Should we be surprised the Russophobe Holbrooke turns a blind eye to how U.S. meddling has made this bad situation so much worse?

Let's see: Elect Obama and liberal internationalists like Holbrooke drive the foreign policy ship. Elect McCain and the neocons drive the foreign policy ship. Neither scenario bodes well for U.S.-Russian relations. Why is common sense on Russia limited to the fringes?

It's truly remarkable how all these foreign policy experts can talk about a situation while totally ignoring crucial drivers.

I liken the Georgian situation to Panama circa 1989. The US invaded Panama and carried out regime change on the weakest of pretexts: safeguarding the lives of U.S. citizens, defending democracy and human rights, combating drug trafficking, and protecting the neutrality of the Panama canal.

What was it really about? Any informed person would have had to realize it was about US domination of the Panama Canal. But by reading the news back then, it was hard to be informed. "News" organizations did everything they could to promote the idea that it was about anything but the canal.

Now all these experts are writing all this blather about the history of Georgian-Russian relations, blah, blah, blah. While it is all probably factually correct, it all just a lot of noise, since it misses the point, just like press coverage of the Panama Invasion.

The real issue is the BTC pipeline and who gets to control the flow of oil and gas from the Caspian to the West. It's vitally important to Russia's power and her role in the world.

But most "analyses" barely touch on this subject. When you see "analyses" like these, you realize the foreign policy establishment's almost maniacal commitment to obfuscating the real, underlying foreign policy issues from the public...just like they doggedly hid the role that oil played in the invasion of Iraq.

Please before going into what the US should have done and what the US should do, can you outline what does the region mean strategically to the US? What long term outcome(s) would be in US interests?

- Independent Ossetia and Abkhazia?
- Russia also in NATO?
- NATO all along Russia's flank?
- An economic union of East European states?
- Doesn't matter as long as whatever happens happens without war

etc., etc.

Only if we know where we want to go do we have a chance of getting there, is it not? While you and the other experts may have ideas, it is not at all clear to me and others.

Once we know what the US interests are, then we can evaluate how past US actions are in line with those interests and what future actions ought to be.

Curious Observer gets it exactly right. The reality is that the Bush/McCain neocons and the Clinton/Obama liberal internationalists are just two sides of the same coin.

The Clinton Administration, with Holbrooke as one of the key players, pursued a policy towards Russia that was almost as bad as the Bush policy. It's true; they didn't abrogate the ABM treaty or place a missile defense system in Poland or the Czech Republic. But the Holbrooke policy of blaming Serbia for everything that went wrong in the Balkans while giving a free pass to Croatia and Bosnia was sure to embarrass the Russians (who at the time, were a powerless economic basket case.) And the Clinton administration was as enthusiastic about expanding NATO as the Bush administration is. (NATO expansion should have stopped permanently with Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic).

I really hate to admit it, but the last President to manage a successful relationship with Russia/Soviet Union may have been George H.W. Bush.

What we can anticipate from a McCain foreign policy is even worse. Certainly he would be more bellicose than Obama, but without any leverage over the Russians, this bellicosity would just hide a policy that's equally feckless.

Of course, Russian adventurism and the restoration of its military capabilities are fueled by oil that's selling for more than $130 per barrel. Senator McCain's delusion that he can drill our way out of our energy problems without doing anything else, must be music to Russian ears. As long as oil prices stay high, the Russian military will be getting more and more modern and Russia will be increasingly tempted to redress all of the perceived slights it has suffered since the end of the Cold War.

PS: Holbrooke says this:

"Beginning a well-planned war (including cyber-warfare) as the Olympics were opening violates the ancient tradition of a truce to conflict during the Games. And Russia's willingness to create a war zone 25 miles from the Black Sea city of Sochi, where it is to host the Winter Games in 2014, hardly demonstrates its commitment to Olympic ideals."

Has the US declared a truce in Iraq or Afghanistan in honor of the Olympics that I don't know about?

I can look at a map of the Black Sea. I know a little bit about Russian history. I know about the EUs utter dependence on Russia for energy. So why do we have such utter amateurs running our foreign policy and making these stupid miscalculations with horrible consequences for ordinary people??

Arun said, "Only if we know where we want to go do we have a chance of getting there, is it not? While you and the other experts may have ideas, it is not at all clear to me and others." Exactly.

But the last thing you will get from these self-proclaimed foreign policy "experts" is an honest, public discussion about America's "vital strategic interests." After years trying in vain to get Steve to define them in Iraq then Iran, I concluded that the foreign policy mafia consists largely of propagandists and polemists, not serious analysts.

If the "experts" can't clearly identify the stakes, and instead resort only to circumlocation, distraction, and deception, their commitment is not to serious analysis, but to a hidden agenda, serving the interests of an unknown, anti-democratic few.

I think Russia is a compulsive obsessive disorder for the US policy establishment.

And I really think one of the stupidest things in our history was the pissy US attitude toward Russia after WII and setting them up as an enemy.
What a waste! If there was one country in the world I would choose to ally with it would be Russia.

If the US neocons and their "democracy ruse" were gotten rid of the US could actually make some alliances that would provide some stability in the world.

Just for the record, both the first Bush and the Clinton administrations went out of their way to avoid humiliating the Soviet and later the Russian government while the Communist empire was disintegrating.

They both went beyond eschewing triumphalist rhetoric as captive nations were freed and the Russian army withdrew; they also declined to engage in post-mortems about Soviet Communism and the damage it had done both to Russia and around the world. The elder Bush's administration was so tight with Gorbachev that Yeltsin's rise took it by surprise; Clinton's personal relationship with Yeltsin was so close that the United States ended up getting blamed in Russia for Yeltsin policies we had nothing to do with (and blamed elsewhere as well. Even today, some of the guerillas battling NATO forces in Afghanistan today are Chechens displaced by Russian offensives that the American government did not approve but about which it was mostly silent out of deference to Russian opinion). The current Bush administration has generally continued this line.

There is much reason to doubt the wisdom of the course pursued by Clinton and the elder Bush, but the fact is that Russia and its current strongman would have little reason to feel humiliated if they did not consider the imperial, global superpower status enjoyed by the Soviet Union in the 1960s and '70s to be the norm. The problem is that this is what Putin and many other Russians do think.

Now, I understand that even for most politically engaged Americans, events in the Caucasus are not a focus of great concern. They will see such events as they do most foreign affairs, through the prism of American domestic politics. Were Georgia an antagonist of the current American administration and Bush as close to Putin as, say, Yeltsin was to Bill Clinton, some of the commenters here exchanging congratulations about an American ally getting its well-deserved comeuppance would be beside themselves with outrage over a dictator "propped up" by the United States violating the territory of his tiny neighbor.

Steve Clemons does not have that excuse, and it is passing strange to read someone with his level of sophistication about foreign affairs writing about Russia and America and castigating America's lack of self-reflection -- as if Vladimir Putin or anyone working for him had ever come to terms with the reasons why Russia's neighbors dread it so much. Of course, Russia is for the moment stronger than it was ten years ago; its interests deserve the same consideration any normal country's would. But normal countries do not look for pretexts to send armored divisions across their neighbors' borders, especially when their neighbors are former colonies. Russia has done this before, and is doing it again now.

I very much doubt whether the careful eggshell-walking Steve Clemons seems to recommend will prevent Russia from doing later elsewhere what it is doing now in Georgia. I wonder where he draws the line beyond which we should not accomodate whatever Putin claims Russia's interests to be. The fact that sending a Russian army across the Georgian border only makes him regret the way the United States recognized Kosovo's independence makes me wonder if he would draw such a line at all, anywhere.

The noise machine is in full song. Widely conflicting perspectives have been advertised and sold, and commentors are now fighting each other, occupying salients that are too distant from each other to be mutually true. This is as it should be in America 2008: muddy the waters, obfuscate, keep America #1 in the hearts and minds.

History has inertia and can't be disregarded, no matter how much the N-Cons would like to be able to gift their own created reality to eveyone else.

Hard data on the events would be helpful, but there's not much reportage, and many are interested in altering the timeline to their benefit.

If Georgia attacked a city, and Russia, as the assigned peacekeeper (what a concept for Americans to swallow), stepped in to stop that attack, then the Bush Cheney Rice line is BS. This seems to me to clearly be the case, based on blogs and comments of people who clearly seem to have a handle on that part of the world, and what news there is. If all those were missing, and I had to rely on US media (what a disheartenning thought) I'd still think the same thing, if for no other reason than the simplistic explanation of Bush/Cheney for the Georgia surprise has is not backed by any previous analytic success.

Cheney says Russia's move must not go unanswered. I think Dick should go to Georgia and figure it out on the spot. He'd have to get permission from Putin, of course, so that he and his porta potty could get there in one piece. Once he has triumphed there, he should stop by Baghdad on the return and stay there til he fixed that one too.

All the foreign policy experts sound very much like a bunch of blind men trying to describe an elephant. That's very sad when innocent people are dying in Georgia and American citizens will be paying for these foreign policy and military mistakes for decades to come.

All the foreign policy experts sound very much like a bunch of blind men trying to describe an elephant. That's very sad when innocent people are dying in Georgia and American citizens will be paying for these foreign policy and military mistakes for decades to come.

