Georgia: The Score
Russia’s recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia makes it imperative to analyze the situation in the Caucasus dispassionately and comprehensively. The mainstream media (MSM) treatment of the crisis has been predictably monolithic, however -- almost as biased (“bad Russia!”) as it was shallow. A more nuanced story does exist, but it is not readily available. We bring you a few samples of the commentary and analysis that you will not find in your Gannett paper or on your prime-time news channel.
Let us start with Princeton’s Richard Falk. He opens a detailed assessment, published on August 26 in Turkey’s English-language Today’s Zaman, by asking readers to imagine the American response if Russia acted comparably in Cuba or Mexico to the US engagement with Georgia in recent years:
President Bush announced that as many as 11 American naval vessels would escort humanitarian relief to Georgia via the Black Sea. We would be on the verge of world war if Russia dared to enter the American Great Lakes with warships. It is helpful always to reverse the identity of the actors when considering the reasonableness of their behavior… Saakashvili's overt hostility to the Putin/Medvedev government seems… to have played into Russia’s hands, especially given the inability of the United States to back Georgia up with any support more tangible than strong words and humanitarian relief.
South Ossetia and even Georgia—writes Falk—are but hapless pawns in the larger geopolitical chess game that is beginning to assume alarming proportions reminiscent of the worst days of the Cold War era. We are also witnessing a collision of two contrasting geopolitical logics, he says, the interplay of which pose great dangers for regional and world peace, as well as to the well-being of the peoples of the world:
Russian behavior seems mainly motivated by a traditional spatially limited effort to establish a friendly and stable security belt in countries near its borders. It is reasserting an historic sphere of influence that has always been at odds with the sovereign rights of its neighbors, sparking their fear and hostility. We can interpret Russia’s behavior in this respect as seeking indirect control over its so-called ‘near abroad’ that was mainly lost after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1992. In light of NATO expansion to incorporate the countries of Eastern Europe, the assertion of Russian primacy in relation to its former Soviet republics is a high priority for which Moscow seems willing to pay a considerable price, including a deep chilling of relations with the United States.
What was proclaimed as “democratization” of Georgia was seen in Moscow as Americanization, with but a slightly disguised anti-Russian agenda. Saakashvili was the ideal leader as far as Washington was concerned, Falk asserts, being so avowedly committed to the U.S., even sending 2,000 troops to aid the American effort in Iraq, but the worst possible leader from the Russian viewpoint. He spoke of Russia in derogatory terms, and was eager to do what Russia feared, join in a dynamic process of military encirclement as part of the American global security project:
In comparison with Russia, Washington considers that the entire world has become its geopolitical playing field in the aftermath of the Soviet collapse… [It] follows a global imperial logic rather than Russia’s pursuit of a limited regional sphere of interest logic. Thinking along these lines means that Georgia falls dangerously within both Russia’s sphere of influence and is a battlefield in the American attempt to build an informal global empire that acknowledges no geographic limits. The whole world is Washington’s ‘near abroad.’ This tension if allowed to persist is likely to produce a revival of an arms race reminiscent of the Cold War, and could easily lead to a horrifying renewal of the East-West conflict, even reviving risks of great power warfare fought with nuclear weapons. It is not a happy moment, perhaps the most ominous time from the perspective of world peace since the Sept. 11 attacks.
Falk notes that Russia now joins the United States as a major power willing to use non-defensive force without authorization from the United Nations, and hence in violation of international law:
The Russians were also probably motivated to act in Georgia by the disregard of their objections to the NATO approach to Serbia and Kosovo. After the NATO War of 1999 the West definitely pushed for first de facto independence of Kosovo, long part of the territorial domain of Serbia, and then in the past year gave diplomatic backing to its unilateral declaration of independence, and accompanying claim to be treated as a sovereign state. The experience of Kosovo provides Russia with a precedent that it seeks to imitate in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, thereby teaching a lesson to both Georgia and the United States: What goes around comes around.
There is much to be learned and much to be feared in relation to these recent events, Falk concludes. The Russian resurgence means, above all, that the central rivalry of the last half century again must be treated with utmost seriousness. It is more important than at any time since the breaching of the Berlin Wall that both Moscow and Washington exhibit sensitivity to each other's fundamental interests as great powers:
It will not be possible to avoid encounters arising from this clash between regional and imperial geopolitics, but at least diplomacy can do a far better job of avoiding showdowns than has happened in relation to South Ossetia and Georgia. In the end, the prospect for peace and justice in the 21st century depends on respect for sovereign rights, and eventually on the repudiation of geopolitics, but we are not nearly there yet. And these developments suggest that the world may be drifting anew into the most dangerous form of geopolitics, namely, reliance on force to resolve international disputes.
A detailed critique of the media treatment of Georgia is provided by Gary Leupp, professor of history at Tufts. Writing in Dissident Voice on August 19, he summarized the MSM spin:
Georgia’s young leader Mikheil Saakashvili, the Columbia Law School graduate who came to power after the heroic ‘Rose Revolution’ in 2003, is a great friend of America (providing the third largest detachment of ‘Coalition’ troops to Iraq). His commitment to democracy and Georgian independence have annoyed Moscow, which still retains aspects of Soviet-era authoritarianism, still cherishes ambitions to dominate border states once part of the USSR, and is (for unexplained reasons) suspicious of U.S. hopes to integrate Georgia into NATO. It has taken advantage of separatist movements in Georgia to weaken the Tblisi government. Saakashvili, in an effort to establish effective control over his whole country, sent troops into the breakaway region of South Ossetia August 7 (just before the Olympic Games opening ceremony in Beijing). Russia used this as an excuse to flex its muscle, invading a country for the first time since the USSR invaded Afghanistan in December 1979. It not only drove Georgian troops from South Ossetia but along with allies in the separatist Abkhazia region attacked targets throughout Georgia. It’s a clear case of unwarranted aggression.
