Tag Archives: North Caucasus

David Siroky & Valeriy Dzutsev – Rational or Reckless? Georgia’s Zugzwang in the Caucasus


Although the 2008 Russian-Georgian war was a military defeat for Georgia, it has only reinforced Georgia’s westward trajectory. One noteworthy difference from Georgia’s pre-war policy is a new regional strategy – the North Caucasus Initiative – that seeks to create a soft power alternative to Russia’s military dominance in the region 다운로드. This approach is rational rather than reckless, as some critics have claimed. It represents a carefully calculated strategy that is already benefiting Georgia and from which all concerned parties, including Russia, stand to gain 다운로드.

Siroky, D. S., & Dzutsev, V. (2012). Rational or reckless? Georgia’s zugzwang in the Caucasus. Nationalities Papers, 40(3), 303-314 다운로드.


싹쓸이 다운로드

George Khelashvili – Georgia, Russia and the North Caucasus: Is Enmity What States Make of It?

This paper is an attempt to analyse the root causes of discord between Georgia and Russia that pertain to the politics of the North Caucasus. In the first section, an overview of the North Caucasus problem as existing since the late 1980s is given 다운로드. In the following section, the international political dimension of the Georgian-Russian squabble over the North Caucasus is analysed, followed by the domestic political and ideational factors that influence Georgian policy toward the North Caucasus 다운로드. Finally, a plausible basis for the solution of the North Caucasian problem is discussed, in the context of intensity of Georgian-Russian political disagreement 롤토체스 애드온.

Khelashvili, G. (2012). Georgia, Russia and the North Caucasus: Is Enmity What States Make of It? Center for Social Sciences, Tbilisi



George Khelashvili – Georgian Perceptions of the North Caucasus and of US-Russian Relations

The main argument of this paper is that neither the Georgian nor Russian government has changed its position in the conflict or its underlying assumptions about regional politics — this situation sets the “frozen” conflict on an unavoidable collision course over the next few years 다운로드. This danger is also due to a certain angle entertained by the current Georgian leadership in its confrontation with Russia as a response to the obvious power asymmetry between the two countries 스나이퍼 엘리트 다운로드. First, the Georgian government cautiously sought to undermine Russia’s authority in the North Caucasus. Second, Saakashvili apparently tried to re-open the rift in US-Russian relations in order to capitalize on the two great powers’ differences 다운로드. This paper examines underlying assumptions and possible implications of these two approaches.

Khelashvili, G. (2011). Georgian Perceptions of the North Caucasus and of U.S.-Russian Relations 다운로드. PONARS Eurasia Memo 148


Svante Cornell – Small Nations and Great Powers


The book introduces the geographical, historical and ethno-linguistic framework of the Caucasus, focusing on the Russian incorporation of the region, the root most conflicts lg스마트체 regular. The author analyses individual conflicts, from their origins to the attempts at resolving them; evaluates the role of the three regional powers (Turkey, Iran and Russia); and sets out a synthesis of the Caucasian conflicts and a conclusion on the place of the Caucasus in world affairs 스플라이스 다운로드.

Cornell, S. (2001). Small Nations and Great Powers. A Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict in the Caucasus. Surrey, England: Curzon

See on Google Books

Neil MacFarlane – Georgia: National Security Concept versus National Security

Political messaging overpowers strategic analysis in Georgia’s National Security Concept 옥탑방 다운로드. Despite having some strengths, it also contains many weaknesses, including disregard of important risks, misunderstanding of threats and generation of unrealistic expectations, which leads to overlooking real obstacles and creation of unnecessary friction with other states 갓오브 곡괭이.

MacFarlane, N. (2012). Georgia: National Security Concept versus National Security 다운로드. Russia and Eurasia Programme Paper REP PP 2012/01. Chatham House, London