Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
October 22, 2004, Friday
US ABSORBING GUUAM
SOURCE: Zavtra, No 42, October 14 – 20, 2004, p. 2
Political activeness in some parts of the former Soviet Union
(Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Moldova) is confined within
some clearly defined geographic borders. Certain changes in
Washington’s foreign policy along with a major displacement of
American troops in Europe, Asia, and in the East are indicators of
what all of that is about.
Black Sea – a branch of the Atlantic
Information obtained from sources in the West (scientists,
journalists, officials) makes it plain that the West has changed its
tactic and evaluation of the situation on the southern borders of
Russia. It confirms the opinion we featured more than once already
that importance of the Caspian region in the energy sphere is grossly
exaggerated and that the United States’ interest in it is purely
military-political and, to some extent, economic.
The Caspian region cannot be a source of energy resources alternative
to the Arab oil and gas. In other words, we cannot expect the
Americans to spoil their relations with Saudi Arabia, to become
disinterested with regard to Kuwait, or to leave Iran and Iraq alone.
Pressure on Middle East countries loyal to the United States will
continue in the form of a collision of their interests with interests
of the third countries (like Russia). Countries that are too
obstinate will be “reformed” the way Yugoslavia and Iraq have been
treated.
Along with this evaluation of importance of the Caspian basin, there
is also the idea (expressed more and more frequently) that it is
wrong to mix Central Asia and Caucasus. These are two absolutely
different regions. Strategically important as they undoubtedly are,
they can develop and perform their functions independently of each
other. Central Asia (where the Americans are counting on Kazakhstan,
as the latest analysis shows) is an element of a larger region
comprising of the East and South and East Asia. The Caucasus in its
turn is viewed as an integral part of Europe, its outpost on the
southern flank. It makes the entire Black Sea basin a part of Europe
too.
Policy Review (June-July, 2004) featured an article with a catching
headline “Black Sea and Frontiers of Freedom”. Its authors use the
term that is coming into popular use – the Larger Black Sea Region
that comprises Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria, Moldova, Ukraine, Russia,
Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan.
Black Sea’s western and southern coasts are territories of NATO
countries. It was accomplished through implementation of a staggering
project to integrate Central and East Europe countries under the US
aegis into the European-Atlantic community. Somebody may have
forgotten already that 10 years ago Zbigniew Brzezinski suggested
this project of rearrangement of the East European zone and
establishment of the Baltic – Black Sea alliance of the former Soviet
republics. It was announced then that the alliance should exist
beyond the sphere of Russian influence and serve as a strategic
deterrent factor in the Western direction.
Washington’s active interest in the political lives of Georgia,
Moldova, Ukraine, Moldova, Armenia, Azerbaijan is undeniable
nowadays. These are the countries that comprise what the West calls
the Larger Black Sea Region.
Establishment of a new military-political alliance on the territory
between the Black Sea and the Baltic Sea, an alliance associated with
NATO, becomes more and more likely. GUUAM was but an experiment. Most
East Europe countries dream of joining European-Atlantic structures.
Some of these countries have already been granted the wish. Others
have not because of various obstacles including regional and border
conflicts.
Western politicians and consultants believe that time has come to get
down to the matter of the Larger Black Sea Region.
Previous waves of NATO and European Union expansion – and Moscow’s
reaction to them – will facilitate the process.
Romania and Bulgaria are NATO neophytes now. Eager to up their clout,
they will certainly do their best to promote problems of the Larger
Black Sea Region into the forefront of the West’s foreign political
priorities.
The situation itself assigns the order of priority to the tasks the
United States will try to settle in the not so distant a future.
The forthcoming presidential election in Ukraine is the task
following the recent successful Revolution of Roses in Georgia (which
was but an operation to replace national leadership with certain
elements of a show aimed to persuade the population that changes are
in fact possible).
After that, more effort will be put in settlement of conflicts in
South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Trans-Dniester region.
Preparations for the parliamentary and presidential elections in
Armenia will take place against this background. Moldova and
Azerbaijan are the next countries marked for installation of new
regimes. Eventually, some countries of the Larger Black Sea Region
will participate in establishment of a military-political alliance
that will enable its members to be integrated into the
“European-Atlantic security framework” without formal membership in
NATO.
Whose tongue will lead one to Kiev?
A lot of articles and materials on the Ukrainian election appear in
the Western media. Public opinion is being brainwashed on a major
scale. The distinction between two candidates is emphasized again and
again: Yuschenko represents democracy and Western values, while
Yanukovich is a businessman from the Donetsk Clan, associated with
Moscow and backed by Leonid Kuchma.
Kuchma himself, after all the quarrels with Russia and advances to
the West, counts on Russia’s support alone and even pretends to be
making steps to meet it halfway.
Emphasizing their sympathies with Russia, the authorities of Ukraine
are still bent on membership in NATO and European structures.
Analysis of statements and actions of politicians in Kiev leaves no
doubts as to their strategic objectives.
Even Yanukovich’s statements generate doubts in Ukraine’s proclaimed
objectives and goals in international matters. When he boarded
frigate Getman Sagaidachny for celebration of the 12th anniversary of
the Ukrainian Navy, Yanukovich said in no uncertain terms that
“reorganization of the Ukrainian Armed Forces is directly associated
with the future membership in NATO.”
In other words, membership in NATO remains one of the central
strategic objectives of official Kiev. In fact, official Kiev is
helped along the way by all sorts of non-government organizations.
With the support from the NATO Center of Information and Documents,
NATO bureaus are being established at regional libraries throughout
Ukraine. They will make access to the literature having to do with
NATO – Ukraine partnership, integration, and other international
security issues easier for Ukrainians.
Twenty-seven regional bureaus (including one in Simferopol and
Sevastopol each) have been established by the middle of September,
2004.
