Endgame Plans for South Ossetia
The 'western' endgame plan for the current conflict in Georgia comes into view. The aim is to declare Russia a 'combatant' in the fight over South Ossetia and to illegitimate it as the peacekeeper in the region. Russia, so the plan, could thus be pushed out of Georgia and its soldiers there replaced by 'western' forces.
Under the Sochi Agreement Russia is a recognized peacekeeping force and mediator in South Ossetia. A yet to be revised U.S. state department page explains:
The June 24, 1992 Sochi Agreement established a cease-fire between the Georgian and South Ossetian forces and defined both a zone of conflict around the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali and a security corridor along the border of South Ossetian territories. The Agreement also created the Joint Control Commission (JCC), and a peacekeeping body, the Joint Peacekeeping Forces group (JPKF). The JPKF is under Russian command and is comprised of peacekeepers from Georgia, Russia, and Russia’s North Ossetian autonomous republic (as the separatist South Ossetian government remained unrecognized).
The Georgian president (and U.S. puppet) Saakashvili used some skirmishes to open a surprising all out artillery barrage on the town of Tskhinvali. Some 1,500 people have been killed in that attack. Russia immediately tried to get a UN resolution to condemn the strike and to demand a return to peace.
When that failed because the 'west' delayed a resolution, Russia sent in armored troops and later reinforced these with paratroopers and special forces. It also bombed military sites in Georgia where preparations were ongoing to activate more troops against South Ossetia. Unfortunately the bombs also hit an apartment building in Gori killing 50 people. As an eyewitness describes it for the BBC:
We saw the impact of the air strikes - buildings on fire. We could hear the Russian jets above us. In one air strike the pilot missed the intended military base, instead hitting two apartment blocks.
...
One air strike had hit a military base, where apparently most of the soldiers had managed to get out before the bombs landed.Georgian soldiers told the BBC the targets were military bases in the town. There are three military bases, where thousands of Georgian troops are currently stationed.
The hit was certainly an error. Nevertheless, the pictures of those burning apartments will now lead the 'western' news, not the pictures of the obliterated town of Tskhinvali. Now all death in this war will be blamed on Russia.
For an example how this works see this obfuscating headline from the British Independent:
Who might have killed those 1,500 people? You will not learn that from the Independent piece at all. Read it! To any casual readers the impression is left that the Russian's did so. This is clearly outright manipulation of news. (The same scheme was used when Chinese Han people were burned to death by Tibetian rioters in Lhasa earlier this year. The 'western' press, after first reporting correctly that the rioters were the culprits, took about two days to blame those death on Chinese state forces.)
But I digress. So what is the 'western' endgame? Via Reuters:
OSCE head: Russian mediator days over in S.Ossetia
Russia's armed intervention means it cannot return as an honest broker between the sides in the South Ossetia conflict, the head of Europe's main security and human rights group said on Saturday.
"Russia is at the moment a party in this conflict, not a mediator, and that has to be mirrored when ceasefire and peace talks begin," Finnish Foreign Minister Alexander Stubb, current chairman of the 56-nation Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, told a news conference.
That statement is incorrect. Russia is the official peacekeeping force in South Ossetia. South Ossetia was attacked. Now the peacekeeping force tries to return the situation to the status quo ante:
"They must retreat to the place where they were before they started this aggression; they must retreat to where they were three days ago," [Russian ambassador to NATO, Dmitry] Rogozin told reporters in his residence in a Brussels suburb.
Otherwise, there will be no contacts and consultations, he said.
Unlike the Dutch in Sebreniza, the Russian's here do not simply turn away. They try to prevent further slaughter. To use that in an attempt to kick them out is disingenuous and will not work.
But the U.S. pushes for it anyway:
"We call on Russia to cease attacks on Georgia by aircraft and missiles, respect Georgia's territorial integrity, and withdraw its ground combat forces from Georgian soil," U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in a statement.
The 'western' media reporting will now align with the official U.S. policy. Russia is the culprit for all these dead and it must be pushed out of South Ossetia aand punished to regain peace. Then the 'west' will come in and oversee the ethnic cleansing of Ossetians by Georgian forces. Kosovo anyone?
People who read those 'left' media like the Independent might fall to that line. The Russians will not and there is no chance that this U.S. policy will be implemented.
Posted by b on August 9, 2008 at 20:34 UTC | Permalink
last night i found a channel reporting russia today or RT, for an hour they were reporting what happened including the scum president of georgia with this gruesome smirk on his face completely lying. they also mentioned the russian press was shut down in Ossetia and now the media is being controlled from georgia.
i don't have lots of stations, i have minimum cable. it was on channel 32 here in the bay area so anyone wanting to hear a different version, it is available however had i not been reading moon it probably wouldn't have even been on my radar and wouldn't have watched for the hour. it was on pg 3 of the SF chronicle. at the cafe this morning noone had heard anything of it. edwards was on the front page and all over the regular channels all night. how many ways can you say he had an affair for christs sake.
thanks b.
Posted by: annie | Aug 9 2008 21:16 utc | 2
b
thanks for the coverage on this.
notice that jérome had posted two articles on this at dkos & it is interseting to note the cold war instincts that are resonant with this kossian community & their almost complete lack of knowledge of geopolitics. they are good on arthurian legend tho
you would even think that these eternally amnesiac people can just remember the justification of the independence of kosovo but they've already forgot that
russia & china need to be critiqued but 98% of it in the west especially in the blog community is implicitly racist & overtly about cultural ignorance & self interest
in this particular instance the russians have moved correctly & responded to georgia's violent provocation
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Aug 9 2008 22:05 utc | 4
The google map of Georgia is blank. Was it hacked, or censored?
Strange, huh.
via Postman Patel
Posted by: Dick Durata | Aug 9 2008 22:17 utc | 5
I certainly agree with you that the media have stepped early into the mode "Russian aggression"; I heard it myself on the BBC, where there was not a moment's disconnect between the reporter in Georgia telling how it was, and the presenter in London putting it over as Russian aggression.
With Russia, that's no good; it implies relaunching the Cold War.
Like I said in my previous comment on the Ossetian War, it is the most brilliant success of the Bush administration to have passed from a situation at the beginning where the US was master of all, to one at the end where the US is bogged down in two Middle Eastern wars, and has re-ignited the Cold War to boot. Governments who are capable of doing that are rare.
