War in Georgia

Remove all ads!

Once upon a time, the Olympic Games were an occasion for wars to stop - at least in the Greek world, which otherwise had them in abundance. Ironically this year a war has all but started as the olympic fire came to Beijing, and the poor agricultural province seems to be going to hell in a handbasket.

To be honest, I'm still not 100% sure what is going on in Georgia, but here is what seems to be the case so far. After a brief pseudo-civil war in 1992, Southern Ossetia - a border region of Georgia with many Russian nationals* - has been all but independent, and even voted for independence in an unrecognized referendum. After several skirmishes with the Ossetian separatists (who most likely enjoy more than moral support from Russia), Georgian forces entered Southern Ossetia on Thursday evening to put down the separatists, and to the best of my knowledge today they controlled the majority of the region; its capital, Tskhinvali, was either mostly under their control or has been shelled by mortars, possibly both.

Meanwhile, Russia - which has a peacekeeping (with quotation marks, if you prefer) force in the region has reported that its forces clashed with and come under attack by the Georgian army, which has tried to establish control over the city, and reports say that more Russian units are crossing the border. Foreign correspondents in Georgia say that Russian planes bombed targets in Georgia, and Georgian authorities say there have been some thirty casualties - military and civilian.

In short, Georgia accused Russia of waging war against it and invading its territory, and Russia has said it would protect its citizens in the province, while accusing Georgian forces of ethnic cleansing. I hope it won't go any further - because if it does, it will probably be worse than the civil wars in the early 1990's.

*: it is worth noting that, according to the BBC and other sources, many have received Russian passports since 1992, so I have some reservations about Russian desire to protect its citizens abroad.

 

The Georgians are fools to try that. Of course they don't stand a chance against Russia. And then consider the circumstances: Most Ossetians are Russians, and hold Russian passports. The Russians have warned the Georgians to not occupy South Ossetia. They proceeded anyway.

And their foolishness is being exacerbated by them hoping to get Uncle Sam to line up behind them. Their current rhetoric is aimed on exactly that. Those in DC who have spent the last years demonising and cornering Russia will clearly be delighted. Considering that Shaakashvili came to power with substantial Western help, it is fair to assume that he consulted his Western backers before proceeding to attack South Ossetia, no?

For me it is one of those cases where the prospect of an alliance makes little people reckless. With such politics in mind, I certainly don't want Georgia in NATO. They do something silly, get their well deserved whacking, and draw us in? A NATO war over the question what passport some rubes in South Ossetia are to hold and who is to govern their hill country? What an idiocy. No thanks.

 

You know something just doesn't seem right with this. I don't think that Georgians are so idiot to believe that USA and NATO are going to engage in a war with Russia for them, so something else must be happening.

This must be sound as a conspiracy theory but let's see the facts:

1) USA wants Georgia to join NATO.
2)Russians do not want this as they see it as direct attack in what they consider as their zone of influence and perhaphs their soft underbelly.

If Georgia had joined NATO, what could be the russian reaction? Would they invade Georgia if it was already a NATO member? Certainly not. Possibly some economic sanctions, some pressure with the gas pipes, a lot of barking, but absolutely nothing else.

So what do they do in order to avoid a situation like this?

They leak clues to the Americans or to some other NATO country that if Georgians decide to retake Southern Ossetia they are not going to intervene. This information reaches Georgians, who decide, that since the west assures them that the Russians are just going to bark, to take their chances and retake S.O. and that leads us to the current situation.

What do Russians achieve with this strategy? Two things:

1)They solve the S.O. issue in their favour, this area is certainly going to be an indepedent state or a russian province.
2)The prevent NATO's establishment in Georgia. The vast majority of NATO members thought the same thing with Ragusa "They do something silly, get their well deserved whacking, and draw us in? A NATO war over the question what passport some rubes in South Ossetia are to hold and who is to govern their hill country? What an idiocy. No thanks"

To understand what I say imagine that the Warsaw Pact was still alive in 2003 and that it announced that Iraq joins the Pact. Would USA dare to invade then?

As I have already said in the beginning this sounds as a conspiracy theory and it may be light years away from the truth, but I just can't accept that the rabbit will challenge the bear without knowing that the bear will not accept the challenge.

