A WAR MADE IN WASHINGTON?
Thursday’s military aggression against South Ossetia by the American ally of Georgia doesn’t come out of the blue. (picture from the Independent: caption “Women and children leave the South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali under the heavy fire of the Georgian army”)
South Ossetia is one of three enclaves of non-Georgians who have resisted attempts to incorporate them into the Georgian state. Following the treaty that ended the war in the early 1990s a Russian peacekeeping force has been in both South Ossetia and Abkhazia, operating under the auspices of the Commonwealth of Independent States.
All through June and July there were weeks of violence along the demarcation lines separating the Georgian military from separatist forces in South Ossetia and Abkhazia.. Several people have been killed in sporadic exchanges of gunfire, and Abkhazia has been shaken by a series of blasts, which the separatist leadership in Sukhumi blames on the Georgians.
Terrorism has also spread into Russia, and only yesterday there was a bomb on the tourist beach of Socchi, near the Georgian border, that killed two Russian tourists. (A very nice resort by the way, I went there back when it was in the USSR and the prospect of war between Russia and Georgia unthinkable)
There has been a clear and open policy from both the Georgian government and Washington to replace the Russian troops with an international force, that will facilitate the forcible incorporation of the separatist regions into Georgia. Violence either organized or encouraged by the Georgians has allowed them to claim that the Russian peace keeping is ineffective.
Georgia has repeatedly threatened to take action to end Russian-led peacekeeping missions and called for the European Union and United States to get involved in both mediation and peacekeeping. Russia’s foreign ministry believes that the violence is sponsored by Georgia, who are then seeking to use it as an excuse to eject the Russians. According to the Moscow Times, the foreign ministry said: “The aim of escalating tensions … is to destroy the peacekeeping architecture in the region with the hope of replacing it with new mechanisms that fit Georgia’s purposes,”
This week’s military aggression by US ally and candidate NATO member Georgia follows only one month after U.S. State Secretary Condoleezza Rice visited the Georgian capital Tbilisi where she said that “[Russia] needs to be a part of resolving the problem and solving the problem, and not contributing to it,” according to Reuters. Not very coded support for ejecting the Russians. At the same time the US State Department made a policy statement that Abkhazia “urgently” needed an international police presence to replace the Russian peacekeepers.
Under the current peace treaty both South Ossetia and Abkhazia have to agree for the Russians to be replaced, and they have no intention of doing so.
Back in July, Artur Martirosyan, the senior program manager with the Mercy Corps’ Conflict Management Group, that had mediated between Georgia and Abkhazia acknowledged that Georgia would not have started destablising the current peace settlement “without consultations, if not direct guidance,” from the United States
Martirosyan said rejection of the new format by Sukhumi, the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali and Moscow could “push the envelope to the moment of truth.”
Martirosyan predicted a month ago: “Will the United States try enforcement or encourage Georgia to try military options?” he said. “Without these two policy options — enforcement and military operations — the process will reach an impasse that is not in Georgia’s interests.”
Since the 2003 “Rose revolution” brought to power a pro-Western, belligerently nationalist government in Tblisi, there has been a great deal of anti-Russian rhetoric from the Georgians. As Mary Dejevsky writes in today’s Independent:
It would be easy to interpret the conflict that erupted with bombs, tanks and warplanes yesterday as a case of big, bad Russia, resentful of Georgia’s independence and growing closeness to the West, taking advantage of the world’s preoccupation with the Beijing Olympics to inflict some punishment on its southern neighbour.
But the rights and wrongs are confused, not least because Russia officially recognises Georgia’s statehood and its territorial integrity. Nor is there any doubt that yesterday’s fighting was triggered by Georgia, whose forces crossed into South Ossetia with a view to reintegrating it into Georgia. The country’s Prime Minister made this clear, saying that Tbilisi’s patience had “run out”.
The timing, for Georgia’s purposes, was perfect. The world’s attention was focused on Beijing, where the Russian Prime Minister and former president, Vladimir Putin, who is still the real power in the land, was an honoured guest, along with George Bush and other leaders. The new President, Dmitry Medvedev, was in charge in Russia, but his authority is still untested.
So the signs are that current war has been manufactured in Washington, and executed by Georgia.
Russia’s military intervention has prevented the annexation of South Ossetia by Georgia, though military operations by the US trained Georgian army have devstated much of the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali.
The situation now remains very dangerous. Georgia has said that it is at war. According to the Independent:
Mikheil Saakashvili, Georgia’s President, claimed his troops had regained full control of the rebel capital and most of South Ossetia, while insisting that the Russians were to blame for the fighting and appealing for international help. “What Russia is doing in Georgia is open, unhidden aggression and a challenge to the whole world,” he said. “If the whole world does not stop Russia today, then Russian tanks will be able to reach any other European capital.”
This is nonsense. Russian troops have entered only South Ossetia, that has already declared independence from Georgia, and Russia recognises Georgia. What is more, while Russia is a strong regional power, in terms of being able to project military power Westwards into Europe it has no more military capability to so so than the UK or France nowadays.
It is Georgia talking up the war, not Moscow. It was Georgia who initiated military aggression, not Moscow. It is Georgia seeking to forcibly incorporate an unwilling population into its country by force, not Moscow.
The responsibility for preventing the war escalating lies with Washington, who must use their influence to reign back the Georgian government, and stop destabilising the present status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, both of whom wish the Russians to stay.
“Russia has no more military capability than the UK or France nowadays.”
Thats one of the most idiotic things I’ve ever read.
Russia.
Standing Army 1.2 Million Men
Tanks 23,000
Aircraft 2118
France
Standing Army 225000 Men
Tanks 1100
Aircraft 340
UK.
Standing Army 195000 Men
Tanks 1175
Aircraft 315
Pumping out poorly researched propaganda make you look foolish.
Whatever your motives.
Comment by Bullshit Detector — 9 August, 2008 @ 12:37 pm
On the BBC,when they reported that Russians were firing at targets in Georgia proper,their reporter said something like “presumably military targets”.
I think it might have been Lenin who said it doesn’t matter who started the war but who benefits. Clearly your numerous references to Georgian aggression obscure another view, that Russia is the local imperialist power using an enclave population to help strangle Georgian independence.
Comment by skidmarx — 9 August, 2008 @ 1:22 pm
So the previous commenter is trying to say that he or she believes that Russian wants to conquer Europe? Let’s face it: the analysis here is mostly correct. The only question is if the Bushies wanted this war to be a distraction for something bigger…and/or if the Bushies actually thought that Europeans would not instantly recognize the situation as similar to that of Kosovo which wanted to break away from Serbia and got to do so with the help of a superpower.
Comment by Jack Chambers — 9 August, 2008 @ 1:30 pm
I think we have to see this as a test of strength in the region between the USA and the Russian Federation. Georgia is obviously getting egged on and presumably military aid from the USA whilst the South Ossetia rebels are openly getting military support from the Russian Federation.
