Linards Ticmanis
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:13 pm Post subject: And the loser is.... Russia! |
 |
|
Another more sober assessment, from German newspaper "die tageszeitung"
(taz for short). Translation (and bad English) by me.
| Quote: | http://www.taz.de/1/archiv/print-archiv/printressorts/digi-artikel/?ressort=me&dig=2008%2F08%2F18%2Fa0139&cHash=20e79a4078
|
And the loser is... Russia
The Caucasus war did not benefit Russia. By the loss of South Ossetia,
Georgia will become more stable in the long run - and Abchasia could
achieve full independence.
There is an Aphorism in Abchasia that says a lot about the future of
this province on the Black Sea that wants to separate from Georgia. "The
Russians," people say, "will be the last to recognize our independence.
Europe and Georgia will do so long before." How is that? Isn't the
latest war in Georgia exactly about the fact that Russia supports the
two renegade provinces of South Ossetia and Abchasia against Georgia?
Whatever was spread in the past few days in the matter of theses and
views - most of it is propaganda and has little to do with the
complicated situation on the ground. For instance, the Russian president
conspicuously received the two political leaders of the South Ossetians
and the Abchasians and declared that after this war nobody could demand
of them to live under Georgian domination ever again. Still, Russia will
be extremely wary of recognizing the two territories as independent
states.
The reason for that is not only the fact that Russia would hardly be
able to find enough relevant countries worldwide that would do the same
and thus give political weight to such a step; an independence of these
provinces is not in the Russian interest at all. If you ask yourself the
plain question "Who benefits?", you will have to assert soberly: Russia,
in any case, has not benefited from this war. Why not? Because the
former status quo served Russia's interest best. To determine this,
there is no need to follow the complicated history of the Caucasus
region back into Antiquity, as some now do. It is enough to look at the
situation that has held since the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
Since the early 1990s there are four so called unresolved territorial
conflicts in the area of the former Soviet Union. These are Abchasia and
South Ossetia in the former soviet republic of Georgia, Nagorno-Karabakh
in the former soviet republic of Azerbaijan, and Transnistria in
Moldova. Because of these unsolved conflicts, those countries cannot
stabilize; their development is hindered, thus their emancipation from
Russia is only partially possible. From the point of view of power
politics, Moldova is least interesting. The destitute country between
Romania and Ukraine is not particularly interesting for the West; and in
Moscow as well, the support for the Stalinists of Transnistria has
probably more to do with old boys' networks than with geostrategic
interests. The matter is very different with Georgia, Azerbaijan and
Armenia: This land-bridge between the Black and the Caspian Sea is the
road that leads from Europe, between Russia and Iran, all the way to
China. On this route not only Oil and Gas from the Caspian Basin gets to
Europe - Gas and Oil from Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan is planned to take
the same route as well.
Russia could not prevent Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia from declaring
their independence after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, but the
three territorial conflicts caused Russia to keep weighty influence. The
status quo thus was and is the best imaginable situation for Russia. The
question is therefore, whether Russia can manage to restore this state,
respectively keep it up in Karabakh.
Let us begin with Karabakh, which is part of Azerbaijan, but has a
majority Armenian population. So far, little regard has been given to
the fact that Karabakh is likely to have been a trigger for the war in
Georgia as well. For several months, Azerbaijan and Armenia have been in
intensive negotiations on a solution in Karabakh. As in Georgia, the US
has advanced to the role of big brother in Azerbaijan as well, although
in view of the autocratic government of President Aliyev there is no
loud talk of democracy, human rights and common Western values in this
case, but the simple wish to secure control of the rich oil fields. To
get more reliable structures in place in Azerbaijan, it is vital to
pacify the vexatious conflict in Karabakh. Thus, Washington's special
envoy to the Caucaus, Matthew Bryza, is putting considerable pressure on
Aliyev, with the support of the second big brother in Ankara, to accept
a referendum in Karabakh and thus, in practice, to accept Armenian
sovereignty over Karabakh.
This development seems to have caused fear of being left on the shelf
with Saakashvili. If Azerbaijan should tolerate the cessation of
Karabakh, it would be only logical for all the world to pressure him to
give in in the cases of Abchasia and South Ossetia as well. It is pure
showmanship if now the West waves the flag of territorial integrity of
Georgia. For the US and for Europe, it is not important whether Abchasia
and South Ossetia belong to Tbilisi or not - what is important is
whether Georgia will finally become a stable state. The sooner the
country gets rid of the two trouble spots, the sooner it can become a
member of NATO and can be set on the road towards the EU. Thus, it is
likely that Saakashvili in fact did not act on US encouragement in
ordering the march into South Ossetia, but rather the invasion was his
last desperate attempt to get the US, NATO and the EU on board for his,
in the core chauvinistic, reconquest project. Saakashvili is a gambler
who more and more gets to be an incalculable risk for the USA.
There has been as little regard for the wishes, fears and sufferings of
the population of South Ossetia and Abchasia in the power games of the
last few years as there will be in the future. If Saakashvili had won
the war in South Ossetia, ethnic cleansing would have followed. Now the
Georgians who still lived in South Ossetia have been displaced and
massacred instead. Since South Ossetia is unimaginable as an independent
state, a coming Georgian government will one day formally recognize the
de facto unification with North Ossetia and Russia will be a few square
kilometers larger. As said: For Russia this is not exactly a tactical
gain - since Georgia will become more stable through the loss of Ossetia.
In Abchasia Russia has a lot to lose as well. This province has the
potential for independence. In contrast to the South Ossetians, the
Abchasians do not want to be swallowed up by Russia. But Russia did not
fight two bloody wars in Chechnya to let go Abchasia into independence
now and thus risk new conflicts in the northern Caucasus. As paradoxical
as it may seem: If the West wants to prevent Moscow from turning
Abchasia into a Russian protectorate beyond the foreseeable future, the
West itself must demand, and further, Abchasian independence.
JÜRGEN GOTTSCHLICH
Jürgen Gottschlich is longtime correspondent of the taz in Istanbul. He
is a co-founder of this newspaper and was its editor in chief in the
1990s. Lately, he has written a Biography of Günter Wallraf. |
|
Alexander Arnakis
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:07 am Post subject: Re: And the loser is.... Russia! |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:37:08 +0200, Linards Ticmanis <ticmanis@gmx.de>
wrote:
| Quote: | veritas wrote:
I think GOD willed this little war.
Hello veritas,
I have a problem with this idea. I could agree with "God didn't will to
stop by force those who had decided to go to war". But a God that
actually wants people to smash each other's skulls? No.
This is the same test of faith that always crops up whenever |
disastrous things happen. The question is, "How can a good, just, and
all-powerful God allow "bad" things to take place?" Maybe the premises
are wrong -- maybe God isn't good, isn't just, isn't all-powerful, or
simply doesn't exist. Or maybe our *understanding* of what is good or
bad is faulty. Maybe destruction and death -- which seem to us to be
bad -- are just necessary preconditions for an ultimate good result.
And if salvation transcends death, then this working out of the divine
will becomes more palatable. What's certain is that our puny
perspective is not that of God. If we believe in God, we must believe
in Him unconditionally. |
|
