Is Georgia really Europe's east as many commentators now declare? Where does Europe stop and Asia begin and more specifically, where does the concept of the EU become not European but an ideal that should be strived for irrespective of the history and traditions of the nations who seek membership. In fact where should the Commission in Brussels draw the line?
Taking the last point first; the time has now been reached where the open- ended anyone can join policy' as set out in the founding document of the EU is changed. The EU cannot go on expanding forever and this should be made very clear to all countries, not just those that are aspirant. There are many nations with traditions and histories very different from the European cultural continuum that now seek closer ties with a view to eventual membership; however this ignores the fact that western-style democracy is not the only stable form of government and there are many arguments against its practise in many regions of the world, destabilisation of civil society being one of the most important.
For the acceptance of western-style democracy, there at least needs to be a tradition that adheres to the basic precepts, where this does not exist or is opposed not just by the government elites but many within the civil population then this should be recognised and state administrations be allowed to configure their own government model. This is not to say that there should be no input from the western ideal but this input should be offered by way of advice if asked for but never imposed or given gratuitously.
Liberal capitalism does not suit every society and to try to impose these alien values increases the likelihood of civil society unrest and backlash at some time in the future. Similarly the issue of continuing United States involvement in the European international arena, surely the time has come to grant the US observer status only. The use of Europe by the US as its front line has passed and institutions such as NATO need to properly re-define their core missions within their original remit and not seek ever widening expansion provoking confrontation and conflict. It needs to be remembered when dealing with Russia that in modern times, all major threats to the country have come from the West and this fact conditions the nation's psyche perhaps allowing the country to perceive threats where none really exist. It is however a potent force that needs addressing, not by continued minor provocations but by understanding, thereby gaining a more useful dialogue.
The fact, first acknowledged by the Western media and then dismissed, that Georgia initiated the present conflict has once again become peripheral. There was no substantial reason for the Georgians to invade South Ossetia as relations between the two countries had been progressing favourably from the very low point reached during 2006/7. An ongoing dialogue with the various interested parties was being maintained, much as the Russians disliked the regime of Mikheil Sakashvilli. Of the South Ossetia population of 70,000 only a minority were Georgians however the two groups had no major domestic issues separating them and relations between the two groups were by and large cordial.
Parallels with Kosovo are hard to ignore despite claims in the mainstream Western media and by Western governments, which of course have a vested interest in divorcing the two situations. Kosovo gained its independence through US and partners military intervention backed by diplomatic acquiescence from the EU. This probably increased the impact of Serb retaliation against the Kosovo Albanians which led to many atrocities that otherwise may not have been committed. Had the Russians wanted they could have easily at this time recognised as independent or perhaps incorporated into the Russian Federation the three disputed regions of Georgia namely South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Abjaria. They chose not to do so.
The action of Georgia and the, to be expected, reaction to it by Russia has not only destabilised the surrounding region once again but has created effects that will impact adversely on many of the other states on the periphery of the Russian Federation. We are starting to see this, the Poles have quickly agreed to the stationing of US missiles on their territory and the Czechs again actively considering the placement of radar facilities these require. Although not targeted at the Russians, which I am sure the Russians know, it is hardly likely to help the diplomatic dialogue.
It has also once again raised the spectre of the division of Ukraine and the entitlement of Ukraine to the Crimea not just the ceding back to Ukraine of the Sevastopol naval base in 2017. Issues regarding Moldova and Transdniestra are likely to go on the back burner for a very long time. I am sure the Chinese are taking note of the events and learning the appropriate lessons.