Georgia

[The Stig]

Another good piece from the BBC: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7553390.stm

I think the last two points there are the most important: Borders shouldn't necessarily be sacrosanct, and alliances can be dangerous.

The consensus these days seems to be that international borders must be preserved at all costs, unless all parties involved agree on a change. What that policy ignores is the fact that a lot of borders were arbitrarily drawn a long time ago, and do not reflect the realities on the ground. Stalin added Abkhazia to Georgia because he liked to vacation there. He put part of Ossetia in Georgia to divide and conquer. The other big conflict in that region is Armenia-Azerbaijan. In that case the Soviets re-drew the borders to bribe those countries into accepting Soviet rule.

Insisting on the sanctity of borders is undemocratic. If the democratic rule of popular sovereignty were applied in Europe and elsewhere in the world today, you'd get very different borders than you have right now. In this case Georgia was holding onto two territories against the will of the populations of those territories. How democratic is that?

The point about alliances is also important. With the push to expand NATO as quickly as possible, some leaders seem to have forgotten that military alliances are a double-edge sword. They're great for protecting you when you're in danger, but they can also drag you into a fight that you don't want to be in.

August 1914 is a great example of that. A minor incident between two peripheral powers caused a pan-European war. An even better example is the Cuban Missile Crisis. Western Europe's membership in NATO could have gotten them wiped off the earth under a hail of Soviet nukes. They had no interest whatsoever in Cuba, but if the Crisis had triggered a shooting war, they would have paid the price for it.

What would have happened in this case if Georgia was a NATO member? The passions surrounding South Ossetia and Abkhazia are high. Georgia attacked Russian forces that were already there and tried to impose it's will on Russian citizens. Would Georgia's NATO membership really have been enough to keep Russia out? I'm not sure. Russia could very well have thought that America and Western Europe would never start a shooting war with Russia over a couple breakaway provinces that they had zero interest in. They might have been right. With the US military already overstretched and Western Europe on a pacifist kick, NATO might have sat this one out, even if Georgia was a NATO member. Of course, it would have been the end of NATO, since the alliance would mean nothing if its members don't back it up. It would be like the League of Nations after Italy invaded Ethiopia.

However, there's also the possibility that NATO would have followed their charter and taken a Russian attack on Georgia as an attack on all of NATO. Russia could have guessed that NATO wouldn't intervene, and guessed wrong. In that case, we would have been in a shooting war with the Russians because of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, two regions that 99% of Americans had never heard of. Is that really something we want?

Saakashvili's motives as far as NATO membership were clear. He wanted to use the threat of American military might to impose his rule on two regions that didn't want to have anything to do with him. He was clearly willing to risk dragging the US into a shooting war with the Russians in order to subdue South Ossetia and Abkhazia. I'm not sure we should be allied with somebody like that.

[theexorcist]

My views only.

The early lesson of this conflict is that you don't trust a government that kills people that it doesn't agree with by means of polonium or thus any more than you can throw them.

Crap like this is why the BBC - an organization that held fake contests - continues to lack credibility. It's an organization that continues to oppose any involvement in anything except environmentalism, since calling a spade a spade makes some people uncomfortable. Oh, and the stuff on sacrosanct borders is hilarious from an organization in a country where many Northern Irish, Scots, and some Welsh want out.

The Russian government is run by a bunch of thugs awash in oil and natural gas money. They cut off oil exports to Ukraine when that country didn't kowtow to them. Their cybergoons launched a direct attack on Estonia.

Had Georgia been a NATO member, Saakashvili would have been warned not to do anything rash - and had he done so, NATO would have administered some member justice, like kicking them out of NATO to the mercy of the Russian bear. And the Russians wouldn't have violated the country's sovereignty, in full violation of the UN Charter. At least the US held some debates and got a big middle finger from the rest of the world before invading Iraq, and at least it tried to couch its actions based on some previous UN actions. Apparently, the Russians were so concerned about the threat to world order that they quickly unleashed a powerful military assault on them and put Georgians in refugee camps. And they justify it by using NATO action against Kosovo (despite previous Security Council resolutions that warned the Serbians).