Booman has a good take on the Holbrook position. Basically, he is saying that whatever culpability that the US had in starting this war (which most of us here seem to accept) is irrelevant, what is most important is the that US must defend its position in the Caucasus that had been built by BushI and Clinton. Booman argues, correctly it seems to me, that the US foreign policy establishment, from both parties, believe that vital US interests require us to support Saaskashvilli. This is not just another neocon scam.

I agree. But it also is likely true that the Iraq War fiasco has so weakened the US, that there is nothing the US can do today in Georgia to help out Saaskashvilli. Holbrooke, needs to realize that it is not 1999 anymore, we live in a new era, one that Bush has bequeathed us. Booman entitled his piece "Georgia is a reality check on the left". A more accurate title should have been "Georgia is a reality check on Holbrooke". I have thought for some time that Breczezinki (sp?) realized this early and it was the reason he has been so outspoken against the Iraq policies.

What JamesL said.

Plus, the ethnic and seperatist angle is interesting:

Ossetians are a distinct (*) Iranic ethnic group whose origin lies along the Don River. They came to the Caucasus after they were driven out of their homeland by Mongol invasions in the 13th century.
Some of them settled in territory now known as North Ossetia, which is now part of Russia, and South Ossetia,[30] which is recognised by all members of the United Nations as part of Georgia.

South Ossetia currently has a Georgian ethnic minority of about one fifth (14,000) of the total population (70,000).[31]

(*) Iranic Peoples
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Iranian people[1] are a collection of ethnic groups,[2][3] defined along linguistic lines as speaking Iranian languages.[4] They are spread across the Iranian plateau, stretching from the Hindu Kush to central Anatolia and from Central Asia to the Persian Gulf - a region that is sometimes termed Greater Iran.[5] Speakers of Iranian languages, however, were once found throughout Eurasia, from the Balkans to western China.[6][7] As Iranian peoples are not confined to the borders of the current state of Iran, the term Iranic peoples is sometimes used to avoid confusion with the citizens of Iran.
The series of ethnic groups which comprise the Iranian peoples are traced to a branch of the ancient Indo-European Aryans known as the Iranians or Proto-Iranians. Archaeological finds in Russia, Central Asia and the Middle East have elucidated some scant information about the way of life of these early peoples. The Iranian peoples have played an important role throughout history: the Achaemenid Persians established one of the world's first multi-national states and the Scythian-Sarmatian nomads dominated the vast expanses of Russia and western Siberia for centuries with a group of Sarmatian warrior women possibly being the inspiration for the Greek legend of the Amazons.[8][9] In addition, the various religions of the Iranian peoples, including Zoroastrianism and Manichaeism, are believed by some scholars to be important early philosophical influences on Judeo-Christianity.[10] Early Iranian tribes are the ancestors of many modern peoples, including Persians, Kurds, Pashtuns and many other groups.

According to the news the majority of Ossetians hold Russians passports and numbers of them are fleeing to Russia as refugees.

Also Israel appears to have some kind of dog in this hunt so maybe this is another Isr'merica Neo enterprize.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1010187.html

"Jewish Georgian minister: Thanks to Israeli training, we're fending off Russia"

At any rate ..here's your typical plea/cause in circulating in the press straight out of the neo talking points play book.."the whole world is in danger" if we don't aid the actions of "democratic" Georgia...LOL:

"One of the Georgian parliament members did not settle Saturday for the call for American aid, urging Israel to help stop the Russian offensive as well: "We need help from the UN and from our friends, headed by the United States and Israel. Today Georgia is in danger – tomorrow all the democratic countries in the region and in the entire world will be in danger too."

The gist of what I have gotten so far is that Georgia invaded South Ossetia claiming that South Ossetia created some incident on it's borders. Then Russia stepped in to back up it's peacekeeping forces in the region. If I have this wrong someone correct me.

This confict strikes me as the same old shit stirring by the US. Saakashvili has been led down the garden path.

As Kennan, noted in the late 1990s, the expansion of NATO was a bipartisan disaster. Richard Holbrook, Booman, Bush, and Clinton, and the neocons, and anyone else for that matter, that wants to suck us into defending the territorial integrity of Georgia can shit in their hats...with all due respect.

The two parties have lead us to disaster with their foreign policy consensus. From the Balkans to Iraq, and most points in between. And among the many consequences of this disaster, has been a drop in the standard of living for Americans. And particularly the middle class. If Holbrook, Booman, and the neocons want action.....let them call, today, for re-instituting the draft. That will stop this talk dead in its tracks.

The United States needs to stand by her ally (Georgia) in this conflict with the Russians. The term ally would cease to have any meaning lest we get actively involved in stopping this slaughter. It's an obvious attempt for Russia to re-claim what she lost post 1991. They are targeting civilians, the airport,the whole Georgian population. If there was ever a righteous time to stand up for a proven and stategically vital friend then it is now. Lets show the world who we truly are. The Russians are nothing more than bullies..always have been, always will be , unless we stand by our Georgian allies. They proved themselves with America by standing by us in Iraq...

It seems to me that in encouraging the breakup of Yugoslavia and then Serbia (and perhaps the Kurds in Iraq?) we've set the stage for many more of these minority breakaways and subsequent wars, ethnic cleansings and genocides.

Is this what we want? Should we not be encouraging federal states, economic unions, and general Western Europe-type arrangements so that people can preserve their own language, culture, religion and so on and yet not feel threatened by who lives where? Should not the USA be the last to support and encourage these narrow nationalisms?

Kudos to Brzezinski for honesty and clarity: "In brief, the stakes are very significant. At stake is access to oil as that resource grows ever more scarce and expensive and how a major power conducts itself in our newly interdepedent world, conduct that should be based on accommodation and consensus, not on brute force."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-gardels/brzezinski-russias-invasi_b_118029.html

Shame on the other foreign policy experts, who refuse to acknowledge the obvious. The industrialized world is kept on life support today by a vast network of indefensible feeding tubes, AKA pipelines and shipping routes. A reality check and public discussion of the industrialized world's vulnerabilities are long past due. But most foreign policy experts won't broach the subject. Are they afraid of offending their sugar daddies in Houston?

Interesting background on the Iranic peoples. Noticed that the 2000 Georgian troops just withdrawn from Iraq were facing off against Iran, now they return to fight own Persians. Historic, ethnic hatred in evidence here?

For a little images perspective here are some photos from Boston Globe. For instance these rockets the Georgians was shooting at Tskhinvali the 8 of august.

http://cache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/georgia_08_11/georgia15.jpg

I'd say this is a war with no right or wrong side but in need of an honest broker. Unfortunately there's no one around.

Btw, I find it hard to believe that the American military commanders of the exercise who left about a week before the Georgians stormed Tskhinvali had no idea about what was going on.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2008/07/200871515107741998.html

Or the IDF vets who until recently was training the Georgian special forces.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1010230.html

Knowing the usual competence of the Bush administration I can't help wonder if there was plan that went wrong somewhere. Of course there's a Russian expert running state right?

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/08/war_in_south_ossetia.html

I hope Steve gets a bellyfull of the egotisitcal old hack Holbrooke on this issue after his glowing endorsement of him a while back.
The WP piece Holbrooke did is pure neo-ism and propaganda. I mean reallllly....could he possibly have left out this particular little whine:

" Beginning a well-planned war (including cyber-warfare) as the Olympics were opening violates the ancient tradition of a truce to conflict during the Games. And Russia's willingness to create a war zone 25 miles from the Black Sea city of Sochi, where it is to host the Winter Games in 2014, hardly demonstrates its commitment to Olympic ideals."

How f'ing childish and stupid is that irrelevant linkage to the Olympics....the Holbrookes always betray their idiot selves with some idiot whine and statement like this that they throw in as some kind of sop to "ideals'..pretending they have some ideals.

It's worth looking at a non slanted background on the Georgia, US, Russia, regional issues. Anyone interested can go to the FAS site below.

http://tinyurl.com/to-the-FAS-site

And IMHO although oil and pipelines might play some part , the real game as always is control, control, control of any country that could, might ever, possibly not cowtow to US domination in their own region.
I think the Guardian is 99.9% on target. It's obvious that the US fears Russia regaining it's former, not only strength, but standing in international powers, therefore the neos try to cobble together a bunch of teeny tiny "pro western" countries all adjoining Russia like a necklace. It's stupid and it isn't going to work. Russia isn't going to back down on their own interest in their own region.
The US would act the same way if Russia was converting Mexico and Canada to little satellites of Russian influence. And of course Georgia's flop is going to make other semi pro western countries there think twice after this about who they want to hold hands with.

This is no pipeline war but an assault on Russian influence

Jonathan Steele
The Guardian,
Monday August 11 2008

The flare-up of major hostilities between Russia and Georgia has been dubbed by some "the pipeline war". The landlocked Caspian sea's huge oil reserves are a factor, especially since Georgia became a key transit country for oil to travel from Baku in Azerbaijan to the Turkish port of Ceyhan on the Mediterranean.

The pipeline, which was completed in May 2006, is the second longest in the world. Although its route was chosen in order to bypass Russia, denying Moscow leverage over a key resource and a potential source of pressure, the current crisis in the Caucasus is about issues far bigger than oil.

The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline is only a minor element in a much larger strategic equation: an attempt, sponsored largely by the United States but eagerly subscribed to by several of its new ex-Soviet allies, to reduce every aspect of Russian influence throughout the region, whether it be economic, political, diplomatic or military.

