Russian-American Crisis
The Georgian crisis is on its way to becoming a Russian-American diplomatic confrontation. While Russia, in spite of the agreement it had supposedly accepted, is pushing its advantage by moving into the interior of the Georgian territory-far from the borders of Abkazia and South Ossetia-Washington, after the hesitation of the first few days, continues to raise its voice.
By bombing South Ossetia by surprise-a city and its civilians-Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili fell into a trap. He gave the Russians, who apparently were only waiting for this error, a pretext for putting into action what must be called imperialist aims. Moscow invoked the defense of Russian citizens beyond its borders (the majority of Abkhazis and South Ossetians have Russian passports). Since then, some Europeans, notably in the former Soviet satellites, may be wondering whether the same argument might be brandished for the defense of Russians in the Baltic states or in the Crimea in Ukraine. As for Mr. Saakashvili, he has set off a chain of events that has since left him behind, and he is multiplying the declarations that inflame the situation. So, faced with pressure from their Georgian allies, the Americans are taking a harder line, even if that means Moscow benefits from the divergences that are appearing between Washington and the EU.
For its part, the EU, under the presidency of Nicolas Sarkozy, has chosen a positive, but risky option in an area where it is in fact better placed than the United States to at least stop the war. The EU was able to incur reproach for going easy on Moscow, the price it has to pay for reaching a ceasefire agreement. But for the first time in such a crisis, the EU has reacted as such on the international stage, something it was not able to do at the time of Iraq- even if the fractures between new and old Europe are deep and obvious. Beyond the single violation of the territorial sovereignty of an independent state, the brutality of Russia cannot be accepted by the international community. The worst would be if Moscow withdraws from this crisis with a feeling of impunity. It is a challenge for the diplomats of both Europe and America.
By bombing South Ossetia by surprise-a city and its civilians-Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili fell into a trap. He gave the Russians, who apparently were only waiting for this error, a pretext for putting into action what must be called imperialist aims. Moscow invoked the defense of Russian citizens beyond its borders (the majority of Abkhazis and South Ossetians have Russian passports). Since then, some Europeans, notably in the former Soviet satellites, may be wondering whether the same argument might be brandished for the defense of Russians in the Baltic states or in the Crimea in Ukraine. As for Mr. Saakashvili, he has set off a chain of events that has since left him behind, and he is multiplying the declarations that inflame the situation. So, faced with pressure from their Georgian allies, the Americans are taking a harder line, even if that means Moscow benefits from the divergences that are appearing between Washington and the EU.
For its part, the EU, under the presidency of Nicolas Sarkozy, has chosen a positive, but risky option in an area where it is in fact better placed than the United States to at least stop the war. The EU was able to incur reproach for going easy on Moscow, the price it has to pay for reaching a ceasefire agreement. But for the first time in such a crisis, the EU has reacted as such on the international stage, something it was not able to do at the time of Iraq- even if the fractures between new and old Europe are deep and obvious. Beyond the single violation of the territorial sovereignty of an independent state, the brutality of Russia cannot be accepted by the international community. The worst would be if Moscow withdraws from this crisis with a feeling of impunity. It is a challenge for the diplomats of both Europe and America.
Previous article![]( "The Doomed City")
