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

[Oleh S. Ilnytzkyj]

Attacking a sovereign state (i.e. Georgia) is a more serious 'violation of
norms' than defending one's territorial integrity.

Russia only invokes OSCE when it's convenient (remember the OSCE was
effectively banned from monitoring Russian elections). Cf.
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2008-02/2008-02-07-voa18.cfm?CFID=297
38003&CFTOKEN=28349898
http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2372548

The 'peacekeeping zone' and 'Russian peacekeepers' is something straight of
out Alice in Wonderland. Cf. this:

"During more than a decade of Russian "peacekeeping" and "mediation," the
document notes, "every effort for conflict-resolution based on
internationally recognized norms and democratic principles has reached no
tangible result." It observes that Russia's claim to the role of peacekeeper
and mediator is incompatible with Russia's actual role in inspiring and
sustaining the Abkhaz and South Ossetian conflicts. Moscow "does nothing to
advance the process of conflict-resolution; on the contrary, it strengthens
the separatist regimes." Etc....
http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2370307

As Condoleezza Rice put it, it's all a question of proportion. Russia used
disproportionate force.

Oleh S. Ilnytzkyj


On 8/22/08 2:04 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
>