Your Highnesses, Your Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen. I would first like to thank the Government of Bahrain and the International Institute for Strategic Studies for the unique opportunity to share with you ‘the Russian view’ on what is happening around the globe. I will try, in my remarks, to combine the prevailing assessments of the Russian political class with what is happening in the world.
Globalisation is considered to be the main characteristic of our time. One does not need tremendous cognition to notice another sad feature of the contemporary world. It is some sort of universal enmity. The Free Trade has not defeated sovereignty. The states have not given up some burdensome functions in favour of international institution, demonstrating egoism. Transnational companies are preoccupied with geo‑economics which serve well to the establishments of their mother countries. Meanwhile, geo‑politics remain the most wanted discipline in military academies. It is in the discipline which, after the end of the Cold War, was labelled ‘Shell Atomic.’ However, geo‑economics and geo‑politics teach only about expansion. They teach to stay suspicious in relation to any action of close and foreign neighbours.
The international community has lost the remains of solidarity. International institutions are in a state of crisis. In fact, all the international institutions which serve us were inherited from the time of the Cold War. That is why the contemporary history is a chain of violations of the international law and agreements. Tension is spreading in the world. Sides open fire on ambiguous occasions, but on obvious ethnic and religious reasons. Such notions as ‘national interests’ and ‘national security’ are being jealously taken by the leadership of big and small countries.
The Russian leadership is by no means the exception. For Russia, regional security includes several levels. First of all, this is a considerable internal block within the country’s frontiers. It means preserving the unity of our multi‑ethnic and poly-confessional country. Russia has a vast territory and is a federal state. There is attention to the regulation of the relations between the centre and the periphery. We have just recently brought down terrorist separatism in Chechnya. Moscow has not forgotten by whom and how terrorism in the Northern Caucasus was supported.
Another level of Russia’s regional security is the security of the post‑Soviet space. The events of this August in the Southern Caucasus proved the necessity of such level. Fiction is often preferred instead of reality. It is worthwhile to explain that Russia was compelled to interfere in South Ossetia. The Georgian leadership has broken all the agreements. In South Ossetia there emerged a threat to the physical existence of the indigenous ethnic group. There also emerged a threat to a big conflict that could envelop the Northern Caucasus and the Southern Caucasus. Using fashionable terminology, we can say that the geo‑strategic importance of the Caucasus is very big and not only for Russia. What has happened has happened. The Kosovans could not live together with the Serbs within the Serbian state, meanwhile, the Ossetians do not want to live in the Georgian state.
The security in the post-Soviet space needs institutional frames. One such institution is the Organisation of the Collective Security Treaty (OCST). Last year in Dushanbe, they signed the Agreement on the Establishment of the System of Administration of the Forces and Means of the System of Collective Security of the OCST. This Agreement outlines the administration order of the organisation’s forces, and means including coalition troops in times of war and peace.
Another institution, the Shanghai Organisation of Cooperation stretches beyond the post‑Soviet space. It is understandable, since the security issues on this territory cannot be settled without cooperation with the neighbouring countries of the south and east. Once again, I will repeat that the Shanghai Organisation of Cooperation (SOC) is not NATO and is not against NATO. There are many things to do in Eurasia. I believe that, with the development of the SOC, no actions of NATO will lead to success without considering the collective opinion of the SOC.
Today the SOC has problems of its own. Russia insists that, in the future, the main efforts of the SOC should be targeted against terrorism, extremism and separatism. China is inclined to add economic issues. The fact is that now we can talk only about the process of integration on a local scale between the countries with similar economies. It is worth mentioning that some member countries of the SOC still have unsettled disputes, such as with regards to the usage of water, border delimitation, and energy supply.
The regional security of the post‑Soviet space presents us with the demand to go beyond its borders. For example, Russia thinks that the expansion of NATO threatens regional security in Europe and the post‑Soviet space. This is where Russia’s hard position on the adoption of Georgia and the Ukraine into NATO stems from. Moscow argues that we need new approaches to regional security in Europe. This is the essence of President Medvedev’s famous proposal on the new Institutionalised System of Regional Security for Europe, which he came up with on the 5th June during his visit to Berlin. This initiative was given consideration by the OSCE states. The leading US administration has referred to these proposals as ‘superfluous,’ but expressed readiness to continue consultations. That is not bad. Moscow’s opinion is that Georgia would not have risked attacking South Ossetia and shooting the Russian peacekeepers if Europe had a new legally‑obliging security treaty.
