by hilzoy
First, a bit of levity on a very serious subject: apparently, this map actually ran next to a story on (the present conflict in the former Soviet Socialist Republic of) Georgia (h/t Ezra):
Now, the NYT:
“Russian troops that had poured into the disputed territory of South Ossetia moved to enclave’s boundary with Georgia on Sunday, witnesses said, as the conflict appeared to be developing into the worst clashes between Russia and a foreign military since the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.
Overnight, Russia landed ground troops off of warships into the disputed territory of Abkhazia and broadened its bombing campaign to the Georgian capital’s airport.
The Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe said Georgia was ready to negotiate a ceasefire, but a top Russian defense official said no formal offer had been received.
Georgian authorities said Sunday morning that they expect Russian attacks to come on three fronts — from Gali and Zugdidi, two spots on the Abkhazian border, and from Ossetia, according to Gigi Ugulada, the mayor of Tbilisi. They also expect more bombing on the Kodori Gorge, the only part of Abkhazia that remains under Georgian control.
Witness reports from the border between South Ossetia and Georgia suggested that Russian forces had moved up to the winding, disputed boundary line.
But a top Russian defense official said Sunday that Russia had no immediate plans to move troops into Georgia.”
This is, obviously, very worrying. I suppose the good news is that Russia does not yet seem to have moved ground troops into non-disputed parts of Georgia. The bad news is that they have not only moved into South Ossetia, but into Abkhazia as well; and are bombing undisputed parts of Georgia, including an airport near the capital. (Note: the reason I’m distinguishing between Russia attacking South Ossetia and Abkhazia on the one hand, and other parts of Georgia on the other, is not because I think that attacks on the former are somehow OK. It’s that in situations like this, there are natural lines where someone might stop, and it’s worth paying attention to whether or not they have been crossed. Sending ground troops into non-disputed parts of Georgia constitutes crossing such a line.)
“Russian PM Vladimir Putin earlier suggested it was unlikely that South Ossetia would re-integrate with the rest of Georgia, saying the country’s territorial integrity had “suffered a fatal blow”.”
Meanwhile, Ukraine is reserving the right to bar Russian warships from returning to Ukranian ports that Russia has leased. (Some of those ships are positioning themselves around Georgia’s coast.) The UN Security Council is meeting but not getting anywhere, which is not that surprising in view of the fact that Russia is one of its permanent members. The US “warned Sunday that “disproportionate” actions against Georgia could have a “significant long term impact on U.S.-Russian relations.”” Western European governments have also been very critical of Russia. A group of US and European envoys is heading to Georgia to try to negotiate a truce. Meanwhile, the fighting continues.
Thoughts and good references below the fold.
Background: The two best background pieces I’ve seen are this post from Fistful of Euros, which is the best one for giving you a general feel for South Ossetia, and this piece by James Traub in the NYT, which is better on the politics and recent history. The Parasite (h/t CT) is good on the runup to the current conflict.
American Footprints and FP Passport have good roundup. LGM, Newshoggers, Fistful of Euros, Daniel Larison, Greg Djerejian, and Duck of Minerva are all offering good coverage.
I agree with this analysis of Russia’s basic aims:
“Russia’s regional objectives are therefore straightforward. It aims to show its neighbours, by means of the Georgian example, that Russia is “glavniy”: that its contentment is the key to “stability and security”, and that if Russia expresses its discontent, Nato will be unwilling and unable to help. It aims to show Nato that its newest aspirant members are divided, divisible and, in the case of Georgia, reckless. It aims to show both sets of actors that Russia has (in Putin’s words) “earned a right to be self-interested” and that in its own “zone”, it will defend these interests irrespective of what others think about them. For Russia, the broader implications are also becoming straightforward. To its political establishment, to the heads of Gazprom and Rosneft, to its armed forces and security services and to their advisors and “ideologists”, the key point is that the era of Western dominance is over.”
It’s realpolitik; it’s amoral; it’s also perfectly comprehensible (in a sense of that word that does not so much as hint of approval.)
On Georgia, I basically agree with this post by Robert Farley:
“I am less sympathetic to the Georgian case because I think that escalating the war (and providing an excuse for Russian counter-escalation) was a damn stupid thing for Saakashvili to do, and a remarkably damn stupid thing for him to do absent an extremely compelling cause. Small, weak states living next to abrasive, unpredictable great powers need to be extremely careful about what they do; in most cases, their foreign policy should, first and foremost, be about avoiding war with the great power. This is what Saakashvili failed to do. The war didn’t need to escalate; it was a Georgian decision to move from the village skirmishes that were happening on Tuesday to the siege of Tsikhinvali on Thursday.
I understand that there can be a bit of “blaming the victim” to this analysis. Russia has consistently pursued imperial aims in its Near Abroad (so does every great power, including the US) and has treated Georgia badly, with a succession of threats, boycotts, and efforts to promote the secessionist forces which are causing the trouble today. Georgia had every right to seek NATO membership in order to limit Russian efforts (although NATO had every right to turn Georgia down). Russia has been a bad actor, but it was nevertheless a terrible and unnecessary mistake to pick a fight with Russia over South Ossetia, not least because the balance of perfidy on South Ossetia is uncertain. This is why I’m unsympathetic to Saakashvili and to his claims that Georgia is fighting for freedom against tyranny.”
As far as I can tell, the South Ossetians do not want to be part of Georgia. Russia has been using this fact to create trouble for Georgia in all sorts of ways. It should not have done that. However, neither should Georgia have decided to launch an offensive against a Russian-guarded city, an offensive that ended up razing it and creating a lot of casualties, unless it actually wanted to go to war with Russia. That was a stupid, stupid thing to do. And it has given Russia the excuse it wanted to teach Georgia, and any other nearby states who might be tempted to align with the West, a lesson.
Russia’s response seems to me to have been clearly disproportionate. It should stop, and it should stop now. It has made its point. It will probably hold onto South Ossetia and Abkhazia. I have a hard time getting very worked up about that: I don’t think countries should solve festering problems by conquest, but if the residents of those areas would rather be citizens of Russia, as it seems they would, then my concerns about that are a lot less serious than they would be otherwise, and are to some extent counterbalanced by the idea that neither area’s status will remain on the list of the world’s unresolved and potentially dangerous problems.
However, stepping back a bit: one party, and one party alone, has gained from this, and that party is Russia. Georgia seems to have lost decisively. Saakashvili will be lucky if he remains in power. But the US has also lost badly:
“1.) As in the good old days of the Cold War, this has also been a testing ground between Western doctrines and arms against their Russian counterparts, and to state the obvious, the former has come off very badly. True, the Russians came in greater numbers, but the lesson for a lot of the other post-Soviet republics is clear – fancy Western military aid and training doesn’t mean you can stand up to the Bear, so it may be prudent to avoid antagonising the Bear by forming military (or any other) relationships with the West in the first place. So kiss goodbye to a lot of our influence in the post-Soviet space.
2.) The US-NATO long-term strategy of increasing strategic influence in the Caucasus is now probably dead. This has huge knock-on effects – the West has been trying to gain a strategic foothold in Russia’s underbelly since the end of the Soviet Union. The long term goal has been a) to establish a military presence in a strategically sensitive area ‘just in case’ but more importantly b) to open up an alternative transit route for Central Asian oil and gas that bypasses both Russia and Iran (and to do this the Caucasus is really your only game in town.) If, as seems likely, Russia’s war aims are now to completely destroy Georgian military capability, sever off Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and replace Saakasvhili with a more pliant satrap (and to be clear I think they’re more than likely to accomplish all of these goals) then this strategy is dead as a door nail. After this demonstration of brute force, no-one in the Caucasus is going to risk an alliance with the US, and Georgia will be a dismembered and thoroughly cowed nation. I cannot over-emhpasise what a huge setback this is for Europe and the US and what a boon it is for Russia.”
It was very, very much in our interest that this entire episode not happen. This raises the question: how hard did we try to prevent it? David Weman at FFOE highlights this passage by one of his co-bloggers:
“A senior State Department figure was here in Tbilisi last week, and I would expect that the Georgian side at least hinted very broadly about what was up. He would have to deny that, of course, in the way of these things. We can assume that the Americans did not warn them off.”
Weman says:
“If true, this has to be one of the most indefensible things the Bush Administration has done in the last few years. Saakashvili took a reckless gamble, and it didn’t work out.
The Americans have more or less encouraged Saakashvili’s dangerously confrontational approach to Russia, and have given them hopes of NATO membership, which was never going to happen. They may also have had unrealistic expectations about US support in the event of a war. This war would likely never have happened if the US had discouraged the Georgians [update: in the last few years. Not saying the low level visit last week was crucial, rather than telling.] The result is an probable own goal by the Bushies.”
I think this is right. I’m not saying that it was all our fault — that would be absurd. I am saying two things: first, that we could probably have prevented Georgia from launching its attack on South Ossetia, and secondly, that if we did not try very hard to do so, that was very, very stupid, and very, very reckless.
Hilzoy,
There’s only one “D” in Djerejian
I would be very interested to know what sort of signals the U.S. sent to the Georgian government before they moved on South Ossetia.
