The Georgian Crisis Continues

If I bore some of my long-time readers with my continued focus on this topic, I do not apologize – for there is little else in the world happening now of the import of this.  Russia continues to show no signs of letting up, despite assurances it is doing so, and a deepening fear and dread of Russian intentions is creeping across the globe.  Those words seem almost ridiculous to type, but it is confirmed in every direction.  From Nik Gowing of the BBC:

European diplomats and foreign ministers have conceded they will struggle to regain the initiative in the conflict between Russia and Georgia.

They talk in the darkest terms of a possible return to tensions the likes of which Europe has not seen since World War II.

Several have even compared events to Nazi Germany’s annexation of the Sudetenland.

In more than 25 years covering international diplomacy, I have rarely seen such gloom and head-shaking over the activities of one nation – Russia.

It is not just me saying that. It is those in government almost check-mated in the past few days – both by Georgia’s military push into South Ossetia on Thursday night, then Russia’s defiant response on Friday, which continues as I sit writing this in the Georgian foreign ministry.

Ronald Asmus and Richard Holbrooke, both former Clinton Administration figures:

In weeks and years past, each of us has argued on this page that Moscow was pursuing a policy of regime change toward Georgia and its pro-Western, democratically elected president, Mikheil Saakashvili. We predicted that, absent strong and unified Western diplomatic involvement, we were headed toward a war. Now, tragically, an escalation of violence in South Ossetia has culminated in a full-scale Russian invasion of Georgia. The West, and especially the United States, could have prevented this war. We have arrived at a watershed moment in the West’s post-Cold War relations with Russia. 

Exactly what happened in South Ossetia last week is unclear. Each side will argue its own version. But we know, without doubt, that Georgia was responding to repeated provocative attacks by South Ossetian separatists controlled and funded by Moscow. This is a not a war Georgia wanted; it believed that it was slowly gaining ground in South Ossetia through a strategy of soft power.

Whatever mistakes Tbilisi has made, they cannot justify Russia’s actions. Moscow has invaded a neighbor, an illegal act of aggression that violates the U.N. Charter and fundamental principles of cooperation and security in Europe. Beginning a well-planned war (including cyber-warfare) as the Olympics were opening violates the ancient tradition of a truce to conflict during the Games. And Russia’s willingness to create a war zone 25 miles from the Black Sea city of Sochi, where it is to host the Winter Games in 2014, hardly demonstrates its commitment to Olympic ideals. In contrast, Moscow’s timing suggests that Putin seeks to overthrow Saakashvili well ahead of our elections, and thus avoid beginning relations with the next president on an overtly confrontational note.

Russia’s goal is not simply, as it claims, restoring the status quo in South Ossetia. It wants regime change in Georgia. It has opened a second front in the other disputed Georgian territory, Abkhazia, just south of Sochi. But its greatest goal is to replace Saakashvili — a man Vladimir Putin despises — with a president who would be more subject to Moscow’s influence. As Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt pointed out Saturday, Moscow’s rationale for invading has parallels to the darkest chapters of Europe’s history. Having issued passports to tens of thousands of Abkhazians and South Ossetians, Moscow now claims it must intervene to protect them — a tactic reminiscent of one used by Nazi Germany at the start of World War II. 

Contrary to the assertion of long-time reader Ryan, it is perfectly acceptable to compare a party to Hitler when the circumstances warrant…Godwin’s Law applies to rhetoric on the Internet, not the conduct of tyrants.

Robert Kagan of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace in the Washington Post and former Reagan official, in an absolutely essential piece:

The details of who did what to precipitate Russia’s war against Georgia are not very important. Do you recall the precise details of the Sudeten Crisis that led to Nazi Germany’s invasion of Czechoslovakia? Of course not, because that morally ambiguous dispute is rightly remembered as a minor part of a much bigger drama.

