John McCain:
“Today, many are dead and Georgia is in crisis, yet the Obama campaign has offered nothing more than cheap and petty political attacks that are echoed only by the Kremlin,” said McCain aide Tucker Bounds in the statement. “The reaction of the Obama campaign to this crisis, so at odds with our democratic allies and yet so bizarrely in sync with Moscow, doesn’t merely raise questions about Sen. Obama’s judgment — it answers them.”
Just like the good old days, hey? The Democratic candidate is a puppet of Moscow! Evil empire, anyone?
Here’s neocon ideologue Bill Kristol:
When the “civilized world” expostulated with Russia about Georgia in 1924, the Soviet regime was still weak. In Germany, Hitler was in jail. Only 16 years later, Britain stood virtually alone against a Nazi-Soviet axis. Is it not true today, as it was in the 1920s and ’30s, that delay and irresolution on the part of the democracies simply invite future threats and graver dangers?
Kim,
But do you agree with what McCain said (not Tucker Bounds) or not? His expressed point of view seems to be sensible.
If you think that Putin is some sort of cuddly bear I suggest you read The New Cold War by Edward Lucas before trivialising this issue further. We’re talking about a man who has assassinated dissidents not only in Russia but even in other countries.
Jason, where did I say that Putin was a “cuddly bear” or in any way admirable?
I would expect intelligent readers to understand that there is more than one take on this and that what I’m focusing on is the domestic US political reaction – attempts by John McCain to politicise this war (quelle surprise!) and use it as a stick to beat Obama about with and the language which is highly reminiscent of cold war red baiting… and absurd and overblown hyperbole from the NYT’s resident neo-con which is a foreign policy response gone begging.
Are we back in the era when to talk outside approved dichotomies meant that you were a Communist or later a Saddam hugger?
I’d have expected better.
Sorry, Andrew, no time for a proper answer to you – have to run. Work!
Where the hell did that come from Jason?
The problem with McCain’s comments is the complete absence of criticism of the Georgian regime over its actions in South Ossetia, which were both wrong in principle and bound to be extremely destabilising. It is possible to make this point without diluting any criticism of Russian actions. Indeed, one would expect a prospective US President to clarify whether s/he thinks the US should be in the business of writing blank cheques for conspicuously “pro-Western” regimes which nonetheless behave badly or foolishly in geopolitically sensitive areas, as the Saarkashvili government has done in relation to South Ossetia.
There is also the point (which I made obliquely on another thread) that if Western politicians make grandly Wilsonian liberal statements about the rights of small nations in the former Russian/Soviet Empire and Eastern Europe, they should not be surprised when very small nations like the Ossetians act on the assumption that these principles also apply to them.
The Guardian has an interesting perspective on this issue.
Where I am coming from is that the Georgian issue is about more than Georgia, Georgia’s own mistakes notwithstanding. The book I referenced also details how Russia has been destabilising its neighbours including Georgia through a variety of tactics ranging right down to industrial sabotage. The author does make the case that it is a ‘new cold war’ and it is equally silly to automatically dismiss arguments couched in such rhetoric because they remind people of ‘red baiting’ There is nothing ‘red’ about Putin incidentally, his rule is a form of authoritaroian state directed capitalism notwithstanding superficial glosses like flatter taxes.
Paul,
I am not sure this is a “mistake” by Georgia. From my reading Russia has been using the cover of the ceasefire agreements to integrate South Ossetia and Abkhazia into the Federation for the last few years – issuing passports, integrating trade routes and various other measures. Georgia had to do something to stop this as in a few years there would have been little hope of achieving their re-integartion back into Georgia.
To me, this was their strategy to bring things to a head and force the US and their neighbours to deal with the problem.
The question of whether either of them should be in Georgia is (to me at least) an open one – which is why Georgia went into South Ossetia rather than Abkhazia. Militarialy, South Ossetia is theoretically easier too – but that is not the point (IMHO). It is, and has for a long time, been a part of Georgia. Abkhazia is another matter.
One of the complexities here is that Georgia itself is a creation of Russian empire. There were and are “georgian tribes”, yes, but it was the Russia and then the USSR that created the Soviet Republic of Georgia, and the adminsitrative region of Osettia within it. Osettians never really got along with Georgians – but that was the point – these “republics” were set up to be unstable – to advantage the Muscovite centre.
How Georgia got goaded into advancing troops in there is beyond me – thats surely what Putin was aiming for.
Poor old Sakashvili’s going to discover the west doesnt intend to do squat about it either – no matter what rhetoric is put about.
Lefty E,
I think a quick look at the history of Georgia might be in order for you. Georgia was a nation for a long time, with a distinct culture and people. THey just had the misfortune to choose to live between Russia, Persia and Turkey – with the occasional over-running by Mongols amongst others.
I would also suggest you not tell a Georgian that Georgia is a Russian creation. They were famous for blood feuds.
Kim,
You’ve simply played into the “dichotomy” that you wish to denounce by using the Russian invasion of Georgia as a stick to beat the neocons. To many, including me, it seems odd that you can write on this event as if it were nothing more than a plot line in the US election. People are being killed. It’s serious.
My view & plenty of other interesting ones…including SPECULATION…at:
http://www.roadtosurfdom.com/2008/08/11/caucasus-conflict-and-the-us-election/#comment-350106
Kim, just out of curiousity, why did you pick Doctors without Borders to donate too after the “pirate short story” thread? Bernard Kouchner has an interesting relationship to them.
Whatever the reality – well-grounded or propaganda fantasy, several issues remain:
Ethnic minorities, trapped by big-power decisions in an ethnically different state, will always strive for either independence or, if that’s not possible, incorporation in a neighbouring state of the same (or similar) ethnicity. The recent Balkan Wars were a grim warning of what rampant nationalist states do to ethnic minorities.
South Ossetia is ethnically to its northern neighbour what the ethnically-Germanic Sudetenland and Danzig were to Czechoslovakia and Poland 1919-1939.
At stake in South Ossetia is control of a crucial oil pipeline, Russia’s oil wealth, and the perceived power they impart to the it.
Republican USA has been rampantly pursuing its Cold War goals in post-USSR Eastern Europe, as late as this year’s NATO conference. Nuclear-armed, resource-rich Russia, with an increasing powerful “club” of of wealthy über-capitalists, is at least as much a rival now as it was before 1991 – and its resources only rub salt into the wounds of today’s ailing USA.
The comparison between the USA (& others’) invasion of Iraq for its oil and Russia of South Ossetia’s for the pipeline etc is all too obvious, and Republican USA is not the nation or regime it favours.
“How Georgia got goaded into advancing troops in there is beyond me – thats surely what Putin was aiming for.”
Maybe, but it is important to remember who has the most to gain from this outbreak of war. The American Republicans are obviously having a field day out of this one in an election period, as Kim has indicated.
It would not be a big surprise if Ms Rice gave Saarkashvili the nod and the wink, on her recent visit to see him, and is now out of phone call range. My bet is that Putin would have preferred a bit of free time at the Olympics but the Yanks have now sent him the old spit ball.
And his strong work ethic has kicked in.
Oops – “its northern neighbour what the ethnically-Germanic Sudetenland and Danzig were to Czechoslovakia and Poland 1919-1939.”
Should read “to Georgia” (or “Sud … and Danzig to Germany”)
Got confused there! Sorry.
“Kim, just out of curiousity, why did you pick Doctors without Borders to donate too after the “pirate short story” thread? Bernard Kouchner has an interesting relationship to them.”
What do you mean Nasking? It sounds like more than just curiosity to me. He founded the organisation and is (now) right-wing, but it’s utterly apolitical in practice as far as I can tell.
“If you think that Putin is some sort of cuddly bear I suggest you read The New Cold War by Edward Lucas before trivialising this issue further.”
Saddam & Osama were not cuddly bears either Jason…& look at the CONFLICT PROFITS gained & MAYHEM partially caused & perpetuated by the Repugs & their allies and enablers in the process of taking on those two EVIL DOERS.
And its Libertarians that will be CRUSHED as much as the so called “hard Left” & “progressives” in the course of this INSANITY if it is not stopped. Corporate Aristocracies will not stand for any DISSENT in the long run. Look at the Patriot Act & the establishment of all-seeing cameras & security systems via satellites & you’ll get my drift.
