Some of the best running commentary on the War of South Ossetia has been that produced by Bernhard at Moon of Alabama over recent days. Including this post today. What I find particularly useful about Bernhard’s blogging is his ability both to keep up with diverse news sources and to reveal to “western” readers the biases that are often deeply embedded in our MSM’s coverage of the events. For the latter, see some of what he wrote here.
Today, the NYT’s James Traub had a lengthy piece on the Ossetian war. It provided a lot of deep background about the decades-old disputes between Georgia and Russia (but actually, not a whole lot more than you can get in Wikipedia); and it noted, quite rightly, the relationship between Russia’s support for the self-rule of the South Ossetians (and Abkhazians) and the recognition that many western nations recently gave to the “independence” of Kosovo.
There are a large number of structural parallels between these cases, as well as a causal relationship. (Parallels, too, with the campaigns many westerners have supported for the breakaway of Iraqi Kurdistan and Darfur from the countries of which they are currently part.)
Traub’s piece is, however, plagued by being confined within the same occidocentric bubble that Bernhard does such a good job of identifying and puncturing. For example, Traub repeatedly refers to westerners “getting it” when they come to share his own judgment that Putin’s Russia is aggressive and hostile. (So much for “objectivity”!) And in his last graf, he writes this:
- One party has all the hard power it could want, the other all the soft.
I’m assuming he means it’s the Russians who have all the hard power, and the Georgians who have all the soft power?
Well, perhaps inside the NYT bubble things look like that. (“Harsh Russian aggressors! Poor, long-suffering Georgian victims!”) But in the rest of the world– and almost certainly within Russia itself — they probably look very different, or perhaps even the reverse of that. There have certainly been civilian victims of Georgian military power within South Ossetia, and Georgian civilian victims of Russian military power within Georgia. But you can bet that in the Russian media, only the former have been given the spotlight; just as in the NYT’s reporting today there were three prominent photos of Georgian victims surveying the results of Russian bombing (one of them on the front page), and only one photo of Ossetian victims of Georgian bombing. This, though the wire-service reporting seems to indicate that there have been much greater numbers of victims in S. Ossetia than in Georgia.
Well, it is hard at this point to know the precise numbers of victims on either side. But it’s not hard to conclude that Traub’s judgment about the relevant distribution of hard power and soft is quite misleading.
It’s interesting, too, to see that Haaretz reported today that,
- Jewish Georgian Minister Temur Yakobshvili on Sunday praised the Israel Defense Forces for its role in training Georgian troops and said Israel should be proud of its military might, in an interview with Army Radio.
“Israel should be proud of its military which trained Georgian soldiers,” Yakobashvili told Army Radio in Hebrew, referring to a private Israeli group Georgia had hired.
… Yakobashvili said that a small group of Georgian soldiers had able to wipe out an entire Russian military division due to this training.
H’mm. That sure sounds like some Georgian access to hard power, to me. As do the reports of Georgia getting SAM-5 missiles from Ukraine… Also, I wonder how those revelations in Haaretz might affect Israel’s long-tended relations with Moscow?
Well, despite Yakobashvili’s crowing, it seems the Georgian government took enough of a drubbing from its massive northern neighbor that it is now eager to sue for peace.
The final outcome on the ground from this nasty and damaging little war are still far from clear. But some of the broader implications for world politics of what has been happening are already emerging:
- 1. The “west” is hopelessly over-stretched, what with all its current commitments of troops in Iraq, a crisis-ridden Afghanistan, and (still) in the Balkans. Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili was most likely relying to a great extent on the NATO forces pulling his chestnuts out of the Ossetian fire if they should start to burn there. But NATO is in absolutely no position to do that. All the US could do to give him any concrete help was to gather up and return to his country the 2,000 Georgian troops who had previously part of their occupation coalition in Iraq. That airlift is happening right now. But it will do little to affect the balance on the ground in the Caucasus, while it will certainly cause considerable disruptions to the US project in Iraq.
2. Russia is coming back as a force to be reckoned with in world politics. This is no longer the 1990s– which for Russians was an era of economic mega-crisis, dismemberment, and rampantly atrocious (mis-)governance. The Russia of the years ahead will not have the great weight in world politics of the Soviet era. But neither will it be the confused, resource-starved pygmy of the Yeltsin era.
