donsutherland1

With a ceasefire agreement now in place, military developments are gradually shifting onto a potentially decisive political battleground that could shape the destiny of Georgia and its breakaway provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Although Russia is not seeking a “regime change” in Tbilisi via the application of military force, Russia has expressed the view that it would be best for Georgia to replace its current President, Mikheil Saakashvili. Russia may well be anticipating the rise of domestic opposition in Georgia sufficident to bring an end to Saakasvili’s tenure. To catalyze that outcome, Russia is seeking to isolate the Georgian President and deprive him of diplomatic opportunities to repair the damage that resulted from his bid to settle the South Ossetia dispute by force.

Yesterday, Russia’s Ekho Moskvy news agency reported:

"Moscow has on more than one occasion now stated that there are no obstacles to a dialogue with Georgia; however, for reasons that are absolutely obvious to any sensible person, we do not consider Mr [Georgian President Mikheil] Saakashvili himself to be a negotiating partner," official Russian Foreign Ministry representative Andrey Nesterenko has said on air on Ekho Moskvy radio.

Serving Russia’s purposes, South Ossetia’s leadership has rejected the prospect of negotiating with Mr. Saakashvili. Today, Russia’s ITAR-TASS news agency reported:

No talks with the incumbent Georgian leadership within the framework of the Joint Control Commission for resolving the Georgian-Ossetian conflict are possible, Boris Chochiyev, deputy prime minister of South Ossetia [in fact now acting prime minister after the president, Eduard Kokoyty, dismissed the republic's government and announced a state of emergency on 17 August] and cochairman of the commission, has told ITAR-TASS.

"While this fascist leadership is in office, talks are out of the question. What can we talk about with these people, who pursued one aim only - to annihilate anything living, to destroy anything that can be destroyed. Do you know what the code name of the military operation was? 'Clear Field'. Does that tell you something?" Chochiyev said.

Russia could believe that President Saakashvili’s support within Georgia will erode as Georgia’s people reflect upon the consequences of his judgment to try to resolve the situation in South Ossetia by military force. In the wake of his decision, Georgia is now viewed as politically and economically. Its credit rating has been downgraded. Further downgrades are possible. Until the Russia-Georgia dispute is resolved with some degree of finality, Georgia could experience reduced foreign direct investment. If so, that will undermine the growth its economy has experienced in recent years. Moreover, Georgia has also suffered significant damage in terms of lives lost, homes destroyed, infrastructure shattered, and economic opportunities foregone. Already, Georgia’s political opposition is beginning to stir.

On August 15, the Financial Times reported:

Levan Gachechiladze, Mr Saakashvili's former campaign manager, who ran against him in January's presidential elections, said Georgia's political opposition would campaign for elections to be held "at the earliest opportunity", perhaps within two months…

Kakha Kukava, secretary-general of the opposition Conservative party of Georgia, similarly criticised the president for the war. "Saakashvili was personally responsible for the military operation, and for starting a war we could not win," he said, adding that his party would wait until the situation had cooled and then call for mass demonstrations aimed at removing the government.

Should President Saakashvili’s political standing begin to diminish, it is not implausible that the West could privately welcome such an outcome. A change in Georgia’s leadership could provide a face-saving way for the West and Russia to break their present logjam over Georgia.

That Georgia’s people would engineer the leadership change would provide the necessary democratic packaging to satisfy the West’s need that Georgia remain on a democratic path. As President Saakashvili’s support dries up, the West could frame the matter as an “internal affair” to be resolved strictly by Georgia’s people, all the while looking forward to the “fresh start” such an outcome would offer. Russia could leverage a change in Georgia’s leadership to launch the kind of political discussions it cannot hold with President Saakashvili without running the real risk of undermining the perceived gains it achieved from its having turned back President Saakashvili’s military endeavor in South Ossetia. The separatist governments in Abkhazia and South Ossetia could see a political shift in which they would no longer be expected to discuss their political destiny with a leader whom they deeply distrust.

In the larger geopolitical framework, those developments could shift the broader West-Russia relationship off its present slow-motion trajectory toward increased confrontation. Instead, they could afford the prospect of accommodation and renewed strategic cooperation. Considering the enormous geopolitical risks associated with Iran’s nuclear program, the ideological struggle with radical Islamists, and the uncertain evolution of Pakistan’s political development, renewed cooperation could be mutually beneficial to Western nations and Russia.

Right now, there remains no assurance that President Saakashvili’s tenure could collapse anytime soon. However, it is one possible scenario that could avoid the development of a West-Russia stalemate. As a result, despite public expressions of Western support for President Saakashvili’s government, the West’s private position might well overlap with Russia’s express desire for a leadership change in Tbilisi. The only meaningful difference might be that the West would desire that the change occur through Georgia’s democratic process. The kind of assistance the West provides President Saakashvili could shed light on its position concerning his government’s survival. Should the West confine its support to public statements and humanitarian assistance, that approach could signal an unwillingness to put concrete action behind sustaining President Saakashvili’s rule. Should the West launch a significant effort to rebuild and expand Georgia’s military capabilities (e.g., by providing Georgia with hand-held anti-aircraft devices as advocated by Vice President Cheney) and materially downgrade its relationship with Russia, it could signal a desire to shore up President Saakashvili.

justone

Listen, you LOOK like a very smart guy, many analyses of yours are very thoughtful, at least; who cares even if they may not be quite correct… if you could start speaking straight English and if you could … how would I say…? Here you go:


It belongs to a conspiracy theory… to something not only lacking democracy… but just sanity… You need to explain to me where it comes from… For some reasons our politicians do have to lie to us and pump up hatred and fear of Russia, but in the true game they would make deals with Russia that would be a secret for us? Do you just LOOK like a smart guy, or you like that nut that goes smoothly on a threat then it hits a stripped winding and spins loosing all the purpose of movement? Is it how it happens in your head – a stripped thread?

