ЗАПАДНЯ НА КАВКАЗЕ

The emergency EU summit in early September, which discussed the situation in Georgia and further relations between Europe and Russia, turned out to be quite significant. The final declaration condemning Moscow's actions and urging it to act within the framework of international law was the logical outcome of the meeting. The European Union demanded that Russia withdraw its troops from Georgia, although it did not name any specific consequences of failure to do so.

"Radicals" and "pragmatists"

Meanwhile, everyone had anticipated the results of the summit: "the heroes of the occasion" - Russia and Georgia as well as their allies. In any case, there were few countries that officially supported Russia - Nicaragua, the Hamas and Hezbollah movements and then Belarus. This is really quite a disreputable company that compromises the actions of the Kremlin rather than lending legitimacy.

As for the "group of support" for Georgia, this was split into "radicals" and "moderate pragmatists" led by the Saakashvili administration itself. The first group consists mainly of countries that border on Russia - the Baltic States, Poland, Ukraine and Britain insisted that the West must give a sharp response to Moscow's actions. The supporters of this position made near-bellicose statements every day across a wide range of influential Western media (and still continue to do so).

At the same time, the "moderate" group asserts that Russia should not be addressed in its own terms and that it is impossible be isolate it and impose sanctions, because this will bring about even greater polarization and deprive the West of its scant means of pressurising the "Russian bear". These ideas are still quite common in the foreign press, fuelling the dispute.

However, as expected, the main (for the time being, only political) confrontation is between Russia and Georgia's main ally - the USA. The Americans have announced an allocation of one billion dollars to restore the Georgian economy, they sent their ships into the Black Sea ,where they "enjoyed the company" of Russian military vessels which had been patrolling the Georgian coastline since 11 August, and began restoring the Georgian air defence system, actually connecting it to the NATO early warning system. Moreover, the NATO Council will hold an away session in Tbilisi on 15-16 September.

The visit by US Vice-President Dick Cheney to Georgia, Azerbaijan and Ukraine was quite a remarkable event. According to Cheney, these countries face a greater threat from Russia as potential targets. The main subject of discussion in Baku, Tbilisi and Kiev was the situation in Georgia, as well as alternative energy projects, in which the current White House administration has a great interest - again in connection with the policies pursued by the Kremlin.

The Old World, however, is not lagging behind the USA in its activity. A week after the EU summit, foreign ministers held a session at which they decided to send a delegation led by Nicolas Sarkozy to Moscow for talks on 8 September. The aim was to persuade the Kremlin administration to honour its own obligations, as stipulated in the six points of the "Medvedev-Sarkozy" agreement. The Europeans themselves did not pin any special hopes on this mission, realizing that Moscow was unlikely to compromise. The European negotiators set themselves two main goals: to secure the withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgian territory and to force the Russians to agree to the arrival of a group of EU observers (the aforesaid cease-fire agreement urges the creation of such a group), outlining its zone of responsibility. Ideally, the Europeans would also like to start talks on the status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. But the wishful nature of the idea that Moscow will give up its position was clear even before the visit. The authoritative New York Times wrote on 8 September: "France, which holds the presidency of the EU at the moment, clearly expressed its displeasure that Russia is not honouring the terms of the cease-fire agreement. At a news conference, French Foreign Minister Bernard Couchner said of Medvedev: Let him respect his own signature first. Only two of the six points have been fulfilled - or let's say, two and a half, or maybe even three."

However, although Poland, Britain, Sweden and the Baltic States favoured a tougher line on Russia, no specific sanctions were discussed, according to officials. Couchner also shied away from answering how the EU would react if Russia continues to delay the fulfilment of the peace agreement. "Everything depends on the answer from the Russian side," Couchner said, adding that there is no point in imposing "useless sanctions", i.e. taking steps that Russia would simply ignore. On 6 September, at a time when US Vice-President Dick Cheney addressed a conference in Italy severely criticizing Russia and vigorously lobbying for Georgia and Ukraine's membership of NATO, and Medvedev boasted in Moscow that Russia had become "a state that will be respected" in a world that "became different after 8 August this year", the Europeans were making strenuous efforts to find the right tone for their relations with Russia, which Couchner called "a European partner and neighbour".

"We should all ensure that stability is established, otherwise the Russians will not be persuaded to accept anything," a top EU official said. "Russia won the war, and the problem cannot be solved without Russia. The territory is under its control," The New York Times concluded.