The 1914 argument is a spurious one. This is more akin to the Yugoslav conflict, where early inaction preceded a conflict that killed thousands. And that one didn't have a country that invaded a previously sovereign nation. Until the Russians are stopped from administering their own rule by fear on everyone around them, they'll keep growing their efforts to envelop free people in their second version of the Warsaw Pact until someone does.

By then, the BBC will be back to reporting on how the Lithuanians shouldn't be making trouble by comparing involvement to Vietnam.

[SirSaxa]

Aug 16, 2008 10:31:15 GMT -5 The Stig said:

Another good piece from the BBC: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7553390.stm

I think the last two points there are the most important: Borders shouldn't necessarily be sacrosanct, and alliances can be dangerous.

[/i]
[/quote]

Thanks Stig.
Another insightful article.

We should consider ourselves lucky that the Europeans were able to forestall the integration of Ukraine and Georgia into NATO.

Statesmanship requires a deep understanding of the points of view that others hold and why, regardless of whether we agree with them or believe they are justified. In this case, European leaders had a much better grasp of the realities in Russia and Georgia in particular.

And the requirement that borders be firmly established and recognized before a nation can be considered for admission into NATO is a critical one ... as well as being more than obvious.

[RusskyHoya]

A few more things to throw into the pot.

1. South Osetia voted to declare independence from Georgia. They were attacked by Georgian forces. This does indeed create some parallels to the Kosovo situation, regardless of whether the UN Security Council has bothered to weigh in on the issue.

2. This did not appear to be pre-planned (link): Several American and Georgian officials said that unlike when Russia invaded Afghanistan in 1979, a move in which Soviet forces were massed before the attack, the nation had not appeared poised for an invasion last week. As late as Wednesday, they said, Russian diplomats had been pressing for negotiations between Georgia and South Ossetia, the breakaway region where the combat flared and then escalated into full-scale war.

“It doesn’t look like this was premeditated, with a massive staging of equipment,” one senior American official said. “Until the night before the fighting, Russia seemed to be playing a constructive role.”

In response to what theexorcist said:

Aug 16, 2008 19:04:28 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

Had Georgia been a NATO member, Saakashvili would have been warned not to do anything rash - and had he done so, NATO would have administered some member justice, like kicking them out of NATO to the mercy of the Russian bear.

They were already warned,repeatedly (link):

At a conference in the picturesque Croatian port of Dubrovnik over the July 4 weekend, Bruce Jackson and Daniel Fried, the State Department's top European hand, pleaded with the Georgian president to abandon hopes of defeating Russian troops.

"You are not in NATO. . . . If you get into this, you're in it yourself," Jackson recalled Fried telling Saakashvili. "Nobody's coming. There is no cavalry."

Jackson said he was less diplomatic. "I went further than Fried could go, and I pointed out that Georgia hasn't won a war against anybody for 2,000 years," Jackson said. "Let's not kid ourselves. You're not Chechens."

In mid-July, just three weeks before the war erupted, U.S. Marines and Georgian soldiers staged a military exercise at a former Soviet base near Tbilisi. In retrospect, some wonder whether this was a mistake, perhaps giving Georgians the impression that they were more powerful than they were.

These warnings came from the highest diplomatic levels, too (link):

During a private dinner on July 9, Ms. Rice’s aides say, she warned President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia not to get into a military conflict with Russia that Georgia could not win. “She told him, in no uncertain terms, that he had to put a non-use of force pledge on the table,” according to a senior administration official who accompanied Ms. Rice to the Georgian capital.

...

In the five days since the simmering conflict between Russia and Georgia erupted into war, Bush administration officials have been adamant in asserting that they warned the government in Tbilisi not to let Moscow provoke it into a fight — and that they were surprised when their advice went unheeded. Right up until the hours before Georgia launched its attack late last week in South Ossetia, Washington’s top envoy for the region, Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried, and other administration officials were warning the Georgians not to allow the conflict to escalate.

