« JKG & The Present Moment | Home | Georgia: Background to War »

Georgia On Our Mind

user-pic

My wife's extraordinary daughter-in-law, Christina Ezrahi, has been a student of Russia and the Caucasus for many years. Born in Munich to a Pan-European industrial family, she recently completed her doctorate in Russian history at the University of London, writing about Communism's political uses of classical ballet. A few years back, she worked for the United Nations in Moscow, and traveled often to war-torn Chechnya.

Christina sent us this email this morning, in despair about Western coverage of the Russian conflict with Georgia:

The whole situation makes me weep. But Russia's actions don't any more than Georgia's. It is too early to really know what's been going on. But Condoleezza Rice is using dangerous, completely inaccurate historical analogies which will not contribute to solving this crisis. On the contrary, Rice's comparison of Russia's move into Ossetia to the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 is so wrong that it almost gave me a heart attack. It certainly made me (once again) extremely cynical about the rhetoric of American foreign policy which, at least under this administration, is setting a world record for combining moral arrogance with complete ignorance of history; for a disregard for the complexity of reality, especially in an ethnically diverse region like the Caucasus.

The last thing I want to do is to justify Russian actions which have definitely gone too far. But Saakashvili went into South Ossetia first. The Russians are nationalistic and xenophobic, but so are the Georgians. When the Soviet Union collapsed, South Ossetia (which had been an autonomous region within the Georgian republic, and which even enjoyed brief independence in the 1920s) wanted to join Russia. North Ossetia is a part of Russia, and 98% of the population in the south voted in favor--especially as the Georgian regime after the collapse of the USSR operated under the strongly nationalistic slogan "Georgia for the Georgians," seriously threatening ethnic minorities like the Ossetians. Georgia then marched into South Ossetia and razed much of it to the ground. After an international agreement, the Russians were appointed peacekeepers, but the situation continued to be a ticking time bomb.

I know the US loves Saakashvili because he was educated in the US and speaks good English, but he is anything but a little democratic lamb. He also ran on a platform to regain full control of separatist regions like South Ossetia and started to build up troops there. The situation further deteriorated since the international acknowledgment of Kosovo's independence.

Watching all of this, I can't help thinking that the US clearly applies the principle of self-determination very selectively. If Georgia were Russia, and Russia were Georgia, the US would call for the world to accept South Ossetia's right for self-determination. Again, I am not in favor of what Russia has been doing, but I am appalled by the US rhetoric because it will only contribute to further escalation. Why can the US never see shades of grey, but instead has to use the rhetoric of black vs. white, good vs. evil?

The US understandably cares about the balance of power in the Caucasus, but why does it need to evoke 1968 and throw oil on the flames? This is not the moment for warped rhetoric and sound bites, but for astute diplomacy. And as always, the civilians in both South Ossetia and Georgia are the ones who'll suffer.


49 Comments

| Leave a comment

sounds about right.

the very idea that obama thinks talk about nato membership for georgia is appropriate at this time has me very worried about the world. (especially since his supporters will just follow wherever he leads, defending his idiocy and attacking his critics.)

mccain's an absolutely terrifying war-mongering and saber rattling moron. but obama doesn't really instill much confidence as an alternative.

user-pic

If I am Georgian, the thing that would worry me about the independence of South Ossetia or it's inclusion in the Russian Federation would be Geography.

One look at the map shows that South Ossetia would create a geographic cleft into Georgia, where their appears to be little barriers between South Ossetia and the heart of some of Georgia's most important centers.

Complicated indeed.

If I was a Georgian I wouldn't fire rockets at Russian troops and I wouldn't for a second believe that Americans are "all Georgians now"

user-pic

Well the insight is brilliant but I could have done without the namedropping -- as if having rich relatives has anything at all to do with her observations about Russia and Georgia.

user-pic

Condoleeza Rice is one of the most incompetent people to ever serve in any White House, why should her handling of this issue be any different than past f**k ups as National Security Advisor and now as Sec of State. I've never seen her as anything but window dressing. Maybe we can bribe your wife's daughter-in-law to replace her.

Can anyone point to anything Rice has done that can be described as successful?

indeed.

condi, like everyone else* in the bush/cheney administration, was put in place to know her place and do the bidding of her puppetmasters.

*john 'the walrus' bolton being a notable exception only because cheney just wanted a bull in the UN's shop to smash up as much porcelain as possible.

user-pic

She's quite good at the bald faced lie.

she kept her mouth shut for six days, that was kinda working out

at least when the condiliar wasn't talking, she wasn't making the situation worse

if she shuts the fuck up, this might not escalate into a nuclear holocaust for everybody

user-pic

John, Condi has a shoe section in her closet that is the envy of all of Washington. That is her successful operation.

user-pic

hoppy,

damn, I didn't know about that grand accomplishment, thanks. :-)

user-pic

When God is in charge, little things like history and reality are unimportant... because, after all, God knows best...

user-pic

Excellent post.

