Who are wearing the black hats? The Russians or the Georgians?

[Jackonicko]

Like many of you, I spent my formative years seeing Russia as ‘the enemy’. My Dad spent the first four years of his RAF career fighting the Germans, but most of the next 30 preparing to fight the Russians.

Putin’s crude Russian nationalism and anti-Western paranoia make my blood run cold, and I wouldn’t trust the ex-KGB bastard as far as I could throw him.

I’m pre-disposed to distrust Russian governments, in other words.

ESPECIALLY THIS ONE!

And I’m pre-disposed to like those breakaway former Soviet Republics who want to embrace Western-style democracy, and who aspire to NATO and/or EU membership.

But am I alone in feeling just a tad concerned and confused by the media coverage of the latest little spat in the Caucasus?

And indeed with the direction that our policy makers seem to be taking?

It’s of largely academic interest to me, but the way things are going PPRuNers may be asked to go in as peacekeepers or monitors, so how do you blokes feel about it?

Mr Bush is stressing the USA’s commitment to Georgia's 'democratically elected government', and to Georgia’s territorial integrity, and has committed USAF aircraft to transporting Georgian reinforcements from Iraq back home. Meanwhile Condoleeza Rice has compared Russian actions to the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. (The Beeb quote her as saying: “"This is not 1968 and the invasion of Czechoslovakia where Russia can threaten a neighbour, occupy a capital, overthrow a government and get away with it. Things have changed."

But is it really right to portray this in quite such an over-simplistic Cold War light? Is it right to intervene in quite such a one-sided (or seemingly one-sided) way?

Is this really the evil Russian bear attempting to crush a new pro-Western and democratic nation that aspires to NATO membership?

Although the UN, EU, NATO and OSCE recognize South Ossetia as part of Georgia, this seems pretty dubious.

I read that South Ossetia is roughly 66% Ossetian and 29% Georgian by ethnicity, with most of the remainder being Russian. More than 70% of the South Ossetia citizens voluntarily hold Russian citizenship. The South Ossetians want to unite with the other ethnic Ossetians in North Ossetia (part of Russia) and do not want to be citizens of the Georgian government in Tbilisi. They have repeatedly shown very high levels of support for independence from Georgia (not least in two recent referenda) and have repeatedly rejected Georgian offers of ‘autonomy’ instead demanding full independence. After the 2006 referendum South Ossetia declared itself a de facto status independent state.

As a result there are now two competing governments in South Ossetia, the pro-Russian, pro-independence Government of the Republic of South Ossetia, which has its capital at Tskhinvali and uses the ruble as its currency and the pro-Georgian Provisional Administrative Entity of South Ossetia which has its capital at Kurta and which uses the Georgian Lari as its currency. This was set up by the Georgian government and has no democratic mandate.

Georgia is disinclined to grant such independence to South Ossetia, which it has described as a political absurdity.

The current hostilities began when Georgian forces invaded South-Ossetian-controlled territory and began shelling the Tskhinvali capital of the break-away Government of the Republic of South Ossetia. The Georgians had already cut off electricity to South Ossetia, and had pursued policies forcing the Ossetians to rely on Russia economically. Is it really any great surprise that Russia, which has had internationally recognized peacekeeping forces in South Ossetia since 1992, should respond militarily to this attack on the South Ossetians – who it sees as its people? Were they even wrong to do so?

Am I missing something? Isn’t Russia simply responding to Georgian aggression, going to the aid of a democratic secessionist movement that wants Russian support, and of a population the majority of which sees itself as Ossetian or Russian and not Georgian?

Should the West be favouring Georgian Territorial Integrity over the rights and wishes of the South Ossetians for independence, even if they do seem to have a preference for Moscow over Tbilisi? We might not like it that anyone should choose the old evil empire over Mikheil Saakashvili’s pro-Western Georgia, but surely we should be prepared to recognize and support their choice? Isn’t supporting Georgia on this a bit like supporting the Serbs rather than the Kosovans or Bosnians? Or the Chinese over the Taiwanese?

How are the South Ossetians any different to the various Balkan groups and the Kurds who we've been only too happy to support when they’ve wanted independence? Why were we not equally keen to maintain the ‘territorial integrity’ of the FRY?

We seem to have entirely over-looked the fact that this started because Georgia mounted an armed action against an autonomous region which had overwhelmingly made its demands for full independence clear. No wonder the Russians are paranoid about the West.

Or have I been suckered by Russian propaganda?

[brickhistory]

jacko, a well written post.

However, I'm surprised at the questioning of who the black hats are.

Regardless of South Ossetia's claim, they still were part of Georgia. Any nation would take a dim view of a fair chunk just up and leaving. Britain towards us in 1776, Russia towards Chechnya in the last dozen years or so, etc., etc. No other nation's military went on holiday in Russia while Putin and Company used up some Soviet-era munitions.

Is Russia allowing North Ossetia to 'run free?' I also thought Russia came to save 'Russian citizens' not Ossetians. Of course, since Russia provided those self-same folks with passports, then it's a neat trick.

Surely there are better means to work for independence than just 'I say so?' Unless, of course, it works. Again, the US as an example of a successful rebellion a while ago.

Regarding the breakup of the FRY, didn't that whole effort start over the wholesale eradication of everyone who wasn't Serb? And didn't NATO have permission from mama UN? Russia didn't say "Simon says."

I don't think Georgia was an innocent virgin in the current spat, but I believe this is Putin's way of keeping the former Soviet Republics from getting too cozy with the West and being right on his doorstep.

While historically, this is nothing new, since we're in the present, does Putin get the right to say 'nyet' to Georgia's government. The practical matter is yes. The philosophical matter is will the West let him?

This is the re-emergence of the Bear. But this time with a wallet.

[Sand4Gold]

An interesting Thread.

I suppose the cynic in me would say that this 'spat' has more to do with Republican politics than Russia attempting to assert itself. The initial incursion by Russian forces probably did have the tacit approval of the Bush administration - with agendas met, it's now time for the politicians to take over; Georgian EU/NATO membership aspirations will be suspended TFN.

It is not in Russia's interests to further this conflict; its time will come.

AA

[Jackonicko]

Brick,

A better means to achieve independence?

When your colonial master doesn't accept two referenda, both of which indicate a 90%+ degree of support for independence, what do you do?

And if there is that level of support, and if the area in particular is ethnically different and discrete, why would the West support 'territorial integrity' of the 'oppressor' rather than the aspirations of the smaller unit for self determination?

And why has there been no condemnation by the US of the fact that Georgia actually started this whole shooting match by invading South Ossetia?

I simply don't understand any of this, and these are genuine questions. In many ways I'd be delighted to learn that actually the Georgians behaviour has been exemplary, and that the Russians are being villains again.

[Green Flash]

I wonder if Russia is pre-disposed to have a national paranoia re the USA. The Imperialists are percieved to be getting closer (ditto the proposed ABM deployments in Eastern Europe) - old habits die hard. Georgia announces that it wants to be in the EU and NATO; suddenly, The Enemy is at the Gates and South Ossetia provides the trip wire. This could get very messy very quickly, methinks we should have a damn good think before we blunder in.

[dallas]

The current hostilities began when Georgian forces invaded South-Ossetian-controlled territory and began shelling the Tskhinvali capital of the break-away Government of the Republic of South Ossetia. The Georgians had already cut off electricity to South Ossetia, and had pursued policies forcing the Ossetians to rely on Russia economically. Is it really any great surprise that Russia, which has had internationally recognized peacekeeping forces in South Ossetia since 1992, should respond militarily to this attack on the South Ossetians – who it sees as its people? Were they even wrong to do so?
I think this is the crucial point - the BBC were claiming that around the time both factions were talking, Georgia launched a sneak attack, resulting in the Russians moving in with big stick. Presumably the Georgian premier calculated that Russia wouldn't do anything, as Georgia could never hope to win a fight against Russia, so they must have based their thinking on the insurance policy of being pals with America. While I certainly don't claim to know the full story, I'm not inclined to be sympathetic to Georgia just because they're the apparent David in the Goliath story, especially as their hubris has the potential to spark something way more serious.

Equally, there's no mistaking America's message to Putin; it certainly isn't an altruistic display of US generosity to Georgian unfortunates when delivered by USAF C17. It should be interesting to see what moral platitudes the Americans now spout, having cashed-in most of their scruples and positions on the high ground since 9/11.

[Mr Grimsdale]

Maybe this is a simplisitic analogy but what about Kosovo gaining independence from Serbia? In that case the West views the separatist side as the good guys but not in this latest instance.

[dallas]

Maybe this is a simplisitic analogy but what about Kosovo gaining independence from Serbia? In that case the West views the separatist side as the good guys but not in this latest instance.
'We' have a history of inconsistency, which is why the Arabs hate us so much.

[Jackonicko]

I don't buy the explanation that this is all about US cynicism, opportunism and self interested inconsistency. Whatever you think of the action in Iraq, one has to recognise that American foreign policy is more often (not always, just more often) motivated by genuine altruism, fighting for freedom and democracy and 'doing the right thing' than any other nation's.

So there must be a cogent, moral explanation for the US failure to condemn Georgia's original aggression, and for the strength of support that we're seeing.

[Sand4Gold]

one has to recognise that American foreign policy is more often (not always, just more often) motivated by genuine altruism, fighting for freedom and democracy and 'doing the right thing' than any other nation's.

American foreign policy is self-serving - to keep, one could argue, the American defence industry at the forefront of the incumbent Administration.

AA

[dallas]

American foreign policy is self-serving - to keep, one could argue, the American defence industry at the forefront of the incumbent Administration.
I agree, America only ever acts in its own interests - which is understandable - but don't be fooled by banners for freedom, good and other emotivators!

[Jackonicko]

With respect, and without wishing to be a shill for the USA (and especially not for the Bush administration, which I deplore), I do think that the US has always been more driven by honour, decency and altruism than other nations, (as well as self interest, often, of course), and even by a sense of international responsibility.

[Postman Plod]

This made an interesting read:

BBC NEWS | World | Europe | Feeling vindicated in Moscow (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7559876.stm)

Is it simply a case of the US having invested too much and spoken out too soon to suddenly condemn an "ally"?

[icarus sun]

This is part of the Russian payback for the serbian problem. Now that serbia has started to align itself with the west. Also the poland anti missile proposed deployment.Look for russia to start making trouble in the Baltics and Ukraine.Probably by the use of gas pipeline in ukraine. Part of the population that support russia in baltic/ukraine may want independence. So russia has many areas to create problems. Georgia only the start

[skua]

In my simplistic view, either:
a) Saakashvili had the US onside before he launched his attack, i.e. there was tacit support; or
b) it was his idea, and he did not forewarn the US.

If the former this is another pitiful reflection on the USA's frequently crass foreign policy,

if the latter, the man should not be in charge of a post office.

the only good to come out of it, as far as I can see, is that even the most myopic observers can now see Russia for what it is...


Skua

[dallas]

With respect, and without wishing to be a shill for the USA (and especially not for the Bush administration, which I deplore), I do think that the US has always been more driven by honour, decency and altruism than other nations, (as well as self interest, often, of course), and even by a sense of international responsibility.
Jacko, you're far from naive and I respect your point of view, but I find your angle at odds with most people who have looked past banner headlines and catchphrases. Ironically, until after 9/11 I would have probably sided with you, but I don't think America has changed her spots so much as become more blatent. For the most part I like the US, but hamburgers and cowboy hats belie the real America, the ruthless machine of hegemony, driven by the likes of Cheney.

They might have dropped blankets on Ethiopians like the rest of us, but most American operations have or had an underlying strategy behind them which was solely for their benefit. Again, I don't have an issue with that - of course a country mounts operations for their own benefit - the bit that annoys me is the duplicity and lies that hide behind consumer phrases like 'freedom'.

With regard to whether the US is the most altruistic of a dodgy bunch, we could argue all day, I'm sure, but personally I don't think the front runners at the Selfless Olympics would be that far apart from each other - which certainly contradicts my Americans good ~ Russians Bad upbringing too.

[brickhistory]

jacko, how does one 'invade' one's own territory? Georgia's tactics may (or may not, I simply don't know) been over the top, but doesn't a country have the right to try and stop its own destruction?

If the majority of the country don't want the dissolution, then should it still proceed?

We took a dim view of the South's secession some years back.

Yep, there is both an element of self-interest in the US' foreign policy. As it should be. But we also help out a great deal.

