Russias Dilemma: Between a Super- and a Regional Power Orxan Qafarov (Gafarli) Visiting Scholar, University of Maryland University

College October 31, 2011

The other day, researching this topic, I came across a very interesting article written in 1992 by well-known contemporary Turkish expert Cengiz Chandar. [ At your professors suggestion Alexander Murinson]. Before presenting his views, I would like to share some of my observations about today's Russia. As you know, about a month ago a historic decision was made about the future candidate from the ruling Edinaya Rossia (the "United Russia") party for Russia's presidency. This candidate will rule Russia in the next decade. Why this mans selection is so important? Because, with his emergence on the national scene, Russia has resumed its imperial ambitions. And I want you to remember his name really well, since Putin is likely to change the axis of history of Russia in the 21st century. The question is whether he will be able to fulfill his main goal and the ultimate process to recover for Russia all her possessions, lost after the bipolarity of the Cold War era. I think we should consider Russian history objectively in order to objectively evaluate the power of todays Russia. And this, I'll start with a quote from Cengiz Chandar:

" After 1985,the accelerating process of transformation of the Soviet Union brought about the 1991 failed coup, which was unable to prevent the demise of the Empire, failing at its knees. The creation of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in October 1917 had marked a new course of history or a new distinctive period in history as well as the dissolution of the USSR was capable of changing the course of history and became a milestone in international relations. It is worth noting that the Tsarist Empire, which had failed, played the essential role in the process of creation of the Soviet Union and had passed to the USSR, virtually without any changes, the territory from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean, populated by diverse religious and ethnic groups. We can say that the death-bed patient was able to pass the bed of the Tsarist empire to a new empire. We can say that the Soviet Union just changed the color of the state, but not the state itself. It was only the Soviet Empire after the World War I that was able to resist a process of the Imperial collapse.

At the end of the First World War, the Austro - Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire and, in spite of its youth, the Prussian German Empire began to dissolve. There were restrictions imposed on the English and French Empires, while the United States gave clear signals about

its emergence as a global power by enunciating the Wilsonian principles. It proclaimed itself as the Rome of the 20ieth century. In history of Europe, at least, from the Euro-centric perspective, the only empire that was able to withstand the process of disintegration and just changed its shirt was the Russian empire. Accordingly, the collapse of the USSR will remain as unique in the 20th century. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, 15 new states appeared andd changed the world map. The first time in history, we encounter the majoritarian Sunni, Mulsim and Turkic states: Kazakhstan, Kirghizstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan [sic]. And the creation of these states failed to attract the worlds attention." (1)

After Kosovo and the Georgian Crisis Can we consider that on February 17, 2008 in Kosovo [the day Kosovo declared its independence Alexander Murinson], the neo-Conservatives gained victory, or, according to Joseph Nye, it was the beginning of the collapse of U.S. hegemony? Moscow openly stated that the process of obtaining the independence of Kosovo is contrary to its national interests and poses a threat to Russian security in Europe. At the same time, if, after its independence, Kosovo should joined NATO, it would have increased U.S. influence within the alliance. The Kremlin was also concerned about the probability of Kosovos fast-track acceptance in the EU, and then Russia would act against such developments in Europe. After the Kosovo precedent, Russia was opposed to the expected NATO summit in Brussels discussing the issue of granting the so-called road map (MAP) for future membership of Georgia and Ukraine in NATO. All these events have demonstrated that Moscow was ready to defend its position. It became clear that Russia re-emerged as a country to reckon with. The process of creating a unipolar world, ruled by the Anglo-Saxon tandem (1991-2008), came to an end. When the Russians made it clear that the Kosovo precedent signified the Red Line for them, George W. Bush took it as just another bluff. The War of August [the Russian incursion into Georgia-Alexander Murinson] demonstrated the seriousness of the Russian stand on this issue.

