map
Our Affiliates
Listen In 28 LanguagesRFE/RL Radio
In 28 Languages

'Berlin Wall's Lessons For Today'

In an op-ed for "USA Today," Jeffrey Gedmin discusses RFE and the role of free media in societies living under repressive regimes. More
More Articles

Commentary

Preventing A New Crimean War

Georgians welcome the U.S. Coast Guard cutter ''Dallas'' in the Black Sea port of Batumi on August 27, 2008.

May 15, 2009
By Andrei Tsygankov
The Russia-Georgia war in August 2008 has seriously exacerbated Russia's already damaged relationships with the West. If the Republican presidential nominee, Arizona Senator John McCain, had won last November's election in the United States, the two countries might have moved to the next level of confrontation -- possibly of a military nature.

Few people in the U.S. political class have been more ardent in advocating U.S. ties with the small Republic of Georgia at the expense of relations with Russia. Some of McCain's advisers are also known to have worked as paid lobbyists for Georgia's membership in NATO. Clearly they are not concerned that, had Georgia been a member of the alliance when the violence erupted in South Ossetia, the United States would be in a state of war with Russia.

The economic crisis shifted public attention away from other issues of international politics and assisted Barak Obama in focusing the campaign on domestic recovery. However, a confrontation between the United States and Russia over the Caucasus may still be in the offing.

The last Russia-West military confrontation in the region took place about 150 years ago as an escalation of a conflict over the holy places and the rights of Orthodox Christians within the Ottoman Empire. In response to the Turkish sultan's decision to grant additional rights to its Catholic subjects, Tsar Nicholas I invoked existing treaties with Turkey and demanded that the rights of millions of Orthodox also be recognized. When his mission to Constantinople failed, the Russian emperor raised the stakes by occupying Moldavia and Walachia, Turkish territories in the Balkans.

From that point, events quickly progressed to the course of what has become known as the Crimean War. Partly out of fear that Nicholas was aiming to dismantle the Ottoman Empire and strengthen his already powerful position in Europe, Britain and France insisted on Russia's withdrawal and positioned their fleets to pass through the Dardanelles and the Bosporus. Austria disappointed Nicholas by participating in the war on the Turkish side.

Cooperation, Not Competition

Last year Russia again demonstrated its readiness to protect those who have historically gravitated to it. The Kremlin intervened in what it views as Georgia's use of force against one of its rebellious provinces. Russia then recognized the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and extended them stronger military protection.

EU leaders have pushed for pipelines from the Caspian that avoid Russian territory.
Western powers have exerted pressure on Russia in a bid to change the Kremlin's course. Then-U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice compared Russia's role in the war in the Caucasus with the Soviet Union's invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 and Vice President Dick Cheney vowed to punish Russia for its "aggression." Several NATO vessels entered the Black Sea in the wake of the fighting, officially to distribute humanitarian aid, but in reality to intimidate Russia.

Alarmed at Russia's "neo-imperialism," the United States and European powers have continued to demand that Russia withdraw from Georgian territories. But the Kremlin has remained unmoved by Western rhetoric.

Although Obama's efforts to "reset" relations with Russia have been encouraging and although Georgia is entering a period of political change, the structural conditions for a great-power confrontation in the Caucasus remain in place. The Crimean War became possible because Russia could not defend the rights of its co-religionists without being perceived as a revisionist power.

Today the European balance of power remains equally fragile. Russia cannot neglect those who turn to it for protection from state violence. Nor can the Kremlin ignore its own interests that have been jeopardized by NATO expansion and efforts to divert flows of Caspian energy away from Russian territory.

In addition, many in the West continue to share the Russophobic attitude of Britain's Lord Palmerston by viewing Russia's weakness as essential for asserting U.S. and European interests in the region. Finally, the Caucasus has become heavily militarized and exposed to the use of force by various state and nonstate actors. To this day, Georgia has refused to sign an agreement on the renunciation of force with South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

The development of events in the direction of another Crimean war is therefore yet to be averted. It is time to learn lessons from the Russia-Georgia conflict by transforming the existing system of security in Europe and Eurasia.

Elements of a new system should include the mutual renunciation of force as a method for solving separatist disputes, a moratorium on the expansion of NATO, and a comprehensive energy agreement among major powers that allows for the cooperative, rather than competitive, exploitation of existing transportation routes.

Andrei Tsygankov is a professor of international relations at San Francisco State University. The views expressed in this commentary are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of RFE/RL
This forum has been closed.
    Next 
Comments page 1 of 2
by: Konstantin from: Los angeles
May 23, 2009 06:15
Two alternatives:

1. Give up to Russian blackmail and let them takeover Euro-Asia, using shut-off capability of gas-oil-lines, while poisoning Baltic and Black Seas and pinning blow-ups of gas-oil-lines on victims of Russia.

2. Build NABUKO and defend it, under Russian blackmail to invade Georgia and Azerbaijan and to shutoff NABUKO also, but with more time to create competative prices, to store oil and gas, to have moral superiority over evil of Russian action, and still be free Europe and Asia...