The next level of regional security is Russia’s participation in peace negotiations and settlement in conflict areas, and her work in the international institutions, including groups in the Middle East and in North Korea, and Iran of course. Russia participates in 10 out of 22 peacekeeping operations of the UN. Last year, Russia contributed just less than $90 million to the budget of international peacekeeping. Russia is also taking part in the conflict settlement in the G8 format in various regions. I remind you of the special Declaration of Cooperation and Future Action of Stabilisation and Rehabilitation that was adopted at the G8 summit in St Petersburg. Russia also fulfils all the obligations of the G8 summit in Sea Island. The talk was about strengthening the African countries’ peacekeeping potential. Since 2006, Russia has trained more than 150 peacekeepers for Africa. Russia also participates in the Middle East peace process as a member of the quartet. Russia’s position is: ‘the more collectively and the more sides that participate, the better.’
The President-Elect, Barack Obama, during his campaign said that he was ready to have talks with anybody. This is, from Moscow’s point of view, a very important statement. Experts say that the geo‑political importance of the Middle East is, to a large extent, explained by its role in energy security, combating terrorism, and the proximity to Russia as well as the CIS southern frontiers.
It is known that the US and Russia have a divergence of views as regards to the Middle East. We cannot count on Moscow and Washington coming to terms on Iran. However, Iran – alongside terrorism and non‑proliferation – is the subject of the Russia‑US joint competence. The US pressure on Iran is likely to endure until the regime in this country changes. Russia refuses the tightening of the sanctions on Iran, but we understand that it will not stop the US. There can be various scenarios as to how the US‑Iran controversies will be resolved. These scenarios vary from shadow talks on oil to bombings and military invasion. However, Iran is not going to give in. It is clear that war is the worst case scenario for Russia. Iran is too close to Russia. We can easily foresee the consequences, such as the soaring of oil prices, new holes for terrorism and refugees. Now scared by Realpolitik, big and small countries renew and fill their nuclear arsenals. Uninvited guests are knocking at the door of the nuclear club.
It is well known that Iran has recently tried a far‑range missile and continues to enrich uranium. Experts say that Iran could become a nuclear power within 10 years. If it happens, its close and far neighbours would like to become nuclear in the same way. The spread of nuclear weapons in the region is creating conditions for the nuclear terrorism, which, fortunately, is now only being talked about.
Russia and the US new administration are likely to get closer in their relation to Iran. It is important for Russia too. I remind you that the AMD in the Czech Republic and in Poland is being built against Iran. If we manage to remove threats through negotiations, there will be no need for the AMD, which is our headache in the relations with the US. Recently, NATO and Russia have resumed the relations which were severed in August. Indeed, one would have a quick and grave imagination to see NATO at war with Russia, as well as Russia at war with NATO. In politics, the existence of threats and intentions is sometimes not less important than the fulfilment.
The work in the NATO‑Russia format will show positively on the struggle with the Taliban which is advancing in Afghanistan. Firstly, I am talking about the reliability of logistics. Looking at the map, we see many roads and paths going to Afghanistan, but they are in fact dangerous to use. The Russian corridor is the safest journey. This is why NATO and Russia have common interests. Furthermore, President Elect Obama promised to shift the focus from Iraq to Afghanistan. In his opinion, a different line on the war on terrorism goes there. The Middle Eastern interests of the US mostly lie in Afghanistan. Nowadays, military victories in the Middle East do not bring political victories, yet the situation in Afghanistan is so complicated that military presence there is still necessary.
The experience of the Middle East and other conflict areas teaches us that regional security requires more subtle methods than just war. Regional security also presumes modernisation. Meanwhile, not a single economic project has been realised in Afghanistan since the beginning of the operation Enduring Freedom. The spreading of democracy can be brought down to the extermination of bad leaders.
Concluding my remarks, I would like to stress again that for us, in Russia, today the most important task in our nation building is the creation of a democratic sovereign nation state. It is a new task for us, but we know that we are not an empire anymore. We do not want to be an empire, and we are not a ‘second edition’ of the Soviet Union. We do not believe in revolutions any more. We have had enough of those. We believe in evolutions. We believe in evolution inside our country, evolution worldwide, evolution for international institutions and the regional security mechanism. Thank you very much.
