Last week events completely reflect contradictions of Russian foreign policy. Western direction remains one of the priorities of Russian policy, which was justified at G-8 summit in Gleneagles. The G-8 summit became a ground for resulting Russian activity on strengthening its positions in the contemporary international community.
The G-8 summit became symbolic in the light of its future chairmanship in G-8 in 2006, which means the act of legitimization of its high role in the international community. And though Russia’s role in G-8 is ambiguous, later on, to all appearance, Moscow counts to use this fact as an argument in international disputes (for example, periodically Russia tries to appeal to its membership in the UN Security Council) and also to close forever humiliating subject of Russia’s expulsion from G-8 regularly risen by western officials.
At the same time, even during chairmanship in G-8 Russia can hardly get the status of equal member of this organization because of a number of objective reasons, including economic ones (so, Russia takes only the 16th place in the world on the volume of GDP). According to American officials, Russia’s representatives can participate only in certain meetings on finances and discuss particular issues of agenda without influencing formation of the world finance policy.
A series of large teracts in London organized by European branch of Al-Kaeda considerably changed rather predictable agenda of the summit. Thus, the issue of international terrorism became main subject of discussion. It is interesting that while all world leaders condemned actions of terrorists, the Russian leader hurried to initiate active consolidation of efforts of G-8 for struggle against “the world evil”.
Russia has already tried to use this instrument for Russia’s entering the world community on par (and the struggle against terrorism is that sphere where Russia is listened to). It is enough to remember such situations in September 2001 in the USA and in March 2004 in Spain. However, Moscow will hardly manage to use that. To all appearance, Anglo-American alliance prefers keeping the problem of international terrorism in its exclusive competence, limiting Russia’s participation with declarative slogans on necessity of consolidation.
Russian leader’s speech had also other, internal, speech. To all appearance, Moscow counts to use the argument of tragic events in London for change of West’s views on the issue of Chechnya, which, as it is known, Moscow unsuccessfully tries to qualify as the issue of global scale for a long time.
The meeting of ShOC in Astana became the first one after Kyrgyz “yellow revolution” and rebellion in Uzbek Andizhan and also after conclusion of agreement by Moscow and Tbilisi on withdrawal of Russian bases from Georgia. All these events were a symbol of decrease of Russian influence in the region. The ShOC summit is symmetric answer to enlargement of western, especially American, influence in the CIS, including at the expense of recent reanimation of pro-American GUAM.
Main result of the ShOC summit was adoption of sharp declaration relating NATO, in which ShOC’s members claimed necessity of the soonest withdrawal of military bases of the alliance from the region. The bases were dislocated there for counter-terroristic struggle against Afghan taliban. Thus ShOC stood categorically against domination of “out-regional forces” in Central Asian (it is the reason that the US claim for status of observer in the organization has not been considered).
It is interesting that India, Iran, and Pakistan were adopted as observers in the organization. It is not excluded that in the nearest future Afghanistan can be added to a number of country-observers. At present negotiations on creation of ShOC-Afghanistan commission has been started. Besides formation of strategic anti-American triangle Moscow-Deli-Beijing is seen in this step, the choice of Iran, included in “the axis of evil”, adds the picture. To all appearance, fearing future spreading of “colour revolutions” in the region, Russia, together with China, decided, first of all, to try to neutralize military-strategic influence of the West.
The “euro-three” summit in Kaliningrad completely turned to be in line with the old trend. It is not without a reason that the European leaders fully took the Russian side in the diplomatic scandal with Lithuania and Poland that expressed discontent that they were not invited for celebration of the 750-anniversary of Kaliningrad.
Silent solidarity with Russia the European leaders expressed on the question of disavowal of already almost signed agreement on the state frontier with Estonia that at the last moment tried to fix the fact of soviet occupation at the republic’s territory.
It seems like any dip-scandal with ambitious new members of EU Russia finds reserved sympathy from old Europe that creates pre-conditions for strengthening the alliance. Moscow, in its turn, tries to maneuver between “old” and “new” Europe and at the same time to destroy transatlantic unity, justly supposing that relations with the USA are the priority for the Europeans.