Posted by: alex | Aug 9 2008 22:32 utc | 6
alex
the u s empire has in one way or another, directly, covertly, implicitly or by provocation - set this world on fire & yr correct - the international situation has degrade to the level of pre first world war
the jurisprudence they either created or ignored will be visited upon them again & again
sadly, it is the poor or the soon-to-be-poor who will always pay the price
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Aug 9 2008 22:50 utc | 7
The destruction of Tskhinvali is a war crime, and Saakashvili is a war criminal.
That this US trained killer is regarded as a counterpart to Medvedev in contrast to Putin by the propaganda apparatchiks of the AngloAmerican/neocon media, is an indication of how deep in the marrow their hypocrisy lives.
See, for example, how the Guardian speaks of 1500 hundred people killed, and the NYT of killed in battle, as if the words civilian and bombing would burn their mouth were they to reach their tongue.
Posted by: Thrasyboulos | Aug 9 2008 23:41 utc | 8
Interesting side note: Nazerbaev and Kazakhstan siding with Russia on this. Kazakh oil has been walking a tightrope between Russia, China and the West. This will tip it to Russia.
Kazakhstan will chair OSCE in 2010.
Also, UK Guardian reports the Cossacks are mobilizing.
Link
Posted by: biklett | Aug 9 2008 23:51 utc | 9
This from Yahoo news;
WASHINGTON - Russia's use of overwhelming military force against Georgia, including strategic bombers and ballistic missiles, is disproportionate to any threat from the former Soviet state and could escalate tensions in the volatile region, a senior U.S. official said Saturday.
Disproportionate...now where have i heard that before?
Posted by: Lysander | Aug 9 2008 23:59 utc | 10
US media has some PNAC shill, allegedly a "senior US official" [VP? SoS? CIA?] speaking "off the record," with this piece of trilobite Axis of Evil think-speak:
"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Russia's use of strategic bombers and ballistic missiles against Georgia's civilians outside of the South Ossetian conflict is "far disproportionate" to Georgia's alleged attack on Russian peacekeepers, a senior U.S. official said Saturday.
The official was not authorized to speak on the record due to the sensitive nature of the diplomacy.
Russia's use of its potent air weaponry signals a "severe" and "dangerous escalation in the crisis," the official said."
--
Yeah, the NeoZi.con's had to slip that "ballistic missiles against civilians" schtick in to justify their Patriot missile scam they're running in Eastern EU.
Imagine the headline after Israeli planes bomb Iran under US smoke screen followup invasion of Bandar Abbas, to seize control of the Right Bank of the Arabian Gulf.
Rather like a PNAC NeoZi.con Greater Israel version of Six-Day War all over again.
--
So why not get Bebe on the phone, and talk man to man, the way they did in Rome?
US: Mr. Netanyahu, the US has got your back. So what are you gonna do for US?
Bebe: Sorry, I don't understand. Israel 'represents democracy in the Middle East'.
US: No, Bebe, man to man. Our blood, our treasure, what are you gonna do for US?
Bebe: You will always have Israel's greatest admiration.
US: Listen, quit fucking around. What do we get? We want East Jerusalem for Christ.
[Bebe visibly pales]: That's simply not up for discussion.
US: What, you think we want Gaza?! Fuck Gaza, Bebe, you take it. We want East Jerusalem under Christian control, and we want all the spoils from Lebanese and Syrian bank vaults to build a Neo-Christian temple on the Mount, or the Chosen of God can march against Iran alone.
[Bebe splutters and chokes]: You can't ... we aren't ... there isn't ...
US: Fine. You know what? Fuck it, Bebe. No deal. I'm canceling the $30B arms grift and standing down our battle forces. Fuck you and the hearse you PNAC's rode in on.
Either you promise US territory and tribute, or Zionist's can go fuck themselves.
--
Now that's how they do a deal in Chicago.
Posted by: Betty Boop | Aug 10 2008 0:25 utc | 11
& it would seem the second front is opening with abkhazia
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Aug 10 2008 0:29 utc | 12
Well, that fuck, Saakashvili, thought he could take a leaf out of his masters book to shock and awe Tskhinvali's civilians, bombing them with multiple rockets, cutting their water and shooting them on their streets with snipers.
And how shocked, shocked and awed, are the AngloAmericans and their media apparatchiks that this disgusting creature should taste a fraction of his own medicine. And how droll that that other disgusting fuck, George Bush, is now trying to teach the Russians a lesson in moderation.
Nobody's buying, except maybe the googoo liberal leftists in North America and Europe, with the Balts, the smarmy Swedes, the mittel European torte snarfers, forever striving to suck down that Yankee Coca Cola, Sarkozy, and the rest of the Bush lickers. They can all go fuck themselves.
Posted by: Thrasyboulos | Aug 10 2008 0:43 utc | 13
mikheil saakashvili is one motherfucker who has made a monstrous mistake & perhaps by monday he will go to miami to live with all the other gangsters
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Aug 10 2008 1:48 utc | 14
Well, I think it's time to point out that Saakashvili has now joined Saddam Hussein in the list of "leaders who bombed their own people".
Oh, by the way, indeed, there are some utterly stupid people in Kos. Jerome's post was one of the most balanced and informed I've seen about this.
Posted by: CluelessJoe | Aug 10 2008 1:49 utc | 15
BBC International reporting that Tbilisi airport bombed, and that thousands of Russian troops (according to Georgian sources) are poised to attack at dawn.
I wonder how long his American masters will put up with their cretinous puppet, Saakashvili.
Posted by: Thrasyboulos | Aug 10 2008 2:52 utc | 16
I'm alarmed at the way this war is being portrayed primarily as a contest between the Great Powers, forgetting the local ethnic complexities and regional proxy warfare, and ignoring the history of Russia periodically bleeding this region. You would think people writing on this thread had forgotten the Russians' butchery of the Chechens in two wars that earn high rank in the annals of war crimes.
Why glorify the Russia action announced by Putin? (I won't mention the puppet Russian president what's-his-name) who Putin is constantly upstaging.
