Statements on willingness to improve relations were made by the leaders of both countries. The first meeting of the Special Representative of the Prime Minister of Georgia for relations with Russia Zurab Abashidze with Grigory Karasin took place; there was the visit to Moscow of the Georgian Patriarch, but Saakashvili and Ivanishvili say that the foreign policy of Georgia is unchanged, that Georgia wants to join the EU and NATO, and that is unacceptable to the Kremlin. Does it turn out that such statements from the lips of Saakashvili were unacceptable for Russia, and from Ivanishvili - acceptable?
-Yes, at the level of statements there is no change in the foreign policy, but the situation changed in the international arena. If in 2006, 2007, 2008, NATO expansion was seen as one of the real prospects, now this issue lost its relevance. It is obvious that in the near future, NATO will not expand. It is also clear that the position of the main European opponents of Georgia's integration into NATO has not changed. Therefore, due to change of the situation in the international arena for the expansion of NATO, the pro-Western rhetoric of the new Georgian authorities is less important to Russia than the fact that the form of the Georgian-Russian relations changed.
Given the fact that the criticism of the West on the occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, “anti-Magnitsky” and other laws adopted by the State Duma is not painful to Russia, in your opinion, what does Russia aim at, while improving relations with Georgia?
-Moscow did not trust Saakashvili as a partner. From this point of view, Ivanishvili is a new man in this area and therefore he has the advantage in the matter of settling relations with Russia. As for the fact that Russia does not consider the criticism of the West - yes, Russia does not share the West's position on the issue of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
The head of the Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov after the Munich Security Conference said – “It is unrealistic to say that Russia will give up the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia”. Speaking on the improvement of Russian-Georgian relations, in Georgia today many pose the following question - if Russia thinks so, what’s the point of improving relations with Russia?
-As for what’s the point of improving relations between Russia and Georgia, let us remember 2008, the tragic Georgian-Russian conflict, which created a great risk of conflict in Europe. Improvement in relations between Russia and Georgia is necessary at least to avoid this in the future. In my opinion, this is a strong enough argument so that the specific measures are taken in order to avoid such prospects in the future.
And this, despite the fact that the representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry Lukashevich said that at the talks between Russia and Georgia the issue of Georgia’s return to the CIS is not considered? And yet, does it not mean that Russia has adjusted its policy regarding Georgia and is developing a new approach?
- Moscow does not pay attention to the pro-Western statements of the official Tbilisi because it estimates the NATO’s expansion prospects as unrealistic. Everyone understands that Georgia neither today nor tomorrow will be able to join NATO. Therefore, there are no barriers for Russia not to improve relations with Georgia.
Can you clarify what the basis of your assessment is?
-My assessment is based on the observation of the situation prevailing in the international arena. If you put the question this way – does the U.S. administration support Georgia’s integration into NATO the same way? - The answer is obvious - no. Actually, today in U.S. foreign policy the post-Soviet space is not a priority. In addition, there is already a general trend in U.S. foreign policy, which provides for a decrease of the U.S. involvement in world affairs. I said it once, but I will say it again, the position of France and Germany to Georgia's integration into NATO has not changed. I do not understand what the prospects are for Georgia in such circumstances to join NATO. In my view, these prospects are quite uncertain.
Russian experts have often expressed the view that Georgia needs more to improve relations with Russia. Some Georgian experts believe that the Kremlin welcomes the initiative of Tbilisi to improve relations with Moscow in order to use it to its advantage in the international arena. The Kremlin will be able to say that it is in friendly relations with Georgia, and the issues of Abkhazia and South Ossetia will be forgotten. In your opinion, how well-founded are these claims?
-The Kremlin does not report to the West on issues of improving relations with Georgia. As for Abkhazia and South Ossetia, I think everybody understands that these issues cannot be solved immediately. It's hard for me to predict how these issues will be resolved. But it’s a fact that in the context of improving Russian-Georgian relations and restoring trust between the parties, I mean a triangular Moscow-Tbilisi-Sukhumi-Tskhinvali, the time to discuss these issues will come. It’s known in advance that it is a long process. It seems to me that the agenda of the Russian-Georgian relations doesn’t include the issues of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. At this stage it will be more productive to put aside different views on this issue and try to improve bilateral relations in various fields.