But as Ms. Rice’s two-pronged visit to Tbilisi demonstrates, the accumulation of years of mixed messages may have made the American warnings fall on deaf ears.

As we can see, there were warnings to this effect, but also a lot of mixed messages, public "we're behind you 100%" statesments, joint military exercises, etc.

Aug 16, 2008 19:04:28 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

Apparently, the Russians were so concerned about the threat to world order that they quickly unleashed a powerful military assault on them and put Georgians in refugee camps.

There are also tens of thousands of Osetian refugees that have fled to Vladikavkaz and other parts of Osetia in the wake of Georgia's attack. Whether we like it or not, there are two sides to this conflict. The Gazprom Gangsters' Machiavellian ways do not change this; indeed, Saakashvilli is hardly any less self-interested or strategic in his thinking than they are, even if he miscalculated badly in this case.

[The Stig]

Aug 16, 2008 19:04:28 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

My views only.

The early lesson of this conflict is that you don't trust a government that kills people that it doesn't agree with by means of polonium or thus any more than you can throw them.

Crap like this is why the BBC - an organization that held fake contests - continues to lack credibility. It's an organization that continues to oppose any involvement in anything except environmentalism, since calling a spade a spade makes some people uncomfortable. Oh, and the stuff on sacrosanct borders is hilarious from an organization in a country where many Northern Irish, Scots, and some Welsh want out.

The Russian government is run by a bunch of thugs awash in oil and natural gas money. They cut off oil exports to Ukraine when that country didn't kowtow to them. Their cybergoons launched a direct attack on Estonia.

Had Georgia been a NATO member, Saakashvili would have been warned not to do anything rash - and had he done so, NATO would have administered some member justice, like kicking them out of NATO to the mercy of the Russian bear. And the Russians wouldn't have violated the country's sovereignty, in full violation of the UN Charter. At least the US held some debates and got a big middle finger from the rest of the world before invading Iraq, and at least it tried to couch its actions based on some previous UN actions. Apparently, the Russians were so concerned about the threat to world order that they quickly unleashed a powerful military assault on them and put Georgians in refugee camps. And they justify it by using NATO action against Kosovo (despite previous Security Council resolutions that warned the Serbians).

The 1914 argument is a spurious one. This is more akin to the Yugoslav conflict, where early inaction preceded a conflict that killed thousands. And that one didn't have a country that invaded a previously sovereign nation. Until the Russians are stopped from administering their own rule by fear on everyone around them, they'll keep growing their efforts to envelop free people in their second version of the Warsaw Pact until someone does.

By then, the BBC will be back to reporting on how the Lithuanians shouldn't be making trouble by comparing involvement to Vietnam.

My point wasn't that the Russians are angels here. My point was that Saakashvili is a shady character with a strong authoritarian streak, and we never should have thrown our lot in with him. He doesn't use polonium 209 to kill his opponents, but he does have undemocratic ways of dealing with them.

The fact is that in this case we DID warn Saakashvili not to do anything rash, and he ignored us. If he had been a NATO member he would have done the exact same thing, and Russia probably would have responded in the same way, since it was their troops and citizens being shot at in South Ossetia.

The way Saakashvili was trying to use the American military as cannon fodder in his own private quarrel with South Ossetia and Abkhazia is disgusting. This sort of move from him wasn't unexpected - he's been talking about doing it since before he got into office. We should never have drawn close to him in the first place.

Now, if South Ossetia and Abkhazia wanted to be a part of Georgia and were being oppressed by the Russians, then I would feel completely different about this. But the fact is that both have a deep hatred for the Georgians, and both see Russia as their savior. Their opinion is clear: The oppressor in this case is Georgia.

