Ukraine, Georgia: What next?
- By defencematters
Based on Georgia’s experience with Russia, Andro Barnovi talks about the Ukraine crisis, Crimea and Georgia’s hopes for a NATO accession.
Eleni Panayiotou
Based on Georgia’s experience with Russia, Andro Barnovi, Head of the Georgian Presidential Administration during 2013, talks to Defence Matters about the Ukraine crisis, Crimea and Georgia’s hopes for a NATO accession.
Prior to the annexation of Crimea, Russia was very much pre-occupied with Georgia. The 2008 war between Russia and Georgia pretty much sealed the fate of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. "The first ever full blown hybrid warfare, was carried out by Russia in 2008" states Barnovi.
During the one-year celebrations since the annexation of Crimea, Russia signed a treaty with South Ossetia which in not so many words hands it over to Russia. Abkhazia signed the same treaty last year. The West condemned both treaties. Georgia, had been hoping that the two enclaves would return to where they belong. However Georgia’s hopes are not just for the return of the two enclaves. Georgia as a victim and now a spectator of Russian aggression is desperately seeking NATO accession. The Ukraine crisis has fuelled this desire and with NATO - Georgia recent military drills taking place in Russia’s backyard are Georgia’s hopes of NATO accession falling on fertile ground?
- What are the similarities and differences - in connection to Russian aggression - between Crimea/South Ossetia, Georgia/Ukraine? Is Crimea only the beginning?
Well, first of all, Crimea is not the beginning but a late continuance. The beginning was Abkhazia and South Ossetia back in the early 1990s and the Russian very destructive direct involvement in Nagorno Karabakkh and the outright occupation of the lands of Georgia and Azerbaijan. I know it looks a bit different in the eyes of many in the West, I know there are so called ethnic conflicts elsewhere but these were artificially ignited conflicts, inspired and leveraged by Russia, and if someone wants to think through the myths then the reality is this – Russia occupied the lands they deemed strategic, they leveraged ethnic grievances, at times they even cultivated those grievances, and thus furnished their geopolitical wars to look like ethnic conflicts did elsewhere. Then they started to “mediate” those conflicts, which means froze them and guaranteed their military presence there. The first ever full blown hybrid warfare, including cyber war and paramilitary dimensions, was carried out by Russia in 2008, in a war with Georgia.
So the major similarity between these cases is Russian interest and Russian direct involvement. To reiterate – yes – there were problems, there were grievances, but there were no conflicts; There is still no ethnic hatred towards Abkhazians, Ossetians or Russians in Georgia or Ukraine. For example, more ethnic Ossetians live in Georgia now then in the breakaway region which Russia calls independent. More Russians live in Abkhazia today then Abkhazians themselves, you have more Russian troops in “South Ossetia” then the population there and Russians live in Ukraine without any pressure, this shows that these cases are not Tutsi and Hutu cases but something very different.
We still have a very vivid memory of the Crimea case. Nobody heard of any serious conflict in Crimea and one day the world woke up with a very hot conflict there. What preceded it – was Putin’s stance against the EU association agreement, Yanukovych’s betrayal, a very brutal crackdown on demonstrators and Putin’s realization that he was “losing” Ukraine. Crimea followed as a “logical” continuation of those events. Putin sent arms and operatives, and we all know what happened then.
We had exactly the same scenario in Abkhazia and a very similar story in South Ossetia. These are all the deeds of Russia – the last empire that does not want to change. Oil and gas are decisive in this quagmire, and the brainwashing of its own people is a dominant political technology.
- How do you believe the Ukraine Crisis will unfold?
It depends on the approach the West takes vis-à-vis Russia, and on the readiness of Ukraine’s people to simultaneously resist Russian pressure and reform their country. The reforming of rooted practices and the mentality of society is essential if they want to escape Russian control. It is exactly a Russian decadent swamp that has united people of a former soviet space, and the deeper one went into that swamp, the better a Russian ally they became.
What we see today in and around Ukraine is an attempt to stop Russia which allows it to buy time and recalculate its strategy. This is bad, because Russian calculation - if it is not forced to - will never bend to concessions and consensus.
[Eventually] Ukraine will be given the ability to develop and with proper pressure Russia will stop their military advance.
- Do you believe that the arming of Ukraine by the US would be a right choice given the current climate?
Think about this – if Russia is achieving its goal with a direct invasion of Ukraine, and if the Russian population is indoctrinated in such a way that it supports the invasion, that is, if the authorities in the Kremlin have no domestic reason to stop aggression and if almost all domestic forces are supporting further aggression, then the only thing Moscow will try in the future is to in fact continue and deepen the occupation and not seek a peaceful solution to the problem.
