« Israel Trains Quad Bikers? | Main | War Nerdism »

Between Two Empires

by Debs is dead
lifted from a comment

Since, in the well worn words of the classic wit and incisive thinker Anonymous Bystander "opinions are like assholes - every one has one and thinks others all stink" I may as well put my two bobs worth in on the humans being killed in the Caucasus.

From down at this end of the world it felt at first, like if one could play the sort of numbers game that pols play, the notion of northerner Europeans fighting each other as the fight expanded outwards drawing in 'supporters' on both sides, that this could be a 'good thing' for the rest of us. Although there have been a few well publicised atrocities committed over the centuries when the whitefella oppressor has a falling out among themselves, in the main for unwhite peeps especially those in the South, these periodic feuds can provide opportunity for southern Houdinis to cast off the shackles of empire.

Eg: I don't believe that the English decolonisation post WW2 could have occurred without WW2. And yes many of the southern slave states did end up having their English masters exchanged for Amerikan ones. Nevertheless there was also plenty of room to manouver for loosened shackles during the 50 year transition period. So from this part of the world the millions of dead in WW2 may have prevented the deaths of at least that many, maybe more deaths, up here in the south of the planet.

Now that is a fucking harsh way to look at the world, even if it is a mirror image of the way most in the north look at the South, it prolly wouldn't sit well with most southerners especially those still in touch with their indigenous culture.

That attitude is only viable if the fight escalates, something which seems increasingly unlikely especially now that Saakashvili has been exposed in the foreign media as 'the boy who cried wolf'. I have no doubt that his moronic intervention into South Ossetia was a clumsy attempt to regain his regime's popularity in Georgia by uniting the Georgians against the common enemy. It was doomed to failure just as Olmert's bloodier attempt to pull off the same trick in Israel failed.

However I did watch the 'show' last night on the BBC, which was the first time. For the past week I have used downloaded documentaries as lullabys - the Olympic farce of humanism perverted into nationalistic jingoism cranks me up rather than lulls me to sleep.

Some observations:

Saakashvili and Co's claim of Russians in Gori accompanied as it was by assertions that the Russian are invading to re-subjugate Georgia was not for domestic consumption. Why does Saakashvili make his historic speeches to press conferences where the lingua franca is English? Any politician who doesn't talk to his people in their native language at such a time of crisis that Saakashvili and Co claim Georgia is in, is not a pol who cares for his citizens.

The thing that really got my goat before the Beeb finally 'fessed up and admitted the Gori invasion was a figment of Saakashvili and Co's imagination, was that if Gori and the towns close to South Ossetia were under threat of a Russian attack followed by ethnic cleansing, what were the Georgian military priorities. Instead of reinforcing the defences of Gori to provide breathing room for the citizens to evacuate or fight for their homes, the Georgian army retreats in a rout leaving the citizens unprotected. Saakashvili and Co claimed from the start that regime change was the primary Russian objective. Even if it had been, surely the best way to prevent regime change is to protect the voters. If Saakashvili were popular with his citizens, regime change would be much harder to effect.

However this talk of regime change brings me to the nub of my concerns about the 'blue' in Georgia. Someone commented here previously that it seems when the BBC newsreaders interview Russian Foreign Ministry spokespeople, that they are auditioning for that worthless beeb prog "Hardtalk". For the uninitiated the interviewers in Hardtalk pretend to be tough. That is if you imagine that ill mannered interviewing is incisive interviewing.

Be that as it may, every time the Beeb talking head made a claim about Russian aggression, the Russian spokesman would counter with "just like Iraq/Kosovo/Lebanon" eg "Is it true that Russian troops have ignored Georgian sovereignty?" "How is that different from US troops invading the sovereign state of Iraq?" or "So Russia advocates South Ossettia being split from Georgia" "Exactly as Kosovo has been split from Serbia". You get the drift.

I am sad to see that the 'Amerika did it too' or 'USuk have done worse' defense for Russia's actions is being used by some here too.

I'll try and explain why I reckon this is such a bad move for those who believe humans should have some sort of self determination.

All of Russia's moves may be entirely legitimate and ethically pure. They probably are correct in the claim that what Russia is up to is no way any less legitimate than Amerika or USuk's invasions, rapes and murders.

The problem is that if Russia continues to use Amerikan aggression to legitimate their actions, they don't just legitimate what Russia is up to. A sort of cross legitimization occurs where the legitimation of Russia's adventure excuses Amerika's crimes.

That may be fine for Russia, even for Russians, but it doesn't bode well for the rest of us who live in smaller sovereign entities. If Amerika and Russia agree they have a right to inflict their will on lesser states, we will go back to the world being divided between two huge empires with injustices abounding throughout.

It is true that planet earth became a much tougher place for most humans to exist after the collapse of the USSR. The leaders of sovereign states smaller than the two behemoths could no longer balance one against the other to find a mid point of survivability, but now that the 'major players' all claim to share the same economic ethos it is unlikely that tightrope walking of the type perfected by Nasser of Egypt or Sukarno of Indonesia will be achievable. The latest iteration of a world order will be rather different than the one before last, ie the 'Cold War' era. None of the above would be my response in the unlikely event of my being asked which umbrella I would prefer to stand under.

In the meantime of course the Anglo media is trying hard to twist the reality. Eg The Guardian has a lead article which says: Russians march into Georgia as full-scale war looms

• Claims of full scale invasion
• Retreat to defend Tbilisi
• Kremlin ignores ceasefire calls

Close reading of the text shows all of those claims to be untrue just the ravings of the Georgian govt. My favourite part is the quote towards the end.

"This is a full-scale invasion." said Irakli Batkuashvili, head of Georgia's military planning division. "This is an occupation... Half of Georgia is under Russian control. Our aim now is to build up our troops and to create a defensive line in front of Tbilisi."

I thought things must have changed drastically in the last 10 hours which would have been the middle of the night so I went looking for the Guardian's map of this new horror. It isn't really available at a click it is a downloadable pdf which many readers will eschew discouraged by the hassle. Deliberate? Prolly just one more piss weak effort at twisting the reality of this killing zone. If you download it you will see the bits where Russia is alleged to be, barely make up 10% of Georgia.

I'm not sure that the propaganda has been effective. My own extremely conservative fishwrap has been running a readers views column inviting readers to say who they believe is to blame.
Even after a series of ad hominem attacks on the posters from amerika and Georgia the posts heavily favour some combination of Georgia/Amerika/Israel as being responsible for the killings.

Posted by b on August 12, 2008 at 10:52 UTC | Permalink

The comments to this entry are closed.

« Israel Trains Quad Bikers? | Main | War Nerdism »