Picking up the pieces of the damage caused by America’s friend

Mikhail Gorbachev says the US should reconsider talking to Russia in a condescending way

‘Russia was dragged into the fray by the recklessness of the Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili.’ Picture: Getty Images

THE acute phase of the crisis provoked by the assault of the Georgian forces on Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, is now behind us. But it still hurts.

How can one erase from memory the horrifying scenes of the nighttime rocket attack on a peaceful town, the razing of entire city blocks, the death of people taking cover in basements, the barbaric destruction of ancient monuments and ancestral graves?

Russia did not want this crisis. The Russian leadership is in a strong enough position domestically; it did not need “a little victorious war”.

Russia was dragged into the fray by the recklessness of the Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili. He would not have dared to attack without outside support. Russia could not afford inaction.

The decision by the Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, to cease hostilities was the right move by a responsible leader. Whoever expected confusion in Moscow was disappointed. The Russian president acted calmly, confidently and firmly.

The planners of this campaign clearly wanted to make sure Russia would be blamed for worsening the situation in the region, whatever the outcome. With their help, the west mounted a propaganda attack against Russia, particularly in the US media.

There has been nothing balanced about the media coverage, especially during the first days of the crisis. Tskhinvali was in smoking ruins and thousands of people were fleeing the city in which no Russian troops were yet present — but already Russia was accused of aggression, repeating the bald-faced lies of the emboldened Georgian leader.

It is still not clear if the west was aware of Saakashvili’s plans, and this is a serious matter. What is clear is that the western assistance in training Georgian troops and massive shipments of arms had been pushing the region towards war rather than peace.

If this military misadventure was a surprise for the Georgian leader’s foreign patrons, so much the worse: it looks like a classic wag the dog story.

Saakashvili had been lavished with praise for being a staunch ally of the US and a real democrat, and for helping out in Iraq. Now all of us have to pick up the pieces from the disorder that America’s friend has wrought.

Those who rush to judgment on what’s happening in the Caucasus or seek influence there should first have at least some idea of the complexities of this region. The Ossetians live both in Georgia and in Russia. It is the same throughout the region: a patchwork of ethnic groups who live in close proximity. Therefore all talk of “this is our land”, “we are liberating our land” is best forgotten. We must think about the people who live on the land.

The problems of the Caucasus region cannot be solved by force. That has been tried more than once, and it has always boomeranged. What is needed is a legally binding agreement not to use force. Saakashvili repeatedly refused to sign such an agreement, for reasons now abundantly clear.

The west would do a good thing if it helped to achieve such an agreement now. If, instead, the west chooses to blame Russia and rearm Georgia, as US officials are suggesting, a new crisis would become inevitable. If that is the case, expect the worst.

In recent days, US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and President George W Bush have been promising to isolate Russia. Some US politicians have threatened to expel it from the G-8, to abolish the Nato-Russia Council or to press for non-admission to the World Trade Organisation.

Those are empty threats. For some time now, Russians have been wondering: if our opinion counts for nothing in those international institutions, why do we really need them? Just to sit at the nicely set dinner table and listen to lectures?

Indeed, Russia has long been told to simply accept the facts. Here’s the independence of Kosovo for you. Here’s the abrogation of the ABM treaty and our decision to place missile defences in neighbouring countries. Here’s the unending expansion of Nato. All this was set against the background of sweet talk about partnership. Why would anyone like such a charade?

There is much talk now in the US about “reconsidering” relations with Russia. I suggest one thing that should definitely be reconsidered: the habit of talking to Russia in a condescending way, without regard for its interests.

Our two countries could develop a serious agenda for real, rather than token co-operation. I think many Americans, as well as Russians, understand the need for that, but what about the political leaders?

A bipartisan commission, chaired by former senator Gary Hart and senator Chuck Hagel, has recently been established to study US-Russian relations. It includes serious people, and judging by the commission’s first announcement, they understand the importance of Russia and of working constructively with it.

The commission’s mandate states that it will present “policy recommendations for a new administration to advance America’s national interests in relations with Russia”.

If that alone is the goal, then I doubt that much good will come out of it. If, however, they are ready also to consider the interests of the other side and of common security, a way could be open to rebuild trust and start doing useful work together.

Mikhail Gorbachev served as the leader of the former Soviet Union from 1985 until its collapse in 1991. Awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1990, he is currently president of the international foundation for socio-economic and political studies.