Georgia’s Defeat and America’s Options

From the desk of Joshua Trevino on Wed, 2008-08-13 17:33

What Mikheil Saakashvili began at his discretion, Vladimir Putin ends at his pleasure. The Russians have called a halt to their offensive in Georgia, and none too soon for the Georgians. What remains is the postwar settlement, and the American part in it.

A look at the situation on the ground speaks to the Russian dominance of the little Caucasian republic: the Russians have near-total freedom of movement in the western plain, with soldiers in Poti. Georgia’s only meaningful lifelines to the outside world are the port of Batumi, and the long road to Yerevan. Neither of these are significant corridors for supply, and the port is free only at Russian sufferance. Further war would have seen a battle for Tbilisi in the coming 36 hours. The Georgians would have lost, and the war thence would probably have devolved into guerrilla actions centered about a sort of Georgian national redoubt in the south — in regions populated more by Armenians and Azeris than by Georgians. To be spared all this is a mercy that Georgians, rightly inflamed by what’s been done in mere days, may not fully appreciate.

The postwar settlement remains thoroughly opaque, even if, as the Russians report, the conditions of a ceasefire are agreed. The Russian war aim was never announced — or rather, it only announced itself on the ground — and its political end remains obscure. The formal disposition of the Russian-occupied secessionist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia must be decided; the mechanisms of reparation, if any, must be agreed upon; and, most troublingly, the Russians are making noises about extraditing Saakashvili to the Hague. Here, a definitive settlement is to everyone’s advantage — not least the Georgians, who are ill-advised to act as if they are anything but beaten. Absurdities like putting Saakashvili in the ICC dock should be rejected, but otherwise, it is almost certainly best to let the Russians dictate their terms — and let resistance to those terms emanate from sources able to make that resistance count, like Europe and the United States.

With this in mind, the first task of America’s postwar policy in the Caucasus is distasteful in the extreme: pushing the Georgians to understand and act like what they are, which is a defeated nation in no position to make demands. This does not square easily with American sentiment — nor my own — nor with the Vice President’s declaration that Russia’s aggression “must not go unanswered,” nor with John McCain’s declaration that “today we are all Georgians.” Russia’s aggression and consequent battlefield victory will stand, and as the last thing the volatile Caucasus needs is yet another revisionist, revanchist state, it befits a would-be member of the Western alliance to make its peace with that. However inflammatory the issue of “lost” Abkhazia and South Ossetia are in the Georgian public square, it is nothing that the Germans, the Finns, and the Greeks, to name a few, have not had to come to terms with in the course of their accessions to the first tier of Western nations. We should not demand less of Georgia.

The second, and more enduring, task of our policy must be the swift containment of Russia. I use the term deliberately: to invoke another Cold War-era phrase, we’re not going to “roll back” any of Russia’s recent territorial gains, nor should we attempt to reverse what prosperity it has achieved in the past decade. (That prosperity, being based mostly upon transitory prices for natural resources, will itself be transitory in time.) Russia’s leadership has declared that it seeks the reversal, de facto if not de jure, of the “catastrophe” of the USSR’s end. Though not marked by any formal decision in the vein of Versailles, this is nonetheless a strategic outcome that America has a direct interest in preserving. That interest has only gone up with the admission of former Soviet-bloc states — and former Soviet states — to NATO. Inasmuch as Russian revisionism threatens the alliance that has kept the peace in Europe for generations now, it must be confronted and deterred.

The obvious question is how this may be done with the tools America has at hand. It is a media commonplace over the past several days that the United States has no leverage over Russia. This is false. American policy can and does tremendously affect several things of tremendous importance to Moscow. A brief (though not comprehensive) list of available pressure points follows:

First, the Ukraine. First and foremost, there is no former Soviet state that Russia wishes to have in its orbit more than the Ukraine. Not coincidentally, the Ukraine was also the only nation besides the United States to render Georgia material assistance in this war, when it threatened to deny Sevastopol to the Russian Black Sea Fleet. European reluctance to antagonize Russia scuttled the Ukraine’s potential NATO membership at the NATO Bucharest summit this past spring. In light of Georgia’s fate, issuance of a MAP, or even outright NATO membership, to the Ukraine, is an appropriate riposte to Russia’s war. Unlike Georgia, the Ukraine has no territorial or secessionist issues, nor an unstable leadership apt to launch unwinnable wars. It does, though, very much need the sort of guarantee that NATO exists to give.

Second, Russia’s G8 membership. The G8 is purportedly the group of the world’s largest industrial democracies. Russia, with a GDP smaller than Spain’s and a per-capita income lower than Gabon’s, was admitted in 1997 as a means of supporting its integration into international economic institutions. It’s a privilege, not a right, and it should be conditioned upon responsible membership in the community of nations. Expulsion of Russia from the G8 is a longtime policy favorite of John McCain’s, and it’s time to consider his preference.

Third, Russia’s client states. This is a short list, though Russian revisionism would wish to see it lengthen. Belarus is by far Russia’s premier client, followed by varying degrees of Russian influence over Armenia, Serbia, Azerbaijan, and the central Asian states. (We’ll exclude here clients like Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transnistria, all of which have statuses that are dubious at best.) We’ve already seen that Russia reacts to defend Belarus when the latter is criticized. An available pressure point, then, is to turn up the heat on the Belarusian regime — specifically with support of dissidents in Belarus — and link it explicitly to Russia’s behavior elsewhere.

Fourth, Russia’s dissidents. Russian public life is nowhere near Soviet depths, but it is nonetheless notable that the Moscow regime places a premium upon the control of journalistic institutions and media. (A great, English-language example of the slick and statist nature of modern Russian media may be found at Russia Today — note the stories on Georgian “spy rings” and refugees from Georgian aggression fleeing into Russia.) Divergence from the Putin line is a good way to end up unemployed or dead, and so we ought to lend what support we may to independent media personnel — and their means.

Finally, Russia’s Internet. A major tool of Russian foreign policy in the past few years is what may only be described as cyber-warfare. We saw it when Russia wished to punish Estonia [pdf], and we saw it again this week against nearly all of Georgia’s .ge-domain sites. This is a tremendously thorny problem, both because cyber-war by its nature affords the perpetrators plausible denial, and because it is quite easy to respond to a wrong with a wrong — in America’s case, by using its leverage over Californa-based ICANN to invalidate .ru domains from which Russian attacks emanate. Here, the basic functionality of the Internet must be balanced against political concerns — and there must be some mechanism for determining when political concerns from nations like Russia damage the basic functionality of the Internet.

