Georgia
13 Aug 2008
The War for Georgia
The Russian-Georgian conflict is a political challenge to the west and an existential one to its southern neighbour, writes the minister of education and science in the Republic of Georgia
These words are being written as the Russian-Georgian war appears to have shifted momentum from the escalation of 11 August 2008 to the announcement on 12 August of a halt to Russian military operations.
It is too soon at the time of writing to say that this shift is genuine or definitive; nobody knows where things will stand even in a few hours' time. The terms of the deal to end the war proposed by Moscow, and discussed between the Russian and French presidents (the latter representing also the European Union) on 12 August, suggest that this may only be the beginning of the end - if that.
It is even clearer that nobody can say at this stage what the long-term repercussions of the war will be. One thing is sure, however: after what has happened in these five days, the status quo ante cannot be fully restored - in Georgia itself, in Russian-American relations, or in Russian-European relations.
The war was unexpected and anticipated at the same time. No one foresaw exactly the way events were to unfold; but for months, diplomats and analysts had talked about the danger of a major Russian-Georgian conflict around one or both of Georgia's so-called "frozen conflicts" (in Abkhazia and in South Ossetia). At the same time, the real role of the frozen conflicts in triggering the fateful events of 8-12 August 2008 should neither be underestimate nor overestimated. True, without the unresolved status of South Ossetia or Abkhazia, Russia and Georgia would not have gone to war. But, on the Russian side, the issue of South Ossetia in general - or of protection of the citizens of Russia residing there in particular - was just a pretext; and this became increasingly evident as the conflict unfolded.
As the international community moved towards stronger condemnation of the Russian aggression, the Georgian Government was also under criticism for its alleged failure of judgment when the military attack to occupy Tskhinvali, South Ossetia's provincial capital, was ordered in the early morning of 8 August 2008. Indeed, it looks like the Georgian government displayed political immaturity by falling into a Russian trap.
The context of that decision should be understood, however. For months, the Georgian forces inside the enclave within South Ossetia loyal to Tbilisi - as well as those forces across the de facto border - had been systematically attacked using artillery fire and other means. The obvious aim of this was to draw Georgia into an open military confrontation with Russia.
Everybody on the Georgian side understood this very clearly, and all efforts were made to avoid such an outcome. However, by exerting this pressure, the Russians - through its puppet-regime in Tskhinvali - were putting the Georgian government into a lose-lose situation. Yes, engaging Russians in an open military confrontation was against Georgian interests. But, by helplessly watching how its citizens were systematically attacked and killed, the Georgian government was losing its credibility incrementally.
The escalation of violence in the days before 8 August demonstrated that what was on the Russians' mind was to wipe out the pro-Georgian enclave within South Ossetia, thus causing a serious humanitarian catastrophe. The news that, around midnignt on 8 August, a large column of Russian tanks entered South Ossetia from the north (and the pro-Georgian enclave is exactly on the main road between the Russian border and Tskhinvali) was the last straw: the decision to take control of Tskhinvali was a desperate attempt to pre-empt the large-scale Russian strike.
From the international public-relations perspective, it would probably have been smarter to allow Russia do whatever she was planning to do and wait for the international indignation afterwards. It is also easy to judge in hindsight. In the event, the Georgian government also felt that it had an obligation to do something to protect its citizens against an open attack. The Georgian government hoped that the Russians would not dare to conduct an undisguised all-out military aggression against Georgia, thus jeopardising its international image and relations with the international community. That did prove a miscalculation.
Perhaps the most telling illustration of what the Russians are doing in Georgia was something found scrawled on the side of a Russian military jet downed by the Georgian air defence: an obscene verse. The verse mocks the enemy - which is normal in wars. However, neither Georgians nor Ossetians are mentioned: the theme of this piece of doggerel was Russian troops humiliating Nato soldiers.
