|
Russian Triumph as
Saakashvili's Gamble Fails
By Gwynne Dyer
14/08/08 "NZHerald"
-- - -The three-day war in South Ossetia is settled, and the
Georgians have lost. There may be some more shooting yet, but it
is now clear that Georgia will never regain control of the rebel
territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Also that President Mikhail Saakashvili has handed Russia a
major victory, and that Georgia's hopes of joining NATO are
gone. Pretty impressive work for one long weekend.
Now Saakashvili is playing on old Cold War stereotypes of the
Russian threat in a desperate bid for Western backing: "What
Russia is doing in Georgia is open, unhidden aggression and a
challenge to the whole world. If the whole world does not stop
Russia today, then Russian tanks will be able to reach any other
European capital."
Nonsense. It was Georgia that started this war. The chronology
tells it all. Skirmishes between Georgian troops and South
Ossetian militia were more frequent than usual over the past
several months, but on the afternoon of Thursday, August 7,
Saakashvili offered the separatist South Ossetian Government "an
immediate ceasefire and the immediate beginning of talks,"
promising that "full autonomy" was on the table.
The same evening, however, he ordered a general
offensive.
South Ossetia's President, Eduard Kokoity, called Saakashvili's
ceasefire offer a "despicable and treacherous" ruse, which seems
fair enough. Through all of Thursday night and Friday morning,
Georgian artillery shells and rockets rained down on the little
city of Tskhinvali, South Ossetia's capital, while Georgian
infantry and tanks encircled it. Russian journalists reported
that 70 per cent of the city was destroyed, and by Friday
afternoon it was in Georgian hands.
It was obvious that this offensive had been planned well in
advance, but this, it appears, was as far as Saakashvili's plan
extended. He assumed that the world's attention would be
distracted by the opening of the Olympics, and that the Russian
reaction would be slow because Prime Minister Vladimir Putin was
off in Beijing.
If he had three or four days to establish full military control
of South Ossetia, then he could put a pro-Georgian
administration in place and declare the problem solved. Then,
with Western diplomatic support and military aid, he could
withstand the furious Russian protests and (perhaps) military
responses to his action.
But all of his calculations were wrong. There was no delay in
the Russian response. A large force was on its way from North
Ossetia (which is part of the Russian Federation) by midday on
Friday, and Russian jets began striking targets inside Georgia
proper.
By the time Vladimir Putin reached the North Ossetian capital of
Vladikavkaz on Saturday morning, the Georgian forces were
already being driven out of Tskhinvali again. By Saturday
evening, Georgia was calling for a ceasefire and declaring that
all its troops were being withdrawn from South Ossetia to
prevent a "humanitarian catastrophe".
Saakashvili's gamble had failed, and any prospect for Georgia to
recover the rebel province had vanished. As Putin put it, the
territorial integrity of Georgia has "suffered a fatal blow".
Not just South Ossetia has been lost for good. Any hope that
Georgia could ever recover its other breakaway province,
Abkhazia, has also evaporated.
On Saturday, the Abkhazian Government announced a military
offensive to drive Georgian troops out of the Kodori Gorge, the
last bit of Abkhazian territory that it doesn't control. With
overt Russian military support, it is very likely to succeed.
How much does all of this matter? It matters a great deal to
Saakashvili, who is likely to lose power. It matters a lot to
the 300,000 Georgians who fled their homes in Abkhazia and South
Ossetia when the two ethnic enclaves, which had been autonomous
parts of the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic in Soviet times,
declared their independence after the Soviet Union collapsed in
1991.
The Georgian attempts to reconquer them in 1992-93 were bloody
failures, and after this second failure it is clear that the
Georgian refugees will never go home.
It is a reason to rejoice for most Abkhazians and South
Ossetians. Although they share much history and a common eastern
Orthodox Christianity with the far more numerous Georgians, they
are ethnically distinct peoples with different languages, and
they always resented Stalin's decision to place them under
Georgian rule.
It will probably be decades before they achieve formal
independence or are fully absorbed into the Russian Federation,
but either way they will be happy with the outcome.
The Bush Administration's ambition to extend Nato into the
Caucasus mountains is dead, which will please the French, the
Germans and other Nato members who always found it bizarre and
wilfully provocative.
Russians, who were the target of the provocation, will be
quietly pleased with the speed and effectiveness of their
Government's response. There is no great moral issue here. What
Georgia tried to do to South Ossetia is precisely what Russia
did to Chechnya, but Georgia wasn't strong enough and South
Ossetia had a bigger friend. There is no great strategic issue
either: apart from a few pipeline routes, the whole
Transcaucasus is of little importance to the rest of the world.
In six months' time, we probably won't even remember this
foolish adventure.
* Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose
articles are published in 45 countries
Click
on "comments" below to read or post
comments
Comment
Guidelines
Be
succinct, constructive and relevant to the story.
We encourage
engaging, diverse and meaningful commentary. Do
not include personal information such as names,
addresses, phone numbers and emails. Comments
falling outside our guidelines – those
including personal attacks and profanity –
are not permitted.
See our complete Comment
Policy and use
this link to notify us if you have
concerns about a comment. We’ll promptly
review and remove any inappropriate postings.
Send
Page To a Friend
In
accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this
material is distributed without profit to those
who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
the included information for research and
educational purposes. Information Clearing House
has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator
of this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
|
