VZCZCXRO0296
RR RUEHIK
DE RUEHMO #2518/01 2751520
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 021520Z OCT 09
FM AMEMBASSY MOSCOW
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 4979
INFO RUEHXD/MOSCOW POLITICAL COLLECTIVE
RUCNCIS/CIS COLLECTIVE
RUEHZG/NATO EU COLLECTIVE
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC
RUEKDIA/DIA WASHDC
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 MOSCOW 002518 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958:  N/A 
TAGS: PREL PGOV EU GG RS
 
SUBJECT: Did Russia and Georgia both lose the war? 
 
MOSCOW 00002518  001.2 OF 002 
 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary:   Official Russia hailed the EU's report on the 
August 2008 Georgia war, considering the core conclusion to be that 
Georgia started the armed hostilities.  Duma and Federation Council 
officials reacted similarly, claiming the report called Russia's 
actions "legitimate."  Analysts recognized that both Georgia and 
Russia were criticized, with Kommersant noting that the report 
rejected Moscow's justification for its armed interference, and 
Vedomosti adding that the report cited Russia for setting up the 
prerequisites for the war.  On politcom.ru, Sergey Markedonov 
praised the report for destroying the "black and white" depiction of 
the war, and ending Russia's "demonization."  End Summary. 
 
--------------- 
Official Russia 
--------------- 
 
¶2.  (SBU) In public statements, Russian officials unanimously 
welcomed the EU's Report of the Independent International 
Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia, released on 
September 30.  President Medvedev's press-secretary Natalya Timakova 
said that Russia hailed the conclusion on who launched the first 
attack, while the MFA on its website echoed statements to the press 
by DFM Karasin that the "core conclusion" of the report was the 
current leadership of Georgia "unleashed the aggression against 
South Ossetia," and noted that the report named the countries that 
had armed and trained the Georgian army.  However, the MFA claimed 
that the report contained a number of ambiguities, reflecting the 
"politicized approach of many EU countries."  In particular, the MFA 
rejected the conclusion that Russia had made a disproportionate use 
of force. 
 
¶3.  (SBU) In public remarks, Russian Ambassador to the EU Vladimir 
Chizhov praised the conclusion that Georgia had started the 
conflict, while Russian Ambassador to NATO Dmitriy Rogozin noted 
that, had Russia been accused of that aggression, a broad discussion 
would have started in Brussels. 
 
¶4.  (SBU) Independent-minded Deputy Russian Ombudsman Ambassador 
Georgiy Kunadze, whose last name betrays his Georgian ethnicity, was 
among the most skeptical commentators.  Publicly stating that the 
report "meant nothing," he charged Europe wanted Russia to renounce 
its recognition of the breakaway republics.  However, "Russian 
citizenship" of South Ossetians could not be considered as 
legitimate.  He called on Russia to compromise with Europe, as the 
Georgian problem could only be resolved through cooperation. 
 
--------------------------- 
Duma and Federation Council 
--------------------------- 
 
¶5.  (SBU) In public remarks, Chairman of the State Duma Foreign 
Affairs Committee Konstantin Kosachev called the report the first to 
qualify Georgia's actions as "unsanctioned aggression," while 
calling Russia's "legitimate."  He was supported by Federation 
Council Foreign Affair Committee Chairman colleague Mikhail 
Margelov, who praised Brussels' "thorough and rational approach." 
Deputy Chairman of the State Duma CIS Committee Konstantin Zatulin 
accused anti-Russian forces of "trying to condemn Russia," while 
Head of State Duma LDPR Faction Igor Lebedev publicly called the 
report "Europe's cowardly effort not to spoil relations with either 
the U.S. or Russia." 
 
-------- 
Analysts 
-------- 
 
¶6.  (SBU) Stating that neither Moscow nor Tbilisi were able to 
convince Europe they were right in August 2008, Kommersant newspaper 
acknowledged that the report contained a number of conclusions 
unpleasant for both Georgia and Russia.  Noting that the report 
accused Russia of launching aggressive action against a sovereign 
state and encouraging ethnic cleansing in South Ossetia, Kommersant 
pointed out that the report rejected all the points Moscow had made 
to justify its armed interference.  The paper continued to say that 
the real question should be what to do next, as Georgian IDPs still 
had no hope of returning to their homes, no one fully understood 
what is going on in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, where Russian 
assistance money disappeared while destruction remained, and Russia 
refused to talk about it. 
 
¶7.  (SBU) Vedomosti newspaper agreed that the report's main 
conclusion was that Georgia fired the first shot, but added that the 
report cited Russia for setting up the prerequisites for the war. 
Vyacheslav Nikonov, president of the Politika foundation and a 
 
MOSCOW 00002518  002.2 OF 002 
 
 
member of the Russian Public Chamber, told the press that the 
report's conclusions showed the number of Saakashvili supporters in 
the EU had "dropped dramatically," crowing that Europe had admitted 
that Tbilisi had the "biggest minus" by starting the armed 
conflict. 
 
¶8.  (SBU) Sergey Markedonov from the Institute for Political and 
Military Analysis thought in an article on politcom.ru that official 
Moscow was not satisfied that the report did not pick up Russia's 
political vocabulary such as "Georgian aggression," or "genocide of 
Ossetians."  The main merits of the commission's report, he argued, 
were the destruction of the "black and white" depiction of the war, 
and the end of Russia's "demonization." 
 
BEYRLE