(Given that I do not know Georgian, Russian, or Ossetian politics from my ass or a hole in the ground, I have called on a guest writer to say something intelligent. It seemed to work last time. What are the odds that I could find someone who studies Georgia? Scientists used Deep Blue to calculate them at 1 in 1,730,265. Well, suck it, science. I don't just know someone, I live with him. Without further ado, Mr. Scott "Aqua Velva Man" Nissen.)
Despite the media’s insistence that the political future of John Edwards (and, one assumes, his illegitimate child) and the vacation habits of Barack Obama are the most salient issues in the world today, a much more troubling event has been ongoing in a largely ignored region. On August 7th, the Russian military invaded South Ossetia, a small region in northern Georgia with separatist goals.
Before getting to the consequences of this action for Americans and the rest of the world, a little background is in order. Following the collapse of communism, the force that kept many separatist groups in check disappeared.
Without the unifying force of communism (and the threat posed by the Red Army), many of the new states that emerged from Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union were unable to placate the separatist aspirations of many ethnic groups. As seen in Chechnya, Kosovo and Nagorno-Karabakh (I did not make that one up), the result has been some of the most savage conflicts in the post-Cold War era. Conflict erupted in South Ossetia almost immediately after Georgian independence in 1992, ending with a tense cease-fire that was maintained by Georgian, Russian and South Ossetian peacekeepers.
South Ossetia was largely peaceful until 2004, when the new Georgian government, brought to power in the Rose Revolution, cracked down on illegal activity in the region. This led to sporadic fighting between Georgian and South Ossetian troops, who were believed to be backed by the Russian military. American and limited European acknowledgement of Kosovo’s independence in February 2008 further destabilized Georgia's hold on South Ossetia. Recognizing separatists in Kosovo set a precedent, reducing the authority states have over breakaway regions. Needless to say, the tensions in South Ossetia have run high and increased significantly in recent years.
Everything came to a head on August 1st, when Georgian troops in South Ossetia were shelled by South Ossetian troops. The Georgian military responded by invading the region to quell the fighting, encountering intense resistance.
Russia denies that the incident on August 1st occurred. A week later, the Russian military began bombing raids, first in South Ossetia and eventually on other targets in Georgia including an airfield near the Georgian capital of Tbilisi. As of today, it appears that Georgia is vacating the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali while Abkhazia, another separatist region within Georgia, may be taking advantage of this situation by attacking Georgian troops within Abkhazian borders.
What remains unclear is Russia’s rationale. Two motives have been widely speculated.
buy elavil online nouvita.co.uk/wp-content/languages/new/uk/elavil.html no prescription
First, Russia may have annexed South Ossetia to reunite it with North Ossetia, which is already part of Russia. They claim that approximately 90% of the people who live in South Ossetia carry a Russian passport and use Russian currency. Second, Moscow is troubled by former Soviet republics joining the EU and NATO. The three Baltic States have already joined both organizations while Ukraine and Georgia have received commitments from NATO about their future with the security organization. Russia may be trying to destabilize the Georgian state and military with the intention of making them ineligible for NATO membership.
It is important to note that Russia also has separatist problems of its own, most notably in Chechnya (which also borders Georgia). Although this conflict has cooled off in recent years, it does not make much sense for Russia to embolden Ossetian separatists in Georgia while trying to suppress Chechens a mere 200 miles away. Additionally, Russia’s standing in the international community has taken a big hit in recent years due to Vladimir Putin’s backsliding toward repression. Invading Georgia, which is significantly weaker, perceived to be a strong democracy, and a staunch ally of the West, can’t do much to help Russia’s tattered international image.
Why should we care that Russia is essentially steamrolling over an obscure country – besides the obvious loss of life and possibility of ethnic cleansing that comes with any armed conflict? There are three underreported ways in which this conflict might impact Americans directly. First, after the US and the UK, Georgia had the largest force in Iraq – roughly 2,000 troops on the ground. With the continued deterioration of the situation in South Ossetia, the Georgian government has asked that the United States airlift these troops back to Georgia. Unfortunately, this means that the military of another coalition partner (read: the US or UK) will, at least temporarily, have to fill that gap.
Second, oil markets will be further destabilized. A major pipeline links Central Asian oil fields with Western ports on the Mediterranean via Tbilisi. The Georgian government has said that the Russian Air Force is targeting the pipeline, a claim not yet substantiated by independent observers. However, the mere notion that the pipeline could be targeted may be enough for oil speculators to drive the price of oil to new record highs.
Finally, and this goes out to all of us enjoying the Summer Olympics in Beijing, guess where the 2014 Winter Olympics are being held?
buy flagyl online nouvita.co.uk/wp-content/languages/new/uk/flagyl.html no prescription
That’s right, Sochi, Russia, only about 150 miles from the newly demolished city of Tskhinvali. While I’m sure that the Russian government will be able to put on a wonderful show for the rest of the world, the specter of violence, instability, and the current conflict is likely to remain the region for many years.
Unfortunately, this conflict is getting the short shrift in the MSM even though we, and the region, may be feeling the consequences of it for some time. It may take the Russian army marching on Atlanta instead of Tbilisi for many Americans to actually take notice.
