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

Fri Aug 22 21:18:11 EDT 2008

Might it not be a good idea to establish some special "discussion list"  
  for discussions like the current one on Georgia --
and leave for the" main list"   matters that properly concern members  
of AAUS, whioch happens to be a an association of scholars?
I confess I find it exhausting to open, then read or not read,  and  
then delete,  most of the messages I have been getting recently.

On Aug 22, 2008, at 7:56 PM, Oleh S. Ilnytzkyj wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aaus-list mailing list
> aaus-list at ukrainianstudies.org
> http://www.brama.com/mailman/listinfo/aaus-list