The New York Times reports that the Russian invasion of Georgia has grown far more ominous:
Russia expanded its attacks on Georgia on Sunday, moving tanks and troops through the separatist enclave of South Ossetia and advancing toward the city of Gori in central Georgia, in its first direct assault on a Georgian city with ground forces after three days of heavy fighting, Georgian officials said.The maneuver - along with aerial bombing of the Georgian capital, Tbilisi - suggested that Russia's aims in the conflict had gone beyond securing the pro-Russian enclaves of South Ossetia and Abkhazia to weakening the armed forces of Georgia, a former Soviet republic and an ally of the United States whose Western leanings have long irritated the Kremlin.
[...]
Two senior Western officials said that it was unclear whether Russia intended a full invasion of Georgia, but that its aims could go as far as destroying its armed forces or overthrowing Georgia's pro-Western president, Mikheil Saakashvili.
"They seem to have gone beyond the logical stopping point," one senior Western diplomat said, speaking anonymously under normal diplomatic protocol.
Apparently, President Stupid Bush still believes that international relations with a ruthless leader like Vladimir Putin come down to claptrap like this: "I looked the man in the eye. I was able to get a sense of his soul." How and why did we ever elect this loser as president of our great nation? And how could we even THINK about electing an older, crazier version of Bush to continue his disastrous policies another four years? Yes, that was a rhetorical question.
In all seriousness, though, the sad fact is that the United States of America - bogged down in the Iraqi "double strategic mousetrap" (as Jim Webb calls it) - is completely powerless to stop Russia from invading an ally, overthrowing its government, occupying the country, taking control of its oil transit infrastructure, changing the balance of power in the region, etc., etc. Heckuva job, Bush/Cheney et al!
As a Russian jet bombed fields around his village, Djimali Avago, a Georgian farmer, asked me: "Why won't America and Nato help us? If they won't help us now, why did we help them in Iraq?"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
In all fairness to, well, everyone west of Istanbul, I can't think of any past or present leader from any country who unilaterally wielded enough influence to end this particular conflict. Regardless of where our troops happen to be situated, this is a nightmare scenario. One party is a NATO aspirant, the other is in possession of a significant nuclear arsenal, and the conflict was started by a third party trying to secede from the first to join with the second, so both parties felt sufficiently antagonized and justified in mauling the other without restriction or restraint. But the moment the US or Europe moves to intervene militarily, this stops looking like a territorial war and starts looking like direct conflict between NATO and Russia. Whenever those two sides go to bat, the potential exists that the casualty county will climb right through the thousands on up to the millions in the space of about 24 hours.
In the short term, we should look for every opportunity to implore both sides to end the fighting, rather than rush at this as an opportunity to bring about the end of the world. And in the long term, I think it's time we re-evaluated whether terrorism really is the worst potential threat facing the world today.
And I just have to say this was so completely stupid of the Georgian President. He thought Russia wouldn't react? He thought the US would come rushing to his side? Wow! if I were a Georgian citizen, I would be wanting a recall about now. Though I'm also sure an external threat is a good way to rally your people around you.
Thinks Bush is weak? HA! Putin knows Bush is weak. What's the US going to do? Act unilaterally again? We're boxed in. To the East is Iran, to the west is Syria, to the North is Russia in Georgia, and where we are is still marginally stable Iraq. Not to forget Afghanistan, where the Taliban are staging their comeback. High oil prices are a downer on our economy. They have veto on the Security Council. What leverage do we have? Our moral outrage?
Russia gets whatever it wants in this equation, Georgia handed them everything they wanted on a silver platter. Abkhazia, South Ossetia, NATO membership, poof! Gone! I'd say it sucks to be Mikheil Saakashvili, but that's painfully obvious. Let's hope he keeps his head.
This is what Shock and Awe really is. We shouldn't snark about it. We should learn from it. Because Russia is going to win this round.
There are going to be at least two schools of thought over how we should approach this in the future--increased diplomacy with Russia or increased effort to isolate Russia--and lives will depend on which school wins out.