Any group of people willing to create DIVISION & CONFLICT during the ONE OPPORTUNITY for BRIDGE BUILDING, The Olympics, are freakin’ PSYCHOPATHS (perhaps temporarily insane due to circumstances)…I believe they are scared of losing power in case they are sent to the Hague, &/or their dynastic gains are redistributed…& they worry that the Iran nuke situation will be left to fester…& damage Israel & other countries in the long run. And there’s more than a bit of PRIDE & REVENGE in much of this too.
And some APOCALYPSE-style craziness…addiction. Not good. Not good at all.
I agree that some of the Russian actions in Chechnya are a disgrace…WAR CRIMES…the same goes for how they dealt w/ some hostage situations…Waco style. Mosul style. And beyond.
But when we get so called “Humanitarians” like Bernard Kouchner of “false flag”/”Moslem baiting” Sarkosy’s government charging in to SAVE THE DAY my DON’T BELIEVE THE HYPE/”There’s more to this than meets the eye” radar starts up:
In September 2007, Kouchner’s public comments on the Iranian nuclear situation attracted much attention and controversy. In an interview on September 16, 2007, he said, “We will negotiate until the end. And at the same time we must prepare ourselves [...] for the worst…. The worst, it’s war….”
Like so many others, Kouchner has CHANGED…and like so many others, this CHANGE has occurred I reckon due to family genes & experiences…& lust for power…perhaps even blackmail. I can understand their TRAUMA…but their goals seem INSANE & RECKLESS. And GREEDY.
People are not disposable objects.
You need to understand that Mr. Kristol. No “Get out of jail free” card if we can help it.
N’
nasking,
Just a polite observation. You may have something interesting to say, but I, for one, find your use of capitalisation both distracting and annoying. It detracts enormously from any desire I may have had to read your comment.
I dont dispute that Georgians are a “distinct culture and people”, Andrew. The problem is that nation-states are a quite different thing, with like, borders n shit. Those are based on nothing little than the administrative region determined by the predecessor state.
Ossetians also claim to be a “distinct culture and people”.
that was “based on little more than…”
Shorter mel: It’s wrong to draw attention to the fact that the conflict is being politicised in the US, because that would be to politicise it.
Huh?
I should add that Russia and then the USSR did all this deliberately to screw up potential breakaways. There’s also weird ethnic loyalties in the Kremlin – I believe this is how Ukraine got Crimea under the (Ukrainian) Krushchev.
Surely one of the reasons so much attention is paid to US elections is precisely because the outcomes of their plot lines can result in people being killed.
As others have observed in the past, the only point from history that the neo-cons ever learned was Munich 1938. Ever since then they’ve been searching out potential aggressors so they can scream ‘appeasement’ if we don’t Take a Hard Line with them.
What precisely does McCain suggest should be done? He wants Georgia to become a member of NATO. If that was so today, Georgia would presumably be calling for NATO to come to its defence and get into a shooting war with Russia. Brilliant.
The old USSR is going through the pains of nation-building. Teh West has no moral right to tell them how to do it, any more than Europe had the moral right to direct developments in the North American continent in the 19th century. If the USA wants to act out of naked material self-interest then let it do so, but these endless attempts to present US foreign policy as a selfless program of Christian benevolence are nauseating.
The US has been trying to encircle Russia and China since the end of the Cold War. It’s good sensible power politics but they can hardly whine when the Russians and Chinese push back. And Australia should stay well and truly out of the whole business.
Lefty E – I don’t really know where your argument is going, but Georgia is definitely not a creation of the USSR (unlike Moldavia, Belarus, and most of the ‘Stans). There was a Georgian kingdoms before it was absorbed into the Russian empire.
I’m getting conflicting reports as to how the Ossetians stand with the Georgians. Some folk say they got along and intermarried; others have them former being exploited and ethnically cleansed by the latter. This part I don’t understand, but then I don’t understand why Saakashvili would lob shells into Tskhinvali.
Im saying its present, actual borders (ie the ones that included Sth Ossetia, but not Nth Ossettia) were indeed a creation of the USSR – whichh Georgia inherited successor state style.
No one is denying Georgia is a people, a nation or whatever. The actual borders of that nation are what Im talking about – they are, like many post-colonial states, an artifice to some degree. Perhaps I havent expressed it well.
And yes: I dont undertsand Saakashvili’s action either….
Another complicating factor in the former USSR was the practice, by both the Tsarist regime and the Soviet regime, of engineering large-scale transfers of populations from one part of the empire to others in such a way as to snarl different ethnic,cultural and religious groups in ways which make it very difficult to draw nation-state borders around discrete national populations. The practice of settling Russians in non-Russian parts of the empire similarly complicated matters – rather like Great Britain’s relocation of a great many Protestant Scots from Scotland to Northern Ireland in an attempt to create a loyal Protestant enclave.
Putin is no “cuddly bear” but let us be realistic as to the geo-politics of this event. Russia does not want NATO puppet-states on its borders. It thinks it has the sole right to shape the environment on its borders – and now, whether or not you or I or anyone else reading this thinks this is either right or wrong, it now *possesses the ability to impose its will on the small nations on its borders*. That’s the REALITY. Part of this reality is that the USA was encouraging Georgia to join the western orbit. Georgia has now overplayed it’s hand and is suffering Russian wrath for doing so.
The only relevant questions here are:
1) What will the USA do about it? What CAN the USA do about it even if it wanted to?
2) Is it prepared for a ground war against Russia over Georgia? If it is prepared for such a war, does it have the capability to carry out such a war?
3) If any answer to any of (3) is NO; Why did America encourage Georgia to think it would be afforded American protection? Why did the Americans encourage Georgia to act provocatively towards South Ossetia? If they did not encourage Georgia, why did they not then restrain Georgia? Did American badly miscalculate Georgian intentions (intelligence failure yet again)? Did America badly miscalculate the Russian reaction (intelligence failure yet again)? Is there something else going on here? Is it just straight political incompetence? <– (hint: likely answer I think).
4) In the absence of forceful persuasion, what peaceful means does the USA and Europe and others have to impose their will on Russia? In the absence of imposing their will on Russia (that is to say, it just ain’t gonna happen), what else can the international community do about it – hint: very little; they will accept whatever solution Russia imposes – probably the annexation of South Ossetia to Russia, if not Kosovar-style independence.
All other talk – comparing Russia to Germany, this event to the annexation of the Sudetenland, etc, is just HOT AIR. Although I can’t view McCain specifically here because I have no sound on this computer, the conservative political community particularly are totally out of their gourds on this one as far as I can tell. Do they think that Georgia is worth another world war? How are they going to fight such a war (on THREE FRONTS or more) even if they do? The Americans have no spare capability for such a war, even if by some miracles the Europeans agree with them over fighting such a war.
Expect a lot of high-minded words and very little actually effective action. Sorry, Georgia, that’s just the geo-political reality. Act nice to Russia in the mean time.
It is bloody sad, but i don’t think that the Georgians were walking softly or carrying a big stick. they don’t have a big stick, and if there are Georgians who thought that the US sponsering them for NATO was a big stick, they are getting a very rude shock.
McCains timming should serve him well, as Russia has probebly achieved 90% of it’s aims already and is now in the process of keeping the west guessing. by being as vague as he was and simply tying to present himself as well informed and a steadfast friend to the Georgians, McCain should be able to successfully talk up the projection of US power should Putin and co go all cautious and coy and pull back to the ‘borders’ of SO and A. I recon that it will all go pear shaped for him if the Russians want more than just SO and A, as the US is not really in a position to do much. this will further expose the Reps freedom rhetoric as the empty bluster that it is, as the Bush administration does sweet FA.
“And yes: I dont undertsand Saakashvili’s action either….”
Lefty E, some reason you prefer to deny the most obvious explanation.
The bloke is a republican puppet.
He is just paying back a debt at the right time.
In his history of the Russian Revolution, A People’s Tragedy, Orlando Figes reports that Bertrand Russell temporarily shifted from his critical stance towards the Soviet regime to a view that it was somehow peculiarly appropriate to Russian conditions. When challenged over this by a female friend, Russell replied “Ask yourself how Dostoyevsky’s characters should be governed. Then you will understand.” What Russell himself had (temporarily) failed to ask himself was how Dostoyevsky’s characters would govern. The antics of Saakashvili, Putin and Yeltsin before him, and a series of Tsars and General Secretaries before that, furnish an answer to that question.
