Interview with Dmitry Primus Gorenburg, director of the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies (AAASS).
Q: What are the main conclusions and consequences of the Russo-Georgian war in August 2008?
A: There were several. 1) The semi-independent nature of the Georgia-South Ossetia relationship was lost, possibly for good. 2) The limits of US and EU power in the region were revealed. At the same time, all of the states in the Caucasus and Central Asia continue to try to balance among a number of world and regional powers, trying to avoid becoming too dependent on any single patron. This was also the case before the war and has not changed. 3) The relationship between Russia and Georgia was severed and will not be repaired by the current set of leaders. 4) Russian leaders realized that their military was in poor condition and needed to be reformed.
Q: Do you think relations between Tbilisi and Moscow will normalize during Saakashvili’s government?
A: I don't think there is any possibility of normalization while Saakashvili and Putin are the leaders of their respective countries. The antipathy is too strong and too personal. In the longer term, with new leaders on the scene, I think normalization is possible as long as both sides recognize that some compromise is necessary. Georgia will have to reconcile itself to the loss of Abkhazia and most likely South Ossetia. Russia will have to withdraw most of its forces from these territories. Neither of these is likely until a significant amount of time has passed and there are new leaders on the scene.
Q: What should Georgia do to get South Ossetia and Abkhazia back?
A: Wait and be pragmatic. Given the recent history, I don't think there is anything Georgia can do in the next few years to "get South Ossetia and Abkhazia back". What it can do is to establish unofficial relationships with representatives of these territories, so that sometime down the road, the Abkhaz and Ossetian people and leaders see Georgia as something other than oppressors. (I'm not saying that they are oppressors, just that that's how they're viewed in these territories.)
Q: Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev said that the Russian-Georgian war was a lesson to Armenia and Azerbaijan, countries engaged in confrontation over Nagorno-Karabakh. Are endless negotiations really better than war?
A: Yes. If there were a war, many people would die and many more would be displaced. This would be worse than a stalemate, which at a minimum preserves the peace and prevents mass casualties. My personal view is that the two sides should negotiate a compromise that allows for Armenian control of Karabakh while returning the other occupied territories to Azerbaijan. This would be the best situation for the humanitarian needs of both sides. Obviously, this would take a great deal of political will in Baku, since many people would see it as a betrayal. But it seems to me that it is better than the current situation or than a new war - which Azerbaijan might well lose (with or without Russian intervention).
Q: The US seems to have accepted Russia as the lone super-power in the South Caucasus after the August 2008 war or, at any rate, the US is not as active in the region as it was before the war, while Russia dominates the Karabakh peace process. What is your comment on this view?
A: I think that the Georgian war made American leaders recognize that they have little power to control events in the region. It is too remote from the United States and the US currently has too many other issues that it is dealing with. Furthermore, the change in administration in the US led to a shift in policy on Russia. The US is still very active in the region, but it is less focused on reflexively countering Russia and more focused on finding potential areas for cooperation. I don't think this is necessarily negative - the US still wields a great deal of political and economic influence in the region, but it no longer views relations with Russia in the region as a zero-sum game. Instead, it seems to me that US officials are now looking for ways to improve regional security while maintaining good relations with Russia. Whether or not this works out in the long run is still an open question.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