Leupp responds to this summary with eight points:
- Saakashvili, who owes his position to U.S. interference, is no liberal democrat but an autocrat who jails political foes and uses force to quash anti-government demonstrations.
- Russia is alarmed at the unceasing expansion of NATO, which it expected to dissolve along with the Warsaw Pact. The U.S. is pushing for the inclusion of Ukraine (another country where it has been meddling politically) and Georgia in the alliance. Russia has repeatedly warned that it will not tolerate this.
- Already in 1991-92 Georgia applied crude force in a failed attempt to subdue South Ossetians and Abkhazians.
- Most South Ossetians are Russian citizens, and Russia has an obligation to defend them—just as it has an obligation to defend its peace-keeping troops from attack.
- Saakashvili seeks NATO membership depicting Georgia as a democracy confronted with a bullying undemocratic neighbor—thus additionally provoking Moscow.
- The crisis started with Georgia’s surprise air attack on Tskhinvali on August 7 followed up by a tank and mortar assault August 8.
- The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline passes through Georgia, connecting the Caspian oil fields to NATO member Turkey and bypassing Russia. Saakashvili may have believed Georgia was so valuable to the U.S. bloc that he could assault South Ossetia counting on the U.S. to restrain any Russian response.
- The Russians have made pointed references to U.S. recognition of Kosovo and NATO’s bombing of Serbia in 1999.
The parallel between Kosovo and South Ossetia is not exact, Leupp concludes, but any such differences notwithstanding, Moscow’s response is clear: You cannot violate international law with your constant aggressions and provocations without expecting us, at some point, to respond in kind. You have created this problem, and more to come.
Arguing for Abkhazia’s and South Ossetia’s independence in the Houston Chronicle on August 24 (“Give Russia respect it’s due”), Gail Stokes of Rice University notes that, from the Russian point of view, Europe and the United States first militarily attacked Serbia on behalf of breakaway Kosovo and then helped the province proclaim independence; but when Russia intervenes in South Ossetia, the United States reacts with shock and anger.
The tensions are greatly increased, Stokes says, by America’s recent agreements with the Czech Republic and Poland to place missile monitoring radars in those countries. Despite U.S. protestations that its intentions are defensive, one only needs to consider what any American government’s reaction would be to the placement of Russian radars in Mexico to defend against a rogue Latin American state. The problem is that, during the decade after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States did not take Russia seriously:
Even today, we continue to chastise the Russians for human rights abuses, for “misusing” their oil and gas resources for political purposes and for obstructing our wishes in various international venues. What did we expect? That a great country with an educated work force just starting to feel its economic oats would be content to play second fiddle forever? It was just a matter of time before the Russians reappeared as a strong state on the international scene. They have now arrived, and it is in everyone’s interest if we begin to deal with them like the great power they are.
Dallas Darling, the author of The Other Side of Christianity, goes a step further and argues in The Middle East Online (August 20) that the “global war on terror” has always been about encircling Russia. When the US-backed Georgia invaded South Ossetia and fired on Russian peace keepers, he says, “it was a nation-fulfilled prophecy… it is what the US has long dreamed of, hoped for, and desired”:
A nation-fulfilled prophecy is why hundreds of Special Forces have trained Georgian troops and are now stationed in Georgia. It is the reason Bush II mentioned Hungary during the Olympic Games and why Rice flew to Georgia claiming “this is not 1968 and the invasion of Czechoslovakia, where Russia can threaten a neighbor, occupy a capital, overthrow a government and get away with it.” It is the reason the US mainstream press considers Russian military maneuvers similar to the Nazi takeover of the Sudetenland, refers to Russia’s leader as another Hitler and Stalin, and publishes political cartoons showing a Russian bear standing over a mountainous heap of corpses. When Senator John McCain, the Republican presidential hopeful, told an audience, “My friends, we have reached a crisis, the first probably serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War,” he was speaking about the finalization of our nation-fulfilled prophecy. This is also the reason the US wants to desperately deploy military bases, Patriot Missiles, and a defense missile shield in Poland and the Ukraine. The timing of this agreement sends a clear message embedded in our historical psyche."
A great tragedy of modern history, according to Dallas, occurred when the US squandered not only a Cold War victory, but also a Cold War peace. As Rice resurrects the Iron Curtain motif and claims “Russia will pay a price,” he concludes, she fails to understand millions of people, with their lives and resources, have already paid a steep price: “The elite ruling class should have realized too that all along, what needed to be ‘contained’ was their misguided nation-fulfilling prophecy to entrap and destroy Russia.”
The Edmonton Journal offered a simple statement of geopolitical facts by Lorne Gunter (“West can do nothing for Georgia”) on August 15. “Moscow wanted to send a message: If you provoke us, we will find ways to retaliate,” the author says, “Georgia is payback for Kosovo”:
Just as America’s invasion of Grenada in 1983 was a signal that the U.S. had shaken off its post-Vietnam lethargy, Russia’s invasion of its southern neighbour is likely a sign it is over its chaotic, criminal post-Soviet phase…. It will no longer permit sand to be kicked in its face.