(Scott was compensated with a post-dated out-of-state bad check for $1,000 which stands no chance of being honored by any legitimate financial institution.)
Dustin says:
No doubt the start of the second Cold War!
Brandon says:
Very nice analysis, Scott. I would just like to clarify one point you made, namely that one of Russia's rationales is that it is protecting Russian citizens in South Ossetia. It is indeed true that many of South Ossetia's residents have Russian passports, but many of the readers unfamiliar with the region might find it curious that residents of a region internationally recognized as part of Georgia possess Russian passports. Well, this came to pass because the Russian government recently decided to bestow the gift of Russian citizenship on these people. This is approximately the equivalent of the US government giving American passports to a hypothetical Mexican province that was making noise against the Mexican central government, and then sending a force there on the pretext of protecting American citizens.
Michael says:
Thanks for a great recap of this situation. I feel like I understand it now.
Ed says:
Good note, Brandon. I think sometimes we are so familiar with our areas of specialty that we neglect to mention things we assume everyone knows.
Brandon says:
By the way, Ed, I can't of wish you HADN'T linked my post from earlier this year, as my rather optimistic assessment of Russia's future is looking rather a bit naive now :-)
John says:
Where is the objectivity? It is clear from facts that Russia is NOT the agressor. Who startet this war again? Who killed a lot of civil people in Tskhinvali?
Ivan says:
Oh please….The US does this in every country in the world under the name of freedom and democracy. Some poodunk, self proclaimed "country" starts shelling Russian troops and they aren't supposed to do anything about it?
Get a grip. Just because Russia has been silent since the break up, doesn't mean they aren't still a military superpower. This Georgian president was a fool to poke the big bear with a stick. He's now getting his face mauled off.
This would be like Cuba shelling Florida and then crying to the world for help.
Brandon says:
John, actually very little is clear from the facts right now. It would certainly be quite simple to pretend that the whole conflict materialized out of nowhere last Friday because Georgia attacked Tskhinvali. Then we could ignore the reports that the Georgians were responding to attacks from Ossetian separatists; we could ignore the fact that Russia has been provoking Georgia for the past few years by instigating trade wars, invading Georgia's airspace, and granting Russian citizenship to South Ossetians. And the fact that Russia has responded with overwhelming force. Yeah, those sound like the actions of a neutral peacekeeping force. And, no, I'm not saying that the Georgians are blameless. Saakashvili has been gearing up for a fight by stoking Georgian nationalism and provoking Russia with inflammatory rhetoric. Neither side comes out of this looking good, but to claim that the Russians are blameless and are acting altruistically is absurd.
Ivan, I'm not quite sure what your point is. So, American foreign policy is riddled with hypocrisy? Funny, I thought this post was about the Russian-Georgian conflict. If you look at this blog, you'll see that most of the readers aren't exactly Bush supporters. The fact that the Bush administration initiated a disastrous war and has cost America its standing in world opinion might mean that he cannot speak with moral authority on this issue, but it doesn't mean that I am obliged applaud Russia's actions. And your analogy falls short in one crucial respect. Florida is a part of the United States, while South Ossetia is part of Georgia.
Scott says:
If anyone is interested in this subject, James Traub wrote a pretty exhaustive summation of this situation:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/10/europe/10traub.php?page=5
Brandon: Thanks for the clarification! Ed's right, that was something that I assumed was common knowledge.
John and Ivan: I'm not sure from what you are basing the claims you're making here. From what I've gathered, the actual start of the hostilities is questionable – we're not sure if the Georgians or the South Ossetians shot first. Much of this is due to the fact that western media does not have much of a presence in the area. As for the claim that Russia is responding to its troops being shelled, there is some validity to this, as Russian peacekeepers in the region were killed. However, it is common practice that peacekeepers are put in place to, to put it bluntly, keep the peace; in this case keeping the Georgians and Ossetians from fighting. This puts them in harms way and should their safety be threatened, peacekeepers are given the right to fight back. However, this does not give license to Russia to bomb strategic targets outside of S. Ossetia or to occupy Georgian territory which is unquestionably Georgian.
I don't mean to put all the blame for this on Russia – President Saakashvili has made gestures to the west that have provoked Russia. On the other hand, Russia's military actions in Georgia can not be called proportional. Just because one has military superiority, does not mean that it must be used – in Iraq or in Georgia.
Mikhail says:
The amount and quality of information the typical westerner receives in regards to this is best represented by Dustin here, yet to list the pure facts:
a) Ossetia and Abkhazia joined (back then) the Czar Russia BEFORE Georgia (who itself was then on the verge of extinction by the Turks)
b) they were forsibly attached to (back then) the soviet Geogia by Stalin (who was georgian himself)
c) ever since the fall of the USSR the georgians tried to assimilate them, with to this day THREE pure genocide acts
d) after the one in the 90's a ceasefire was achieved with the agreement that russian peacekeepers would separate the sides, who in case of aggression from EITHER side were supposed to interfere and protect the victim
e) on Aug 8, the georgians (who had been building their army with this very intent for years prior – all of which had been reported by observers) attacked Ossetia in "blitzkrieg" fasion and destroyed its capitol COMPLETELY with tanks and rockets. Then the troops came into the city throwing grenades in basements where people were hiding thus killing what is estimated in up to 3000 civilians to this moment – if this is not genocide I don't know what is
f) simultaneously, they attacked the peacekeepers (of whom there were only 1000 lightly-armored troops or so), thus becoming the aggressor towards Russia as well
g) America has no moral right to judge ANYBODY
h) Saakashgvili is a dictator and a war criminal who killed thousands overnight
j) Do you SERIOUSLY want to wake up with radiation poisoning on eof these days because of HIM???
