Printable View
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7550354.stm
This looks like serious stuff.
Russian tanks have reportedly entered South Ossetia, which is part of Georgia, though with a large Russian population and wants to breakaway from Georgia and has a militant separatist movement.
Large casualties already reported but not yet confirmed.
It looks more serious than it looks, South Ossetia's pop is about 50-70k, why would Russia send 150 tanks and many troops, I think something does not look right.
Theres loads of oil pipes that go through that region,they want to maintain control of it.Theres been handbag stuff bewteen them before but your right,this is more serious.Bush today then being a hyprocite saying a bigger country shouldnt pick on a small country.:mad:
He probably thought Iraq was the biggest nation in the world.
I think the Russians may be trying to emphasise that they are the boss in their sphere of influence.
Might not be a good idea as I imagine the Georgians will react furiously to any entry into their territory.
Yesterday according to the British media it was Georgian territory today its Russian.:confused:
It is Georgian territory afaikQuote:
Originally Posted by hoops1
Reacted by furiously asking for a ceasefire.Quote:
Originally Posted by paudie
Saakashvilli's attempts to manipulate this have backfired pretty spectacularly. He assumed that the whole of the Western world would row in behind anything he did, but even with his puppy-dog "poor little Georgia" pleas on CNN, the international reaction seems to indicate that he's been seen as the corrupt con-artist that he is.
Of course, if the Russians do something stupid like attacking Tbilisi, they could hand the initiative back to him.
All this shows how utterly useless the UN is. Israel can do what it likes because it knows that the US will veto any UN serious resolutions against it. China uses its veto in relation to Tibet and now Russia will use it in relation to Georgia.
Russia's psyche was seriously dented by the humiliating break-up of the USSR and as it's energy wealth has grown exponentially over the past few years it's been spoiling for a fight to copper fasten it's reborn nationalistic pride. The shadow boxing with the UK (Litvenenko & recently BP) & USA (missile defence shield) wasn't enough and it seems Saakashvilli's been stupid enough to play into their hands whilst at the same time overestimating the support of the US.
AFAIK, the South Ossetians look towards Russia for protection. Russian troops were stationed in South Ossetia as peace keepers and have been since 1992. Russian troops have a presence in most post Soviet Republics (e.g. in Armenia they guard the Armenian/Turkish and Armenian/Iranian borders, they patrol the ceasefire line in Armenia/Azerbaijan and guard the Uzbek and Tadjik borders with Afghanistan).
The South Ossetians wanted a larger degree of freedom from Tbilisi and to a certain extent they had this under Eduard Shevardnadze who arranged cease fires in the mid 1990s between Georgia and the break away regions (Abkhazia, Adjara and Ossetia). Russian troops patroled the ceasefire zones. After the Georgian Revolution in 2003 Saakashvili took over and since then he's been itching for a fight with Russia, and also Azerbaijan over the David Gareja border area.
Agreed. Veto is handy though as means you (e.g. Russia) can veto action by the rest of the UN security council against your own actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by SMorgan
Russia will do whatever it wants to do & no amount of condemnations will change that.
Wonder did anyone see Newsnight last night on BBC2?
Jesus it looks like America is the new Soviet Union. The US has now bases in Poland, Czech rep and Romania, and were doing various military exercises in the black sea recently. So if Georgia does join Nato, then will the big boys step in to help?
Or did Georgia play its hand way too early, it could have at least waited till it was actually a member of Nato
Scary stuff how America is playing around with Russia, and its funny to see that China is hiding in the long grass having a good old laugh at us silly westerners.
The more I think about this, the less sense it makes.
The Georgian military is stuffed with American advisors, so the Americans had to know that the Georgians were going to attack South Ossetia, and presumably, the Georgians knew that the Americans wouldn't back them up in any meaningful way.
Did they take the huge gamble that the Russians wouldn't react, or were they gambling that the Russians would take it further and draw others in...which would have meant Georgia being obliterated?
Perhaps they were willing to take a bit of a kicking to get a sympathy vote and get let into NATO. Or was it a way for Saakashvilli to restore his domestic reputation? (see the "air raid" footage and the big rally in Tbilisi this evening..
Or do I just sound like a conspiracy theorist whacko?
