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

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

AA

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!

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.

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"?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Jackonicko,

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

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.

Jackonicko

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

Jackonicko

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.

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?

What a good thread!
 

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!

squirrel, well said.

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.

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.

corrections
 

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

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

I concur. Very cogent.

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.

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?

There Are Nooo Good Guys

<tuppence>

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

</tuppence>