TNR BLOGS

July 04, 2009 | 8:16 AM
July 03, 2009 | 7:55 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:37 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
11.08.2008
The Georgia Crisis: What You Need to Know

On August 8, Russia sent troops into Georgia, spurring violence that has spread beyond two disputed breakaway regions and resulted in the deaths of thousands. The conflict was not unexpected; relations between the two countries have been seething for years. Here is a summary of the conflict's history, major actors, core issues, and consequences.

WHAT HAPPENED

-- Georgia, a small state that sits just north of Turkey, wedged between the Black and Caspian Seas, became independent in 1991 with the fall of the USSR. Since the early 1990s, it has been in conflict with breakaway regions Abkhazia and South Ossetia, both of which demand independence and are supported by Russia. In 2003, the Rose Revolution brought Mikheil Saakashvili to power. He ran on a platform of restoring Georgia's territorial integrity and creating ties with the West. Russia vehemently opposes these developments as threats to Moscow's sphere of influence. The baiting between Russia and Georgia led to mounting tensions, particularly in the breakaway regions, which are monitored by Russian troops. A crisis point was reached last week when Russia accused Georgia of killing Russians in South Ossetia during an offensive that Georgia said was necessary to quell separatist attacks. Moscow soon retaliated, taking South Ossetia and eventually pushing toward Abkhazia and into Georgia proper. It remains unclear whether Russia intends to topple Georgia's capital, Tbilisi, or end its campaign after securing a buffer zone around the breakaway regions.

MAJOR PLAYERS

-- Mikheil Saakashvili. The Georgian president has pushed his country toward stronger relations with the West by supporting its accession to NATO, reducing corruption, and seeking foreign investments, including money for the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline, which serves the Caucasus but bypasses energy powerhouse Russia.

-- Vladimir Putin. As the Russian president, and now as prime minister, Putin has backed Abkhazia and South Ossetia. His approach to Georgia has been deemed by some experts as evidence of a lingering Cold War mentality about the authority Russia should maintain in the region.

-- Dmitry Medvedev, the new president of Russia, has said, "Russia was and will remain the guarantor of security for the peoples of the Caucasus" -- a slap at Georgia's efforts to spurn Russian influence. He is viewed widely as a puppet for Putin, who hand-picked Medvedev as his successor.

-- Eduard Kokoity is the unrecognized president of South Ossetia, and Sergei Bagpash is the leader of Abkhazia.

CORE ISSUES

-- South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The regions are predominantly ethnically Ossetian and Abhkazian, respectively, although Abkhazia's largest ethnic group was Georgian until thousands fled the fighting in the early 1990s. Ceasefires with Georgia have been overseen for more than a decade by Russian, Georgian, and local authorities, but Russia has maintained its support for the regions' independence. In March 2008, Saakashvili proposed a plan for Abkhazia's autonomy within Georgia, but it was rejected by the region's leadership. The following month, in a letter to separatist leaders, Putin pledged Russia's expanded support for independence. Soon after, Russia drew ire from Georgia in May when it sent in additional troops and shot down a drone aircraft.

-- Kosovo. When the West recognized Kosovo's declaration of independence from Serbia in February, Russia used it as pretext to say it would support similar independence for Georgia's breakaway regions. "Americans officials and analysts underestimated the scope of the Russian reaction to Kosovo's separation from Serbia," said Charles Kupchan, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

-- NATO. Georgia has sought entrance into the organization with the support of the United States, much to Russia's chagrin. At the NATO summit in Bucharest in April, Georgia was denied a Membership Action Plan (MAP) but promised eventual membership when, among other things, it is able to settle the conflicts with its breakaway regions. Russia called the development a "huge strategic mistake." The current conflict could diminish Georgia's chances of joining NATO, which is what Russia wants to see happen.

-- Energy also factors into the mix. Russia perceives of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, as well as Europe's plans to build the Nabucco pipeline through Georgia, as threats to its regional energy hegemony.

RESPONSES

-- Saakashvili has agreed to a ceasefire, but Russia has not. Saakashvili has also accused Russia of "ethnic cleansing." There is evidence that Russia's campaign "looks like conquest," said Stephen Sestanovich of the Council on Foreign Relations, but it will only be in the coming days and weeks that Moscow's goals become clear.

-- President Bush--who sat next to Putin Friday at the Olympic Opening Ceremonies in Beijing, even as fighting erupted in Georgia--has "urged an immediate halt to the violence." The U.S. has also agreed to airlift roughly 2,000 Georgian troops from Iraq and send them home. European leaders have also called for a cessation of violence.

-- There are, however, no plans for military intervention from the West, leading to speculation that Saakashvili may have miscalculated his support. CFR's Sestanovich said that if anything, the conflict should lead the West, namely Europe, to realize that "disunity is dangerous" and to develop stronger, more collaborative energy and security policies vis-a-vis Russia.

