As humiliated Georgian troops helplessly watched the victorious Russian armored columns rumble not only in the disputed enclave of South Ossetia, but throughout Georgia, I was reminded of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia 40 years ago, on which I reported for The Denver Post from Prague.
Who provoked the current crisis? While the debate continues, it is undisputed that pro-West Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili blundered by undertaking an offensive in Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, the night of Aug. 7 to fight separatists. Russia called it ethnic cleansing and promptly sent tanks rolling into the region to punish the “brash” Georgian president.
Some observers have likened this crisis to Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence from Serbia in March. The analogy is not apt, however, because Serbia’s ethnic cleansing and oppression in Kosovo is not matched by Georgia’s actions in South Ossetia.
Russia’s use of force, which overwhelmed the Georgian troops, was disproportionately excessive. But Russia knew that with the U.S. stuck in Afghanistan and Iraq and Europe known for its bark rather than its bite, the West would do precious little to help Georgia beyond displaying anger and engaging in Cold War rhetoric.
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, a wiley chess player with brilliant moves, has effectively avenged what he perceived to be the ongoing humiliation of Russia by the West’s march to Russia’s doorstep in the post-Soviet space. Both Putin and President Dmitry Medvedev believe that Russia’s sphere of influence in the “near abroad” must remain unchallenged.
It is useful to remember that many Russian leaders have not yet reconciled to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Many still resent Russia’s loss of status as a superpower, for which they blame not only Gorbachev but also Western intrigues. There is overwhelming support for Putin’s policies.
The U.S. and the West have begun reassessing their relations with Russia. They demand the immediate pullout of Russian forces from Georgia pursuant to a cease-fire framework arranged by French President Nicolas Sarkozy and promised by Medvedev. Beyond that, there is no consensus on how to punish Russia for its recent actions.
Among the dilemmas the West faces are how soon to include Georgia and Ukraine in the planned expansion of NATO, and the nature and scope of the American missile shield in Eastern Europe.
At an emergency meeting of the foreign ministers of the 26-nation NATO alliance in Brussels on Tuesday, there was consensus on sending a strong message that Russia’s behavior was unacceptable as well as a message of solidarity and commitment to Georgia’s sovereignty. The ongoing military cooperation between Russia and the West are likely to be affected.
Russia’s desire to be a major player in the international arena is seen by some as an advantage to the West, for it can deny Moscow a place among the G8, and it can prevent Russia’s membership in the World Trade Organization and in the industrialized countries’ forum known as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Several NATO members, however, prefer not to isolate and further provoke the Russian bear by taking harsh measures, but rather to engage it. After all, many European countries are dependent on Russian energy sources, and Russia can turn east instead toward India and China. A hostile Russia can create huge problems for the West, in Iran and Iraq and on non- proliferation issues, for instance.
Appeasement of Russia is not the answer. Nor will confrontation serve a useful purpose. Russia matters, and its interests cannot be ignored. The next U.S. president will have to fashion the West’s relationship with Russia on the basis of mutual respect and common interests.
Ved P. Nanda (vnanda@law.du.edu) is Evans Distinguished Professor and director of the International Legal Studies Program at the University of Denver.
