The Balance of Power in the Former Soviet Union
Moscow's envoy to NATO has signaled that Russia is ready to resume the thaw in relations triggered last month in the G20 meeting in London between presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev. Russia had been miffed by NATO exercises going on in Georgia, and canceled a planned meeting with NATO this month. But now Dmitry Rogozin, Russia's envoy to NATO, says, "We will go ahead with restoring relations." Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said much the same when he met with Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Washington last week.
Yet Rogozin and Lavrov can behave statesmanlike because in a big way recent events have gone Russia's way.
NATO proceeded with the exercises despite Russia's objections, thus ostensibly demonstrating that no country will determine who can join the military alliance, and where it will act. But look under the hood. One of the nations missing from the games is Kazakhstan -- President Nursultan Nazarbayev declined to send troops to the month-long games. Why did this deft balancer of great powers go along with Russia's wishes on NATO? Perhaps he would have declined even if there had been no Russia-Georgia war last summer, when Russian troops overran large parts of Georgia in anger over Tbilisi's violence in South Ossetia (or perhaps Kazakhstan simply didn't want to go, as the country itself explained.). Yet, Russia's former colonies are behaving with more circumspection than, say, a year ago, and one suspects that the August war is much responsible for that.
A super-smart former senior U.S. diplomat to the former Soviet Union told me yesterday over coffee that the U.S. has not yet lost its influence in the Caucasus and Central Asia; the August events, he said, were "a shot over the bow." But an actual "diplomatic disaster," he said, would come only if Russia actually overran all of Georgia, and seized control of the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, along with some of the financial benefits accruing to such a move. In this former envoy's view, possession of the "economic rent" would be "qualitatively different" from the current state of affairs, because it would amount to effective Russian reconquest of the Caucasus and Central Asian states.
Possession of the economic benefits -- meaning the pipeline transportation tariffs -- would be different. But I don't see Russia making such a move, one reason being that it doesn't have to: Actual occupation of Georgia isn't necessary; rather, with the August war, Russia signaled that it is prepared to go to any lengths -- in this case military -- to enforce its will. The outcome has been one 'Stan after another falling into line.
Kazakhstan's non-participation in the NATO exercises is just one sign of that. In another, just two days ago, the European Union signed an agreement that Dan Bilefsky of the NYT describes as intended to speed up the Nabucco natural gas pipeline, the western-backed effort to reduce Russia's energy influence in Europe; Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan -- the current biggest sources of natural gas for the line -- declined to sign. Diplomats told Bilefsky that the three countries did so "because of pressure from Russia." Moreover, after meeting with Medvedev, Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev suggested that he will sell his country's natural gas to Russia, at the same time that Europe and Washington have all-but begged him to commit his gas to Nabucco. There has been a mood shift recently in the U.S. on whether Nabucco is singularly important; yet it's one thing determining that in the West, and quite another doing so in Moscow.
Meanwhile, on the military front, there is the U.S. ejection from its military base in Kyrgyzstan in favor of Russia.
Current and former U.S. officials with whom I've spoken in the last week or two hew to the belief that the August events were strategically meaningless to the U.S. That is, that the U.S. retains roughly the same influence across the Caucasus and Central Asia as it did prior to the war.
The truth is that U.S. energy policy in the region is a shambles. A U.S.-Iran rapprochment could change that (there is a genuine chance, for starters, that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will lose the presidential election next month. His three major rivals, while perhaps not differing substantively from Ahmadinejad, are distinctive from him in tone and approach. Talks with the U.S. could be much smoother.).
The State Department has a super-skilled diplomat on Eurasian energy in the form of Dick Morningstar. At the National Security Council, my former Stanford colleague Mike McFaul is clear-eyed on Russia; and, with the Obama administration fixated on alternative energy and climate change to the exclusion of any expertise in oil and natural gas, NSC Adviser Jim Jones is seeking a much-needed senior director for global energy, I'm told.
Washington has no equivalent in this sphere to the roles played in South Asia by Richard Holbrooke and in the Middle East by George Mitchell. Perhaps the combination of talent in State and on the NSC will be sufficient to handle the complex brief straddling the lines of Russia, the 'Stans, Iran, nuclear proliferation and energy.
