open Democracy News Analysis - The war for Georgia: Russia, the west, the future , Ghia Nodia - Comments

Antonios Symeonakis on "The war for Georgia: Russia, the west, the future "

Antonios Symeonakis — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 11:47:51 +0000

This article a cheap propaganda text and I do not understand why the open democracy published it.

MZRR on "The war for Georgia: Russia, the west, the future "

MZRR — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 18:40:10 +0000

As I mentioned earlier, both states are clearly to blame. I really cannot accept that Georgia hadn't planned such a strike to coincide with the Olympics. I also don't accept that all Georgian politicians are fools. Therefore, I think they did calculate that Russia would attack so forcefully (all evidence previously suggested that they would) but they completely miscalculated the response of NATO. Indeed, the organisation clearly wants nothing to do with the maverick Georgian administration. Moreover, it's been perfect for Russia, who can now "justifiably" (I'm talking about a Russian military perspective here, not mine) launch a huge attack against Georgia, also killing many innocent civilians. The fact of the matter is, Georgia knew what it was doing and the article above is simply propaganda.

The BBC has aired interview after interview after interview with Georgian officials, spouting typical propaganda. The news coverage is so biased it is untrue. Now, I'm not saying that Russian politicians would be any more reserved in these interviews, but the coverage simply has to be more balanced. Typical BBC. The Georgians simply cannot come out of this as the innocent party.

Robvm on "The war for Georgia: Russia, the west, the future "

Robvm — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:07:51 +0000

Putin - the real leader - plans to annex South Ossetia to Russia, using the claim Ossetians want independence from Georgia. He is being double standard. Chechnya wants independence from Russia but he attacked them. If Russia annexes Ossetia then Chechnya should be declared independent.
Instead of spending money on military conquest, Putin should be spending money on decreasing Russsian poverty.

postmaster on "The war for Georgia: Russia, the west, the future "

postmaster — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:28:53 +0000

I think that you should read some Orwell.

postmaster on "The war for Georgia: Russia, the west, the future "

postmaster — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:24:22 +0000

Agreed.

Not logged in on "The war for Georgia: Russia, the west, the future "

Not logged in — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 01:06:52 +0000

Wow, quite a few of you seem to have a ridiculously high opinion of Russia on this comments page. The war is an act of aggression by NATO? The same NATO that wouldn't let Georgia or Ukraine into their folds? That makes absolutely no sense. Sakaashvilli may have grossly miscalculated the responses of both Russia and the US, but Russia in conferring upon the Ossetian and Abkhaz the benefits of Russian citizenship in Georgia's sovereign territory was clearly baiting this tiny nation whose allegiances it so resents. And could it have been any more obvious that Georgia's first strike was little more than a pretext when Russia moved into the very undisputed town of Gori? Make no mistake, this is Russian opportunism and bullying, and accusing the US of hypocrisy doesn't make it suddenly deserved.

Not logged in on "The war for Georgia: Russia, the west, the future "

Not logged in — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 19:38:41 +0000

Oh wait - gee - "a war we cannot ignore."

Let's put it into accounting terms: how about a war we cannot afford to participate in since we blew our bankroll in Iraq so that oil supplies and prices would be stable (failed) enough for the U.S. to continue to have an economy (failed). And since that theory was wrong just as the article mentions about Georgia and the Russian response - WRONG.

We are now broke. Banks are falling apart and it was for a resource - oil - that we don't need unless we ignore the technology we have at our fingertips.

These wars have absolutely NOTHING to do with democracy or communism or humanitarianism - it is a pure grab for oil and in this case, the Caspian Sea.

Anyone who thinks Russia will let go of that might also believe we would let Russia control Canadian resources or Mexican oil and gas without a long bloody fight.

China does it with such finesse: they took the asset of U.S. Treasury Notes and leveraged tons of copper, gold, oil and gas for their own economy - smart kids those Chinese are.

