Russians in Georgia? No Suprise.
by Torey Holderith
Last Thursday Russian troops clashed with troops attempting to reassert Georgian authority in South Ossetia. The response from the West, until today, has been weak and essentially non-binding. Several threats of removing Russia from the G-8, economic group have been levied, but nothing of a more serious nature.
International Relations theory states that conflict is most likely to occur when shifts in the systemic balance of power occur. Russia has had a very difficult time adapting to its role in a unipolar world, and nowhere is this more visible then in its relations with its’ neighbors. During the Cold War, Ukraine, Georgia, and Poland were for all intensive purposes, the sovereign territory of Russia under the Soviet Union. Russia has stated repeatedly that they perceive Ukraine and Georgia to be within their “sphere of influence,” and that the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) into Ukraine or Georgia would be unacceptable. Ukraine and Poland both joined NATO, and Georgia had applied, but was turned away due to intense pressure from Russia.
In several ways the actions of the West have resulted in this
conflict. By pushing NATO as a tool and incentive to democratize
Eastern Europe. However, the failure to admit Georgia into NATO amongst
Russian protests, sent a message that NATO would bow to Russian
concerns. This is what emboldened Russia into action in Georgia, to
punish its unruly southern neighbor.
Russia needs to realize that
its days of stardom are over. With an ailing economy and a shrinking
population, Russia is losing international power and prestige. Spheres
of influence are not a luxury of ex-powers. It is no surprise that
Russian troops would seize an opportunity to sweep through Georgia in
an attempt to reestablish dominance int he region, but the United
states must protect its’ ally. The president of Georgia has been a
throne in Putin’s side, and Putin would welcome his demise. These are
the last gasps of a falling Russia, a Russia that does not have the
power to play the world role that it used to.
NATO needs to act swiftly and harshly on this issue. It must be made
clear that former Soviet states are sovereign states, and that Russia
needs to accept its new role in the world. Weak threats are not enough,
if the Russians are not intending to quickly leave on their own accord,
then they need to be pushed out. Georgia has been a staunch ally of the
US (over 3,000 troops in Afghanistan), and is a shining beacon of hope
for the central Asian region. NATO must step up to the plate, to stop
the bullying of Russia before Putin becomes even further emboldened.
NATO needs to send troops into the region with a stated time line for
total withdrawal of all Russian forces from Georgia, ‘get out or be
forced out’. Bush made a big step forward yesterday when he sent a
humanitarian force of American troops to Georgia on what he labeled a “vigorous and ongoing”
mission of humanitarian assistance. Getting troops in Georgia for
assistance is a step in the right direction, but our ally deserves
more. Russia needs to be aware that its status in the today’s world, as
well as all of its economic, political, and security agreements will be
at stake in the coming weeks.
August 14th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Tory, I recommend reading this timely editorial by Charles King, professor of international affairs at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, published in the Christian Science Monitor.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0811/p09s03-coop.html
Reply
August 14th, 2008 at 9:20 am
Hey Walid,
Its an interesting article, and while I agree that Russia was provoked by Georgia, the extent to which Russian forces have penetrated Georgia, tells me that there is more at stake here. The blame for the origin of the conflict is by no means all upon Russia, but Russia bombed civilian airports in Georgia and refused a ceasefire from the Georgians. Why not stop and withdrawal while they have the high ground, or at least stay put?
Russia is trying to capitalize on this conflict.
Reply
August 14th, 2008 at 9:26 am
Well, than from a realist perspective…it is doing what is natural of a nation state in the same position. Also, I think Russia is doing a lot better economically than your article argues. By the World Bank’s estimate, Russia has one of the hottest economies in the world. They have problems with inflation, but the high energy prices are allowing them to grow by leaps and bounds. Saakashvili made a terrible miscalculation.
Reply
August 14th, 2008 at 9:52 am
From a realist perspective they are doing exactly what is natural, but realism also states that you must respond to aggression and not simply appease states. Realism argues that it is the failure to confront states that results in large-scale conflict, thus smaller confrontations of a greater quantity are more preferable. Simply put, you must confront Realism with Realism or risk an upheaval in the status quo.
You are correct that Russia has been doing much better economically, as of late. I would simply contend that the high energy prices that Russia is benefiting from are artificial growth, that is to say they are temporary (i.e. not real infrastructure developments). It is because of the growth of these energy prices that many claim Russia is currently emboldened to act as it did. Regardless, you are likely correct that I am underselling their recent economic gains. Putin, while not being pro-democracy by any means has restored a great deal of power to the Russian state.
Thanks for reading and commenting Walid, this is my first article but I hope to contributing on a weekly basis from here on out.