Georgia's President Mikheil Saakashvili is the region's most enthusiastic proponent of this strategy. His "pipeline neighbours", Azerbaijan and Turkey, are less virulent. They have been trying to reap the economic benefits of Caspian oil while keeping good relations with Russia and avoiding provocations.

The question now is whether Saakashvili has over-reached himself. Has his escalation of the South Ossetian crisis done more than destroy any chance of normalising Georgian relations with Russia as long as he remains president? Has it reinforced his image among many western leaders as a hothead, and set back his hopes of getting a promise from Nato this autumn to start membership proceedings? France and Germany led Nato's cautious camp in April when they forced President Bush to delay a membership action plan for Georgia for months. Their argument that Georgia is not yet ready may well be strengthened now.

The sudden crisis has put the United States on the spot. While supporting Georgia's Nato ambitions, the White House was leery of military action, knowing it could do little in the face of a powerful Russian response. Visiting the former Soviet republic in 2005, President Bush urged Saakashvili to keep cool. "Georgia's leaders know that the peaceful resolution of conflict is essential to your integration into the transatlantic community," he told a huge rally in Tbilisi.

Saakashvili's supporters claim Nato's delay was what emboldened Russia to stir up tension in Abkhazia (the other rebel area of Georgia) and South Ossetia this spring and summer. "It was interpreted by the Russians as a window of opportunity," George Kandelaki, deputy chair of the Georgian parliament's foreign relations committee, said yesterday. Like other Georgians, he argued that it was not his country's forces that took the initiative last week for escalation in what had been in recent months a low level, tit-for-tat series of border incidents.

The fighting backfired, and the Russian counteroffensive now seems aimed at capturing the 40% of South Ossetia which was under Georgian control until last week. "They [the Russians] control pretty much all of South Ossetia now," Kandelaki said, adding: "They're trying to take over all of Abkhazia."

If the Russians succeed, they will have to decide whether to keep the newly acquired territory as a bargaining chip for negotiations with Saakashvili, or go to the extreme of encouraging South Ossetia, now unified, to do what most of its inhabitants want - proclaim independence from Georgia and a referendum on joining North Ossetia, its ethnic twin on the northern side of the Caucasus mountains. Russia's prime minister, Vladimir Putin, hinted at the tougher option, when he told Ossetian refugees this weekend that Georgia had lost the right to rule the territory.

When the fighting ends and the dust settles, Saakashvili may also face an onslaught from his political opposition in Georgia. In the heat of battle, parliamentary leaders have rallied round the national flag, but if a ceasefire comes with all Georgian troops and civilians driven out of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Saaksahvili may be called to account for losing not just territory but the chance of early membership of Nato as well.

"Georgian army flees in disarray".. Times Online

"The term ally would cease to have any meaning lest we get actively involved in stopping this slaughter"

You must have been asleep when Bush redefined "ally" by signing on with Musharif.

"Ally", in Bushworld, lost its meaning a long time ago.

Here's an interesting article from a Montreal based organizaton that places the Georgian affair in the context of a US-NATO-Israeli strategy in the ME involving, guess what, oil.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9788

It is true: amid the swirling American self-focused worries about Russia and Georgia, the U.S. is not a benign observer. We are in fact, with our Machiavellian "diplomacy" and our own invasion of Iraq, just as guilty as Russia of being a bully in the classroom of energy resource allocation. In that context, it will be hard for the U.S. to argue against the oil-defensive or oil-empowered aggressions of others. The rumbling of invading tanks in the streets of residential neighborhoods is iconic for militarists unable to embrace the strategies and opportunities neccesary in a global community. Let's see which American candidate and which world leaders can show they understand the folly of violent imperialism and the wisdom of visionary statesmanship.

Zathras, what are you smoking? Bush 41 did an OK job of handling the demise of the Soviet Union, but Clinton is a major cause of the current mess -- insisting on the United States remaining the 800-lb. gorilla in Europe, expanding NATO to Russia's borders, stomping on Russia's Slavic cousins in Serbia. He humiliated Yeltsin in particular, and Russians in general, at every turn. All Bush 43 has done is turn it up another notch -- more NATO expansion, engineering phony "revolutions" in Georgia and Ukraine, missile defense systems in former Warsaw Pact countries.

Now comes the blowback. Hope you're enjoying it.

It is mostly, but evidently not exclusively, Russians who think the imperial Soviet state should be the norm in Europe and the world.

Look, NATO was expanded in the first place because its new eastern European neighbors hated and despised the Russians, for very good reasons. Russia very quickly turned away from the early steps begun in Gorbachev's time to face up to the really incredible list of crimes conducted on its own territory against its own people, and was never asked by the elder Bush or Clinton, or much of anyone else, to come to terms with the wrong done by the Soviets and their malignant political ideology in all the countries it had subjugated for so long.

The "blowback," if one wants to use that term, started with the first Chechen War under Yeltsin, and has been with us ever since in the form of Russians from Vladimir Putin on down convinced that everything that went wrong after the Soviet collapse was the fault of the West. Approaching that country in full cringe mode, as some posters here appear to prefer, has never worked for anyone at any time in history. It is not the way to approach Russia now.

And incidentally, you can bank on the fact that a lot of the Russians who thought the West was "stomping" on Russians Serbian cousins during the 1990s thought Srebrenica absolutely rocked.

Who's asking to approach Russia in "cringe mode?"

How about trying "respect mode" instead of "dictate mode?" Like the Russian government of not (and I don't), you have to accord them basic respect if you are going to have fruitful relations with them.

The US attitude of "we set the rules and you better follow them" is a significant part of the problem--not only with Russia--but with a lot of other countries that have not exactly benefited from the "Washington consensus."

The only honest way the elder Bush or Clinton could have asked Russians to come to terms with what Stalin did would have entailed asking Americans to likewise come to terms with how FDR and Churchill served as Stalin's enablers. Alas, neither 41 nor Bubba were anywhere near equal to that task.

I'm not sure what you mean by approaching Russia in "full cringe mode." If you mean giving it the respect it's due as a significant world power, and recognizing its historical fears of encirclement, then I guess that's the camp I'm. But so are veteran cold warriors like Pat Buchanan.

JamesL..flying porta potties... I forgot about those...didn't Wayne Madsen report about those?... I needed that chuckle... isn't there a whole process in place for handling their '"deposits", too?

Carroll.. Russia became our "enemy'" because Venture Capitolists were not allowed to come in and steal all their natural resources... Communism, the idea, was the '"enemy'" whether in Europe, South and Central America, Southeast Asia... were it otherwsie, we would not have sat idly by while the Hungarian rebels were annihilated, after we urged them to rise up against the Soviet Union... they had no resources we wanted to steal...

JohnH,...pleeeeze, don;'t insult the mafia... they don't have near as much collateral damage and they don't engage in empty bluster... bullshit is verboten...it's just the opposite with Neo-Cons... they're all bullshit and empty bluster...Seriously, I'm joking or should I say, I'm joking, seriously....

Kathleen said: "Russia became our "enemy'" because Venture Capitolists were not allowed to come in and steal all their natural resources..."

Exactly.

I have, under the pseudonym Gandalf'sMother, been posting commentary on the Russia/ Georgia situation on a debate forum over at: http://forums.theonering.com/viewtopic.php?t=99015&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

I feel quite strongly about most of what I have said, and would like to therefore replicate it on this site. It is in the form of a back and forth, with other debaters' comments highlighted in green.

[color=green]
NATO will likely be forced to actively aid Georgia in repelling Russian troops. If that actually happens, there is no telling what the end result would be.[/color]

Not going to happen.

If Russia occupies Georgia there will be a huge, huge problem, and Western countries will need to do something (well, they are currently trying to do something diplomatically, which I imagine will eventually work, unless Medvedev and his puppeteer Putin have gone off the deep end). Though as has been said, Georgia is not a NATO member, and so there is no trigger or automaticity in a response.

This is huge. The West made the mistake of spending all of its post-Cold War aid dollars on building up Russia, while neglecting the former Soviet states that surround it. A resurgent Russia, surrounded by weak Central Asian and Caucasian states, is a total mess.

[color=green]Considering over 70% of South Ossetians have taken Russian citizenship, South Ossetia fought a civil war with Georgia to achieve autonomy, and it was Georgia that instigated the present conflict by shelling Tskhinvali, designating Russia as the aggressor is foolish.[/color]

That is a ridiculous over-simplification in the guise of a nuanced explanation. Russia has explicitly encouraged separatism in Ossetia through its partial "peacekeepers," and its continuation of its "Russification" policies in Ossetia, including but not limited to encouraging settlement and granting Russian passports to nearly all Ossetians. Georgia, while certainly a very flawed democracy under its current leadership, has been (and is) on the defensive, having been rendered highly insecure by Russia's aggressive posturing and concerted attempts a de-stabilization. Russia has been threatening Georgia with separatism in Ossetia since the early 90s, and now it got the reaction it wanted from Georgia. The pretext for invasion.

Russia seems incapable of moving beyond the Machiavellian realpolitik of the Cold War. The US, the EU, the OSCE and others (including posters here) are right to come down hardest on Russia. This is not to say that Georgia is perfect. Saakashvili has been a towering disappointment for human rights and democracy proponents, especially since his actions last November, which were entirely and completely undemocratic. However, it has been Russia's ever-threatening actions that has pushed the Georgian government (and a previously incorruptible democrat, Saakashvili) to these unfortunate ends.