It is no secret that the Russian political circles are actively considering the possibility of Georgia joining the Customs Union and the Eurasian Union. While even Ukraine doesn’t enter it and the prospect of the Eurasian Union is very vague, Georgia does not want to join either one of these associations, in your opinion, what form of cooperation between Russia and Georgia may exist?
-Yes, in Moscow the prospects of Georgia's integration into the post-Soviet space are considered. This is not an issue of a short term, but it is regarded as one of the scenarios. The basis of this scenario is that the world is rapidly changing, global politics has become unpredictable, and so Russia must have plans for the development of events under different scenarios, including such one. As for the fact that Ukraine does not want to join the Customs Union, yes, Kiev has a special position on the issue, but the Russian, Belarusian and Kazakh business already has the advantage of the existence of the Customs Union. In fact, Georgia too has some benefits. Those Georgian products, which could not enter into the Russian market, got there from Kazakhstan and Belarus.
Russia is a big, nuclear power. It is not surprising that it estimates its policy in the long term, but it’s a fact that the statements of Prime Minister Ivanishvili does not fit in this context. What grounds do Russian political analysts have to argue that Ivanishvili will hold a policy which some day will bring Georgia into any post-Soviet union?
-I did not say that Georgia should join any union. I'm saying that Russia in the long run regards it as one of the options the establishment of a specific union in the post-soviet space. As for Ivanishvili, it would be wrong to link the future relations between Russia and Georgia with one person. The victory of “Georgian Dream” in the elections and his appointment to the post of prime minister created in the domestic politics of Georgia a new situation and opportunities for improvement of the Georgian-Russian relations. But this does not mean that Ivanishvili will restore diplomatic relations with Russia and will launch an integration process of Georgia into the Customs Union of Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus. It is not about the current political situation, but about the future of Russian-Georgian relations. In my view, we should not confuse these issues with each other.
Patriarch Ilia II during a meeting with the Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed hope that “Georgia will be united”. Putin has not stinted kind words to the patriarch, but left the “hope” of Ilia II without comment. In your opinion, what could Putin's silence on the most painful issue mean for Georgia?
- This means that Russia recognized the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. It would be surprising if Putin had disavowed this recognition. Also it would be awesome if during the meeting with Putin, the Georgian Patriarch had mentioned these issues.
That is one should not expect any changes in Russia's approaches to this issue?
- Personally, I don’t expect any change in the position of Russia and Georgia in the near future.
During his visit to Moscow, Ilia II asked the Russian side to rebury the remains of the Georgian kings Vakhtang VI and Teimuraz I from Astrakhan in Georgia, and received in return a refusal. Patriarch Kirill said that the solution to these issues must be made by the Russian society after a debate. In parallel, he also gave the Patriarch Ilia II relics of Alexander Nevsky, about which in Georgia there were different views. The essence of these views is as follows – were there the discussions in the Russian society on the transfer of the relics of Alexander Nevsky? And yet, for the Russian Church the remains of the Georgian kings are more important than the holy relics of Alexander Nevsky? What will be your answer?
- In my opinion, from the canonical point of view, these are two different things. As far as I know, the Patriarch gave the relics of Alexander Nevsky to Patriarch Ilia II. I'm not particularly versed in theology and church affairs, but, to my knowledge, the transfer of the relics is a common practice. As for the remains of the Georgian kings, I do not recall that in Russian society there were discussions on this topic. As far as I know, these issues are handled by the Georgian-Russian commission. Russia's position on the matter is that – is the transfer of the remains of the Georgian kings a symbolic oblivion of the common Georgian-Russian relations? That is, we return the relics and say goodbye to Georgia?
That is, if you do not return them, then you do not say goodbye?
-I did not say that…
What do you expect from the presentation of your report on Georgia?
- I expect an open and straightforward exchange of views. I want to know the position of the Georgian colleagues and to hear their vision of the Georgian-Russian relations in the new reality. I am waiting for assessments of how the situation has changed, what has changed and what has not. And I expect criticism.
As far as I remember, you had problems with the visit to Georgia. If I remember correctly it was due to the fact of your stay in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Apparently, these problems have been solved?
- Previously, I did have problems, but I do not know the reason. Then I was accused of many things. Even of the fact that I am an agent of the Russian secret services. I do not know which of the charges to consider true.
The Foreign Policy Analysis Group is a strategic intelligence and research organization based in Moscow, Russia. We analize and advise on foreign policy and international affairs since 2014 with an aim to produce the most accurate analysis of current affairs in international relations from non-Western perspective.
To top