Caucasian Games: The Score
A week after Georgia’s failed attempt to conquer the breakaway province of South Ossetia, the crisis is over. The only major issue still unresolved concerns Mikheil Saakashvili’s motivation. His order to attack on the night of August 7-8 was a breathtakingly risky move; but was it a calculated, or reckless gamble? That Saakashvili acted with the tacit approval (if not active encouragement) of the United States is reasonable to assume, considering the presence of over a hundred U.S. military advisors in Georgia. Actively involved at all levels of planning, training and equipping the Georgian army, they could not have not known what was coming. Had the Bush administration wanted to stop Saakashvili it could have done so.
It did not do so, however, because the foreign policy strategists in Washington—Russophobic to boot—assumed that they had a win-win situation:
- Had Georgian troops occupied Southern Ossetia in a Blitzkrieg operation modelled after Croatia’s “Operation Storm” that expelled a quarter-million Krajina Serbs in August 1995, while the Russians remained hesitant or ineffective, Moscow would have suffered a major strategic and (more importantly) psychological defeat after almost four years of sustained strategic recovery following the “Orange Revolution” in Ukraine in 2004.
- On the other hand, if Russia were to intervene the mainstream media machine would duly react with a campaign of demonization unseen since at least August 1968 (Prague), if not August 1961 (Berlin Wall). The U.S. would block Russia’s entry into the WTO, try to suspend her G-8 membership, and retroactively justify the deployment of missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic. “Old” Europeans, above all Germans, would be forced to abandon their détente with Moscow. Last but not least, a bloodied, resentful Georgia would become chronically anti-Russian, regardless of Saakashvili’s personal fortunes, thus ensuring long-term “Western” (i.e. American) presence in the region.
In the event the plan did not work:
- The Georgian army performed so poorly in the field that a military fait accompli on Day One was out of the question. It could not even secure the Ossetian capital, Tskhinvali, which lay virtually undefended within miles of the Georgian border.
- It promptly committed atrocities that made the innocent-victim-of-aggression narrative somewhat difficult to construct even for the likes of The Post or CNN.
- The Russian response came swiftly, indicating that the new tandem Medvedev-Putting acts in unison when setting political objectives and functions smoothly in achieving them.
- The military action was executed competently and achieved all its objectives within 48 hours, in sharp contrast with the protracted and bloodly stalemate in Chechnya a decade ago, let alone the Afghan quagmire in the 1980s.
- Moscow stopped short of taking the whole of Georgia and effecting a regime change in Tbilisi, while demonstrating its ability to do so—thus creating room for third-party diplomatic initiatives based on Russia’s position of overwhelming strength.
- The Europeans went out of their way to keep their dialogue with Moscow open, brokering a ceasefire pleasing to Moscow (Sarkozy) and maintaining the schedule of previously announced top-level contacts (Merkel).
- NATO’s expansion eastwards is now finally over: no major European member of the alliance, with the possible exception of the ever-pliant Britain, accepts Bush’s argument that vital Western interests are at stake in whose flag flies over Tskhinvali.
- Kosovo did establish a precedent, after all, the one that Mosow will exploit to its advantage while making Washington sound hypocritical when invoking “international law” and the respect for territorial integrity of states.
- Stretched to the limit in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States responded with Miss Rice’s forgettable platitudes in Tbilisi, thus implicitly admitting Washington’s inability to intervene along the Russian periphery.
Back to Saakashvili. If he acted in the hope of a decisive political and even military American response to Russia’s predictable reaction, he is naive. If he willingly accepted the role of collateral damage in the scenario of discrediting Russia, he is stupid. And if he thought that he could do a Tudjman with impunity, he is insane.
The events in the Caucasus clearly indicate to small and weak countries that it is self-defeating to trust a distant mentor in Washington whose verbal commitments greatly exceede available resources. The outcome is a blessing in disguise for those of us who believe that America should not be “engaged” in each nook and cranny around the world, and who advocate a sane, give-and-take relationship with Moscow based on the acceptance that Russia has legitimate interests in her near-abroad.
I shall revisit these themes in detail next week, when I return home from the annual Grand European Tour.