3. Westerners who thought they could easily redraw international boundaries as they pleased, without consequence for their own interests, will have to rethink the wisdom of that tactic. The national boundaries drawn up and laid down in, basically, the post-1945 era, are in many places highly imperfect. (Especially throughout Africa!) But the system of boundaries and sovereignty that they represent acquired its own logic, however imperfect. Tinker with one, and the whole system threatens to unravel. I tried to argue that point– among others– back in February, when I expressed my criticism of the move that many western nations made toward recognizing (and even encouraging) the Kosovars’ declaration of independence. Lots of food for thought there for the Iraqi Kurds, too…
This latter point about the wisdom of the tendency many westerners have shown in recent years to encourage secessionist movements– especially those seeking to secede from countries they disapprove of— is worth a lot more exploration. Back in February, Russia’s leaders were quite explicit in warning that if western nations proceeded with backing Kosovar independence, then they might well push for a similar outcome for Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Putin and Medvedev had also repeatedly expressed their deep concern at the prospect that NATO might extend membership to both Georgia (and Ukraine.) So Saakashvili should have known he was playing with fire when, earlier this week, he ordered his security forces to “retake South Ossetia by force”, thus breaking the Sochi Agreement of 1992, which gave responsibility for public security in the S. O. region to a Russian-commanded peacekeeping force.
That would be equivalent, in Kosovo, to Serbia sending in its armed forces to seize control of Kosovo from the western-dominated peacekeeping force that’s currently in control there.
(Worth reading about present-day Kosovo, by the way, is this depressing piece of reporting by Jeremy Harding in the LRB. He writes, “No one would have imagined that a UN protectorate in Europe, stuffed with NGOs and awash with donor receipts, could perform so badly. Kosovo has low growth, no inflation, and few signs of an emerging economy… In Kosovo every scam and indignity, from the protection of ex-KLA war criminals down, is common knowledge…” Under its new banner of “independence”, Kosovo doesn’t quite seem to have become the land of milk and honey that some people predicted?)
But back to Saakashvili. He seems to have miscalculated, rather badly. The west that was so ready and eager to take on the Russians over Kosovo back in March 1999 is not nearly as ready– or able– to take them on over Georgia, nine years later.
On Friday, Reuters’ William Schomberg quoted James Nixey, an analyst at the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London, as saying that,
- Saakashvili had worried Western capitals with his tendency to overreact when provoked.
That was shown when he used force last year to quash anti-government protesters and again now in the conflict in South Ossetia, [Nixey] said…
“If he is going to start a war, he is going to lose the support of a lot of friends in the West.”
… Analysts said Saakashvili’s gamble in launching military action against the rebels could trigger a David-and-Goliath war between his country and the its powerful neighbour Russia, and it was far from certain that the West would come to his rescue.
“He has had plenty of warnings from the West that it won’t pull any chestnuts out of the fire for him so I don’t think he can count on the cavalry riding in,” said Fraser Cameron of the EU-Russia centre in Brussels.
One last little note I want to make here is about the use and abuse of the whole concept of “humanitarian intervention”, being used as a reason to launch military operations that by their very nature are quite anti-humanitarian.
I have no doubt at all that Russia’s media are at this very moment displaying all kinds of images of suffering Ossetian civilians and describing Russia’s actions in Ossetia as as an intensely “humanitarian intervention.”
And similarly (mutatis mutandis) in Georgia.
This should give us all pause.
Back in 1999, I was one of the few liberal commentators in the western MSM who argued consistently against the idea that a western military campaign against Serbia could ever be described as a “humanitarian intervention”, or otherwise justified.
Please, let’s now take this opportunity to bury this idea, once and for all, that wars can ever be described as “humanitarian.”
Helena, first thanks for lauding me and my little blog – not really deserved yet.
On the point of ‘humanitarian intervention’ I recently saw and interview with Helmuth Schmidt, former German chancellor, who answered when asked about such: “This concept always gets abused for other nefarious plans.”
I wholeheartedly agree.
Saakashvili is a loose neocon cannon and that needs to, and will be, cut from any position of power. Let him write op-ed’s for Fred Hiatt’s lunatic outlet or such.
The next problem will be the Ukraine. At least 50% there are Russians. The Crimean is Russian down to its last bone. If the ‘west’ tries to put that into NATO expect some REAL trouble.