Beyond applying pressure to Russia, American policy must focus upon reassurance to the NATO nations that expressed alarm at Georgia’s subjugation. NATO allies Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and the Czech Republic all know quite well what it means to be crushed by the force of Russian arms, and all were therefore demonstrative in expressing their dismay at events in Georgia. If NATO and the American connection in particular is going to retain its meaning for them, it is up to us to provide the necessary reassurance. Although NATO is no longer a formally anti-Soviet (and therefore anti-Russian) alliance, we cannot pretend that it does not hold precisely that meaning for several of its member states. A failure to recognize this would concurrently weaken the alliance.

The war in Georgia is done but for the details, and the occasional sniping. Georgia lost on the first day, and Georgia has mostly — though not wholly — itself to blame. But if Georgia is prostrate, America and the West are not. If some good is to come of this, and if Russia’s adventure in its “near abroad” is to be its last, we must act decisively — and now.

@ kappert

Submitted by traveller on Sat, 2008-08-16 17:03.

When you are stopped by a red light, do you wait or do you turn around to find a street without red light?

who owns the pipeline

Submitted by kappert on Sat, 2008-08-16 12:05.

BP (30.1%); AzBTC (25.00%); Chevron (8.90%); Statoil (8.71%); TPAO (6.53%); Eni (5.00%); Total (5.00%), Itochu (3.40%); INPEX (2.50%), ConocoPhillips (2.50%) and Amerada Hess (2.36%). Where is Georgia???

@Akira

Submitted by mdavid on Sun, 2008-08-17 06:26.

I was asking about a general problem, not related to a specific one; about this point in another - lengthier - post.

I don't know what you understood from what I wrote.

1. I wrote about 1244; I saw it 1 year ago when I read also the Charter in full on UN's site; I also read other documents there, not in full, though.

Still, now I see a problem: 1244 comes against the Charter, stating - indirectly - Kossovars have no right to claim independance.

2. I wrote K'rs have no historical rights to claim independance. Currently there are no data to support it.

3. SO and Abhk. has this right. In fact, they have this right independantly of K. But K. case works in favor of Russia.

4. Klaus also mentions Russia's answer. I also mentioned this because I wanted to show I know about these details also; and they matter, ethnicity and indepedance right aside. He obviously knows and the "real" reasons of Russia's actions, too. And again, K's case is in Russia's favor. Another WE mistake. I agree with Klaus. But Russia also attacked whatever political stability was in Georgia. And ordinary Georgians to "change" their minds about Russia, not about SO and Abhk.

5. I am interested in practical aspect only on these issues - and the validity of the arguments, as much as I get them -. If you want to do something which has unbereable consequences, don't do it.

Saak. misundersood what WE is prepared to do. Russia is a destination of foreign investments. Also, a major player in energy market. WE has her hands tight by herself.
But he was also right from political pov with his warnings before August 8. The Russian provocations were also true. And Russia's "real" reasons are true. That's a problem, Akira.

It would be better if georgians would accept SO's and A's independance.

"The sui generis" argument is (also)not valid. It has no legal meaning and the "process" was initiated by WE(Austria, etc) during 1980s. I am from the region, I know these details. Also, they were known by Rom.leadership; I knew by intuition, but Ceausescu had good intelligence which were given to Yug.; they did not believe him.

As I said, I am interested in practical matters only.
To sum up: my pov is WE complicates things as much as it can be; and without arguments in case they use them or without any possible practical meanings. The rest of my postings are details aimed to answer various questions. marcfrans already called me silly, but K is (another)WE blunder. This was my point and I had to detail it.

I am mdavid, not ROMAN(Romanian).

PS. just a specific mention: Russia's troops had no right to be there after Georgia declared independance in 1991. Russia recognized G. as a state. Also, the OSCE agreement forbade Russia's troops - except the peacekeepers - to be there.
And it is true. Russia had none of them before August 8. The 57th(58th ?) army entered SO 12 hours after Saak's actions started.

@ mdavid

Submitted by traveller on Sun, 2008-08-17 11:52.

I have a certain sympathy for you.
You are trying to be legalistic, rational, locally informed and pragmatic, all in one.
You can save yourself a lot of time by looking at the way Russia is treating BP in the TNK case. They have absolutely no legal ground whatsoever and the other shareholders, with Friedman as the old "friend" of certain American interests in the driving seat, are a bunch of high level gangsters.
Notwithstanding this the Russian bureaucracy is completely supporting Friedman and the other gangsters, and the West should be well advised to seize all assets of those gangsters where they can hit them, inclusive the assets of Putin, 40 billion US$, more or less.
The same goes for their Georgian "operation".
Stop trying to make sense out of it, the Russians don't give a shit about the Abkhazians and the Ossetians, tomorrow they would be killed if that suits the Kremlin.
Russia wants to block the efforts of the US and Turkey in the region and Georgia is the weakest link. End of story.

BTW, I am one of the biggest fans of the Russian soul, I love it, but Russian Czars/Party-secretaries/Presidents are a continuation of dictatorship and extremely dangerous.

@traveller

Submitted by mdavid on Sun, 2008-08-17 19:25.

When I heard BP has a joint venture of that size in Russia - many years ago - I asked myself why are they (BP) doing this ? The course of today was predicatble before the joint venture started; you may not believe me, but you also know the reasons I had. I am surprised BP is still in Russia; maybe they will be lucky in the end, but BP leaving Russia - or staying for other type of arrangements with much more state control attached to them - is the only way I see now - as several years before. Oil resources as political weapons were obvious even during Brezhnev's years. You know why Ceausescu built Cernavoda reactor. Putin just took it from there.

My reasoning was simple, traveller. If Ru. wants to stay a world power a la russe: with an explicit influence to scare people they had only one way to do it - military force was "downplayed", ideological ways were finished, so economy was left and it was the only way. Creating a US like economy does not bring immediate influence - again Russian "style" - so, to create such an influence and to adapt the plans to Russia's conditions what was the way to go ? Resources: oil and gas they have plenty. And steel, aluminium, also. With them you have political control of entire economies and for decades.So, it was obvious Ieltsin period was an exception. TNK is part of this processas as an "ally" of kremlin, like other economic institutions and bussinessmen. BP's share of Russia's resources is too big, if my knowledge is correct.

You did not read my posts with attention. I posted extensively on geopolitical reasons of Russia today. In fact, almost all my posts were addressed to Mr. Trevino: to stop the military approach, and get into political side when it comes about Russia's intentions. They are all in one, military side being determined by the political side.

