Harry’s Place

Good post, far too often Russia are seen as the bad guys without any indepth look at the issues.
For me one of the interesting aspects of recent actions by Russia and comments by Putin is the rise of nationalism and the power it generates in a population. Of course, nationalism is decried and looked down upon in England by the chattering classes (although not in Scotland and Wales) but might become just as big a force in the rest of the world as religion over the next few years.

There is enough blame for both sides. Russians emigrated to many satellite republics during the USSR period, and Stalin moved whole populations when he gor fed up with them. He also gave the Crimea to Ukraine, leading to the strains we see now. The break-up of Empires are rarely peaceful and harmonious events, especially when held together (as was the USSR) by ruthless force.

So parts of Georgia are much like Northern Ireland (only worse), with Russian immigrants grating against native Georgians. Who started it? Does it matter - both were spoiling for a fight. Who escalated it? Probably both sides.

It would seem that the Russians were ready for the badly judged and clumsily implemented attack ordered by Saakashvili, after all the only route they had to get their armour in was the Roki tunnel. I suspect that the Russians realised that they could not keep the lid on the increasing tensions between Ossetians and Georgians, reinforced their Army in Ossetia and then provoked an incident, knowing how hot-headed Saakashvili was, and he walked right into the trap.

The West should watch carefully for a similar ploy to be used in the Ukraine.

It’s not a very balanced article. Russia had their best, most professional division on the border ready to go. Even the US military can’t start an invasion on the drop of a hat. Their russians where able to start moving as soon as or before the Georgia started moving into South Ossetia.

On top of that they had Chechen and and other ethic militia with them. It’s rather hard to believe that given how much Russian logistics suck that they where able to get them in the fight in the first day from thousands of miles away?

Are the Georgians lieing to us? Yep. I have known that from the first Ruiters style fake photos the Georgians put out. But the invasion was prepped and ready to go by the Russians before hand. They just needed to sucker the Georgia into giving them an excuse.

Make no mistake, Russia is the aggressor here. The Georgians acted stupid and or greedily, but this whole scam was written up in Moscow.

Initial reports of almost any military action are almost always wrong, even in this day of satellite technology.

The Georgian thing reminds me of those who had foolishly advocated the “roll-back” of the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe and encouraged it’s population to rise up to act with hints the US and NATO would be around to help without taking into account of the consequences of any real action in the face of overwhelming Soviet military power and control. Then the West had to stand by with egg on it’s face and watch the SU crush the Hungarian rebellion in 56.

Unfortunately America, for cultural and historical reasons which escape me, seems to have a “toggle-switch” mentality as opposed to a rheostat-type one that does not admit of much nuance in public discourse. Of course this at times has advantages as such a mentality provides clarity in the face of evil, but like most things in life both modes are one edge of the blade of a double-edged sword. Would that more people learned when to cut with which edge when.

Yes this was the subject of reporting on bbc Newsnight a few weeks ago.

I don’t understand it. In the UK at least, the media universally reported that Georgia started the war. The Russian backed separatist attacks, that were caught on video tape in the days before, were shown or mentioned in only one report on C4 news. The rest of the media completely omitted it. So to claim that there is new shock evidence that Georgia might have started the war presupposes that this wasn’t how it was reported in the first place.

The point is, this Northern Ireland type province is full of Russian intelligenve infrastructure and they have been exploiting the situation and had clearly planned for mass invasion to try to overthrow the Georgian government.

What I read about 2-3 weeks ago (sorry, lost the source, maybe strategypage.com) was that the georgian attack was a pre-emptive attempt to grab control of one end of the tunnel the russians came out of, but it failed in its objective.

So yes, it’s been known for a long time that the Georgians struck first, but the motives aren’t clear, and it’s disingenuous of the NYT not to discuss that.

Well, since Russia has a history of aggression against it’s small neighbors, it’s easy to take their claims with a grain of salt. I know. Simplistic.

The bunch of New World Order loons who came out of the woodwork to support Russia at the time gave the game away.

Cue Gene the Socialist in 1939 blaming the Polish for the German Blitzkreig. His true colours are revealed at last.

Oh, go back and read the article, Morgoth, and fuck off and die roaring. Still the objective antisemite, I see.

Alcuin, off all the ethnic mayhem which Stalin laid the seeds for, the Crimea was not one. That was Khrushchev.

Cue Gene the Socialist in 1939 blaming the Polish for the German Blitzkreig. His true colours are revealed at last.

It’s 1938 in a parallel universe and Morgoth is playing at being a particularly acid-afflicted Churchill.

As written by Harry Turtledove, Graham.

Mesquito, these are not Russian claims but include, amongst others, an officer in the Finnish army which is hardly likely to have fond memories of Russia.

The weather report for the Caucuses: showers of bastards everywhere.

Alcuin - your grasp of the facts of this region are unfortuantely slight.

Khrushchev, not Stalin, transferred Crimea to Ukrainian juridiction(in 1954): although arguably the impact of the deportation of the Tatars (which Stalin WAS responsible for, during WWII) is of greater significance.

And, no Georgia is not like Northern Ireland (South Ossetia - maybe:in as much as each settlement there tended to be dominated by one ethnic group or the other - but that was the consequnce of the early 1990s war), and, no there aren’t substantial numbers of Russian immigrants there either (unlike the Baltic States or Kazakhstan). However, in the early 1990s Georgia did have an extremely, obnoxiously, xenophobic government led by a madman with lot of gangster friends: that regime did blatantly discriminate against Ossetians (who wished overwhelmingly to stay in the USSR), to say the least (situation in ABkhazia is more complicated till). It’s a big hodge-podge of different ethnic groups - like most of the Caucausus, north and south,, and there are a lot of tensions between various of them, regardless of the interference of external players.

