ESTONIA
Among the media reports harshly criticizing the Kremlin’s policy, the interview with Tallinn mayor Edgar Savisaar, who speaks on the necessity to improve Estonia’s relations with Russia, sounds off key. “Conditions for developing relations with Russia will improve after Estonia refuses to take part in establishing an anti-Russia coalition on the international political arena. If we want Estonia to continue to exist as a state, we should consider the fact that Russia has always been our neighbor. The reality is that Russia is an independent state not controlled by Brussels or Washington – this is the reason we need to seek a modus vivendi in our relations with Russia in the way Finland has managed to do.” (Äripäev, September 27)
LATVIA
In the opinion of Latvian analysts, the European Union is underestimating its influence upon Russia. “The European Union’s position concerning the energy issue is stronger that EU officials think. Vladimir Putin’s threats to terminate exports of Russia’s energy resources to Europe are nothing new: Russia has been threatening this for at least ten years, particularly for putting pressure on the European Union to prevent it from liberalising its gas market. As usual, these threats are insignificant. If Russia decides to export more oil to the East this will lead to the Pacific Rim countries’ decreased demand for oil exported from the Middle East and other regions, which in turn will result in this oil being imported by Europe… With the exception of former CIS countries, the European Union is Russia’s only viable market for the country’s natural gas, based on the vast and reliable infrastructure. There is not a single pipeline which would give Asian countries the possibility to compete with Europe in terms of gas exports. Why are the European leaders afraid then?” (Diena, September 26)
According to experts, minor EU countries should stop using natural gas while the leading EU countries should establish an integrated energy market. “The European Union’s weakness results in a gas market split, which gives Russia the opportunity to discriminate amongst European importers, leaving the smaller countries unprotected… The smaller economies that are dependant on energy to a greater extent and have no chance to fully integrate into the European gas market – mostly the Baltic countries – should cease using natural gas.” (Diena, September 26) “Latvia should be prepared to do without energy resources imported from Russia in case a conflict occurs. After shutting the Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant, Latvia has to create its own energy generating facilities or the Baltic countries should set up joint energy generating capacities.” (Neatkarīgā Rīta Avīze, September 30)
LITHUANIA
The media claim that the pro-Georgian position of the Lithuanian Government and its statements in support of Georgia is the right step. Still, they admit the necessity of a constructive dialogue with the Kremlin, since confrontation with Russia will negatively affect Lithuania as well as other countries. “Among the dozens of flights from Vilnius to Tbilisi by Lithuanian officials, a single flight from Vilnius to Moscow would be very instrumental. The Russian-Georgian conflict, which provoked a huge tide of nationalism in both countries, marks a new stage of development in the region so close to us. Russia, which dominated both in the Soviet Union and in the whole of the socialist camp, has been stepping back for 20 years – now, having received a blow, the country attempted to strike back, outside its borders, which both the Kremlin and most Russians liked, and this is particularly dangerous. Confrontation with Russia, even if not evolved in new military conflicts, will bring danger to the whole world.” (Veidas, September 26)
Lithuanian businessmen, who reside outside the country, appeal to both the government and the local media to make more reserved statements concerning the Kremlin. “Lithuania does not realize how much damage spiteful remarks and emotional support of certain countries might bring to domestic business... Lithuania’s current policy towards Russia will not bring any benefit to local business, except maybe those involved in reselling wine. Lithuania’s position is special: the government has agreed with Russia on transit and provided passports to Russians residing in the country. So, why not start a positive dialogue with Moscow? We do not have any problems with Russians that we do not make ourselves. Reckless and emotional statements effect the country’s business sector and business opportunities.” (Verslo žinios, September 24)
BELARUS
Local print media report on the exchange of official letters between President Alexander Lukashenko and presidents of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Lukashenko assured Sergei Bagapsh and Eduard Kokoity that the Belarusian parliament would make a decision about the two regions’ status soon. Unofficial sources are convinced that Belarus would eventually recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states and that it was only a matter of time.
“Whatever illusions the West might be nourishing about Belarus’ neutrality in the Georgian-Russian conflict, the recognition of the two republics is a foregone conclusion. Admittedly, it will be done after both houses of the country’s parliament are formed.” (Belorussky Partizan, September 29)
The media emphasize Belarus’ lack of any means to protect itself from Moscow’s economic and political pressure.
“Our strategic dependence on the former parent state has not reduced in the least. Russia is more than just a financial donor for Belarus; it is also a prop – or rather a “crutch” – supporting Belarusian statehood. It would only take a minor effort on Moscow’s part (say, bring the gas price up to the European level) for Belarus to topple over and plunge into economic chaos with unpredictable consequences, all the way through loss of independence and territorial integrity, as happened to Georgia.” (Telegraf, September 20)
Analysts draw attention to a new series of the Belarusian leader’s derogatory statements about the Russian government at a meeting with reporters from Russian regions.