Davey, I've been considering that myself. It seems Saakashvilli has been too naive or wanted this to happen. It's hard to go with the latter though, they've been really pummeled, it would be perverse to incite an onslaught of your own country to galvanise your position. Georgia has lost control of Abkhazia and South Ossetia possibly forever in quite the same fashion that Milosevic lost Kosovo for Serbia in 1999. It's too much of a gamble and loss to have any advantages. I reckon their instability has now destroyed their chances of admission to NATO. NATO will hardly want to admit a country that could potentially find itself in a position that would require NATO to go war with Russia. Saakashvilli has gambled badly and lost. They've lost their territory, they've taken civilian, military and infrastructural losses and they've been exposed as alone and vulnerable.
Saakashvilli has to go, he's totally out of his depth - a reckless fool utterly out of touch with the reality of the situation. He took a huge gamble and it's Georgia's people who have to pay.
If you actually look at a lot of these so called "pro-Western" leaders, like Saakashvilli and Yuschenko, after 2-3 years the hype ebbs away and the common people of the countries see nothing in terms of improvements... Then they tend to scrabble around for popular support and figure that baiting Russia is a good way to do it.
True. Russia won't leave those areas anytime soon & NATO want to prevent wars not join one. Russia also gets to put down a marker for anyone else who thinks they can take them on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poor Student
Still having problems....probably inevitable over the first few days of a truce
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7558399.stm
I disagree with many of the posts above. Saakashvili didn't really gamble much, as its likely the Russian's would've pushed on if he hadn't. The Russian aggression towards Georgia has been building over the last few years and isn't a recent phenomena.
The outcome was essentially a foregone conclusion from the time Georgia started courting the US and looking for Nato membership. It was only a matter of time before Abkhazia and South Ossetia either joined Russia or are established as sovereign states.
You could argue that he cost lives by asserting (or attempting to assert) ownership over both dissident regions, but by forcing the Russian's hand he has at least elevated the issues to a global level and made Russia look like a bully. National spirit also shouldn't be underestimated.
The Caucuses are viewed as a bit of a tinderbox at the best of times and it will be interesting to see if there is any reaction in Armenia and Azerbaijan (where the soveignty of the Nagorno-Karabakh region has never really been sorted).
This is not true in many ways. First of all, no one in the country could possibly claim that there have been no major improvements after we finally got rid of the corrupt previous government. For all the problems that we have been facing, the only way had been forward since then, and up until this war. If any of you went to Tbilisi for the game 5 years ago, you'd barely recognise the city today, compared to the shambles that it was then.Quote:
Originally Posted by cfdh_edmundo
Secondly, behind all the rhetoric from Saakashvili, there is a genuine underlying point: the fact, that the country has firmly chosen the politics and ideology of western democracies, over that of Russia. This choice had to be made. Because of our location and history, we can never be like Switzerland, and because of our lack of natural resources, we can't be self-sufficient like Azerbaijan, for example. The previous regime tried to find some kind of east-west balance, but it never did us any good. As an ex-USSR state, you just can't be 'good neighbours' with the Russians without kissing their asses and having 'friendly figures' as dictators, like the Central Asian 'republics' do. You could well argue that it's another kind of imperialism (and in the case of Bush government, another evil) that we chose, but the truth is, that it's a far lesser evil... a cleaner set of asses, if you like. ;) We just never got along well with that bunch (no one around them ever did), and after what the recent events, there's no turning back. Yes, both us and the Ukrainians are desperate for foreign support right now, but so would you be in our situation...and indeed you (the Irish) were, once. Nothing to do with baiting Russia. We showed that there was substance behind the rhetoric and turned towards the west, and now just want them to show that there was substance behind their words too, and stand by us (and they largely did so, to be fair).
Finally, it's a different issue altogether, whether Saakashvili's actions were justified or not. Whether he took a gamble, or was led into a trap by the Russians, I guess we'll never know for sure. But his decision did bring a lot of grief upon the people, and he has a lot to answer for...in fact, if it wasn't for what the Russians did during this conflict, there would have been serious public pressure for him to stand down. But that doesn't mean that the overall direction which he chose for the country was wrong, or that the extent of Russian response to the current situation has been in any way justifyable.
