A switch in Russian activation has been observed in the region of the South Caucasus over the last two years. After victory in the five-day war in 2008, Russia concentrated its attention on two other countries in the South Caucasus - Armenia and Azerbaijan. The assistant director of the Institute of the Caucasus, Sergey Minasyan, answered VK's questions:
- To what extent is talk that the USA has ceded this region to Russia justified, in your opinion?
- Generally speaking, regarding intensification of Russian activity in the South Caucasus it is necessary to emphasize that this process is connected with the consequences of the August 2008 war, the result of which was Russia restored its positions in the South Caucasus, but at the same time it lost Georgia. Other events occurred, which had a positive effect on the Russian intensification in our region. In particular, the removal of the US administration. The South Caucasus is not a priority for the Democratic Obama administration, in contrast to the Bush administration. In connection with this, the USA has weakened the attention it pays to the region for some time. Nature abhors a vacuum, so Russia used it. Besides this, the economic crisis and uncertainty about the EU's position in the region led to a lack of progress in the "East Partnership" programme, signed by the EU. At the same time I do not consider that change, and in particular any decrease in the USA's attention to the region, is a lasting occurrence. Sooner or later the USA will make one more attempt to establish good relations between Armenia and Turkey. So the USA may attempt to return to the region, but not via Georgia, perhaps via Armenia.
- Hasn't the protocol of amendments to the Treaty of Russian military bases on the territory of Armenia, which assumes the prolongation of the period of existence of military bases, changed the status-quo of the regional security? Hasn't this Treaty made the US factor weaker?
- I think, the Treaty has bolstered the status-quo in the region. In any case, it is considered to be a guarantee of security on the part of Russia. As for a decrease in the US factor, I want to emphasize that it was not the protocol, but the reasons I mentioned before that promoted it. The instrument just showed the reality which was in the region and in Armenian-Russian relations in August, 2010.
- Armenian-Russian conferences and seminars, which have been organized more regularly over the last period, create an impression that the view from Moscow of Armenia and their relations has been simplified: the centre of attention is strategic partnership and historical relations. Don't you think that the reality is wider?
- It is usual for Moscow to have a stereotypical perception not only of Russian-Armenian relations, but of politics on the whole of post-Soviet territory in general. Consider that Moscow had the same perception also of Russian-Ukrainian and Russian-Belarus relations. Frequently, this stereotypical way of thinking negatively influences Russia’s relations with its allies. It's naive to think that Armenia should be an ally of Russia only due to the fact that two countries have long historical relations. An idealistic vision o Russian-Armenian relations can't be the fundamental basis for long-lasting cooperation. Pragmatism is necessary. For Armenia, Russia is an important factor, its number one partner in sphere of security. Besides this, Armenia consciously chooses the politics of balance, Yerevan isn't going to depend on Russia or other countries.
-How do you see the modernization of Russian-Armenian relations? Which directions should they address in the first place?
- If the two states want to cooperate, they should have similar interests in any sphere: political, military-political or even economic. For closer relations, the sides should be more attentive towards the interests and requests of each other. Armenia must understand that Russia is interested in it due to its geographical and geopolitical importance. It must be clear to Russia that Armenia gives its territory to station the Russian base and supports Russian foreign policy in many ways on various international stages, waiting for more serious guarantees in the military-political sphere, intensification pragmatist relations between countries only by talks about friendship of military-technological collaboration and, what is more, more economic investment from Russia. It is impossible to establish serious and the historical past.
- How do you assess the economic relations between our countries?
- Economic relations between Russia and Armenia are mostly derivatives of the political ones. Despite the fact that Russian business controls our most profitable economic sectors, it's obvious that in the sphere of infrastructure and transport Russia consciously makes investments, the benefits of which can't be visible in the near future. I suppose that this is the economic price Russia pays for its political and geopolitical interests in Armenia and in the region of the South Caucasus. Such projects as the building of a new atomic power station, development of the railway system or construction of a new railway between Armenia and Iran have serious political and geopolitical directions. It seems to me that Moscow understands that it isn't enough to have a safe partner in the South Caucasus only for military-political relations, it's necessary to have a full-blown economical component. I think that Russia has a plenty of unrealized opportunities.
Interviewed by Susanna Petrosyan. Specially for VK.