As none of the international bodies have weighed in any meaningful way over this, I think the C-17s and ships is a very clear message to Putin.

Or it could get very ugly.

[microlight AV8R]

It seems that Mr Saakashvili has miscalculated the strength of his alliances with the western powers. I'm reminded of the reponse of a British Commander to an instruction from a colonial cousin to go and kick out the Ruskies from pristine. It aint worth WW3.

So, georgia appears to have shoyt itself in the foot and pretty much finalised the future of the disputed region by default. on the nother hand, it could be said that the Russuan 'peacekeepers' have been nothing if not biased. All immaterial now.

When you consider the ethnic profile of the area, then the question of Georgian sovereignty becomes dubious. After this debacle it seems likely that there is no going back and seperation is inevitable.

Russian media puppets have repeatedly broadcast claims of genocide. Wild exaggeration? If not, why no pictures? If it was genocide you can be sure that Mr Putin would have made sure the evidence was broadcast to the world. As in any conflict, there will have been wrong doing on both sides.

Russia has not shown any finesse in the PR side of this operation. If nothing else, this shows the thinking behind having embedded newsfolk when conducting 'liberation' operations.

The Russian military response seemed to have been relatively unsophisticated but effective. Several aircraft lost, I presume, to soviet era AA systems? That must tell us something about their electronic warfare & countermeasures capabilities.
The deciding factor; it's a numbers game.

I'm amused at western politicians expressing concerning at the use of 'disproportionate force' . Get real! Is there any other way to do it??

Russia is simply influencing the way things work in its own back yard. Sound familiar?

Allegations of Russia wanting to oust Mr Saakashvili: Well, I'm disgusted, we would never seek to interfere in the affairs of another country and instigate a change of government to one more disposed to our way of thinking. Or would we?

So what's it all about? Well a bit of all of the above and one other thing.
Do some research.... Oil/gas, pipelines, Caspian Sea.

[Jackonicko]

Brick,

This is not about dissolution, it's about secession of one small area. And in the area in question, there is a MASSIVE majority in favour of secession.

When the vast majority of an area want independence then I'd dispute anyone else's claim that the area in question was 'their territory'.

This is particularly so when that area is ethnically distinct from the larger whole - as it is in this case, with Ossetians and Russians out-numbering ethnic Georgians in this area. (And many of the long-term Georgian residents in Ossetia seem to favour independence rather than autonomy, too).

It's also questionable when the larger whole is an artificial construct, with recent and artificially-drawn borders.

The US civil war is hardly pertinent in this case - as it was (to some extent, and insofar as my limited reading suggests) a divisive struggle in both north and south - with no overwhelming or universal mandate for independence in the south, and since those in the south were not ethnically distinct from those who ruled them in the north.

I see no legitimacy in Georgia's claims over South Ossetia. Georgia is entirely 'viable' without South Ossetia. The region is not 'naturally' or traditionally Georgian. Its population (who overwhelmingly are NOT Georgian) don't want Georgian hegemony. They have demonstrated their desire for independence and their rejection of autonomy democratically, and have declared their independence. There is NO suggestion that any Georgian minority would be endangered by Ossetian independence.

What possible reason is there for depriving the Ossetians of their right to choose their own destiny? (Using the situation to twist Russia's tail, however tempting, does not cut it for me).

I might deplore Scottish Nationalist-driven demands for Scottish devolution, but if that's what the Scots themselves want, then fine. If that becomes a demand for full independence, then it's not England's place to invade and keep the Kingdom united by force of arms.

If Puerto Rico voted (98% +) in favour of independence, would the USA be right to invade to stop it?


Dallas,

I'm a far from uncritical admirer of America and Americans. But while I share many of your misgivings and criticisms, I still see them as having some moral authority, and I see them as being leaders of the free world because of that moral authority, and due to their fundamental decency, and not just their economic and military power.

[Sand4Gold]

Jackonicko,

This is not about dissolution, it's about secession of one small area. And in the area in question, there is a MASSIVE majority in favour of secession.

When the vast majority of an area want independence then I'd dispute anyone else's claim that the area in question was 'their territory'.

Are you suggesting that if a sovereign nation has an ethnic minority that has carved out an 'area' for itself within its borders, and is ethnically distinct within that area boundary, then there is a case to grant them independence if they so wish?

If you are, then we are indeed heading into troubled waters for the foreseeable future.



AA

[brickhistory]

jacko, you asked for an opinion about the 'black hats.'

My vote is on the Russians.

South Ossetia is a red herring (pun intended).

Is Russia going to allow North Ossetia break free, join with their southern brothers, and live happily ever after?

Did Russia take kindly to Chechnya's attempts to do the same thing?

I don't believe Putin's aim was to liberate his Ossetian 'brothers.' It was to demonstrate in very clear terms about former Soviet Republics going 'all Western 'n stuff.'

Have you come to a conclusion yet?

----------------------------------------------------------------------


To the comment about Russia wanting to influence things in its own backyard and the ring of familiarity. Fair enough. They (the Russians) are in place with force and there really is f*ck all anyone can do about it militarily.

The question remains, however, is that what the West should do? Lie back and 'think of England?'

It may very well be that is all that can be done.

[Climebear]

Jackonicko

I read that South Ossetia is roughly 66% Ossetian and 29% Georgian by ethnicity, with most of the remainder being Russian. More than 70% of the South Ossetia citizens voluntarily hold Russian citizenship. The South Ossetians want to unite with the other ethnic Ossetians in North Ossetia (part of Russia) and do not want to be citizens of the Georgian government in Tbilisi. They have repeatedly shown very high levels of support for independence from Georgia (not least in two recent referenda) and have repeatedly rejected Georgian offers of ‘autonomy’ instead demanding full independence. After the 2006 referendum South Ossetia declared itself a de facto status independent state.

Beware what you read my friend. This may be so; however, the population your refer to (like the population of Abkhazia) is the population that was left after the large number of ethnic Georgians were forced out of the areas in the conflicts of the early 90s. That said, using ethnicity is fraut with dificulty to describe Georgian society - indeed almost the same as using it to descrieb British society. In Abkhazia (an area I know better than South Ossetia) there were ethnic Abkhazians, ethnic Russians, ethnic Mingrelians and ethnic Svanetians althought the latter 2 (alongside other 'Georgian' ethinc groups) had largely been burnt/killed/raped out of their homes and were in temporary (over 15 years) Internally Displaced People camps (note, they are legally not refugees as they had not crossed internationally recognised borders).

Climebear has served as a UN Military Observer in Georgia

[dallas]

I'm a far from uncritical admirer of America and Americans. But while I share many of your misgivings and criticisms, I still see them as having some moral authority, and I see them as being leaders of the free world because of that moral authority, and due to their fundamental decency, and not just their economic and military power.
With a fear of sounding tabloid, I think the US traded moral authority for the invasion of Iraq, rendition flights and Guantanamo, to name a few. That's the problem with the moral authority - it's a bit like virginity - once you cash it in you can't simply yearn for it back and everything returns to normal. Had Bush been a more intelligent man, perhaps choosing to listen to more than the surrounding neocons, he might have realised his immediate choices would have long term repercussions for his country, and I rank loss of 'good guy' status (to the masses) as being one of the most short-sighted popularist trade-ins.

[MarkD]

If anyone should be putting their shoulder to the wheel, shouldn't it be Georgia's neighbours who share the pipeline - Turkey and Azerbaijian? Theirs is the most direct economic interest.

[Jackonicko]

Climebear,

Abkhazia is a VERY different proposition to South Ossetian. It has a much more diverse ethnic population, with a much less overwhelming support for independence.

It may be true that large number of ethnic Georgians were forced out of SOME areas in the conflicts of the early 90s, and that some Georgians were burned out/raped out in Abkhazia, but the proportion of Ossetians to Georgians in South Ossetia has hardly changed since 1939 (68.1 % Ossetian, 25.9 % Georgian) though the Jewish and Armenian populations have taken a kicking since 1970....

The figures from the various censuses do not support the conclusion that there has been ANY significant movement of ethnic Georgians from South Ossetia.

[Postman Plod]

As far as I have seen, nobody has denied that Georgia effectively started this conflict - nobody seems to be disputing that.

To that end, I really dont understand why the west have been so vocal in support for Georgia and condemnation of Russia, rather than slapping their foreheads in a collective "Doh" at Georgias own goal, and keeping their mouths shut other than calls for peace. I understand Russia may have gone a bit further than was strictly necessary, but equally they were provoked, and haven't really done anything Western countries haven't done.

You do also get the impression that elements of the press are puzzled!

[brickhistory]

postman, without trying to be too flippant, I think I deny Georgia's 'starting this.'

They, the Georgians, were operating within their own territorial borders. Now to the amount of force or tactics used, I've yet to see anything substantive on that - did they go to far/heavy-handed? I don't know - but it was an internal matter within the established borders of Georgia.

Russia's claim to protect 'Russian' citizens does seem thin on its face. As Russia gave Russian passports to Georgian (Ossetian) citizens, does that then make them 'Russian' over 'Georgian?'

Did Georgia screw the pooch by attempting to subdue the problem after it had been festering since the 1990s? Yes. But as it was within its own borders, I'm not seeing how Russia isn't the bad guy here.

[Climebear]

Jackonicko

The figures from the various censuses do not support the conclusion that there has been ANY significant movement of ethnic Georgians from South Ossetia.

So I was imagining all those people in the IDP 'camps' around Gori and Tbilisi then! There certainly seemed to be an awful lot of them.

[Postman Plod]

But using military force in a heavily disputed area (your own or otherwise), patrolled by an internationally agreed peacekeeping force, and not expecting a reaction, is naive at best! Whether or not they are Russian citizens is a moot point - its who the majority South Ossetians identify with. From a UK perspective, you could argue there are vague fleeting similarities to the Falkalnds conflict (only we were effectively trying to offload the islands onto Argentina against the will of the people), and traditional Western calls for self determination seem a little hollow

Leaving aside Russias action and the fact this territory is disputed, this sort of activity would normally draw scathing critisism from the West - using force to subdue your own population?

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying Russia are saints in this, but it just doesn't seem as one sided as our governments seem to be suggesting, and you do have to wonder exactly why they're suggesting it? They also seem to be openly and hugely contradicting their own actions over the last 10-15 years. Its OK for us to assert ourselves and our beliefs all over the world, but its not OK for Russia to assert itself in its own back yard?

[Squirrel 41]

For which, Jacko, full marks!

For me there are shades of grey hats, and for those not inclined to read the rest of this post, I see the Russians have substantially darker grey hats than the Georgians; however, President Saakashvili has a great deal to answer for and has set back his country's application to NATO/OTAN and the EU for at least a decade. In so doing, he has also exposed a fundmental weakness of western policy in the former WarPac, and especially in the Former Soviet Union / Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) or as the Russians so subtly put it, "the near abroad" (cringe).

Q1. Who started it? Does it matter?

Firstly, it really does matter. And secondly, we'll probably never know exactly what kicked it off, but the first substantive move was by the Georgians, timed to coincide with the opening of the Olympics. Probably not a coincidence! Even if there had been small scale attacks across the border by South Ossetians and this has tacit Russian support (unproven, but probable) , then the Georgians acted first across an international ceasefire line.

Despite the historical parallels with the Croatian reoccupation of the Krajina in 1995, it isn't clear to me that there was no certainty that a diplomatic solution couldn't have been done in time, or that the attack on Tskhinvali was a proportionate response to the attacks. IMHO, Saakasvili chanced his arm and lost.

Q2. Has Russia acted legally?

No. Not normal for me to be so definite, but whilst it could make a case for reinforcing its' peacekeepers and restoring the status quo ante, it has grossly exceeded this, and in marching troops into Ahbkazia and then into Georgia, it has committed aggression. It has also been flagrantly violating the concept of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states that they - and the Chinese - hold so dear (when it applies to other countries talking about them or their friends - Chechnya, Tibet, Burma, Zimbabwe and Sudan all spring to mind). Russia is guilty of aggression against Georgia.

Q3. Will Georgia join NATO?

It will still want to, with caveats about the lack of military support in the last week when the country was under attack. The more important question is does NATO want Georgia - and by extension, Ukraine?

