America Watches the War in Georgia with Dumb Goggles

[NicholeW.]

America Watches the War in Georgia with Dumb Goggles
By Mark Ames, TheNation.com. Posted August 16, 2008.
http://www.alternet.org/audits/95265/

Five days after Georgia invaded and seized the breakaway separatist region of South Ossetia, sparking a larger-scale Russian invasion to drive Georgian forces back and punish their leaders, Russia surprised its Western detractors by calling a halt to the country's offensive. After all, the mainstream media, egged on by hawkish neocon pundits and their candidate John McCain, had everyone believing that Russia was hellbent on the full-scale annihilation and annexation of democratic Georgia.

But then came Tuesday's cease-fire announcement-and we're now forced to ask ourselves serious questions about the recent conflict: what really started it, how dangerous was it and what, with serious careful consideration, could be done to prevent it from turning into a worst-case scenario?

[Alyssa M.]

Russia insists that ethincally unrelated groups on the wrong side of arbitrary borders in the wake of the Soviet Union's breakup should be free to declare independence from the republic they ended up part of.

Except in Chechnya.


I'm not saying that America has moral authority on this issue, or even a clue about the underlying causes; nor do I mean to say that there isn't plenty of blame to be spread around. But assuming that Russia will overreact and try to throw its weight around is hardly a stretch (though the same might be said for, uh, other major military powers).

Rice's "This is not 1968" statement was laudable, as were her statesmanship in supporting French efforts to bring about peace. While there may have been missteps in the leadup to the conflict, the Bush administration actually did pretty well to help resolve it, or at least not hamper the solution. It might be their high water mark.


p.s.: I don't think there's anything in that article that I didn't get just by watching CNN, albeit the international version of the program. So kudos, just this once, to the mainstream media.

[NicholeW.]

The Russians stopped, pretty much, when asked to stop. All the while McCain, whose major foreign-policy man is a lobbyist in Washington for Georgia, was foaming at the mouth to somehow intervene and stop the nasty Russkies. Is this a prospective president with any sense of "international politics and security?" Or is it a super-annuated know-nothing who proves daily he literally knows nothing?

I think that at the very least shows which government, or prospective govt. is the most sophisticated when dealing with the international scene. The neo-con game is ending. Not only is this not 1968, neither is it 1946.

If McCain and other USA policy people really wanted to arrest the power of Russia they'd start bring out plans to cut ours and the world's dependence on oil. I mean just look at when the Russians became once more a power to be reckoned with and why. Oil revenues and the tremendous strangle-hold Russia, Venezuela and other oil-rich countries have on world affairs.

USA politicos have so ingrained stupid into the electorate that they can no longer not be afraid of what that stupid electorate will do to them if they (the politicos) take positions, stratgies and tactics that actually make some sense. Much too controversial anymore to do so.

Given the entire Georgian affair IMO, I'd vote for the Russian goverment as being the one that could be trusted to be reasonable at this point. Except for Rice, the USA government, its surrogates and its prospective next-Republican-president as well as the news media-pandits were all way beyond left-field. They weren't even in or at the stadium. They were having drinks at a fern bar and getting drunker and drunker.

Nichole

[Stealthgrrl]

I just find Rice's comments ridiculous when the US is doing all the same things she finds deplorable, but doing them in Iraq rather than Georgia. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Stealth

PS--wow I made a political post. Expect Armageddon presently. 

[tekla]

Yeah, pretty big words from a country that feels it has an absolute right to toss off a couple of cruise missiles every time it feels the need to reach out and touch someone. 

One, its on the border, and regardless of political reasons trouble on your border is bad.

Two, Try not to piss off Russia.  Really, when the come out to play they can get down to it.  Have we learned nothing?  They send in a 65 mile columns of mobile artillery to a place that was only about 40 miles from end to end.  They HAVE enough of that stuff to send 65 mile columns. 

We, of all people, have little, less than zero right to tell Russia what do do on its borders - we who still have a base in Cuba - right? 

[Laura91]

I just find Rice's comments ridiculous when the US is doing all the same things she finds deplorable, but doing them in Iraq rather than Georgia. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Indeed

Posted on: August 17, 2008, 01:50:08 PM

Yeah, pretty big words from a country that feels it has an absolute right to toss off a couple of cruise missiles every time it feels the need to reach out and touch someone. 

We, of all people, have little not less than zero right to tell Russia what do do on its borders - we who still have a base in Cuba - right? 

I agree with that 100%

[Keira]

You do realize that the reason there are many russians in border areas
in all former republics is because RUSSIA put them there during the
time of the USSR...

