Russia has officially recognized the independence of both Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Why would they do this? President Medvedev explains:
Meanwhile, ignoring Russia’s warnings, western countries rushed to recognise Kosovo’s illegal declaration of independence from Serbia. We argued consistently that it would be impossible, after that, to tell the Abkhazians and Ossetians (and dozens of other groups around the world) that what was good for the Kosovo Albanians was not good for them. In international relations, you cannot have one rule for some and another rule for others…
Only a madman could have taken such a gamble. Did he believe Russia would stand idly by as he launched an all-out assault on the sleeping city of Tskhinvali, murdering hundreds of peaceful civilians, most of them Russian citizens? Did he believe Russia would stand by as his “peacekeeping” troops fired on Russian comrades with whom they were supposed to be preventing trouble in South Ossetia?
Russia had no option but to crush the attack to save lives. This was not a war of our choice. We have no designs on Georgian territory. Our troops entered Georgia to destroy bases from which the attack was launched and then left. We restored the peace but could not calm the fears and aspirations of the South Ossetian and Abkhazian peoples – not when Mr Saakashvili continued (with the complicity and encouragement of the US and some other Nato members) to talk of rearming his forces and reclaiming “Georgian territory”. The presidents of the two republics appealed to Russia to recognise their independence.
It’s all very pretty and rather deceptive. Medvedev can’t bring himself to mention the years of Russian-fueled or even Russian-committed provocations and cease-fire violations in both Abkhazia and South Ossetia, nor does he bother to mention that the reason he was rushing to defend Russian Citizens was because his government had issued, carte-blanche, Russian passports to whichever South Ossetians could get them.
Very clever. And indeed it was—Western countries are still scrambling to respond to Moscow’s very well executed gambit in Georgia. Russia successfully used the only reliable current in Georgian politics: hatred of Russia. And Saakashvili was their willing accomplice. Richard Holbrooke, just back from his public dinner with President Saakashvili, finds that man as Georgia’s only hope:
The equation is simple: If Saakashvili survives, Vladimir Putin loses.
The intense personal hatred between these men overlays two centuries of tortured history between Russia and Georgia. Many people report that Putin simply “loses it” when discussing the upstart Saakashvili, who led his country from near bankruptcy into a golden age of economic growth and the world’s highest rate of foreign direct investment relative to GDP. All this has been halted by Russian tanks.
The Kremlin has probably lost its chance to remove Saakashvili by overt force, although sinister, stealthier means cannot be ruled out. Having just dined with him in a public restaurant, I wish his security was a little tighter. (His predecessor, Eduard Shevardnadze, was a near-miss target for several assassination attempts that are widely believed to have been Russian-directed.) The Kremlin’s best hope now is that Georgia’s economy will crumble, its currency will collapse, and an unhappy populace, encouraged by some opposition leader (perhaps bankrolled by Russia), will force Saakashvili from power.
The problem with this is that Saakashvili has proven himself reckless, easily-baited, and strategically a poor choice for leading Georgia. He is too inflammatory, too willing to berate Europe for not subsidizing his ambitions, too wiling to take catastrophic action with the assumed backing of the U.S. Holbrooke acknowledges this, though he doesn’t see that these are all reasons to reconsider our warm support. Frankly, I still don’t see how Saakashvili can finish his tenure as President, though I could easily be proven wrong.
But all this talk of a “new cold war” is just over-hyped nonsense. Russia is doing nothing it didn’t do in the early 90s. In a very real sense, things are not that much different than they were then—the post-Soviet military machine can barely operate (it was only able to get into Georgia so quickly because of pre-positioned assets along the border), the Russian economy is utterly dependent on the West for goods, services, and banks, and let us not forget: the President of Russia himself is taking to the pages of a major International western newspaper to justify his actions.
That normally doesn’t happen. We are not returning to 1968 all over again. We are still trying to figure out what happens after 1991.
{ 13 comments }
This is much the same facile description of Sakashvili that we hear from the Russians. As with all things, it is far more complex and nuanced. I recommend that readers also take a look at http://michaeltotten.com/ which includes an interview with Michael Worms and Thomas Goltz.
Now that’s just being mean.
It’s best to treat Totten’s work (and not just in Georgia) as a travelogue.
Jeffrey, the description is fairly close to that given by a number of western diplomats off the record. Sure, one could offer more nuance — if one were writing a biography, it would be necessary. However, none of that description is wrong per se.
