Who is responsible for the conflict in Georgia

I lay the blame for the escalation of the conflict in Georgia on the shoulders of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili. Although he dominates the world's press with his rhetoric, at times proclaiming victory, at times ranting about Russian aggression or democracy and Western values. Over the last few days I have watch Saakashvili on BBC literally shouting in joy or frowning in anguish; not sure whether he is moody or his plans swing so quickly. I do not believe this man for a minute, he is not sincere and he is loud. He has crushed several demonstrations against his rule, committed electoral fraud and reducing the South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali to rubble in an overt act of unprovoked aggression.

Despite the tailwind from the West, one thing is nevertheless clear: The Georgian president has grossly miscalculated. The Georgian president has confused his desires with reality, and blatantly misjudged the situation. He did not seriously reckon with retaliation by Moscow. Either that or he simply planned to blame Russia. In the first instance any student of politics would understand that Russia would not reserve the use of force when threatened by a small nation or group; Russian compaign of Czechoslovakia 1968, Afghanistan 1979-1989 and Hungary 1954 are my proof. If Saakashvili knew the overwhelming response of Russia but counted on NATO to come to its rescue then the man was wrong again. Nato would never confront Russia, it successfully avoided it during the cold war and would not confront Russia even if Georgia is annexed. It seems like Saakashvili want to play the blame game and gain some sympathy of the west by victimising the Georgian nation. Such a notion is anti-democratic in principle and counter productive in action. Georgia will lose foreign investment because the country has proven instable and Georgia’s way to Nato and EU has become even bumpier. Nato and EU do not want Georgia with outstanding territorial disputes and conduct of aggression. The failure of Georgia in the last fifteen years to comply with the Council of Europe Declaration on minorities, which Georgia is a signatory to, is one thing but its policy of aggression against minorities is another.

In the aftermath of the conflict, we ought to see some implications: Russia will have a stronger position in the Georgian separatist enclaves and its influence will stretch behind pre war borders. If any decision is to be reached regarding the faith of the separatist regions, it is going to be placing them more out of Georgian control. Secondly, there is going to be mounting pressure on Saakashvili to leave the office for killing thousands and putting Georgia even further from it’s aspiration to join Nato and EU. This time it won’t be the same as the ‘Rose Revolution’ of 2003 which brought Saakashvili to power, but it is going to be rather down the stem, something similar to a ‘thorn revolution’. Saakashvili is a student of George Bush and a follower of his policies. He relies on the creation of an external enemy to justify his policies and position in power. Saakashvili is an hypocrite, same as Bush, and uses Neocon rhetoric i.e. freedom, democracy… to appeal to sensationalism.

It is going to be wrong to blame Saakashvili for all political failures of Georgia. It has been established that democracies doesn’t work in politically and economically instable countries. In the aftermath of the war, it is to be seen which direction Georgia is going to take; pursuing it’s ambition to shift closer to the west or lean back on Russia.