“We are genuinely perplexed by the unnatural calm shown by the Kremlin, the way it takes Alexander Lukashenko’s unbridled criticism of its reform policy. He has taken to gathering Russian provincial reporters selling them the same tale how Russia has messed everything up, and has no order, no brains, no anything, while Belarus, on the contrary, preserved and nurtured all the best, and established order, but unfortunately, has no money left.
“The reactions of renowned authors published by respectable media leave one puzzled as well. Probably, it is the case when nothing can make them blush anymore.” (Nashe Mneniye, September 26)
UKRAINE
The shaky prospects of extending the Russian-Ukrainian cooperation, friendship and partnership agreement (the Big Treaty) for another decade have been the local media highlight lately.
“[October 1] is the deadline for the Russian and Ukrainian governments to announce their decisions not to extend the Russian-Ukrainian Big Treaty for the next decade… The president has not ruled out that Ukraine and the United States could extend their bilateral security agreement. The Russian parliament, on the other hand, has repeatedly urged the government to break the Big Treaty because of Kiev’s NATO accession plans.” (Ekonomicheskiye Izvestia, Ukraine, September 30)
“Russia’s key objections to the Big Treaty are that it meets Ukraine’s interests to a larger extent than Russia’s, and that Russia sticks to it to the letter, while Ukraine only selects clauses it likes. That is all true.
“Russia has in fact financially supported the Ukrainian economy for a long time by selling it fuels at discounts in exchange for vows of geopolitical loyalty. Both countries seem unprepared to take any dramatic steps with regard to the Big Treaty now… Officials in Moscow are convinced that they will be free to break the agreement at any moment, especially if Kiev ‘helps’.” (Kievsky Telegraf, September 26)
Analysts agree that Russia and Ukraine are not ready to conduct a full-fledged political dialogue.
“Either brothers or I break your head” is the best they can do, which means we are in for a routine relapse of Russian-Ukrainian confrontation, including diplomatic battles, gas attacks and other commercial fights.
“Russian-Ukrainian relations are unlikely to grow constructive and mutually beneficial. The Kremlin is trying to impose on us a choice between absolute obedience and a war, while domestic political establishment produces either solicitous flunkeys or belligerent hawks.” (Gazeta po Ukrainiski, September 29)
A number of political analysts blame Russian military and security officials for sending the Transdnestr peace process into a blind alley, especially after their position strengthened in the wake of the South Ossetian events.
“The sudden and unexpected resistance of the Transdnestr leaders is the result of controversy and feud between different political groups in Moscow over the choice of tactics in dealing with the West.
“Military officials have gained political weight in the Putin-Medvedev team in the wake of the Caucasus campaign, and they are annoyed because they were ordered to leave the conquered positions there. They insist on stepping up pressure on the CIS neighbors, primarily in the Caucasus.
“This group also thinks it expedient to preserve the current status of the Transdnestr region for two reasons. First, they want to use it as a foothold to deploy forces disguised as peacekeepers, and a convenient outpost in case of a conflict with Romania and Ukraine. Second, Transdnestr separatists can be used to pressure Moldova and Ukraine. It is a ‘warm’ spot, which they can elevate to ‘hot’ at any moment.” (Den, September 30)
MOLDOVA
Opposition media believe that Russia will extrapolate its Abkhazian and South Ossetian experience to the Crimea in Ukraine, and Transdnestr in Moldova. “In a bid to find a compromise, Putin is likely to offer the West to tacitly accept South Ossetia and Abkhazia’s recognition, like it once agreed to the recognition of Northern Cyprus [by Turkey]. Moreover, he may demand the return of the Crimea, or at least Sevastopol in exchange for renouncing Transdnestr. Otherwise, after the parliamentary elections in Moldova in the first half of 2009, the Russians will officially recognize the self-proclaimed Transdnestr republic, and stake a claim on their military base in Tiraspol…The Kremlin lobby is discussing potential barter of Tiraspol for the Crimea or Sevastopol. As a result of this deal, Kiev would get rid of the threat of separatism, while the EU and NATO would eliminate the Russian military presence by swallowing both Ukraine and Moldova. In any event, Moscow believes that Moldova and Ukraine will have to pay for their incorporation in Europe.” (Jurnal de Chisinau, September 30)
“To avoid getting into a trap, it is necessary to display caution to the seemingly lavish proposals, which may be made by Moscow, and to discard the illusion that Russia needs a positive example of settling ‘frozen conflicts’, especially after the crimes committed by it in Georgia. We should not accept the terms which would put our country at a disadvantage, discredit our democratic institutions, and blocked our European prospects.” (Flux, September 26)
ARMENIA
Political analysts believe that the Karabakh conflict will remain frozen for a long time against the background of the recent drama in the Caucasus. “A new status quo is taking shape in all conflict zones of the region. For the time being, Russia has settled for its recent successes in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and is strengthening its positions there. The West is promising to admit Georgia to NATO, and urging Azerbaijan to continue implementing its oil and gas projects. Under the circumstances, individual participants in the Big Game are unable to cope with the Karabakh problem. It is useless even to assume that they may coordinate their positions in the near future.” (Hayots Ashkhar, September 24)
GEORGIA
“It is hard to find on Earth an organization which would be more expensive, pretentious and totally useless than the UN… The United States is blocking Russia’s proposals on Kosovo settlement, and the rising Russia is turning down any American proposal just for the hell of it, out of its natural bitchiness. In UN entire history, this assembly of bombastic blabbers did not cope with a single conflict. The UN has adopted countless resolutions on Abkhazia and South Ossetia, but they are totally useless.” (Georgia Online, September 25)
Experts agree that confrontation between Russia and the United States has triggered off conflicts in the region. “Russia thinks that Georgia should be under its influence because of common history. America believes that Georgia should become its zone of influence because it has opted for Western orientation. Winning over Georgia will show who is the strongest.” (Rezonansi, September 26)
AZERBAIJAN
Analysts are convinced that Russia is likely to soften its foreign policy course in the near future. “The media has already covered the rumor that in the near future the Kremlin is going to give up its confrontational course towards the West (which means Russia’s moral surrender) and even to demote the politicians, who stand behind it. Even Lavrov’s name was mentioned in this context. Rumors about his early retirement were soon refuted, but it seems that Russia will have to tone down its voice.” (Echo, September 25).