But K's case is a mistake and it is use by Russia; I use partially the determined tone of Akira because K, SO and Abkh. are mistakes. Also Saak risked his people lifes, even the BJ's commentaters (Handllery, Trevino) wrote about Saak. If there is a fact there, I try not to avoid it, traveller. And depending of the scale of the mistake, the tone should be choosen likewise.

Traveller: Russia's answer would have been reaching the borders of SO and, just maybe, with advances within G.itself, but at this scale. If it was only SO. But K. acts like a smoke curtain. Confusion reigns there so for several days - needed by Ru. - they could do what they want. It does not matter if K's mentioning is legitimate or not, or if Ru. has geopolitical reasons only. Saak's actions were a good reason for Ru. to intervene: they amagalmated everything here. Why ? Because US/WE made from K. a beacon of propaganda.

My guess is SO and Abkh. have nothing to do with K - from the legal pov. They may claim independance without being connected with K's case itself. They have a better case.

Also: it stroke me yesterday - a former diplomat said something on TV - Saak was chosen - without knowing ? - as a perfect pawn to attack Russia with a smart propaganda operation. By the WE - Fr. and Ger. - and US.
Georgia's NATO membership was the starting point and is still on the table. Complicated and cynnical game, traveller. You can figure out the details

I will give you one hint: Dateline London from BBCWNews features from time to time a french journalist, Marc Roche from Le Monde: a leftist and nationalist, not smart, but a spiner of situations. Today he said Poland is in her right to host the shield, it is NATO country, it is a NATO shield, etc. also:Why Russia has any bussiness in it ? Le Monde was until now acid towards Poland, the shield, Czech republic, look they have opposition in these countries against the shield, US is obssesed with this shield, is provoking Russia, etc.
Russia gave the reason to be under a "justifiable" attack without chances to win. WE/US officials are extremely relaxed. Russia proved to be aggresive, etc. The "small" problem is just some Georgians, Ossetians, etc.

@ mdavid

Submitted by traveller on Sun, 2008-08-17 19:59.

I was practically permanently in Russia when BP invested in TNK.
I thought it was a mistake but the attraction of the big reserves owned by TNK was too big.
The fact that I thought it was a mistake, since at the same time I was "studying" the Russian impossible tax-code and I saw that the premises for normal business were not there; does not mean that Russia has the right to steal from BP and from Shell.
For Russia "stealing", "killing" and generally any illegal international action is always justified when it's in the "intrest" of Russia.
The Russian people accept this without any qualms and this has given Russian leaders always a free hand for any foreign or domestic adventure. Couple to that the present material greed of the top personalities and you have a maffia state. Putin has become a billionaire with the Gazprom shares and the "Baikal" comedy.
THAT'S the problem, not the poor Chechens, Abkhaz or Ossetians which are pawns in the Russian strategy, with or without Kosovo, Russia has never been short in their search of explanations for a foreign operation.
In this case it's the disruption of the axis Azeri/Georgia/Turkey and the connecting oil-and gas transport control from Central Asia and the Caspian Sea which was the target, combined with the Iran link.
The move was brilliantly executed but it's foreign strategy, not the defense of the poor local populations.
The only valid reaction is the legal seizure of the Russian assets, inclusive Putin's in the world whereever they are, by BP and by Georgia, for reparations.
I don't know if those entities will have the guts but it would be enormously effective. You give the bear a bloody nose and he withdraws and has respect for the puncher, Russian history.

@traveller

Submitted by mdavid on Sun, 2008-08-17 20:18.

So, I was right with BP's share in Russia's oil: 25% of their oil known deposits ? Less than that ?
The laws are designed in purpose, I wonder BP did not figure it out- they must have political analysts; and a historian or two.
Two goals: to fool the foreigners like BP in case it needs be done, and to support the enrichment of those knowledgebeale - especially Kremlin's allies: the plunder of national resources to get the capital needeed by Kremlin's men.

But, I repeat: SO, K and Abkh. plays very well for Putin and his siloviki: propaganda reasons.

@ mdavid

Submitted by traveller on Mon, 2008-08-18 07:57.

I think 25% is too high.
The problem with those figures is that they were originally assembled by the Soviet oil ministry, using Soviet technology.
Since Western companies started coming to the Russian fields the reserve figures have been climbing steadily because the Western methods are much more sophisticated.
The biggest joke was Gazprom. After the Soviet collapse Gazprom needed capital and their Western advisors told them to go on the New York stock exchange.
When an oil company goes on the stock exchange they have to list their assets, here the reserves were the main assets.
The US oil companies laughed when they heard the Soviet figures for Gazprom until Western teams of geologists and specialists came back after a year of studying the known Gazprom gas fields(they have many fields they didn't even touch). The Western analysts came to the conclusion that the known reserves were bigger than those of any Western oil/gas company.
It is very difficult to put percentages on those figures.

@traveller

Submitted by mdavid on Mon, 2008-08-18 19:23.

Thank you for your kind words and - another one - for you helping me not waste my time: the explanations from a previous post.

25% was a figure I heard some time ago. Of course is big, maybe reffers to BP's reserves; or maybe not. But I assume BP's Russian joint venture is "vital" for BP's reserves size.

"W.companies laughed": you understand now why - here, in EE - we are talking about WE/US stupidity. It is about a stubborn denial of reality, rejection which takes place - always - without going to see what happens here - in EE and Russia. W. oil companies mean the best bunch of oil specialists in the world; what's left to say ?

The chief of Intel Russia - an American - said 2 years ago: Russians are the best at solving problems, Indians are second, Americans the third. One can learn from here - and not to be scared; the top can be reversed.

@traveller

Submitted by mdavid on Sun, 2008-08-17 19:28.

thank you for your information on Russia, anyway; it is wellcomed.

Btw. I try to read all the posts here with as much attention I can. You posted another detailed post on Russia's actions; a kind of "bottom line". I saw it.

--------------
Editing the previous post: Saak was a pawn for WE to start a justified attack of WE/US on Russia after Saak's crazy actions would have been met by this "geopolitical" attack of Russia which in turn Russia would have considered as a an oportunity to get justification for a pending action. It was no secret for WE/US. They watched the region carefully. I hope my english is not a big problem for you to understand what I wrote - the ideas at least...

US/WE officials look relaxed: not just a deduction, I saw them. They are calm, and not nervous:Gates, Sarkozy, Merkel, Lugar - today on CNN. Richard Horner, former Ambassador to Nato was almost in extatic state yesterday. Saak is extremely "calm"... OK, maybe Merkel is somehow furious, but even her "fury" looks strange; or maybe I am paranoic (!).

Territorial integrity of sovereign nations

Submitted by Armor on Sat, 2008-08-16 19:33.