The military-to-military relationship built up in the coaltion-of-client-states in Iraq is certainly one possible source of the recklessness apparent at the highest levels of the Georgian government.
What about on the diplomatic side?
I notice that German media seem to deliberately avoid the term “war” for this shooting conflict (unlike e.g. in the cases of Iraq or Afghanistan). Is there something similar in the anglophone media?
Eric: right you are. Thanks. 😉
Georgia does not even have a fair chance to comment, all phone lines, or communication lines are blocked. Nobody knows what is really happening there!!! NO PHONE LINE IN GEORGIA CAN BE REACHED!!!
This is a valuable post, an excellent roundup, and incisive commentary. Thanks.
@Hartmut: Yes. The anglophone construct is that extensive bombing, the deaths of 1500 people, advancing tank columns, and more are “edging toward all-out war”.
I miss the 1939 border disputes between Germany and Poland that got slightly out of hand[/sarcasm]
Clarification: that’s against media talk euphemisms, not Nell
The US-NATO long-term strategy of increasing strategic influence in the Caucasus is now probably dead. This has huge knock-on effects – the West has been trying to gain a strategic foothold in Russia’s underbelly since the end of the Soviet Union. The long term goal has been a) to establish a military presence in a strategically sensitive area ‘just in case’ but more importantly b) to open up an alternative transit route for Central Asian oil and gas that bypasses both Russia and Iran (and to do this the Caucasus is really your only game in town.)
This was a horrendously stupid thing to do – getting involved in the micro-politics of extremely heterogenous areas on the fringes of a multi-ethnic and multi-national empire (which is what Russia has been for hundreds of years), is playing with fire, which naturally will result in burned fingers, our and others too.
If this hare-brained “strategy” on the part of the US is now DOA, that is probably the one positive thing which can come out of this debacle, since further pursuit of this strategy can only lead to things worse than this down the road.
When we foreclosed on the British Empire in the mid-20th Cen., why oh why didn’t we learn any of the lessons which a reasonable familiarity with the British imperial experience might have taught us, particularly with regard to the futility of playing the Great Game in Central Asia?
I don’t have any great insights here, but if as seems likely Russia gets to incorporate breakaway regions with a majority or vocal plurality of ethnic Russians (or other groups disaffected from the main government), the precedent could make things very hairy. I’m not especially knowlegeable on the subject, but just from following the BBC I know a number of former soviet states have sizeable Russian minorities; in one of them (Latvia iirc?) there are big tensions along ethnic and linguistic lines. The big one is of course Ukraine, where as I recall from that big election a few years back about half the population would be just as happy being Russian – and that half has some regional identity, and the West is very interested in the Ukraine.
Excuse me if I write not there, because my English is very bad, I poorly understood where I came, I hope there. We in Russia have shown that all communications services in the west say or write that Russia attacked Georgia, but it’s not, Russia protects the region (Ossetia) which is disconnected from Georgia because Georgians deskriminirovali them on ethnic grounds, Georgian president is mishandled agent with a view to russia aggressive stand in the light, and turn over all integrated on the head, your government wants war with Russia because our country rises from the ashes, and may become too strong, and so afraid of your government, see, how NATO russia surrounded on all sides, gredet war and possibly nuclear whose end is very sad not only for the American and Russian people but also for the whole world (sorry if that is written correctly, but this is my personal opinion, false hope (I for my bad English, too, sorry:)). Russian people.
P.S. If you want me to answer write => Mario-X@inbox.ru
While talking about your national interests, you, americans and your sattelite regimes, always forgot to talk about peoples. I mean other peoples involved except American nation if you mind that. Watching CNN or BBC, i see TV commentators saying about Russian invasion and, be attentive!, against of background of georgian Grad unilities sending shells to Tzhinvali.
Your great news agencies forgot to say you that 2 hours before starting war operation against South Osetia, Mr Saakashvilly declared cease-fire as well as they forgot to say that it is not Osetins started to bomb villages from all kinds of weapons but Georgia started to do it. Why?
Your news agenies forgot to say that number of Osetins killed by georgian troops before russian milltary forces was able to reach region overwhelmed 2000 (while Georgia now declare 200 killed during russian bombing “civil” objects). But you prefer to talk about 200 georgians instead of 2000 killed civil Osetins. why? To mind – all population of South Osetia is around 70k.
You receive “selective” information. Your business form your opinion as of damn idiots through mass media.
Ossetia, Abhazia become independed states in early 1990’s, just in time with Geogia, Ukraine, Russia, Kazahstan and other fomer Soviet Union repablics, the only difference is that world community do not “recognize” Abhazia and Ossetia. Ossetia become geogian territory just according to the wish of Saakashvili… US “recognize” wish of Saakashvili and form a new country with new territory… Just US democracy and nothing more… Ossetia and Abhazia were independent before Soviet Union or were a part of Russia not Georgia, so they want there independence after Soviet Uniuon… logically isnt it? But Geogia in early 1990s began a war against both of them, and try’s to do it again… “Territorial integrity” is used by US for legitimate it’s action in region… Abhazia and Ossetia never be Georgia, they alway be with Russia or have a spesial autonomy…
Western press do not say about georgian fascism and genocide of ossetia and abhazia people, do not say about dozens thousands of civilians crossing Russia border seeking for life-saving. But CNN CRYING about Russian invasion to Georgia, accuse Russia in trying to defend ossetian people… Russia keep peace in the region fot 17 years from the first war Georgia with Ossetia and Abhazia and now in western press it bacame agressor – shameless hypocrisy. Sure it is the WAR, the war of US propaganga against Russia, just read from the begining what CNN, Times write about conflict: “Russia attacks, bombing Georgia” it is just lie, well orchestred lie with interview of Saakashvili on TV… People, try to get truth for making your opinions, do not read US and Britain press… Bush wants WWIII trying to confront western people and Russians… be carefull…
Osetia was never been part of Georgia during last 2000 years except 50 years during Soviet epoch where it was merged with Georgia at single Republic. 99% of Osetina are against Osetia being part of Georgia. why does Saakashvilli pretend on this region can be clear only for those who are interested in own interests not in real facts.
Have you hired extra moderating help to deal with the onslaught that’s coming? Good luck.
Russia’s response seems to me to have been clearly disproportionate. It should stop, and it should stop now.
I enjoyed the post, but I don’t agree with this assessment. The indications are that the Russians have wargamed properly for this, that they have clear and limited goals and are moving fairly quickly towards achieving them. Things might change, but so far the indications are that Moscow is looking to drive Georgia comprehensively out of Ossetia and Abkhazia yet go no further. Bombarding military and joint-purpose targets in Georgia proper is pretty uncontroversial as far as the “rules of war” go.
Have you hired extra moderating help to deal with the onslaught that’s coming?
Do you mean an onslaught of Russians posting? I’m actually very interested to see how Moscow’s PR campaign acquits itself through this whole crisis, as it’s something they’ve been very very poor at in the past. Some of these posts might genuinely be interested citizens, but I’d say there’s a deliberate campaign being carried out using groups like Nashi.
What’s the score of the War?
China has it’s Olympics going on right now, and Russia and Georgia have their own Slavic form of Olympics going on as well. Backwards people.
Hm, i have very bad attitude toward Nashi. I would say there are a lot of bad things in Russia as well but we talk here more about Osetia and relationships between Russia, Osetia and Georgia, not about Nashi. If you dont have arguments then it is always better to talk about onsleughts russians. I believe that western PR campaign works were tuned perfectly during last 100 years and work great now as you dont see objective picture.
Saakashvilly – is a murder, like Hitler. He killed more than 2000 people. He is a toy in americans (Bush) hands, a political prostitute, who sell his own nationality to White House. It’s a good idea to Saakashvilly to shoot to himself in bunker, before it will be too late.
Actually, I’d welcome an onslaught of Russians, Georgians, Osetians (sp?) and others, if we could be sure that’s what we’re getting, just as it’d be interesting to see an onslaught of Israelis and Palestinians and Sudanese and Iraqis of varying viewpoints when those subjects come up.
Within reason, anyway. On one or two blogs that I visit dealing with the I/P conflict, you end up with hate-filled extremists dominating the thread. (Though at one of those blogs, the haters on both sides are American.)
well, i would recommend you to see inside if you want to understand different points of view at first. why? because understanding of world attitude toward USA lies inside your government policy about which americans typically knows less then all other worlds as all world suffers from this policy. So you will understand many points of view. But i would not say that world should hate not america since america has many faces, world should hate USA government which misinform own citizens as well as pieces of modern american culture. That would be correct.
Re your humorous point at the beginning, as of 1600 EST 10 Aug 08 I found the map graphic changed from the US state of Georgia at this link, but the new graphic isn’t much better. It shows central Europe, with the arrow pointing to Wien. Although they are now on the correct continental landmass (Eurasia), they are still a longways from the correct location.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hpNRP9ysixHH3P9izLJRjYT1ATkA
I though AFP was a European news organization and might have a little more of a clue. I guess not.
On one or two blogs that I visit dealing with the I/P conflict, you end up with hate-filled extremists dominating the thread.
