Washington and New Delhi should be proud of their putative deal. But international politics isn’t the domain of unicorns and leprechauns, and collateral damage can’t simply be wished away.
Evan A. Feigenbaum
{
"authors": [
"Alexey Malashenko"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center",
"programAffiliation": "",
"programs": [],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Caucasus",
"Russia",
"Western Europe"
],
"topics": [
"Foreign Policy"
]
}Source: Getty
The search for a way for all parties in the Russia-Georgia conflict to sit down at the negotiating table is gradually beginning. There is real promise that an EU forum can establish an acceptable format and most likely, Russia is ready to make some concessions. Nevertheless, excessive pressure on Moscow will only strengthen its internal conservative forces and thus exacerbate its hard line stance.
Source: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty

Such a process would help, at least a little, all parties to back away from the emotional approach that has predominated since the beginning of the fighting and which continues to strongly influence the entire situation. Emotions took hold the moment Georgian forces entered South Ossetia and raged particularly after Russian tanks crossed the border between the unrecognized republic and the rest of Georgia. Emotions have dominated in media reports and in the statements of politicians. They have also been heard in the comments of some analysts trying to be objective, some of whom have even called the situation "a war" between Russia and the West.
War Of Nerves
In this sense, a war of nerves has developed, one that no one can win.
The situation is developing in such a way that with each new turn it becomes increasingly difficult to find compromises and concessions. Both sides in the dispute seem capable only of hearing their own voices. Now it appears that the attempt by French President Nicolas Sarkozy to find a general settlement is collapsing. That plan had a real chance of success, had it not been for efforts by the UN Security Council to "correct" it that were totally rejected by Russia.
It would seem that the more isolated Russia feels, the less inclined its leaders are to seek dialogue. They feel misunderstood and, even, insulted. Let's take a look at their thinking:
First, Russia always believed it has special rights in Abkhazia and South Ossetia and that they had been de facto affirmed by the international community;
Second, Russia has repeatedly affirmed the de jure territorial integrity of Georgia and stated many times right up until the recent crisis that it had no intention of changing that position;
And third, Moscow clearly did not expect a military action against South Ossetia (not counting the periodic exchanges of fire that had, unfortunately, become routine).
In short, Moscow feels that up until the last moment, Russia played by the rules of a complex game; that it violated those rules not first, but second; and that it had a right to do so.
After the fighting erupted, though, the previous circumstances of the conflict were erased, and Russia began acting in accordance with its own military and political logic. The Kremlin viewed Georgia's "blunder" as a perfect opportunity to solve several problems -- both external and, importantly, internal -- in one fell swoop.
Isolation And Victory
Now, despite its growing isolation, Moscow feels like a victor, and a majority of the public supports a hard-line policy. And there is one more important factor. If Moscow had acted otherwise, its passivity would have been seen in the North Caucasus as weakness. In view of the potentially explosive situation in several of those republics, such a development was simply not an option. This fact must be taken into consideration as talks on the Georgia situation develop.
Nonetheless, there are various opinions in Russia about whether Moscow should recognize the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The most responsible politicians stress that Moscow should not force events and that Russia should not be the only country to take such a step.
If the proposed talks within the framework of the European Union proceed as a dialogue rather than a bid by both sides to continue the propaganda war of recent days, then there is a real possibility of finding a complex formulation that might be acceptable to all parties.
In order to succeed, the EU forum should be preceded by some preliminary decisions aimed at reducing tensions. Perhaps the politicians will be able to hammer out a more flexible resolution in the Security Council.
Most likely, Russia is ready to make some concessions, since Moscow sees that it is gradually painting itself into a corner. The Kremlin sees that it currently has no allies or even supporters in the international community on the question of Georgia. It is significant that even members of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) have largely been silent. However, the form of those concessions cannot be interpreted by Russia's ruling elite as backing away from a hard line or as some acknowledgement by Moscow that its actions were not legitimate.
The situation in the Caucasus today is more confused than ever. Previous approaches have been completely played out. Perhaps they were ineffective; perhaps the collapse happened by chance (in an interview with Ekho Moskvy, former Georgian parliament speaker Nino Burjanadze complained of the "excessive" emotionality of some Georgian politicians). What new approaches and proposals will emerge in the new situation remains to be seen.
But the problem of the Russia-Georgia conflict cannot be viewed outside the context of the general situation in Russia. Excessive pressure on Moscow will only strengthen conservative forces, including the military establishment. And this will make the normalization of relations between Moscow and its Western partners (or, at present, opponents) more difficult or even impossible. Sooner or later, everyone involved will have to sit down at the negotiating table. How long that will take is hard to say. But it appears that the search for a format for that process is gradually beginning.
Carnegie 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.
Washington and New Delhi should be proud of their putative deal. But international politics isn’t the domain of unicorns and leprechauns, and collateral damage can’t simply be wished away.
Evan A. Feigenbaum
Senior climate, finance, and mobility experts discuss how the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage could unlock financing for climate mobility.
Alejandro Martin Rodriguez
The EU lacks leadership and strategic planning in the South Caucasus, while the United States is leading the charge. To secure its geopolitical interests, Brussels must invest in new connectivity for the region.
Zaur Shiriyev
Instead of a guaranteed ally, the Kremlin now perceives Armenia as yet another hybrid battlefield where it is fighting the West.
Mikayel Zolyan
The uprisings showed that foreign military intervention rarely produced democratic breakthroughs.
Amr Hamzawy, Sarah Yerkes