Our Affiliates
 
 
RFE/RL Radio
 
 
 

RFE/RL Iran Coverage Cited Around the World 

RFE/RL's coverage of the post-election crisis in Iran has been cited by a variety of media outlets around the world. More
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Features

West Must Stand Beside Georgia, And Face Up To Russia, Expert Advises

David L. Phillips: "I don't think there is a new Cold War."

November 09, 2008
David L. Phillips is a senior fellow and the director of the Forum on Georgia and the Caucasus at the Atlantic Council of the United States. He's also the author of the recent report "Post-Conflict Georgia," which outlines the tasks facing the Georgian government and the international community in the wake of the August war with Russia.

Bidzina Ramischwili of RFE/RL's Georgian Service sat down recently with Phillips at RFE/RL's Washington headquarters to discuss the report, Russia's relations with the West, and Tbilisi's NATO aspirations.

RFE/RL: Mr. Phillips, you are the project director and author of the Atlantic Council of America's report entitled "Post-Conflict Georgia." You visited Georgia shortly after the August war and gathered firsthand material on the ground. It was not your first visit to Georgia. What was your impression? What changes did this conflict cause to the country and to the people of Georgia?

I think that there has been an unfortunate and clear lesson demonstrated by the conduct of the West to date, which is: Western countries, particularly some in Europe, are not prepared to take on Russia.
David L. Phillips:
When Georgia's involved in an armed conflict like that, it of course makes everyone feel vulnerable. And the Russians were able to demonstrate an ability to aggress against Georgia any time and any place of their choosing. So I think both the Georgian people and the leadership in Georgia took clear note of that and adjust their expectations accordingly.

RFE/RL:
The report includes important and detailed recommendations both for the Georgian government and the international community on how to deal with the results of this conflict. Could you please tell us, in a few words, what is the main message of your report?

Phillips: The main message of the report is solidarity with Georgia and the people of Georgia. The war inflicted great damage to the country's economy and, particularly at this moment, it's critical that the United States and other Western countries stand beside Georgia politically, diplomatically, and in the near term through financial aid, so that the country can begin the process of economic rehabilitation.

RFE/RL: For many people, the scale of Russia's aggression against Georgia was a surprise. What kind of surprises can we expect from Moscow in the future and will the West be able to tackle them? What kind of leverages does the West have with respect to Russia's ambitions in the Caucasus and its ambitions as a global player?

Phillips: Let's make no mistake about it. The events of August 7th and 8th didn't occur in a vacuum. There was a consistent effort by Russia over several years to provoke an armed conflict with Georgia. Clearly, there were miscalculations made on behalf of the Georgian government, but we need to be crystal clear. Russia was the aggressor; it attacked a sovereign state in violation of the international law and the UN Charter.

As far as what we can expect going forward, Russia has not achieved its primary objective, which is regime change in Georgia and to destabilize the country. Since they were not able to achieve that through military means only, one can expect continued pressure and efforts by Russia to create economic chaos in Georgia as a way of inflicting harm on the Georgian people and the government of Georgia.

What's very important at this stage is that the leadership in Tbilisi stay cool and calm and not respond to provocations that are ongoing and sure to come from Moscow.

RFE/RL: How dangerous is Russia's desire to regain its influence in the world? Can we expect a serious worsening of relations between Russia and the West? Can we expect a new Cold War?

Phillips: I don't think there is a new Cold War. I think that Russia is resurgent; it has identified strategic interests in the territories of the former Soviet Union. It's also flexing its muscles worldwide using its petrodollars to support its economic policies, and clearly there is a response by Russia to NATO's expansion, which is manifested by proposals to create new security arrangements that would transcend NATO's role in the past.

If in the next few years Russia continues to occupy Georgian territory and if it does not rescind its recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, it would be a shame on the international community to gather in 2014 in Sochi for the Winter Olympics.
Is Russia dangerous? It certainly is capable of being meddlesome, being provocative. It hasn't been helpful on key issues such as moderating Iran's nuclear program. Russia and the West have some important convergent interests when it comes to nonproliferation and the fight against terrorism. But if there's going to be cooperation between Russia and the West, Russia needs to be the kind of country which is reliable and which plays by the rules and abides by international norms. And clearly Russia under Vladimir Putin hasn't demonstrated that temperament and the trends are negative.

RFE/RL: How can the West make Russia do all this? What leverages does the international community have?