Donald — I gave up wading through the CT thread after a while, but it seemed like it could be heading in that direction (one-sidedly, to boot), and that was what I was afraid would happen here.
Over at CT there were quite a few comments deleted for anti-semitism, and comments were eventually closed (without comment). I have never seen a comment thread closed here in the 8 months I have been coming around regularly…but then I remind myself that if I don’t like it I don’t have to keep reading….
On a much more serious note, the NYT says the Russians have ground forces outside the city of Gori, which is in Georgia proper, not South Ossetia.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/11/world/europe/11georgia.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Change of this pseudodemocratic regime would be end of american policy in Caucasus and final failure of Bush administration after defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan but it would be made this region much more peaciful place.
Considering russian troops in Gori, this is rather next lie for western citizens from Georgia then true. Although Saakashvilli’s regime wont stop until complete war fiasko no matter how many georgian will be killed during this actions so it would be smart to end up with it now. The question is whether Russian government is ready for this.
Chris Floyd‘s roundup is worthwhile.
Between Russia dont care about USA reaction. we can afford to have NO relationships with USA at all as oppsoite of China i.e. which depends on USA export a lot. And Russia has financial instruments to go out usa economy much closer to collapse manipulating reserve of USA dollars and supply of oil and gas on world market.
Nell: I would be very interested to know what sort of signals the U.S. sent to the Georgian government before they moved on South Ossetia.
Perhaps Georgia just badly misread the signals it was getting from the USA.
Good point. Very good article. Saakashvilli had no other chance to survive as national leader except beginning new war. That is why he should be removed and send back to you – in USA. it was alternative for war. After him promised many many time to force S. Osetia and Abkzhazia he had no other chances. He was needed to pay for help of Bush administration.
They didn’t give this map?
This is a complicated situation. However, I have no you for Russians going on about anyone else treating breakaway areas filled with people that are ethnically different and adamantly want to become independent. Have you looked at Grozny lately?
I have sympathy for the South Ossetians. I have zero sympathy for the Russians.
On a much more serious note, the NYT says the Russians have ground forces outside the city of Gori, which is in Georgia proper, not South Ossetia.
Wow, I must say that surprises me. I’d still bet against the Russians intending to go the whole hog, but maybe they really will. This disaster is a long time coming. I’ve been disgusted with the Clinton and Bush administration’s approach to the former Soviet Union for years, it’s been epically misguided, and in my opinion a strategic miscalculation at least as consequential, in the long run, as the invasion of Iraq.
Of course, Gori is such an inviting target. They might intend to take Gori, cutting Georgia in half and dictating terms from a position of total dominance.
That was a stupid, stupid thing to do.
It was worse than that. From the reports coming out today about what the Georgians did in Tskhinvali, it was a war crime. The Georgians are lucky international law doesn’t apply to allies of the US or Saakashvili would be headed for a cell next to Radovan Karadzic.
Russia’s response seems to me to have been clearly disproportionate
Russia’s response has been, so far, very restrained. Burning Tbilisi to the ground would be precisely proportionate.
I have a hard time getting very worked up about that: I don’t think countries should solve festering problems by conquest
Who is trying to do that other than the Georgians? Here is what Abkhazian Foreign Minister Sergei Shamba had to say about the situation:
It was very, very much in our interest that this entire episode not happen.
And now that it has happened, the US is transporting Georgian troops to the front, with rumors that at least one American advisor has been captured by the Russians during the fighting.
with rumors that at least one American advisor has been captured by the Russians during the fighting.
On that score, Izvestia [in Russian] says that Ossetian Radio claims an African-American NATO advisor has been captured along with a Georgian unit inside South Ossetia (the location would be very significant if that is true). Says he has been transported to Vladikavkaz for debriefing. We’ll see.
I also can’t find any evidence that Russian forces have moved out of South Ossetia towards Gori, so far that only comes from the authorities in Tbilisi, who seem pretty hysterical at this point. The city and the surrounded area is subject to Russia air and artillery bombardment, but I don’t think this necessarily means ground troops have moved into Georgia proper.
I hope the media can at least try to keep the un-English pronunciations of the English name “Ossetia” under control.
Its time for the United States to head toward Russia. It’s time for the US to impose its Will on these criminals. We all know what this is about..its about destroying democracy. They are trying to take over that democracy and eliminate any relationships with us. They don’t understand that we cannot let that happen without action. Unfortunately military action might be the only alternative.
now_what: “Burning Tbilisi to the ground would be precisely proportionate.”
Ah.
I can’t help but think of the thousands of civilians who are dying in the warring regions. I really can’t think of the horrors of their situation and helplessness some of them may be in this crap-fest. For what exactly?
Russia (or rather, it’s gov’t) is being an asshole, plan and simple. The breakaway regions in Georgia are a Georgian matter and don’t involve Russia at all. Russia should deal with their OWN breakaway regions and let sovereign nations just be.
And no I’m not bred, buttered, and born American. I am an immigrant to the U.S., and I haven’t been brainwashed by “Western media”; yet, I can still see the simple truth.
Finally, a war where the US army is relatively prepared. Every O4 and above in the Army has studied a war in this region… Though primarily as a southern reach for assets, rather than a northern one.
But at least the geography, resources, and tensions are familiar.
It’s curious to see so many pro-Russian comments in this thread (not counting all the new commenters). I wonder how much of it is support for the self-determination of the South Ossetians and Abkhazians, and how much of it is reflexive rooting for whoever is spiting George W. Bush at the moment. Perhaps I’m wrong, and it’s something else entirely.
I’m not rooting for the Russians, but this was probably inevitable. Their 90s-era state of weakness was never going to last, and the Caucasus is, as others have pointed out, their Near Abroad. This is going to be an interesting week.
Actually, in reviewing the thread, there aren’t as many pro-Russian comments from regular commenters as I thought. Consider my uncharitable mind-reading withdrawn.
But at least the geography, resources, and tensions are familiar.
Thank god. At least there will be some responsible adults involved who recognize the logistical impossibility of a primarily maritime power like the US being able to project force on a sustained basis into the Caucasus vs. Russia.
Now if only the neocons will listen to the US Army for a change, rather than the other way around…
It’s curious to see so many pro-Russian comments in this thread (not counting all the new commenters). I wonder how much of it is support for the self-determination of the South Ossetians and Abkhazians, and how much of it is reflexive rooting for whoever is spiting George W. Bush at the moment. Perhaps I’m wrong, and it’s something else entirely.
I’m not sure I see any evidence of that, nor a great deal of ‘pro-Russian’ sentiment beyond crude agitprop in broken English. Personally, I think there’s not a lick of difference between the Russian and Georgian regimes, although I do think Russia has a much greater chance of becoming a more open society in the near future than Georgia does. Moreover, the Georgian government started this immediate crisis (long-running issues aside), and they appear to have done so in a very brutal fashion. So far, I don’t see any indication of the Russians having gone beyond the bounds of what might be deemed ‘legitimate’, given that we are already discussing a tragic, violent situation to nobody’s credit. There is no evidence, for example, of deliberately targeting civilians, although the same cannot be said of the Georgians. This may all change in the coming days of course, but so far the Russians seem less scummy in this business.
As for rooting against GW Bush, well I think I’m already on the record for deeming US policy towards Russia since the first Prez Bush to be a disaster, i.e. Clinton and the current administration alike.
I expect the US media and public opinion to come out heavily against Russia though, given that Georgia is a client state, and that the McCain camp is firmly in its pocket and has a huge incentive to reduce this to politics-friendly good guy vs. bad guy stuff.
It was worse than that. From the reports coming out today about what the Georgians did in Tskhinvali, it was a war crime. The Georgians are lucky international law doesn’t apply to allies of the US or Saakashvili would be headed for a cell next to Radovan Karadzic.
Do you have a citation for this? From what I have read, all that we know is that Tskhinvali suffered a lot of damage in the fighting, but nothing about war crimes. I’m certainly not saying that they haven’t happened, I’m just curious what your sources are.
Moreover, the Georgian government started this immediate crisis (long-running issues aside),
Again, this seems a lot less clear to me. Trying to sort out what happened is going to be a mess. If the statement that artillery in South Ossetia started shelling Georgian positions prior to the invasion, I’m not so comfortable with a categorical statement that Georgia started it.
What does seem clear to me is that both sides pushed for this conflict. Russia couldn’t possibly have responded as quickly as they did if they hadn’t been getting an offensive ready well before Thursday.
Personally, I think there’s not a lick of difference between the Russian and Georgian regimes, although I do think Russia has a much greater chance of becoming a more open society in the near future than Georgia does.
Based upon commentary from the generally smart and reliable folks at both Mark Kleiman’s site, and A Fistful of Euros, this is another statement about which I am dubious.
Left turn,
Despite being a primarily maritime power, we do have regional power bases, and more power projection in georgia than russia. Russia has to bypass Chechnya to play in Georgia.
Georgia cast its cards with the west and Nato. How we treat this issue indicates the value of Nato.
jrudkis: not nearly as much as if Bush and McCain had had their way, and Georgia had actually joined NATO.
