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)
We were awaiting Dr. T's comments with bated breath. He came through worthily.
The neocons/Russophobes haven't given up; they want a military response, or at least an effort to isolate Russia. McCain, advised by Scheunemann, who lobbied for Georgia, promptly began beating the war drums, though he's now pulled back a tiny bit.
The Commentary crowd and even the New York Times are intemperately using the events to call for a much more hostile approach to Russia
The fact is that any further military adventures would require both conscription and further militarization of the U.S. economy. Neither will have any political traction unless the U.S. itself is attacked again. So we can't and won't keep our promises to the Georgias of the world. Instead of "Talk softly and carry a big stick," it's "Scream like a banshee and run like a rabbit."
Obama might nuance things differently, but he's jabbering about NATO expansion and is advised by the likes of Brzezinski, a Pole to whom Russophobia comes naturally. We have a toothless Congress, an incompetent National Security State, and two aspirants to the Imperial Presidency, the one a callow rhetorician with left-wing antecedents but, it seems, the political principles of a chameleon, and the other an aged militarist whose uneven temperament is well-known and whose associations are downright scary.
A. J. P. T., Second Thoughts
"I wrote this book to satisfy my historical curiosity; in the words of a more successful historian, ‘to understand what happened, and why it happened’. Historians often dislike what happened or wish that it had happened differently. They can do nothing about that. They have to state the truth as they see it without worrying whether this shocks or confirms existing prejudices. ..."
DJGBP
(Aug. 16, 2008, 4:50 PM, end for now!)
Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.
Special thanks, Mr. Trifkovic, for another cool, shrewd & realistic appraisal of world events -- vitally necessary given the decades long virtual news blackout on all major American channels.
"We have a toothless Congress, an incompetent National Security State, and two aspirants to the Imperial Presidency, the one a callow rhetorician with left-wing antecedents but, it seems, the political principles of a chameleon, and the other an aged militarist whose uneven temperament is well-known and whose associations are downright scary."
Thank you, Grumpy Old Man, for that glowing endorsement of Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin for President.
Grumpy Old Man:
"Scream like a banshee and run like a rabbit." Brilliant!
I think this is an historical event for the globalist empire.
A foreign media and government conspiracy that can be proven that the international narrative of what happened to be false.
RussiaToday did some great coverage of the conflict.
I think Brezinski tried to do its use forces to massacre Ossetias get Russia bogged down in Georgia like in Chechnya in 94 or Afghanistan in 79 and conduct a guerrilla warfare campaign.
Media would be used to proclaim Russia is acting like the Soviet Union and occupying a small defenceless country. The Ossetian massacres would be blamed on the Russian’s and Russia would be treated like the Serbs in the 90’s.
Mercenaries have been captured by Russians from the US, Ukraine and the Baltic states who were shipped in by Ukraine to capture Abkhazia.
I think they tried to capture Abkhazia so they can transport more oil into Europe when the price of oil skyrockets when they invade Iran.
This is all apart of Brezinski’s Grand Chessboard strategy.
He instigated the first Chechen war so he could use that as a proxy to invade and capture Dagestan so he can dominate the Caspian It’s no coincidence that after the first war Chechen militants run terrorist training camps in Dagestan. You only have to look at the map to see the countries bordering the Caspian Sea.
The first Chechen war was pre planned after the first Chechen pres visited Harvard and Brezinski in 92 then with his blessing went to Bosnia trained militants there and make connections with Russian army personnel to smuggle weapons to Chechen militants back in Russia. In 94 the war was instigated when Chechen militants began an ethnic cleansing campaign of Grozny. Half the population was Russian.
The western opinion pieces are saying that Putin pre-planned this and that Saakashvili’s all out assault was the pretext he could use to occupy Georgia and cut of the western pipeline.
This is nonsense of course because:
1) Russia dominates the territory were most of the Caspian oil reserves are westwards.
2) Ludicrous to think that Georgia with a huge US military presence that Western powers would not intervene.
3) The Georgian pipeline produces a fraction of what comes out of Russia to Europe and is on unstable geopolitical ground part of it runs through Kurdistan.
Obviously, the tide had to turn sometime. After this, if anyone had their doubts that Russia was yet capable of successfully countering the big bully, or would be able to in the foreseeable future, those doubts can now be let go. Russia has proven itself, politically, economically, and militarily, to be a viable alternative to so-called 'Pax Americana' and visions of 'globalism'. Modernisation of the armed forces will make this even more obvious, and this doubtlessly will be happening at the same time that the U.S. finds itself less and less capable of staying ahead in technology because it's leaders stupidly wrecked it's economy.
Countries all over the world have begun to take notice of all this, and soon, if the fools in Foggy Bottom aren't replaced with respectable statesmen capable of realism and respect for the rest of the world, the empire will be isolated in the same way they are trying to isolate Russia, because rather than isolating Russia, they are in fact helping create an alternative to themselves to which many countries doubtlessly will flock to escape the big Yankee's arrogance, exploitation, and meddling in their internal affairs. I predict that Britain, perhaps belatedly, will finally realise the folly of supporting its spoilt child and jump ship.
Dr. Trifkovic,
Most of us in the West have very little knowledge of Russian history (including all of the Eastern cultures who adopted the Orthodox religion). Would it be possible for you give us a brief historical synopsis of the emergence of Russia and its problematic relations with the West. I assume it could be done in a series of articles in Chronicles or on this website. I was surprised to hear that many conservatives in the West seem to be instinctively against any advancement amongst the Orthodox people. There seems to be a consensus that the Crimean War was justified because it prevented Russia from conquering the Ottomans and restoring Constantinople. Based upon on what hear, there is a saddening indifference about the West not honoring the Treaty of Severs after WWI, which resulted in the genocide of many Christians. I was told during the colonial competition between Russia and Britain (known as the Great Game) the Western interest hampered the Orthodox from proselytizing the people of Central Asia. Perhaps your articles could help remove some prejudices.
