Yesterday 51st Security Conference in Munich, during which the participating countries presented their current positions on the issues of security in Europe and beyond, has ended. The key topic of the conference was the Ukrainian crisis, for which the usually single point of view of the West was divided into two: German Chancellor Angela Merkel after talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin has proposed a soft diplomatic solution to the problem, while US politicians continue to insist on supplies of lethal weapons to Kiev.
This Munich Conference may go down in history as well as Munich-2007, the chairman of the Federation Council Committee on International Affairs Konstantin Kosachev said, adding that now it's necessary that loud statements be implemented. In general, the conference has showed the change of Western politicians' approach to the Russian position. "Firstly, last year’s logic ‘we don’t agree with Russia and refuse to talk’ changed to at least ‘we don’t agree, but we must talk’. Secondly, the EU, unlike the US, rules out the possibility of supplying weapons to Ukraine. Consequently, if we ignore the public rhetoric, the Europeans in fact back Moscow’s political settlement plan rather than Kiev’s military scenario," the senator said.
Experts' opinions on the results of the Munich Conference-2015 are divided. So, the President of the National Strategy Institute, Mikhail Remizov, drew attention to the fact that the event itself is the only possibility for the parties to express and to hear their points of view, rather than substantive negotiations to take any decision. "Therefore, the conference was of an intermediate nature, because it took place waiting for the results of the negotiations of the 'Normandy Quartet'," he said.
"Perhaps the most significant aspect was the very unpleasant welcome speech of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who quite correctly and clearly voiced Russia's position and didn't go beyond it. This was demonstrated by Lavrov's personal rejection and biased perception of the Russian position, the desire for a certain moral ostracism in relation to Russia. The accurate, more restrained than earlier, rhetoric of Chancellor Angela Merkel stood out against this background. It was clear that caution is given simply by the presence of the negotiating process, which was initiated in Kiev, and that the conference has once again confirmed that, regardless of the outcome of these negotiations, the isolation policy of Western countries, the US and its allies against Russia will continue," the expert said.The political scientist Rovshan Ibragimov, in his turn, praised the Munich conference as an important platform for discussions and meetings of statesmen. "It is necessary to re-examine together any problems or issues which the country and the region are facing now. It is no coincidence that in parallel with the Munich conference a meeting on Ukraine was held in Moscow of the leaders of France, Germany and Russia. So it is rather a structural platform that addresses the security problems," he said.Ibragimov spoke about the presence of Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev at the conference. "He had a meeting on security issues as well as on geo-economic expectations, with the presidents of Macedonia and Serbia. Also the issue of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict was discussed. It is very significant that, even before his visit to Davos, during Ilham Aliyev's visit to Germany, Angela Merkel said that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has some parallels with the security issues in the post-Soviet space, which is like a mirror image of events in Ukraine. I think it's like just a new perception of the problem. So on the basis of Munich, the expectation came that issues of permits of perennial conflicts in the former Soviet Union will now be seen through the prism of problems of integrity in Ukraine," the analyst said.
"Perhaps the most significant aspect was the very unpleasant welcome speech of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who quite correctly and clearly voiced Russia's position and didn't go beyond it. This was demonstrated by Lavrov's personal rejection and biased perception of the Russian position, the desire for a certain moral ostracism in relation to Russia. The accurate, more restrained than earlier, rhetoric of Chancellor Angela Merkel stood out against this background. It was clear that caution is given simply by the presence of the negotiating process, which was initiated in Kiev, and that the conference has once again confirmed that, regardless of the outcome of these negotiations, the isolation policy of Western countries, the US and its allies against Russia will continue," the expert said.
The political scientist Rovshan Ibragimov, in his turn, praised the Munich conference as an important platform for discussions and meetings of statesmen. "It is necessary to re-examine together any problems or issues which the country and the region are facing now. It is no coincidence that in parallel with the Munich conference a meeting on Ukraine was held in Moscow of the leaders of France, Germany and Russia. So it is rather a structural platform that addresses the security problems," he said.
Ibragimov spoke about the presence of Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev at the conference. "He had a meeting on security issues as well as on geo-economic expectations, with the presidents of Macedonia and Serbia. Also the issue of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict was discussed. It is very significant that, even before his visit to Davos, during Ilham Aliyev's visit to Germany, Angela Merkel said that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has some parallels with the security issues in the post-Soviet space, which is like a mirror image of events in Ukraine. I think it's like just a new perception of the problem. So on the basis of Munich, the expectation came that issues of permits of perennial conflicts in the former Soviet Union will now be seen through the prism of problems of integrity in Ukraine," the analyst said.
Political analyst Ramaz Sakvarelidze also drew attention to a parallel, which had already been drawn by Prime Minister of Georgia Irakli Garibashvili, between the problems of Ukraine and Georgia. "He stressed that, leaving events in Georgia without reaction, the West has a more extensive and more dramatic situation in Ukraine. How it will be perceived by Western countries, which have not yet been able to find the key to solving not only the Georgian, but also the Ukrainian hot topic, is difficult to say," he noted.
The expert added that Garibashvili would like to emphasize the fact that "if the international community will be directed only to suspend the process in Ukraine, and even if it will achieve this, it is unlikely to save the world community from new surprises." "When the bloodshed in Georgia was suspended, the international community was calm, but now it has received new bloodshed in Ukraine. So a local task to stop the conflict can be solved, but it is too simplistic and does not correspond to reality," the political scientist says.