The Arabs are learning the same trick now - another group of B+ students in global economics.

U.S. businessmen and policy makers? They get a D- headed for an F and their miscalculation in Georgia is just another symptom of their misguided belief system: do ya think those darn politicians have a drinking problem or what possible explanation exists for their total lack of foresight, let alone IQ?

Nobody lets go of resources in their 'backyard' - ever - and the quest to secure the Caspian Sea is silly and expensive and beyond our budget.

Currently in THIS DEMOCRACY (and I use the term loosely, although its the best planet Earth had devised as of yet), we can't afford health care, education, gas, social security or any reasonable sufficient government support of our OWN industries required to continue to be a viable commercial enterprise. The chump change 'IRS stimulus' package was just a temporary painkiller shot, about as effective as 2 asprins for a soldier shot in the chest in battle.

That means the Founding Fathers passed the business of America to lackluster kids who have gone bankrupt. Game over - enter the North American Union, followed by the New World Order and if you think THAT is going to be a democracy - ok fine - believe it delusional kiddies: we shall see.

For the moment, the U.S. is a big giant game over, primarily because we were so busy 'taking care of others' (peddling influence and securing alliances by beating people with a stick - poor method to be sure) and chasing oil (instead of renewables - bad choice again) that we forgot if we don't have a viable economy at home we have no chips to play in the game.

Iraq broke the bank, but all of these problems existed before that war and Iraq was just a LOG that broke the camel's back - much larger than a straw - and it was planned that way.

As of September 2008 the U.S. is officially bankrupt - count on it. Food and water shortages, a collapse of many systems we rely on today, gas lines that require a week for a fill up (hope you don't get towed away while waiting) - many sour predictions and many won't come true, but many will.

Therefore, with an explosion in renewable energy (which we will also be slow to capitalize on compared to other nations) and the dying need for oil (since we have no real industry anymore and few can afford to drive cars to the movies on a whim,)
this leaves the U.S. and much of the west in a virtual economic coma.

Believe it, like it or don't - thats the reality and anyone who is delusional about continuing our current affairs overseas, let alone starting up new confrontations is blind to the poorly planned economics and obsolete models that formed such plans.

In short, it wasn't the concepts of democracy or capitalism that failed, rather it was the plans we made and the expenses we incurred that drove the system bankrupt. The concept of starting another war, either from within or by confronting Russia isn't something we can afford to pay for. Iraq? We can't afford that either and now have lawmakers like homeless little beggars with their hands out pleading for revenue from that new regime. It will never happen. We paid for it and owe the Chinese and OPEC trillions for our folly.

Game over. Press reset. Try a new government and currency because the U.S. dollar, the Constitution and all that those documents stood for are spinning around the bowl, nearing the bottom and on their way down the pipe into ancient history simply because our government never learned the following simple lesson:

I used to be a pool man in high school and sometimes encountered a mean dog in the backyard who would growl, snap and rip at the back gate as I approached. Sometimes this was a German Shepard as big as I was and the owner wasn't home.

I had few choices. Coming back later meant screwing up a week's schedule.

Beating, macing or shooting the dog meant I'd have a raging bull nipping at me (or worse) while trying to make a buck and it was unlikely the home owner would keep me around long if that was how I treated her family. Do you blame her?

Opening the gate bravely and calmly, with a smile and with nothing except bacon in one hand and a tennis ball in the other was the method I used 100% of the time with great success.

Compare that to our global policies and you'll find bacon and fun things (like schools for kids) are much cheaper and far more effective than tanks, coups, spies and destabilizing a nation we are trying to do business with.

If we wanted Georgia to be 'westernized' a simple series of real 'humanitarian' projects would be all we'd need. Russia has issues with such agencies, but they can and do operate to a limited degree in every nation using U.S. funds - even in Iran.

And might I remind you that the dog behind the gate didn't get his bacon until after I had nearly finished my morning egg sandwich myself.

