The war in Georgia

Russia resurgent

The war in Georgia is a victory for Russia. The West’s options are limited, but it needs to pursue them firmly

See article

Readers' comments


p cunha

"As for the Iraqi parallel, not even the Russians pretend that Mr Saakashvili has ever been a threat to his neighbours and to the world."This sounds like pretending Iraq has WMDs is almost enought reason to justify a full-scale invasion on that country. I´m not saying Russians are right but it is hard to accept that Russia did anything worse than the USA in Iraq. Again, one action cannot justify the other, but the difference of judgement on two actions so similarly condenable screams out from this article.To sum it up, I´m very disappointed on the partial view shown here.


The West has done little for Georgia but I think it still has enough influence over Russia. If Georgia were truly isolated, Mr. Saakashvili would be doing soul searching in Lubianka. The Russian leaders may be pleased of themselves for now, but The Economist is right in pointing out the leverage the West still has over them.

ivan in na

I agree with p cunha, this article is very partial. Since when are democracies allowed to attack secessionist territories? Georgia will have to resolve the situation with its secesionnists via negotiations, not force, like any other "democracy". Russia's rsponse is obviously out of scale with the offense but we have no justification to condemn them. Calling for a boycott of their entry to the WTO is again the wrong answer. We want to engage adversaries like Russia and China, not threaten them all the time.

Georgia is simply taking advantage of the implicit support of the West and they should understand such support requires from them a more diplomatic stance. Otherwise we will be dragged in confrontation with Russia, China and others every six months by small "friendly" countries with less than 5M of population.

We can condemn Russia for excessive use of force but trying to tie up their hands will not work. We have many other opportunities to contain them and apply pressure on their actions.


By invading Georgia Putin has reasserted his grip on power for many years to come. It is true that Putin's ascendancies of power began to fruition in 1999 when he brutally punished the Chechen people. He became a hero to the Russian people and they overwhelmingly voted him to power.

I at least than realized that Russia will never give up on the loss of its influence in Eastern Europe and its caucuses when one by one every Russia satellite countries started to join the American and formed a western alliance. That truly humiliated Russia and now that Russia sits in the glut of Oil, it has not wasted any time to rebuild its military while the Americans are bogged down in Iraq and the Middle East, and obviously in Afghanistan.

It is because of the short sightedness of the Bush Administration and its foreign policy that has helped Putin and Russia to show its assertiveness in the crisis such as this one with Georgia. Strategically, Bush Administration should have stayed in Afghanistan while not invading Iraq six years ago. If these mistakes were not created, Russia would have thought twice to intervene in Georgia. Our military might has been reduced to a minimal that we can no longer involve in multiple conflicts that we once could answer to. It is not yet too late to answer that call. We need to restructure the fore structure of the American forces and NATO forced to counter Russia. It is not the strategies that John McCain is going to implement because his support of the Iraq strategies will alienate the type of strategy that is needed to counter the plan of Russian aggression. McCain's support of Bush Foreign policy will not solve the Russian aggression. It needs a plan that will once again reassert American military might in the world vis e vis in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet caucuses. I believe that many of the military experts will agree on this blog. First and foremost, give the opportunities to the countries like Georgia an assurance of getting membership within the NATO. This itself will deter the Russian whim to attack them again and again. The example is as such that countries like Latvia, Rumania, and Poland are some of the countries that are given an opportunity to be a member of NATO. Russia will think twice to attack these countries because an attack of a NATO nation is an attack on the entire NATO alliances. Therefore, we must think to adhere this issue immediately and forcefully. Again, restructure a policy that will sustain the national security interest of the United States and Western Europe. We must do everything to stop Russia that it no longer wants to brutalize its neighbor.


This article just confirms my fears that is partial to a lot of issues surronding Russia. Very sad state of affairs.


I think that the Economist has got it pretty much correct here. Georgia was foolish to launch an invasion of South Ossettia because it knew it could not win that conflict in the long run. Russia responded with overwhelming force but did not confine the struggle to the disputed area in question. The very fact that Russian forces pushed further into the Georgian hinterland away from the immediate conflict zone sends disturbing signals to me. Russia clealry wanted to occupy mainstream Georgian territory for its own geopolitical ends. How long it will stay there is anyone's guess.

