The Seeds of Another Cold War?
By Anthony Gregory • Tuesday August 12, 2008 2:41 PM PDT • 31 Comments
Russia should not have attacked Georgia, especially Georgia proper, and some of its animosity toward Georgia is clearly not noble. But it is fascinating how the American establishment and media have portrayed this conflict as just another case of Good vs. Evil, with the U.S. ally, Georgia, clearly in the right and Moscow clearly in the wrong.
Some accounts barely even take note of the proximate provocation behind Russia’s attacks. On August 8, after shelling South Ossetia’s capital city, Tskhinvali, Georgia invaded. A thousand people fled. At least another thousand died, according to separatists.
South Ossetia has been independent along with Abkhazia since the close of the Cold War. About 95% of them are Russian citizens. This fact has irked Georgia. From Reuters:
South Ossetia, which fought to break free from Georgian rule in 1991-92, maintains close ties with its Russian North Ossetia. Most of South Ossetia’s 70,000 people hold Russian citizenship, entitling them to Russian state benefits.
South Ossetia’s affinity with Russia has been a thorn in the side of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, who took power in a 2006 grassroots revolution. His aspirations to join NATO and promises to ensure territorial integrity have won support from Western governments.
In response to Georgia’s attempt to quash South Ossetian independence, Putin responded by coming to the defense of Russian citizens. As Caucasus expert Charles King put it,
Russia must be condemned for its unsanctioned intervention. But the war began as an ill-considered move by Georgia to retake South Ossetia by force. Saakashvili’s larger goal was to lead his country into war as a form of calculated self-sacrifice, hoping that Russia’s predictable overreaction would convince the West of exactly the narrative that many commentators have now taken up.
Indeed, Russia should be criticized. Aside from driving the Georgians out of South Ossetia, it bombed Georgia, including civilian infrastructure, ports and roads. The main airfield outside of Tbilisi was reportedly hit. Georgia claims 90% of Georgian casualties in the conflict were civilian, although before it put the figure at 20%. Either way, for this there is no justification.
It does appear that, for the time being, Russia is satisfied now that Georgia is out of South Ossetia. When accused of wanting regime change in Georgia, Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin responded, “Regime change is purely an American invention.”
Russia claims Georgia had already destroyed Tskhinvali and now puts the death toll at above 1,500. The great majority of deaths were South Ossetians, and we don’t know how many deaths Russia itself might be responsible for.
Today, “The president of Russia decided. . . that his tanks and air raids had dished out enough punishment to the country of Georgia and called a halt to five days of devastating attacks.” And now, “Russia and Georgia have approved a plan brokered by French President Nicolas Sarkozy intended to end fighting between the two nations. . . . Under the plan, both sides would agree not to use force, and all troops would return to the positions they were in before the conflict began last week.”
The fighting has stopped, for now. This peace is certainly welcome. But we must assess the situation properly should something similar happen again. Of course, any “collateral damage” inflicted by Russia was morally inexcusable, but what about what Georgia has done?
The U.S. has been very friendly with Georgia, hailing its “Rose Revolution” as a triumph for democracy and human rights. It has subsidized Georgia’s military, enlisted the nation as a partner in the war on terror (Georgia announced withdrawing a thousand troops from Iraq in the midst of this war), and sees this paragon of “New Europe” as a bulwark against Russian and terrorist belligerence. While in the last couple days Americans have called for U.S. intervention against Moscow’s aggression, there has already been more than enough anti-Russian U.S. intervention in the region. Nathan Hodge warns against the “prospect of a larger regional war” that could drag America in, with the U.S. having already backed one of the main belligerents:
Since early 2002, the U.S. government has given a healthy amount of military aid to Georgia. When I last visited South Ossetia, Georgian troops manned a checkpoint outside Tskhinvali—decked out in surplus U.S. Army uniforms and new body armor. The first U.S. aid came under the rubric of the Georgia Train and Equip Program (ostensibly to counter alleged Al Qaeda influence in the Pankisi Gorge); then, under the Sustainment and Stability Operations Program. Georgia returned the favor, committing thousands of troops to the multi-national coalition in Iraq. Last fall, the Georgians doubled their contingent, making them the third-largest contributor to the coalition. Not bad for a nation of 4.6 million people.
Brendan O’Neill helps explain the U.S.-sponsored crisis:
On the ostensible basis of protecting Georgia, and the world more broadly, from the threat of al-Qaeda-style Chechen terrorism, Washington has pumped more than £100million into Georgia’s security forces. . . . It has provided the Georgian military with Huey helicopters, tonnes of weaponry, and high-level training – just last month it was reported that 1,200 US servicemen and 800 Georgians were undergoing intensive ‘joint military training’ at the Vaziani military base near the Georgian capital, Tbilisi. . . .
