CC BY
28TRANSCAUCASIA AMID THE GLOBAL CRISIS
Sergey Grinyaev
The article is devoted to the analysis of the situation caused by the global financial and economic crisis. It is shown that as most of the countries of the world the countries of Transcaucasia were in the whirlwind of crisis, their economies suffered substantial losses. It is especially mentioned that crisis influenced not only social and economic situation but in some cases it has also affected foreign political positions of the states of Transcaucasia: under new difficult circumstances they have to look for new solutions of the old problems. The special attention in the article is paid to the Russian interests in Transcaucasia. It is mentioned that today Russia have to struggle for the preservation of its influence in the region. The role and the influence of a number of international projects realized in the region (particularly such projects as Nabucco) are examined.
Fast Facts
Crisis, which broke out in 2007, still continues to determine the main tendencies today, in two years after the beginning of those serious perturbations in the economy. The situation in the world economy is still alarming. The forecasts of analysts come to the conclusion that the beginning of the overcoming the crisis will start not earlier than in 3-5 years1.
At the same time the analysis and assessment of the peculiarities of the current crisis show that this is not an “ordinary” crisis, not another wave connected with the overproduction of any product, but it is something more serious and deep – this is a system crisis which touches on the grounds of the modern post-industrial civilization and overlaps the social, cultural, spiritual and other crises and this intensifies synergetic effect of their mutual influence and destructive effect on the modern soci-
1 http://www.volgograd.ru/business/obzor_fond/186102.pub http://www.fedpress.ru/38/econom/banks/id_124598.html
10
<21-st CENTURY», №2 (6), 2009
S. Grinyaev
ety. As a result, at the turn of the first quarter of the 21st century the world faces new era which demands fundamentally new architecture.
Amid the crisis the processes connected with the reorganization of the system of the world order are developed. The emergence of the various formats of the communication within the frame of the so called “G”-s became the characteristic feature of the anti-crisis managing. If before 2009 there had been only one G7 format and its broadened political variant with the participation of Russia – G8, then since the beginning of 2009 that format has become dominant and it included into its orbit many new countries. They began talking about G11, then about G15, G20 and even G50. Concurrently everybody denied even the possibility of the solution of any significant issue within the framework of the existing world order. Till June 2009 nobody remembered about the UN. All the world mass media were full of the information about the international meetings within various “G” formats which results did not comply with the existing system of the international law and reflected the wishes of the richest people of the world to arrange new post-industrial redivision of the world.
The aspiration not “de jure” but “de facto” to remake the system of the world order is rather understandable. The right of veto of the permanent member countries of the UN keeps some on the hop and it would have been impossible to miss such a chance as a global financial crisis.
Today the experts concur that the current financial and economic crisis is managed by the world financial elite. The purpose of the crisis is to preserve the dominance of the current financial elite and put a ground for a new model of world finances amid the ongoing global transformations. Among the latter are the exhaustion of the discovered hydro-carbon resources in the near future; the grave changes of climate which bring to the transformation of geopolitical space; the essential change of the migration flows of the planet’s population; the appearance of the break-through technologies in industry, which can cardinally change the direction and the tempo of the humanity development.
Per se, those who have arranged this crisis face the same problems which were solved during World War I and II by the military force. In other words a world war is going on today and it is conducted by the economic pressure, blackmail, speculations and bribery (e.g. - for struggling with the crisis Russia has already spent more than $220 billion while the US during the year appropriated $160 billion for the operations of their army in Iraq and Afghanistan). As a result, the geopolitical picture of the world is changing fast, the needs of the world
11
S.Grinyaev
<21-st CENTURY», №2 (6), 2009
powers and the interests connected with those needs also change. The cardinal change of the geo-economic picture of the world is the consequence of such transformations.
1. General geo-economic estimation of the of the situation in Transcaucasia
Generally the developments in Transcaucasia were characterized by the tense stability. The economies of the republics of Transcaucasia were pending for the active phase of the development of a number of regional energy projects which have been started in recent years.
The inflow of foreign investments to the countries of the region was at a rather faster pace first of all to the branches connected with the development of the natural resources. This caused the growth of GDP of the republics (Picture 1). Rather good results were acquired by Azerbaijan which actively engaged foreign capital in the development of its own production fields.
