Russia has more or less observed the Ceasefire Agreement co-signed with Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia by withdrawing its troups from the heartland of Georgia. It is meaningful to ask the question what are the geostrategic significance of the conflict? Has Russia achieved a victory?
In order to answer the question, it is relevant to understand that Russia took advantage of the moral highground offered to it by Georgia's offensive against South Ossetia in its information campaign in the beginning of this military conflict. It was enough as Russia need only a few days to cripple Georgian forces and eliminate the Georgian core military infrastructure. They had already accomplished their tasks before writers and bloggers even found out the whereabouts of the two separatist provinces of Georgia during a holiday month.
1. Small states are only good stakes for big powers to be traded with other interests
Some writer focused their attention to the geostrategic position of Georgia in transporting Caspian energy. The energy route is the only alternative to Russia energy supply to EU nations. Economically, Georgia is highly dependent on Russia. Georgian politicians led by the US bred leader Saakshvilli are more than conscious of their economic dependence. They should be also conscious about that their offensive against South Ossetia would be considered as grave provocations against Russia as 90% of South Ossetians hold Russian passports, and therefore they should be politically conscious of the political consequences. However, they took the great risk as they strongly believe they have built a political alliance with the sole superpower the USA. They took the adventure by ignoring the high danger to their national security based on their conviction that their action would be supported by the USA and NATO members. However, this core assumption has proved to be false and cost Georgia very dearly.
People from small states can hardly understand the mentalities of big powers. In reality, political alliances can be very weak in real situations of conflict especially when a small state ally is perceived to unnecessarily provoke the adversary, in this case, Georgia took the offensive against South Ossetia thus provoked Russia. The USA would only watch its pitiful ally to be sacrificed. USA and EU were only in a position to release declarations. This is hardly undertandable to many people as it has often been taken for granted that only USA and NATO are legitimate users of military force in today human civilisation. The West represents the "international community". But in real politics, this is only bullshit. In the competition among big powers,small states only serve as stakes to be traded with other interests. Georgia is so far away from the USA and EU. As a neighbor to Russia's south border, it is like North Korea to China. If Georgia joins NATO, it is considered by Russians as a real strategic threat to Russia and therefore Russians are more than willing to fight militarily to defend itself. However, to the Europeans and Americans, the loss of Georgia is at the best loss of secondary interests, no high strategic importance. It is not necessary to risk American and European soldiers' lives to defend Georgia. That is why President Bush continued to watch Olympic Games after the emergence of the crisis.
To Georgians, their national interests can be best served by being neutral, not by joining any alliance either with Russia nor with NATO. Economically, it makes great sense too.
2. The West should stop judging Russia from its own value systems
EU is heavily dependant on Russia for its energy supplies. However, Russia has become a frequent target for accusations of a political nature in Western capitals. One can frequently read articles or speeches of politicians accusing Russia of scaling back in its democracy. However, life under Yeltsin, something the West would describe as progressive and democratic was in reality a nightmare for the Russian people. The Russians lost their national pride and identity. Life span declined dramatically. When President Putin took over Russian presidency, Russia was in ruins. Russian economy was highly dependent on Western debt. Western politicians were real masters, not Russians themselves. Russia’s political and economic fortune improved dramatically under the reign of President Putin to the extent that Russians can dream again of recovering their pride as a nation. They have been crying to be respected as a big power. However, the West has refused to listen and respect the reality that Russia is a great power on its own. Russians have to be consulted on issues concerning their core national interests.
The West is too arrogant to understand the feelings of other big powers. Instead, it is too complacent to believe everything the West does is right, everything the West believes is universal value. This is bullshit. In the world there are different civilizations, Western civilization is just one of the great civilizations. There are also other great civilizations including the Chinese and Russian civilizations distinct from the West. At the same time, different civilizations have been mutually enriching through contacts, exchanges and sometimes wars and military conflicts.