@9Rick F
Matthew Raphael Johnson website http://www.rusjournal.com/ has articles covering Russias history, culture and religion.
I would like to know how Russia actually became communist.
I know that foreign agitators tried to spark a anti-Czar revolution for 20 years, that the “revolution” was financied by international New York banker Jacob Shiff and most of the first communist government of Russia came form New York and that the Soviet Union was financed by the Federal Reserve.
Or, that this whole episode is yet another jewish bungle. The arming and training of the army seems to mostly have fallen to Israeli contractors and mercs and the army failed spectacularly, a real clown show from top to bottom. As I read somewhere else the Georgian army seemed to be a laundering scheme to take US tax dollars and ultimately move them to Israel. As for the permission part I would say the Bush clan would like to see every zionist to line up pistol in hand, aim the pistol at the next person in line and on the count of three pull the trigger. Real money is to be made in the oil patch not promising the "end times" to religous fantatics.
There was nothing "Russian" about the leaders of the Russian Revolution. It should be noted that every head of the Soviet Cheka-NKVD-GPU was a non Russian. Peters, Beria, Yagoda, Dzerzhinski, Menzhinski, Yezhov. Yezhov is counted as a Russian but the man was actually half Lithuanian and was married to a Polish Jew. The same is true of the Soviet (Not Russian) leadership. Look at the 7 Politburo members after Lenin's death in 1924, 1 Ukrainian jew, 1 Polish Jew, 1 Russian Jew, 1 Georgian, 2 Russians married to Jews (nationality unknown) and 1 Russian national Tomsky who may have been married to a Russian Orthodox. Most of the "Russians" were internationalists who had no loyalty to Russia at all.
In any case, our enemy during the Cold War wasn't "Russia". It was the USSR - a communist dictatorship. We have never had any conflict with "Russia". Of course, the neo-cons and the international busy bodies need an enemy, so they'll have to manufacture one.
Good point. You’re right of course communism wasn’t Russian and it wasn’t a revolution but an invasion.
The same high percentage of Jews that were in the Russian government can be found in the post WW2 soviet satellite states.
Russia only really became the enemy during the Cold war after the USSR stiffed the Arabs during the 67 war and to keep trade relations vital to keeping the Soviet economy afloat broke of relations with Israel.
There has been a venomous campaign against Russia in the West the latest being the Ukrainian famine. When the Ukrainian government finally release a list of those involved there was barely a Russian on it most were Jews and Lithuanians.
Modern times with regards to Chechnya the Chechens pre-planned and started the first war. Images of the bombed out capital which was due to ground fighting and half the population was Russian are constantly use to give the impression Russia blitzed the region never mentioning international terror organisations operating there against Russia there crimes and the “moderates” connection to them are never scrutinised.
“Genocide” stories are just as bogus as in the Balkans against the Serbs, in fact the same people are involved. Carpet bombing of Grozny, Vacum bombs used to wipe out whole villages, mass rapes, etc. are all bogus.
Unfortunately people still view Russians as Soviet barbarians from reading posts on this latest conflict on other webblogs just check out RussiaToday. Russia will always be branded like this no matter what the situation.
Also "Russian" mafia not Russian.
Thank you, Dr. Trifkovic, for this very thorough analysis. Your point about the influence of American military advisors belies Washington's denials that it was behind this Georgian attempted aggression.
If I am not mistaken the old communist state of Georgia was created by Dzugashvili (Stalin) and his right hand man Lavrenti Beria (Jewish) who later got appointed as the head of NKVD and was insturmental in establishing gulags, Lubyanka and other brutalities that we all easily harp on - whenever we attack Russia.
A strong sense of Russo-phobia permeates most of American press, therefore the attacks go unabated.
The two points above are enough to complete encircling Russia (launching ramps in Poland; radars in Czech Republic, alliance with Georgia - partnership for peace - NATO's doorway, The Ukranian Orange Circus) - and Russians are not stupid to ignore such signs of overt hostilities in spite of tepid and glib speaches from the West. I don't think that Georgia is the the only pawn to fall in the ensuing years. Ukraine is equally close - much of Crimea is ethnically Russian, Abhkazia is (and was Russian till Stalin made it a part of Georgia, Osetians are ethnically Russian as well.
There is bound to be more unrest in the old Russian zone of influence. The largest question "qui bono" remains unanswered, who benefits from all this bloodshead?
IP @15,
What is your evidence and source that Beria was "Jewish"? Everything I've read states he was a Mingrelian.
@16pablo H
As far as I know Beria was not Jewish but ethnic Georgian.
One of Stalin’s wives and his infamous father in law Kaganovich (The actual biggest mass murderer in human history and architect of the 5 year plan) was Jewish.
I’m not sure but I think that all of the Soviet leaders except from Gorbecheav had Jewish wives.
It was the Germans, wanting to disrupt Russia's war effort, who shipped Lenin to Russia from Switzerland in a sealed car. The ploy proved successful when the Bolsheviks accepted a punishing peace at Brest-Litovsk.
Ossetians and Abkhazians have been given Russian passports, but they are separate ethnic groups. Ossetian is an Iranian language, and Abkhazian North Caucasian.
Deracinated ethnic Jews were overrepresented among the Bolshevik leadership, but most Russian Jews who were involved in politics at the time supported the Bund, a very different party from the Bolsheviks.
History might be easier to understand if there were one simple key to understanding everything, but it is wiser to get used to the fact that it really can be, and almost always is, complicated.
@17 James
I've found no evidence that Stalin married Kaganovich's sister but if you have a source or reference please provide. Stalin did have Jewish mistresses after his wife's death. (source: The Court of the Red Tsar).