Whatever the humanitarian rhetoric, what Russia is really doing is a preventive strike against Nato, which happens to take place on Georgian territory. Moscow wants to teach Georgia a lesson for Tbilisi's open and defiant wish to become part of the west; it wants to send a message to the United States and Europe that it will not tolerate further encroachment on its zone of influence; and it wants to make clear to other countries in its neighbourhood (Ukraine first of all) that they are in Russia's backyard and should behave accordingly.
In Georgia proper, the main objective is regime change. At the United Nations Security Council meetings on 8-9 August 2008 convened at short notice to discuss the crisis, the US ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad revealed that the Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov was telling Condoleezza Rice that "(Mikheil) Saakashvili should go"; an indiscretion that provoked rage in his Russian counterpart, on the grounds that it betrayed the confidentiality of diplomatic conversations.
In strategic terms, the Russians want finally to consolidate their control over the separatist territories, and, most importantly, to have a pro-Russian regime in Georgia that would never again dare look in a westerly direction and try to become a western-style democracy. In domestic terms, this will be sold as a major victory over Nato, thus showing that the trend of Russia's humiliation after losing the cold war is broken.
Russia's claims that its forces are defending the Ossetian people from Georgian "genocide" are, in their mimicry of western humanitarian rhetoric, another manifestation of its resentment against the west. Russia took the Nato military operation against Serbia in 1999 as a personal affront; the Russian political elite and a majority of its public considered western talk of "humanitarian intervention" to protect Kosovar Albanians as a particularly cynical way to justify aggression motivated by geopolitical interests. Now Russia is settling scores: we all understand this humanitarian talk is bullshit (it hints to the west), but if you could do this in former Yugoslavia, you do not have any moral right to stop us from doing the same in our backyard.
Thus, on the global scale, this war poses serious questions to the west and to Georgia: for the west, whether it will accept its strategic retreat vis-à-vis Russia, and concede that the former Soviet Union is a territory where Russia can effectively dominate without formally restoring its erstwhile empire; for Georgia, whether it retains de facto sovereignty and effective statehood.
The Russian calculation appears to be that Georgia will descend into chaos as its people express anger at their government for starting a wrong war and wrongly relying on the west, leaving Georgians with but one option: to embrace a new government that will be formally independent but effectively a Russian satellite.
It is uncertain even after Russia's announcement of a cessation of military action yesterday that immediate hostilities have ended - to make possible what will come next, a messy political and diplomatic endgame involving Russia, Georgia, Europe, Nato and the west.
Whenever that sequence of events happens, however, a moral war which is really at the core of things will continue in parallel. This is a war for the soul and identity of Georgia. Whatever the outcome in terms of territorial control or military-political arrangements, this war is one Georgia cannot afford to lose, and the west cannot afford to ignore.
This article was first published on OpenDemocracy.net
Read on: Liberal Russia reflects on the War
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
While it’s more balanced than one might expect, this article still repeats the core theme of the Georgian propaganda. It may be some time before we know the whole truth of the war, but both sides have played the media relentlessly. As Georgia sits on a valuable piece of real estate, it’s been fought over for many years, and these days of pipeline politics and post-Cold War alliances won’t change that. Even in peacetime we’ll see agitation in the area from whichever powerful actor doesn’t hold official power.
Having said that, the question of who started hostilities is central, and intriguing. South Ossetia itself would not have provoked a conflict with Georgia unless it knew it had Russian backing (which, of course, it does). Georgia would not have provoked a conflict with Russia unless it thought it had Western military backing (which it doesn’t but then, Saddam thought he had a green light too), or unless it underestimated Russia’s response.
I’m leaning toward the latter, not because I don’t think Russia is capable of provoking a war, but basically because they don’t need to. Saakashvili’s regime’s ‘democratic’ credentials took the beating they deserved last year, and he might have thought he could score some cheap points without a Russian response. He must have been aware of Russian manoeuvres, but perhaps thought they were posturing. Russia, for its part, was winning the pipeline game pretty comfortably anyway, there was no immediate danger from Georgia becoming further integrated with NATO, and it knew it wouldn’t score points around the world for crushing Georgia.