Many Russians perceive themselves as Westerners. They are pro-West. However, there are increasingly so many Russians with the political ambitions who detest the West for being aggressive against Russia. In light of the numerous strategic fault-lines in Western Eurasia and Balkans, Russia’s political will to recover its traditional influence can easily clash with the West and cause strategic tension. The Europeans have wrongly assumed that the liberal democracy has won the final battle with the fall of the Berlin wall. They are very ill prepared for the re-emergence of Russia military might to be exercised again in Europe.
Therefore, the Europeans in western Europe, esp. the EU politicians and strategists would have endless nightmares if they are not prepared to live peacefully with the Russians.
In today’s world, humanity faces too many common security threats such as transnational crimes, climate change, global terrorism etc., tension between the West and Russia is very bad news for concerted efforts to face up to the common security threats of humanity. In the long term, West’s failure to respect other big powers such as Russia and China can be devastating to everybody.
3. Has Russia won a victory?
I have read comments that it is hard to say whether Russia has won a victory in its military intervention in neighboring Georgia. It depends how one defines victory and the criteria one uses to define it, in what respects one is talking about. In military terms, Russia has won a clear victory against Georgia. It has been able to force Georgian troupes out of South Ossetia and eliminated core Georgian military infrastructure. Russia forced Georgia to sign the ceasefire agreement under auspices of EU presided by Nicolas Sarkozy and OSCE. The Russia public should feel great national pride in such a victory which is perceived as a revenge of the humiliation Russia suffered in the NATO expansion into former Russian spheres of influence, the bombing of former Yugoslavia, independence of Kosovo, etc. NATO’s bombing of Russia ally Yugoslavia and West’s recognition of Kosovo’s independence from Serbia outside of international law has been felt by Russians as non-respect of their national interests. Their voices have been ignored. The West has done this in order to avoid mandate from UN Security Council, thus undermining the legal rights of Russia and China enshrined by the UN Charter. As long as the numerical advantage enjoyed by Western nations allows it, and as long as the Western media enjoys the supremacy in voice hegemony, the non-observance of international law of NATO and EU can always be argued to be legitimate by the West.
China has learned the lesson by keeping neutral in the Kosovo independence case even though it has been consistently arguing for the respect of state territorial integrity and sovereignty as Kosovo is mainly a European issue. China was too noisy in its propaganda during the NATO military intervention against former Yugoslavia, resulting in the bombing of its embassy by mistake. Of course, the incident was perceived as just a deliberate action to ask the country to keep its mouth shut. China’s unwise noise was more ideological in nature. It did not have much real-political interests in the Balkans. However, the Russians have key real political interests in competition with the West. The dismembering of Yugoslavia and then Serbia, Russian allies, has been rather painful and humiliating to the Russians.
Since the South Osseitia and Abkhazia are similar cases to Kosovo, the Russian military intervention in Georgia is of course seen by Russians as a victory and humiliation vindicated.
The Western powers quickly came to their senses and began to act after the signing of cease fire agreement 12th August. The strategy of US and EU was to prevent the Russians from achieving their strategic objectives and confining the Russian victory to be only tactical. The strategic success would mean the overthrowing of democratically elected Saakashvilli presidency and definitive prevention of Georgia from joining NATO. Therefore, the US and EU political message has been that if the Russians remove Saakshvilli from power, Russia’s international standing would be in danger. Russia would be internationally isolated if it does not honor its ceasefire obligations. German chancellor Angela Merkel, who opposed the Georgian candidature for NATO last April, changed her position on the issue and officially expressed to support Georgian NATO candidature.
