The messy and disputatious aftermath of the war over South Ossetia promises to be as unsettling as the short and nasty armed conflict itself. What started in a corner of the corner of the Caucasus is being factored in to the calculations of diplomats, politicians and military leaders worldwide. Much attention is focusing on Russian policy and ambitions: was its Georgia campaign a one-off, or a template for a grander strategy of seeking vulnerable pressure-points in its "near abroad" so that it can expand its influence? Many analysts too examine the role in relation to Georgia of a United States distracted by electoral politics and financial crisis but determined not to cede power in a country it has long cultivated.
Europe's role in the conflict is equally intriguing, however. Two openDemocracy contributors look at what the European Union might learn from the war and contribute to a longer-term settlement in the Caucasus and in other regions of conflict on its own periphery. Paul Gillespie of the Irish Times suggests that the EU needs to refine its "external policy" in ways that emphasise the differences between its use of power and that of Washington: "In several major respects the emergent EU strategy is pitched against US policy in a context where US unilateralism is losing its strength."
Krzysztof Bobinski of Unia & Polska, meanwhile, notes the tendency of Polish media to retreat into comfortable stereotypes of European infirmity and Russian strength. But look closer, he advises: from Ukraine to Turkey and Finland to Poland itself, the post-war weeks have brought a series of unexpected developments. Europe is on the move; it's time to pay attention. "Europe since the armed confrontation of August 2008 ended has become a more interesting place. Clear eyes and open minds will be needed if it is to become a safer place too."
