Large-scale fighting has broken out between Russia and Georgia. According to news reports, Georgia launched an offensive to suppress secessionist forces in the breakaway region of South Ossetia; the secessionists have long been backed by Russian troops. Russia has responded by launching a counteroffensive and bombing targets throughout Georgia.
At this point, I don't have enough information about the situation to comment in any great detail. For example, it's hard to assess the validity of Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili's claim that Russian airstrikes have been "specifically targeting [the] civilian population." (though sadly, it would not be a complete surprise if they were, given Russian practices in nearby Chechnya). Moreover, the backstory to this conflict is long and complex, and I doubt I have the knowledge to make more than tentative judgments about it.
That said, I think it's unlikely that Russia's role here is entirely benign, given the longstanding history of Russian imperialism in the region, Russia's recent aggressive policy towards its neighbors under Vladimir Putin, and Georgia's role as a recently democratized state and ally of the US that Russian leaders fear as a potential catalyst for pro-democracy movements within Russia itself. At the same time, it was probably unwise of Saakashvili to launch a large-scale offensive in South Ossetia that he should have realized could lead to war with a much more powerful state - a war that Georgia probably can't win if Russia is willing to commit enough of its forces to overwhelm the Georgians. Both of these points are, of course, tentative and could be invalidated by later revelations.
The conflict also has important implications for the US. Georgia has 2000 troops serving in the US-led coalition in Iraq, which are now likely to be called home. At this point, the Georgian force is the third-largest Coalition contingent in Iraq (after the US and Britain). The fighting could disrupt strategically important oil pipelines passing through the region. The US faces a difficult dilemma in so far as we may have to choose between backing a staunch ally and Bush's effort to improve relations with Russia (whose cooperation he needs on issues like the effort to impose sanctions against Iran for its nuclear program).
UPDATE: Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum, an expert on Russian politics and foreign policy, has an excellent op ed on the conflict.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Tentative Thoughts on The Russia-Georgia Ceasefire Agreement:
- Southern States' Official 1861 Statements of Reasons for Secession Emphasized Slavery:
- Slavery as the Motive for Southern Secession in 1861:
- Two Excellent Books on Secession:
- South Ossetia and the Morality of Secession:
- Zbigniew Brzezinski on Russia and Georgia:
- CNN Website Gives Edwards Affair Higher Billing than the Russia-Georgia Fighting:
- Fighting Between Russia and Georgia:
- Secession, Ignorance, and Stupidity:
Why use a term as generic as 'democracy' here, which can be so easily claimed for all sorts of procedures and arrangements, including the current ones in Russia? If one wants to speak without ambiguity and minimize sources of confusion, different interpretations of democratic forms ought to be distinguished.
After George Soros has invested so much money into various coups and revolutions, including the one that putsched Saakashvili to power, why not do him the favor and call the specific constitutional system aimed for in this global struggle the "Open Society", after his institute?
Despite some real flaws, the current Georgian government was chosen in free elections, with freedom of speech and an independent media. The same can't be said of the current government of Russia, which banned many of its opponents from participating in elections and has taken over most of the media.
If Georgia had been in NATO, and support for Georgia among NATO members was strong, Russia would not have invaded.
Weakness is always dangerous, and Georgia without NATO, is weak.
Exactly, which means that either you deliberately try to obfuscate that you are concerned with the censorship of 'free expression' (and the other moral issues connected with the question of the "Open Society"), not with the system of choosing the government, or that two quite disconnected ideas have been so confused in your mind that you have forgotten what the word democracy means, historically and philosophically.
That is the reason why I suggested a term that would allow both the supporters and the critics of the libertarian "Open Society" to have a fair debate about the real issues. I have no personal stake in the matter, but I know many who support democracy, even in its nationalistic form, without subscribing to all the tenets of the "Open Society". It's not very charitable to try and hijack their word.
I, too, am wondering what Russia's objectives, beyond being the tiger that roars loudest, are, here.
