Essential element. The role played by the EU in bringing the conflict between Georgia and Russia to a swift end has been recognised almost unanimously. If there had not been a European initiative, the conflict on the ground would have been extended, with more killing and injury, refugees and destruction. Member states did not always see things the same way, but they managed to reach a sufficiently balanced common position to allow Nicolas Sarkozy to act on behalf of them all. It was the EU that gained the immediate ceasefire and the commitment by both parties to the conflict to pull back to their earlier borders. The difficulties and blunders that then occurred in complying with these commitments must not make one forget the essential element: - the EU's ability to put an end to the conflict by acting on its own initiative, in an autonomous manner.

This is not a reality that is to everyone's liking. Some commentators say the EU should have come fully into line with the United States' position (which had already apparently called for the green light to be given to Georgia for its membership to NATO). Other commentators or self-proclaimed philosophers believed Russia should have given a far stronger response, going as far as to break off relations and to make threats of armed intervention. It is easy to take an extreme attitude and to strut about showing off firmness and courage when one has no responsibility of any kind. The risks are for the populations on the ground. Europe has shown its ability to take an effective initiative, differentiating itself from the United States when it comes to conflict responsibility, and hence to NATO's reaction and the future development of relations with Russia.

An eloquent communiqué. The reasons for the initial attack by Georgia on a territory controlled by the Russians remain incomprehensible. Could there have been a misunderstanding with the United States authorities (or between their respective secret services) about the degree of US protection possible? Or a mistaken assessment of the scale of the Russian response? Perhaps we shall know some day. The embarrassed explanations given by the Georgian president were not convincing. He provided Mr Putin with the opportunity he had perhaps dreamt of to act without being accused of aggression. The communiqué from the NATO ministerial session on 19 August is instructive. Let us not go back over the comments on this text, as each newspaper chose the interpretation that was closest to its own political leanings: - some placed emphasis on the phrase affirming that relations with Russia could never again be the same; others on the lack of any operational reaction. Most comments were determined by the political convictions of those writing the reports. The best thing to do in such cases is to make the full text available to readers so that everyone can form his or her own opinion. That is what we have done. The NATO communiqué is published in the special edition of 21 August in our specialised publication, Europe Diplomacy & Defence.

My only remarks are that the text: a) deplores the use of force in the given conflict, but makes no distinction between the responsibilities of the two sides; b) states that Russian military action was “disproportionate” (which seems to mean that, to some extent, it was justified); c) indicates that the Alliance is seriously studying the impact that Russia's action will have on NATO-Russia relations (without bringing into question the joint military cooperation body, which the United States said it wanted abolished or at any rate suspended); and d) states that Georgia's territorial integrity must be safeguarded. On this last point, Moscow was sufficiently shrewd to avoid any territorial claims, simply giving its assurance that it will comply with any decision taken by the populations concerned. It has already begun to act along these lines by recognising their independence. It is not easy for the EU to criticise this, after having recognised the independence of Kosovo …

Forced indignation. With regard to point c), Russia then announced the suspension of all military cooperation operations and the United States defined this measure as “untimely and deplorable” although it had earlier called for NATO to adopt it! In my opinion, this confirms that we are witnessing a battle of substantially token declarations and stances, with affected indignation not only on the Russian side but also on the American side. It is fortunate that the EU is there with its standpoint in favour of balance and appeasement. Cooperation with Russia is essential, and the provocations that sometimes make it difficult or that hinder it are reciprocal - those of the Americans no less than those of the Russians.

An overview of events during August must also take account of the repercussions that this will have on the EU's institutional working and on the energy aspect. I shall come to this tomorrow and the day after.

(F.R.)