Pic. 1
The changes of the GDP of the republics of Transcaucasia, $ billion
-♦-Armenia -И-Azerbaijan__________Georgia)
Source CIA FactBook
12
<21-st CENTURY», №2 (6), 2009
S. Grinyaev
The high energy costs allowed Azerbaijan accumulating rather serious financial resources thus creating in the country the mechanism of financial stabilization (Pic.2)
Pic.2
International reserves of the countries of Transcaucasia, billion of dollars
Source CIA FactBook
Pic.3
The aggregate foreign dept of the republics of Transcaucasia
-■♦--Armenia -e-Armenia Geor-
Source CIA FactBook
13
S.Grinyaev
<21-st CENTURY», №2 (6), 2009
But alongside with the definite economic achievements the foreign dept of the republics of Transcaucasia also grew (pic.3).
Over the regarded period interesting and rather crucial changes took place among the trade and economic partners of the countries of Transcaucasia which partly illustrate the general change of the situation in the region1.
As for Georgia in 2005 its production was exported to the following countries: Russia (18.1%), Turkey (14.3%), Azerbaijan (9.8%), Turkmenistan (8.9%), Bulgaria (5%), Armenia (4.7%), Ukraine (4.4%), and Canada (4.2%). In the same year the main importers to Georgia were Russia (15.4%), Turkey (11.4%), Azerbaijan (9.4%), Ukraine (8.8%), Germany (8.3%), and USA (6%).
But in 2007 the situation changed. Georgian production was exported to the following countries: Turkey (13%), USA (11.2%), Azerbaijan (6.3%), Great Britain (5.4%), Bulgaria (5.1%), Ukraine (5%), Armenia (4.8%), Turkmenistan (4.5%), and Canada (4.2%). The main importers were Turkey (14%), Russia (12.3%), Ukraine (8,5%), Azerbaijan (7.3%), Germany (6,8%), USA (5%), Bulgaria (4.6%).
In 2005 Azerbaijan preferred to trade with the following countries. Export: Italy (30,3%), France (9,4%), Russia (6,6%), Turkey (6,3%), Turkmenistan (6,3%), Georgia (4,8%), Israel (4,5%), Croatia (4,1%). Import: Russia (17%), Great Britain (9,1%), Singapore (9,1%), Turkey (7,4%), Germany (6,1%), Turkmenistan (5,8%), Ukraine (5,4%), China (4,1%).
As for Armenia then in the regarded years its foreign trade balance was formed due to the trade with the following countries. In 2005 goods were imported from the following countries: Russia (13.5%), Belgium (8%), Germany (7.9%), Ukraine (7%), Turkmenistan (6.3%), USA (6.2%), Israel (5.8%), Iran (5%), and Romania (4.2%). The production was exported to Germany (15.6%), the Netherlands (13.7%), Belgium (12.8%), Russia (12.2%), Israel (11.5%), USA (11.2%), and Georgia (4.8%).
In 2007 the situation changed. The products were exported to Russia (17.5%), Germany (14.7%), the Netherlands (13.5%), Belgium (8.7%), Georgia (7.6%), USA (6.6%), Switzerland (4.3%), Bulgaria (4.1%), and Ukraine (4%). Import came from Russia (15.1%), Ukraine (7.7%), Kazakhstan (7.4%), Germany (6.8%), China (6%), France (4.6%), USA (4.5%), and Iran (4.3%).
At the same time analysis and the assessment of the developing situation allowed supposing that at the turn of 2005-2006 due to the concentration and mutual intersection of the interests of a number of leading states (Russia, Germany, Great Britain, USA and China) in the region, first of all in the issues of the free access to
1 Source CIA FactBook
14
<21-st CENTURY», №2 (6), 2009
S. Grinyaev
the resources of the Caspian region, the situation could have changed radically. Even more it became clear that a kind of status-quo which had been formed in the region earlier, by 2006 did not suit some powers, which purposefully worked to destabilize situation in the region.
The activation of the work of Israeli official and non-governmental organizations in Transcaucasia is a rather interesting fact. Particularly, the active cooperation between Israel and Georgia started in 2005. The elaboration of the security and defence of the “Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan” oil pipeline by NATO forces also refers to that period (the main participants to the project are BP (30,1%), SOCAR (25%), Unocal (8,9%), Statoil (8,71%), TPAO (6,53%), ENI (5%), Itochu (3,4%), ConocoPhillips (2,5%), INPEX(2,5%), Total(5%) and Amerada Hess (2,36%)).