The Georgia army has been trained by the U.S Army and US Marines. The Georgia Train and Equip program (GTEP) began in April 2002, even before the Rose Revolution engineered by the US in late 2003. The curriculum consisted of performance-oriented training and practical exercises similar to those taught at the National Defense University, Joint Forces Command, and U.S. Army War College, as well as tactical training for infantry and logistical units. In 2005 the GTEP was replaced by the Stability and Security Operations Program (SSOP) which was similar in scope to the GTEP.
Part of the training of the Georgia military and navy have been joint military exercises, two of which were held just last month (July).
Operation Immediate Response began July 15. From the USA, 1,000 military servicemen took part in the three week exercise including the United States Army Europe, 3rd Battalion, 25th Marine Expeditionary Unit, 1st Battalion 121 Infantry Regiment Georgian National Guard (Atlanta, Georgia) and 5045th General Support Unit. The US Ambassador H.E. John Tefft outlined the importance of the training, saying: “It is in a spirit of Partnership for Peace, part of the NATO program. Brigadier General William B. Garrett commanded the exercise from American side: “We are conducting this exercise to enhance interoperability with a key coalition partner.” The Russian Defense Ministry started a military exercise in the nearby North Caucasus region at the same time. Ministry spokesman Yuri Ivanov said the drill had “nothing to do” with the Georgian-U.S. maneuvers.
Exercise Sea Breeze 2008 involved more than 2,000 service members from 16 countries and was held in the Black Sea and at land-based Ukrainian training facilities, according to EUCOM [US European Command]. Russia’s foreign ministry had said at the start of the exercise however that it saw it as a threat. “The nature of the exercises, the attempts to present them as anti-Russian and the participation of states from outside the region inevitably raise questions and some degree of concern,” it said.
American says U.S. and Georgia to answer for violence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRl3qArJO-o
It looks like Georgia gave Tskhinvali the Guernica/Fallujah treatment and is guilty of war crimes, except they don’t apply to the US and its allies.
Izvestia claims that an American military advisor to the Georgian forces has been captured, and other Georgia allies (“”black people””) have been killed. (poor translation).
—-
In South Ossetia the American mercenary is taken in a captivity
In South Ossetia the group of the Georgian demolition men among which there is a citizen of the USA, афроамериканец is captured. On it informs ” Ossetic radio “. The group is detained in area of settlement Zar which is on “road of a life” – road Zarskoj.
Supposed, that the citizen of the USA – one of instructors of the NATO. At present it is forwarded to Vladikavkaz for finding-out of all circumstances of its finding in territory of Republic South Ossetia. As marks “Росбалт”, earlier южноосетинский plenipotentiary in the Russian Federation Dmitry Medoev already informed, that among corpses in Tskhinvali some bodies of the black people who are at war on a side of Georgia were revealed.
http://www.izvestia.ru/news/news185341
Hmmm. If an unrepentant nineteenth-century nationalist like Saakashvili can be called a “neocon” because he’s a United States ally/client, then the term has become as meaningless as “communist” in the hands of a 1950s John Bircher.
Anyway, a few points:
First, some of the best discussion of the South Ossetia conflict that I’ve encountered thus far is taking place here. As of today (August 10, 2008), the most recent dozen or so posts deal with it, and some of the comments are also worth reading.
Second, the history of this conflict, and of the related Abkhazian one, is somewhat complicated. As you point out, South Ossetia and Abkhazia seceded from Georgia during the immediate post-Soviet period, soon after Georgia itself became independent. The secession was partly motivated by the anti-minority policies of the Georgian government of the time (led by Gamsakhurdia), but it was also partially instigated by Russia, which was taking advantage of the fluidity of the situation to grab off bits of several of the former Soviet republics. The resulting civil war in Georgia was also brutal: about a quarter of a million ethnic Georgians (which is a lot in a country of under 5 million) were ethnically cleansed from Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and Georgia holds regular memorials for the war dead. Some of the refugees have managed to return peacefully, but others returned and were expelled again in 1998, and at least 200,000 remain displaced. The Abkhazian and South Ossetian conflicts are close to Georgia’s heart in a way that those familiar with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should understand.
