What are we to make of the recent conflict between Russia and Georgia?  First we must understand how this came to be, before we can speculate on what this means for not only the United States but Europe as well.

Back in 1945 at the Potsdam Conference, the big three- Truman, Stalin and Churchill met to determine what post-world war two Europe would look like.  Stalin took Eastern Europe and promised free elections, which never took place. The reason for Stalin’s actions was to form a buffer against future invasions.  Prior to Hitler invading Russia, Napoleon did the same as well in the early 19th century. Upon the conclusion of world war two, the cold war started and the Iron curtain was drawn.

Speed ahead some forty odd years. Mikhail Gorbachev starts reforms in the former Soviet Union, but because he does not move fast enough, Boris Yelstin becomes president and carelessly expedites reforms, which cripples the Russian militarily and allows the former eastern bloc countries to become independent nations.

In 1991, after the fall of communism, former Soviet Satellite Georgia becomes its own country.  However, a province known as South Ossetia, which is mostly made up of Russians, becomes its own de-facto country as well.  In addition, members of this province, although technically part of Georgia carry Russian passports.

After Yelstin retires, he is successor and former KGB member Putin becomes President of Russia.  For the most part everything is status quo until 2008.  It should be of note that Russian peace keepers are sent to protect South Ossetia.

August 2008 Georgian President Saakashvili, who is a pro-western President responds to small attacks against his military by using the military to reclaim Ossetia.  Russia claims that this is nothing more than “ethnic cleansing” and responds military by invading Georgia.

Next, the United States and the European Union call on Russia to withdraw from Georgia.  During the conflict European Union President (Note: the presidency of the European Union changes every six months- Why?) French President Zarkosky brokers a deal, which is then immediately disregarded by Russia.  In the end, the United States quickly finalizes a deal with Poland re: missile defense.  Russia accuses the United States for the whole conflict.

The question we need to ask ourselves as how did this happen and can it happen again?  Blame can be assigned to Bush I, Clinton and Bush II administrations for not taking the initiative to admit as many former eastern bloc countries into NATO, when Russia was in a weaker state.  It seems just recently that people where questioning if NATO had a reason to exist anymore.  There are various arguments against NATO expansion, but hindsight being 20-20; you have to ask yourself, would have Russia dared to invade a member of NATO?  No way, would they have risked an all out war with Western Europe. Given our countries commitments to Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States is not a position to respond unilaterally.  Why didn’t Europe respond?  First of all, Georgia is not a member of NATO and thus other members of NATO are not required to respond.  Secondly, Russia provides Europe with 40% of its fuel and 20% of its heating oil.

Will Russia attempt the same thing with other countries?  Most likely not, Poland is a member of NATO and Russia had the excuse of ethnic cleansing taking place in Ossetia.

It seems to me, that Russia has re-emerged as a force to be reckoned with.  It appears a new form of a cold war, most likely based in economics, is set to emerge between the United States, Europe and Russia.  Also, don’t forgot China, which seems to have a lot more in common with Russia then the rest of the world.

In the end, what is old becomes new.  Alliances have to be renewed, missions have to be re-defined and the United States, along with Europe must reach out to other countries in the region and form alliances.

Michael Cruz
Commentary

Mike Cruz is in the Legal profession and active locally with the Democratic Party. His commentaries represent his own opinions and not necessarily the views of any organization he may be affiliated with or those of the West Ranch Beacon.