81 Responses »
Trackbacks
- Beska droppar » Ryssland, Georgien och Sydossetien
- Saakashvili’s Fatal Gamble « Typicon Man’s blog
- New World Order: Bosnia, Kosovo, Georgia [Part 2] « What Do You Believe?
- Conservative Heritage Times » Some articles for your consideration….
- Russian Weakness Exposed
Entries(RSS)
Andrei,
"Yugoslavia/Serbia...borders several NATO members."
Was Serbia a threat to Romania?
"I do not think that violating another nation’s sovereign territory becomes more acceptable depending on the geographic distance of the violator."
It's not about distance. It's about history.
The Falklands are British.
Afghanistan effectively attacked the US, so German troops are in Afghanistan because they're both NATO members.
Kosovo had NOTHING to do with NATO.
Georgia's attack on South Ossetia and the Russian peacekeepers there was an attack on Russia. Georgia is not an ally of NATO. Georgia was rejected by NATO. On the other hand, the US has been determined to get Georgia into NATO, which is openly antagonistic towards Russia, so if the Georgians are stupid enough to give the Russians a reason to take action both to retaliate against Georgia and also to make the Georgia even less attractive to sensible NATO members, then who's fault is that?
"While legally Ossetia has no bearing on Kosovo (or vice versa) Russia has often linked the two together. The fact that Moscow seems to be now be pursuing a policy of actively supporting Ossetia’s and Abkhasia’s separation from Georgia seems to clearly indicate that Kosovo has been written off as a lost cause by Serbia’s principal backer."
No. Russia can easily recognize A&SO w/o it affecting Russia's position on Kosovo.
"Russia followed NATO’s precedent and then grabbed territory for itself."
Is everything in your mind equivalent to everything else?
How is NATO making Kosovo of all places a protectorate in any way the equivalent of Russia's actions in territories that it has 200 years of interaction and joint citizenship and family ties with?
The only NATO member with a history in Kosovo is Turkey.
Is that US policy now? To re-establish Ottoman sovereignty in the Balkans?
Further to:
"The fact that Moscow seems to be now be pursuing a policy of actively supporting Ossetia’s and Abkhasia’s separation from Georgia seems to clearly indicate that Kosovo has been written off as a lost cause"
Actually, I don't see any reason now for Russia to "recognize A & SO. They might do so, but actually they have less reason to now than before. Russia's main goal was to detach them from Georgia. Now that has been accomplished, all Russia needs to do is establish permanent bases there. The longer they are de facto separate, the less anyone will care about Georgia's claims.
The US is obsessed with Kosovo being "recognized" because, as Solzhenytsin said in 1978, the US is dangerously legalistic in it's thinking. The Russians couldn't care about the status of A or SO, as long as Russia has actual power there.
Also, the Russians don't really encourage separatism, because they want to preserve Russia's territorial integrity.
"... the US is dangerously legalistic in it’s thinking."
****
Depends.
UNSCR 1244 contradicts the way the US government pushed Kosovo's independence.
For good reason, some see the Western dominated (include the US) ICTY as a mockery of the belief in law.
Akira,
I in no way defend the NATO invasion of Yugoslavia. I merely pointed out that it is inconsistant to, on the one hand, oppose that invasion while supporting the invasion of Georgia or on the other hand support Kosovo's detachment from Serbia while opposing SO's detachment from Georgia. If 70,000 Ossetians living on ancient Georgian territory in the middle of Georgia have the right to secede, why not 1 million Albanains on ancient Serb territory?
In my opinion, both Serbia and Georgia have the right to defend their territories and to keep their territories intact. Georgia offered autonomy to South Ossetia (as did Serbia to Kosovo), but after years of stalled negotiations, Georgia took matters into its own hands. Whether or not it is in America's interests to get invovled is an entirely different matter than whether or not Georgia or Russia had the right to do what they did.
The Kosovo-South Ossetia parallels grow. It turn out, for example, that the reports of civilian casualties were vastly exagerated in South Osssetia as they were in Kosovo. And roving criminal bands of Ossetians are now terrorizing the Georgians of South Osssetia (they once made up 30% of that region, as compares to a Serb population in Kosovo of 10%) in much the same way as Albanians had been doing to Serbs.
