CIS Doesn’t Solve Conflicts, It Promotes Them: Opinion

Creating the CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States) after the collapse of the Soviet Union was a positive move. At that time, there were two views on processes occurring in the CIS: radical or shock therapy and an evolutionary development of events, said Baku-based analyst Mubariz Ahmedoglu, commenting on the 20th anniversary of the CIS in 2011, reports ANS Press.

According to him, in the case of developments in “shock therapy,” many states were severely affected by this, and if we consider that in that period, Azerbaijan already had the “Karabakh issue,” then Azerbaijan would be most affected by these processes.

Ahmedoglu identified three stages of CIS development:

First, the period of dual feelings that arose after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when Russia had an insignificant influence on the other states. The reason was that Russia at that time had its own problems to worry about.

“The second stage I would call an era of subcultures. It was during the period when the CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organisation) and the EurAsEc (Eurasian Economic Community) appeared. On the agenda, as well, were the problems of Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova (GUAM). From an ideological point of view, the CIS became divided into two groups. If 4–5 subgroups carried out activities in Russia’s interests, then GUAM played the role of bearing ‘Western’ ideas. For example, certain events in Kyrgyzstan have shown that the CSTO has lost its relevance.

“The third period showed the impossibility of making the CIS a real structure,” said Ahmedoglu.

According to him, now is the time to talk about the insignificance of the CIS. The conflict between Russia and Georgia, at least, gives the grounds to speak on this, he said.

Ahmedoglu, recalling Georgia’s secession from the CIS, pointed out the absence of any changes in the country’s economic performance during this time. That is, according to the analyst, Georgia continues to be as it was when it was still part of the CIS. From this we can conclude that the CIS has “outlived its time.”

On the topic of conflict between states, it can be said that the Soviet Union collapsed because of these conflicts. The first conflict in this matter was Nagorno-Karabakh. Thus, said Ahmedoglu, this conflict was unleashed with the aim of overthrowing the USSR.

“Later came the conflict in Ukraine [Transnistria or the de facto Pridnestrovian Moldvian Republic], then issues in Georgia’s territory. I look at the CIS not as a structure that’s solving conflicts, but, on the contrary, as one that is promoting them and benefiting from their existence,” concluded Ahmedoglu.