Georgia is a small country with a large and powerful neighbor. It is just a fact of life that any such country has to reach a modus vivendi with the powerful neighbor. But Georgia has probably been much more assertive and aggressive in its dealing with Russia than it would otherwise have been, because some Georgians have received the very mistaken impression over the past few years that tens of millions of American guardian angels are ready to fly in to save them if their actions ever precipitated any serious trouble.

What other conclusion could they draw when prominent Americans speak so loudly about a permanent revolution for democratic enlargement, one that seems to envision NATO membership for every European and Eurasian country except Russia? What else should they conclude when ideas for NATO expansion are thrown around by American policy-wonks and pundits in the most casual way, as though inviting a country into NATO is not much different than making a trade pact with that country, opening a satellite branch of an American college in their capital, or sending them a Welcome Wagon basket with an attached note signed “From your Friends, the West”?

But NATO isn’t just a garden club for Occidentophiles, or a box of free teeshirts to be shot into the crowd during a Cold War victory lap around the global stadium. It is a defensive alliance. We are now reminded that defensive alliances are very serious business indeed, and unless one perceives the defense of some particular foreign country as absolutely vital to one's own security, then one has no business entangling oneself with that country, and embroiling one's own security with that other country's security.

Americans believe the Cold War is over, and rightly so, since contemporary Russia poses no Soviet-style threat to the United States. Absent a threat of the sort the Soviet Union once posed, or was at least perceived as posing, very, very few Americans will have any interest in extending a security perimeter all the way out to some of Russia's next-door neighbors, like Georgia, and making potentially dangerous commitments to the security of remote countries in the Caucuses. That sucks for the Georgians, perhaps, but it is a fact of life that they just have to deal with.

Some lingering Cold War triumphalists from the Clinton era want NATO to be, in effect, an offensive alliance, providing the military muscle for some vaguely conceived ideological-economic world system expansion, tendentiously conceptualized as a struggle for western "democracy" against various evil eastern despots. I have to believe most Americans, to the extent they have an opinion at all on the matter, aren't deeply interested in this project. And they don't see the conflicts between Russians, Europeans and Americans in such grandiose ideological terms. The predictable hysterical pleas from expansionists about falling dominoes, appeasement and global ideological war aren't likely to be convincing in the current environment.

The Georgians miscalculated, because they might not have noticed that these grand strategic thinkers in America never really consulted ordinary Americans, and there is no reason to think that most Americans are interested in tying their security and military commitments to the disputes in the remote Caucuses. Such miscalculations cost lives, as we now see. Russia has also probably been much more aggressive with Georgia than it would otherwise have been, because they see Georgia as working with Washington to park a US military base right in their back yard. Perhaps the events of the past week will give the democratic expansionist party some pause in the future, when it comes to leading people on and encouraging them to deposit faith in far-fetched schemes and idle pillow-talk about unrealistic long-term commitments from foreign lovers.

user-pic

Great post Dan. The following passage caught my eye...

Some lingering Cold War triumphalists from the Clinton era want NATO to be, in effect, an offensive alliance, providing the military muscle for some vaguely conceived ideological-economic world system expansion, tendentiously conceptualized as a struggle for western "democracy" against various evil eastern despots.


I have a little quibble though. I am note sure if 'lingering Cold War triumphalists' is wholly accurate. It seems to be the desire of the majority of the politicians in the Democratic Party. Both candidates, Obama and McCain to albeit varying degrees, want to use NATO to expand US influence well into Eastern Europe. We intruded into the Balkans under the D's leadership, which set the precedent for the Iraq incursion by Bush which the D's signed on for with few exceptions hoping/expecting it would be a clean and easy operation and now we see them in basic lock step with the R's on the Russia-Georgia conflict. The only difference with the D's and the R's, is the R's are much more enthusiastic about using direct military action because they view it as easier than diplomacy while the D's prefer to use US 'soft power' first but aren't disinclined to use the military.

And of course Russia has to be portrayed as the aggressor/bad actor. The only way our politicians seem able to discuss foreign relations is in terms of black and white, good vs. evil terms. I think they fear if they do not do so it will cost them the support of the American people to put American forces in harms way.

user-pic

Frankly, I see this as a blessing in disguise - it's one less airspace we can fly over to bomb Iran. I rather doubt that the intent in currying Georgia is to contain Russian power as much as it is to shut down supply lines from Russia to Iran and provide the U.S. with a strategic base with which to reach Iran since the Turkish air space will be forbidden to U.S. war bombers.

Look at a map. We don't need to fly over anyone's air space to bomb Iran, except of course Iran's own air space.

user-pic

We do if we're launching bombers. They want a full scale war, you know that, don't you?

Did you see this one coming, Dan?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080814/ap_on_re_eu/poland_us_missile_defense_10
Missiles into Poland.