It is true that for Western eyes, Moscow lacks resources to blackmail Berlin, London, or Washington, but Russia does possess resources to leverage forces in Ukraine, make it fail, make its government lose popular support, erode its legitimacy, overthrow and replace it with “puppets”. This does not seem a plausible scenario now, but it will happen if Moscow is given time to, and if Ukraine is not supported to survive as a stable and prosperous country.
Ukraine needs a sense of strong security, and for this it needs weapons, instructors, and very strong political backing from the EU and the USA.
So if anyone thinks that global chaos, or having Russian tanks in Poland or the Check Republic is acceptable for Europe, then of course they won’t support the decision to arm Ukraine. But if one thinks “barbarians” should be kept as far away as possible, then arming Ukraine could seem more plausible to them. To me, this is much delayed.
I don’t buy the argument that the reason Ukraine should not be armed is because its army is undertrained and corrupt. It's a fact that the army is undertrained and corrupt, but there is a new government which is ready to cooperate, people, including in the army, who are willing and able to form new elite battalions and regiments, and there is a certain level of professionalism especially among the Officers’ corps. If there is a will in the West to provide Ukraine with support and serious cooperation; and if the West realizes what a failure in Ukraine might mean overall then there are resources to be put to use.
- Do you think that all former Soviet countries are in danger of the same fate?
Russia is considered to be a regional power. But Russians would not agree with that definition. They still imagine themselves as a global superpower, and they are a resurgent power. This means that yes – all former Soviet countries, and all former Warsaw Pact countries are in danger of some degree. Of course, those under the Article 5 umbrella are in a very different position, but you should remember that Russia’s primary target is not Georgia, Ukraine or the Baltic states. Its target is NATO, and when they cannot fight by military means, they focus on undermining the unity of NATO, the unity of the EU, test the EU’s resistance vis-à-vis selfish economic interests of various countries, etc. So in the long run, if the unity of NATO is not sustained, then it opens up a space and a different perspective for Russia. The unity of the West is the biggest force and strategic asset to cherish.
- Do you believe that a Membership Action Plan (MAP) for NATO and European Union accession are the best defense options for countries such as Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova?
It’s not just MAP but actual membership that we aspire for. Georgia has surpassed some NATO members with its reforms including the military domain, but we are still far away from MAP. We have various new formats of cooperation, we are trying to be the best partners, we share difficulties and responsibilities to the extent that Georgia had the largest per capita military presence and second largest military presence in Afghanistan, but the consensus to accept Georgia as a NATO member is still not there. There is just the promise that this will happen one day.
However this is just a waste of time and opportunity, not just for our countries but for NATO as well. You can never draw a permanent dividing line on the ground, especially with Russia who respects no agreements but just sheer force. NATO should open up and expand further. This seems to me the only way that NATO will endure, and the Western world with it.
- What is the strategy behind Russia’s military exercises in the South Caucasus? Is it working?
Intimidation of local governments and a warning signal to the West that the situation can be further worsened. Yes it works because it works in the West. Local governments are not very daring when they don’t hope for clear support from their partners. But this doesn’t mean that any nation is going to bend vis-à-vis Russia. For example in a recent survey 78% of Georgians show a strong determination to join NATO. In a situation like this, governments must follow the will of the people. People feel they need better security, that they need prosperity and development. We already saw the example of Ukraine where Yanukovych’s government split away from its people and we know what happened. I doubt anyone except Moscow wants to have the same again in Georgia.
- Georgia is currently hosting joint military drills with the NATO Rapid Reaction Force for the first time this May. What do you think this means for Georgia - NATO relations? Is Georgia prepared for a Russian reaction to this military exercise?
This means that relations are continuing and there are attempts to bring them to some new level, that Georgia’s NATO membership is on the agenda and that NATO deems Georgia a worthy partner in the region. This also means that NATO is sending a message to Moscow. As for Russia’s reaction – we don’t need to be afraid, we don’t need Russia’s permission to live and progress. This is our right, we fought for this right and we will continue fighting for it. As simple as that. We are trying to make Georgia progressive and prosperous, a reliable partner and a “bridge of progress” to a very difficult part of the world. The new generations carry this identity and society overall has changed very much. Problems notwithstanding, it’s much more European today then two or three decades ago. Although the readiness of the armed forces is much higher then ever, this is what I call readiness to survive.
*Andro Barnovi is Founder and Leader of the Movement for Independence and EU Integration, Chairman of the Board at the Saakashvili Presidential Library, Member of Political Council of the United National Movement and was Head of the Presidential Administration during 2013 and Deputy Minister of Defence for the period 2011-12
Photo Credit: US Army