Comment by Chris S — 9 August, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
comment #1 - I didn’t say they didn’t have a bigger army, I said they didn’t have a greater military capability - which means they are no more able than the UK or France are to project their military force to achieve their political ends.
Effective military capability requires not only size of armed forces, but the political and diplomatic framework to be able to use them, and that the armed forces are absolutely large enough to secure their objectives.
The political context that russia finds itself in is that it doesn’t have any effective military capability to project Westwards.
the idea of a Russian military assault on any European state - even Estonia - is unthinkable: witness Russia’s inability to aid its ally Serbia. Yet it was exactly this prospect of a Russian assauklt on Europe that was the context i was addressing.
What Russia does have is a capability to exercise limited military power in its own region, like Chechnya and South Ossetia, while avoiding any direct conflict with the US. This is symetrical with the military power of Britain or France, who can only use their military in areas that do not contradict or are peripheral to US foreign plicy.
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 August, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
#2 Skidmarx
can you provide some evidence of any attempt by the Russian federation to strangle Georgian independence?
It looks to me like the Russians are trying to maintain the status quo, and the Georgia/USA are trying to force them out of the seperatist enclaves.
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 August, 2008 @ 1:42 pm
The Israeli site www.debka.com has some good analysis.
Andy has it right: one has to wonder what George Bush was thinking…did he really believe that Russia would abandon the Russian people in its enclaves?? Or is this all a test of Russian military power that Bush wanted to conduct at the expense of a US ally before an Iran conflict? Or a diversion from the fleet movements?
Comment by Jack Chambers — 9 August, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
Strange that the neo-cons who support independence wish to crush the independent spirit of the Palestinians. Let’s remember Georgia is an artificial made up state with no historical precedent whilst Palestine has thousands of years history behind it.
Comment by Tin foil hat wearer — 9 August, 2008 @ 2:26 pm
Bullshit detector: It like the old saying goes, “quality over quantity”.
You may have thousands of tanks and military aircraft but what’s the point if your range is inadequate and the aircraft is not that sophisticated.
Compare the more advanced technology of the UK (Eurofighter, for example) and France and compare it to the low level technology of Russia. Russia doesn’t have the military cutting edge.
I kinda inclined to agree with the position Andy is arguing about Russia. Useful and good post.
Comment by Louise — 9 August, 2008 @ 2:29 pm
Thanks Lousie.
the Russian military is a shaddow of what it was - and incidently statds at around 350000 not the 1.2 million claimed by comment #1.
The army in particular inhereted most of the older armour for some reason, and the breakaway republics got the newer kit. though the opposite practice happened in the Air force, where though they have some good planes, they are hampered by lack of money and little flying time practice compared to the USAF.
Russia reamins a major arms producer and exporter of very modern and sophistictaed military equipement, but its own armed forces are underequiped, under-trained, and have only in the last ten years recovered any morale at all.
Remember back in the 1990s some pilots went on hunger strike becasue they weren’t getting paid. Under Yeltisn it was not uncommon to see soldiers in uniforn begging in the streets, and the armoured regiments in the Moscow area didn’t have any fuel.
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 August, 2008 @ 2:47 pm
http://english.pravda.ru/politics/2002/11/05/39168.html
The optimal size of the Russian army is 1 million people, according to Russian Minister of Defense Sergei Ivanov.
Comment by B.D. — 9 August, 2008 @ 3:07 pm
Russia switched 4 years ago to a professional army…at least in the Caucasus. You would not now want to be a Georgian soldier facing them.
Comment by Jack Chambers — 9 August, 2008 @ 3:13 pm
#6 I tend the think that your second paragraph is much of an argument against the question posed in your first. Why should Russia be able to politically dominate Georgia by having its “peacekeepers” in South Ossetia as well as its support for the Abkhaz breakaway, rather than regarding its former colony as a sovereign nation and the former imperial overlord the last power to arbritrate? Claiming to defend nationals in the former teritories is an old excuse for imperial powers.
David Hearst in today’s Guardian starts thus: “It has always been hard to work out who fired the first shot in any of the many conflicts that have broken out in the Caucasus.”
Comment by skidmarx — 9 August, 2008 @ 3:57 pm
While I would not support the Russian army, or Putin (who is loathsome), there is (with full bullshit detectors on) a lot of truth in what Andy Newman is saying - at least according to many of the European media reports I have read. Georgia is a pretty foul undemocratic state itself, a grovellingly pro-US kleptocracy. I wouldn’t take anything they say as true, starting with the date and time of day.
Comment by Andrew Coates — 9 August, 2008 @ 4:42 pm
My take on the debate at Lenin’s Tomb:
Yeah I must admit I get the sense of a local minion over-estimating his own importance. The laughable sight of the representative at the UN trying to compare the Russian incursion to the Soviet incursions into Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan (I would have the thought the latter was in poor taste at the moment) had a desperate screechy quality to them which indicated a miscalculation.
The official line emerging is that this was a foolish escapade by an otherwise dependable friend, provoked by Russian provocations (shelling, arming of militia’s etc). However given the vital strategic importance of the region, who can tell what will happen. The important thing is not whether or not the US gave the green light (these lights being notoriously hard to decipher for local satraps, as in the case of poor old Sadaam) but the fact that Georgia is seen by the US as not only strategicly important in terms of control of energy resources to Europe but as a handy little stick to annoy the Russians with.
Local rulers in Goergia may have taken too seriously US rhetoric, and forgotten that their real significance is American power in western Europe, not American power in their region per se. Their job is not to provoke a war with Russia but to stay on side.
Rationally therefore one might expect both sides to climb down (the US and Russia). But the geo-political importance combined with the relative weakness of US power, may produce a wider conflageration. As Callinicos noted some time back, the US response to a policy failure is very often to pour petrol over everything, throw a match, and then stand back and wait to see if that improves things.
Comment by johng — 9 August, 2008 @ 4:48 pm
#13
Skidmarx writes above:
“Why should Russia be able to politically dominate Georgia by having its “peacekeepers” in South Ossetia as well as its support for the Abkhaz breakaway, rather than regarding its former colony as a sovereign nation and the former imperial overlord the last power to arbritrate? ”
Sorry, this is quite illiterate. Russia is not able to dominate Georgia by having troops in the enclaves, as the “pink revolution” proved in 2003 - it is the USA that calls the shots in Georgia. And the Russian troops are only in the areas where the population want them to be - the description of them as “peacekeepers” is accurate as the Russian troops were inserted as part of the solution to a very nasty war between Georgia and South Ossetia.
What you seem unable to grasp is that although Georgia was the scene of a long running colonial war in the nineteenth century (worth reading the very good Lermontov novel “A Hero of our Time”) and a very brief Menshevik ruled republic during the civil war, it has not been a nation state in the modern sense until the last twenty years, and its population had been in considerable flux during the soviet period.
This is not a situation easily comparable to decolonialisation in Africa or Asia with the withdrawal of the European powers.
