• email article
  • print article
  • small text sizemedium text sizelarge text size
  • comment on this article

Everyone loses in Georgia conflict

The fighting between Russia and Georgia over the separatist enclave of South Ossetia is the result of a miscalculation by Georgia, Russian support for the separatists over the years and a gross deterioration in relations between the two countries since 2004.

However, the conflict has been characterised by a huge overreaction by Moscow whose excessive use of force, violation of a French-brokered ceasefire and extension of the war into Georgia proper is inexcusable, deplorable and seriously affects Russia's standing in the world.

I have no doubt that Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili committed a major blunder when he sent his troops into South Ossetia on the eve of the Olympic Games to regain control of the enclave lost in 1992 soon after the break-up of the Soviet Union. Saakashvili miscalculated - very badly - what the Russian response would be as well as how his western allies would react to such a scenario - and he therefore bears some responsibility for this crisis.

Having said that, Russia's behaviour can only be described as that of a regional bully. Moscow's actions, which include attacking both civilian and military targets in Georgia itself, are unacceptable and make President Dimitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin look like rogues with no respect for Georgian sovereignty and territorial integrity.

It is also true that the majority of people in South Ossetia want to join up with their ethnic brethren in North Ossetia - which is an autonomous region in Russia - and they even voted for independence in an unofficial referendum in 2006. Russia has always backed the separatists in South Ossetia, has had peacekeepers there since 1992 and even handed out Russian passports to thousands of South Ossetians, thus providing it with an excuse that it is protecting its citizens in this conflict.

There are a number of factors which led to this crisis. Upon his election to the presidency in Georgia in 2004 Saakashvili pledged to regain the country's lost territories, and offered South Ossetia autonomy within the Georgia state, which was rejected.

As Georgia moved closer to the west, especially the US and the EU, Russia looked on in anger as it lost clout in one of its former republics in an area considered to be in its backyard - the Caucasus - where traditionally its sphere of influence was strong. The alarm bells really went off in Moscow last April when Nato said Georgia would be allowed to join the alliance at some point.

The war of words escalated last month between Georgia and Russia - which stepped up its support for separatists in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the other breakaway enclave in Georgia - and there were sporadic clashes between the two sides. Georgia seems to have fallen into a Russian trap by sending its army into South Ossetia.

It is clear to me that Russia has taken advantage of the situation to get its revenge on Georgia for moving out of Moscow's orbit of influence. Just as Russia was hostile to the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, it also feared the Rose Revolution in Georgia - conscious of the fact that these uprisings could influence events in Russia. Moscow would no doubt love to see the Georgian president overthrown by his people and replaced with a friendly government as a result of an unpopular war.

Furthermore, Nato expansion over the years to Russia's borders (which was the right thing to do) as well as recent events in Kosovo, and the US proposal to place a missile defence shield in Poland and the Czech Republic strained relations between the West and Moscow, and the Kremlin was in no mood to compromise.

Paranoid about Georgia's shift to Europe and the US, Tiblisi's military adventure in South Ossetia gave Moscow the perfect opportunity to reassert its authority in the region and to tell the international community that it would not be pushed around and was still a force to be reckoned with.

This is not going to be an easy conflict to solve even if a ceasefire does hold and there are already consequences of this war. First of all, it shows how vulnerable the West's supply of oil is - Georgia's energy pipeline transports one million barrels of oil per day to Europe and the US from Azerbaijan to Turkey across Georgia.

If this had to be disrupted, the West would become more dependent on oil from Russia and the Middle East. Also, as a result of this war it looks increasingly doubtful whether Georgia will ever be able to reassert its control of the enclave or of Abkhazia. And Georgia's hopes of joining Nato have probably been dashed - at least for the foreseeable future - as nobody wants to risk a war with Russia, especially since this was avoided during the Cold War, although some Nato states may argue that Nato membership would bring a degree of stability to the region.

There are certainly no easy solutions and the West is still divided over how to deal with Russia. Some, like the former Communist states of Eastern Europe, want outright condemnation and tougher action, while others such as Germany and France - which value their relations with Moscow - prefer engagement.

The US, a strong ally of Georgia and which trains and arms the Georgian military, has warned Moscow of serious consequences for its actions. It is supplying Georgia with humanitarian aid but there is little much else it can do except continue to engage with Russia.

What is needed is for the EU and US to intensify their dialogue with Russia and to make clear that if Moscow wants to be considered a strategic partner it must behave as a responsible regional power and not a regional bully. Russia must rethink its behaviour and seriously consider the offer made to it to have OSCE or EU peacekeepers in South Ossetia. That would be a good start to resolving the conflict.

Nobody has emerged victorious in this war - the little progress Medvedev made in improving ties with the West during his first 100 days in office have gone down the drain, plus Moscow's global image has been severely damaged, while Saakashvili's huge gamble blew up in his face.

The EU and the US, on the other hand, have been made to look silly as they had no idea Georgia was planning an attack and were unable to stop Russia's massive retaliation.

  • Google Bookmarks Del.icio.us Facebook Blogger YahooMyWeb Digg Reddit Stumbleupon
  • email article
  • print article
  • small text sizemedium text sizelarge text size
  • comment on this article

Comments

Ramon Casha (on 18/8/08)
Russia had made it amply clear that it would act to defend the people in Ossetia against any military moves by Georgia. They had peacekeeping troops there for ages and everyone thought that was fine and dandy. Notice that when Russia retaliated, the response of the west was not to criticise the fact that they responded, but that Russia "overreacted". Saakashvili was an idiot if he thought he could get away with his surprise attack. Besides, can you really imagine Russia sitting still and doing nothing after it had declared its intention to defend Ossetia? Their credibility would take a massive blow.
A. Muscat (on 17/8/08)

Russians don’t really bother about what media says.

Russia is facing two west: EU and the USA, while the latter is still sinking in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the former is divided over how to face Russia. Actually, the EU can not face Russia.
USA only understands one language: violence and wars, and the Russian’s dictionary got enough vocabulary.

In few days Russia managed to create new facts on the ground. How long would it take the two wests to deal with the new facts?
During the cold war the USA was relying on both Taliban and Osama Ben Laden to face USSR.
Could history repeats itself and the USA would replace Ben Laden with the EU in this conflict?
Jack Skelt (on 17/8/08)
I fully agree with Liam Kelly

This article is the same propaganda you see in other western news

USA had their puppets like Saddam and Osama Bin Laden which not long ago where his friends and then they disposed of when they did not obey orders anymore. Now the USA has all eastern countries as their puppets(even Malta you can say is a USA puppet since to sign the double taxation agreement we had to enter in Pfp and give them a huge embassy whcih god knows what will they put in there) and with their stupid action they will bring trouble to the whole European region

Well done Russia, Since both Russia and China are the only hope to bring again the much needed balance of power and rid of bullies like the USA

Liam Kelly (on 17/8/08)
Really poor article.

You waste absolutely no time to rant and rave about how terrible Russia is, yet i can summarise your whole long winded article into less than one line....Saakashvili committed a major blunder when he sent his troops into South Ossetia. End of story.

Georgia brought this on themselves from their heavy handedness in a country which has declared independence from it and backed it up with a referrendum.

I wonder If Serbia had attacked Kosovo to 'regain control' of it whether you would have spent 18 paragraphs lamenting countries which stood up to protect Kosovo's right to self determination? Somehow i doubt that Sir.

It is exactly this kind of hypocracy which really makes you wonder who's propaganda is more accurate...Russia's or the West's?

Poll

Was the budget good for Malta?

  • yes
  • no
  • don't know
  • don't care


View results

Fun Stuff


Play Sudoku