Nor do I think Khrushchev's wife was Jewish. To be repetitive the non-Russian influence around Stalin was immense. Molotov, Voroshilov, Kalinin, BuKharin, Rykov, and Kirov all had Jewish wives. Mikoyan was Armenian, Ordzhonikidze aka "Sergo" was another Georgian, Koisser and Chubar were both Poles. Stalin's main assistant (and member of his inner circle) Mekhilis was Jewish. Pauker head of Kremlin Security until 1938 was IRC a Romanian Jew. Litinov who ran USSR foreign policy was almost 15 years (1924-1939) was a Polish Jew.
When you look at those people around Stalin Until 1946 its hard to many Russian Peasants and workers.
Serge, any comments on Walid Phares’s "South Ossetia: The perfect wrong war? "
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/south_ossetia_the_perfect_wron.html
Excerpts:
Since 1999, the outcome of the Western campaign in Kosovo brought about a parallel status quo to the one established in South Ossetia and in Abkhasia. In short, NATO had created an autonomous area for the ethnic Albanians inside a sovereign country, Serbia; while Russia and the CIS have insured autonomous status for South Ossetians and Abkhasians inside another sovereign state, Georgia.
...
But for Russia to actively arm Iran and Syria, this is a feature of cold war, inconsistent with present the international consensus against Terrorism. The Tehran-Damascus "axis" is in an active campaign to support Jihadi terror forces in the region and armed groups involved in the killing of US and Coalition personnel. It would be the equivalent of having the US arming and providing technology to Wahabi Chechen Terrorists operating against Russian cities and military. Hence, while Americans are as anti-terrorist as Russia is when it comes to the al-Qaeda Salafi threat, Russians are still feeding anti-Western forces in the Middle East. Hence there is a difference between Russian discomfort with NATO growth around the CIS and US concerns about Russia's protection of Iranian-Syrian efforts in the region. Moscow is backing a party at war with the US Coalition while Americans aren't assisting parties at War with Russia
…
To be crude: Liberal democracies have no interest in over-pressuring Russia in the course of strategic gaming while they are at full war with the Global Jihadists. Such a move will push the Russians away from converging with the West against the "common enemy." Instead of consolidating a Western-Russian entente against both Salafists and Khomeinists, Russia and the US are confronting the Wahabis separately and in most cases unsuccessfully while the Russians have befriended the Khomeinists who are harassing the Americans. The Russo-American competition is not helping either side, but one other side does win: the Global Jihadists.
…
The Kosovo affair was concluded with sourness that came back to haunt the international community in South Ossetia. That is the first lesson to learn from it. The military clashes between Russia and Georgia told us that new conflicts would collapse all that the international community has tried to achieve for the last seven years. That is the second lesson. Third and last, without going back to the blame game, the South Ossetia war was a wrong war that should have been avoided: It was a perfect wrong War.
I don't think that American leadership see this as a win-win situation. I struggle to see any positives for the US, in a situation where it is helplessly watching the most pro-American regime in a key geostrategic region get defeated, which is what they should have anticipated in a Russian attack.
I highly doubt that America would give this green light to Georgia, without some assurances from Russian leadership, just as they received before Kosovo's declaration of independence, that they would do little to prevent this. From a recent New York times article, this suspicion can be confirmed. From anonymous high-level sources, they called this a "foreign policy catastrophe" and that they got "everything wrong." They said up to the Wednesday night before the conflict started, Russia was playing a "constructive role." These comments are consistent with Russia's behaviour before the conflict, which gave no indication it was about to intervene.
So knowing all this, and assuming it to be true, who is it in Russia that overruled Putin and his inner circle's decision to do nothing? Was it someone in the military or some other influential figure we don't know about? What caused this change?
I think that's the questions we should be asking. I don't think the US would push Georgia into this without some assurances. Let's not forget both Putin and Bush were in personal contact in Beijing at the time.
@20Mladen Andrijasevic
Western intelligence has been training and financing Chechen terrorism since 92 in Bosnia.
The international Islamic threat is a fraud Kosovo, Bosnia and the Panski Gorge in Georgia is where they operate areas were there’s a heavy US presence.
Russia's sale of weapons to Syria and Iran are large scale army weapons nothing Hezbollah or any Islamic militant group could use.
@21Marko K.
Wasn't it in the last Trifkovic article you were complaining Russia was not defending the Ossetians? Well?
A week or less before Russia submitted a UN resolution for a peace agreement regarding the two regions but Georgia turned it down. Now we know why.
Russia media reports Russian forces have captured foreign mercs including Americans and a map on how to capture Abkhazia so it was obviously pre-planned.
The forced separation of Kosovo from Serbia has indeed set a modern precedent, and many have commentators been writing the same in papers around the world. It was hypocrisy of the first order when Pres Bush requested that Russia respect the territorial integrity of Georgia.
What I find difficult to understand is that Georgia took the decision to force the issue with Russia by sending in their troops. Considering the dangers in such a move, I would have thought restraint was the best option.
So was Ossetia given a “deniable” green light by someone in the State department or elsewhere? Did the president of Ossetia believe that he would have the support of the USA for such a move, given that Georgia had significant number of troops (relative to Ossetia's population) in Iraq?
Why would America do such a thing? It is clear that Russia's is no longer the impotent giant that it was in Yeltsin’s era (its nuclear arsenal has always been there). It is therefore not in America's or NATO’s interest, that countries such as Georgia and Ukraine become full NATO members in this new era. Given that these countries are on Russia's borders, and have large Russian populations within them, the chance of NATO getting into a serious confrontation with Russia, due to a miscalculation by these countries, is high. Russia has also made it abundantly clear that it will act if any policy adversely affects Russians in these countries. Such a confrontation is certainly not to NATO's liking.
What I see in the future is that the US and the UK, having committed themselves in the previous era, will continue to work strenuously for the entry of Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, but they will do so in the happy confidence that Germany and France will veto any such entry.
I have a feeling that a decision has been made that NATO has just about reached its limit, as far its size is concerned, and this event is a marker.