Your conspiracy theory lacks a very important consideration, even if to imagine that our politicians a screwed up to such a degree, Putin is very different, in general he does what he says and he says what he does. I’ll try to translate the old juke.

A hot young girl–new teacher comes to a class to teach. As she talks she hears a repeating whisper in the class – ‘I will f$$k you.’ She is lost, upset, she breaks into tears and runs to the principle, and complains wiping her eyes.. The principal asks – ‘What class is that?’ – such and such,- answer the teacher.- ‘And you have a blond guy with such bright blue eyes sitting in the back on the left? –‘Yee-s…’ – ‘Well, if he says he will f$$k you, you may be sure – he will.’

Putin is such a guy, if he says he will, you may be sure, - he will; you may not know and think how, but he will. This is the reason #1 why your theory does not fly.

The reason #2 – saakachvili has proved to have some kind of psychological or/and social and /or maniac disorder, how are you going to shut him up?

But I just love your point: If you don’t mind I have bolded mutually beneficial, - this is the talk Putin has been talking inside and outside of Russia, this is the walk he has been walking. This is his credo, his legacy, his being. It may sound simple, but it is a very difficult walk, especially if you start from nothing to offer; it requires … it requires… a lot.

Unfortunately, I think you hope for something good happening behind the curtains of the White house is just a dream. Things are as you see they are. If you see Anna Kournikova you see Russian women, they are not what you think they are, but they are what you see they are.
Your dream is good, but it is just a dream.
Yaki-Da - Just A Dream Lyrics

P.S. If you ever run for the President, PM me, I will donate to your campaign. Just remember it requires a lot..

Look:

donsutherland1

In what could be the first indication that at least some of the Western nations might not be inclined to try to sustain Georgia President Mikheil Saakashvili's rule should Georgia's people and political leadership turn against him, The Independent reported today:

The first British government minister to visit Georgia since the Russian invasion made a point of meeting opposition leaders as public discontent over Mikheil Saakashvili’s role in the disaster that has befallen the country began to grow.

Foreign Secretary David Miliband held breakfast with the main opposition leaders lasting more than an hour during a flying visit to Tbilisi over the crisis in a move which is bound to add pressure on the beleaguered Georgian leader.

At a minimum, such a move suggests that Britain views its continued relationship with Georgia as a matter of national interest and not personalities. If so, Britain's relationship with Georgia would not require President Saakashvili's continued leadership. Consequently, Georgia's opposition could be encouraged to oppose President Saakashvili's policies and even continued tenure once the present crisis abates sufficiently, knowing that it could count on the West's maintaining its ties to Georgia.

Infinite Chaos

No, there are party politics and internal Labour politics at play here. Miliband has aspirations to the leadership as Prime Minister Brown has had serious problems - one of which (party politics problems) was the govt being caught out by David Cameron (Conservative party leader) being invited to lunch with Saakashvili before any govt ministers had been. I have a suspicion that Saakashvili has already chosen an ally in David Cameron - his eye on the mid-term as elections will be held in the UK in the next 2-3 years.

War in the Caucasus: Brown sends Miliband to Georgia after Cameron's surprise visit | Politics | The Guardian

Also, relations between Britain and Russia have been at all time lows since the death (murder) of a prominent ex Russian spy in the UK and Russia has refused to co-operate and hand over the suspects. At such times, Gordon Brown continues to show weak leadership while David Cameron has made pro Georgia statements that has endeared him to the Georgian leadership. Partly (IMHO) I feel Miliband may not have been invited to meet with Saakashvili - only time will tell. He is still there and may meet soon.

donsutherland1

Infinite Chaos,

While I believe it is possible that the timing of Foreign Secretary Miliband's trip might have been related to the earlier visit by David Cameron, I suspect the visit had more to do with British foreign policy calculations. The Independent article also disclosed:

The meeting follows talks between Western diplomats in Georgia and Mr Saakashvili’s rivals in recent days and is seen by observers as the West opening up channels to those who might wrest power in the future.

Although the governments in the US and Western Europe have made a public showing of backing Mr Saakashvili, there has been increasing questioning of his tactics which had allowed the Russians to score a major strategic victory over Nato. There is also unease at the Georgian leader’s increasingly erratic behaviour in public at press conferences alongside, among others, Condoleezza Rice and Angela Merkel.

In addition, the visit followed closely on the heels of Britain's publicly opposing expulsion of Russia from the G-8 and reaffirming support for Russia's entry into the World Trade Organization.

In any case, it remains to be seen how things will evolve.