The fault for the current flareup is also on both sides. Saakashvili is, as noted above, an unreformed nationalist, and has taken a needlessly confrontational stance toward the separatist republics. For years after taking power, he refused to discuss a political settlement and thus did his part in keeping the situation tense. He also doesn’t have a good track record toward minorities in Georgia proper. On the other hand, this March, he finally offered a political proposal that involved genuine autonomy and power-sharing on the national level, only to be rejected out of hand. And the South Ossetian security forces, which wouldn’t say boo without an OK from Moscow, were escalating the conflict by staging border incidents for weeks before the Georgian invasion. That, and the uncharacteristic readiness of the Russian army to intervene, suggests that the violence can’t be reduced to a simple “Georgia jumped South Ossetia and was jumped in turn by Russia.”
This was, in other words, a really stupid and escalatory move by Saakashvili. But it’s also an exercise in Russian imperialism.
My personal sympathies here are with both sides and neither. The Abkhazians and Ossetians have the right to self-determination, and I can’t blame them for wanting to exercise it given the history of oppression under Gamsakhurdia. At the same time, any political solution should be the product of consensual negotiations with Georgia, should include some fair settlement (albeit not necessarily return) for the refugees, and should be done under neutral supervision rather than as cover for a Russian land grab. Also, the people of Georgia and other former Soviet republics like Ukraine, having experienced Russian domination once, can hardly be blamed for not wanting to experience it again. And as for Georgia wanting to upgrade its military capacity: wouldn’t you, in its shoes?
Anyway, with respect to your conclusions, I agree with (2) and (3). Russia is flexing its muscles, and while it got its nose bloodied enough that it probably won’t push beyond South Ossetia for the present, it has shown that it has overwhelming force compared to its Caucasian and Central asian neighbors. Said neighbors are likely to get the message. I’d disagree somewhat with (1), though – all this happened much too fast for the West to react, so while the West may be overextended, this isn’t proof. If Russia tries something similar in Ukraine, which is much closer to its own weight and which actually borders on the EU, then it may turn out to be as serious a miscalculation for Putin as the South Ossetian adventure was for Saakashvili. Let’s hope for all our sakes that this doesn’t happen.
Finally, and parenthetically, the reason this is getting so much play in the Israeli media is that Israel has large Russian and Georgian immigrant populations. The Israeli government has tried to stay friendly with both sides, but needs Russia more; the Georgian ambassador’s praise of Israel may be intended to prevent the sale of Israeli arms, which was limited last year, from being limited further or cut off altogether.
The West cannot afford to be indifferent to Georgia’s fate
Let’s hear from an old-fashioned HardPowerPointer [*], shall we? — if only to check and balance the George Fox News Network just a little . . . .
Russia’s regional objectives are straightforward. It aims to show its neighbours, by means of the Georgian example, that Russia is “glavniy”: that its contentment is the key to “stability and security”, and that if Russia expresses its discontent, NATO will be unwilling and unable to help. It aims to show NATO that its newest aspirant members are divided, divisible and, in the case of Georgia, reckless. It aims to show both sets of actors that Russia has (in Putin’s words) “earned a right to be self-interested” and that in its own “zone”, it will defend these interests irrespective of what others think about them.
For Russia, the broader implications are also becoming straightforward. To its political establishment, to the heads of energy giants GAZPROM and ROSNEFT and to its armed forces and security services, and to their advisers and “ideologists”, the key point is that THE ERA OF WESTERN DOMINANCE IS OVER.
(( Foxites and Gandhians might be unduly emboldened by those last seven words taken in isolation, but in Dr. Sherr’s full context there is a lot to be said for the proposition that is acceptable. He does not, for instance, kid us that the end of Western Dominance implies an end to Domination as such. ))
Far from rejecting “globalisation”, as Westerners might suppose, their view, in Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s words, is that the West is “losing its monopoly over the globalisation process”. The Beijing Olympics are reminder enough that the cresting of what Russians call Western “democratic messianism” and the rise of “sovereign democracies” is not purely a Russia-driven process. Russia is exasperated with the West and also contemptuous of it. In the Georgian conflict, as in the more subtle variants of energy diplomacy, Russians have shown a harshly utilitarian asperity in connecting means and ends. In exchange, we appear to present an unfocused commitment to values and process. Our democracy agenda has earned the resentment not only of Russia’s elite but of the ordinary people who are delighted to see Georgia being taught a lesson. Our divisions arouse derision. Russians have no worries about the emergence of a unified EU energy policy, and they are losing their worries about a unified commitment to NATO enlargement. The war in South Ossetia, and the movement of conflict beyond it, should be a reminder that contempt has consequences.
