You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia
WSJ: President of Georgia writes on the conflict
2008-08-11
The War in Georgia Is a War for the West
By MIKHEIL SAAKASHVILI

As I write, Russia is waging war on my country.
A war you started. Let's not forget that ...
On Friday, hundreds of Russian tanks crossed into Georgian territory, and Russian air force jets bombed Georgian airports, bases, ports and public markets. Many are dead, many more wounded. This invasion, which echoes Afghanistan in 1979 and the Prague Spring of 1968, threatens to undermine the stability of the international security system.

No country of the former Soviet Union has made more progress toward consolidating democracy, eradicating corruption and building an independent foreign policy than Georgia. This is precisely what Russia seeks to crush.

This conflict is therefore about our common trans-Atlantic values of liberty and democracy. It is about the right of small nations to live freely and determine their own future. It is about the great power struggles for influence of the 20th century, versus the path of integration and unity defined by the European Union of the 21st. Georgia has made its choice.

When my government was swept into power by a peaceful revolution in 2004, we inherited a dysfunctional state plagued by two unresolved conflicts dating to the early 1990s. I pledged to reunify my country -- not by the force of arms, but by making Georgia a pole of attraction. I wanted the people living in the conflict zones to share in the prosperous, democratic country that Georgia could -- and has -- become.

But Russia, which effectively controls the separatists, responded to our efforts with a policy of outright annexation. While we appealed to residents of Abkhazia and South Ossetia with our vision of a common future, Moscow increasingly took control of the separatist regimes. The Kremlin even appointed Russian security officers to arm and administer the self-styled separatist governments.

Under any circumstances, Russia's meddling in our domestic affairs would have constituted a gross violation of international norms. But its actions were made more egregious by the fact that Russia, since the 1990s, has been entrusted with the responsibility of peacekeeping and mediating in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Rather than serve as honest broker, Russia became a direct party to the conflicts, and now an open aggressor.

Europe kept its distance and, predictably, Russia escalated its provocations. Our friends in Europe counseled restraint, arguing that diplomacy would take its course. We followed their advice and took it one step further, by constantly proposing new ideas to resolve the conflicts. Just this past spring, we offered the separatist leaders sweeping autonomy, international guarantees and broad representation in our government.

Our offers of peace were rejected. Moscow sought war. In April, Russia began treating the Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as Russian provinces. Again, our friends in the West asked us to show restraint, and we did.

Over the past days, Russia has waged an all-out attack on Georgia. Its tanks have been pouring into South Ossetia. Its jets have bombed not only Georgian military bases, but also civilian and economic infrastructure, including demolishing the port of Poti on the Black Sea coast. Its Black Sea fleet is now massing on our shores and an attack is under way in Abkhazia.

What is at stake in this war?

Most obviously, the future of my country is at stake. The people of Georgia have spoken with a loud and clear voice: They see their future in Europe. Georgia is an ancient European nation, tied to Europe by culture, civilization and values. In January, three in four Georgians voted in a referendum to support membership in NATO. These aims are not negotiable; now, we are paying the price for our democratic ambitions.

Second, Russia's future is at stake. Can a Russia that wages aggressive war on its neighbors be a partner for Europe? It is clear that Russia's current leadership is bent on restoring a neocolonial form of control over the entire space once governed by Moscow.

If Georgia falls, this will also mean the fall of the West in the entire former Soviet Union and beyond. Leaders in neighboring states -- whether in Ukraine, in other Caucasian states or in Central Asia -- will have to consider whether the price of freedom and independence is indeed too high.

Mr. Saakashvili is president of Georgia.
Posted by:OldSpook

#11  I don't know about that last bit, OldSpook, but I agree with the rest.
Posted by: trailing wife   2008-08-11 16:07  

#10  This is just one more of the messess created by a simple phrase "Self Determination".

A simple phrase but not so simple a concept. What you get is a high sounding gloss over the oldest tribalism. This is nothing more or less than the latest tribal war just like the Balkans and the MidEast and most of the rest of the world over time.

There are various "sweetners" added to the mix like religion or economics or water but it still all comes down to the same old same old.

Russia is just playing bully boy for it own reasons in a tribal feud among the Caucasus tribes.

Georgia was on the path to a pluralistic society of 21st century type but they tried to overcome the tribalism too quickly.
Posted by: AlanC   2008-08-11 16:01  

#9  Steve, I'd be with you on this, except that Putin has now escalted by invading Georgia proper - far beyond the original provocation. THey have cut the major E-W road and gonve far ourside SO in significant force. They are also blckading the coast - andother step far beyond the SO conflict.

Russia now appears to be aiming at a complete destruction fo a democratic wester-oriented democracy, and imposing a dictatr that they appoint.

THAT is unacceptable, and it had huge ramifications throuight the formore soviet vassal states.

TO not oppose it, or not take significant actions against Russia now to impose harsh consequences, woudl be bascially to open the gates for Putin and his ultra-nationalist expansionist imperalist ambitions. In many ways, this mirros Hitler and has desrie to inflame national passions to retake "Greater Germany".