Come on, the Russians have been fucking with South Ossetia for a long time, haven't they? Funneling arms to the separatists. Handing out Russian passports like tic-tacs.
Surely you're not blind to their game?
Russia attacking the Georgians can easily become as loathsome as Americans killing civilians in Iraq. It would be good to leave out ideological squabbles and the Cold War melodrama. It would be best to reflect simply on the moral outrage of a Great Power beating down on a small nation.
The Georgian leader killing 1500 people at Tskhinvali is perhaps too close to Austria-Hungary's artillery barrage that ravaged Serajevo in 1914. But the Russian commander who pushed back in South Ossetia proudly boasted of "cleansing" the area of all Georgian personel, which I think means that he made sure they were dead.
Why glorify the Russia action announced by Putin? (I won't mention the puppet Russian president what's-his-name) who Putin is constantly upstaging.
Come on, the Russians have been fucking with South Ossetia for a long time, haven't they? Funneling arms to the separatists. Handing out Russian passports like tic-tacs.
Well Copeland - you certainly underestimate Medvedev - anyway. No, Russia isn't always the good one. But their good relations to Ossetia go back some 250 years or so. Ossetians migrated from the Don river into the Caucasus when the Mongols captured Russia. So yes Russia has been "fucking with South Ossetia for a long time". But it was not a rape as you seem to imply.
Interesting piece from the Nation written Friday: Getting Georgia's War On
The invasion was backed up by a PR offensive so layered and sophisticated that I even got an hysterical call today from a hedge fund manager in New York, screaming about an "investor call" that Georgian Prime Minister Lado Gurgenidze made this morning with some fifty leading Western investment bank managers and analysts. I've since seen a J.P. Morgan summary of the conference call, which pretty much reflects the talking points later picked up by the US media.These kinds of conference calls are generally conducted by the heads of companies in order to give banking analysts guidance. But as the hedge fund manager told me today, "The reason Lado did this is because he knew the enormous PR value that Georgia would gain by going to the money people and analysts, particularly since Georgia is clearly the aggressor this time."
...
The really scary thing about this investor conference call is that it suggests real planning. As the hedge fund manager told me, "These things aren't set up on an hour's notice."
Interesting set of posts at The American Conservative,
http://www.amconmag.com/larison/
focusing on media neocons, aka, the usual suspects.
Posted by: Thrasyboulos | Aug 10 2008 10:21 utc | 19
Copeland: At the end of the day, it all boils down to who is a Bush lapdog and deserves to be annihilated, and who isn't.
Posted by: CluelessJoe | Aug 10 2008 13:39 utc | 21
I've always been curious about Badri Patarkatsishvili the Georgia media tycoon suspected of plotting a coup against Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili. Soon after that, he died in London. Saakashvili had to invoke a state lock down to stop the coup. Patarkatsishvilli was connected to Boris Berezovsky and to Rupert Murdoch.
I've always taken this story to mean that at least some portion of the international mafia imperialists were not happy with Saakashvili and that his days were numbered.
I wonder if this disaffection is going to limit the support that Saakashvili will get from the West in this latest gambit
Posted by: Jesus Reyes | Aug 10 2008 13:39 utc | 22
its simply amazing that as of a few days ago, many here including myself knew little or nothing about Abkhazia or South Ossetia. And its fascinating how much these latest events connect into other "knowns".
This MOA watering hole has become a priceless resource as b. continues to reveal the world & its unending facets to us in unique ways that are not to be found elsewhere.
And I think when the history of blog styles is written, it will not be complete without a section on the unique b-style. Thanks a lot b.
Posted by: jony_b_cool | Aug 10 2008 13:40 utc | 23
Interesting comparison between Putin & Bush. Putin seems to want to get this over with without humiliating Georgia, which is not what one would expect from Bush. Either Bush actually.
Posted by: jony_b_cool | Aug 10 2008 14:00 utc | 24
A nasty situation all round.
That said, I would take the casualty figures being bandied about - without any verification whatsoever - with a dump-truck full of salt; it's not as if both sides don't have huge motives to lie out of their backsides.
It's worth applying some "critical" thinking to this, and compare the purported casualty/fatality levels with some of the more recent conflicts for which we have fairly accurate data. The Israelis killed some 1200 or so Lebanese in 33 days back in 2006 - using 500-2000 pounders delivered by F-15's and F-16's ( the Georgians have no airforce ), top-of-the-line artillery ( using cluster munitions ) and had no qualms about hitting densely populated neighbourhoods in Beirut; the Georgians, using grad missiles on a town that has a lower population than the Dahiya suburb of Beirut, have managed to kill people at a rate some 40 times faster than the Israelis. To anyone who believes that, I have some prime parkland in Manhattan to sell for residential development. 1500 dead would have entailed the streets being littered with dead bodies and, presumably, a near 100% casualty rate for the entire population, along with the complete destruction of every building; Russian footage of the scene from yesterday and today tends to put this scenario in doubt, unless the Georgians were using chemical weapons and Russian troops have learnt how to survive without breathing.
The apartment block in Gori? Well, the BBC correspondent on the scene put the number of fatalities at 2 - which is a far cry from 50.
The endgame will be a humiliating withdrawal by the Georgian forces from both Ossetia and Abkhazia - this seems to be already happening, a lot of huffing and puffing by everyone, a "permanent" Russian military presence in the disputed regions, followed by a bitingly cold winter without Russian gas supplies to Tbilisi.
Posted by: dan | Aug 10 2008 15:09 utc | 25
Here's some relevant stuff from the BBC.
Georgia pulls out
US Deputy National Security Adviser James Jeffrey said that if the Russian escalation continued, it would have a "significant" long-term impact on relations between the Moscow and Washington.
"
As in? We don't know WTF to do now. hopefully, all our military advisors are all safe and Russians don't frog march them into an open pit and dispose them.
Mr Utiashvili told the BBC that the withdrawal was necessary because of the mass civilian and military casualties both within South Ossetia and elsewhere in Georgia.
read, we got our asses kicked.
But emissaries from the US and Europe who are Nato members may not be seen as honest brokers by the Kremlin when it comes to Georgia, the BBC's diplomatic correspondent Bridget Kendall says.The danger now is that Russia will not only use this crisis to demonstrate its military power in the region, but argue it is time to redraw the map, she adds.
you don't say? First, Russia demonstrated it's power and won and two, Russia won't argue, it WILL redraw the map.