Had we treated our own children and internal national interests and policies that way, we might still have a reasonably strong and solvent nation to depend on.

Not logged in Lawrence Efana (Note my yesterday's comment on "The war for Georgia: Russia, the west, the future "

Not logged in Lawrence Efana (Note my yesterday's comment — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:37:37 +0000

National sovereignty is highly important. But now what the people want is peace, quick material help, especially for the wounded, the old, the distressed and the poor, etc.

Thankful for the good diplomacy and open democracy opportunity to comment!

Lawrence Efana [Finland]

Not logged in on "The war for Georgia: Russia, the west, the future "

Not logged in — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:22:42 +0000

Georgia attacks their own people in a genocide and it's Russia's fault? Anyways the US has been training and giving weapons to the Georgians for years. Even using Iraq as a training ground for their military. But yeah I agree that Russia us using this to teach a lesson to the west. One we need badly. I mean does the US think we are the only side with guns, and missiles and nukes. Russia is flush with oil money now. The US wants to show off it's military strength in Iraq. Russia will in Georgia. But they won't take a 6 years to show minimal results.

The Reader on "The war for Georgia: Russia, the west, the future "

The Reader — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:10:22 +0000

:) This is pretty funny and very true.

Not logged in on "The war for Georgia: Russia, the west, the future "

Not logged in — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:32:13 +0000

I agree that the Georgian people may ditch their present government for its inept handling of the situation but I find it hard to believe that they will actually opt for a new government which returns to the old values. I suspect that the end result will be a new government which will do its best to avoid irritating Russia with talk of NATO but which will ask for and obtain help from the EU to rebuild the remainder of its country, armed forces etc.

John Spangolor on "The war for Georgia: Russia, the west, the future "

John Spangolor — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 06:51:13 +0000

Could this article be anymore biased? It sounds like you've been listening to Fox News all day.

MZRR on "The war for Georgia: Russia, the west, the future "

MZRR — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 21:56:53 +0000

"The Georgian government hoped that the Russians would not dare to conduct an undisguised all-out military aggression against Georgia...That did prove a miscalculation."

Either it was a miscalculation of a epic scale, given that the Russians had warned of such a retaliation for a long, long time (as well as warnings from analysts); or the Georgian government felt it could get away with a "first-strike" by carefully timing it with the start of the Olympic games (with Mr Putin, for example, in China). Moreover, we have seen "undisguised all-out military aggression" from Russia before (e.g. Chechnya). So, to assume that Russia wouldn't attack based on its international image is quite ridiculous. Either way, even a fool could see that such a Georgian attack would instigate a huge Russian response. Both sides are clearly to blame for this catastrophe. Georgia for it's "first-strike" against soft targets. Russia for its response.

"Whatever the humanitarian rhetoric, what Russia is really doing is a preventive strike against Nato."

Thank goodness that Georgia was not admitted to NATO. With such a maverick leadership it would be a disaster for the organisation, forcing it into a conflict with Russia. And, even by reading the article above, we can clearly see just how Georgia is attempting to further antagonise a rift between NATO and Russia to suit its own ends.

GuyCybershy on "The war for Georgia: Russia, the west, the future "

GuyCybershy — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 21:32:09 +0000

This war is an act of aggression by NATO against Russia, period!
Compare the media coverage to Israels attack on Lebanon two years ago. The hypocrisy and moral cowardice of the western media knows no bounds!

The war for Georgia: Russia, the west, the future , Ghia Nodia

Ghia Nodia — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 08:28:38 +0000

These words are being written when the Russian-Georgian war appeared to shift momentum from the escalation of 11 August 2008 to the announcement on 12 August of a halt to Russian military operations. It is too soon at the time of writing to say that this shift is genuine or definitive; nobody knows where things will stand even in a few hours' time. The terms of the deal to end the war proposed by Moscow, and discussed on 12 August by the French president with his Russian and French counterparts separately, suggest that this may only be the beginning of the end - if that.