In other words, the US State Dept told Georgia to invade South Ossetia just so McCain could get a sound bite for his presidential campaign..
I loved Geroge W’s comments today – that invading a sovereign state “is unacceptable in the 21stC” .
Too right George.
No, just the idiot left’s preferred candidate (not that all his supporters are the idiot left). Much the same idiot left that actually were puppets of Moscow in the past. This business will separate the sincere peace warriors from the anti-west stalinists at heart. I guess ANSWER, MoveOn, and StopTheWar are too busy mobilising protests to make statements right now.
Cough.
McCain is right to criticise Obama’s weak initial statement. “Let the UN decide” is the province of cowards. Not that I can see what the carrot or stick would be to provide a happy outcome for Georgia. It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that we’re going back to 1968.
The Russians have now declared their hand. They plan to conquer Georgia. They now appear to have major elements of two motor-rifle corps involved. The speed at which they responded indicates that these units have been preparing to invade Georgia for six or more months. That is the preparation time needed for this.
So this is a long planned war of aggression by Russia against Georgia. It cannot be anything else.
Cue the UN…
OK, then. Doubtless the UN will leap into furious inaction some weeks from now.
Russian troops took the key town of Gori after the Georgians fell back on Mtskheta, about 10 miles east of Tbilisi. By taking Gori and reaching Senaki, at the western end of Georgia’s the Kolkhida Lowland, they have made Tbilisi indefensible. BTW, Gori is far beyond South Ossetia, and Senaki is far beyond Abhkazia.
The Georgian government has attempted (at the advice of the EU) ‘restraint’ and has stated that it will surrender South Ossetia (to which it was offering full internal autonomy, BTW, well before the Russians invaded), however, there has been no response to their call for a ceasefire and negotiations. The Russians have stated that their aim is the destruction of the democratic government of Georgia. A Russian puppet government is probably intended to follow the invasion. Or they may annex the whole country, which I do not think likely yet.
The implication is obvious: Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Byelorussia, Poland and Ukraine are being passed a crystal-clear message. So is the EU. The EU will do nothing, we learned that from Bosnia-Herzegovina. They rely exclusively on the USA to pull their chestnuts out of the fire.
The Georgian military situation is now impossible, unless they retreat south behind the little Caususes range and back up against the Turkish border. If they do this, and do not either surrender fall back in to Tbilisi (where their army will be annihilated and the city smashed if they do), then the dynamics change. A democratic Georgia still exists while it has an army in the field. If the Georgians have learned the lessons of Case White well, this is what they will do.
If we still understand the lessons of the 1930s (which the EU does not, by previous policy in the Balkans), then the logical path is to support the Georgian Army, if necessary with airpower, to force the Russians out of Georgia proper (the Georgians will in all likelihood be forced to accede to losing South Ossetia and Abkhazia).
To do otherwise is to let a democratic state be extinguished by an authoritarian state. This would also lead to the Russians being able to affect the ‘near abroad’ states, which would know that NATO/EU would not help them. The impact on the power balance in Europe from this could be profound.
The next 36 hours may well determine much of the shape of the European strategic situation for the coming decades, and the world just became a much more dangerous place.
Hope that the NATO and the US, in concert with the Turks, intervenes to prevent the conquest of Georgia, the destruction of its democracy, and its re-incorporation into the Russian Empire.
In the next 36 hours, we may move much closer to the next cycle of Great Power wars.
MarkL
Canberra
PS there are unconfirmed reports that Tbilisi is being bombed.
“This business will separate the sincere peace warriors from the anti-west stalinists at heart.”
Presumably with the former supporting US interests and the latter Russian ones? Oooh… sophisticated!
““Let the UN decide” is the province of cowards. Not that I can see what the carrot or stick would be to provide a happy outcome for Georgia.”
So, not the carrot or the stick. But also not the only available alternative to either. Thus I conclude you are a foreign policy authoritarian who believes only in carrots and sticks, even when you concede that neither looks promising. Cool! Helpful!
“It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that we’re going back to 1968.”
Those are just flashbacks mate. Sit down and have a couple of deep breaths.
Even if one accepts that analysis, for the sake of argument, MarkL, and it’s certainly true is that the UN is completely useless when one of the security council members is at war, though the principles of peaceful settlement and non-aggression are worth rhetorically upholding, it’s worth pondering this axiom from the military historian Edward N. Luttwak:
That seems to me to sum up the strategic position of the US in all this.
Spoken like a UN Secretary General FDB!
From my reading of the news Obama and McCain seem to be turning this into a foreign policy competition chapter of their election campaign. It’s a complex situation. The politics of the region are, shall we say, a little unenlightened. But what can you do?
.
The Neocon harping on re the Threat of Dark Forces isn’t entirely without foundation. The Russian Federation is still what Russia’s been since the Grand Duchy of Muscovy first decided to become even grander and didn’t stop ’til it reached the sea (all of them). Right now it’s a Gangster Capitalist Quasi-dictatorship run by an ex-KGB technothug – fun, fun, fun. McCain wants to rattle his sword, Obama’s stressing multilateral interference. Neither is realistic but that’s not the point. They’re both trying to outdo each other playing America the Cop.
.
America is not going to war against Russia. Neither’s anyone else. Russia knows this. Time to grab some of the Empire back. Trouble is Georgians are tough and so’s everyone else in the region. I wonder if the Russians are enrolling in Afghanistan II: You didn’t learn the first time. Dumbarse. A lot of that going around. Thing is: if there are no consequences for the Russians will the Chinese decide they want an additional slice of
Taiwancake as well? See that’s the trouble Dubya doofus. When you break the rules everyone else does as well – thanks a bunch. I really can’t wait ’til you fuck off..
And also would the neocons please stop crapping on about WW2. If this was WW2 I suspect you guy’d be sporting lots of black shiny leather with scarlet trimming and skulls on yer cap – just sayin’.
‘Neo-con’ should be retired as a descriptor of anything it has become an all purpose insult devoid of meaning. For what its worth Russian aggressiveness doesn’t fit the neo-conservative view that everything evil in the world is the product of malign ideologies, Communism or Jihadism, magically made flesh. But in the comments here there’s a lot of fake realist distancing going on, I expect to see Richard Woollcott wheeled out at some stage, it all serves to evade making a judgment, we can add up rights and wrongs on both sides but eventually a decision has to be made. There’s more excitement about what John McCain has said than what Vladimir Putin has done. This doesn’t place a section of the Australian intellectual left in a good light, as they appear terrified of power or ever making a decision, but the policies of left of centre governments are more likely to follow the example of Clinton, as argued by Richard Holbrooke, than the odd combination of evasion and ‘realism’ we see here.
Adrien,
You do not even need to go back as far as 1979/80 to see what happens when the Russian invade. Chechnya will do – they are still losing lots of people there.
Yeah and many have decided that asking that question is something unthinkable. The Bolsheviks certainly did not. I’m sure it’d come as an insane suggestion to what’s left of Western Marxist-Leninism that they’d be setting up show trials, concentration camps and paying guys in cellars to drink vodka and shoot people in long shifts – but I reckon they’d be doing it in no time if they got the chance.
.
Trouble is some culture’s really do have authoritarian violence wired very hard into them. Russia’s the world heavyweight champion of authoritarian violence as a mode of governance. It sucks because they’re also so brilliant.
I nominate Sakashvili for the Galtieri Award of 2008.
Luttwak had it nailed, Mark (other than stating the glaringly obvious).
As demonstrated in WW2 when the Americans’ strategy of fighting two wars simultaneously in separate hemispheres failed so spectacularly.
We all remember their humiliating surrrender to the Japanese in Tokyo Bay.
What other pearls of wisdom does Edward N. Luttwak have for us?
“… we can add up rights and wrongs on both sides but eventually a decision has to be made.”
Aaahh the wonders of the passive voice! Who has to make a decision? About what? Why?
Agree and not. It’s a term that has a smear-like definition in terms both of being fuzzy at the edges and insulting. I use it specifically to describe that ideological subset which endorses Patriotic Conservatism but rejects the traditional realpolitik position for one of Evangelical Capitalist-Democracy or as some would say: imperialist expansion. It’s also used both to be covertly anti-semitic and to silence people with accusations that they are being covertly anti-semitic. As usual I didn’t even think about it until it raised it’s appalling head again.
.