@ 22 james
I'm very happy with the developments in Georgia. It's good to see Russia finally stand up to the US. The world is tired of American bullying and needs someone to say "enough is enough."
If you remember, I said to you that Russia is completely capable of defending its interests without the US thinking twice about reacting. This was proven in Georgia and it's exactly what's frustrated me with Russian policy.
A lot of people are happy with Putin's policy. I'm not one of those and I believe Russia is capable of so much more. For those who said Russia's hands are tied, this is a wake up call. The US needs Russia far, far more than Russia needs the US. I'm hoping this is the beginning of a new, more assertive Russia, one that will better defend its interests in Ukraine and Serbia, which is also in the interests of those people.
What I find particularly interesting about the participants in this discussion, including the esteemed Dr. Trifkovic, is their lack of outrage against a blatant violation of international law, given their attitudes in the Kosovo affair. Their hypocrisy is just as stunning as that of the international media and Washington - only polarized differently.
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
How terribly amusing.
@19pablo H
You’re probably right there’s a lot of disinformation on the net like Stalin was Jewish because the translation of his real name to English they say is “Son of a Jew” although he was brought up as an orthodox Christian.
Michael A. Hoffman II listed senior Jewish communist in the soviet regime.
http://www.russians.org/communist.html
@24Marko K.
But the international media, politicians and majority consensus are still portraying Russia as the aggressor and Georgia the victim with the opposite being true.
The media has gone to great lengths to paint Russia as Neo-USSR and discussing ways to “punish” her for what she has done in Georgia although Georgia launched the assault killing most civilians in the first 24 hours.
I think they were going for the same media narrative as in Kosovo of greater Serbia.
Poland has signed an agreement on the missile defence shield and Ukraine has threatened to blockage Russia’s black sea navy fleet.
Does no one else think with all that has gone on over the years that they might be preparing to invade Russia in the future, similar to how they did it in the Balkans?
It reaaly has come to this! Chronicles, ostensibly one of the few remaining strongholds of the conservative old guard, has turned unashamedly cowardly with the writings by its staff of Russian apologists.
Mr. Trifkovic is right in his assesments of Mr. Saakashvili's stupidity, but he poses a hypotheses -- U.S. foreknowledge of Georgian intentions -- that he fails to develop with even circumstantial evidence (other than the presence of relatively low-level military advisers) and is wrong in his assesment of the aftermath of the conflagration. If anything, one will see an acceleration of calls to expand the alliance or its dissolution and replacement (the latter outcome being preferable, though not mecessarily more likely). Ukraine will almost surely be invited to join NATO in the not-too-distant future. Moreover, the dispatch of Secretary Rice to Tblisi and U.S. troops to deliver humanitarian aid to Georgian airfields and seaports at that particular time and under the particular circumstances (including the present deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan) sent a clear message that the Bush administration would stand by its principals even if it lacked the immediate military capacity and political will to face down the Russian invaders. The message was clear that a Russian failure to withdraw would have serious consequences. And in the end, Putin/Medvedev blinked.
As for the following passage, Mr. Trifkovic should be ashamed of himself:
"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."
"Near-abroad"? You've got to be kidding!
William Pfaff, whom I do not especially admire, made a valid point yesterday on NPR--rather to the disgust of the interviewer--when he said that Georgia should not be invited into NATO and that the US should not be taking sides in the civil war going on in Georgia. (Would that he had taken that position in the Balkans). He added that we should no more be encouraging democracy in Georgia than the Russians should be encouraging it in Puerto Rico.
For well over a decade, US governments have been playing risky games. Only our wealth and preponderance of power have saved us from the consequences of our incompetence and arrogance. Since Yeltsin's day, well-informed Russians have been convinced that US economic and political interests have been scheming to divide Russia, hem it in, and loot her resources. However paranoiac this may have sounded when I first heard it, a quick glance at the directors and advisors of major multi-nationals doing business in the former USSR should be sufficient to convince even a hardened skeptic. Among the names you will find most recent secretaries of state, treasury, etc.
Indeed, the Russians must have been planning this little number for some time, and so they should. Putin et cie simply cannot permit the US to take over, one by one, its former dependencies on the pretext that we are building democracy in the Ukraine, Georgia, etc. On the whole, the world may well be a safer place when Russia reestablishes its regional hegemony. Power monopolies, as the US has tried to be, tend to collapse rapidly. Does this mean we should favor the Russians at the expense of our own country? Of course not. But there is no point to studying politics, domestic or foreign, unless the study is done from a Machiavellian point of view. Leave the rest to the liars who make politics their profession and to the poor unbalanced souls who think their political opinions actually mean something. Otherwise we find ourselves becoming a bit emotional, telling people to be ashamed of themselves, when they are merely doing their best to figure out what is going on.
I have said this so often that I know you will think I have been a cranky old man, but I do not see the point of having a website at all, if it is going to encourage irrational and rude comments. One person commenting on Wayne Allensworth's piece began with "garbage." Then people were surprised that WA was annoyed. Really. I would like to see one of them pull this on Mr. Allensworth in person. Like all of us, he is not getting any younger, but he is one big Texan, and a sensible man who had ever met him would know enough to mind his manners. But that is precisely the problem with the internet. Since no one knows anyone except "virtually," some people feel perfectly free to lie, slander, and insult. Shame on those who cry shame, and those who denigrate as "garbage" the argument of a serious man who has spent his adult life studying Russia and commenting honestly on Russian affairs reduce themselves to garbage. Apologies are in order, both to the writers and to the many decent intelligent people who take part in these discussions
I feel Russia had no choice but to respond to Georgia's brutal invasion of South Ossetia. Not doing so would have wrecked everything Putin had been trying to build in his nation for the past 10 years and distablized the government. Yet it is with sadness to see this situation developing as it is because of the neocon clique that rules Tblisi. Many Christians have died needlessly because of one man's madness. The bitterness that's been created will take years if not a century to get rid of.
