Britain asserts the need to defend the ‘New Map’ of Europe
After five days of Russia’s war against Georgia, the dust may now be starting to settle. At this point in time, it is now clear that Georgia’s military operation in its renegade province of South Ossetia has not been successful. It now looks as if the Georgian President, Mikhail Saakashvili, was reckless in challenging the Russian garrison stationed in the province. His forces were either unable, or made a tactical error by failing to launch airstrikes against the critical Roki tunnel linking South Ossetia to Russia on the night of 8th August. Its destruction would have prevented Russian armour and reinforcements from rolling through the following morning, providing more time for Georgian forces to dig-in defensively. Initial hopes that the conflict would remain within Georgia’s northern province were also mistaken: Russia seized the opportunity to, in Russian President, Dmitry Medvedev’s words, ‘punish’ the Georgians for their behaviour. This resulted in Russian naval operations off the Georgian coast, and a series of vicious bombing raids against cities deep within Georgia itself. It seems that civilians were also deliberately targeted by the Russians: one housing estate was pulverised, even though it was over three kilometres from any conceivable military target. The Europeans and Americans, unable to challenge the Kremlin directly—Russia being a nuclear power—could only sit and wait, piling on the diplomatic pressure as and when they could.
It is very clear that Russia won the battle, in what is emerging as a new Cold War. Georgia has been crushed, and Georgian democracy, a product of the ‘Rose Revolution’ in 2003, looks more precarious than ever before. Mikhail Saakashvili, staunchly pro-European, pro-American, and pro-Atlanticist, is hanging on by a thread, reeling from the Russian offensive. He must redouble his efforts if he is to survive politically. And Russian military forces have consolidated their country’s grip over the Caucasus, as well as having frightened several other countries on Russia’s borders. The authoritarian Russian Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin, has not only sustained his reputation as a hardman, but also his authority as the real leader of the Russian Federation.
But has Russia won the war? This depends on the actions of Europeans and Americans over the next few days. The French President, and current President-in-Office of the European Council, Nicolas Sarkozy, yesterday convinced both Moscow and Tbilisi to accept his European Union-backed peace treaty. The Foreign Ministers of the European Union today held an extraordinary meeting to discuss the war against Georgia in greater detail, confirming their support for President Sarkozy’s agenda. And the President of the United States, using a term few have used since the Cold War, came out with some of his toughest rhetoric yet, declaring that Russia’s actions were a threat to the ‘Free World’. In a master stroke, Mr. Bush also offered to provide Georgia with humanitarian assistance—and this is the crucial bit—to be delivered by the United States military. With American hardware being sent to the South Caucasus, the Americans have effectively imposed the European-backed peace deal, sending a strong message to Moscow that the Atlantic Alliance will not be intimidated by Russian aggression. As American forces move in, they must remain there as a deterrent towards any further games Russia’s leaders feel that they should involve themselves in.
David Miliband, the British Foreign Secretary, also made some firm remarks on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme about what he called Moscow’s ‘blatant aggression’. Asked whether he was ‘worried and fearful about Russia’s intentions’, he responded:
We’ve been warning for some time, not least in light of our own experience of the Litvinenko affair...We’ve been warning about the way in which Russia was addressing itself in key aspects of international relations...In its international relations Russia has not been fulfilling in its responsibilities in a way that we think is appropriate. That’s why we’ve been pushing this agenda for quite a long time. Obviously, the fact of Russian aggression in Georgia raises this to a new level.
This ‘new level’, he suggested, means that Europeans and Americans would have to review Russia’s participation in the Group of Eight leading industrial countries. He said that the former Group of Seven had been communicating over the Russian belligerence in recent days, with the purposeful decision to exclude Moscow. That such exclusions were required, the British Foreign Secretary went on, is because:
The sight of Russian tanks rolling into part of a sovereign country on its neighbouring borders will have brought a chill to the spine of many people, rightly, because that is a reversion to—it’s not just Cold War politics, it’s a nineteenth Century way of doing politics. That is simply not the way international relations can be run in the twenty-first Century.
He declared:
The Russians want to assert this concept, I think, of ‘ex-Soviet space’, somehow denying that these are independent countries with territorial integrity of their own. I think that is unacceptable. It is not ‘ex-Soviet space’ in Georgia and Ukraine and other countries. These are independent, sovereign countries, with territorial integrity of their own. And I think this is really important: It’s not good for Russia to continue to believe that it is suffering a hangover from the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union does not exist anymore. There’s no such thing as ex-Soviet space.
There is a “New Map” of Eastern Europe and the border areas of Russia and that map needs to be defended in the interests of security and stability. And I believe it is in Russia’s interests to come to terms with that. It’s not in Russia’s interests to continue to hanker for a Soviet past because frankly, it’s gone and it’s good that it’s gone.