The events of the past week will be remembered that way, too. This war did not begin because of a miscalculation by Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili. It is a war that Moscow has been attempting to provoke for some time. The man who once called the collapse of the Soviet Union “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [20th] century” has reestablished a virtual czarist rule in Russia and is trying to restore the country to its once-dominant role in Eurasia and the world. Armed with wealth from oil and gas; holding a near-monopoly over the energy supply to Europe; with a million soldiers, thousands of nuclear warheads and the world’s third-largest military budget, Vladimir Putin believes that now is the time to make his move.

…Putin’s aggression against Georgia should not be traced only to its NATO aspirations or his pique at Kosovo’s independence. It is primarily a response to the “color revolutions” in Ukraine and Georgia in 2003 and 2004, when pro-Western governments replaced pro-Russian ones. What the West celebrated as a flowering of democracy the autocratic Putin saw as geopolitical and ideological encirclement. 

…Historians will come to view Aug. 8, 2008, as a turning point no less significant than Nov. 9, 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell. Russia’s attack on sovereign Georgian territory marked the official return of history, indeed to an almost 19th-century style of great-power competition, complete with virulent nationalisms, battles for resources, struggles over spheres of influence and territory, and even — though it shocks our 21st-century sensibilities — the use of military power to obtain geopolitical objectives. Yes, we will continue to have globalization, economic interdependence, the European Union and other efforts to build a more perfect international order. But these will compete with and at times be overwhelmed by the harsh realities of international life that have endured since time immemorial. The next president had better be ready.

The diplomatic pressure is beginning to build (not nearly fast enough).  The President spoke again today, after condemning Russian aggression during an interview at the Olympics:

President Bush, little more than an hour after returning to Washington from the Olympics in Beijing, bluntly warned Russia that its military operations were damaging its reputation and were “unacceptable in the 21st century.”

Appearing alone in the White House Rose Garden after meeting with his national security advisors, Mr. Bush intensified his public criticism of Russia’s government, though without mentioning President Dmitri A. Medvedev or Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin.

“The Russian government must respect Georgia’s territorial integrity and sovereignty,” he said grimly. “The Russian government must reverse the course it appears to be on.”

He suggested that Russian officials have given assurances in diplomatic conversations that were contradicted by the military actions on the ground. And he urged that Russia accept the terms of a cease-fire that it had initially proposed, and Georgia has now accepted.

“Russia’s actions this week have raised serious questions about its intent in Georgia and the region,” he said. “These actions have substantially damaged Russia’s standing in the world, and these actions jeopardize relations with the United States and Europe.”

The views of the two candidates after the jump…

John McCain, despite snarkiness from the left that he had lifted some Georgian facts from Wikipedia (I thought the knock on McCain was he didn’t know how to use a computer?), issued a detailed diplomatic plan of action:

“The implications of Russian actions go beyond their threat to the territorial integrity and independence of a democratic Georgia. Russia is using violence against Georgia, in part, to intimidate other neighbors – such as Ukraine – for choosing to associate with the West and adhering to Western political and economic values. As such, the fate of Georgia should be of grave concern to Americans and all people who welcomed the end of a divided of Europe, and the independence of former Soviet republics. The international response to this crisis will determine how Russia manages its relationships with other neighbors. We have other important strategic interests at stake in Georgia, especially the continued flow of oil through the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline, which Russia attempted to bomb in recent days; the operation of a critical communication and trade route from Georgia through Azerbaijan and Central Asia; and the integrity and influence of NATO, whose members reaffirmed last April the territorial integrity, independence, and sovereignty of Georgia.

“Yesterday Georgia withdrew its troops from South Ossetia and offered a ceasefire. The Russians responded by bombing the civilian airport in Georgia’s capital, Tblisi, and by stepping up its offensive in Abkhazia. This pattern of attack appears aimed not at restoring any status quo ante in South Ossetia, but rather at toppling the democratically elected government of Georgia. This should be unacceptable to all the democratic countries of the world, and should draw us together in universal condemnation of Russian aggression.

“Russian President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin must understand the severe, long-term negative consequences that their government’s actions will have for Russia’s relationship with the U.S. and Europe. It is time we moved forward with a number of steps.

