• Research
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie India logoCarnegie lettermark logo
AI
{
  "authors": [
    "Thomas de Waal"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie Europe",
    "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Europe",
  "programAffiliation": "russia",
  "programs": [
    "Russia and Eurasia"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "Russia",
    "Eastern Europe",
    "Caucasus",
    "Georgia"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Security",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media
Carnegie Europe

How to Square the Caucasian Circle

Two years since fighting broke out between Georgia and Russia, the situation in the separatist territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia remains deadlocked and the current western policy of strong rhetorical support for the Georgian position substitutes easy words for hard diplomatic work.

Link Copied
By Thomas de Waal
Published on Aug 5, 2010

Source: The Financial Times

How to Square the Caucasian CircleTwo years ago this weekend, war broke out  between Russia and Georgia. At the time many expressed fears of a new cold war between Moscow and the west. In fact, relations have improved, but the situation in the separatist territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia remains deadlocked. While bonhomie has broken out between Presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev on a range of issues, their governments still trade accusations over Georgia.

Moscow insists that Abkhazia and South Ossetia are now fully independent states. Washington reaffirms its support for Georgia’s claims on the two territories. Hillary Clinton, secretary of state, again emphasised American support for Georgia’s territorial integrity in Tbilisi last month, referring to the Russian presence in the separatist territories as “occupation”.

A cool look at the facts suggests that neither position reflects the realities on the ground. South Ossetia, with a population of about 30,000, will never be independent, but the bloodshed of 2008 has set back any rapprochement with Georgia by many years. Abkhazia is much bigger and enjoys a sort of proto-statehood on its Black Sea coast. While it too has little chance of being recognised as independent, it has broken decisively with post-Soviet Georgia, of which it was never fully a part. Most Abkhaz welcome the Russian military presence as a guarantor of their security.

Eventual compromise is inevitable here. But for this to happen, the global parties need to wind down their rhetoric and stop looking at these conflicts through a cold war prism.

The first point to appreciate is that the August war actually weakened Russia’s position in the Caucasus. The recognition policy for Abkhazia and South Ossetia damaged Moscow internationally and no other post-Soviet state followed its example. In the North Caucasus, the policy stirred up more trouble among would-be Islamic separatists. On the south side of the mountains, Russia has few levers and must work with local elites to retain any influence.

Focused on economic recovery and political consolidation, Russia is also accepting that it must use economic instruments, not coercion, to maintain a presence in its near-abroad. The recent quarrel with Belarus over gas supplies, the decision not to intervene in Kyrgyzstan and the decision to cut Russian tank numbers by 90 per cent all form part of this picture.

Abkhazia and South Ossetia, both of which share borders and historic ties with Russia, remain real security headaches. The existence in particular of a separatist South Ossetia with Russian troops an hour’s drive away from Tbilisi poses a direct security challenge to the Georgian state.

But a better US-Russian relationship dramatically reduces the chance of a new flare-up in South Ossetia. In the long term, if the Ossetians were allowed to opt not for Russia or Georgia but for self-government with ties to both, they would probably seize the chance with both hands. Georgians and Ossetians have always intermarried and traded, and South Ossetia is geographically inside Georgia, linked to Russia by only one tunnel.

Abkhazia is a harder case, but there are at least a dozen territories in Europe with asymmetric sovereignty arrangements: think of Andorra, Liechtenstein and the Aaland Islands, not to mention Scotland or Northern Ireland, where “separatist” ministers sit in government. If such creative thinking had been applied to Abkhazia, the conflict might have been solved long ago.

Could Russia make Georgia part of the “reset” in relations with the west? Realistically, progress is unlikely at the moment as President Mikheil Saakashvili, the sworn enemy of Moscow, serves out his second term and while the wounds of 2008 are fresh. But Russia has good reasons to want to share this problem in the long term. In the meantime, the situation needs more effective conflict management – preventing incidents on the ground from getting out of control – and more nuanced language. The current western policy of strong rhetorical support for the Georgian position substitutes easy words for hard work.

The date to look forward to is 2014, when the Winter Olympics arrive on the Black Sea coast in Sochi, next door to Abkhazia. Good groundwork could make the games in four years’ time a reason for rapprochement.
 

About the Author

Thomas de Waal

Senior Fellow, Carnegie Europe

De Waal is a senior fellow at Carnegie Europe, specializing in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus.

    Recent Work

  • Commentary
    Europolis, Where Europe Ends

      Thomas de Waal

  • Commentary
    Taking the Pulse: Is It Time for Europe to Reengage With Belarus?

      Thomas de Waal, ed.

Thomas de Waal
Senior Fellow, Carnegie Europe
Thomas de Waal
SecurityForeign PolicyRussiaEastern EuropeCaucasusGeorgia

Carnegie India does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie India

  • Commentary
    The Impact of U.S. Sanctions and Tariffs on India’s Russian Oil Imports

    This piece examines India’s response to U.S. sanctions and tariffs, specifically assessing the immediate market consequences, such as alterations in import costs, and the broader strategic implications for India’s energy security and foreign policy orientation.

      Vrinda Sahai

  • Article
    Military Lessons from Operation Sindoor

    The India-Pakistan conflict that played out between May 6 and May 10, 2025, offers several military lessons. This article presents key takeaways from Operation Sindoor and breaks down how India’s preparations shaped the outcome and what more is needed to strengthen future readiness.

      Dinakar Peri

  • Book
    India and the Sovereignty Principle: The Disaggregation Imperative

    This book offers a comprehensive analysis of India's evolving relationship with sovereignty in a complex global order. Moving beyond conventional narratives, it examines how the sovereignty principle shapes India's behavior across four critical domains—from traditional military power to contemporary data governance.

      Rudra Chaudhuri, Nabarun Roy

  • Commentary
    NISAR Soars While India-U.S. Tariff Tensions Simmer

    On July 30, 2025, the United States announced 25 percent tariffs on Indian goods. While diplomatic tensions simmered on the trade front, a cosmic calm prevailed at the Sriharikota launch range. Officials from NASA and ISRO were preparing to launch an engineering marvel into space—the NASA-ISRO Synthetic Aperture Radar (NISAR), marking a significant milestone in the India-U.S. bilateral partnership.

      Tejas Bharadwaj

  • Article
    Hidden Tides: IUU Fishing and Regional Security Dynamics for India

    This article examines the scale and impact of Chinese IUU fishing operations globally and identifies the nature of the challenge posed by IUU fishing in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR). It also investigates why existing maritime law and international frameworks have struggled to address this growing threat.

      Ajay Kumar, Charukeshi Bhatt

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
Carnegie India logo, white
Unit C-4, 5, 6, EdenparkShaheed Jeet Singh MargNew Delhi – 110016, IndiaPhone: 011-40078687
  • Research
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.