Akira said: - When Germany, Canada, UK, US etc demand that Russia "respect the territorial integrity of a sovereign nation" after what they did to Serbia, they should choke on their own lying hypocritical tongues. They have ZERO credibility.

By the way, the main concern of Germany should be for the territorial integrity of Germany itself. I'm told that they cannot ask Poland to give back any territory, as the Germans were expelled from there a long time ago. But at least, they should demand the unification of Alsace with the rest of Germany. Failing that, they should ask the french government to stop its policy of suppressing the German language in Alsace, as well as its policy of replacing the locals with third-world immigrants.

a final

Submitted by mdavid on Sat, 2008-08-16 05:33.

I guess the comments on these two articles about Georgia covered almost everything.

With one exception: I could not learn all the details about Russia's preparations; last night on another news channel, they said there are now data available. The provocation hypothesis was considered as being something "that goes without saying". Some details would be military manoeuvres undertaken by Russia last year with the same units used last week and with the same type of forces; they took place in Abhka. during May.

Also, provocations by Osets inside the Georgian third of South Oset. during 1-8 Aug. this year, but they were routine in the last 4 years. Saak. wanted a dialogue with peacekeepers and Oset., to stop the shootings. Russians said they don't control the Osets.; the Osets did not want to talk. Saak. - added the same head of a research centre - warned the West about a planned Russian operation; WE refused to consider it, saying Russia does not have the capability to mount any military operation.
I guess the shield, Kossovo and the gas supply made WE to reach this conclusion.

I will side with a VP of Social Democrats in my country, a brilliant guy, former official in foreign policy: he said that, provocation or not, Saak. attacked and Russia answered too strong.

@Akira

Submitted by mdavid on Sat, 2008-08-16 05:44.

I hope I understood at least something from your post about international law.

1. If teritorial integrity is separated from sovereignity, then what is the "content" of this last concept ? It appears to be "empty": you are sovereign, but on a "variable" teritory; it is not a prerogative of a soverreign state to manage its teritorial integrity ? I know what happened during 1960-1980 with the new states was undescribable. Still, the questions above seems legit, ...to me at least

2. If a nation is not recognized, then UN Charter and the Convention from 1966 are not operational; for instance, Russia does not recognize Kossovars as a nation, beyond resolution 1244. Corect, or not ?

containment # 2

Submitted by marcfrans on Sat, 2008-08-16 01:54.

@ Maple Syrup

Your response is pretty disappointing. It is as if you have not read what you are responding to.  Why must everything be repeated?

1) Canadian support for Turkish EU membership has nothing to do with Stephen Harper.  It is longstanding Canadian policy, and was just as much 'embraced' by his recent 'liberal' predecessors Chretien and Martin. And why shouldn't it be?  Most of the world pays lip service to that because that is what the Turks want, and why needlessly antagonise someone about something one has no direct control over?  The Brazilian president, the Chinese president etc...they are all officially in favor of Turkish membership of the EU.  The point is that such membership is decided by the major EU states, and no one else.  And as long as the EU does not formally oppose the idea, the rest of the world, including the US and Canada, has nothing to lose by verbally 'supporting' such a Turkish aspiration.   

2)  Words are cheap, they mean next to nothing. It is actions that speak.  Putin knows that, but you do not seem to know it.  Words (about Turkish EU relations) from Rice, Powell, or anyone else for that matter, are no proof of "gung ho". Neither are 'European' statements of suport for democracy in former soviet states, etc... Only actions matter. These words... it is called 'diplomacy' and/or cynicism, and that is supposedly what western naive-lefties and other 'automatic' America-haters so desperately want more of.  

Containing Marcfrans

Submitted by Armor on Sat, 2008-08-16 19:30.

Marcfrans wrote: "Most of the world pays lip service to that because that is what the Turks want, and why needlessly antagonise someone about something one has no direct control over?"

Most Europeans want the Turks to stay out of the EU. Why needlessly antagonize them over something the USA can do nothing about?

But are we sure the USA can do nothing about it? How come most European governments are anxious to betray their own peoples and let the Turks into the EU? How does it work? Have they been bought off?

"The point is that such membership is decided by the major EU states, and no one else"

Saying this is saying nothing. How do major EU states reach their decisions? They certainly do not consult their peoples. Do they blindly follow an international anti-white ideology? Are their decisions bought by money? How come Western governments implement the same anti-western policies, both in the USA and in Western Europe?

Russia/USSR

Submitted by dbostan on Sat, 2008-08-16 00:18.

Bolsheviks in charge or not, the russians behave the same way.

They are an uncivilized horde killing and pludering at will.

That's why NO neighbor likes them.

Just look at the reaction of all countries that "enjoyed" the russian "brotherhood and fraternity".

No one wants to be in bed with them, except, maybe, Armenia, and that only because they are more scared of the turks than they are of the russians.

It is time for the moronic western "leadership", including that in the USA, to wake up and smell the gun powder.

Because, this smell will extend...

U.S., Turkey ,and EU membership

Submitted by Maple syrup on Fri, 2008-08-15 23:22.

Yes, our prime minister has backed the U.S. in its support of Turkey joining the EU. No surprise, really. Stephen Harper has backed the U.S. in most areas of foreign policy, including the recent conflict over South Ossetia. He does so partly because he thinks Bush is a fellow ‘conservative’ and partly because he thinks the US will reciprocate, particularly in matters of trade.

The same mental calculation has been made by other world leaders. Do I have to mention their names?

“I do not see any evidence that the US has been "gung ho" about Turkey joining the EU.”

A quick Google search came up with the following hits for “U.S. Secretary of State” + Turkey + “EU membership”. I could have easily found more.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, welcoming the EU’s decision on Turkey’s accession talks, said the move reflected “Turkey’s impressive reform accomplishments” and was “a great success for both Turkey and the EU.” Washington is “confident that the accession process and Turkey’s eventual membership in the European Union will bring great benefits to Turkey and the EU,” he stated. Powell added that “a Turkey that is firmly anchored in Europe and sharing European values will be a positive force for prosperity and democracy” and will be “good for Turkey, for the broader European region, and for the United States.” - December 21, 2004

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice helped rescue Turkey's bid to join the EU on Monday in an unusual intervention in European affairs prompted in part by U.S. concern that the block was interfering with NATO. - October 3, 2005

Containment

Submitted by marcfrans on Fri, 2008-08-15 20:37.

@ Maple Syrup

1) "If I had a choice....".     Well, we do not have a choice.  It may well be that Turkey will need to be contained in the future, but in present circumstances it is Russia (or Putin) that needs to be contained, because high energy prices on world markets have re-ignited old imperialistic ambitions and, therefore, threaten some of Russia's neighbors.

