Kremlin foreign policy forger warns against provocations

Copy
Please note that the article is more than five years old and belongs to our archive. We do not update the content of the archives, so it may be necessary to consult newer sources.
Photo: SCANPIX

All signs are pointing towards brinkmanship to return in Russia-West relations, a leading Russian foreign policy expert Prof Sergei Karaganov warns in second half of lengthy interview to Postimees.

About Russia today: what’s Putin’s main aim with the West at the moment?

The main goal is completely clear: stop the West’s military-political expansion and economic-political control on the territory that Russia sees as vital for its national interests. The other goal, though substantially less important, is to stop the Versailles white glove policy executed by the West while looking at Russia as a defeated superpower after the cold war. However, Russia never considered herself a conquered country, as Russia thinks that it was she that defeated communism. The West might realise that Russia will never ever admit defeat, at all. They think they have always been the winners. We are the only country that defeated the Mongols-Tartars who for centuries had ruled over China, we are the only country that defeated Napoleon and Hitler who ruled over Europe. If the West pursues politics with Russia as a defeated country, then I am not saying the Western politicians are mad but I do say this is not a wise thing to do. 

Does the territory you referred to coincide with the borders of the former Soviet Union?

Not totally. The Baltics have dropped off. And, actually, the Baltics have never been considered part of the old historic Russia. Also, the Baltics belonging to NATO poses no great threat. Rather, it poses a threat to their very selves, but that’s another issue. But Ukraine surely and definitely was the red line. Repeatedly, we kept telling our Western colleagues that don’t you touch Ukraine. Even in run-up to the Vilnius summit last year we warned the West that you are throwing hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians into a political game where they will simply perish. They were not willing to listen.

Russia is demanding a guarantee that Ukraine will not become a member of NATO. What kind of a guarantee should that be?

Firstly, we have realised that the West can in no way be believed. Thus, Crimea is the guarantee, as well as some other regions of Ukraine, probably, which will be the semi-independent kind. But the main guarantee will be that the West realise that it’s no use doing Monkey business with us anymore.

The West cannot back out any more as well, the stakes are high.

In that case, I can with horror imagine Ukraine’s future for the ten years to come. Ukraine will simply be destroyed.

In your thinking, may an independent Ukraine cease to exist?

It may be destroyed, it may not remain. To save Ukraine, what is definitely needed is coordinated policy by Europe and Russia.

Will that mean external governance of Ukraine?

It may, of course, be called by these unpleasant words. But it may also be named something more pleasant: bilateral help. Over the 20 years, the Ukrainian elite have proven they have no legal capacity.

If your dark scenario is fulfilled and Ukraine ceases to exist, whose then will the land be?

Well it splits into several smaller states. We have seen all that in the Balkans, haven’t we? Actually, I would not like to make any predictions about this, but it would obviously mean a permanent source of tensions in the heart of Europe.

Again, you referred to Russia no longer believing the promises of the West and NATO. But the new NATO chief Mr Stoltenberg did just solemnly swear that back when the Berlin wall fell, NATO promised Russia nothing regarding NATO’s expansion towards the East.

That debate is meaningless. Of course there were promises given, but, regrettably, Mikhail Gorbachev was too kind a person to demand signatures in blood to these promises. I did personally participate in that process and do well remember how the Western leaders assured us in unison that under no conditions, never would that happen, that it’s a scenario altogether impossible.

How is it possible now to agree about anything at all, once neither party trusts the other?

There can be agreements based on interests and raw power. Russia has clearly said now that [it’s] enough, we will not negotiate with you any more, there will only be agreements.

Will the near future see the comeback of cold war time brinkmanship?

I hope it will not go that far.

But you are not excluding the option?

I hope things will not go that far, but the logic does point in that direction.

Does this mean, also, that we need to be prepared for a war even greater than currently in Eastern Ukraine?

I hope things will not get that far. But many in Russia think that our Western partners have lost their minds and that they need to be taught a lesson, to make them come to their senses.

May such larger scale war also serve as a means of solving the problems within Russia?

I would like to note that the elites of both Russia, Europe and America have been greatly deluded these past three-five years. The Russian elite was just enjoying the full-stomach feeling, for the first time over a hundred years, which is understandable yet not forgivable. Europe fell into internal crisis, Americans had the same problems, wherefore all were looking for an external enemy. All at the same parallel time. Few realised that and dared to admit that. The other issue, in my mind, is that the only way for Russia to develop is in such a state of tension.

