They have been trying to bury the Commonwealth of Independent States for all the years of itsexistence. There was also no shortage of pessimistic comments on the eve of the CIS summit, which took place in Strelna on the eve of the 12 th Petersburg International Economic Forum. The arguments are that the CIS countries are demonstrating an ever greater disparity of interests, orientations and foreign policy preferences; There is no progress in creation of supra-national structures, and Ukraine and Georgia aspire to join NATO. That is all true, but nevertheless there are no particular reasons for any funeral sentiments.

Countries that are members of a single international organization are certainly not obligated to be the same. This did not happen even in the socialist camp during the times of CEMA and the Warsaw Pact. As we have repeatedly been convinced, there is no total unity either in the European Union, or in NATO. The EU Constitution was developed and approved with numerous additions for almost a decade. The allies in the North Atlantic Alliance have a very different attitude toward their main partner - the United States.

The former union republics - to one degree or another - have all been retained as independent states. And there is nothing surprising about the fact that each of them defends its own interests. It would be surprising if they defended someone
else's interests - as for example, Russian. Within the CIS, there are special interest clubs. And it would be naive for Russia to base its policy on the supposition that its partners and even allies will always agree with it on everything.

Yes, the CIS countries are far from creating mighty supra-national structures such as the European Union. Not only because they lack the capacities for this, but also because such a goal has not been set. Our Western partners are always accusing Russia of the fact that, with the aid of the CIS, it is encroaching on the sovereignty of new independent states. Absolutely not. In the Commonwealth, the volume of powers and authorities delegated to the interstate level is negligible. Unlike, say, the European Union, where more than half of the sovereignty of the member countries has gone over to Brussels.

The CIS is not an integrated grouping and not a military alliance. It is an organization for regional cooperation. In this, it is reminiscent of the Organization o fAmerican States. Or African. There is a sea of contradictions here, but this does not keep the countries of these regions from regularly meeting at summits. Regional organizations that do not set overly ambitious goals for themselves may exist forever. Even if some country suddenly stops sending representatives to their meetings. The CIS will also not cease to exist if someone does not want to participate in it.

Then again, such unwillingness is also not observed for now. On the contrary, unlike past years, when some of the leaders missed the summits (most often Turkmenbashi), everyone came to Petersburg. And this was no accident. There
are many prerequisites for the CIS to turn into an ever more promising and attractive organization.

The Western world is experiencing an obvious recession and is ever less capable of throwing the rope of economic aid or providing recipes for rapid development. On this background, the Russian Federation appears as an anchor of stability, being among the most dynamically developing economies, together with China and India, and presenting the greatest interest for investors. The strengthening of ties specifically with Russia today appears much more logical and natural than it did in the 1990's, when, on the contrary, the Western economies were growing, while ours was steadily declining. The growing energy crisis also works in favor of integration. Energy consumers are exhibiting growing interest in stable deliveries, which primarily Russia is capable of ensuring. And the producer countries are interested in coordinating policy with each other, so as to avoid bumping heads.

As the local elites have understood perfectly well, the weakening of Russia's political influence in the CIS countries automatically means the strengthening of someone else's influence there. And this someone - unlike Russia, which has dealings with the existing authorities - may organize an overthrow of these authorities according to the technology of the "color" revolutions. The CIS and Russia act as forces of the status-quo in the region, which advantageously distinguishes them in the eyes of the local governments.

Outwardly, the West, in general, demonstratively does not notice the Commonwealth. It does not exist as an organization for Western politicians and diplomats. However, this does not hinder systematic efforts at "divorcing" the states of the region from us on the background of proposals to Russia to hold a political dialogue on the question of cooperation with countries of the post-Soviet area in order to work out a common agenda. I personally am rather skeptical about the prospects of such a dialogue. For one simple reason. We and the Western countries have diametrically opposite definitions of success of
policy in regard to the CIS countries. For Russia, success is a strengthening of integration ties, a rapprochement with its neighbors, and a strengthening of cooperation. For the West, on the contrary, it is a distancing of the new independent states from Russia, a re-orientation to external centers of power for the CIS for the purpose of preventing a "rebirth of the Russian empire." When political goals are diametrically opposed, it is impossible to speak of a common agenda.

Therefore, Russia will always have an extremely cautious attitude toward Western activity in the CIS, seeing in it - and not without justification - a desire to minimized Russian influence there. This gives rise to the skepticism that resounded in the statement of Dmitriy Medvedev about the worry of his German colleagues over the fate of relations between Moscow and Tbilisi. Our president proposed that Mikhail Saakashvili resolve the differences that are arising on a bilateral basis. This is a rather unambiguous indication of Kremlin's unwillingness to allow any outside intervention into regulation of conflict on the CIS area.

The Commonwealth is also a convenient format for communication between countries that, without the CIS - due to strained relations - could refuse to talk to each other for years. This is a flexible organization, capable of adapting to the currents of the times, and one that is sooner gaining weight than losing it. Oh, the CIS will still live, and how!