2)  It is only common sense to try to contain Russia through regional 'alliances', south of Russia (Georgia/Azerbajan/Turkey) and in eastern Europe.  Just like the six-party framework in East Asia is intended to contain North Korea in a sense, etc...  

3) The US cannot "promise" Turkey to become an EU member.  Such membership is entirely determined by the major EU nations, and by nobody else.  The US can only offer (cost-free) verbal assistance in that regard, as does most of the world (to please the Turks).

Also, I do not see any evidence that the US has been "gung ho" about Turkey joining the EU.  But, I see a lot of evidence of naive westerners, like yourself, who are gung-ho on attributing nefarious motives to US governments. It is a form of self-destructive self-hatred.   By the way, your Canadian government is also officially (and gratuitously) in favor of Turkey's entry into the EU.

4) The US can offer to 'seek' (or work for) NATO membership for Georgia, but for that it needs the agreement of its European partners in NATO, which so far has been withheld.    

Who should we be containing?

Submitted by Maple syrup on Fri, 2008-08-15 18:31.

"Since 2003 the US is trying to bring to life a Turkish/Azerbaidjan/Georgia military cooperation pact and an economic powerhouse of those 3 countries together. This would bring the Turkish army, the 4th biggest in the world, as protector of a pro-American alliance right at the backdoor of Russia and take any possibility away from the Russians to interfere in the Uzbek/Turkmenistan/Azerbaidjan oil and gas market and would assure the protection of those strategic countries for the US. The US had already a military agreement with Georgia and Turkey to start this operation. In return the US had to promise Turkey and Georgia to become member of the EU for Turkey and of NATO for Georgia, both promises didn't happen until now."

I was wondering why the U.S. was so gung ho about Turkey joining the EU.

In this, as in so many things, U.S. policy-makers seem to be guided by short-term economic and military interests. If Turkey enters the European Union, there will be a flood of Muslim immigrants into Western Europe. And this flood of legal immigrants will facilitate the much larger inflow of illegal immigrants from North Africa and the Middle East. Western Europe will become between one-third and one-half Muslim within a very short time.

Is this a reasonable price to pay for containing Russia? Frankly, if given a choice, I would sooner contain Turkey.

@ Maple syrup

Submitted by traveller on Fri, 2008-08-15 18:51.

You are right but this was/is an American strategy, not a European one. The US didn't think about the muslim immigration in Europe when they developed this strategy.
It would have been much better to let Turkey develop their own strategic thinking, they would have come to the same conclusion without the European carrot.
The axis Azeri/Turkey/Georgia is a beauty by itself and the Azeris can never risk to lose control to papa Bear, they know him too well.

@ all

Submitted by traveller on Fri, 2008-08-15 15:48.

I have had enough buccolic pictures now of lazy Georgian wine guzzlers versus oppressed Ossetians and Abkhaz innocents.
Of the 70.000 Ossetians, how many were ethnic Georgians, muslims etc.?
Mind you we are talking 20 people per square km, or approx.one farm family per square km.
Further those innocent Abkhazians, known to be only intrested in making a buck or two from some honest drug dealing, weapons smuggling and the occasional nuclear fission material like any other farm community, took also care to clean their territory of some unnecessary Georgian rodents, all 200.000 of them, who cramped their style and dirtied the buccolic landscape.
All this under the benevolent eyes and guidance of mother Russia and with the approval of little fathers Medvedev and Putin.

Jezus Christ almighty, who is kidding who here.
I did not read a word from all those specialists, linguistic and others, about the real cause of the Russian actions:
Since 2003 the US is trying to bring to life a Turkish/Azerbaidjan/Georgia military cooperation pact and an economic powerhouse of those 3 countries together. This would bring the Turkish army, the 4th biggest in the world, as protector of a pro-American alliance right at the backdoor of Russia and take any possibility away from the Russians to interfere in the Uzbek/Turkmenistan/Azerbaidjan oil and gas market and would assure the protection of those strategic countries for the US. The US had already a military agreement with Georgia and Turkey to start this operation.
In return the US had to promise Turkey and Georgia to become member of the EU for Turkey and of NATO for Georgia, both promises didn't happen until now. The Russians have complete opposite aims and want to control Azerbaidjan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and being close to Iran to control the international oil market.
All the rest is BS, the Russians couldn't care less about the Ossetians and very troublesome Abkhazians.

part one

Submitted by mdavid on Fri, 2008-08-15 16:41.

I don't have time now for a calm reading of kappert post; it seems to reffer to anything else than his previous post. In his first post he said "agression"; now this conflict is something else...something unknown.... Plus practical questions - about WE economy and his daily life - without answers. I can not match - for now - his positions with his answer to me.
But I'll try.

onecent was right with his post for mimi. I mentioned this item under the banner of Near Abroad: protecting the holders of Russian documents. All the former Soviet republics are a target of this policy; and I hope you know it is not just an ad-hoc thing; saving Russia's influence comes from Andropov, via Gorbatchov,via etc. ALL the countries from EE were also aimed by the reformation of SU; the plan is still active. The shield is attacked due to this policy, this is how is a threat to Russia: to Russia as a great power.

I owe a partial apology to ONECENT. He said "grab the pipelines". I thought rather to "grab the routes" as in "future routes", including Nabucco - now in comma - and anything else connected with Caspian resources in connection with EU.
The explanation is the folowing: Russians' prefered method is to work with plausible explanations; they are usually better than anybody else. Distroying Georgian military in connection with "preserving peace" is an example; and it is inexpugnable. Even if the West knows - and they know - the real reason, Nato, they cannot do anything. This is why Saak made a mistake: We(Ru) do everything we want in Georgia to prevent another action. Don't you, WE and US, agree ? So, yes, they "agree". Can they say anything else.. ?
Now, grabing the current pipelines would involve - that was my reasoning - an undefendable occupation of Georgia. The population is against them, Saak. or not. Then, the West - at least that was my impression - would react to this action. Because the occupation would have to be for years, giving legitimacy to a WE/US intervetion helping an which is against its occupier.

So, a "justified" attack with prospects to be repeated any time Ru. wants it - for the next 3-5 years - was more plausible. It gives the same influence in the region, while keeping the appearences. And promising the same even after this period. Uncertainty, that is for two decades at least. And nobody will ever have legitimate reason to intervene openly: Georgia will still be "independent". Like today...

Not to forget: the plunder made by Oset in Georgia, the recent events, that is was "documented" by TV news in my country: the guy asked Georgians. If it is true, then this is probably to scare the Georgians to change their anti-Russian stance. The russians allowed Oset with them; do we need to ask why ?..