“The United States and our allies should continue efforts to bring a resolution before the UN Security Council condemning Russian aggression, noting the withdrawal of Georgian troops from South Ossetia, and calling for an immediate ceasefire and the withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgian territory. We should move ahead with the resolution despite Russian veto threats, and submit Russia to the court of world public opinion.

“NATO’s North Atlantic Council should convene in emergency session to demand a ceasefire and begin discussions on both the deployment of an international peacekeeping force to South Ossetia and the implications for NATO’s future relationship with Russia, a Partnership for Peace nation. NATO’s decision to withhold a Membership Action Plan for Georgia might have been viewed as a green light by Russia for its attacks on Georgia, and I urge the NATO allies to revisit the decision.

“The Secretary of State should begin high-level diplomacy, including visiting Europe, to establish a common Euro-Atlantic position aimed at ending the war and supporting the independence of Georgia. With the same aim, the U.S. should coordinate with our partners in Germany, France, and Britain, to seek an emergency meeting of the G-7 foreign ministers to discuss the current crisis. The visit of French President Sarkozy to Moscow this week is a welcome expression of transatlantic activism.

“Working with allied partners, the U.S. should immediately consult with the Ukrainian government and other concerned countries on steps to secure their continued independence. This is particularly important as a number of Russian Black Sea fleet vessels currently in Georgian territorial waters are stationed at Russia’s base in the Ukrainian Crimea.

“The U.S. should work with Azerbaijan and Turkey, and other interested friends, to develop plans to strengthen the security of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline.

“The U.S. should send immediate economic and humanitarian assistance to help mitigate the impact the invasion has had on the people of Georgia. Our united purpose should be to persuade the Russian government to cease its attacks, withdraw its troops, and enter into negotiations with Georgia. We must remind Russia’s leaders that the benefits they enjoy from being part of the civilized world require their respect for the values, stability and peace of that world. World history is often made in remote, obscure countries. It is being made in Georgia today. It is the responsibility of the leading nations of the world to ensure that history continues to be a record of humanity’s progress toward respecting the values and security of free people.

Obama was less detailed in his plan, but at least he has come off his initial neutrality to recognize the true aggressor:

No matter how this conflict started, Russia has escalated it well beyond the dispute over South Ossetia and has now violated the space of another country. Russia has escalated its military campaign through strategic bombing and the movement of its ground forces into the heart of Georgia. There is no possible justification for these attacks.

I reiterate my call for Russia to stop its bombing campaign, to stop flights of Russian aircraft in Georgian airspace, and to withdraw its ground forces from Georgia. The Georgian government has proposed a cease-fire and the Russian government should accept it. There is also an urgent need for humanitarian assistance to reach the people of Georgia, and casualties on both sides.

The United States, Europe and all other concerned countries must stand united in condemning this aggression, and seeking a peaceful resolution to this crisis. We should continue to push for a United Nations Security Council Resolution calling for an immediate end to the violence. This is a clear violation of the sovereignty and internationally recognized borders of Georgia – the UN must stand up for the sovereignty of its members, and peace in the world.

I welcome the visit of the French and Finnish foreign ministers to Georgia as a first step toward mediation. There should also be a United Nations mediator to address this crisis, and the United States should fully support this effort. We should also convene other international forums to condemn this aggression, to call for an immediate halt to the violence, and to review multilateral and bilateral arrangements with Russia, including Russia’s interest in joining the World Trade Organization.

12 comments to The Georgian Crisis Continues

  • Ryan

    Since you called me out in the post, I feel like I should respond. But there is no response. If you can take seriously the kind of inane rhetoric that has neocons everywhere calling Putin Hitler, there is no possible response. I guess, just in case:

    “Godwin’s Law applies to rhetoric on the Internet, not the conduct of tyrants.”

    I am applying Godwin’s law to your rhetoric, which is on the Internet. QED.

  • Bob from Ohio

    Ryan, you have neoconphobia. You see them everywhere.

  • Bob from Ohio

    Sorry, posted too soon.