One logical thing that should/will happen next, is that the supposed oil pipeline which is supplying a lot of Europe's needs will change hands, Yukos oil style to Gazprom.
I mean, if you were Russia, you see 2K people die and you crush that itsy bitsy fly of a country and then what?
Gazprom will come in, "negotiate" with Georgia for a stake in the pipeline and control of the pumping stations. I think the NATO members are coming in to forestall that kind of "legal/commercial understanding". I mean, what else is there is to save from this enormous, strategic clusterfcuk?
Posted by: shanks | Aug 10 2008 15:21 utc | 26
Looks like I predicted the timing right - I said it would be Sunday evening. The Georgians have declared a ceasefire, after what looks like a rout.
Posted by: Alex | Aug 10 2008 15:32 utc | 27
The rout:
On the border: Georgian troops retreat, civilians flee as Red Army advances
Posted by: Alex | Aug 10 2008 15:36 utc | 28
copeland
i think you have a cooler head but i think here you are misreading the situation. real power does not need to exercise it. i remember the mafia pentiti when he sd contrary to expert commentators that the killing of the judges faalcone & borsellino illustrated the weakness of mafia power not the opposite. i do not think russia is eager to enter military actions - tho i think a less unipolar world is more safer.
the georgian leader, i imagine in league or at least with counsel of the neocons made a disastrous move & it is an illustration of us imperial intervention - i agree what someone sd here this week that this administration has been involved at every level in the destabilising & the degradion of the international context. the u s money that went into the elections of the ukraine are but one more example
i do not see the wrong - on russia's part it defended the people of south ossettia & yes it sent a message that it will not sit silently by with the kinf of conflicts that the neocons & their inheritors would like to see in this region
& in practical terms - russia is still a developing nation in much the same way that india is
saakashvili clearly expected u s support & the support of the infamous 'international community'. it did not get it. his surrender then comes as no surprise. how soon this corrupt mafiosi will surrender to his own people for his enormous error is yet to come
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Aug 10 2008 15:47 utc | 29
next question is whether the Red Army will stop at the Georgia border ?
they had better stop there otherwise, Russia will be handing a massive free propaganda gift to its opponents.
Posted by: jony_b_cool | Aug 10 2008 15:53 utc | 30
In manipulating the news the way they are, I think that the US and UK media are counting on those who are old enough to remember the 80's to recall from memory images of the Soviet brutalization of Afghanistan's people, and then analogize that to Georgia and South Ossetia.
I wonder if the US and UK are trying create a distraction for Russia while the two western powers launch an attack on Iran? There are four US naval battle groups in the Persian Gulf right now, three of them full-fledged carrier groups. I recall reading somewhere that when three US carrier groups are in one place, something big is probably going to go down.
Posted by: Loveandlight | Aug 10 2008 15:54 utc | 31
copeland
if you are in any doubt about complicity - listen to what proconsul khalizad is saying before the united nations - saakashvili would no doubt see this as the cavalry - all he is waiting for now is bernard kouchner crying
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Aug 10 2008 16:05 utc | 32
@Jesus Reyes Patarkatsishvilli was connected to Boris Berezovsky and to Rupert Murdoch.
I've always taken this story to mean that at least some portion of the international mafia imperialists were not happy with Saakashvili and that his days were numbered.
I noticed that Murdoch's London Times was quite negative on Saak's little adventure. Contrast that with the Independent's fudging.
@jony_b_cool - Thanks :-)
Loveandlight
Wow. Considering that there isn't a single US carrier battle group in the Persian Gulf at present I'm somewhat dubious about your theory.
The Lincoln carrier group is in the Northern Arabian Sea, which is close, but as this group has been on deployment since mid-March, and hasn't made a port visit for nearly 3 months, I'd be surprised if it doesn't start heading back for the US by the end of this month.
There are a couple of other US carrier groups at sea - but they're both a good 4000 miles from the PG at present
Posted by: dan | Aug 10 2008 16:19 utc | 34
ambassador churkin spoke many salient sentences -they are not to be bullied any longer
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Aug 10 2008 16:27 utc | 36
dan:
Not saying you're wrong, but I just thought I would reveal my source.
http://jpost.decenturl.com/2-us-aircraft-carriers-headed
Could just be some ham-fisted Zionist proppaganda scare-tactic, I suppose.
Posted by: Loveandlight | Aug 10 2008 16:29 utc | 37
Damn. I'll have to make my own hyperlink.
News article from The Jerusalem Post.
Posted by: Loveandlight | Aug 10 2008 16:32 utc | 38
& it was interesting to note that churkin made a great deal of the presence of american military experts who have been recenty involved in wargame 'immediate response' - not a million miles away from an armed intervention into southern ossetia
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Aug 10 2008 16:35 utc | 39
the goonoreah-ridden golem blitzer is about to talk to the ganster saakashvili - i am sure it will be illuminating as - propagande exercise no 4 million & seven
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Aug 10 2008 16:41 utc | 40
@ Dan; Do you have blog somewhere?
@ everyone; What is to be made of Ukrainian reports that they wont allow Russian Black Sea ships to return to port? Does anyone see this conflict widening?
Posted by: Lysander | Aug 10 2008 16:43 utc | 41
Alex,
The war is not over, ceasefire or no ceasefire. The political humiliation of Saakashvili, and by extension, his Western patrons, will continue.
1. there are reports that Abkhazia/Russia is moving to expel the Georgians on its territory.
2. it looks like Russia may want to extend its hold to Ossetia's administrative border, hitherto occupied by Georgia.
Should Russia/Abkhazia/Ossetia succeed in both, the latter more likely than the former perhaps, the political future of Saakashvili becomes an issue. As does the prestige of the United States in the Caucasus.
The rush by Georgia (and the West) to declare a ceasefire in Ossetia is meant to forestall the irreversible loss of Abhkazia and Ossetia, borders intact, and avoid political humiliation of major proportions.
Georgia has its answer this morning: get on your knees.
(Is there an Olympic event for runaway cretinism? "US trained" Saakashvili would win, no contest.)