Back in 2003 in a number of mass media information appeared that the American instructors train in Azerbaijan special detachments, which were called “Caspian guard”, for the operative solution of the problems connected with the guarding of the feed production and transportation objects in the Caspian region1. In the same period the possibility of sending American soldiers to the region with the same mission was actively discussed2. And though the leadership of NATO officially gave up on the guarding of the oil pipeline3, unofficially a part of military contingent of NATO and the employees of the private militarized security companies from the US and other western countries carry out that mission on the territory of Georgia and Azerbaijan. The guarding of that strategic object by NATO forces introduced another essential destabilizing factor into the general situation in the region.
The first signal about the change of the situation in the region was the sharp deterioration of the Russian-Georgian relations in 2005 caused by the aspiration of the Georgian authorities to close Russian military bases, the withdrawal of the Russian troops and their possible change by NATO troops. In that period the terrorist activity in Russia was activated and it was accompanied by the shift of the centre of confrontation of the “federals” and illegal armed bands to Ingushetia (with possible further plans on the expansion of the interethnic conflict of Ingushs and Ossetians).
The beginning of the world financial and economic crisis, which fell on the autumn 2007, did not affect directly the situation in Transcaucasia. The results of the influence of the crisis on the economy and social sphere of the countries of Transcaucasia has been perceptible since the second half of 2008 and has acquired more
1 http://www.rsppenergy.ru/main/content.asp?art_id=3576
2 http://www.rususa.com/news/news.asp-nid-1447-catid-3
3 http://www.rsppenergy.ru/main/content.asp?art_id=3576
15
S.Grinyaev
<21-st CENTURY», №2 (6), 2009
visible outlines since the beginning of 2009.
The sharpest and the most significant event directly connected with the escalation of the economic situation in the world was the aggression of Georgia against South Ossetia. Georgian leadership and its western advisors strove for the solution of at least two problems. Firstly, they wanted to try to solve domestic problems of Georgia and, secondly, to destabilize the situation on Russian market. It should be accepted that if the first task was failed then the second one was executed. Just from the beginning of the conflict in South Ossetia Russian stock market index dropped abruptly thus involving into the crisis the whole financial system of the country.
But this conflict has also illuminated other aspects of geopolitical situation transformation in the Caucasus and Transcaucasia and one of them is the clarification of geopolitical interests of Israel in the region.
As it turned out the military instructors from that country in large numbers took part in the training of Georgian soldiers1. Such a large-scale military presence of that country in Transcaucasia turned out to be unexpected for most of the Russian analysts.
At the same time, though the military cooperation of Georgia and Israel was rather vividly outlined in the period of the conflict in summer 2008 still many aspects concerning the role of that country in the region remain unseen. Thus, according to some information, Israel in the recent years has considerably activated its contacts not only with Georgia but also with Azerbaijan and Armenia. The following fact is particularly characteristic: approximately at the same time Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, as a consequence of geostrategic reshaping of the territories, were put down by the CIA to the Middle Eastern region. Thus the strategy of the US administration to form the Big Middle East was confirmed. It looks as if Israel pays the role of the coordinator of the project but everything does not shape well.
As for the influence of crisis on Armenia there are also some essential aspects connected with the attempts to revise a number of foreign policy theses which have dominated recently but complicated the situation under the crisis.
The estimations show that situation in Armenia is difficult: the crisis affected the economy in full. The crisis was apparently initiated by the serious devaluation of the Armenian dram (at once on 30%)2. Today already 71% of population feels that crisis affected economy of the country3.
1 http://www.newsru.com/world/23sep2008/war.html http://www.inosmi.ru/translation/243803.html
2 http://www.rosbalt.ru/2009/03/06/623907.html
3 http://www.rosbalt.ru/2009/06/30/651229.html
16
<21-st CENTURY», №2 (6), 2009
S. Grinyaev
The situation in the republic was aggravated by the fact that the essential stake in the GDP of the country was formed by the means transferred by the representatives of the Diaspora1. The worsening of the financial standing of the representatives of Diaspora seriously and negatively affected Armenian economy.
