Window on Eurasia

Can Moscow Learn to Deal with Its “New Enemies” – Its Neighbors?

Paul Goble

Vienna, July 21, 2006 – Public opinion polls in the Russian Federation routinely show that large percentages of Russians identify Latvia, Georgia, Moldova, Poland and Ukraine as among the country’s “enemies.” But three commentators say these are not Russia’s “main” enemies and that tensions with them are often blown out of proportion.

The Prognosis.ru news portal asked the three commentators – political
scientist Dmitriy Yur’yev, publisher Konstantin Kostyuk, and Russian
Communist Party leader Aleksei Prigarin to respond to three questions:

-- Ought one to blame Moscow for the complicated relations that now
exist between Moscow and some of its neighbors on failures in Russian
foreign policy?

-- Why has Russia not been able to become a leaderof the post-Soviet
space?

-- How should Moscow build its relationships with these countries in
the future?
[http://www.prognosis.ru/news/nacional/2006/7/20/poznanskiy.html].

Yur’yev argued that statements by “certain experts and
politicians” had succeeded in convincing Russians that their
relationship with the former Soviet republics and Soviet bloc countries
is much worse than in fact is the case. Indeed, he said, “the
neighboring countries have not become enemies of Russia.”

But that does not mean that relations are ideal, he continued. The
governments in some of these countries are either inexperienced, in
thrall to extremist nationalist groups or consist of “backward,
provincial” people who do not know how to behave in dealing with
other countries.

Despite some mistakes, Moscow is not to blame for the sometimes tense
relationship between Russia and its neighbors, Yur’yev said, and in
recent times, its approach to these countries “is becoming ever more
adequate” as the Russian government learns how to identify and then
defend its own interests.

“Our greatest mistake during the post-Soviet period,” Yur’yev
said, “has been a failure” to do just that. But “the ‘orange
revolution’ in 2004 taught us a great deal” in that regard. And now
Moscow is acting with precisely the kind of realism that will allow it
to win back the leadership of this region.

The post-Soviet space’s “common past, commonality of cultural and
social types of behavior, and the defense of the rights of those we
call compatriots abroad” all point to that “reality” even if not all
non-Russian countries are prepared to recognize it up to the present.

Kostyuk for his part rejected the notion that Russians view neighboring
countries as enemies. But unlike Yur’yev, he suggested that
“relations with certain neighboring countries of course can be
considered a shortcoming of the foreign policy course of Moscow.”

A more clever and sophisticated approach to these countries would have
worked better, Kostyuk said, but “the imperial ambitions” of some
Russian officials and “the inability to build relations anew with
those who only yesterday were part of the USSR” has gotten in the
way.

As far as recovering the leadership of this region, Kostyuk continued,
Moscow needs to recognize that there are many kinds of leadership, some
of which it is in a position to achieve and some of which it is not.
And as it attempts to increase its influence, it needs to develop relations
on the basis of equality rather than dominance.

And finally Prigarin, who serves as first secretary of the Central
Committee of the Russian Communist Party-CPSU, said that he too
rejected the notion that neighboring states were in any sense “the main
enemies of Russia.” Instead, he said, they resembled youths who have escaped
parental control and are demonstrating their freedom.”

“Neither Ukraine nor Georgia represents [even] a potential threat to
Russia,” the communist leader argued, suggesting that difficulties in
relations with the former Soviet republics were the fault not of those
republics but of mistakes in the foreign policy course of Moscow
itself.

Russians must “decisively break out of the mentality of the ‘elder
brother,’” he continued. They must consider “the psychology of
‘the young people’” with care, not bothering them when it is not
necessary but being willing to display toughness when that is required.

Moscow must step up its efforts to defend the Russian speaking
population of Estonia and Latvia, Prigarin said, but steps like the
current fight between Moscow and Tbilisi over the export of Georgian
wines to the Russian market are “completely stupid.” That is how
“petty gangsters” rather than great states behave.

And in developing a policy for dealing with Russia’s new neighbors,
the communist leader said, Moscow foreign policy makers need to
remember that “ambition is not ammunition,” that Russia no longer has the
resources to do everything that it would like to do in this region as
well as in others.

The Yeltsin years, Prigarin said, were ones marked by “the complete
subordination” of Russia to “American demands.” President
Vladimir Putin has tried to rectify that situation, he continued, but “the
authority of the country has already been lost” and it is not going
to be restored anytime soon.

Latest Window on Eurasia stories | Religion Archive | Islam in Russia and CIS Archive | Orthodox Church in Russia and CIS Archive | All Window on Eurasia Stories Archive |