The conveniently well-prepared Russian forces speak to a well-planned Russian offensive. Provoke, provoke, provoke,, shout "Georgia hit first!" and then invade. That is what happened.

The immediate fault is Saakashvili's (for launching the offensive that Russia was waiting for), but the ultimate fault lies with the de-stabilizing designs of the Russians.

[color=green]The present conflict appears to be a deliberate provocation by Mikhail Saakashvili. By attacking South Ossetia, Saakashvili invited Russian response. The subsequent Georgian declaration of war on Russia, and further Russian reaction, heightens regional instability. Saakashvili makes no apologies for his desire to have Georgia align itself fully with the West, and join NATO. By engineering a crisis, he may have hoped the USA would increase its commitments to Georgia, accelerating Georgia's induction into NATO as a strategic US asset.[/color]

This is true. On the surface, Georgia, as others have pointed out, was the aggressor. But what is Russia's business in Southern Ossetia, which is a part of Georgia? What is Russia's business unilaterally sending so-called "peacekeepers" into South Ossetia. They don't even have a flimsy, US-style coalition of the willing. It's just Russia. Invading another country. No international action was sought. That, I am afraid, is clearly the signs of an expansionist, aggressive, country, looking to incorporate its ethnic counterparts in OTHER countries into itself, or at least to permanently weaken its little adversaries.

There were people who said that Germany had every right to invade Chechoslovakia because the ethnic Germans there were asking for it. Allowing Russia to completely violate the established international order, and justifying it by saying that "the ethnic Russians in Ossetia were asking for this violation of the international order" is unacceptable.

[color=green]the US in particular has been engaged in hardball foreign policy vis a vis Russia by trying to expand NATO to Ukraine and Georgia and installing military radar stations in Eastern Europe.[/color]

I never disputed that, but it does not excuse Russian actions. However, while I strongly disagree with the missile defense plans of the Bush Administration, and its clumsy diplomacy with Russia, I do not disagree with NATO expansion. NATO expansion is not as militaristic a process as you put it. It can act as an anchor for states wishing to integrate with European democracy, has acted as a liberalizing influence for many states, and can bring enormous economic development potential. Georgia has not yet been allowed in because it is not democratic or stable enough. So it was given the "prospect" as a way of speeding developments on those fronts. Russia, in its paranoid world view, sees this is an explicit threat. That is ridiculous. If NATO wishes to threaten Russia, and sit at its doorstep, it would have brought Georgia, Armenia, and some of the other Central Asian nations into NATO a long time ago. But NATO is not an offensive alliance. It is acting as guarantor and impetus for democracy, not as a hawk over Russia.

But Russia's paranoia should be neither Georgia's nor NATO's problem. Georgia, as a sovereign nation, should be free to join whatever international organization it wishes, including NATO. And if that angers Russia, it is Russia that should be blamed for being angered, not NATO.

[color=green]However, more careful reading shows Russian troops have not crossed into Georgia proper from South Ossetia.[/color]

According to the standards of international recognition, South Ossetia IS Georgia proper, so whether or not troops have attacked the areas controlled by the Georgian government is of no consequence (though non-troop attacks on the areas of Georgia controlled by the Georgian government have certainly occurred). The CIS rules (which are an internationally dubious sham anyway) do not allow for the type of offensive Russia has launched. Your condescending suggestion that posters here do a more "careful" reading is absurd. I have read the situation far more carefully than you have, and have read the systemic thrusts behind this crisis far more carefully than you have, and have come to the conclusions I have come to.

[color=green]I should be surprised by the lack of condemnation of the Georgian assault on civilian areas of South Ossetia. Tskhinvali has been razed. However, it would seem individuals here would rather use any tool available to condemn the Russian Bear, including becoming apologists for unprovoked Georgian violence.[/color]

I don't see a lack of condemnation of Georgia's violence. I have condemned it myself, and have been criticizing Saakashvili for quite some time now. But the fact of the matter is that South Ossetia remains a part of Georgia, and that a military attack on a sovereign nation that is dealing with an internal matter, without the support of a Security Council resolution, is unacceptable. If Russia really was operating under the principle of "Responsibility to Protect" it would have sought international support. It did not.

[color=green]Again, it might be useful to view the situation from an unbiased perspective. Anti-Russian sentiments are discolouring rational analysis by distorting facts to fit preconceived notions about 'Enemy Russia'. This behaviour is depressingly reminiscent of the hysterical propaganda that preceded the Iraq War. The New York Times article describes Russian troop movements in South Ossetia, and implies a Russian advance on Gori. However, more careful reading shows Russian troops have not crossed into Georgia proper from South Ossetia. It was from Gori that Georgia launched its surprise artillery assault on Tskhinvali, destroying the city's hospital in an indiscriminate attack. The Russian response has been to degrade Georgian military positions, reducing the likelihood of further Georgian assaults.[/color]

And your analysis is magically unbiased? In any event, all of your statements above are of NO consequence. Why? Because Russia has unilaterally attacked a sovereign nation. It made absolutely no attempt at securing international support for such an action. It simply attacked. This is illegal, and it disrupts the international order, just as America's war in Iraq was entered into illegally, and has disrupted the international order (though the U.S. at least made attempts at securing a Security Council resolution, and at least had a few other countries on its side).

Why, in this case, are you so quick to denounce U.S. actions, yet so slow to denounce Russian actions? Could it be that even your views are biased?

[color=green]The suspicion remains that the US and Europe will support civil conflicts that weaken Russian influence as a matter of policy. Separatist movements that conflict with US geopolitical designs are condemned. Machiavellian realpolitik is not solely a Russian attribute![/color]

And who is to blame for that "suspicion?" Europe and the U.S.? And no, the U.S. and Europe (and NATO) do not operate by realpolitik in this day and age. They operate under the normative guidance of both democracy promotion and economic development in Eurasia. Russia is threatened by this, yes. But again, that is Russia's problem. If it wishes to remain an oligarchic, kleptocratic, xenophobic, militaristic, nationalistic and highly insecure pseudo-Empire, then it will have to peacefully deal with the slow creep of democracy on its borders. If it does not wish to deal with this, then it will need to seriously consider becoming a legitimate democracy itself.
[color=green]
- the country is simply seen as a chess piece in a game of strategy.[/color]

This is simply untrue. If this were the case, Georgia would have already been a member of NATO. Instead, thinking NOT as chess masters, but as democrats, the NATO member countries agreed that Georgia has a long, long way to go before it can be allowed in.
[color=green]
US policy decisions to train and arm the Georgian military is part of an illconceived overall strategy in central asia.[/color]

I agree that the Bush Administration has foolishly engaged in actions that have been seen, by Russian eyes, as very provocative. This is very clumsy and unfortunate. But now we have a war, and a Russia that has seriously violated international boundaries on a false pretext.

This state of affairs began, in my view, with the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. The U.S. has completely squandered its international legitimacy by ignoring international rules, and as a result, Russia can legitimately claim that it is threatened by a US-backed Georgia, and can then act outside international restrictions without too many scruples. This is why, I think, Saakashvili continues to harp on the support he has from the E.U. The E.U. is the most legitimate player in this game, and they are saying what I am saying, in so many words.

Russia is operating militarily without any international legitimacy , and I oppose that. Just as I opposed the Iraq War in 2003.

[color=green]By this criterium, Sudan's activities in Darfur are entirely justified.[/color]

Of course not, and I have argued for intervention in Darfur for some time. But I have argued for intervention based on strong, international legitimacy - basically, a Security Council resolution. In extreme cases, I do believe that NATO actions, absent the possibility of an SC Resolution, are highly legitimate (such as in the Balkans, a place neighboring NATO countries), and have supported their actions. As such, if NATO has a strong North African presence, I would support a NATO intervention in Darfur. It doesn't, however. Therefore, an SC resolution is needed. I would never advocate that the U.S., or a couple like-minded countries, unilaterally invade Sudan to end the conflict. So, the way I see it:

1. Iraq 1 was justified
2. NATO actions in the Balkans in the 1990s were largely justified (though there were some really unfortunate mistakes on NATO's part)
3. Afghanistan was justified (the current force in Afghanistan was sanctioned by a Security Council resolution).
4. Iraq was grossly unjustified
5. Russia's attack on Georgia is grossly unjustified

Elliptical,

This is not a Russia-Georgia problem. This isn't a primitive age of localized tribal conflict. What happens between Georgia and Russia is critically important for all democracies and for all non-democracies. Basically, this is a global issue, whether you like that or not. As an American, if you don't like it, blame Woodrow Wilson, not me.

[color=green]Does this 'slow creep of democracy' include the 'Stan despots currently lording it in the post-Soviet Asian states to the south of Russia? Pray tell what criteria you are using to champion these beacons of democracy...[/color]

Of course not. They are despotic countries, not democracies. Therefore, they should not be allowed into organizations like NATO unless they are democracies. If they do become democracies, then they should be free to join institutions that are made up of democracies, and Russia should have no say in the matter. The days of "spheres of influence" should be left behind, IMO, and replaced by a system based on international law, human rights and democracy. In other words, liberal internationalism, Obama-ism, or Clinton-ism, whatever you want to call it.

