Our proposals are so far remained unanswered

The leaders of the European Union met today in Brussels to discuss the situation in the Caucasus. We hope that they will be fair and measured conclusions. The world is made of interdependencies, the image of the close relationship between the Russia and the European Union. The conflict launched by Mikhail Saakashvili August 8, 2008 illustrated the fragility of this balance, which is based on our common efforts.

Unfortunately, during these seventeen years, Georgian leaders showed that they were preparing for violent actions to restore their control over South Ossetia and Abkhazia. In violation of previous agreements for peaceful resolution of tensions between these parties, decisions of the United Nations and the OSCE, Mikhail Saakashvili gave the order to bomb Tskhinvali in his sleep, the night of August 8, 2008, three hours after having announced a ceasefire, killing thus civilian and peacekeeping forces. We have irrefutable evidence that a similar action was planned in Abkhazia. Mikhail Saakashvili embarked Georgia, armed and trained by Western countries, in a military adventure which caused much suffering to the people of South Ossetia and Georgia.

When he was forced to stop its vain of conquest by the strength of this small Republic, Mikhail Saakashvili did everything to involve NATO and the European Union in a battle that has yet meaning that, in his eyes. He would like to believe that this conflict directly concerns the United States or even the future of the West as if a military offensive conducted by a Georgian President could argued defence of Western values! I hope that one of his counterparts will require that he does not shame to Europe.

The Russia has done all it can to promote a peaceful resolution of tensions. The Georgian aggression against South Ossetia has not only violated a ceasefire and all agreements already in force, but also destabilized the entire region. The conflict has also highlighted the inability and the disrespect of the Georgian Government for the people of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. These people do not see in the Georgia a guarantee of safety and survival. This is why we have no choice but to recognize the independence of these two republics. Recent events have shown that remain passive and wait from the mountains of the Caucasus Mikhail Saakashvili to go to war at a price of hundreds of human lives. What concerns us is that the United States and some European States have already begun to rearm the regime in Tbilisi, thus supporting its nationalistic orientation and his inclination for the force. From our point of view, it would impose an embargo on arms supplies to the Saakashvili Government.

The current crisis should be resolved without delay. We are grateful for the efforts of the French Presidency of the European Union, and we will continue to implement all the elements of the Medvedev-Sarkozy plan but we will not recognize its interpretation by Mikhail Saakashvili. It is regrettable that the Western countries, influenced by Saakashvili, have prevented an agreement of the Security Council of the United Nations on this plan. It has nevertheless been approved by the permanent Council of OSCE. Tbilisi must therefore implement, which means the withdrawal of Georgian troops in their bases in the first place.

The reconstruction of new barriers between the Russia and Europe, twenty years after the fall of the iron curtain, does not concern us. We are convinced that the France is in agreement with us on this point. However, a broad economic and security partnership cannot be built on egalitarian grounds, taking into account the interests of both parties.

Look to the future: Dimitri Medvedev and Vladimir Putin have several times proposed to discuss a new security architecture for Europe, a fair system of collective security for the Euro-Atlantic space. Our proposals are so far remained unanswered.

Last week, the extraordinary session of the NATO-Russia Council on the conflict in South Ossetia has cancelled the request of the United States. Shortly thereafter, the members of the Alliance decided to discontinue its activities. Can you find better illustration of the harm caused by "the NATO-centrism of European Affairs If it continues in this direction, NATO will be marginalized. Our partners really want to get this far

Many dangle the spectre of a new cold war, but we will not move in this direction. There are no objective reasons for this, and we will not do this favour to those who have an unhealthy imagination and only referring the clichés of the past. They will have to get out without us, and lead the confrontation in the virtual space of information.

One thing is certain: persist on the path of the anti-Russian provocations will disrupt our cooperation on many important issues. Moreover, as long as we'll talk not of equal to equal, NATO and the European Union are likely to find itself in an iconic position of the cold war: the tail that is moving the dog (on behalf of the clientele systems) and not the dog that is moving the tail.