Washington has also discussed building vast new anti-missile radar systems in the Czech Republic, Poland, Ukraine and possibly Georgia, in order to guard the Western world against missile attacks from Iran or North Korea; the Kremlin has described these plans as a ‘threat’ to Russia. . . . Georgian troops have been deployed as part of the ‘coalition of the willing’ in Iraq, and America wants to reward Georgia by making it a permanent member of the NATO alliance. NATO, lest we forget, was founded in a very different era as a North Atlantic alliance against the Soviet Union. . . .
. . . The transformation of the republics into life-and-death states in a civilisational war against terror (Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili has said the current clash with Russia is about defending the ‘freedom of the world’) allows rulers to take extraordinary measures to protect their internal authority. . . . The ‘terrorisation’ of former Soviet republics warps their internal dynamic, allowing rulers to present every protest or criticism as part of an ‘Islamic threat’ that must be put down with their American arms.
. . . Washington’s outposting of former Soviet republics has heightened instability in the East. From the dying years of the Soviet Union, when various Soviet republics began to rediscover their old nationalist identities and cultural heritage, to the often-difficult breakaway process of 1990 and 1991, there have been tensions between Soviet republics and the Kremlin. In many ways, these tensions have been exacerbated and even crystallised – made more global and earth-shatteringly serious – by Washington’s invitation to some of the former republics to join the ‘Western fold’ and its war for the preservation of Western civilisation.
And Georgia is not the democratic paragon it is claimed to be, even in relative terms. Saakashvili’s regime there has punished political opponents for “espionage” and has unleashed martial law and beatings on peaceful protesters:
To top it off, Georgia has responded to this war by resorting to martial law. Interestingly, some victims of the war in Georgia blame their own regime, as well as Russian aggression and American betrayal, for this horror.Again, this is not to defend all of Russia’s actions, but what of Washington’s actions and hypocrisy? As David Beito points out, the secession of Kosovo was hailed as a just cause of “self-determination” – a cause worthy not just of moral support but the brutal U.S.-NATO war on Serbia. Certainly what Russia has done is no worse than what Clinton did in the 1990s, and has probably been more restrained. But Georgia’s aggression against South Ossetia is supposedly no reason for NATO or Russia to act against Georgia; indeed, Georgia deserves America’s full support, we are told, and should itself be inducted into NATO. (The situation is not totally analogous: more similar would be U.S. support of a regime trying to break away from Mexico and be independent or join the U.S. –– not that that would ever happen.) Further, in contrast to the US occupying troops who have overstayed their welcome in the Middle East, the Russians do indeed seem to be regarded in South Ossetia as liberators.
On behalf of all of us Americans, Dick Cheney has “expressed the United States’ solidarity with the Georgian people and their democratically elected government in the face of this threat to Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.” John McCain has been more belligerent than the administration, calling on Russia to be excluded from the Group of 8. Obama was initially more restrained than McCain, but “as Russian warplanes pounded Georgian targets far beyond South Ossetia this weekend, Bush, Obama, and others have moved closer to McCain’s initial position.” For more on the troubling consensus against Russia and the attempts of U.S. leaders, American exceptionalists and neocons to spark up another war in a particularly volatile region, see the former staunch Cold Warrior Pat Buchanan.
Some people argue that South Ossetia has no claim to be independent, that it is naturally a part of Georgia. But for seven centuries, the Iranis have been settled in the Caucuses. While South Ossetia has an ethnic minority of Georgians, 20% of the population, two years ago the nation had a referendum. 99% voted for complete independence. It would seem that even if there are disagreements about pre-Soviet history in the region, this secession is fairly valid and the nation’s independent status for almost a generation should be respected.
Georgia should stay out of South Ossetia, Russia should stay out of Georgia, and the U.S. should stay out of it all. If the U.S. uses this or similar future incidents as a pretext to confront Moscow, we could arrive at what the neocons have been wanting since 1991: To restart the Cold War with the Kremlin. But however criminal Putin’s regime is, and it certainly is criminal, we must remember: It is not anymore the Soviet Union, the Cold War is over, and more U.S. intervention is not the answer.
Tags: Georgia, Politics, Russia, Uncategorized, War 
Saakashvili might have been trying to provoke a war, but Russia was trying even harder. They’ve been provoking Georgia ever so slightly since the beginning of the year, shooting down planes, increasing their presence in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, etc. They were hoping that Georgia would try to retake the territories, and when they bombed Tskhinvali, they got their chance to invade and bomb ports and pipelines that carry oil. Because that’s what this is all about – Georgia is a conduit for oil. Oil is the backbone of Putin’s regime. When Georgia went with the West and agreed to become a transit point for the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline that carries BP’s oil, Russia started punishing them. Now, they’re trying to destabilize investment in the country. And they’ve succeeded – the BTC pipeline was shut down before the war began, they bombed Poti (a port through which a lot of oil flows), they tried to bomb the BTC pipeline (though who knows if they succeeded), and you can be sure that Westerners are going to think twice before investing in Georgia as an energy transshipment point.