@mdavid

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Thu, 2008-08-14 21:56.

Notice how kappert conveniently sidesteps your question, then hits you with a totally unrelated question of his own (about Insula serpilor/snake island) in a calculated  attempt to get you away from the subject you wish to question him about. DON'T fall for it.

Russian passports for Ossetians

Submitted by Mimi on Thu, 2008-08-14 14:47.

I want to clarify one point. The reason a lot of Ossetians have Russian passports is due to the Russian citizenship law that came into effect after the fall of the Soviet Union and has since changed. At the time, everybody who was born in the Soviet Union, not necessarily Russia proper, was entitled to the Russian passport, provided that they did not accept the passport of their new country. Many Ossatians and Abkhazians took advantage of this law because they did not want Georgian citizenship. Many Russians in the Baltic countries also took advantage of it, not because they didn't want the Baltic citizenship but because they were not entitled to it. One gets a mistaken impression that Russia was purposefully handing down citizenships right and left specifically to Ossetians. This was not the case. Every former Soviet citizen was entitled to a Russian passport.

Those passports

Submitted by onecent on Thu, 2008-08-14 21:54.

Every former Soviet citizen was entitled to a Russian passport.

Mimi, it isn't as innocent as you would like it to seem. People in the ex-republics don't need visas to travel into Russia. Georgians traveled to Russia freely until they were expelled. The duplicity and divisiveness of the Russians in handing out their passports en masse in Ossentia and Abkhazia were meant to undermine Saakashvili. Those Russian passports are basically a citizenship grant. It would be more akin to France handing out French passports in Quebec in a separatist flare-up. The Baltic states have no provision for dual citizenship because they clearly understood it would be very useful for the Russians to undermine them if they provided it.

@ Mimi

Submitted by traveller on Thu, 2008-08-14 20:54.

You are right about the passport law but this was already done to weaken the ex-Soviet countries which declared their independence. I was in Uzbekistan when this law was voted and every Uzbek wanted a Russian passport. The Uzbek police beat the shit out of the people lining up at the Russian embassy. Even the ethnic Russians couldn't get in except by paying a hefty bribe to the police officers. The Uzbeks knew also that this was a destabilising ploy by the Russians.

@mimi

Submitted by mdavid on Thu, 2008-08-14 17:54.

we are here 3 guys who know about the Russian passports item, since 1990. Also, about the policy of near abroad; passports are a part of it. The westerners should take this aspect into consideration. Remember: SU(Russia) is neighbouring upon who she wishes. But thanks for info, anyway.

@dbostan

Submitted by mdavid on Thu, 2008-08-14 18:29.

Cu Ucraina ramine cum am stabilit...din pacate.
Poate cu Insula Serpilor, cica sint sanse...

@Akira

Submitted by mdavid on Thu, 2008-08-14 18:48.

I forgot to give you a clear answer; I gave you one, but it is lost in a previous lengthy post.

I think you are referring to the fact that Saakashvili's actions and the stupid US policies in Georgia and the Balkans have provided Russia with the justification and means to enforce it's will on its ближнее зарубежье (Near Abroad). Right?

Yes, I am reffering to this fact. In particular, K.'s case provided Russia a leverage
to make confusing sittuations permanent: Georgia and Transnistria. The later will go forever: they cannot be part of Russia - look at the map, but they may say forever they don't want to be part of Moldavia. And they can not be independent, also.

updates - just facts; who is right and who is wrong is up to us

Submitted by mdavid on Thu, 2008-08-14 19:33.

A recent press conference pf Mr.Gates, defence secretary:

Russia is asserting it's role of world power - this answer was considered as fundamental regarding this conflict;
The NATO membership of Georgia is an issue, but it is not decided yet, not it is cancelled. The support is still there.

The expression used by Gates is integration within the West; this means Nato/EU membership of Georgia - and Ukr. -; obviously EU and US wants Georgia to join them, so Russia's actions are about this subject. The distructions of Georgian assets, that is.

Three statements from Nezavisimaia Gazeta - broadcasted by TV news channel in my country:

1. Russia did in Georgia what Israel and US are doing: preventive attacks
2. Russia did in Georgia what US did in Iraq
3. Russia used the same strategy as US/WE regarding Yug. and East Timor

I will change slightly what I said about pipelines: it is also about pipelines; but the same reservations: Baku-Ceyhan and Baku-Arzurum reffer to Turkey - not only,probably.
Turkey and Azerbaidjan are important "collateral" goals: Turkey supports Georgia - they gave a $2bn worth of help package to G. For months now, Erdogan can not speak with Putin, not even at the Olympics.

Georgia is the only independent route for Cental Asia gas/oil routes. It is Nabucco who is the real target among pipelines. Still, the current pipelines appear secondary,onecent; Nabucco is primary, if you meant this, you are right. I rejected your oppinion thinking about these two, not to Nab.

Also, by this distruction campaign in Georgia, Russia want to keep any future investment out of that region.
No energy future for EU; and Saak. gave reason to the Russians to acomplish this objective...

Gates did not say, but it is obvious: Russia's role of power implies attacking oil supply of EU, other than her own pipelines.

Interesting, Gates and his subbordinate were relaxed, calm; is US not scared ?? Georgia remains for now a US concern.

Mr.Trevino, in my country they quoted sources from City Bank London, think tanks, former diplomats, all saying the same: Georgia should become NATO member. That was the goal of Russia. I assume now there are hundreds of these guys saying the same.

To combine this two, NATO membership and oil are one thing in Georgia's case. EU cannot have hope about Nabucco without integrating Georgia in the West. Will the Russians succeed to prevent this ? And to turn to Ucraine ?

Wait until december: maybe G. will give up to Abk. and Osetia.

@kappert-a follow up

Submitted by mdavid on Thu, 2008-08-14 18:28.

Mr. Fischer is a blattant liar, and since he is a professor, he is close to perjury.
I believe the control of resources is being public since ... the dawn of men, don't you think so, kappert ?. It is not a good thing, but this is it, yet. And, surprisingly for Mr.Fischer or for you kappert, it is known by billions as a basic matter. Not a happy event, I agree; but it takes place everywhere.
So, in Caucausus there are no resources who just lie down there waiting to be found. They are already owned by Georgia and Azerbaidjan. These countries have also the right of relations with US. So , it is Russia who is an agressor - regarding the energy subject. If they succeed in signing contracts with Georgia, like they did with other Central Asian countries, bad news for us, but it is legit. The agression on EU, that is. Euronews is repeating for several days the same: Nabucco splits EU.