Hoperfully Russia's response defending those under its protection would discourage other would be Misha's in Ukraine, Moldova, and in the Baltic states to realize the reality of having large minorities of Russian speakers within their borders and that living in peace with one's neighbor's is a lot better than whipping up nationalistic hatred that only lead to conflicts as we've seen in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Having said this, I hope Russian troops withdraw soon from Georgia outside of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The Russian are only overplaying their hand and are causing sympathy for a government that does not deserve any. Georgians should be booting Misha and gang out of the country and instead they rally to him because the Russians are in the countryside. They need to leave so that true Georgia see the ruin Misha's dreams of martial glory has left them so can respond accordingly.
@29Matt
So Russia should let them bomb Ossetian civilians and peacekeepers, breaking the ceasefire agreement?
Georgia attacked South Ossetia first killing most of the civilians in the war in the first 24 hours and deliberately targeting civilian areas to get a response from Russia.
The fact that Russia probably had some info on what the Georgians were planning and when Georgians acted strategically bombed military installation outside South Ossetia to not get bogged down in a long and protractive war.
US and foreign mercenaries have been captured by the Russians and Russian intelligence officials have capture a Georgian intelligence officer planning terror acts in Sochi, Russia and planning to organise cells of militants to attack Russians in Ingushetia.
Russia is far more justified and handled the crisis better than Israel’s war on Lebanon.
@ 23 james
“The international Islamic threat is a fraud”
Fraud? Here is the list of every one of the 11671 Islamic terror attacks since 9/11. Are they just a figment of Bush’s imagination?
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2008.htm
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2007.htm
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2006.htm
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2005.htm
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2004.htm
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2001-2003.htm
To the esteemed TJF:
First, I'd like to impress upon you and Mr. Trifkovic that no personal offense was intended in my post. That said, when your writers express their views as passionately as they do about certain matters of world affairs (Mr. Trifkovic on the Georgian incident, for example), they must understand that some of us, including your long-standing readers, feel invited to express their disagreement in an equally passionate tone without any shame whatsoever.
While Chronicles generally espouses a particular ideological perspective, some of us (such as me) that espouse a distinct perspective nevertheless turn to your publication for insightful analysis devoid of leftist drivel for an ocassional sober check on our own initial instincts. Several of your writers have disparaged public figures and intellectuals for espousing views that they held to be contrary to the national interest. Surely, such men won't cower when they themselves are accused of doing the same thing! Which brings me back to Mr. Trifkovic's analysis implying clearly that the United States should allow Russia to exercise a free hand throughout its "near abroad" --- I would very much like to hear how this can be viewed as being in the American national interest. I would genuinely like to understand why allowing a resurgent power with strategic interests that are clearly distinct to those of the United States reassert itself in mineral-rich or strategically located nations that have, over the past two decades, gravitated toward the American sphere of influence, all the while undermining American credibility, is in our national interest.
Well-informed analysts on all sides understand that having one's options and influence restricted by one's potential rival is never a good thing. Yet Mr. Trifkovic and yourself seem more preoccupied in this case with Russian perceptions than with American ones. That American unipolarity has been mismanaged is a fair but distinct issue. That that unipolarity presents opportunities that could improve our security and quality of life should be a matter of greater concern and interest to well-informed Americans, at least from a strictly Machiavellian point of view. Russian interests are certainly legitimate, insofar as anyone cares. But American interests in keeping the Russians on the defensive are more legitimate, at least to this American. I am surprised that you would imply otherwise, for I would hate for the editors of Chronicles to be accused of being idealistic internationalists!
Matt (and James) still do not understand that it is not a question of ideas but of manners. Saying no offense was intended, when you cry shame, is to compound the offense. It is also deeply insulting to speak of Chronicles as having an "ideological perspective." I leave such nonsense to Marxists, libertarians, and nationalists. An ideology is either a sealed system of ideas that prevents rational discussion--say, like Marxism or Misesism, or, as Marx said early on, a system of "ideas" projected to disguise and advance the interests of a class. I don't have any Ossetian or Georgian friends and cannot imagine a reason to be passionate about such people. I do know a few people in Russia, but I scarcely care more about their interests than I do about those of my family and friends and neighbors. To speak passionately on either side of such a case would be very foolish, indeed.
I do not speak for Srdja Trifkovic or Wayne Allensworth--two men, who by the way, disagree to some extent on Russia--any more than they speak for me. There is certainly room for reasonable debate on how to approach Russia, but if you are unable to understand the extent to which a powerful elite class in this country is driving us into a conflict in which they gain a great deal and we have little or nothing to gain, then I do not know what you have been reading, but it is not Chronicles.
You say that I am "more preoccupied in this case with Russian perceptions than with American ones." I have no idea what this means, and my bewilderment is aggravated by the fact that my observations had to do a) with your bad manners in telling a grown man to be ashamed of himself, as if you were a schoolmarm lecturing a naughty boy, and b) pointing out that there are legitimate reasons for the Russian leadership--gangsters though they be--to view the US as a hostile power. As people as wise as George Kennan and John Lukacs realized long ago, America's long range interests lie in developing a good relationship with a powerful nation with whom we share a good deal and making a common front against both the Islamic world and against China. That James Baker and Mad Albright would oppose such a strategy that threatens their economic interests is perfectly understandable, but to cry shame on those who believe (rightly or not) that it is our interest is difficult to justify or even understand in one who claims to be a reader of Chronicles. Finally, those who seek an open and democratic form in which error and illogic and bad manners are valued as much as truth, sweet reason, and courtesy have come to the wrong place. They should go somewhere where it is believed that everyone has a right to his own opinion, a more nonsensical proposition than which (to imitate the late WFB) I cannot imagine
I hope I have made myself clear and can return quietly to my dogmatic (or should I say ideological?) slumbers.