Excellent post, and very refreshing to see someone who has some genuine insight into the issues at stake, rather than going along with polemics (from either side).Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
good point made in the letters page of the Indo yesterday.....why were the Georgian army in Iraq when they should have been in Georgia defending their country
Because their leader, Saakashvili, is prostituting the country out to any and everyone who "needs a hand" in a desperate attempt to maintain his slipping popularity. He's a hot headed numpty, he tried to instigate a war with Azerbaijan over the border dispute too. Say what you want about Eduard Schevardnaze, but at least his time as Soviet foreign minister gave him the experience to handle these situations. Saakashvili's Ivy League education (Colombia & GWU) and time as an intern with the US State Department might make him a wonderful dinner guest and it's superb fodder for CNN, FOX and co, but it's left him hopelessly out of depth in dealing with the situation in the region.Quote:
Originally Posted by bennocelt
History will judge him as the Milosevic of the Caucasus... a man who's desperation to cling to power caused him to re-spark a civil war... and one which will leave his country totally split up.
Also the US had it's European forces headed by a Georgian in the 1990s...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_M._Shalikashvili
Closing down TV stations? Sending riot police and army against demonstrators?Quote:
Originally Posted by George2605
Georgian regiments have been in Iraq since 2004. They were recalled when the war broke out, but however surprising this may sound, having 2000 soldiers break off all their operations and be transferred from Iraq to Georgia isn't exactly a "jump in a taxi" matter. Only the Americans were capable of providing them with the means to return home relatively quickly...and they did, even though it was too late by that time. The war as such was over. It's unfortunate, but I'm still not sure what exactly it is that the author of that letter on 'Indo' doesn't understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by bennocelt
Ah yes, of course...which is probably exactly why he sent the troops at the very height of his domestic popularity! It's great to be in a position to sit there and philosophise about other countries 'prostituting themselves', but let me tell you this: the kind of support and investment which Georgia has had from the West and the US in particular, doesn't simply come about because the President has studied in America, or because he made some fancy speeches about allying himself with them...the words have to be backed up with deeds. How popular those deeds might be (and with myself and many other Georgians, the Iraq war was every bit as unpopular as elsewhere), that's not the issue here!Quote:
Originally Posted by cfdh_edmundo
I'm sorry, but "nonsense" doesn't even begin to describe this. Here, have a read about this border dispute, and then you are free to decide for yourself whether this is what amounts to "trying to instigate a war" with one of his closest personal friends and allies...but don't try to feed this BS to everybody here.Quote:
Originally Posted by cfdh_edmundo
http://www.geotimes.ge/index.php?m=home&newsid=3887
I'm not sure how much (if anything) you know about Shevardnadze beyond his Communist Party career, but let me tell you: when that guy came into Georgian politics, he wasn't simply welcome with open arms, he was worshipped as some kind of a national saviour - precisely because of his record and experience in the Soviet foreign ministry. The fact that he had become one of the most despised national leaders in history barely 10 years later, should tell you everything about how wisely he had used all that experience. He only used it well when it came to lining his family's and his cronies' pockets with the foreign investment monies, while people in the capital city had 4 hours of electricity per day. That is why no one here really cares about how much better he might have handled situations like these, his name just isn't being mentioned (in any positive way) anymore. Of course, under him, such situations probably wouldn't have arisen in first place, because he'd have sooner kissed every Russian arse and let the country quietly rot away without anyone giving a damn about it, than give up his position of power. If you've been looking for power-mad Georgian politicians, you've been focussing on the wrong one.Quote:
Originally Posted by cfdh_edmundo
We'll have to wait and see how history, rather than 'Edmundo', judges him, and the verdict might well be unfavourable indeed, but once again, you've totally misunderstood his motivations here. It's precisely what he did a couple of weeks ago that was always likely to cost him his power rather than the other way round, regardless of the (rather predictable) outcome...because beyond an ultra-nationalist fringe, people in Georgia just didn't believe that the best way to go about getting those regions back was to launch a full scale assault on them, and risk ruining all the good work that had been done during the previous years.Quote:
Originally Posted by cfdh_edmundo
Saakashvili made his 2 career-threatening mistakes precisely at the times when he was very safe in his position of power. People had just begun to forgive him the first one (which DaveyCakes was referring to above), after giving him another chance in recent elections. This time, the Russians have been single-handedly keeping him in power with their actions and rhetoric, which have forced people to rally together behind their President...to say nothing of Russia's other Western neighbours. But when the dust settles somewhat, he could (and should) still face the music.