But it is a real blow to our interests, and in this context, our interests include the ability to provide some minor amount of cover for Russia’s neighbors to be even slightly independent, so I don’t think that’s a good thing for anyone.
It is absolutely something we should have thought of, and prevented.
I thought it will be self-evident for the country that recently broke away from the empire not to try to build the empire itself and be agreable to the self-governing aspiration of others. Obviosly, georgians decided otherwise – I am not sure why. Also it is obvious that US decided to pass the obvious fact of genocide unnoticed for “our bastard” Saakashvili. This happened before in Darfur, with the disastrous results. at the time when it needs the allies most? Also, the decision of Georgian government to become “third largest US ally in the war against terror”, after UK is relly funny – they expected from start that US will return a favor and will get itself involved in the war against Russia…
Hilzoy,
I am not sure what you are saying. Should the west have accepted Georgia, or should we have left Georgia as a buffer?
Georgia seems to me as a strong regional ally, but needs protection from a global former colonist. And the region itself is not served by retro hegemony.
jrudkis,
Yes I understand that if we wish too we can put our fingers into this pot and stir things up at least for now, so long as Turkey does not object. The key word in my comment was “sustained”.
We would do well to review the Great Game competition between Great Britain (whom we closely resemble in our force projection characteristics) and Russia and draw appropriate conclusions about the logistical challenges involved in projecting power into the same regions (Caucasus, Persia, Central Asia), and the time scale on which these conflicts are likely to unfold.
With regard to NATO, it is time that we remembered that the first two letters in that acronym stand for “North Atlantic” and realize that the farther afield we push the boundaries of the alliance beyond the geographic limits of its original Cold War configuration, the less confident we can be of having the capacity to prevail in a conflict, with potentially damaging and destabilizing results for the alliance. A collective security alliance is only as strong as the willingness of all (or a strong majority) of its members to fight for the security of any of the member states as if it was a matter of vital national security.
Pushing NATO further inland towards the heart of Eurasia is a very bad idea, IMHO, because it dilutes this sense of mutually defined critical security interests while simultaneously increasing the chance of NATO being defeated on a distant and logistically unpromising battlefield.
Bismarck’s remark about Pomeranian grenadiers comes to mind here.
But it is a real blow to our interests, and in this context, our interests include the ability to provide some minor amount of cover for Russia’s neighbors to be even slightly independent, so I don’t think that’s a good thing for anyone.
I think that this exaggerates it some, though I’m not denying that this is a blow. It demonstrates that we can’t provide any cover for Russia’s neighbors in the Caucuses to be at all independent. Finland, the Baltic States, Norway, Poland, and Ukraine all seem pretty confident that we can provide them cover. The Central Asian countries still seem to be on the fence, except Kazakhstan, which we never really had the ability to protect anyway.
Do you have a citation for this? From what I have read, all that we know is that Tskhinvali suffered a lot of damage in the fighting, but nothing about war crimes
Just do a search on Tskhinvali. The Independent says the Georgians bombed the hospital and maternity ward, The Scotsman quotes eyewitnesses describing the shooting of women and children. It goes on and on. They razed the entire city.
New Europe:
It’s equivalent to the use of imprecise rocket attacks by Palestinians against civilian areas of Israel, with the caveat that at least the Palestinians can claim the right to resist as an occupied people.
If the statement that artillery in South Ossetia started shelling Georgian positions prior to the invasion, I’m not so comfortable with a categorical statement that Georgia started it.
They had been fighting sporadically for 18 years. Here’s how the spokeswoman for the South Ossetian separatists describes the situation:
So here is a brief timeline of the conflict:
1801: Russia annexes Georgia and South Ossetia.
November 1989: South Ossetia declares independence.
November 1989-August 2008: Sporadic and perennial fighting between South Ossetia and Georgia
August 7, 2008, 7:00 PM: Georgia declares unilateral cease-fire in conflict.
August 7, 2008, 9:00 PM: Georgia launches massive attack on South Ossetia and razes its main city.
August 8, 2008: “Most decision makers have gone for the holidays,” Saakashvili says in an interview. “Brilliant moment to attack a small country”. He is, apparently without irony, referring to Russia.
August 9, 2008: Georgia runs to the Western media crying like a terrified 3 year old and screaming, “Russia hit me”!
Georgia started it, and they want the US to help finish it. They are led by dangerous lunatics.
Left turn,
I disagree, in that I see nato as representative of relative. Freedom, rather than regional entities, and should accept countries that reach for it. Plus any organization grows, or dies.
And, if nato can’t defend a georgia, it should die.
jrudkis: I think letting Georgia join NATO now or in the near future would be a disaster. I’ll probably write something about this, but briefly: it’s a military alliance, and when it comes to military alliances, our word should be unquestionable. That, to me, means that we should give it only when we have really, really thought things through.
I supported expanding NATO to admit the former Warsaw Pact countries (as they were ready for it.) People said ‘oh, Russia won’t like it’; I thought: too bad. We should lock this in so that whatever happens in future, the iron curtain will not come down on them again.
But having done that, I think we need to consolidate their status before expanding some more. And we absolutely should not accept any country into NATO that has (a) outstanding territorial issues with Russia, or (b) a non-reasonable political system, of the sort that might lead its leaders to do something deeply stupid, like, oh, attack a town garrisoned by the Russians. (I know, we’re in no position to talk, but having unreasonable leaders ourselves makes it all the more important not to get into alliances with others.)
Georgia fails on both counts. I would absolutely not have supported their entry into NATO.
Hilzoy,
I think we currently have many tenant organizations in NATO that provide essentially nothing, which is why I would prefer a country like georgia, or failing that, let it die.
Just do a search on Tskhinvali. The Independent says the Georgians bombed the hospital and maternity ward, The Scotsman quotes eyewitnesses describing the shooting of women and children. It goes on and on. They razed the entire city.
All your sources really say is that there was heavy fighting in an urban area. I was asking for something that demonstrates the war crimes that you claimed. The destruction of a hospital in a war zone does not demonstrate that.
It’s equivalent to the use of imprecise rocket attacks by Palestinians against civilian areas of Israel, with the caveat that at least the Palestinians can claim the right to resist as an occupied people.
No, it isn’t the same. You are ignoring the fundamental difference between artillery salvos in support of combat operations, and artillery salvos for the sole purpose of attacking civilian targets.
Your position boils down to the idea that any sort of combat in an urban zone constitutes a war crime. You won’t find any support, anywhere, for that argument.
So here is a brief timeline of the conflict:
Your timeline doesn’t even pretend to address the question I asked. Did Georgian positions come under artillery fire prior to their attack?
As I said, it is pretty clear that both sides were primed for a fight in this case. The Russian response was too quick for them not to be anticipating conflict. Given this set of facts, I am uncomfortable with any sort of categorical claim as to who started what.
Unfortunately Saakashwili choose a bad time nfor the war: the US public is very busy deciding if John Edwards in fact fathered Reille Hunter’ child. In these trying it is totally unacceptable that Security Council didn’t include this topic in its agenda>:)
1801: Russia annexes Georgia and South Ossetia.
November 1989: South Ossetia declares independence.
What, not a single relevant development for 188 years?
I see nato as representative of relative. Freedom, rather than regional entities, and should accept countries that reach for it.
I have several objections to the position that you are stating:
1) This is a benefit analysis. That is, it differs from a cost-benefit analysis by omitting the costs.
2) What does “Freedom” in the abstract really mean?
Does it for example including the domination of an ethnic minority by the majority, or is that an infringement of freedom? If the latter case, then who is oppressing whom here? Are the Russians the oppressing majority and the Georgians the oppressed minority, or on a smaller scale is the South Ossetian population the oppressed minority and the Georgians are the oppressing majority. It depends on your point of view, doesn’t it?
That is why translating the abstract idea of “Freedom” into concrete decisions about who to side with in a fight are not as clear cut as we would like.
3) Even if NATO is dedicated to the abstract cause of “Freedom”, that latter will be ill served by an alliance that fails. That is why I am arguing that NATO must be structured with an eye not only towards what we wish to do, but also with regard to what we have the capacity to succeed at doing.
The original NATO alliance did this – it was based on a long history of balance-of-power coalitional geopolitics in Central and Western Europe (William Pitt, Napolean and Bismarck all would have had no difficulty understanding NATO), and was congruent with the capacity of the United States military to project force into West/Central Europe and the Mediterranean basin.
The recent extension of NATO to include former Warsaw pact countries is a reasonable extension of that mission, because of their geographic proximity to the old NATO and their convergence with the latter in terms of culture, politics and their constitutional systems. They have enough in common with other NATO countries that a collective sense of security (an attack on one is an attack on all) makes sense.
Georgia does not meet these criteria, nor do the Central Asian states.
In contrast the historical precedents for an expansion of NATO into the Caucasus and Central Asia are few and discouraging.
Plus any organization grows, or dies.
The oracle has spoken, I guess. I don’t see a lot of evidence for the oracle’s assertion, but if it’s true, it’s a perfect recipe for endless war.
jrudkis: I think it’s doing a great job of protecting the E. European states, myself. I’d hate to see it disappear, for that reason alone.