Travelogue is right.
The whole thing is a mess. And as so many of my fellow countrymen refuse to acknowledge, the U.S. added its own sh** to the pot.
I am further amazed that some call for the US to send in arms to Georgia. Have we forgotten that Russia too has nukes? This isn’t Iraq boys.
“It’s best to treat Totten’s work (and not just in Georgia) as a travelogue.”
Yes, indeed. The travelogue of a gullible man who likes to project the image of being a macho independent reporter.
An objective – but incomplete – record of the blame narrative was issued by local experts:
http://www.iwpr.net/?p=crs&s=f&o=346346&apc_state=henh
However, there can be no denial that Saak had ordered artillery and rocket forces to set up on Georgian soil and to target residential neighborhoods for the purpose of ethnic cleansing. Although the Russians are withholding data on US and Israeli technology captured, pending the GOP selection of McCain (they want to dead-duck him), captured Georgians have admitted that ethnic cleansing was their goal. In spite of the Georgian cover story, the name of the operation has been disclosed as: “Clean Fields.” It was carried out with US advisors, who co-ordinated BlitzKleenz war preparations during “Operation Immediate Response 2008″ that had finished in Georgia only a week earlier. All but 137 of the 1000 US troops who participated were housed in the same barracks near Tblisi as the ethnic cleansers (Russians attacked same during the One-Day War). The rest completed their last flight out the day before the Midnight-Massacre. “Clean Fields” succeeded in cleansing half of Tskhinvali’s residents. The end game of the operation was: destruction of the Rokia Tunnel, imposing a fait accompli on the Russians. And client Strong Men of US masters do NOT operate alone. Bush ordered a war crime.
As an entire Russian army had been training in North Ossetia to match IR2008, one might have expected that they would have responded immediately. In fact, independent observers found that Russian tanks did not arrive in Tskhinvali until 14.5 hours after the Midnight-Massacre. Why didn’t the Georgians attack Russians at the tunnel? The deceitful coverstory is that they tried to destroy a nearby bridge but that plan failed. Listen to the lies of Saakashit’s Foreign Minister:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utkIeH3vbaQ&feature=user
Did Saakashit order targeting of civilian neighborhoods with restraint? At 7 PM he went on Georgian state TV to promise “autonomy” to Ossetians; 4.5 hours later that same TV station broadcast triumphal scenes of rockets flying and artillery shells being delivered. Two days later, Russians conducted a media tour of the destruction. I won’t post pics of the numerous murders of civilians by Georgian cleansers and their US advisors.
In the so-called brutal occupation of parts of Georgia, Russian soldiers debate with Georgian protesters. What were the soldiers saying about Tskhinvali?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9m5hnDnRL0A&feature=related
From the Georgian government website, see map of Russian checkpoints. ZERO occupied cities:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ppYoJaoaCUc/SKl4QDD8lTI/AAAAAAAAADM/BzQgVfAa7d8/s1600-h/map-russian-military-units.gif
It is Bush-McCain supporters who thought they could Pentagon Game their way into 4 more years. Obama won’t pardon them. Hopefully those war criminals get life imprisonment.
An Obama government would release satellite proof of Russian’s claims. McCain is well aware of that. Vote Obama-Biden.
technote:
i checked to make sure the URL link didn’t overflow prior to submission. 60 letters appears to be the limit.
can you format for wrap? maybe gif or image files have to be treated differently.
whatever. sorry for the screw up.
BTW: the map posted in from the Georgia gov website. and in spite of the rhetoric, i support a regional settlement of the Caucasus Crisis, on the OSCE 1977 model (Helsinki Accord). Peace.
I think one of the most fascinating subjects of this war is how the info-war has been going after the conflict itself was truly over. It seems for once the neo-con spin machine has met its equal, and in a technical way its kinda cool to see a new cadre of russian info-warriors on the internet using parts info and parts spin-magic. For once, there has been a real fog-of-cyberwar, and that I think is a first in world history.