#32 Matt
You and I probably have different perspectives on just what the American national interest is in general, but the differences might not matter in this case. As to the Georgian-Ossetian crisis, the facts are disputed, our armed forces are overstretched, the geopolitics are unfavorable, the exchequer depleted, and the American people unwilling to support an adventure in the Caucasus.
It also seems that Russia, after a bit of bluster and having made her point, is limiting her position. When it comes to Russia's near abroad, we ought to limit ours, at least to the point of not appearing to make commitments we are unable and willing to carry out.
In order to understand Russia's response to Georgia's attack on Ossetia it has to be noted that Vladimir Puting was in Beijing at the same as G. W. Bush. The Georgian atatck started in peacekeeping baracks where they opened fire on Russian soldiers that have spent some time with them. There was 16 hours gap before Russian troops started movement. Putin did met Bush and asked him to stop Saakashvilli and aparently Bush laughed and showed his finger. Not surprisingly after mocking Medvedev at G8 summit in Japan, Bush belived that he can do the same with Putin.
The rest is well known. Apparently georgian soldiers expected NATO troups to show up, not Russian. Their surprise and fear was at such extent that they dropped their arms and fled in order to avoid to be captured in uniform and punsihed for what they did in Ossetia.
Saakashvilli is probably polishing his CV and emailing it to his "friends" in american banks looking for a new job. His latest work experience as a president who spends billions on arms and looses it 48 hours. Georgia has no military power any more. We will see the outcome.
US does fear Russia, enormously. Not the Russian army and nuclear arsenal. They fear russian economic policy that will drop petro dollar and create local reserve currency forcing europe to buy it in order to purchase russian energy. If Iran and former Soviet republics follow the suit, it dangerous for US. The end of petro dollar is end of american hegemony and economic power.
Vladimir Putin has spent 10 years in Germany analysing Western economic system and he did it well. Global bankers are russian enemies, not american or georgian people. He knows it very well and it can explain his and his team behaviour. Russia is no threat to any country in particular, just to "New World Order".
Construing in the aftermath of this (not exactly yet finished) conflict as the most intriguing question the one about Mikheil Saakashvili’s motivation may not be sufficiently prudent when analyzing these sorts of things. Given the experience of, for example, Bosnia (e.g., the Markale bloody spectacle, that in the end it turns out neither Muslims nor Serbs perpetrated) and many other banana "republics" (like Croatia in 1995, hence operation Storm that began with brief bombing runs by American planes, or current Serbia, etc.) where US has thousands of its agents (openly or covertly), it is really a stretch to assume that it must have been Saakashvili who actually gave the marching (or better to say rockets launching) orders that leveled the capital of S. Osetia where no military targets existed, killing scores of civilians. It is quite possible that the so called puppet Saakashvili in fact was completely in the dark as the US "trainers" mounted the attack that he had no choice (as his life is at stake) but to own as his idea. What remains to be seen is what actual cost he will have to pay in the end. Is he going to be another Djindjic?
It should be clear as a bell to Georgians and anyone else with a long term perspective that Georgia, as well as Armenia and even Azerbaijan, being small countries located in a very strategic area, surrounded by large and powerful Iran and Turkey, to say nothing of a large collection of Central Asian Muslim countries who may not be powerful now but may well be in future, need either to band together in mutual self-defence or to find a powerful ally. Georgia and Armenia, with religions very close to that of Russia, and on Russia's doorstep, obviously should be courting Russia.
That's their best option for long-term security and stability. It likely would have become reality in the next few years had it not been for the U.S. interfering with it's nefarious schemes and messing everything up. Once again the U.S. has thrown natural political and historical development off course.
Well, looks like Georgia will be getting NATO membership with Germany's objection dropped, Ukraine has offered missle sites to NATO, and anti-Russian leaders of Poland, Ukraine and the Baltic States, all previous victims of Russia have united behind Georgia. Looks like you don't have so much to be happy about. I find it amusing that someone who defends the territorial integrity of Serbia is now attacking Georgia for defending its territorial integrity. You have even spread lies about Georgian "atrocities" just as your enemies spread lies about Serbia's "atrocities." While at the same time Russia is destroying railroad bridges and other infrastructure. You can certainly say this is not the U.S.'s fight, but don't defend Russian barbarism.
having read the lively blog ripostes to Trifkovic's article, I wld like to propose a decidedly lateral approach to some of these view--pls download the podcast/MP3 file of Bill Moyer's 8-15 interview with Andrew Bacevich, a man with a disinct and distinguished military background (Vietnam), whose soldier son was killed in Iraq, and whose new book "The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism" offers an excellent antidote to what purports to be in the best interests of the USA (in media, government, military circles), whether by the least-principled Realpolitik or supposed "ethical" cooperation in a "global" community.
I think anyone who hears his views will see how directly they relate to our imperial ambitions, our disaster economic outlook and the puling posturing of our presidential candidates and Congress, almost to a man/woman.
It's an oblique suggestion, I warrant, but it pays the time spent well.
The fact that the international media and politicians support and sponsor the former oligarchs that ruled Russia nearly killing the country who control every aspect of it industry, media, politicians, who are linked to organised crime and there support for Kosovo bring into question there credibility of making Russia “democratic”.
Western powers and media supported the Bolsheviks like Lenin, Trotsky, etc because the Czar was not democratic and look how that turned out.
Perhaps “democracy” is a smoke screen for interfering and destabilising countries that are powerful and threaten western hegemony.
That’s why the constant assault on Germany before WW2 and support of the over through of the Czar.
The thesis of Brezinski’s book “The Grand Chessboard” would support this theory as regard to Russia today.
Allen Wilson
I agree that Islam is the main enemy we face. Russia may be a political enemy for the moment, though it need not be, but the threat we face and Russia face from Islam, is an existential one, and has lasted for 1400 years.