The West’s reaction was best summed up by Secretary Gates when he said there would be no U.S. troops, and by Victor Davis Hanson, when he asked “Who wants to die for Tbilisi?” The answer, of course, is “no one in the West.” And that was not the answer just since Bush or Iraq, Gunter concludes, it has always been the Western answer.
We’ll end this survey with a solid analysis by George Friedman, published by Stratfor on August 25. He sees the “Russo-Georgian war” as an event rooted in broad geopolitical processes: the Russian/Soviet empire expanded for centuries, and then collapsed in 1991. The Western powers wanted to make the disintegration permanent. It was inevitable that Russia would, in due course, want to reassert its claims. There is, however, the context of Russian perceptions of U.S. and European intentions and of U.S. and European perceptions of Russian capabilities, and those attitudes can only be understood if we trace the question of Kosovo. The 1999 NATO campaign was carried out without U.N. sanction because of Russian and Chinese opposition:
The United States and other European powers disregarded the Russian position. Far more important, they established the precedent that U.N. sanction was not needed to launch a war (a precedent used by George W. Bush in Iraq). Rather — and this is the vital point — they argued that NATO support legitimized the war. This transformed NATO from a military alliance into a quasi-United Nations. What happened in Kosovo was that NATO took on the role of peacemaker, empowered to determine if intervention was necessary, allowed to make the military intervention, and empowered to determine the outcome. Conceptually, NATO was transformed from a military force into a regional multinational grouping with responsibility for maintenance of regional order, even within the borders of states that are not members. If the United Nations wouldn’t support the action, the NATO Council was sufficient.
In Friedman’s view, the Kosovo war directly effected the fall of Yeltsin and the rise of Vladimir Putin. It was driven by the perception that NATO had shifted from being a military alliance to seeing itself as a substitute for the UN, arbitrating regional politics. Russia had no vote or say in NATO decisions, so NATO’s new role was seen as a direct challenge to Russian interests. Thus, the ongoing expansion of NATO into the former USSR and the promise to include Ukraine and Georgia into NATO were seen in terms of the Kosovo war. From the Russian point of view, expansion meant a further exclusion of Russia from decision-making, and implied that NATO reserved the right to repeat Kosovo if it felt that “human rights” or political issues required it:
Then came Kosovo’s independence. Yugoslavia broke apart into its constituent entities, but the borders of its nations didn’t change. Then, for the first time since World War II, the decision was made to change Serbia’s borders, in opposition to Serbian and Russian wishes, with the authorizing body, in effect, being NATO. It was a decision avidly supported by the Americans.
On May 15 the foreign ministers of India, Russia and China made a joint statement reasserting their fundamental position that the unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo contradicts Resolution 1244 and calling on the West “to encourage Belgrade and Pristina to resume talks within the framework of international law” and expressed hope that they can “reach an agreement on all problems of that Serbian territory.” The Europeans and Americans rejected this request as they had rejected all Russian arguments on Kosovo. The Russians let it be known that they would not accept the idea that Kosovo independence was a one-of-a-kind situation and that they would regard it, instead, as a new precedent for all to follow. As Friedman stresses,
The problem was not that the Europeans and the Americans didn’t hear the Russians. The problem was that they simply didn’t believe them — they didn’t take the Russians seriously. They had heard the Russians say things for many years. They did not understand three things. First, that the Russians had reached the end of their rope. Second, that Russian military capability was not what it had been in 1999. Third, and most important, NATO, the Americans and the Europeans did not recognize that they were making political decisions that they could not support militarily.
Kosovo wasn’t everything, Friedman concludes, but it was the single most significant event behind the current crisis. The war of 1999 was the framework that created the war of 2008. The problem for NATO was that it was expanding its political reach and claims while contracting its military muscle. The Russians were expanding their military capability and the West didn’t notice. In 1999, the Americans and Europeans made political decisions backed by military force. In 2008, in Kosovo, they made political decisions without sufficient military force to stop a Russian response.
74 Responses »
Trackbacks
- Trifkovic on NATO’s follies in Kosovo & Georgia « What Do You Believe?
- Conservative Heritage Times » Some articles for your consideration
- News | Serbian Unity Congress » Georgia: The Score, Chronicles Magazine
- Trifkovic on the Russo-Georgian Conflict « The Vermont Traditionalist
Entries(RSS)
Well said, Dr Trifkovic. Thank you for your analysis.
Good for Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Now I wonder if perhaps recognitions of Nagorno-Karabakh and Transnistria might be in the making ? Maybe that is stirring the pot a bit too much.
Thanks Dr. Trifkovic. When this crisis began, I knew we could count your expert analysis.
No further recognitions are likely. Moscow insists its move was the result of "Misha's" criminal folly. Neither Kishinev nor Baku are mad enough to give it a try...
It’s hard to understand the hypocrisy of the US and EU regarding Russia’s recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. What right did the US or EU have to recognise Kosovo. None! Serbia has every legal and moral right to Kosovo.
The only way the US and EU can justify there actions is via their military and financial power, not moral. Their moral right has deserted them long back.
My only concern is that this current conflict in Georgia does not escalate and lead to more unnecessary deaths. This would be a great shame, the world already has enough death look at Iraq and Afghanistan, and we don’t need more wars.
