The statement by Vladimir Putin that federalism under Soviet Union made for peace maintenance in the South Caucasus better than nationalisms (region’s populace) corresponds to the facts, The Independent daily reads. According to the newspaper, the objective of Russian Premier in the South Caucasus “is more of damage limitation than expansion,” and “Russia's Georgian enclaves are not assets, but liabilities.”

Abkhazians and Ossetians are not Georgians and the opposite statements by Mikheil Saakashvili just pour oil on the flames. “Nor are they, for the most part, Russians. The Caucasus is a kaleidoscope of ethnicities,” the daily says.

“Looking at the wider geopolitics: to the south-east lies the Armenian enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh, on paper a part of Azerbaijan but, like Abkhazia and South Ossetia, as well as Armenia itself, effectively under Russian military protection. Given the dreadful history of the region, these nations could do a lot worse than having Mr Strongman-in-Moscow in the background.

Instead of continuing the foolhardy policy of arming Georgia, NATO countries could consider reviving the old idea, briefly tried after the Russian Revolution, of a Transcaucasian Federation. This might have been a formidable negotiating block at Versailles, with the Federation acting as a buffer in the Great Game between the empires of Russia, Turkey, Persia and, in those days, Britain. Then, as now, the prize was Azeri oil.

Unfortunately, in the spring of 1918, Georgia and Azerbaijan concluded that Turkey and Germany were winning the war, and dumped Armenia, which was forced unwillingly to declare independence. The eventual result was the Bolshevik-Kemalist carve-up, and they all lost.

A Transcaucasian Federation, with open internal borders and freedom of resettlement, just might have attractions for Mr Putin, as well as for the EU,” The Independent concludes.