Interview by Editor-in-Chief of Vestnik Kavkaza, Maria Sidelnikova
The events in Ukraine force experts to draw parallels between the Ukrainian and other conflicts in post-Soviet space. Veronica Krasheninnikova, the head of the Russia Today Center of International Journalism and Studies, the director general of the Institute of Foreign Political Studies and Initiatives, deputy head of the Presidential Council Committee for Social Support of the Population of the Southeast of Ukraine, a member of the Russian Public Chamber, has given an insight into incitement of interethnic hatred, the role of the U.S. and its allies in developments in the former USSR space and the Middle East.
- Many versions about the developments in Ukraine have been proposed, the most popular of them is the attempt by the U.S. to besiege Russia as it gains influence in the international arena. What causes of the Ukrainian crisis do you see and how is the U.S. involved in it?
- You do not need a spyglass to see American involvement in the situation that has happened in Ukraine and around Ukraine. Moreover, Ukraine is most likely a consequence of decisions made earlier. I think that when it became clear that Vladimir Putin will be the president of Russia again, when we saw the results of the elections in 2012, the preparation of some “different” strategic approach to Russia began. Washington activists understood that the “reset” developed for the former authorities of Russia would not work with President Putin, he needs much harsher means. Then the development of a different plan, a different format of relations with Russia started. The format includes the most diverse means, methods, including the crisis in Ukraine. I remind you, when U.S. President Reagan decided that the goal of his life was to destroy the Soviet Union, he and his closest like-minded people developed a tactic to approach from the outskirts of the “empire”, as they said. Then they started an absolutely merciless war in Latin America, in Angola. In 1985-1986, shipments of Stingers to Afghanistan started, Mujahideen training had started even earlier, before the deployment of Soviet forces in Afghanistan. A year earlier, American strategists had started working in the region. Plus, the support and formation of the Solidarity trade union in Poland. Poland, in the eyes of Washington, was the center of the Soviet camp in Europe, the camp needed a strike from the inside. A strike was made from Poland, now it is made against Russia from Ukraine, from the center of the Russian world. So, definitely, the conflict in Ukraine makes a lot of sense, and, of course, the saddest thing in the situation is that Russians fight Ukrainians.
- There is an opinion that the U.S. shows less interest in the South Caucasus due to the events in Ukraine. Is it so?
- There are no reasons to talk about a loss of U.S. interest in the South Caucasus. On the contrary, starting with the summer, the U.S. and its allies have tremendously activated in the South Caucasus. In July-August, not a week went by without any major military drills in the region, without visits by defense ministers and other high-ranking military officials in the countries of the region. The U.S. understands the significance of the region and, of course, the significance only grows in the context of the Ukrainian crisis. We in the IIA Russia Today, at the Center of International Journalism, have found a need to compose a report "The Trans-Caucasus in the strategic plans of the U.S. and NATO” while watching it all. In a report posted on our website, we consider the actions taken by the U.S. and their allies and NATO in these countries. So the region has very serious reasonsto worry.
- How would you explain the fact that Georgia, which has not taken part in any sanctions against Russia, is not criticized the way, for example, Serbia is?
- I think that relations between Russia and Serbia were better than relations between Russia and Georgia, and they had a place to fall. Some “sanction regime” has been in force since August 2008. The relations were practically nullified then. The new authorities of Georgia have made some fruitful declarations, yet, simultaneously with declaring intentions of improving relations with Russia, there were talks about more active integration with NATO too. The policy of the Georgian authorities has not changed much. It is very sad, because it is absolutely obvious that the Georgian people do not need such a policy, it does not bring them welfare, peace or any positive moments.
- Can we say that Moscow has a clear policy in relations with the Georgian side?
- In early September the Georgian authorities and NATO declared intentions at the NATO summit in Wales to create training bases to train Syrian militants. Why Georgia needs to train Syrian militants to oust Bashar Assad is unclear. There is Turkey next to Syria, where such training takes place. In June, the U.S. Congress decided to grant $5 billion for training of the so-called moderate Syrian opposition. How are they going to distinguish the moderate from the non-moderate is not clear either. Over ten years of war in Iraq and in Afghanistan have demonstrated the inability and complete irrelevance of the policy. So Georgia’s agreement to train armed militants on the Russian border has unclear reasons. Obviously, those are absolutely unfriendly intentions.
