Jonavicius, Laurynas

English

Policy Documentation Center

Who can overcome violence in Georgia? 
 
Laurynas Jonavičius, Eastern Europe Studies Centre 
 
 
Military actions usually come to an end either when one of the belligerents arrives at the ultimate 
victory, or when both belligerents decide to make peace, or when a third force arises in order to 
make the belligerents seek peaceful resolution of the discord. Today the events in Georgia testify 
to an obvious war. This car is not merely a traditional one, i.e. that of armed forces. Warfare of 
no lesser importance is taking place in the information space in pursuit of revealing the 
information which is more beneficial to one of the militants. Who could (should) stop this 
bloodshed and nonsensical killing of innocent people? 
 
The case that one of the militants will arrive at a convincing ultimate victory, i.e., will destroy the 
opponent, as of now seems unrealistic primarily due to the fact that the Georgian army is 
physically incapable of destroying the Russian forces, which are several tens of times the size of 
the former. On the other hand, it is most unlikely that Russia itself will resort to extreme 
measures, viz., the destruction of Georgia as a state, which would inevitably give rise to the 
response of other states of the world and could lead to, if not the third world war, then to a large-
scale military conflict, a quite harmful one to Russia.  
 
As an outcome of the shooting war, conciliation cannot be considered a great prospect either, 
especially having in mind voluntary conciliation and buring in the past recriminatory insults. It is 
hard to expect that, having failed to reach a compromise for over a decade, the sides could 
manage to do so in a few days. In this sense a truce would become nothing but a prolongation of 
the agony, which would not resolve the conflict and would only postpone its resolution.  
However, even the truce can hardly be imagined without a third party intervention. 
 
It looks like the conflict in Georgia may be stopped and moreover, the existing status quo may be 
changed only given the assistance of the international community. Russians and Georgians 
themselves cannot agree with each other, even though attempts to do so, at least from the 
Georgian side, have been made for many years. So far there have been no results. One could list 
a substantial number of reasons why conflicts with Abkhazia and South Ossetia are so 
complicated.  The labyrinth of ethnic disagreements, historical grievances, geopolitical ambitions 
and economic goals is too confusing for Georgians, Russians, Abkhazians and Ossetians who all 
have been wandering in it for a long time.  
 
Up till now the international community has not really responded to the conflict. Diplomatic 
announcements and pleas to cease fire and sit down at the negotiations table are not to be counted 
due to the virtual absence of real effect. It is hard to believe that a Georgian would agree to lay 
down his arms and stop fighting to entrust the destiny of the freedom and honour of his people 
and country to the UN Security Council, one of whose members is Russia... Yet it is the 
international community who is the only actor capable of and obliged to stop the war. This has to 
be done within the few following days; otherwise Georgia might not only face the loss of part of 
its territories and death of hundreds of soldiers, but also suffer a humanitarian catastrophe, which 
might end up in the state disappearing from the map of the world. Although Russia claims that it 
bombs only strategic and military objects in Georgia, not every rocket falls where it is directed. 
The destruction of major ports, air ports, roads and factories is not only a blow to the military 
power of the enemy, but also poses danger to the lives of all civil inhabitants of the country.  
 
Both the United Nations and the European Union claim that they advocate international peace, 
peaceful populace and seek to punish any aggressors. Unfortunately, the world has repeatedly 
seen that good intentions remain intentions. While the international community engages in 
lengthy negotiations in New York or Brussels, innocent inhabitants die, schools and hospitals are 
destroyed, and the image of the international community itself suffers a particularly painful blow. 
I think that many Georgians and even Ossetians ask themselves whether it is worth to entrust 
their destiny to the hands of those who in a week merely manage to announce a pile of 
declarations, but do not make any practically useful steps.  
 
It is possible that by breaking into Tskhinvali, Georgians essentially sought to draw the attention 
of the international community and thus make it get down to the resolution of the long-standing 
problem.  Assessing the situation in Georgia, one can argue that only the introduction of peace 
enforcement forces may give stimulus to the peaceful resolution of conflict.  In a situation where 
„peace“ is created and maintained by one of the belligerents, one can hardly expect that both 
sides will come away with a positive outcome.  This is perhaps the most significant reason in 
allowing one to maintain that the international peace enforcement and, in the course of time, 
peacekeeping forces, have to be introduced to Georgia. Another important reason to justify this 
step is the image and status of the international community itself. Both the United Nations and 
the European Union have long been criticized for inefficiency in ensuring the declared goal of 
world peace. One more failure of the international community to demonstrate that it is a serious 
guarantor of peace and stability, will result not only in another blow to the credibility of the UN 
and the EU, but will also prove the statement that the world still resides in the realpolitik and 
Cold War politics. This world has no room for values and morale, while selfish interests based on 
the principle „an eye for an eye“ are pursued.  To put it simply, we still bear existence in the 
environment „everybody‘s war against everybody“ and can fall victim to a greater and stronger 
agressor at any time. No room is left for trust and collaboration, yet fear, uncertainty, and distrust 
prevail.  
 
Finally, today the events in the battlefield are not the only factor determining the attitude towards 
the problem. Information coming from that battlefield is a factor of similar, if not greater, weight 
and importance. For example, Russia is disseminating information through all possible channels 
that Georgia carries out an act of genocide i.e., kills peaceful Ossetians, in South Ossetia.  If we 
regarded the situation exclusively from the viewpoint of the Russian mass media, Georgia would 
appear as the greatest military aggressor and the worst state in the world. Similarly, assessment 
of the events based exclusively on Georgian information would provide a totally different view. 
Yet neither perspective would be objective and just. Therefore, the need to assess the situation 
objectively is the third argument in favour of the introduction of international peace enforcement 
and peacekeeping forces. From this viewpoint the trip of Petras Vaitiekunas, Lithuanian Foreign 
Minister, to Georgia was a proper and much needed step, as it is much easier to assess the 
situation based on facts obtained directly on-site rather than on the subjective mass media. 
However, even the information provided by Foreign Minister cannot be absolutely reliable, since 
he is not involved in direct military actions and cannot say whether Georgian combatants do kill 
peaceful Ossetians, whether there are any „dark-skinned and fair-haired“ among the defeated 
Georgians, as claimed by Eduard Kokoity, and whether Russian troops have really crossed the 
South Ossetia border or not. Only international peacemakers could answer these questions.  
 
In order to send an international peacekeeping mission to Georgia, the international community 
has to reach an agreement. So far there is none. Today the main task for Lithuania, which 
presents itself as Georgia‘s representative and advocate in the West, is to urge this agreement by 
all possible means. It may well be that the upcoming decision of the international community will 
determine the future of Georgia. In the light of Russia‘s controversies (and, according to the 
Russian envoy to the UN, even victimization), only a firm position of the West may recover 
confidence and re-establish peace. If such agreement is not to be achieved, one is in for hit-or-
miss blackmail, brute force, and callous selfishness.  
 
 


Who can overcome violence in Georgia?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Policy Documentation Center