Four Years on, Security is still a concern in South Caucasus

Four years ago last week, Russia and Georgia briefly went into war which led to hundreds of deaths, occupation of Georgian lands and Russia’s recognition of two separatist regions.

Although the conflict ended less than a week after it started, many in Washington DC point that it has had lasting effects for not only on Tbilisi and Moscow, but the entire region.

For Moscow, the conflict was an opportunity to demonstrate to its “backyard” neighbors that it would define its own interests and defend them, while for Georgia, the war forced substantial rethinking of security strategy, foreign policy, even though it didn’t topple Tbilisi’s efforts to forge closer ties with the West, as Russia likely hoped.

In Washington DC, the war sparked immediate debate over America's policy towards South Caucasus–this debate still not resolved.

Still, many questions, such as whether the resumption of armed hostilities is a serious threat in the region; whether changes in the negotiating formats might yield better outcomes; and what, if anything, could the West do to facilitate frozen conflicts that remain unanswered.

Looking forward, one US officials told TURAN’s correspondent that they’re still concerned of the media reports about Russia “itching for war” with Georgia.

“The truth is that until these issues are finally and truly resolved, there is always the possibility of destabilization – whether it is Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia, Ossetia, or elsewhere in the Caucasus”, said the official source.

In the meantime, many local analysts keep questioning where the regional players stand today; and what factors impede a settlement between Russia and Georgia?

TURAN’s Washington DC correspondent addressed those questions to Dale Herspring, a veteran diplomat who spent more than 23 years in the Foreign Service and 33 years in the US Navy.

 “Two comments: First, externally the situation [in the region] appears stable, although it would not take much to set things off again -- however, I don't think such a possibility would be in the interest of either side”, he said. “Second, from a Russian point of view, the war's biggest “impact has been on the military”.

 “It showed the Russian military was in disastrous condition. It has spurred modernization. In addition, it has recently been used by some disgruntled Russian generals against Medvedev. It is not clear how strong they are or what they are seeking, but it is an unusual action on the part of senior retired officers (it reminds one of the action by six retired American generals against Rumsfeld)”, Herspring, currently a University Distinguished Professor in the Political Science Department at Kansas State University, added.

Asked what, if anything, could the West do to facilitate frozen conflicts, the analyst said, “as far as resolving the conflict, to use an American phrase, "The US has bigger fish to fry." “First, something has to be done about Iran”.

Just recently, some Washington analysts raised their concern about the possible Russia-Georgia tension in  the region, in case of the Iranian war.

For Herspring, “the consequences of an Iranian War would be hard to predict. That includes for the US, regional powers, Russia and just about everyone else who has an interest in the region”.

“The outcome for Russia or anyone else is simply unpredictable”.

Will the West /US let Russians intervene into Georgia again?

As long as Obama is in power, Herspring says, “The US will do little or nothing”. “If Romney is in power, the US response will be more robust, but unless it were an isolated action (and I don't see Russia invading out of the blue -- the Russian military is in no position to invade anyone at this point”.

 What should Azeris know about their region, competition between the West, Russia and other regional powers?

For Herspring the Azeri decision makers “should be put out to pasture.

- Western policy -- trying to get the current president of Georgia to behave himself.

- Russian policy -- for the present, it is a combination of first - a big bluff toward the West, second - opportunistic, taking advantage of what appears. They are so internally oriented especially in the military area, that it will be some time before they are prepared to carry out an aggressive foreign policy”.

Alakbar Raufoglu

08/12/2012