Many of PNAC’s original signatories have now disowned it in light of the consequences. In the specific sense of a conservative-based view that American military strength should be used to change non-democratic regimes to democratic ones – I think it’s a valid label. Here’s a list of signatories to various documents associated with PNAC. Not all of them could be considered neocons.
.
Considering that Dr Rice became disillusioned with Carter’s disasterous capitulation, saw success under Reagan and’s now come full circle under Bush II: I wonder what she really thinks. She’s cozy with Obama these days. I’m deadset against the current administration’s foreign adventurism and she’s gotta wear it but I can’t help admiring her.
.
I’d bet green money she’s glad she didn’t sign PNAC.
Guess which chief invader of Iraq said this:
“Russia has invaded a sovereign neighbouring state and threatens a democratic government elected by its people. Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st century.”
And this:
“Russia’s actions this week have raised serious questions about its intentions in Georgia and the region. These actions have substantially damaged Russia’s standing in the world. And these actions jeopardise Russia’s relations with the United States and Europe.”
I’ve heard scuttlebutt that the Rooskies are pulling out of Georgia.
Just so I am clear, do people on this blog truely beleive what is happening in Georgia is because of the Americans?
Do people here really believe that?
On a second note, being part of NATO wouldn’t have resulted in NATO going to war with Russia, because Russia would not have attacked in the first place. That’s precisely why Russia is so implacably against it — they know they won’t be able to attack Georgia or Ukraine if they join NATO, and invasion is one of their prime bargaining chips with those countries. They don’t want to lose that option.
Russia halts attack on Georgia – from the Wall Street Journal. The gist is that they’ll stay put in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, but go no further. I expected them to take those provinces – as far as Georgia is gone, they’re lost – but I’m surprised at the report that Putin and Medvedev have stopped their advance.
I’m not certain if it is true, but I tend to believe it. Putin is not a nice man, but I’m guessing that he can foresee what would happen if Russia annexed Georgia. The answer is (drum-roll) guerilla war – exacerbated by under-the-table funding by the US. (After all, it definitely worked in Afghanistan, even if the blowback was a bitch.) The Russians have already got a counter-insurgency war in Chechnya – do they want another one at the same time?
I’m not trusting Putin’s and Medvedev’s benevolence – I’m trusting them to be smart enough to quit when they’re ahead.
It’s times like this you wish the Culture were real.
Everyone:
Again I ask …. how many American casualties [military or civilian] have there been so far in this war? So far I’ve counted 1 American journalist wounded …. are there any others?
GregM, were the Americans fighting solo on two fronts? And how much force did they have to exert in comparison to how much they have now?
As to the “Americans caused this”, I haven’t seen anyone saying that. It must be projection.
As to whether US interests in Georgia are part of the equation, and the NATO thing is a factor, that’s just obvious.
A bit of background (pulled off the net, so questionable) addressing some of the info questions here… I read on the web (but didn’t do old-skool actual research, so don’t know how much is true) that South Ossetia is composed more of ethnic Russian citizens than of native Ossetians (who are not very numerous); that these Russians are substantially drawn from the ranks of old-time Kremlin style cliques (KGB, Army etc) who operate there in a hazy grey area between Russian and Georgian judicial writ, which can be convenient for doing certain kinds of, um, business; that the Ossetians have periodically shelled Georgian villages (or maybe not the Ossetians per se, but the shells were coming from there); and that the Israelis seem to have been mucking about in the region with arms dealers and ‘advisers’. Don’t know how true this stuff is, but it sounds plausible at least. MarkL must surely be correct that the Russian invasion, judging from it sheer speed, ferocity and tactical competence, had to have been planned, and effectively begun, many months ago. What all these things mean when taken together, I don’t know.
Kim: “attempts by John McCain to politicise this war (quelle surprise!) and use it as a stick to beat Obama about with”
Hate to break it to you, Kim, but in elections, candidates use the issues (and their value differentials) as sticks to beat one another with. It’s often called ‘debate’. McCain is not ‘politicizing’ this war; it is a relevant *political* issue, and what these two chaps have been doing is, practicing politics, which is what the job they’re applying for consists of. This is a major international crisis affecting US interests in a myriad of ways; it is perfectly reasonable for the candidates to discuss their different approaches to it, and to criticize one another where they differ. Unless we’re all just supposed to give upon discourse and give that idiotic two-handed “O” salute (have you seen this fucking thing?!) which I’m sure will make everyone feel better, including the Georgians.
Obama has promised the country (and the world, no less) “a new kind of politics”. Well, here’s a classic old-style political crisis, and it’s fair to ask how the ‘new kind of politics’ will handle it. If the new style is or smells like a failure, we must draw conclusions about that; and if Obama retreats from his vaunted new style, and takes up the ‘old style’ all over again, then on points, what has he to offer, except the same old shit with much less experience and a lot more conceptual confusions? These are legitimate questions for voters to ask.
The only thing “reality-free” here is your robotic cheerleading.
Down and Out at 50, I’m not surprised by the political dynamic here. The Russians make it appear they’re going to go further, and then halt, having achieved their real objective, while allowing the Americans and others to save face and spin it as being somehow related to their calls for restraint.
Oooh, rawrrrrrrrrrrr!
More projection, j_p_z.
There’s nothing in the post saying how wise and statesthinglike Obama is. Nor is it a critique of politicisation. It’s a critique of hyper-politicisation invoking images of treachery within reminiscent of the Cold War.
And if you go back and look at earlier substantive posts by Kim on this year’s election, she certainly wasn’t backing Obama during the primaries and has expressed her underwhelminess with the Obamamania thing on many occasions.
Why is it so difficult to understand that there are more than two positions in any given debate? To criticise McCain’s campaign is not identical to praising Obama’s.
“Why is it so difficult to understand that there are more than two positions in any given debate? To criticise McCain’s campaign is not identical to praising Obama’s.”
Because for some people, in light of their relentless obsessions (such as the the evil left), any sense of nuance is impossible. It’s a scary world when all you allow yourself to see is black and white.
# 57 — oh, you silly! relentless obsession, my Eye. (hey, there’s that word again!) No seeing the world in black and white for you there, eh chum.
Mark — Kim bolded a reference in McCain’s speech to Obama’s position being “in sync with Moscow”, and then drew a bogus line with a crayon, directly connecting this (present) rhetoric to the decades-old rhetoric of the Cold War. Now, granted there is still a Kremlin in Moscow, but the guy sitting behind the desk there is no longer a Communist, just a dictator with a big army and some serious grudges, so the situation (both rhetorically and militarily) is… very different. On a variety of fronts. I’ll explain them to you if you like. Not that Kim can be bothered to point these differences out, so your criticism falls right on its face. # 57, what’s your opinion about all this amazing leftist capacity for nuance, eh?
As the election nominations narrow to two main candidates, one’s practical choices narrow as well, so Kim’s opinion of Obama in the primaries is less relevant today. Even Hillary Clinton is (technically at least) on the Obama train these days. That’s just how the system operates. The post was a roundhouse attempt to deny any validity to McCain’s perfectly valid reasons for criticizing his opponent, which is what opponents do. By removing Obama (rhetorically) from the arena of legitimate criticism, she is cheerleading for him in effect. Hey #57, can you follow this? Am I going too fast for you?
Furthermore, in one of Kim’s “substantive” recent posts on the election, her “substantive” summation of McCain was as a “nasty old bugger”.
Lots of nuance there.
I’m not sure how “nuance” crept in here, j_p_z.
Btw, j_p_z, way up the thread Jason started talking about a “new cold war”. In my experience, any time the switch is flicked to “Russia evil” as opposed to “Russia exemplary of democratic gutsiness and market reforms” the cold war frame is wheeled out of the store room and dusted off. Not that we’ve had “Russia exemplary…” etc for a long while – since Yeltsin – but you know what I’m getting at, surely.
The salient difference is not that Russia is now an oligopolistic capitalist autocracy with an ideology of “sovereign democracy” (Putin’s formulation) but that the rhetoric of “lying down in the face of the enemy” is absolutely identical in rhetorical form and political affect/effect.
Btw, when you think about characters like Dick Cheney, it’s possible to suggest that elements of the GOP would like to see America as an oligopolistic capitalist autocracy with an ideology of “sovereign democracy”.
