South Ossetia: Russia is like the USSR on steroids

Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili made two major miscalculations when he attacked South Ossetia — firstly, in respect of the resolve of the EU or Western world to bail him out if he got into trouble; secondly, with regard to Russia’s determination to re-establish its prominence in the region and on the world stage.

“In the greater scheme of things, though, Georgia’s geopolitical crimes pale against a simple historical truth: 8/8 is payback for 12/25, when the Soviet Empire expired.” (Josef Joffee, WSJ)

Joffee goes on to suggest:

“Apologists for Russia can point to lots of mitigating circumstances, starting with the biggest one of Christmas Day 1991, when the hammer-and-sickle flag over the Kremlin went down for the last time, and up went the Russian tricolour. Poof, and a whole empire from the Baltic to Kazakhstan was suddenly gone. Yes, that chilled the Russian soul, and so did Georgia’s love affair with the United States. How dare Georgia, the birthplace of Stalin, sidle up to the EU and Nato?

“That, as Mr Putin has told us, was the ‘greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century’, and ever since he was anointed neo-czar in 2000, he has been working hard, and as time went by ever more ham-handedly, to reverse the verdict of the Cold War — to regain what Russia had lost.”

Most analysts are of the view that while Saakashvili was emboldened by the US’s drive towards Georgia’s membership of Nato and his country’s strategic positioning on the EU pipeline, what he failed to factor in was Russia’s increasing anger at the EU and Nato’s encroachment into its backyard.

While many people had never even heard of the players in the region prior to the conflict, Joffee summarises the position as follows:

“The issue is: Who will gain control over the Caspian Basin, the richest depository of strategic resources next to the Middle East. If Moscow gains control over Georgia, it is ‘good night, and good luck’ to Europe. All of its gas and oil bought in Eurasia (minus the Middle East) will pass through Russian hands in one way or the other.”

While Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has called an end to Russian military operations in Georgia, the whole complexion of the region and the strategic players’ role in it and on a broader scale has been altered.

As is now evident, the US had very few options available to it in the region. Foreign experts confirmed that diplomatically there were very few openings, with Reuters quoting Dimitri Simes, founding president of the Nixon Centre in Washington, as saying:

“Let me say at this point that there are no good solutions. Either we have to try to remove them [the Russians] by force or accept a humiliating defeat.”

The Russians in turn were very unhappy about the US airlifting 2 000 Georgian military personnel out of Iraq and taking them across to the conflict zone.

Gerard Baker in the Times of London submits that there has definitely been a deterioration of relations between Russia and the US this week. The big question for him is whether the US can bring the EU along with it.

As we saw in a number of commentaries this week, it was members of the EU who blocked George Bush from securing Georgia’s membership of Nato. In hindsight this may prove fortunate with Nato not being required to put its mutual defence policies to the test.

As pointed out by CNN, many of the EU leaders are highly concerned because they rely on Russia for 40% of their energy requirements:

This conflict will have ramifications for those countries seeking membership of the EU and/or Nato in the future. The possibility of a hawkish regime that acts beyond the scope of their authority in terms of those memberships is a matter of grave concern to military analysts.

Of course the issue of China also came into play. The possibility exists that the attack was designed to coincide with the Olympic Games in order to ensure that Chinese focus would be elsewhere. Ironically, when the Russians stormed over the Georgian border, Saakashvili’s diplomatic staff in Beijing were on to the Chinese in a flash and calling upon them to impress upon Russia the need to call a ceasefire on the counter-attack.

The United Nations in turn was as ineffectual as ever with the Russians finally accepting a ceasefire proposal submitted by the French.

But nobody can be in any doubt that the end to military action came as a result of the Russians having achieved their objectives in terms of the conflict and having sent out a warning to all those who would interfere in the region. Options are in the main limited, while in the case of the EU the downside to incurring Russia’s wrath could be horrendous in terms of it being denied strategic supplies.

Russia, having slimmed down in size after the downfall of the Soviet Union, has bulked up in financial and strategic geo-political muscle and is not a country to be taken lightly.

In the blink of an eye the deck has been reshuffled and the Russians are holding a far stronger hand than they did prior to 8/8.

Nature has a nasty habit of balancing her forces. (Mike Rutherford)