-Torey
And yes I agree, Saakashvili made a terrible miscalculation.
Reply
August 14th, 2008 at 10:30 am
I welcome you to the Melon and look forward to reading more of your analysis.
Reply
August 14th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Glad to see you on The Melon, Torey.
Why is Georgia so valuable to the US? I know the US has been pushing for a Georgia seat in NATO for a while, but I don’t know the history between the two countries.
I do find your perspective on Russia as no longer a power in the world. Do you think they really feel threatened by the US. Who else is the West is upset with Russia right now?
Although in this instance, Georgia might have provoked Russia, it would seem that Russia has been trying to claim Georgia as its territory since the fall of the Soviet Union. In that sense, it’s hard to say that Georgia is the direct provoker when Russia has been working to suppress Georgian independence for almost twenty years.
Great article though. Happy to see your analysis.
Reply
August 14th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t Russia still the world’s second largest nuclear power? (unless of course Israel is not not telling us more than we’re not not already aware). Wouldn’t it then be a reckless to set “time-tables” for Russian withdrawls etc.
Georgia is nowhere near as Democratic as the Western press is framing them. Democratic societies don’t generally have “break-away” regions and Georgia has no less than two (we only have Hawaii, Alaska, and the entire South). I don’t like it when people go around talking tough about international issues – this is how we wind up in deep shit.
Reply
August 14th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Chris -
Nuclear weapons are useful primarily for deterring attack against a nations homeland. Russia values Georgia, but not enough to seriously contemplate the use of nuclear weapons. Nuclear Weapons are a deterrence mechanism, but are only effective if you can maintain the credibility of a threat. In this case I find it inconceivable that Russia would use nuclear force before withdrawing from Georgia. Even if warfare were to escalate, unless troops were encroaching upon the Russian heartland nuclear warfare would be out of the question. You are correct though, Russia would be the second largest nuclear power if they could track all their nukes down, though technically they are likely still somewhere within Russian territory, but seriously..
Georgia isn’t as democratic as we like to believe, but the progress Georgia has made this century is incredible. Nations with entrenched democratic societies don’t have “break-away” regions, but Georgia is a very young democracy, and Georgia’s tensions with these regions stretches back to the Fall of the Soviet Union. It is extremely difficult to get democracy to work amongst ethnic minorities with a history of tension.
There is tough talking and their is tough responses to another’s aggression. I believe it would be irresponsible for NATO to stand aside as Georgia is punished. This sets a poor example for other countries that may seek NATO membership and weakens the legitimacy of international security agreements. Georgia is a US ally in a region where we have few. The way we wind up in deep shit is by:
A) Ignoring issues for too long until we are forced to take drastic action
B) Not thinking actions through, and;
C) Acting unilaterally when other routes are available
Elliot-
Georgia is an important ally partially because of its past. Like Poland and Ukraine Georgia is obviously a former Soviet State, but Georgia was also the breadbasket of the USSR, and the birthplace of Stalin. I think this has a powerful symbolic meaning to many US policy makers who saw Georgia as a impenetrable stronghold of the Soviet Union being mostly rural.
On a more practical side of things Georgia is I beleive the third largest provider of troops to the global war on terror, behind just the US and UK. More then anything I think Georgia is important because the world desperately needs a new security arrangement. One with more teeth then the UN, but more comprehensive then NATO (Mccain has proposed the creation of a new “League of Democratic Nations,” which is an interesting thought, but one that would take enormous political capital to create. Before other nations will enter into a new security framework they will be protected. I think the protection of Georgia will provide an incentive for much of Eurasia to begin the long process towards democratization in order to find protection from NATO and the US. That was a little long-winded, but I think I got your first question.
Secondly,I do think Russia feels threatened. American military might is unquestionably dominant. Russia wants many things, but a true confrontation with the US military is not one of them. Given a choice between honorable withdrawal and confrontation they will choose withdrawal every time.
Im loving the discussion guys… I think all are real concerns, and all of my interpretations are up for dispute…
-Torey
Reply
August 15th, 2008 at 6:48 am
Late last night, I was watching Larry King and his two guests were Mikhail Gorbachev and Mikheil Saakashvili. After Gorbachev said his peace, Saakashvili was talking about how democratic Georgia was and that there was a free press and how he has lost respect for Gorbachev.
I would suggest that you read this Bloomberg article from 2007.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=ayBbzarTq9vo&refer=europe
This of course does not mean something in it of itself, but perhaps, just perhaps, we aren’t getting the complete story on this one. People are talking about Russian power and the like, but little about what actually occurred. Remember, most deaths have occurred in South Ossetia…and they have not been committed by Russia because Russia argues the reason it came in was to save the South Ossetians.
Reply