Sergei Khrushchev, son of former Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev and senior fellow in international studies at the Watson Institute for International Studies, analyzed the recent Russia-Georgia conflict last night in a lecture to an over-capacity Salomon 001.
The lecture was the first of the year for the Brown International Organization lecture series, co-sponsored by the Watson Institute.
Khrushchev used the history of the Caucasus and the Balkan Peninsula to give the conflict a context beyond perceived Russian expansionism.
He started by recounting the history of both the Caucasus region, where Georgia is located, and the Balkan Peninsula, beginning with the schism between Roman Catholicism and Christian Orthodoxy.
In light of the various empires that have ruled the two respective regions, Khrushchev asked, "Who has the right of independence? Or do we preserve borders? Whose borders?"
Americans and Russians often consider only their own interests in Georgia, he said, not considering internal conditions in the region. Analysis of the Russia-Georgia conflict "is part of our reflection on ourselves," Khrushchev said.
"In reality," Khrushchev said, "We don't know who is the master of this game. Is it the great countries giving orders to the governments of small countries? Or is it the small countries manipulating the great powers?"
The rest of his lecture focused on the history of the highly disputed region of South Ossetia.
"About 100 percent of South Ossetians became Russian citizens" following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Khrushchev said, but "Georgia wants to take ... (South Ossetia) back under their control." But the issue is further complicated because "South Ossetians are not united with North Ossetians," and the leader of South Ossetia does not wish to join with Russia.
The story of South Ossetia, Khrushchev said, "is the story of a people who decided that they do not want to live with you. It is like your wife coming to you with the papers saying, 'I need divorce.'"
"What is (the) future?" Khrushchev asked in conclusion. "Future is murky."
In the question-and-answer section, Khrushchev dismissed the notion that the conflict signaled the beginning of a new Cold War. "It will not be the Cold War because Russia lost their position" of power, he said, and added that the European Union, China and India are more likely to be future global powers than Russia is.
Khrushchev attributed the fear of a new Cold War to the United States' "nostalgia for the old enemy." Now, he said, "President Bush ... will fight 100 years against some man sitting in a cave."
"The Cold War was about more serious things," he added.
Students had mixed responses to Khrushchev's lecture. Anthony Badami '11 said he felt that "Khrushchev was a softball pick" and that his lecture was only "engaging to the extent that it was entertaining."
"He made it sound like it was all some big misunderstanding" and "disregarded the geopolitical aspect of the conflict," Badami said. "The fact that he didn't even entertain that as an argument made his analysis a little superficial," he added.
Prerna Khanna '11 agreed. "It was a lot like a history lesson," she said. "There was no real insight into what was going on."
But Andrew Doty '12 said the lecture was "definitely" valuable. He cited the importance of hearing a new view about a foreign conflict.
"I think it's hugely important for people to be made aware that the situation is more complicated than just (current Russian Prime Minister) Vladimir Putin going in and beating up people just because he can," he said.
