Russia resurgent

The war in Georgia is a victory for Russia. The West’s options are limited, but it needs to pursue them firmly

ON THE night of August 7th, Mikheil Saakashvili, Georgia’s president, embarked on an ill-judged assault on South Ossetia, one of his country’s two breakaway enclaves. Russian tanks, troops and aircraft poured across the border. Just five days later, after pulverising the Georgian armed forces, Russia announced that it was ending its operations.

This brutal and efficient move (see article) was a victory for Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president-turned-prime-minister, not just over Georgia but also over the West, which has been trying to prise away countries on Russia’s western borders and turn them democratic, market-oriented and friendly. Now that Russia has shown what can happen to those that distance themselves from it, doing so will be harder in future. Living next to the bear

Russia has made perfunctory attempts to justify the invasion. It claimed that it was defending Russian citizens. This excuse, as Sweden’s foreign minister tartly noted, recalled Hitler’s justifications of Nazi invasions. Anyway, most of the “Russian citizens” in South Ossetia and Abkhazia had been handed their passports fairly recently, presumably in preparation for this foray.

Similarly, Russian attempts to draw analogies with NATO’s bombing of Serbia in 1999 and its encouragement of Kosovo’s independence, or with the American-led invasion of Iraq, do not wash. The latest fighting in South Ossetia may have been triggered by the Georgians, but it was largely engineered by the Russians, who have, over the years, fanned the flames of the conflict. As for the Iraqi parallel, not even the Russians pretend that Mr Saakashvili has ever been a threat to his neighbours and to the world.

This was no sudden response to provocation, but a long-planned move. Mr Putin resents the West’s influence in former Soviet countries such as Georgia and Ukraine, and he dislikes the puckish Mr Saakashvili intensely. He may not yet have ousted him (indeed, ordinary Georgians have rallied to support their president—so far). But by thumping down Russia’s military fist in the Caucasus, he has made clear that Russia will not tolerate excessive signs of independence from its neighbours, including bids to join the NATO alliance.

This new Russian imperialism is bad news for all its neighbours. Mr Saakashvili is an impetuous nationalist who has lately tarnished his democratic credentials. His venture into South Ossetia was foolish and possibly criminal. But, unlike Mr Putin, he has led his country in a broadly democratic direction, curbed corruption and presided over rapid economic growth that has not relied, as Russia’s mostly does, on high oil and gas prices. America’s George Bush was right, if rather slow, to declare on August 11th that it was unacceptable in the 21st century for Russia to have invaded a sovereign neighbouring state and to threaten a democratically elected government.

Yet the hard truth, for Georgians and others, is that pleas for military backing from the West in any confrontation with Russia are unlikely to be heeded. The Americans gave Mr Saakashvili token help when they transported Georgian troops home from Iraq (where 2,000 of them made up the third-largest allied contingent). And they have now sent in humanitarian aid in military aircraft and ships. But nobody is willing to risk a wider war with Russia over its claimed near-abroad. Among Russia’s immediate neighbours, only the Baltic states, which slipped into NATO in the 1990s when Russia was weak, can claim such protection.

That does not mean the West should do nothing in response to Russia’s aggression against Georgia. On the contrary, it still has influence over the Russians, who remain surprisingly sensitive about their international image. That is why Western leaders must make quite clear their outrage over the invasion and continued bombing of Georgia. Few have done that so far; the Italians and Germans in particular have been shamefully silent.

Above all, the West must make plain to Mr Putin that Russia’s invasion of Georgia means an end to business as usual, even if it continues to work with him on issues such as Iran. America has already cancelled some military exercises with Russia. America and the Europeans should ensure that Russia is not let into more international clubs, such as the Paris-based OECD or the World Trade Organisation. Now would also be an appropriate time to strengthen the rich-country G7, which excludes Russia, at the expense of the G8, which includes it.

The European Union, which has too often split into camps of appeasers and tough-talkers over Russia, should drop negotiations on a new partnership and co-operation agreement. Visa restrictions should be tightened, and the personal finances abroad of top Russian officials probed more carefully. The EU should work harder at reducing its dependence on Russian energy imports and improving internal energy connections—and EU countries should stop striking bilateral deals with Russia. Let them in

In the short term, none of this is likely to deter Russia from reasserting itself in the Caucasus if it feels inclined to do so. Together, though, such measures might give Mr Putin pause before trying anything similar elsewhere—for instance in Crimea, a part of Ukraine that is home not only to many thousands of Russians but also to Russia’s Black Sea fleet. The clearer the West’s displeasure, the better the chances of getting peacekeepers and monitors from other countries into Abkhazia and South Ossetia to replace the Russian troops which have been there as peacekeepers since the early 1990s, but which should leave as they are now clearly occupying forces.

Most importantly, although Mr Saakashvili’s foolishness makes admitting Georgia harder, Russia’s incursion should not delay plans to let Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. Russia’s aggression will make these countries, and others, keener than ever on joining. The worst outcome of this war would be for the West to allow Russia a veto over any sovereign country’s membership of either NATO or the EU.

The clearer the West’s displeasure, the better the chances of getting peacekeepers and monitors from other countries into Abkhazia and South Ossetia to replace the Russian troops which have been there as peacekeepers since the early 1990s, but which should leave as they are now clearly occupying forces.

What FOOLS, the US, the UN, the EU, NATO !
Why did everyone permit the Russians to be the peacekeepers ?
This is clearly the foxes guarding the chicken coop.
Why did not our AA Secretary of State,
who is touted as a Soviet expert
not see the danger in this ?

Why did not our AA Secretary of State, who is touted as a Soviet expert not see the danger in this ?