Secondly: are the pipelines secret ? No. And what should Saak. say: it is about the pipelines and not about sovereignity ? But you get to the pipelines precisely ignoring the sovereignity; and this is done via military. And the sovereignity is there precisely to combat any unwanted military presence; like everywhere. So, yes, it is about sov. mainly. No secret involved. The pipelines are the Russian "secret": it is one of the objectives, of the real and undeclared objectives of Russia. So, Russia has the secrets for now, not US/Georgia. This was the reason why for several days WE is constantly asking: what the Russians are doing there, because it might not be about autonomy only.
Or you wished Saak. declaring: forget anything else, help me because of the pipelines ? Since sovereignity is a legit issue and has international implications, and it is really at stake, they have this option. The pipelines are public and no secret.

Saak's mistakes are other subject, we know them.

Mr.Fischer is talking probably to an audience of retards, revealing the "big bad real secrets" of this conflict.

This i swhy I asked you in a previous post about the truth being told by Mr. Fischer and you: don't you or your country need oil/gas ?
This is not "truth", also ?

And Afghanistan is not a real part of war on terror, kappert ? Is it not important for Al-Qaeda, via Taliban visibility/setting an example for others? What are you talking about ? Or it is about Unocal only?

@mdavid

Submitted by kappert on Thu, 2008-08-14 19:20.

Think of Russia, think of oil and gas. Many European countries are increasingly dependent on Russian deliveries. Mr Fischer is poking the tooth, hurting right in the dilemma of European foreign politics. And Russia knows this only too well. The Afghanistan invasion was covered under the symbol of 'War against Terror'. Such a symbol did not appear in the current Georgia conflict. Therefore, most reporters and press maintained a neutral position, disturbed by the provocative interviews of both leading politicians. It seems the conflict turns more personal, and I'm waiting what clueless-Connie may say to the Georgians and the Russians. I'm keen to know, whether she may talk with Ossetians and Abkhazis. What could she possible say to them?
Just for curiosity: What's the problem with Serpilor Island?

@kappert - and atlanticist

Submitted by mdavid on Fri, 2008-08-15 22:13.

atlanticist: I saw that, thank you.

kappert: I asked about your position about Afg.war since you call it an "agression". It is or it is not a part of "war on terror" ? (I repeat the hint: the taliban are used by Al-Q. to set an example, even if they have ethnical basis.)

----------
kappert: you mean Mr.Fischer is now an objective analyst ? Well, then he should mention Russia as an agressor on EU in connection with oil/gas routes. And it is objective Ger. and EU in general needs oil/gas;otherwise what he writes is anything than ideological rubbish ? Did he mentioned this "small" detail ? And it is objective US is protecting EU with this "new great game", even if you prove US is doing out of being selfish.

How come the german - not the guys from Burkina Faso - journalists maintain a neutral position ? I mean smart guys, kappert; educated and connected to the current events, aren't they ? This means I was right: he writes to retards; but I rather think this is the oil supply for german economy syndrome of fear which creates retards. And the audience is so clueless? In Germany ? In the country of technique? Even if he writes a "poking the tooth" piece , the consequences for G.economy should be in the article. Also: EU has an unsolvable dillemma. The quote is anything but this. Otherwise, don't write the article - Fischer, that is -, if you want to avoid Russia. Fischer is not out of the energy context, unfortunately for him. So, the questions I asked you about energy are valid and the backbone(s) of his intervention should be these, not US vs Russia conflict - in this order. And he should mention also Georgia's rights to those pipelines, since they makes Russia an agressor. This is objective, not his text. Any comment ??

---
I know few details about S.I.( Snake Island). In 1948 this little island from Black Sea was given to SU via a controversial document, signed by a guy from Foreign Affairs - a communist; is not clear if he had the power to do that. He was on the the third echelon at best. Ukr. inherited this SI, which is surrounded by deposits of oil/gas. Even today Rom.press wrote about the (real)good chances Rom. has in getting it back via Haga tribunal. It is the second "good" news I know - in the last 3 weeks - about this file.

@mdavid

Submitted by kappert on Sat, 2008-08-16 11:54.

The NATO war against Afghanistan as response to the al-Queda attack in the U.S. was an 'aggression' in the sense that Afghanistan did not threaten or attack other countries. Al-Queda did, surely supported by taliban and wahab regimes, and any military intervention should have gone after them. The result is that 5 years after the NATO intervention we see talibans again coming foreward, and a puppet presidency in Kabul.
With regard to Mr Fischer and his 'ZEIT' article: I rather agree with you that his writing contains 'ideological rubbish', 'die ZEIT' is known for that, although his analysis (at the 3rd day of war) proved to be right with the Russians penetrating deeper into Georgia.
Whether the pipelines belong to Georgia or to BP, I have my doubts on that matter. But I'm rather fed up of Georgian propaganda and Saakhashvili's TV-shows. By the way, clueless-Connie did not speak to Ossetians or Abkhazis, am I right?

part two

Submitted by mdavid on Fri, 2008-08-15 22:56.

A more extended apology to ONECENT: Serghei Ivanov mentioned 300 peacekeepers. Also, the 57-th army was NOT there, like I thought; they came after Tshkinvali attacks. Also, the agreement forbade other guns in the area; the Osets had a small army - he said. I know the Russian methods; the question is if the provocations before the Geo. attacks were done with smuggled arms - as you say - or the arms were already there.

I, also, was fooled by a diplomat/analyst in my country who downplayed the current pipelines compared with Northstream/Southstream; he was right: these last two are big. But Ceyhan pipeline was open 3 years ago; he ignored that. This is important. Still, it is about controlling the teritory from the distance; this fits with an "adequate"/plausible answer to Saak's actions: it can ve justified that way; this is my current opinion. Already Nabucco is dead and you have NO real grabbing. And they closed Ceyhan, without a (again)real grabbing: ocupation of G. But,still, these pipelines were a target; here you were right. And G. membership in Nato covers this thing, also: no membership, no oil/gas for EU - from Russian pov. I ignored the fact the NATO membership has two meanings in Georgia's case, not one.

a last update

Submitted by mdavid on Fri, 2008-08-15 23:16.

CNN's Crisis in Georgia: Dr.G.Friedman from Stratfor: Russia is reshaping the political relations in the region.

Various TV channels in Romania: politicians, heads of think-thanks(6-8 of them):
The Russian troops are roaming freely in Georgia - Gori and Poti - to show:
1.they control that region
2.they can come back anytime they want
3.to create and to show the instability of these oil routes - Nabucco and the future; plus the current ones
4. ...therefore to discourage any future investement; without Russia's aproval/control.
So, it does not matter if they will withdraw - as they will -.

