RSS

The trip to Kiev and Tbilisi made by the new US Vice President Joe Biden last week was the second part of a new US policy towards Eastern Europe, following the meeting in Moscow two weeks ago between US President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.

The clearest and most public statements Biden made drove home three points: first, the US rejects the idea of Russian zones of influence in the countries of the former Soviet Union; second, it will stand up for the territorial integrity of the two states; and finally, it will continue to be open in principle to their integration into Euro-Atlantic structures. That means that the new US policy includes the theoretical possibility of Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO. With this statement of principles, Obama and Biden continue the line set by the former US administration under George W. Bush.

At the same time, they set a new tone for future policy - a tone which could best be heard in the less public messages Biden delivered in both Kiev and Tbilisi. In these speeches, he avoided setting any concrete timetable or deadline for the two countries' accession to NATO. Biden's real message was a different one from that delivered in his more public statements.

The US will continue to support the sovereignty of both Ukraine and Georgia, but the new start for relations with Moscow has to go together with a new start in relations with Kiev and Tbilisi. President Bush's policy towards Eastern Europe was aimed at keeping Russia in check. That led to massive support for Ukraine and Georgia - a support that was exploited above all by President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia.

President Obama wants to liberate the US from this dependence on Ukraine and Georgia, especially since the presidents of the two countries, Saakashvili and Viktor Jushchenko, are both under domestic political pressure. Furthermore, NATO accession is domestically controversial, at least in Ukraine. In any case, NATO accession only makes sense if both countries are ready for it and the people are prepared to support it.

The premise behind US policy in the countries of the former Soviet Union is no longer the need to contain Russia at any cost. Rather, the US is focusing on the desirability of activating a partnership with Russia for the benefit of its global policy objectives, especially in Afghanistan and Iran. Ukraine and Georgia can continue to rely on US support, but they will be less able to exert pressure on US policy. That was the bitter - but appropriate - message Biden brought to Yushchenko and Saakashvili.

Ingo Mannteufel is the Head of the Russian Service of Deutsche Welle.

Related Materials from the Atlantic Community:

• Andreas Umland: Is Ukraine Heading for a Post Revolution Disaster?
• Fabian Martin Lieschke: How to Extend NATO's MAP to Georgia and Ukraine
• Expert Survey: A Future with Russia as a Strategic Partner?

July 28, 2009

Miguel Nunes Silva

• 3
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

One wonders if Saakashvili understood it:

"in America, you can find lots of cynics and realpolitik followers. But idealists ultimately run the show." - Mikhail Saakashvili

July 28, 2009

Julia Follick, Georgetown University, Gold Contributor (129)

• 2
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

That is certainly an interesting quote in this context, Miguel, but I wonder when it was said. It rings very true for America under the Bush administration, but less so under Obama (so far).

If Saakashvili said this before 2009, I would say it was perceptive, and telling, and fits perfectly with the thesis of this piece. If after, then maybe you're right that Saakshvili didn't get the message that US relations towards Georgia are about to get more realistic... or maybe what Biden said to him behind closed doors leads him to believe that that real message was in fact more along the lines of the clearest public statements. Without a little more context, it's hard to say.

July 28, 2009

Hennadiy A. Kovalenko, Ministry of Defence of Ukraine, Bronze Contributor (23)

• 2
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Mr Mannteufel, thanks for the article.

Could you be so kind to give an example how the States can be depended on Ukraine?

In principle, I agree with the messages which were sent by Mr Biden here, in Kyiv. But we should not forget that the Russians find the border of its influence by practical actins. You can prove that statement by analyzing conflict in August 2008.

So the most dangerous consequences from new RF-USA relations for Ukraine and Georgia will be “untied hands” feeling in Kremlin.

July 28, 2009

Stefanie Jennifer Tetenburg, King's College London, Silver Contributor (58)

• 4
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Although vice-president Biden made it evident in his statement that the U.S. strongly rejects Russia's notion of spheres of influence, the U.S. new stance of no longer regarding Ukraine and Georgia as counterweighst againt Russia, begs the question whether this will not further weaken Georgia's already unstable government (in the aftermath of the5-day Russo-Georgian war) and help Moscow make the Georgian case into an example of an unsuccesful experiment of Western democracy.

And even though there's now a theoretical possibility for Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO, Russia is well aware that this is not likely to happen in the absence of a timeline, especially with France and Germany already having signalled their opposotion to 'both countries' entry to NATO.

Although it's clear that the U.S. has a lot tof potential gains from improved relations with Moscow (especially with regards to its policy in Afghanistan and Iraq) Georgia may have a lot to lose.

July 28, 2009

amarjyoti acharya

• 3
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

The idea of the dependence of the USA on Ukraine of course is less that of a technical one and perhaps more of its other reasons: of its concerns and its encouragement of democratic states and forces in Europe. That has always been the stated aims of the US as its moral platform.