THE BOTTOM LINE

The conflict is as much a standoff between Russia and the West for regional influence as it is a battle between Russia and Georgia. Whether it is a "game-changer," in the words of CFR's Kupchan, in the West's relationship with Russia remains to be seen, but Russia has shown muscle that caught Western governments off-guard. "I think it's safe to say," Kupchan added, "that from here on out the United States and its allies are going to look at Russia more warily."

-- Seyward Darby

Posted: Monday, August 11, 2008 4:03 PM with 11 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

Robert Powell said:

Happy now tep?

August 11, 2008 5:24 PM

hemlock41 said:

RP: I doubt he's happy. Putin's singular motive of controlling the pipeline in Georgia in order to turn Germany into a Vassal state is "buried" -- it's not the central organizing principle of Seyward's account.

August 11, 2008 5:52 PM

hemlock41 said:

(No doubt this failure has something to do with TNR's support for Obama.)

August 11, 2008 5:54 PM

Rhubarbs said:

"I think it's safe to say that from here on out the United States and its allies are going to look at Russia more warily."

Anyone who wasn't already looking at Russia more warily is an idiot. Which is to say, the entire Republican foreign policy establishment? Idiots. They're the ones who gave us the boy-president who looked into Putin's soul and liked what he saw, and whose only response to Russian aggression was to ask Putin pretty please to consider maybe stopping once he's taken everything he wants to take. They're also the ones who put the United States in the position where thugs like Putin, Ahmadinejad, and Chavez can look the president of the United States straight in the eye and ask, "You and what army?"

August 11, 2008 5:59 PM

michael said:

Well done. That would be a great handout for kids returning to class. (And most elected officials)

August 11, 2008 6:00 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Very happy with young Mr Darby's impressive debut here, not so much with the paid staff's performance. Is Darby a summer intern? Would be a pity if the lone TNR staffer who knows what he's talking about here, and what the stakes are, were to go back to school in a few weeks.

Ah well, we TNR-niki will always have Paris (H)....

August 11, 2008 6:03 PM

Robert Powell said:

What else you need to know is that both Abkazia and South Ossetia are whole-cloth creations of post-Soviet army officers on the scene when the Soviet Union collapsed who essentially took advantage of an opportunity to carve out some turf. These are places that have about the same practical legitimacy as "Tommorowland" or "EuroDisney".

But, hey, like in Bosnia, given the choice between Good and Evil we should try to split the difference, right?

August 11, 2008 6:30 PM

blackton said:

One thing that is missing is the Chinese reaction to this crisis. The Chinese leadership is livid at Putin because the Chinese have a bug up their ass about Nat. Sov. and because Putin dared do this during the Olympics, which comes off as pissing on China's parade. More and more of Russia's future will be tied up with Asia, and Putin has done nothing but drive a wedge between themselves and all of the Asian republics. Anyone also notice how quickly Putin left China? I have the distinct impression he wasn't very welcomed.

As to the pipeline, it is projected to be running at half the capacity by 2020 due to Azeri oil field being tapped dry. This will only spur the Kazakhs to rely on China to get their oil out.

After the Olympics Russia will have to veto all resolutions in the Sec. council alone.

August 11, 2008 6:31 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Robert P's absolutely right. The notion that the Liberators of Grozny are defending anyone's territorial integrity is laughable.

"The conflict is as much a standoff between Russia and the West for regional influence as it is a battle between Russia and Georgia."

One more addition, or elaboration. The region in question is not the Caspian but all of the former Soviet Bloc territories and the western FSU nations. Putin's overreach will increase, not decrease, the urgency of Ukraine's desire for EU membership, increase Poland's influence in the EU, and do what no amount of neocon Russia-bashing could ever do, turn the Germans against Russia and unite a fractured West.

A major blunder by Putin. molodets, Volodya

August 11, 2008 7:23 PM

ironyroad said:

As we spent 40-plus years avoiding a major showdown with the Soviets over their oppressive occupation/control of Central and Eastern Europe between 1947 and 1990 (including violent miltary interventions over the decades in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland), is there any reason to believe that we, the U.S., will act or react differently in 2008 to assist Georgia or the Ukraine?

I know I posted this question earlier, but I get the impression that people are evading this issue.  I think the answer is no, as it was during the Cold War, but I'm interested in other speculations or analysis.  I'm wondering also if the current strategic value of our nuclear arsenal is anything more than it was back then, which was ambiguous at best when it came to ground conflicts that we most of all wanted to have contained.

August 11, 2008 7:39 PM

roidubouloi said:

You are quite right on all counts, irony, much as the neo-con nuts would like to see us in a hot war with Russia, oh and with Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, and others too numerous to name.  What, after all, is the point of being the "hyper-power" and having this fabulous military if you aren't kicking ass around the globe?

But, no, we are not going to shoot at any Russians unless the go somewhere that really crosses one of our red lines, like, say, Germany.  NATO worked in the Cold War because it as entirely credible that we would mount a stalwart defense of the territory behind the line we drew.  Inflating NATO up to the point where it cannot defend the territory it claims is a bad idea.

August 12, 2008 1:29 AM