[color=green]So if NATO had a strong North African presence, it would be justified to intervene in Sudan without a UN Security Council Resolution? Well, Russia has a strong Caucasus presence. Why, then, is it not justified in intervening in Georgia without UN approval?[/color]

Russia's designs, are, simply, far more suspect and illegitimate than the designs of an organization (NATO), which includes 26 independent member countries, all of whom are not repressive regimes (though Turkey is certainly not a democracy, yet, IMO), and which requires full consensus for action. So yes, NATO, as a 26 member organization, is far more "legitimate" than Russia, as a one-country rogue. And yes, if the North African countries that surrounded the Sudan were a part of NATO, then NATO action in Sudan would certainly be far more justified than Russia's brutal response to an action by Georgia that it has been provoking and rubbing its hands for for years.

This still does not mean I do not prefer a Security Council resolution. However, it has become clear that China and Russia have little interest in humanitarian interventions where they are most needed, and it will occasionally be necessary to rely on the legitimacy of "communities of democracies" such as NATO, to perform such interventions. Iraq does not even have that going for it, and is, as such, grossly illegitimate.

This recent spat is based on the following: Through Abkhazia and Ossetia, Russia has cornered Georgia against a wall for years, with a knife to its throat. Georgia lashed out (not intelligently, and quite brutally, IMO), and caused the conflict. However, Russia's actions and posture made it inevitable that something like this would happen at some point, based on some stupid action by Georgia. Saakashvili provided that stupid action because he thought he would get unequivocal support from NATO. He was wrong. He was stupid. But Russia, leaning and leaning and leaning, as it does, was bound to fall on the Caucuses sooner or later.

But that is all beside the point. The point is Russia is grossly violating the international legal order. It will set a very, very dangerous precedent if it is allowed to do so.

I find it consistently amazing how so many commentators are so naive when it comes to the Russian view of geopolitics. Russia is now in Georgia proper . Russia must be stopped, or the international legal order is dead. Russian belligerence on behalf of ethnic Russian minorities (or on behalf of Pan-Slavism, as in Yugoslavia) are likened to German actions in the Sudetenland, and beyond, precisely because they have, at their core, the same logic. Russian ethnic minorities in OTHER countries must be stirred up against their governments, and must be placed under the protection of Russian "peacekeepers." If Russia does not allow an international peacekeeping force to take over Ossetia and Abkhazia, then it has forfeited all moral or legal authority, and will prove that its actions are not very different from Hitler's. In other words, Russia has to capitulate to E.U. and U.S. demands at some point in the near future.

History, sometimes, comes back. Let's recognize it when it does.

[color=green]Very important point, but I don't expect to see any kind of "capitulation" from Russia over this. It just isn't in Putin's character. This is a dangerous situation.[/color]

He has to capitulate. Russia back behind the internationally recognized borders of Georgia, and a neutral, international peacekeeping force in South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

If Russia refuses, then total economic and political sanctions must be slapped on it by as many countries as possible, and covert economic and political assistance must be poured into Georgia. Everything short of military intervention.

My hope is that Russia will withdraw well before any of that is necessary.

[color=green]deep seated anti-Russian position[/color]

I am not anti-Russian per se , though I am certainly not its champion. I simply know what the Russians are doing, and it is dangerous to the international world order. And you, I think, may be too naive to see it. I am a liberal that does not wish to see the world order ripped to shreds by an illiberal regime, though I recognize that U.S. actions in the past eight years have made it easier and easier for Russia to justify acting the way it is. But now that Russia has done the unacceptable, it must be turned back or punished.

Russia has been backing Georgia into a corner for years, daring it to strike, and ready to crush it when it finally lost its nerve. It is crushing Georgia. It must turn back and let an international peacekeeping force in.

It's a war still, yes, but the firm message from Bush, coupled with Sarkozy's visit to Moscow, is, for sure, the primary reason why Medvedev has signaled the end of the operation. If more conciliatory voices in the Bush Administration and in certain parts of Europe had prevailed (those who argued that Russia had every right to enter Georgia in its defense) we would have seen this conflict continue on in full force.

So, I'd like to pose the question to some posters here: Do you think Western demands on Russia were justified? If not, do you really believe Russia would have stopped at Gori?

In fact, so far, despite official pronouncements, Russia has not yet come to a full stop.

Now, having defended Bush for the first time in 7 years, let me go wash my mouth out with soap.

This really does demonstrate the folly of the Bush Administration's empty posturing, and perhaps a debilitating blow to any further NATO expansion. If the United States was NOT prepared to go to war over Georgia's defense, why did it provide rhetorical and material support hinting at the contrary? Russia has just punched another gaping hole into the credibility of U.S. rhetoric, revealing that we are a nation that will say something, without the slightest idea if we are capable of backing it up.

Now, if the Russians refuse an international peacekeeping force, and slowly edge Saakashvili out of office, what can the United States do? Apparently, nothing.

This crisis has left the US and Georgia in a far worse spot than they have ever been.

What the US and EU can do, if, after withdrawal to pre-August 8th borders, Russia refuses a neutral, international peacekeeping force (and thus, makes its sinister intentions clear), is keep Russia out of the OSCE, the WTO, and consider kicking it out of the G8. And, possibly (though seriously unlikely) consider comprehensive economic and political sanctions.

These actions, coupled with alot of economic aid to Georgia, and a shelving of language about NATO expansion to Georgia, might be the only responsible action possible.
[color=green]
I especially liked the delicate and oh-so-subtle irony of Shrubbie on the Tee Vee babbling on about invading SOVEIGN countries without good reason.[/color]

While I agree that the Iraq debacle makes the U.S. seem entirely hypocritical here, it must also be understood that there is a slight difference. Georgia is a generally democratic country, and Shaakashvili is not gas-happy tyrant. Iraq was guilty are far greater crimes than the Georgians.

However, I see your point, and it is a big reason why the US has so little leverage right now. But this does not, in some way, excuse Russian actions, and definitely does not mean that the international community, in tandem with the US, should not seek to put Russia in its place.

In any event, an international peacekeeping force, if agreed to by the Russians, will need to be E.U. dominated.

[color=green]Russia was supremely humiliated by and after the breakup of the USSR - to the degree that the west caused and encouraged this it was a huge mistake.[/color]

Western encouragement of a dissolution of the USSR was not a mistake. Also, the West did not humiliate Russia after the dissolution of the USSR. On the contrary. The West rewarded Russia. The West poured huge amounts of foreign assistance into Russia to help it develop into a normal developed country. It also invited Russia into the NATO structures through the Partnership for Peace program, which engaged in joint training, and on a few occasions, coordinated peacekeeping. It also invited Russia into the G8. That is far from humiliating.

Storyteller,

The reason people mention Israel's arms connection to Georgia, and not Ukraine's, is because anti-Israeli theories are far more chic than anti-Ukraine theories. You're just not hip enough to ride the "War in Georgia is Israel's Fault Bus," that's all.

[color=green]As to Iraq, it is increasingly evident that it did not deserve to be invaded. No WMDs and no connections to the terrorists of 9/11. Suskind's book is just the latest source to back that statement up and if there's any spine in the Dem. Congressional leadership to defend the Constitution and to impeach, we'll be sure to get more.[/color]

Hey, hey, you are preaching to the choir basil. Nowehere did I justify the invasion of Iraq. I have named the US attack on Iraq as the most destabilizing and illegitimate event since Vietnam. I was simply pointing out the difference b/w Sadaam's and Saakashvili's regimes, which are significant. And sure there is a moral judgement there. I believe that democracies are better than autocracies,

As far as McCain-speak is concerned, I am sorry to say it, but a major crisis has occurred and Russia has dramatically unbalanced the world since McCain made those comments. I thought he was a fool when he made those statements, but now that Russia has shown its willingness to use its raw military power against democratic regimes, the international community needs to, in some concrete way, show that it is not acceptable. What do you propose? That Russia simply be allowed to go on occupying S. Ossetia and Abkhazia, without any consequence? Are not the lessons of the folly of appeasement staring us point blank in the face right now?

As I have said before, history is back. Let us recognize it or face a very hostile new world.

[color=green]Was the whole point just to throw some weight around and remind their neighbors what they're made of?[/color]

Yes. Russia said to the world, and especially the U.S.: "The caucuses is our house, so stay out of it." The West was unable to prove otherwise. American/ NATO hardware, in the hands of Georgia, was useless against Russian might. Russia does not need to take over Georgia, and deal with the pain and shame of occupation. It simply needed to demonstrate its power in its backyard, and it did so in spades.

In this case, with its withdrawal, it can claim that it was indeed simply engaged in a humanitarian peacekeeping mission, and the naive movers (rather, shakers) of the world will take them at their word.

[color=green]I'm for a more mature response to crises like this.[/color]

And what is your more mature reponse?

Mind you, I am not advocating a military response against Russia. I am advocating international isolation IF, and ONLY IF, Russia does not agree to a neutral international peacekeeping force. If Russia does not agree to this, then we will know their intentions are not genuine, and will be fully justified in letting Russia know that it cannot get away with bullying its neighbors. What is immature about that, exactly?

On democracies and autocracies, Churchill also said something to the effect that "democracy is the worst form of government, apart from all the rest." I agree.

