Russia's recognition of Ossetia and Abkhazia baffled me. On this blog, I have frequently tried to show alternative, Russian perspectives on matters that seem otherwise to be common sense, above debate, to Western audiences. But I just cannot see any benefits this move will bring. On the contrary, by uniting the traditionally friendly OSCE, pragmatic EU and hostile NATO in opposition, it threatens to increase Russia's international isolation, and heighten the very encirclement that Putin had so anxiously tried to roll back with his Caucasian gambit.
In an interview with Russia Today, Medvedev raised the stakes further still:
“We are not afraid of anything, including the possibility of a new cold war. But of course, we don't desire it”.
Not one other country has recognised the breakaway republics.
Indeed, while “it would be an exaggeration to say that Russia finds itself in international isolation, writes the Russian political scientist Fyodor Lukyanov, “Russia has clearly found itself in a vacuum. No one has supported Moscow's actions, although for various reasons”.
In his illuminating and clear-headed essay for Radio Liberty, Lukyanov goes on to state that:
“Russia has demonstrated that it is able and willing to use force outside its borders in order to defend its national interests. This leaves neighboring countries faced with the question of how to ensure their own security…And Russia has to answer an equally important question: What are the criteria for determining those genuinely essential national interests in the name of which it is justified to use military force?
Very important questions, which should have been answered BEFORE any shots were fired. Yet perhaps Lukyanov's most important observation is that Russia and the US appear to have “incompatible strategic horizons”.
Russia is a global power with regional ambitions. That is, it is ready to exchange its opportunities in distant regions like Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and the Far East in exchange for its interests in the regions that border it — Europe and Eurasia. That is, Moscow has a clear hierarchy of its priorities.
The United States is a superpower with global ambitions. A global leader does not have secondary interests. It isn't possible to sacrifice anything or make trades because if something starts to totter in one place, it could trigger a domino effect. Therefore, everyone else must be pushed back as much as possible. As a result, no constructive dialogue is possible.
Whether or not one endorses the rather bleak conclusion, it is undeniable that a new relationship must be negotiated between Russia and the US-led West.
All my friends have been asking me: why does Russia just not seem to care what other countries think of it? Surely there could have been more conciliatory, diplomatic things that Medvedev could have said etc? The truth is, I’m not sure how useful that would have been. George HW Bush famously said that the USA does not apologise to anyone. It is very doubtful that ‘politeness’ achieves anything in relations with other countries, whose ties are based on shared interests, not good vibrations. But it could cost you domestically. Just think of how Obama's foreign trip was interpreted by the right wing press as ‘pandering to France’ and ‘apologising for America’. Leaders have every incentive to sound tough, and the tougher, the better. Does anyone really believe that if Medvedev had been more balanced and understanding that Bush and NATO would have changed their Caucasus policy in his favour?
In fact, that is precisely what Gorbachev did in the late 1980s, and the near-universal perception in Russia is that the West royally took advantage of that to beat Russia while it was down. Gorbachev made a very big deal of sharing Western values, of transcending the old politics of division, of believing in universal human rights and individual free choice. And the West loved him back. But did all that Gorbymania stop America and West Germany from wresting concession after concession from the spluttering USSR? Nothing personal, just business!
So now it's no more Mr Nice Guy, goes the thinking, because Russia's learnt the hard way exactly where they finish.


1 Comments So Far»
In all the discussion about Georgia , ussia, the EU, and the USA, there is little discussion about the transnational economc interests operating in the region,, and indeed employing military -intelligence-narcotics veterans.
For example there is a clear overlap between foriegn policy research funding sources and oil-financial consortia operations in the samegeography of interest, i.e. geoeconomics. These consortia also operate directly in the region with organizations analagous to the intelligenc-diplomatic functions of nation states.
see detailed documentation:
Private Intelligence Functions in the Caspian
FOREIGN BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS IN THE CASPIAN
GEOGRAPHY OF THE AZERBAIJAN GEORGIA TURKEY RUSSIAN BYPASS OIL TRANSPORT SYSTEM
http://www.julaybib.com/correlation-studies/2008/8/24/private-intelligence-functions-in-the-caspian.html
Using an underlying eonomic modelof state behavior would have predited the Georgia attack on the Russian peacekeepers in the break away provinces as a military response to the Russian financial pressure applied on the Azeri-Georgia pipeline cartel lead by BP, which is threatened under the TNK-BP regulatory criminal investigation.
The same model would now predict a further response against Russian allies in or adhacent to current conflict, especially pressure in Nagorno from Azeri commandos managed in Baku. Expect a flare up in the Armenian-Azeri conflict over Nagorno in the neaar future. US military ships in the region may be transferring military stores to low intensity conflict players in the region, including private firms, security groups in the Black sea area, chechnya, and karabach.
see also
NGOIs in the Caspian and Darfur
Leave Comments Below»