World News Story

05 December 2008 10:20 BST

Old Georgia, new Russia

Analysis of the Russia-Georgian crisis has focused on its beginnings, but perhaps a bit more attention should be paid to where it might end.

By now the dynamics of this unpleasant little conflict are clear enough. Russia, in its clearest indication of a new aggressive foreign policy, has pushed its luck to perfection in menacing Georgia. By advancing beyond South Ossetia - the disputed province at the heart of the problem – it has shown Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili quite how big his mistake was in seeking to impose his authority over the Ossetians. His strategy of clamping down hard on the breakaway province is now irrelevant to the future, a thing of the past. Clearly dominant, it is Russia which holds all the aces as the negotiating stage begins.

Senior diplomats are convinced the problem of Russia's new assertiveness is not going to go away in a hurry. Many blame the west's neglect of Russia in the 1990s after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Russians felt humiliated and neglected as corruption and exploitation dominated the transition to capitalism. This tough period saw power slip away from the Kremlin; it was up to Vladimir Putin to turn things around.

He certainly succeeded in gathering back in the influence which had been lost. The press was quelled. The Duma was dominated by a new United Russia party. It's now a must for all would-be oligarchs that they back the Kremlin. And, after the Beslan massacre, the appointment of governors by the president and not through local elections meant power had truly been restored to the centre.

This internal restoration of strong leadership has garnered widespread support among ordinary Russians and seen the Russian bear reawaken in its traditional sphere of influence. No one seriously denies the stop-start control of energy supplies to eastern Europe is coincidental. But it's not just energy: resistance to Nato's eastward expansion and resentment at the US' missile defence shield are causing frictions. Russia, once again, is showing itself to be a powerful and independent foreign policy actor.

In this context the Ossetian dispute, which has been rumbling along for years, has reached its climax with spectacularly bad timing. Mr Saakashvili's determination has been met with a brick wall by Russia and it will be all he can do to emerge from the botched crisis with much credibility left. The more serious global implications focus on new president Dmitry Medvedev and prime minister Mr Putin, whose relations with the west – already sorely strained – are being pushed to the limit.

Most are fuming. The British Foreign Office, in a statement as angry as it was dry, told politics.co.uk with gritted teeth that it was considering how badly the EU's relationship with Russia had been damaged by Russia's "unjustified aggression". The Organisation for Security and Cooperation with Europe is gnashing its collective teeth. And then there's US president George Bush's comments.

Russia's standing in the world has been "substantially damaged", he said. Its relations with the US and Europe will pay the price as a result. They are jeopardised, he explained, leaving the Kremlin with no choice but to "reverse the course it appears to be on". Not much sweetness and light here. This is not a positive situation to be in.

Now Russian forces appear to be withdrawing from Georgian territory, handing both sides the temporary ceasefire they crave, attention will begin to turn on how to resolve the dispute. This is not going to be as easy as the optimists believe, one expert believes. Thomas de Waal, Caucasus editor for the Institute for War and Peace Reporting, thinks that despite the messy nature of the conflict impartiality is difficult to achieve.

He says the real problem is "there is no obvious mediator who would be perceived as impartial". The Russians, as peacekeepers in South Ossetia, are now involved. Nato states and the Americans are friendly with Georgia. Who else is left?

Mr de Waal adds: "For the conflict to begin to end, all parties must state clearly that this is in the first place a humanitarian tragedy for civilians – both Georgian and Ossetian – and promise impartial help and support for all those who are suffering."

For a small province caught up in geopolitics this may prove a little idealistic. Russia is playing a carefully nuanced game in international relations at present. Look at its recent UN security council veto, with China, over proposals to impose sanctions on the Zimbabwe regime of Robert Mugabe. That was a clear example where Russian interests, clearly not directly affected, did not play a part. Diplomats were shocked as a result. The confrontational subtext suggests Moscow is not likely to extract the biggest advantage it can from the current situation. The global community is not likely to have much influence on the situation.

"Mediation is the most international community can do in the present situation, but given the lack of trust on both sides of the conflict, no fast progress can be expected," Global Insight analyst Natalia Leshchenko said.

She believes the conflict has "exposed yet again the inadequacy of the international organisations and post-second-world war mechanisms to deal with the changed security environment". With the UN security council failing to reach a resolution after five sessions, the US lacking leverage and no agreement from the EU's position, it seems there is no real response to Russia's new stance.

"The international security system is creaking at its seams as the US, the EU, and Russia, let alone Georgia, find themselves incapable of putting their point across and achieving their goals in the resolution of the conflict," Ms Leshchenko added. Watch this space carefully, therefore, to see how the situation pans out. If the world cannot communicate to Russia it seems a fairly obvious logical conclusion that Russia will do what it likes.

There is one silver lining to this grey and ominous cloud: at least the Russia of today, confident and assertive, has changed from the wreck of a nation which languished through the 1990s. Some believe this is a good thing – even if Moscow proves more difficult to deal with now, at least the outcomes which are achieved have a better shot of being long-lasting and enduring. So long as the international structures designed to facilitate that dialogue hold up – and there is no guaranteeing they will – there may, still, be some room for optimism in the end.