Peter Lavelle is this post’s guest-blogger and the emphasis is mine. His post isn’t really about Transdniestria directly, but in a very real sense it is of course very much about the fate of Transdniestria, too:
There is no such thing as a “splendid little war” anymore. In the current and rapidly changing world order, reliance on a quick war to alter geopolitics and to dramatically improve the prospects of a single country’s foreign policy is an illusion. This is what Saakashvili tried to achieve. His reckless gambit to unite his country through force witnessed the senseless death of thousands, his country’s sovereignty forever compromised and Russia’s relations with the West altered for the worse. The outcome of all of this is the creation of new geopolitical “red lines.”
Tbilisi started a war and Russia finished it. There are those, almost exclusively found in the West, who claim that Russia used “disproportionate force” in reaction to Saakashvili’s order to invade South Ossetia. However, few in the West acknowledge that Saakashvili’s invasion of South Ossetia can only be called an absurd use of disproportionate force. The South Ossetian military (actually a glorified police force) did receive limited aid from Russia. But Russia always relied on its peacekeepers to keep the peace. Peacekeepers that Tbilisi asked Russia for in the first place.
However, this cannot be said of American support of Georgia’s military. Tbilisi’s armed forces were much more – the U.S. created a Georgian military to do much more than police. Over the past few years Tbilisi’s military budget ballooned, among the top 5 countries in the world in terms of military spending per GDP. The Georgian military was developed to make war in its neighbourhood (and support American military operations globally). In the end, Saakashvili favoured force over diplomacy. He also favoured confrontation with the hope of outside intervention (U.S. and/or NATO). Saakashvili’s gross risk-taking ended in failure with global implications.
Has Russia’s actions in Georgia been disproportionate? I am not a military expert and I can’t say with precision. However, I note the lazy and biased commentariat is always an expert on just about everything when it spins its spin. My sense is that Russia’s military doesn’t want to have to repeat this exercise again. That means ensuring the Georgian military and its political elite pay a very high price for what they have done. All of this translates into disrupting any infrastructure that could aid Tbilisi in a future military adventure against its breakaway republics. Of course, when Russian forces start returning to their barracks, there will be claims that Russia only worsened Georgia’s humanitarian woes. The commentariat will give this issue blanket coverage in the coming days.
Standing alone and very open to criticism, I would rather stand on the side of avoiding more senseless armed conflicts.
Before I address the “new red lines” created by Saakashvili’s “splendid, but huge catastrophe,” I want to address the claim – actually from those who crave conspiracies theories – that Russia planned this war and created a trap for Saakashvili. This is simply rubbish. All major militaries prepare contingency plans. We all knew things were brewing between Russia and Georgia. This is why a contingency plan was devised! There is also a mountain of evidence that Tbilisi was planning a conflict contingency plan as well. Preparing for a conflict is not a smoking gun pointing to guilt. It does not give cause to apportion blame. Experienced and sober leaders always hope not to fallback on contingencies. I am convinced that Saakashvili didn’t believe in contingencies. He believed in only force.
Ok, what are the new “red lines?”
Saakashvili had long hoped to make himself an important surrogate of American foreign advancement into the post-Soviet space. He very much succeeded. Ignored are the facts that Saakashvili is a gross Georgian nationalist and autocratic. NATO membership is the perfect cover for Saakashvili’s amazing deficiencies. In the West he is called a “democrat who embraces American values.” The fact is that Georgia’s democracy is very frail – if it can even be called a democracy at all. Russia’s democracy is in fact more stable, but with lots of room to develop. But then again, Russia doesn’t try to export democracy or any other ideology through force, like Washington or Tbilisi.
So, what is the first “red line?” Saakashvili has dashed his claim to preserve and protect Georgia as a sovereign state. South Ossetia and Abkhazia will have a fate beyond Tbilisi’s control. The longer Saakashvili, Bush, Rice and the EU claim otherwise, the longer it will take all them to find Georgia in NATO. And because none of these actors can understand this gives me reason to believe Georgia’s NATO ambitions will be on hold for a very long time.
This creates other “red lines.”
The EU is divided and will remain divided on Georgian and Ukrainian NATO membership. Over the past few days we have witnessed this. And it actually has nothing to do with Georgian events. It has everything to do with Russia. The US and New Europe are pitted against Old Europe. All this causes paralysis when engaging Russia. This state of affairs is unconstructive for all involved. What about Russia-EU energy relations? What about the new Russia-EU partnership agreement? What about desperately needed new security agreements? All of this is at stake because of the most famous Georgian since Stalin! Why is all of this being held hostage due to the ravings of a single madman hoping the West would save his political career, legacy, and protect his country in spite of himself?
Let’s consider another “red line” and its called Ukraine. The vast majority of Ukrainian citizens are against NATO membership. Now a minority of them, going for broke like Saakashvili, may appeal to the West for protection against Russia. The commentariat’s lease on life will be extended still gain.
This could go as far a splitting Ukraine. This is not an exaggeration. The US made it loud and clear that there will be “consequences” for Russia’s reaction to Saakashvili’s adventurism. But all of these reactions to date are benign to say the least, like cancelling a military exercise, throwing Russia out of the G8, and denying Russia WTO admission. Wow! Now that is a powerful toolbox full of retaliation! Today, now more than ever, it is patently clear that the US will not follow up protecting its so-called friends. The demonstration effect is already in play. Nonetheless, I expect more Saakashvili-inspired “wag-the-dog” enterprises.
Another “red line” is the important legal difference between territorial integrity and a state’s sovereignty. Because of the Kosovo precedent, the great powers of today can decide which principle they prefer more, based on geopolitical interest and advantage. Almost a century of international legal prudence is in tatters. This is truly a sad state of affairs. But it is the US that set this precedent. It is hypocritical of Washington to lash-out at those who do the same.
Let’s turn to the large-scale global “red line.” Bush told Medvedev to get out of Georgia. Well, Medvedev could, just as easily, tell Bush to get out Iraq! (With all the same predicted outcome!). Russia’s military forces will leave Georgia when the security situation on the ground allows it to. But in the meantime Washington really needs to figure out what it wants from Russia. Does it want a partnership or just another “junior partner of the willing?” Or does it want confrontation? Russia is prepared for all options.
Russia’s actions to protect South Ossetia, Abkhazia and punish Saakashvili’s megalomania say it all. Russia’s actions demonstrate that it protects its security concerns within its neighbourhood based on practiced legal norms by the West.
Finally, let’s look beyond South Ossetia. The West and its leader, the US, have some hard thinking ahead of them. There are some very real and difficult realities facing the international community: international terrorism, Iran nuclear program, the unpredictable regime in North Korea, the spread of WMDs, for the food and energy crises, and climate change. Can any of these issues be decide without Russia’s participation? The answer is no.
This is how I see things: The post-soviet space is undergoing enormous change. We must recognise that the community of neighbours that this space will determine its own future. Western definitions of what “democracy means” is a cover for sidelining very real security interests. Outside meddling isn’t the answer. And we aren’t entering a new Cold War. In fact, the West (really the US) is finally beginning to see that it can’t remake the world in its own image. Russia won’t let this happen. Why, you might ask? Because it has the power to do so.
Leave a Reply