So do we stop this "Hitler" at his "Sudeten", or do we allow him to continue his conquests and intimidations to continue until we arrive at a position where we must fight him world-wide again?

Action now can prevent a larger return to the cold war, and possibly even a hot one, between the largest nuclear armed nations.

So either we assassinate Putin, or we act to stop him - and act in such a way that we preclude his most important and desired re-conquests: The Ukraine and Byelorus.

We shoudl also actively supply and support Georgian rebels and guerillas in the event of a complete occupation of Georgia by the gangster's troops. Turn it into a min-afghanistan, introduce them tothe IED, EFP, and (on Russian soil) exploding pipelines.
Posted by: OldSpook   2008-08-11 13:34  

#8  I hope that French "humanitarian aid" includes some Exocets. Certainly would love to see the Russians pay for their blockade...
Posted by: Rob Crawford   2008-08-11 13:22  

#7  oh cmon, now, Steve, all evidence is that the Russians were escalating the Ossetian situtiaon political and militarily for weeks. And its still not clear to me who went in to S Ossetia first. And again, S ossetia IS sover Georgian territory, and the idea that a Georgian attempt to change the status quo there, IF that is what happened, is a provocation, is a concession to the Putin view of the world. Again, much evidence (including in russias own statements) is that they were provoked by Saal's attempt to join the West, and by his overthrow of their puppet. Need I remind you that Putin has been putting the econommic squeeze on them for some time?

They know they cant win in S Ossetia militarily. What they THOUGHT is that Putin would be afraid to come after them cause of the West. Putin is testing the West here, and if he wins we will hear no end of it. If we wanted to toss Georgia under the bus cause of the "correlation of forces" the time to do that was in 2003, not now. But we were happy to take their help in Iraq - did we not think they wanted a quid pro quo?

Anyway, we dont have to start WW4 (shouldnt that be 5, BTW, isnt the war on Terror WW4?) We managed to help teh afghans without starting a WW. The Russians are selling antiair assets to Iran.

We can send the Georgians antiair assets. We can offer Ukraine NATO membership (as OS suggests). We can toss the USS, oops, Russia, from the G8. In general we can start playing a lot tougher.

hell, even the French are now sending humanitarian aid to Georgia as we speak. Not much, maybe, but better than hanging around making excuses for the Russians.
Posted by: superstitiousGalitizianer   2008-08-11 11:51  

#6  Small, independent nations provoke the Russians by simply existing.
Posted by: mrp   2008-08-11 11:43  

#5  Oh yeah, great idea, let's start World War IV while we have a substantial amount of our military in Iraq and Afghanistan.


Cheez.



The Georgians brought a lot of this on themselves. They forgot which weight class they ordinarily compete in and now it's costing them. I have no love for the Russians but the Georgians have provoked them rather seriously, and this is what happens occasionally when you pull on the tiger's tail.
Posted by: Steve White   2008-08-11 11:37  

#4  S. Ossetia has a SDP of less than about $20M and fewer than 100,000 people. If not for the fact that some of its citizens (about a third) are ethnically Georgian, it would be essentially worthless to (asian) Georgia.

The Caspian pipeline is well south of the S. Ossetia border.


Posted by: mhw   2008-08-11 11:39  

#3  The U.S. must go in and confront Russia.
Posted by: Odlanier   2008-08-11 10:54  

#2  the central asian states mainly arent free, or are too geographically isolated to defy Moscow. Belarus isnt free. Armenia is happy to have Moscow on its side vs Azerbaijan. The Balts are happy to be in NATO, and arent going to endanger themselves by reaching out to Georgia (with more than words, and maybe very quiet help) unless the rest of NATO goes along. That leaves Ukraine and the Azeris. The Azeris, with a conflict with Armenia, and a hostile border with Iran, are already overstretched.

That leaves basically a Ukraine-Georgia alliance.
Posted by: superstitiousGalitizianer   2008-08-11 09:50  

#1  First order of business, the former soviet now free states should put together an alliance. The foundation of the alliance is that all had tasted soviet hegemony, and that all have chosen not to accept it ever again. The self organizing nature of such an alliance sends a powerful message to russia whose newly emerged identity is one of kgb controlling oil for a select number of oligarchs. The russia of today is the same as the russia of yesterday, only the titles have changed and the apparatus of the state shifted. Russia's population of 150 million, the combined populations of freed states born out of soviet block disintegration is near that number.

russia has no identity left from the bloc days, because its former cohorts have truly seen the inside of the soviet mind and rejected that which flows there from.

Let the independent states recognize that russia would assume its same hegemony and control over each and every one of the free states if it could. Accept the fact that russia can craft a strategem for reenwing its hegemony one state at a time.....so the most logical message is the free state alliance of all former russian occupied territories. Brigade level forces should be assembled and attached by each state to the purpose of reclaiming Georgias soverengity.

Behind that backdrop, the newly arranged allinace would provide the world a signal that russian hegemony will be stopped.
Posted by: Spiny Gl 2511   2008-08-11 08:31  

00:00