(( Dr. Sherr is to some extent a chauvinist for Western Sieve, that is to say, a right wingnut, but what his brain thinks about this “contempt” seems mostly sound enough, let his hormones emote about it as they may. However “unfocused” may not be very accurate. I suspect M. Putin finds the GOP geniuses a good deal too focused on a particular swindle, one here summarized hastily in the words “sovereign democracy.” To spell it out a little: “You foreigners are not (to be treated as) sovereign, unless we at Kennebunkport ME and at Crawford TX have decided that you are (sufficiently) democratic.” The flip side of that I take to be M. Putin’s rather mysterious aphorism about Russia having “earned a right to be self-interested.” Loser States, ‘altruist’ States, as it were, States that cannot safely abjure their altruism and their Kennebunkport-Crawford-approved “democracy,” do not really possess any international rights worth the name.
(( “They that have power to hurt and will do none, /That do not do the thing, they most do show” — an old song. It would be easy to show that it is an old song at Muscovy specifically, although I pass that by for now because I have mislaid my copy of Pipes Major on Russia under the Old Régime. ))
The final conclusion is the need to focus on what is at stake. Is the West’s relationship with Russia the most important issue? If so, what happens to that relationship if we demonstrate that brutality works and that “zones of interest” can be formed against the interests of the countries that reside in them? What happens to our wider scheme of interests in Central and Eastern Europe and the Black Sea and Caspian regions? Those questions are now being asked, but it is late to be asking them.
==
Notice the typical displacement of responsibility for polemical purposes: Country R. quashes the uppity pretensions of Country G. and then the process is bizarrely described by a denizen of Country U. as “WE demonstrate.” Golly!
Kyrie eleison, Christe eleison, Kyrie eleison!
Happy days.
___
[*] “James Sherr is head of the Russia and Eurasia Program, Chatham House.”
Don, you were going on in another thread about how resolution conflict without the use of force is possible. Why are you embracing Russia’s use of force to resolve the situation in South Ossetia now?
Back when Kosovo declared its independence, people condemned the idea of separatism. Are people now embracing South Ossetia’s separatists goals?
On secessionary movements in general, my strong inclination is to say it’s far better NOT to encourage them but to work hard to get both the central government concerned and the members of the minority community that has the grievance to work out special arrangements that will allow them to continue to live together while allowing each community (linguistic or religious or whatever) to flourish.
Models would be Spain’s treatment of Catalunya in recent decades and what Turkey has been (somewhat fitfully) trying to do with the Kurds– well, certainly what the EU was encouraging Turkey to do with its large Kurdish population. Actually I think Canada and New Zealand have both done really well in finding imaginative ways to pursue multiculturalism and the cultural integrity of previously oppressed and marginalized groups, and Canadian social thinkers like Will Kymlicka have done a lot of good thinking on the ethical and other issues involved in this.
The trouble with secessions is that once you start with them, as I wrote, a whole broader web of sovereignty structures becomes threatened and can disintegrate into ever smaller and usually mutually competitive units. That’s one good reason why the African Union has decided as a matter of policy not to mess with the admittedly colonial-era system of boundaries. (There are some bad reasons for that, too, obviously.)
Bottom line: keeping ‘sovereignty’ where it is is not the end of the story, by any means, as there’s a lot that can and should be done to assure ‘minority’ rights within a sovereign state. But recognizing the existing basis of sovereignty is still the best foundation on which to build these other solutions… That was a good part of my thinking in response to Kosovo’s declaration of ‘independence’, and it is, too, with regard to these minority regions within Georgia.
Inkan,
I have not “embrac[ed] Russia’s use of force” as you claimed. You made that up. What I have suggested is that a continuing US military presence in Georgia has contributed to this conflict, which Georgia initiated.
A general problem of the Pentagon presence in many countries of the world is that it doesn’t contribute to peace and stability as advertised, but rather contributes to war and instability as in the present case.
The madman in charge of tiny Georgia really seemed to believe that he had US backing for his war crimes, and could take on Russia, mighty Russia!, mainly because of his cozy supportive military relationship to the US, as noted above. I’m afraid that there will be more such situations, because the Pentagon has similar programs in many countries. (When US military personnel are captured by an enemy of a US client state it raises the stakes even higher.)