Hopefully the US and EU will now accept and acknowledge that they made a grave mistake to recognise Kosovo, but the reality is that they won’t. The truth of the mater is that their pride will prevent this. But every time they now condemn Russia they will firstly be condemning themselves.
Dr. Trifkovic are NATO countries mad enough to give it a try…?
The following from the Russian news agency RIA Novosti on August 25:
..."NATO's naval deployments in the Black Sea, where nine foreign vessels have already been sent, cannot but provoke concern," Col. Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn said.
According to a Russian military intelligence source, the NATO warships that have entered the Black Sea carry over 100 Tomahawk cruise missiles and Harpoon anti-ship missiles between them.
NATO has so far deployed the USS McFaul and the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Dallas, the Polish frigate General Pulaski, the German frigate FGS Lubeck, and the Spanish navy ship Admiral Juan de Borbon. .."
Chisinau for the PC.
An especially great piece when considering its quick release after the announced recognition.
As someone who recognizes the hypocrisy of the leading Western governments and the legitimacy of Russia's counterattack to the Aug. 7 Georgian government strike into South Ossetia, I'm nevertheless apprehensive about Russian interests being best served by recognizing South Ossetia and Abkhazia - without waiting a bit for another scenario.
Russia has now seemingly lost whatever leverage it might've had with Georgia. There's a Georgian consensus which considers Abkhazia and South Ossetia as part of Georgia. Georgia now might be more prone to going the NATO/EU route, with that grouping being more sympathetic to that desire.
Would it have been more wise of Russia to wait it out a bit longer?
It is really quite simple: South Ossetians should govern in South Ossetia, Abkhazians in Abkhazia, and Albanians in Albania.
Russia recognised the two regions because Georgian /US/Israeli/British forces have disregarded the peacekeeping agreement and vowed to take back the region by force.
The Georgian president stated that he has vowed to rebuild his army and retake the regions.
Russia wanted to create a security buffer zone round South Ossetia’s border so it won’t be vulnerable to attack.
If Georgia is going to take the regions by aggressive force regardless of international agreements backed by Europe and the US then Russia is obliged to recognise them as separate entities.
Medvedev should have said he would recognise the regions as independent only if Georgia continues its policy of aggression. The South Ossetian assault was a clear case to drive the ethnic Ossetians out of that region.
In regards to the missile defence shield Russia proposed stationing it in Azerbaijan which is much more logical to intercept missiles from Iran. Just by looking at the map it’s obvious it’s targeted towards Russia. The shield gives the US control to launch its entire Nuclear weapons arsenal at Russia.
Neocons are already discussing a nuclear first strike against Russia.
"Would it have been more wise of Russia to wait it out a bit longer?" -- Heck, no! This will concentrate the minds in DC wonderfully. Moscow is now in the position to offer a win-win deal: DE-recognition all round (Kosovo, SO, Ab)! The West can respond meekly with the tired old mantra that Kosovo is a "special case," "unique," and "does not set a precedent" -- which is the weakest link in its "case"; or else it can cave in and accept (unlikely).
Do you think Russia really expects others to recognize these regions or are they simply ensuring these conflicts as well as Kosovo will be frozen until there is international consensus on how to approach? Certainly making US and UK look silly.
If anybody knows about the Turkish agreement with the countries who have home seaports in the Black Sea? I was under the mistaken impression that no military vessels of other nations would be allowed through the Dardaneli, while Bosphorus was to remain open.
Does anybody know is there any such agreement (since in today's press I read that 11 American military Navy vessels are providing cover for one floating hospital and a minesweeper delivering food and other aid.
Sounds a little bit like the overtures to the Crimean war? I am at a loss of what is really going on in the Black Sea. If anybody knows everything about everything it's Dr. Trifkovic and followers of his astute observations.
Check out the Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits (1936) which gave Turkey control over the Bosporus & Dardanelles and guarantees the free passage of civilian vessels in peacetime. It restricts the passage of non-Turkish military vessels and prohibits some types of warships, such as aircraft carriers, from passing through the Straits.
The blessing in all this is that it is an enormous boost for the EU. The US is discredited, NATO is discredited, all that's left is the EU! And Kosovo? The EU leaders are now re-affirming the principle of territorial integrity with considerable gusto, which largely torpedos US policy in Kosovo. They will no doubt say that the US pressured them into a "premature" recognition of Kosovo. Then, the whole of Europe, the EU and Russia together, will agree that the problem is US meddling in European affairs and we will all live happily ever after.
Legally, under the 1936 Montreux Convention, the right of passage of non-Black Sea nations' warships throught the Straits is quite limited.
Practically, the Turks could close them or restrict passage at any time.
Given the heightened tension in Turkey between secularists and Islamists (of a kind), and Turkey's rapprochement with Iran, passage of U.S. naval vessels there would seem to be a bit uncertain.
Georgian membershp in NATO is geopolitically untenable, and would be, as we have seen, a commitment that NATO and the US could not in fact honor.
I see no need for NATO at all, but if there is to be one, its means and ends should be in better balance.
Ukrainian goons dressed in civilian clothes may start harassing and attacking ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine to get a response from Russia. Media and politicians will say Russia is trying to take other Ukraine then all of Europe. If Russians are attacked in Ukraine, Russian transport planes should ship them into EU countries especially Britain.
A major thing no one seems to highlight is that Ukrainian and US mercenaries were involved in the attack, just like US mercenaries were active members of the KLA during the '99 assault on Serbia.
