The British newspaper “The Independent” recently published an article reviving the absurd idea of a Transcaucasian Federation. But for the serious tone of the article, it might go unnoticed. The author even tried to advance some arguments. Agreeing with RF Premier Vladimir Putin's claim that “Soviet command federalism was better at keeping the peace than the nationalisms,” the newspaper, referring to the “dreadful history of the region,” arrived at the conclusion that “these [Transcaucasian] nations could do a lot worse than having Mr. Strongman-in-Moscow in the background.”

The author offers a simple way out: “Instead of continuing the foolhardy policy of arming Georgia, Nato countries could consider reviving the old idea, briefly tried after the Russian Revolution, of a Transcaucasian Federation… A Transcaucasian Federation, with open internal borders and freedom of resettlement, just might have attractions for Mr. Putin, as well as for the EU.”

The article is one more piece of strong evidence of the superficial attitude shown to the region’s problems by some of the Old World representatives close to diplomatic circles: one and again they undertake to “teach lessons” to the nations of the region. No doubt, a state can only enhance its role in a region by thoroughly studying the mentality of the nations and origin of conflicts. However, European and American circles frequently show a superficial attitude to the Transcaucasus, which may only exacerbate the situation in the region, which is full of problems as it is. In this context, Russia does not really “sparkle” either. However, to a certain extent, the Soviet experience is of help to it, and, unlike London, Moscow can hardly suggest such absurd ideas as the revival of a Transcaucasian Federation. What a poor knowledge of the present situation in the Transcaucasus one must have to consider a Federation with open borders and free population settlement a possibility? The Georgian-Ossetian conflict, with Russia involved in it to a great extent, as well as the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, do not seem anything serious to some Europeans dealing with the region. Finally, if we refer to the Soviet experience and consider Soviet command federalism better than the nationalisms, it would not be a bad thing to refer to this experience even to the very end. Even under Stalin, the Transcaucasian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic was not turned into a full-fledged entity as part of the USSR. It was abolished under the Stalin Constitution adopted on December 5, 1936. Even Stalin failed to form a Federation of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia, to say nothing of anyone else. So the British journalists close to diplomatic circles do not understand what they are writing about or they need provocations than may only complicate the situation in the Transcaucaus.