The idea of dependence is not a welcome one for any state, since the notion of a state is tied inextricably with the attendant and cognate notion and concept of sovereignty. With all due respects to a globalized world that still has a state system and shall continue to have so for a long time to come - the notion and concept of state and its sovereignty are inseparable ones, whether one likes it or not.

Given the very crucial issues of identity and belonging - the two currencies currently at play in the world and the state being a serious provider of them amidst the realities of states with very differing ranges of capabilities - the notion of "partnership of equals" that Russia seems to have enjoined and promoting holds enough salience for any state.

The idea of a peaceful world is important and that which allows the world to grow and co-exist as states - till humans learn to live as global citizens - as one distant dream of many perhaps!

The idea and notion of inter-dependence is a valid one in a globalized world as is the idea and notion of the modern state and its sovereignty.

Perhaps it augurs better to have the notion of "partnership-of-equals" between states that are close to one another in the physical sense along with states that a globalized world has brought closer! One does hope to see a maturity of outlook in inter-state behaviour that perhaps helps one less in terms of looking at inter-state behaviour as those merely determined by "imagined sentiments" - just like the notion of "imagined communities" of Benedict Andersen is a more real one. For sentiments between intentional entities like states (similar and yet is unlike relations between human individuals) entail a certain commonality of values.

Tags: | inter-state relations | NATO | Peace |

July 29, 2009

Benjamin Schuman-Stoler, George Washington University, Moment Magazine, (8)

• 2
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Ms. Tetenburg,

I agree with you that the US might be tipping their hand in favor of Russia at Georgia's expense right now, but I'm not sure that it is such a bad thing. Indeed, I think that shift was entirely deliberate.

The Obama administration has signaled the desire to reconcile and work with the major global forces, and surely Obama's cautious words in Russia earlier this month is proof that they are willing to overlook some of the darker things going on there right now in favor of such reconciliation.

It is true the war in Georgia was tragic, but the democracy-at-all-costs attitude of the US is gone now. Obama made that clear in his Cairo speech.

The Obama administration, it seems, is betting that cooperation with Russia now will make the entire region safer and closer to complete democracy in the long run. It is a risk that is hard for some to take, especially neoconservatives and Bush-esque democracy pushers in the States.

It's my opinion that because eight years of the hard line approach didn't work, trying something new cannot hurt.

July 29, 2009

Unregistered User

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

There is a "real world" and there is a "media created world" that is the world created by media reports. Are those two worlds always the same? Do media reports mirror the real world? Or do media reports mirror interests of their owners/editors?

In other words, to what extend does media created world mirror the real world and to what extend does media created world mirror interests of media owners/editors?

Those thoughts came to my mind upon reading some posts.

Tags: | USA Russia |

July 29, 2009

Alexey Krasnov, London School of Economics , Bronze Contributor (21)

• 2
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

As a matter of fact, the US is running the world since the end of the Cold War and, whether it likes it or not, to be successful in this mission the US has to take into consideration positions of the other important players, such as the EU, Russia, China, etc. We all witnessed the global rise of anti-Americanism during the Bush years, which should remind us of how unproductive reliance on idealism might become when not enough followers are enlisted, both among the people and the Governments of other states.

Obama Administration has learnt the lesson. It understands that the US is an indispensable power but not an omnipresent one and can't solve all the world's problems unilaterally. In fact, the US is now behaving like a responsible and realistic leader of the world. It sets the right priorities in global affairs and looks for adequate partners to maximise achievements. If some countries are left behind in this quest for the world's stability, it's too bad for them. Maybe, their time simply has not come yet. Places like Iran and Afghanistan are much more pressing issues nowadays. That's the reality!

Without doubt, unequivocal turn towards Russia and against the so-called 'young democracies' of the post-Soviet space will be harmful for American reputation as a principal defender of Western values and Biden's rhetoric in public meetings is fully in line with common sense. At the same time, it is also obvious that realpolitik has captured the minds in Washington and nothing close to blind support of the Bush years can be expected. First, post-Soviet space is not the US highest priority if looked at through the prism of pragmatism and not idealism, typical for the Bush years. Secondly, Russia can be cooperative when its security and international prestige are not challenged and this should be taken advantage of. Finally, it has to be admitted that democratic projects were not completely successful in these countries (Saakashvili's regime gradually evolved into quasi-authoritarianism, while political crisis in Ukraine is seemingly endless) and any future support should be conditional on objective improvements.

I am not in a position to judge whether current realist stance of Obama Administration is morally good or bad, but in the world we now live in, it should be able to bring more benefits than blind promotion of Western ideology, especially in the places that are not ready to wholeheartedly accept it!

Tags: | Obama | US | Russia | Georgia | Ukraine |

July 29, 2009

Kazim

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

There is a "real world" and there is a "media created world" that is the world created by media reports. Are those two worlds always the same? Do media reports mirror the real world? Or do media reports mirror interests of their owners/editors?

In other words, to what extend does media created world mirror the real world and to what extend does media created world mirror interests of media owners/editors?

Those thoughts came to my mind upon reading some posts.

Should we stay in the realm of the media created world or should we try to decifer a real world behind it? Should we discuss and analyze what media tell us or should we discuss and analyze what actually happens?

