Trend European Desk Commentator Elmira Tariverdiyeva
Last week left to the anniversary of the Russian-Georgian war has caused new aggravation in the region on the border of South Ossetia.
The year, passed since launching of the operation Clean field, turned out to teach sides of the conflict nothing. Though, if one turns back, it is clear that five-day war between Georgia and South Ossetia with intervention of Russian military forces did not bring parties of the conflict any benefits.
The main result of five-day war was complication of Russian-Western relations, deep political crisis in Georgia, worsening of economic situation in the region and thousands of Tshenvali's civilians died as a result of the conflict.
Not only internal territorial disputes within Georgia caused war, as well as Russian constant attempts to establish special relations with two Georgian regions.
Main Bickford's fuse for the military conflict was Georgian confidence in unconditional support of the West even tough measures to prevent collapse of Georgia.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited Tbilisi early July 2008. Former Defense Minister of Georgia Gia Karkarashvili concluded that Rice urged representatives of the Georgian authorities that Russia will not dare to invade Georgia.
Later, in an interview with France Press, Rice admitted that President Saakashvili's decision, was not surprise for George Bush's administration.
However, even the West did not expect how Russia will react on operation Clean field. Afterwards, this reaction will be called disproportionate use of force. EU, NATO and the USA condemned military intervention of the Russian military men, which alienated Russia's relations with the West in August 2008.
After a year tension reduced. Moreover, the West relies on Russia as a partner in anti-terror operation in Afghanistan. And new NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, took his office and called on the alliance tostrategic partnership with Russia. But he called on Moscow to respect sovereignty of Ukraine and Georgia.
British The Guardian reported that new NATO Secretary-General called on the alliance to strategic partnership with Russia almost a year after war in Georgia caused great cooling of relations between Moscow and the West over the last 20 years.
Though relations between Russia, EU and the USA are restored, Moscow lost a lot of points after August events, causing again mistrust and undermining its image of a strong regional player. No country in the former Soviet Union, remembering Georgian experience will not trust the Kremlin easily.
Russia for the first time after the Cold War clearly claimed about itself as a major force in the Caucasus region, force, however, unpredictable for the West, and not winning anybody's trust. It would be naive to think that current armistice with Russia will force the West to forget about August intervention of Russian troops in the conflict in Georgia.
Situation after August 2008 can not be called easy for the Georgian leadership. August 2008 played role of catalyst of rapid political processes within Georgia.
Several opposition parties stood against President's actions, making him responsible for lost Georgian territory. Unexampled campaign of opposition calling for resignation of President Saakashvili lasted two months from April 9, 2009.
Another catastrophic moment for Tbilisi was that military action and political situation in Georgia postponed Georgia's willingness to join the Alliance for a few years.
NATO can not admit the country involved in protracted territorial disputes. Neither the USA nor Europe are ready to take such responsibility.
Finally, Russian-Georgian war was failure of several political illusions: unconditional support and protection of overseas power of Caucasian people's authorities, desire of the West not to take into account interests of the Kremlin and Russia's desire to become decisive player in the Caucasus region.
All sides of the conflict approached the anniversary of the war with their losses. Otto Bismarck said that woe is for a statesman who does not care to find a cause for war, which still retain its importance after the war.