    I wanted to add:

    Is Sweden a well known neocon dominated country? They seem to make the Hitler comparison too.

    Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt has correctly drawn an analogy between Putin’s “justification” for dismembering Georgia — because of the Russians in South Ossetia — to Hitler’s tactics vis a vis Czechoslovakia to “free” the Sudeten Deutsch.

  • It is worth pointing out that, rhetoric and saber-rattling aside, it is the French, not the Americans, who are talking the lead in attempting to defuse this crisis.

    There are several reports to the effect that the US may have “encouraged” our good friend Saakashvili to send troops into South Ossetia, believing that it would all be over in 48 hours, before the Russians could intervene. True or not, this means that the US has very little credibility with the protagonists right now.

    Certainly, the ridiculous promise to add Georgia to NATO (Think about it: is there any logistically conceivable way for NATO to militarily guarantee the security of Georgia’s borders? If not, it is the height of foolishness to make such guarantees.), reiterated by Senator McCain, could only have emboldened the Georgians, with tragic consequences.

    Also, as a counterpoint to all the Sudetenland comparisons, consider this from the Times of London.

    As I said previously, this is a very dangerous precedent for the rest of the former Soviet Republics, for the countries of Eastern Europe and for the world. Russia’s moves into Georgia cast a long shadow. But it is a serious mistake to paint the Georgians as the heroes and the Russians as the exclusive villains in this piece.

  • Ryan

    Bob, shall we agree to transform the word “neocons” above into “hawks”? The result is much the same.

  • Bob from Ohio

    Ryan, no Swede has been a “hawk” since King Charles invaded Russia. That was about 400 years ago.

    Jacques: Russian aggresion always gets its apologists in the West. THe Ribbentrop/Molotov Pact, Hungary, Prague in 1968, even Afghanistan.

    Its never the Russian’s fault. They always have good reasons for using raw, naked force.

  • That’s bullshit, Bob, and you know it.

    South Ossetia has been de-facto independent for 18 years.

    The Georgians broke a 1996 agreement and moved troops into the region.

    What did you expect the Russians would do?

    What do you think the US would do, if Cuba moved troops into Cozumel (which is 400 miles from the US, rather than right on the border)?

    I’m not defending the Russians (who are far from innocent in this affair). But your unqualified support for the Georgians is completely laughable.

  • Ryan

    These are the contours of the discussion, Jacques. Attempt to point out that the situation is complex and all of a sudden you become an apologist for the Soviet Union and Hitler all at the same time.

  • Bob from Ohio

    “South Ossetia has been de-facto independent”

    Talk about BS. South Ossetia has been under Russian control. There is no “South Ossetia” as an independent area. It is a Russian fiefdom.

    At worst, Georgia was attempting to reestablish control over part of its country that was seized by the Russians. It may have been an error but it does not justify the intentional bombing of civilian targets. Just to prove that the Russian bear is back.

    Ryan, the fact is that you think the Russians were ok to use force because Georgia is in its “sphere of influence”. Apologist is the most polite word for that view.

  • Jacques, your point about America and the West being over exuberant in our promises to Georgia is valid. We should bring countries into NATO that we do not intend to stand by militarily – and if we can’t stand them, practically, either…I have seen similar criticisms and they cause conflicted emotions. I would love to see freedom everywhere, even on the borders of the Russian bear, but we must be careful not to over-promise our support. We can give economic, diplomatic, and even some military aid in the form of advisers and weapons, to aspiring democracies of the old Eastern Bloc…but we probably can’t, except under the most extreme circumstances, directly intervene with military force…so it stands to reason that a just foreign policy would exclude any such promises…

  • Whoops, I can’t type today – obviously, the second sentence should say “We shouldn’t bring countries into NATO”…

  • Franky

    Georgia’s compliance with the past cease-fire agreements and hastiness to pull its troops out of South Ossetia has no effect in the course Russia is taking. Saakashvili would of course pull his troops out of Russian occupied land since the Georgian military, in no way, can stand up to Russian fire power.

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>