That is – the non-Georgian populations of Adjaria, South Assetia and Abkhazia are not now and have never been part of a colonial ruling class, and they have an entirely reasonable and legitimate interest in not wanting to be absorbed into the new Georgian state.
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 August, 2008 @ 5:07 pm
The issue isn’t so much whether Russia is or is not behaving like a classic Great Power in the region (surely it is) but that its a bit rich to complain about Russia excercising its hegenomy in two small territories which contain supportive Russian populations at the same time as the US is excercising its hegenomy over the whole of Georgia and trying to pull it into its orbit. Perhaps if Russia was attempting to get Canada to join a military alliance you might see the US sponsering a few breakaways. Its not about whether socialists support the Russian ruling classes power games, but the fact that the main power game going on there is a US one.
Comment by johng — 9 August, 2008 @ 5:35 pm
Well done Andy for this excellent article. This is indeed a European war made in the USA.
I have only one quibble with Andy’s article. While the capacity of the Russian military is very low in relation to that of the USA, and is very weak in comparison to that of the old USSR, it is misleading to represent it as equivalent to that of France & the UK.
But this is not the main point.
The Guardian carried what was (by UK media standards) a relatively good editorial today. But it concealed the clear fact of US involvement. The editorial claimed:
“By the time the international community realised what was happening, it was already too late…”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/09/georgia.russia
This is untrue.
The USA has excellent sources of information- for instance the scores of US instructors & advisors embedded in the Georgian army. Thus the US can have been in no doubt that the Georgian military forces were being moved to attack positions.
Further, according to RIA-Novosti on 4th August (a clear three days before Georgia’s all-out attack on S. Ossetia), the Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement that that “South Ossetia is on the brink of a large-scale military conflict”, and Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin spoke by telephone with U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried, and requested US assistance in defusing the escalating conflict.
Check: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080804/115663422.html
On 6th August, the South Ossetian leadership informed Britain that Georgia was about to commence a full-scale invasion:
‘[S. Ossetian leader] Eduard Kokoity told British Ambassador to Georgia Denis Keefe: “We have indisputable evidence that a large-scale military operation will start here by September. This is Georgia’s plan currently being implemented by Saakashvili’s regime.”‘
http://en.rian.ru/world/20080806/115847533.html
So the US government knew what was about to commence.
Had the US government not wanted the Georgian attack to be launched, it could easily have prevented it- for instance by telling Saakashvili that if he went ahead, the US would cease its military aid and its sponsorship for Georgia’s NATO membership ambitions.
But very clearly, the USA did not send such a message. Thus they effectively gave Saakashvili the green light for his bloody adventure.
When the offensive by the US trained & equipped Georgian forces began, Russia went to the UN Security Council seeking support for a motion calling on both sides (Georgia & S. Ossetia) to ‘renounce the use of force’. The USA & Britain rejected the motion, thus sending a clear public message that the Georgian side should continue the military operation.
Check: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-strikes-as-%20georgia-moves-against-rebels-888487.html
It is apparent that the Georgians (& the USA) had gambled on a combination of a rapid blitzkrieg victory against the S. Ossetians and hesitation / unpreparedness by Russia; taking advantage of the fact that the only viable land route from Russia to S. Ossetia is through a tunnel under the mountains- which would have made the entry of ground troops and armour into a Georgian-controlled S. Ossetia almost impossible.
What was the USA hoping to achieve by giving the OK to this military operation?
We have to take into account the division between the USA, eager to incorporate Georgia into NATO; and France & Germany, which are somewhat less keen on confrontation with Russia.
Had the operation been the stunning coup de force which was intended, the USA would not only have weakened and humiliated Russia & further surrounded its western borders, but would also have helped the USA to outmaneuver and further dominate Germany & France within NATO.
However, it seems that this American gamble, at the cost of hundreds (possibly thousands) of lives, is not turning out in quite the way that the US strategists intended.
Comment by Noah — 9 August, 2008 @ 8:28 pm
Russian troops have entered only South Ossetia, that has already declared independence from Georgia, and Russia recognises Georgia
“Serbian troops have only entered the Krajina, that has already declared independence from Croatia, and Serbia recognises Croatia”
Or if you prefer:
“NATO troops have only entered Kosovo, that has already declared independence from Serbia, and NATO recognises Serbia”
If we’re going to use ideas like sovereignty and territorial integrity, we need to use them consistently.
Comment by Phil — 9 August, 2008 @ 8:47 pm
Phil
I don’t want to get into the issue of Krajina, becasue I can’t remember the details well enough after this time.
But look at the distinction with Kosovo.
The current situation would be analogous to Serbia attacking Kosovo and bombing Prestina - and NATO responding by sending more troops into Kosovo and bombing Serbian army targets in Serbia. (With one difference, NATO has already unilaterally allowed Kosovo to cede from Serbia - despite the lawlessness, gangsterism and murderous ethnic cleansing against Serbs and Roma)
But in any event, I regard these as political questions, not ones that can be decided by formal logic.
The cause of the Kosovans was a stick used by the West to beat up Serbia.
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 August, 2008 @ 9:52 pm
Thanks Noah #18
It is also worth saying that Condoleeza Rica was not only in Georgia just three weeks ago, but she is no novice in this region.
It is her lifes work to be an expert in the USSR and its sucessor states, so the idea that the State Dept was sending unclear messages, or didn’t understand the facts on the gorund seems unlikely to me.
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 August, 2008 @ 10:06 pm
Some background history.
South Ossetia: Inside Georgia but dependent on Russia
By The Irish Times
09/08/08 “The Irish Times’ — South Ossetia is a territory of around 4,000sq km (1,544sq mls), situated about 100km north of the Georgian capital, Tbilisi, on the southern slopes of the Caucasus mountains.
The collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s spurred a separatist movement in South Ossetia, which had always felt more affinity with Russia than with Georgia.
It broke away from Georgian rule in a war in 1991-92, in which several thousand people died, and continues to maintain close ties with the neighbouring Russian region of North Ossetia, on the north side of the Caucasus.
The majority of the roughly 70,000 people are ethnically distinct from Georgians, and speak their own language, related to Farsi.
They say they were forcibly absorbed into Georgia under Soviet rule and now want to exercise their right to self-determination. The separatist leader is Eduard Kokoity.
In November 2006, villages inside South Ossetia still under Georgian control elected a rival leader, former separatist Dmitry Sanakoyev. He is endorsed by Tbilisi, but his authority only extends to a small part of the region.
Around two-thirds of South Ossetia’s annual budget revenues of around $30 million (€19.9 milllion) come directly from Moscow. Almost all the population hold Russian passports. They use the Russian rouble as their currency.
A peacekeeping force with 500 members each from Russia, Georgia and North Ossetia monitors a supposed truce. Georgia accuses the Russian peacekeepers of siding with the separatists, which Moscow denies.
Sporadic clashes between separatist and Georgian forces have killed dozens of people in the last few years.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20466.htm
Comment by Red — 9 August, 2008 @ 11:31 pm
A view from Pravda.
