The Georgian Government is having its equivalent of the 9/11 commission for the summer's war with its "Temporary Commission to Study Russia’s Military Aggression and Other Actions Undertaken With the Aim to Infringe Georgia’s Territorial Integrity". I'm sure it will be totally balanced with a title like that. Some other's a speculating wildly, and others are settling down to theses and books to explain the war. Well... Georgia's former ambassador to Russia has thrown a spanner in the works of Georgia's propagandists. Erosi Kitsmarishvili told the commission that the war was planned back in April, albeit for Abkhazia, not South Ossetia. America, apparently, gave the green light. This was my initial thought when the war kicked off. Now I don't know anything for sure, but I'm damned well certain that I don't believe the unfiltered propaganda pouring out from either the Russian or the Georgian sides.
Make up your own mind. Don't buy someone else's narrative.
Note: the Georgians do have catchy propaganda though, don't they. "Stop Russia"? Pretty impressive.
Sunday, 30 November 2008
Who started the war in Georgia - the case is still open
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I want to return to my previous 'spheres of influence' argument here.
The real blame lies not within one side or the other but in the structural weakness of the global security architecture.
Just as political debate benefits from the multi-party state where issues overlap and shifting alliances win the day, because the beligerents in this conflict viewed Nato as a bloc rather than as an alliance (Nato does often behave like a bloc it must be said) the weaker player (Georgia) clearly became subject to political pressure to create a situation to decide the outcome. This gambit failed; the gambler was the instigator.
It is exactly the same process which damages the LibDems whenever the 'coalition question' arises, or whenever an original or independent-minded politician rises to prominence in the US (the criticism Obama is already facing for trading favours with both sides should be seen as a compliment).
Consequently I would say that Saakashvili misjudged his position within the global order and that this misjudgement proves the weakness of the democratic roots in the country, which also prevents further integration with their preferred side.
At this stage I would say they should take advantage of their ability to undertake independent action - the manner of their doing so will demonstrate the strategic diplomatic model they wish to follow.
Georgia will advance their cause cause for themselves far faster this way and would avoid making the error of destabilising regional relationships again by playing favorites.
I would therefore suggest to them that they instigate a minor strategic pact based on shared aims and geography. This would probably be concluded firstly with Ukraine, but I could see it expanded to included all the Black Sea states (ie Moldova, Romania, Bulgaria) and/or the Caucasian states (Azerbaijan, Armenia).
So the best way to 'stop Russia' may be to play more rugby!
I like your spheres of influence thinking. This is the reason I'm so avidly against Georgia's membership of NATO as I believe it pushes us towards a New Cold War.
However, your strategic pact sounds a bit odd. What would this look like? What role would it perform? How would it operate?
Saakashvili believes he's saving civilization, he's not gonna just deal with Moldova. He wants to be part of the "west". That's part of the problem.
Well, I think an expanded version of the Antim Cup would be good for starters.
Having cross-border cooperation between Romania, Moldova and Ukraine would resolve many of the issues surrounding Transnistria, for example.
By demonstrating their political leadership stability then follows which creates opportunities for a more creative and imaginitive form of integration.
A question for you: was it Nato strength, or Soviet weakness which lead to the collapse of the iron curtain, or was it a silent corinthian victory for the non-aligned movement which prevented division of the world into two polar opposites?
*two mutually-dependent polar opposites.
How would this cross border cooperation originate and how will Transnistria be resolved without Russia? This all sounds very nice but isn't concrete. I need more.
As for the collapse of the Iron curtain: it was neither, but more Soviet weakness. I'm afraid it was not a silent victory for the NUM.
Cooperation would start on areas which could be depoliticised successfully, such as through sport. Once a basis for ongoing relations was established it becomes a proxy for political differences and - if successful - sidetracks contention into the irrelvancies that they are.
To be self-obsessed for a moment: do you complain that I am occupying too much of your territory on this blog when I hope my presence is proving somewhat productive?
And that's the nub, it's less important who's in control, but where you get to.
Re: the fall of the iron curtain - not a combination of all three, surely?
No complaining here at all. Fully agreed about the its "where you get to" thing. I really appreciate the comments and the debate.
On the cold war, I just can't see a compelling argument for stating that it was ended by the organic resistance of the NUM. I think that's simply historically not the case. Interesting, but really not the driving factor.
I like more regional cooperation etc and would fully support anything that could be set up but Georgia simply must reckon with the two powers its playing with. Greater Caucasus regional cooperation would be great (and would never happen) but the NATO vs Russia issue is most pressing.
To demonstrate the problem of cooperation in the Caucasus, let me tell you a joke I heard in Armenia (or was it Georgia?) last year.
A little Armenia boy called Robert was watching the evening news when he saw a story about the Russians putting a man into space. Excitedly, he ran to his father and said "daddy, you always told me that Armenia was the greatest, proudest, most historical nation"
"that's right son",
"Then why have the russians put a man into space and we haven't?"
"Because you see, if we put a man into space the Georgians would die of jealously. We'd all die of laughter, and the bloody Azeris would get all the land."
I'm guessing you read the IHT editorial by Yushenko covering the membership action plan...
On the Cold War subject, I agree that the driving force of any process must come from an individual, but there are many cases of individuals working alone who've failed.
The lesson I draw is that different people work together from different motivational reasons to produce a result. Even when people are ostensibly working in opposition to each other, viewed retrospectively they all fill a vital role in bringing about the eventual result.
As in parliamentary systems, every side accepts on the democratic concept whatever the basis of their opposition on specific policies.
Just you wait until I tell you about the time I lived with a Kashmiri, an Eritrean and a Russian from Baku! Imagine getting them all to sit down together!
That being the glorious nature of debate.
Getting those three to sit down with each other shouldn't be too difficult, but with you... Englishman.
"Why doesn't your country protect us in our border disputes?"
"Why did you colonize us and leave no solution for our land?"
"Why do you still hate us/want to steal parts of our near abroad, like my oilrich home town?"
Or maybe it was my cooking...
I haven't asked you, but do you read open democracy? It seems like your sort of place.
From time to time. Perhaps I should more.
Post a Comment