According to the US Department of State, Ukraine received about 9% or
$5 million of the funds the United States set aside for the program
of military assistance to former Soviet republic in 2004. This is 11%
higher than what Ukraine ended up with in 2003. Along with everything
else, Ukraine received $1.7 million (11.4% of sum total) within the
framework of the international military education program.
The 2004 international financial military assistance program, does
not stipulate anything for Russia. As for the 2004 international
military education program, Russia received $800,000 or 50% of what
Ukraine got. Why the program is called international when it is
financed by the US Administration is anyone’s guess.
In the meantime, the United States maintains that the presidential
election in Ukraine must be democratic and legitimate. This is but
essentially an open campaign for Yuschenko.
In other words, Kiev’s loyalty to the United States and NATO is
unlikely to become an automatic pass into the Alliance for Ukraine.
Washington and the West apparently regard Ukraine as a partner but
also a potential future rival in geopolitical games on the territory
of the CIS and throughout the world. Ukraine has scored in arms
export. It delivered modern tanks to Pakistan, it is helping
Turkmenistan, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Libya. It is a serious rival
for Russia and other arms exporters.
Advancement of relations with Moscow will help Kiev secure a source
of relatively cheap energy resources and other strategic commodities.
And loyalty to NATO will help it create a counterweight to Moscow for
whenever it interferes with advancement of Ukraine’s national
interests.
At the same time, Moscow and Washington will certainly try to force
Kiev to make up its mind. Moscow has a chance to succeed, but
everything will depend on what extent the United States and the West
are determined to drive a wedge between Moscow and Kiev.
Europe’s outlying regions
Honeymoon in the relations between the United States and Georgia is
practically over, about to be replaced with mundane drudgery. The
more energetic “NY lawyer Mikhail Saakashvili” becomes in repelling
the Russian empire, the more practical difficulties Washington
encounters. The problem is that Saakashvili’s undisguised attempts to
take over South Ossetia and Abkhazia by sheer strength of arms force
Moscow to side up with the Ossetians and Abkhazians more and more
firmly. Washington is aware that Moscow knows who actually supports
the young president of Georgia and that awareness and knowledge
aggravate the conflict, affecting all other aspects of the
Russian-American relations. Western analysts do not even rule out a
military clash in the region because NATO has troops on the territory
of Georgia. Military solution to the problem will only make the
regional situation all the more complicated for the United States.
Moreover, it may complicate the state of affairs in Ukraine where
Western analysts hope for a chance to repeat the Revolution of Roses
scenario.
The United States is aware that the peoples of Abkhazia and South
Ossetia have voted to withdraw from Georgia and join Russia.
Washington understands that these problems cannot be solved without
Russia’s participation and consent. All other ways lead to a war and
political fiasco.
Saakashvili is frowned at for his sabre-rattling but immediately
reassured of support.
The US Administration parceled out 21% to Georgia, more than to any
other former Soviet country. The sum amounted to $12 million in the
2004 financial year, a 74% rise compared to 2003. Tbilisi ended up
with $1.3 million of assistance within the framework of the
international military education and training program.
It should be noted that Azerbaijan and Armenia received $2.485
million each this financial year (against $5 million each in 2003).
Perhaps, this “equal distance” is Washington’s contribution to the
Karabakh conflict settlement. It is clear, however, that this is a
message to Ilham Aliyev and Robert Kocharjan. Both were regularly
criticized by the West, neither answers the requirements to the
region put forth by official Washington. Both leaders are earmarked
for replacement. In Yerevan, the national leader may be replaced
before his time is up.
The US Department of State appointed a new Ambassador to Armenia just
two months ago. He is John Evans, a specialist in early expiry of the
term of office just like US Ambassador Miles in Tbilisi. Evans
studied Russian history at Yale. He worked in Tehran and Prague in
the 1970’s and in Moscow between 1981 and 1983 (the period when the
Soviet-American relations hit bottom, when CIA agents in the Soviet
Union were extremely active). After that Evans served with the
American mission to NATO. In the middle of the 1990’s, he was the US
Consul in St. Petersburg and worked in the OSCE mission in Moldova.
Before his assignment to Armenia, career intelligence officer Evans
headed the Russia and Eurasia analysis directorate at the Department
of State and all of the Russian sector. It is clear that he was sent
to Armenia for a purpose. Evans began studying Armenia in the late
1980’s. He knows Russian leadership well ever since his assignment to
St. Petersburg between 1994 and 1997.
Trans-Dniester thorn
Washington constantly demands – in no uncertain terms – a solution to
the Trans-Dniester problem. The United States needs an integral and
loyal Moldova without alien disseminations like pro-Russian Tiraspol,
a Moldova capable of joining the block of Black Sea states. Now that
the Russian-Moldovan relations are not what they used to be once,
Washington is certainly active in this sphere, and pressure on
Tiraspol is mounting.
Trans-Dniester’s and Abkhazia’s promise to help South Ossetia against
the invasion of Georgian and NATO troops is branded by enemies of
Tiraspol as “international terrorism”. This is an indirect way of
providing an ideological basis for an ultimate solution to the
problems of all these territories. The opinion of the peoples
residing in these regions is of little interest for the
decision-makers.
All of that indicates that the West is out to orchestrate political
cessation of two major regions – Black Sea region with the Caucasus
and Central Asia – from Russia. Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia,
and Azerbaijan united in the Larger Black Sea Region are the first in
line.
The situation being what it is, the authorities of Russia must
concentrate on foreign political solutions to the problem of
advancement of its cooperation with these countries and promotion of
interests of national security of the country. An effective solution
to the problem requires direct involvement of the government of the
Russian Federation. Analysts alone will not do.
ORIGINAL-LANGUAGE: RUSSIAN
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress