Worldview Politics

War Between Russia and Georgia
16 August 2008

On the first day of the summer Olympics in Beijing, President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia attacked the 'breakaway' republic of South Ossetia, where ethnic Russians are a majority chafing under Georgian rule. Saakashvili himself is no democrat, contrary to Western propaganda. He has been cracking down on his opposition, e.g. by shutting down the media. The surprise attack, in which civilians had no chance to escape, drew a swift and harsh response from Russia, which quickly crushed the Georgian offensive. Of course, the Bush administration and much of the establishment press is blaming the big, bad Russian bear, but the articles below provide strong arguments that Georgia and its Western instigators are primarily to blame. For a good, concise review of the situation, I recommend Blowback from Bear-Baiting by Pat Buchanan. This relatively small war has potentially momentous implications, since it may reopen the Cold War and set the US and Russia on a renewed course of hostility lasting for decades. That would be quite a tragedy, and US arrogance is a key culprit.

For one thing, Georgia attacked first. For a second thing, Georgia attacked first. And for a third thing, ... Well, you get the idea. But there is much more. Russia had been trying to solve this in the UN, when Georgia struck. Reports indicate hundreds or even thousands of Russian civilian deaths in South Ossetia resulting from this ruthless attack, in which a foolish leader thought he could present Putin with a fait accompli, while the latter was distracted by the Olympic fanfare. It would be unreasonable to expect Putin to simply ignore this bloodshed, anymore than we would ignore the slaughter of American civilians, especially at our doorstep.

Furthermore, as Buchanan relates, the US and NATO have been breathing down Russia's neck, adding small nations bordering Russia, in direct violation of American promises made to Gorbachev when the Berlin Wall was crumbling and the USSR was peacefully and voluntarily disbanding its empire. The expansion of NATO right up to Russia's throat is surely a betrayal of the promises we made as well as a direct and pointless provocation. NATO was created to protect Western Europe from Stalin, and it should have been disbanded along with the USSR. The fact that the opposite occurred proves that the Cold War gradually morphed into an excuse for US global empire. Power and success often breed hubris. We thought we were better than that, but we weren't.

In particular, both the US and Israel were backing Saakashvili with actual aid and military training, a further blatant provocation to Russia right on its strategic and vulnerable southern border. Reagan sent death squads into tiny Nicaragua, based on a bogus threat of Communism in a country that wasn't even on our borders. In the case of the Georgian attack, thousands of ethnic Russians actually died. If we indeed goaded Georgia into attacking, then we are guilty of a very reckless and dangerous policy.

But so what else is new? Have we already forgotten the war in Iraq, where we attacked a defenseless nation on the other side of the world, based on a chimerical and cooked-up threat of WMD, leaving behind a nation in ruin and up to two million innocents dead? What could be more absurd and arrogant than for the Bush administration and the neocons to criticize Russia? But if you expect these guys to have any shame or sense whatsoever, forget it. It ain't going to happen.

UPDATE (17 August 08): The article by Stephen Zunes reminds me that Russia shares some blame too, for a 'disproportionate' and 'illegitimate' response, including military incursions into Georgia proper. However, he also clarifies that South Ossetia already enjoyed a long-standing de facto autonomy, which Saakashvili sought to abruptly terminate, rather than negotiate with Russia in the UN, as I have already mentioned. The bottom line in this confused affair, it seems to me, is that Georgia was not justified in attacking a disputed region in which ethnic Russians are a majority. Perhaps a long-established nation has a right to defend its borders against secession, but in this ambiguous and disputed case, some attention must be given to the 'democratic' rights of the ethnic Russian majority. Surely, the motives of the US are not pure, as we are clearly concerned with surrounding and strangling Russia with NATO. How would we react? (Now there is a question one must never ask, if one wishes to pursue an ambitious career in any corner of the US establishment.)

Online Articles

Steve Clemons: US culpability regarding the Georgia-Russia clash