Posted by: Thrasyboulos | Aug 10 2008 16:43 utc | 42
why do cnn commentators always look like they are still wearing nappies - the puffiness of their face brought not by poverty but pomposity
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Aug 10 2008 16:44 utc | 43
lysander
i was also interested in seeing what the ukraine would do
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Aug 10 2008 16:46 utc | 44
I forgot. Also, there's that little matter of a non aggression pact demanded by Russia. Haven't heard much about this lately, but it could be another little goodie extracted from the idiot Saakashvili.
Posted by: Thrasyboulos | Aug 10 2008 16:48 utc | 45
as expected an exercise in propaganda so crude it would make richard nixon blush
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Aug 10 2008 16:55 utc | 46
another end-game factor:
the Russians might want to think twice about supporting the now virtually certain commitment by both Abkhazia & South Ossentia to declaring independent nationhood because it would clear the only remaining obstruction against Georgia joining NATO. So far NATO has declined to admit Georgia because of its border disputes.
Posted by: jony_b_cool | Aug 10 2008 16:59 utc | 47
Loveandlight
The JP is notorious for "sexed-up", and often highly-inaccurate, reportage of all things Iranian; I'm pretty sure that they haven't the slightest idea which direction the carriers that are currently in the Western Atlantic and near Japan are sailing.
US naval carrier locations/repair status are updated weekly at http://www.gonavy.jp/CVlocation.html - this is a much more reliable starting point for info than anywhere else on the intertubes.
Lysander
No. And No, this conflict is winding down, not escalating. The BBC ran a very extensive interview with Sakaashvilii this PM ( his media handling operation is extremely well-run, and he's a good enough liar to convince the majority of viewers that he's sincere ), and the message coming out from that was - OK, you win, we're leaving, please stop killing our troops and bombing our military infrastructure.
Posted by: dan | Aug 10 2008 17:08 utc | 48
Georgian news link: http://georgiandaily.com/>georgiandaily.com
"To sum up: politically speaking, it is insufficient to say that power and violence are not the same. Power and violence are opposites; where the one rules absolutely, the other is absent. Violence appears where power is in jeopardy, but left to its own course it ends in power's disappearance. This implies that it is not correct to think of the opposite of violence as non-violence; to speak of non-violent power is actually redundant. Violence can destroy power; it is utterly incapable of creating it. Hegel's and Marx's great trust in the dialectical "power of negation," by virtue of which opposites do not destroy but smoothly develop into each other because contradictions promote and do not paralyze development, rests on much older philosophical predudice: that evil is no more than a private modus of the good, that good can come out of evil; that, in short, evil is but a temporary manifestation of the good. Such time-honored opinions have become dangerous."
--Hannah Arendt, On Violence
dan,
And because Saakashvili told the BBC that "ok, you win..." this ends the conflict?
The Russians don't seem to have seen that interview.
Posted by: Thrasyboulos | Aug 10 2008 17:20 utc | 51
copeland
to take a dialectical moment - it think all of us remember the us at the united nations during the attack by israelis in lebanon in 2006 - where a ceasefire was refused by the us to allow the israelis to arrive at the political & military objectives. that too was a fuck up - dialectical or otherwise
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Aug 10 2008 17:21 utc | 52
Thrasyboulos @ 42. You're right, I was a bit fast. But I think we're in the last hours; from his new post b thinks so too. It's just a matter of Russia making certain they got what they want. There won't be a real spread of the war to Abkhazia. Russia can get what it wants there without fighting.
Posted by: Alex | Aug 10 2008 17:26 utc | 53
r'giap,
You are right about that. @52
It is troublesome to me that Putin (instead of what's-his-name) announces that Georgia henceforth forfeits all rights to govern South Ossetia. And Russia has used the treaty advantage they had already secured, along with proxy violence they were encouraging in this territory, to successfully pull off this land grab. All they needed was a provocation, the fool's mission of Saakashvili.
I'm also troubled by the belligerent and wildly irresponsible statements of John McCain, which reflect as clearly as anything else can, the psychopathology which is present in a disturbing degree in many of my countrymen.
These developments in Georgia and South Ossetia are far more dangerous than people realize. If Russia moves further to inflict public humiliation, after the Georgians have cried Uncle, then this damned thing in the Caucasus region could start to look like "some damn thing in the Balkans" that caused the wider outbreak of war in 1914.
BBC just reported that one Russian demand, enunciated one hour ago, is a non aggression signature. Also, that they do not see Saakashvili as a negotiating partner.
Not going well for the "American trained" idiot.
Posted by: Thrasyboulos | Aug 10 2008 18:14 utc | 55
dan:
IOW, The Jerusalem Post is Israel's version of the New York Post. Gotcha. I'll certainly keep that in mind in the future.
Posted by: Loveandlight | Aug 10 2008 18:18 utc | 56
@54 I hear ypu loud & clear,
And for whatever its worth, the Abkhazians & the Ossetians have different linguistic & cultural roots from the Georgians. As much difference there and possibly a lot more than there is between Quebecs & Anglos in Canada, and the Quebecs were allowed their self-determination. Its what we do & share with our respective legacies of culture & language that ultimately counts. And if it was the other way around, the Georgians would probably want their self-determination too.
Also, maybe one little happy note to this end-game is that Russian snipers appear to be shooting out the tires of Georgian military trucks as they approach the border on their retreat, and allowing the occupants to proceed on foot. Exactly what you would expect from Russian paratroopers looking for a ride to get back to base.
Posted by: jony_b_cool | Aug 10 2008 19:26 utc | 57
Just a couple of things to add to Copeland's summation:
The circumstances under which South Ossetia and Abkhazia seceded from Georgia are a bit complicated. Part of the reason lies in the oppressive, anti-minority policies of Gamsakhurdia-era Georgia. But this was also the era when Russia was grabbing off bits of former Soviet republics whenever it could (viz. Transnistria), and the Russian army had a lot to do with instigating the civil war. The war itself was a brutal one, and about 200,000 Georgians, which is a lot in a country of under 5 million, are refugees from Abkhazia or South Ossetia.
In other words, while the immediate flareup is mostly Saakashvili's fault (I say "mostly" because the South Ossetian militia was staging border provocations for weeks beforehand), the underlying conflict is a slow Russian land grab. Russia is as much an imperialist as any other player in this drama, and the fact that Putin is fighting one of the bad guys doesn't make him the good guy.
