PINR’s Molly Corso nails it in her look at Russia’s waning influence in its near abroad. Her column is a strong argument for Russia supporting (or at least accepting), rather than fighting, political change in its near abroad. Russia’s Georgia policy provides superb examples of self-defeat.
Russia’s continued support for separatist leaders in Abkhazia and South Ossetia is meant to deter stability — and therefore foreign investment — in Georgia. However, in reality Russia’s obvious interference has helped the Georgian leadership turn to the West for support and resolution. During his speech in Strasburg, Saakashvili clearly stated that Russia is not capable of leading Georgia to a peaceful resolution in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The Venetian Commission’s decision to actively participate in the development of a peace settlement even further decreases Russia’s influence in its own near abroad.
Additionally, Russia’s cancellation of the OSCE monitoring mission could lead to an EU mission, free of any Russian influence, monitoring the border. It’s interesting to note also that the New Group of Georgia’s Friends, which does not include a veto-wielding Russia or any of the major Western powers of the old Group of Georgia’s Friends, was just launched. Short of actually conquering the country, it seems as if every Russian effort to exert authority over Georgia only increases its independence. As Fedor Lukyanov, editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Politics, notes in this interview:
I think that relations with Georgia or Ukraine will never again be as we wanted them to be five or 10 years ago. It seems that the time has now come for Russia – whether she likes it or not – to formulate a completely new policy towards the countries that we have called the near abroad. They are no longer the near abroad. They are simply abroad. Russia will have to carry out full-scale diplomatic and political work with them, just as with any other world power.
It’s a bitter pill, but he’s probably right.
Corso’s article covers more than just Georgia, but while it addresses Russia and its influence in its near abroad, notable for their absence from the discussion are the states of Central Asia, where Russian influence is growing. Just as an observation that almost certainly has no deep meaning, it’s interesting to note that the leaders of Central Asia once again appear to be playing the role of cheerleaders for a harder line coming from Moscow.
This post was written by...
Nathan Hamm – author of 2040 posts on Registan.net.
Nathan founded Registan.net in 2003. He was a Peace Corps Volunteer in Uzbekistan 2000-2001 and received his MA in Central Asian Studies from the University of Washington in 2007. Since 2007, he has worked full-time as an analyst, consulting with clients on Central Asian affairs, specializing in how socio-cultural factors shape risks and opportunities. Follow him on Twitter or drop him a line.