- International human rights organizations criticize the Russian and Azerbaijani authorities, but they talk very vaguely about the events in the Middle East, in Saudi Arabia, where women, for example, are not allowed to drive cars. What do you think are the reasons for that?
- First of all, with the fact that old and very important allies of the U.S. are located in the Persian Gulf, such as Saudi Arabia. Ties in the energy sector, in the political and reconnaissance sectors here are more important than some human rights. Of course, we do not hear from Washington that 87 people were beheaded in Saudi Arabia last year, though such punishments are practiced regularly. But it will not be shown on television, it will not be written about in American newspapers, because politics are politics in this case.
- How would you characterize relations between the Moscow-Washington-Brussels triangle and Yerevan, considering that Armenia joined the Eurasian Economic Union?
- Armenia made a very wise and the only correct choice. It is clear what happens with countries that signed the association agreement or joined the EU. For example, the Baltic states joined the EU in May 2004, in 10 years their population dropped from a quarter to a third, depending on the country, the economy went into a deep crisis. The crisis on the periphery of the EU is a lot deeper than in so-called old Europe. Ask a Baltic native or a Bulgarian, or citizens of other countries of Eastern Europe whether they got from membership in the European Union what they were expecting, what they were promised. Of course not. It is important to continue integration in our Eurasian space. It is a natural, effective way to increase the economic weight, so that our arguments would sound heavier in the world competition, which is very harsh indeed. Economic integration processes continue all over the world. Look at Latin America, more and more economic associations independent from the U.S. appear there. Look at Asia. Indisputably, it is dictated by obvious benefits for all members of such associations.
- What do you think about the current stage of Russian-Azerbaijani relations?
- They have always been exceptionally dynamic, they entered a new, much higher level last year. The meeting in Astrakhan and the settlement of issues in the sector of the Caspian maritime economy were very important. Political, economic and military cooperation are constantly expanding. The political wisdom of the Azerbaijani authorities that make absolutely correct decisions is noteworthy. I think that the prospects of Russian-Azerbaijani relations remain very good.
- The disintegration of the USSR started with the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Do you see a solution to the problem in the near future?
- It was probably one of the most tragic pages in the history of all thr states of the former Soviet Union: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Russia. It shows the depth of the tragedy that may happen if dry hay gets ignited. Incitement of interethnic hatred is the best way to destroy a multiethnic state. We have see what happened in Yugoslavia. The Soviet Union consisted of over 200 nations and ethnicities, this has always been the source of our strength and uniqueness. Russia has always been more successful in solving interethnic disputes than any other country in history. The multi-century experience of living on one territory together, in friendship, encouraged it. It remains exceptionally important for Russia. I think that we can continue building our future using this experience. Interethnic conflicts are a way to destabilize states, what we see in the south-east of Ukraine is part of the pattern.
- Moscow has recently held inter-Syrian negotiations initiated by the Russian side. What fate, do you think, awaits Syria?
- It is good that Russia is trying to find a political solution to the Syrian conflict. The whole world here sees a sharp contrast with the policy of Washington. The conflict in Syria has been ongoing for about four years. Even Washington had not expected the government of Bashar Assad to withstand such a military, political and economic siege. Nonetheless, the Syrian people are confident in their choice, confident in their authorities, and voted for Bashar Assad last summer. Unfortunately, it does not mean that Washington will give up its goals, it will try to achieve what it needs one way or another. The role Russia played in preventing a military strike on Syria in September 2013 is very important. It is a unique case in contemporary history, one of the most essential steps Russia realized on the international arena. We continue working in the same course, persistently on all platforms, we promote a peaceful settlement of the Syrian conflict in all possible ways and we encourage the support needed to restore stability in Syria and in the region.
- All news agencies have reported the horrible news about the execution of the Copt fisherman from Egypt. In your opinion, what threat does Islamic State pose to the South Caucasus and Russia, and how can the calamity be dealt with?
- It is one of the biggest threats today. A threat, first of all, for the countries partly overtaken by extremism. The cruelty of Islamic State shocks everyone and mobilizes for a fight. Syria, Iran, which is doing lot to strain that absolute evil, are in the avant-garde of the fight against extremism, with Islamic State in particular. The U.S. and its allies sponsoring the State in the region only continue rhetoric and some military strikes that do unknown harm to ISIS. The main burden of the fight against extremism in the region lies on Iran and Syria. I think Egypt will actively join the fight now. It is alarming for us that certain clashes, certain cases of ISIS activities have been registered on the borders of Central Asian states. It is a very alarming symbol. Of course, the countries of Central Asia are included on the dark map of ISIS, the militants plan to make it to the Volga. But such plans are destined to fail, of course.