He's nowhere near as power-mad as you seem to believe. He is - as you've rightly observed for a change - impatient, inexperienced in such delicate matters, and for too long no one has seriously challenged him, as nearly all the country's half-decent politicians are in his own party. Like in my previous post, I'd like to emphacise that I'm not defending his recent actions in any way here (or his last year's actions, for that matter), just making clear that whether he stays or is indeed forced out - by his own people, not by Putin, Bush or anyone else - whoever is in power, must stick to the overall (pro-Western) course that was chosen by him, but hopefully learn from his mistakes and salvage the best possible future for whatever is left of our wee country.
i think the point is.....what are they doing in iraq, possibily helping in the killing of innocents, when they should be in their own country, minding their own business.............well maybe he was saying that:pQuote:
Originally Posted by George2605
excellent article in the Guardian.Quote:
Singularising Russia on a tit for tat analysis re Georgia is like looking at a pawn instead of the chessboard: It is about USA sponsoring NGOs to interfere in and destabilise Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and Russia and subvert their sovereignty by supporting local Quislings with money and slick media operations (USD48m funds Georgias Rose Revolution and Ukraines Orange Revolution), turning these countries against Russia in various fora, (and dragooning them into US adventures in Iraq), buying leaders like Azerbaijans Hediar Aliev with bribes arising from no-bid contracts, blocking foreign electoral monitors to oversee these fraudulent elections, getting oil out of Russia on Western and not Russian terms of sale, putting missiles on Russias doorstep, and treating Russia and Russians like ****.
These actions are designed to quarantine and dismember Russia as well as to sew dissent in EU. Russia not surprisingly, does not subscribe to this programme. Neither does the EU. NATO threats to ignore Russia are empty since it has done so for 15 years.
Saakashvili was not provoked in this matter: he has a pathological hatred of Russians, as do most Georgians I have met (typically yuppies being groomed for leadership by USAID money): his incendiary rhetoric illustrates his lack of self control, underlying motives and criminal irresponsibility. He gambled irresponsibly, and that is why his countrymen languish in hell. When I was in Georgia, Georgians were nauseatingly obsequious: trying to impress me as to how *American* they were by showing me their Columbia University T Shirts (when they couldnt even tell me where Columbia was), and brandishing worthless diplomas issued by USAID for sitting in one of their democracy seminars, but all I saw were a bunch of American kiss-ass wannabees who were lapping up USAID money and loving it and looking down on their own people. They are about as American as Khinkali and Democratic as Josef Djugashvili.
Mr Saakashvili is not a Westerner, American, European, or champion of freedom. He is US installed puppet USAID groomed via a free fast-tracked Harvard diploma and CV, and whose salary until recently was paid by the US State Department. His words and actions show him to be a despotic thug, a USAID implant loathed by his own people, a media manipulator, a liar speaking with a fake American accent, and dressed up by a PR agency. He poses in front of the EU flag when addressing the media - when Georgia is not in the EU and it's not his flag. Why doesnt the press denounce this fraud?
I and many Americans may shed our blood for democracy but will be damned if we shed our blood for the likes of him. He brought this crisis upon himself and his people and shamelessly tried to drag the USA and EU into his bloodfest. He is a criminally irresponsible megalomaniac as well as a manipulative liar and would shut his yapping mouth and assume responsibility for his acts had he any decency.
As far as pointing the finger at Russia, the fact is that Georgia unleashed the artillery barrage. Russian peacekeepers are exactly that – keeping the peace - and they should bloody well stay there to prevent future bloodshed.
Russias specificity, vis a vis Europe is that it is a multiethnic state. There are 20m Russians in Ukraine, 2m in Byelorussia, 8m in Kazakhstan, and 2m in the Baltics (denied Baltic nationality and thus effectively stateless). It is natural Russia is guardian of its stranded post-Soviet Russians.
The West stupidly opened a Pandoras box in Kosovo, Russia has merely validated this precept by implementing it in Abkhazia and Ossetia, and will no doubt do so in future as half of Ukraine (east bank) seeks union with Russia and Crimea is Russian (Khruschevs gift of Crimea to Ukraine is of dubious legality).
Poland (and the fascist-revisionist Baltics) are so clouded by Russian hate they forget they are in (and have obligations to) the EU, and are instead selfishly and irresponsibly using it as a vehicle to strike at the object of its hate (thus aligning itself with the USA - whose interests lie in a fractured and weakened EU) and thus paradoxically further weakening it. Quite inconsiderate.