It's not oil but what is called "the will to power" that Europe (inheritors and continuing implementors of fascism) and the Middle East and Africa (mostly oppressive regimes headed by war lords and dictators), as UN members, "respect." It just so happens that valuable mineral resources give cause for political violence, from which emerge deranged rulers that make names for themselves. Consider for the sake of contrast the larger oil reserves of the Americas (most notably the US and Canada and also Brazil's massive, untapped offshore holding).
I guess my point was that the problem flows deeper than oil, and that's why what you're observing is so dangerous.
I suspect they have ample supplies of their own stuff.
You have to remember that the
soviRussians never mastered stealth technology, even partially- so their planes are going to be very easy to shoot down with missile technology from 40 years ago. Most of the recent American and Israeli failures in the area of anti-air missiles relate to shooting down much faster, smaller and stealthier objects like scud warheads and reentry vehicles.Additionally, Russians don't have the same ability to coordinate forces that the US does. A russian soldier on the ground can't use his binoculars to call in an airstrike that arrives within 10 minutes. As far as I know, their abilities in the areas of GPS, thermal imaging and night vision for troops is pretty substandard as well. The Russians haven't spent any money on their military in nearly 20 years beyond upkeep and even that has been a struggle.
To win this, all the Georgians need to do is shut down that tunnel between Russia and South Ossetia and the Russians already there will shrivel and die.
The only advantages the russians have here are:
-the guys they are sending in are allegedly from chechnya so they are combat hardened veterans I expect
-russia is much larger than georgia. Doesn't matter if they lose battle after battle because they have essentially unlimited reinforcements
Advantages of the georgians:
-the border with russia is a natural barrier of mountains. Destroy the man-made tunnel and snow will take care of the natural gaps in the mountains in a few months.
-Russia's military is in really shitty condition. Remember that these were the guys whose entire military got beaten by a bunch of peasants with stolen 1970s era soviet infantry weapons. Georgia is way better equipped, organized and motivated than the chechnyans ever were. Note how they have already shot down nearly a dozen warplanes and blown up several tanks in heads-on fighting.
-If this drags on too long and starts to pull experienced troops away from Chechnya, expect another action-packed Chechnya sequel as the insurgents notice the heat is off and start to get brave again. Russia could end up losing control of their whole southern border as all the crazy ethnic groups decide to reassert their identities as non-russians.
-the US is their ally and we can help them in many ways that Russia can neither directly detect nor counteract. For example, we could give them help with intelligence and equipment. US satellite assistance and sigint directed against the Russians would be nearly undetectable on the ground and would help enormously in putting Georgia's limited assets to good use. Modern night vision and body armor for Georgia would also help stretch their relatively limited manpower further. Remember that the Russians have not put serious effort into modernization since the mid 80s. This is not going to be anything like the US rolling into Baghdad.
The author is lamenting the Brits' ignorance of the area, including the chilling discovery that a 20,000 foot mountain range thought to be protecting the approaches to India did not, in fact, exist.
You can almost smell the old, rough tobacco a reader might have been using.
And there's a lot about Russia moving in. Lose an expedition? Mount another next year. Build ports on the big rivers. Suborn local leaders.
There is no political conundrum here. It's just what Russia does. That's all.
I think it would be more appropriate to refer to this aggression as "continuing" than "recent"- Russia has been behaving like this since at least the early 1500s (Ivan the
TerribleStrong Disciplinarian) and arguably far further back to the Ivan III in the previous century. In my probably uninformed opinion, Russia seems to view expansion as means of ensuring it doesn't ever get a repeat of the Tatars who I hear were unpleasant. Of course, this doesn't really engender much in the way of goodwill from its neighbors who would much rather not be interfered with."It's not oil but what is called "the will to power" that Europe (inheritors and continuing implementors of fascism)..."
Yes the Europeans are implementing a 21st Century fascism. Ireland kills the Lisbon Treaty, and what happens? The Euro-fascists simply decide to defy their own law and proceed to stuff it down the throats of their people. This kind of behavior is the essence of fascism. Then they have laws against "racism and xenophobia" to stifle free speech by criminalizing the hold of a different opinion. True to form the American left loves them as they seem to love dictators.
Since the US also used such weapons in Afghanistan and Iraq, I'm not sure what your point is.
