MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Arseny Paliyevsky.) Tbilisi's announcement that Georgia may leave the CIS has provoked a strong response in Moscow.
Nevertheless, analysts do not believe that its intention is serious because the Georgian economy is too dependent on the CIS market. The main purpose of this threat is to compel Moscow not to increase energy carrier prices in exchange for its promise to remain a member of the CIS.
Director of the Russian Institute of Strategic Studies Yevgeny Kozhokin said: "The discussion of withdrawal from the CIS in the Georgian parliament can evoke nothing but deep regret. Indeed, Russia and Georgia have serious problems in their relations, but despite this Russian investors are putting money into Georgia. Russia is emphatically against a further escalation of tension. If Georgia leaves the CIS, Russia will not sustain any substantial economic, military, or political damage. This will be only a gesture of little value to either country. Besides, there is a very large Georgian Diaspora in Russia, and many Georgians come here to work. These are hundreds of thousands of people, and they require good neighborly relations, not conflicts. I'd like to hope that common sense will prevail, and Tbilisi will not make this gesture."
Withdrawal from the CIS has been Tbilisi's bargaining chip in the talks with Moscow for a number of years now. This time Speaker Nino Burdzhanadze has timed his statement to coincide with the Moscow visit of Minister of Fuel and Energy Nik Gilauri. The message is clear: if Russia does not increase energy carrier prices, Tbilisi will not threaten to leave the CIS.
Burdzhanadze has tried to soften the blow by pointing out that this discussion does not mean Tbilisi has started the procedure of Georgia's withdrawal from the CIS. In other words, the final decision has not been made yet.
Deputy director of the Center for Political Technologies Alexei Makarkin believes that "Georgia is trying to manipulate Moscow by playing a markedly progressive president against a radical anti-Russian legislature. Tbilisi has been perfecting the same tactic since the times of Shevardnadze, when parliament urged Russian peacekeepers to leave Abkhazia. Last spring, under Saakashvili they tried to demand the withdrawal of Russian military installations from Georgia. Now they are talking about the need to leave the CIS under a pretext which is not even that important."
Makarkin believes that Moscow should treat such statements with reserve. In his opinion, the gas question remains at the top of the agenda. "Hence, if Russia makes concessions, Tbilisi may promise to remain in the CIS. On the other hand, if Moscow is adamant in defending its economic interests, Tbilisi is unlikely to leave the CIS anyway, because Georgia's dependence on the CIS market is at least 80%. Its withdrawal from the CIS is bound to aggravate its economic problems immediately. The elections are not far off, and neither Saakashvili, nor Georgian MPs need any complications. A conflict with Russia and the CIS as a whole will make their election race much more difficult. We should adopt a rational approach to this situation," concluded the expert.
Tbilisi resorts to tough bargaining because it has no levers for exerting pressure on Moscow. Although Washington gives certain support to Saakashvili, it will not risk jeopardizing its relations with Moscow.
It is not clear, however, why representatives of the Georgian political elite fail to understand that adopting a harsh stance in negotiations with Russia is counterproductive.