If I am an apologist for Georgia, then you are a much more blatant apologist for Russia. The fact that you nowhere mention that South Ossetian militants have been harassing Georgia for years is interesting. But, of course, my view is actually more nuanced than you paint it. I think Georgia made a grave mistake, and should answer for it. But Russia dramatically overreacted, has killed many civilians as a result, and has violated Georgia's borders. Georgia, as unhumanitarian as its actions were, did not invade another sovereign nation. I have already explained this ad nauseum. Russia's actions disrupt international stability, and as bad as they were, Georgia's didn't. Russia would have had my sympathies if it had asked the UN for a Resolution.

[color=green]I'd love to see your definition of neutral GM. Would this discount all NATO members, considering NATO can hardly be described as neutral? Maybe China should play a part?[/color]

A force agreed to by the UN Security Council, with necessary Russian consent. If you read my previous posts, you would see that I advocated a force dominated by the European Union, and with peripheral Russian involvement. No U.S. peace keepers, in my view, and the force should go beyond NATO. Soldiers from some of the Central Asian Republics should be included as well. I stick to that.

What is your solution, I wonder?

Unbelieveable. Just Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia and Abkhazia? You believe Russia, after flagrantly disrupting the international legal order and attacking a sovereign nation on no legitimate pretext, with NO UN cover sought, is the answer? You are condemning the world to accept a Russia that will aggressively promote its interests in its near abroad.

[color=green]I am sure the residents of South Ossetia would much prefer Russian rescue to round table Security Council talks[/color]

Ha! Including the ethnic Georgian residents of South Ossetia who were slaughtered by the Russians, and the Georgians that remain in the area?: http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2008/08/13/georgi19607.htm. Are you actually suggesting that Georgians in S. Ossetia allow themselves to be subject to Russian military rule?

I have to ask. Why do you condone Russian violations of international law, while blithely ignoring the slaughter of Georgians by Russian forces and South Ossetian militias? South Ossetia is ruled by Russian-backed war profiteers who couldn't care less about either other ethnic Ossetians, or the ethnic Georgians that live in the area. What makes you think otherwise? And you think Russia should unilaterally keep the peace there? Are you insane?

[color=green]NATO is not neutral. Neither is the EU. The inclusion of either organisation in a 'neutral' peacekeeping force should be viewed with suspicion.[/color]

The E.U. PLUS, as I mentioned. A largely E.U. force, with Central Asian and Asian additions is as close to neutral as we can get. Russia must agree to something along those lines or prove that it is, indeed, ready and willing to destabilize and brutally suppress its neighbors. I, as someone who values human liberties and a stable world, am not comfortable with that. Nor should the international community be comfortable with that. The world can either accept an illiberal, brutal world order, or it can take a stand and make the case for a liberal, peaceful world order. I lean to the latter, you lean to the former. That, to me, is clear.

[color=green]However, if they choose independence, or even integration with Russia, that decision should also be honoured.[/color]

And that choice should be made under the eyes of Russian and South Ossetian soldiers?

[color=green]Russia has limited herself to targeting Georgian military positions and hardware[/color]

That is, simply put, a lie. Do one google search, or look at the report I linked to above (from a world-renowned human rights organization) and then come back and say that again.

And, as I have so often repeated myself, Georgia did not attack a sovereign nation. If Russia wanted to intervene in an internal Georgian dispute, it should have asked for a Security Council resolution. It didn't. It doesn't care about the world order. That makes it dangerous and highly suspect, and it will have to prove otherwise; by accepting an international peacekeeping force that is not controlled by either Russians or Georgians.

[color=green]So I'm a bit negative about this, there's nothing we can do, other than to let it run its course, which means that there will be plenty of misery, death and hard feelings for the people of that area.[/color]

There is one thing we can do. After a ceasefire, seek a UN Security Council resolution for the deployment of a non-Russian, non-Georgian, non-American peacekeeping force. An E.U.-Central Asian force of some kind. If Russia does not agree, and insists on controlling the area by itself, then it must be shown that this is not acceptable by signaling an obstruction of Russia's entry into the WTO, the OECD, and, possibly, an ejection from the G8. If that doesn't work, we simply wait.

I don't see how anything else is justified. And, on your point about bringing people with diplomatic and military experience into the White House, an Obama Administration will insist on something similar to the above, only, perhaps, less dovish.

In other words, I am saying that our response cannot be military because there is nothing that can be done there. BUT, our response must be a robust diplomacy, of the kind I have described. Every other option assumes the good-will of the Russians, and there is no evidence of that.

[color=green]Georgia is already toast.[/color]

Yes, and if nothing is done AT LEAST to signal to the Russians that this is unacceptable, then most of the countries surrounding Russia are also, to use your words, "toast". For who would go to war to defend Kazakhstan or Ukraine or any of those other nations? The US certainly will not, nor will anyone else. Strong diplomatic tools need to be used. They are the only tools available.

[color=green]Here's how Human Rights Watch described Saakashvili after his brutal suppression of peaceful protest on 7 November, 2007.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/12/17/georgi17572.htm

That Saakashvili sure is dedicated to democratic ideals...[/color]

Please locate the portion of any of my posts where I mention that Saakashvili was a paragon of democratic ideals? I have, along with Human Rights Watch, been criticizing his regime for some time. If you want to know, I work with HRW on a pretty regular basis.

It was also you who suggested that Russia and its militant South Ossetian stooges ONLY attacked military targets. The Human Rights Watch report explicitly rebuts that. It was also you who said that the South Ossetians would rather have Russia support them, than wait for a Security Council Resolution. I pointed out that there are quite a few ethnic Georgians in South Ossetia, who, as you saw in the report, are having their homes burnt to crisps. Do you honestly think no Georgian civilians were deliberately killed in this hate-filled environment?

The fact of the matter is that Russia has brutally violated international law, and has dramatically upset the post-Cold War world order. That is not acceptable. A cease fire followed by a UN Security Council resolution establishing an international peacekeeping force in Ossetia and Abkhazia is the only good solution. Interestingly, the solutions YOU offer are only palatable to the Russians.

Cen,

No, South Ossetia and Russia are NOT on the same side. There is a large population of Georgians in South Ossetia. The accurate picture is that the South Ossetian secessionist militants, fueled and funded by Russia, is on Russia's side against Georgia, and have been attacking Georgians for quite some time now. Russia has been prodding and prodding and prodding at this nerve, and rest assured, Putin is mighty pleased at the result. Sakaashvili was just the stooge they needed. They care not one whit about their brother Russian-Ossetians.

Whatever happened, the fog of war has not yet lifted, and it is useless to play "Monday morning quarterback" as they say in the United States.

The more important thing to think about now is what does the world do next?

What should be done now:

1. Support the Franco-Finnish (OSCE) initiative which is calling for a genuine ceasefire.
2. U.S.-European call for Russia to withdraw its troops into Russia proper, which means withdrawing its peace-keeping mission from S. Ossetia and Abkhazia.
3. U.S.-European call for Russia and Georgia to allow a neutral OSCE mission into the areas where the fighting has occurred, to monitor and assess the situation on the ground, and fact find for violations of the Geneva Conventions.
4. Get Russia and Georgia to agree to an OSCE international peacekeeping mission that is CIS-Plus . That means, a Commonwealth of Independent States-heavy mission (with Kazakhs and Abkazhes, etc), with E.U. member states contributing troops as well. No Russian, Georgian or U.S. troops should be involved in that mission.

My guess of what the reactions will be:

1. Georgia will agree to all such terms
2. Russia might agree to these terms, though it is not highly likely

What to do if Russia does not agree to these terms:

Continue to insist on them until they do agree. If they do not, signal that the international community is prepared to block WTO-entry, OECD entry, and possibly, pursue Russia's ejection from the G8. Economic and political sanctions, unilateral if necessary, would also need to be considered.

----------

Lavrov's comments are unacceptable. If Russia does not retreat, punitive economic and political measures will eventually become necessary. This needs to be communicated to Russia with Transatlantic unity. Alas, it does not seem we will have that.

[color=green]Quite frankly, I am strongly of the opinion that those involved ought to sort it out by themselves.[/color]

This translates into: Russia will sort it out for the Georgians and the Ossetians and the Abkhazians. Which translates into: Russia will eat Georgia in a brutal and complete violation (and humiliation) of international law. And then, because we sat there on the sidelines twiddling our thumbs while the world order went down the drain, Russia prods at another country, like the Ukraine. And other revanchist regimes see this happening, unhindered, and then start prodding themselves.

I don't really understand the "there's nothing we can do." If Russia does not leave Georgia and accept an international peacekeeping force, there are numerous political and economic punitive measures that can be put in place.

No, the world cannot sit idly by because the world will be dramatically affected by a Russia unrestrained. I am glad that your opinion, as much as I respect the sentiments of caution and prudence behind it, did not ultimately prevail in the U.S. and Canada in either WWII, or when the USSR rolled into Hungary and the Czech Republic. I also hope that the sentiments you expressed do not rule today.

----------

WWII, Cen. WWII. Your tired and lazy argument that WWII was caused by WWI is just that. Tired and lazy. The truth is that WWII was caused by a lack of an ability and willingness of the victors of WWI to enforce Versaiiles, and protect territorial integrity - not just because WWI occcurred. The immediate cause was that Germany saw eastern Europe as wide open for the taking. Why? Because France, though in a military alliance with Germany's neighbors, was too weak to come to their defense, and the UK was unwilling to enter into a military alliance with France because it didn't want to be drawn into a conflict over Germany's eastern neighbors, and lastly, because France refused to secure a military alliance with the Soviet Union (which then led to the Nazi-Soviet Pact.) Then Germany walked into Sudetenland, and nothing happened.