France and Germany seem to have kyboshed a Membership Action Plan (MAP) at the last NATO summit, concerned that Article 5 of the Charter ("An attack on one is an attack on all etc etc) could get us into a war with the Russians over Southern Ossetia. Worse, the trigger for this could be in the hands of someone as apparently impetuous as President Saakasvili. Given that almost every limited war scenario run during and after the Cold War ended in escalation to a full blown nuclear exchange and all that entails, this can be rephrased as "Do you want to put the NATO big red button in the hands of the Georgians?" Under the current regime, I'd suggest not.

This for me is the problem with NATO - in providing a shield under Art 5, it actually dilutes decision making when it admits new members with border problems / ethnic minorities issues. I'd much preferred it if we'd have declared victory after the demise of the Warsaw Treaty Organisation (to give the WarPac it's proper name) and reinvented "child of NATO" that would be more flexible: instead, the geo-political calculation was made in the early 90s to use the NATO brand, with Art 5 in place, presumably in the hope that it'd never actually come close to being used. If true thn, we need ot be rather more circumspect now, IMHO.

Q4. What happens next?

Forgive me if I defer to others with more expertise than me on this!

Until later - I look forward to your views.

S41

PS, And too bad for the Brimstone community - all that Russian Armour would've made a great operational proof of concept!

[brickhistory]

squirrel, well said.

[Jackonicko]

I have a grudging respect for the Russians for actually going to the aid of South Ossetia. Their people. For whom they obviously feel some kinship and/or perhaps responsibility.

The ethnic mix in Ossetia (and the democratically expressed wishes of the Ossetians) is such that the country's declaration of independence really SHOULD have been recognised by the international community. It's failure to do so lets people like Brick get all legalistic (ignoring morality) declaring that the region is 'within Georgia's sovereign territory', while cynically portraying this as an 'internal matter'.

This may legitimise Georgia's actions in a narrow legal sense, but morally this was wrong. They invaded an area that had been a de facto independent state, against the wishes of its people, and quite deliberately did so hoping that the Olympics would distract those who might otherwise have intervened.

Hats off to the Russians for restoring the status quo, I think, with some sneaking admiration to them for giving the Georgians a bloody nose in the process.

Climebear

In 1979 there were 65,077 Ossetians in South Ossetia (66.4%) and 28,187 Georgians (28.8%). In 1989 there were 65,200 and 28,700 (66.2% and 29%). Today the totals are said to be 45,000 and 17,500. There doesn't seem to be any real evidence of a systematic ethnic cleansing. In any event, 70% of them are estimated to have Russian passports, and 90-odd percent have voted for full independence.

[Climebear]

Jacko

I'm not going to press this further. I respect you as a poster and have enjoyed many of your posts.

Lets just agree to disagree. I can't disagree with your stats - they just don't match my observation.

[walter kennedy]

Squirrel 41
<<I'd much preferred it if we'd have declared victory after the demise of the Warsaw Treaty Organisation ... and reinvented "child of NATO" that would be more flexible:>>
I was able to put a question to Jaap de Hoop Scheffer (Nato Sec.) on “Talk Back” radio some time back – the topic was the direction NATO should take with the changes in the east.
Tongue in cheek I suggested that, as an aim of NATO had been to protect individual states from “bullying” by a powerful block, perhaps NATO should be reorganised so as to be able to effectively curb excesses by the remaining “superpower”, America.
You should have heard him dribble on (for about 5 minutes, it seemed) about that being a silly concept as America was a democracy, blah, blah – it was amusing but at the same time sad and revealing to hear him so uncomfortable with such a question.
.
About Georgia – a very complex situation: there is the pipeline issue (threatening to bypass Russia, etc) to which I add the very large number (1000 ish?) of Israeli military advisors who were present in Georgia at the critical time – was Georgia being egged on to get back at Putin for his regaining control of resources from the oligarchs?
Whatever the gambit was it backfired and the cost in “collateral damage” to the locals is tragic.
.
But specifically on the topic of this thread, who wears the black hats, while I understand some Russian points, I am not an all out fan of, say, Putin – I don't like his methods at all: remember the blocks of flats blown up allegedly by the Russians to justify the Chechen war? (Russia's 911 if you like); and what happened to two of the whistleblowers? One was a female journalist who was pushing the theory of state involvement (she was shot dead) – the other was her boyfriend, the ex KGB officer who reckoned he had documentary evidence to support her work (he was the chap who got that radioactive poisoning). (Funny how this angle and link have had very little coverage relative to that of the details of the latter's demise.)
So, on the one hand we have the Russian leadership wearing black hats for their nasty, ruthless (or perhaps just unsubtle) methods but acting in the basic interests of their nation states and on the other hand the seemingly more socially acceptable Georgian leadership pictured in white hats by the west but circumventing national controls over regional resources for the benefit of the “global economy”.
Not a situation into which one should get involved with the level of understanding that our public has – goes for other theatres too, in my opinion – look at poor Afghanistan (there was a pipeline issue there also originally – the Taliban wanted too much for it, or something like that).
Got a spare black hat for Bush?:E

[Tyres O'Flaherty]

I think theres a lot to commend in this Newsweek overview of the situation

Hirsh: The West Shares Blame for Georgia Invasion - Newsweek articles on MSN UK News - news & weather (http://news.uk.msn.com/newsweek.aspx?cp-documentid=9200460)

[Jackonicko]

I concur. Very cogent.

[Tyres O'Flaherty]

I really do think , possibly because of our recent western ''disconnect'' with politics, that western european people don't realise that the issues talked about in para 4, ie ''encroachment'', or''nationality'' or whatever, are still very important to some nationalities.


The Russian people are at the moment very nationalistic, and looking for a role ( maybe comparable to the U.S. ).

Not a good mix IMHO.

[The Upright Man]

We are the good guys!:ok: Yes we've done some very bad things in the past and we'll probably still do some very bad things in the future but we are the good guys!

The Russians will always be the bad guys! When have they ever done something good?

The Georgians want to be like us but they used to be part of the Soviet Union so they are somewhere inbetween.

It was a major miscalculation by the georgians if they thought they could march into South Ossetia and 1. The Russians not react and 2. The West to react if the Russians did!

However since everything in the world is always our fault perhaps there is a more devious conspiracy going on! Perhaps the US told Georgia it was OK to send troops, knowing what would happen, because now, anyone with a border on Russia is going to be even more keen to join NATO! Even better those in the US arguing that a more meaningful dialogue should be held with the Russians can now be totally ignored, and even more money can be spent on F-22s, and anti-missile missiles!

But we are still the good guys in all of this! It can't really be our fault! or can it?

[Tyres O'Flaherty]

There Are Nooo Good Guys

[Ogre]

<tuppence>

I refer my learned colleagues to the quote "One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter".

</tuppence>

[ORAC]

I was going to answer this on many levels, but decided both both brevity - and to keep my powder dry, so to speak - to limit it one, that being the question of autonomy.

South Ossetia is not seeking independence, or even independence after merger with North Ossetia (it would be unviable in either case). Rather Russia, after unilaterally issuing passports to some of the inhabitants, is claiming Ossetia as it's aown and that it be absorbed back into the Motherland.

This is a claim that, since the early 1990s, has not been accepted by one single other country in the world, mainly because of the precedent it would set. Independence of a small state is one thing, but a land grab by another based on the ethnic origins of the inhabitants? Do you have any idea of the number of equivalent situations this could inflame and the wars that could ensue?

In the Caucasus and Eastern Europe Russia would claim at least the Crimea, if not the whole of The Ukraine (their Foreign Minister obliquely did so yesterday); they could claim at least 30-40 of each of Lithuania, Latvia & Estonia, and large chunks of the various 'Stans besides.

But elsewhere it could set an even more dangerous precedent. Pakistan would have a far, far, better case to Kashmir; China to Taiwan and large chunks of Vietnam and other neighbouring states. In all there are over 129 territorial disputes based on ethnic issues ( Standing your Ground: Territorial Disputes and International Conflict by Paul K. Huth).

Internally in Europe you would reopen issues between Poland, Hungary and Germany plus France and Germany over the Alsace etc. (have a look at the border changes during the 20th Century).

Not only does the claim have no accepted precedent, it is far too dangerous to let stand.

[phil gollin]

Some people seem to be "forgetting" some important basic facts.

South Osetia was the subject of a ceasefire agreement which meant that Russian "peacekeepers" (notably passive) were in place and Georgian military forces were specifically banned from the region.

The Georgians broke the ceasefire and were the agressors by invading the region (at what I suppose they considered a PR sensitive time).

The Russians responed with their available forces, estimated at 3 divisions, which did not include top-of-the-range equipment (indeed some very old stuff indeed).

The Georgians started almost continuously making silly propaganda campaigns (e.g. Russia attacked first [wrong], Russia pre-postioned invasion forces [wrong], Russia committed "ethnic cleansing", genocide, deliberate attacks on civilians, etc... [so far no proof offered], Russia attacked oilpipelines destroying one [wrong, BP confirmed no damage], Russia intended occupying Georgia {no], etc............). Russia started responding with their own genocide and targetting civilians claims [no proof yet].

The US had 150-odd military advisors in Georgia, and yet seems to have been surprised by Georgia's actions, and somehow they seemed to be unable to who the first was to attack (very poor work there).

Tied in to that is the fact that in previous conflicts the US has shown itself very happy to use its intelligence organisation to expose the "true" facts about what has been happening. Strangely enough this time around the US has forgotten to do this and the administration comments from intelligence sources has been noticeably lacking. So either the US Intelligence assets were all asleep or they are being very careful about telling the truth. I am sure the US Intelligence organisations loved "watching" the action happen - but somehow their reports must have got lost on the way to the desks of their political masters.

All in all, the US (and many other western politicans) have managed to respond in the first instance more to Georgian propaganda (e.g. all those [false] worries about Russia's motives in [not] attacking the oil pipelines) and now to some weird set of false memories about who broke the ceasefire and who was the agressor.

As long as people let the politicans mis-remember and spin the idea that it was all Russia's fault then they deserve another round of politican inspired paranoia.


I'm sure that if I was a Ukrainian or from one of the Baltic states then I would be much more concerned than two weeks ago, but the attitude of many Western politicans would also concern me .

As far as NATO is concerned - as it is a defensive alliance, there would have been no obligation for any NATO country to come to the "aid" of the aggressor nation, Georgia. However, as shown at the time, and possibly even more worryingly afterwards, there were/are numerous silly politicans who claimed/claim that it was Russia was the agressor. The claims from some politicans that Russia was the agressor would have meant that NATO might have been dragged in if Georgia had been a member - that stops the political claims from being mere spin and lies to something to be really worried about.

.

[Jackonicko]

Orac,

You are factually incorrect.

The pro-Russian, pro-independence Government of the Republic of South Ossetia, which has its capital at Tskhinvali isn't just 'seeking autonomy' it declared itself a de facto status independent state following the 2006 referendum that demonstrated almost universal (99%) support for independence.

Nor is Russia seeking to reabsorb South Ossetia into the motherland.

Nor does South Ossetia set the precedent that you suggest.

Unlike the Baltic states and the 'Stans, and unlike even Abkhazia, South Ossetia is a long-standing entity, with long-standing borders, whose population is overwhelmingly from one major ethnic group, and which has voted for independence in overwhelming numbers. It really is Scotland in the Caucasus.

North Ossetian independence would not 'encourage China' with regard to Taiwan - it would provide a precedent for self determination and for a democratically mandated route to full independence.

[Captain_djaffar]

jacko,I share the same thoughts.:ok:
I've always considered Russia as the black sheep among whities, but in this case, it is differrent.I wouldn't say russian propaganda, but western propaganda...with a russian-bashing world-wide media.

Since the start of the hostilities, almost no media seem to focus on the wrong steps of Georgia first of all by invading South Ossetia.( its a quasi invasion yes because a large majority of the people do not consider themselves georgian and are aleady of russian nationality)

With an impartial thinking and reasoning, i find it really disgusting that on every news ( i'll refer to british and french news to which i am more comfortable with) there is a complete russian bashing tendency that leads people to forgetting about the initial-issue of this crisis, thus drifting them away from reality.

Clearly there was provocation from georgia.
They ignited hostilities by trying to re-conquer a land they deemed geographically theirs but politically not (or contraversial), and began to kill people first.
Russian interfered logically and really punished georgia.(disproportionately or not...the same thing as israel & palestine):(

There is no sad thing more than civilian deaths.:(
But in my opinion, Mikhail Saakashvili is to be entirely blamed for provoking a fierce dog by jumping in its cage.:*


And Phil Gollin...i share your thoughts too.You're right.