Just a small extra thought. USAs comical references to stolen Humvees are most likely an exercise to distract the hoi polloi from more serious issues: Judging from Mr Saakashvili Olympian street sprint in Tbilisi, where he abandoned the French Foreign Minister (his official guest), to his fate, I'll wager that the heroic Georgian soldiers, in their haste to flee from the hostilities they initiated, forgot to wipe out the hard disks of all those US supplied computer systems with defence plans, doctrines, and operational procedures bringing Georgia up to NATO standards. There must be some happy faces in the Russian Military Staff as well as red faces in Foggy Bottom.
Always make sure the kid can pass his driver's license and hold his booze before giving him the car keys.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/users/klendathu
So in that case, his issue really is the moral aspect of our troops' presence in Iraq, rather than the question as to why they were there at the time when the war broke out in Georgia?Quote:
Originally Posted by bennocelt
Well, I've answered that too...like I said, I'm the wrong man to ask to try defending that war, but in any case, that's not the issue of this topic, I would think.
Well, that's one (rather one-dimensional) way of seeing things I suppose, and there are some points in there that I would agree with, but in any case I think you could have made it clearer that the article isn't actually from the Guardian itself, but just a contribution from one of their registered users...one of many of exactly the same kind, I might add.Quote:
Originally Posted by bennocelt
1. Never trust someone who posts under the handle of a planet from starship troopers. yes, im a nerd as well.
2. very anti-us from what appears to be a us citizen. guilt at his governments policies clouding his judgement?. russia is not the innocent that many would like it to be in all this, and has very rarely been the innocent in any of its foreign affairs actions, be they by tsarist flunkies, or politburo appartchiks. the truth will probably lie somewhere in the middle.
I think the height of his domestic popularity was post revolution. I'm not philosophising about "countries prostituting themselves", I'm highlighting how one particular individual has sold his nation out to all and sundry (well principally to Bush). It's ironic that, in 2004, Saakashvili supported the invasion of Iraq... an invasion of a soverign country ostensibly to protect it's people from their leader (I think now everyone can see the 40 minute WMD line was a red herring). Well now Russia has done the same in Georgia, but it has wreaked far less havoc in Georgia than the coalition has in Iraq. Russia has arguably shown far more restraint than Georgia. Saakashvili ordered Tskhinval to be attacked with GRAD rocket launchers. These are essentially each a bank of 40 rockets on a truck that indescriminately destroy buildings. You can see what the rockets had here:Quote:
Originally Posted by George2605
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...574516,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,1281275,00.jpg
http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,1281278,00.jpg
It's not strictly true to say that Georgia (or any country) has to back up words "with deeds" such as the Iraq war. Countries, particularly those in the former Soviet Union, do not have to throw all their weight behind the west to secure investment and development. Several former Soviet states enjoy good relationships with both Moscow and the West. Some of the central Asian states (which you mock with disdain in earlier posts) do this, and one of your immediate neighbours does this too. Armenia enjoys a good relationship, with Moscow and the west, and uniquely in world diplomacy the US and Tehran.
People can judge this for themselves, but I would suggest that linking to a Georgian Newspaper - which is pretty much state owned - is not going to provide a wonderfully unbiased view of the situation. If you're going to propigate stuff like this at least counter it with a view from an academic rather than some third party semi state owned gutter journalism. Ekaterina Arkhipova is a good academic source for international relations in the region, most of her work is in Russian, some of it has been translated, but even with my basic grasp of Russian it's possible to understand it.Quote:
I'm sorry, but "nonsense" doesn't even begin to describe this. Here, have a read about this border dispute, and then you are free to decide for yourself whether this is what amounts to "trying to instigate a war" with one of his closest personal friends and allies...but don't try to feed this BS to everybody here.
But thanks for informing me about Ilham Aliyev being one of Saakashvili's "closest personal friends". Maybe they share a love of election tactics, or maybe they just like a trip to the casino...