War between Russia and Georgia orchestrated from USA
By Pravda
09/08/08 “Pravda” — The US administration urged for an immediate cease-fire in the conflict between Russia and Georgia over the unrecognized republic of South Ossetia.
In the meantime, Russian officials believe that it was the USA that orchestrated the current conflict. The chairman of the State Duma Committee for Security, Vladimir Vasilyev, believes that the current conflict is South Ossetia is very reminiscent to the wars in Iraq and Kosovo.
“The things that were happening in Kosovo, the things that were happening in Iraq – we are now following the same path. The further the situation unfolds, the more the world will understand that Georgia would never be able to do all this without America. South Ossetian defense officials used to make statements about imminent aggression from Georgia, but the latter denied everything, whereas the US Department of State released no comments on the matter. In essence, they have prepared the force, which destroys everything in South Ossetia, attacks civilians and hospitals. They are responsible for this. The world community will learn about it,” the official said.
In the meantime, it became known that the Georgian troops conducted volley-fire cleansings of several South Ossetian settlements, where people’s houses were simply leveled.
“The number of victims with women, children and elderly people among them, can be counted in hundreds and even thousands,” a source from South Ossetian government in the capital of Tskhinvali said.
The head of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Sergei Lavrov, told reporters that Georgia’s actions in South Ossetia question its consistency as a state and as a responsible member of the international community, Interfax reports.
“Civilians, including women, children and elderly people, are dying in South Ossetia. In addition to that, Georgia conducts ethnic scouring in South Ossetian villages. The situation in South Ossetia continues to worsen every hour. Georgia uses military hardware and heavy arms against people. They shell residential quarters of Tskhinvali [the capital] and other settlements. They bomb the humanitarian convoys. The number of refugees continues to rise – the people try to save their lives, the lives of their children and relatives. A humanitarian catastrophe is gathering pace,” Russia’s Foreign Minister said.
The minister added that the Georgian administration ignored the appeal from the UN General Assembly to observe the Olympic truce during the Beijing Olympics.
The Georgian administration has found the use to its arms, which they have been purchasing during the recent several years,” Lavrov said. “The fact that Georgian peacemakers in the structure of joint peacemaking forces opened fire on their Russian comrades from one and the same contingent speaks for itself, I think,” the minister added.
“Now it is clear to us why Georgia never accepted Russia’s offer to sign a legally binding document not to use force for the regulation of the South Ossetian conflict,” Lavrov said. “Not so long ago, before the military actions in South Ossetia, Georgia’s President Saakashvili said that there was no point in such a document because Georgia would not use force against its people, as he said. It just so happens that it is using it,” Sergei Lavrov said.
Sergei Lavrov believes that the international community should stop turning a blind eye on Georgia’s active deals to purchase arms.
“We have repeatedly warned that the international community should not turn a blind eye on massive purchases of offensive arms, in which the Georgian administration has been involved during the recent two years,” Lavrov said.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20469.htm
Comment by Red — 9 August, 2008 @ 11:35 pm
Good point re: Condi.
Now, a further thought. Of course, this war isn’t over yet & even when it is, it will be some time before it becomes clear how the ramifications will unfold. Nevertheless: It could be that the debacle in Georgia is-
a) a quite significant defeat for US imperialism; another sign that the ‘unipolar moment’ is drawing to a close, and also,
b) an indication that the relative weakening of US imperial power is unlikely to be a smooth and peaceful development. The transition to multipolarity, while positive in that it can release greater prospects for challenges to capitalism and attempts to build socialism, is likely to be a violent and very dangerous process.
Comment by Noah — 10 August, 2008 @ 12:44 am
Quite astonishing. Putin and Medvedev move to recreate the Tsarist empire in the Caucusus - and people on the British ultra-left cheer them on !
The de facto result of the last few days’ fighting is that Russia has effectively annexed South Ossetia, and it looks like the same fate awaits Abkhazia.
All kinds of excuses are offered. Jack Chambers wonders if George Bush imagined Moscow would abandon “the Russian people” in the enclaves. As a matter of fact, there aren’t many Russians in South Ossetia - the majority ethnic group happen to be Ossetians (descendants of the Alans, one of the “barbarian” tribes that toppled the western Roman empire).
We are also told that Georgia is “an artificial made-up state”. In fact, a Georgian monarchy was in existence since the 10th century. Georgia has just as much right to be considered a state, with a history of its own, as most European political entities.
Comparisons between the Russian army and the British or French forces are irrelevant. The real comparison is with the Georgian army - and the Russians, of course, enjoy overwhelming superiority over the Georgians.
As for claims that this is an American war - where’s the evidence? And why should Bush want an adventure in the Caucusus on top of wars in Irag and Afghanistan? Possibly the Georgian regime imagined it would enjoy US military backing - in which case, it miscalculated very badly.
You don’t have to be a supporter of Saakashvili to have the gravest of apprehensions about the extension of Russian influence in the Caucasus. Prior to the Bolshevik revolution, the left had no doubt that Russia was am imperlaist power. What makes Andy Newman think that it hasn’t regained that status ?
Comment by paul fauvet — 10 August, 2008 @ 12:36 pm
Andy is a big supporter of Russian and Chinese Colonialism
Comment by Tibetty — 10 August, 2008 @ 1:07 pm
Paul Fauvet, do you support the ethnic cleansing being carried out by the Georgian regime in south ostetia, yes or no?
Comment by johng — 10 August, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
JohnG, we’ve had this argument before, about the Balkans. Of course I don’t support ethnic cleansing, by the Georgians or by anybody else !
I could score an easy point by asking if you approve of the ethnic cleansing of quarter of a million Georgians from the other separatist enclave, Abkhazia, in 1992.
One crime does not justify another. What we are seeing here is the reassertion of Russian power in the Caucasus. I don’t suppose the Tsarist expansion will be repeated in all its gory details - the new Tsars will not actually occupy Georgia. But they will nibble away here and there, weakening independent states in the region, and ensuring the the Caucasus is recognised as a Russian “sphere of influence”.
And anyone who imagines that Putin and Medvedev are really interested in self-determination for the peoples of the Caucasus wasn’t paying attention during the wars in Chechnya.
Comment by paul fauvet — 10 August, 2008 @ 1:27 pm
Paul Fauvet asserts:
“As for claims that this is an American war - where’s the evidence?”
The evidence is given in my post 18 above. The Americans- who BTW had recently sent 1,000 troops from their base in Vicenza to train the Georgian military, ostensibly to improve their performance in Iraq- could easily have prevented, and then at any stage stopped, the conflict.
The US knew the assault was about to be launched. Saakashvili is a US client. A clear message from the USA not to do it would have stopped him in his tracks.
But no such message was sent. And after the Georgians launched their offensive, the USA rejected Russia’s attempt at the UNSC to gain a ceasefire; thus, a further and very public signal to Saakashvili that he should continue with the attack.