I do not particularly trust Vladimir Putin. And I think that the peace and stability of Europe is worth a lot.
I also suspect we have different takes on the nature of the Georgian regime. I think it has been very pro-Western, but not particularly pro-freedom.
I think we currently have many tenant organizations in NATO that provide essentially nothing
What does this mean? Are you echoing Donald Rumsfeld’s remark about “Old Europe”, referring to the countries which were unsupportive with regard to the US invasion of Iraq? Or do you mean something else?
Did Georgian positions come under artillery fire prior to their attack?
Georgian positions had been coming under artillery fire for 18 years. As had South Ossetian separtist positions. The Georgians chose the moment they found most advantageous to conduct a sneak attack in violation of treaties they had signed. They then attacked Russian peacekeeping forces, again, that were there by treaty, and razed an entire city with no regard for whether the buildings they hit were civilian targets or not. And you most certainly will find support for the argument that that is a war crime.
You will most certainly find support for the argument that shelling hospitals and maternity wards is a war crime. You will most certainly find support for the idea that shooting women and children that are not engaged in hostilities is a war crime. It is in fact a crime against humanity, and many Germans hung for that crime in another stupid war.
Now, apparently some don’t like my assertion that burning Tbilisi to the ground would be a proportionate response. So let’s hear your opinion on that. Suppose the Russians advance on the city, surround it, and attack it with artillery, rocket fire, cluster bombs and other imprecise weapons and destroy it block by block, building by building, without any regard for whether any particular building is being used for a humanitarian purpose and without any regard for civilian casualties until the vast majority of the structures in the city have been destroyed and the streets are littered with bodies. From your comments, you would regard that as perfectly acceptable means of warfare and not the sort of thing for which the Russians could be held accountable, correct?
I think it would me a monstrous tactic. It would also be a very stupid tactic. There can be no denying however, that it would be a proportionate one.
1801: Russia annexes Georgia and South Ossetia.
November 1989: South Ossetia declares independence.
What, not a single relevant development for 188 years?
I have an odd sense of humor, and am also somewhat lazy.
Left turn,
Georgia is as close to Turkey as other new NATO countries are to other members. Georgia is strategically important vs other new countries. Georgia matters, and is willing to be a useful part of NATO.
I thought it will be self-evident for the country that recently broke away from the empire not to try to build the empire itself and be agreable to the self-governing aspiration of others.
I heard a piece on public radio around the time Kosovo was declared independent. Specifically mentioned were protests in a city with a majority Serbian population, within Kosovo but near the border with Serbia.
An American official was talking with some satisfaction about how people should have the right to self-determination, and how Kosovo’s independence was a great example of that principle. Out of the other side of his mouth, he strongly condemned any notion that a Serbian-majority city on the border between Kosovo and Serbia should have any right to choose to remain part of Serbia.
I don’t know enough about the history of either Serbia / Kosovo or Georgia / Russia / South Ossetia to have an informed opinion about the specifics; I’m just responding to a statement about the general principle. It presents a dilemma, because if you assert it, you really ought to suggest where you would set limits on it in a principled way.
Can the towns on Maine’s eastern border self-determine their way into being part of New Brunswick? Some of them might like to; or to be more precise, in some of them the majority of the residents might like to. Can Maine self-determine its way into Canada, if Canada would take us? Seems to me there was a big war fought over that question 150+ years ago.
Even messier are situations where the current ethnic mix is the result of very recent immigration from a neighboring, (would-be) dominant power. Does South Ossetia qualify? What about Kirkuk? Lhasa? And if we were to recognize that recent immigration makes a difference, how recent is recent? 20 years? 50? 100? 300? (There goes the U.S. and Northern Ireland, never mind Israel….)
There’s nothing “self-evident” about it.
Since we’re citing the Independent, let’s:
Incidentally, “Tskhinvali has a population of 10,000”; calling it a “city” seems a bit grandiose.
Times:
I don’t see anyone to cheer in this mess, myself. Nobody.
There’s nothing “self-evident” about it.
Of course there is, it’s self evident that governments are a human invention and that they can only reasonably get their power if the people they govern allow it.
Yes there were wars fought about that 150 years ago, and 232 years ago, and in most of the years before, in between, and since.
Personally, I’ve never been a great fan of expanding NATO willy-nilly into Eastern Europe, and the idea of including Georgia has always been absurd. NATO did bring in some distateful regimes in the past (Spain, Portugal, Greece, Turkey), but given developments in those countries for a great many years NATO has come to be seen, like the EU, as a union of democracies more than cynical realpolitik. The Georgian regime is simply not nice, shocking as that is to think of that charming president who speaks American English. What he says in Georgian would not be out of place in 1990s Serbia or Croatia. They shoot their own protestors, let alone uppity ethnic minorities.
More fundamentally, I do believe that one reason why Russia is a defensive and belligerent country now is because for about sixteen years the US has seemed to take pride in rubbing the national Russian face in geopolitical doo-doo, often in blatant contradiction to any long-term rational cost-benefit analysis. I think the needless alienation of one of the world’s great powers, at a time when it was very willing and amenable to becoming a good multilateral citizen, is a much more profound and long-lasting strategic failure than the war in Iraq.
NATO has always existed as an alliance aimed at the USSR/Russia, and no one has come up with a better explanation for its purpose today. Anti-ballistic missile programs and all that – this stuff is a direct continuation of strategic negotiations of the 1970s-1980s. If you were Russia and had a clown like John McCain gibbering his kill-Ivan rantings at every opportunity and having a 50% chance of being the next president, wouldn’t you be a little concerned?
It all makes me miss the first President Bush a great deal, those halcyon days before the lunatics took over the Republican asylum.
In one strike the pilot missed the intended military base, instead hitting two apartment blocks.
Well at least now you are apparently accepting that the target was a military base instead of an apartment block, as the NY Times tried to imply yesterday. It’s pretty sad when the main US papers have the same level of propaganda as the Russian press.
Incidentally, “Tskhinvali has a population of 10,000”; calling it a “city” seems a bit grandiose.
Wikipedia says 30,000. Although maybe your source is more recent, perhaps updated over the weekend.
Waving his Kalashnikov rifle, and with rage and hatred in his eyes, he pointed to our Georgian driver and said, in a level voice: “He’s finished.”
What does the story say happened after that?
“From your comments, you would regard that as perfectly acceptable means of warfare and not the sort of thing for which the Russians could be held accountable, correct?”
It’s interesting that you apparently sincerely believe a number of folks will agree with that. If so, it speaks to the accuracy of your perceptions.
Generally speaking, “proportionate responses” are put forward as appropriate and reasonable; if you didn’t intend such, perhaps you might clarify.
Gary,
Richard Galpin of the BBC was the first foreign reporter on the scene. He said: “We saw the impact of the air strikes – buildings on fire. We could hear the Russian jets above us. In one strike the pilot missed the intended military base, instead hitting two apartment blocks.
Maybe I misunderstood your post, but Galpin is actually talking about Gori, not Tskhinvali. As for Tskhinvali, the same Times of London article pretty unambiguously supports the thesis that the Georgians leveled it in their initial assault:
“Yesterday it emerged that Tskhinvali, a quiet, small town, had been all but destroyed by the initial Georgian attack on Friday.
As a barrage of artillery fell on its outskirts, Georgian tanks moved into the centre, where they were met with fierce resistance from South Ossetian separatist rebels.
“Georgian snipers are taking down anything that moves, even outside the town’s hospital, which is making it hard to deliver the wounded. They are not sparing anyone,” claimed a South Ossetian government spokesman.”
“Georgia matters, and is willing to be a useful part of NATO.”
Georgia is also clearly led by extremely foolish people willing to spill a lot of blood on military adventures. Supporting such military adventurism, and a government willing to engage in it, would be almost as foolish.
Unless one’s goal is a modern recreation of WWI.
“Even messier are situations where the current ethnic mix is the result of very recent immigration from a neighboring, (would-be) dominant power.”
Or when people have been driven out of a given region.
Woodrow Wilson unleashed the P-box of “self-determination,” but the question of how granular to be about it has never been resolved.
Obviously the U.S. wasn’t big on self-determination in the mid-19th century, we might note.
Can the towns on Maine’s eastern border self-determine their way into being part of New Brunswick? Some of them might like to; or to be more precise, in some of them the majority of the residents might like to. Can Maine self-determine its way into Canada, if Canada would take us? Seems to me there was a big war fought over that question 150+ years ago.
The whole concept of ethno-nationalistic self determination is problematic in many areas of the world.
What is often forgotten is that the countries which today have stable national states (a relatively new constitutional form only a few hundred years old) have almost all of them reached this point via a considerable amount of what today we call ethnic cleansing.
A national state which is defined as serving the interests of a comparatively homogeneous ethnic, mono-linguistic and/or mono-sectarian polity usually goes through a serious of bloody purges of “the other”, civil wars, and/or wars with its neighbors before the necessary level of homogeneity is achieved for the state to have a stable identity and rectifiable boundaries. The national states of “Old Europe” almost all went thru this process at some point in the 17th thru 20th centuries.