Michael,
Re:
Me: “… the US is dangerously legalistic in it’s thinking.”
You: "UNSCR 1244 contradicts the way the US government pushed Kosovo’s independence."
Yes, but the US need to push other nations to recognize "Kosovo" shows their fear of being viewed as acting outside "the law".
Legalism doesn't mean The Rule of Law. It means an obsession with having the cover of law.
I hope you have time to read Solzhenytsin's complete speech in order to apprecite his argument:
http://brianakira.wordpress.com/2008/08/05/aleksandr-isayevich-solzhenitsyn-rest-in-peace/
Andrei,
You write, "Whether or not it is in America’s interests to get invovled is an entirely different matter"
But that is my main concern.
The US has an interest in what happens in Mexico or Canada. They have some interest in their allies borders too.
Russia and Georgia both have interests in SO & A.
But what the hell did Bosnia and Kosovo have to do with the US?!
[I'm shouting at the universe, not you]
And this is why Georgia should NOT be in NATO; because then the Georgian-Russian border will be the US's concern too. [That's already the case in Poland, Lithuania etc, but I can't imagine the Estonians attacking Russians like Loonie Saakashvili did.]
@58Andrei Vidal
If Greece bombed Northern Cyprus, shelling its capital would the Turkish military have a right to respond?
Serbia went on the defence against KLA attacks it was the Albanians who attacks Serb outposts and civilians just as Georgia did.
Georgian troops levelled the capital to get the Ossetians to flee it was obviously going to spark a response from Russia.
It was Human Rights Watch that gave a low estimate which is affiliated with Carnegie Endowment but international Red Cross said different.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13304
"roving criminal bands of Ossetians are now terrorizing the Georgians of South Osssetia"
I doubt this is true like reports that Gori is in ruins or markets were bombed by low flying jets.
"Serb population in Kosovo of 10%"
It is 10% now it wasn't always 10%. At one time they were the majority but due to a gradually ethnic cleansing campaign especially the pre planned pogrom against the Serbs in Kosovo in 2004.
To Akira and James,
I agree with you Akira that it would probably be unwise for America to link itself with Georgia. But there's a difference between saying that doing so would be unpragmatic, "none of our business" , and so on - and stating that Russia is right in this case and Georgia wrong.
To James, I'm not familiar enough with the case of Cyprus to comment on your analogy. However, if Serbia chose to shell Kosovo and its NATO invader/peacekeepers in order to try to regain it, I would consider it completely justified in doing so (the stupidy of such a suicidal act is a much different matter). I do not trust Raimondo's view, which seems to be based exclusively on Ossetian testimony, because I recall that Albanian eyewitness accounts led to estimates of 100,000 Albanians dead in Kosovo (the actual confirmed number was in the single digit thousands).
As for the Serb population in Kosovo, it was 10% prior to the NATO-sponsored Albanian takeover. After the subsequent Albanian ethnic cleansing of Serbs, it is currently down to 5% or so. The Serb proprotion of the population had been diminishing for decades, due to Albanian immigration and high birth rates.
Thanks to Russia's invasion, the ancient Georgian territory of South Ossetia will probably also see a decrease of its formerly 30% Georgian population.
"The Serb proprotion of the population had been diminishing for decades, due to Albanian immigration and high birth rates."
***
And ethnic cleansing campaigns against Serbs.
@62Andrei Vidal
The majority of Kosovo’s ethnic Albanian populations are not indigenous to the Kosovo region there mostly due to illegal immigration from Albania during the 90’s.
Ossetians have always been indigenous to the region.
I don’t see how you can compare the actions of the KLA Islamic mafia to the Ossetians.
Russian peacekeepers were part of an international brokered peacekeeping force agreed by Georgia and Russia.
At the time of the assault were Georgia and Russia were brokering a ceasefire agreement.
The two regions initially didn't go for independence it's when there autonomous status was cancelled by the Georgian leader then sent in troops to gain control of the regions in 92.
After the ensuing war they then voted for independence.
Georgian population isn’t being ethnically cleansed by Ossetians in fact it’s the exact opposite Georgian troops tried to ethnically cleanse the Ossetian population in this latest assault.
