John Rapley
Strategically, and from its own standpoint, Russia's recent intervention in Georgia was a stroke of genius. With the US bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, and trying to isolate Iran, it had no leverage to apply to Russia. The US, which was, after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War the world's only superpower, could do little more than grumble as Russia announced it had returned to the world stage.
Russia's subsequent actions were perhaps not so adept. Its recognition of South Ossetia's and Abkhazia's declarations of independence from Georgia failed to gain traction, even with the Chinese. Russia thereby isolated itself diplomatically.
All the same, in Europe at least, the fears of a resurgent Russian bear have been whipped up. Some analysts are talking of the end of unipolarity, and the re-emergence of a Russian superpower.
New found confidence
I can understand these fears within European capitals. They seem a little overblown coming from further afield, though. Russia may be flush with oil wealth and brimming with a new found confidence. However, despite what was a well-planned and executed military campaign in Georgia, Russia revealed itself to be a competent military power, able to operate on adjacent territories, but not much more. The possibility of becoming a global superpower still seems remote. Besides, hindsight revealed that the much-vaunted military of the Soviet era never was what it had been cracked up to be anyhow.
Recent reports also suggest that the Russian military in Georgia was acting at an arm's length from Moscow. In the Soviet era, there was really no question that the military came fully under civilian control. In Georgia, there is evidence that generals acted independently at times, even occasionally ignoring directives from Moscow.
This appears to be the result of a temporary uncertainty in the command structure in the Kremlin. The man with command is the president, Dmitri Medvedev. However, the individual with personal authority remains former president and current prime minister, Vladimir Putin. Tactically, having the ability to operate with a degree of independence may have enabled Russian commanders to act effectively. But strategically, it is hard to envision a superpower in which the capital does not have full control over military regions.
Taking a purely pragmatic view, the US and its European allies should have seen this coming. Yes, back in the 1990s, Russia said it would respect the territorial integrity of the new states that emerged from under the wings of the collapsed communist regime. Yes, countries have a right to self-determination, and Russia should not be meddling in the affairs of its neighbours.
However, we all know that regional powers do meddle in the affairs of their neighbours because, well, because they can. The West's aggressive expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) in the 1990s; its warm embrace of democratic revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia; and its recognition of Kosovo's independence from Serbia in the face of Russian objections, all would have been seen as deliberate provocation by the Russians.
Vulnerable
Indeed, for a country that has long felt itself vulnerable on its vast borders, encircled as it is by governments that are sometimes not quite friendly, Russia would almost certainly have seen US policy as geared towards isolating and squeezing it. That may or may not be a misjudgement. But it's pretty hard to imagine that Russia would have seen it any other way.
At least for the time being, Russia is unlikely to project its power far beyond its neighbour-hood. But it has signalled its resurgence within Eurasia. Like it or not, that's now a fact of geo-political life.
John Rapley is president of Caribbean Research Institute, an independent think-tank affiliated to the University of the West Indies, Mona. Send feedback to: columns@gleanerjm.com.