The US is relatively rare as nation states go in defining citizenship based purely on ideological allegiance to a constitutional order rather than in terms of demographic characteristics which have been hammered out over the centuries in a manner which is very unpleasant. As a result, Americans are sometimes tone deaf with regard to the complexities of ethnic conflict and national self-determination in other parts of the world.
Which means that we can at times be less than helpful when we try to meddle in these sorts of problems. Just ask Woodrow Wilson.
Generally speaking, “proportionate responses” are put forward as appropriate and reasonable; if you didn’t intend such, perhaps you might clarify.
I, perhaps quite foolishly, am using the dictionary as a guide to what words mean. Proportionate means one of:
And I would argue that definition 2 is the relevant one. Would razing the main city of one country be of the same degree as razing the main city of another country? I believe it would, even if one of the cities was smaller. Perhaps you would argue that the Russians, if they desire a proportionate response, should find a smaller city in Georgia to burn to the ground?
Georgia is also clearly led by extremely foolish people willing to spill a lot of blood on military adventures.
So we agree on something.
“So we agree on something.”
Yes, it helps to ask what people think, rather than simply decide you know.
“I, perhaps quite foolishly, am using the dictionary as a guide to what words mean.”
Yes. It’s a classic error to use dictionary definitions of words in isolation, rather than than to look at the usage of phrases used in certain contexts.
“Proportionate responses” are what are put forth in diplomatic language as what’s an appropriate response.
The dictionary definition of “proportionate,” alone, isn’t what’s most relevant in determining the usage of the phrase as it’s used in the context of standard governmental diplomatic/military usage.
The point isn’t what’s literally a mirror response, the question is what would be an appropriately moral response, and I’d like to hope that we agree that the Georgian attack was wrong, and any Russian mirroring of it would be wrong.
I prefer to look for points of agreement, rather than disagreement, as a rule, myself.
For the record, I see a tremendous amount of fault at what the Georgian government has been doing, and at what the Russian government has been doing, as well. I see no good guys in this, but only killed and maimed innocents, suffering because of belligerent and criminal politicians. On both sides.
The dictionary definition of “proportionate,” alone, isn’t what’s most relevant in determining the usage of the phrase as it’s used in the context of standard governmental diplomatic/military usage.
I disagree with this. It smacks of newspeak.
If you wish to argue about what the appropriately moral response to the razing of a South Ossetian city is, well, let’s call it the appropriately moral response rather than the proportionate one, and we can argue about that. Otherwise, what phrase do you use for the response that is, in fact, proportionate?
I prefer to look for points of agreement, rather than disagreement, as a rule, myself.
I learn more from people I disagree with than from those that I agree with. When I agree with people, I’m usually silent, except when said agreement strikes me as unusual.
“I disagree with this.”
Disagree with common usage all you like. Have fun.
Disagree with the dictionary all you like, as well.
Instead of declaring cease-fire, Georgia continue firing South Osetia and gather troops near S.Osetia border. I’m just wondering if they will try again their trick with attacking Osetia and then declaring russian agression in Gori.
Considering war crime. I think facts of throwing grenades into basements with civil citizens, using of cluister weapons inside city is clear war crime as well as facts of tank running through old women with two children. It need to be cynical to claim that all this is not war crime but simple result of military actions in the city. It was just systematic genocide of Osetins.
p.s. sorry, read: Inspie of declaring cease-fire…
Yet more words from the Independent:
The Indy weighs in on the NATO issue:
The Independent 1, the NY Times 0.
Dear friends! We are watching the Great Lie from Internet! The reality is that Saakashvili FIRST bombed Tskhinvali on the Day of the Olympian Games! Georgian soldiers SHOT Russian Peace-making armies, peaceful population FIRST and only AFTER this Russia moved army to prevent further destruction. Remember Kosovo, and the US position in that case!
If you understand the reality, that means your have a free mind.
All the western media are not telling the whole true about this war and how it started. On august 7th Georgia declared that they are ready to give an autonomy to South Ossetia and the same night thay started to bomb the city of Tshinval. And they bombed it with the mass bombing, killing civil people in their homes. Isn’t it strange that BBC and CNN started to speak about this war only on august 9th???? I think it’s not strange. The plan was to take whole S. Ossetia within 24 hours (they found Georgian military papers with the detailed plan). And when this plan failed, BBC and CNN and Bush all said – Oh, Russia, you’re so big and strong. Don’t bomb this small poor country of Georgia.
You people can’t understand this. You are all brain washed by your shitty slutty media. All they say to you is a lie. They are treating you like sheep as you’re believing in everything they are showing you on TV, as of course they can’t lie on TV, don’t they? I bet half of the Americans were really afraid when they heard Georgia and Russians tanks in one sentence. Half of the Americans probably thought it was their Georgia)))) As half of them simply don’t know about some other Georgia.
This is all so funny. I’m readying BBC and Cnn sites and just can’t stop laughing as it’s such a lie. If you believe everything they are saying, you all deserve to be treated like sheep.
All the western media are not telling the whole true about this war and how it started. On august 7th Georgia declared that they are ready to give an autonomy to South Ossetia and the same night thay started to bomb the city of Tshinval. And they bombed it with the mass bombing, killing civil people in their homes. Isn’t it strange that BBC and CNN started to speak about this war only on august 9th???? I think it’s not strange. The plan was to take whole S. Ossetia within 24 hours (they found Georgian military papers with the detailed plan). And when this plan failed, BBC and CNN and Bush all said – Oh, Russia, you’re so big and strong. Don’t bomb this small poor country of Georgia.
You people can’t understand this. You are all brain washed by your shitty slutty media. All they say to you is a lie. They are treating you like sheep as you’re believing in everything they are showing you on TV, as of course they can’t lie on TV, don’t they? I bet half of the Americans were really afraid when they heard Georgia and Russians tanks in one sentence. Half of the Americans probably thought it was their Georgia)))) As half of them simply don’t know about some other Georgia.
This is all so funny. I’m readying BBC and Cnn sites and just can’t stop laughing as it’s such a lie. If you believe everything they are saying, you all deserve to be treated like sheep.
oh, by the way, did you noticed that the Saakashvilli put UE flag behind him, but Georgia isn’t part of Europ? And english language in the reference to his country? Georgians spoke georgian, not english… And just try not to get information in american press, try german. russian. In Osetia died about 2000 civilians. The were murdered by georgian soldiers. Russian just prevented the henocide of osetian people.
@now_what:
Waving his Kalashnikov rifle, and with rage and hatred in his eyes, he pointed to our Georgian driver and said, in a level voice: “He’s finished.”
What does the story say happened after that?
Since, upon following the link provided, I didn’t see anything therein that would make this sensible as a rhetorical question, did you just not see the link?
I disagree with this. It smacks of newspeak.
[…]
Disagree with the dictionary all you like, as well.
If I say that you’re not being a “cooperative listener”, by straight-up dictionary definitions of each word in isolation, I’m going to come up with something along the lines of “someone who is listening to me and is willing to assist me”… which isn’t really what the phrase would mean in a linguistics context (i.e., the context in which that particular phrase is most likely to arise). Likewise “proportionate response”. You can play semantic games by breaking up phrases that take on idiomatic meaning in technical contexts, but that doesn’t mean that the phrases actually disappear, or were intended to by their utterers… and a cooperative listener wouldn’t assume otherwise.
Since, upon following the link provided, I didn’t see anything therein that would make this sensible as a rhetorical question, did you just not see the link?
I saw the link. The provider of the link was aiming for maximum effect. The Georgian driver was released back into the wild. No harm was done, other than the psychological harm of having a gun pointed at your head. I’d guess that’s less than the psychological harm of having your city burned to the ground, but I’m not an expert. The provider of the link chose not to include that fact, for some reason. My question was related to that. I have my guesses as to the reason, but I will be nice and charitable.
As for the rest of your post, it is utterly incomprehensible. Perhaps my English is not as good as it could be.
This is the part of the real report on US channel. I can’t stop laughing. How people can you be serious when they are selling you such a shit in your face???
“Tom, the situation here in Georgia is unbearable. We are reporting thousands of deaths and that there are Russian tanks everywhere”
“But have you seen the tanks?”
“No Tom, we’re just reporting it.”
(I am Russian living in US. I am not a Russian troll as some suggested about pro Russia commenters… if you only have enough brain to comment bad English try not to comment at all… or maybe you can try comment in Russian?)
Russia is doing what it should.
The news are greatly distorted here… Everyone believed what all the US news channels were saying before the Iraq war, and now what? Now you got it – there was no weapons of mass destruction, no active nuclear weapons program, no grave danger that Iraq posed at the time, no connection to Al-Qaeda. The rest of the civilized World new that, possibly even US government new that but they had an agenda and needed public support – so you all got brain washed as always… but of course, no, how is this possible? Brain washed in US, the country with democracy and free press? Yes, that’s right – get used to this notion and act accordingly – do not expect that everything you hear or see on TV is true! At least Russian citizens over the time with all the regime changes got used to the fact that government cannot be always trusted and they learned to look for information elsewhere, not only main stream media. US citizens on the other hand still cannot accept the idea that they can be purposely lied to by their government and that the free press is not all that free here in US. Learn to ask questions, look through some history books, or at least try to browse internet a little bit more.