I also feel that Georgia and Armenia, Kafir nations both, are under threat from Islam. If that ever comes about, the USA, given its historic record on this, is far more likely to assist Muslims, backed as they will be by Saudi Arabia and the OIC, then Russia.
@33Mladen Andrijasevic
Yes a fraud those attacks listed are from conflict areas were Jihadists operate no threat to mainland Europe or the US.
All the major attacks in Europe and the US were off shoots of groups conscripted to fight in Chechnya or previous and current ties to Bosnia or Kosovo.
Which include 9/11, Madrid train bombing, Casablanca, Turkey blasts, Saudi attacks, Hamburg Xmas market plot.
Although hardly mentioned in the press French Muslim recruited to fight Russians in Chechnya trained in making chemical weapons in Afghan camps were planning to attack Russian interests in France with chemical weapons before the were caught by French intelligence.
Another terror plot disrupted by French intelligence was militants planned to shot down airplanes at Lyon airport using shoulder rockets through An Algerian-Chechen network.
It’s in Paul Murphy’s book “Wolves of Islam”.
The explosives used in the London bombings were from explosives from an old Chinese missile warhead smuggled in from Kosovo that British intelligence let recruit and operate to fight Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo.
@45DaveP
The US already back Turkey and Azerbajin over Armenia.
Here is an interesting article that supports my view on this whole situation:
http://www.tol.cz/look/TOL/article.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=4&NrIssue=282&NrSection=2&NrArticle=19867
Why should Americans and Brits only die for Iraqis, Afghanis and Albanians?
What's wrong with Georgians?
Are they not worth dying for too?
TJF
Fair enough comments of yours regarding Mr. Allensworth's piece.
I kept those thoughts in mind when expressing my second guessing of sources like Socor and Felgenhauer.
- If Saakashvili was "setup," then this is a further example of his inept leadership skills.
- Contrary to that view, is his having a calculated notion of how the Russians would respond and what the Western neo-lib/neo-con reply would be.
He seems to like appearing on CNN repeating ad nauseum:
Hungary
Czechoslovakia
Afghanistan
Chechnya
Freedom
Totalitarianism
I find numerous similarities between Kosovo and South Ossetia. Ossetians and Kosovar Albanians were both granted autonomy by the Communists. In both cases a nation's soveriegn territory has been violated by a great power, for the sake of allegedly defending people from ethnic cleansing. Georgia did what Serbia dare not do - attempt to take back its own territory by force after years of fruitless negotiations. Just as in the case of Kosovo, initial reports about civilian casualties in the invader's media seem to have been greatly exagerated. The South Ossetians are now doing to the Georgians what the Albanians had been doing to Serbian civilians following NATO's invasion of Yugoslavia.
If Kosovo is wrong - and I believe it is - then so is Russia's action in South Ossetia. Saakashvili may have been a fool, or not a nice man, but this no more justifies the land grab of Georgia than does Milosevic's unsavoriness excuse the theft of Serb territory. Or do two wrongs make a right?
Incidentally, this action seems to confirm that Russia has written off Kosovo.
Re: "Saakashvili seems to like appearing on CNN repeating ad nauseum: Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Freedom, Totalitarianism"
Spot any Russians here?:
Stalin, Feliks Edmundowicz Dzierżyński, Grigoriy Konstantinovich Ordzhonikidze, Gaioz Devdariani, Eduard Shevardnadze, Panteleimon and Igor Giorgadze, Lev Davidovich Bronstein [Leon Trotsky], Ovsei-Gershon Aronovich Radomyslsky [Gregory Yevseevich Zinoviev], Karol Sobelsohn [Karl Berngardovich Radek], Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchov, Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev, Nikolai Ivanovich Ryzhkov, Nikolai Aleksandrovich Tikhonov, Vladimir Antonovich Ivashko, Anastas Hovhannesi Mikoyan, Andrei Aleksandrovich Zhdanov, Andrei Andreyevich Gromyko, Matvei Konstantinovich Muranov, Dmitry Manuilsky, Chinghiz Aitmatov, Emma Goldmann, Berthold Brecht, Alexander Berkman, Johannes Vares, Angelica Balabanoff , Hovhannes Khachatury Bagramyan, Ferenc Gyurcsány, Mir Cəfər Abbas oğlu Bağırov, Jaan Anvelt [Eessaare Aadu, Jaan Holm, Jaan Hulmu, Kaarel Maatamees, Onkel Kaak], Boriss Karlovich Pugo, Absamat Masaliyevich Masaliyev, Apas Jumagulov, Absamat Masaliyev, Askar Akayevt, Maksim Ammosov, Aleksey Vagov, Nikolay Bogolyubov, Iskhak Razzakov, Turdakun Usubaliyev, Jumgalbek Amanbayev, Askar Akayevich Akayev, Petro Mykolayovich Symonenko, Vladimir Nicolae Voronin, Zinaida Greceanîi, Nursultan Abishuly Nazarbayev, Pinches Borutsch [Pavel Borisovich Axelrod], Sultan Ibraimov, Dinmukhamed (Dimash) Akhmeduly Konayev, Vincas Kudirka, Mumin Khojaev, Ali Shervoni, Shirinsho Shotemur, Mirzo Dovud Guseinov, Grigory Broydo, Suren Shadunz, Dmitry Protopopov, Bobojon Ghafurov, Tursun Uljabaev, Jabor