“Kosovo precedent” is already working: Interview with Alexander Skakov

Read it in Russian

Interview with head of the CIS department of the Russian Institute of Strategic Studies Alexander Skakov

REGNUM: Mr. Skakov, what do you think about the causes and consequences of the aggravated situation in South Ossetia and the Russian foreign minister’s call on Georgia to hold a referendum in the Republic of South Ossetia?

In fact, the last week’s aggravation of the situation in South Ossetia came out of the blue. The Russian battalion just carried out its planned rotation and, as always, did that through the Roki tunnel via the Transcaucasian Highway. Georgia’s attempts to blockade the highway so as to make its territory the only way of contact with South Ossetia are a direct violation of the Sochi agreements, which prohibit any forms of blockade of South Ossetia. As you may know, Georgia has not yet withdrawn from the agreements but still keeps violating them consistently and impertinently. In this particular case, Georgia’s actions to prevent the rotation were quite consistent though absolutely provocative. And they were no less provocative when they said that the Russian peacekeepers were “criminals.”

However, Tbilisi did not expect Moscow to react the way it did. The Georgian authorities have already gone into the habit of insulting and provoking Russia with perfect impunity, but this time Moscow’s reaction was very tough and its actions were very consistent. In fact, they in Moscow used Tbilisi’s provocation as a pretext to change their position on both South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The Saakashvili regime has stepped on its own rake. As a result, for the first time ever the Russian top authorities have questioned Georgia’s territorial integrity by recognizing the self-determination right of its former autonomies and proposing that the South Ossetian and Abkhazian conflicts be resolved through referendums. Here we see an obvious influence of the Montenegro and Kosovo models of independence. So, the “Kosovo precedent” is already working. Apparently, the objective of Russia’s actions is the recognition of the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. They in Moscow must have decided not to reckon with Brussels and Washington, who, whatever happens, will support their though whimsical but loyal satellite — Georgia. So, any attempt by Georgia to apply military force against South Ossetia will get even tougher reaction from Moscow.

You want to know if this conflict may have another outcome, don’t you? There are still possibilities for Russian-Georgian dialogue on Abkhazia and South Ossetia, but they are running out – due mostly to the Georgian authorities led by Saakashvili (Georgian president — REGNUM) and Okruashvili (Georgian Defense Minister — REGNUM). In fact they are carrying on an anti-Georgian policy and, with every new month, are losing their last opportunities for finding a compromise. This policy is making Abkhazia and South Ossetia more and more alien to Georgia, and I am afraid there is almost no possibility for the sides to get back to the full-value negotiating table. The opportunities that arose after Saakashvili’s advent into power in the spring 2004 have been lost for ever. The Tbilisi regime has simply discredited itself as a negotiator.

REGNUM: What do you think about the growing tensions in Ukraine, particularly, in Crimea over the preparations for the Sea Breeze exercises and the appearance of NATO and US representatives there. What this may lead to if the tensions continue to grow?

I think that by its awkward actions in Crimea NATO has unintentionally provoked protests among the local population, which are now being actively used in the internal political struggle in Ukraine. They were just a pretext. Also contributive to this were excessively anti-Russian and extremely pro-NATO statements by some Ukrainian ministers. Of course, Ukraine has a full right to conduct such exercises, but it might have been more tactical, systematic and law-abiding in preparing for them. Besides, this was a good pretext for the three key rivaling forces in Ukraine. The split and “reformatting” Ukrainian authorities cannot react toughly, so, I think that the crisis over Feodosia will shortly abate. And if the Ukrainian authorities actually want to survive and to enlarge their electorate, they will have to revise their policy on NATO by making it more backstage and less demagogic and provocative.

REGNUM: Are these two events in any way connected with the forthcoming G8 Summit in St. Petersburg?

The G8 Summit is tying the hands of both Russia and the West. Both sides are forced to save face, to refrain from tough words and actions and, most importantly, to keep their partners and satellites (Georgia too) from them. I don’t think that Washington wants to quarrel with Moscow over Georgia, more precisely, over Saakashvili’s adventurism. At the same time, both sides (Russia and the West are certainly long-term partners and the St. Petersburg Summit is just an episode) are interested in gaining more arguments in their inevitable disputes. And here Russia has an evident advantage – we will get two new serious arguments in our most topical dispute — NATO’s enlargement due to Ukraine and Georgia. The counter-arguments of the opposite side are just the “gas war,” the mossy “Khodorkovsky case” and the ridiculous “beating” of a German politician who came to Moscow to take part in a demonstration of sexual minorities. I guess that NATO’s enlargement due to CIS countries will become the key subject they in St. Petersburg will talk about – tough they will not make this public.

REGNUM: What do you think about the prospects of GUAM in the light of their recently declared priorities and Russia’s aggravating relations with Georgia and Ukraine?

GUAM’s prospects, as always, depend on the wish of the sponsor, i.e. the US. First, through GUAM the US is trying to strengthen Ukraine, to make it the leader of the region and to make Moldova Ukraine’s satellite – something that has obviously embarrassed Romania, who now quite unexpectedly wants to join GUAM. Second, GUAM is an attempt to tear off “complimentary” Azerbaijan and, later, Kazakhstan from Russia. And the third and most important goal is to create “a security belt” or “an iron curtain” around Russia in order to curb its growing political and economic sway. For Kiev GUAM is one more argument in its relations with Moscow – relations that, always, in any case and under any scenario, will be more important for Ukraine than its relations with all the other GUAM states taken together. Consequently, if need be, Kiev may easily quit GUAM.

For Moldova GUAM is a way to balance between Ukraine and Romania, who are fighting for sway over that country. For Azerbaijan GUAM is part of its complimentary policy and a means for pressuring Russia into bigger compliance in the Karabakh problem. As we see this policy is giving fruits. Let’s not say what GUAM means for Georgia: the national interests of Georgia are one thing and the interests of Okruashvili-Saakashvili-Merabishvili are another. Thus. today GUAM is something both its participants and sponsors need and it will hardly die in the near future.