Understanding the Russia–Georgia Conflict

by Keith Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, August 29, 2008

As tensions rise between Russia and the western world, many are waiting anxiously to see how global relations will change and how widespread the effects will be. Although the recent aggression by Russia against Georgia is the most tangible sign, a decay of rapport between Moscow and the west has been progressing over the past few years. One need look no further than the tough talk coming from the White House and the State Department and the stern warnings to Prime Minister Putin and Russian President Dimitry Medvedev, to see evidence that whatever post-cold war goodwill existed is running out.

As a major superpower there is a global responsibility to become involved in conflicts that have global implications. Therefore, a passive response to the situation by the United States is improbable and nearly impossible. Left alone, Russia will probably become more aggressive in the region and will become a threat not only to the sovereign nation of Georgia but other countries as well. In fact, as animosity grows between Russia and the west, Russian aggression will threaten much of the world. So, the way in which the U.S. will react is important and will have a lasting impact on the world.

The current lame-duck administration and the incoming president will have tough decisions to make and much to consider. The risks are global and the way we approach it must have a multilateral, international involvement. It is true that the “stick” of military might may need to be shown because there are few “carrots” of incentive to offer. Certainly, diplomatic sophistication will be needed to navigate the treacherous waters of this growing instability.

Unfortunately, the U.S. position is precarious.

With much of our armed forces committed to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, there is little military muscle to flex to keep aggressors in check. Our military is spread thin and the compromise of focus that Iraq presented is showing in the renewed strength of the Taliban and increasing violence in Afghanistan. Violence is not contained, but less of a visible threat in Iraq. However, our invasion has created a situation that requires a finesse we don’t currently possess to withdraw troops and redeploy quickly to a new mission.

Also, there is a lack of will to commit men and women to another war. While public attention to the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq has waned, there is little desire to see the U.S. send its sons and daughters to fight and die for a cause that cannot be communicated as an immediate threat. Much of the rage and fear that was used to compel support for our war of choice in Iraq has lessened as 9/11 has faded into history. As the case is being made for action against Iran, public support has been hard to come by (although some leaders in Congress have been strong advocates of military response). I think an engagement of Russia militarily would be a hard sell.

Probably more crucial is the influence of recent U.S. foreign policy decisions. Gone are the days when the United States was seen as a noble defender of freedom and democracy. During the first and second World Wars, the United States had an untarnished reputation for maintaining order, seeking peace and fighting against injustice. Today, the perception of the U.S., for many in the world, is of protecting and furthering its economic interests at any expense. It is, for many, an image of empire, and counterproductive to the image of a benevolent watchdog for the world.

We have surrendered our moral ground in exchange for preemptive aggression. We manipulated our own citizens and other nations with fear. We have shelved international oversight and domestic law in the cause of a vaguely defined “war on terror.” We have approved practices like torture and spying that we condemn other nations for.

This hypocrisy is not lost on the world. When Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warns Russia against invading other nations without proper justification it rings empty. The U.S. led a coalition of countries into a preemptive invasion of Iraq based on shoddy evidence and trumped up charges of weapons of mass destruction. How can we claim enough moral high ground to build international indignation against Russian when our foreign policy is to justify any action we may take.

I agree that ego, fear, and resentment are a dangerous mixture. I would argue that those ingredients combined to produce foreign policy failures during the current administration. We will have to address and remedy the injuries to credibility and reputation that have resulted before we can contribute effectively to the problems of the Russia–Georgia dilemma.