The other factor which affected economic situation in the republic was the problem of return of the Armenian workers who worked abroad. Armenian sources do not bring the exact statistics on the number of those who returned but it is supposed that there is a considerable number of them. Those categories of Armenian citizens join the dole queue and increase the social expenses of the government.
At the same time the remittance volume (almost 80% of which came from Russia) which constituted $2.5 billion annually (it is almost 20% of the Armenian GDP) fell on 25% in 2009.
Generally, the analysis shows that crisis affected almost all the countries of Transcaucasia without exception and rather seriously and deeply. The development of crisis occurrences makes the leaderships of those countries look for the ways to stabilize the situation in economy very often using methods and actions that would have seemed impossible in the former years and this may bring to the aggravating of a number of regional conflicts.
It is also characteristic that Russia, which did not have the clear stance in regard to the countries of Transcaucasia before the crisis, was not ready to react operatively on the swift changes of the situation in the region which manifested itself in the serious oscillations of foreign policy interests vector in the CIS space.
2. Can Russia withstand in the struggle for the CIS?
Today rather big number of experts in Russia deals with the analysis and study of the influence of the crisis on the relations within the framework of the CIS. Their general conclusion is that the crisis escalated the difference in the social and economic development of the CIS countries. According to some estimates, such a situation has already provoked centrifugal tendencies in the Commonwealth2.
In analytical researches it is mentioned that the leaders of most of the CIS countries did not elaborate special anti-crisis plans, and even more the Commonwealth has no joint operating plan3.
At the same time it should be mentioned that Russian leadership realizes that under the crisis the process of disintegration of the CIS will be precipitated. That is
1 http://www.inosmi.ru/translation/248862.html
2 http://www.gazeta.ru/financial/2009/06/25/3215222.shtml
3 http://www.fbk.ru/upload/contents/561/anticrisis-CIS.pdf
17
S.Grinyaev
<21-st CENTURY», №2 (6), 2009
why the measures were assumed to boost the economies of the CIS countries. Particularly, Russia has already granted credits ease to a number of CIS countries (unlike Western countries which demand for the preferences – both political and economic).
The most significant factor promoting the stoppage of the centrifugal tendencies among the CIS countries has been the creation of the EurAsEC anti-crisis foundation and $7.5 billion of $10.5 billion of its funds were contributed by Russia1.
The aspiration of Russia not to allow the further separation of the near abroad countries has already given rise to serious complaints on behalf of the expert community of the US. Thus, particularly, in one of their recent works well-known American experts A.Cohen and L.Sasdi offer the Obama administration the following immediate plan in order not to allow the strengthening of the economic position of Russia in the CIS:
• to create “the global security system” which will be able to trace the investing activities of Russia and other countries bias against the West, first of all, in the branches of economy directly connected with the defence and security;
• to strengthen the cooperation with the energy resources producing countries -neighbours of Russia - as well as the countries with whom Russia tries to arrange the cooperation in the energy sphere and for this purpose to use different programmes including those directed to the modernization of their armed forces and power structures by implementing “Partnership for Peace” NATO programme;
• to extend cooperation with the special services and law-enforcement agencies of other countries in order to control the financial and economic operations of Russian state structures and oligarchs which are potentially connected with money laundering, corruption and unfair competitive practices and for this purpose to make the collection of the reliable intelligence information about the suspicious activity of Russia one of the priority tasks of the law-enforcement agencies of the US and its allies;
• to encourage the transnational corporations from the US and other countries to cooperate with such Russian companies as “Gasprom” in their struggle for the energy projects on which the Russian Federation has a claim in India, South-East Asia, Africa and Latin America. To strive to implement the alternative energy sources all over the world which would allow to overcome excessive dependence on the energy supplies from Russia, Iran and Venezuela
1 http://www.oko-planet.su/politik/newsday/14431-dmedvedev-vnes-v-gosdumu-na-ratifikaciyu-dogovor.html
18
<21-st CENTURY», №2 (6), 2009
S. Grinyaev
which openly tend to undermine economic and military might of the West;
• suppress anti-market, politicized, secret or illegal actions of any country to undermine western market outlets and security of the US to which Russia tends actively;
• to provide the Foreign Investments Committee in the US (FIC) headed by the minister of finances – as a means of counteraction to Russia – with necessary resources and support for carrying out the investigations in accordance with the American law, inducing the allies to establish analogous institutions for the estimation of the threats to their national security.