To spell it out even more simply. Forces armed, trained & paid for by the USA, led by a US stooge, start a war which is given the green light by the USA. This is a US proxy war.
Paul Fauvet asks:
“And why should Bush want an adventure in the Caucusus on top of wars in Irag and Afghanistan?”
There was never any intention to involve US troops directly in this war. It was to be fought by Georgian forces, equipped & trained by the USA. So no drain on US military manpower.
Oh, and it’s good to hear that I am still ultra-left. I was worried that I might be drifting to the right in my old age.
Comment by Noah — 10 August, 2008 @ 3:09 pm
Noah cites Russian sources, and the mere fact that US advisers are present in Georgia, as evidence that the Bush administration “must have known” that the attempt to retake South Ossetia was about to happen, and that it gave the green light.
This, incidentally, is much the same argument as that used by the Russian ambassador to the UN at Sunday’s Security Council meeting.
This is part of the mindset which sees world politics in terms of a gigantic American conspiracy, in which there is no room for local actors to take any initiatives of their own.
Matters in the Caucasus are moving rapidly now, and the original Russian justification (defending their “peace keepers”, repelling Georgian “agression”) are now in tatters. Russian forces have bombed airpots near Tbilisi, they have attacked the city of gori and the Black Sea port of Poti. The Russian Black Sea fleet seems to be imposing a blockade of Georgia.
This is real, naked aggression of a great power battering a much weaker neighbour. And whatever we think about the Georgian regime, the left should be demanding the removal of the Russian warships, and and end to the bombing. The Georgian leadership has called for a return to the status quo of 6 August. Which seems perfectly reasonable.
Comment by paul fauvet — 10 August, 2008 @ 6:47 pm
But do you not see the hypocrisy Fauvet? The bulk of the casualties are those inflicted by Georgia on South Osstians at present, and yet we are presented with these casaulty figures against news reel of Russian bombing in Georgia (which has inflicted far less casualties even by Georgian estimets). On Friday the Georgian regime invaded South Ossetia with troops killing Russian peace keepers, killing thousands and thousands, and sending tens of thousands more fleeing across the Russian border. It is as if, shortly before Kosova declared independence, the Serbs had invaded (amusingly a Georgian migrant in London on the news explained that the reasons the population was fleeing to Russia was because they had been ‘brainwashed’ and then demanded military support…swivel, was my reaction).
One can imagine what your response would be if it was the other way round. You would be demanding that those responsible should be bought to justice. Which interestingly enough is the Russian demand, as well as the demand that the Georgians sign a treaty and and formally suspend all military operations. I have no illusions in Putin or the fact that the Russians are playing a power game, but equally, have no illusions that the west has been playing a power game in Georgia. The local bosses of Georgia took US rhetoric too seriously. My own feeling is that we are passing from the world of unilateral power on the one hand, and from the world of the kind of policing operations we have seen in Bosnia, Kosova and in Iraq and Afghanistan, to old fashioned great power rivalries. This requires a different response from socialists then your continued mouthing of the inanities of liberal internationalism. That world is gone. We are moving into a world of multi-poler great power rivalries. Get used to it. The nostrums of the 1990’s ought to have been buried with Iraq. Now they’ve buried themselves.
Comment by johng — 10 August, 2008 @ 7:09 pm
“The Georgian leadership has called for a return to the status quo of 6 August. Which seems perfectly reasonable”
I have to admit I do find this a bit bizarre. Fauvet please elaborate as to why you think Georgia invaded South Osttetia on Friday? Is it kind of like, something that happened by accident? (ohhh I slipped). What was the dynamic behind this? Do you think anything should be ‘done’ about it (the usual call). Perhaps you’d prefer it if the US Blockaded them and bombed them a bit? (as the Russians are doing) Why should they be in South Osttetia at all when the inhabitants were fleeing into Russia all over the weekend because of their presence? I don’t back Russia or anything I just don’t understand your sudden liberal feelings about ethnic cleansers (notwithstanding events a decade ago on the other side of Georgia). Its just strange.
Comment by johng — 10 August, 2008 @ 8:22 pm
Paul Fauvet:
“Noah cites Russian sources, and the mere fact that US advisers are present in Georgia, as evidence that the Bush administration “must have known” that the attempt to retake South Ossetia was about to happen, and that it gave the green light.”
Sorry Paul, but dissing the RIA-Novosti reports because they are from a Russian source gets you nowhere.
The RIA-Novosti reports were published on the 4th & 6th of August, ie before Saakashvili launched his attack.
Paul, are you claiming that RIA-Novosti invented the statement by the Russian Foriegn Ministry, and the telephone conversations- between Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin and Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried, and between S. Ossetian leader Eduard Kokoity and British Ambassador to Georgia Denis Keefe?
Are you are making this claim? In which case,let’s hear it.
And you dismiss the US military advisers in Georgia as a “mere fact”. Are you suggesting that these advisers decided either that the movement of Georgian forces into attack positions was too unimportant a matter to report to their superiors, or to deliberately conceal this matter from their superiors?
Are you are making this suggestion? In which case,let’s hear it.
More from paul fauvet:
“This is part of the mindset which sees world politics in terms of a gigantic American conspiracy, in which there is no room for local actors to take any initiatives of their own.”
Of course local actors take initiatives. Saakashvili has his own motives and his own agenda. And he is also a US client. If the USA tells him very clearly not to do something, he has to take notice.
More:
“…the original Russian justification (defending their “peace keepers”, repelling Georgian “agression”) are now in tatters. Russian forces have bombed airpots near Tbilisi, they have attacked the city of gori…”
Military strategy does not seem to be your strong point, Paul. You are implying that having entered S. Ossetia, the Russian forces should merely squat there as sitting ducks for Georgian attacks on them which were being and would be launched from the rest of Georgia! For rather obvious reasons, the Russians decided not to follow the Paul Fauvet version of ‘The Art of War’, and instead have inflicted destruction on airfields, ammunition stores etc.
Now, from naivety to hyperboly:
“This is real, naked aggression of a great power battering a much weaker neighbour.”
Which takes you where, exactly? Lets follow this thought-
S. Ossetia is weaker than Georgia. Georgia is weaker than Russia. Russia is weaker than the USA. The USA wanted to batter Russia, but couldn’t do it directly, so they encouraged Georgia to batter S. Ossetia.
Because Russia is weaker than the USA, the USA thought that Russia would not dare to respond by battering the USA’s ally Georgia. They miscalculated.
Finally:
“The Georgian leadership has called for a return to the status quo of 6 August. Which seems perfectly reasonable.”
So reasonable indeed, that this is exactly what the Russians offered the Georgians on the 8th of August. The Georgians turned down the Russian offer. Now they will have to face some consequences.
The Russians will bear the following in mind- that the full-scale attack which Saakashvili started in the early hours of Friday morning was launched only hours after he had concluded a ceasefire with the S. Ossetian side.
It is likely that the Russians will inflict sufficient damage on Georgian military installations as to prevent any similar thoughts occurring to Mr Saakashvili after the next truce is declared.