Interview by Editor-in-Chief of Vestnik Kavkaza, Maria SidelnikovaThe events in Ukraine force experts to draw parallels between the Ukrainian and other conflicts in post-Soviet space. Veronica Krasheninnikova, the head of the Russia Today Center of International Journalism and Studies, the director general of the Institute of Foreign Political Studies and Initiatives, deputy head of the Presidential Council Committee for Social Support of the Population of the Southeast of Ukraine, a member of the Russian Public Chamber, has given an insight into incitement of interethnic hatred, the role of the U.S. and its allies in developments in the former USSR space and the Middle East.- Many versions about the developments in Ukraine have been proposed, the most popular of them is the attempt by the U.S. to besiege Russia as it gains influence in the international arena. What causes of the Ukrainian crisis do you see and how is the U.S. involved in it?- You do not need a spyglass to see American involvement in the situation that has happened in Ukraine and around Ukraine. Moreover, Ukraine is most likely a consequence of decisions made earlier. I think that when it became clear that Vladimir Putin will be the president of Russia again, when we saw the results of the elections in 2012, the preparation of some “different” strategic approach to Russia began. Washington activists understood that the “reset” developed for the former authorities of Russia would not work with President Putin, he needs much harsher means. Then the development of a different plan, a different format of relations with Russia started. The format includes the most diverse means, methods, including the crisis in Ukraine. I remind you, when U.S. President Reagan decided that the goal of his life was to destroy the Soviet Union, he and his closest like-minded people developed a tactic to approach from the outskirts of the “empire”, as they said. Then they started an absolutely merciless war in Latin America, in Angola. In 1985-1986, shipments of Stingers to Afghanistan started, Mujahideen training had started even earlier, before the deployment of Soviet forces in Afghanistan. A year earlier, American strategists had started working in the region. Plus, the support and formation of the Solidarity trade union in Poland. Poland, in the eyes of Washington, was the center of the Soviet camp in Europe, the camp needed a strike from the inside. A strike was made from Poland, now it is made against Russia from Ukraine, from the center of the Russian world. So, definitely, the conflict in Ukraine makes a lot of sense, and, of course, the saddest thing in the situation is that Russians fight Ukrainians.- There is an opinion that the U.S. shows less interest in the South Caucasus due to the events in Ukraine. Is it so?- There are no reasons to talk about a loss of U.S. interest in the South Caucasus. On the contrary, starting with the summer, the U.S. and its allies have tremendously activated in the South Caucasus. In July-August, not a week went by without any major military drills in the region, without visits by defense ministers and other high-ranking military officials in the countries of the region. The U.S. understands the significance of the region and, of course, the significance only grows in the context of the Ukrainian crisis. We in the IIA Russia Today, at the Center of International Journalism, have found a need to compose a report "The Trans-Caucasus in the strategic plans of the U.S. and NATO” while watching it all. In a report posted on our website, we consider the actions taken by the U.S. and their allies and NATO in these countries. So the region has very serious reasonsto worry.- How would you explain the fact that Georgia, which has not taken part in any sanctions against Russia, is not criticized the way, for example, Serbia is?- I think that relations between Russia and Serbia were better than relations between Russia and Georgia, and they had a place to fall. Some “sanction regime” has been in force since August 2008. The relations were practically nullified then. The new authorities of Georgia have made some fruitful declarations, yet, simultaneously with declaring intentions of improving relations with Russia, there were talks about more active integration with NATO too. The policy of the Georgian authorities has not changed much. It is very sad, because it is absolutely obvious that the Georgian people do not need such a policy, it does not bring them welfare, peace or any positive moments.- Can we say that Moscow has a clear policy in relations with the Georgian side?- In early September the Georgian authorities and NATO declared intentions at the NATO summit in Wales to create training bases to train Syrian militants. Why Georgia needs to train Syrian militants to oust Bashar Assad is unclear. There is Turkey next to Syria, where such training takes place. In June, the U.S. Congress decided to grant $5 billion for training of the so-called moderate Syrian opposition. How are they going to distinguish the moderate from the non-moderate is not clear either. Over ten years of war in Iraq and in Afghanistan have demonstrated the inability and complete irrelevance of the policy. So Georgia’s agreement to train armed militants on the Russian border has unclear reasons. Obviously, those are absolutely unfriendly intentio