The reduction in Russia’s energy yield as a consequence of recession in world economy – they conclude – may promote the softening of its foreign policy course directed to the lowering of the role the US, slowing down the strengthening and modernization of its army. Nevertheless, the US should not rely on that objective circumstance and the Obama administration have to elaborate “comprehensive strategy” to restrain economic expansion of Russia.
The characteristic feature of this work is that the authors reflected the common feeling of threat coming from Russia which is cultivated on the West. It is suffice to remember the attempt of Russian VTB bank to boost its stake in the stock capital of the European EADS concern. This attempt caused a number of initiatives on behalf of the EU and the US leadership with the demand to prohibit the investments of the foreign state funds into the strategic enterprises.
Thereupon, there are rather good reasons to suppose that the initiatives of 2006-2009 in regard to the CIS countries on behalf of the US and the EU leadership, somehow or other, reflected the ideas which later were manifested in the work of A. Cohen and L. Sasdi.
Among those initiatives, firstly, the programme on the reconstruction of gas pipeline system of Ukraine with the further establishing of the control of the EU over it can be mentioned; secondly - the start of the “Eastern Partnership” programme of the EU; and thirdly – the conclusion of the documents on Nabuccoproject.
As for the first initiative, the agreement signed between Ukraine and the EU in March 2009 in the large extend remains simply a declaration. Many experts at the very moment of conclusion called this document an advertizing move and element of political bargain of the Ukrainian leadership. Today, it can be seen clearly that amid the aggravation of the financial crisis the EU financed only the preparation of the business plan and draft design of the works directed to the reconstruction of the gas pipeline system of Ukraine.
19
S.Grinyaev
<21-st CENTURY», №2 (6), 2009
As for the second initiative – “The Eastern Partnership” – the situation is similar but a little tangled.
It is known that the US and the EU have used such a way of working with countries where their interests are centered for quite a long time and rather actively. For example, we can remember “The Partnership for Peace” programme actively elaborated by NATO for the potential members of the alliance.
The official definition of “The Eastern Partnership” programme is as follows1: it is a project officially initiated by the European Union. It was presented by the foreign minister of Poland with assistance from Sweden at the EU's General Affairs and External Relations Council in Brussels on 26 May 2008. The main aim of the project is the setting of closer relations between the EU and 6 former-Soviet republics – Ukraine, Moldova, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia and Belarus. It is meant to complement the “Northern Dimension” and the “Union for the Mediterranean” by providing an institutionalised forum for discussing visa agreements, free trade deals and strategic partnership agreements with the EU's eastern neighbours, while avoiding the controversial topic of accession to the European Union.
Different interpretations in the estimation of the suitability of the continuation of the project by the EU countries is characterized at least by the fact that on July 2, 2009 the prime-minister of Sweden stated that the project would have been suspended till the December 20092. But the next day, on July 3, the EU office made a statement that the financing of the project would continue3.
At the same time many commentaries and expert’s estimations appeared in the mass media which reflected the essence and the character of the aims of “The Eastern Partnership” project.
The material of the American expert Rick Rozoff deserves special consideration4. In his opinion, the real aim of “The Eastern Partnership” is to complete the break down of the CIS, EurAsEC, which members are Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kirgizia, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, and Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), as well as not to allow the formalization of allied relations between Russia and Belarus5. In other words, the purpose of “The Eastern Partnership” is to isolate Russia from 6 of 12 CIS member countries, meanwhile other five countries are in the action field of another integration initiative of the European Union (“Northern
1 http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%BE%D1 %81%D1 %82%D0%BE%D1 %87%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0% B5_%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1 %80%D1 %82%D0%BD%D0%B5%D 1 %80%D 1%81%D 1 %82%D0%B2%D0%BE
2 http://www.regnum.ru/news/1181665.html
3 http://www.regnum.ru/news/1182010.html
4 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=listByAuthor&authorFirst=Rick&authorName=Rozoff
5 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12299
20
<21-st CENTURY», №2 (6), 2009
S. Grinyaev
Dimension”). In the opinion of the expert, finally, the EU intends with the help of “The Eastern Partnership” to exclude former-Soviet republics from the sphere of cooperation with Russia in the issues of trade relations, politics and security and to integrate them to Northern-Atlantic structures in the range from the EU to NATO1. In this vein the statement by the Secretary General of NATO seems to be rather unexpected2.
