Russia's Divide and Conquer Strategy

Give credit to Russia, they have exercised power brilliantly, and the end game is near. While there are still media reports of sporadic fighting in Russia well after the cease-fire, the objectives of Russia have become clear. The politics will now decide whether the cease-fire holds.

Early in the conflict Putin and Bush exchanged words in China, prior to Putin flying off to the front lines to be the face of the conflict. Some have described the Medvedev-Putin relationship in this conflict as "good cop/bad cop." We think that relationship applies, but not in a conventional way. We see Medvedev as the good cop for Europe, and Putin as the bad cop for the US.

Based on Bush's actions following his meeting with Putin: staying in China... and Bush's inactions following that meeting: doing almost nothing for Georgia; Russia essentially had the green light to achieve all of its objectives. There will be no partial achievements here.

Russia's objectives from the beginning has been the insurance of Russian interests for South Ossetia and Abkhazia. We can only assume, based on Bush's press conference at the White House, that Bush expected Russia to fill in those regions with Russian troops and stop. We can also assume the administration did not believe Russia's tactical objectives included Senaki, Zugdidi, Gori, and Poti.

With these assumptions, and taking Russia at its word that the objectives are South Ossetia and Abkhazia, why then did Russia move on to these other tactical objectives? Furthermore, while Russia is established near all of the towns mentioned above, why has Russia stopped, set up defensive lines, and not occupied the cities themselves? How can we suggest that some sort of diplomatic effort factored into a cease fire where Russia ends up strategically positioned, dug in, and prepared to let loose its full force on the major cities in Georgia? One might imply instead that Russia positioned its forces exactly where they wanted them to be 'coincidently' before the cease fire was announced.

If Russia's strategic objective is South Ossetia and Abkhazia, then what is the purpose of the other territories Russia currently occupies? These represent Russian political concessions. No one can take them from Russia, and they can destroy the cities if their demands are not met. In other words, Russia can achieve exactly what they want, and if the west complies, Georgia gets to keep its country. If Georgia or the West doesn't comply? Georgia is destroyed further until the west accepts Russia's conditions. One should expect that one condition will be to validate Russian military action as legitimate.

All Russia needs is a broker. Enter France. This ran in the Russian press yesterday.

The US is not suited to the role of lead mediator in resolving the Georgian-Ossetian conflict. The statement was made by French Minister of Foreign and European Affairs Bernard Kouchner.

In Kouchner's opinion, the United States is actually part of the conflict, as it is present in Georgia and is equipping its armies, reports Channel 1.

Is it coincidence good cop Medvedev is ready to receive Sarkozy and work out a cease fire? We expect France to put forth a resolution of the conflict that puts the EU in charge of Georgia. This will insure Germany and France's position that Georgia should never join NATO, and will additionally give the EU a public victory in foreign policy and diplomacy. Russia gets its new provinces and legitimacy in its military action, while Georgia gets to survive, probably without regime change although the next election may not be kind to Saakashvili.

Where does that leave the US? The US has proven itself not to be factor in this entire affair, and that is not likely to change now. Georgia, a small country that joined the "coalition of the willing, " was left to the tender mercies of Russia thinking their friend the US would come. I'm sure the Chinese and Russians are ready to sell the script to other powers, and that script will sell.

Superpowers pay a high cost for action in the 21st century, but it is also true that superpowers pay a high cost of inaction in the 21st century. When Bush took the military option off the table, even if he never in a million years intended to actually use that option, he doomed Georgia. Russia hasn't given the United States a second thought since. The Bush Administration played poker with Putin, but did so with the cards face up on the table. We should expect results to reflect such a play.

When we say Russia's divide and conquer strategy, surely you didn't think we were talking about Georgia. Russia will use this incident to divide Europe and the US, there is humiliation coming for American inaction. The Russian exit strategy involves Europe throwing the US under the bus so Georgia can survive. It's Russia and France at the diplomatic table, what did you really expect? In that room, US interests finish last.