Russia wants to create a buffer zone so Georgian forces don’t attack the regions again which they have repeatedly done for over a decade.
Nothing to do with occupying Georgia or trying to control its oil pipeline.
Justin quoted the International Red Cross an independent aid group not affiliated with Russia or Ossetia.
Though there is similarity between Kosovo and South Ossetia, it is only a surface similarity and not too much should be made of it. It is simply stupid and dishonest to accuse people of hypocrisy if they oppose Kosovo and support South Ossetia, or vice versa. The two situations and histories are quite different and unique, and thus opposite conclusions may be quite appropriate.
Even so, it sure seems hypocritical of the U.S. to claim that Kosovo has the right to secede but South Ossetia does not. U.S. government hypocrisy regarding secession, usually 'justified' with lies and whitewashing, is long standing, however, and therefore no attention should be paid to any U.S. government blathering on that issue.
One thing some people seem to be missing is that both in regard to the Kosovo land grab and the Georgian attack on South Ossetia, there was a thinly vieled, nefarious U.S. operation making it happen. Take the U.S. out of the picture, and both situations would be far less violent and destructive than they have been.
The focus here should be on the nefarious schemes of the U.S., causing trouble where it is not only completely unnecessary, but insane to do so.
In response to Michael Averko #63:
“The Serb proprotion of the population had been diminishing for decades, due to Albanian immigration and high birth rates.”
***
And ethnic cleansing campaigns against Serbs.
Yes, this is what reduced the Serb population from 10% prior to the recent war to 5%. Now the Osssetians are doing the same to the native Georgian inhabitants.
In response to james #64 and Allen Wilson #65.
James, if you read the history of Kosovo you will see that Albanians became the largest ethnic group in that ancient Serb land by the end of the nineteenth century (in one estimate, 48% Albanian verus 44% Serb in 1899). According to the Yugoslav census of 1921, by that time Albanian-speakers were 65% and Serb-speakers 26% of Kosovo's population. Albanians sided with the Nazis during Word War II, resulting in a further boost in their percentage due to the slaughter of many Serbs there during that time. By 1981, Albania was 77% Albanians, 13% Serb.
Ossetians have not "always" been indigenous to Georgia. An Iranic people originally from the steppes of southern Russia and Ukraine (look up "Sarmatians" sometime), they were given shelter in and settled within Georgia in the Middle Ages. By the 21st century made up 70% of the population of the region they inhabit. Georgians are indigenous to the Caucuses region (indeed, like the Basques, among the most ancient peoples in Europe), not Ossetians.
Yes, the KLA are more brutal than Ossetians. The Ossetian leadership is infamous for smuggling goods and black-marketeering rather than terrorism, heroin, and sex slavery as in the case of the KLA. The KLA are worse. But their cause is no more nor less legitimate from the standpoint of territorial integrity and respect for the continuation of traditional lands. And both are ethnically cleansing the natives. South Ossetia's leader has already stated that the Georgians will not be able to come back to their homes.
Mr. Wilson, I suggest you be more civil in your comments.
Mr Vidal, I myself have been insulted, misrepresented, and accused of hypocrisy by others in regard to this issue, and in any case my post was not directed at you or any one else in particular and no incivility was intended. It was aimed more at the combative and boisterous nature of many of the posts made by some, who appear to be more partisan on the issue than they are willing to admit. As for your suggestion that I be more 'civil' in my comments, I have noticed that your own posts can have a quite aggressive tone from time to time, so I suggest you take your own advice.
@66Andrei Vidal
The Georgians are the ones who attacked under a ceasefires agreement with a massive bombardment of the capital to get the Ossetian population to flee.
It's the Georgians who are engaged in a policy of ethnic cleansing of the native South Ossetian population.
Georgians over the years have repeatedly tried to enter the regions despite the internationally recognised peacekeeping force.
Andrei Vidal,
are you saying that the Ossetians also have a high birth rate amongst their population? And do you also know whether the Orthodox Church of both respective states can help heal the wounds of history? I'd personally like for there to be some sort of reintegration, as I realise the issue is rather complex, but if there's anything i'm sure of it is that Saakashvilli has to be ousted, because he is so obviously a warmongering neocon puppet, and that can't be a good thing for anyone..