Yet Rogozin and Lavrov can behave statesmanlike because in a big way recent events have gone Russia's way.
NATO proceeded with the exercises despite Russia's objections, thus ostensibly demonstrating that no country will determine who can join the military alliance, and where it will act. But look under the hood. One of the nations missing from the games is Kazakhstan -- President Nursultan Nazarbayev declined to send troops to the month-long games. Why did this deft balancer of great powers go along with Russia's wishes on NATO? Perhaps he would have declined even if there had been no Russia-Georgia war last summer, when Russian troops overran large parts of Georgia in anger over Tbilisi's violence in South Ossetia (or perhaps Kazakhstan simply didn't want to go, as the country itself explained.). Yet, Russia's former colonies are behaving with more circumspection than, say, a year ago, and one suspects that the August war is much responsible for that.
A super-smart former senior U.S. diplomat to the former Soviet Union told me yesterday over coffee that the U.S. has not yet lost its influence in the Caucasus and Central Asia; the August events, he said, were "a shot over the bow." But an actual "diplomatic disaster," he said, would come only if Russia actually overran all of Georgia, and seized control of the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, along with some of the financial benefits accruing to such a move. In this former envoy's view, possession of the "economic rent" would be "qualitatively different" from the current state of affairs, because it would amount to effective Russian reconquest of the Caucasus and Central Asian states.
Possession of the economic benefits -- meaning the pipeline transportation tariffs -- would be different. But I don't see Russia making such a move, one reason being that it doesn't have to: Actual occupation of Georgia isn't necessary; rather, with the August war, Russia signaled that it is prepared to go to any lengths -- in this case military -- to enforce its will. The outcome has been one 'Stan after another falling into line.
Kazakhstan's non-participation in the NATO exercises is just one sign of that. In another, just two days ago, the European Union signed an agreement that Dan Bilefsky of the NYT describes as intended to speed up the Nabucco natural gas pipeline, the western-backed effort to reduce Russia's energy influence in Europe; Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan -- the current biggest sources of natural gas for the line -- declined to sign. Diplomats told Bilefsky that the three countries did so "because of pressure from Russia." Moreover, after meeting with Medvedev, Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev suggested that he will sell his country's natural gas to Russia, at the same time that Europe and Washington have all-but begged him to commit his gas to Nabucco. There has been a mood shift recently in the U.S. on whether Nabucco is singularly important; yet it's one thing determining that in the West, and quite another doing so in Moscow.
Meanwhile, on the military front, there is the U.S. ejection from its military base in Kyrgyzstan in favor of Russia.
Current and former U.S. officials with whom I've spoken in the last week or two hew to the belief that the August events were strategically meaningless to the U.S. That is, that the U.S. retains roughly the same influence across the Caucasus and Central Asia as it did prior to the war.
The truth is that U.S. energy policy in the region is a shambles. A U.S.-Iran rapprochment could change that (there is a genuine chance, for starters, that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will lose the presidential election next month. His three major rivals, while perhaps not differing substantively from Ahmadinejad, are distinctive from him in tone and approach. Talks with the U.S. could be much smoother.).
The State Department has a super-skilled diplomat on Eurasian energy in the form of Dick Morningstar. At the National Security Council, my former Stanford colleague Mike McFaul is clear-eyed on Russia; and, with the Obama administration fixated on alternative energy and climate change to the exclusion of any expertise in oil and natural gas, NSC Adviser Jim Jones is seeking a much-needed senior director for global energy, I'm told.
Washington has no equivalent in this sphere to the roles played in South Asia by Richard Holbrooke and in the Middle East by George Mitchell. Perhaps the combination of talent in State and on the NSC will be sufficient to handle the complex brief straddling the lines of Russia, the 'Stans, Iran, nuclear proliferation and energy.
Labels: Caspian, Nabucco, nord stream, obama, Putin, Russia, south stream
1 Comments:
I was somewhat surprised that Russia held a military march which mirrored those so celebrated by the old Soviet Union. It seems they do not want to be forgotten as a major military power.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home