First off, I would like to reject any notion of the Georgian leader’s psychological ill health or any particular irrationality of his. Unfortunately, we often try to link our failure to understand a given politician’s motives with the absence of outwardly rational motives for his conduct. First of all, since August 2008, the Georgian president has spoken more than once about the «Russian threat.»
On the eve of the new year 2010, Saakashvili visited the new national guard building, where he declared histrionically that every man must know how to defend the homeland. At the time he also stated that the representatives of the fairer sex should master military skills to perfection, and every village should be an unassailable point on the enemy’s path. He has solidly privatized this topic and does not want to share it with the opposition. And although the Georgian leader’s opponents are weakened today, it is extremely important for him to retain the leading positions on the patriotic field. Let us not forget that constitutional reform is moving forward in Georgia.
In the course of these transformations, Saakashvili’s move to the post of head of the national government after his presidential term runs out in 2013 cannot be ruled out. In this regard there is reason for a new outburst of dissatisfaction with his actions. Hence the old desire to present critics of the regime as agents of foreign influence and himself as a consistent patriot thinking about the «country’s de-occupation» and its «liberation.» Say what you like, but Saakashvili is brilliant at playing the patriotic card, as was shown by his actions both before the August war and after it was over.
Recognition of these abilities of his was the string of summer visits to Georgia by high-ranking American and European politicians. I would like to note that these visits also have an indirect connection to the new attack of bellicose rhetoric in Saakashvili. Let me make one qualification right away. Unlike many Russian journalists and experts, the article’s author is not inclined to see Western visitors as «instigators of a new war.» However, one must bear in mind the existing asymmetry of perception of the situation in Washington and Brussels, on the one hand, and in Tbilisi, on the other. The Georgian leader is used to interpreting anything positive said to him as full support for his actions. And if the West, with all its stipulations and conditions, has decided that the current president is simply the most suitable partner to deal with in Georgia (in view of the major suitability problems of his opponents), then Saakashvili might have felt that «the good old days,» when Tbilisi was Washington’s pet, had returned. Hence the bellicose zeal that has overtaken him again. Actually, having the experience of 2008 behind us, it would not be a bad idea to give some thought to whether generous advances should be issued to a Georgian leader who in order to resolve his own power objectives has no objections whatsoever to butting heads with major geopolitical players.
Sergey Markedonov is a visiting fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC.