Personally, I respect the Ossetians' and Abkhazians' desire for self-determination, especially after their oppression under Gamsakhurdia, and I'd leave it up to them whether to be independent or become part of a federal Georgia. That would require a non-aggression agreement on the Georgian side, and the Russian demand for this seems reasonable. On the other hand, the future of the separatist republics should be decided through consensual negotiations with Georgia, under neutral supervision without a Russian thumb on the scale, and should include a fair settlement (albeit not necessarily return) for the Georgian refugees. I don't see that happening as long as they're pieces on Putin's game board.
Posted by: Jonathan Edelstein | Aug 11 2008 0:19 utc | 58
On the other hand, the future of the separatist republics should be decided through consensual negotiations with Georgia, under neutral supervision without a Russian thumb on the scale
or a western one? maybe going up against a georgia w/supporters who have a lot to gain by georgia being part of nato seems a touch overwhelming. besides georgia can't be part of nato w/undisputed territory, which means south ossetia would essential have to completely suceed for geogia to be 'whole' w/out it. what are the chances georgia would ever go for that?
the underlying conflict is a slow Russian land grab.
really? having less to do w/georgian (and western) aspirations?
South Ossetian militia was staging border provocations for weeks
links?
Posted by: annie | Aug 11 2008 0:45 utc | 59
or a western one?
Absolutely. I did say "neutral."
besides georgia can't be part of nato w/undisputed territory, which means south ossetia would essential have to completely suceed for geogia to be 'whole' w/out it. what are the chances georgia would ever go for that?
Either it would have to secede, or it would have to somehow reunite with Georgia under a federal/confederal plan. One of Saakashvili's greatest mistakes (albeit a natural one given that he's an unreformed nationalist of the 19th-century style) was that he ruled out any and all concessions to Abkhazian or Ossetian self-determination, and basically told them that their only future was as conquered provinces. His aim was to reunite them by force as was done with Adjaria, and never quite got that their secession was much more "real" and indigenously based than Adjaria's. In March this year, he finally offered real autonomy to Abkhazia along with power-sharing on the national level, but it was much too late in the day, and at this point I don't see Abkhazia (or S. Ossetia) going for it even if Georgia does.
So yeah, it would have to be secession. And no, I don't see Georgia accepting it any more than Serbia has. NATO's a non-starter, probably for at least a decade and maybe forever.
having less to do w/georgian (and western) aspirations?
In 1992-94, Georgia didn't have very many aspirations, and the West didn't have much interest in Georgia. At that point it was a barely-surviving state ruled by a fairly nasty ex-Soviet apparatchik, and wasn't yet on the NATO expansion radar (nor would it be for a decade).
Russia, on the other hand, has wanted its erring republics back from the get-go. Transnistria, the abortive Soviet invasion of Armenia and Azerbaijan in '89-90, handing out Russian passports to every Ossetian or Abkazian who wanted one, interfering pretty heavy-handedly in the Abkhazian election of '04 - you know, that sort of thing. Russia isn't, and has never been, some kind of benign anti-imperialist force; at most, it's alternatively-imperialist.
links?
Try this (Georgian source, but not pro-government). If you do a Google news search for South Ossetia and look for coverage in late July up to about August 4, you'll see other incidents reported as well as barrages of accusations and counter-accusations.
Posted by: Jonathan Edelstein | Aug 11 2008 1:12 utc | 60
South Ossetia and Abkhazia were separate from Georgia till Stalin (a native of Georgia) rolled them up into Georgia.
Separatism can be very complex, just like divorces. Every case is different. But when there are no kids or entwined assets, its a lot easier to work out a separation. In Georgia's case, it does'nt lose anything it really ever "owned". It still has a very decent coastline & retains all of its prior territory.
Posted by: jony_b_cool | Aug 11 2008 1:18 utc | 61
South Ossetia and Abkhazia were separate from Georgia till Stalin (a native of Georgia) rolled them up into Georgia.
Both were under Georgian feudal rule through the 18th century (although there was of course no such thing as a unified Georgian state during this period), were annexed to imperial Russia along with Georgia proper, and were nominally part of the Georgian republic during the 1918-21 civil war. South Ossetia was part of the Georgian SSR from the beginning, although Abkhazia's status was more ambiguous until it was "integrated" by Stalin. There were also Georgians living in both areas for centuries, although there was also sponsored Georgian (and some Russian) colonization during the Soviet period. As I said, complications.
Separatism can be very complex, just like divorces. Every case is different. But when there are no kids or entwined assets, its a lot easier to work out a separation.
Agreed. There are some entwined assets here, though, as noted above - even aside from the precolonial history, both regions did become integrated with Georgia during the Soviet period. The post-Soviet ethnic cleansing disentangled the "assets" in some ways, and it's probably too late to unring that bell, but it also impressed the conflict deeper into the popular consciousness. Like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (or, as a less inflammatory alternative, the Cypriot one), it isn't just a matter of defining borders and parceling out rights - it's fueled by a keenly felt sense of injustice on all sides.
I agree that Georgia is probably better off without these territories at this point, and as I argued above, any solution will have to respect their self-determination. The Georgians will sooner or later have to get out of the 19th century. But so will Russia - the degree of its respect for South Ossetian and Abkhazian self-determination (or indeed for their existence as anything but puppets) is proven by what happened in the 2004 Abkhazian presidential election. If you want to understand Russia's aims in the region, what happened then is a good guide.
Posted by: Jonathan Edelstein | Aug 11 2008 1:52 utc | 64
One other thing I've been meaning to add: calling a classic 19th-century nationalist like Saakashvili a "neocon" is as ridiculous as a 1950s John Bircher calling anyone to the left of Eisenhower a "communist." If he's a neocon, then the term has officially become meaningless.
Posted by: Jonathan Edelstein | Aug 11 2008 1:54 utc | 65
What did happen in the 2004 Abkhazian presidential election?
Posted by: a swedish kind of death | Aug 11 2008 2:11 utc | 66
Their Israeli advisors taught the Georgians well in the bomb hospitals and civilians department.