It is even clearer that nobody can say at this stage what the long-term repercussions of the war will be. One thing is sure, however: after what has happened in these five days, the status quo ante cannot be fully restored - in Georgia itself, in Russian-American relations, or in Russian-European relations.

Ghia Nodia is minister of education and science of the Republic of Georgia. He was appointed to this post on 31 January 2008 He is also a scholar and adviser of the Caucasus Institute of Peace, Democracy and Development (CIPDD) in Tbilisi. His books include (with Álvaro Pinto Scholtbach) The Political Landscape of Georgia: Political Parties: Achievements, Challenges, and Prospects (University of Chicago Press, 2007)

The forced choice

The war was unexpected and anticipated at the same time. No one foresaw exactly the way events were to unfold; but for months, diplomats and analysts had talked about the danger of a major Russian-Georgian conflict around one or both of Georgia's so-called "frozen conflicts" (in Abkhazia and in South Ossetia). At the same time, the real role of the frozen conflicts in triggering the fateful events of 8-12 August 2008 should neither be underestimate nor overestimated. True, without the unresolved status of South Ossetia or Abkhazia, Russia and Georgia would not have gone to war. But, on the Russian side, the issue of South Ossetia in general - or of protection of the citizens of Russia residing there in particular - was just a pretext; and this became increasingly evident as the conflict unfolded.

As the international community moved towards stronger condemnation of the Russian aggression, the Georgian government was also under criticism for its alleged failure of judgment when the military attack to occupy Tskhinvali, South Ossetia's provincial capital, was ordered in the early morning of 8 August 2008. It looks like the Georgian government displayed political immaturity by falling into a Russian trap.

The context of that decision should be understood, however. For months, the Georgian forces inside the enclave within South Ossetia loyal to Tbilisi - as well as those forces across the de facto border - had been systematically attacked using artillery fire and other means. The obvious aim of this was to draw Georgia into an open military confrontation with Russia. Everybody on the Georgian side understood this very clearly, and all efforts were made to avoid such an outcome. However, by exerting this pressure, the Russians - through its puppet-regime in Tskhinvali - were putting the Georgian government into a lose-lose situation. Yes, engaging Russians in an open military confrontation was against Georgian interests. But, by helplessly watching how its citizens were systematically attacked and killed, the Georgian government was losing its credibility incrementally.

The escalation of violence in the days before 8 August demonstrated that what was on the Russians' mind was to wipe out the pro-Georgian enclave within South Ossetia, thus causing a serious humanitarian catastrophe. The news that, around midnignt on 8 August, a large column of Russian tanks entered South Ossetia from the north (and the pro-Georgian enclave is exactly on the main road between the Russian border and Tskhinvali) was the last straw: the decision to take control of Tskhinvali was a desperate attempt to pre-empt the large-scale Russian strike.

Among openDemocracy's articles on Georgian politics and the region:

Neal Ascherson, "Tbilisi, Georgia: the rose revolution's rocky road" (15 July 2005)

Donald Rayfield, "Georgia and Russia: with you, without you" (3 October 2006)

Robert Parsons, "Russia and Georgia: a lover's revenge" (6 October 2006)

George Hewitt, "Abkhazia: land in limbo" (10 October 2006)

Vicken Cheterian, "Georgia's arms race" (4 July 2007)

Donald Rayfield, "Russia and Georgia: a war of perceptions" (24 August 2007)

Alexander Rondeli, "Georgia: politics after revolution" (14 November 2007)

Robert Parsons, "Georgia's race to the summit" (4 January 2008)

Robert Parsons, "Mikheil Saakashvili's bitter victory" (11 January 2008)

Jonathan Wheatley, "Georgia's democratic stalemate" (14 April 2008)

Robert Parsons, "Georgia, Abkhazia, Russia: the war option" (13 May 2008)

Thomas de Waal, "The Russia-Georgia tinderbox" (16 May 2008)