Mr. Wilson, in post # 65 you wrote that "It is simply stupid and dishonest to accuse people of hypocrisy if they oppose Kosovo and support South Ossetia, or vice versa.", which is rather rude. However upon reflection I concede that hypcritical was too strong a word on my part because it implies conscious double-standards or dishonesy, which is not what I intended to convey. Self-contradictory is a better term which I should have used.
I outlined the reasons for the self-contradiction of opposing Kosovo but supporting South Ossetia and appreciate a civil dialogue. Other than my use of the word "hypocrisy", however, what has been "aggressive" in my tone?
In response to James,
While it is undeniable that Georgia attacked (perhaps after having been provoked - this part is questionable) there is no evidence other than Russian claims (which should be taken with a grain of salt) that the Georgians targeted civilian areas and engaged in ethnic cleansing. On the other hand, South Ossetia's president has already publically declared that the region's Georgians will not be allowed to return. Sure, during the Georgian bombardment apartment buildings in South Ossetia were hit (as they were all over Georgia - is Russia also engaging in ethnic cleansing too, then?) but the reports from the ground show that government buildings in South Ossetia were worse hit than were residential areas, suggesting that those were the principle targets. If indeed the Georgians were truly trying to slaughter the South Ossetians then Russia or anybody would be justified in preventing this. But as in the case of Serbia in Kosovo, it looks like an attempt to gain political control.
Ossetia was within Georgia's borders, negotiations were dragged out for years despite all sorts of concessions for autonomy etc. from the Georgian side, suggesting that the issues would never be resolved and that de facto there would be a non-Georgian territory of 70,000 S. Ossetions in the middle of Georgia within a few miles and striking distance of Georgia's principle east-west highway. After several years of no progress, Georgia eventually took matters into its own hands with respect to this Georgian territory. To add to the Kosovo analogy, it would be as if Serbia, having come to the realization after years that Kosovo's Albanians and their NATO backers would never negotiate in good faith or return Kosovo to Serbia despite Serb offers of total autonomy, decided to try to retake the territory by force. Suicidal, in both the case of Serbia hypothetically and Georgia in reality, but not unjustified.
Ilija,
I'm not sure about Ossetian vs. Georgian birth rates. With respect to the Orthodox Churches, Georgian priests were blessing Georgian troops on their way to attacking South Ossetia. This is sadly not new - Orthodox Churches have a history of unfortunate nationalism. Look at the conflict between Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox.
Re: Andre #66
I was referring to that and other more distant ethnic cleansing campaigns against the Serbs (like WW II and the period between 1974-89).
@72Andrei Vidal
No one dispute’s it was the Georgians attacked first with an aerial bombardment of the capital of South Ossetia that’s fact not Kremlins version of the story.
Georgian claims have already been debunked like market bombing in Gori or that Gori is in ruins.
Despite agreements Georgia has repeatedly tried to retake the area by force.
Nearby Georgian villages are used as cover for Georgian forces to fire on Russian peacekeepers and Ossetian border guards.
All attempts for a peaceful settlement between the regions and Georgia have been blocked by Georgia because they know they can retake the regions and dispel the local populations of the area hostile to Georgia with US/UK backing and military hardware.
James,
Although noone, including me, disputes that the all-out assault initiated form the Georgian side, there is evidence of provocations from the Russian/Ossetian side preceding Georgia's attack - increasing mortar fire from S. Ossetia into Georgia, overflights of Georgian territory by Russian planes, etc. The evidence suggests that Saak was baited and foolishly went for the bait. Nobody disputes the fact that civilian areas in Gori and and elsewhere were hit by Russian bombs or looted by Ossetian irregulars. This does not mean all of Georgia is in ruins, but neither is all of South Ossetia in ruins as the Russian media initially claimed.
As for Georgia blocking peace offers - Georgia proposed for years, full autonomy for South Ossetia and offered to invest heavily in it.. It was South Ossetia, confidant of Russia's backing, that refused to compromise. Again, reminiscent of Kosovo's stance towards negotiating with Serbia.
