Saakashvili's Challenge

[Vigil]

SAAKASHVILI'S CHALLENGE

 

Vedomosti

March 16, 2004

 

by Alexander Dugin

 

 

The deterioration of the situation around Adzharia, President Mikhail

Saakashvili's determination to reinforce the territorial integrity of

Georgia, the region's importance for Russia's national security - all

this merits some serious thinking in geopolitical terms. It is common

knowledge that Saakashvili's regime was installed in Tbilisi with

help from the United States, and George Soros in particular. What

does the American empire want from Georgia, which is small and

economically weak (even by CIS standards)?

 

Georgia is a focus point in the Great Game for reshaping the world.

As soon as the Cold War was over, the United States set out to build

a new world order - under its own management, needless to say. The

Caucasus is the region where the force lines of global politics

converge, and control over this region promises influence in the

Mideast, Turkey, Central Asia, and Russia.

 

This is the existing arrangement of geopolitical forces in the

region. Iran actively cooperates with Armenia, mostly because of the

problem of South Azerbaijan and official Azerbeijan pro-Turkey

stance. After all, Ankara is Tehran's foremost rival in the region.

Meanwhile, Turkey cooperates with Azerbaijan (this is where the mix

of ethnic, anti-Iranian, and anti-Armenian preferences comes into

play). Russia retains its military-strategic and political influence

with Armenia and economic influence with Azerbaijan. Georgia alone

remains a geopolitical element without clearly defined preferences or

foreign policy bearing points.

 

In fact, Tbilisi controls only a part of the territories that are

nominally Georgian. South Ossetia is undeniably pro-Russian. Abkhazia

is pro-Russian as well, even though Turkey's influence with that area

is steadily growing. Adzharia also looks to Russia (its Islamic

sector looks to Turkey). This is a new geopolitical phenomenon - the

so-called "ex-territorial zone of the Caucasus." This is precisely

what attracts the Americans. Controlling Tbilisi strategically, they

will be able to monitor geopolitical processes in three problematic

(for Washington) countries - Iran, Russia, and Turkey.

 

What makes these countries problematic for Washington? Iran is

regarded as part of the "axis of evil." Any military operation

against Iran would require a bridgehead, and Georgia is the ideal

choice.

 

>From the point of view of geopolitics, Russia as the nucleus of the

Euro-Asian continent is the natural adversary of Atlantism.

Recovering, it might become a rallying point for some post-Soviet

states, or even some more distant states, to create a Euro-Asian bloc

which would certainly be an obstacle to the plans for establishing

the American world order on the continent. Once again, Georgia is a

perfect instrument of influence over processes in the CIS and to some

extent even in Russia itself.

 

Finally, Turkey. Responding to the gradual loss of national

sovereignty (inevitable de facto with the development of the American

globalism) and to Washington's position on the matter of Northern

Cyprus, official Ankara is more and more openly seeking a strategic

partnership with Moscow. Some Turkish strategists even contemplate a

revision of relations with Tehran. National state is everything for

the Turks, and threats to its existence may force Ankara (and

particularly senior officers of the army) to take even the most

unexpected steps. The Americans saw the first indications of it in

Ankara's reaction to the Iraq conflict. Washington was never granted

permission to use Turkish military bases for the US Air Force flying

missions against Saddam Hussein's regime.

 

Georgia's conflicts with Muslim Abkhazia and Adzharia (the republic

giving preference to Turkey) make Washington view it as a convenient

instrument for putting pressure on its ally, whose loyalty is

becoming more and more questionable.

 

So the United States wants Georgia in order to control the Caucasus

and therefore to promote its own plans with regard to the Euro-Asian

continent. Official Washington does not want Eduard Shevardnadze the

pragmatist, with his endless hesitation. It wants a passionate

nationalist who will zealously promote America's geopolitical plans

on the regional level. Saakashvili is just the man for the job, and

Georgian society supports his determination to transform Georgia into

a national unitary state.

 

Georgian society perceived construction of a national state as

something proper and reasonable. In the geopolitical Great Game,

however, "sovereign Georgia" may only be a docile American colony

fighting its neighbors - openly or not - be they small (like

Azerbaijan and Armenia) or large (like Russia, Iran, Turkey).

 

Whom is Saakashvili aiming to challenge by dragging his people into a

confrontation with Aslan Abashidze, the pro-Russian and separatist

leader of Adzharia? He is challenging Moscow, Tehran, Ankara,

Yerevan, and Baku. In fact, however, Tbilisi is just a facade that

doesn't decide anything. The challenge is being issued from across

the ocean.

 

How can Russia respond to the "Adzharian challenge"? Only with a

fundamental geopolitical plan for the whole region, not only Georgia

or even the Caucasus as such. Moscow should offer the model of an

international formation with a central triangle

(Moscow-Tehran-Ankara) and additional axes (Moscow-Yerevan,

Moscow-Baku, Baku-Ankara, Yerevan-Tehran). Built properly and

promptly, this system of military-political alliances would lock

Georgia into the center of a formation of five major regional powers

striving for a security framework alternative to whatever Washington

might dish out for them.

 

Iran ought to safeguard itself against a potential strike from the

north, should the decision to repeat the Iraq scenario be made.

Russia has to regain its positions in the Caucasus and develop

relations of partnership with Tehran and Ankara.

 

As for Saakashvili's flamboyant pro-Russian bias, it should be

dismissed as insignificant. Even if Saakashvili really means it, it

does not really matter, not in terms of the Great Game being played.

Saakashvili is a hostage to the forces that raised him to the top and

regard him as a technocrat hired to perform a specific geopolitical

duty. By threatening Adzharia with an invasion, Saakashvili is

actually working against Russia's geopolitical interests.

Edited May 31, 2004 by Vigil

[Sasun]

Interesting article Vigil. Of course, Americans would not admit of causing trouble to the region. Istead they will say that they are for democracy and freedom, in the meantime let a conflict in Adjaria break out and the countries using the port of Batumi suffer losses and accept American hegemony.

 

As for Saakashvili's flamboyant pro-Russian bias, it should be

dismissed as insignificant.

This is odd, in what way has Saakashvili been pro-Russian???

Edited March 17, 2004 by Sasun

[Vigil]

This is odd, in what way has Saakashvili been pro-Russian???

 

I was wondering about this aswell, but I guess the writer means that he tries to play both sides, but eventually is still backed by Washington.

Edited May 31, 2004 by Vigil