Antena 3 - romanian news channel - 19h19m/bussiness magazine: There are informations about Iulia Timoshenko stroke a deal with Kremlin: a deal with Gazprom and German firms to gain control of Ukr. gas transport system in exchange for political support: IT wants to be president. It is Iuschkenko made only or is it real ?

Merkel in Moscow: NATO membership of G. and Ukr. will be aproved.

------------------
Russia's goals - achieved:
1. distruction of Georgia's military capabilities: no NATO membership
2. Russian troops moving whenever they want - showing, indirectly: the independent oil routes are not viable for EU
3. Osets with military uniforms, but without other marks, plundering: to frighten Georgians to give up their militant stance against Russia for the future. Obviously, Russian commanders and Putin knew about these paramilitary, given the strategic importance of this operation.

@kappert

Submitted by mdavid on Thu, 2008-08-14 08:25.

Should I understand Europe does not need oil and gas ? Since Mr. Fischer's green comrades had the brilliant idea of closing the nuclear power plants, I believe German and WE economies in general take don't need fuel and/or petrochemical bussiness anymore, nor electricity; nor their homes need heating.
Do you live without heat ? Will you be happy if Georgian pipelines are under Russian control ? Probably it is because they will give you the oil/gas for free. And without additional political demands.

And it is not Russia's bussiness these pipelines, precisely because they pass thru Georgia. So, Mr Fischer is saying the Russians want to occupy Georgia to control the pipelines. Because I don't think Georgians want to take the pipelines from the Russians; I think Georgia controls them already, and rightfully, don't you think ? Don't worry: it is about NATO membership, not the pipelines.

What was your post: about being objective and telling the truth ?

Dilemma

Submitted by marcfrans on Thu, 2008-08-14 00:05.

@ Atlanticist

Yes, perhaps.  On the other hand, I heard today on TV that Bush is sending 'black' Condi Rice to Tbilisi (after a stopover in Paris to consult with Sarco, and with Carla of course). So, I doubt that Armor can bring himself to do the sensible thing and support the victim here.  After all, he has already publicly regretted that the Russians (Stalin) were not able to take over the whole of Europe (after www2). He is under the mistaken impression that the former Politbureau or the current mafia-regime in Moscow would give a hoot about ethnic purity.  Armor does not understand power-addiction. 

You have created, though, a difficult dilemma for Armor.  But do not underestimate him.  He is no Kappert! He can take clear positions.  I said "clear", which is not the same as sensible, nor moral...

@ marcfrans

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Wed, 2008-08-13 23:30.

If this doesn't get Armor supporting the Georgians nothing will:

 

Excerpted from page one of the book:

 

"The question of the earliest presence of Negroes in the geographical region which became the Russian empire centers on the origins of the small scattered settlements of Negroes which until recently were located along the western slope of the Caucasus mountains near the Black Sea ... The Negroes resided in what is now the small state of Abkhazia...".

 

Brilliant! You just couldn't make this stuff up. 

 

www.amazon.com/Russia-Negro-Russian-History-Thought/dp/0882581759

 

"

Abkhazia Blacks

Submitted by Mimi on Thu, 2008-08-14 13:58.

"... The Negroes resided in what is now the small state of Abkhazia...".

I read an argument that the great-grandfather of Pushkin, the great Russian poet, originated from this Abkhazian Negro community. It was previously thought that he came from Ethiopia. The author of the article I read, however, argued that he came from Abkhazia and was a black Jew.

Sorry for the off-topic. I was just reminded of this, because I never heard of a black community in Caucasus until I read this article.

Defeat #2

Submitted by marcfrans on Wed, 2008-08-13 22:56.

We have here a new additional marvelous example of postmodernist confused 'thinking'. Apparently, Kappertism is growing on the TBJ. 

BGD confirms his belief in "current spinning" (at least the Russian propaganda part) and proceeds to recommend to 'send' Saakashvili to the ICC in The Hague or perhaps even to Moscow.  He obviously knows nothing about neither IIC-'justice' nor Moscow-'justice'.    

When confronted with some unpleasant additional facts and/or spin, BGD 'counsels' RTUA to wait until the "current spinning" will have run its course.  What good would that do for Georgian independence and sovereignty?Nothing of course, but that is not his concern.   And he counsels this, right after having parroted some Russian spin! 

BGD also claims not to know what "destroying a whole country" means.  Let's help him on the way.  It does NOT mean American precision bombing (as we saw in Iraq, Yugoslavia, and other places).  He could see it closer in the neighborhood of Georgia.  He could see it in the capital of Chechnya, Grozhnya, which the Russians essentially leveled, only a few years ago, and which brought Putin to 'unrestrained power' on a wave of nationalistic  'great power' aspirations.   

Mr Frans

Submitted by BGD on Wed, 2008-08-13 23:28.

I am in favour of the idea of international law between countries that are signatories to treaties agreeing to treat each other by a certain set of standards, not of the current reality.

My response was just to question why under the current conditions and political climate it is absurd to consider Saakashvili being called to account for the attack on SO and the reported death of thousands of civilians, razing of villages etc that is at the start of this serious escalation.

I am not - to be clear – in favour of actions by the ICC or the ICTY and think the latter a hideous mockery of justice.

What Russian spin in particular? Obviously media to some extent reflects the local perspective from which it is derived. Above that it is manipulated by politicians for their own purposes. But on our western side are you seriously suggesting that this is not happening??

I am not reflexively anti US & pro Russia. FWIW, bottom line, when against the wall I would line up with blood and history.

Ukraine

Submitted by Mimi on Thu, 2008-08-14 13:52.

"I had to laugh when I heard the Ukrainians threaten to close off the Black sea to the Russian fleet based in Crimea. If the Ukrainians keep this up, the Russians might just take back the Crimea."

And you know what? The Crimeans would overwhelmingly support them because they are very pro-Russian.

BGD

Submitted by Rob the Ugly American on Wed, 2008-08-13 21:43.

Since the Russians seem to have destroyed an entire country in response (killing far more people and doing far more damage to civilians), agreed to a ceasefire, then promptly broken it, and are at last report about 12 miles from Tbilisi with little resistance, what would you prescribe to do with Putin and co. Send them to the Hague, as well?

RTUA

Submitted by BGD on Wed, 2008-08-13 22:12.

Firstly I would wait and see outside of all the current spinning who did what on either side. Secondly I would ask who was killed (civs or soldiers)thirdly I would wonder what destroying a whole country means,fourthly that Russia offered a ceasefire provided certain conditions were met and lastly I would refer to my first answer.