Interview by the chief editor of Vestnik Kavkaza, Maria Sidelnikova, Baku-MoscowLast week in Baku a round-table discussion was held titled "Post-Soviet Space: civilized aspects of modern crises and conflicts", organized by the Representation of the Russian Political Science Center "North-South" and the information-analytic agency "Vestnik Kavkaza". The meeting's participants – experts and political scientists from Azerbaijan, Russia and Ukraine – agreed that after the events in Ukraine, a reassessment of relations with other post-Soviet countries to correct and eliminate the existing gaps started in Moscow. Russian international journalist, political analyst and editor-in-chief of the magazine "Russia in Global Affairs" on board a plane flying from Baku to Moscow, told the chief editor of "Vestnik Kavkaza" Mary Sidelnikova about the prospects of cooperation in post-Soviet space, "Islamic State" and Iran's nuclear program.- Please share with us your impressions of modern Azerbaijan.- During the brief period that I stayed here, during a conversation at the round table, I had the impression that Azerbaijan is much closer to understanding the problems of Russia than I imagined before this visit. On the one hand, Azerbaijan is faced with similar problems and challenges related to global market conditions, starting from oil prices, which for the Azerbaijani budget is no less important than for the Russian one, and ending with aggravated issues of territorial boundaries due to various circumstances, not only in the post-Soviet space, but also of worldwide integrity. Despite this, until recent times there was a feeling that the concept of the words "post-Soviet space" was used simply inertial. It is such a template that does not meet reality, there is no more of that single space, in fact, all moved in different directions, identifying some vector. And vectors generally are divergent. That is why it is better to stop looking at this as integrity, and deal with specific areas, completely different approaches. On the one hand, this is so.On the other hand, the recent events this year confirmed that, no matter how pathetic it sounds, a common fate is still there. And any fluctuations on the territory of a single state roll over the entire space, even if they are not directly affected. Actually, what was said by the round table participants, though maybe they were trying to be cheerful, but the Ukrainian shocks do not affect Azerbaijan directly. And this is true directly, Azerbaijan is not affected. But indirectly it is affected, as far as there are exactly the same problems that there were 20-25 years ago. In fact, Azerbaijan was just in the bad old sense of it a pioneer of all regional shocks. And though the period is different, the situation is different, the problems are the same. It's all intertwined again in one knot. And it seemed to me that Azerbaijan is now looking at all these problems with great interest and attention, realizing that it cannot dissociate itself from them.“In this new situation, Russia should pay double attention to those countries with which relations in recent years have evolved, so to speak, tortuously."Perhaps, in this new situation, Russia should pay double attention to those countries with which relations in recent years have evolved, so to speak, sinuously. And where there is some subsidence, and the potential of interaction is not fully exploited, it is necessary to do something. The cloth of post-Soviet space, as we see in the Ukrainian example, is thin. If it breaks, then this breakthrough creates a vacuum funnel, which begins to tighten on everyone. And when it is torn, it is much more difficult to darn than if the correct patch is done in time, without waiting for a breakthrough. I do not know how well this metaphor can be applied to interstate relations, but I think that now is the time. Azerbaijan is more willing to work with Russia, and Russia should give this more attention.- What could this patch be?- The Karabakh conflict, for obvious and very logical reasons, has been perceived as almost hopeless for a long time. External forces continue to be involved in it, but more by maintaining the status quo and non-aggravation of the situation, rather than trying to somehow resolve it. But again, modern Ukrainian history shows that, unfortunately, unresolved or latent conflicts that seem not to become a conflict, such as the Crimean issue, under some circumstances still explode. And where they have already exploded before, strictly speaking, it is not a good legacy, a bad credit history. It is clear that this could resume. One of the round table participants rightly remarked that we always go twice to the same circle: if there was one war, so there will be another; if there was a crisis, then another of the same kind will appear. And, unfortunately, it's true. If you look at the whole area, you can only imagine where else it will fall. Therefore, as part of the settlement model that exists, I think, the maximum that can be expected is the preservation of the fragile and unstable, but still the status quo. Probably some courageous thinking is necessary to try to go on the other side. I am not prepared to say on what side, because I do not know.The status quo has been very stable for a long time, based on asymmetric mutual deterrence and containment, and the containment was sustainable. Now everything is in motion, and such tectonic shifts are taking place all around. Ukraine is only one part of the process. And if you look at the future development of events in the Middle East, which is very close to the region. The redrawing of borders is a reality over there with Kurdistan, and "Islamic State", which just ignores the existing borders in the region. The resonance is going to be of a monstrous force. And just keeping it like it is now, maintaining the current situation, I am afraid, will not work. That is why here are the questions to the Russian leadership and the leadership of both countries. Now I more than ever believe in a battered, but, unfortunately, still relevant Chekhov thought that "if in the first act a gun hangs on the wall, in the latter it will be shot for sure."to be continued
Interview by the chief editor of Vestnik Kavkaza, Maria Sidelnikova, Baku-Moscow
Last week in Baku a round-table discussion was held titled "Post-Soviet Space: civilized aspects of modern crises and conflicts", organized by the Representation of the Russian Political Science Center "North-South" and the information-analytic agency "Vestnik Kavkaza". The meeting's participants – experts and political scientists from Azerbaijan, Russia and Ukraine – agreed that after the events in Ukraine, a reassessment of relations with other post-Soviet countries to correct and eliminate the existing gaps started in Moscow. Russian international journalist, political analyst and editor-in-chief of the magazine "Russia in Global Affairs" on board a plane flying from Baku to Moscow, told the chief editor of "Vestnik Kavkaza" Mary Sidelnikova about the prospects of cooperation in post-Soviet space, "Islamic State" and Iran's nuclear program.