"…until the thunder strikes"

Russia's actions with regard to Georgia opened a new stage in the development of international relations. However, attempts to understand the true causes of the current political confrontation between Russia and the West fail under the barrage of accusations and excuses. The whole essence of such arguments boils down to the street principle: "Look who's talking!"

In any case, the open confrontation between the West and Russia began after the Munich conference on security policy issues on 9-10 February 2007 at which the former Russian President and current Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin, made his famous speech. At that time, many people took his words to be an open challenge to the international community, or to be more precise, a response to the unilateral actions of the West, which was advancing on the positions of the Kremlin "on all fronts".

One year later, in February 2008, despite all the warnings from Moscow and their threats to take appropriate measures, the independence of the Serbian province of Kosovo was recognized. The Kremlin made it clear then that it saw this as nothing less than a precedent and would take counter measures. It was possible to guess what kind of steps Moscow would take, but this finally became clear six months later when Russia recognized the independence of separatist South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

We are far from justifying Russia's actions, especially proceeding from the history and mechanism of the emergence of outbreaks of separatism not just on Georgian territory, but also throughout the Caucasus, and from the role that Russia has played in these issues.

Nevertheless, on 17 February 2008, a process began which allowed Dmitriy Medvedev to do what he did on 26 August. Thus, Moscow had an excellent formal pretext to justify its actions in Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Now those whose job it is to evaluate political decisions and their consequences for the future agree that many more countries are in danger, while Georgia may be the first, but not the last, move in a dangerous game which started several years ago. So in this case, the saying "forewarned is forearmed" has been replaced by the Russian proverb "the peasant won't cross himself until the thunder strikes".

Trap

Trying to find an answer to the question as to why Georgia took such an adventurist step, journalist Roger Boyes wrote in an article entitled "Something is going seriously wrong in Putinland" in the British newspaper "New Statesman" on 31 August, that a trap was set for him (Mikhail Saakashvili) and he was characteristically incapable of avoiding it: "Dig a hole in front of the Georgian leader and you can be sure that he will fall into it." It was that simple. Is everything really so prosaic?

I repeat: Russia's actions could have been predicted. It is unlikely that Western strategists and officials, who have powerful teams of politicl experts, analysts and special services, did not understand that although Russian politicians, for all their imperial inclinations, are quite patient, there was a limit.

Could Mikhail Saakashvili have taken such a step independently? Could he launch such a pointess offensive on South Ossetia? Was it simply his hot temper that prompted him to make such an attempt (the intention was good, but it was not well thought out) to restore the territorial integrity of his country? Recently, some circles in the West, including in the USA, have hardly expressed delight with his attempt to detonate the West and Russia in Georgia. Only thanks to strenuous efforts has he managed to retain power when it seemed that the domestic Georgian opposition, supported and nurtured by the West, would move to change the leadership of the country. Is it that, having experienced the consequences of his ill-considered political games, Saakashvili did not draw the right conclusions and decided to repeat his mistake? - Especially after the attempt to join NATO at its last summit failed, and there is no guarantee that this will succeed at the second or third attempt. In open military confrontation with Russia, Georgia's chances of being admitted to NATO look very limited (at least at the current stage). Then a question arises - who or what deluded Mikhail Saakashvili into thinking that it was necessary to carry out a military operation against Russia itself? Incidentally, Vladimir Putin also asked this question, hinting that, by its actions, the US administration was trying to keep power in the hands of the Republicans by putting McCain in the presidential chair. This is quite possible. But, if true, this is only a short-term tactic, not a long-term American strategy.

Fighting a shadow…

Various top officials in the US administration immediately said that they had warned Saakashvili against ill-considered actions and had tried to persuade him not to take military action in response to provocations by Ossetia and Abkhazia. Let's assume that this is true.

Let's assume also that this is one side of the coin - tactical advice. You can say anything you like at the moment without fearing that Saakashvili, who now depends totally on his Western allies, will take offence.

But, personally, for the author of this article, the impulsive actions of Mikhail Saakashvili fit into the overall logic of the long-term strategy of the West, mainly the USA, with regard to… Russia.

As we said above, for the last 10 years the Americans and their close allies have been doing everything possible to oust Russia from the world political stage. There have been many such actions, though most of them seemed illogical at first sight.