 

What I wonder about is the Silent one in this--China. This threatens to overshadow their coming our party as a world superpower. How will they react to this?

What I think will be the likely outcome is a sovreign Souther Ossetia with Strong ties to Russia, while Georgia looks like whiny little punks on the world stage...

 

As it happens, a familiarity with history makes it quite clear that while UFOs are more than a little out there, 'conspiracies' are pretty damn common. Of course, mind-boggling lapses in judgment are also pretty damn common.

 

Considering that Russia actually had troops in South Ossetia - peacekeepers or no - it's imo impossible that it would allow any Georgian offensive in the region, especially if the Georgian army clashed with its troops. If it was a lapse in judgement, it would really be mind-boggling.

 

As stupid, say, as invading Russia while simultaneously shifting your nation's economy back to a peace-time footing?

Just for starters

 

Yes, for starters. In general, for Georgia to order its soldiers to shoot in the general direction of Russian ones is a bad idea regardless.

 

It's always the unnamed people who suffer - they'll just become a statistic while the leaders will leave names.

 

I'd like to point out that they only became Russians and got the Russian passports after Russia started to hand out those passports to them after they intervened in the civil war and took up peacekeeping in the region.

Won't happen. The west won't accept independence of South Ossetia. Russia on the other hand would be in a very difficult position if they recognized South Ossetia or Abkhazia since it would leave them open to accusations of double standards. Now though a return to the pre-war status quo seems impossible and a solution for the region needs to be found.

Now that Georgia has made a onesided cease fire it will be interesting to see how Russians will approach the matter. Georgia has refused to stand down their arms and will continue to fight if Russia marches on towards their positions. I wonder how the west will react if Russian troops start to approach Tblisi?

 

It takes two in that case. Russian passports were in demand - they were accepted and kept, as opposed to be used as toilet paper. Many South Ossetians and Abkhazians are not particularly keen to live under Tbilisi's rule. Some prefer Russian influence to predominate there for the time being. Talk is that 'some' means approx 90%.

And then, let's forget the notion that Mr. Saakashvili is some glorious democrat. He barely won the election in January, which included irregularities. Corruption in Tbilisi is endemic. Georgia spends some 70% of its budget on the military. Being a soldier is about the best paid job for the average young man in the country. That is not your pro-western model democracy. If there is some truth to the reports that 1500 were killed in an apparent major initial over-reach by the Georgian military, that also tells you something about Saakashvili. In that case expect many more brutish bombardments from the Russians in response.

It's apparent the Georgians hoped to serve the Russians with a fait accompli by storming into Tskhinvali. Georgia launched the war in the apparent hope and expectation that the Russians would not react, but that if they did, the Americans and Georgia’s other NATO friends would come to his aid in one form or another. Now that it didn't work out Saakashvili turned tail and is demanding a cease fire. Pathetic. Perfectly aware of Saakashvili's position of weakness, the Russian response is: On our terms. The Russians will keep on going to drive that point home. And, of course, there are the two unresolved issues of South Ossetia and Abkhazia that Russia will probably try to tackle. For that they don't need to march towards Tbilisi. If the Russians are smart they try something like arranging to be greeted as liberators in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, followed by something like a plebiscite on association with Russia. It wouldn't be the first time that an attacking country gets whacked and loses parts of its territory as a result. Such a step would probably be greeted with international condemnation, but the Russians will have created facts on the ground. For all that the Georgians will have no one to blame but themselves, or rather, Mr. Saakashvili.

But there is a great deal of US and European culpability in this. The US has displayed a reckless disregard for Russian interests for some time. IMO it was an act folly to expand NATO onto Russia's front lawn, and into their back yard. The responsibility for that folly can be laid squarely at the feet of both Clinton and Bush Jr. It was foolish to systematically topple pro Russian governments with those colour coded revolutions. It was foolish to steam roll Russia by accepting the independence of that crappy little statelet Kosovo (with it's inevitable gravitation towards a Greater Albania). One major underlying cause for the fierce Russian response on that Georgian 'lapse of judgement' was Kosovo.

