Op-Ed: The US Relationship With Russia Is Trickier Than Ever

Russian diplomacy has always been tricky. When German chancellor Bismarck was informed the Russian ambassador to Berlin had died, Bismarck paused for a moment, and asked “Really? I wonder what could have been his motive?” — Things haven’t changed.

Russia’s politics may be debatable, but diplomatically they like winning. The Georgia situation is a case in point. Short term, the US needs Russian support for its moves against Iran, as well as other Security Council issues. Georgia is a US ally, but not necessarily to the extent of throwing spanners into big issues. That’s the basis of a New York Times article analyzing the US’ unenviable position regarding the Georgian war:

Mr. Bush did use tough language, demanding that Russia stop bombing. And Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice demanded that Russia “respect Georgia’s territorial integrity.”

What did Mr. Putin do? First, he repudiated President Nicolas Sarkozy of France in Beijing, refusing to budge when Mr. Sarkozy tried to dissuade Russia from its military operation. “It was a very, very tough meeting,” a senior Western official said afterward. “Putin was saying, ‘We are going to make them pay. We are going to make justice.’ ”

Then, Mr. Putin flew from Beijing to a region that borders South Ossetia, arriving after an announcement that Georgia was pulling its troops out of the capital of the breakaway region. He appeared ostensibly to coordinate assistance to refugees who had fled South Ossetia into Russia, but the Russian message was clear: This is our sphere of influence; others stay out.

The reason for including that quote was to illustrate the various American blind spots regarding Russia. Exactly why anyone thinks Russia is going to be seen to be bowing to international pressure, after so many years as a humiliated ex-superpower, is debatable. The US media makes such a habit of sticking its foot in its mouth every time any combination of the words “Russian” and “military” occur that I think we’ll have to assume it’s genetic. This situation, as ably explained by DJ’s G Robert M Miller, isn’t really much of a surprise. It’s been building up for a long time. Georgia isn’t blameless, either. You don’t fire artillery at people by accident, and if the Russian military are in the area where the artillery’s being fired, you can reasonably expect them to take it personally. It’s also not like the US wasn’t aware of the problems, nor of the fact that Georgia has been trying to join NATO. If there was anything guaranteed to annoy the Russians, NATO membership would definitely be it. The Russian media aren’t being coy about mentioning it, either. RIA Novosti:

The pro-Western leaderships in Georgia, along with ex-Soviet Ukraine, have angered Moscow in recent years with their efforts to gain NATO membership. Russia's Foreign Ministry accused Ukraine on Saturday of encouraging Georgia to launch an offensive against South Ossetia.

"The Ukrainian state, which has in recent times been misguidedly arming the Georgian army, and in so doing directly encouraging the Georgian leadership to engage in intervention and ethnic cleansing in South Ossetia, has no moral right to preach to others, let alone to seek a role in regulating the conflict," the ministry said in a statement.

In translation, “Butt out, Ukraine.” It’s not surprising that two former components of the Soviet Union aligning with NATO and the West would annoy Russia. They’re no great threat, but they’re also seen as helping the West encroach on Russia’s sphere of influence in Eastern Europe. The West, however, is no longer dealing with a senescent Soviet hierarchy with the basic mentality of a lost pig. This is Russia 2.0, and it’s a very different creature. It’s a much leaner, but potentially much more agile, bear. Mentally, it’s a lot sharper. For example: RIA Novosti also makes a nice tongue in cheek remark about international news sources reporting Russian strikes on Georgian territory, like they couldn’t find out for themselves. That comment also hides a serious barb: Russian troops haven’t physically set foot on Georgian soil. They’re still doing their internationally recognized, or at least accepted and undisputed, peacekeeping role in Ossetia. Russia can legitimately say it’s doing in Ossetia what other peacekeeping forces are doing. This isn’t another Chechnya. The Russians know what they’re doing, and what they intend to achieve. The neighboring province of Abkhazia, another breakaway from Georgia, is also getting some attention, and the moves are obviously holistic. Russia also stands to tidy up some unfinished business, quite literally. The region also happens to contain oil pipelines, and Russia’s massive energy industry can be assumed to have a less than Platonic interest. That leaves the US holding a few low cards in a high stakes game. The incumbent administration can’t really do much, and the legal premises for doing anything are shaky. Anti-Russian rhetoric isn’t likely to produce any actual results. I don’t know if Condaleeza Rice or anyone in the State Department plays chess, but if they do, they’re now playing Karpov, not Sergei the Soviet Samovar. Think about 20 moves ahead, before moving.