But now that it has, expect to see a less Western-leaning regime sometime soon. (The irony is, before the war, there probably would have been a bunch more Georgians who wouldn’t have minded that so much.) Expect to see growing tensions between Russia and Ukraine, and perhaps Russia and Armenia and Azerbaijan as well. Expect no moves on NATO membership for Ukraine, and more domestic opposition to the precariously placed Yuschchenko. And in some indirect way, we might even see a connection to the three more carrier strike forces heading to the Persian Gulf.
As the truth comes to light, the events of the past week will be enlightening. But the events of the next few months perhaps even more so.
philannetta.blogspot.com
As the US goes down the tubes as a world power, it is worrying that the two semi-fascist empires, Russia and China, are filling the gap. And as fascists of old, they don’t even care if their propaganda and lies tallies remotely with the truth: Russian thugs are only in South Ossetia, they say, where presumably a number of Georgian coast-guard ships have been sunk. Russians have declared a cease-fire in South Ossetia (an internationally-recognised part of Georgia) and the cease-fire moves on to Gori, outside of South Ossetia. There are no Russian troops at all anywhere near Gori, where four Russian soldiers have been killed.
Maybe Fukuyama was right, we have come to the end of history, and all we can expect from now on is an endless re-run of shit (well, that second part is mine, not Fukuyama’s: maybe Spengler was half-right). This is Russia’s war for oil and empire, just as the invasion of Iraq was America’s war for oil and empire, just as the invasion of Czechoslovakia and Poland were Hitler’s war for an Aryan empire, and the repeated invasions of Ireland were the forerunners of England’s war for empire. All shit, all out of place in the twenty-first century.
What is it about imperialists, they seem to take centuries to change their psychotic character, if at all ? They have no trouble differentiating themselves from the colonial subjects - just ask a Chinese person about Tibetans or Turkestanis and wait for the racist crap) and downplaying the rights of those ‘others’, so clearly they don’t regard themselves as human in the same sense as ‘their’ colonial subjects (that’s if they regard ‘their’ colonial subjects as human at all) and clearly they will use any means, the Olympics for example, to promote their brand of racial superiority. It certainly makes it more difficult to promote internationalism, equal rights of all people around the world, which some of us thought would one day ‘unite the human race’.
Joe
Why oh why is New Matilda running this stuff. If I wanted to read this rubbish I would subscribe to some Murdoch publications. Without condoning in anyway Russia’s action to publish the writing of a government working closely with the worst of the neo cons in attempting to establish a US world empire is not what I expect from a journal that seems to be less and less alternative and progressive. First catholics reveling in the joys of WYD and now Georgian Ministers trying to enrol our sympathy in world conflict to aid the election of McCain thus ensuring sucess of the Project for the New American Century. I used to expect better from NM but Im resigned to either next week or month seeing a call for a return to Howard and other such views (all in the interest of ‘promoting debate’)
Chrisd,
The Georgian government is a sovereign government, or at least it will be until the Russians overthrow it. Like it or not, it is allowed to approve of pipelines running through it from Azerbaijan to Turkey. Right or wrong, it is entitled to have US bases on its soil, and to ask for US planes to fly its troops to and fro. Those are the rights of a sovereign government. It is not the right of any other government to intrude onto its territory, to sink its ships, to bomb its cities or to kidnap its citizens. Whether we approve or not, that is the situation in international law. No country has the right to interfere in the lawful affairs of another country, as I’m sure we will hear China stridently point out before long. No ? You’re probably right: autocratic states will go into bat for each other, and as long as there are a*se-lickers around the world, there will be plenty for them to do, parrotting the same old propaganda on behalf of their masters.
Joe
Like I said i wasnt discussing the rights or wrongs of russian imperialism. Im more concerned about one of the few journals in Australia with some claim to represent progressive politics and philosophy providing a forum to neo cons and their allies. There is more than enough of that in the mainstream media. As I said about the WYD if I want uncritical coverage of conservative perspectives I cna look at the Australian etc its not what I read NM for.
