn’t an accident or a silly step by the Ukrainian transitional government. It was a logical consequence of the policy provided by the right-wing radicals.
However, the social problem of violence based on xenophobia exists in Russia as well, especially toward natives of the Caucasus. At the same time, there are no fascists in the Russian government.
- What will be the consequences of the Ukrainian crisis for Russia in the long-term?
- It depends on further developments and the final result of the conflict. At the moment, Russia is managing to provide for its national interest. Ukraine lost Crimea, even though Russia broke international law to reach the goal. The political change of the region’s status and its belonging demands mutual agreement of the parties, i.e. the party which loses a territory should approve it. As for Crimea, it was impossible, even though the majority of its population longed to join Russia. Vladimir Putin improved his image as a national leader in Russian society. In the future it will provide him with internal political benefits.
In the long-term Russia will face serious negative consequences. First of all, the West would launch strict sanctions; an outflow of capital of international investors and an economic recession could happen. The situation with the modernization of the Russian economy could become worse.
Secondly, political relations between Russia and Ukraine have been spoiled for decades. Even the pro-Russian forces in Ukraine, for example the Communists, would have to demand a return of Crimea from Russia. Otherwise there will be no point in participating in the elections.
Thirdly, if Ukraine loses other territories after Crimea, the new Ukrainian government will improve military cooperation with the USA beyond the NATO framework. In this case, Russia could see not only NATO close to its borders, but also the Americans, and this is not a better alternative. Such a politician as Julia Tymoshenko is ready to sign such a bilateral agreement with the USA.
Fourthly, we shouldn’t forget that not all citizens of Ukraine strive for Russia, there are people who want to separate from it. The Kremlin created a precedent in its own country, which could be a foundation for separatist activity in Russia in the future. Probably certain territories with a non-Russian population would like to separate from Russia, I mean not Chechnya only.
- Some radical politicians and political scientists promote the idea of restoration of the Russian Empire and annexation of “former colonies” to it. Many post-Soviet republics are concerned about this. Are their concerns reasonable?
- I understand the concerns and fears of Russia’s neighbors about possible deprivation of independence. But discussions of restoration of the Russian Empire are flights of fancy of right-wing Russian radicals. Such an imperial project is impossible without use of military force, which would face resistance from the populations of the concerned countries. Russia would pay a lot for this.
However, “the military doctrine of the former Soviet Union” should be considered seriously. According to it, Russia strives to provide geopolitical control over the post-Soviet republics. This is not equal to the annexation of the states. Such an approach is focused on certain spheres of foreign and military policies of the countries and economy. It is logical. In fact, any country has its own national interests. Big powers, such as Russia, have clearer interests and they are provided more effectively. Regarding NATO’s previous attitude to Russia, the Kremlin has to consider the geographical approach of the alliance as besiegement.
The statement on Russia’s legitimate interests in the security sphere often faces misunderstanding in Germany. This is an unpopular idea in our country, but this is true. The NATO extension to the East didn’t mean the accession of nine new members only. New military systems were established; war games are being held. From the point of view of Russia, the step cannot be left without a response. As a result, the Kremlin wants to prevent access to any other post-Soviet republics to NATO. Moscow considers the EU as a supporter and provider of American interests. According to the Russian side, at first Brussels builds close economic ties with the countries and later bonds them politically, taking them into NATO.
The Kremlin’s disadvantage is that it fails to present its reasonable interests to its neighbors in an attractive form. Russian policy is sometimes fairer than in other countries, but it is too heavy.
The USA succeeds in the sphere. They count on the active attraction of foreign countries, using certain motivation which would lead to support for their hegemonic claims.
- What do you think about Ukraine’s chances of signing an association agreement with the EU in the context of the happening events?
- To respond to the Ukrainian crisis, the EU began more intensive talks on signing the association agreement with Moldova and Georgia. Brussels wants to achieve signings in the summer. Recently, the EU cancelled the visa regime for Moldovan citizens. However, the European Union intends to receive serious economic benefits from the agreements. I don’t know what goods, except for wine and mineral water, could be exported by Georgia and Moldova to the EU on a large scale.
As for the EU, I could list its benefits: it will fill the markets of both post-Soviet countries with its technologically progressive and profitable consumer and industrial goods, including cars and agricultural products. However, for Georgia and Moldova it is important to diversify and modernize their economy to create new jobs and improve living standards. The agreement on free trade with the EU won’t encourage, but worsen conditions for fulfillment of the tasks. The competitiveness and effectiveness of the economies of the republics and the EU countries are incomparable.
The point is that Georgia and Moldova assess the agreement on free trade with the EU not only on economic grounds. They see an opportunity to leave Russia’s sphere of influence in it. That’s why Russia resisted the signing of the agreement between Ukraine and the EU.