[SirSaxa]

From today's NY Times:

NY Times: Background on run-up to Georgia Hostilities

[SirSaxa]

From today's W Post

W Post talks with Eduard Shevardnadze


Excerpt

But Shevardnadze, known as the "Silver Fox," criticized the deterioration of Georgian-Russian relations under Saakashvili, especially in regard to the breakaway regions whose reintegration the current president has pushed for so vehemently.

"For reconciliation, much more time was needed, maybe five or six more years," Shevardnadze said. "Now, this will be even further postponed, but I would like to emphasize that, whatever time elapses, both Abkhazia and South Ossetia will be an integral part of Georgia."

To many Georgians, that idea now seems like a distant dream. But Shevardnadze is used to waiting.

....
Shevardnadze said that he is proud of maintaining good relations with both sides and that the current Georgian administration had made a mistake in letting its ties with Russia turn sour.

"These threads that connected us with the United States and also with Russia, these threads should not be cut," he said. "We have lost much due to this."
....

During his presidency, Georgia began constructing a pipeline to bring Caspian Sea oil from Azerbaijan through Georgia and Turkey to the Mediterranean, bypassing Russia and Iran. That pipeline, Georgian officials say, has become a target of Russian bombing.

[theexorcist]

For some context (which was in the article), Shevardnadze rigged Georgia's last elections. Only when the Georgian people rose (pun not necessarily intended) up and told him and the Russians that they were sick of being screwed out of democracy did he resign.

He is not exactly the world's most unbiased source.

[RusskyHoya]

Aug 18, 2008 11:34:24 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

For some context (which was in the article), Shevardnadze rigged Georgia's last elections. Only when the Georgian people rose (pun not necessarily intended) up and told him and the Russians that they were sick of being screwed out of democracy did he resign.

He is not exactly the world's most unbiased source.

Very correct. However, the U.S. started plying Georgia while Shevarnadze was still in power; he was Gorbachev's Foreign Minister and, as such, was friends with George H.W. Bush and James Baker. That was when the military and oil relationships really got started. His main bias is his own reputation, which he values above all else.


A great article ran in the Sunday WaPo. It was written by a journalist who had actually spent time in the region and clearly understands the messy dynamics of the situation:

"We Are All Georgians? Not So Fast." By Michael Dobbs

[SirSaxa]

Aug 18, 2008 11:34:24 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

For some context (which was in the article), Shevardnadze rigged Georgia's last elections. Only when the Georgian people rose (pun not necessarily intended) up and told him and the Russians that they were sick of being screwed out of democracy did he resign.

He is not exactly the world's most unbiased source.

That is true and rather obvious. But, what was your point in mentioning it? Does it, in your opinion, change the validity of his perspective that Georgia should keep close communication and ties with both the US and Russia?

[SirSaxa]

Aug 18, 2008 11:57:27 GMT -5 RusskyHoya said:

A great article ran in the Sunday WaPo. It was written by a journalist who had actually spent time in the region and clearly understands the messy dynamics of the situation:

"We Are All Georgians? Not So Fast." By Michael Dobbs

That was a really good article. Thanks for the link.

The last few paragraphs make the point succinctly and effectively:

The bottom line is that the United States is overextended militarily, diplomatically and economically. Even hawks such as Vice President Cheney, who have been vociferously denouncing Putin's actions in Georgia, have no stomach for a military conflict with Moscow. The United States is bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan and needs Russian support in the coming trial of strength with Iran over its nuclear ambitions.

Instead of speaking softly and wielding a big stick, as Teddy Roosevelt recommended, the American policeman has been loudly lecturing the rest of the world while waving an increasingly unimpressive baton. The events of the past few days serve as a reminder that our ideological ambitions have greatly exceeded our military reach, particularly in areas such as the Caucasus, which is of only peripheral importance to the United States but of vital interest to Russia.

The US and Europe also need Russia's oil and gas, and the pipelines through Georgia.
That point cannot be made often or strongly enough.

[EasyEd]

"The US and Europe also need Russia's oil and gas, and the pipelines through Georgia.
That point cannot be made often or strongly enough."

