It would, nevertheless, still have been possible to normalize the situation and arrive at a political solution. For quite an extended period, relative calm was maintained in South Ossetia. A mixed peacekeeping contingent carried out its mission and Ossetians and the Georgians living beside them managed to find a common language.
It is important to point out that all these years Russia’s position has been recognition of the territorial integrity of Georgia, but the problem could only be resolved on that basis by peaceful means. There should be no other means of resolving issues in the civilized world. The Georgian leadership flouted that sacrosanct principle. What happened on the night of 8 August, the bombardment of the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali from rocket launchers designed for blanket strikes, simply beggars belief. It was impossible for Russia not to react. To accuse her of aggression against ‘defenceless little Georgia’ is not just hypocritical but inhumane.
It is now obvious that the Georgian leaders’ decision to send in troops against a civilian population was an irresponsible escapade that has had tragic consequences for thousands of people of different nationalities. They could never have decided on such folly without believing they had the support and encouragement of a much greater power. The Georgian armed forces have been trained by hundreds of American instructors, and they have been buying cutting-edge military technology in several countries. This, together with promises of NATO membership, made the regime overconfident and gave them a sense of invulnerability that contributed to their hitting on the idea of a ‘blitzkrieg’ against South Ossetia.
In short, Mikheil Saakashvili was relying on unconditional support from the West, which the West had given him grounds to expect. The resolute repulsing of their military adventure should give food for thought not only to the Georgian government.
What is needed now is to put a stop as soon as possible to the fighting and get on with such vital matters as aid for the victims of a humanitarian disaster very little reported in the Western media, and rebuilding the towns and villages. No less important is to give serious consideration to the best ways of resolving this situation, one of the most volatile in the Caucasian region, which is an area that requires extremely sensitive handling.
I said at one time that the solution to the problems of South Ossetia and Abkhazia was to establish a federation with broad autonomy for the two republics. This idea met furious opposition, especially in Georgia. Later, attitudes changed, but after the present tragic events even that solution would be difficult to achieve.
Memories and pain are hard to bear, and even more difficult to cure. That is only possible after lengthy treatment, involving thoughtful dialogue and completely excluding the use of force. Similar conflicts in Europe and beyond have taken decades to be resolved, and some have yet to be settled. They need not only patience, but also wisdom. The history and experience of peoples living together in the small states of the Caucasus are testimony that tolerance and cooperation can ensure lasting peace and the conditions necessary for life and progress. That is the main thing to remember.
We need political leaders who are fully aware of this and who will apply their energies not to developing military muscle, but to laying the foundations for lasting peace.
Of late, the standpoint of some Western countries has been unbalanced, particularly in the UN Security Council. From the outset that has undermined its ability to function effectively. By declaring the Caucasus, situated thousands of miles away from the American continent, an area of its ‘national interests’, the United States has made yet another mistake. Peace in the region is in everybody’s interests, and elementary common sense requires recognition of the fact that Russia is bound to the Caucasus by shared geography and centuries of history. She is not seeking territorial expansion, but has unchallengeable grounds for declaring a legitimate interest in the area.
The international community might set a long-term goal of creating a system of regional security and co-cooperation that would prevent any such provocation in the future and the very possibility of crises like this. Establishing that kind of system would be extremely difficult, and could be achieved only by agreement among the neighbouring countries. Powers outside the region might facilitate it, but only if they adopted a balanced and objective approach. Geopolitical games are dangerous, and not only in the Caucasus. That is one further lesson that needs to be learned from recent events there.
My second article, continuing my analysis and conclusions, generated a lot of comment, both on the New York Times website and in letters.
Russia was dragged into this crisis. She could not stand idly by.
The acute phase of the conflict, caused by Georgian troops attacking the South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali is behind us, but it is simply impossible to erase from memory the dreadful images: the salvos of rockets raining down in the night on a peaceful city, the barbaric destruction of entire neighbourhoods, the people killed in the cellars of their homes where they had taken shelter, the wrecking of ancient monuments and the graves of ancestors.
Russia did not seek this escalation. The domestic situation of the Russian leadership is perfectly stable and it has no need of any ‘small, victorious war’. Russia was drawn into the crisis by Saakashvili’s opportunism, in which he would never have indulged if he had not been receiving foreign support.
Russia could not stand idly by. She responded and an end was put to the aggression. President Dmitry Medvedev’s cessation of hostilities was a wise and responsible step. During this time, the Russian president acted calmly, confidently and firmly. If anyone was hoping to see Moscow in a state of disarray, they were disappointed.
Now a change of tack is increasingly obvious; whatever the outcome, Russia is to carry the blame for worsening the situation in the region and the world. A full-scale propaganda attack has been mounted against her in the Western, and particularly American, media, without even a pretence of objectivity in the way the crisis was treated, especially at the beginning. The public in the West has been deprived of a full and objective picture.
Tskhinvali was in smoking ruins, thousands of people were fleeing for their lives from a city in which there were as yet no Russian troops, and already Russia was being accused of aggression, repeating the lies of an out-of-control Georgian leader.
Whether the West was aware of Saakashvili’s plans is a serious question that has yet to receive a definite answer. At all events, training programmes provided to Georgian troops and massive arms deliveries did nothing to further the cause of peace, and much to foment war.
If this military adventure came as a surprise to the Georgian leader’s sponsors, the situation is little better, since it suggests the tail is wagging the dog. How many compliments were lavished on Saakashvili: ‘our ally, a democrat’, who was helping in Iraq, etc., and now everyone, we Russians, the Europeans, and most importantly innocent civilians are suffering the consequences of the misdeeds of America’s ‘best buddy’.
Before rushing to judgements about the situation in the Caucasus, and even more before claiming influence there, you need to have at least some degree of understanding of the complexities of the region. There are Ossetians living both in Georgia and in Russia. It is the same throughout the region: literally every country is a patchwork of different ethnicities, of peoples living side by side. It is unacceptable for anyone to be asserting that ‘this is our land’, or ‘we are liberating our territory’. There are people living on that land, and we have to think about them.