In his article Rick Rozoff mentions rather an interesting fact: the result of the NATO summit, which was arranged in Romania last year, was the closer integration of the EU and NATO, particularly, the agreement of the division of labour between the EU and NATO on the principle “soft power” – “hard power”3. Within this format “The Partnership” have to demonstrate the possibilities of the “soft power” and show that the decision about its establishment was made, among other reasons, also under the influence of August conflict in Georgia4.
Then Rozoff writes5, that for the first time the offer to initiate “The Eastern Partnership” was made in May 2008 but the impulse to its realization was given by the aspiration of the European Union to complement in the spirit of a “soft power” the decision of NATO to create “NATO – Georgia” Commission which was made after Georgia provoked a war in the Caucasus by the intrusion into South Ossetia in summer 2008. The role of the EU is to act by “diplomatic persuasion” means and to subsidize, meanwhile NATO generally and its member countries separately will provide Georgia with advanced offensive arms and reconnaissance systems, as well as they will train its army and supply it with the staff of the advisors.
The fact that Belarus was included in the list of the partners only on conditions that it would accept the plan of development of democracy6 can be regarded as a manifestation of the true intentions of the EU. The similar requirement was not so evidently formulated in regard to Armenia but due to the two crucial reasons it falls under the same category as Belarus. Armenia and Belarus are in the second echelon of the candidates for participating “The Eastern Partnership”, and they will be required a long term “improvement” before being absorbed in the process of “soft” expansion to the East.
According to the author it is also important that Armenia and Belarus are not a part of GUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Moldova) – block created in 1997 in
1 Ibid.
2 http://delo.ua/news/110063/
3 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12299
4 PanArmenian.net, December 11, 2008
5 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12299
6 PanArmenian.net, December 12, 2008
21
S.Grinyaev
<21-st CENTURY», №2 (6), 2009
opposition to CIS as a result of joint efforts of the Clinton administration and its European allies1. The “tulip revolution” which was accompanied by the victims among the civilians in Armenia a year ago and failed “jeans revolution” in Belarus two years ago did not have the effect their more successful prototypes in Georgia in 2003, in Ukraine in 2004 and in Kirgizia in 2005 had and thus it is time to use other means of political reorientation of Armenia and Belarus and their exclusion from the close allied relations with Russia2.
Soon after the announcement of the new initiative British The Daily Telegraph wrote: “Poland will take on its mighty neighbour Russia today when it proposes that the European Union extends its influence deep into the former Soviet Union by establishing an “Eastern Partnership”. The Eastern Partnership would be particularly galling for the Kremlin if its aspiration to include Belarus is achieved.”3
At the eve of the EU summit in December 2008 which formalized the plans on establishing “The Partnership”, the following commentary appeared in Georgian Daily newspaper “...This latest EU action could entail another consequence, one that few appear to be thinking about now. In the early 1990s, the United States took the lead in pushing the idea that the EU membership for East European countries could serve as either a surrogate or a stepping stone to NATO membership. If that idea should resurface, and some of its authors return to office with the incoming Obama Administration in Washington, it would change both the EU and NATO and equally would change how Moscow would deal with Brussels, thus introducing yet another complication in East-West relations.”4
Conclusion
Thus, summarizing one can state that the development of the situation in many regions of the world including Transcaucasia is closely connected with the general situation in the world economy and further development of crisis occurrences.
The situation in Transcaucasia is revealing in the plane that on its example once again rather vividly the artificial character of the ongoing global financial and economic crisis can be seen. The way the mechanism of “soft power”, which were laid four or three years ago when there was no word about the crisis, are efficiently used today comes to prove this.
1 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12299
2 Ibid.
3 The Daily Telegraph, May 26, 2008
4 Georgian Daily, December 8, 2008
22
<21-st CENTURY», №2 (6), 2009
S. Grinyaev
Unfortunately, Russian leadership has only now realized most of the problems connected with the preservation of the unity of near abroad, and only now it has started to elaborate some mechanisms. But for the beginning of their efficient work time, which is too little, is needed
On the other hand today the rivals of Russia simply intensify the efficiency of the well planned and partially carried out projects which work today only for the result.
At the same time there is still hope that the efforts applied will bear fruits and Russia will preserve and partially regain its positions in Transcaucasia lost for those years.
August, 2009
23