After this conflict, the number of Western politicians, who believed they could ignore the Russian factor, sharply decreased. As Michael Spector, an American expert on Russia, argued after the events in the South Caucasus [the 2008 Russian-Georgian war-Alexander Murinson], the U.S. politicians stopped treating Russia as another Jamaica. Russia possessed a larger number of nuclear warheads, compared to other nations, and it was time to take it seriously. Russia's Return

In 2000, after the resignation of Russian President Boris Yeltsin, a new phrase "New Russian" entered the global lexicon, which literally means something like the Russians of new generation. Rather this phrase indicated that a new generation of Russian political elite gained power, distinct from its Soviet predecessor, but much closer its Tsarist Russian prototype. During his reign, Vladimir Putin was able to regenerate the country's foreign policy. And, then he re-introduced in Kremlin the foreign policy concept, almost forgotten during

the Soviet era. Many experts made varying interpretations on this foreign policy concept. Most of them expressed the opinion that the new Russian government wants to return to the exercise of power Russia had during the Tsarist and Soviet times. One of the Kremlin spin doctors, Gleb Pavlovsky, explained: "We want to build a state with an imperial culture, with the imperial forces and through imperial methods." It must noted that most Russias foreign policy experts concurred in response to this comment by Mr. Pavlovsky that that Russia lacks not only this class in its political echelons, but these ambitions represent rather no more than "mimetic imperialism." (2) Period of Weakening of US Influence in NATO The United States support for the Kosovo's independence turned into a failure for the neoConservatives close to the White House. The loss of the US influence at the summit in Brussels can be attributed to pressure from Moscow. This process can be summarized by the Russian Prime Minister V. Putins statement, which he made during the Brussels NATO summit in 2008: "On this day the United States lost its influence in NATO." Before this summit, the U.S. had not received full support from the Western countries to build a missile defense system in Eastern Europe. All these events showed that the Old West was making political decisions without U.S. participation. In this situation, it was very important for the United States not to stop the enlargement process, since U.S. would be able to maintain its influence over NATO and the EU. The Kremlin spin doctors understood this very clearly this American stratagem and declared openly that the Ukraine and Georgias membership would cross the Russias red lines, and Moscow was compelled to appeal this decision. Germany was against membership for Georgia and Ukraine in NATO too, while France, in order not to spoil relations with Berlin, just stayed neutral. The United States found itself isolated in isolation on the issue of membership for Ukraine and Georgia in NATO. This confirmed the end of the era of Pax Americana. In his new book, "'Post-American World' " Fareed Zakaria argued that a new era has begun, and America, while constructing its own image of the world, was unable to adapt to new realities.(3)

The Pioneers of Regeneration Process The Democrats after coming to power in 2008, were in position to open a new chapter in U.S. foreign policy. At the 2008 Munich summit a new course was declared and it still continues, known as the process of Rebooting Architect of the reboot policy is Obamas adviser on Russia and Eurasia Michael McFaul. In September 2004, McFaul was one of the authors with some other Western author of An Open Letter to the Heads of State and Government Of the European Union and NATO of September 28, 2004- calling for a drastic revision of the relations between the West and Moscow. Many prominent politicians and public figures from NATO and the EU signed the letter. Among them were U.S. Senators John McCain and Joe Biden and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. "The leaders of the West - the letter said, - must recognize that our current strategy towards Russia failed ... For us it is time, to rethink how and to what extent we are associated with Putin's Russia, and clearly take the side

of democratic forces in Russia. " Then the letter stated that the West had little influence on political processes in Russia, so long as everyone recognized that the West had no little leverage. McFaul called a new strategic effort of the rapprochement with Russia in order to avoid a Cold War. This was a development of the ideas of George Shultz, which articulated during the second President Reagans term. In the late 1980s, the U.S. and the USSR maintained the socalled four-level relationship. In 2004, it was a favorite of idea McFaul: no return to the "cold war", but a new edition of the so-called "four-level agenda." During the Reagan-Gorbachev era, on the Washingtons agenda in relations with the Soviet Union there the following priorities: arms control, human rights, economic issues and regional conflicts. Despite the clearly defined order of priorities, all four levels were closely-linked, and resolution of one set of issues necessitated the solution of others.(4)

What has changed in the Caucasus?: Since the Beginning of the Reboot between Russia and the U.S.