Comment by Noah — 10 August, 2008 @ 8:28 pm
Why did Georgia invade South Ossetia on Friday, asks JohnG? The very way you phrase the question shows that you have swallowed whole the propaganda of one side - the most powerful side.
Skirmishing was going on for a week before the Georgian army made its Friday move. Saakashvili ordered a unilateral ceasefire on Thursday, and reiterated the longstanding Georgian offer of full autonomy to South Ossetia. The Georgians claim that the South Ossetia militias responded with renewed attacks on villages inhabited by Georgians, and this provoked the Friday attack.
Is the Georgian or the Ossetian version of events true? I don’t know, and I don’t think you do either. If the Georgians are right, then it looks as if Ossetian forces were trying to ethnically cleanse Georgians.
But the debate over who started this war is rapidly becoming academic, since there is no doubt that the Russians have massively escalated the conflict over the weekend.
Noah thinks this is perfectly legitimate, and invokes the same rules of war which led the American army to expand a limited war in South Vietnam to include the whole of Indo-China.
As for casualty figures, you are remarkably confident that they have all been inflicted by the Georgian army. But now that the Russians are bombing towns deep inside Georgian territory the death toll is bound to be rising. Are you seriously going to blame those deaths on Saakashvili too?
If we look at the longer term, you don’t seriously imagine that South Ossetia would make a viable independent state, do you? It has a population of about 100,000 - apart from island states, and tax havens like Lichtenstein, there are almost no countries in the world which are that small.
Realistically, there are two options - South Ossetia can be an autonomous region of Georgia, or it can be absorbed into Russia. In the latter case, which is what’s happening right now, what will be the fate of the 30 per cent of the population who are ethnic Georgians?
Comment by paul fauvet — 10 August, 2008 @ 9:18 pm
#33 “since there is no doubt that the Russians have massively escalated the conflict over the weekend.”
There certainly is doubt. It was Georgia who razed the South Ossetian capital to the ground, which is a massive escalation in anyone’s book.
“Realistically, there are two options - South Ossetia can be an autonomous region of Georgia, or it can be absorbed into Russia. In the latter case, which is what’s happening right now, what will be the fate of the 30 per cent of the population who are ethnic Georgians?”
Russia has no territorial claims on Georgia - it has not accepted repeated requests from South Ossetia to become part of the Russian Federation, and repeatedly stated it accepts current borders. The Ethnic Georgian population of South Ossetia have continued to live there for the last 18 years through numerous armed conflicts with the Georgian military, and there is no reason why they could not continue to live there - no Russian or Ossetian representitive has suggested otherwise.
Comment by vladilichlenin — 10 August, 2008 @ 9:38 pm
Paul Fauvet, in your latest post you make no attempt to rebut my points re: the fact that the US had prior knowledge of the all-out attack on S. Ossetia by the Georgian forces which they had financed, equipped & trained. I await your answer with interest.
You say:
“Skirmishing was going on for a week before the Georgian army made its Friday move […] Is the Georgian or the Ossetian version of events true?”
Well, most likely there is more than a grain of truth in the reports by both sides of the events in the week preceding the “Friday move” by the Georgian army. And following the ’skirmishing’, Saakashvili launched a massive night assault, pounding Tskhinvali into rubble and sending its troops & tanks to take the town.
Was this not a ‘massive escalation’ of the conflict? If you are against ‘massive escalation’ per se, why do you not condemn it?
Instead, you assert:
“…the debate over who started this war is rapidly becoming academic…”
Yes, you would like it to be merely ‘academic’, but it’s a very important issue. A US client state, supported also by our own UK government, unleashed a major military operation which caused the deaths of hundreds of people.
Thus we in Britain have a double responsibility. Our country has a ’special relationship’ with the USA, & moreover it is a permanent member of the UNSC. The UK, had it spoken out, could have done something to stop the killing. It did not. Instead, it gave its diplomatic support to Georgia and the USA. Britain helped the USA to defeat the Russian proposal at the Security Council on 8th August, which would have insisted that both sides (Georgia & S. Ossetia) renounce the use of force.
Had Britain taken a different position at the UNSC, that would have had a major impact.
Forgive me for putting this strongly, Paul. But the hands of the British state, as well as the American state, are dripping with the blood of the S. Ossetians- and also of the many Georgians who have died in this ghastly conflict. You are attempting to provide a ‘left’ cover for the vile position of your own- & my own- imperialist country.
You assert:
“Noah thinks this is perfectly legitimate, and invokes the same rules of war which led the American army to expand a limited war in South Vietnam to include the whole of Indo-China.”
Er, no. I have said nothing about the legitimacy or otherwise of the Russian action. As for your parallel with Vietnam & Indo-China; Russia’s beef is with Georgia, and so far I haven’t noticed any Russian military attacks on Turkey, Armenia or Azerbaijan.
Then suddenly, having denied the US-dominated geo-politics - the geo-economics becomes your main argument.
“…you don’t seriously imagine that South Ossetia would make a viable independent state…”
Well of course, Mr Fauvet. There is no such thing as pure independence, especially for a very small & poor nation. South Ossetia is already economically dependent on Russia. Who will rebuild Tskhinvali? The Russians will provide the cash.
As for the ethnic Georgians in South Ossetia, I hope that they now fare better than the people (of all ethnicities) in Tskhinvali on Friday and Saturday. So far as I am aware, the US-supplied artillery which killed them did not distinguish between members of the different ethnic groups.
Comment by Noah — 10 August, 2008 @ 11:14 pm
Paul Fauvet and WorldbyStorm are talking a lot of sense with regard to this one. Saakashvili may have gambled that he could get the US and/or the EU on his side, but if so the gamble’s failed badly - and there’s no evidence that he made that gamble with the knowledge or backing of the US. The Ossetians’ gamble on Russia has paid off rather better.
Comment by Phil — 10 August, 2008 @ 11:25 pm
Phil says:
“there’s no evidence that he made that gamble with the knowledge or backing of the US.”
Phil, If you want to engage in the debate, please do so. But if you decide to post here, at least take the trouble to read the facts which have been posted.
The evidence of US involvement is here on this thread. Dispute it if you like- that is fine. But don’t pretend it doesn’t exist. Unless your agenda is to whitewash the US / UK responsibility for the deaths & destabilisation caused by the Saakashvili regime.
Comment by Noah — 11 August, 2008 @ 12:37 am
The evidence of US involvement is here on this thread.
No, it isn’t. All you’ve posted is a series of must-have-been’s and couldn’t-have’s - speculation, in other words, and speculation based on your own intolerance of loose ends. History abounds in loose ends.
Comment by Phil — 11 August, 2008 @ 9:52 am
#16 “Sorry, this is quite illiterate.”