The US and Europe also need America's oil and gas. That point cannot be made often or strongly enough.

[theexorcist]

So how's that Russian pullout coming, everybody?

[EasyEd]

Aug 19, 2008 7:09:07 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

So how's that Russian pullout coming, everybody?

It's slow or in the opposite direction. Obviously it's Bush's fault. Or Cheney's.

[The Stig]

Aug 19, 2008 6:16:30 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

"The US and Europe also need Russia's oil and gas, and the pipelines through Georgia.
That point cannot be made often or strongly enough."

The US and Europe also need America's oil and gas. That point cannot be made often or strongly enough.

I'm not sure how much of our oil the Europeans get. I know they don't get much of our gas.

Unlike oil, natural gas is extremely difficult to transport across large bodies of water. It's possible to transport it in ships, but you need a very specialized (i.e. expensive) ship to do it, and you end up paying a lot for not much gas. Pipelines are a much easier way to transport gas, but the obvious problem is that they can't go across large bodies of water. So there's not much we can do to help the Europeans if Russia turns off the gas.

Of course, Russia also has a major incentive to keep the gas flowing. Their gas would suddenly become almost worthless if the Europeans weren't buying it up.

As far as the Russians in Georgia, they'll never leave South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Anybody who's expecting that is just dreaming. They'll probably pull back from Gori and such in the next month or so, after they've reminded the Georgians once and for all who's boss.

[TBird41]

Russia's getting frisky on their Pacific border (and ours) as well

www.kansascity.com/451/story/754351.html

[The Stig]

Yeah, Russia restarted those patrols a while ago.

Rice does have a point in her comments. Russia has never been known for their subtlety in international relations, going back through the Soviet days and to the Tsarist days. They're paranoid, and they think that actions speak louder than words. Provoking a country like that is a bad idea, as Georgia found out.

[SirSaxa]

A couple more pieces on the Georgia situation from Today's NY TImes:

[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/opinion/20friedman.html?ref=opinion
]Thomas Friedman on Georgia Hostilities[/url][/b][/size]

Friedman spreads the blame around pretty generously to include the Clinton Admin and the Bush Admin, in addition to Putin and Saakashavili. Intersting background and perspective.

Excerpt

If the conflict in Georgia were an Olympic event, the gold medal for brutish stupidity would go to the Russian prime minister, Vladimir Putin. The silver medal for bone-headed recklessness would go to Georgia’s president, Mikheil Saakashvili, and the bronze medal for rank short-sightedness would go to the Clinton and Bush foreign policy teams.

The next one is an OpEd piece by Mikhail Gorbachev (Disclaimer for those who are unaware, he is the former president of the Soviet Union so his views are biased)

Mikhail Gorbachev

Excerpts

Russia did not want this crisis. The Russian leadership is in a strong enough position domestically; it did not need a little victorious war. Russia was dragged into the fray by the recklessness of the Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili. He would not have dared to attack without outside support. Once he did, Russia could not afford inaction.

...

The news coverage has been far from fair and balanced, especially during the first days of the crisis. Tskhinvali was in smoking ruins and thousands of people were fleeing — before any Russian troops arrived. Yet Russia was already being accused of aggression; news reports were often an embarrassing recitation of the Georgian leader’s deceptive statements.

[Boz]

Aug 20, 2008 23:34:59 GMT -5 SirSaxa said:

The next one is an OpEd piece by Mikhail Gorbachev (Disclaimer for those who are unaware, he is the former president of the Soviet Union so his views are biased)

Crap. At first I laughed when I read that.

Then I had one of those "I'm getting old" moments. I realized there are kids starting college today who don't know that, and there are kids starting college soon for whom the Soviet Union will have never existed.

(Plus, you know, we've got indoor plumbing nowadays -- even though I bet Larry Craig wishes we didn't)

Thanks for making my day, Saxa.

[Deleted]

More reading:

www.opendemocracy.net/article/russia-and-the-georgia-war-the-great-power-trap