The Prague Post Online: Opinion: Whose backyard?

December 1st, 2008

Endowment Fund Business Listings ONLINE Reservations Classifieds Subscriptions

Whose backyard?

Russia's neighbors rightly take recent events seriously
Commentary | Search restaurants | Archives

August 27th, 2008 issue

By Darius Silas

Russia’s show of brutal and overwhelming military muscle in Georgia and the subsequent inability of Europe and the United States to broker a timely withdrawal of Russian troops, not only from South Ossetia and Abkhazia, but Georgia proper, has been heralded as proof that Russia is finally back on the world stage as a power to be reckoned with — well at least the part of the world that does not require a functioning navy and substantial air-lift capacity to access.

That part of the world is alternately called “countries of the former Soviet Union,” “the ex-Warsaw Pact,” Russia’s “backyard” or “near abroad.” People often forget that the last term was coined by the Russians themselves after the fall of the Soviet Union to categorize countries they no longer controlled, but felt an affinity for after 50 years of occupation, communal alcoholism and imposed socialist realism in art and film. By similar logic, every tea and borsht house in London is part of the Russian near abroad, with New York’s Brighton Beach in a category of its own.

Politicians in countries addicted to Russia’s oil, natural gas and ability to buy expensive real estate on the Riviera, realpolitikers and those understanding souls who feel for Russia’s adolescent angst over being surrounded by democratic, peaceful and prosperous countries all seem to be saying Georgia got what was coming because it forgot its natural place in the order of things. The country is part of Russia’s near abroad — its leaders should know better than to choose a different path from Russia’s authoritarian, KGB-clan run society. As if the return of 19th century Great Power politics is not disheartening, but acceptable.

Their unintentional flag-bearer could be Eugene Rumer of the U.S. National Defense University who opined in The Washington Post Aug. 13: “The Russian military is showing off its newfound strength, punishing the Georgians for their sins, the greatest of which is forgetting in whose backyard they live.” Since when is the fate of geography a sin? All too often history shows that having a large, belligerent neighbor is not something a smaller neighbor easily forgets. It is usually hardwired into a nation’s psyche by wars and occupations of the past and tense contemporary inter-state relations.

Admittedly, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili erred by deciding to resolve the South Ossetian question by military means, rather than continued soft power, bribery and the occasional use of the word “please.” He misjudged the current testosterone level of the Kremlin and was goaded into doing what the Russians planned for well in advance. They wanted Saakashvili to prove Georgia was far from ready for NATO or EU membership. They wanted to show the world that Russia’s the big boy in the Caucasus. Saakashvili acted almost according to script — perhaps permanently crippling his country’s chance for NATO accession. In actuality, Saakashvili did not forget where he lives — he chose to forget that the greatest tragedy of the 20th century for Russia’s leaders past and present was the collapse of the Soviet Union.

That sentiment is expressed by Mikhail Gorbachev, the last Soviet president, taking the opportunity to talk peace in The Washington Post Aug. 12, while still pining for the past. He writes: “The roots of this tragedy lie in the decision of Georgia’s separatist leaders in 1991 to abolish South Ossetian autonomy.” He is correct — the situation in Georgia is a tragedy. He may even be right on the issue of autonomy, which the current Georgian government had repeatedly offered South Ossetia and in return saw the rocketing and mortaring of Georgian villages.

However, it is telling that, even after 17 years, Gorbachev is still pooh-poohing those “separatists” who brought about the fall of the Soviet Union. This, rather than ask why, when his former Foreign Minister Edward Shevardnadze was running Georgia, no efforts were made then to resolve the frozen conflicts in Ossetia and Abkhazia. This, rather than admit that Russia had a hand in this tragedy long before the current shooting and shelling of innocents began.

A colleague once told me the story of a president from an international corporation complaining of too many countries within his European remit. He postulated on how good it would be for three specific countries to speak the same language, dispense with their different currencies and perhaps even agree to a single capital city. The three countries just did not generate enough revenue to justify the headaches of having to deal with them separately, if at all — a simile of Great Power politics via the corporate balance sheet.

Those three countries were the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. The same three — which together with Poland and Ukraine — sent their heads of state or government to Tbilisi to stand with the Georgian people in the face of Russia’s “disproportionate use of force.” They were in Georgia before President Nicolas Sarkozy, who represents the current EU president France. Sarkozy was busy agreeing to Russian terms to a ceasefire in Moscow while showing the world that the EU can be a trusted and impartial partner to end conflict (read: impotent and dependent on Russian oil and natural gas). Only then did he fly to Tbilisi.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also flew to Tbilisi after the Lithuanians, Latvians, Ukrainians, et al. Admittedly, she made a point of not visiting Moscow before her visit, though she may have heard the same thing there that she would have during a stopover in Paris. Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel, flew to Russia to tell President Dmitri Medvedev that the Russians may have slightly overdone it in Georgia and would they be so kind as to speed up laying that natural gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea from St. Petersburg to Germany — the same pipeline consortium former German Chancellor Gerhardt Schroeder lobbied for while in office and the same one he went to work for almost the day he left office.

Has it occurred to anyone to ask why, in the face of Russia’s “newfound” strength, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine — all countries in that so-called near abroad — have the tenacity to support Georgia’s right to sovereignty and territorial integrity? They have talked of Russian aggression, not peacekeeping or peacemaking, rather than parroting the velvet tone of West European leaders (with the exception of Sweden’s Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, who had no qualms reminding Russia that the excuses it is using today are not only reminiscent, but spot-on those used by Hitler’s Germany to annex neighboring territories prior to World War II.)

Has it occurred to anyone to ask why Russia’s closest neighbors are literally flying in its face, when in fact they could be next? Wait, there is the answer — they could be next.

Though the Baltic states and Poland are EU and NATO members, their position is not much different than Ukraine’s, which the pundits already point to as the next flashpoint for muscular Russian intervention. They are hardly defendable militarily, while often lacking political support and understanding from the clubs they joined after the fall of the Iron Curtain. These countries support Georgia because they have not forgotten what it feels like to live under Russia’s bootstrap. Unfortunately, because of the EU’s inability to wean itself from Russian pipelines, they, in effect, still do.

If Russia’s intentions toward its neighbors were ever benign, would there have been a rush to join the EU and NATO? Central and Eastern Europe wants to live like Western Europe — economically, socially and with all the freedoms and responsibilities associated with that kind of life. Russia’s neighbors chose not to be anyone’s backyard, but to be a part of a larger club — call it Europe. This is the choice being made today by Georgia and Ukraine. However, it is questionable whether or not Europe recognizes their choice.

Today’s events in Georgia show that the EU must stand above a realpolitik mindset that allows Russia to maintain spheres of influence over its neighbors. Those neighbors are not part of the Russian Federation — they are either EU members or soon could be. By allowing Russia to bully and bloody its neighbors, the EU allows Russia to bully and bloody the EU itself.

I am glad — to paraphrase former French President Jacque Chirac — that some of Europe’s countries have missed the chance to shut up, again. Silence is not what is called for today.

The author, an independent consultant based in Vilnius, Lithuania, is a former assistant to Vytautas Landsbergis, Lithuania’s first head of state after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Be the first to add a comment!

Most e-mailed articles
Happy to be sad again Hidden history U.S. visa waiver in effect

Related articles
Putting the sizzle in steak

Most visited in Business Listings

The Prague Post Online contains a selection of articles that have been printed in
The Prague Post, a weekly newspaper published in the Czech Republic.
To subscribe to the print paper, click here.
Unauthorized reproduction is strictly prohibited.