Chrisd,
If the Georgian government is neo-conservative simply because it resists the resurrection of the decaying corpse of the Tsarist empire, then as a Marxist, I would beg you to put me down as a neo-conservative. Georgia has the right, as a sovereign government, to enter into whatever international agreements it likes, as long as they are legal, and it also has the right to station troops from any other damn country that it likes, and to have its troops flown from any other country that it asks - it’s called sovereignty. We may not like it, but it’s their right.
Unless, of course, we are all supposed to regress to the morality of a six-year-old and praise up whatever our imperialist of choice may like, and turn a blind eye to the rights of any country whose government we don’t like. FGeorgia has as much right in 2008 to invite American investment, to set up US bases, and to invite them with hugs and kisses to station all the troops they like there, as the Cubans did to have atomic weapons and Russian troops stationed on its soil back in 1962. That’s sovereignty, Georgia’s, on the one hand, and Cuba’s on the other.
And I’m sure that as soon as it finds its voice, the Chinese Empire will rush in to protest about the interference of somebody in the internal affairs of somebody else … No ? Perhaps you’re right. But they were loud enough in support of dictatorships in Sudan and Zimbabwe and fascist Serbia, so why not democratic Georgia ? Or is it only dictatorships that the Chinese Empire allies itself to ?
Then again, the Russians ‘interfered’ in Turkestan in the thirties and forties, when they set up a people’s revolutionary liberated Marxist-Leninist democratic republic there, with a view to bringing it into the Soviet Union. Who knows, can history repeat itself in Central Asia, the first time as farce, the second time as tragedy, in this case ? Will the elephants trample the ants yet again ? And there are NM readers, silent as the grave. The bell tolls for thee, brother and sister, as much as for Georgians.
Democracy as a Western plot ? Human rights as mere bourgeois illusion ? Sorry, just the ravings of a new neo-conservative.
Joe
Tsk, tsk New Matilda, I’d have expected better from you than the mere reprinting of political propaganda. I never thought I’d be saying this but there is more intelligent and balanced coverage/commentary in The Weekend Australian than this. I’m with you Chrisd, though, this time around, even one of Murdochs publications is doing a better job.
Pertina1,
In what way ? Instead of innuendo, is it possible for you to articulate the issues ? As I understand it, the Cossacks have invaded a sovereign country (whose government has done things that you disagree with, but are quite legal - isn’t that so ?) and are soon to threaten the Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic countries. Regardless of who reports it, is this so or not ?
If it is so, do the Cossacks have the right to re-install Tsarist colonies wherever they like ? Is this the forerunner of a tri-partite world, a reactionary Russia, a reactionary China and a greatly weakened and reactionary USA ? Or even a new bi-partite world, the world to be divided between the new tag-team: the new Tsarist Empire and an even more powerful Middle Kingdom ?
The Cossacks have no more right to invade Georgia than the US did to invade Cuba. And Georgia has as much right to invite foreign troops, establish foreign bases and set up missile defenses as Cuba did in the sixties (and still does). Does Cuba have the right to set up new Cossack missile sites and army bases ? Yes ? Then so does Georgia. I don’t like either idea, but both countries have that right.
Oh, I forgot - only the thugs who we support have those exclusive rights, not the other side’s thugs. Got it. The new socialism a la 20th century CPA/SPA. Yeah, right.
Joe
Sorry, I meant ’21st century’ socialism. Sort of national socialism, don’t you think ? Russian and Chinese national socialism - that sounds about it.
Joe
Yes Joe, you’re right, socialism of any flavour really does suck big time.
Great piece Ghia!
"The aggressor has been punished" - Medvedev, and it seems that fool Sarkozy has arrived home from abroad waving a piece of paper declaring "gentlemen, I believe it is peace in our time".