Posted by: | Aug 11 2008 2:31 utc | 67
jonathan, your link is a little weak supporting the idea South Ossetian militia was staging border provocations for weeks
Georgian posts in the South Ossetian conflict zone came under fire from South Ossetian militias overnight and early on July 29.....A group of officials from the Georgian Ministry of Defense, including Deputy Minister Ramaz Nikolaishvili, visited the conflict zone on July 28. The Georgian MoD reported that the delegation also visited, as it put it, “the strategic height” of Sarabuki and placed the Georgian national flag there.
i'd say placing the georgia flag there prior to the conflicts sounds rather provocative. also the link supports the idea the russians were trying to keep the lid on the violence, which is the job of peacekeepers.
the Russian command of the Joint Peacekeeping Forces stationed in the conflict zone said late on July 28 that South Ossetian militiamen had prevented peacekeepers and OSCE observers from monitoring the village of Cholibauri. The Georgian side has claimed that South Ossetian militiamen are setting up military fortifications in an area close to the village.“They [the South Ossetian militiamen] threatened us at gunpoint and even fired several shots into the air over the observers’ heads,” Interfax and RIA Novosti news agencies quoted Vladimir Ivanov, a spokesman for the Russian peacekeepers in the conflict zone, as saying late on July 28. “Such actions fuel tensions in the conflict zone.”
not sure how this leads to your conclusion of the 'underlying conflict is a slow Russian land grab'. your link makes it sound like the russians peace keepers were doing their jobs.
meanwhile
According to South Ossetian authorities, on the evening of July 29, Georgia fired upon the villages of Sarabuki and Tliakana in the region of Tskhinvali.This comes just after an earlier incident that day when Georgian forces opened fire on the Ossetian villages of Sarabuki and Andis. A group of peacekeeping monitors arrived on the scene only to also come under fire. There were no casualties.
The Georgians, on the other hand, are reporting that it was the South Ossetian forces who fired first upon the peacekeepers, and then during the course of the morning, fired upon the Georgian police posts and Georgian settlements.
On the evening of July 29, South Ossetian authorities once again released a statement regarding a shooting by the Georgians on Ossetian villages. This time the fire came upon the villages of Sarabuki and Tliakana.
source exvercises in translation
over @ wiki
On the night of June 14 into the early morning of June 15, 2008, mortar fire and an exchange of gunfire were reported between South Ossetian and Georgian forces. South Ossetia reported that mortar fire was launched from Georgian-controlled villages on Tshinkvali, the South Ossetian capital, and that their forces came under fire from Georgian forces on the outskirts of the capital. Georgia denies firing the first shot claiming instead that South Ossetia had attacked the Georgian-controlled villages.[17] Russian, Georgian, and North Ossetia peacekeepers as well as OSCE monitors went to the site of the clashes, but it was not determined who fired the first shot. One person was killed and four wounded during the violence.A South Ossetian police official was killed in a bomb attack on July 3, 2008 and this was followed by an intense exchange of gun fire. Later a convoy carrying the leader of the Tbilisi-backed South Ossetian provisional administration, Dimitri Sanakoev, was attacked and three of his security guards injured. On July 4, 2008 two people were killed as a result of shelling and shooting in Tskhinvali and some villages in South Ossetia. The South Ossetian Press and Information Committee reported that a South Ossetian militiaman had been killed and another injured in an attack on a police post in the village of Ubia and this was followed by the shelling of Tskhinvali, which resulted in the death of one man. The shelling reportedly involved the use of mortars and grenade launchers.
Georgia claimed it had opened fire in response to the shelling by South Ossetian militiamen of Georgian-controlled villages.[19]
in response to the provocations you mention? did any of that provocative shelling into georgia from south ossetia produce any casualties? do you have any evidence the georgians were not simply lying by justifying their incursions w/'they did it first'.
Posted by: annie | Aug 11 2008 2:32 utc | 68
"Georgian government officials used to tell me that they wanted to model their army after the IDF," former Israeli ambassador to Georgia Shabtai Zur told Ynet Sunday evening amid the country's bloody feud with Russia over the separatist region of South Ossetia.
Indeed.
Georgian minister tells Israel Radio: Thanks to Israeli training, we're fending off Russian military
He said nothing about bombing civilians in the dead of the night, flattening a whole city. That's in the training manual appendix, see Lebanon.
Posted by: | Aug 11 2008 2:47 utc | 69
From Civil.ge Georgian site, August 11, 2008 cited @60
Re. Annexationist Russia
In a separate incident, the Russian command of the Joint Peacekeeping Forces stationed in the conflict zone said late on July 28 that South Ossetian militiamen had prevented peacekeepers and OSCE observers from monitoring the village of Cholibauri. The Georgian side has claimed that South Ossetian militiamen are setting up military fortifications in an area close to the village.
“They [the South Ossetian militiamen] threatened us at gunpoint and even fired several shots into the air over the observers’ heads,” Interfax and RIA Novosti news agencies quoted Vladimir Ivanov, a spokesman for the Russian peacekeepers in the conflict zone, as saying late on July 28. “Such actions fuel tensions in the conflict zone.”
Posted by: | Aug 11 2008 2:54 utc | 70
I wonder if this Vladimir Ivanov was one of the Russian peacekeepers slaughtered in cold blood by on of the "US Trained" President Saakashvili's soldiers, them having the benefit of Israel training and all.
Posted by: Thrasyboulos | Aug 11 2008 3:05 utc | 72
What did happen in the 2004 Abkhazian presidential election?
Sergei Bagapsh, who (at the time) reportedly favored negotiating with Georgia, won just over 50 percent of the vote in the first round against the Russian-backed candidate Khajimba. After the results were announced, the outgoing president refused to leave office and Russia imposed economic sanctions. Bagapsh eventually agreed, under pressure from Russia, to rerun the elections on a joint ticket with Khajimba as vice president, and to accept the Russian line in foreign policy. During the time Moscow was imposing the sanctions, it was quite open about wanting to change the results of the election.
also the link supports the idea the russians were trying to keep the lid on the violence, which is the job of peacekeepers.
But also that the South Ossetian militias were firing on Georgians.
not sure how this leads to your conclusion of the 'underlying conflict is a slow Russian land grab'. your link makes it sound like the russians peace keepers were doing their jobs.
