Debacle in the Caucasus

[phk]

Debacle in the Caucasus

Aug 12th, 2008 by MESH

From Malik Mufti

Georgia’s attempt to gain control of South Ossetia by force on August 8 was ill-considered for several reasons. First, it led to a punishing Russian counter-attack that has crippled Georgia’s military capability. Second, it reduced to virtually nil Georgia’s chances of restoring its sovereignty over South Ossetia and the other breakaway region of Abkhazia for the foreseeable future—both because of the enhanced Russian presence in both territories, and because Tbilisi’s resort to force confirmed the fears of the Ossetian and Abkhazian peoples about Georgian chauvinism. (During a similar offensive against Abkhazia in August 1992, Georgian officials threatened that the Abkhazian nation might be “left without descendants” and that “we can easily and completely destroy [their] genetic stock.”) Third, it dealt a grievous blow to Georgia’s chances of joining NATO—again probably for the foreseeable future—because neither the Europeans nor the Americans will want to risk involvement in armed conflict with Russia.

Nevertheless, because of the region’s critical energy reserves and pipeline networks, because of the fact that the Caucasus has reverted to its 19th-century status as a front line between the Islamic and Orthodox worlds—a front line that will help define global politics in the coming century—and because of the need to contain Russia’s increasingly aggressive neo-colonialist aspirations more generally, the United States cannot afford the temptation to disengage.

Effective American engagement, however, will require more than maintaining a robust political and security presence in Georgia so that its sovereignty is not further compromised. The central challenge in the Caucasus—on both sides of the Russian Federation’s borders—is how to address the suppressed but deeply held and often conflicting nationalist aspirations of the multitudes of peoples living there. This will require reaffirming one traditional tenet of U.S. foreign policy, and reconsidering another. The principle that needs to be upheld is genuine political liberalization, so that minority groups feel less compelled to take up arms or turn to Russia for help. The principle that needs to be reconsidered is the commitment to the territorial integrity of existing states. Its mechanical application is simply unrealistic given prevailing conditions in the Near East, as already evidenced by the U.S. recognition of Kosovo’s independence, and by the proliferation of similar entities throughout the region.

If Georgia can be induced to renounce aggressive chauvinism definitively in its dealings with other national groups, then the prospect of good-neighborly relations with the Ossetians, Abkhazians and others may materialize—perhaps even within some kind of confederal or commonwealth framework. At the very least, it will present the peoples of the Caucasus with an attractive alternative to what Russia has to offer. Such a challenge to the repressive political and territorial status quo would put Moscow on the defensive, with profound implications far beyond the Caucasus.

[minionofmidas]

Second, it reduced to virtually nil Georgia’s chances of restoring its sovereignty over South Ossetia

"restoring"? Lol. (I guess that one may by now count as a pet peeve of mine...)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, back then Georgia was governed by a criminal psychopath. Now, it's just governed by a dangerous idiot. There is a difference.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Those chances *should* have been nil before, and *would* have been without the Bush administration.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Can't think of many of the regions' many conflicts that don't cut across these lines. Not that the issue doesn't intrude and make matters even more complex than they are, of course. Maybe that's all he meant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Russia became more aggressive here in the past years? Really? Not you guys?
What planet is he writing on? (Not that Russia *isn't* aggressive. Not my point.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I was going to say Amen to that, but then I noticed he probably just wants them to turn to America for help instead.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It won't. Not without good-neighborly relations with the Russians as well (nor vice versa, of course.) And that I just don't see right now... however despicable I find Saakashvili, and however much he's been egged on by being considered an ally by idiots in Washington, it's obvious that there's popular support for muscular Georgian nationalism, which of course is fuelled by its own healthy dose of not-too-unwarranted paranoia. In other words, it's not just going to go away because of a lack of ill-advised American support.
And I don't see that message getting through to the thick skulls in the Kreml either. Russia's *interest* in not having Georgia governed by a dangerous idiot is perfectly understandable... but *demanding* his removal - pretending to have a *right* to a friendly government in Georgia, basically - is obviously neither well-advised nor morally legitimate.
Whatever the way ahead is...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well, back then Georgia was governed by a criminal psychopath.

Ah, I remember that, sort of. One of my uncles was out there working on some research something or other (medical stuff; he's a vampire) back then and they all had to get the hell out in a hurry. Brought back some cool hats though.