Robert Parsons, "Georgia's dangerous gulf" (30 May 2008)

Nikolaj Nielsen, "A small bomb in Gali" (8 July 2008)

Alexander Rondeli, "Georgia's search for itself" (8 July 2008)

Thomas de Waal, "South Ossetia: the avoidable tragedy" (11 August 2008)
From the international public-relations perspective, it would probably have been smarter to allow Russia do whatever she was planning to do and wait for the international indignation afterwards. It is also easy to judge in hindsight. In the event, the Georgian government also felt that it had an obligation to do something to protect its citizens against an open attack. The Georgian government hoped that the Russians would not dare to conduct an undisguised all-out military aggression against Georgia, thus jeopardising its international image and relations with the international community. That did prove a miscalculation.

The true target

Perhaps the most telling illustration of what the Russians are doing in Georgia was something found found in the pocket of a Russian airman downed by the Georgian air defence: an obscene verse. The verse mocks the enemy - which is normal in wars. However, neither Georgians nor Ossetians are mentioned: the theme of this piece of doggerel was Russian troops humiliating Nato soldiers.

Whatever the humanitarian rhetoric, what Russia is really doing is a preventive strike against Nato, which happens to take place on Georgian territory. Moscow wants to teach Georgia a lesson for Tbilisi's open and defiant wish to become part of the west; it wants to send a message to the United States and Europe that it will not tolerate further encroachment on its zone of influence; and it wants to make clear to other countries in its neighbourhood (Ukraine first of all) that they are in Russia's backyard and should behave accordingly.

In Georgia proper, the main objective is regime change. At the United Nations Security Council meetings on 8-9 August 2008 convened at short notice to discuss the crisis, the US ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad revealed that the Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov was telling Condoleezza Rice that "(Mikheil) Saakashvili should go"; an indiscretion that provoked rage in his Russian counterpart, on the grounds that it betrayed the confidentiality of diplomatic conversations.

In strategic terms, the Russians want finally to consolidate their control over the separatist territories, and, most importantly, to have a pro-Russian regime in Georgia that would never again dare look in a westerly direction and try to become a western-style democracy. In domestic terms, this will be sold as a major victory over Nato, thus showing that the trend of Russia's humiliation after losing the cold war is broken.

Russia's claims that its forces are defending the Ossetian people from Georgian "genocide" are, in their mimicry of western humanitarian rhetoric, another manifestation of its resentment against the west. Russia took the Nato military operation against Serbia in 1999 as a personal affront; the Russian political elite and a majority of its public considered western talk of "humanitarian intervention" to protect Kosovar Albanians as a particularly cynical way to justify aggression motivated by geopolitical interests. Now Russia is settling scores: we all understand this humanitarian talk is bullshit (it hints to the west), but if you could do this in former Yugoslavia, you do not have any moral right to stop us from doing the same in our backyard.

The other war

Thus, on the global scale, this war poses serious questions to the west and to Georgia: for the west, whether it will accept its strategic retreat vis-à-vis Russia, and concede that the former Soviet Union is a territory where Russia can effectively dominate without formally restoring its erstwhile empire; for Georgia, whether it retains de facto sovereignty and effective statehood. The Russian calculation appears to be that Georgia will descend into chaos as its people express anger at their government for starting a wrong war and wrongly relying on the west, leaving Georgians with but one option: to embrace a new government that will be formally independent but effectively a Russian satellite.

It is uncertain even after Russia's announcement of a cessation of military action on 12 August 2008 that immediate hostilities have ended - to make possible what will come next, a messy political and diplomatic endgame involving Russia, Georgia, Europe, Nato and the west. Whenever that sequence of events happens, however, a moral war which is really at the core of things will continue in parallel. This is a war for the soul and identity of Georgia. Whatever the outcome in terms of territorial control or military-political arrangements, this war is one Georgia cannot afford to lose, and the west cannot afford to ignore.

Average rating

(5 votes)