And by the way, it’s a bit disingenuous to say that South Ossetia and Abkhazia have been “independent.” They have been Russian vassal states. Independent from Georgia, but very dependent on Russia.
Russia doesn’t want South Ossetia or Abkhazia – they want to push on Georgia till it relents on its energy ties with the West. You don’t see them attacking Moldova, do you? Transnistria has a large population of Russians (not just pro-Russian non-Russians, like Abkhazia and South Ossetia) in exactly the same boat as the South Ossetians and Abkhazians, and last I checked, the Russians weren’t trying to provoke the Moldovans into attacking. Why? Because there is no oil, and no oil pipeline, in Moldova.
Rationalitate | Aug 12, 2008 | Reply
My very first hyperlink concerns the oil interest clearly not being noble. And yes, they have been independent of Georgia.
I agree Russia has been an aggressor. But surely Georgia was an aggressor in the invasion of South Ossetia, no?
Anthony Gregory | Aug 12, 2008 | Reply
In a moral way, they are responsible and aggressive. But pragmatically, the Russians were going to find some way to disrupt the Georgians’ ability to ship anyone’s energy but their own – it was a pretext, and a managed one at that. Russia knew well in advance of the Georgians’ South Ossetian incursion that they were going to invade. If anything, I think I blame the Russians for pushing the situation to the point where a corrupt government would face the choice of shelling civilian targets. While I don’t agree with the reasons that the US media has for siding with the Georgians (Georgia good, Russia bad), I just feel like Russia has been so bad and so devious in its quest for energy resources that it completely overwhelms anything Georgia might have done in response to deliberate provocation. Basically what I’m saying is that Russia knows that Georgia would be stupid and pathetic enough to take the bate – it’s like blaming the slow kid when the bully goads him into throwing the first punch.
Rationalitate | Aug 12, 2008 | Reply
Putin is geopolitical giant and a genuine Russian hero. For criminals please look closer to home. Putin’s one brain cell is bigger than all the brain of W (althought that admittedly doesn’t say much). Your whole attempt at sound analysis still stinks of American propaganda to high haven. Cold War? You wish. The hot one (of nuke reaction temp)is on its way.
alec | Aug 12, 2008 | Reply
‘Poor Little Georgia’ – Not!
Bill Kristol and the Menshevik myth of democratic Georgia
by Justin Raimondo
The commander in chief of America’s laptop bombardiers, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol, can always be counted on to reveal not only the content of the neoconservative party line, but also, in so many words, the impulse that motivates it. In his latest peroration from his perch at the New York Times, the intellectual architect of our disastrous war in Iraq lays out a rationale for yet another catastrophic blunder in the foreign policy realm, this time in the Caucasus:
“In August 1924, the small nation of Georgia, occupied by Soviet Russia since 1921, rose up against Soviet rule. On Sept. 16, 1924, The Times of London reported on an appeal by the president of the Georgian Republic to the League of Nations. While ‘sympathetic reference to his country’s efforts was made’ in the Assembly, the Times said, ‘it is realized that the League is incapable of rendering material aid, and that the moral influence which may be a powerful force with civilized countries is unlikely to make any impression upon Soviet Russia.’
“‘Unlikely’ was an understatement. Georgians did not enjoy freedom again until 1991.”
You get the idea: in Kristol’s world, Putin’s Russia is Stalin’s USSR, and poor, doe-like little Georgia – a bastion of freedom – is in danger of being devoured by the insatiable Russian bear. Meanwhile, the world stands by, helpless, as appeals are made to a nation impervious to the very concept of morality.
To begin with, Kristol’s historical analogy is misleading: Georgia in 1924 was very far from a democracy. What he doesn’t tell you is that it was under the control of the Mensheviks, a faction of the Russian Social Democrats (later renamed the Communist Party) that lost out to Lenin’s Bolsheviks but was in fact very little different from its factional rivals. As the British writer Carl Bechhofer described Georgia’s Menshevik regime:
“The Free and Independent Social-Democratic State of Georgia will always remain in my memory as a classic example of an imperialist ‘small nation.’ Both in territory-snatching outside and bureaucratic tyranny inside, its chauvinism was beyond all bounds.”
George Hewitt, a professor of Circassian languages at London University, cites the colorful and well-traveled Bechhofer in an illuminating essay that lays out the grave error underlying American policy in the region:
“In the hope of avoiding a proliferation of an unpredictable number of small states, the international community in its collective wisdom decreed that it would recognize only the USSR’s constituent union-republics and would, thus, not give any encouragement to the yearning for self-determination that characterized some ethnic minorities living in regions endowed with only lower level autonomy according to the Soviet administrative system (such as the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia and the Autonomous Region of South Ossetia, both lower-status entities within the union-republic of Soviet Georgia). It was a huge irony that, in adopting this stance, the West was effectively enshrining the divisions created for his fiefdom by none other than the Soviet dictator Iosep Besarionis-dze Dzhughashvili, a Georgian known to the wider world as Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin.”