Russia for centuries served as a guarantor of stability in that region, naturally, because the region is in its back yard. Georgia asked for Russia’s help in 18th century (I did a quick search and here is the first link that came up: http://www.advantour.com/georgia/history/collapse.htm). Help was provided and Georgia together with Ossetia was annexed to Russian Empire, enjoying its protection. In 19th century under USSR rule the borders for different republics were pretty much drown and South Ossetia became part of Georgian SSR. Russia built plants and infrastructure in the region. With collapse of USSR Georgia decided it wanted to become a separate country. At that point of time South Ossetia and Abkhazia should have been given the same right as Georgia had – stay with Georgia, become separate countries or stay with Russia. People living in these “separatists” (as you unfairly call them) enclaves have nothing in common with Georgians and voted to separate from Georgia. The conflict sparked as Georgia did not want to let them go and Russia had to interfere and place peace keeping forces consisting of Georgia, South Ossetia and Russia troops…. Just read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_South_Ossetia#History
Russia had to go in and protect its peace keeping forces and its citizens (80-90% of the population of these breakaway regions are Russian citizens or those that want to be part of Russia – no, they do not have to just leave or assimilate, like I’ve heard a lot of brain washed Americans suggest – its their land, why do they have to leave?
Now, Russia’s operation went beyond South Ossetia that they are protecting from another genocide, though about 2000 people killed by heavy fire inflicted by Georgian troops over night is already enough to be called genocide. Remember Israel starting the war with Lebanon because two of its soldiers got abducted on the border? War lasted for months and yet US refused to condemn Israel’s actions. How come? They were given a chance to shell the whole country for months making sure they drive the point across (even though Lebanon was not the one to attack, at least it was not government supported attack and abduction, unlike in case with Georgia where its president ordered to fire at the capital of South Ossetia at night). Israel had a chance and Russia needs it too now to drive down the military force of Georgia so that there are no future attempts like that, at least in the near future. So tell me why Israel can and Russia can’t?
Now, tell me why Kosovo can declare independence and get recognition from US and several other European countries and South Ossetia can’t?
Well, I will tell you. Because Israel is a US ally, so they can do whatever they want. Kosovo backed by US, since Serbia was traditionally backed by Russia. Automatically Kosovo is a US ally. Georgia is a US ally, so automatically South Ossetia is a “breakaway region with blood thirsty pro Russia separatists”. Very simple, you see. If Hitler had something to offer to US that would be of interest to US he could probably become your ally too! Oh, while I am at it – Nazi movements are becoming overly popular in former Baltic republics of USSR: Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. The freedom loving countries that you supported and support so much and that on the other hand anger Russia. You know that in these countries a Russian WWII veteran can get arrested for wearing his or her Soviet medals earned for fighting Nazi? Just think about it and project the situation to your own WWII veterans.
Back to Georgia. Why US cares? Why Georgia? Because there is an oil pipe that goes through it and it is the only one in the region that does not go through Russia or Iran, and it is a great strategic place to position there another NATO base. US does not care about democracy in Georgia, or its freedoms (by the way Saakashvili eliminated all of his opponents in Georgia and drove the country into poverty while being busy with his Hitler-like ambitions). All US cares about is control of that oil and having NATO base in there… by the way, it is exactly the same as if your “friend” Hugo Chaves asked for a Russian base in Venezuela and Russia agreed, and in addition would bring Gazprom to drill for oil there. I am sure you would have just nuked the whole Venezuela before letting this happen and sure would not have cared about women and children who would have to die as a result. US only cares when it is in its interest to care. I am not talking about ordinary people, who are simply brain washed; I am talking about US unofficial policy.
By the way, do you know how come Georgia was spending only $30M on its military and now spending one billion dollars? Its your dollars! Saakashvili was pretty much sponsored and raised by US like a baby with his Nazi-like regime. But US only cares for this man for as long as he is useful… Remember Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda – US trained them and worked closely with them… they did not become terrorists after they turned against US. No. They were always terrorists and US sponsored them until they broke loose and needed to be annihilated.
In any case, too long of a post for you to read. If you want to scream out something like “Stop Russia”, or “I am with Georgia 100%” or some other bull like that first use your brain if you have it and think about what is actually going on. And Russia is not targeting civilians like lunatic Saakashvili suggests. There is no reason for Russia to do that. They target military airports, facilities, plants. Yes, civilian casualties will be there like in any war, but Russia only cares to take down the Georgian’s military forces. On the other hand Georgia is the one that targets South Ossetia civilians, continuing the genocide and acting like terrorists. After all if they can finish South Ossetia population off (just about 70,000 of them) there would no longer be anybody in the region to want to separate and then Georgia can jump into open hands of US and NATO, since it would not longer have any territorial issues that prevented it from joining NATO this last summit.
It is very sad when I see people blaming Russia for what is going on there now.
As for the rest of your post, it is utterly incomprehensible. Perhaps my English is not as good as it could be.
The point of the rest of the comment is fairly clear, but obfuscated by my analogy. To re-iterate and clarify, speakers in a conversation assume that phrases retain their meaning (i.e., a phrase means what the phrase means, and not what each word in the phrase alone means). That is what is assumed by default; it is not “Newspeak”. If the component words taken individually mean something other than the phrase, it is assumed that the meaning is that of the phrase, and not the words. This is how language works. To parse phrases down into individual words, absent some specific cue to do so, is playing a semantic game. If the words in the phrase could have a meaning as individual words, but would have a different phrasal in the particular context in which they are uttered, the default assumption is that they take on the phrasal meaning. They can take on a different meaning, but this is not to be assumed, and would need some cues to suggest it is happening; it is exceedingly unreasonable to insist that the words must be taken as individuals when they have a phrasal meaning in the context, and there is no cue given suggesting that this meaning is not intended. Language does not work like that.
Hence, your insistence that “proportionate response” means in this context “a response that is proportionate” rather than “proportionate response” is unwarranted.
Prorussia:
I am Russian living in US. I am not a Russian troll as some suggested about pro Russia commenters…
[…]
Brain washed in US, the country with democracy and free press? Yes, that’s right – get used to this notion and act accordingly – do not expect that everything you hear or see on TV is true!
…but you are a Russian troll, regardless of where you now reside. You’re lazily throwing a one-size-fits-all response at this blog. I dare say the regular readership here is in little danger of uncritically accepting American media, nor would they get the vapors at the suggestion that American media has a nationalist bias.
Hmm, perhaps troll isn’t the right word, as I’ve no way of knowing if you’re sticking around to engage anyone who rises to your bait. Would the title of “Russian spammer” more appealing to you?
I would be very interested to know what sort of signals the U.S. sent to the Georgian government before they moved on South Ossetia.
I think this is pretty plausible:
Mr Saakashvilli may also have banked on support from his closest ally, US president George W Bush, whose administration is said to have given tacit support for a Georgian assault on South Ossetia in the believe that the territory could be recaptured within 48 hours.
Nombrilisme Vide, Troll seems to be more appropriate to you rather then to him due to simple reason – he provides arguments against which you give nothing except your incomprehensible offence. I understand your offence since you have really NOTHING to respond on facts because you cannot see behind american mass-media (mean corporate) view.
About that “proportionate response” business: parts of the cold war nuclear deterrence strategy, especially Mutually Assured Destruction and Second Strike Capability, was based on a concept of proportional response that used the word in the narrow dictionary sense.
Please follow this link. Jewish Georgian minister: Thanks to Israeli training, we’re fending off Russia
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1010187.html
“We killed 60 Russian soldiers just yesterday,” said Yakobashvili. “The Russians have lost more than 50 tanks, and we have shot down 11 of their planes. They have enormous damage in terms of manpower,”
This is all lie. Russia has 15 soldiers dead. No russian tanks were destroyed. The only thing I can’t understand is how dare they be proud of killing people????? Even Russian propoganda can’t do this – we proudly say we killed 60 people just yerterday. This is fashism. This is more then fashism. You all are sheep. You all are brain washed. Fuck you all.
Marat:
Please to be showing where I give any indication that I’m beholden to corporate Yank media’s viewpoint, m’kay? If you go back and re-read what I wrote, do please note the underlying implication that I do not accept the American media as being a particularly fine source of information. Most of the discussion I’ve seen on ObWi has been fairly even-handed, which is I suppose what the influx of pro-Russian folks are so incensed by. Prorussia’s 1300 word comment spends over a third of its length in broad, content-free decrying of Yankee ignorance. Content-free. We get the idea, the American media is doing a typically disgraceful job of covering foreign affairs. What else is new? Its bias is favorable to the US regieme’s viewpoint. Again, what else is new?
Prorussia added nothing to the thread but 1300 words of banal accusations of ignorance and overly emotional nationalist rhetoric. I fail to see what lies therein to separate them from the less coherent Russophiles upthread which they berate for incoherence, and likewise why their comment ought to be viewed as other than a verbose scripted addition to the Russian cyber-charm-offensive (to phrase things fairly euphemistically).
