Georgia Invaded by Russia...Is This the Beginning of Another Cold War?

James Traub of the New York Times reported on the invasion of Georgia:

"The hostilities between Russia and Georgia that erupted on Friday over the breakaway province of South Ossetia look, in retrospect, almost absurdly over-determined. For years, the Russians have claimed that Georgia’s president, Mikheil Saakashvili, has been preparing to retake the disputed regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and have warned that they would use force to block such a bid. Mr. Saakashvili, for his part, describes today’s Russia as a belligerent power ruthlessly pressing at its borders, implacably hostile to democratic neighbors like Georgia and Ukraine. He has thrown in his lot with the West, and has campaigned ardently for membership in NATO. Vladimir V. Putin, Russia’s former president and current prime minister, has said Russia could never accept a NATO presence in the Caucasus."

"The border between Georgia and Russia, in short, has been the driest of tinder; the only question was where the fire would start."

"It’s scarcely clear yet how things will stand between the two when the smoke clears. But it’s safe to say that while Russia has a massive advantage in firepower, Georgia, an open, free-market, more-or-less-democratic nation that sees itself as a distant outpost of Europe, enjoys a decisive rhetorical and political edge. In recent conversations there, President Saakashvili compared Georgia to Czechoslovakia in 1938, trusting the West to save it from a ravenous neighbor. “If Georgia fails,” he said to me darkly two months ago, “it will send a message to everyone that this path doesn’t work.”" (Full article.)

James Sherr, writing for theage.com, put forth the argument that the West must not show indifference about Georgia's fate. He wrote:

"Russia's brutal demonstration of power in South Ossetia, a breakaway region of its southern neighbour Georgia, marks the latest — and most alarming — sign of the Kremlin's determination to reclaim control over former Soviet states."

"These former satellites have been left in no doubt that Russia must be regarded as "glavniy", or No. 1, if they wish to avoid the fate of Georgia. Central to Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's nationalistic policy is a conviction that the power of the West — seemingly unassailable at the end of the Cold War — is on the wane. The current crisis demonstrates that the Cold War has not been replaced by common values between East and West, but by the revival of hard realpolitik."

"Mikheil Saakashvili, Georgia's President, might have been profoundly unwise to employ massive force against the pro-Russian separatists in South Ossetia last Thursday, but his poor judgement is not the point. The commanders of Russian forces and their political masters in the Kremlin hoped he would behave exactly as he did."

"The aim of Russia's policy, succinctly expressed in 1992, is to "be leader of stability and security on the entire territory of the former USSR". What has changed in recent years is not the aim but the "correlation of forces". As Boris Yeltsin declared to Russia's intelligence services in 1994, "global ideological confrontation has been replaced by a struggle for spheres of interest in geopolitics". Back then, Russia had little to struggle with. Today, that is no longer the case."

"If Western interests are not to be irreparably damaged, we will need to understand that they are being tested on three overlapping levels: local, regional and global. Georgia is not just a square on a chessboard, but a country that is extremely important in its own right. For two reasons, the West cannot be indifferent to what happens there. First, despite the uncultivated instincts of its President, Georgia's political culture is fundamentally democratic, its people (80% of whom support NATO membership) profoundly pro-Western, and its sense of national identity almost indestructible. Georgia can be defeated by Russia, but it can no longer submit to it, and therefore war between Georgia and Russia would be a frightening prospect even if no wider interests existed." (Full article.)