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]

Originally Posted by Jackonicko

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

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]

Same old story.

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