I prefer the latter.

States act in their own interests.
What are Russian interests in Georgia?
About the same as American interests in Mexico or Cuba:
do not accept foreign military basis on your teritory,
don't be a base for activities directed at us.
You are several times poorer than we are (in case of Georgia and Russia 4 times).
So, do otherwise what you want.

Unfortunately, some people in USA want more power (a natural desire). Saakashvilli is willing to turn Georgia into an American base. Hence, a conflict between USA and Russia in Georgia.

Tags: | USA Russia |

July 30, 2009

Stefanie Jennifer Tetenburg, King's College London, Silver Contributor (58)

• 3
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Mr Schuman-Stoler,

I do agree with you that the new Obama administration approach is refreshing and could improve bilateral (with Russia) and multilateral relations (with the regios as a whole), especially in the long run It is also clear from Biden's speech (and his careful way of phrasing it), that the US is not turning its back on Gerogia or Ukraine and will continue to support both countries economically.

However, what I was pointing at was that president Saakashvili might even lose more popular support, as he in a sense has lost his 'strategic tit-for-tat alliance' with the U.S. Therefore I raised the question what outcomes the new U.S. approach will have for Georgia on the national level.

July 30, 2009

Benjamin Schuman-Stoler, George Washington University, Moment Magazine, (8)

• 2
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Ms. Tetenburg,

I found a NYTimes article from recently that I think pertains to this discussion. Here's a link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/world/europe/27georgia.html

I think it's interesting that the article pins Saakashvili's diminishing popularity on his actions during and immediately after the war.

Also, it mentions the large protests against Saakashvili even before Biden's visit, pointing to his rather substantial unpopularity.

Considering the lack of public support behind him now, do you think he's even the best person for the job? Is it really such a tragedy if his influence is undermined at the moment?

July 30, 2009

Stefanie Jennifer Tetenburg, King's College London, Silver Contributor (58)

• 2
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Mr Schuman-Stoler, thank you for pointing me to this useful article.

You make a good point: Mr Saakashvali has been incompetent in dealing with his countries problems, notably its high unemployment and his at times authoritarian manner of dealing with dissent.

But as the article states, all opposition leaders have made eager attempts to gain Washington’s support but ‘the opposition was leaderless and split over tactics’. Therefore, if Mr Saakashvalis government were to crumble, it’s highly uncertain what the outcome would be.
Clearly this is also in line with Washington’s new strategy, of no longer claiming to know what type of government is best for a given country (i.e. no longer imposing democracy).

At present my major concern is with the Georgian people who are paying the price for the political turmoil. They need and will demand tangible action in the next few months. Without any doubt Mr Saakashvili will now realise that it’s time to take responsibility and his only way to survive will be to ‘look after ordinary people’. But if he fails to deliver, the opposition will hopefully have had enough time to align their strategies and thereby offer a viable alternative.

July 30, 2009

Miguel Nunes Silva, ..., (3)

• 2
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Ms Follick,



I agree, Obama has shown himself a disciple of Brzezinski.


The quote was from a statement by Saakashvili himself, after his "chat" with VP Biden...


Perhaps facing reality is too painful?...

August 30, 2009

João Vargas

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Sure, standing up for Ukraine and Georgia may seem like a noble cause, however it is becoming very unfeasable.

Yuschenko is a hopeless uncharismatic sitting duck and his future in the Ukraine's upper political echelons has been sealed for good because of his disastrous years in power. The upcoming presidential elections in the Ukraine already has a clear outcome: Timoshenko and Yanukovich will be holding the seats of power; no matter who wins, one will be President and the other will be Prime Minister and both will need to cooperate with each other on an official de jure level in order to keep the country together.

Both have been capable of constructively interfacing with Russia. Given the Ukraine's political culture of high-level squabbling and infighting, this places the Putin-Medvedev duo in an optimal position to become the Ukraine's Gray Cardinals, arbitrating disputes and ensuring the country remains fractured and dependent on Russia.

Europe, for its sake, will be disillusioned with the expropriation and waste of its investments and efforts in the Ukraine due to high-level squabbling and corruption. No wonder it is pushing foward with all US and Russian-backed pipelines (South Stream, North Stream and Nabucco) that circumvents the Ukraine. Once these pipelines are up and ready within the next 2-3 years and no Russian gas is transiting to Europe anymore via the Ukraine, Brussels won't be compelled to provide mediation when Russia and the Ukraine engage in another gas war; homes in the EU will be nice and warm with gas being transited around the Ukraine.

As for Georgia, Russia has it exactly where it wants it to be: a rogue banana republic which has been Cypriotized for decades, unable to pull itself together to move towards any direction. US support for Saakashvili's goal on restoring the country's "territorial integrity" is quite comparable to North Korea's goal of reunifying the peninsula on its terms; this is nothing but political fantasy which has outlived its usefulness for any media air time.

Commenting has been deactivated in the archive. We appreciate your comments on our more recent articles at atlantic-community.org