Sorry, but I can’t agree.First the fact that Georgia has not been a nation-state until recently is not likely to diminish the dislike for Russian overlordship that was a feature of the Soviet Union and subsequent Russian policy towards former Soviet republics. I am awre that there are differneces in the way former soviet republics responded to the Soviet Union’s collapse (Many leaders in Central Asian regretted it and got back into bed with Russia asap). I talked to a Latvian a couple of years ago who said that there was not much tension in his country between Latvians and Russians, probably because of the small number of Russians there.
Doesn’t seem much like “A war made in Washington” to me.
As the Caucasus divide North from South Ossetia a logical border would run between them. Obviously politics depends on more than logic.
The Russian casus belli seems to rely on an attempted genocide by Georgian forces. Yet the figure of 1500 killed in Tskinvili seems to be contradicted by Putin who said a few dozen had been killed, and there seems to have been no confirmation by one refugee who claimed the Georgians had been trying to drown those hiding in basements. The attacks on Poti and Gori seem all too real (and not just a way to describe neo-stalinist lunacy and its consequences).
Yes the Georgians are pro-western (when I saw a Geogian interviewed on the BBC yesterday who said “If you let Russia get away with this you’ll get a soviet union in the 21st century I was a bit conflicted), not a shock after 60 years of Russian misrule.
After Irish independence the British used a number of measures apart from military force to squeeze the new government (as well as hanging on to one of its green fields conveniently populated with Unionists).Do the Russians have to march into Tbilisi and hand Saakashvili from a lamp-post before you spot any splinters in their eye?
Comment by skidmarx — 11 August, 2008 @ 9:55 am
Phil is of course right that there is no evidence of US involvement, there are only indications..
But it would be a mistake to see the war as leaping from no-where last week.
There have been weeks and months of border skirmishing, and bearing in mind that the interests of both Moscow and South Ossettia was to maintain the status quo ante-bellum, then the most likely responsibility for that lay with Tblisi, and indeed that is pretty much what all commentators believe. Add to which the shift in public US State Department posture towards calling for the Russians to leave.
The mistake is at looking at this as an isolated case. The State Depatment has a much more coherent policy towards Russia than it does towards the Middle East, becasue after all their top Russia expert is actually the Secretary of State! They have destablised pro-Moscow government with the “colour” revolutions in Kyrgystan, Ukraine and Georgia - and are deploying the missile defence shield. Their aim seems to be continued provocations to reduce the international prestige of Russia, combined with creating a buffer of pro-Washington states. We also see from the continued provocations to Russia from Estonia, and the symbolic move of making Kosovo independence, at least some of which was motivated by the desire to demonstrate Russian impotence in Europe.
There is a big geo-political game in play with the US trying to prevent the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation (SCO) becoming the axis around everything revolves in Asia.
So even if the Tblisi government acted on its own last week, and misunderstood US intentions, it was acting within a framework of tension created by Washington.
What we may be seeing is the Russians becoming less risk averse in terms of using their military - and there is no doubt they have seized this opportunity with both hands to demonstrate the powerlessness of Washington to aid Georgia, as well as providing them with an opportunity to degrade Georgia’s armed forces and block their entry into NATO.
Comment by Andy Newman — 11 August, 2008 @ 10:38 am
The difficulty with Paul Fauvet’s curious inversion of the imaginary political discourse he criticises (ie ‘anti-americanism’)is that it fits uneasily with the information that is filtering out about the conflict (despite the fact that, overwhelmingly, the coverage seeks to present the kind of picture he is arguing for). We have had almost no reports of Georgians from South Osttetia fleeing into Georgia, but a lot of reports of large movements of refugee’s from South Osttetia to Russia. Significantly, proponents of Georgian state policy towards South Osttetia, make no mention in interviews, of harsh treatment of Georgians in South Ostettia, much less ethnic cleansing. Instead they speak in conventionally nationalist terms about territory. He is of course quite right that the casualty rates are very likely to change, if, for instance, as is being suggested, Russia decides to construct a buffer zone around these territories, or decides to spread the conflict to Abkhazia. But his explanation that Georgian forces responded to ethnic cleansing of Georgians in South Osttetia has not even been mentioned in the official coverage. Its perfectly clear that there is indeed a great power dynamic to this. Whether or not the US knew in advance of Georgian plans, its obvious that the Georgians believed that their commitments in Iraq, and US attempts to push for their membership in NATO, led Saakashvili to believe that he could fulfull his nationalist election pledges to re-intergrate the two disputed territories under the banner of the ‘little democracy’ vs ‘authoritarian russians’ ideology which Fauvet seems to have uncritically ingested. Its equally clear that for Putin this is an opportunity to give those attempting to build a belt of hostile military and economic alliances around Russia a bloody nose. Socialists have no interest in these great power shennenigans. But equally they have no interest in dressing up this superpower jostling as a fight between western democracy and eastern authoritarianism: the official plot being laid down by our media and our leaders. This is an old fashioned kind of great power contest. Its our job to expose the hypocrisy of our own leaders. Its the job of Russian socialists to expose the hypocrisy of theirs. Georgian socialists should move as fast as possible to expose the nasty little opportunist chauvinist masquerading as a liberal democrat, and certainly not press territorial claims which benefit no possible progressive agenda in that country.
Comment by johng — 11 August, 2008 @ 11:32 am
Quite so JOhn,
I also see that over at lenin’s Tomb Paul accuses me of cheer leading for the Russians - clearly he cannot see the difference between analysis and advocacy.
I watched the ITN news yesterday, and was struck by the fact that they showed graphic scenes of civilan casualties of the sort we never see of Iraq, expect on Al Jazeera. But even ITN reported that the Georgian town being bombed was the hub for georgian troop deployments in South Ossetia, and the main target was the military barracks.
Comment by Andy Newman — 11 August, 2008 @ 11:46 am
I posted a comment on the Tomb which might be useful (the extract from the article referred to is below):
The article Gareth posted is also interesting because highlights the tensions between the EU (in particular Germany and France) and the US on this issue. Its possible that the Georgian leadership hoped that by taking action they would create a fait accompli which would force these recalcitrant allies of the US on board. On the other hand its possible that the US thought that in conniving with this it might achieve the same result. As so often the tensions were as much between the US and its allies as they were between the US and Russia in either case (this was certainly the case during the Clinton era in Bosnia and Kosova, were much of the grand strategy revolved around the status of NATO in western Europe, rather then anything to do with the Balkans). However if this risky and counterproductive move did proceed with US involvement it points to the extraordinary vulnarability and fragility of US grand strategy, even with respect to its core allies. Thinking about it the same is true even if, as seems much more likely, they were not. (I would add here on SUN that whether or not the US knew about it or not, does not negate the structural tensions being discussed, which exist in any case. That is to say the tensions between Germany and France and the US concerning the intergration of Georgia into NATO. And these structural tensions exist only because of the larger structure of US grand strategy both in western europe and in the east. These lie at the root of the present conflict whatever was known or unknown, encouraged or not encouraged. Paul Fauvet’s embrace of liberal internationalism blinds him completely to the underlying structural tensions that produce conflict. Which, as we Marxists like to say is, ‘no co-incidence’. Its what this rhetoric is all about after all).