It was appeasement and a lack of political will to defend the territorial integrity of Germany's eastern neighbors that threw the world back into chaos, and caused WWII. The only way to prevent a severe destabilization of the world order today is to insist that Russia withdraws from Georgia, and insist in a neutral peacekeeping force. If Russia refuses, global punitive economic and political sanctions must be sought.

In any event, Cen, I don't think you are capable of understanding the international environment, so I won't press you any further.

[color=green]The best question is why you included half a sentence in your quote.[/color]

Er, are you familiar with the concept of an accident? In any case, the whole sentence and the partial sentence say the same thing - that former Soviet/ Warsaw Pact countries were bribed and coaxed into joining NATO. I see evidence for that NOWHERE. Do you?

[color=green]The problem is that I understand it far better than you do. I understand it far better than you ever will. I understand a concept that is crucial that you leave out - effects have causes and causes produce effects. Until you understand that you will never understand the relationship between World War One and World War Two.[/color]

Your problem is that you are so obsessed with ultimate causes (and ideology), that you miss the trees for the forest. A question you never confront is: Had the victors of WWI been willing to enforce the terms of Versailles, and had they been willing to encircle Germany with military alliances, Germany would probably not have moved an inch, and WWII would have never happened (Goebbels admitted this himself, scoffing at the naivety of the Allies). So, there is another causal factor you ignore in order to bolster your non-interventionist credo. A mad German revanchist coupled with an idealistic West that had nothing to back up its idealism, was the immediate cause of WWII. There is a similar, though less pronounced dynamic happening now. An idealistic West with the inability and unwillingness to protect a state's territorial integrity.

Further, do you honestly believe that I do not understand the LINKS between WWI and WWII? Of course I do. But what I also understand is that the post-WWI order was badly constructed, and that if better constructed, it could have prevented WWII. I am accepting WWI's outcome in order to assess the immediate causes of WWII in order to highlight the danger of the scenario today.

So, acting under the assumption that US intervention in WWI was justified, I am making judgements about how the post-WWI order led to WWII. This in no way means that when I make a specific statement about a specific geopolitical situation in the years immediately prior to WWII that I am using a WWI justification. I am talking about the geopolitical situation as it existed immediately prior to WWII and highlighting the similarities between that situation and the one that exists today.

Why is that difficult to understand?

[color=green]That you make the exceedingly empty argument that the disasterous product of interventionism is a good reason to support interventionism.[/color]

The fault with your argument is that you have established "interventionism" as some monolithic term that has the same characteristics in every situation. I dispute that. It wasn't interventinism that resulted in WWII, it was Germany's perception that the West WOULD NOT intervene until it held all of Central and Eastern Europe that caused WWII.

I am saying here that interventionism in the effort to restore the territorial integrity of a legitimate nation is important in order to keep from sending the signal that these violations will go unmet and unpunished.

In other words, Russia intervened first. If we can't reverse that intervention, then intervention has won. Do you desire that?

--------

Thank you pavel.

I have to admit that I am astounded at the degree to which members of the left or centre-left of the political spectrum (a group to which I generally belong), and members of the far right, are basically saying that an egregious violation of international law by Russia should not go answered or punished. There are a number of non-military measures the EU and the US can implement, many of which I have detailed in this post, yet the preference seems to be to revert to echo chamber blanket statements about how there's nothing we can do, its our fault anyway, blah blah blah.

I reiterate, the following can and should be done:

What should be done now:

1. Support the Franco-Finnish (OSCE) initiative which is calling for a genuine ceasefire (though I will add now that the terms of this agreement need to be stronger than the one currently agreed to, which allows Russian troops to remain in many parts of Georgia - unacceptable in my view).
2. Advance a U.S.-European call for Russia to withdraw its troops into Russia proper, which means withdrawing its peace-keeping mission from S. Ossetia and Abkhazia. If this is unfeasible, there must at minumum be a return to pre-August 6 positions - though I find that inadequate given how untenable that status quo was before.
3. U.S.-European call for Russia and Georgia to allow a neutral OSCE mission into the areas where the fighting has occurred, to monitor and assess the situation on the ground, and fact find for violations of the Geneva Conventions.
4. Get Russia and Georgia to agree to an OSCE international peacekeeping mission that is CIS-Plus . That means, a Commonwealth of Independent States-heavy mission (with Kazakhs and Abkazhes, etc), with E.U. member states contributing troops as well. No Russian, Georgian or U.S. troops should be involved in that mission.

My guess of what the reactions will be:

1. Georgia will agree to all such terms
2. Russia might agree to these terms, though it is not highly likely

What to do if Russia does not agree to these terms:

Continue to insist on them until they do agree. If they do not, signal that the international community is prepared to block WTO-entry, OECD entry, and possibly, pursue Russia's ejection from the G8. Economic and political sanctions, unilateral if necessary, would also need to be considered.

I invite all to give me reasons why these policies are unacceptable. I get the strange sense that people think intervention ONLY means military invasion. I ask that people forget this distortion of reality (probably caused by Iraq) and understand that there are other options. HARD diplomatic options.

There are times when sticking to ideological and parochial political allegiances is folly. This is such a time.

[color=green]GM: I think that your suggestions are fine, however, there's another point to consider: specifically that Putin (or whomever really holds power any more) is apprantely maneuvering Russia for a return to Soviet USSR style politics and world power.[/color]

I certainly have considered that, which is part of why I insist on the unacceptability of Russia violating Georgia's territorial integrity. Russia must integrate into the international community on the terms of the international community, not on its own terms. That was the post-Cold War promise we got from Yeltsin. Alas, Yeltsin's days are far over.

[color=green]IMO the time of forcing other folk to do what you want them to do through threats of death, deprivation and starvation is way past the point of relegating it to the junkpile of history.[/color]

The problem, basil, is that that statement isn't true. Russia does not agree with it (nor do certain Americans, Chinese, Indians, South Americans, Europeans and Middle Easterners). Therefore, we must deal with the reality in each situation.

In many respects, you are right. The punitive options the US and the West have are limited. But you ask me to be specific. I have been specific. Twice in this thread. I have given my options, point by point. In the event of Russia refusing to cooperate with the demands I put forward, the diplomatic options are threats of exclusion from a number of intergovernmental and international institutions, and the threat of, at least, comprehensive US and European sanctions. These sanctions could include visa-restrictions for Russian officials and a refusal of direct trade on a number of key products and services. I can go on, but the point is clear (though I do not know how effective these would be). More effective, given Russian pride being what it is, would be the prestige hits - like ejection from the WTO, OECD, G8 and, an excellent option, a stated withdrawal from the next Olympic Games, which are to be held in Russia. Energy dependence (and the U.S. need for Russian support on Iran and in its ill-conceived War on Terror), will make that very difficult, but I think the geopolitical ramifications of allowing Russia to call the shots is worth the price.

It looks like the Bush Administration doesn't agree with me, though. Condi has already capitulated on a number of Russian points. Why? 2 reasons; 1) as you said, the US is in a position of weakness; 2) The Bush Administration doesn't really care very much about the international legal order - as has been proven.

-------

In terms of being "shown up" the problem is that Fir-Bolg is right. The US and the international community was shown up by this. The problem with his sentiments is that he, in his adolescent perverse puerility, thinks that the manner in which Russia "showed up" the international community is fantastic and worthy of praise! Brutal military aggression against a sovereign state with no international backing. What fun!

What he also fails to consider is the long term negative impact this brutal act of aggression will have on Russia. The stereotype of the Russian bear has been confirmed, and this will ultimately be bad for business and prestige.

----

My favorite bit about Fir-Bolg is how he harps on about everyone being hapless slaves to their nation's propaganda machines, but is somehow immune to this himself. I can tell Fir-Bolg that I monitor 57 different news sources internationally on a daily basis, but that will not fit his neat argument about all of us being nationalistic stooges. I can tell Fir-Bolg that I am both a US and EU citizen, and have lived in both places, but then I would not be American enough for his arguments to hold, and so he will ignore these comments. I could also go into the facts about the Serbian, and yes, Russian professional acquaintances I have, but no, I won't bother....
[color=green]
drawing some kind of ridiculous moral equivalence with NATO's intervention in Yugoslavia[/color]

Fir-Bolg will be happy to do so in this case. Despite the fact that, ultimately, the recognition of Croatia and Slovenia (and Bosnia) by a significant number of governments worldwide meant that the then Yugoslav (now Serbian) government was attacking sovereign nations. Fir-Bolg will also dismiss the fact that the US and multiple European (and other) governments sought a UN Security Council resolution for its operation in the former Yugoslavia, only to be blocked by a Russia committed to "Pan-Slavic" unity. He will then dismiss the fact that the Yugoslavia action consisted of a considerable grouping of states engaging in a military action in order to protect sovereign states from military aggression from Serbia, and systematic ethnic cleansing. He will dismiss the legitimacy of such actions because "The West is biased against the autocratic needs of Russia." All of that will be rendered irrelevant so as to bolster the assinine idea that Russia's actions in Georgia are the same as NATO's actions in the former Yugoslavia.