Bravo, Dr Trifkovic, for your excellent analysis.
Dr Trifkovic,
Another war over Nagorno-Karabakh is very likely. Azerbaijan will start it when it thinks it is strong enough. The West will tilt to Azerbaijan (as though the Armenians have not suffered enough, but anything for easier access to oil). Without Russian protection Armenia would collapse, squeezed between enemies Turkey and Azerbaijan. What will Russia do when Azerbaijan attacks?
@ re Mr. Averko's #6:
"Would it have been more wise of Russia to wait it out a bit longer?"
Absolutely not. Any diplomatic moves, procrastination, negotiations are percieved as weakness in the time of pre-historical scavengers as much as today. It is precisely the speed of Russian action (not words, not exchanges, not envoys or emmissaries) that has driven a point home with temerity. As in Von Clausewitz's view on war (as much as T. Hobbes): "WARRE is fought not in BATTEL alone" Swift decisive action is very poweful deterrent especially if you are dealing with nitwits who think they will buy more time, regroup, try some diplomatic Trojan Horse. Absolutely well thought out and executed on the Russian part. Our presidential candiates should take notice that the balance of powers is no longer as unilateral as it used to be.
As usually, Dr. Trifkovic has said the same thing before me, with a lot more insight, including far reaching consequences, which I am not bother to address since I can't think with that speed.
Somebody should inform our "geographically well rounded" leaders that the staged Gulf of Tonkin is not possible in the Black Sea - it is more of a trap than a success:
"The American announcement setting the stage for a direct US-Russia naval confrontation came against a background of continuing high tensions in the region in the wake of the Russia-Georgia conflict and with both Russia and NATO rushing warships into the Black Sea.
The first NATO naval vessel to sail into the region was the destroyer USS McFaul, arriving to take up station off Georgia's Black Sea coast on August 24."
sourced: http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/228055,nato-russian-naval-controntation-on-tap-in-black-sea--feature.html
The Crimean Wars were a good lesson to Russians except for one small difference:
Malinovsky and Dzerzhinsky Military Academy cadets can walk out on the Red Square and take turns taking aim at the hostile presence in the Black Sea while Russia "accidentaly on purpose" sinks their own tanker on the Mediteranean side of the Straits with two 955 Borey class subs waiting in the International waters of the Mare Nostrum. Rather grim outcome would cause madness as a result of shortage of water and food on all the vessels (right now I counted 16) aboard these "do-gooders". Whoever does not accept Russian terms in this case stands a great chance to loose a lot more.
And more importantly both of our presidential disasters seem to be in favor of "a military answer to Russian hostilities". What TV program are they watching? Is our CIA caught sleeping on the job again? I learned that New Zealand has a large contigent of people who share my last name. Maybe that's my new home... I can't endorse any country's foolishness and road to abysmal failurs or is it only that Gods are making us temporariliy mad before they destroy us?
#10
It is not without a reason that the Russians are considered excellent at the game of chess!
I'm pretty sure that all this Black Sea NATO (NoAction-TalkOnly alliance) posturing is just a desperate attempt at salvaging of what's left of West's collapsed reputation. And it's utterly useless. However, if something goes horribly wrong and someone badly miscalculates (not an unthinkable outcome given neocons' predisposition for hubris), then Black Sea is probably the best place for Russia to destroy NATO ships in one fell swoop, if it's forced to do so ( the whole area is more than covered by anti-ship missiles based in Novorossiysk area). Bush should remove his armada ASAP, if he doesn't want to be sucked into an ordeal from which only China will emerge as the sole winner. Russians don't seem to be scared of this naval disply, and thus the whole spectacle makes no sense.
It still is unclear to me how so many people who (rightfully) criticized the recognition of Kosovo on the grounds of international law now joyfully hail Russia's equally illegal actions.
Didn’t the US allow Turkey to invade Northern Iraq to attack the PKK over the objections of the Iraqi PM even giving Turkey intel?
Bosnian Serbs should break away from Bosnia and create there own state.
Why should the US be the ones to make or break the rules of international law?
The US actively helped create Kosovo not only by granting it independence it armed and trained the KLA, lobbied for them in the US, ran there PR and help set up organised crime syndicates to fund them like drugs smuggling into Europe. US mercenaries were active members of the KLA on the ground coordinating attacks with NATO bombardment.
Aren’t there a number of separatist groups in the US? There’s one in Alaska.
@23Alex Ryu
Because Russia was part of an internationally recognised peacekeeping agreement since Georgian troops under the ultra nationalist president invaded the regions disavowing there autonomous status under the slogan “Georgians for Georgia”.
Georgia broke UN recognised international law when it invaded South Ossetia trying to ethnically cleanse the area.
Georgia has publicly declared it’s going to retake the regions by force once it builds up its army again disregarding international agreements which would mean an ethnic cleansing campaign of native Ossetian’s whose capital is in ruins.
Alex,
It's very simple: two wrongs do not make a right.
Reverse you policy on Kosovo and we'll grant Georgia it's breathing 2 cubic centimeters. Russia is holding all cards in her hands. As in the old song "Whater you can do - I can do it better...."
Russia and many other nations warned that the granting of Kosovo's breakaway from Serbian teritory might offset the Catalan, Basque, Irish and other separatist moves - NATO chose to be stay deaf - now they can taste the deafness of the other side.
Alex Ryu, Russia's actions are not "equally illegal". They are based on the precedent. I guess you know which one. Only when the West denounces Kosovo "independence", will you have a leg to stand on.