Phillips: I think there are two parts to the question: What leverages potentially exist and what leverages is the West prepared to exercise? There is a lot of potential leverage when it comes to Russia's membership in the [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development], which is a long-term prospect; its [World Trade Organization] aspirations; its seat within the G8. Europe also has a lot of leverage over Russia through the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, through the visa facilitation regime.

But I think that there has been an unfortunate and clear lesson demonstrated by the conduct of the West to date, which is: Western countries, particularly some in Europe, are not prepared to take on Russia. They are more interested in doing business as usual and having reliable energy supplies than in confronting Russia. It may be possible through cooperation and dialogue to move Russia in the kind of direction that we would like to see.

But if in the next few years Russia continues to occupy Georgian territory and if it does not rescind its recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, it would be a shame on the international community to gather in 2014 in Sochi for the Winter Olympics. So there will need to be some consideration by the U.S. and other Western countries as to their participation. I think also the International Olympic Committee has to consider, if Russia doesn't amend its behavior, whether or not Russia's violation of Olympic principles would allow Sochi to continue to serve as the host site for the Olympic Games.

RFE/RL: Many analysts say one of the main reasons for Russia's aggression against Georgia was Tbilisi's NATO aspirations. Does Georgia still have chances to get the Membership Action Plan (MAP) in December or in the near future?

Phillips: When you talk to the officials from NATO member states, they all reaffirm the commitment of the Bucharest communique, that Georgia will someday become a member of NATO. And they refer in consultations to a first review of Georgia's progress at the upcoming December meeting.

So the intention is there to broaden cooperation and to gradually bring Georgia into the alliance. But I don't think there is any realistic prospect of that happening in the near term, and clearly NATO is going to be very measured about making those commitments to Georgia because of the mutual-defense elements of the alliance treaty that would require it to come to Georgia's aid in the event of renewed conflict with Russia.

So there, too, it's a long-term endeavor, but the intention exists to bring Georgia into the alliance based on its capabilities and the conditions that exist at the time.
 
 
Would you like to post to this forum?
Name *
Location
E-mail
Comment *
Disclaimer
Reader comments in no way reflect the views or opinions of RFE/RL correspondents, contributors, or staff.
Before you post a comment, please read the forum rules
 
 
  Send  
 
 
 
Comments 1-9 (of 9)
by: Glenn from: Alto Adige
November 15, 2008 07:06
It's clear that Georgia started war, monitors, who were on the ground in the breakaway region of South Ossetia when hostilities commenced the night of Aug. 7, reported seeing Georgian artillery and rocket launchers assembling just outside South Ossetia at 3 p.m. that day, well before any Russian convoy had crossed into the enclave. They also observed unprovoked shelling of South Ossetia's capital, Tskhinvali, that night. The shells were falling on civilians' huddled in their homes. And The monitors heard nothing that would confirm Saakashvili's claim that Georgian artillery attacks on Tskhinvali were in response to the shelling of ethnic Georgian villages.

There is no reason to doubt the OSCE monitors. The inescapable conclusion is that Saakashvili started the war and lied about it. The Kremlin may have done its part to provoke Georgia - and its reaction to the Georgian attacks was deliberately harsh - but that is no excuse for Saakashvili allowing himself to be provoked.

And Abkhazia already is NOT Georgia.

by: Rasto
November 14, 2008 19:26
Ad Anton
I really do not understand what Georgians have done to you, but in every your comment you wish Ggeorgians to be dissolved amongst great Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey. Its sick - go and visit your GP, maybe it will find a right medicine for you. You seems to be pretty geofobic...

by: Anton from: Auckland
November 14, 2008 06:39
Strange to hear these hysterical reactions in November, when it was all clear in August... There is no angels or devils in that war, but there are the facts, and the facts say that Russia was patiently waiting for Georgia to step into the mousetrap, and of course the tanks were already ready to go, but still Georgia stepped into the trap first. And then the long-prepared reaction followed, so both Georgia and George WB found themselves in the poo. Nothing surprising! Even back in 50s Mao was sayng that USA is nothing but a paper tiger. Only can attack the one who cannot scratch and bite back. Poker players! A lot of bluff, and little substantiation.