[ORAC]

The pro-Russian, pro-independence Government of the Republic of South Ossetia, which has its capital at Tskhinvali isn't just 'seeking autonomy' it declared itself a de facto status independent state following the 2006 referendum that demonstrated almost universal (99%) support for independence. Hmm, that's because the native Georgians (which as you pointed out are over 25% of the population) boycotted it. When the Georgian supported parties held there own, surprise, surprise, they got over 95% as well..)

The Russian Federation didn't recognise the result of the referendum - and they have issued the inhabitants with Russian passports; the "government is stuffed with Russian KGB and other security apparatchiks*, and it relies entirely on Russia for financial support; it's other half - North Ossetia, is a Russian Federal Republic.

*The head of the local KGB, Anatoly Baranov, used to head the Federal Security Service (FSB) in the Russian Republic of Mordovia. The head of the South Ossetian Interior Ministry, Mikhail Mindzayev, served in the Interior Ministry of Russia's North Ossetia. The South Ossetian "defense minister," Vasily Lunev, used to be military commissar in Perm Oblast, and the secretary of South Ossetia's Security Council, Anatoly Barankevich, is a former deputy military commissar of Stavropol Krai. Not one is a supporter of true independence - it's a front.

If you truly believe this an independence movement and the Russians are truly looking at supporting a viable independent state, I must say I am starting to lose faith in either your investigative journalist abilities or credulity.

[Lazer-Hound]

In completely unrelated news, Poland has suddenly dropped its tough negotiating stance with the US on the ABM base and signed the offered deal double-quick pronto:

A-level results show education gap widening - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/education/2560123/A-level-results-show-education-gap-widening.html)

I wonder what prompted this sudden change?

[Jackonicko]

Even if the Georgians in South Ossetia had boycotted both referenda, you'd still be looking at a more than 75% vote for independence. And I'm told that many ethnically Georgian Ossetians actually favour independence too - in the way that some English folk in Scotland support the SNP.

What would be the percentage of people in South Ossetia who would favour continued rule from Tbilisi? 10%? !5%?

The status quo simply can't be justified, however odious we might find the South Ossetian government and however much we might deplore the choice expressed by their people.

Would we have any right to prevent Ulster opting to become part of the Irish Republic if 75% in the North were Catholic Nationalists, and if, in a referendum, 98% voted for that - twice? We might regret it, (if you're like me you'd hate and deplore it), we might want to ensure that the interests of the minority were guaranteed, we might even want to offer them sanctuary. But could we ignore it and insist that Ulster remained part of the UK?

[West Coast]

Jacko
I suspect dragging the US in provides some personal catharsis...but I'll play along.

Indecision over what hat to award is a bit premature. I say the hat is camouflage. The arguably noble idea of defending de-facto Russians from the oppressive Georgians may elicit some sympathy ("those darn Ruskies, good idea, bad plan") but is it really the reason they're there or is it simply a vehicle? The words and actions of the Russians seem in conflict with one another. Rushing tanks well outside the disputed regions, within 20 min drive of Tbilisi sounds different than freeing someone from tyranny. Refusing (depending on what Russian official you listen to) to rule out regime change in Georgia has a decidedly forward leaning, fangs hanging out tint about it.

You're gonna need to see how it plays out before you'll have your answer. True motives have yet to be determined. The old satellites seem to be drawing some conclusions early on however. They don't have the luxury of armchair quarterbacking (does that translate to British?) like those of us here do.

I believe the Soviet Union was "invited" to intervene in Czechoslovakia, The Poles and Ukrainians certainly hope they don't find that same invitation in the mail with Vlad's hand writing on it.

[Postman Plod]

Despite the fact that the worst of this crisis seems to be over and a peace plan has been signed, there US / British rhetoric seems to be getting increasingly hard line, rather than at least vaguely welcoming peace and a (all be it slow) return to the pre-conflict positions.

There still seems to be no acknowledgement that Georgia kicked this off, and in fact they seem to be being held up as a shining light of democracy, and a completely innocent party in all this. George Bush is adamant that the disputed boundaries of Georgia will remain, (regardless it seems of the wishes of the people within those boundaries) and David Cameron is wading in with claims of attrocities (has there been any proof of this at all??) and calls for Russian expulsion from the G8.

I just can't help thinking the West has perhaps been looking for an excuse to stamp on Russia, and that regardless of the circumstances, they've just found one. I also can't help thinking that our governments have just proved their hypocracy and inconsistency, in that its OK if the US/UK does it, but not if anyone else does it, especially people we historically don't like. Whether or not we need Russia, I dont know, however I certainly don't think we particularly want to actively encourage hostility with them, and that almost seems to be what the politicians are doing. Is this electioneering on the US part perhaps??

Its like poking a bear with a sharp stick - only we seem to be surrounding it and using lots of sticks (this, NATO expansion, missile defence shield, etc) - at some point the bear is going to get scared and angry and bite back, and we're actively encouraging it.

just found this:
West Must Stop Poking The Bear With A Stick (from The Herald ) (http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/letters/display.var.2422081.0.west_must_stop_poking_the_bear_with_a_ stick.php)

[ORAC]

Despite the fact that the worst of this crisis seems to be over and a peace plan has been signed and David Cameron is wading in with claims of attrocities (has there been any proof of this at all??)

Torygraph: (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2569417/Georgia-Defiant-Russia-advances-after-peace-deal.html) ....Although the agreement was negotiated yesterday however, Russian forces continued to move into deeper positions inside Georgia and destroyed vital civilian infrastructure. Russia denied it had attacked a railway bridge on the main line west ofTbilisi, but television footage shot by the Reuters news agency clearly showed its twisted remains. The bridge was a major transport link between the capital and the country’s Black Sea coast.

Under the terms of the ceasefire, Russia will be able to maintain patrols in a five-mile buffer zone in Georgian territory outside the enclaves of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Troops manoeuvred around the Gori and pushed deeper towards another town - Akhalgori - with a column of around 1,000 men, possibly South Ossetian irregulars. Another detachment remained just 25 miles from the Georgian capital, Tbilisi, near the village of Igoeti, where they showed no signs of moving......

Mythmaking in Moscow (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/15/AR2008081503319.html)

.......Militia forces under Russian control include South Ossetians and others brought in from Russia itself -- what Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matthew Bryza described as "the North Caucasus irregular forces that the Russian military inexplicably encouraged to enter South Ossetia to murder, rape and steal." They have attacked civilians in Gori and engaged in ethnic cleansing of Georgian-populated villages in South Ossetia. Remarkably, the Russian-allied "president" of South Ossetia acknowledged the ethnic cleansing yesterday in an interview with the Russian newspaper Kommersant, although he did not acknowledge the killings of Georgian civilians that others have documented. Eduard Kokoity said that his forces "offered them a corridor and gave the peaceful population the chance to leave" and that "we do not intend to allow" their return.

A war crime, yes; but at least he was honest about it.....

[ORAC]

Ukraine offers satellite defence co-operation with Europe and US (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/2570285/Ukraine-offers-satellite-defence-co-operation-with-Europe-and-US.html)
Ukraine inflamed mounting East-West tensions yesterday by offering up a Soviet-built satellite facility as part of the European missile defence system.

The proposal, made amid growing outrage among Russia's neighbours over its military campaign in Georgia, could see Ukraine added to Moscow's nuclear hitlist. A Russian general declared Poland a target for its arsenal after Warsaw signed a deal with Washington to host interceptor missiles for America's anti-nuclear shield.......

Ukraine said it was ready to give both Europe and America access to its missile warning systems after Russia earlier annulled a 1992 cooperation agreement involving two satellite tracking stations. Previously, the stations were part of Russia's early-warning system for missiles coming from Europe.

"The fact that Ukraine is no longer a party to the 1992 agreement allows it to launch active cooperation with European countries to integrate its information," a statement from the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry said.

It follows a declaration earlier this week from Ukraine's pro-Western president, Viktor Yushchenko, that the Russian naval lease of the Ukrainian Black Sea port of Sebastopol would be scrapped if any vessels joined the conflict in Georgia........

[Buitenzorg]

Both.

But Saakashvili’s hat is a dunce cap. WTF did he think was going to happen?

[Jackonicko]

Westie,

I’m not sure what you think I’ve said about America, nor why my expressing my admiration for the US and defending its ‘national integrity’ should be ‘personally cathartic’.

Beyond making that defence, I hadn't "dragged the US into it", though the Bush adminstration, through its actions and statements has become part of the issue.

My problem with the US position on this is that it has criticized Russia, while failing to offer any condemnation of the Georgian aggression which triggered the crisis. I would personally be inclined to strongly condemn both parties - though like you, I believe it's a bit early to judge the Russians. I'd really want to see where Russian forces end up in ten days time, after they've done with putting spanners in the Georgian military machine, which I think is morally defensible, if illegal!

I’d always have been profoundly uncomfortable with putting Georgian ‘territorial integrity’ ahead of the aspirations of the Ossetians for self determination – it’s all too redolent of favouring China at the expense of Taiwan. But once Georgia tried to take matters into its own hands by using force of arms, any case that it had was, in my mind, lost.

I would agree that Russia’s response may have been disproportionate – and that it certainly went further than it needed to simply to safeguard the interests of the South Ossetians. But it seems clear that Russia has done nothing more than respond to Georgian Brinkmanship and aggression – restoring the status quo, and trying to ensure that Georgia cannot repeat the exercise.

It’s hard to see the Russian action as being any different to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 – and in many ways it was more justified. But whatever we thought of the 2003 invasion, pulling out now would not be a good idea, nor morally good.

Finally I'd caution about comparisons between Russia today and the USSR in 1968. However imperfect, Russia is a democracy today, and though I find the spectre of Russian nationalism pretty scary, the Russians today are not the 'Imperialists' that the Soviets were back then, nor have they (yet) got so much reason for paranoia about an encircling and hostile West.....


(In reply 6, dallas said:
It should be interesting to see what moral platitudes the Americans now spout, having cashed-in most of their scruples and positions on the high ground since 9/11.

My response (9) was that:
I don't buy the explanation that this is all about US cynicism, opportunism and self interested inconsistency. Whatever you think of the action in Iraq, one has to recognise that American foreign policy is more often (not always, just more often) motivated by genuine altruism, fighting for freedom and democracy and 'doing the right thing' than any other nation's.

So there must be a cogent, moral explanation for the US failure to condemn Georgia's original aggression, and for the strength of support that we're seeing.

Ancient Aviator (10) chipped in:
American foreign policy is self-serving - to keep, one could argue, the American defence industry at the forefront of the incumbent Administration.

Dallas (11):
I agree, America only ever acts in its own interests - which is understandable - but don't be fooled by banners for freedom, good and other emotivators!

I said:
With respect, and without wishing to be a shill for the USA (and especially not for the Bush administration, which I deplore), I do think that the US has always been more driven by honour, decency and altruism than other nations, (as well as self interest, often, of course), and even by a sense of international responsibility.

Dallas responded (16)
Jacko, you're far from naive and I respect your point of view, but I find your angle at odds with most people who have looked past banner headlines and catchphrases. Ironically, until after 9/11 I would have probably sided with you, but I don't think America has changed her spots so much as become more blatent. For the most part I like the US, but hamburgers and cowboy hats belie the real America, the ruthless machine of hegemony, driven by the likes of Cheney.

They might have dropped blankets on Ethiopians like the rest of us, but most American operations have or had an underlying strategy behind them which was solely for their benefit. Again, I don't have an issue with that - of course a country mounts operations for their own benefit - the bit that annoys me is the duplicity and lies that hide behind consumer phrases like 'freedom'.

With regard to whether the US is the most altruistic of a dodgy bunch, we could argue all day, I'm sure, but personally I don't think the front runners at the Selfless Olympics would be that far apart from each other - which certainly contradicts my Americans good ~ Russians Bad upbringing too.

I said:
I'm a far from uncritical admirer of America and Americans. But while I share many of your misgivings and criticisms, I still see them as having some moral authority, and I see them as being leaders of the free world because of that moral authority, and due to their fundamental decency, and not just their economic and military power.)

[ORAC]

Georgia conflict: How a flat tyre took the Caucasus to war (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2570754/Georgia-conflict-How-a-flat-tyre-took-the-Caucasus-to-war.html) Years of simmering ethnic tensions and East-West brinkmanship helped brew the war that broke out between Georgia and Russia ten days ago. But a puncture on a Russian diplomat's car may have proved the final straw.