But again: may such larger scale war also serve as a means of solving the problems within Russia?

Wars like this have always been forced upon Russia. The war in Chechnya which brought terrible losses. From there on, the war with Georgia, then Crimea. I hope it has been understood that words are enough.

Understood – where?

In the West, where our friends have temporarily lost their moral coordinates.

Aha, that’s the way you are looking at this … And do you have some good suggestions for the «friends in the West» about how to again find these «lost moral coordinates»?

To calm down and to think about our common interests.

With such a long-term situation of tension, the possibility of some fatal incident keeps increasing which may become the trigger for something much worse. Like, for instance, the infamous case of a Russian war plane almost colliding with a Swedish passenger plane over the Baltic Sea.

I do of course hope nothing like this will happen, but in the situation of such tension and mistrust as right now, anything can happen. I’d also like to point out that provocations may not be ruled out either. As no-one exactly knows, and does not even want to know in my opinion, what exactly happened with the Malaysian Boeing. The situation is very dangerous and may escalate into uncontrollable events.

Let’s assume the West is irresponsible as alleged by Russia, but what mistakes has Mr Putin made?

Mr Putin has only made one mistake – that he believed the West.

Only one mistake?

One big mistake, mistakes as such are many.

What, definitely, has Mr Putin done wrong over this past year?

During this past year, Mr Putin, the entire Russian elite actually, has made one major mistake – they have failed to present a new concept of economic development which, naturally, would also include political elements. This is [total] disorder. By the way, I think a goal of the Crimea campaign was consolidating the Russian elite that at long last they would bring their money back to Russia. In addition to, of course, raising the feeling of pride and self esteem in Russians as a nation.

At the beginning of 1990ies a «Karaganov doctrine» rose to prominence, pursuant to which Russia had to utilize its Russian-speaking diasporas on former Soviet Union territory to increase its sway. I have heard you claim that, undeservedly in your thinking, this doctrine was made famous by the Estonian president Lennart Meri.

That was a cute story that I still love. I am very thankful to the tiny Estonia for making me famous for this one moment. (Laughs.)

So how was the story, then, in your thinking?

It was either at the end of 1991 or the beginning of 1992. Andrei Kozyrev, then foreign minister of Russia, asked me to participate at a council session. There, everybody was saying how terrible it was that so many compatriots were left to dwell in the former Soviet Republics and how terrible it was because their rights are being violated there now etc. I, to the contrary, told them let’s see is as an asset of ours, for they will be defending our interests there. In a word: let’s not look at them as victims. And I still do think that way. Afterwards, some younger advisers to Mr Meri apparently, who needed to write a foreign policy concept and, to justify the policy of a young state, a foreign enemy was needed; someplace, he found this idea of mine and came up with «Karaganov doctrine». This got inserted in some speech by Mr Meri’s and he held that speech in your parliament I think and here we go – hearings in Europe, fiery debates in the Baltics etc.

So you never had the doctrine in your head?

Yes, the quote does exist but that was all. There was no doctrine as such.

In a word, your version says it was the very President Meri who brought the expression «Karaganov doctrine» into public use?

Yes. But in order to not embarrass him – because I greatly honoured Lennart Meri and have always had a liking towards Estonians – I did not get to publicly explaining this story back then. But, some years later, as we met with president Meri, I told him about it and said [please] do appreciate my attitude. He said that yes, and that he knew and very much honoured my father already who also was a man of dignity. (Mr Karaganov’s father was a well known arts researcher in the Soviet times, and secretary to Cinematographers Association of the Soviet Union – J. P.)

In a sense, this idea of yours has now become part of Russian foreign policy, when observing the events in Ukraine!

Well the idea was so obvious, that’s why. All great nations defend their own. It another matter that to defend by arms is, in my opinion, dangerous. It another thing to defend with economic or political means. Like economic embargoes.   

For 18 years (1994–2012) Professor Karaganov was at helm of Council on Foreign and Defence Policy at the President. To this day, he remains a foreign policy adviser to Kremlin administration.

Comments
Copy
Top