The main component of US foreign policy now is not a Peace Corps but a War Corps, and this is the result. War Is Not The Answer.
Has there been any independent verification of the claimed 1400 casualties? Right now it seems like the pro-Russian word against the pro-Georgian. Don, all you seem to have is a clip from “Russia Today”, which tends to be as biased as Fox News. Sakaashvili should never have tried to use force to subvert South Ossetia. But I don’t think he deserves the hyperbolic demonization that’s being lumped on him at Moon of Alabama or here by Don. Sakaashvili has to answer to the Georgian people, but it should be Georgians who decide if he stays or goes. Not a Russian overthrow that people here and at MoA seem to be cheering on.
Helena,
I have no doubt at all that Russia’s media are at this very moment displaying all kinds of images of suffering Ossetian civilians and describing Russia’s actions in Ossetia as as an intensely “humanitarian intervention.”
this door was opened to her by USA, and not only for her, but, worse, for everybody else. Or USA hold a monopoly for humanitarian intervention?
not least on the Georgian genocide. There is no evidence and even the Russian government has not produced any.
But all accusations of violation of national sovereignity of Georgia are obvious hypocrisy: USA Congress has declared in 1999 that “effective humanitarian intervention implies violation of national sovereignity” (to justify US intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo); the same reason was used for US invasion in Iraq. And recognizing of Kosovo independence also violated Serbian territirial integrity.
I think this is yet another proxy war between the United States and Russia. It is no secret that Russia and the United States seem to be on a collision course. Georgia, who was in talks to be a full member of NATO, has been and is being backed by the United States, and they have also sent their troops in Iraq to help us there.
The French seem to have the best map
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/infog/0,47-0@2-3214,54-1081262@51-1036786,0.html
There seems to be a highway that runs alongside the railway from Poti to Gori.
I’ve been blogging about this like crazy.
My current post is trying to keep up with Russian troop movements in Georgia with pretty pictures 🙂
Nice to see you here, Josh. I remember you calling BS on “Russia Today” over at registan.net.
People talk about Russian fears of being “surrounded” by NATO. That putting Ukraine and Georgia in NATO are aggressive moves against Russia. I want to ask about this scenario then, how about if Russia itself joins NATO? Or the European Union at least. People act like Russian membership in NATO and the EU is as unreal as a unicorn. But exactly why is that the case? Why can’t Russia join NATO and/or the EU then, putting everyone in Europe on the same side?
I am not that impressed by Jonathan Edelstein’s suggestion of fistfullofeuros.net as a source. They are pro-Georgian, the only advantage being that they have someone present in Tbilisi.
“Bottom line: keeping ‘sovereignty’ where it is is not the end of the story, by any means, as there’s a lot that can and should be done to assure ‘minority’ rights within a sovereign state. But recognizing the existing basis of sovereignty is still the best foundation on which to build these other solutions… That was a good part of my thinking in response to Kosovo’s declaration of ‘independence’, and it is, too, with regard to these minority regions within Georgia”
Oh, Helena is so missing the Soviet Empire.
Jonathan Edelstein,
because he’s a United States ally/client, then the term has become as meaningless
Jonathan Edelstein, Saakashvili is also US Citizen?
But if you think this meaningless here, this just ignoring the reality of this acts and people who used/ love to sale the handler agenda.
Jonathan Edelstein can you denial the usefulness of Ahmad Chalabi, Al-Hakim and his Iranians Militia to support and helped US of Invasion of Iraq as all these guys played same I used your words “an unreformed nationalist“.
Without these an unreformed nationalist gang in Iraq US will faced more aggressive resistance and more sacrifices for this colonial-era system or its just monopoly for US?
My personal sympathies here are with both sides and neither.
This very slippery position and its can be coming from some one who study and professionally practicing the law, I don’t know if you judge how you will give your judgment with sympathies here with both side of the argument here. Were clear evidences here Georgian start this war by invading another land.
What your about Saddam invade Kuwait? Or US invade Iraq, or Israel invades Arab Land? What the differences here? Or it’s different of course its different in you’re “an unreformed judgment” as your comment showing here.
The Godfather of Lairs speaking:
QUOTE FROM BUSH’S SPEECH IN GEORGIA
Is this proxy war like US support for Kuwai, when Kuwaitis demanding their loan from Saddam and more importantly Kuwaitis( of course not Kuwaitis themselves the US oil Companies) horizontally drilled oil canales to steal Iraqi oil from super giant oil field in Rummala south Basra near the boarder.
