When it seemed like escalation was the modal reality, outcomes looked bleak for Georgia. Dynamics change. Thus Georgia’s ceasefire in South Ossetia cannot be a bad thing under the circumstances. By putting up an initial fight, they drew the attention of the world and now in can come the international community, which is as firmly opposed to Russia’s behavior on an issue since the Afghanistan invasion in 1979.
Excepting the predictably sycophantic BBC, is anyone in the West even anywhere near Russia’s media playbook?
A spokeswoman for the NATO secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, said Russia had violated Georgia’s territorial integrity in South Ossetia and used excessive force.
(IHT)
The more I ponder it, the more it becomes clear that the pessimistic assessment that Georgia has been the sad victim of clever Russian political manipulation is likely to turn out wrong. Setting up the incursion condition as restoring peacekeeping, the Russians have made a political error that will result in diminished authority. Real peacekeepers –probably *gasp* NATO for that matter– will now be going to South Ossetia. That would have to represent a serious loss of influence for Russia.
I feel a little bit like watching the War of 1812, where the United States was pretty easily crushed in the conflict, and yet pretty easily emerged as the victor at the negotiating table. By its brutish use of force, Russia has dealt itself few cards to play, with the Georgian government still in Tbilisi, mad as hell. Their best approach is to try to prove war crimes by Georgia. But since the West saw plenty of Russian war crimes on television, they’ll need some very strong evidence. They might have realized that too. They’ve lost the battle for opinion so far.
There is another way of looking at this as well.
While Georgia predictably has the support of the west, the facts on the ground are more complicated. South Ossetia likes the incursion, since they have been at odds with Georgia (who represent a different ethic make up than does Ossetia), and have long been pro-Russian.
It also very unlikely, very well impossible that we’ll see NATO or UN peacekeepers in the region because for the Russians, the region around their borders is inviolate and sacrosant–under the auspices of a Russian Monroe doctrine. Only the U.S. could pull it off, but to what end? The current geopolitical situation is like the gun fight at the end of the “The Good, The Bad and The Ugly”. Getting embroiled with Russia allows China to pick us both off. U. S. foreign policy, no matter what administration, is going to elect for stability for the foreseeable future.
Frankly, I think the Ossetia adventure is only incidentally a bit of Russian regional adventurism. The real foreign policy goals of the Russians are to signal their resurgence and the force of their national will. Its a low risk means of telling the west, “we’re back, and we’re bad…”
Mick Stockinger –
There may not be a whole lot Russia can do about NATO getting involved, if NATO is so inclined. NATO already extends to Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, the former Soviet Baltic tigers.
The UN is, well, the UN. That’s about all that needs to be said.
Oh I don’t know about that Mick. Even the OSCE agrees that its own member can no longer serve in its peacekeeping role, having become a combatant. If Russia insists on resuming its role as peacekeeping authority in South Ossetia, that’s a truly diplomatically unmaintainable position. The best they could wiggle is participatory involvement and I doubt they can get it in this environment. That, or just don’t leave of course. Then the case can be made that the territory has been permanently annexed by Russia. So far, they’ve not wanted to lend that impression.
Militarily I don’t think they can maintain their position if it’s restricted to South Ossetia. Particularly if they start facing guerrilla action, which is how I’d get them out there long-term. The place is ready-made for easy points of infiltration.
It should be remembered that the old peacekeeping mission in South Ossetia was a joint operation with Georgia. Russia has claimed that the Georgians attacked their peacekeepers. True or not, they’re unlikely to agree to resume that duality …particularly if Georgian “war crimes” are going to be used to justify their action, as has been and is increasingly their case.
Thus it’s either the all-Russia occupation, or an international force with neither Russia or Georgia. They’re in a far lonelier and more precarious position out there than has been generally assumed (including by me).