The root cause of the Georgian conflict

On August 8, 2008, Georgia launched a surprise attack on the autonomous, Russian-supported (yet diplomatically unrecognized) state of South Ossetia. Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, in a blatant and ultimate costly political gamble, attempted to reclaim political control of South Ossetia. It took only a day for the Russian Federation to respond in full force, decimating the Georgian military and driving Georgia out of South Ossetia. However, Russia did not stop in South Ossetia, and entered into Georgia itself. As of mid-August, a vague ceasefire has been signed by both the Russian Federation and Georgia, with Russian troops still on Georgian soil.

What is the conflict about? Why would Georgia, a country that spends $23 million per year on its military, invade a de facto vassal state under the control of Moscow?

It’s not about oil, it’s not about land, and it’s not about Kosovo.

It’s about great power politics, and how the West has yet to come to terms with the obvious: nations that lack democracy will continue to challenge Western liberalism as the dominant paradigm of political organization well into our new century. Georgia is simply another satellite state where the new Cold War between the West and East is playing out.

The August 14 Globe and Mail made this explicitly clear. “[ ... U]nder the influence of an energetic neo-con lobby in Washington and with considerable support from Israeli weapons manufacturers and military trainers, Mr. Saakashvili and the hawks around him came to believe the farcical proposition that Georgia’s armed forces could take on the military might of the northern neighbour in a conventional fight.” And with that mistake, another page has been added to the tenuous history between the old Cold War foes.

Russia’s response to the Georgian crisis is only the beginning. In the decade to come, we will see an ever-increasing challenge to the world system and balance of power from the Russian Federation. Clashes will occur in the upcoming months involving both Ukraine’s and Poland’s role within Europe, and Russia’s opposition to their participation in the US missile defence program and NATO. Diverging stances on Iran’s nuclear program will further strain Russian relations with the rest of the world. All of this is leading to the ultimate clash that will define our century — the struggle for control over the resource rich Arctic — a clash that will likely be settled with the sword instead of the pen.

Further, Russia’s actions in Georgia could not have come at a more opportune time. With the world focused on the Olympic games, many people are simply ignorant of what is occurring in the Caucasus. Further, come September, the United States will be focused solely on its own domestic situation with the upcoming presidential election. Add into the mix an American Congress that has turned against its lame duck president, and it becomes clear that the time for Russia to flex its muscles is upon us.

And flex it has; just recently, General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, the deputy chief of staff of Russia’s armed forces, boasted that “Poland, by deploying (the American anti-missile system) is exposing itself to a strike — 100 per cent;” rather bold words coming just days after the Georgian invasion. Meanwhile in Ukraine, the Kyiv Post argues that “‘NATO now!’ should be the new rallying cry for all politicians in Ukraine,” and that “Western leaders, meanwhile, should recognize that their ambivalence to Ukraine and Georgia is encouraging Russia to menace and threaten beyond the Caucasus and Black Sea.” The lack of a backbone is only emboldening the Kremlin to make more bellicose geopolitical gambles.

What is necessary is for Western countries to stand up to the Russian Federation, even if that may come at the cost of cheap Russian oil and gas to the E.U.. If Western states do not act now, future action will only come with greater and greater cost. If the E.U. does not stand up for Georgia, what happens next? Will it stand up for Poland? What about Ukraine?

Therein lies the power of democracy. Had citizens had a real say or representative interest in their government, actions like this would not be so easy for authoritarian regimes to achieve. Even when mature democracies (like the U.S.) enter into foreign wars (like Iraq,) they do so knowing the wrath that will come from voters who oppose such actions.

The strength in the West’s position lies in its open markets, open press, and democratic institutions. However, democratic liberalism is not universal; rather it is an elusive and fluid concept that takes centuries of history to build. It is up to the West to defend any and every country that upholds such values. It is thus the Minister of Truth’s recommendation that countries like Ukraine and Georgia be admitted to NATO, and that any country on the doorstep of the Russian Federation be supported with the promise of Western military security.