That was ignited Saddam head who rush to punish Al-Subah gung, then that Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait’s used to brought down Iraq state from 1991 till 2003 when US found its time “Now or Never” to full distraction of state of Iraq so went and invaded a country far away from its land, have nothing to do with 9/11 and not causing any threat to US sovereignty, what we seeing with Georgian with Russia.
fistfulofeuros.net… are pro-Georgian
They aren’t exactly enamored of Saakashvili – “idiot” is about the best any of them has to say about him. (Which IMO is about right, but not uncritically “pro-Georgian” by any means).
Guys
We are back to Carrier Task Forces again.
http://www.metimes.com/International/2008/08/11/special_report_kuwait_readying_for_war_in_gulf/7724/
Interfax reports Orders given to Russian Forces to Stop Stop Stop.
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/sequence/0,2-3210,1-0,0.html
Why can’t Russia join NATO and/or the EU then, putting everyone in Europe on the same side?
Because joining NATO is only possible if you are prepared to become a vassal of the USA, and to make your army a extension of the American army, and to fight American wars (like the one in Afghanistan), and to buy American weapons (like the Joint Fight Striker), and to let your foreign policy be dictated by the White House: that’s why the EU boycotted the Palestinians after they elected a government the Americans didn’t like, and that’s why the Europeans want to boycott the Iranians, who don’t have nuclear bombs, while improving the already excellent relations with Israel (which has hundreds of them), by upgrading Israel’s relationship with the EU (which happened recently).
The Secretary-General of the NATO is a guy called Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, former Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs. Why was he appointed Secretary-General, some years ago? Because when the Americans invaded Iraq, the Dutch were so enthusiastic in their support for the American project to “liberate” Iraq, that Bush wanted to reward them. In those days Jaap de Hoop Scheffer was still the Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs. What better way to reward the Dutch for their amazing subservience than to promote De Hoop Scheffer to Secretary-General of NATO? So that’s what happened.
I don’t think the Russians are eager to become vassals of the USA. Therefore the chance that they would even contemplate joining NATO is less than zero…
Helena, I wish you wholeheartedly to kiss Russian sweet behind. If people like you had power I would recommend to them immediate and unconditional capitulation by US and EU to save pain and suffering. Then you will have an opportunity to kiss many other Russian sweet spots. As to your understanding of Russia and Georgia for me it looks like a zilch. I would recommend you to travel to this region. I bet it will enrich tremendously enrich your intleectual background.
From Russia with love, agent 007
Salah,
My personal sympathies here are with both sides and neither.
This very slippery position
Let me try to make it clearer then.
I sympathize with both of the peoples involved in this conflict. The Georgians, because 250,000 of them were made refugees from South Ossetia and Abkhazia in the 1990s, and because they are a proud people who have fought and died more than once to shake off Russian domination. The South Ossetians, because they have been oppressed by various Georgian governments, were artificially cut off by geopolitics from their North Ossetian coethnics, and deserve better than to be pawns of Moscow and Tbilisi.
On the other hand, I have no sympathy whatsoever for any of the governments and political leaders involved in this affair. Saakashvili is a hard-line nationalist who likes to repress minorities and restrict civil liberties, and he has taken a needlessly confrontational attitude toward the separatist regions which culminated in an ill-considered and stupid use of force. (He probably intended to reconquer South Ossetia as he did Ajaria in 2004, forgetting that Ajaria wasn’t backed by Russia and that the Ajarians actually wanted to be Georgians. If he knew his history, he’d remember that the Ossetians also fought Georgia the last time it was independent.) Putin is a czar with the serial numbers filed off, who wants to re-establish Russia’s empire in the “near abroad” and doesn’t mind using force to do it. And the Ossetians have been ill-served by the ex-Russian-security-types-turned-bandits who make up the majority of their government.
So I sympathize with all the people and none of the politicians. Is that clearer?
What your about Saddam invade Kuwait? Or US invade Iraq, or Israel invades Arab Land? What the differences here?
The difference is that South Ossetia is internationally recognized as Georgian territory. As such, Georgian military action there are as legal as Chinese military action in Tibet, which has been defended by many people on this blog as a valid exercise of China’s sovereignty.