“it’s possible to suggest that elements of the GOP would like to see America as an oligopolistic capitalist autocracy with an ideology of “sovereign democracy”
Hmm, I thought they’d already succeeded with that evil plan. They’re now busy cooking up fresh new ways to ruin the country…
I take your point about trotting out the “cold war” phraseology every time Russia is mentioned. (I don’t believe that’s what McCain was doing, but I’ll get to that below.) It’s a confusion of rhetoric that’s probably to do with laziness of thought patterns. “Cold War” can mean at least two things that are sort of different: a) the long stand-off against globally expansionist Communism, which happened to be led from Russia, or b) a long stand-off without direct engagement against a well-armed and giant but not terribly ideologically driven hostile national power (effectively Russia) without ever directly engaging militarily (hence the “cold” part). The first use is now historically irrelevant, and hopefully never will be relevant again; the second is not without its uses, but since it’s confusing, we should just come up with some new terminology to describe the new situation. I note that even Russian officials have kept on using “cold war” in their sabre rattling replies to US sabre rattling.
FWIW, I don’t think McCain was doing a “red-baiting” thing with his remark. I think he was questioning Obama’s competence and loyalty to his country specifically (as opposed to a kind of vague internationalist One World-ism which Obama has feinted towards quite often). If you look at how some of the better RW blogs in the US have handled the differential, nobody took the “pawn of Moscow” line; people said things like, “Obama is so post-American, he had to go and look up which side his country is supposed to be on.” In that regard, “in sync with Moscow” meant more like “cluelessly on the wrong side because of a lack of national loyalty” rather than the old Cold War tropes. Given BHO’s ludicrous speech in Berlin, this is not a zany position to take, and it’s certainly a part of the brand differential; McCain’s patriotic bona fides are long since past question; Obama’s are a little shaky, to say the least. McCain’s people have got to see that there’s a margin in that. How much of one, time will tell.
Well, to be sure they do. But what’s lurking behind the “lack of patriotism” line, I wonder, j_p_z? It’s partly the whole “not tough soldier type like McCain”, partly “too multilaterist” and also partly “weird and Black and not really American” – segueing into “Muslim sleeper agent” in the back woods if you like.
But I’d be interested – without polemics – to know what you understand by that.
I’d agree the Berlin speech was silly, but from my pov because it was too American. A lot of us in this part of the world don’t want Obama or anyone else to change the world for us! We think it might be better if we were left far more to our own destinies!
“As demonstrated in WW2 when the Americans’ strategy of fighting two wars simultaneously in separate hemispheres failed so spectacularly.”
Well it was the Russkies who did the real bloody heavy lifting in the Western hemisphere part of that war. I also seem to recall the Brits and their Dominions being involved in some way here and there.
Back OT. Who is writing this script? We have one of the most fraught US Presidential elections in decades where “who do you trust to answer the phone at 3am” has emerged as a key meme. Eerily on cue, the US’s old bête noire turns flamboyantly recidivist, daring the potential POTUSI to respond. Right in the middle of the world’s biggest corporate carnival. Not so much conspiracy theory but more some quite global gestalt Jungian shit going down here.
So far both McSame and Obamara have reacted exactly as you’d expect US presidential candidates should. An ill considered and strategically inconsistent flurry of apparently bold statements rapidly and incoherently qualified by their surrogates.
No matter what the US, the EU or NATO do, it’ll continue as another glorious clusterfuck by those wonderful people who brought you Uncle Joe Stalin.
However look on the bright side. I betcha no one is returning Dubya’s calls about what he thinks should be done next.
“McCain’s patriotic bona fides are long since past question; Obama’s are a little shaky, to say the least.”
As the political history of the US (and most other nations who pride themselves on their exceptionalism) makes clear, patriotism alone is no substitute for simple bloody competence in managing an economy, community and global presence.
Mind you, just about everybody, including both Westminster and Whitehall players and the general public, thought Winston Churchill was a completely opportunist jingoist windbag until it came to the crunch.
Perhaps he was! Times maketh the man and all that…
I’ve read quite a few bios of Churchill. Given that such works are apparently at the bedsides of the Bushes and Howards of the world, I’ve wondered what they’ve made of him. Perhaps the lesson they should have drawn was to start drinking before lunch each day?
“Perhaps the lesson they should have drawn was to start drinking before lunch each day?”
And keep changing parties for career reasons.
What are the odds that Putin is plagerising Dubya’s dad. ‘We whipped that Afganistan compex’
… set a good example for Lloyd George and Billy Hughes!
Which forever associates Obama with Goatse.
Read “Five Days In London”
http://www.amazon.com/Five-Days-London-May-1940/dp/0300080301
which convincingly adds to the pile of evidence that Winnie was a last ditch compromise choice as PM.
As Lukuas’ book hints at and other sources make clearer, he got the job in no small part because he had the best back channels to FDR. And also because everyone’s preferred candidate, Halifax, dipped out ‘cos he amongst very few others recognised Winnie had the stamina and passion that the job demanded.
So this old political turncoat blowhard drunk got the gig…and magnificently rose to the occasion.
Which returns me to why his name was mentioned in the first place on this thread. Which is that you never can tell who will blossom when the shit comes down.
Cheers, Nabs, for the suggestion.
What? Some politician was an opportunistic windbag? You’ve shocked me to the core, Sir. My very word, what will my Lord the Archbishop have to say about this, I wonder???
/me is digging Cold War II – it’s like the writing team has gone from George Lucas to Ed Burns and David Simon.
.
JPZ’s got a point here. I’m a cautious supporter of Obama. I saw him for the first time on Letterman years ago and he was very impressive. He talked in a manner I find compatible with the transideological approaches that I’m interested in. Letterman told him he expected one day he’d be president. I thought: Yeah maybe in 20 years.
.
That it’s only been a handful testifies to fact that Obama is outstanding. However he seems to have generated a mania about him and there’s still a lot I don’t understand about how exactly he will approach things. This is despite that fact that he’s clear and firm on many of his policies (declarations to the contrary notwithstanding).
.
In foreign policy terms however we have a choice between Obama and McCain. Well we don’t but the Sepphos do. McCain wants to continue what Bush started. What Bush started is itself a new kind of politics (or perhaps a very old kind).
.
Sorry but after eight years of bullshit talk of democracy while we reintroduce torture and suspend habeas corpus; after all the blunt swagger, after the exclusion of dissenting and/or critical viewpoints, the demonization of opposition, the extortion of the American taxpayer, the loss of so much life and the flagrant carpetbagging I’ll take a chance with Obama.
.
Maybe he’s got not much experience but he did have the brains to realize that Iraq was a stupid idea and the guts to say so.
Your second last paragraph neatly sums up American politics during the past 8 years, Adrien. These people do not deserve the benefit of any doubt.
“These people do not deserve the benefit of any doubt.”
Even were there any.
Not a good look John, getting caught plagiarising Wiki.
[link]
I think JPZ’s point tho’ is that Obama doesn’t deserve the benefit of a complete lack of doubt. I truly hope he’s half as good as he seems to be. For his sake as well as ours but the whole ‘HOPE’ thing irks me a tad.
.
‘Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain’
.
No. Pay attention. Pay lots of it. But McCain? He personally seems decent enough but he’s lame and doesn’t realize that Bush let a couple of tricky Dicky’s loons loose in the Pentagon and they did a big boo-boo.
.
Hope Obama brings Powell and Armitage back in somehow. Those two were savagely marginalized. Sorry boys we’re fightin’ a war we cain’t use you. You got too much combat exper’ance. I think Powell at least wants to make ammends.
.
But whatever. Bush did rude things to the pooch. He needs a spanking.
Here’s the Crikey expert’s take, FWIW.
1 . US plays a shadowy hand in Georgian conflict
By Dr Alexey Muraviev, strategic affairs analyst and Lecturer in International Relations and National Security at Curtin University of Technology.
Georgia’s geographical position makes it vital in a regional game of great power politics. The control of Georgia gives access to the oil and gas rich areas of the Caspian Sea and former Soviet Central Asia. It allows firming up control over the Turkish Straits, a critically important shipping point. And further, it reduces Russia and its influence in some critical areas such as the Balkans, the Mediterranean and the Middle East.