The most noticeable is NATO's expansion towards Russian and an attempt to create a circle around its borders, despite official agreements and assurances that this would not happen. We can also mention Russia's expulsion from the Middle East settlement, the US decision to quit the missile defence treaty, the installation of new systems around Russia's borders, as well as the failure to observe the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty. Moreover, the West is working hard to extract the energy resources of Central Asia from Russian influence. The "axis of evil", which was once outlined by George Bush Jr., surrounds Russia for some reason, although there are many states in the world where the regimes are no better than those branded  by the American president who wants to sort them out. In essence, the aim is to bring them within the American sphere of influence, installing its own border with Russia and the world's fastest developing economy, China, which is a very attractive country for an exporter of raw materials like Russia. Yes, by recognizing South Ossetia and Abkhazia, multinational Russia in fact gave up on the logic it was using to prevent the recognition of Kosovo, where its interests were violated. I am not saying whether the actions of the Americans and their Western partners are justified or not. The fact is clear: it seems that Moscow has been provoked deliberately over the last few years. Our magazine has also repeatedly written on this subject.

The general strategy of the conduct of Russia's opponents is quite clear and explicable. Forcing Moscow to start a confrontation, thus unleashing a new stage in the Cold War, they are trying to deprive Russia of its remaining support.

If a new arms race begins, Russia's economy will not last long, despite the current huge inflow of money from the high demand for, and prices of, energy.

Russian experts themselves take quite a sober view of Russia's potential, stressing that Russia has finally got hooked on oil and gas, while the prospects for general economic development, on which the billions of oil dollars should be spent, seem less than clear. The history of the break-up of the USSR, which Putin himself once called the biggest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century, as a result of the Cold War, did not bring the lesson home to some circles of the Russian establishment.

The well-known Swiss prose writer Max Frisch once said that "no-one needs a real war, but many need hate".

In this respect, it is worth noting an article by Vladimir Pastukhov published in "Argumenty i Fakty" on 21 August. Here are several quotes from it: "There is nothing more harmful for the state than euphoria from military success. When soldiers win battles, politicians lose wars. We should not forget who we are fighting. Georgia is just a weapon in the hands of the West. We are fighting the shadow of the real enemy. We lost to this real enemy. They beat us. Russia fell into a political trap from which there is no honourable way out. It is forced to choose between "bad" and "very bad" again.

"This is not a war, but a PR campaign thought out in detail, which includes the Olympic Games. The target was not Tskhinval, it was Russia. They had to make Russia send troops into Georgian territory at any price and become one side in the conflict. This is the first step in "a game of many moves" which was supposed to oust the Russian "peacekeeping" contingent from the conflict zone and replace it with NATO troops or a UN force, in other words, with a community controlled by the West. The technique is obvious and even well worked out - in the next stage a "zero solution" will be offered - to withdraw Georgian and Russian troops at the same time; they will be replaced by "neutral" forces controlled by the West. Then it will go the way it happened in Kosovo, or the other way round.

"What does Russia gain by supporting separatism in Georgia? Absolutely nothing. On the whole, this policy runs counter to the interests of Russia itself, as have dozens of similar previous conflicts. Instead, we have cut ourselves off from Georgia, lost a chance to influence its policy and made it a bridgehead for the military-political machinery of the West.

"With its short-sighted policy, Russia has backed itself into a tight corner. Georgia's attack on Tkhinval forced Russia to enter the war. This war was thrust upon Russia and Russia did not need it, but could not avoid it either. It was forced to fight a war for somebody else's interests, by somebody else's rules and under a storm of criticism from the international community which happily reminds Russia that South Ossetia is Georgian territory. At the same time, it must be remembered that we will not be able to stay in Ossetia for long and will be forced to leave under pressure from the West…"

The sad finale

The West got a wonderful chance to brand Russia once and for all. Now it will be impossible to convince anyone that Moscow is not the capital of the USSR which sent its troops to Prague and occupied Afghanistan. The "dogs of war", i.e. Western "hawks" who thirst for confrontation, got what they wanted, just as certain political circles in Russia managed to satisfy their imperial ambitions. No, there will not be an open military confrontation. The times are different now. And what was it all for? The first days of the Georgian war dealt a colossal blow to the Russian economy, which lost several billion dollars. And this trend will continue.

We can assume that the West will not impose serious sanctions against the Kremlin. They are not necessary: Moscow itself fell into the old trap and its current actions resemble the wallowing of a big fish which shows its strength by not allowing anyone to get it out of water. Time is against Russia now. If the Kremlin does not take drastic action, we can imagine different versions of the end of the game whose finale, in any event, will be a sad one for Russia.

In conclusion, we would like to point out that "playing with Russia" is not the only target of the "great game". We should not forget for a single moment about the situation surrounding Iran.

But that is a different story…