3. Ask me publicly, and maybe I will give you some more energy to stabilize energy supply of the World - of coarse with public acceptance of my priorities and royalties...

Konstantin.

by: Michael Averko
May 21, 2009 19:05
Aibek

More accurately put, the very unpopular (in Ukraine) presidency of Viktor Yushchenko is seeking NATO membership, against the overall sentiment of Ukraine's population.

by: Michael Averko
May 21, 2009 18:15
Was this article written in reply to one which recently appeared in Russia Profile (among other venues) on the same subject?

In comparison, this piece is more tame.

If I correctly recall (could be wrong) the two articles in mind don't bring up the status of Russia's Black Sea fleet in Crimea. As is, I believe that there's a good chance of an agreement for Russia's continued naval presence in Crimea past 2017. IMO, this is good if it happens.

Meantime, the two articles in mind leave out some related particulars on the discussed topic. This aspect relates to an ongoing issue with the English language coverage of former Communist bloc issues. Specifically, getting other viable sources involved at the more high profile of venues.


by: Aibek from: USA
May 19, 2009 13:37
Zoltan,

In 2005-2007, NATO held more engagement events with NATO than it did with Ukraine, despite the fact that Ukraine is seeking NATO membership while Russia has rejected it. Also note that Russia has a NATO delegation including the aforementioned Mr Rogozin.

by: RW from: Switzerland
May 19, 2009 10:06
Zoltan, you are so right! It is good to see someone from a country having been under heavy Soviet influence who is not taking this hawkish position of revenge. NATO is an organization without any legitimacy, once his enemy, the Warsaw pact, had disappeared, NATO should have done so as well. The OSCE should have been strengthened instead, with fully fledged Russian participation. Of course NATO is seen as an enemy in Russia, and the only way to change this is to either dissolve or to invite Russia to join. Whether it actually would join is another question, but the ball would be clearly in their yard then.

by: Zoltan from: Hungary
May 18, 2009 14:56
"NATO has done a great deal to reach out to Russia. "

Aibek, what are you talking about? What have NATO done to reach out to Russia???

After the fall of Soviet Union tha NATO have made the following "friendly" moves approaching Russia:
- expanding NATO in Central-Europe
- expanding NATO in the Baltic
- never talked about a possible Russian membership
- started to deploy ABM shield to Poland and radar to Czech Republic
- started to openly talk about membership of Georgia and Russia's most important immediate neighbour Ukraine - while NATO still not talk about a possible Russian membership

Why do you think these steps are able for improving relations?

When the USA needed help before the Afganistan war Russia said no single word to protest against American military bases in Central-Asia.

It is not NATO instead Russia who reached out to the other. And what did they get in return? Nothing.

If we do not consider Russia as the foremost enemy of the West then why do not we invite them into NATO?

by: Aibek from: Philadelphia USA
May 17, 2009 22:23
NATO has done a great deal to reach out to Russia. What does it get in return? Rogozin. Before people like Mr Tsigankov rail about 'Russophobia' they should examine the 'West-o-phobia' of Mr Putin.

by: William Webb from: Phoenix, AZ, USA
May 16, 2009 17:14
I doubt if people will soon forget that Russia doesn't mind cutting off their gas supplies in the middle of the winter.

by: bastena from: us
May 15, 2009 19:24
I think Mr. Tsigankov still under ilussion that Georgia is a vassal state of Russia. What a shame?

by: Zoltan from: Hungary
May 15, 2009 14:01
Russia should be given NATO membership in exchange for cooperation in international issues.

We need to understand that Russia is bitterly seeking international recognition of his mid-power state status.
But currently Russia is isolated while it is outside of every important and powerful international orgainzation. (WTO, OECD, NATO, EU) Russia represented in only one elite club the G8.

So if you see they are trying to create piteous alternative organizations which are all either non-operating or non-effective. (Shanghai cooperation, CSTO, CIS)

Russia need to be recognized as a real mid-power state (like France or Germany) and should be treated like a partner. Give them the position and respect they really eligible for!

We do not trust them and they also do not trust us. It is all about trust therefore we need to build confidence on both sides.

To make the first step and gesture the West should invite Russia into NATO and give a chance for Russia to integrate into Western structures and organizations.
    Next 
Comments page 1 of 2
TEXT SIZE - +

Editors' Picks

President Van Rompuy

'How's That Again?!' Audio

Karzai Inauguration

The Anticipation Of Change Video

Follow Us On Twitter

Keep up-to-date on all the latest news from RFE/RL's broadcast region by following us on Twitter:
~ You can find our instant news feed at @RFE_RLNEWS.
~ An obsessive Kremlin watcher? Follow our blog at @PowerVertical.
~ Human rights abuses chronicled at @RightsWatchdog.
~ News, comment, and the odd silly dictator story at @TransmissionRFE.

Products and services:

RSSMail SubscriptionMobile