With the initiation of the reboot process between Russia and the U.S., major changes have transpired in the Caucasus, Central Asia and Eastern Europe. Firstly, the Russian influence has dramatically increased in the South Caucasus. The crisis in relations between Russia and Georgia in 2008 was interpreted by many as the loss of the South Caucasus for the Kremlin, but since, gradually, the balance of power has been shifting in Moscows favor. The Georgian crisis has made it clear for Kremlin politicians that they needed to closely monitor situation in the South Caucasus. As a result, Russia has increased its attention to the conflicts in the region. Invigorated efforts to resolve the Nagorno - Karabakh conflict and the issue of opening the Armenian-Turkish border. These developments can be considered as a good indicator of this trend. At the same time, it must be noted that Russia is negatively disposed to energy projects in the region. Currently, Russia attempts to prevent implementation of the Nabucco gas pipeline project. Yevgeny Primakov, a former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia, in his book "World without Russia" made it clear that the Kremlin considers the South Caucasus as a Red Zone. According to Primakov, and the Red Line between NATO and Russia emerged due to lack of trust. After the Cold War, NATO has coordinated with Moscow its expansion in Eastern Europe and promised not to deploy troops there from other countries-members of the alliance. But two years later, the U.S. announced a move to deploy 5000 soldiers in Romania and Bulgaria. (5) It became obvious to Kremlin that a similar could be followed in Georgia. Moscow did not conceal its concern that stationing of NATO troops in the Near Abroad would be a threat to its security. Embracing such a conception of national security, Russia can easily afford to pressure on Georgia, both on economic and military grounds. And this development threatens energy security in the region. Pursuing its ambitions in the region to the region based on ideology of the "mystical imperialism", Russia can extend more serious pressure on its neighbors. However, Russia and the United States should be able to find common points for cooperation in the region. Both sides should publicly announce that they

found a common position on a number of issues common and a mutual understanding was reached. On July 22, 2009 after President Barack Obamas visit to the region, Joe Biden promulgated a new American policy. He made several commitments, namely that the US would not expand its influence beyond the sites of its military bases; would not interfere in new regional conflicts; would not cross to the of Russias red lines. U.S. intended to retain its existing influence, but not to expand it. It was also mentioned that Washington will maintain its good relations with Kiev and Tbilisi.

A well-known futurologist George Friedman, in his book " The Next Decade: Where We've Been . . . and Where We're Going", gives a very interesting advice to the Barack Obamas administration. Friedman believes that if, in the next 10 years, the U.S. would abandon its influence in the Caucasus, especially in Georgia, this would create a vacuum in the region. According to Friedman, Georgia has no strategic importance for the U.S, but for Russia it does, in the context of its southern frontier security, which is strategically important. Russian may reimburse the United States with something significant in return. During any future talks, the Americans would be able to ask Russians in return for Central Asia and Iran. Although these strategic advice should be considered, the Democrats in Washington do not have enough political power to make such an abrupt shift in American foreign policy. So the Democrats are trying to keep balance with the Republicans in foreign policy toward Russia. This creates a public perception that Democrats are indecisive in foreign policy in Eurasia. Democrats are openly saying that they can abandon South Caucasus politically, but they are interested in this region for economic reasons, and in particular by supporting energy projects such as Nabucco.

Is Russia Interested in Stability of the Region?

After the Georgia crisis, Russia was interested in recovering its peace-loving image. But the last two years of its frenetic activity in the region proved the opposite. In fact, the inter-ethnic conflicts became more intractable. To confirm this, one should consider two recent diplomatic approaches to the regional security.