It was done way back in the 90's. At the time the US was worried about the Soviet Union dissolving into chaos. Almost every former Soviet republic had nukes at the time and we just had different priorities. Also, I'm not sure anyone knew at the time that relations between Russia and Georgia would end up being so bad.

"This was no sudden response to provocation, but a long-planned move. Mr Putin resents the West’s influence in former Soviet countries such as Georgia and Ukraine, and he dislikes the puckish Mr Saakashvili intensely."

Where were our intelligence agencies on this? Was the CIA asleep or something? We have military advisors in Georgia; we should have seen this coming.

Frankly, the US Government is failng the American people on so many levels, partcularly on defending its own borders, and it seems intent on promoting the dispossession of America to Mexico and anybody else who screams racism or discrimination loudly enough.

"The European Union, which has too often split into camps of appeasers and tough-talkers over Russia..."

Can someone refresh my memory about who are the "tough-talkers?" I know that the EU is composed of non-doer's, but I hadn't realized there were some "tough-talkers" among them.

I'm just wondering which will come first - will NATO melt down and disband or will Russia be forced to invade some NATO country first to make it happen?

"Was the CIA asleep or something?"

It appears to me the CIA is much more interested in destroying this country than worrying about or tracking someone who might be trying to do it from the outside. And the CIA is hardly alone. Most of our gov't agencies are filled with operatives hoping to destroy us from within.

Why did everyone permit the Russians to be the peacekeepers ?

After the civil war between Georgian separatists and South Ossetian separatists ended, a joint peace keeping force of South Ossetians, Georgians and Russians was set up, monitored by the OSCE.

Here and here are some articles with good background information on the situation.

Where were our intelligence agencies on this? Was the CIA asleep or something? We have military advisors in Georgia; we should have seen this coming.

This has been brewing for a long time. We knew Russia was prepared to move.

The real question is, did Saakshvili launch the attack on the South Ossetian capitol on his own or was he encouraged. I have read reports that argue each side of that question!

Thank you for the links.
So no one at CIA nor State was paying attention.
It seems that both State and CIA are at fault as
this has been a powder keg for fourteen years.
And of cause W publicly stated that Putin was
a wonderful man, cuz W looked into his eyes.
George has been such a disappointment as President.
OBTW the Bible Identifies the war of Gog and Magog
in the end times with Prince of Rosh and the Prince of Persia.
Ezekiel 38 is more correct than State, CIA, Rice and Bush.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai

Good questions. Has NATO ever done any heavy lifting? I know they were in the Balkans, so they might have done some fighting there. I think they're about one notch above the blue helmets. There was the story about the Germans in Afghanistan, couldn't shoot unless someone made them mad or something. I think the former block countries and the former Soviet republics should form their own treaty organization. NATO seems to have become a civil service job with military trappings. Like a military academy where the guns are made out of wood. The people that used to live under the Soviet boot and still live much closer to the woods are much more prone to actually fight the bear when it comes of the woods. I guess they don't have nukes, but we could help them with that.

My husband was career Navy and did his last tour before retirement with NATO. That was more than 20 yrs. ago. He says NATO was an abomination as a fighting force even then and has gone downhill since. Try to imagine a unionized military with all sorts of regulations about when they can fight, what hours they can fight, for how long they can fight, etc. and you'll have an idea how effective NATO was and is. You're exactly right about them being a civil service job with uniforms. It is a shame to bring the former USSR republics into an outfit like that as they are willing to fight since they understand what it is they're fighting for and against.

We are no longer able to protect ourselves let alone the west since our country has been at war with itself since Vietnam. It's a sad and pathetic situation for the future and I worry that we are already living on borrowed time with or without the additional threat from the jihadis.

The real question is, did Saakshvili launch the attack on the South Ossetian capitol on his own or was he encouraged. I have read reports that argue each side of that question!

In the Glen Beck interview from yesterday, Saakshvili stated that they moved to shell Ossetia only after Russia had moved 100 armored units into the area. They thought they could take on that Russian force and wanted it out of Georgia. Then of course out of the Tunnel poured the remainder of the Russian Armored spearhead. Another 1,000 armored vehicles.

Saakshvili stated that they moved to shell Ossetia only after Russia had moved 100 armored units into the area.

"Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive"

Saakashvili says a lot of things and his story keeps changing. Here are two references from a Georgian News site that are the first mentions of Russian forces entering Georgia. You will note they both mention august 8th, which is AFTER the Georgians launched their assault!

President Saakashvili said earlier on August 8, that 150 Russian tanks, armored personnel carriers and other type of armored vehicles “are now coming into the Georgian territory [in South Ossetia] from Roki Tunnel [source]
PM Gurgenidze said that infiltration of “so-called volunteers” into South Ossetia from the Russian Federation via Roki Tunnel had been observed overnight on August 8. [source]

But something else just jumped out at me that is most interesting. And that is what Lado Gurgenidze, the Georgian prime minister said was the reason for the [Georgian] attack on Tskhinvali and the surround villages.

“Government troops were forced to launch measures for the establishment of peace in the region after separatist forces responded to President Saakashvili’s peace initiatives by shelling Georgian villages,” PM Gurgenidze said." [source]

There is absolutely NO mention of a Russian column! If there was, it would have been trumpeted!

Even if the Russian column was moving into South Ossetia on the 7th, that is now excuse for the indiscriminate attack on a civilian area!

Was a lurker for quite a few months before signing on. Would have been great to have contributed more over the years, but life goes on. BTW - I have not been looking at my Freeper mail ever since the Litvinenko poisoning. Got some very weird emails back then when I was supporting the Litvinenko version of the story in debate. The You Have Mail on my login has been red ever since then.

The weird part of this current flareup is that I get the feeling we have been through this exact scenario before.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.