A flat tyre on a Russian diplomatic car triggered the slide to war in Georgia after it forced the cancellation of key peace talks the day before fighting erupted, The Sunday Telegraph has learned.

Trouble had been brewing in the disputed South Ossetian region for weeks as Moscow-backed militias skirmished with Georgian troops, yet Russian-brokered negotiations between the Georgian government and the separatists had continued.

But the first substantial face-to-face talks on August 7 fell through after a farcical chain of events in which the top Russian diplomat claimed he was unable to attend the meeting in South Ossetia because his car tyre had run flat. Refusing to take his excuse at face value, the Georgian delegation then assumed they were being lured into a trap, and began the shelling that invited the Russian invasion.

Details of how such a mundane incident sparked the crisis that now threatens to redraw global East-West relations emerged during an interview given to The Sunday Telegraph last week by Timur Yakobashvili, Georgia's chief negotiator. He recalled how on August 7, he traveled to the South Ossetian capital, Tskhinvali, for what he hoped would be a ground breaking round-the-table meeting. Waiting for him was a Russian General, Marat Kulakhmetov - but there was no sign of his Russian diplomatic counterpart, Yuri Popov, who was supposed to be chairing the talks, nor were any South Ossetian officials present. "It was disturbing atmosphere," recalled Mr Yakobashvili. "Two days before, the South Ossetians had started using Russian positions to shoot at our troops. But we decided to make the trip anyway because a direct meeting would have been a breakthrough."

Asked as to whereabouts of the rest of the delegation, General Kulakhmetov was polite but blunt. He held up his phone to the Georgian negotiator's ear to demonstrate that the South Ossetian delegate had turned his mobile off. A second mobile phone call to Yuri Popov, the Russian diplomat, chairman of the talks, added an element of the ridiculous to the impasse. "I called and spoke to Popov and he said he could not get to the office because his car had a flat tyre," said Mr Yakobashvili. "This was preposterous. I said the delegation must have more cars. He said there is another car but its tyre is flat too. At this point I knew it was a trap and I was very angry."

But Gen Kulakhmetov was not finished. "He had a message for me," said Mr Yakobashvili. "He said he could not control the South Ossetians while there was Georgian military on the boundary. He said we must declare a unilateral ceasefire before the Russians could push them back."

Before Mr Yakobashvili left the South Ossetian capital, Georgia's President Mikheil Saakashvili was preparing to make a ceasefire declaration on national television. But as he came off air, he was handed a folder containing what the Georgians claim were US-provided satellite photos of a column of Russian armour advancing towards the Roki tunnel, the passageway that links South Ossetia to Russia.

In the volatile and paranoid world of Caucasian politics, there was only one way in which such photos would be interpreted. The Georgian government concluded Russia had devised a premeditated exercise to humiliate its envoy during his trip to Tskhinvali, and in the heat of the moment, the flat tyre was interpreted as a contemptuous first move for a well-planned invasion. The Georgians also realised that they had only one opportunity to stop the Russian column - at the Kurta bridge, which straddles a high ravine south of the tunnel.

"This was a heavy armoured Russian column, moving slowly, on very rugged terrain," said Georgian Prime Minister Lado Gurgenidze, who is adamant that the Russians had intended an ambush. "Think about how many hours of preparation, assembly, then marching, it would take for that column, moving at that speed on rugged terrain to be at the Kurta bridge at six in the morning. If that isn't a premeditated invasion, I don't know what is."

Georgia also calculated that by dawn the following the day, the world's attention would be focused on Beijing for the opening of the Olympic Games. Its US-trained Georgian army therefore formed an audacious plan to sabotage the bridge more than 100 miles behind enemy lines. The operation, however, was a only a partial success. The bridge was damaged and almost one dozen Russian vehicles were blown up, but the Russians then regrouped and repulsed the Georgians.

From a trival beginnings, war had ignited in the tiny mountainous statelet.

Georgia decided to establish a defensive line north of Tskinvali, the self-declared capital of South Ossetia. By midnight shelling on both sides was intense. Russia's version of events has it that the Georgians were already on the move while Mr Yakobashvili met the Russian general. "They moved their forces into positions on high ground around Tskinvali," a Russian official claimed. "It's very simple: The Georgians decided to take South Ossetia by force. They thought we'd whine like over Kosovo, but our response was very tough."

[mick2088]

Just one thought to this debate. Perhaps Saakashvili was being calculated in his attack against South Ossetia, knowing that it would trigger a war with Russia even if Georgian forces were pushed back and defeated.

Firstly, he wanted the situation in Abkhazia and South Ossetia to be the main priority on the international agenda instead of endless dialogue that seemed to go nowhere with recent focus on solving the Abkhazia issue. Indeed, the main focus seemed to be on Abkhazia in early July with Russia warning Georgia that a war could break out between the two country's if Tbilisi intervened militarily. Given Moscow's warning's Saakashvili knew exactly what would happen if he used force in South Ossetia.

Moreover, he was also an unpopular president in some quarters. Less than a year ago he announced a state of emergency in the country after Georgian security forces cracked down on up to 70,000 anti-goverment protestors in Tbilisi (of course Saakashvili blamed Russia for orchestrating the protests). He only gained nearly 53 per cent of the vote in presidential elections in early 2008, giving him a weakened mandate. Coupled with the failure to get Georgia's involvement in NATO's Membership Action Plan (MAP), a central policy of his government, his position was looking increasingly weak.

Now he appears to be strongly supported by the Georgian population (but whether that will last is another question) and has South Ossetia (and Abkhazia) right at the front of the international agenda. Some could say that it is Saakashvili's Thatcher moment. A leader who was seeing her popularity diminish at the time, seeing a complete overturn following a war (although obviously there was a different outcome).

There is, of course, the argument (mostly from the US) that Russian military exercises in North Ossetia that were held in July were a provocation for the Georgian attack with Russia already planning to attack after Georgia was refused involvement in NATO's MAP. But I wonder, a weakened president in his own country now seems to be extremely popular and has managed to boost international support particularly from the US. He may have calculated that he would not get military support from the US, but from a PR point of view, his decision to send troops in South Ossetia has made Georgia look like the victim with Russia looking like the aggressor. On that basis, he has already won his spat with Russia both domestically and internationally.

[ORAC]

Anyone read the reports in the press yesterday, such as the Sunday Times, where they were riding around with the South Ossetian irregulars looking for people to kill and rape? Or perhaps the one's in today's papers with the reports of the killings of husbands and sons of those sent south so magnanimously through the Ossetian government "corridor". Not all of them of course, there are the hostages being held by the Ossetian "government (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/18/georgia.russia)".

Not much being done to stop it by the Russian army of course, they're pulling out in accordance with the ceasefire, right? Err, no; in Gori they're busy replacing the destroyed TV and radio stations with their own, and they now hold a third of the country. Effectively they have taken the road that runs east-west and have ceased the top third of Georgia and are destroying all military installations and civil infrastructure as well as expelling the population.

The reasoning for their lack of movement from the Kremlin ia that they are no longer the Russian army; no, now they are peacekeepers, enforcing a buffer zone. Well, that must be OK then.

They will be leaving Gori and the like then? And, after all the first hand reports, they must be going to make some arrests, restore some order? Ohh yes, indeed, as soon as they can catch the Georgians at it. It's a lies and a plot you see...

Torygraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2575486/Georgia-conflict-Condoleezza-Rice-toughens-stance-towards-Russia.html): "As the Russian occupation continued on Sunday, the defence ministry in Moscow claimed to have uncovered a Georgian plot to send undercover mercenaries, Ukrainians and Chechens among them, into the strategic town of Gori. "They will be dressed in Russian military uniform and let go in Gori, where these bands will loot and pillage the local residents," a spokesman for the ministry said. "This will be filmed by television cameras and then presented to the world as an atrocity of the Russian war machine."

And your really have to ask who wears the black hats?

Some peoples memories are waaaay too short, and they never suffered under the Russian boot themselves. Which is why it is unsurprising that Poland, the Baltic states etc are reacting so much more vigourously than "old Europe".

[ORAC]

Just as a thought, where is our much vaunted Prime Minister and his deft handling of crises? Or, come to think of it, our Foreign Secretary or our Defence Secretary whilst all thbis is happening? We used, after all, to be one of the most powerful states in Europe and claimed we had a voice in such matters.

Or have we had a putsch and, he says hopefully, are they all locked up incommunicado in the Tower?

[ORAC]

Troops to leave 'sooner or later': Russian official

Despite Medvedev's pledge on Sunday, another Russian politician compared the presence of Russian troops in Georgia to the U.S. military presence in Iraq.

Konstantin Kosachev, chair of the Russian parliament's security committee, said the Russian forces would withdraw "sooner or later" but added the withdrawal would only occur when it was "assured that Georgians would not continue to use military force" in South Ossetia and another breakaway province, Abkhazia.

"If I would ask you in response to the same question how fast the American forces can leave Iraq, for example, the answer would be as soon as we have guarantees for peace and security there," Kosachev told reporters when asked about the withdrawal plans. "But how much time it will take, it depends definitely on how Georgians will continue to behave."....

Meanwhile on Monday, Eduard Kokoity, the separatist leader of South Ossetia, said he would ask Russia to set up a military base there while also declaring he would not allow international observers into the territory.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

THE NEW YORK TIMES
August 18, 2008 -WASHINGTON — Even as Russia pledged to begin withdrawing its forces from neighboring Georgia on Monday, American officials said the Russian military had been moving launchers for short-range ballistic missiles into South Ossetia, a step that appeared intended to tighten its hold on the breakaway territory.

The Russian military deployed several SS-21 missile launchers and supply vehicles to South Ossetia on Friday, according to American officials familiar with intelligence reports. From the new launching positions north of Tskhinvali, the South Ossetian capital, the missiles can reach much of Georgia, including Tbilisi, the capital.......

[brickhistory]

For those more knowledgeable about land campaign planning, how long would it realistically take for forces to go from garrison duty to a fairly well executed offensive?

I ask because the response time from the Georgian 'offensive into South Ossetia - (Slingblade voice on: "Some folks call it an invasion, I call it regaining control of one's sovereign territory." voice off. The tactics used may prove to be unpalatable however) to the Russians rolling through seemed very prompt.

[Jackonicko]

"Some folks call it an invasion, I call it regaining control of one's sovereign territory."

Unless you're a dyed in the wool, Russki-hating Cold War Warrior, perhaps 'disputed territory' would be a more accurate and neutral term?

If it were simply Georgian sovereign territory like any other part of Georgia, there wouldn't be internationally recognised and mandated Russian peacekeepers in place, Georgia wouldn't have been offering it autonomy and we wouldn't have seen a 90%+ referendum in favour of independence. Twice.

How exactly does South Ossetia differ from (say) Croatia, Bosnia or Kosovo immediately before their independence?

Why do you and those like you find it so hard to condemn BOTH parties?

With regard to evidence of Russian pre-planning and a 'well-prepared offensive', I'd suggest to you that the Russian air campaign smacked of hurried 'last minute' preparation and planning, and that the apparent speed of the Russian response may have reflected some intelligence of what Georgia was about to do? Had the Russians intended to invade 'all along' then we might have expected to see more forces being brought in from outside the immediate area (especially aviation and SF).

The forces deployed since the initial Russian response are exactly those that you'd have expected to see participate in a long pre-planned operation. A battalion from Russia's 76th Guards Airborne Division has been deployed from Pskov to Beslan, for example, while several additional battalions from the 98th Guards Airborne Division at Kostroma have been preparing for possible deployment to the Caucasus region. Suddenly strategic aviation is being seen in strength over the Black Sea.

Nor would I have expected them to be meekly withdrawing today.

I say meekly....

"The pull-out of peacekeeping forces started today," the Russian general staff's deputy chief, Colonel-General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, said today, though Moscow insists that it has the right to keep some troops as peacekeepers in a buffer zone around South Ossetia and that it will only fully withdraw combat troops from Georgian territory once what it calls "extra security measures are in place." This sounds pretty intransigent and even provocative, until you realise that a covering letter attached to the ceasefire document provides for Russia to place peacekeepers in a buffer zone of a few kilometres around the South Ossetian border, and that the original 1999 peacekeeping accord on South Ossetia provides for Russian peacekeepers to be allowed up to 14-km into Georgia proper.