Russia does not even pretend to try to secure international approval for its actions against sovereign states. That, in and of itself, renders its actions far less legitimate than any actions by any European or American governments. If I listen to any propaganda, it is that of "international legitimacy."

[color=green]So the key determining factor in whether or not any group can secede is if they can get international recognition?[/color]

Yes, why not? International recognition shows that there is widespread sympathy for the cause of those people's seeking independence.

As for the Kosovo analogy, I find it laughably thin.

1. Kosovo is a place where the Serbian government had FULL control over a people that did not want it. Serbia enforced this control brutally, and then continued to sustain this control against almost 98% of its population's wishes. International recognition of Kosovo's declared independence shows that there were great sympathies for the Kosovars.

Ossetia and Abkhazia, on the other hand, are places where Georgia has had absolutely NO control and has therefore been entirely unable to impose anything on the populations of those regions. Despite this, the S. Ossetian and Abkhazian militias, fueled by their benefactors in Russia, continued to launch attacks into Georgia. This is a completely different situation than Kosovo.

2. Kosovo, under the control of the Serbian government, had no massive neighboring benefactor to give it power and to fuel it's separatism.

S. Ossetia and Abkhazia, with de facto independence from Georgia, was being massively financed and equipped by neighboring Russia, and directed by Moscow to provoke a Georgia that had no control over those areas.

3. Kosovo sought international approval for its independence, and waited patiently, for many, many years before it made that move.

S. Ossetia and Abkhazia never felt they needed international approval - they had the Russian military, which was better for them.

4. The Kosovars never unilaterally established a heavily militarized zone, never completely eliminated Serbian rule, and never fired rockets and other attacks into the rest of Serbia.

The S. Ossetians and the Abkhazian's did just the above.

5. 45 nations have recognized the sovereignty of Kosovo. NO nations have recognized the sovereignty of S. Ossetia and Abkhazia, NOT EVEN RUSSIA. This is the crucial point. Until August 12, when Lavrov made his statement (I believe thats the date) Russia never once publicly questioned Georgia's territorial integrity. Not once did it say anything to suggest that S. Ossetia and Abkhazia were not a part of Georgia. Their strategy was a lot more subtle. Publicly refrain from compromising Georgia's territorial integrity, while feeding the separatists weapons, and then waiting for a dumb Georgian action to serve as a pretext for intervention. That way, their presentation of the action as a "peacekeeping" one would hold more water, since they had never challenged the legality of the Georgian state, and couldn't possibly have an interest in doing that.........That is the key analysis that most experts are coming to.

The Kosovo analogies are straws.

P.S. My favorite bit of ridiculous comment, however, comes from those who say that "the US pushed Russia on Kosovo, and so this is a justifiable reaction." Eh? What does Russia have to do with Kosovo, a place in the Western Balkans that is far closer to Italy than it is to Russia? Is it legitimate for Russia to claim that Kosovo was of deep national interest to itself, because it is the ancient home of Slavic peoples, and a symbol of Christian Orthodoxy? Is pushing against racist, Pan-Slavism an example of treating Russia unfairly? If so, then the major problem on all these issues lies with Russia, not Europe or the United States.

--------

Fir-Bolg, a challenge. Point to one place, apart from this thread, where I say anything about Russia, and further, where I say anything about Russia that is based on stereotypes of Russia.

A challenge to everyone else: Point to one place, outside this thread, where Fir-Bolg criticizes/ denounces the United States, and where that criticism is largely based on stereotypes about the United States.

I think the latter challenge will be the easiest to overcome.

The fact of the matter is that Russia has returned to the days where it dictates terms to the international community, not vice-versa. And that is why I am reacting the way I am reacting. A lack of naivete. Not because of some deeply-held suspicion which has never manifested itself in any form whatsoever.

---------

Fir-Bolg,

You are right, to a certain degree. The US and Europe are often afforded the moral high ground. Why? Well, because they are functioning democracies. Russia, China, Serbia, Zimbabwe, etc. etc, are not.

If you do not believe that democracy is a better form of government than autocracy or kleptocracy or one-party Communist rule, then you will place the US and Europe on the same plane as Russia, China or Zimbabwe.

In a crisis such as this one, there is a fundamental difference in the foreign policies of the US and Russia:

1. For Russia: Georgia is important for historic, cultural, racial and natural resource reasons.

2. For the US, Georgia is important because it is a nascent democracy.

The mainstream Western media, worldwide, largely accepts this analysis, and largely sympathizes more with the latter than the former. It should also be pointed out, again, that Russia never once even sought international approval for its actions. The US and European countries, have, at least since the end of the Cold War, always sought international approval for intervention. However, I have said time and time again, Iraq was an entirely unjustified intervention. But to echo Mith, what does that have to do with this conversation?

Lastly, I'd like to know. What's your preferred form of government? It would be helpful for us to hear that, so we can see where your sympathies (and biases) lie. It would also be helpful for you to clarify whether or not you think international law is worth at least respecting, if not abiding by 100% of the time.

Cen,

One last time, on Kosovo, that was a place that was brutally under the full and direct control of Serbia. S. Ossetia and Abkhazia were well-armed, defacto independent entities (though heavily dependent on Russia) that were, on a daily basis, ATTACKING Georgia from strategic positions, with the full backing of a massive Russia to the north. Russia-backed South Ossetia and Abkhazia vs. little guerilla KLA. No comparison. That does not justify Saakashvili's idiotic attack (though the fog of war has not yet cleared, and we do not know what the real trigger was), but it certainly makes the case that there is a distinct difference between this situation and the Kosovo situation of the late 90s. I have yet to see you or Cen admit to this.

----------

[color=green]Ever since the Eastern Bloc and then the Soviet Union fell, those who regret the ending of the cold war have continued their policy of containment of Russia, moving NATO into former Warsaw Pact Countries and former Soviet Republics.

Serbia and Russia have always had very good relations, which is the reason Russia came to Serbia's aid at the start of the 20th Century war when Austria-Hungary attacked Serbia. Attacking Serbia and liberating Kosovo served the US interest in furthering the weakening of the Russian sphere of influence.[/color]

Two points:

1. Your first point is wrong. Russia was, under Yeltsin, invited to engage with NATO through the Partnership for Peace program, which included joint NATO-Russia trainings. The West also poured foreign aid into Russia to build up its economy. In other words, the Western democracies were eager to have Russia join the international community, and were not interested in continuing to oppose Russia militarily. The argument that people wanted another Cold War (immediately after it ended) is completely bogus, and at odds with reality. NATO was offered to post-Soviet states and satellites as an incentive for consolidating democracy in those places, and as a way to integrate those countries with international democratic institutions; NATO and the EU, and as such, not sliding towards anarchy or authoritarianism. Russia, under Yeltsin, promised to integrate on Western lines. Putin has other plans.

2. Serbia and Russia did not always have good relations, especially when Serbia was a part of Yugoslavia, and Tito was opposing Moscow at every turn. Also, the Russian sphere of influence does not include the Western Balkans (nor did it during the Cold War, when Yugoslavia acted independent of Moscow, and in many cases, sided with the West). The proposition that Serbia is part of Russia's sphere of influence due to some myth of Pan-Slavism is ludicrous. Anecdotally, I have many Serbian friends, and most of them can't stand Russia. This is an elite myth, used to justify Russian intransigence with the advent of Primakov and then Putin in Russia. In other words, Kosovo has nothing to do with Russia.

[color=green]Please explain to me how the US invasion of Panama in 1989 fits into this Manichean world-view.[/color]

Why? What does that have to do with this situation?

For the record, I think the US invasion of Panama in 1989 was wrong. Plain and simple. Any other irrelevant questions you would like to ask?

The truth of the matter is that you are trying to paint me as a US-apologist, despite the fact that my record on this forum is highly critical of the United States on a number of issues.

Your record, on the other hand, of coming out against the United States, no matter what the issue, is solid.
[color=green]
Georgia's infrastucture remains relatively untouched, and her capacity to engage in future acts of belligerence seriously degraded.[/color]

Perhaps you are right, though I doubt it. Let us see how Russia reacts when Georgia's NATO membership talks are accelerated. Let's see if Russia allows OSCE missions into the affected areas, and lets see if they allow an international peacekeeping force into S. Ossetia and Abkhazia. Let's see if they withdraw all troops from Georgia, and allow that non-Russian, non-Georgian force into S. Ossetia and Abkhazia. If they let that happen, I will believe that they are genuinely committed to integrating into the international community on its own terms. Though in all likelihood, the reasons for their acceptance of such terms will be due to the strong US-EU reaction against their move, including the U.S. call to convene an emergency G7 meeting, which certainly worried the Russians (according to a number of sources).

However, I do not think Russia will accept my prescriptions, or the prescriptions highlighted in the Brookings article above. Why? Because, as I believe, Putin's Russia is not hugely interested in integrating into the international security order. They are interested, rather, in regaining Russian "greatness" measured primarily by military power.

[color=green]especially when compared to equivalent US/NATO actions....[/color]

And the result of those NATO actions in the 90s? A number of countries with pretty solid democratic systems with growing, sustainable economies heading inexorably and peacefully for entry into the European Union...

I wonder if Russia has something similar in mind for Georgia...