These considerations have driven the United States’ involvement in Georgia’s affairs, and the indirect assistance it has given to Georgia since hostilities commenced on Friday. What’s known for a fact is that United States Air Forces (8 transport aircraft) assisted in redeployment of Georgia’s 2,000 contingent from Iraq back to the country to take part in fighting. Reports suggest some were taken directly from the aircraft to the battleground. Further:
* US provides Georgia with open political and economic support (from what I know they have provided US$ 250,000 in immediate aid);
* The US military logistical support from Iraq included moving 11 tonnes of military cargo; and
* There are unconfirmed reports that US military instructors were involved in the initial assault on Tskhinvali.
That represents indirect military assistance and has not escaped Russia’s attention. “It is a shame that some of our partners are not helping us but, essentially, are hindering us,” Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has said.
Through this prism, the recent conflict in the Caucasus can not be seen as a war between Georgia and Russia. This is a conflict of two great powers over an area that is equally important to both of them.
This is how it unfolded. On the night before the opening of the Olympics in China, Georgian armed forces launched a massive artillery strike on its breakaway province of Southern Ossetia, particularly its regional centre Tskhinvali. After hours of intensive shelling, which also involved the use of 122-mm BM-21 Grad multiple rocket launchers, Georgian Air Force executed several bombing raids in Tskhinvali and several other Ossetian settlements. Under cover of combat aircraft, several Georgian battalions reinforced with tanks raided villages and stormed the capital of Southern Ossetia. The battalion of Russian peacekeepers stationed in Tskhinvali was one of the first to come under intensive bombardment.
After just two days of this campaign, over 1,600 civilians were killed; an excess of 35,000 refugees fearing for their lives fled to Russia. Georgian forces were accused of multiple atrocities against non-combatants. The Russian response was swift and hard. Elements of the 58th Army based in Southern Russia crossed the border and advanced on Tskhinvali; Russian Air Force attacked Georgian positions and several targets across the country; the Russian Black Sea Fleet deployed a taskforce in the vicinity of Georgian coastline.
On Sunday 10 August, Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili publicly declared a ceasefire and announced that his country was pulling forces back from a war zone. Despite these announcements, the Georgian military continued to shell Tskhinvali throughout Monday 11 August with no intention of reducing the level of fighting, let alone stopping it. Also, Georgian forces blew up a major water reservoir outside of Tskhinvali, flooding town basements where locals were seeking refuge from artillery shelling and aerial raids carried out by the Georgian military. Russian citizens in Georgia were denied the right to leave the country.
As well as the US interests at play in Georgia, many regional factors have led to the eruption of violence. After Georgia declared independence in 1991 its new leaders officially proclaimed a policy of nationalism (Georgia is for Georgians) as the new state ideology, thus triggering separatism in several enclaves largely populated by ethic minorities that do not comprise Georgian ethnos. Southern Ossetia was one of them. It intended to reconcile with its northern part (Northern Ossetia, which is part of Russia), and the socio-economic incentives (the standard of living in Russia is much higher than in Georgia) led to a situation when over 90% of South Ossetians were granted Russian citizenship. This fact alone gave the Russians a reason to intervene militarily.
However, Russia’s reaction can be explained not just by protecting its citizens and peacekeepers (Russia has received a mandate to run a peacekeeping operation in Abkhaziya and Southern Ossetia in 1992). Historically, Georgia and the Caucasus was one of Russia’s traditional spheres of interest and influence, not just economic and political but more importantly, cultural. Both the Georgians and Ossetians share the same faith as the Russians — Christian Orthodoxy. These strong cultural ties explain Russia’s presence in the area: the nation acted as the guarantor and protector of the local Orthodox Christians against the Islamic Ottoman Empire.
These considerations brought Mikhail Saakashvili to power in November 2003 during the orchestrated “Revolution of Roses” (effectively a planned regime change). When you add Georgia’s ambitions of joining NATO sooner rather than later and its close ties with the United States, you can start to understand Georgia’s actions in Southern Ossetia and the US reaction to Russia’s counter-attack.
A critique of the lack of connection between reality and fantasy in the hyperbole of bellicose commentators:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/georgia.russia1?gusrc=rss&feed=commentisfree
“I think JPZ’s point tho’ is that Obama doesn’t deserve the benefit of a complete lack of doubt.”
Yes, but I don’t see anyone here giving him any such benefit, so I thought the point, such as it was, was redundant.
A very interesting article Lefty E. As usual the reality is more complex and messy than the empty rhetoric of most politicians and their acolytes would like us to believe.
I think poor Japerz is suffering through blanket campaign coverage, and is forced to choose between Fox and Obama-hagiography 24/7. He might want to remember that we don’t have to answer for either, and we got ourselves a (verging on un-) healthy sense of cynicism about the US electoral system throwing up anyone who’s uncompromised and beyond reproach.
I would prescribe going out and seeing more bands, but I’m sure he knows his business.
Well no. But it is happening. And people here would be helping it happen even if they aren’t saying so. I think it’s valid to bring up the Cult of Personality whenever someone’s following begins to resemble something religious. Obama kinda does. Hope is a religious concept. I’m cynical about hope. But at the same time I hope he is what he appears to be.
.
.
Perhaps democracy would function better if people were more concerned about their own side’s standards of leadership and policy then the other’s.
.
Mark -
.
You really like the word ‘bellicose’ don’t you? Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Nick @ 78:
I have said more about this elsewhere, but to me the disturbing thing has little to do with plagiarism and lots to do with the fact that the moderately cashed-up Presidential campaign of a Senator had to turn to Wikipedia for expertise on international affairs.
Mark: re that James Poulos article you linked @ 81.
It’s funny in that otherwise excellent analysis he contrasts the Russian threat with Iran … because one thing you can expect in the aftermath of this event, is that Iran and the USA will soon reach an accommodation over Iraq (i.e. an ostensible deal on the Iranian nuclear program). Iran needs to secure it’s northern frontier against Russian influence & America needs the troops back for both use in Afghanistan and elsewhere (e.g. shoring up various alliances against the Russians and Chinese – as you quoted @37, it needs to return to wielding potential threat rather than carrying out actual ones). To get all this, they both need a settlement in Iraq – the USA to get its soldiers back, Iran to secure it’s western borderlands. They may even kiss and make friends. Iran will be allowed to be the natural hegemon in the Persian Gulf (which is its own view of itself) in exchange for co-operation on the Russian southern frontier and to the north-west. In other words, the great game has returned.
But all talk of outright conflict with Russia over Georgia is laughable. There is no military confrontation to be had here. Russia has already won – it has already secured de-facto Ossetian independence (shortly followed by de jure independence I don’t doubt) and will affect ‘regime change’ in Tblisi to something more to its liking.
Definately!
“Hope is a religious concept. I’m cynical about hope.”
Hope was the last of the evils out of Pandora’s jar.
Yes, it’s a good word!
Tyro at 86, yes, good point about Iran.
Someone made exactly this point on an Obama stoush at Catallaxy a few weeks back.
.
Tyro – I’m not sure if we can rely on the Iranian govt to act rationally in this respect. I’m not even sure what constitutes the Iranian Govt. I’m not sure they know.
“Tyro – I’m not sure if we can rely on the Iranian govt to act rationally in this respect. I’m not even sure what constitutes the Iranian Govt. I’m not sure they know.”
In what way have they _not_ been playing the game rationally? The move to escalate their nuclear program, the apparent threats to Israel, all these things rationally ratcheting up the tension just when they needed to do that in order to impress on the Americans the exact position the Americans found themselves in. The deal between the USA and Iran is very nearly made – they are onto the fine points and small print, from all indications from both camps.
See also one of Robert McNamara’s dictums: “rationality will not save us”.
If Super powers, Great powers, Regional powers and Countries of influence acted rationally, the world wouldn’t be in the state it’s in now.
Tyro – My observations of Iranian governmentality and its ‘madness’ are based on a few things all shakey for the very simple reason that there’s a limit to how much I as a citizen of a Western country currently in a state of war against Islamic Jihadists can objectively understand. Truth, the first casualty and all that.
.
But Itan is a theocracy which means that its political decisions, justice apparatus foreign policy stance and the rest are mixed up with ideas of an eshatological religion which regards Armageddon as both inevitable and desirable. They’re not alone here. I did once upon a time indulge in a masochistic taste for American Christians who thought nook’lar war was hot diggety dog.
.
