The five-day war between Russia and Georgia in August of 2008 shook up the international community’s relationship with the Russian government, letting it resemble the times of polarization again. Despite Europe’s dependence on Siberian fuels, the European Union and the United States demonstrated strong favor for Georgia’s side. This tightening of our relationship with Russia led to lengthy discussions during the U.S. Presidential elections. Many Americans now feel antipathetic towards the Russian Federation for the wrong reasons: the Western media has portrayed Russia as the “common enemy” that has set out for huge trouble in the world. Keeping good ties with that nation makes a lot of sense, though, for the benefit of our own, as well as the global community.
Western media portrayed the conflict in a way that reflected their governments’ view on the situation. According to the majority of newspapers on the Saakashvili’s side, Russia attacked the Georgian provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia without an approval from international multilateral institutions or even without a good reason. In addition, Russian Federation’s actions were claimed to be imperialistic; many saw the events as prescience to a series of Russian invasions into the neighboring states. The actual events differed from the simplified description presented by CNN,BBC, and other Saakashvili’s supporters.
Historically, the provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia never associated themselves with the Georgian culture and people. Georgian language has never been a language of informal conversation there. During the Soviet era, Joseph Stalin, a Georgian native, attached the two regions to the Soviet Social Republic of Georgia. In 1991, during the collapse of the U.S.S.R., both Abkhazia and South Ossetia stayed in the republic de jure. De facto, however, both became independent entities. During the 1990’s, many residents of Abkhazia and South Ossetia took Russian citizenship, which became the reason for Russia’s involvement in those territories.
Six years ago, had the Georgian people been asked whether Abkhazia or South Ossetia were Georgian places, the general population would agree that those areas had little relation to the Georgian people. Today, the entire nation claims that the two tiny districts truly belong to their country. The reason for the sudden switch in public opinion is Mikeil Saakashvili’s elections promise to unite the country through several actions, which meant bringing Abkhazia and South Ossetia into union with the rest of the country. Over the last several years, Saakashvili’s popularity vastly decreased. In order to improve his position, the President brought several actions into reality, including the attack of South Ossetia on August 8th, 2008.
Both the Russian Federation and Georgia did not completely abide by the accepted behavior in the international community. The United States chose to stand by Georgia’s side. As a result of the close relationship with Georgia, the United States has been obligated to provide military aid of over $10 billion to that country. In hopes for joining NATO, President Saakashvili pulled out of CIS, an organization which provided the country with affordable fuel and other economic benefits. In the Russo-Georgian conflict, the United States opted for supporting the country that now depends on American aid, as opposed to supporting the other, economically powerful, nuclear nation.
The United States’ rapport with the Russian Federation was the strongest in 2002, when Putin agreed with Bush on deals that would seem impossible today. After that year, several events, such as the 2003 Iraq War, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, and elevated energy prices, led to a gradual decline in the U.S.-Russian relations. Today, the situation has gone far enough to become an issue of high priority in the oval cabinet. The government needs to work on ameliorating the current conditions between the two nations as soon as possible.
One important reason for the raised concern about the Russian Federation is its possible influence over Tehran. If the state of affairs between Russia and America worsens, the former has a potential for creation of enormous problems for the United States, and the Western society in overall, through selling its nuclear technology to the Iranian government. The possible outcome is catastrophic.
A realist’s possible proposal for adjustment in foreign policy that would bring potential improvement in the U.S.-Russian relations would involve seizing the actions that can annoy the other nation. Although the actuality is not as simple as it may seem from this sentence, the idea does have a potential for development among foreign policy makers.
Partnering with the Russian Federation can brings great mutual benefit to both sides of such an alliance. Before choosing to move in the direction of our emotions, we should analyze the situation from the logical side. Only after we have done our homework, is it time to decide whether to follow our heart or our mind in the matters of international security.