I don't know a great deal about his post Soviet days. You can portray him as an "arse kisser" but I think your sentence about him, "sooner kiss[ing] every Russian arse and let the country quietly rot away without anyone giving a damn about it, than give up his position of power..." has been contradicted by recent history. In the end he went without a fight in November / December 2003. Ironically instead of fleeing to Germany (as he was offered the chance of doing) he chose to stay in Georgia and face any charges levelled at him. Correct me if I am wrong, but so far all challenges to persue him via legal prosecution have failed. You seem to view him as a corrupt arse kisser... I view him as a realist who, ultimately steered his country in the right direction. He handled the Adjara situation with Abashidze well. In his latter years he ended the civil war by fostering a degree of detente / autonomy with Abkhazia and South Ossetia... sadly this was shattered by Saakashvili. And I think there is only one epitome of "power-mad Georgian politician[s]"... იოსებ ბესრიონის სტალინიQuote:
I'm not sure how much (if anything) you know about Shevardnadze beyond his Communist Party career, but let me tell you: when that guy came into Georgian politics, he wasn't simply welcome with open arms, he was worshipped as some kind of a national saviour - precisely because of his record and experience in the Soviet foreign ministry. The fact that he had become one of the most despised national leaders in history barely 10 years later, should tell you everything about how wisely he had used all that experience. He only used it well when it came to lining his family's and his cronies' pockets with the foreign investment monies, while people in the capital city had 4 hours of electricity per day. That is why no one here really cares about how much better he might have handled situations like these, his name just isn't being mentioned (in any positive way) anymore. Of course, under him, such situations probably wouldn't have arisen in first place, because he'd have sooner kissed every Russian arse and let the country quietly rot away without anyone giving a damn about it, than give up his position of power. If you've been looking for power-mad Georgian politicians, you've been focussing on the wrong one.
History has already started to judge him see the last line of this article:Quote:
We'll have to wait and see how history, rather than 'Edmundo', judges him, and the verdict might well be unfavourable indeed, but once again, you've totally misunderstood his motivations here. It's precisely what he did a couple of weeks ago that was always likely to cost him his power rather than the other way round, regardless of the (rather predictable) outcome...because beyond an ultra-nationalist fringe, people in Georgia just didn't believe that the best way to go about getting those regions back was to launch a full scale assault on them, and risk ruining all the good work that had been done during the previous years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bennocelt
Well good luck to "your wee country" (think we've seen this one before lads :rolleyes:)... but your dear leader has put you in a tight spot. He's has had the army crushed, is reliant on the support of a US leader who will be gone in less than 6 months, meekly flies an EU flag when half of the EU political establishment sees him as a reckless fool... Still David Cameron supports him.Quote:
Originally Posted by George2605
cheers for the good links:)Quote:
Originally Posted by cfdh_edmundo
But under a democratic system, do you agree that if they do choose this, they should be able to do so freely?Quote:
Originally Posted by cfdh_edmundo
The unwritten sub-text of your argument is that Georgia should be somehow deferential or appeasing to Russia, which frankly is a ridiculous post-colonial view that the British would be proud of.
Saakasvili's actions weren't particularly clever from a realpolitik perspective, but set against the wider undemocratic actions of Russia over the last few years (poisoning, assassination, illegal corporate takeovers etc.) they pale into insignificance.
I wonder did the Georgia President think that because he had 2,000 troops in Iraq that the US would come to his aid?
I love the West (US in particular) urging Russia to fulfill their ceasefire & remove their troops. Russia does not care & will do what they want & no one will stop them.
I am sure Russia will continue to use Kosovo as a precedent.
