For those who hoped that the inauguration of the new President of the Russian Federation, Dmitry Medvedev, will bring about a liberal thaw, I have bad news: according to The Economist, Medved, in Russian, means bear. Which is exactly how Russia has been acting in the past few weeks. As anticipated, a string of events, such as Kosovo’s independence, Georgia and Ukraine’s bid to join NATO, coupled with the power transition at the Kremlin, all conspired to boost the aggressiveness of Russia’s foreign policies.

Take, for instance the 9 May military parade in Moscow, the first one of its sort since the fall of the Soviet Union, timed to show the West that Russia is still serious about regaining its erstwhile power, and that just because it appointed [sic!] a supposedly liberal President, it isn’t about to go soft where it matters most.

In other words, the bear is still alive and kicking. Kicking hard, that is, especially in the region known as ‘Russia’s soft under belly’, i.e., the South Caucasus. Russia has recently taken serios steps toward recognizing Georgia’s breakaway region of Abkhazia, shot down several Georgian drones [albeit never recognizing it] and, most worryingly, boosted its troop numbers in the Abkhaz region.

Officially, the story goes like this: worried by supposed Georgian troop deployment at the Abkhaz border, Russia [who provides 'peace-keeping' forces that fly the CIS banner] stepped up its military presence in the region. The move was supposedly intended to preclude a Georgian military incursion into the breakaway republic.

To be fair, Georgia has been undergoing a serious military modernization process, benefitting from significant assistance from the US, and its military is nowadays quite modern and flexible. Moreover, in the past, Tbilisi has displayed the tendency to take an aggressive stance toward its breakaway republics, not shying away from using bellicose rhetoric or shifting troops toward the de facto borders.

Yet Russia’s argument is, in this case, complete bogus. Georgia is due to hold parliamentary election on Wednesday, May 21. It needs to election process to go as smooth as possible, without any risky sideshows. On a free and fair conduct of the elections hinge Tbilisi’s hopes for obtaining the NATO Membership Action Plan at the December Ministerial Meeting. Swaying countries like Germany, who openly opposed Georgia’s entry into NATO at Bucharest, requires a solid boost in Tbilisi’s democratic credentials.

Georgia has a lot to lose in the event of a renewed conflict in Abkhazia. Russia’s actions should be viewed, in this context, as acts of provocation, of muscle-flexing by the Kremlin. The risk of conflict in Abkhazia is still high, and a lot will demand on the amount of restraint exercised by the Georgian military.

Things will be a lot clearer after the parliamentary elections in Georgia, including Georgia’s chances of joining NATO. Regardless of the outcome, however, there is one thing that Tbilisi should be aware of: if it joins NATO, several years from today, it may well leave Abkhazia behind.

For a concise, correct if somewhat shallow commentary of recent developments in Georgia, see this article in The Economist.

Below is a commentary of an American friend currently living in Georgia:

I haven’t heard anything here that you can’t see online. I don’t think there will be war though really. Not many people here seem to be worried about a conflict starting. It doesn’t seem to be in either side’s interests to have a conflict really, unless Georgia can come away looking like the victim of the big bullying neighbor Russia. I have faith that both sides will find ways to avoid serious conflict for the time being at least. The one thing that is a little troublesome is that this would theoretically be the best time for Russia to initiate a conflict as the new president in Russia wants to assert himself and, in true Russian style, show his strength, and also because the US is distracted with the elections and Bush really has very little sway as a Lame Duck President from now until next January. So, I guess logically speaking I don’t see the benefits for either side leading to conflict but then again applying logic to this part of the world when it comes to geopolitics can be utterly worthless really.