When Mr. Miliband says the ‘New Map of Eastern Europe’, he uses it as a metaphor to state that we have established a legitimate European hegemony over almost all of the areas once ruled by the Tsars or Soviets—a position which we must sustain. He is right. The collapse of the Soviet Union allowed a new generation of countries to decide their own futures. It allowed them to join the dynamic, prosperous and free community of democracies that straddles the North Atlantic basin—the core of civilisation. It allowed them to re-assert their identity as Europeans, and rejoin their European partners—escaping generations of repressive Russian and Soviet rule. Bringing Europe back together again, working for a stronger Europe, whole and free, is precisely in all Europeans’ geopolitical and strategic interests. Keeping the Russian bear caged in the zoo, and out of our garden, is essential in achieving that. And European Union peacekeepers have here a role in upholding law and order in unstable places in the European Neighbourhood.
A depiction of the ‘New Map’ of Europe

Those European Union Member States—like Germany and Italy—whose strategies towards Moscow have increasingly rested on forms of appeasement, need to now take heed. Good relations with the Kremlin are of lesser importance than the internal cohesion of the European Union itself, and they are also not as important as extending democratic government in the European Neighbourhood—synonymous with Mr. Miliband’s ‘New Map’. Russian aggression also provides yet another rationale for increased European military integration: only a strong Europe will be able to stand up to the new autocrats in the Kremlin. Let us hope that, by invading Georgia, Mr. Putin and his gang may have inadvertently awoken a sleeping giant.
[Update: 19th August 2008]
Supplementary articles:
• Mart Laar, ‘Stop that bear’, International Herald Tribune, 18th August 2008.
• Denis MacShane, ‘Shoulder to shoulder against Russia’, The Guardian, 18th August 2008.
• Nicholas Sarkozy, ‘Europe gets started quelling a crisis’ (Français), Le Figaro, 18th August 2008.
• David Miliband, ‘Russia will not benefit from its aggression’, The Times, 19th August 2008.

10 comments:
Excellent post -- and nice to discover your blog (through the "Europeans for Georgia" group at Facebook).
I agree - excellent post! I'm in love with the last phrase: "Let us hope that, by invading Georgia, Mr. Putin and his gang may have inadvertently awoken a sleeping giant." I am a "Euro-fan" or how can I name my passion for Europe. And I hope that Europe will regain the leading post again that it lost in the two World Wars (and Europe itself threw it away). And I hope that the rule of redneck America and peasant Russia will end, and Europe, the fine gentleman will show the world what freedom and other values mean...
Thanks again for a wonderful post. Just one correction - the Roki tunnel was built as a military object and is almost impossible to destroy from outside. It was built in 80's with a nuclear war in mind. One needs a very thoroughly prepared detonation in order to destroy it. Even if Georgian army succeeded in hitting it with the artillery, it would have been cleared within hours. Sad, but true.
Dear Pēteris Cedriņš and Ernő: Thanks for your support. Glad you liked my piece. Although, Ernő, I'm not hostile to the United States! I'm not keen on statements like 'Redneck America', for example, and want to see a strong Atlantic Alliance, but also a strong and autonomous Europe.
Dear Kilikanzar: Again, thanks for your support. On the Roki Tunnel, I did say ‘His [Mr. Saakashvili’s] forces were either unable...’; having said that, no object is indestructible, and if the invasion was pre-planned, this should have been built into Georgian strategy.
James.
I am a great fan of this blog.
As for the appeasers - "An appeaser is some one who feeds the crocodile, and hopes it will eat him last". It is time for Germany and Italy (especially Germany in my opinion) to wake up. Russia is not an open democratic country, it is not a country who respects international relations, other countries, and freedom. It should be treated like the opressive bully it is.
Cheers - Alex.
I'm sorry James, I had no bad intentions against you or the blog - it just makes me sad when I think about America and the bad things they've done (of course they did good things as well, but I can't stand when Americans say stupid things against Europeans - most often French). And I don't like when they say the saved us: from Nazism, bankruptcy, etc. Things aren't that simple: there are more variables.
But the important thing is that this blog is very good, and the articles as well. Keep up the good work!
Thanks Alex: you’re completely right!
Ernö: I don’t disagree with you that some Americans are wrong to look down on us with contempt. But I also do not think that they have done very many ‘bad’ things. On strategic affairs, they are often right (e.g. Georgia)! We both share the same values and history, and will need one another more and more in the future. A stronger Europe, in alliance with America, and as an equal partner, is where we must go...
Thanks for your comments though!
I've been reading this blog for a few months and always found it very insightful and interesting.
I agree with most of this entry and generally I find the British stance on Russia more sensible that the one prevailing in western continental Europe.
Anyway, I regret that either the EU institutions are empowered to enforce a real coordination of foreign relations and defence or
we must resign to be the
chessboard of a game played by others.
Best Regards,
Igor Guerra
Italy
When's the update coming?
- Mike
Gerhard Schroeder ought to be prosecuted for his treasonous decision to phase out nuclear power (which left Germany at Gazprom's mercy).
Another thing, do you think Europe needs to have more favourable relations with Iran and other Middle Eastern countries, in order to counter Russia's energy weapon?
Post a Comment