The article provides a brief review of conceptual approaches to the geopolitical interests as key motives of involvement in conflict settlement. The ‘third force’ or ‘mediator’ is commonly accepted but not a compulsory element of the political and diplomatic process. Theoretically, the mediator might be non-biased but in practice it has several interests that can affect and/or impede the political dialog, and it’s hard to divide the interest and impartial mediation. Therefore, it is natural that a collision of interests should occur not only between the mediator and belligerent but also between the mediators themselves. This is quite typical for the post-Soviet space where Russia appears to be the most mighty and influent but not the sole participant of conflict processes. Moscow is more likely to conduct a double policy that undermines the confidence in its relationship with Georgia, Republic of Moldova, Ukraine, etc. These countries tend to find new protectors in persons of EU and US, which change the balance in the post-Soviet space in disfavor of Russia. Thus, Moscow has become weaker and lost her ‘monopoly’ in the negotiation processes but remains strong enough to impede other foreign actors in increasing their influence ‘too much’