Reviewing the "Medvedev Sarkozy" plan for solving the Georgian crisis, one can observe six points on which the parties have agreed. Non- use of force. The complete cessation of all hostilities. Free access to humanitarian assistance. Armed forces of Georgia must withdraw to their permanent position. Russian armed forces must withdraw to the lines before the start of hostilities. Establishment of international guarantees to ensure the security and stability in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

But an analysis of the situation on the ground shows that Russia still has not fully complied with these six points. Her military forces are still deployed in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Three years after the Georgian crisis, in an interview Dmitry Medvedev made a statement that "Saakashvili should thankful to us for he is still a president in his country." By this statement, the Russian president reiterated his countrys views on its security and demonstrated a threatening posture towards its neighbors. Russia could have played a positive role in the signing of the protocols on the Opening of the Turkish-Armenian border. This process could have simultaneously accelerated the solution of Karabakh problem .But it was clear that the Madrid Principles (The principles for resolution of the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict were presented to the Armenian and Azerbaijani foreign ministers at the OSCE ministerial conference in Madrid in November 2007-Alexander Murinson) could not assuage Russias security challenges. But in order to ensure the security of its Near Abroad, Russia expects that the Madrid Process would controlled by Moscow. Implementation of the Madrid Protocols envisioned the four stages: 1. at the first stage, Armenia should withdraw from five districts, Aghdam, Fuzuli, Jabrail, Zangilan and Qubadli. 2. At the same time, in the following stages, all other districts under the Armenian occupation must be restored to Azerbaijan. Once this process commences, communications between liberated territories are restored, followed by an open donor conference. .3. Refugees from the both siders return to their ancestral lans and their security is guaranteed. 4.The final phase begins with the complete liberation of Lachin and Kelbecherskoy territories. Only after this, it will be possible to determine the status of Nagorno-Karabakh. After completion of this process, regional forces will have to give a full guarantee to Russia, that Russian security would not be compromised. And we must remember that among the parties to conflict, Armenia is very close to Russia and remain so in the future. During the last Kazan meeting between Presidents Aliyev and Sargsyan in June 2011, the international community was presented with another concession from Baku. Aliyev stated that he could sign a peace treaty at the first stage. If so, then we can assume that peace-building will require involvement of peacekeeping forces, which should Russian military. Another important point was that these changes in Azerbaijani position were announced by the Baku after a letter delivered to both countries from Medvedev.

Is Another Russian Revolution in Offing? Revolutions often occur when too much corruption spreads - or, more precisely, when enough people begin to demand that the government be held accountable for massive corruption. In Arab countries, this point was reached this year. The same fate may be in store for Russia, after it has become known that Vladimir Putin wants to become president again. Mr. Putin does not come across as a greedy individual, but as a result of his efforts to consolidate power a new corrupt has arisen. Russia became one of the most corrupt systems in the world - more corrupt than Haiti and Nigeria. According to the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, a "virtual mafia state" has emerged with the center of the Kremlin. It seems prudent that Russias neighbors should be prepared for an eventuality that in the coming years Russia can become a

victim of its past. Polls show that the popularity of Putin, who had been admired in Russia, has fallen dramatically. The massive scale corruption estimated to reach 300 billion dollars a year in the of "kickbacks" and bribes in the country is - will continue to hinder necessary reforms that would prevent the structural economic problems caused by the decline in oil production in Russia.

Orkhan Gafarli 1. Trkiye Gnl 1992 yl engiz Candar 2. http://hvylya.org/analytics/4-2009-04-12-12-01-18/8789-2010-12-23-10-47-39.html 3. Rportaj Jay Tolson, Gleb Pavlovski'nin ve Danilo Galperovich: Kremlin
4. http://www.sovsekretno.ru/magazines/article/2845 5 Yevgeni Primakov, Rusyasz Dny. Mays 2010 Tima Yaynlar, sf.7.

(Translated and Edited by Alexander Murinson,Ph.D.)