VZCZCXRO1639
OO RUEHAG RUEHAST RUEHDA RUEHDF RUEHFL RUEHIK RUEHKW RUEHLA RUEHLN
RUEHLZ RUEHPOD RUEHROV RUEHSR RUEHVK RUEHYG
DE RUEHMO #2428/01 2281136
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 151136Z AUG 08
FM AMEMBASSY MOSCOW
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 9526
INFO RUEHSI/AMEMBASSY TBILISI PRIORITY 3883
RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHXD/MOSCOW POLITICAL COLLECTIVE PRIORITY

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 MOSCOW 002428 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PBTS PINR PINS PNAT PREL GG RS
SUBJECT: TFGG01: Russian media declares war over - now what? 
 
REF: A)MOSCOW 2343, B)MOSCOW 2366, C)MOSCOW 2383 D) MOSCOW 2407 
 
¶1.  (SBU) Summary: The Russian media decreased its coverage of the 
South Ossetian conflict, shifting the focus to a post-game analysis 
of the war.  Many media reports examined the future of U.S.-Russian 
relations after the conflict, responding to statements by President 
Bush and other senior USG officials.   Several outlets have opined 
that Europe may prove to be a more sympathetic partner to Moscow 
than Washington.   The print press offered a wider, more balanced 
view of the conflict, including limited criticism of specific 
Russian actions (while remaining convinced that Russia acted 
correctly.)  Other outlets speculated on the futures of South 
Ossetia and Abkhazia and Georgian president Saakashvili.  End 
Summary. 
 
A defeat for Washington? 
------------------------ 
 
¶2.  (SBU) Most Russian media continued to portray the conflict in 
South Ossetia and Georgia as one between Washington and Moscow, with 
Moscow winning this round, although President Bush's statement on 
sending a humanitarian mission to the region was interpreted as a 
means of supporting Saakashvili rather than to alleviate human 
suffering.  Many news outlets saw a chillier relationship between 
the U.S. and Russia in the immediate future.  Statements by SecDef 
Gates and Secretary Rice received much play, although some 
newspapers (such as Gazeta, a liberal paper) did note the U.S. 
emphasis against another cold war.  Channel One, a state-owned 
broadcaster, ignored such nuances and declared that a "diplomatic 
war" was in effect between Washington and Moscow. 
 
¶3. (SBU)  Broadcast news and print emphasized President Medvedev's 
role as commander-in-chief, featuring him in the Kremlin meeting 
with generals and other high-ranking military officers, and 
announced that he had signed a decree authorizing the awarding of 
medals for combat during the conflict. 
 
A place for Europe? 
------------------- 
 
¶4. (SBU) In light of this perceived standoff between the U.S. and 
Russia, Russian media looked to Europe as a possible ally in this 
"diplomatic war."  Nezavisimaya Gazeta, a centrist newspaper, 
predicted increased influence for France as a result of French 
President Sarkozy's mediation efforts and dismissed any threat to 
Russia within the EU from the "Tbilisi quartet" (Poland and the 
Baltic States.)  Reporting of the meeting between Russian President 
Medvedev and German Chancellor Merkel, the pro-Kremlin newspaper 
Izvestiya declared Russia to have more "solid and predictable" 
relations with Europe than the U.S.  Mikhail Leontyev, a popular 
anti-American television political pundit, saw Turkey as NATO's 
"weakest link" and felt the South Ossetian conflict might be a way 
of prying Ankara away from Washington's influence. 
 
More balanced coverage all around, but critiques only 
in print 
--------------------------------------------- -------- 
 
¶5. (SBU) Nezavisimaya Gazeta ran an op-ed piece criticizing the 
Russian military for using out of date equipment and tactics from 
the Cold War, unsuited for current warfare.  Gazeta also ran an 
article critical of Russian military performance in the Caucasus. 
Vedomosti, an independent paper, went even further and said the war 
was fought for the benefit of Russian state energy monopolies.  It 
said Russian foreign policy "smacks of cynicism and double 
standards" when it calls for Saakashvili to go on trial for war 
crimes but uses criminal methods in Chechnya.  However, such 
commentary is found only in print media, not/not on television.  The 
coverage, however, did not question Russia's fundamental right to 
intervene in Georgia, and simply looked critically at aspects of the 
operation and policy. 
 
Future of the region and Saakashvili? 
------------------------------------- 
 
¶6. (SBU) The meeting between the leaders of South Ossetia, Abkhazia, 
and President Medvedev headlined news reports and topped the news 
hours, showing images of the Kremlin warmly receiving the leaders of 
the two break-away republics,. .  Both Izvestiya and Nezavisimaya 
Gazeta noted that Russia would support any decision made by these 
republics regarding their future status but within the framework of 
international law.  Izvestiya made clear that "... it's too early to 
draw a new map of the Caucasus.  Medvedev (although indirectly) has 
made it understood: that unlike the Western partners (in Kosovo), 
Russia will act according to the law." 
 
¶7.  (SBU) The frenzied attacks on Saakashvili and slowed down, but a 
unanimous consensus on his criminality, his status as an American 
puppet, and the level of destruction the people of South Ossetia 
suffered at his hands remained.  Media continued to run stories on 
 
MOSCOW 00002428  002 OF 002 
 
 
the South Ossetian victims of the conflict, with South Ossetian 
leader Kokoyty declaring on Channel One and Rossiya TV that 
"genocide" was committed against the Ossetian people.