I think we're throwing fuel on the fire and fanning the flames on purpose. Why assume we're doing them out of ignorance? Couldn't we doing them in the course of realpolitik?

user-pic
Couldn't we (be) doing them in the course of realpolitik?
I don't see where the advantage would be in fanning this particular bonfire. In terms of expanding a "sphere of influence", the one accomplishment of the Bush administration has been to develop the "Iran threatens the World" idea to where Russia has been cooperating with the plan to sanction them along with the U.S. and Europe over the uranium enrichment activity. Amazingly enough, the installation of missile defense systems in eastern Europe was done in the name of defense against the Iranians and the Russians only mumbled. If the U.S. goes all confrontational now, the party is over and it won't be Russia cleaning up the empty Vodka bottles afterwards.

well, when you consider that Europe is dependent on Russia for oil, you begin to understand that Europe is gonna side with Russia on this one

so if you can think of a reason where driving a wedge between Europe and America is helpful, you win the prize

if you can't come up with a single good option in the outcomes, it's a fuckup

How will the Europeans side with the Russians?

user-pic

The following assertion/rhetorical-question invites a reply:

I think we're throwing fuel on the fire and fanning the flames on purpose. Why assume we're doing them out of ignorance? Couldn't we doing them in the course of realpolitik?

So, we consciously committed the crime of international arson and don't even have -- or want -- ignorance and/or clinical pyromania (i.e., "the insanity defense") to excuse yet another of our monumental fuck-ups?

The relevant syndrome here sounds like Senator You-Know-Her's notorious non-concession speech on the night Senator Obama clinched the Democratic Party primary nomination. Jeffry Toobin called it "Deranged Narcissism." I'd say that phrase describes American attempts to practice foreign policy much better than the Orwellian euphemism "realpolitik."

Interesting. I've often compared Bush's invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation of Iraq to an arsonist mayor, who, having set the fire, throws firefighter after firefighter into the inferno. I think portraying his acts as "ignorant" is far too kind.

user-pic

Obama's statement on NATO membership for Georgia was almost up there with Obama's statement (and vote) on FISA. What is this guy thinking? This is a change in which I cannot believe. Will his supporters at TPM support him on this, too?

No, they won't.

user-pic

Having supported an action plan for Georgia membership in NATO before these recent events, Obama is now in a position where if withdraws that support during this crisis, he will look like he has been intimidated by Russia into changing his position.

TPM Cafe old friend Anne-Marie Slaughter was on CNN a couple of nights ago, though, saying that she thought Georgia membership in NATO was no longer in the cards.

user-pic

Obama understands, as McCain doesn't, that Bush is the president, and is in charge of our foreign policy, for good or bad. That foreign policy includes gaining membership in NATO for Georgia, the Ukraine and any other former USSR states other than Russia. So, like all patriotic Americans Obama supports that policy.

In days of old, presidential candidates never, ever offered criticism of the foreign policy of the president, in any specific areas. If the foreign policy included cozying up to the Saudis, the candidated either didn't talk about the Saudis or they made supportive noises until they could change the subject.

McCain is nearly insane. At best he is senile. We make allowances for that, letting his say anything he wishes, without press comment. After all, if the US voters want a maniac for President, they should have a clear opportunity to elect one.

For once I agree with criticism of our administration. Comparisons with Czeckeslovakia, Munich, etc. are wrong and stupid. Comparisons with Chechnya are another matter and I wonder why they aren't made more often.

I think we're hoping comparisons with Afghanistan will become relevant, but I doubt the Russians are that stupid.

@ Billy Glad


The comparison with Chechnya is a natural.


South Ossestia and Abkhazia are legally a part of Georgia. Chechnya is legally a part of Russia. Each group is an ethnic and linguistic minority which wants to separate from the mother country.

So all the so-called moral and legal principles apply to all three; if territorial integrity is to be respected then both Russia and Georgia are right to insist that independence should not be granted. If the rights of minorities take priority then both Russia and Georgia are wrong to prevent independence.


So clearly the Russians can't be right about both Chechnya and Georgia, while Georgia is oppressing a minority. The Georgians claim they've done their best to find an equitable solution, and would have had no the Russians intervened.


Now that looks to me like good arguments for our side.

user-pic

If by "our side" you mean fifth columnists who seek to drag us into other people's conflicts, then you are, in fact, correct. However, don't cry to me about the expansion of the warfare-welfare state that began with foolish US intervention in the First World War under Wilson. No American knew where Sarajevo was before the assassination, and no American needed to know where it was after. If the whole of Georgia and Ossetia disappeared of the map, the world would be no worse of for the loss of these brutes.

user-pic

We already have wars in Afghanistan and
Iraq, not to mention CIA insurgencies in Iran, Muslim China, The Philippines--and now it's back to the good ole USSR-- er, I mean Russia.

We also know that 2 out of 3 corporations don't pay Income taxes, and the rest of the rich rwefuse to serve in the military and hardly pay their share of taxes...

In other words, we are stretched beyond our means but our incorrigible leaders, Pentagon people and future leaders want us to soldier on.


What's on our horizon? Decline, of course. It's happened to the best of empires, even many of the worst. Read ther tea leaves fans--we're heading for a fall, er, decline.