Russia has the upper hand

tauringhuang.

Aug 11th 2008 | NEW YORK AND YEREVAN
From Economist.com

Russia has extended the conflict to a war inside Georgia. The West will have a hard time responding


GEORGIAN troops would withdraw from South Ossetia and would cease firing on the advancing Russians, said Georgia’s president, Mikheil Saakashvili, on Sunday August 10th. But the war rages on. Russia has not only tightened its hold on the breakaway region. It has hit the Georgian city of Gori, in Georgia proper, with airstrikes and is reportedly sending ground forces that way. Russia has also moved on Abkhazia, a separate breakaway region in western Georgia. Russia also says that it has lost four aircraft, shot down over Georgia.

Georgia began shelling South Ossetia—a tiny territory run by Russia’s security forces and a clique of local thugs who live off smuggling goods and pocketing Russian aid money—on August 7th and 8th. At first Russia sent in tanks, but its response escalated quickly to a full-scale invasion. A host of factors give Russia the upper hand. One is, of course, Russia’s military preponderance over its small neighbour. Another is geography: Georgia is not so near other American or NATO interests that the feelings of these latter need to be taken overmuch into account.


To much of the Western world, the Russian-Georgian war is a straightforward case of a powerful, autocratic nation bullying a weak democracy nearby. But many complications make a meaningful response hard. One is that Georgia has not been lily-white itself. The government, led by the pro-western Mr Saakashvili, tarnished its image last year with a crackdown on protesters. And in response to nationalist pressures, he has begun in the past year to try to tighten Georgian control over South Ossetia and Abkhazia, a separatist region on the Black Sea coast in which Russia has much more strategic interest. It appears that Georgian forces erred badly by shelling South Ossetia last week, but in any case it seemed only a matter of time before Russia responded.

Georgia has called on the outside world to intervene. But it is not clear how effective any response would be. Russia would veto any action at the UN Security Council. Neither NATO nor the European Union have put Georgia on the fast track to membership; if they had, Russia may not have felt so bold. Leading European countries have called for a ceasefire, but have been somewhat even handed in their language. A group of states formerly dominated by Russia—the Baltic republics and Poland—issued a statement more strongly decrying Russian bullying. But some of the bigger EU countries see Georgia’s provocation of Russia as irresponsible. Georgian leaders, in response, ruefully note Europe’s dependence on Russian energy supplies.

The American reaction has been not much clearer. On Sunday America’s vice-president, Dick Cheney, said that Russia’s military action “must not go unanswered”. George Bush, visiting the Olympics, has called for an immediate end to the fighting. So have the two presidential candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama. All put the blame on Russia. But America, besides helping to bring Georgia’s troops home from Iraq quickly, does not have many obvious tools to hand. There is no talk of any military response; America will join mediating efforts with the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the EU.

Russia sees it actions as having a parallel in Kosovo. In 1999, NATO fought a war to protect the Albanian-majority province of Yugoslavia from a Serbian crackdown, despite Russian opposition. This year, many western countries recognised Kosovo’s declaration of independence, while somehow suggesting that Kosovo should not set any precedent. Russia claims to see in South Ossetia a friendly and oppressed region seeking independence from a larger country. But the disproportionate Russian response signals far more than concern for hard-pressed South Ossetians (and Russia’s “citizens”, South Ossetians recently given Russian passports). It may be a naked challenge to the West: Russia expects the response to be no more than diplomatic manoeuvres. Russia may also be seeking the removal from power of Mr Saakashvili, sending a signal to other countries on its periphery that, in breaking from Russia and moving westwards, they are playing a dangerous game. That signal is coming through loud and clear.