Black Sea Watershed/Washington PostThe crisis in Georgia is a failure of the West’s diplomatic initiative and reflects lack of transatlantic unity, according to the article. Ironically, it accuses Moscow of pursuing a policy of regime change in Georgia, trying to setback democratic initiatives at its borders and reestablishing a sphere of hegemony over its neighbours. The present moment perhaps marks the end of an era in Europe when “realpolitik and spheres of influence were supposed to be replaced by new cooperative norms and a country’s right to choose its own path”.The War For Georgia/ Open DemocracyThe article, written by Ghia Nodia, Georgia’s Minister of Education and Science, defends the country’s military decision to occupy Tshkinvali, the South Ossetian capital on the morning of August 8. He says the Georgian Government was in a lose-lose situation, with systematic Russian attacks on the pro-Georgian enclave making the former lose its credibility by failing to protect its citizens. Nodia warns this is a war the west cannot afford to ‘ignore’.Georgia is a Portent of Perils to Come/ The SpectatorPhilip Bobbitt’s analysis of the Russo-Georgian conflict locates its origins not just in the nature of Russia as an old-fashioned nation state but also in the history of failed Western diplomacy and a flawed international order. The Russian response was brutal, the most instructive analogy being the suppression of the Hungarian revolt of 1956. But how could Russia, a “demoralised ex-superpower”, face down international opinion? Bobbitt’s answer is the intellectual failure of the West. Its victory in the Cold War was not translated into new ideas and approaches. As a result, not only did Russia feel left out but it also developed into a “market state” which fostered a criminal oligarchy. Vladimir Putin’s Russia is a return to the jingoistic “nation state”. There’s also been a demise of the constitutional order that dominated the 20th century — the world is changing once more and looks unsettled.Blog/Middle East Strategy at HarvardWalter Laqueur’s post observes that the Russian (or erstwhile Soviet) leadership has always been more predictable than the White House, with Putin’s repeated assertions that the breakdown of the Soviet Union was the biggest disaster of the 20th century and his obvious intention to undo that damage. For the former East European satellites, Russia’s message is that it was a mistake for them to join the NATO, while Western Europe’s growing dependence on Russian energy supplies makes them ineffective. Laquer says, the Georgian crisis might not flare up again with the Kremlin looking to exploit conflicts in areas like the Middle East.