BTW, have you ever criticized Kosovo decision before now? Ever been outraged by it? Wrote to your senator? Participated in demonstration? Or your conscience have only awakened when the West got impaled on a stake of its own hypocricy?
How is Serbian media portraying the events in the Russia/Georgian conflict?
Serbia should recognise the two states to show the US what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Re: 19
Ilya & Co.
There's another way of looking at it.
Russia isn't in a desperate situation to have to make such a quick decision.
Forigve me for repeating some earlier stated thoughts of mine(afterwhich, I'll shut up and carefully review any replies)
Among a good number, there seems to be a consensus that Georgia is probably lost from coming back to a closer relationship with Russia.
Prior to the Russian recognition, I'm not so sure.
Overall, Russians and Georgians don't have the same hate factor as some other pairs.
A good number of Georgians detest Saakashvili.
At the same time, there's a Georgian consensus on Abkhazia and South Ossetia being part of Georgia.
I see great potential value for Russia to have not recognized the two disputed lands so soon.
Why not wait for the possibility of an improved Georgian government that was based on recognizing the counterproductive manner of Saakashvili's Aug. 7 folly and negative attitude towards Russia? From that hypothetical point, broker a loosely reunified Georgian SSR, based on close ties to Russia.
Instead, Georgians now feel more of a need to move closer to the West (with its neolib-neocon foreign policy biases) and vice versa.
We know how likely Western mass media will successfully spin (as has been done on other matters) how Kosovo has the better independence case (BS) and compare the number of countries recognizing Kosovo over the other two (never mind the example of northern Cyprus).
M. Averko,
you mean Russians should have betrayed Abkhazians and South Ossetians - people who displayed plenty of affinity for Russia while it was still fashionable to spit into Russians' faces? All that so that Kremlin could have better relations with traitorous Georgians? That'd be royally stupid. Instead of one enemy Russia would end up with three. You make no sense, man. Sometimes calculating too much (Brzezinski and Afghanistan in 1979) is just as bad as calculating too little (Bush and Iraq in 2003). Don't overcalculate things...
At this point Russia simply couldn't care less about Georgia. And who needs whom more anyway?
@26Michael Averko: Your thesis sounds reasonable but it has major flaws.
1) That the international community will uphold agreements upon by Russia and Georgia which Georgia broke by invading South Ossetia with the full support of the EU and US. Georgia has vowed to retake the regions once its army is rebuilt and regrouped totally disregarding the early 90’s peacekeeping agreement.
2) That the next Georgian leadership won’t be another George Soros proxy government like the one before the current president. The US and Israel have put a lot of time and money into Georgia to develop Caspian oil pipelines. A lot of government positions are link to Israel, US and Britain.
The current leadership is as aggressive and bad as the post communist Georgian president.
Please watch this film if you haven't already and send it to everyone you know:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&hl=en
Mr. Averko: I think we all agree that Georgia is a puppet state in this case and Suck-up-shvilli is not the most popular fellow in the country.
Plain and simple (and uncontroverted) Georgia miscalculated very badly pretty much as much as Milosevic did when he took on the entire NATO on the back of his people.
I see some similarities in the Ukraine - not sure of their proper spellings but there was a blonde woman, Yulia Timosheko, and the other one was the pineapple face (Yushchenko). The Ukraine has to finish their own internal affairs lest the get to be a puppet in somebody else's hands.
@31Iliya Pavlovich
Yes its Viktor ( I was on an alcoholic bender and got Pancreatitis and say I was poisoned by Russians ) Yushchenko.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/boyle.php?articleid=4217
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13192
Funny how the oligarchy who control the media before the orange revolution who are Israeli citizens still control the media.
Mr. Averko,
From what I remember you were had a gread deal of knowledge about the Ukraine. I am not sure if this the most recent history, but I found the following sentence on the World's Navies web site:
"The problem over Crimea is this. Crimea was handed over to Ukraine from the Russian Soviet Republic by Nikita Khrushchev in 1954. However ethnic Russians still make up the majority of its nearly 2 million inhabitants. It is also home to the Russian navy`s Black Sea Fleet at Sevastopol, on which Russia has a lease until 2017."
If that is true and accurate then Georgia is "the Gulf of Tonkin incident" and the true conflict might arise in Crimea. That much more the need for the Ukraine leadership to act wisely and cautiously.
My experience during the Kosovo bombardment you can see in
http://www.blogspot.com
blog 08veritas.blogspot.com
Semperigem
@36Iliya Pavlovich
I've heard it's 90% ethnic Russians.
What if Georgia is able to take back the regions? Abkhasia and Ossetia hate Georgian leaders, who tried to control them, with good reason.
The Abkhasians and Ossetians would be treated like the Serbs are in Kosovo under the KLA: as subhuman.
Yar:
By waiting on whether to recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Russia could still maintain a position in that region, while not upsetting potential Georgian allies. Overall, Russians and Georgians don't have the same adversarial relationship as some other pairs. Russian interests are best served by having the territory of the entire Georgian SSR on good terms with the Kremlin.
****
James:
I realize that a post-Saakashvili government might not be a great improvement from the Russian view. This likelihood gets enhanced by Russia's recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. I respectfully don't see why there's a great rush for Russia to recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states. It could've waited it out to see how the situation in Georgia proper develops.