Aside from memorializing Stalin’s policy of imprisoning ethnic minorities within larger administrative entities, refusing to recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states allows the U.S. and the European community to maintain the fiction of Russian “expansionism.” According to Washington, the Russians invaded “Georgia”; Saakashvili’s invasion of South Ossetia doesn’t qualify as aggression, since how can you invade your own country? South Ossetia and Abkhazia are part of Georgia, you see. Just like a small mammal is part of the anaconda that swallowed it whole.
Hewitt goes on to point out:
“Had the Soviet Union collapsed during the first decade of its existence in the 1920s before Abkhazia was reduced in status by fiat of Stalin in February 1931 from being a fully-fledged republic, which entered the Transcaucasian Federation on 13 December 1922 in treaty-alliance with Georgia, to that of an autonomous republic within Georgia, and had the then League of Nations adopted the same principle of recognition later practiced by its successor, the United Nations, then Abkhazia would for decades have enjoyed independence and membership in its own right of the said international community.”
The same goes for Ossetia, which is today split into North and South, with the latter under the Georgian heel – as placed there by the half-Ossetian (on his father’s side), half-Georgian Stalin.
Readers of Hewitt’s 1998 book, The Abkhazians: A Handbook, will note how effectively he explodes Kristol’s myth of poor little Georgia, whose supposedly “democratic” history reflects its present “pro-Western” orientation and general worthiness:
“The aggressive politics of the government of Georgia towards Abkhazia occasioned extreme displeasure among the local Abkhazian, Armenian, Russian, Greek, and a significant proportion of the Kartvelian peoples, which actually helped to facilitate the establishment of Soviet power in the region on March 4th, 1921.”
The fall of Menshevik communism in Georgia was celebrated by the captive mini-nations of the region “as a deliverance from the repression and meddling of the Georgian Republic.” Things have remained pretty much unchanged since 1921 – albeit not in the way Kristol would have us believe.
While Kristol sentimentalizes the old Georgian republic, its Menshevik founders and leaders were, as Hewitt points out, unapologetic authoritarians:
“The politics of this state was quite accurately characterized by one of its eminent activists, the jurist-internationalist Zurab Avalov (Avalishvili). In his book The Independence of Georgia in International Politics, 1918-1921 (Paris, 1924), he remarked, ‘At the start of 1921, Georgia had in the person of its government and in the shape of the Constituent Assembly a simple creature of party organization … Georgian democracy 1917-1921, a form of social-democratic dictatorship (i.e., of the right wing of Marxism), was a period of preparation for the triumph in Georgia of Soviet dictatorship.”
This dictatorial tradition is today carried on by President Mikheil Saakashvili, who unleashed police on demonstrators, injuring 500 people, during the hotly contested elections and shut down independent media with the same alacrity displayed by his Menshevik predecessors. It is little short of astonishing that Kristol holds up this smarmy regime of small-time hoodlums with big-time regional ambitions as some kind of model, the ideal U.S. ally whose fate we might even go to war over.
Georgia, in Kristol’s view, is worthy not only of U.S. support, but of membership in an imaginary “League of Democracies,” a neocon project touted by John McCain and pushed by the neocon-dominated wing of the GOP as the “conservative” answer to the United Nations. In short, NATO writ large, albeit with an ideological gloss such as only Kristol (or a Marxist) could bring to it.
No, that’s not a misprint: I wrote Marxist, and meant it. The whole flavor of Kristol’s screed calling for U.S. support to Georgia, with its appeals to emotion interwoven with bogus historical analogies, reeks of the ideologue’s sweaty-browed rhetoric. He is like a little Lenin, exhorting us to follow the bright flag of “democratic” internationalism to the very ends of the earth, which is surely where South Ossetia is located, as least as far as Americans are concerned. One hears, in Kristol’s exhortations, the hectoring tone of the old Soviet commissar, albeit of the Menshevik rather than the Bolshevik variety, and this brings to mind a point made by the late Murray N. Rothbard in his justly famous 1992 speech to the John Randolph Club:
“When I was growing up, I found that the main argument against laissez-faire, and for socialism, was that socialism and communism were inevitable: ‘You can’t turn back the clock!’ they chanted, ‘you can’t turn back the clock.’ But the clock of the once-mighty Soviet Union, the clock of Marxism-Leninism, a creed that once mastered half the world, is not only turned back, but lies dead and broken forever. But we must not rest content with this victory. For though Marxism-Bolshevism is gone forever, there still remains, plaguing us everywhere, its evil cousin: call it ‘soft Marxism,’ ‘Marxism-Humanism,’ ‘Marxism-Bernsteinism,’ ‘Marxism-Trotskyism,’ ‘Marxism-Freudianism,’ well, let’s just call it ‘Menshevism,’ or ‘social democracy.’