As for Georgia, personally I think it is completely cooked by now. With such allies, they can expect to be cheated, manipulated, humiliated, further partitioned (as they still have some extra lands) and generally discarded in the big game. Turkish, Azeri, Russians, Armenians - these are already rubbing their hands, as no one needs Georgia in a form as it is now. Georgia's existance was only justified by the ability to house the pipelines - present government chose territorial "integrity" over the economic and political freedoms, therefore everyone knows Georgia is OK with being partitioned - and the pipes can go through Greater Armenia as well as through Greater Turkey. From Greater Azerbaijan...

by: Ivo
November 12, 2008 17:37
Mr. Kowalsky, there is a reason why Carl Bildt compared the Russians' defence of their citizens with the National-Socialistic Germany's defence of the Germans in Czech or whatever it was back then.

by: N. Kowalsky from: USA
November 12, 2008 16:44
Georgia attacked Russians, get it straight. Get your head out of your butt

by: Jeff from: USA
November 11, 2008 17:04
I find the comment of Vladan from Prague about the "self-hating Western leftist" to be hilarious. I'm a leftist too, but surely strongly disagree with Martins comments. The situation is South Ossetia, and later in Abkhazia were long orchestrated by Russia. Moscow was waiting for a great opportunity to cripple Georgia with it's psychological and military campaign, and were successful. What could be a better timing for Russia while there is the most unpopular president in the US in modern history, the global economy is in recession, presidential election campaign was heating up, and lots of money has been made from a $145 per barrel oil by the Russian treasury. And here Martin is blaming the poor Chechens who have been victims of discrimination for their religious and ethnic identity within Russia. Absolutely agree with Vladan and Ivo. Russia has been the mal intentioned one and it's tone and actions(as we witnessed) has gotten rather aggressive and unfriendly. The US is no Angel but please, how far is Russia willing to go before really aggravating the US. South Caucasus doesn't belong to Russia, regardless of how much they may disagree in Moscow. South Caucasus belongs to the people of Caucasus, their nations and governments. Of course there will always be interests in the region, but better have economic and cultural ties rather than a militaristic and conquest oriented policy and I hope that those in Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia(although Armenia is de facto owned by Russia) will realize that unlike Russia, the US is not interested in "reconquering" and ruling them.

by: Ivo
November 11, 2008 08:35
Mr. 'Bright', how far does Russia's 'Near Abroad' extend as far as you're concerned? Because of people with your way of thinking we had the horrible consequences of the Yalta Conference.
Chechen terrorists? I'm not saying those people were angels, but if you recal first the Moscow theatre hostage crisis and then Beslan you'll probably remember that most of the victims died from the hands of those who were supposed to rescue them, and how did Putin defeat the Chechen terrorists anyway? By flatenning the whole tiny microscopic republic!

However luckily oil prices are fast going going down, the U$D is strong again and annexing tiny bits of portions from the South Caucasus has turned out to be a little bit too much of an expensive splurge.

by: Vladan from: Prague
November 10, 2008 22:38
Yes, blame the victims. So now the Chechen wars are the West's fault too, Mr 'Bright'? Another self-hating Western leftist, all ready to crawl in bed with the Russian bear. You need to wake up.

by: Martin Bright
November 10, 2008 20:54
Wake up!!
Georgia´s attack of Tskhinvali was posible due this kind of talk. Surely Saakashvili was sure after a lot of bravado chatting that Russia cannot respond to the occupation of South Ossetia. We can see now the consequences.

Certanly the Russian economy and army aren´t a match to the European or American ones, but are we liking another 1962´s missile crisis? Are we arming another al Qaida- in the Caucasian Emirate ropes? Will be support terrorist acts aginst winter athletes in Sochi?

This kind of bravado will end up in chechen or caucasian terrorists terrorizing west and east europeans cities, same as al-Qaida did with newyorkers.

We must stop encroaching Russia and her near abroad, and prepare for a partnership based on mutual interests. We must stop lecturing Russia (after our gruesome fiascos in Iraq and Afghanistan and Guantanamo) and begin treating her like an equal partner. I don´t like Putin nor believe in his democratic credentials, but prefer befriend him to being bombed at home by our trained and financed terrorists ten years from now.
Comments 1-9 (of 9)
TEXT SIZE
Crisis In Georgia
For RFE/RL's full coverage of the conflict that began in Georgia's breakway region of South Ossetia, click here.

 

RFE/RL Caucasus Report
 

SUBSCRIBE For weekly news and in-depth analysis on Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Russia's North Caucasus by e-mail, subscribe to "RFE/RL Caucasus Report."