The reason they did it, to claim that territory "de facto" eventually.
It was a russification policy just like the chinese pursue similar policies
in Tibet.

Since all my best friends are russians, I think I understand pretty
well the highly disfunctional nature of russia.

That the US condemns an action doesn't make it less contemptfull.

I'm the first to loather Bush, but there is no justification for Russia
which is 100x more powerful than georgia to have gone so far inside
that country (almost to the capital). That's pure intimidation done
more for internal political reasons, as for real world reasons.
Russia is trying to get "its balls" back and that's the main reason
Georgia was so strongly attacked.

As for Russian stopping right away, that's not true since there are been
video evidence of the countrary. Also, russians have supported local
militias to go under their own unsupervised agenda...

[lisagurl]

It was good timing to announce building the defense missiles in Poland. The world stage is more entertaining than the latest Iphones.

[BeverlyAnn]

The Russians did not like the fact that the US helped Georgia build an oil pipeline that bypassed Russian territory and would prevent them from cutting down on the supply of oil to Europe as they did when they cut off the pipeline in the Ukraine.  Do not be surprised if they "protect" this pipeline in Georgia on behalf of regional interests.  Please do not delude yourself into thinking this is over anything other than money just like our invasion of Iraq.  All other issues were and are merely smokescreens.

Beverly

[Keira]

Regardless of the pipeline in Georgia, there are real people living in the regions
and I don't care who's doing the pawn pushing, I don't like it. Russia
is hell bent in restarting the cold war because of its current gas
riches (which are mostly going to a very very small minority instead of
being reinvested in the russian industrial base which is NOT improving).
Even with that, the russian economy cannot sustain a rearming
(its way to deficient for that), so
this sabre rattling is mainly to please the Russian audience
who dreams of USSR's grandeur.

Also, it would be much much harder for the US to defend Georgia from Russia
than attacking Iraq  because the territory is so close to the USSR and
there are much more geopolitical risks.

The play on Georgia is sort of a throwback to the cold war because its meant
to intimidate bordering regions in not siding with NATO and remaining
"neutral" (but neutral in this case means cowering to Russia).

Why should Europe be at the mercy of Russia.
I was in the Ukraine while Russia threatened to cut natural gas mid winter...
There's plenty wrong with the current US leadership, but believe that it
is nothing compared to what is going on in Russia. At least, in the US
the people can kick the bastards out (although, for another set of
different bastards.... 

[NicholeW.]

Keira, whomever you know and whatever you may believe from them, colonialism, whether in Quebec, the Canadian northeast or northwest, Central and South America, far eastern Europe or far western Asia or in Africa, is pretty much the purview of dominant cultures. The Russians have, in fact, actually controlled the politics of those territories for about three and a half centuries. Their hegemony in the Caucasus and central Asia has deep roots that go back to before Peter the Great.

The continuation of political force in the form of invasion is (how exactly?) different from Kosovo and Bosnia? Macedonia? or even Afghanistan and Iraq. There are fewer lives lost, less property damage resultant. Take a look at South Ossetia and see the damage done there by the "poor Georgians" in comparison.

The crypto-nazi, Saakashvili, is yet another American paid-for and supported stooge whom neither the Russians nor his own people find particularly charismatic. These sorts of destabilizations are certainly part of world realpolitik. How and why do you think Milosevic ever came to trial, or Saddam for that matter? The same types of destabilization moves that the US and western Europe have run for years.

From King Zog of Albania and Mossadegh in Iran to Arbenz in Guatemala to Allende in Chile and all stripes and sorts in between the western powers have tried again and again to influence who leads where and in whose interests. Your condemnation rings very hollow indeed and I'd suggest boning up a bit on your world history and politics.

Bush tried the exact same thing with Kim Jong Il in North Korea but couldn't project either the power or influence to do so and so had to negotiate.

That Dmitry Medvedev & Vladimir Putin play the game, at least at close range, better than Bush and Cheney is of no particular moral significance at all. That Russian emigres continuously rail about Russian foreign policy no matter the era, so that also is no huge surprise.

I recall very well three Cuban friends who, to hear them tell it, were convinced that Castro was on the verge of capturing Washington, D.C in 1973! Governments make straw-men and make every attempt to influence who's in charge where. That was the reason for Britain's vaunted Falklands War with Argentina, destabilization. And for the abortive effort in Suez by France and Britain in 1956 -- to topple the nationalists under Nasser.

At least the Russians project what they can and hopefully, in that regard, will be successful in easing the resignation John McCain's buddy Saakashvili.

Nichole   

[Keira]

Russians have been "colonialists" in all neighboring states
for ages and believe me, its not just the expatriates who
have opinions or Russian or former republics.