Rasulov, Leszek Kołakowski, Aleksander Kwaśniewski, Rahmon Nabiyev, Qahhor Mahkamov. Christian Rakovsky, Georgy Maximilianovich Malenkov, Ruben Tovmasyan, Mirza Davud, Grigory Kaminsky, Sergey Kirov, Levon Mirzoyan, Nikolay Gikalo, Vladimir Polonsky, Emil Bodnăraş, Ruben Rubenov (Mkrtchyan), Elena Ceauşescu, Mir Jafar Baghirov , Mir Teimur Yakubov, Imam Mustafayev, Veli Akhundov, Heidar Aliyev, Kyamran Bagirov, Abdulrahman Vezirov, György Pálffy, Gábor Péter, Ayaz Mütallibov, Abülfaz Elçibay, Dimitar Blagoev, Vulko Chervenkov, Georgi Dimitrov, Adrian Păunescu, Iosif Roitman [Iosif Chişinevschi], Alexandru Sahia, Urunboi Ushturov, Tsola Dragoicheva, Traicho Kostov, Imre Nagy, Aleksandur Lilov, Andrey Lukanov, Petar Mladenov, Alexander Paunov, Stanko Todorov, Anton Yugov, Todor Zhivkov, Rudolf Barák, Edvard Beneš, Oldřich Černík, Bohuslav Chňoupek, Vladimír Clementis, Alexander Dubček, Zdeněk Fierlinger, Jan Frankel, Michał Rola-Żymierski, Yoldosh Akhunbabayev, Chinor Emomov, Julius Fučík, Klement Gottwald, Jiří Hájek, Vladimír Holan, Gustáv Husák, Antonín Janoušek, Arnošt Kolman, Karel Kosík, Antonín Novotný, Ivan Olbracht, Radovan Richta, Viliam Široký, Rudolf Slánský, Bohumír Šmeral, Lubomír Štrougal, Jan Šverma, Ludvík Svoboda, Antonín Zápotocký, József Attila, Mihály Biró, Tibor Déry, István Dobi, István Eörsi, Nicolae Ceauşescu, Mihály Farkas, Rudolf Földvári, Ernő Gerő, Károly Grósz, Zygmunt Bauman, András Hegedűs, Ágnes Heller, Béla Illés, János Kádár, László Kardos, Mihály Károlyi, Lajos Kassák, Anna Kéthly, Béla Kun, Pál Losonczi, Géza Losonczy, Vasile Luca [László Luka], Georg Lukács, Jindřich Zelený, Tamás Major, Pál Maléter, György Marosán, Péter Medgyessy, Ernő Mihályfi, Aladár Mód, Tamás Nagy, Vasil Kolarov, László Piros, Karl Polanyi, Georges Politzer, László Rajk, Mátyás Rákosi, József Révai, Endre Ságvári, Erwin Szabó, Árpád Szakasits, András Szalai, Tibor Szamuely, Béla Szász, Sándor Szerényi, József Szilágyi, István Szirmai, Tibor Szőnyi, Imre Vajda, Eugen Varga, Zoltán Vas, Sándor Zöld, Mordechaj Anielewicz, Bolesław Bierut, Stanisław Brzozowski, Józef Cyrankiewicz, Ignacy Daszyński, Isaac Deutscher, Marek Edelman, Israel Epstein, Edward Gierek, Władysław Gomułka, Ludwik Hass, Piotr Ikonowicz, Piotr Jaroszewicz, Wojciech Jaruzelski, Leo Jogiches, Michał Kalecki, Stanisław Kania, Kazimierz Kelles-Krauz, Oskar Lange, Abraham Léon, Julian Marchlewski, Kazimierz Mijal, Leszek Miller, Edward Ochab, Stefan Piekarczyk, Daniel Podrzycki, Stanisław Radkiewicz, Adam Rapacki, Konstanty Rokossowski, Irena Sendler, Daniel Singer, Marian Spychalski, Maria Szyszkowska, Józef Unszlicht, Adolf Warski, Ludwik Waryński, Wanda Wasilewska, Aleksander Zawadzki, Gheorghe Apostol, Ecaterina Arbore, Silviu Brucan, Gheorghe Cristescu, Alexandru Dobrogeanu-Gherea, Constantin Dobrogeanu-Gherea, Alexandru Drăghici, Teohari Georgescu, Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, Max Goldstein, Vitali Holostenco, Panait Istrati, Elek Köblös, Gheorghe Gaston Marin, Petru Groza, Ion Iliescu, David Korner, Vasile Luca, Corneliu Mănescu, Ion Gheorghe Maurer, Vasile Milea, Adrian Năstase, Lucreţiu Pătrăşcanu, Hannah Rabinsohn [Ana Pauker], Marcel Pauker, Isaac Deutscher, Tristan Tzara, Ilie Verdeţ
Andrei Vidal:
"Similarities between Kosovo and South Ossetia. ... In both cases a nation’s soveriegn territory has been violated by a great power ... If Kosovo is wrong...then so is Russia’s action in South Ossetia. ... This action seems to confirm that Russia has written off Kosovo."
1. Russia borders South Ossatia, Georgia and Abkhazia. All four territories were formerly in the same state. What connection is there between the U.S. and Yugoslavia, Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia, or Croatia?
2. South Ossetia and Abkhazia being or becoming independent, or even electing to become Russian provinces would have no bearing on the status of Kosovo.
For anyone who follows the U.N. Charter, these Caucasian regions are entitled to invoke the right to self-determination. Other UN states are free to recognize Abkazia and/or South Ossetia as independent or not.
"Kosovo" can also do that, but UN members are forbidden to recognize Kosovo as independent from Serbia, because the U.N. Security Council [Res. 1244] specifically obliged UN members to respect Yugoslavian territorial integrity, and Serbia is the legal successor to Yugoslavia.
In response to Akira,
Although Yugoslavia/Serbia doesn't border the USA it obviously borders several NATO members. The invasion was a NATO action. I do not think that violating another nation's sovereign territory becomes more acceptable depending on the geographic distance of the violator. Was the Soviet occupation of Latvia better than the occupation of Prague?
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. As Serbia loses, Russia wins. In the spirit of alliance and support of Kosovo, Russia gained Serbia's gas network at a relatively low cost. When Kosovo was lost anyways, Russia followed NATO's precedent and then grabbed territory for itself. Sometimes you can have your cake and eat it, too.