Looking at a map, this looks as though Gori might not be relinquished, and that Russian forces might even remain quite close to Tbilisi - which looks to be about 45-50 km from the South Ossetian border, perhaps even a little closer.

[brickhistory]

jacko, your original premise asked "Who are wearing the black hats?"

It would appear that you've decided.

Georgia is not blameless, but Russia is the bigger bad guy here.

If Georgia's action in South Ossetia were over the top, then why not have the UN get involved as a first step in resolving the issue vs. a unilateral, pre-planned combined arms campaign? (I don't ask this as a serious, practical matter as evidenced by the lack of anything substantive emanating from the glass building in NYC to date on this, just philosophically.)

I think Russia had this in mind for a long time, Georgia provided a convenient excuse, now Russia will be a power taken much more seriously by the former Soviet Republics. Which was, I believe, Putin's intent all along.

[Jackonicko]

I haven't made up my mind, entirely.

First, I'd be the first to state that Putin's default hat is black. In this case, I'd say that by going beyond repulsing the Georgian attack, and by occupying Georgian territory beyond Ossetia, the Russians earned a black-ish hat. (Destroying Georgia's ability to repeat its aggression was illegal, I suspect, albeit entirely understandable). If the Russians are back within South Ossetia and a 14-km buffer within ten days, that black hat fades, somewhat.

On the other hand Georgia attacked a national entity from which its armed forces were specifically excluded by an internationally validated ceasefire agreement (that's black hat behaviour) and attacked Russian peacekeepers (and so's that). That territory is presented as 'part of Georgian sovereign territory' but its population have overwhelmingly voted for full independence, and even Georgia has recognised Ossetia's 'special case' status by offering 'autonomy'. With that in mind, it's not just a matter of Georgian internal affairs.

I see no compelling evidence to support the contention that Russia used this as an excuse to launch a long-planned aggression. Firstly, it looked reactive and far-from-well-planned, and secondly, they seem to be withdrawing when they could plainly have swept on to Tbilisi had that been their aim.

So this does not show Russia's 'true colours'. Indeed Russia's military action (if they do move back to their pre-war positions within a reasonable period) will be (or will appear to be) more justified and more proportionate than our own invasion of Iran.

However, Putin's Russia does deserve a black hat for plenty of other reasons, and it has shown its true colours by threatening to nuke Poland.

So by all means criticise Russia, but do so for the right reasons. I'd suggest that its actions in South Ossetia are not the right reason, and look like unjustified Russki-bashing, undermining the very real case that could be made against them.

[West Coast]

Jacko
I'd like to see how you arrive at some of your conclusions. Having come from a "mid level management" position within the USMC I've participated in a few round ups.


That territory is presented as 'part of Georgian sovereign territory' but its population have overwhelmingly voted for full independence

Does the invasion of Georgia have a clear and compelling basis in international law, and does Soviet, err Russian annexation of the disputed areas the answer to the root question?

I see no compelling evidence to support the contention that Russia used this as an excuse to launch a long-planned aggression.

I guess they didn't consult you first. What evidence are you basing this on? There was a great deal of antagonism leading up to the invasion. Both militarily and politically.


Firstly, it looked reactive and far-from-well-planned,

Or conducted at a level of competency you're not accustomed to as a western reporter living in a country accustomed to competent armed response.

they could plainly have swept on to Tbilisi had that been their aim.


By not taking Tbilisi now they have reporters wondering if they are actually the good guys. You dont have to take the capital to decapitate the leadership, as popular as it might be. Perhaps they recognize there are some sympathetic in the West who are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. There are loads of sound tactical and geo political reasons not to have a bloody fight in the capital of a democracy as part of an invasion.

[Jackonicko]

Westie,

Does the invasion of Georgia have a clear and compelling basis in international law?

Probably not, if you're looking for an absolute answer.

But did the Georgian invasion of Ossetia?

Did the US invasion of Iraq in 2003?

I see no compelling evidence to support the contention that Russia used this as an excuse to launch a long-planned aggression.
I guess they didn't consult you first. What evidence are you basing this on? There was a great deal of antagonism leading up to the invasion. Both militarily and politically.

There's no evidence of a longstanding plan to invade. The operation showed every sign of being ad hoc and reactive, and not just because it didn't show Western levels of 'competence'. (And the Russians have some experience of rolling in to places with overwhelming force....)

By not taking Tbilisi now they have reporters wondering if they are actually the good guys. You dont have to take the capital to decapitate the leadership, as popular as it might be. Perhaps they recognize there are some sympathetic in the West who are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. There are loads of sound tactical and geo political reasons not to have a bloody fight in the capital of a democracy as part of an invasion.

OK, so not taking Tbilisi doesn't necessarily show that the Russians weren't aiming to invade Georgia and force regime change as part of a long-standing plan they'd prepared years before.

But where's the evidence for any such motivation?

All of the facts support the contention that, having seen their own peacekeepers and their South Ossetian chums attacked they responded, repulsing the attack, forcing the Georgians back and dismantling as much of Georgia's offensive capability as it could. And no more than that.


TOFO,

Good point. But while righteous indignation might be fair enough, and taking sanctions might be white-hat stuff, threatening a nuclear strike seems to be in black hat territory, to me.

[ORAC]

I see no compelling evidence to support the contention that Russia used this as an excuse to launch a long-planned aggression. Depends how seriously you actually wish too look.....

Pavel Felgenhauer on Russia's Preemptive War Planning (http://www.robertamsterdam.com/2008/08/pavel_felgenhauer_on_russias_p.htm)
Pavel Felgenhauer is a respected Russian military reporter and generally well known man-about-town among the opposition, and his latest piece in Novaya Gazeta about Russia's early war planning for the invasion of Georgia is making quite a stir, and has gotten picked up by numerous other sources. Below is an exclusive English translation of the original NG piece.

As a follow up to his comment that, " during the course of the «Caucasus-2008» training, which ended on 2 August, a week before the war, the forces of the military-air forces, the military-sea fleet and the army completed on a locale at the Georgian border the last readiness inspection."

I will pass on a comment from a New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/world/europe/17military.html?pagewanted=1) that: ..Pentagon and military officials say Russia held a major ground exercise in July just north of Georgia’s border, called Caucasus 2008, that played out a chain of events like the one carried out over recent days. “This exercise was exactly what they executed in Georgia just a few weeks later,” said Dale Herspring, an expert on Russian military affairs at Kansas State University. “This exercise was a complete dress rehearsal.”

As too the railway repair and it's timing, I will point you at the following article (http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=18839):

Abkhaz Rail Repair to End in July
Civil Georgia, Tbilisi / 24 Jul.'08 / 17:41

Units of the Russian Railway Forces will finish the repair of the Ochamchire-Sokhumi railway in breakaway Abkhazia by the end of the month, a Russian Ministry of Defense official said on July 24. Interfax news agency reported, quoting Russian MoD spokesperson Alexander Drobishevsky, that a so-called “hand over ceremony” of the repaired railway to the Abkhaz authorities would be held either on July 29 or 30.

Russian MoD Railway Forces, sent to the region in late May, have repaired a 54-kilometer section of railway.

Georgia has strongly condemned the deployment of the Russian MoD Railway Forces to Abkhazia.

The Russian Ministry of Defense said that it had sent the unarmed units – tasked with the protection and reconstruction of railway infrastructure – to Abkhazia as part of Moscow’s “humanitarian assistance” to the unrecognized republic and would withdraw them as soon as the reconstruction works were over. Tbilisi, however, said that Russia was preparing infrastructure in Abkhazia for possible military aggression.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

The timings of the above were, I am sure, totally coincidental.....

[Jackonicko]

Orac,

Interesting, certainly, but how close was the exercise to the actual op? Were the same forces involved?

And with regard to your crack about how seriously you actually wish too look for evidence, I found it interesting that one of the links in your hysterical post about the South Ossetians raping their way through Georgia and taking civilian hostages contained as much evidence of Georgian atrocities as of South Ossetian.

I find it fascinating who is participating in the white-washing of the Georgians' actions.

[brickhistory]

TOFO,


But you digress. The thread is about Russia and Georgia.


And looking out for national interests certainly isn't a US-only characteristic.


Nor should it be.

[Jackonicko]

No, but pursuing narrow national self interest should certainly come second to obeying international law, and perhaps even to natural justice.

[brickhistory]

No, but pursuing narrow national self interest should certainly come second to obeying international law, and perhaps even to natural justice.

See, now I'm confused. I thought you didn't really mind the Russians' actions. :}

As a practical matter, any nation that puts others before self is pretty much done for.

Cooperation for mutual benefit, good thing.

Obeying international law when it conflicts with one's own, not so much.

I wouldn't want a US soldier obeying US law prosecuted under ICC law for some conflict, for example.

[Jackonicko]

You're not in favour of: "Obeying international law when it conflicts with one's own (interests)?"

You'll be in favour of Adolf Hitler, Bob Mugabe, and the others who've put their own regime's interests ahead of international law, then?

If your view reflects the USA's 'official position' it's certainly a very, very clear reason for the UK to avoid any co-operation with the US in the future.

[mick2088]

"Interesting, certainly, but how close was the exercise to the actual op? Were the same forces involved?"

Given it was forces of the North Caucasus Military District that were involved in Caucasus 2008, then yes. The US and Georgians later claimed these forces were bolstered by other Russian units.

The Russians did not make a secret of the exercise either when it happened or what its objectives were. The Russian Ministry of Defence actually announced in a press release in July (News details (http://www.mil.ru/eng/1866/12078/details/index.shtml?id=47629)), stating "The main goal of the exercise is to estimate the ability of military command to joint actions in conditions of terrorist threat in the South of Russia. In view of escalation of the Georgian-Abkhazian and Georgian-Ossetic conflicts, during the exercise questions of participation in special operations on peace enforcement in zones of confrontations will be fulfilled."

Given that those conflicts have been identified as major threats to Russian security, it would have been normal for its forces to train for these events (just as any other military would train for potential conflicts or deployments without necessary having to actually undertake them). It might be that Russian troops were in the right place at the right time, rather than a pre-planned invasion as some have suggested.

[ORAC]

found it interesting that one of the links in your hysterical post Me, hysterical? I thought I was presenting rational explanations for the points you raised, but then I am not paid for what I write.

But then, I would hate to throw the first personal insult..... :E

[Postman Plod]

But Jacko, surely any criticism of the US can automatically be read as criticism of the UK I imagine, as I'm not really seeing the official positions of the UK and the US being any different, other than the UK being worse in that they don't appear to have any national interests any more or look out for their own people, preferring to pander to others.

Morally you're completely right and I doubt many would argue (well, outside of PPRuNe anyway... :}) however incidents such as this just highlight the hypocrisy and cynicism of particularly the UK government (The USA can always be guaranteed to act in its self interest, and is always very clear about it - the UK government just lies and cites human rights abuses, WMD, 10 minutes, etc etc.)

[ORAC]

To answer a couple of throw-away remarks from Jacko, namely: How exactly does South Ossetia differ from (say) Croatia, Bosnia or Kosovo immediately before their independence? and Does the invasion of Georgia have a clear and compelling basis in international law?

Probably not, if you're looking for an absolute answer. But did the Georgian invasion of Ossetia?Did the US invasion of Iraq in 2003?

They are both references to cases with totally different backgrounds.

You know, and I could list thousands of papers over many years relating to each case, the agonizing international decision making involving multiple international bodies, to reach a least worst decision.

I could for example, mention Kosovo where, apart from the Russian veto, the whole international body was in agreement; to relate that to one where, apart from Russia , every one disagreed, is a equivalent case is a travesty of fact, logic, and intellectual integrity.

[rmac]

Didn't look at every thread but haven't seen much on the full objective of this theatrical show BAKU-CEYHAN PIPELINE 1 MILLION BPD

Since the Rose revolution the USA have increased the pressure in the Caucasus by arming and training both the Georgian and the Azeri armed forces, allegedly using Israelis for much of the work in Georgia, as if they don't have enough trouble at home ! and of course the cheerful new age mercenaries of Blackwater in Azerbaijan.

My little theory, and I am sure that there are a few of you out there willing to jump on it is the following series of chess moves;

1. US tries to get Georgia admitted to NATO as a bona-fide reason for placing NATO troops and influence on top of the new pipeline. EU member countries of NATO reject this idea as they see it as provocative.

2. "advisors" of Georgian President convince him that lightning (Israeli style) operation to seize South Ossetia would present an olympic fait accompli, knowing of course that the Russians would not see it that way.