- Please share with us your impressions of modern Azerbaijan.
- During the brief period that I stayed here, during a conversation at the round table, I had the impression that Azerbaijan is much closer to understanding the problems of Russia than I imagined before this visit. On the one hand, Azerbaijan is faced with similar problems and challenges related to global market conditions, starting from oil prices, which for the Azerbaijani budget is no less important than for the Russian one, and ending with aggravated issues of territorial boundaries due to various circumstances, not only in the post-Soviet space, but also of worldwide integrity. Despite this, until recent times there was a feeling that the concept of the words "post-Soviet space" was used simply inertial. It is such a template that does not meet reality, there is no more of that single space, in fact, all moved in different directions, identifying some vector. And vectors generally are divergent. That is why it is better to stop looking at this as integrity, and deal with specific areas, completely different approaches. On the one hand, this is so.
On the other hand, the recent events this year confirmed that, no matter how pathetic it sounds, a common fate is still there. And any fluctuations on the territory of a single state roll over the entire space, even if they are not directly affected. Actually, what was said by the round table participants, though maybe they were trying to be cheerful, but the Ukrainian shocks do not affect Azerbaijan directly. And this is true directly, Azerbaijan is not affected. But indirectly it is affected, as far as there are exactly the same problems that there were 20-25 years ago. In fact, Azerbaijan was just in the bad old sense of it a pioneer of all regional shocks. And though the period is different, the situation is different, the problems are the same. It's all intertwined again in one knot. And it seemed to me that Azerbaijan is now looking at all these problems with great interest and attention, realizing that it cannot dissociate itself from them.
“In this new situation, Russia should pay double attention to those countries with which relations in recent years have evolved, so to speak, tortuously."
Perhaps, in this new situation, Russia should pay double attention to those countries with which relations in recent years have evolved, so to speak, sinuously. And where there is some subsidence, and the potential of interaction is not fully exploited, it is necessary to do something. The cloth of post-Soviet space, as we see in the Ukrainian example, is thin. If it breaks, then this breakthrough creates a vacuum funnel, which begins to tighten on everyone. And when it is torn, it is much more difficult to darn than if the correct patch is done in time, without waiting for a breakthrough. I do not know how well this metaphor can be applied to interstate relations, but I think that now is the time. Azerbaijan is more willing to work with Russia, and Russia should give this more attention.
- What could this patch be?
- The Karabakh conflict, for obvious and very logical reasons, has been perceived as almost hopeless for a long time. External forces continue to be involved in it, but more by maintaining the status quo and non-aggravation of the situation, rather than trying to somehow resolve it. But again, modern Ukrainian history shows that, unfortunately, unresolved or latent conflicts that seem not to become a conflict, such as the Crimean issue, under some circumstances still explode. And where they have already exploded before, strictly speaking, it is not a good legacy, a bad credit history. It is clear that this could resume. One of the round table participants rightly remarked that we always go twice to the same circle: if there was one war, so there will be another; if there was a crisis, then another of the same kind will appear. And, unfortunately, it's true. If you look at the whole area, you can only imagine where else it will fall. Therefore, as part of the settlement model that exists, I think, the maximum that can be expected is the preservation of the fragile and unstable, but still the status quo. Probably some courageous thinking is necessary to try to go on the other side. I am not prepared to say on what side, because I do not know.
The status quo has been very stable for a long time, based on asymmetric mutual deterrence and containment, and the containment was sustainable. Now everything is in motion, and such tectonic shifts are taking place all around. Ukraine is only one part of the process. And if you look at the future development of events in the Middle East, which is very close to the region. The redrawing of borders is a reality over there with Kurdistan, and "Islamic State", which just ignores the existing borders in the region. The resonance is going to be of a monstrous force. And just keeping it like it is now, maintaining the current situation, I am afraid, will not work. That is why here are the questions to the Russian leadership and the leadership of both countries. Now I more than ever believe in a battered, but, unfortunately, still relevant Chekhov thought that "if in the first act a gun hangs on the wall, in the latter it will be shot for sure."
to be continued
