[aaus-list] Daria's politology + Zbigniew Brzezinski

[Vadim]

My comments on points below and other related points:

> True, Saakashvili technically started the armed conflict and must bear the
> consequences for its disastrous outcome for Georgia, but this hardly
> absolves Russia of any blame.

Saakashvili started a massive military assault in OSCE-backed
peacekeeping zone. Any use of force there violates norms. Saakashvili
had an obligation to report the terrorist acts to the international
community and, if there was no response, announce his military
intentions in advance. Thus, it is a 100% fact that the choice to
attack on the Olymipics opening day was entirely Saakashvili's fully
conscious choice.

> It seems to me that under international law Saakashvili was justified to try
> to control Georgian territory. What possible legal standing does Russia have
> there? As I see it, none. It could be argued that Georgia needed to make
> some gesture to maintain any claim to these territories given that they were
> not under her control for so many years.

Again, they were under OSCE-backed peacekeeping forces. If there were
violations of a peace-keeping treaty, Saakashvili had an obligation to
report them first. Saakashvili clearly and unequivocally perpetuated
violation of the peace-keeping agreement.

> If Georgia is culpable for "Hailstorm" attacks, etc. then it should be
> answerable before international institutions, not Russian tanks.

Again, "Hailstorms" are WMD (according to U.S. DoD) that was used
against Russian peacekeepers and there is no doubt Russia would react
with substantial force to something like that. A fine but critical
detail: President Bush and many Western leaders initially called
Russian response "disproprotional", but not "unjustified". Russia did
violate norms by going beyond the administrative peace-keeping area,
but again that can be justified as necessary to crush Georgian
firepower and put such definitive end to a conflict that would prevent
Georgia from launching a new attack soon after the ceasefire.

Any civilized nation would warn civilians if it was going to use heavy
assault weapons, just like U.S. did in 2003 when invading Iraq. Even
if the weapons were targeted against military objects, there is always
collateral damage. Georgians planned military actions in densely
populated areas. Not warning civilians was a military crime, for which
Saakashvili is fully responsible. Thus, Russians have a valid case for
a Hague court hearing.

It is abundantly clear that after launching a military operation like
this Georgians would lose any remaining shreds of good
will toward them from Ossetians and Abkhazians. What did Saakashvili
want to achieve with his actions other than coercion?

> Because Russia was preparing for this for many years.

Russia keeps very strong military presence in the Northern Caucasus
region not only for its own internal stability, but also to protect
its national interests. It is a valid concern when the Ossetian nation
is split between two countries. On the other hand, there is South
Ossetian separatists who don't want to stay with Georgia and want to
join Russia instead. Russia, however, has long acknowledged Georgian
territorial integrity and would never initiate a pure aggression
toward Georgia. Georgians gave Russians a pretext -- and a huge, fat
one.

Russia saw clear indications of a possible Georgian military operation
in South Ossetia following the operation in Adjaria. In 1992, a
peace-keeping force has been deployed in South Ossetia since 1992 to
stabilize the region and try to exclude any possibility for a military
solution. Georgia clearly forced one (again, for what purpose other
than coercion) and provoked a fully legitimate response.

Recall Saakashvili's smiles on the air with Western media in the first
three days of the conflict. The tie-chewing incident. This guy is
mentally unstable. Deaths of nearly 500 Georgians could have been
easily avoided if a sane-minded person was the president of Georgia.

> Because Russia's behavior is much more egregious and is a threat to the
> whole world (especially its neighbors, of course). And because its
> authoritarian and even totalitarian habits are refusing to die.

This is true, but don't forget that the Russian population
overwhelmingly supports this regime at present. If you want to change
Russia, the solution is not to isolate Russians and start a new Cold
War (which is extremely easy and takes no talent). The real solution
is to engage in a debate with Russia, in a clear, mutually accepted
system of ethical coordinates..

> Goebbels
> is largely in the past, but the specter of neo-Stalinism is haunting the
> world, so to speak. And Russia uses duplicity, as well as language and media
> manipulation as propaganda tools, to obscure the reality. Saakashvili is not
> blameless either, I know, and he is hurting Georgia's case because of that.

In my personal observations, Georgians and specifically Saakashvili
have been more dishonest than Russians by a significant margin. One
can argue that "fear has large eyes", but the key point here is that
U.S. made a huge strategic blunder by supporting Saakashvili
unconditionally -- which of course gave McCain a strong electoral
momentum (recall his generous gift of the "Ich bin ein Berliner"
moment to every American). Simple Russian people and many
critically-thinking and simply pro-Russian Ukrainians saw that the
West is absolutely unobjective on the conflict.

By the way, Obama's first statement was much more balanced and
critically-minded. He then realized that cannot possibly compete with
the entire U.S. media and would have to be dangerously on the
defensive for his objective position. Thus, his following strong
message emphasized the theme of Georgian territorial integrity.

> Nevertheless, the primary issue here is Russia's behavior and
> rationalizations for invading another country. I'm sure you've read
> Brzezinski's article in the last issue of TIME - I think it sumps up the
> situation quite well.

Unfortunately, I cannot call Dr.Brzezinski's assessment of the
conflict as fair. His long-standing position on Russia is summed up in
the conclusion: "The West has to respond carefully but with a moral
and strategic focus. Its objective has to be a democratic Russia that
is a constructive participant in a global system based on respect for
sovereignty, law and democracy."  In discussing circumstances of the
conflict he calls Saakashvili's actions "perhaps unwise", but fails to
give them a clear moral characterization, which is a critical point in
Russia's arguments. I think that achieving Dr.Brzezinski's dream has
become a far more problematic issue, in large part due to the West's
unconditional, in essense morally blind, support of Georgia.

> Once again, I appreciate many of your posts, just wanted to make these
> points. You seem to vehemently dislike Saakashvili, whereas I'm extremely
> worried about our northern neighbor, as you can understand. They are out of
> control and dangerous. The world absolutely MUST respond decisively and in a
> steadfast way, otherwise the future may be bleak indeed.

I am neutral on personality of Saakashvili and don't really care about
him personally -- he is a fairly primitive, unoriginal person. As a
politician, however, I think he is a full failure -- corrupt,
dishonest -- and a disgrace to his country. Unfortunately, he happens
to be a smooth talker in a fairly limited cohort of Western-educated
Georgians.

Yes, the world should respond in a concerted and steadfast manner, but
most importantly, with full and impartial moral clarity.

Vadim