3. Georgians attempt the lightning strike but end up rebuffed by the Russians and crying for help from the west to protect them from the results of an agression that they started. The west, particularly the EU still not taking the bait.

4. As the Americans hoped, the Russians over play their hand and can't resist the opportunity to "punish" Georgia, true to form. Throw in a very unhelpful and provocative missile defense agreement with Poland at the right time to stoke up Russia's deepest fears provoking an ill advised comment by a Russian General and you have all of the poorly armed and defended new EU states panicking and pressing old Europe to accept the US request to bring georgia in to NATO.

5. Georgia comes in to NATO, US will probably sign SOFA and base forces there, build a couple of airfields and hey presto, those 1 million bpd on Baku-Ceyhan pipeline come under US control.

So predictably the US strategists are better at chess than the Russian ones who as usual get biceps and brains mixed up (well they both begin with B don't they ?)

Meanwhile we all take a step closer to another major war, with the emerging Chinese happy to sit on the sidelines and pick up the pieces.

Who's wearing the black hats,I say that BOTH the Russians and the AMERICANS are wearing black hats in all this, one however has better PR skills than the other. For the Russians its almost forgivable as they are over-sensitive, politically naive and stupid ! whats the US excuse as the world's moral leaders. As for the Georgians and Ossetians they are mostly wearing burial shrouds and bandages as a result of being the meat in the US/Russian sandwich.

Meanwhile I am waiting to see if it occurs to the Russians to build missile defence screens in Cuba and Venezuela, after all the largest terrorist attack in history (9/11) was carried out by US green card holders ! and will the US be pleased to see them in the backyard (I doubt it !)

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Jackonicko]

International approval is irrelevant to morality.

The International body recognises the People's Republic of China but not Taiwan, for example. We recognise a mass abuser of human rights over (an admittedly flawed) democracy.

Why did the Kosovans, Croats and Bosnians aspirations for self determination warrant our support, and why should South Ossetian aspirations be subjugated to the requirements of the Georgians?

Why was Russia wrong to go in for a brief period (about a fortnight) after its peacekeepers were attacked, to defend the South Ossetians, and to repel illegal aggression (under the terms of the ceasefire agreements, Georgian armed forces were not permitted to enter South Ossetia), if the USA was right to invade Iraq on entirely spurious grounds (a cooked up WMD threat which did not exist)?

PP,

I have no problem at all in condemning the UK when it does the wrong thing.

[Jackonicko]

"Anyone read the reports in the press yesterday, such as the Sunday Times, where they were riding around with the South Ossetian irregulars looking for people to kill and rape?"

Hysterical.

[ORAC]

Fact... The new cold war hots up (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4545980.ece)

[West Coast]

QUOTE]Does the invasion of Georgia have a clear and compelling basis in international law?

Probably not, if you're looking for an absolute answer.


Did the US invasion of Iraq in 2003?

Of no relevance as far as the last question as applied to this. Can only be seen as a dig. Now imagine if my questions were asked by someone who agreed with you re: Iraq.
[/QUOTE]

But did the Georgian invasion of Ossetia?

An invasion of their own country is what you meant to type. Gawd, I hate to see your litmus test for a country to move troops around its sovereign territory.


But where's the evidence for any such motivation?

Just the same, why did the Russians far exceed the scope necessary to defend Ossetia?
I don't have the answers, I have questions. My point is that you're trying to write history when it's an ongoing operation. Absence of a particular level of violence during an active, dynamic military operation to divine intent is hardly a good determinant of the Russian goal. Even then, there are plenty of pointers that give pause, inferring a more nefarious goal beyond simply saving a bunch of de facto Russians.


International approval is irrelevant to morality.

Could almost be seen as a dig at the UN, I like it.

[Jackonicko]

The UN is not immune to making mistakes. Its failure to admit Taiwan being just one. Its failure to properly censure Israel being another.

I'll give the UN credit where it's due, and a kick where that's more appropriate.

The Georgian 'invasion' (I'll allow inverted commas!) of Ossetia was not a simple movement of Georgia's troops around its sovereign territory, and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous and stupid.

It was a direct military attack against a region that had been offered autonomy, that demanded full independence (backed by massive popular support expressed in a democratic referendum) and a region from which Georgian forces had been explicitely barred under the terms of an internationally validated ceasefire agreement. It was also an attack which saw Georgia killing another country's peacekeepers (in this case Russians).

Which part of that is it so hard to condemn?

And why is it so unacceptable to compare Russia's very temporary invasion of Georgia (mounted in response to an actual direct attack on Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia, and intended to protect an attacked population) with the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Iraq had not attacked the USA, and presented no immediate or direct threat.

Russia went in, hobbled the Georgian military, avoided large scale civilian characters and made no attempt to decapitate Georgia's regime, and then got out. The USA, by contrast......

That's not a dig, it's a simple statement of fact.

I'd say that a moral case could be made that the US invasion was right because the Baath regime was plainly oppressing the Kurdish and Shia populations, and because Saddam represented a long term threat to his own people and his neighbours. But legally? Dubious.

Both the US and Russian actions could be condemned as illegal aggressions, or excused on the basis of their intent. I'm not suggesting any equivalence - just some interesting parallels which make some of the criticism of Russia hypocritical and simplistic.

[brickhistory]

You're not in favour of: "Obeying international law when it conflicts with one's own (interests)?"

My post said when it conflicted with one's own law or put international law above sovereignty. So, although you twisted my words, yes.

You'll be in favour of Adolf Hitler, Bob Mugabe, and the others who've put their own regime's interests ahead of international law, then?

A bit of hyperbole. Are you comparing the US 'regime' to these? If so, I think we're done.

If your view reflects the USA's 'official position' it's certainly a very, very clear reason for the UK to avoid any co-operation with the US in the future.

As I'm a private citizen, you make a moot point. But, so far, Britain seems to think its self-interest lies mostly with the US. Feel free to vote for a government that thinks otherwise.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Russia went in, hobbled the Georgian military, avoided large scale civilian characters and made no attempt to decapitate Georgia's regime, and then got out. The USA, by contrast......

Say, who were/are those chaps down by Basra? Oh, right, there's that UK's interests siding with the US. (And I'm grateful, by the way.) Funny, France had no problem saying 'non.'

That's not a dig, it's a simple statement of fact.

Yep

Both the US and Russian actions could be condemned as illegal aggressions, or excused on the basis of their intent. I'm not suggesting any equivalence - just some interesting parallels which make some of the criticism of Russia hypocritical and simplistic.

1. Your opening premise was not about the US.
2. So you come down firmly on the side of the Russians then? And you're sure your mind's not made up?

[Jackonicko]

Orac,

Fact? Or opinion and reportage?

And in any case, the piece to which you link gives as many emotive stories of Georgian atrocities as it does of Vadim and his Ossetian buddies' bloodthirsty rhetoric.

"Witnesses told of cars filled with fleeing Ossetian refugees being shelled by Georgian tanks.

They claimed that in one incident Georgian soldiers finished off the wounded by pouring fuel over them and burning them. Independent human rights observers confirmed that civilian targets had been repeatedly hit, including basements where terrified residents had sought refuge and were trapped for days. Moscow has claimed that some 2,000 people died at the hands of Georgian forces – including 15 Russian peacekeepers.

However, Human Rights Watch, the American group, said that Russian estimates were “suspicious”. Doctors at the main hospital said that 44 dead had been brought to the city morgue. Whatever the final death toll, few dispute that the city suffered destruction and that civilians were hardest hit. Nor is there any doubting Albina Shanazarov’s tragic fate. A 13-year-old girl, she sought to flee the city with her mother and three sisters. They set off with other civilians in a bus, which was ambushed by Georgian forces as they tried to reach Russia.

“A bullet smacked right into the steering wheel. I had to stop and we scattered along the highway,” said Guram Beloyev, the bus driver. “It was dark and I was hoping they wouldn’t see as we hid but they must have been using night-vision goggles because the Georgian sniper fired pretty accurately. Albina was terrified and ran towards me. That’s when she was hit by a bullet that smashed right through her chest. She died almost at once.”

None of it leads one far from the conclusion that Saakashvili (whose mandate is pretty slender) has been engaging in some high-risk populist brinkmanship, and despite his democratic and pro-Western credentials he has been stupid and wicked, resorting to military adventurism to gain popularity at home and in a misjudged effort to secure stronger support from the West.

The enemy will sometimes do good things (like Germany attacking Stalin in '41, perhaps, or like the Germans respecting the monastery at Monte Cassino until after we reduced it to rubble) and your allies will sometimes do wicked things. Life isn't black and white and Georgia=good/Russia=bad is witless and simplistic.

[Jackonicko]

BH,

Hyperbole or not, it's not me that needs to explain why the democratically expressed wishes of the vast majority in a region that has declared itself independent should be supported in some cases (Kosovo, Croatia, etc.) and not in others (Ossetia, Taiwan, Hong Kong)?

I do believe that the good of the international community usually outweighs the narrow self interest of a single nation - if such an amorphous concept can be discerned.

I do believe that morality should outweigh national self interest. You've expressed the belief that national self interest outweighs international law. How does that position differ from other regimes who have followed that approach?

I'd like to think that most Americans (and certainly most US leaders) have been more honourable than that. But if I'm wrong, then we should find better allies.

I don't come down firmly on the side of the Russians. I don't trust Putin, and Russian nationalism scares me. But the evidence seems to be that they did what they claimed on this occasion, in response to a Georgian aggression that was inexcusable and morally and legally unsustainable.

And I think that giving the Russians a kicking when they don't deserve it is going to be counter-productive - exacerbating Russian paranoia and increasing tension, and helping act as a recruiting sergeant for support for Putin when we should be aiming to reassure the Russians and defuse tension, and showing ordinary Russians that we are fair minded and not their enemies.

[phil gollin]

Does the invasion of Georgia have a clear and compelling basis in international law?

First, so as not to keep repeating the basic facts, I would refer back to my post (no. 42).

There are two (and a half) "invasions" - so it depends on which one you are talking about.

The real one - the Georgian one - broke a ceasefire agreement which specifically excluded Georgian military forces from South Osetia and in doing so the Georgians attacked and killed Russian peacekeepers. Certainly no "clear and compelling basis in international law" there. Indeed as an "agressive" act of war it would be specifically against the UN charter.

The one that has been expoused by many western politicans - the Russian one - was a counter-attack (and thus not "aggression") and certainly had a "clear and compelling basis in international law" and it was justifiable under the basis of self-defence.

The "half" one is what the Russians did (are doing) in parts of Georgia adjacent to South Osetia which is subject to various interpretations. First, until the Russians counter-signed the ceasefire officially the two countries were at war (see the Georgian declaration of a state of war with Russia for 15 days) and hence, STRICTLY SPEAKING as long as Russian actions were in accordance with the laws of war, everything was o.k.. Now in the present state of the world such black and white "states of war" does not give any country carte Blanch to attack anything they want in their enemies country. As far as has been publicied the Russians SEEM to have been attacking Georgian military infrastructure capable of attacking, or supporting an attack on, South Osetia. Now whilst that MIGHT be within the STRICT intrepretation of what might be "allowed" it really depends more on particular perceptions. I refer people to US "shock and awe" tactics.

As far as the withdrawal goes, I think the idea that the Russians can just turn around and go is rather simplistic (again, I refer people to the time taken to evacuate Southern Iraq after Desert Storm).

Just remember, do not listen to politicans who are more interested in spinning and lying.

.

[West Coast]

For me, it's simply too early to decide final intentions. I'll wait for a few weeks to see.

I did read that the NATO is quite divided by the level of response. Some want to appease Russia (and preserve the oil shipments) and others are demanding significant action. Seems the closer you are to Russia the more adament about punishing her you are.

[Lower Hangar]

Putin stepped into the Bush/Cheney trap . The USA had led Sakashvili up the garden path with implied support from the West etc etc and Sakashvili ( being a bit impulsive) decided, given all the understood US support , to sort out his Georgian region that was being a bit difficult. Putin blew a gasket ( he'd already been wound up by the Polish/Patriot deal) and went in - SNAP the trap shut. Cheney/the defence lobby in Washington/ etc etc jumped with joy -the cold war defence budgets were back on the table after 19 years absence - let the good times roll. As to heightened tension in Europe - who gives a s**t in Washington DC or anywhere in the USA for that matter.