“Social democracy is still here in all its variants, defining our entire respectable political spectrum, from advanced victimology and feminism on the left over to neoconservatism on the right. We are now trapped, in America, inside a Menshevik fantasy, with the narrow bounds of respectable debate set for us by various brands of Marxists. It is now our task, the task of the resurgent right, of the paleo movement, to break those bonds, to finish the job, to finish off Marxism forever.”
Of course, the neoconservatives, of which Kristol is the ringleader, came from the left side of the spectrum and trace their historical antecedents all the way back to the schismatic Marxist sects of the 1930s and the epic battles between Trotsky and Stalin (they were partisans of the former). They were, in short, the American Mensheviks of their time. In their hegira from the far left to the neocon right – a more fully documented odyssey exists only for that undertaken by Ulysses – they yet retain the telling characteristics of their Menshevik heritage, which Kristol proudly upholds to this day.
At a time when people are losing their homes and economists are beginning to talk about another Great Depression, Kristol’s proposal to send millions more in “aid” to Georgia is obscene. Now that’s real anti-Americanism – sending taxpayer dollars to a Georgian despot while people in this country are hurting. It’s also political suicide for the Republicans to raise the prospect of intervening in Georgia’s internal problems when we’re already bogged down in the Iraq quagmire, from which there seems little hope of early extrication. So much for Kristol, the grand strategist of the GOP. He and his fellow neocons are dragging down the Republican Party along with their own sinking credibility.
The myth of poor little Georgia, a newborn and promising “democracy” threatened, bullied, and battered by Putin-the-reincarnation-of-Stalin is bogus from beginning to end. It is a Bizarro World rendition of what is really happening in South Ossetia and the wider region: that is, a curiously and consistently inverted version of reality in which up is down, black is white, and the Georgians did not invade South Ossetia, killing thousands and driving many more northward.
According to our “free” media, the Georgians didn’t invade the land of the Ossetians – they merely tried to “retake” it, as a child would bloodlessly and even quite playfully retake a shiny red ball from a playmate. Those evil Russkies, on the other hand, invaded, plunged into, and escalated their attack on Georgia. At least, those are the words our “reporters” are using. As George Orwell emphasized, the corruption of language is a form of control, and the American media in collusion with the government is expert at this, especially in its war reporting.
That’s why Antiwar.com’s continued survival is such a value for our growing audience: we give you the facts without the Washington-centric spin that comes with “mainstream” media coverage. You know you can come here to find out what’s really happening out there in the wide world. You also know that we aren’t afraid to fly in the face of the conventional wisdom. Maybe you remember how often that collective “wisdom” has been wrong.
The news media – and, not coincidentally, the War Party – isn’t interested in reporting the facts. All they care about is the “narrative” – one not necessarily based on reality, designed to convince the public that what our rulers are doing and planning is right and just. The Kristolian narrative of poor, little, pro-Western Georgia is a tall tale. Georgian “free market democracy” exists in the same alternate universe as Iraq’s famed “weapons of mass destruction” and the Piltdown Man, but you won’t see many other media outlets saying that.
Stephen Schwartz | Aug 12, 2008 | Reply
Russia was fully justified in retaliating against the unprovoked and criminal assault launched by the Georgian military agaisnt the South Ossetian enclave. Lets review the undisputed facts shall we?
Saakashvilli hoped for a quick blitzkreig while the worlds attention was fixed on the Beijing olympics, and despite agreeing to a earlier ceasefire, at 3:00am the Georgian military launched a massive and indiscriminate artillery and rocket barrage against the city of Tskhinvalli and then sent in their assault forces backed by heavy armor. The result was mass carnage and somewhere between 1500 and 2000 dead, mostly civilians.
Lets put this into perspective. In Kosovo, before NATO intervention, 18 months of counter-insurgency warfare only resulted in a total of 1,200 dead, and that was on both sides & included military casualties. The West still considers Serbian actions to be criminal, yet they pale in comparison to Georgias actions in a single night.
WHAT PART OF THIS DO YOU PEOPLE NOT UNDERSTAND?
If not was not for the Russian response to this outrageous crime, I doubt that there would be an Ossetian at liberty anywhere south of the Causausus Mountains. These people have the Russian military to thank for their continued survival and possession of their ancestral lands.
As for the Russians pounding Georgia itself, I have no problem with that. The criminals need to be punished, and not just allowed to slink away with their forces intact and able to repeat the same crimes at another time of their choosing. The Russian retaliation targetted Georgian military bases, army formations, staging areas, military airfields etc, and this is legitimate. The garbage about Russia attacking civilian areas is just that. Different media outlets showing the same burning apartment block from three seperate angles does not equate to a bombing blitz.