When Kosovo declared independence and the US and other European states recognized it, they sidestepped Russia's veto in the United Nations Security Council. That second the price for Russian cooperation in other major global problems just went way up and the chance of a clash over Georgia's breakaway border provinces increased dramatically. By pushing Kosovo down Russia's throat the US aggravated Russian sensitivities. Humiliating as Kosovo's independence was to Moscow, the barely concealed cheer leading from Brussels and DC added insult to injury. What we see is in part payback for that in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. It will also be interesting to watch the Ukraine.

So, there we have, thanks to massive US lobbying, NATO aspirant Georgia. In his overconfidence, Georgia's leader Saakashvili invited a Russian attack, and we see the US and NATO are unable to do anything against the Russians mauling him for his recklessness and impertinence. As a result, the US and the EU and NATO have lost credibility. The Russian response has exposed their (implicit) security guarantees at least toward Georgia to be hollow. Well, one should not take on board commitments which one is likely or indeed liable not to be able to honour. That is a fundamental point that America lost out of sight in their hegemonic, unipolar enthusiasm, and a thing that the Europeans have lost out of sight in their inherent institutional expansionism. As for the EU: NATO is not the EU where expansion and integration are to be welcomed almost as a matter of principle. And as for the US, there are limits to US power. One cannot do all the things all the time, at the same time. If you can't back it up, shut up.

 

Of course they were but they helped in creating this situation which is unsustainable. De facto independent terretories can exist only for so long and are barrels of gunpowder just waiting to blow up. This won't be the last we've seen of this conflict.

I think you're thinking too much with a cold war mentality. Was expansion of EU and NATO to the baltics a mistake? All the nations sought to be in NATO and EU, they weren't sucked in by force. If a nation wishes to apply for NATO or EU membership they are free to do so. Only goes to so that the former soviet republics are afraid of their old masters in Moscow and wish to have nothing to do with them. That is something the Russians can only blame upon their own past actions.

In any case the conflict seems to be at an end for now, Medvedev has said that the Russian military operation has been fought to an end and Georgians have been pushed back and will think twice before trying anything similar again. I wonder if we'll ever find out of the true casualty numbers as well as of possible misconducts or even war crimes.

 

If Rags is thinking with Cold War mentality, so must be quite a few Russians - some of whom in positions of power. Apparently the did not think they "lost" the Cold War as much as "conceded" it, but they expected that their sphere of influence would be more or less preserved. I think there was actually a promise made that NATO would not expand, but I am not quite sure of that. In either case, they do not consider the NATO expansion a gesture of friendship. This issue will only make them more certain - Georgia undertook an act of hostility shortly after formalizing its ties with NATO. What is to say that Ukraine or Lithuania would not attempt that? There is certainly little love lost between them and Russia.

True. At least hopefully things will calm down now. Russia had its show of force, the Ossetians have their de facto independence, and if I were to be cynical I would think the Georgian prime minister, who was elected on promises of tough policy against them, got something out of it as well. I just hope the people whose lives were ruined by the war can build them up again.

 

Morgoroth,
you mistake me. I don't view the issue with a cold-war mentality. I am viewing the issue with a distinctly post-cold-war mentality.

Now, I don't endorse the Russian step. But I can comprehend it. And I am not surprised. It was somewhat predictable. That one was coming for a long time. Worse, it was avoidable.

The Russians are not the enemy any more. The Soviet Empire is no more. But the Russians are still a great power. America has its Monroe-Doctrine (as actual as ever). Great powers have a sphere of influence. So what about Russia? Let's not forget that Russia has been invaded twice, and was both times saved by it's strategic depth - Napoleon and Hitler succumbed to Russia's vastness (and weather). Strategic depth means safety, which is an old Russian concern. NATO expansion eastwards deprives the Russians of their strategic depth. Try put yourself into Russia's shoes: In very practical terms the lack of depth means that the Ukraine joining NATO would put Moscow in reach of a one week march of an armoured column. No more wearing down of the enemy on the long march through Russia's cities, steppes, swamps, mountains, rivers, forests and fields. And then there is the US, err, of course NATO, missile shield. Purely defensive, of course, and aimed at Iran That's why it is to be in Poland and Slovakia. Well, certainly nice for the Russians to hear such lofty assertions, if they could only believe them.