And now (eye roll) Turkey is expressing its concern over the matter. Of course, since Turkey is unwilling to recognize self-determination for ethnic minorities, it has a problem with other ethnic minorities asserting their Independence in other countries. At least, they are consistent.
What a mess!
Turkey, well, Turkey. What the hell are we going to do about you, Turkey? This is why we can't have nice things, Turkey.
We pushed this missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. We pushed the membership in NATO of all these former Soviet Republics, and we are the primary backers. We are just pushing and pushing closer to Russia's borders. All just us, because we can, and because we thought we could just steamroller over Russia without consequence. Because if they don't agree with us on everything we want, then they aren't being our friends and this is our sandbox afterall. Russia said they didn't want Kosovo to be independent, we flipped them the bird. We were all over them about their war in Chechnya. You can only push and push and push so much before you reach someone's breaking point.
And after all this talk about how Kosovo should be free and Chechnya should be free. Suddenly, we support the territorial integrity of Georgia? I know it makes a lot of sense, and I am just too dense to understand it. I forget that we also support the territorial integrity of Turkey, Iraq, and China.
I can't believe though that our diplomatic overtures to Kiev and Tbilisi and maybe some military advisers gave rise to their leaders' bravado. Maybe in the euphoria that comes with imagining finally being free of Moscow's shadow, they thought anything was possible. And the U.S., their white knight, would come riding to the rescue should Moscow darken their doorstep. That lead them to this let's-piss-off-Russia attitude. It just seems a sensible person governing a small country would not seek to pick a fight with their very large neighbor to the North. Even if you were best buds with the American President, I'd still think you might at least give our Secretary of State a call before you decided to flex your muscle. Especially, if you thought you would be getting some backup. Did he think that Putin would be too busy with the Olympics to worry about little, ole Georgia? I just wonder what was running through his mind. Or maybe that Putin was merciful and would not respond with ruthless force? I mean because all of these scenarios sound dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.
Which of course has Kristol at the NY Times complaining about how we "owe" Georgia for those 2,000 troops they sent to Iraq, so we need to start trading missiles with Moscow now before it's too late.
Does Russia have expansionist designs beyond the borders of the former Soviet Union? My sense is probably not.
We might see an attempt to re-ignite the Cold War through proxy battles. However, even if Russia wanted to extend influence within the Western Hemisphere we have what appear to be more stable governments in place now in South and Central America than existed after the end of WWII.
Maybe Russia and China will engage in proxy battles in Africa?
The big take away from this is that the U.S. can't move fast enough in the direction of energy independence. We absolutely need to diversify the energy sources that power the transportation economy. Remove oil from the equation, and it's hard to envision the current Russia expansion post 2001. It's even harder to see how they would hold together a reconstituted empire without high energy prices.
Obviously the Bush foreign policies in Iraq -- and its avoidance of the oil issue -- have helped to inadvertently facility yet another regional crisis. However, the big question is: Even given the f-'d up state of affairs, what is the best U.S. response to this current challenge?
By the way, some people need to read a little bit about the last 12 months of history regarding "democracy" in Georgia before we get into a pro-intervention fit of Cold War nostalgia. There is, after all, a reason both the EU and NATO have been tepid on Georgia's bids for membership:
(From the Guardian, Nov. 2007) Four years after mass demonstrations brought down a post-Soviet regime in Georgia and installed a young American-trained lawyer as president, Mikhail Saakashvili is facing much the same display of popular discontent himself. His reaction was harsher than the treatment he received at the hands of Eduard Shevardnadze, the man he deposed. Riot police have tear-gassed demonstrators, beaten with them with truncheons, attacked them with rubber bullets and water cannons. Journalists have been beaten up, two television stations taken off the air and a state of emergency has been imposed.
We should not let our desire for democratic governments around the world, cloud our judgement in international relations. We must respect the fears/concerns of Russia because of who they are. Just as people have to pay attention to us because of who we are. We need to respect that they view Cold War institutions on their border as a threat. Being invaded so many times throughout their history makes Russians focus on these things. We need not antagonize them as neo-conservatives would have us do.