I'm hoping for a scenario where Georgians see fault with Saakashvili as a leader and favor a government seeking better relations with Russia. This possibility likely gets decreased with the Russian recognition. The reason having to do with the Georgian consensus on South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
In the former Moldavian SSR conflict, a Serb proposed Kosovo settlement formula is being encouraged (recognition of an internationally recognized existing unit with great autonomy). Granted Moldova didn't recently attack Pridnestrovie.
I'm going on the premise that there's a certain amount of gray in the former Georgian SSR conflict.
Ilya:
Regarding your query about Ukraine:
Ukraine and "Russophobia" Uncensored
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/57965
Conflict in the Caucasus and Ukraine's Russia Friendly Side
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/71063
Fallout from the Conflict in the Caucasus
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/71571
Has anyone heard about the possibility of Russia recognizing KosovA? I certainly hope this is only a rumor!
A firm no to that from Russia.
Predictably, the repackaged KLA doesn't recognize the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
That's what Vitaly Churkin said 2 days ago, but I heard several rumors. I think Russia would look ridiculous if it did that. I hope that never happens. Thank you.
Second attempt (first didn't go thru):
He pretty said the same again on Thursday:
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080829/116366168.html
Not so long ago, Putin gave further clarity on what it would take for Russia to recognize Kosovo's independence (Serbia would've have to agree as well):
http://en.rian.ru/world/20080308/100983311.html
I received the following commentary that doesn't (for the moment) appear to be online (for this reason, I'm keeping the source confidential):
There may be some in Serbia who are tempted to think Moscow's recognition of the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia is bad for Serbia, and that maybe Russia might change its position on Kosovo and Metohija.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact, this development is very favorable to Serbia for several reasons:
1. Russia will not change its position on KiM. Russia will continue to make points of principle that --
(a) With respect to KiM, Belgrade has always insisted on a negotiated solution and did not resort to violence as Saakashvili did. Instead, it was the Albanians and their supporters who took illegal action, which cannot compromise Serbian sovereignty. By contrast, Saakashvili injured Georgia's claim “ and it only a claim (see point (b), below) through his own violent actions.
(b) Under the relevant Yugoslav and Soviet laws, KiM has no right to secede from Serbia (or from Yugoslavia before that), but the USSR's autonomous republics (Abkhazia) and oblasts (South Ossetia) had the right to opt out of the Union Republics' secession, in this case, the Georgian SSR, under the 1990 law on secession from the USSR . Hence, Abkhazia and South Ossetia clearly were part of the GeSSR but never part of independent Georgia. By contrast, KiM unquestionably has been part of Serbia since before Yugoslavia was created.
President Medvedev, Minister Lavrov, and Ambassador Churkin have been quite clear on these points. They have correctly insisted that these "frozen" areas of the former USSR are far more deserving of independence than KiM is.
2. The Russian action shows that there is no objective value to Washington's recognition of Kosovo, only a subjective standard. Ask the question: does Russia's recognition settle the question of Abkhazia's and South Ossetia's global status? Of course not. As Washington has done with Kosovo, Moscow will now try to get other countries on board. Suppose they get 20, or 10, or 5. And Kosovo has 46? And Western Sahara has perhaps 47? The bottom line is that each claim of independence can be answered with "Well, that's your opinion. You say it is, and I say it's not." Washington has replaced international standards with the law of the jungle and has no right to complain about what other powers do. Independence stays in the eye of the beholder. What we have in effect are several regions in frozen conflict with no clear answer to what they are. But it's pretty clear none of them will get into the UN.
3. Given the growing sense of the instability the KiM problem now has caused, even fewer countries will want to get involved. This means a further discouragement to recognition of KiM. It also makes it more likely the UN General Assembly will vote to refer KiM (and maybe the other areas) to the ICJ, to avoid having to take a position themselves.
4. Perhaps most importantly, this exposes the degree to which Moscow (Serbia's supporter on KiM) is strong and Washington (Serbias enemy on KiM) is weak. In the Georgian crisis US officials condemn violation of Georgia's "sovereignty and territorial integrity" evidently unaware of their hypocrisy. They demand that Russia "must do this" and Russia "must do that" when it is obvious to everyone they cannot make Russia do anything. They seem not to appreciate how ridiculous they appear. But the rest of the world sees and takes note.
I find it somewhat surprising that the author of “The Sword of the Prophet” and “Defeating Jihad” does not use the word jihad or Islam in his analysis of the Russia - Georgia conflict at all. It is as if the Russia - Georgia conflict and defeating jihad were transpiring in parallel universes and are totally unrelated.
Not so Walid Phares in “South Ossetia: The perfect wrong war? ”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/south_ossetia_the_perfect_wron.html
@41Michael Averko
Post-Saakashvili government will be the exact same as the current one just like in the US the agenda and narrative aligned with an un-independent media was set long ago by Brezinski, Soros and co.
They have supported ethnic cleansing, separatism and terrorism inside Russia, run a non-Russian mafia involved in sex trafficking of tens of thousands of Russian girls since the collapse of the Soviet Union , covertly sponsored the rise of militant Islam threatening the ethnic Russian populations there.
Western opinion public and government has always been anti-Christian/anti-Russian. They fully backed the Bolshevik takeover of Russia, financed, organised and lead primarily in New York demonized the Czar just as they have Putin and covered up the crimes of the foreign government in control of Russia.
If the Putin/Medvedev government is overthrown and the former oligarchs are brought back into power do they actually think that would be good for Russia?