Iran’s drive to acquire nukes is wholly within the purview of rationality. Israel has them, America has them. They are massively deadly. Anyone’ll think twice before invading a country with nukes. On the other hand the Iranian president will categoricaly deny historical facts because it’s convenient to his position that Israel’s existence is some kind of Big Evil. Well it ain’t been much fun for the Palestinian Arabs but somehow I don’t think the Iranians are actually helping or even sincerely want to.
.
If you take the next world more seriously than this one, if you’re willing to suicidely deploy nuclear weaponry in order to gain Paradise -that could be a problem.
.
There’re limits to ‘rationality’ in many ways it’s more dangerous than what’s come before. However the basis of it is we act because we have reasons, hopefully good ones.
Heh! You’re joking, right, Adrien?
Its form of government is much more complex than a simple theocracy and I think you need to read up on the varieties of Islam a bit more!
Perhaps you need to live in an Islamic country or two like I have.
.
Iran’s government is actually not very well understood by us. (or them?) There’s the military, there’s the clerical authorities, there’s the State somehow. How these interact; who has the authority to do what is sort of baffling to us. I didn’t say it was a simple theocracy. Theocracies can be complicated too. They still suck.
No. What I meant was, besides being literally at war in Afghanistan for reasons not entirely unrelated to Jihadism, we have a foreign policy posture of being aligned against this ‘Jihadism’. Jihadism is portrayed in the media as the Big Evil (always helps to have one of those) and the information we get is thus distorted. As in: the first casualty of war is truth. Or in other words the bullshit is impeding our understanding. Ours and theirs.
.
Our agitprop says they’re evil and they’re batshit. Their’s probably says something similar. But I do have certain doubts about a country whose justice system will hang a teenage girl because she fought off killed a rapist in self-defence. I also think that when said country is thought to be nutso by another country which practises similar arcania – might be a worry.
T Rex @88
“Hope was the last of the evils out of Pandora’s jar”
Pedantic, I know, and possibly off topic but my recollection of the story is that Hope was the only thing left in Pandora’s Box. All the other evils (is “hope” an evil?) escaped before Pandora was able to close the lid.
Hope is a delusion loaded with lies in the world-view of the myth of Prometheus as told by Hesiod (Pandora was made of clay and sent as a punishment for Prometheus’ gift of fire to the mortals).
“55 Mark
Aug 12th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Down and Out at 50, I’m not surprised by the political dynamic here. The Russians make it appear they’re going to go further, and then halt, having achieved their real objective, while allowing the Americans and others to save face and spin it as being somehow related to their calls for restraint.”
Comment: I’m not surprised at all. The backstory is going to be very interesting, but we will wait months before we know much of it (leaks will start within a couple of days).
But first, what happened?
I am afraid that the ‘Crikey’ expert’s take is well-reported by Lefty E (post 80 and Kudos are deserved) but that it is very much off beam. The best condensed version of events is from Stratfor:
In this simple chronicle, there is something quite mysterious: Why did the Georgians choose to invade South Ossetia on Thursday night? There had been a great deal of shelling by the South Ossetians of Georgian villages for the previous three nights, but while possibly more intense than usual, artillery exchanges were routine. The Georgians might not have fought well, but they committed fairly substantial forces that must have taken at the very least several days to deploy and supply. Georgia’s move was deliberate.
The United States is Georgia’s closest ally. It maintained about 130 military advisers in Georgia, along with civilian advisers, contractors involved in all aspects of the Georgian government and people doing business in Georgia. It is inconceivable that the Americans were unaware of Georgia’s mobilization and intentions. It is also inconceivable that the Americans were unaware that the Russians had deployed substantial forces on the South Ossetian frontier. U.S. technical intelligence, from satellite imagery and signals intelligence to unmanned aerial vehicles, could not miss the fact that thousands of Russian troops were moving to forward positions. The Russians clearly knew the Georgians were ready to move. How could the United States not be aware of the Russians? Indeed, given the posture of Russian troops, how could intelligence analysts have missed the possibility that the Russians had laid a trap, hoping for a Georgian invasion to justify its own counterattack?
It is very difficult to imagine that the Georgians launched their attack against U.S. wishes. The Georgians rely on the United States, and they were in no position to defy it. This leaves two possibilities. The first is a massive breakdown in intelligence, in which the United States either was unaware of the existence of Russian forces, or knew of the Russian forces but — along with the Georgians — miscalculated Russia’s intentions. The second is that the United States, along with other countries, has viewed Russia through the prism of the 1990s, when the Russian military was in shambles and the Russian government was paralyzed. The United States has not seen Russia make a decisive military move beyond its borders since the Afghan war of the 1970s-1980s. The Russians had systematically avoided such moves for years. The United States had assumed that the Russians would not risk the consequences of an invasion.
If this was the case, then it points to the central reality of this situation: The Russians had changed dramatically, along with the balance of power in the region. They welcomed the opportunity to drive home the new reality, which was that they could invade Georgia and the United States and Europe could not respond. As for risk, they did not view the invasion as risky. Militarily, there was no counter. Economically, Russia is an energy exporter doing quite well — indeed, the Europeans need Russian energy even more than the Russians need to sell it to them. Politically, as we shall see, the Americans needed the Russians more than the Russians needed the Americans. Moscow’s calculus was that this was the moment to strike. The Russians had been building up to it for months, as we have discussed, and they struck.
So the two most dysfunctional agencies in the US govt (State Dept and CIA) look to have really screwed the pooch on this one. Bad boys… perhaps they should have been looking after their nations’s interests rather than playing ‘we hate Bush too’ games. A cleanout is needed when such agencies act in this manner irrespective of who is in power. Bureaucrats MUST stay out of internal political games.
From what we can see here, it looks like the US (Pentagon and executive) responded quickly and well to the sh*t sandwich the Russians and the 2 agencies above presented to them: massive US pressure and NATO proxy pressure has been applied to the Russians. When the Baltic States, Poland and Ukraine all send very senior people indeed on ’surprise inspections’ of their embassies/consulates in Tbilisi, something really is up. The Russians appear to have been forced by this pressure to stop literally in their tracks. That’s not voluntary, but it looks like they expected it, and shifted to plan B (maybe a little early).
Just how fast the ‘new NATO’ states responded is also a sign of something; again, part of the backstory. The best guess is that the Russian cyberattack on Georgia which started about a month ago warned the Baltics (who fought a bitter cyberwar with the Russians last year) that something was up. It certainly explains why Talinn sent their first team in a couple of weeks ago.
While that cyberattack is now escalating (lots of RBN botnets getting into the fray… but no attacks on US-hosted Georgian sites yet) and the FSB agitprop boys are all over every site discussing this (go see UK Telegraph, Gruniard and Times – playing spot-the-FSB-apparatchik is fun, and instructive). HOW they torment the moonbats, who the FSB are ‘playing’ very well but to what end (other than justifying their paycheques) is not hard to see: the meme is ‘blame the west’. The Gruniard moonbats are all on board with that anyway. Obviously, the moonbats do not understand what is really going on, they think that the FSB guys are either the vast right-wing conspiracy come out of the woodwork or fellow travellers: their natural inclination is to blame the US/West/Halliburton/the neocon VRWC de jour for everything anyway, so they are breathtakingly easy to co-opt to the FSB’s memes. It is fascinating to see how fast the ‘useful idiots’ can be turned to supporting the Russian invasion. The Russians have taken the old KGB’s media manipulation to new heights. Cue a standing ovation I suppose. But at least we can see their tactics now.
If you see a strange handle extolling those memes here, you have the FSB frolicking in your sandpit.
It is a most instructive case of cyber-propaganda and agitprop to watch, the first open distributed agitprop attack I have been able to follow in such detail. Their operational techniques are being refined before your eyes. Amazing and disturbing scenes indeed.
But the kinetic attack has ceased while the next step (humiliating terms including Russian defacto annexation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia) – and there’s no good explanation for the timing fracture of that as yet. The Russian ‘negotiating position’ is a little too hurried, looks like they are being forced ahead of their game plan. Something apparently forced Putin to abandon his first approach to his primary aim, the destruction of the Shakashvili-led Georgian democracy. Putin is a classic autocrat, so that something had to have made him realise that game was not worth the candle, and to settle for second prize now, with a plan B to get thje main prize. So he is scrambling to reposition in order to nail Shakashvili, and Georgian democracy with him.
