Left Flank

Foreign Policy asks Clifford Kupchan, director for Europe and Eurasia at the Eurasia Group illuminates the debate about the Georgia-Russia clash.

FP: Are there any means with which Europe and the United States can punish Russia economically and politically now? Do you see that happening?

CK: We have very little leverage. The headline measures that you read about - throwing them out of the G-8, denying membership to the OECD, stopping WTO negotiations - won’t be very effective. Frankly, I don’t think the Russians really care about the G-8, and the WTO requires a bilateral agreement with Georgia, so that’s not likely.

There are steps we can take to push back, though. The Russians have a very proud elite. I think that over time the U.S. will curtail the number of bilateral meetings and some European countries will go along. «Ostracism» is too strong [a word]...[it’s more like] «selective avoidance.» No more military exercises. I think the strongest measure, which could and maybe should be on the table, is a sober discussion of the run-up to the 2014 Sochi Olympics, which are a crown jewel in Russia’s planning.

We’re still in the early days, and the Untied States will, I think, help reconstruct Georgia will help reconstruct the Georgian security forces. We don’t know what the endgame is going to be yet, so I think jumping to conclusions on what the United States can and should is premature. But are there things we will do? Yes? Are there things we can do? Yes? Can we punish Russia economically? No. Are there things that would make Russia chafe at least somewhat? Yes. That’s my best answer.

Again, the Olympics will remain a political tool, not a symbol of peace.

Another prediction concerns the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline.

FP: What does this mean for the Trans-Caspian gas pipeline? Is it effectively dead now?

CK: The chances before were slim to none. Now they’re nudging toward none. From economic to producer-country to environmental reasons, there’ve been tremendous problems over a decade in getting that line built. This does drive another nail into the chances for that line.

Ironically, PRC might be a beneficiary of BTC's demise, as hydrocarbons flow either through Russian pipes, or east. Perhaps we should be asking what Beijing might have known about the preparations for this episode.

Again, another international organization, or talking shop, butts its head against vested interests.

FP: Many analysts say the G-8 no
longer adequately reflects the global power structure. How long will it
be before you can bring rising economies such as China, India, and
Brazil to the table and away from the sidelines?

LB: I think that the Japanese could do it in
three days if they wanted to. But they don't. They are very resistant
to it. I would hope that sometime between this year and the time the
new American president has a chance to host [2012], that there is a G13
or something along those lines.

FP: Is this feasible? Will that making reaching other agreements more difficult?

LB: Absolutely. But it's essential to make
resolution more meaningful. You cannot have a meaningful resolution on
climate without having India and China at the table. You can't have a
meaningful resolution on issues associated with energy and food price
increases if you don't have Brazil, and again India, China and other
major rising economies at the table. Here we are, we've got probably
the most significant set of economic challenges that we've had facing
the leading economies, probably since the 1970s, and yet this time
around the (now) G-8 is not the right group to solve these problems.

How about an Anti-G? A Mini-5?