They have put their heavy paws all over the region
and it wasn't benign. Ask the Ukrainians about this.

Don't see how Putin (who's lets face it is still in charge)
is better than the Georgian leader? It there a race for the bottom?

I lived in Kiev for 2-3 months and travelled extensively across the
region (including Russia).

Russian is a whisper away of being a fascist police state, its that bad.
If it wasn't for the fuel, they'd be completely F***. But that's not
eternal. The industrial base is in dire need, the county
is depopulating and they're a far cry from fixing this.

I tried to start a business with friends there and you can't imagine
how much corruption there is. It is breathtaking, We had to give stakes
in the company to top people in government so they'd "protect" us...
And pay everybody in between. We wanted to start a telecom company
and I had several local investors in Moscow. Finally, the weight of
corruption brought the project down, the amount of crap
made it too risky for the investors. Russian investors often demand
very high rates of return because of the very high risks (of all sorts)
in projects. This really restricts investments from private investors
in anything that's  more abstract,
which requires much upfront investment. That's why there is so much investment in
real estate.

[tekla]

Its often referred to as a kleptocracry - a government by stealing - but still.  I don't think they want to restart the cold war - which might seem to many people there as the good old days - but to reform the Empire.  If that starts a new cold war, I guess they will live with that, but its not the first goal.

It not like anyone is in a position to do anything about it.  Just be happy that NATO didn't listen to us and let Georgia in.

Oh, and pay no attention to Pakistan either, they are having a real problem. Shh.

[NicholeW.]

I can ask the Ukrainians about a lot of things -- first would be the overwhelming support and enlistment in the German Army during the WWII invasion, and a series of pograms that began in the early middle ages and inspired the Poles to become as virulent as they have been about Jews. There will be plenty of other questions as well. And "democracy and freedom" will not be the correct answers.

The point is this -- countries and peoples are not moral and don't operate as moral agents, Keira. They use whatever methods they feel will work best to reach the ends they perceive as important. In world politics there are no good guys and bad guys, there are simply levels of interest and a protest when my government's ox is gored.

I'm sure the Georgians didn't worry overmuch about their own ceaseless bombardment of South Ossetia. Surely didn't seem to anyhow. And why would you suppose they sent 2,000 men under arms to Iraq to "assist" the USA and Great Britain? Moral impulse to do what was right?

How about to win points in their arguments with Russia over Chechniya and South Ossetia? I think that seems much more likely.

In some ways the Russians are certainly not as adroit as the Brits have always been, when they step in it everyone knows and smells it immediately. The Brits have a suavity that seems to make others believe that the smell exudes from their opponents feet, not theirs.

The article is not about what government-type is employed. It's about adroitness. My guess is that Medvedev and Putin do that much better than the current leaders of the world, Cheney/Bush, simply because their sophistication and grasp of the possible and the needful seems a heck of a lot better than the current admin here.

Nichole

[tekla]

Medvedev and Putin

Just like us, Bush and Cheney, one matters, the other one does not.

[NicholeW.]

I agree, Kat. One is Charlie McCarthy and the other Edgar Bergen. It's very evident which is which -- the wooden heads rather glow from polishing. >

Nichole

[Keira]

Nichole, I don't get your support of the Russian leadership!!!!

I don't give a crap about the US, or what they did as
any kind of justification for any bad actions by anybody.

That's the kind of thinking that sickens me.

It likens to the support of the communists by the european left in Europe
even when it was obvious that the countries of the eastern bloc were not
happy under the glorious rule of the people... Being anti-american was kind
of cool, just like now, except then it was much more insane than now. The
level of delusion of the European
in the face of mounting proof of the USSR's true nature
even after the Budapest upheaval of 56 is still stunning..


That has nothing to do with what Russia does in its weakest former republics
just to show they've got balls to their internal public (just like Bush with Iraq except
cheaper).

I've lived both in the US (3 years), the Ukraine (3 months) and Russia (just 6 weeks, 3 weeks in Moscow). My Ukrainian girlfriend's mother was from Georgia!!
I'm telling you, there's nothing subtle about what Russia is doing and
its not all peaches and cream over there, far from it.

Also, taking about the Balkan war, I was traveling through Slovenia on my way from
Prague to Venice when that war started just a few km away from where I was!!!
Maybe I'm cursed... (the war actually started in Slovenia, though it quickly moved
away from it and it barely was touched by the rest of the conflict).

[tekla]

Its not like we deal with uprisings any better, Kent State, Jackson State, the Bonus Army?  Sure they are brutal, all empires are.  But I think in this that Georgia thought it would be OK, (after all they had already bought the McCain foreign policy adviser) and I do smell Cheney and Rove all over this one.