In essence, the Georgians played into their hands but have salvaged a their immediate short term aim (survival of Georgia) and the Russians already have their longer term secondaries (a nice spike to Putins nationalist credentials, popularity at home, a message to the ‘near abroad’ that has claws and sharp fangs, a powerful message of ‘old NATO’ (read EU) impotence, an increased measure of control over oil supplies to Europe and so forth).
BTW. Worth noting (you probably saw this on the news) was the presence of 155mm SPG in the Russian lead elements. [i]Nobody[/i] puts 155mm SPG there, behind the recon elements of an armoured advance! These are expensive, scarce, defenceless systems which you put at the 1/3 range and 2/3 range depths behind their own maximum range. They should be no closer than ~4k from the recon line. So that event was staged. Now when one looks at the map where the Russians are, it’s obvious what they are doing there and why their SPG figured so prominently in video footage. The Russians have the pipeline thru Georgia within 155 range. The message to both the Georgians and EU cannot be plainer. “Ahem. EU? You know those pipelines that got your energy to you without it passing through Russia? Well, BOHICA boys and girls! We have some bad news!”
The central European fallout is going to be fascinating. Meetings are already happening in Warsaw. The Polish-Baltic states-Ukrainian push for ‘new NATO’ arrangements now have an added twist plus a layer of urgency.
So Putin and Medvedev called the West’s bluff. Russia is flush with oil revenue and is a rallying point for those who want leverage in an anti-Western agenda. You’ll have noticed that for the last five years, its foreign policy has been: “Whatever the United States is for, we oppose.” Hence the FSB memes to which the moonbats are being co-opted. Watch for the ‘It was all the USA’s fault’ articles and you know that the FSB memestorm has co-opted the western media too, it’s a very nice play. Wish we were that sophisticated.
The geopolitical message is crystal clear to NATO and the ‘near abroad (the former Soviet Republics). ‘Do not even think about NATO membership, and the EU is a broken reed’. The Georgian invasion shows ‘old NATO’s’ weakness. The irony is spectacular.
If Georgia had been a NATO member, invoking Article V’s promise of mutual assistance in time of war would have destroyed the alliance, because it would be seen to be empty. Would the Germans send troops to fight Russian invaders in a NATO-allied Georgia? As it is, NATO is revealed as a Potemkin alliance.
Putin had seized a chance to reclaim prestige and weaken his adversaries. There is no downside for him now. He has shown the EU’s vaunted soft power to be actually far worse than useless because their touching belief in it led them to neglect their hard power. Putin does not give a damn about the UN, EU or any European finger wagging, moralising gasbag from Brussels,Geneva or London. After all, they lost no sleep over the destruction of Grozny, and moralising lectures do not stop Motor Rifle divisions. The US has been backed into a corner, and the near abroad knows that Russia is back as a regional power. With just a couple of divisions, Putin has browbeaten the FSU republics, made them think long and hard about joining the West, stopped NATO cold and shown the EU to be a broken reed. The only thing salvaged from the wreckage (probably by the USA acting in concert with Turkey) has been the actual existence of Georgia. For how long… well, we’ll see. And Putin will have a long game to reabsorb or at least Finlandise them.
Just splendid news – not. We have a big welcome back to the Russian Empire, something that usually ends very badly for lots of people. They never did play nice, those guys. Wonder how the ’stans are feeling tonight? The word is that they are crapping broken glass.
MarkL
Canberra
The US has allowed/encouraged these events to be crystallised in ways that are disadvantageous in the short term for US prestige. But the US has many resources at its disposal that can prevent the demise of Georgian sovereignty. The fact that Russia has no credible political client in Georgia undermines imperialist ambitions.
In addition to the fact that Russia shares with the US world-ending capabilities. This is the elephant in the room that no one wants to mention.
Possibly true. Though I suspect that the Georgia episode was made Poland even more determined to host those anti-missile missiles. Russia has already warned that they regard the deployment of these missiles as an act of war a la Cuba 1962. The timetable for deployment of those missiles sets the scene for a doomsday scenario.
Katz,
Do you mean that Russia now believes the stationing of Soviet offensive missiles on Cuban soil in 1962 was an act of war against the USA? As JFK and RFK and the US govt regarded it?
And by drawing that analogy, do the Russian leaders justify their putting extreme pressure on the Poles? Do you have a suggestion for an analogue of the 1962 US naval blockade + diplomatic pressure? Or would you prefer the Russians do their own military planning without benefit of your advice?
When we discussed Fidel and Cuba on LP many months ago, I formed the impression that you thought Fidel had done wonderfully well in 1962 by hosting the Soviet missiles. Now you write “The timetable for deployment of those missiles sets the scene for a doomsday scenario.”
I hope you’re not suggesting
“Soviet-missiles-good
Yankee-missiles-bad”
- you’re not, are you??
It’s not an analogy. It’s a parallel.
I’m not aware of any present Russian leaders mentioning Cuba 1962. That is my invention signifying nothing more than a piece of historical shorthand, like Munich 1938 is often invoked.
Do you seriously think I’m trying to advise the Russians? More worryingly, do you seriously think that the Russians would take any advice I might give them?
You’ll have to clarify what you mean by “wonderfully well”.
NUCLEAR PHYSICS UPDATE
As far as we can tell, fissioning nuclei are unaware of regional disputes, ethnic cleansing, diplomatic pressures, trade sanctions, bombast, artillery fire, rumbling tanks, patriotic fervour, bloodstained bicycles, or the price of energy.
GLOBAL DIPLOMACY UPDATE
Katz correctly points out that the US and Russia are nuclear weapons powers, armed to the teeth. Truly an elephant in the room. At times of crisis, when the nuclear sabres are rattled (hence getting lots of folks rattled), it comes as a nasty surprise to realise that not enough nations have done the hard yards to REDUCE the risks of the use of nuclear weapons with all the threats to person’s livelihoods they entail.
Katz, you wrote: “I’m not aware of any present Russian leaders mentioning Cuba 1962. That is my invention signifying nothing more than a piece of historical shorthand, like Munich 1938 is often invoked.”
If it’s simply your invention, that’s fine. But just a bit earlier you also wrote: “Russia has already warned that they regard the deployment of these missiles as an act of war a la Cuba 1962.”
I assumed you were quoting recent Russian leaders. If not, I apologise unreservedly for any offence given, by my misunderstanding your earlier post. You have checkmated me. I withdraw.
Further, I will not “have to” clarify anything, Katz. I was referring to a lengthy debate conducted on LP a long time ago; I don’t wish to bore other readers witless by re-hashing that. This is not, BTW, a concession that your expressions of ‘empathy’ for Fidel and his missile-hosting etc etc etc were things I now concede were justified.
Thanks Ambigulous.
Empathy is a widely misunderstood habit of mind.
While that cyberattack is now escalating (lots of RBN botnets getting into the fray… but no attacks on US-hosted Georgian sites yet) and the FSB agitprop boys are all over every site discussing this (go see UK Telegraph, Gruniard and Times – playing spot-the-FSB-apparatchik is fun, and instructive).
How gullible are you MarkL…I wouldn’t trust a thing that comes out of those media sources. One only needs to look at the American instigators & their supporting media to know this is another MANUFACTURED conflict.
“How gullible are you MarkL”
Hint: Said MarkL was/is an ardent supporter of the invasion of Iraq.
MarkL – if the FSB were trolling all these discussion boards, then they were good. They pulled off an awesome impersonation of how Russian RWDBs would troll English discussion boards. They had it all – monotonous and repetitive arguments, spelling and grammatical mistakes, character encoding issues (where the original Cyrillic would come out garbled). They even took the trouble to throw in a few anti-Semitic posts, knowing full well that they’d be deleted in minutes. They had the impression down pat.
Or perhaps most of the posters were actual Russian commentators – readers of the Russian equivalents of Bolt and Blair. Who would ‘ave thunk?
I don’t deny that FSB would have helped things if needed. But they don’t. There are a lot of ‘patriotic’ men and women at Nashi to start the trolling, and then things went viral from there.
Hello all,
Here’s another analysis on the Russia-Georgia shenanigans. Only this one addresses the machinations of the “hidden hands” behind this and other dastardly events.
It’s time for people to wake-up to the true nature of the world leaders that have set this thing into motion. It is far more deceptive, contrived, and sinister than most would believe. That is why I have been patiently setting a very unique trap for these snakes. Take the time to understand and then hold their feet to the fire !!!
Time to get a clue, before its too late…
Peace and Wisdom…