Yes, in a democracy any country's citizens have the right to vote for whomever they want. However, if their democratically elected leaders drag their nations into illegal wars then they must remove their government or accept the fact that they have, by proxy, endorsed a conflict and all that that entails.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
My arguement is not for appeasement or a deferential approach. Instead I think that the Georgian government should have had a much more measured approach over the recent crisis. In the last few years Russia had actually withdrawn from bases it held in Georgia. Russia had a large base at Batumi (the port which is now serving as a drop off point for US Navy ships), in 2005 it agreed to withdraw from the base by the end of 2008. In fact the Russians withdrew in November 2007. IMO, Russia has no territorial desire over Georgia, if it had it would have kept those bases, and the Russian Army would have taken Tbilisi during the conflict and built permanent bases in Gori and other towns well inside Russia (instead it has just dismantled the existing Georgian Army bases). My argument isn't some anglo-centric post colonial twaddle, it's the basic notion that when two sides appear to be having meaningful dialog over a serious issue it shouldn't be ruined by a madman resorting to violent conflict. Russia / South Ossetia and Georgia looked like they would be able to settle the issue through mediation and negotiation, but Saakasvili ruined this chance.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
Well we're getting into an argument over scale here. I would argue that Saakasvili's indescriminate shelling of the Ossetian capital with mobile banks of rocket launchers is worse than poisoning , assassination (Litvenenko) and illegal corporate takeovers. The former two are bad and shouldnt be used under any circumstances. The latter is an economic issue and it's a fine line between an "illegal corporate takeover" and wealth re-distribution through re-nationalisation. I think Saakasvili's actions in Ossetia are far worse in terms of scale (casualties, people effected etc) than any of the above. They are comparable with the Russian attack on Grozny in the mid 1990s. Levelling a city and breaking it's people. Either way it's a bit of a pointless arguement.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
One would be forgiven for thinking after reading this, that the act of Saakashvili throwing Georgia's weight behind the US and the West was either done against the wishes of his people, or that it was objectively wrong in some way or the other...that's what "selling out [one's] country" involves, and of course, that's not what happened in this case. It was a conscious decision made by our people through supporting Saakashvili and the plans which he outlined for the country, and this decision essentially stemmed from the recent experiences that confirmed once and for all, that for a small neighbouring land that they had long regarded as "their own", having a "relationship of equals" (on an official level, that is) with Russia, or trying to adopt western-style institutions and orientating oneself towards the West while simultaneously keeping on good terms with Putin in the long term, is an illusion. Never mind the previous centuries of direct Russian agression and imperialism towards us. When even acts like searching for alternative energy sources (in the shape of the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline) to ease the dependence on Russia are being interpreted as 'hostile', repeatedly sabotaged, and almost invariably followed by overtures towards separatist leaders, one gets the message. The underlying message which I derive from your posts, is the same one that was pointed out by another user: "whatever you do, you must take into account Putin's wishes, and whether it would hurt his feelings, the resurgent Russian nationalist egos and neo-imperialist ambitions". Well, that's not the way it is, and it never will be, come whatever may.Quote:
Originally Posted by cfdh_edmundo
Furthermore, I cannot possibly keep repeating myself in every single post when I say that I am not defending Saakashvili's recent response towards the renewed conflict with the Ossetians, and I am not defending the Iraq war in any way either. On the other hand, the idea of Russia having shown restraint here is simply laughable, while claming that It's not strictly true to say that Georgia (or any country) has to back up words "with deeds" is rather naive, and in that context, the examples brought up by you are inadequate at best.
You do seem to confuse cordial relations on official level with the kind of relationship that Saakashvili's Georgia has had with the West recently. Neither Armenia, nor the Central Asian states have received even a small fraction of the western support and investment that Georgia has had. By and large, they didn't need it: they've got Russia to take care of them and in the Asians' case, support their dictatorships (yes indeed, as I'm about to denounce Shevardnadze's smaller-scale corruption and nepotism below, you'll have to forgive me for treating those particular 'presidents-for-life' with the disdain that they deserve), in return for their loyalty to Kremlin and the CIS. In cases like Kazakhstan, they also have more than enough resources to be self-sufficient, unlike Georgia. Armenia, whilst very poor, can still rely on its huge diaspora - more Armenians live in either US or Iran alone, than in Armenia itself, and have powerful lobbies in both places...no prizes for guessing where those "uniquely" good diplomatic relations with both countries stem from. On a practical level, I must point out, Georgia's relations with both Armenia and Iran have been anything but frosty...but then I suppose we didn't have to deal with an "us or them" attitude of Russian proportions in their cases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cfdh_edmundo
I was under the impression that the article posted by me was in no way one-sided or seeking to downplay the disputes between the two countries (as I am not doing myself either), but if you happen to have a source that supports the statement that Saakashvili "tried to instigate a war with Azerbaijan over the border dispute", please point it out (whatever language it's in), and I'll gladly take it on board. I'm not aware of Arkhipova having made any such claims, and certainly whatever can be found on the web from her on this subject, does not do so:
