To really understand the war in South Ossetia and to put the conflict into context, it is primordial to go beyond finger pointing and propaganda stemming from both sides. So lets put the actual conflict beside and observe the contextual elements that can explain how tensions between Russia and NATO could become so profound.
There are four main contextual elements to take into account:
- The enlargement of NATO towards the former Soviet sphere of influence;
- Energy geopolitics in the Caspian Sea region and Central Asia;
- Washington's contradictory policies towards stability in the Caucasus;
- And the independence of Kosovo.
The first element to consider is the enlargement of NATO as an instrument of American projection of power and the re-emergence of Russia's instinctive fears – dating back to the Tsarist era – of encirclement by hostile powers. Moscow observes and apprehends the series of existing or developing American strategic partnerships and alliances arcing around its territory. This arc begins with the Baltic states and Poland, passes by the NATO protectorate of Kosovo, then Turkey, Israel, Georgia, the occupation of Iraq, the NATO military presence in Afghanistan, the growing ties with India, to finally end with Japan and South Korea.
The Cold War that Never Really Ended
At the end of the 1980s, American President George H. W. Bush promised Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not search to integrate former Warsaw Pact countries in Eastern Europe and that negotiations would soon begin to also bring the trans-Atlantic alliance to an end. Breaking that promise was one of the first things that Bill Clinton did after moving into the White House.
Russians never considered being defeated at the end the Cold War. On the contrary, they claim that they are the ones that put an end to international tensions by willingly dismantling their empire, without any bloodshed or violent revolution. They are frustrated by the lack of sensibility of Americans toward the sacrifices that they had to make to achieve this. Thus, by seeking to enlarge NATO to the East, all the way to Russian borders – and often in a threatening manner toward Moscow – the United States act as if the Cold War never really ended.
As a result, the obstinate drive to integrate Georgia into NATO at any cost has been perceived by the Kremlin as a scheme to encircle and contain Russia. Since the rise to power of President Mikhail Saakashvili in 2003, Georgia has multiplied its military budget by 30 with the help of the United States’ and other NATO members’ generous military aide. This membership would definitely bring Georgia into the American sphere of influence because of the NATO clause that dictates that an attack against one member is an attack against all.
Washington Not Considering the High Risks
The logic behind American pressure would want that Russia never risk a move of hostility toward Georgia of fear of being drawn into a war in Europe, however threatening a US military presence in the Caucasus would be perceived by Moscow. Not only is this way of thinking dangerously playing with fire, it does not take into account Russian determination of never letting itself being encircled. It is also this enormous risk of being drawn into an absurd and unnecessary war with Russia – with the potential to degenerate into a worldwide conflict – that pushes France, Germany and Italy to resist American pressure toward the hurried incorporation of Georgia into NATO.
Of course, on this last point, it is also essential to take into account Europe's increasing dependence on Russian oil and natural gas to meet its energy needs, which leads on to the next contextual element: energy geopolitics in the Caspian Sea region and Central Asia.
Vincent Gagnon-Lefebvre - I am an freelance writer from Quebec currently living between there and Laos. I just graduated from Université Laval in Quebec City ...