[Tyres O'Flaherty]

That has a horrible ring of truth to it Lower hanger

[Focks 2]

I've been thinking the same thing for a while Lower Hanger. An bit of an arms race is always good for the economy.

[MSF]

Not so much a trap as a plan.
Russia gets its handies smacked for being a bad bay, but Putin's popularity at home skyrockets, the cold war is back on with new mil procurement budgets all round.
GWB leaves office with a high profile non shooting war sorted out before he leaves office.
Even napoleon gets his oar in to soften the blow of failing to ratify the Lisbon treaty.

Oh , the oil price goes up again because of the interruption of supply from the Kazakh pipeline

[brickhistory]

lower hangar:
Putin stepped into the Bush/Cheney trap . The USA had led Sakashvili up the garden path with implied support from the West etc etc and Sakashvili ( being a bit impulsive) decided, given all the understood US support , to sort out his Georgian region that was being a bit difficult. Putin blew a gasket ( he'd already been wound up by the Polish/Patriot deal) and went in - SNAP the trap shut. Cheney/the defence lobby in Washington/ etc etc jumped with joy -the cold war defence budgets were back on the table after 19 years absence - let the good times roll. As to heightened tension in Europe - who gives a s**t in Washington DC or anywhere in the USA for that matter.


Brilliant analysis of the situation and a Holmes-ian deduction as to who the real culprit is.

The minor details of Cheney being out of office in about five months and presumably not involved in foreign policy/national security issues and the one of most of the US' military being a bit tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq - not to mention the impending Iranian 'round up' to use the cowboy metaphor that is so loved on the eastern side of the Atlantic - are surely easily explained away.

That arms budget rapidly soaring to the stratosphere will be good for us on top of the few dollars that have gone so far into those minor details mentioned above. Of course, how and where to employ those weapons against Russia seems to not be fleshed out fully, but again, I'm sure a minor detail in your discovery. The 'big picture' is what's important.

Agreed, if the US would just say a firm 'no' when the former Soviet Republics or Warsaw Pact nations come asking for modernization of their militaries, ATC systems, and the like, all would be better. We should not get involved or try to help our and their industries and economy with the opportunity. I'm sure France or Germany would also say 'no.'

And when they do, then Putin's Russia can step up to the plate and help their 'neighbors.' He likes doing that from what I read.

Putin and his handpicked 'democracy' are simply looking for a way to play nice with Europe. If we, the US, would just kindly step aside, all would be sweetness and light. Instead, by butting our bovine nose into Eastern Europe's business, we just gum up the works.

Finally, as the apathy level in the US - Washington, DC or otherwise - does seem to be elevated, I'm ashamed to admit that I'm curious as to what exactly 'you give a sh1t for?'

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

TOFO,

One thing Britain does right is Bond. And he always has some stunning arm candy handy! :ok:

[ORAC]

Torygraph: Russia threatens new confrontation over Georgian provinces (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/2591725/Russia-threatens-new-confrontation-over-Georgian-provinces.html) A fresh confrontation between Moscow and the West was looming after Russia announced that it was preparing to recognise the independence of the two Georgian breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

The State Duma, Russia's parliament, has been recalled and will meet in emergency session on Monday to debate an Abkhaz appeal for immediate recognition of the region's sovereignty. The South Ossetian rebel leader, Eduard Kokoity, said he would follow suit imminently. Russian acquiescence to the proposals would inevitably mark a serious escalation of the crisis in the Caucasus by further undermining a fragile ceasefire in the area and creating a fresh diplomatic rift with the United States and Europe.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia has signed 14 United Nations Security Council resolutions accepting that Abkhazia and South Ossetia remain part of Georgia despite establishing rebel administrations after secessionist wars in the early 1990s. But after crushing Georgia on the battlefield, Russia has indicated that it was no longer prepared to honour UN edicts on the breakaway provinces. Earlier this week, Russia's foreign minister Sergei Lavrov told the world to "forget" about Georgia's territorial integrity.

Moscow is now signaling that it will move much quicker than expected in formally recognizing the two regions. Sergei Mironov, speaker of the Duma's upper house or Federation Council, said a vote on recognition would be overwhelmingly passed. "The Federation Council is ready to recognize the independent states of South Ossetia and Abkhazia if that is what the people of these republics want," he said.

There can be little doubt that the legislators who sit in the Duma, whose independence from the executive was removed by the prime minister Vladimir Putin, will vote as they are ordered. Recognition can only be made with the agreement of President Dmitry Medvedev. He has already said that he would "unambiguously" support independence for the two provinces.

Such a move would place tremendous strain on the fragile French brokered truce that ended the five-day war last week. Georgia has insisted that it would not tolerate losing either province, while the international community has repeatedly insisted that the country's borders would not be changed.

Russia, which has long given financial and military backing to both South Ossetia and Abkhazia, has accused the West of hypocrisy in supporting independence for Kosovo but opposing sovereignty for the two regions.

The West has argued that Kosovo was a special case, in large part because of its overwhelmingly Albanian majority. The Abkhaz have only become a majority in Abkhazia after 300,000 ethnic Georgians were forced to flee their homes during a brutal war in the early 1990s. Ossetians are a majority in South Ossetia, but the tiny province - roughly the size of Norfolk - has many ethnic Georgian villages too.

The development came as the focus of diplomatic pressure on Russia switched from the United States to Europe, with Britain, France and Germany all condemning Moscow for reneging on pledges to withdraw its troops from Georgia. While 40 empty army lorries were seen heading back across the Georgian border, there was no sign of a large-scale withdrawal and in many parts of the country Russian troops continued to dig themselves in.

Fed up with Russia's recalcitrance, David Miliband has warned the Kremlin that it faced serious consequences for its invasion of Georgia even if it does finally honour repeated pledges to its withdraw troops.

"Withdrawal is the first step but that doesn't mean that we forget about what has happened," the Foreign Secretary said in Tbilisi. "The sight of Russian tanks in a European city has been a chilling one." France accused Russia of breaking its word on a pullout three times, while Germany described Moscow's apparent prevarication as "very unsatisfactory".

Mr Miliband also condemned Russia's attacks on Georgia's civilian infrastructure, accusing Moscow of seeking to command international respect in a "very Cold War way".

[ORAC]

The Kosovo Card (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e4857127-7036-4561-9b20-4732db48433a) The moral and legal fallacies of Russia's pretense for invading Georgia.

[Roland Pulfrew]

LH

the cold war defence budgets were back on the table after 19 years absence

I am pretty certain the US military would not want to go back to the Cold War defence budget. Their current budget far exceeds anything they got in the Cold War, even accounting for inflation!:hmm:

[phil gollin]

Does anyone have the text of the ceasefire agreement signed by Georgia and Russia ?

There were reports that there were slighty different versions signed - the Russians claiming that their version contained an introduction that the Georgians refused to sign.

.

[flash8]

Having worked in the field in both Moscow and Tbilisi (Georgia) in a previous life I could honestly say this was coming years ago, it was just a matter of when.

The distrust between the two nations was such that to obtain Visas for our (local) Russian staff from the Georgians was a long and ardous process that most often ended in failure. Putting a Russian into a position of authority over a Georgian always ended in tears. They despise each other. I was often in the middle.

The Georgian Mind bears no relation to Logic, shambolic perhaps. There were times that meetings with Senior Officials could have come out of Alice in Wonderland.

The Russians on the other hand were hard, ruthless b*st*rds in negotiation. I gained considerable respect for them (quite friendly though off the record).

You can be sure Georgia will come off worse in this in all respects. The Russians calculated the odds for every outcome of this new "great" game.

[mick2088]

"Does anyone have the text of the ceasefire agreement signed by Georgia and Russia ?"

The original ceasefire agreement revolved around six points:

(1) Not to resort to force;
(2) To end hostilities definitively;
(3) To provide free access for humanitarian aid;
(4) Georgian military forces will have to withdraw to their usual bases;
(5) Russian military forces will have to withdraw to the lines held prior to the outbreak of hostilities. Pending an international mechanism, Russian peace-keeping forces will implement additional security measures;
(6) Opening of international talks on the security and stability arrangements in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Note that point 5 gave the green light to the Russians to "implement" additionally security measures (ie. maintain some kind of troop presence in Georgian territory to take security measures) pending the definition of an international mechanism. The French (EU/US-backed) then presented a draft UN resolution that was rejected by the Russians a few days ago because it did away with no 5 by calling for an immediate withdrawal and recognising the territorial integrity of Georgia, which the Russians won't accept (obviously because of the position of Abkhazia and South Ossetia). Russia's own draft resolution that was presented to the UN Security Council yesterday moreorless returns to the six-point plan.

[phil gollin]

Mick

Yes, I have seen these "points" - it is amazing how all those politicans are commenting on the ceasefire compliance without actually knowing what the document says.

I totally agree with your comment. The "western" politicans seem to be intent on making a mess of even the ceasefire by trying to change the agreement.

It really gets me annoyed that self-interest seems to be the main driver for their comments.

.

[Postman Plod]

This just seems to be spiralling out of control, with both sides rhetoric probably now as bad as each others, but frankly I don't see our Foreign Secretary suggesting that the relative calm we've had in Europe is over as being helpful, and I suggest that even talking about all out war (even in a negative sense) is inflamatory. Equally, the Russians testing a TOPOL ICBM doesn't help matters much.

BBC NEWS | Politics | Miliband warns over Russia crisis (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7585527.stm)
BBC NEWS | World | Europe | Putin blames US for Georgia role (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7586605.stm)

It strikes me that politicians (on all sides) are talking us into another cold war, without anyone seemingly trying to do anything to calm the situation down, or even negotiate by the sounds of things. All this recent talk of energy security, and this happens. I wonder what will happen if / when Russia turns off the gas supply?

Again I just can't help thinking we're constantly poking a bear with a sharp stick and pushing it into a corner - rightly or wrongly - and we seem surprised that its acting in the way it is, and that its not capable of more!

[Beatriz Fontana]

Great piece of Info Ops in The Times today - a full page ad for "SOS Georgia":

Lenin, Stalin, Putin, Give in?

[ORAC]

I hate to say I told you so, Jacko.....

Torygraph: South Ossetia seeks to merge with Russia
Georgia's breakaway region of South Ossetia has signalled that it will formally seek to merge with Russia.
By David Blair, Diplomatic Editor

This move would amount to Russia’s annexation of an area of another state and the redrawing of the map of a corner of Europe.

South Ossetia, with a largely Russian population of only 70,000, has no viable future as an independent state and observers believe that its only realistic option is to join its giant neighbour. President Dmitry Medvedev of Russia discussed this option with his South Ossetian counterpart, Eduard Kokoity, earlier this week during a meeting in Moscow.

Znaur Gassiyev, the Speaker of South Ossetia’s parliament, said the enclave would formally join Russia "in several years" or possible earlier. This had been "firmly stated by both leaders” during their meeting in Moscow. Tarzan Kokoiti, the deputy Speaker, predicted: “We will live in one united Russian state.”

While the Kremlin has recognised South Ossetia as an “independent” country, Russia effectively controls the tiny enclave, which has no viable economy and depends largely on smuggling. If the area merges with Russia, this would be a formal acknowledgement of reality......

[ORAC]

The Guardian: Russia's cruel intention (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/01/russia.georgia) In South Ossetia, I witnessed the worst ethnic cleansing since the war in the Balkans

[Jackonicko]

ORAC,

If that's what the vast majority of South Ossetians want, and if they don't want anything to do with Georgia - what's the problem?

As to all the heart string tugging reports of atrocities and ethnic cleansing, yes, of course it's deplorable, but it's absolutely certain that it's gone on on BOTH sides. The whole reason that the Ossetian's don't want anything to do with Saakashvili's Georgia is that independent Georgia has been nationalist and discriminatory from its foundation.

Under Stalin, Ossetia was part of the Georgian SSR, but was an autonomous oblast answerable to Moscow, not Tbilisi.

When Georgia seceded from the USSR, the Georgian majority stripped the Ossetians of their autonomy and tried to deny them their identity. The first leader of an independent Georgia, Zviad Gamsakhurdia, loudly and energetically pursued a policy of "Georgia for the Georgians" - which has only been continued by Saakashvili. Sitting hard on the Abkhaz and Ossetians is populist stuff among the ethnic Georgians, and Saakashvili has been eager to prove his nationalist credentials.

And that's why he invaded South Ossetia.



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.