Saakashvili is undoubtedly no positive hero, but this changes nothing about the core of the Russian aggression.
The Russian response could have never been so crushing if it had not been prepared beforehand, Kambersky writes. "We [Czechs] should support the Georgians more resolutely than by a mere deputy PM's newspaper article," he suggests. Drawing a parallel between the Georgian events and the Soviet-led invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 would be misleading in many respects, but still there is one striking common denominator of both: the blindness of Czechs, Kambersky writes. "We refuse to admit that our energy security depends on Western diplomats agree UN draft for Georgia truce ...
Nord Stream Pipeline Presents Project Report ...
Russian Hospitals Brace for New Influx of Casualties ...
Solzhenitsyn due to be laid to rest ...
North Korea 'tests sea missiles' ... the empire that shuns nothing when pursuing its aims," Kambersky continues. After September 11, 2001, the West defined its new arch-enemy and dropped its battle for human rights observance in regions such as Asia. An unwanted and sad consequence of this are Russia's free hands in the Caucasus, Kambersky writes. "Russia was prepared, Europe incompetent," reads the headline of an article discussing the same issue in the daily Mlada fronta Dnes. It is a mystery what made Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili to involve Georgia in a conflict whose result has rocked the foundations of Georgia's statehood, international relations expert Jan Sir writes in the paper. The border zone between the two separatist provinces, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and the rest of Georgia had seen everyday provocations since this spring at least, Sir writes. Maybe Saakashvili believed that now it was the last opportunity for him to regain control of the two provinces. He might have wrongly assessed the signals the West had addressed to him, Sir writes. Maybe Saakashvili expected a limited confrontation to attract international attention to the problem of the "frozen conflicts" in Georgia. Irrespective of his motives, Moscow's reaction was crushing. Russia was well prepared for such scenario, Sir says. Kosovo previously created a dangerous precedent that sent a signal to separatists worldwide that armed resistance against a legitimate government is acceptable and may lead to the desired independence, Sir continues. In the case of Kosovo, the principle of inviolability of borders was denied, a principle that forms the foundations of international law, along with non-interference in other country's internal affairs and with refraining from force, which was blatantly breached by Russia in the Georgian conflict, Sir writes. Europe's incapability of taking a clear position on the Caucasian crisis has shown the urgent need of serious work on building the EU. The West's silence about the Russian attack on Georgia plays into the hands of the hawks in Russia. Their growing appetite may bury the hopes that Russia might develop into a democracy, Sir writes. Get your hands off Georgia, this is how the main message of the Russian "humanitarian mission" in South Ossetia, Abkhazia and elsewhere in Georgia can be interpreted, but it also hides several sub-messages the West is supposed to distinguish, Petr Pesek writes in the daily Lidove noviny. The recent years were not very pleasant for Moscow's power ambitions. NATO expanded to include not only Russia's former satellites but even to touch the Russian border, and it started eyeing Ukraine and Georgia, Pesek writes. Moscow managed to pacify Kiev's pro-Western mood but Tbilisi has not shown a similar portion of "responsibility," Pesek writes. Moreover, the USA is building military bases in the former Eastern bloc, and it ignores Moscow's objections, or at least Moscow believes the USA ignores them. The result of the Georgian conflict should change this feeling, Pesek writes. Moscow has made it clear to the Georgians that they have to respect their Russian neighbour rather than the remote U.S. ally, he continues. Moscow's message to the other allies of the West, the present and the potential future ones, is "frosty" as well: the protective hand of the USA has only a limited action range, Pesek says. Moscow would not be pleased if its Georgian intervention encouraged the Poles to strike a deal with Washington on anti-missile defence. Nevertheless, Moscow's priority is to strengthen its influence in the neighbouring states, mainly the former Soviet republics, Pesek says.
(Ceske Noviny)
more info >>
<< Back