Regarding the rights of the Ossetian people, they have laid claim to these lands for 7 centuries, and have had to resist the Georgians and their claims on their patch. Under the dictator Stalin, they were bundled in the SSR of Georgia, but made an autonomous oblast answerable to Moscow, not Tbilisi. Even the commies regionised the Georgian antipathy to ethic minorities in the neighbourhood. When Georgia suceeded from the Soviet Union, the Georgian majority stipped the Ossetians of their protections, and tried to erase them as a people by denying their identity. The Ossetains fought, and won, and for 17 years they had lived peacefully in their enclave. Until the coming of Saakashvilli, that is. This power-hungry ruthless little Stalin-wanna-be has changed everything, and it is his intransigence and arrogance that has brought this terrible tragedy to pass.
Finally, when it comes to morality, the USA is the last nation on this planet that can claim the high ground. After launching an unprovoked and premeditated invasion of Iraq and unleashing chaos claiming the lives of over a million civilians and driving a further 4 million out of the county as refugees, the US government has the audacity to accuse Russia of brutality? In the face of such unmitigated arrogance I am virtually speechless. Are the American people not ashamed of their nations conduct in Iraq? Is their regret naught but a selfish anger over loss of their own prestige, blood and treasure? Do they not understand what their country has done to others, or how the lives of countless millions has been shattered by the actions of the US ruling elite?
Or maybe, they just don’t care.
Gazza | Aug 13, 2008 | Reply
The Russians didn’t have a right to bomb other parts of Georgia? Are you kidding? Targeting logistics, supply routes, communication centers to stop reinforcements and continued fighting is now ‘not allowed’?
What short memories people have.
1999, NATO bombed the whole of Serbia for 78 days to supposedly ‘stop genocide’ in Kosovo. The genocide was so real that NATO sent in absolutely no troops (apart from special forces) into Kosovo, but bombed Serbia’s electricity grid, water and other infrastructure. It punished the whole Serb nation as means to ‘put political pressure on Milosevic’.
What NATO did was worse. Russian targeting of the port of Poti, where supplies could be delivered, and Gori, where a US built signals intelligence center is based are logical and legal targets. It’s not as if the Russian’s used mass artillery attacks against civilian areas as Saakashvili did. Russia, despite not having all the wundertoys like laser guided bombs and relevant systems in anything like the required quantities that they needed, killed suprisingly few civilians by accident.
Honestly, some people like to have their cake AND eat it.
Aleks | Aug 13, 2008 | Reply
A bit of perspective on current Caucasian events. Not everything worth saying has made it into the broader media.
• The Ossetians are the remnant of the original Indo-European migration into Europe. If you are Scandinavian, Irish, Italian, Slav or anyone in-between, your ancient forbearers had roots among this people. Like the Georgians and the Armenians they maintained their Christian identity as the majority of those around them fell under the sway of Islam.
• The subordination of South Ossetia under Georgian rule was one of Stalin’s visceral over-reactions. On the American scene its parallel would be a President, recalling some ancient political grudge, dictating the selection of the postmaster in a dusty corner of his home state. Unfortunately for those affected, as with most things Soviet, the decision had far reaching effects which went well beyond delivery of the mail.
• The first attempt by the South Ossetians to break free of Georgia occurred in November 1989, the month the Berlin Wall came down. This was prior to the end of Soviet rule. At the time it was an unprecedented expression of ethnic and political will and a major deviation from the Soviet norm. As such, it was an important, if now forgotten, indicator of the loss of central control within the Soviet empire.
The above is intended to be interesting and, perhaps, useful in looking at the current situation.
Its roots find themselves in the third point above: the desire of the South Ossetians to be free of Georgian control and to rejoin their North Ossetian brothers and sisters in a unitary political entity. That the Russians have used this in their own calculated politics of controlling the unstable parts of their periphery should not be surprising. What is surprising is that into this mix the US has interjected the mercurial and undependable Mikhail Saakashvili as a standard bearer for both Georgian and US interests. Mr. Saakashvili has regularly tested the good will of both the US and our European partners in his excesses of rhetoric and deed. Colin Powell, when Secretary of State, was put in the unwelcome position of having to chastise Saakashvili for his intemperate acts and rhetoric. Ascending to power during the Rose Revolution of 2003 Saakashvilli has abandoned democratic pretense and has taken up shooting at the political opposition while putting its leadership on trial for treason against the state. Stalinist déjà vu? Worthy of NATO membership?
Turning to motivation, some have suggested that Saakashvilli would not have gone forward without US approval. Nonsense. Embarrassed by NATO’s rejection Saakashvilli attempted to bluff his self generated loosing cards into a winning hand. He failed. Not unusual for a petty tyrant. Frankly it is unwise to be in an alliance with such imprudent partners.
A thoughtful analysis of the wider implications of these events is provided by Dimitri Simes at the following link: http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2008/08/guest_post_by_d_1/
Simes was born,raised and educated in the Soviet state and departed well before its demise. I commend his work to you. He closes his piece with a cautionary note:
“We should also disregard the hysterical diatribes of Saakashvili’s American champions, who protest too much–perhaps because their irresponsible encouragement of the Georgian president was a contributing factor on the road to the war.”
Amen.
JO | Aug 13, 2008 | Reply
I generally take the view that Russia is in the “right” in their response; but all of this is fast becoming history.
