Elena Zinovieva: marring relations with Moscow is quite dangerous and risky

Elena Zinovieva, Professor at the Department of World Political Processes at MGIMO University under Russia’s Foreign Ministry and PhD in Political Science, spoke with Alpha News to sum up the results of the NATO summit in Turkey, assess the current state of Russian-American relations, and discuss whether a direct military clash between NATO and Russia is possible amid Europe’s active militarization, as well as how rising tensions between Russia and the West could affect post-Soviet countries, particularly Armenia.

According to the expert, serious discrepancies within NATO are now visible on a whole range of issues.

“The NATO summit in Ankara, in my view, demonstrates a dual picture. On the one hand, it was aimed at demonstrating alliance unity and Turkey’s commitment to its allied obligations. On the other hand, we can probably say that today the question is no longer whether there’s a crisis within NATO, but what form that crisis will take, since we’re seeing serious disagreements among the allies on a whole range of issues. The first and most important is the desire of the United States and Donald Trump to reduce commitments toward Europe, including financial ones, especially regarding defense funding. Discrepancies over the Ukraine crisis are also very noticeable. While for many European leaders the Ukraine crisis is a strategy they use for long-term containment of Russia and to ensure Europe’s internal unity, for Trump it’s more of a problem to be solved, preferably through negotiation, so he can focus on his main interest: the US-China strategic rivalry. And we’re seeing that the swift resolution on Ukraine, that Trump was counting on, hasn’t happened. But at the same time, in the long term, we see that the US is distancing itself from European security problems. It’s focused on achieving its own leadership and pursuing its own interests. Europe, meanwhile, is focused primarily on ensuring internal unity and stability, given China’s growing role and the shifting international political configuration. The Europeans have managed to secure certain concessions from Trump: he agreed to increase funding and train troops. But nevertheless, in the long term, the US strategy of not wanting to be so heavily involved in financing European security is unlikely to change substantially,” said Zinovieva.

The expert commented on the negotiations between the presidents of Russia and the US against the backdrop of the Trump administration’s acknowledgment of support for Kyiv’s strikes on Russian territory. According to her, ongoing dialogue between the nuclear superpowers, Russia and the US, remains the most important mechanism for preventing needless escalation and maintaining global security.

“Russia and the US are two nuclear superpowers. And even in the context of global security, ongoing dialogue and confidence-building measures are necessary. It’s very good that such dialogue exists. It helps avoid unnecessary escalation and the misreading of diplomatic signals. All the more so since a significant portion of diplomatic signals are aimed at a mass audience, at Trump’s electorate, to whom he also needs to demonstrate that he is a strong politician. In this context, it’s especially important to maintain constant channels of communication. After all, when the famous ‘red telephone’ appeared, which was actually a telegraph line between Moscow and Washington, what was it created for? After the Cuban Missile Crisis, it was created so that, amid strategic uncertainty, there would be no misreading of diplomatic and military signals. To keep relations under control. It’s a manageable situation in which uncertainty can be reduced and mutual security ensured. That doesn’t mean all problems in the relationship are resolved.

And it doesn’t mean phone calls will lead to complete mutual understanding. No. But it helps maintain communication channels, build an atmosphere of trust, and overall shows that the signals Trump sends to Europe, including at the Ankara summit, are just one part of his foreign policy strategy, which is actually far more complex. And as international relations theorists often like to say, the game is being played on several chessboards at once. One is geoeconomic, another is geopolitical, another is military, and there are also the spheres of artificial intelligence and digital technology. We’re seeing an entirely different balance of power take shape. And it’s precisely this, in my view, that gives some grounds for optimism,” Zinovieva noted.

Speaking about how rising tensions between Russia and the West could affect post-Soviet countries, including Armenia, the expert said the countries of the region are now facing increased competition among outside powers, but that Russia still plays a key role in the region, making a break in relations with Moscow a risky move.

“Of course, for the post-Soviet space, this is a situation of strategic uncertainty. On the one hand, Russia remains the largest ally and the largest and most influential power in the region. That’s indisputable. Its importance persists in the economy, in politics, and in the security sphere. At the same time, we see that the European Union, the US, NATO, and Turkey are trying to pull these countries to their side. In Central Asia, for example, China’s influence is growing. And, of course, this creates certain risks for the post-Soviet space. As for Armenia, here’s what we’re seeing. First, this is a country that has always had close ties with Russia. There’s a very large Armenian diaspora in Russia, traditionally strong ties with Russia, cultural closeness, religious closeness, all of this plays a certain role. At the same time, today we see growing influence from Turkey, growing influence from Azerbaijan, while the US and Europe are beginning to put pressure on Armenia to get it to change its pro-Russian orientation and integrate more into the European strategic course. It seems to me that for all post-Soviet states, in this situation, it’s important to preserve strategic autonomy. On the one hand, foreign policy diversification is needed, along with accounting for changing conditions and circumstances, and foreign policy flexibility. On the other hand, it’s important to understand that Russia will remain an influential neighbor. Russian influence in the post-Soviet space isn’t going anywhere. And in this context, marring relations with Moscow is quite dangerous and risky,” Zinovieva concluded.