http://www.ca-c.org/online/2005/jour...4.arheng.shtml
Until then, just feel free to continue with the slurs against Aliev and Saakashvili. I wasn't exactly planning to embark on writing either of these people's hagiographies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cfdh_edmundo
He went without a fight because he didn't have any real means to fight - no widespread support from either the people or those pathetic organisations that were (at least in name) our police and army. Had he tried to put down the protests by force, he is unlikely to have made it into exile alive...but he evidently did manage to strike a deal, with the price for him 'going quietly' being that himself and his son would not be targeted for their crimes by the new regime. The parliament later formally granted them this immunity, so they had no real reason to flee anywhere, but you could do better than see this as an exoneration of some sorts...despots all over the world (even Mugabe) are being offered such deals just so that people see the backs of them. If we were to measure people's power-madness on the Stalin scale, we might as well call it a day right away, but this guy tried to foster the same kind of regime in Georgia, as in the Central Asian states, and had already began grooming his son as his successor, and that's more than bad enough without him having to go to Stalin's or Mugabe's lengths. You can praise his "good handling of the situation with Abashidze" (basically amounting to "you can keep your little Russian-sponsored dictatorship in Adjara, and continue to ignore my central authority in every possible way like before, just don't declare formal independence like the other 2 and make 'my' people even more restless") all you like, but it didn't fool anyone here in the long term. And once again, he did not halt (let alone 'end') the civil war(s) in any way that would allow him to take credit for it - quite simply, he didn't have anything left to bargain or fight any kind of war with, our armed forces were virtually non-existant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cfdh_edmundo
Wrong again. Judgements of history are not being passed by polemics such as this, otherwise I would have no trouble producing pro-Georgian equivalents, or even better: signing up to the Guardian website, and writing a few nice little pieces like that myself. Like I said, I accept that the overall historical verdict on Saakashvili could be negative (which is a speculation in itself, as the guy is still around), but in any case, it will not be one-sided and one-dimensional.
Perhaps to the misfortune of our country (perhaps not), many more people than David Cameron (UKPM-in-waiting, no less) still support him and are willing to let stunts like the one with the EU flag go unchallenged. Our people have no real illusions about our prospects of joining the EU any time soon...it's no more than another form of expressing support for "the western way" over the Russian one. The Russians themselves, of course, couldn't have possibly done a better job at providing the man they apparently want to see gone, with the public support that he would have severely lacked just a couple of weeks ago. Yes, for us, all of this will probably mean more misery, more time with an irresponsible hothead as president, more grovelling before the West to get back on the feet...but if at the end of it all, we get a country (albeit a depleted one) that is fully integrated in western institutions and way of life, and genuinely free of Russian "interest", then maybe...just maybe, it would all have been worth it!Quote:
Originally Posted by cfdh_edmundo
The last part I would almost entirely agree with. It has long been the view among most Georgians that the best way to reintegrate the breakaway regions was by a combination of dialogue and making it an attractive option to be part of Georgia - a democratic, western-orientated state that would either already be, or have a prospect of joining all major international organisations. For all their rhetoric, Saakashvili's regime did a good enough job in this direction for quite a while, but sure enough, this wasn't a course that would have appealed to everyone. That's where the school of thought about him having been led into a trap stems from. Someone knew very well that he was likely to react unwisely to any minor but continuous provocations, and they were well prepared for the chain of events that would follow. Not saying that's the way it was, but it's a real possibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by cfdh_edmundo
Now, as for the apparent lack of Russian desire over Georgian territory, you are clearly overestimating their capabilities here...defeating our army while its best soldiers are away is one thing, and even here, things weren't anywhere near as smooth and easy for them, as they'd love to let the world believe (the trouble was, that it was one of their own journos on the ground that exposed this fact). But to sustain a full-scale occupation of the country either on the military or the diplomatic level, is something they would have found to be a step too tricky for them. It's tricky enough for them they way things are now, in spite of the bullish face that they're trying to put on. For all the current Cold War rhetoric, a widespread isolation is not something that the Russian state of today can reasonably sustain...which is precisely why they're still persisting with their clumsy and incredible attempts to justify what they're doing in Georgia right now.
Also, please don't try to portray the Russian withdrawal from Batumi as some kind of a noble or benevolent gesture, when it was nothing of the sort. While the aforementioned quasi-dictator of Adjara tolerated and even welcomed their presence, in truth they had no business whatsoever in a country which they were undermining at every turn. That's exactly why they're getting kicked out of Ukraine too, and although they're once again likely to leave considerably earlier than they're obliged to, it's unlikely that they'll be getting much gratitude for that from Kiev either.