On whether Washington egged Saakashvili on, here is Jonathan Steele, in today’s Guardian:
“The question now is whether Saakashvili has over-reached himself. Has his escalation of the South Ossetian crisis done more than destroy any chance of normalising Georgian relations with Russia as long as he remains president? Has it reinforced his image among many western leaders as a hothead, and set back his hopes of getting a promise from Nato this autumn to start membership proceedings? France and Germany led Nato’s cautious camp in April when they forced President Bush to delay a membership action plan for Georgia for months. Their argument that Georgia is not yet ready may well be strengthened now.
The sudden crisis has put the United States on the spot. While supporting Georgia’s Nato ambitions, the White House was leery of military action, knowing it could do little in the face of a powerful Russian response. Visiting the former Soviet republic in 2005, President Bush urged Saakashvili to keep cool. “Georgia’s leaders know that the peaceful resolution of conflict is essential to your integration into the transatlantic community,” he told a huge rally in Tbilisi.”
Comment by johng — 11 August, 2008 @ 11:57 am
Here’s a couple of selective quotes from Cliff’s “State Capitalism in Russia”:
“For generations Russian socialists and democrats thought Tsarist Russia a “prison of the peoples” and Tsarist imperialist oppression of the Poles, Finns, Lithuanians, Esthonians, Ukrainians, Georgians, Armenians, Uzbeks, Kazakhs, etc. a most reactionary force. Stalinist Russia teaches differently.”
““Russian troops often saved the peoples of the Caucasus from military danger.” How well put! The Tsarist troops which occupied the Caucasus saved it from military danger!”
“The nations oppressed by Great Russian imperialism, or threatened directly by it, react with a struggle of ever-growing intensity for national independence.”
Comment by skidmarx — 11 August, 2008 @ 2:00 pm
And your point is?
Comment by Andy Newman — 11 August, 2008 @ 2:12 pm
SkidMarx I fail to see the relevence of this in the contemporary situation. The Tsarist Empire ended in 1917, the Soviet Union ended two decades ago under Gorbachev. Unless you have some essentialist theory of ethnicity I don’t understand the windmills you are tilting at here. All the evidence suggests that South Osttetia was flattened by Georgian troops over the weekend. Is this because they were great Russian chauvinists? Or on the other hand are they fleeing in their tens of thousands to Russia (and yes they are still doing so) because, as one Georgian commentator said they have been “brainwashed”. That there are vicious chauvinist hatreds on both sides I have no doubt, and one of the dangers of the situation is that these hatreds will lead to mutual fraticide (there are strong indications that now South Osttians, some of them cossacks incidently, want ‘revenge’. But a tendency amongst liberal bombers to demonise one ethnicity over another is not something socialists should have any truck with.
Comment by johng — 11 August, 2008 @ 2:15 pm
Russia criticises US for flying Georgian troops back from Iraq
http://tinyurl.com/5pvz8f
Comment by Eddie Truman — 11 August, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
Its also worth remembering the MO of liberal bombers. They will wait until real atrocities do happen, say that that proves they were right all along, and then advocate intervention by ‘the west’. This is why its very important for some to claim that ‘how it started’ is now irrelevent etc.
“Happy endings,
Nice and Tidy,
Its the lesson,
Learnt in school
Get your money
Every Friday,
Happy endings,
Thats the rule
So divide up those in darkness,
From the ones who
live in light,
Light ‘em up boys,
There’s your picture,
Drop the shadows…
Out of sight.
Bertolt Brecht.
Comment by johng — 11 August, 2008 @ 2:47 pm
I didn’t know there were Cossaks John, that is interesting.
Incidently, “Great Russian chauvinism” is a very poor piece of intellectual equipment to understand the Czar’s empire even in the nineteenth century. Only in the 1860s did the Russian language start to be used at court, and only in the 1880s and 1890s did state official business start to be conducted in Russian in the provinces - replacing whatever langauge was spoken by the local gentry - typically German. The Czar’s were very resistant during the nineteenth century to see their Empire as being national, rather than dynastic/religious.
Only with the Russian peasantry - and Cossaks of course - was there a sense of strong Russian identity, linked to both the specific land they lived on, and the Christian religion, Holy Russ (where Moscow was always the capital in their hearts, the third Rome)
Comment by Andy Newman — 11 August, 2008 @ 2:48 pm
I agree with Andy Newman and John G - that doesn’t happen very often these days ;o)
My tuppence worth posted here:
http://brizblog.wordpress.com/2008/08/11/georgia-on-my-mind/
Chz,
J.
Comment by brizblogger — 11 August, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
Phil:
“there’s no evidence that he made that gamble with the knowledge or backing of the US.”
and:
“All you’ve posted is a series of must-have-been’s and couldn’t-have’s - speculation…”
Rubbish. The phone conversation between Karasin and Fried is a fact, not speculation. The US & UK rejection, at the UNSC on Friday a.m., of the Russian motion calling on both sides to ‘renounce the use of force’ is a fact, not speculation.
Those are facts. Now here is some speculation. It is notable that the Russians gave no prior indication whatsoever that they would respond to a full-scale Georgian attack on S. Ossetia by military means. And the Russian military response was extremely quick and well-organised.
Apart from the first point, the following is merely conjecture:-
1) The Russians (just like the Americans) knew that the Georgians were about to attack.
2) The Russians began to prepare for a decisive military response to that attack.
3) The Russians decided not to warn the Americans and the Georgians that they would make a military response to the forthcoming Georgian attack.
Andy points out:
“…there is no doubt they [the Russians] have seized this opportunity with both hands to demonstrate the powerlessness of Washington to aid Georgia, as well as providing them with an opportunity to degrade Georgia’s armed forces and block their entry into NATO.”
Absolutely.
Comment by Noah — 11 August, 2008 @ 8:50 pm
#46 & #47 “And your point is?”
That it all seemed relevant to the contemporary situation.That it seems reasonable to believe that Russian imperialism has not changed its spots over time and Cliff exposure of the irrelevance of a socialist veneer to Russian imperial ambitions is relevant today when they are using the claims of atrocities that you have backed up here as a pretext to crush Georgia.
#49 “Its also worth remembering the MO of liberal bombers. They will wait until real atrocities do happen, say that that proves they were right all along, and then advocate intervention by ‘the west’.”
And it seems the MO of anti-liberal bombers is to believe any atrocity stories that fit their political preconceptions, then advocate pacifism.
Comment by skidmarx — 12 August, 2008 @ 9:48 am
Georgia wanted to become independent from Russia a few years ago, and after
some conflict, they were given full autonomy. How can the Georgians now deny independence to 2 Provinces with majority Russian populations that want to be part of Russia once again. Why is the U.S. tightening the noose around Russia with more and
more missile sites?
No good can come of this. How would the U.S. react if Russia
was arming and putting missile sites in Canada, Mexico and California? I smell a rat.
Comment by robertmackay — 13 August, 2008 @ 12:37 am