Georgian independence should be protected however there should be negotiations as to the future status of Akhazia and Ossetia to ensure that such conflicts do not recur. If these regions wish to join with Russia then that will be a hard fact that the Georgians will need to swallow with difficulty.


Your article is absolutely correct.You could also have mentioned that Kosovo is by no means a precedent for Georgia. At no time did NATO promise the Kosovars they could join NATO and get EU citizenship if only they would leave Serbia. Yet Russia from the beginning of of independent Georgia has done whatever it can to weaken the new state. It has freely given its citizenship to Georgian separatists and encouraged them.Long term, Europe's Russian problem will be solved by the continued collapse of the Great Russian population. As it continues to decline the non-Slavs will be the majority of the Russian army and then Russia itself--as we know it--will cease to exist. What Putin has done is to reduce any hope Russia has of joining NATO and using its membership in the alliance to counterbalance the implications of Russia's changing demographics.


Maybe now we will return to a little more balance of power in the world to stop the american neofools and their war like tendancies. the us need to be balanced by a strong Russia or it gets way too cocky, and lots of people die as a result. Iraq among others as examples.

Mt. Putin has the right idea, a strong Russia whom you don't mess with.

Invisible Hand

I find this article well written and balanced. In the long term, should this conflict expand, whether by burning embers or fire, the RED LINE is Poland.

While dealing with recriminations and arm chair quarterbacking is seemingly protocal for many, most of it is unthoughtful and mindless political cannon fodder that serves no purpose other than entertainment for some.

In certain "communities" some look at what the cause was/is and how to avoid the same mistake. We also look at what the future implications may be - rather than wasting our time finger pointing. If we, in the west are to blame, we take our collective lumps and move on in spite of the the very unfortunate and terrible loss of life. Especially the loss of innocent civilian lives.

While I have made every attempt to do as I am required to do, and not look at this situation through a political prism, I must say that for the U.S., President George Bush is probably the first person to ever paint himself into a corner in an oval office.


ivan in na, I disagree.Russia should be roundly condemned. It has violated the sovereign territory of another state. (I should probably point out the irony of this as Russia often waves the veto when it comes to sovereignty). Furthermore, Russia should not be allowed to use bully-boy tactics to achieve its goals. This was a planned move, aimed increasing their presence within the region. This is completely unacceptable. Also, Russia showed it's lack of willingness to engage in diplomatic solutions to solve this crisis through it's failure to immediately sign the truce agreement.The West must take a tough stance on Russia. It must make it clear that it is unacceptable to sue these methods in the 21st Century. Otherwise, forget the 6 monthly confrontations, we will return to the Cold War.


The Economist's and Simon Heffer's views converge. we be worried?


This article implies that Mr. Saakashvili is democratic even if he sometimes deviates from the path to democracy. But this is a very biased view. Check out the article in The Harvard International Review written by Georgian:’s Hollow RevolutionDoes Georgia’s Pro-Western and Anti-Russian Policy Amount to Democracy?"Although post-revolution Georgia had been hailed as a rising democracy, in reality, Georgia’s government has resembled authoritarianism more than democracy."


iamprof14,May I point out that last time the Russia's were powerful and "cocky" 25 million people died.

circular argument

"Mr Saakashvili is an impetuous nationalist who has lately tarnished his democratic credentials. His venture into South Ossetia was foolish and possibly criminal".

"Possibly criminal" eh?
Boy, you guys sure treat your 'sonofabitch' pretty gently.


Dear Economist -

On the subject of the South Ossetian/Georgian crisis, it would be tremendously worthwhile for your newspaper to explore the remarkably biased reporting of this subject in the Western press. That is not to say that the Russian media is unbiased, far from it. But that's not the point; Western press is supposed to be above rank propaganda and yet that's exactly what it's radiating (Cold War style).

Over the duration of the conflict the vast majority of Western news outlets made it appear as though Russian involvment was an act of naked aggression. Some articles even went so far as to drop any references to Georgia's attempt to forcibly take over South Ossetia last Thursday. The whole discussion of the topic pretty much broke down into endless repetition of "Russia BAD; Georgia GOOD".