What the Russians fear, not without reason in face of the US steps throughout the last 15 years, accelerating under Bush Jr., is encirclement. There are US bases all around the place - on their front lawn, in their backyard - and then think of policies of regime change and the generally hostile rhetoric. How much again did the US like Russian troops on Cuba? Bush Sr.'s administration gave the Russians assurances not to expand NATO eastwards; that was basically Russia's condition for allowing Germany's re-unification. The US reneged on that and their assurance to Russia was trampled on by succeeding US administrations. The Russians don't exactly have, in spite of noisy US (self-) righteousness, reason trust US guarantees. US actions speak for themselves. It was the US that was championing NATO's expansion eastwards. And then add all that triumphant US talk - of 'nuclear primacy', 'global dominance', 'global hegemony' and 'unipolar world' that certainly didn't help dispel Russian concerns.
From a Russian perspective, the US have been breaking assurances in the past if they felt they could afford it, at Russia's expense. Kosovo is just another episode in a longer story. After the humiliations of the past, the Russians now try to re-assert themselves, something that could have been and should have been avoided, had they been allowed their sphere of influence. But instead the US and NATO have been basically breathing down their neck. Neo-con rhetoric has been consistently hostile, just as if the Cold War never ended. Then think of the odd regime change campaigns against pro-Russian governments in former Soviet republics. The Russian sentiments are not unfounded. What the Russians see is a continuation of Prometheism. Judge for yourself if they might have a point.

So I see the Russians as what they are and not what they perhaps ought to be. Their interests are a reality. And theirs are as legitimate as Americas for that matter. So let's address and not ignore or deny them. I want Russia as a partner. That means I have to take into account their interests - a thing that European policies and NATO and US policies in particular did not do. The Russians feel, probably rightly, that they have not been treated fairly. And now they are pissed and obstinate? What a surprise.

And now I see the war in Georgia be interpreted as sign of Russia's old nefariousness in US media? Give me a break. The culprit is that moron Saakashvili. Even though he gave Russia what they had been apparently patiently waiting for, Georgia still started it. I mean, Georgia did just what the West got very upset about when Serbia allegedly did it in Kosovo. But Russia gets all the criticism. Suuuuure. What did splendid Miss Condi say so well about the US position on a possible Israeli strike on Iran?

Now Russia apparently isn't I take it.

 

No, Russians are thinking what's in their interests which is obvious. They wish to reclaim their place at world stage and will act in a way that suits themselves best. The baltic states won't try to invade Russia, they aren't mad and they have no similar situations to Georgia. If Russia will ever try to push for independence for the Russians living in Estonia, Lithaunia or Latvia then they are de facto trying to conquer parts of these countries. That is not acceptable and should be responded to. Also the baltic states are allready in NATO so they can't precicely do what Georgia did, also their terretorial disputes with Russia are very minor compared to that of Georgia.

Rags, I understand fully well how the Russians feel and why they feel so. I'm not saying that their feelings are alltogether unjustified. However what I am saying is that I don't really give rats ass what Russia feels about Finland or Georgia joining NATO or Serbia and Ukraine joining EU. It's between EU/NATO and these sovereign countries. There is a reason why the west is expanding towards east and a very fundamental reason is that people do not want to live under the Russians sphere of interests but would rather look towards west. Can't say I blame them really.

 

First of all, it's a horrible that this whole thing started. No one can bring back the dead. I barely believed the news when the things escalated.

With that said, Ragusa has a good and valid point on Russia. I can understand how they feel and also, why they reacted the way they did. The Georgia president is an idiot to pull a stunt like that and I'm not not sure what he was thinking when he sent troops there.

Of course the Russians would answer and answer in a show of force. Let's face it, they are not some underdeveloped little country that can be bossed around.

The most ironical part, for me, was this statement, by Bush ( Full text

Yeah, well, so is Serbia and yet Kosovo got recognised as a "state". No one really cared when our politicians were saying that. Now the US want to play the same card that they trampled over before? That's BS. You either play by the rules, or you don't - make up your mind.
(I have no desire to make this a Kosovo discussion. I'm simply listing an example. I find that the act of recognising it was not legitimate in terms of international law and that's all I have to say on the matter. I'm way too apolitical to make any informed guesses about it. Maybe in 50 years.)

