Soviet roots to Georgian conflict

BBC ^ | 16 August 2008 | Bridget Kendall

[Tailgunner Joe]

With the Soviet lid still firmly on, if there were resentments, they simmered beneath the surface. It was a long way off yet from the burning knotted frustrations which ignited this latest violent conflagration.

But this is not a eulogy for Soviet times and its duplicitous Cold War slogan, that hailed "Friendship of Nations."

Soviet legacy

Far from it. Because it is in part the legacy of the Soviet Union - that network of autonomous regions and republics still peppering the landscape, which engendered the so-called frozen conflicts.

Like so many Soviet concepts, the idea of autonomous regions, inside the 15 main republics that made up the USSR, was both laudable and devious.

In theory, it gave smaller ethnic groups some autonomy, a structure within which to nurture culture, language and history.

And in the Caucasus especially, each language and culture, whether Abkhazian, Georgian, Ossetian or any of dozens more, should be a jewel to be treasured and protected, especially in our inter-connected world, where bland homogeneity threatens to wash over all of us.

'Moscow's safety net'

But in the Soviet era, the Kremlin's patronage of smaller ethnic minorities was not only about protecting difference.

It was also a deliberate ruse and a political safety net, so elites in these autonomous regions could be encouraged, when needed, to play the part of a Trojan horse, a loyal legion to curb the ambitions of any upstart republic, by ensuring disobedience to Moscow was challenged from within.

This is, of course, what happened when the Soviet Union fell apart. Independent Georgia found that its two enclaves on Russia's border were resisting the new order.

[Tailgunner Joe]

When the Bolsheviks invaded Georgia in the 1920's, the Ossetians supported them, and today they still do.

[ken21]

>>>One of Vladimir Putin’s most-quoted phrases is that the “collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 21st century”.

>>>Look out for more violence in places you’ve never heard of, coming soon.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ethnic-tensions-war-in-the-caucasus-is-stalins-legacy-899615.html

[Nextrush]

This is a fascinating analysis.

Differences were promoted and protected to keep the Kremlin in control.

The Communists used “diversity” as a political tool.

Solzenitsyn always painfully pointed out similarities between the USSR and the West.

Here we have the parallel drawn for us maybe without the author realizing it between modern day promotion of diversity and the Soviet promotion of the same cause in the name of politics and power.

That’s the point I make about all this promotion of “cultural differnces”, “diversity”, “multiculturalism”, etc. Its about power and politics all the way.

[Kenny Bunk]

Good Post, Joe!

[Alia]

Thank you for posting this article.

--snip:

it was also a deliberate ruse and a political safety net, so elites in these autonomous regions could be encouraged, when needed, to play the part of a Trojan horse, a loyal legion to curb the ambitions of any upstart republic, by ensuring disobedience to Moscow was challenged from within.

This is, of course, what happened when the Soviet Union fell apart. Independent Georgia found that its two enclaves on Russia's border were resisting the new order.

--end snip