Brandon says:
Wow, the Russian nationalists are out in full force today. Mikhail, I suppose you're going to tell me that the average Russian is so much better informed and views world politics far more objectively than the "average American?"
Let me just respond to your points:
a) I have some sympathy for S. Ossetia and Abkhazia's position. The tragedy of small ethnic groups throughout history is that they too often don't get to choose which political entity they belong to. But this is a fact of international life. Many of the ethnic minority groups within the Russian Federation were incorporated by force, as well. I suppose that your heartfelt concern for the right of Abkhazian and South Ossetian self-determination means that you are prepared to allow Russia's own ethnic minority regions the right to secede?
b) I assume that you bring up Stalin to imply that he was somehow an agent acting in Georgian interests. Yes, he was ethnically Georgian, but he also persecuted Georgians mercilessly. The fact that he was Georgian is irrelevant.
c) You seem to love throwing the word genocide around, even though you don't clarify what these three genocide acts committed by Georgians consisted of. Yes, Georgia tried to "assimilate" these regions to the extent that they countered their aspirations to secede from Georgia.
d) In my previous post I enumerated the ways in which Russians deviated from neutrality in their "peacekeeping" role, namely by conferring Rusisan citizenship on the people they were safeguarding.
e) Reports indicated that the Georgians were provoked by separatist attacks. I have no doubt that the Georgian attack resulted in civilian casualties. Right now, there are very few independently verified reports on the scale of those casualties; your claim of 3000 is even higher than the 1500 that the Russian media keeps reporting. Like I stated before, I am fully prepared to condemn Saakashvili and the Georgians for this attack, but it in no way justifies Russia's incursion into Georgia proper and the bombing of civilian areas.
f) If they did, I am fully prepared to condemn them, but as I already pointed out, the Russian peacekeeping force was far from a neutral actor.
g) This is such a tiresome and pathetic argument. First, I speak as an individual, not as an agent of the US. If you want to say Bush has no right to criticize Russia because it would be hypocritical, go ahead. It is equally hypocritical to criticize US imperialism and then justify Russia's actions in Georgia.
h) Mere accusations without a shred of evidence. Actually, even if Saakashvili were a dictator, which you don't even attempt to substantiate, Russia's actions would still be indefensible. And I suppose you are going to argue that the puppet fiefdom in South Ossetia is democratic, even though it is entirely made up of former Russian officials?
j) I don't even know what this means.
mike says:
Better late than never.
I have no clue about what is going on, but I'm reading that we were ' ' supportive ' ' of georgian independence. (double air quotes for that one.) And this makes us look bad, especially to other small countries who may turn to us for support from being steamrolled by larger, more aggressive, nations. Is any of that true?
Scott says:
Mike – Let me see if I help out here. Georgia has been independent since 1992, when the Soviet Union ceased to be. The US was supportive of Georgia's independence, as it was of all the other former Soviet Republics. The problem now comes in the American support of the Rose Revolution and Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili. Georgia responded with some of the greatest pro-American sentiments in the world right now.
Georgia became the poster child of the Bush Administration's "freedom march" and an example to other authoritarian states with democratic activists hoping to change the government. What makes us look bad is that the US is essentially hanging Georgia out to dry in the face of a real threat to its independence. Many smaller states in the region have aligned themselves with the US in the hopes that this alone would prevent attacks from Russia. Clearly, this is not the case. A possible consequence of this a drop-off of support towards the US in Eastern Europe – one of the only areas that supports practically everything the US does.
Brandon says:
Mike, you may be thinking of US and European support for Kosovo's independence. Russia has that as a justification for its support of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Patti says:
I'm still not sure if I completely understand the lunacy of everyone's argument. I am glad to be living with an understanding and brilliant Russia scholar who deigns to entertain my simple questions without outwardly mocking my ignorance.
Kosovo claims independence from Serbia with the support and blessing of the US and EU.
South Ossetia and Abkhazia claim independence from Georgia with the support and blessing of Russia.
Yet, Chechnya cannot claim independence from Russia… since an outside country with a large military is not backing them? Is that how this works?
Aslan Maskhadov says:
For all intents and purposes, Chechnya IS independent. Putin allows Ramzan Kadyrov to run things as he likes, because they cannot afford not to. In other words, Russia never won the Chechen War at all, because they only achieved victory over the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria by winning over one of the rebel factions and installing them into power. For all their bullshit about stability, the United Russa knows it had better not piss off Kadyrov. This is even highlighted further by the end of Russian military operations in the region.