Caucasus Truce: Now What?

Russia wants to maintain control in the region, but with pressure from the West, independence for the two breakaway Georgian provinces is not likely

By Carmen Eller

Moscow announced an end to hostilities on Tuesday, but the Caucasus problem is as far away from a solution as ever. Russia wants to maintain control in the region, but independence for the two breakaway Georgian provinces is not in the cards.

The Russian position is clear. Moscow sees itself as being the victim of massive Western propaganda—a media manipulation that has portrayed Georgia as the victims rather than the aggressors.

"The very scale of this cynicism is astonishing—the attempt to turn white into black, black into white and to adeptly portray victims of aggression as aggressors," Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said on Monday. And then he got cynical himself.

"They of course had to hang Saddam Hussein for destroying several Shiite villages," Putin said. "But the current Georgian rulers, who in one hour simply wiped 10 Ossetian villages from the face of the earth are players that have to be protected."

The mistrust, in short, is deep. Even after Georgia announced its unilateral cease-fire on Monday, Russia continued fighting, insisting that Tbilisi too had not completely stopped operations. Now, Moscow too has announced an end to the violence. But a major question continues to loom: Is a return to the pre-war status still possible? Wouldn't such a solution simply presage a resumption of the current conflict? Wouldn't violence break out again?

No Surprise to Anyone

The war in the Caucasus isn't merely an escalation in the long-standing conflict between Georgia and its breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Rather, it has also highlighted the opposing geopolitical interests of Russia, Europe and the US. The voices in the West calling for Georgia's "territorial integrity" to be protected came as no surprise to anyone. Neither did the Kremlin's decision to send its tanks into the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali. In both cases, each side was merely following its established political strategy. The Kremlin had to react militarily to Georgia's offensive, just as the US had to insist on Georgia's unity—otherwise both powers would have lost credibility.

In recent years, Russia expanded its mediation role in the conflicts between Georgia and its renegade regions until it ended up as the de facto protector of both Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Both regions are economically dependent on Russia, their inhabitants have Russian passports and draw pensions from Russia. Their internationally isolated governments regard Russia as the only reliable partner.

Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili took a big gamble with his military offensive against South Ossetia, which began last Thursday evening. Can Georgia seriously have believed it could face down the Russian army? Hardly. It was obviously banking on the support of Europe and especially of the US. But the West's solidarity has so far been limited to words. The Georgian leader quickly responded by taking on the victim's role—and likened Russia's behavior to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Suddenly he started talking about "Russia aggression" even though he himself had launched the offensive against Tskhinvali.

True Geopolitical Aims

But the Kremlin is no less skilled at spin. Moscow is playing the role of humanitarian power, as self-less saviour of the oppressed South Ossetians. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said his most important task is "to protect the lives and dignity of Russian citizens wherever they are." Putin described the actions of Georgian troops in South Ossetia as "genocide."

Russia's professed concern for its citizens masks its true geopolitical aims and its determination to keep control of the conflict-ridden Caucasus.

But not all Russians accept this strategy. Alongside the gushing reports in Russia's media, there has also been a certain amount of critique in recent days. The daily Nezavisimaya Gazeta complained, of course, that the West, by condemning "Russian behavior in sovereign Georgia," appears to have forgotten who started the aggression. But in the editorial pages, the paper wrote about some of the myths that the war had helped debunk.