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

[Vadim]

Also, Zbigniew Brzezinski asserted that Russians bombed the city of Tbilisi.

According to the facts on the ground, is this a fully qualified,
precise assessment?

Vadim



On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Vadim <solar75wind at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>