If Russia is truly interested in stabilizing the region, and not simply annexing Georgia, then they should actually enforce the cease fire they have agreed to.
The Georgians now keep claiming that the Russians are still attacking – if this is just bluster and pomp; then the Georgian President must go – he is risking World War III with no good reason; as the point has been made: the international community recognizes it needs to solve this problem.
However – if the reports are true that the Russians are still actively taking over more and more of the country and moving towards the capital – that is not helplfull and might tip the scales a bit too far.
In other words: as with any war – what counts now is to stop it; not to lay blame.
Whoever is getting in the way of stopping the war is the agressor. If it is the Georgian President making bellicose rhetoric and accusations with no grounding: he needs to step down. If it is the Russians – then I think they are about to over-stretch their gamble.
That is, unless indeed the EU is so divided and effectively powerless that Russia knows it can take over Georgia with German, Italian, American, French and British complacency guaranteeing things.
Of course – the Georgians have their President to blame: initiating hostilities was a stupid thing to do. No excuse for it.
It gained Georgia nothing; it could cost Georgia everything.
Georgia doesn’t have to love Russia; but to think that they can ignore Russia and solve such ethnic problems with guns and without regard to geopolitics is like thinking you can have honey without bees.
Pete
Peter | Aug 13, 2008 | Reply
Russia has no right to drop bombs and kill innocents, even collaterally, nor does any other nation. Of course Clinton’s bombing of Serbia was murderous, as was Georgia’s aggression, etc. In war, most of the time, all government involved act criminally.
Anthony Gregory | Aug 13, 2008 | Reply
People of the world, the information, provided by the international mass media is no true. Russia DID NOT ATTACK Georgia! 07.08.2008 at 22:00 Georgia attacked South Ossetia, the troops rolled in. At 3:30 08.08.2008 tanks of the Georgian armies have entered the city of Tskhinvali, the capital of the South Ossetian Republic. Whole city was shelling by heavy artillery all day long, there were fights with use of tanks and heavy munition, which were used against both ossetic militia and non-combatants. More than 2000 civillians were killed during Georgian attack. Russian peacemakers have arrived to South Ossetia in the evening of 08.08.2008 for settlement of the conflict and peace conduction in republic and protection of Russian citizens, living on territory of South Ossetia (approx. 80% of South Ossetian population). Georgia has attacked South Ossetia on the opening day of 2008 Olympiad, it is top of cruelty and cynicism.
Patriot | Aug 13, 2008 | Reply
I do not understand how the American government can have the moral “balls” of condemning Russia’s actions when the US has invaded 2 sovereign countries in the last 5 years and mingles in everybody’s business.
It’s funny and embarrassing how the administration (Bush and friends) recognizes “certain” democracies...but when there is a vote and the winner is not a puppet of the US (like Saakashvili, Musharraf, just to name a few)
You CANNOT condemn others for actions that you engage yourself.
When the US leaves Iraq and Afghanistan, closes Guantanamo and recognize that their actions in the last 20 years (specially the last 5) have been nothing less than shameful and borderline murderous....THEN...the world will respect what they say and MAYBE THEN the US will be the leader, a responsible leader of the world
Right now there is no one that will take us serious
(for those who think that the US can implement military force there...I will ask you...with what army?)
David M | Aug 13, 2008 | Reply
Wow. All of a sudden President Bush and everyone around him are deeply concerned about Georgia independence being attacked. Well dear president where were you and your office when Kosovo was illegally declaring independence from Serbia, where were you being concerned that Serbia’s independence and borders were violated. Dear mister president your country violated international laws by being the first administration to recognize Kosovo independence and now you are calling on that same international law. It is little bit too much.
Zonic | Aug 13, 2008 | Reply
Odd thing about this article–it sucks and blows at the same time.Good Russia, Bad Russia!
Author’s Comment really sucks and blows-
“But however criminal Putin’s regime is, and it certainly is criminal, we must remember: It is not anymore the Soviet Union, the Cold War is over, and more U.S. intervention is not the answer.”
In the Olympics Putin was cheered and Bush got the thumbs down. Can the author let us know how he has come up with the zionist ranting that Putin is criminal? Most reporters like to connect Putin to CIA,but never to the senior Bush’s CIA operations and Director.
:^)
george in Toronto | Aug 13, 2008 | Reply
Correction-Putin’s KGB not CIA
george in Toronto | Aug 13, 2008 | Reply
george, all governments on earth are criminal, and Putin’s in no exception. Russia’s suppression of the Chechens has not been 100% defensible.
I did not say Putin was worse than Bush, and nothing I said had anything to do with Israel so I don’t know why I was assumed to be a “zionist.” Bush has brought on the slaughter of more than a million people, and certainly the US government has no clean hands to condemn others. But I deplore the US government and do not speak on its behalf. I need not side with Georgia’s aggression against South Ossetia to also critique Russia.