I suspect TokyoTom has it right -- this is about oil (what a surprise), and the ethnic history is just background noise.
Since the US also used such weapons in Afghanistan and Iraq, I'm not sure what your point is.
According to the London Times article referenced by Wikipedia, the US and the UK used thermobaric munitions against military targets in Afghanistan. That's different from using a thermobaric bomb targeting civilians, and creating destruction over a large geographical area instead of a point target like a bunker. Russian troops have also engaged in widespread atrocities against individual civilians in Chechnya.
My point is Russia goes way beyond the US, NATO and Israel in using the military to terrorize civilians, yet draws little criticism. Even if Russia went no further than the US, it would still it would get no where near the same level of criticism.
Not really. We will make some the usual noises but not do anything. Unles we want a war with Russia.
Not that we couldn't beat the crap out of the Russians in a conventional war. Keeping it conventional would be a tiny problem.
Since you apparently believe neither side's abuses get the critical press scrutiny deserved, which side do you support?
Not me. From the little I read parts of the Caucasus were forcibly wedded under Stalin. Ossetia is related to Persia, and I think their language is a kind of Farsi. I saw a claim, in the NY Times I think, that Georgian in contrast is Indo-European, but that was confused since Farsi is Indo-European too.
The major point, though, is that Ossetia is different ethnically from Georgia. My guess is Ossetians wouldn't be happy with Russia either, but they would take the distant devil over the closer one.
My interpretation is that the entire Caucasus is a patchwork mess of ancient enmities, sort of like Europe's Balkans. I would really like us to stay out of it.
I got a little info from Simon Montefiore's biography Young Stalin. There is an obscure reference in one of Osip Mandelstam's poems (the one that got him in trouble) to the Ossetian mountain climber, meaning Stalin (mountain is a word play on Kremlin). According to Montefiore, Ossetians were looked down on by Georgians as being uncivilized (some not even Christians, horrors). Those unfriendly to Stalin derided him as really being Ossetian rather than Georgian. Sort of like calling Bush Bubba, only worse. Mandelstam was insulting Stalin.
With the Russian bombing of Gori, I wonder if the Stalin museum there will be hit. Stalin himself was a poet in his youth, well thought of at the time, but only a handful of his poems are available in English. My understanding is that the Stalin Museum in Gori has a more complete collection of his poems.
"Since you apparently believe neither side's abuses get the critical press scrutiny deserved, which side do you support?"
I'm not sure how you identify the "sides." For the moment I'm neutral as regards the current Russian versus Georgia conflict. If "sides" refer to the US versus Russia, then I'm on the side of my country the US. It seems to me that Russia does not get enough press scrutiny for its actions in Chechnya, that's all. I don't see the need for troops to throw families down a well. I do support separation of conflicted groups. Look at Cyprus. The migration of the Turkish Muslims north and the Greek Christian groups south, creating essentially two nation states, has calmed the conflict. I don't subscribe to the currently fashionable multi-cultural view of the world. I think certain peoples need to live separately.
That goes without saying. I meant Russia/Georgia.
Russia has been fomenting trouble ever since the BZC pipeline was approved and construction started This pipeline allows oil and gas to flow from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean Sea. They bombed the oil terminal and the oil tankers and the shipbuilding facilities in Poti, the seaport on the Black Sea. Russian has bombed the pumping facilities of the BZC pipeline in this attack.
Turkey had an attack by Turkish PPK Kurds on the BZC pipeline in Ezbrium on Aug 6th, 2008. It damaged a valve and over 12,000 bbl has been lost and the pressure has run down from the pump in Baku. This pipeline was activated on 2006 and Russia has been causing increased problems from 2006 in Georgia. The pipeline is supposed to get to full commercial production in 2009. This is a total end run around Russia monopoly on Europe gas and oil pipelines.
Russia has been playing at economic oil warfare for several years. Turkmenistan had a change in leadership and then went from selling to Western oil companies to giving the contracts to Gazprom the Russian company. Medevev just got the Libya oil contracts.
Russia has been going after oil in the Arctic and claiming territory there now that the Artic Ocean is opening near Russia.