Actually, I’ll take that back at least partway. Before the current flareup, Georgia had entered an agreement not to attack South Ossetia and to negotiate over its status, so it had some legal and moral obligation not to use force. Of course, the South Ossetian security forces (who take their orders from people who take them from Moscow) also had an obligation not to shell Georgian towns, so the blame can’t go all one way.
Inkan,
Back when Kosovo declared its independence, people condemned the idea of separatism. Are people now embracing South Ossetia’s separatists goals?
To be fair, there hasn’t been much of any Russian triumphalism here, although there’s been plenty at Moon of Alabama. At the same time, I’m a bit surprised by how much of that there’s been from self-declared anti-imperialists. Sure, there’s more than a little sauce for the gander in South Ossetia given what the West has done in Kosovo and Iraq, but if you say “what’s good for America is good for Russia,” then you’re admitting that it was good for America. This is starting to look a little like Syrian meddling in Lebanon – i.e., a good litmus test to separate true anti-imperialists from those who are merely anti-American.
Personally, I don’t think the solution to the American empire is to create rival empires. I think that the problems of state sovereignty, minority rights and self-determination are best solved by establishing EU-style structures to protect human rights on an international scale, and I’m pretty sure Putin isn’t on board for that program.
Jonathan Edelstein,
Thanks for your clarification I thought you sympathy goes to the governments. Of course its tragic for both sides I fell sorry and sad what we saw of those people and babies they have done nothing to be caught in this stupid war like what Iraqi having till now for five years.
Jonathan Edelstein as for the second point in your comment, Iraq and Kuwait had long time borders dispute between them you can not denied that, also there is no UN documents showing real borders lines moreover the truth spelledout from ME specialist mouth which no surprise Henry Kissinger when he said:
The Middle East is composed of countries whose boundaries were artificial creations after the First World War and hold no real meaning, Kissinger said.
So these borders are “artificial” Jonathan Edelstein it’s came from the creator’s mouth…
Helena,
Thanks for you comments on the Georgian-~Russian situation and especially for your tip to visit Moon over Alabama. Great stuff.
One of the most thoughtful and penetrating analyses I’ve read about the issue is on Dimitry Orlov’s blog
http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/
Actual Zionism rests on one main pillar – the idea that a state is ethnically homogenous. Any enclave with a majority of 1 person and a lot of weaponry has a perfect right to declare its own ethnically cleansed territory and destroy or evict anyone not in the majority. The irony is that Israel was built like South Africa, and Jews became the majority after the ethnic cleansing, not before.
The Israelis and Zionists have pushed this idea all over the world. That’s what makes Zionism different from the bureaucratic and arbitrary divisions of the colonialists, who simply considered the location and forces of the Great Powers, and not so much the tribal boundaries of the regions they gained control of.
In Lenin and Trotsky’s day, they tried to set up a system that would cater to different nationalities without destroying Soviet unity. Stalin reversed that because he saw shuffling nationalities around (what the late A Solzhenitsyn called the Great Car Game of the Nationalities) would render ethnic, linguistic and religious minorities rootless and leave them with only the Soviet ideology and Greater Russian nationalism to identify with.
Tito was a hybrid of the two approaches, but closer to Lenin.
What I find particularly useful about Bernhard’s blogging is his ability both to keep up with diverse news sources and to reveal to “western” readers the biases that are often deeply embedded in our MSM’s coverage of the events.
Really? MoA is like a left version of NRO — entrenched, predictable, committed. One doesn’t have to work too hard to see where the author’s own biases lie…
Well, despite Yakobashvili’s crowing, it seems the Georgian government took enough of a drubbing from its massive northern neighbor that it is now eager to sue for peace.
Wait, but didn’t you just say in the paragraph above that Georgia has plenty of access to “hard power”? How can they have parity or near parity with Russian forces and yet be surrendering in days?
Well, despite Yakobashvili’s crowing, it seems the Georgian government took enough of a drubbing from its massive northern neighbor that it is now eager to sue for peace.
Wait, but didn’t you just say in the paragraph above that Georgia has plenty of access to “hard power”? How can they have parity or near parity with Russian forces and yet be surrendering in days?
I hope the Russians slaughter every Georgian man, woman, and child after what the Georgians did to the poor Ossentians. Then I want Putin and Chavez to send troops to slaughter the Americans, what glee I would take to see the blood of five million dead Americans in a single day of butchering!