Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Follow Carnegie
- Search
- Global Resources
Global Centers
Languages
As the Russia-Georgia ceasefire agreement takes shape, the consequences of the crisis for both countries are just now being explored. For Russia the possibility of territorial gain raises new challenges in its relations not just with NATO countries but with neighboring CIS and SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) states as well.
President Bush recently announced the launch of a U.S. humanitarian mission to Georgia and criticized Russia for what he deemed as its violation of the ceasefire. This accusation struck deeply with many Russians who viewed the intelligence on which the speech was based as false or outdated.
The Russia-Georgia crisis has caused a substantial erosion in Russia-U.S. relations. In order to move forward in such a challenging diplomatic environment, the United States should fully support the French initiative to achieve a cease fire.
Disarmament cooperation between Russia and the U.S. has stalled. Negotiations must be renewed, for inaction could revive an arms race.
Although a ceasefire has been called by Russia and Georgia, the crisis is far from over. The U.S. could have prevented the conflict had it proactively sought out a solution for Abkhazia and South Ossetia months or years before. In addition, the U.S. should have strengthened its diplomatic relationship with Russia rather than allowing it to deteriorate.
Despite Western media coverage that paints Russia as solely responsible for the conflict in Georgia, the question of who is to blame is far less clear.
French President Nicholas Sarkozy will meet with Dmitry Medvedev in an effort to move the Russian leadership toward a cease-fire agreement already signed by Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili. Even if a ceasefire is reached, continuing turmoil in South Ossetia, which refuses to return to Georgian control, and Abkhazia, where the political situation remains unclear, will keep tensions high.
None of the Central Asian leaders like the idea of Russian hegemony, but the risk of anarchy and war in the border regions of Russia frighten them even more. They might not like the idea of Moscow as regional policeman, but in the absence of a viable alternative, they might swallow it more easily if Moscow turns into an effective one.
Robert Kagan argues that the Russian-Georgian conflict over the South Ossetia marks the official return of history to an almost 19th-century style of great-power competition, where military power is used to obtain geopolitical objectives.
Although U.S.-Russian relations have steadily deteriorated over the past number of years, the current conflict between Russia and Georgia marks a dramatic worsening of relations. Masha Lipman argues that the West’s inability to prevent Russia from projecting its force is very disquieting.
Stay connected to the Global Think Tank with Carnegie's smartphone app for Android and iOS devices