By "the underlying conflict" I meant the conflict that started in 1992, not the immediate flare-up going on now. The reason that the Russian peacekeepers are there to do their jobs in the first place was that Russia helped South Ossetia and Abkhazia secede during the post-Soviet chaos. Since then, the governments of both republics have been joined at the hip with Russia.
do you have any evidence the georgians were not simply lying by justifying their incursions w/'they did it first'.
Both of them had reason to lie, so without a ruling from OSCE, I don't know who shot first on 6/14. The Ossetians played a part in keeping it going, though, including the shelling of Georgian villages on 8/6 and 8/7 and the continued shelling after Saakashvili's unilatearal ceasefire on 8/7.
BTW, the attack on the convoy carrying "the leader of the Tbilisi-backed South Ossetian provisional administration, Dimitri Sanakoev" was an Ossetian attack on a Georgian ally, not a Georgian attack on an Ossetian figure. And there were injured civilians on the Georgian side before the flareup, and there were Georgian fatalities in the two days prior to the war.
Posted by: Jonathan Edelstein | Aug 11 2008 3:09 utc | 73
South Ossetia Committed to Becoming Part of Russia - [President] Kokoity
Like I said, if they want to do that and can arrange it peacefully, they should be able to. But let's not kid around about what Russia wants here. See also Transnistrian referendum of 2006.
Posted by: Jonathan Edelstein | Aug 11 2008 3:30 utc | 74
Like I said, if they want to do that and can arrange it peacefully, they should be able to
I'm sure Putin will be relieved to have your approval, including your condition.
Lol!
Posted by: Thrasyboulos | Aug 11 2008 3:44 utc | 75
I suspect that hoping for any form of "neutral" mediation, in South Ossetia or elsewhere, is probably delusional: there is nobody neutral who would stick their noses into the mess. The "fight" (both the shooting kind and the shouting kind) escalates because the factions on the ground (whether in Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Kosovo, or Iraqi and Turkish Kurdistan) feel that they can afford to "win" by forcibly defeating their adversaries--if not by their own force, by dragging in other actors. Other actors come in for their own reasons, of course. Unless the locals are tired of fighting--and there's nothing worthwhile that they can offer outsiders, fighting won't end. That, in turn, requires either total submission by one side or the other--which is unlikely in most cases--or both sides yielding to mutually acceptable modus vivendi--whose prospects are further diminished by continuing conflict and recriminations.
Accepting that there are no "good" sides in any conflict is a necessary first step--it delegitimizes, if anything else, potential intervention from the outside. But good luck trying to convince anyone of that: the view towards Georgians, as I understand it, was never particularly warm among the Russians, and their ostentatious pro-Western, anti-Russian public stances in the post-independence couldn't have warmed them to the Russians today. So, for the Russians, the Georgians are the "bad" guys. The shelling of the civilians Tskhinvali--an undeniable fact--couldn't have convinced them otherwise. Of course, the news would be spiced by liberal sprinkling of the past heavy-handed actions by the Georgians (also all true) consistent with the Russian side of the narrative. Knowing the exisitng prejudices of the Russian populace, whether Kremlin-influenced or not--it'd be silly to expect Russian media to contradict them by trying to lecture their viewers on the complexities of the situation--not that they'll tune in should it go that far anyways. Of course, the Western--especially U.S.--predispositions are rather the opposite. We don't trust the Russians to begin with. The display of overwhelming firepower by the Russians agianst tiny Georgia--again, an undisputible fact--reinforces that preconception. This would, in turn, by augmented by reports of past provocations by the South Ossetians and Russians--again all true-- to further justify the Western positions. Again, it's silly to expect the Western media--no more than the Russian--to try to educate their viewers on how complicated things really are--and again, they wouldn't listen even if they tried.
So, what does it mean? I repeat that a "neutral" solution could be found--especially since the outside actors are already committed and their positions, to a substantial degree, publicly announced. To accept a "neutral" solution requires that both sides commit to step away and take back their previous statements--explicit or implicit--and hope that the other side does the same and not play some dirty tricks in guise of some "neutral" mediation. Each of these steps are hard. Stepping away means abandoning much investment both sides have spent on building up their allies in the region. Recanting their previous statements destroys their moral position and credibility--not just for others, but for themselves. (how can you say to yourself "we withdraw our involvement from Georgia" after having convinced yourself that it represents the best experiment in democracy in the Caucasus (whether justiably or not)?) And very few "neutrals" really are "neutral" since they have valuable relations with the involved outside parties.
No, I don't suggest a solution. Rather, I'm suggesting that there are no good "solutions," if by a solution one means how to achieve something unrealistically idealistic well beyond the realm of achievable. in the end, we have to live in a world we have--not one we'd like to have but can't. Sorry if I sound too cynical.
Posted by: kao-hsien-chih | Aug 11 2008 4:12 utc | 76
kao-hsien-chih@76,
Also, if effective mechanisms for addressing ethnic/cultural hostilities could be put in place so they are addressed early in the cycle, eventual conflict or violence can be avoided or at least severely reduced. Not every country is vunerable to such conflict, but the likely suspect ethnic-groups are easily identifiable in those that are, as well as the issues.
For a start, the UN could publish an annual report listing countries, suspect ethnic groups & details/background (delicately & sensitively put) on the ethnic issues. People are'nt stupid or inherently shameless/vicious. Just the debate alone generated by such report would have a great positive effect.
Posted by: jony_b_cool | Aug 11 2008 6:37 utc | 77
What is the Russian 'endgame'? Are Russian media and political leaders also self-serving hypocrits, or is that characteristic of 'western' leaders and their 'neocon' (?) allies?
Posted by: vimothy | Aug 15 2008 13:45 utc | 79
Sorry, should read,
What is the Russian 'endgame'? Are Russian media and political leaders also self-serving hypocrits, or is that characteristic of only 'western' leaders and their 'neocon' (?) allies?
Posted by: | Aug 15 2008 13:45 utc | 80
Regain influence over border countries.
deter buildup of military/nato 'shield'.
Posted by: annie | Aug 15 2008 15:42 utc | 82
The comments to this entry are closed.
Thanks b.
Posted by: PeeDee | Aug 9 2008 20:54 utc | 1