Interview: Georgia, the way forward

BERLIN, Aug. 19 (UPI) -- The war in the Caucasus, which began with a Georgian offensive into South Ossetia on Aug. 7 that prompted a major Russian military counter-operation, has ended with an overwhelming Russian victory. Uwe Halbach, a Caucasus expert at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, a Berlin-based think tank, talked to United Press International about Russia's motives, its delayed pullout and the way ahead for war-torn Georgia.

UPI: Let's analyze the move that prompted this war: Georgia's offensive into South Ossetia. Was it a short-term response to the many little provocations in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, or rather a strategic move by Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili?

Halbach: Well, it's not the first time Georgia has used military means in its policy of reintegration of breakaway regions. In 2004 it launched a failed campaign in South Ossetia, and in 2006 it marched into the Kodori gorge in Abkhazia. But there are also those who say Saakashvili stepped into a Russian trap: Russian military expert Pavel Felgenhauer said Russia prepared the counter-offensive long ago. Well, there are hints for both theories, but it's impossible to say right now which one really happened. One could have expected that a war was coming, and there have been several initiatives -- for example, by Germany in Abkhazia -- to pacify the region or, at least, to prevent military escalation between the parties in conflict. But unfortunately these initiatives have failed.

Q: Russia's military reaction has been denounced by most Western powers as too harsh.

A: Yes, and rightfully so. Russia chose for its attacks some targets that have symbolic meaning for Georgia's future ambitions: First was the Black Sea port of Poti, which is still controlled by Russian navy vessels. The Georgian government wanted to transform Poti, a major transit hub for oil, into what some have called a "Dubai of the Caucasus." The second strategic point Russia targeted was Senaki, a military base that was closest to NATO standards.

Q: So the offensive was meant to destroy Georgia's westward ambitions?

A: Yes, certainly. No state in Russia's immediate vicinity has steered away from Moscow so clearly as Georgia did, with its outspoken NATO ambitions. So this was one of Russia's main motives for the offensive: to punish Georgia for its years-long westward policies.

Q: Now fighting has ceased, and after significant international pressure, Russia has promised to pull its troops out of Georgia. But there are conflicting reports coming out of the country.

A: It's obvious that what we are seeing is not an earnest or quick pullout by Russia. One of the leading military officials has already said that Russia won't be pressured by the West to pull out of Georgia as quickly as it has gone in.

Q: German Chancellor Angela Merkel has been to the Caucasus and Moscow, and so has French President Nicolas Sarkozy. How should the European Union -- and, of course, the United States -- behave now?

A: It would be ideal to have a common position. But, of course, the United States is more hard-line toward Russia than most European nations. Even inside Europe, the positions are different: Britain and the Eastern European countries, which favor harsher language against Russia, are at odds with the rest of Europe, which favors a more lenient approach.

Q: But the latest statements coming out of Western capitals seem to indicate that patience with Russia is fading.

A: Yes. More and more nations, including those that have shown a more restrained position toward Georgia's integration into NATO -- such as France and Germany -- are now clearly saying Russia has overstepped a boundary. The West has underlined that the territorial integrity of Georgia must be intact and that the country still has a shot at getting into NATO. Of course, both statements are easier said than realized. It is hard to imagine how Abkhazia and South Ossetia could easily return to Georgia, and even Georgia's NATO perspective looks shaky. But saying that Georgia doesn't have a future in the alliance would be handing Russia an even greater victory than it has already achieved.

Q: How should the postwar situation in Abkhazia and South Ossetia be regulated?

A: Europe and the United States need to see how peacekeeping can become more international. Georgia has long called for peacekeeping in Abkhazia and South Ossetia to be more international, and rightfully so, because Russia has dominated peacekeeping there and isn't really a neutral actor. But it's hard to imagine that Russia will really allow a broader international framework for observing a cease-fire.

Q: What has to happen to help the population?

A: First of all, aid groups must have easy and quick access to Georgia. We now have 130,000 displaced people in Georgia, and they are living under chaotic conditions. The infrastructure linking western and eastern Georgia is destroyed, so help is needed urgently and quickly.