I’m getting the feeling some people have attacked my post without reading it, as they are rehashing much of the same stuff I wrote and linked to.
Anthony Gregory | Aug 13, 2008 | Reply
In other words, you can read a hundred of my articles discussing war and foreign policy and find nothing defending the US empire, war on terror, wars on Afghanistan or Iraq. But holding other criminal states to the US standard is holding them to a rather low standard, when it comes to foreign belligerence.
Anthony Gregory | Aug 13, 2008 | Reply
I couldn’t agree more!!
bilgepumper | Aug 13, 2008 | Reply
Plan was very simple and implementation was successful. “Green whissel” was given from Wash (ofcource they deny and will deny). A small war with Russia present. Patriotism and democratic principles.
Who gets profit?
Answer is obvious – Reps push their candidate into the president chair.
So, the war just on time with culmination of anti-Russian rhetoric in November.
So, Anthony is right – new cold war is coming. But not from Russia – this is American skill.
kio | Aug 15, 2008 | Reply
Some quantitative justification of the previous comment. McCain’s rating has jumped by 6% to 7% during last weeks.
So, all this war is about who gets the US. This is a much bigger stake than anything esle in this game.
kio | Aug 16, 2008 | Reply
Good reply, Gazza, I appreciated your passion and knowledge. I am deeply offended by the actions of the United States government in recent years, but the hypocrisy about Russia really reaches the limit.
Caryl Johnston | Aug 17, 2008 | Reply
Wow. This sure brought the old Stalinist apologists out of the wood work.
Max | Aug 17, 2008 | Reply
the USA is the last nation on this planet that can claim the high ground
You CANNOT condemn others for actions that you engage yourself
I really resent how American citizens are told to shut up because of the unfortunate actions of their government. I, for one, will not shut up just because my president is a hypocrite.
So, all this war is about who gets the US. This is a much bigger stake than anything esle in this game.
It floors me how libertarian-minded people won’t blink at an opportunity to bemoan the American government, but don’t think twice about giving foreign governments a free pass. Don’t get me wrong – I hate the US government and Bush and all – but I can at least admit that there are worse ones (like, say, Russia’s?).
Rationalitate | Aug 18, 2008 | Reply
“... but I can at least admit that there are worse ones (like, say, Russia’s?).”
Well, actually I admire the US authority. I just say that this is the way they get GOP again in power. Absolutely legal and wise way. And more important for politicians – it works!
About the US/Russia relationship in the future. I have no doubt that the US will never stop this fight (any possible kind) against Russia because the latter is practically the only country in this world, which can demolish the US completely.
So, GOP or Dems have the same goal forever (hopefully Russia will survive for a long) – to reduce any thread to the US to zero, i.e. no country be even a minor military danger to the US.
I would say, all this (including Georgia) not about Russia, it is about safety of american citizens in the long run.
kio | Aug 20, 2008 | Reply
Isnt making friends a better way to ensure peace (and safety of all, not only american citizens) than making enemies? You know the saying – Treat someone as your enemy and he will become one. That is exactly what is going on with Russia and you can see it if you dont have neocon glasses...
xwing | Aug 22, 2008 | Reply
It is great pleasure to cite own words
“of cource they deny and will deny”
But
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino blasted Putin’s statements, saying they were “patently false.”
“To suggest that the United States orchestrated this on behalf of a political candidate just sounds not rational,” she said.
U.S. State Department deputy spokesman Robert Wood concurred, and labeled Putin’s statements as “ludicrous.”
kio | Aug 28, 2008 | Reply
I remember the result of something like that
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZTLmOoPzjs
kio | Aug 28, 2008 | Reply
Yes, there can be no doubt in the thesis that a new tug of geopolitical war is being or has been started between the two former arch-rivals of the Cold War, the US and Russia (previously known as the Soviet Union).US’s strategy of Nato’s eastward expansion and its designs regarding the installation of its missile defense programme in the Eastern Europe seem to have been two major reasons for Russia to invoke its Cold war doctrine against the USA, thereby involving new policy challenges to the transatlantic alliance.
Syed Qamar Afzal Rizvi | Aug 29, 2008 | Reply
Professor George Hewitt is known for his extremely biased position against Georgia. This tiny part from his writing contains dozens of factual mistakes.
If someone on earth is interested in Georgian social-demiocratic movement and party, read professor Stephen Jones’s (Mount Hollyoke, MA) 400 pg book on “Socialism in Georgian Colours”. At least he tries to be objective and impartial.
Note – George Hewitt’s wife is an Abkhazian woman, while Stephen Jones’s – a Georgian.
So cherche la Famme my dear political scientists, la Famme!
Una | Oct 6, 2008 | Reply
Cold War? You wish, indeed. Since the US bombed Serbia, the war against Russia has only been becoming hotter... Maybe this defeat of the US in Georgia, and now in Ukraine will cool off some hot heads.
Ruslan | Jan 22, 2009 | Reply