Western big brothers should be thankful to Saakashvili. Had the crisis in the Caucasus not emerged, Russia was ready to challenge the West in Eastern Europe. Saakashvili forced Russia's hand early. The world, undoubtedly, is different after the Caucasus crisis. The current economic crisis exhibits the first sign of this difference. The behaviour of European states shows that they are searching for alternatives to the transatlantic relations.
Controversy aside, the fact remains that the adventurous policy of Saakashvili placed both the European Union and Georgia's non-EU Black Sea neighbours, Turkey and Ukraine, in a difficult situation. First, let us examine the situation from the perspective of Turkey. Traditionally, Ankara was forced to choose between Russian market and the pressures from Washington. However, since 1991, the situation has altered. After the threat from the north disappeared, Turkey had a chance to make its system more open. Today it is impossible for Turkey to revert back to its old balancing act. Consequently, Turkey faces a quandary in its foreign and economic policy. Moreover, Turkey is one of the states that are under pressure from the United States for agreeing to Georgia's immediate accession to NATO. However, accession of Georgia without the resolution of its internal problems is a breach of NATO rules. Therefore, Turkey might use its veto right in this matter, which will be a historic decision.
When we examine the problem in Ukraine, we observe some similarities. Ukraine's relations with the West, and vice versa, intersect at Georgia. The accession of both states to NATO and the EU is considered together. Therefore, the crisis in Georgia directly affected Ukraine. The EU member states, which are also NATO members, started to drag their feet on the accession of Ukraine and Georgia to the Western club in the aftermath of the crisis.
Ukrain's real predicament lies in the Crimea. According to Moscow, Crimea was given to Soviet Ukraine as a gift for reunification and is a Russian territory and a significant gateway to the South. Ukrainian government is frightfully cognizant of this. Investigation conducted by the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding citizens who acquired double citizenship in Crimea is the first sign of this fear.
Currently, Crimea is divided into three ethnic parts:
Tatars
Ukrainians
Russians

Tatars

Tatars who returned to their homeland after the great exile found everything changed. The Ukrainian government had given away their lands and houses to others. Today, Tatars want their rightful lands and houses back. However, neither Kiev nor the Crimean government agrees to the Tartar demand. Meanwhile, the number of returning Tatars is increasing by the day. New comers are obliged to live in shacks that are built on state lands. Ukrainian government uses force to remove Tatars from these lands. This sometimes causes armed clashes. Moreover, "non-functional" offices were given to the Tatars in the Crimea Autonomous government. Thus the Tatars lack representation in the decision-making mechanisms.
Although the majority of the peninsula is Christian, Tatars are Muslim. This is a serious clash point. Decision to build a park on a spot where Tatars wanted to build a mosque was enough for the initiation of street fights. Furthermore, young Tatars have started to slip towards Islamic radicalism. Various radical groups are increasing their influence via exploiting weaknesses in Ukrainian laws. Radical groups also control most of the mosques.
Ukrainians argue that the current autonomy of Crimea should be abolished and Crimea should be tied to Kiev. On the other hand, Russians in the peninsula claim that Crimea is Russian territory and should be annexed to Moscow. Parties, MPs and even some ministers in the Crimean government actively work for the latter goal. However, the Russians see independence of Crimea from Ukraine as a more realistic option. Here, there is a convergence of interests of Russians and Crimean Tatars.
Like Crimea, the rest of Ukraine is also divided. Parties that are sharing power in Kiev are divided among themselves. Yuschenko follows completely pro-western policies. His comrade Timoshenko is no longer with him. Yanukovich has closer ties to Moscow than Kiev. Half of the Ukrainian people are supporting Yuschenko's pro-western block, while the other half supports pro-Russian parties. Those who live in the western cities of Ukraine support Yuschenko's policy, while those who live in the eastern cities feel closer to Russia. The locomotive cities of Ukrainian economy, starting with Donetsk, are located in the east. People living in these cities are relatively wealthier than those in the west and complain about interference from Kiev.
In case of a serious crisis between Russia and Ukraine, separation of eastern Ukraine can become the top item on the agenda. Forces that are working for the independence of Crimea could expel Ukrainians from the peninsula. Kiev, should it lose the east and Crimea, would be left with the poverty stricken west.

Georgia's Example

The government in Kiev should learn some lessons from Saakashvili who has dragged his country into military, political and economic depression. Russia is withdrawing its investment in Georgia. ITERA dominates the gas distribution network in Georgia. Moreover, processing factories for Georgian mines are under the control of Russian businessmen. The Gurbunskaya factory is just one example. Russian businessmen started to withdraw their investments in the Georgian energy sector, 90 percent of which was controlled by them, starting with the hydroelectric and gas turbine power plants. Withdrawal of Russian investment would deepen Georgia's crisis in foreign currency reserves and exchange markets. The annual cost of Russian limitation on money transfers to Georgia would be 1.2 billion dollars.
Ukraine wants to use its strategic advantage of being the energy corridor to Europe. However, Ukraine should carefully examine Georgia's fate. Today, Georgia is not a safe country for the transportation of oil and gas. The future of NABUCCO and BTE is uncertain. At the recent summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Georgia was declared to be "risky" in energy transportation for Central Asia and Caspian states.
A significant gap has emerged in Georgia's export and payment balance. National income decreased, inflation increased and economic development slowed. Standard & Poor's lowered Georgia's credit from B+ to B and C after crisis in Caucasus. Moody's stated that their expectation of sovereign funds to Georgia is negative.
Georgia started to use foreign currency and gold reserves to support foreign exchange rates. The Georgian National Bank was forbidden to announce its gold and foreign currency reserves. The one billion dollars that was put into FENIX for Georgia's rescue is a far cry from meeting its requirement for foreign exchange.
The examples of crisis in Caucasia and Georgia are before Ukraine. Kiev has limited options at its disposal to avert a similar fate. Economic depression and political divisions can translate into uprisings and result in the partition of Ukraine. We should be cognizant of the fact that today this danger is closer than ever before.