But its not like we can do much.  They have our troops tied down in some god forsaken corner of the third world.  What could we do if we wanted to?

[Wing Walker]

This is from Maureen Dowd, The New York Times, August 16, 2008:  Russia is Not Jamaica

America's back in the cold war and W.'s back on vacation.

Talk about your fearful symmetry.

After eight years, the president's gut remains gullible. He'll go out as he came in — ignoring reality; failing to foresee, prevent or even prepare for disasters; misinterpreting intelligence reports; misreading people; and handling crises in ways that makes them exponentially worse.

He has spent 469 days of his presidency kicking back at his ranch, and 450 days cavorting at Camp David. And there's still time to mountain-bike through another historic disaster.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/opinion/17dowd.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin

As for Ukraine, its people were subjected to Stalin's purges of the 1930s.  It is no surprise that they might have sided with the Nazis. Anything was better than "Uncle Joe."

Wing Walker

[NicholeW.]

Interests don't change for many governments in the space of 16 years, or even 100. The aims remain the same and the west has ignored that badly in the case of Russia.

The insane moves to bring NATO to their doorsteps does nothing but exacerbate whatever insecurities they have. The willingness of western citizens to see no change of any kind between the USSR and Russia plays into that as well. Maureen Dowd doesn't seem to realize that the west has never quite ever given up the Cold War. "Containment" is still the strategy vis-a-vis Russia. We've simply tried to do it with the former republics of the USSR and on the cheap and at the border rather than at the buffer borders..

Historically-speaking there's no difference much between Putin and his agenda and Peter the Great and his. Both want/ed a very strong Russia that had a place in the West. Putin has the wealth to back his state that Peter didn't. Peter had manpower to back his.

Odd how Czechoslovakia managed to fend off both internal Nazism and Stalinism prior to its absorption by Germany in 1939. Ukrainian leadership was not simply reacting to Stalin, there were long-term historic reasons why they accepted and even fully embraced Nazism that had nothing to do with immediate necessity. They were all for the camps to rid themselves of the "Jewish-menace" and there was no sense among them that the kulaks were of any major importance except to serve as cheap farm-labor. One might also note that at least one Ukrainian remained in Stalin's camp until Ole Joe was dead -- Nikita Khrushchev. He was smarter than most.

In geo-politics, as I said, what is useful is what is "good." Not some metaphysical notion of "good" that invariably reads like "who gores my ox is my enemy (evil.) Who allows my ox to graze is my friend (good.") An understanding of that can be rather helpful when one wishes to discuss these matters.

The appeal to a "sickness" over "I don't get your support of the Russian leadership!!!!" is merely a misreading of what I have said. A willful one, it seems to me, to try and make debate points. Otherwise it indicates an unwillingness or an inability to read and understand what is there. The debate, Keira, is not about metaphysic right or wrong, which is possessed quite obviously, by neither protagonist. The adroitness with which they operate given specific limitations and on-going interests was and remains the point. One which you haven't as yet taken part in, foregoing said point to partake of arguing instead that corruption, having an Ukrainian girlfriend and having visited Russia and its neighbors somehow moots the entire discussion by transferring the focus elsewhere than what the point was.

That you don't like the Russians matters not at all to whether Putin and Medvedev and their colleagues play the game better than Bush and Cheney and their cohorts. Perhaps one of the reasons why is a willingness by the latter to entirely set-up the world into "good" and "bad" instead of actually looking beyond last month's stock values to form a foreign policy. That is not anything new in American foreign relations. FDR, Carter, Jefferson, Madison and perhaps Lincoln are the only five presidents I can recall who have been able to do so. Leaders, at least in USA, tend to reflect the abilities of those who vote them into office.

Having spent 3 weeks in Jamaica doesn't make me an expert on Jamaican history and politics. Neither did the three years I lived in Germany make me an expert on Germany. Again, the tie to anti-intellectualism that presumes an expertise based on a short sojourn with people I care/d about, nor the fact that a friend of mine here in USA saw his father murdered in a gang-war blowback in Kingston somehow tells me all I need know about the state of Jamaica.

Until and unless westerners, besides Brits & Germans, start to work with "what's there" rather than with our prejudices and inclinations only we will continue to see & operate under the paranoid-style in American, and hence, western, foreign policy. Although I'd be willing to bet that within another fifteen years the West will be headed by an entirely different empire than the one that appears to be declining very swiftly at this point.

The Russians may have dictators and autocrats and even incarnately evil leadership; however, they are fortunate in having in those leaders men and women who have a clue about the limits of the possible and a keen eye toward the factual interests of their country. That was and has been the point.

Nichole