Of course, it is still premature to judge whether Georgia would be admitted as NATO member at this stage. If this is the result, one would be forced to reflect the logic of this event. We know US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice paid a visit to Georgia shortly before the Georgian military offensive into South Ossetia. One can logically suspect that Georgian action has got a green light from the US and has been masterminded by the US. The logical strategic calculations could be follows: a lightning Georgian military offence into South Ossetia on August 8 when Russian Prime Minister Putin was in Beijing to attend the Opening Ceremony of Olympic Games, if successful, would very quickly enable the well trained and equipped Georgian military to seize the tunnel linking the two Ossetias and blocking the Russian troupes from intervention. This would establish a fact of takeover of the separatist territory on the ground. Diplomatic support from the West would help Georgia to justify the action internationally as legitimate. Nobody would be naïve to predict that the Russians would not act and intervene militarily as the offensive is a gross provocation to the Russian authority. As the event evolved, the Russian military intervention seems to be prepare and almost immediate. The punishing blow against Georgia put Georgia in the beginning in a awkward position. The disproportionate reaction from Russia galvanized Georgian public to be even more pro-NATO and the West. The US strategic planners have now a much stronger case to admit Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, further encircling the Russian bear inside its cage.
If this interpretation is reasonable, the Georgian military adventure is something like a willing self-sacrifice for a much bigger and desirable strategic purpose. It serves the interests of USA, not Georgia of course.
3. The conflict is a strategy to plant suspicions between Europeans in EU and Russians
Imagine a much closer strategic relationship between the EU and Russia. Would that do any good the long term strategic interests of the only superpower in the world? I don’t believe so. A united EU and Russia would challenge the superpower and eventually drive the USA out of Europe. Therefore, Russia has been increasingly depicted as a threat to democracy and the free world. The emerging Russia power is depicted as a hard competitor for influence in European and world affairs. Russia’s military intervention would be very instrumental to remind the Europeans to be more publicly willing to make more contributions to support the USA military adventures around the world.
Europeans have been increasingly more civilized since the fall of the former Soviet Union. They are more interested in international rule making than supporting the USA in its long war against terror. They are mega-sexual post modern stateless entities believing in human rights and freedoms based on voluntarism not at the point of guns, the American way. Iraq is the perfect manifestation of the European mentality. The Europeans behave in this way as they no longer see the existence of a real enemy. Europe needs a convincing enemy. A weakened Russia is such a perfect enemy in the making. The best scenario for the USA would be Russia willing to cooperate in major international affairs such as the North Korean and Iranian nuclear programmes, climate change, and at the same time, a Russia perceived as a major security threat to EU and NATO so that the Europeans are willing to make more sacrifices to join the US efforts in the long war against terror.
Economically speaking, the Russian economy has become much more integrated with the European economy since the fall of former Soviet Union. Whatever happens, it is impossible to imagine that Russia is interested in a clash with the West. What it really wants is reasonable respect of its national strategic interests, esp. in its near abroad.
As there are quite a number of fault lines in Western Eurasia sub-region, a mutually suspicious relationship between Russia, NATO and EU and geopolitical competition for influence in the sub-region and potential clashes and tensions would evolve into endless nightmare for the Europeans. That would practically mean a perpetual inability for the European to challenge the hegemonic position of the USA.
On the hand, a more defiant Russia would lead to a closer transatlantic strategic relationship and help forge the West as a more maneuverable body to counter the rising power in East Asia, notably China. Germany and France, which had pretty sound relations with China under Schoder and Chirac, are now increasingly animalistic towards China under Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy.
Therefore, the USA is now trying to split the world up into two distinct camps, the camp of autocracies with Russia and China at the core, and the camp of liberal democracies or the Western camp led by the USA. A new type of cold war is now in the making.
technomist
You are making things far too complicated. The Georgians, who know the Russians very well, made a catastrophic mistake of believing their own rhetoric and then acting on it.
Russia has behaved exactly as any reasonable person would predict she would. Nothing has changed, everyone's expectations are fulfilled, the relationship between the West and Russia has not altered, it has merely become explicit rather than implied.
Trends with continue: Trade between Europe and China will continue to deepen along with their mutual interests, the USA and Russia will continue their relative decline as Great Powers, but still retain huge influence for decades to come.