International relations are about these tough choices. Should we make Turkey recognize that they committed genocide against Armenians? In a perfect world, we would. But given who Turkey is and what we need from them, we have to subordinate the grievances of Armenians. It's truly sad, but that's the way it is.
What is right and what is practical? There's the tough choice.
It's too bad shared paranoia doesn't make for a good foundation for mutual understanding, seeing as how paranoid people aren't especially trusting....
Turns out Germany (read old Europe) was right about denying Ukraine's and Georgia's request for admittance to NATO. Turns out US boosterism for their admittance was wrong. Germany, so well schooled in entangling alliances, is best equipped teach American ideologues realpolitik. That's all we need is to encircle Russia. And when a border incident erupts, it's World War III. As we saw in Iraq, this turns out to not be the only case where old Europe has a better perspective on certain things than we do.
Russia's response is over the top, but Georgia should have never sent troops into the region in an attempt to take it back. Georgia should have recognized the right of South Ossetians to self-determination and let them go. This is the position, by the way, that the U.S. and Europe are taking on Kosovo.
Let's take a trip back to 1999. What happened when Serbia tried aggressively to maintain control of Kosovo? Oh, that's right, we bombed Belgrade! Now the Russians are doing the same in Georgia, and we have the nerve to respond with righteous indignation, really? And basically, the scene is playing out the same. Tbilisi wants to maintain absolute control over the boundaries of Georgia set by the Soviet Union and continued after its dissolution, much like Serbia wanted to maintain its boundaries set prior to even World War I. Georgia invades South Ossetia, like Serbia invaded Kosovo. Russia bombs sites in Tbilisi, NATO bombed sites in Belgrade. I'm oversimplifying the history and actions of Serbia and Georgia, but you get the picture.
...The fact is that a combination of American recklessness, serious miscalculation and over-reach by Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, as well as Russia's forceful reassertion of its regional national interests and status as an oil and gas rich, tough international player means America and Europe have yet again helped generate a crisis that tests US global credibility.I think that Saakashvili who has been agitating for Georgia's membership in NATO just lost his chance with his own reckless behavior. Saakashvili's decision to send tanks into South Ossetia gave Russia the trigger that it may have wanted to send in more of its own troops and weapon systems. Russia was ready. Putin, now prime minister of Russia but still the center of power, was relaxing and chatting with George W. Bush in the bird's nest Olympic stadium in Beijing looking quite in control and confident.
It is possible that Condoleezza Rice's July 10th visit to Tbilisi and joint press conference with Saakashvili was interpreted by him that American power and resolve were firmly behind Georgia and its intention to reassert control over the autonomous provinces. The Georgian president miscalculated about American power in the world today and our resolve to take on Russia directly -- no matter how much the Washington Post's Fred Hiatt and Anne Applebaum would like to see the situation differently.
While the seeds of this conflict between Georgia and Russia had been planted long ago, the U.S. helped engineer events that are now undermining its own interests and the global perception of American power.
Again, a hearty "heckuva job" goes to George W. Bush and his "A Team" of foreign policy pros. Do these tough-guy Republicans understand power politics or what?!? (***extreme snark***)
War in the Caucasus? The dispute between Georgia and Russia has all the makings of a tragic conflict.
By Anatol Lieven; Lieven is a senior fellow at the New America Foundation and author with John Hulsman of "Ethical Realism: A Vision for America's Role in the World."
1032 words
16 October 2006[...]
The Bush administration has repeatedly assured the Kremlin that it is putting heavy pressure on Saakashvili's government not to attack the breakaway regions. Yet Moscow can't help but see a contradiction. Exhibit A is the fact that the United States continues to arm and train Georgian forces. Moreover, Russians see Georgian adventurism as encouraged by less restrained U.S. politicians, such as John McCain and other senators who visited Georgia in recent months and expressed strong support for Georgian aspirations. McCain's helicopter allegedly came under fire as it flew over South Ossetia.