It would obviously bring Russia to the brink of ruin and squarely under western control which is what they really want.
I think that Falks image of Russia wanting its sphere of influence at the expense of its neighbors is wrong. Russia is now a capitalist country and for capitalist countries it is simply not profitable to have this kind of colonies.
Compare it with Turkey. Turkey isn't concerned about re-establishing the Ottoman empire. But it is very worried about Turkish minorities elsewhere (Cyprus). Similarly Russia's main concern is the Russians in the other republics. And - connected to that - the Russian citizens there.
The Western support for Georgia's murderous attack on the Ossetians will make Russia more nervous about the Russian minorities elsewhere. Far from stopping an imperialist Russia the main effect of the Georgian attack will be that Russia will be more nervous and may take preventive measures because it can't trust the West even to maintain the most basic human rights for those people.
Serbia or Pro-Serbian organisations should immediately recognise the two regions like Belarus has and have diplomatic relations maybe even an embassy
The present Pro- EU Serbian president seems to be absolutely subservient to the US and EU only stating that Kosovo independence is a bad decision. Kostunica ( I think that’s his name ) was far more vocal.
Will anyone be posting Karadzic’s trail on YouTube, Google Video, etc
Does anyone have video clips of Milosevic cross examining Paddy Ashdown at the Hague trail? Especially when Ashdown claims to see through a mountain and dense forest and the clip he’s talking to the KLA inspecting there weapons
@James
Serbian Armed Forces Chief of Staff declared today that Serbia should not side hastily with either side since these are not only other countries affairs, but they may also destabilize the region, adding that Serbia had been issuing such warnings during the entire past decade.
Paddy Ashdown video was (and will be) unavailable since all western witnesses "acccpted" to tesity "in camera" (behind closed doors) - to preserve their own inadequacies, inconistencies if not outright lies.
Truth be told, it was "found money" only to hear G. W. and Dr. Rice make statements about territorial integrity and sovereignity of UN recognised countries (I suppose Iraq in on Mars or Saturn, close to Serbia - on Jupiter)
@50Iliya Pavlovich
I thought the trail in its entirety was broadcast on Serbian TV including the eye witness testimonies.
I thought someone would have recorded them and uploaded them on youtube or something.
Hopefully Karadiczs trail with be broadcast on youtube especially when anti Serb/Russian Richard Holbroke cross examined and made to look like a fool, just like Ashdown.
I’m disappointed in the Serbs reactions to the West. Russia seems to care more about Ossetian’s than Serbs do about Serbs in Kosovo.
Tadic and his government supported by the majority of Serbs are willing to follows Washington’s script that protesting that Kosovo’s independence will set a bad prescedent blah,blah,blah.
Tadic even stated that he wont send in military assistance to help the Serbs there and the assistance Serbs in Kosovo do get is foreign aid from Russia.
Has Tadic promote the Serb Orthodox church in Serbia like Putin has Russian Orthodox in Russia? NO.
When Georgian forces kill and harm Russian citizens Russia responds
Does anyone know how Serbs react to Russia’s actions in Georgia?
I know Soros and co own the media there.
I'm with Mr. Ryu.
Are not S.O. and Ab. a part of Georgia? Georgia, therefore, has the right to restore order (to the chaotic situation that was created by the Russians in the first place). Russia's claim that it can move in to defend its passport holders is a ridiculous pretext for war.
James
Look at what happened with Moldova over the past several years. Back about the time of the so-called "Orange Revolution," many thought it was drifting West (inclusive of the neolib/neocon faults).
Now, Moldova appears to have somewhat drifted back East.
Overall, Moldovans and Russians aren't as close as Russians and Georgians.
I don't take it as a given that Russia should write off Georgia as a loss. The Russian recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia certainly doesn't help Russia's position among Georgians.
Saakashvili's Aug. 7 blunder combined with the possibility of a reunited former Moldavian SSR (Moldova and Pridnestrovie) and prudent Russian diplomacy could change things in Georgia.
With all due respect to others like yourself and Dr. Trifkovic (who I very much respect, regardless of whatever differences I seem to have with him), there was no need to rush the recognition.
A recent article by Dmitry Babich in Russia Profile confirms that a number of key Kremlin affiliated (whether direct or indirect) Russian foreign policy professionals seem to concur.
If worse comes to worst, Russia can always choose to recognize later on.
What would happen if the neocon/neolib backers of the anti-Milosevic coalition openly highlighted their pro-Albanian nationalist bias during the Kostunica-Milosevic Yugoslav presidential race?
This question relates to why Russia shouldn't (IMO) have decided on recognizing South Ossetia and Abkhazia at this point in time.
M. Averko,
your seem to be fretting too much about Russia "losing" Georgia. What's up with that? That's just plain weird. Listening to you, one can acquire an impression that Georgia is a proud superpower and Russia is a hapless minnow. Alas, the opposite is true.
Georgia had used 17 years of its "independence" to insult Russia, slander it, demean it, threaten it, blackmail it, practice the most rabid Russophobia, even kill its citizens and its soldiers - and Russia is supposed to sit back, wipe all the spit off its face and hope that at some point in time Georgians will relent and allow Russia to become their friend???
You are delusional, to put it mildly.
Relax, what's done, is done. Timing could be this or that, but the way I see it, Russians have played this whole affair with great mastery, constantly keeping the West off balance. Their only weak point is PR - they seem awful in the art of spin and lying.