Israelis will be wetting their pants around about now as the world witnesses what a paper tiger the USA has become by failing to come to the aid of it’s own asset, that failed little socialist state of Georgia whose President, Suckaschlamiel, boasts about it’s Israeli weapons, Israeli commandos, "Israeli trained troops", Israeli Minister of Defence and Israeli "Minister for negotiations" -
Hey, I guess the Russians are a little more tough a nut to crack than Palestinian senior citizens and infants!
Ha! Way to go Medvedev!
I bet you anything there is panic in Tel Aviv as they realise their northern strategic USA distraction in Georgia has failed, Iran’s mullahs will be waiting for the trap to shut on the trappers and the leftist neo-con loving eastern european nations will feel decidely uncomfortable about their unpopular friendship with the USA as the Russian Bear stirs.
Modern Russia is blessed with the world’s greatest contemporary leaders, bar none, and as Putin rules from the shadows his lieutenant, Medvedev, leads with distinction.
Horra!
The Great Game is on again and Georgia is once again the lynchpin of the Caucasus and the key to that last thin line of pipelines through which the West will receive it’s energy supplies, but who will control the caucasus?
In one brilliant move the capture of Samtredia will mean an effective naval blockade of Georgia without even the need to bother using a navy! A move which will also effectively block off all means of rescue or escape to that annoying little corrupt state of Georgia.
I bet nobody at the CIA or Tel Aviv saw that one coming!
Checkmate to Russia! - Game over and Suck-a-schlamiel loses!
Why do some people get a kick out of playing around with other people’s names ? I had a good mate who used to take great delight in pronouncing the name of the head of the KGB, Andropov, as ‘An-DROP-ov’. He used to love to say it, with a sneer: ‘An-DROP-ov, An-DROP-ov.’ Having a funny name is not really adequate grounds for a complete argument. I must admit that I’ve done something similar myself (conjoining ‘Putinesque’ with ‘Putanesca’) but for one, I promise not to do this again. Still, Putin, putana, puta - it’s a bit tempting :)
So like him or loathe him, the name is Saakashvili. Now we can get back to serious discussion.
* A week or so before the Georgian attempt to reunite its own territory, according to one news report, flights from Central Asia to the Caucasus were cancelled.
* Once Georgia started bombarding the main town of south Ossetia, Russian tanks were outside the city outskirts within hours, from the border, two hours’ drive away by car.
* Syria, Venezuela and Cuba recognised Russian control of Georgian territory within days. Belarus took two weeks. I don’t think China has done it yet.
* Iran has deplored violence on both sides, as one would expect from its peaceful nature. Israel seems to be extremely worried by the the whole thing.
* Kazakhstan has reiterated that it still intends to direct an oil pipeline through Azerbaijan and Georgia to Turkey.
* President Medvedev’s earlier proposal for a Treaty on European Security may be put on hold for a time.
* It cannot be denied that Georgia bombarded Tskhinvali (?) - according to observers, parts of the city resemble Grozny, the capital of Chechnya. You remember Chechnya ? Population, 1.2 million (at least it used to be, before the Russian bombardment). Not allowed to seek independence, i.e. not Russian. Check out Grozny on Google satellite maps.
And George, Samtredia is not a port, except for the odd fishing boat. Do you mean Poti, or Batumi ? Boy, I wish I was you - I could get buckets of laughs out of Poti.
Cheers,
Joe
W.H. Auden, on the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968:
‘The Ogre does what ogres can,
Deeds quite impossible for Man,
But one prize is beyond his reach,
The Ogre cannot master Speech.
About a subjugated plain,
Among its desperate and slain,
The Ogre stalks with hands on hips,
While drivel gushes from his lips.’
Fascism will not pass !
Joe
Joe/rmg1859, I agree with pretty much everything you said, but I should just point something out, even though it’s a case of "better late than never". South Ossetia lies around 200 miles inland and doesn’t have a port, so I don’t see how coastguard ships could be sunk there. Just me being pedantic; in the meantime,don’t ask me about Australian politics. I’m still in primary school as far as that’s concerned..