Russian also has the original imperialistic ambitions to reclaim the Republics it lost in 1991. Notice that they now claim that Ukraine has helped Georgia by selling weapons. Russia tried to get their puppets installed in Ukraine and Georgia elections and lost both times.
This is an opportunity to get Georgia back under Russian control. Next will be the Ukraine. S. Ossetia may have initiated this conflict by artillery against Georgian villages knowing that Russia had built up the military presence with over 150 tanks on the other side of the Roki Tunnel. Somewhat like little brother taking on his enemy with big brother standing behind him.
S. Ossetia is the excuse it has no value, but Georgia pipeline does, plus it stops a Western ally on Russia’s flank. Russian control over this area allows direct route to Turkey and control of the straights.
Do you think an Obama administration will do anything about Russia taking Georgia, Ukraine and then Turkey? NATO is a paper kitten and has no strength other than America.
Georgia thought this may be they best time with Bush still in power to stir things up. They obviously hope to take S Ossetia fast and get control of the Roki Tunnel in the Georgian side to prevent Russian armor. They were not fast enough.
I've posted a brief essay laying out the case, though obviously, very few of us have an expertise in Ossetian history...if anyone would care to offer up polished bits of wisdom to correct mistakes, I'd be obliged.
Also, kudos to JohnKT...excellent anecdote about Mandelstam. Would you happen to have the name of that poem handy?
And thanks to Ilya for opening the topic.
"... so referendums to change each sovereign's own charter weren't mandatory. They are keeping at it."
While referendums aren't mandatory, if even one country does elect to have one, and a majority votes "no," then the treaty fails. Ireland voted "no," but the Eurocrats decided to proceed with legislative approvals anyway, in violation of their own laws. Unless I misunderstand something about the Lisbon Treaty approval process, the Eurocrats are behaving like fascists. How else can one interpret this as anything but a power grab?
Americans should pay close attention to what happens in Europe lest our own sovergnity get dissolved in some kind of North American Unification under the guise of free trade. Beware of free trade; it's a Trojan Horse. I assert that Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage does not apply to a country as large as the US.
Georgian is not an Indo-European language. Together with Svan, Mingrelian, and Laz, it forms the Kartvelian or "South Caucasian" language family. Kartvelian is not demonstrably related to anything else, including North Caucasian. Relationships have been proposed between Kartvelian and other languages and language families, but none of these is currently generally accepted. The proposed relationship with Indo-European is as part of a larger language family called Nostratic, which would include not only Kartvelian and Indo-European but Uralic (e.g. Hungarian and Finnish), and Altaic (e.g. Turkish and Mongolian), plus various others depending on which version of the Nostratic hypothesis you are dealing with.
Ossetian is not a form of Farsi but a distinct language belonging to the Iranian branch of the Indo-Iranian subgroup of Indo-European. It is therefore related to Farsi but not a form of it. Ossetian speakers are apparently mostly Christians, with a substantial Muslim minority.
States could be compared at that level, though Ricardo didn't account for uniform tariff policies on one side and free movement between States, which works to homogenize domestic urban areas. Still, in the absence of special treatment, the optimum tariff for a US-sized economy being very low means that the effect on trade between some and no tariff is small. (Which is a reason that special trade status is a bit of a red herring.)
The danger, indeed, is in "free" trade coupled with un-free everything else (Europe's expertise), which create perverse economic incentives. Protectionism and welfare are both on the rise, so a supranational entity is capable of folding those together nicely by redefining "domestic." *shudder*
Anyway, as for Georgia: Russia called the US-ties bluff, and we're in for a cold war on a few fronts if everybody Russia is threatening, directly and indirectly, starts to mobilize. I hope this imperial Russia/China stuff ends with less death than political Communism proper provided.
Anybody who thinks that Russia invading Georgia is a rational response to a missile defense system that can't possibly be effective against Russia even if it were aimed at Russia isn't exactly playing with a full deck himself.