However, a couple of words of advice, Jail McCain and others: The use of strongly emotive language seems to be a common failure among our russian brothers. Words like “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” wich were in themselves almost destroyed by the US use of them in Kosovo really ring hollow when the destruction is a few hundred people and much property. “Clear targeting of distinctive ethnic groups” or even better, just “war crimes” are sufficient. Ethnic cleansing is Rwanda, genocide is Pol Pot or the Burmese war on the Karen people to go into smaller scale. So to us cynical sceptics, who would also like to see McCain and his mighty friends in media exposed and discarded, such terms are kind of counterproductive. Its just a shitty little conflict with a couple of thousand dead, not WW3. Unless the neo-cons manage to spin it that way, of course.
Another point is that the russian point of view would look much better if you could explain who on earth allowed all the irregulars loose into georgian soil. It seems clear that the cossacks and the various bandit-militias were raiding deep into Georgia in retaliation well after the occupation was in force. A more professional approach to the act, militarily, would cost you a lot less emotive & outraged rhetoric in the public western sphere.
As a friend of mine from Russia said: “Georgians are bandits. Ossetians are bandits. Putin is the biggest bandit of them all. When small bandits try to fight the big bandits, things usually dont go too well for the small bandits unless they are lucky”. I think that sums this conflict up quite well. It sure aint worth sacrificing Afghanistan for, at least.
You Guys are fool. Russians hate America and the rest of the Democtratic world, they would destroy you if they had power. 90% of russian population support what their leaders did in Geogia regardless who started the war and would like Russian Army to go as far as Tbilissi, Baku, Ukraine, Moldova or Poland.
But you silly liberals just keep picking your noses and trying to hide you fear by bullshitting around and pretending beeing “objective”. Same way Hitler was allowed to come to power. It is time you chose your side Gentlemen. The war has started.
fnord:
“The use of strongly emotive language seems to be a common failure among our russian brothers. Words like “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” wich were in themselves almost destroyed by the US use of them in Kosovo really ring hollow when the destruction is a few hundred people and much property.”
Totally, 100 percent correct.
“the russian point of view would look much better if you could explain who on earth allowed all the irregulars loose into georgian soil. It seems clear that the cossacks and the various bandit-militias were raiding deep into Georgia in retaliation well after the occupation was in force.”
Just admit that it was wrong and unfortunate and that the perpetrators will be (or–more realistically–should have been) punished. Np excuses or rationalizations (“Caucasus tradition of revenge,” “it could have been worse,” “the Georgians were/would have been worse”) should be used.
Meh. I think Saakashvili has proven himself a megalomaniac time and time again. This isn’t news.
However, he is the lawfully elected president of a country that America has declared an ally time and time again.
It’s an extremely awkward situation all around. Simple summaries (not that I think Josh offered one, mind, but they’re all too easy to find) simply defy that essential reality. But that’s the reality of blogs, by in large: simple but opinionated.
The only reason I don’t see Saakashvili getting tossed is that no other Georgian politician seems to be able to stand up with an actual way forward. It’s a whole world of nuancing about exactly how much everyone hates Russia and wants very slightly different things for the economy. Georgia as a whole is on the brink here; no leader is emerging to actually rise above the given situation.
Sigh. Maybe I ought to start blogging again or something.
jbd, Saakashvili wasn’t lawfully elected. I was in Tbilisi from July 2007 well through March of this year–there to see the November riots, the subsequent “election campaign,” and the “election.”
Opposition candidates had an uphill battle. First of all, because they had only 45 days to campaign, thanks to the State of Emergency that Saakashvili put into effect after November 7 which banned political gatherings. Secondly, they were outspent to a ridiculous degree–Saakashvili spent around 14.4 million USD; next closest was Gachechiladze at 465,000 USD (http://civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=17163).
Part of Saakashvili’s money went to all of the brand new tractors that appeared in every village of Georgia during the campaign, each with his campaign poster in it. Some of it went to bribing voters (http://civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=16628).Then there were the threats; one of my Georgian friends, a business owner, was told by the financial police that if she didn’t vote for Saakashvili, they might just find a “mistake” in her books.
Come election day, there were more irregularities than I care to count. Why weren’t they reported? Mainly because the West had long ago decided that Saakashvili was the candidate that they wanted to win so they didn’t bother to dig too deeply. By the time some of the ballot stuffing came to light (http://civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=17524), it was too late–Saakashvili had long been inaugurated.
If the primary reason we stand behind Georgia is that it is a “Beacon of Democracy,” then we should seriously reconsider why we support Saakashvili, not why Russia came to South Ossetia’s aid.