From the Russian News and Information Agency Novosti website:
"On January 2005 Mikheil Saakashvili announced peace initiatives with regard to South Ossetia at a PACE meeting in Strasbourg. South Ossetia was offered broad autonomy as part of the single Georgian state. President George W. Bush in a telephone conversation on February 15 backed Saakashvili's initiatives. South Ossetian President Eduard Kokoity, commenting on Saakashvili's initiatives, said that "South Ossetia has long been an independent republic" and there could be no question of creating a common state with Georgia."
Which is just like the KLA government's attitude towards proposals from Serbia.
Andrei Vidal,
I just find it upsetting that 2 Orthodox nations are at war with each other, at a point in history where this should have been made obsolete, especially where same believing Orthodox Christians are concerned. At least us Serbians are at war with an entirely alien, backward, primitively tribal Islamic group of people that do not operate by any consistent norms or laws of civillisation. Again, I strongly emphasise (and am in particular agreement with Allen Wilson on this point) that US machinations are making the existing problems get entirely out of hand, and when one acknowledges that fact then it becomes quite difficult to blame Russia for much in all this.
Where Russia and Ukraina are concerned, the implications are more or less the same. Inherent local rivalries are exploited by machiavellian neocon warmongers from the west and made 100 times worse by their schemes, which if weren't effected, might actually lead to some sort of lasting peace between both sides, a completely appropriate settelement for 2 Orthodox nations.
I think that when Eduard Kokoity said what he said in 2005, he really meant that there could not be much negotiation with a regime which was effectively a puppet of the US-led NATO, that did not give much regard to the interests of the Ossetians (or international law for that matter) whatsoever. Again, if that US-sponsored 'rose revolution' (not made out of any real love or affinity towards the wellbeing of the Georgian nation either) never took place, then relations between Georgia and Ossetia might now have been substantially improved. Is it unreasonable to assume so?
Andrei, I might agree with you (although the history is indeed complex and requires thorough investigation), that Georgia had a right to take its territory back however unreasonable given the circumstances, but I am adamant that this right or privelege should not have in any way been granted to Mihail Saakashvilli to execute, a man so obviously motivated by self interest rather than the organic interests of his nation.
Ilija,
I generally agree with what you have written. The debate about what kind of a person or leader Saakashvili is, is entirely different than whether or not Georgia has a right to its own territory. Just as Kosovo is a part of Serbia whether or not Serbia's leaders happen to be jerks, or somebody's puppet, etc. I think that a similar case applies to South Ossetia.
I agree with you with respect to your description of the role of neocon machinations; at the same time it ought to be recognized that people do have free will and not everything can be attributed to money spent or plots successfully carried through. And also, focussing on neocons may cause us to lose sight of the fact that they are not the only ones attempted to manipulate situations for their own purposes - Russia is certainly doing so as well. Speaking of Ukraine, unfortunately the Russian Orthodox Church has historically and today proven to be no less tainted by nationalism than its local schismatic Ukrainian Orthodox rival, as the two fight over control in Ukraine. Which is quite sad, because the real enemy ought to be aggressive Western secularism/materialism (in this, I find the Catholic-Orthodox rivalry also tragic) and to a lesser extent Islam (which is more of a threat to the secularized West than to the Orthodox countries, with the obvious exception of Kosovo which the Serbs would have easily handled on their own if not for Western interference).
Well, the Moscow Times confirms that a Chechen warlord wanted for murder was used by Moscow in Georgia. Undoubtedly he and his men behaved like perfect gentlemen:
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/article/1010/42/370386.htm
Mr Vidal, I do not consider 'stupid and dishonest' to be any more rude than 'hypocritical'. It was this usage of yours that made your later arguments seem more aggressive than you may have intended them to be. I think we both appreciate civil discussion, and both you and Akira have made good points.
What I am more concerned with now is the fact that we can argue details on both sides all we wish, but none of us have inside information on what went on, behind the scenes. The whole thing was a flash in the much larger geopolitical and strategic confrontation between the U.S. and Russia. Did the Russians bait the Georgians? Did the U.S. simply put the Georgians up to attack Ossetia? We really cant know for sure and it may take years for the truth to come out if it ever does.