“Under powerful Western pressure, Russia will have to part with its imperial ambitions once and for all, and settle for the role of an ordinary state, not even a regional power.” (1News.az, September 25)
National publications note the growth of racist attitudes in Russian society. “Russia does not have integral strategy for countering racial discrimination. Russian policymakers regularly blame national minorities for the social problems… Human rights activists report that Russia has several dozen thousand nationalists and radicals of the same hue. They are attacking migrants from the Caucasus and Central Asia, representatives of youth subcultures, and sexual minorities.” (Zerkalo, September 24)
KAZAKHSTAN
Some authors hope that Moscow will display common sense in upholding its “privileged interests” in the post-Soviet space, while others are convinced that Russia is planning to annex its former colonies one by one, ignoring the sovereignty of the young republics. “’We have no imperial ambitions,’ Russian leaders say. We would like to hope that Russia will never call into doubt our current post-Soviet parity, unity, and fraternity. Otherwise, we may see the repetition of the Soviet Union’s collapse with unpredictable consequences. Like all others, we need a strong Russia, which will conduct equal dialogue with all global power centers, but which will not forget that we are ready to be its friend and partner only as equals.” (Karavan, September 26)
“The events in South Ossetia show that dual citizenship is fraught with an immediate threat to territorial integrity. Many of our citizens have dual citizenship. In the Crimea, 200,000 people have Russian passports. This is why Russian journalists say that the Crimea will come next after South Ossetia and Abkhazia… Will enforcement to peace be followed by enforcement to friendship? Is this Russia’s new policy?” (Megapolis, September 29)
KYRGYZSTAN
The national elite are concerned over Moscow’s invigorated activities in the world arena because the mounting confrontation between Russia and the West may prevent Kyrgyzstan from preserving good relations with all partners. “First of all, Kyrgyzstan should get on well with Russia. This is an axiom because our countries have rich historical and cultural ties, and priceless friendship between ordinary people. At the same time, Kyrgyzstan cannot fully support Russia on the Caucasian issue for fear of disappointing other partners. If Kyrgyzstan openly supports Russia on South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Georgia, we will be beaten by the other side. However, we should neither forget that many Kyrgyz citizens have to work in Russia, and to some extent, their security depends on bilateral relations.” (Agym, September 26)
Views of politicians and experts on the recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia are sometimes poles apart. “We should never recognize the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Neither the UN, nor the OSCE will ever recognize it. In this case, Russia has annexed them. South Ossetia and Abkhazia are part of Georgia, and we should adhere to this position. (Aalam, September 25)
“Kyrgyzstan should fully support South Ossetia and Abkhazia’s independence. There should be no other opinions. Kyrgyzstan was always a dependency, and we should proceed from this in our attitude to South Ossetia and Abkhazia. We must back Russia because we have much in common with it in history, the economy, and culture.” (Aalam, September 25)
TURKMENISTAN
The independent media are skeptical about the results of the EU-Central Asia forum in Paris. They believe that the Europeans are only interested in Central Asia because it is rich in hydrocarbons, and the EU is dreaming of reducing its energy dependence on Russia. “What does the EU want from Central Asia? It wants gas and money. The rest is of little concern. Officially, the summit was designed to strengthen political and economic contacts, especially in the energy sphere. The direction of dialogue has been set rather rigidly. Diplomats met against the background of the acute conflict between Russia and Georgia. The events in South Ossetia and beyond have again reminded the European capitals of the need to get rid of their dependence on Russian sources of energy and routes of their delivery. The EU considers Central Asia to be a potential counterweight to Russia as an exporter.” (Vatan, September 18)
The media are concerned over the poverty of ordinary Turkmen. “Food prices in Turkmenistan are almost the same as in Russia… Only those are wealthy who are engaged in drug trafficking or hold official positions, or whose children work abroad and send money home.” (Turkmenia.info, September 29)
RIA Novosti is not responsible for the content of outside sources.
