Powers vie for influence in Georgia

Steven Eke
BBC regional analyst

Some Russian commentators have suggested that the change of regime in Georgia was engineered by Washington, in accordance with a blueprint previously tried in Yugoslavia (successfully) and Belarus (unsuccessfully).

Shevardnadze (right) quit after Russian mediated talks

It is a theory that finds backing among other critics of US foreign policy.

The argument goes like this: as corruption and poverty grew in Georgia, and as Mr Shevardnadze's flirting with Russia became warmer, "regime change" became increasingly desirable.

This view is inextricably linked with oil. It is based on the idea that the US commercial interest in a new pipeline from the Caspian to the West means ensuring a friendly and compliant regime in Tbilisi.

Faltering reforms

But oil aside, Washington has always seen the South Caucasus as a zone of strategic interest - long before the pipeline was even conceived.

The politicians in the ascendancy in the new Georgia are even more pro-western than Mr Shevardnadze Georgia keeps sights on West US welcomes new leaders

It is, after all, at the cross-roads of Europe and Asia, Russia and the Middle East.

Eduard Shevardnadze's Georgia received generous financial support from Washington.

But the money was pocketed by officials.

When it began to look as though Georgia could become another hotspot on the global terror map, Washington decided it was time to review its relationship with Tbilisi.

In recent months, a string of high-profile US envoys visited Georgia, telling the leadership that reform was faltering.

Waning influence

Russia did not like Mr Shevardnadze much. Indeed, parts of the Russian establishment simply hated him

For some, it was the fact that he was one of the architects of the end of the Soviet state. For others, the fact he ruled a small country that had thrown Russia out after a long period of colonial domination.

Certainly, much of Mr Shevardnadze's political mindset was grounded in reducing Russian influence over his country.

After the Soviet Union collapsed, it appeared that Russia would be unable to re-assert that influence over Georgia.

But Moscow found ways to do so - supporting separatist regimes in Abkhazia and Ajaria, exerting economic pressure, threatening direct intervention over the presence of Chechen rebels in the Pankisi Gorge.

Over the last year, Russia has slowly begun to re-assert its influence in many parts of the former Soviet Union.

There is no surging anti-Russian sentiment in Georgia - but few Georgians would want to see their country re-incorporated into another Greater Russian empire.

Failed state

In his first comments, Mr Putin did not seem particularly pleased at events in Georgia.

He was keen to stress his hope that Georgia's new regime will help restore what he called the "traditional friendship" between Russia and Georgia.

But he is likely to be disappointed. The politicians in the ascendancy in the new Georgia - opposition leader Mikhail Saakashvili and the Acting President Nino Burdzhanadze - are even more pro-western than Mr Shevardnadze.

As Georgia establishes a new regime and prepares for fresh elections, the battle for influence over Georgia between Russia and the United States will intensify.

But whichever great power backs Georgia, they risk taking on a poisoned chalice.

Of all the former Soviet republics, Georgia is the closest thing to a failed state - divided, volatile and poor, with scarcely functioning institutions.