Ms. Justice, et al: the posting rules forbid profanity. Please respect them.
Also, please note that the commenters here are not a homogenous group. Accusing all of them (us) of being brainwashed, as if we all had one opinion, is not, in my opinion, a good way to get listened to.
Neither, in my view, are accusations of troll-hood.
Because Israel is a US ally, so they can do whatever they want. Kosovo backed by US, since Serbia was traditionally backed by Russia. Automatically Kosovo is a US ally. Georgia is a US ally, so automatically South Ossetia is a “breakaway region with blood thirsty pro Russia separatists”
This is about right. It’s pretty hard to come up with a consistent criteria by which Kosovo is allowed to break away from Serbia but South Ossetia is not allowed to break away from Georgia and by which Israel is allowed to retaliate massively against civilians for the deaths of a couple soldiers but Russia is not allowed to retaliate with targeted military strikes for the wholesale destruction of a town.
Hence, your insistence that “proportionate response” means in this context “a response that is proportionate” rather than “proportionate response” is unwarranted.
I’m still waiting on some guidance in what term to use for a military response that is proportionate if “proportionate response” has been hijacked to mean “morally appropriate response”. I would prefer that if someone wanted to talk about a response that was morally appropriate, they use the phrase “morally appropriate response” and if they want to talk about a response that was proportionate they use the phrase “proportionate response”. Maybe that’s just me.
And finally, I’m going to take one more opportunity to state how deplorable the US press coverage of all this is. The NY Times, after its lies about Russian attacks on civilian targets on Saturday comes out on Sunday with a piece claiming that Russian ground forces had moved into Georgian territory and were attacking Gori. A complete lie. The NY Times is doing its best to get a wider war started. Bigger liars than the Russian press, and that’s saying something.
Meh. For one thing, I don’t buy the need to distinguish Israel’s response from Russia’s, having condemned both. As to Kosovo: the relevant distinction seems to me to be: when you initiate genocide against the inhabitants of a province, they get to secede.
I’m normally as quick to criticize the US media as the next American, but I have to say that in the case of the Russian/Georgian war, some of the “MSM” coverage really IS as bad as the “pro-Russian” commenters have remarked: I was shocked to read the New York Times coverage in this morning’s (8/11) paper: the “anti-Russian”/”pro-Georgian” slant is unmistakable. Whether because of residual Cold War Russophobia or because “someone” has decided on the “correct” line, or whatever: any culpability of the Georgians in regards to this conflict is definitely, IMO, getting downplayed. By the NYT, anyway.
Some of the bias, I think, may be revealed by their other front-pager on Georgia . Whether or not the US made any “promises” or “guarantees” to the Georgian government prior to last weeks moves against South Ossetia, a lot of Georgians seem to think so:
I’m still waiting on some guidance in what term to use for a military response that is proportionate if “proportionate response” has been hijacked to mean “morally appropriate response”.
“Tit-for-tat”?
The NY Times, after its lies about Russian attacks on civilian targets on Saturday comes out on Sunday with a piece claiming that Russian ground forces had moved into Georgian territory and were attacking Gori
Yeah, I must say the NY Times piece about Russian forces moving on Gori was pathetic. That was even how they titled the story, without a shred of evidence other than “according to Georgian officials”. That’s just shocking journalism, as it’s clear already the Georgian government’s statements have been hysterical for days, and if the Russians do make such a move it would be hugely important, something worth checking your facts on.
Yeah — when I first read the NYT piece, I thought: oh hell, they really have crossed the red line. Then I noticed the “according to Georgian officials” part, went looking for any other source to confirm that Russian troops were anywhere other than Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and came up empty.
If they’re right, good on them for getting it early. If they’re wrong, it’s a big, big mistake.
The U.S. is not going to go to war with Russia over Georgia. Nato is not going to go to war with Russia over Georgia.
Putin and the Russian government are not nice but they are realists. They seem to know what they want, what they can and cannot do. Bush and the US government, on the other hand, aren’t nice, aren’t competent, are in fact naive and stupid. They and all the neocons and everyone else here swaggering around boasting about being the only remaining superpower, dreaming of empire, have got everything wrong. A big part of the reason for the Iraq war was the conviction among these clowns that stomping on Iraq would so intimidate the rest of the world– up to and including Russia and China— that no one would dare challenge us in any significant way. That’s worked out really well, hasn’t it? Who could have predicted that defeating a 4th rate power and then getting bogged down in that country for years wouldn’t have struck fear into the heart of every conceivable adversary? Too bad for the Georgians that their leader thought the Russians were as impressed with Bush’s posturing as he was. The ‘Mayberry Machiavellis’of the Bush Administration have done plenty of damage, but nothing compared to the blood and tears caused by the administations’s Mayberry Bismarcks.
Fig: “I can’t help but think of the thousands of civilians who are dying in the warring regions. I really can’t think of the horrors of their situation and helplessness some of them may be in this crap-fest.”
Click on the link that Nell provided Aug. 10, 4:50 p.m.
If seeing this bloodied old woman writhe on the ground in untold pain doesn’t grab your gut, nothing will.
One thing about this conflict: It has shown us who’s in charge of Russia — President For Life Vladimir Putin.
And whatever happened to the quaint notion of a cease-fire during the Olympics? Instead, Putin saw this as the right time to invade another country; curious.
As I expected soon after signing up cease-fire agreement. Mr. Saakashvilli started to bomb Tzhinvalli again. All his lying policy in this. Soon, i believe, he will declare that russian troops continu agression on Georgia instead of his attempts to establish peace. It seems the only to stop this is to remove silly idiots from Georgian authority.
I beleive it was big mistake from russian side to stop troops on osetian border and give goergian army to regroup. That is sad but i assume this night we will receive bad news from Osetia again.
Neither, in my view, are accusations of troll-hood.
My apologies; the moral of this story being that if one should very much be asleep instead of reading blogs, one oughtn’t compound one’s error by posting comments as well…
(This explains but does not excuse, etc.)
All the week, before Friday, Ossetians were made artillery attacks and assault tries on Georgians positions. Many of those attacks are confirmed by independent observers from OSCE.
Georgian government was continuously asking for mediation, but with no success.
Finally, at Friday early morning, Georgian troops moved forward and went into regional capital Tskhinvali, but more important, captured defensive positions on the heights at west and northwest of it. At that time, before Georgians went ahead, about 150 armed vehicles of different types already crossed Georgian border from Russia. Those positions are why Russian army was not able to invade deep inside Georgia immediately.
It’s not really correct to say that Saakashvili get on provocation. He has no other choice then between bad and worst.
The WH spokesperson said: “we are concerned about the civilian casualties in region, especially in Georgiya” – this is the sickiest thing I’ve heard…Are civilians in Ossetia, killed by georgians don’t count??? Are they “undermenchen” compare to georgians, are their lifes less precious??? Why US government is being so selective?
Dear Leo,
1) there is no such situation which can justify mass death of civil citizens, throwing through old women and chuildren on tanks. Did Russian or Osetin make such things with Georgians?;
2) from your story created by Mr Saakashvilli’s script writer, you citied, removed some significant aspects. such as: a) “independent” observers fixed much less attacks from georgian side then from osetin; b) it is idiotic to assume that army with 2500 soldiers tried to attack army of 30K+ soldiers much better occupied; c) 2 hours before war started goergian soldiers in peace keeping groups left their posts;
d) saying this you agreed that its Georgia who begun war, it is important claim as many told about russian agression here; e) such massive agression as Georgia made cannot be started without signficant preparation. hence, all this time georgian president just lie about his intentions.
In order to understand whose intention was this war i suggest you to look who spent “inappropriate” amount of many and resources last year to prepare troops. This is obvious that agression was started and continue by Georgia and it was carefully planned by american advisers. And this is just very cynical to say that he had no other choice then kill thousand of civil citizens.
finally, your explanation of why russian troops was not able to move in georgia doesnt make sense for me. I assume that russian troops doesnt know whether they need or not to continue actions. i would say that would prefer to stop Osetin border but as Georgian forces continue his attacks, i cannot exclude they will be forced to move ahead to protect themselves. Of oucrse, it will be presented as russian agression and “disproportionate” reaction.
You have to give the Nobel prize to the State Dept guy who invented the phrase “Disproportional reaction”. Israeli have been always blamed for “disproportional reaction” to the jihadists’ terrorist attacks…What is the proportinal reaction then? Should Russia send same number of tanks and troops?
I wanna add just a few words, as it has been said a lot.
The new Russian presidential administration carried out the only reasonable, firm actions. These actions are registered in several international pacts and agreements and are of no doubt. Sure media sources engaged in the PR-war defy these legitimate facts, appealing to the non-confirmed fabricated facts, that are being spread.
Please, be sure, Russian government, diplomatic agencies are competent enough to parry all such propaganda strikes.
The Grohzny and Chechen conflicts were mentioned in the comments. I state it with certainty, chechen common residents have been supporting and now as well completely support all russsian attempts of antiseparatizm in the region. This is supported by a lot of surveys and polls.
Thanks, and sorry for some linguistic mistakes.