Whether Russia planned military action or not is irrelevant. Tensions had clearly been building over the years and Russian government prepared a response as any government would do. It is undeniable that Georgian assault on South Ossetia last Thursday was the proximate cause of Russia's involvement. By launching the attack, and indeed by directly attacking Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia, Georgia forced Russia's hand.

Do you really believe that if America was in Russia's place it would sit idly by when its peacekeeping troops were attacked? Clearly not (Somalia?)

Technically speaking, Abhazians and South Ossetians are Russian citizens. Yes, there is not a shred of doubt that Russia granted passports to these people with cynical motives. No doubt this was done just so that Russia could have the opportunity to argue, as they did, that that it was only protecting Russian nationals in South Ossetia.

Given all of this, Mikheil Saakashvili's attempt to wrest South Ossetia by force seems just unimaginably stupid. Indeed, given Economist’s typically biased reporting on Russia it was refreshing that it referred to Mikheil Saakashvili's military adventure as "foolish" and "criminal". The question that remains to be asked, however, is whether it was wise for President Bush to cultivate Georgia (and Ukraine) as a NATO candidate.

While Georgia and Ukraine are sovereign nations and certainly can choose to enter NATO, NATO members should well realize that the membership of these countries is dangerous. It's dangerous because these countries are still politically immature (Saakashvili's actions speak for themselves) and have serious territorial and political disputes (notably with Russia). Does NATO want its members to intentionally embroil it in a war? Clearly not.

Even more so, the reason why NATO itself should be hesitant about admitting Ukraine and Georgia is that these countries' membership in NATO is quite clearly feared by Russia above all else. The Russian government and people fear that their country is being encircled by a hostile alliance. Who's to say that this fear of NATO is unfounded? This fear is indeed very well founded because the countries that have the absolutely worst relationship with Russia are the ones who are most eager to join NATO. You may say that these countries seek NATO membership because they want to be protected from Russia, and that surely is true. However, this just proves the point that NATO, as an alliance, is still aimed at protecting the European continent from “the beast from the East” and that the alliance is indeed hostile to Russia.

It is remarkable that President Bush, and the West in general, does not appear to understand that like Georgia, Russia is also a sovereign nation and has its own near and dear political and security issues. The reason Russia is lashing out now is because it feels threatened, like a cornered animal.


NATO is badly overextended. Had Georgia been a member, American and the European voters would have strangled at birth any idea of a confrontation with Russia over a country whose well-being is not vital to their interests. The Baltic countries should be aware that the same applies to them, notwithstanding NATO membership. Weak countries at the periphery of the strong must seek a modus vivendi and not trumpet defiance on the assumption that they can pull the political levers of faraway friends--or even allies.


Herron33"Had Georgia been a member, American and the European voters would have strangled at birth any idea of a confrontation with Russia over a country whose well-being is not vital to their interests."Was Kosovo "vital to their interests."?

Eugene Savoy

Let's have a little dose of reality here:

Georgia was foolish and is paying the price.

Russia is and always has been variously despotic, cruel, backward and brutish.

The U.S. spends $500B/year on defence and has bases and forces that essentially encircle the Russian mainland

The differential in GDP between the U.S. and Russia is laughable. Russia cannot go toe-to-toe with the U.S. in a direct conflict and must necessarily back out of Georgia.

The Russian armed forces are primarily a glorified death squad riven with ethnic factions whose primary tactic is disregard for civilian suffering. They have rudimentary intelligence, communications and logistics operations which are the foundation stones for any effective military force.

Only in a raw dictatorship (yes, i said it) can the population be so easily controlled from dissent and can a military act with such impunity.

The Russians' have always been stupidly oafish in executing foreign policy and this is another in a glorious line or idiotic moves. They want that Georgian pipeline shut down come hell or high water.



The big difference between Iraq and Georgia is that Saddam had plenty of warning and plenty of time to change his ways. How many chances was Georgia given?

Without the US and Britain, NATO is a joke and Russia knows it. The other NATO countries need to militarize in order to balance Russia's power in that part of the world.



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