Russia is giving the US the taste of its own medicine. If they don't like it, well, they shouldn't have poked the bears.

Also, NATO bombing of SRJ in 1999. also happened to a sovereign country. (Admittedly our political system was a disaster at the time but it's not nice to bomb people!)

As for the west expanding east... it wouldn't kill them to use some subtlety and not battering rams. Also, they could use a bit more insight when dealing with local situations. Yes, most people want to join say EU, true, but the west is not moving into tabula rasa territory here. Russia's sphere of interest was there. In many cases it still is. You can't expect it to miraculously vanish in what... 20 years? So, tread lightly. Like someone mentioned before, don't promise what you can't deliver. And for crying out loud, think before you launch into a conflict. This is not a video game, or a computer simulation. Real people die.

Bottom line, although I wish this conflict never happened, I'm in a way glad that the Russians responded the way they did, if for no other reason than to show US, err.. NATO that the world is not their backyard.
As usual when the big ones game, the little ones are used as cannon fodder.

Russia has interests. Can you blame them for wanting to protect those?

(I'll probably regret posting in an Alley in a few hours... but with the headache I'm having, I don't care right now. )

 

No but after a complete failure to prevent genocide in that same region committed by the same people NATO was forced to act. NATO involvement in Kosovo was in large due to the fear of seeing a repetition of the earlier events in Bosnia. Whatever you might say of Georgia or Saakashvili they are yet to committ genocide.

Many spheres of interests and empires have vanished in a shorter time, so yes I can expect it if not to completely vanish atleast be significantly diminished. Which is what has happened and continues to happen.

 

To put it mildly, that is not very likely. There is a saying that powers do not have eternal friends and enemies, just eternal interests. Barring an unrivaled friendship between Russia, the EU and the US Russia will be opposed to having members of NATO or US allies (and probably Chinese ones, in all honesty) on its borders. It will protect its sphere of influence and/or try to restore it, for many reasons

Sure, we may not care for Russians' feelings or their country's interests, but that matters little - they do, and will act to protect them. Of that, at least, one should be mindful. The Georgian prime minister either was not or he miscalculated his country's position when he, as we say, pulled the devil by the tail. Now, I'm not saying that Russia is the good guy - though depending on the details, they may be in this particular case - but there is nothing surprising or fundamentally immoral about a country acting in defense of their political interests.

 

Well they might think that Poland, Czech Republic, Romania, Bulgaria, Eastern Germany etc. are still in their interests, but then they would just be living in a wild fantasy world because their practical pulling power in these countries is today quite minimal and their pulling power in others are lessening significantly.

If you ask me then it's a good thing. I'd much rather have more US influence than more Russian influence, of course I'd prefer to have mostly European influence. Whatever crimes US did or does in Iraq it's still a free democracy Russia is not. Also whatever casualities the Georgian conflict has caused are minimal compared to the slaughtering that the Russians committed in Chechenya not too many years ago.

 

Sure, their influence there is minimal. However, that does not mean that they should not be expected to try to keep and improve their ties with those countries, or any others. I'm not saying it is good or bad, it just is - Russia will obviously look after its own political interests, as its government understands them, because that is what any state does. Not to do this would mean not having any foreign policy at all.

Spoiler

Once again, I am not defending them, so whether it is a good thing or no is irrelevant. The thing is, as I understood it you were basically telling us - in response to iirc Loreseeker's statement - that you do not think Russia would have any interest in countries that were its satellites 20 years before. This is simply not true - they are obviously interested in them, as the clash in Georgia and, heck, Russia's entire foreign policy towards the EU shows. Does that mean those countries should knuckle under to any demand from Big Brother? Of course not, but it would be naive to think Russia would show no interest in those countries and would not try to build up its influence. That is not because it is Russia, it is because every state that has a foreign policy is interested at what is happening at its borders - and beyond - and tries to expand its influence one way or another. Now, the way Russia does this, in Georgia and elsewhere, is sometimes controversial and often ham-fisted, but that is a different matter.