Russia makes yet another aggressive move
Peter Hoskin 3:16pm
Russia's formal recognition of the "independence" of South Ossetia and Abkhazia is one of the most aggressive moves it could have made in the geopolitical chess game it's playing with Georgia and the West. For starters, it increases the likelihood of future military conflict. The worry now is that any Georgian involvement in the breakaway regions will be used by Moscow as an excuse to mobilise its forces once again, all in the name of protecting South Ossetian and/or Abkhazian independence.
But it also effectively denies the West a democratic solution to the problem. Many policymakers had hoped that the independence question could have been resolved by internationally-monitored referenda. Even if those referenda do eventually go ahead, the sight of numerous South Ossetians and Abkhazians celebrating in the streets today suggests that the results would be immaterial. For those people, Russian support - and the military might behind it - is enough in itself. And that spells danger for any Georgians living in either of the two regions.



Previous






Chris M
August 26th, 2008 4:10pm Report this commentWhere are all the Stop the War Coalition protesters? Surely they'll all want to tell Moscow 'Not In My Name' by holding enormous demonstrations and blockading the Russian embassy? What has Mr Galloway to say? What have 'Respect' to say? Let alone CND....
David Lindsay
August 26th, 2008 4:11pm Report this commentThere is nowhere else on earth comparable to the four "frozen conflicts" left over from the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh have never been governed in practice by post-Soviet Georgia, Moldovo or Azerbaijan, and were never part of pre-Soviet Georgia, Moldavia or Azerbaijan. Their two active and two soon to be active claims to independence should be evaluated in terms of their motives.
Do they, as Kosovo did and Chechnya does, want into the nexus of, on the one hand, globalisation, European federalism and American military-industrial hegemony, and, on the other hand, the militant Islam to which those forces pretend to be opposed but are in fact closely allied? Or do they want out of states moving in that very direction?
Manifestly, it is the latter.
They therefore deserve full recognition and every possible support.
Bill Paisley
August 26th, 2008 4:57pm Report this commentWhy is it okay for Kosovo to declare UDI but not South Ossetia or Abkhazia?
Max Kaye
August 26th, 2008 5:02pm Report this commentAfter the blunder of Kosovo, what did the West expect?
I'm amused by the news of Miliband saying that Russia's recognition of South Ossetian and Abkhazian independence is "unacceptable". What, exactly, is he going to do? Threaten not to resupply our troops via Russian air-space? Convince our EU partners (ugh!) not to buy Russian gas and oil? Stamp his tiny feet and hold his breath until he's blue in the face?
I'm quite sure that the Russians are not quivering in fear at the Wrath of Miliband. Putin is more likely to give him a good clip around the ear and tell him leave the grown ups alone, go to his room and do his homework.
David Lindsay
August 26th, 2008 6:04pm Report this commentWhat about North Ossetia? Eh? Eh?
They are at it all over the blogosphere today. They really do believe that this a killer question.
Not only has North Ossetia no desire for independence, but if the South Ossetians were now (or, indeed, ever) told that the only way to reunion was incorporation into the Russian Federation, then they would leap at it.
As they will.
Very, very soon.
Ray
August 26th, 2008 6:17pm Report this commentHaving queered the pitch by its support for Kosovan independence, the West has little moral leverage left in this matter.
However, I suppose NATO could enquire waggishly whether Russia's newfound belief in self-determination for minority peoples also extends to its Chechen subjects.
David Lindsay
August 26th, 2008 6:37pm Report this commentRay, no, of course not.
As I said before, it depends why people want it. Like the Kosovars, the Chechens want it for the bad reasons.
And anyway, Chechnya has been part of Russia for as long as there has been recognisably any Russia.
Whereas Abkhazia and South Ossetia were only annexed to Georgia during the Soviet period, and have never actually been run from Tbilisi since the USSR collapsed.
Arthur
August 26th, 2008 6:48pm Report this commentAnd once again let's remind ourselves that it was the West's recognition of Kosovo's illegal declaration of independence that set the precedent. Russia, illogically, I admint, is merely playing the game we started.
Please, please, please can we first accept our culpability in this situation. Because if we continue to push Russia, we can expect things to get quite ugly.
David C
August 26th, 2008 7:11pm Report this commentArthur, Ray, Max, Bill:
Kosovo is a red herring. Russia is merely doing what Russia wants to do.
Kosovo is thrown in our face to confuse the 'decision makers' (or non-decision makers in the case of the UK Government)and let the Russians hide behind a cloak of legitimacy.
We do not occupy Kosovo; neither is it incorporated into the hegemon of any NATO state (Not even the USA). Likewise we have no strategic interest in thwarting Serbia or forwarding the interests of Albania.
It is readily apparent to all that the West had no business arranging the secession of the Kosovo region of Serbia simply because it was wrong for us to redraw maps, but what Russia is doing now is rearranging the maps to suit its own interest.
The important question is what happens the next time?
JimBob
August 26th, 2008 7:13pm Report this commentJust deserts for Kosovo
Max Kaye
August 26th, 2008 8:44pm Report this commentDavid C, Although we don't 'occupy' Kosovo, do you think it would exist without NATO/K-FOR troops there to protect it?
Russia is acting very rationally in "rearranging the maps to suit its own interest" (if, indeed, this is what it is doing).
The West, on the other hand, obviously acted irrationally by "rearranging the maps" in a way that doesn't serve our long term interests.
We initiate a series of 'nation-building exercises' and then we complain because the Russians are better players than we are....
Hysteria
August 27th, 2008 5:21am Report this commentwhy do we care that Russia is re-drawing this part of the map? What essential srategic and/or national interest is threatened by this? Is it worth us losing one British soldier to stop Russia? I see no existential threat but only a divergence from more pressing threats such as the rise of militant Islam
Back to top