Coup or counter coup? Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavi was Iran's monarch starting in 1941. In 1953 Prime Minister Mossadegh ordered the Shah to leave the country (the coup). Acting within his powers as a constitutional monarch the Shah dismissed the PM who refused to leave office. The Shah then left the country and issued two decrees one dismissing the PM, who again refused to leave office. Then with the help of the CIA the Shah overthrew Mossadegh (the counter coup). Iran was then returned to a multi-party constitutional monarchy, in effect restoring the prior government. Much later in 1975 the Shah became an autocrat abolishing the multi-party system. So it's not really correct to say that the US staged a coup replacing a democracy with a dictatorship. The government did not change after the Shah was restored. Historians differ as to how crucial the CIA's role was in these events. But does seem clear that the US over reacted, fearing a Communist take over that was really not going to happen.
On the other hand, Obama makes it sound like a wildfire. ("outbreak of violence"? Yeah, that's exactly how you describe a Russian invasion and not a paintball game that ended in a bloody nose.)
It's poem 46 of his posthumously published poems, in Osip Mandel'shtam: Selected Poems translated by David McDuff, ISBN 0 86316 053 0. I don't think it is titled. He read it privately among friends, one of whom must have betrayed him to the secret police. You are warned, it's allusive and difficult. The reference to Stalin's "pudgy fingers" is explained by his wife Nadezhda. Stalin was an omnivorous reader, highly intelligent and self-educated, and therefore typically underestimated by his rivals according to Montefiore. Anyhow, he borrowed everybody's books in the inner circle. Nadezhda in her memoirs relates that Bukharin particularly hated to lend Stalin books because Stalin left his greasy finger streaks on the pages.
I tried to find a translation on the internet but they translate "Ossetian" to Georgian, I guess to avoid footnotes. Anyhow, here is one translation side by side with the Russian text. http://www.cipherjournal.com/html/mandelstam.html. The Russian has Osetina.
Thanks to Bill Poser for correcting me on the language families. I knew the NY Times had something wrong, but I did not have the details.
Apparently, the US got cold feet at the last minute. The coup only proceeded and succeeded because the the Brit intellingence people would not relay the US call back message.
Godwin's Law; you lose the thread.
I'm not sure about Hitler, but I know it was LBJ's excuse for going into the Dominican Republic, and the Gipper's excuse for going into Grenada. In light of that history, I'd think people in the U.S. might want to think twice before we take the Russians to task for action they're taking in their own front yard.
People who point to the present war as proof that it was a *good* idea to admit Georgia to NATO scare the crap out of me. That's exactly the kind of thinking that led Russia to promise Serbia its support, and Germany to give Austria-Hungary its "blank check," back in 1914. Can someone remind me how well that worked out?
I'm guessing that Belgrade would be a smoking crater by now. The fact that Tbilsi isn't one shows that the Russians are, by comparison, being fairly restrained.
My guess is that NATO expansion comes to a halt as European objections to expansions will increase. (Ukraine might be the exception since it brings its own military might.)
What missile defense system? The recent conflict began when Georgia sent troops into South Ossetia, where it had previously had a cease-fire agreement and permitted some degree of de facto autonomy. Russia already had peace-keepers (that's what they're officially called, not a judgment on my part) in the region, some of whom died when Georgian troops came in. That's the Russian justification and so far their troops have stayed in South Ossetia. I'm not saying I approve of Russia's intervention, but I find it hard to take seriously Bush's concern over the territorial integrity of Georgia after pushing for Kosovo's independence.
And if so, WHY DID WAIT 100 YEARS to do so?!!
Guns don't kill people: Russian soldiers with guns kill people.
In the Dominican Republic, our troops were often riding around without ammunition, the sergeant in the first or last truck had a key to it. They didn't stay too long either.
Larison's point is that the Cold War is over. The purpose NATO was founded for no longer exists. If anything, it should have been abolished rather than expanded. Russia could be expected to view systems whose range includes their country to be a threat, though that of course does not justify any intervention on their part (which Russia is certainly not engaged in in Poland).
Russia having a regional sphere of influence is not the same thing as the Eastern Bloc. It is only inevitable that the United States will have a great deal of influence over Canada and Mexico, but we may presume that troops will not be sent in to quash any Prague Spring.
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.