And no, I don’t think there is any particular reason to worry about something similar happening in Ukraine proper. Crimea? (or just Sevastopol) If politics isn’t played skilfully, yes that could become a potential flashpoint. But not eastern Ukraine itself.

And, of course I mean Caucasus. Bloody spell-checker.

“It’s not a very balanced article. Russia had their best, most professional division on the border ready to go. Even the US military can’t start an invasion on the drop of a hat. Their russians where able to start moving as soon as or before the Georgia started moving into South Ossetia.”

So the Russians were well prepared- so what?

You seem to be labouring under the impression that innocence of aggression is predicated on getting wiped out. It isn’t.

The Russians didn’t shoot first, the Georgians did. They tugged the tiger’s tail, and started howling when it bit them right back.

“Mesquito, these are not Russian claims but include, amongst others, an officer in the Finnish army which is hardly likely to have fond memories of Russia.”

Oh hell, Alec. I know that. My point is that, historically speaking, it is Russia who play the aggressor. (It makes little sense for Georgia to do so.) Also, Russia could easily have secured the disputed area, bought their case to the world, and refrained from overrunning half of Georgia.

And, no Georgia is not like Northern Ireland (South Ossetia - maybe

I’m refering to South Ossetia, obviously.

Try not to interrupt the big boys on this one, thanks.

OFF-TOPIC

I’m surprised HP hasn’t picked up on this story yet.

It would seem to refute Holocaust revisionism at a stroke.

“It would seem to refute Holocaust revisionism at a stroke.”

Monkey Boy seems to think Holocaust revisionism is all about facts and evidence and stuff.

Monkey boy, wow, very interesting. I doubt it will change many minds unless they can get it carbon dated though. Can they do that with documents?

Monkey Boy seems to think Holocaust revisionism is all about facts and evidence and stuff.

Yeah who am i kidding. Carbon dating still hasn’t gotten rid of creationism so i doubt it would work in this case.

Mesquito, had the cuddly Beria in Tbilisi (TM Sandra Roelofs) not been so mind-numbingly stupid to, as Monty put it, tug the tiger’s tail, Russia would have to have been ever more reckless to initiate any war. She didn’t have to be.

I’m under no illusions about Russia - the Destroyer of Grozny - having any moral authority in the region, but this ranks along with the special needs fascism which pervades so much of the erroneously entitled pro-Palestinian campaigns. That no matter how badly their chosen side behaves, t’other must show endless restraint.

With a neighbour as ruthless and quick to temper as Russia, you’d have expected Georgia to show a little of that.

I’m under no illusions about Russia - the Destroyer of Grozny - having any moral authority in the region,

That’s why you’ve just spent the last dozen posts excusing them then?

Congratulations, Moggie. Two errors in one sentence. Of my *four* posts in this thread (the spelling-correction doesn’t count), one of which doesn’t touch upon the issue at all, I can only be seen as defending the Kremlin in any way (as opposed to rusticating Saakashvili) if you take the fascistic view that failure to explicitly condemn counts as implicit approval (not to mention your oft demonstrated need to equate Zionist Jews who disagree with you on *any* subject to Nazis).

No errors, Alec…just pointing out your implicit and explicit support for the new Russian Collectivist Hegemony.

Ven - thanks for the correction, though as far as I can see it was a comparatively minor issue of fact that did not affect my narrative. Northern Ireland was intended as an illustration, not a close parallel. The upshot of Stalin’s ethnic cleansing is cultures in the ex-USSR about as cohesive as oil and water.

Bollocks, Morgoth. First, you cannot count above four. Next you cannot distinguish implicit and explicit support for “showers of bastards” or “Destroyer of Grozny”.

You’d be a fruitloop at LGF. Why do you post here?

I think the Georgians have not played this well and should reconcile themselves to some loss of territory.

HOWEVER, can anyone believe that a state which murders journalists and assassinates with poison its overseas enemies would not stoop to have its Spetnatz troops don Georgian uniforms, land behind enemy lines and create mayhem as a pretext for invasion? That’s exactly the sort of thing totalitarian Nazi Germany did.

I don’t think anybody on last August’s thread whitewashed the Georgian government. What commenters did point to was the buildup of provocative acts of aggression by Russia and its South Ossetian allies against Georgia, and the well-prepared character of the Russian invasion.

Last week’s New York Times article is primarily concerned with events in the hours before the invasion, not the months before the invasion which were the focus for many of your critics.

Even with regard to the events of those hours it does not claim to be anything like a definitive account. Read the closing paragraphs.

I was one of those critical commenters in August. I was extremely surprised that you would see the invasion primarily in terms of the US election. This post of mine was written partially in response to that.

In August it seemed that for you the important aspect of the Russian invasion of Georgia was that it showed McCain was wrong. Now the important thing about the Russian invasion of Georgia is not just that you think it confirms that McCain was wrong, but that it proves that you were right. It seems a rather narrow view of the world.

Macpherson - Morgoth’s postings display a far greater sense of judgement and aptitute than your disgraceful apologias for Putin.

As for Gene’s defence of contemporary Russian imperialism, I am only glad that his views remain obnoxious enough to refute even now that the election is over.

Any timeline of the run-up to the war shows that Russia was planning to attack.

The Georgian government, bereft of the possibility of real military assistance thanks to our craven refusal to let it join NATO in the spring, had to take a risk:

1. Take the initiative. Recapture Tskhkinvali and put in place its own people, thereby ensuring that any Russian attack would be aggression against the legal authorities in what is still seen internationally as an region of Georgia.

2. Sit back and let the Russians do what they like, knowing that, as their country is dismembered, they have the full sympathy of the international community.

They chose the first option but failed to capture Tskhinvali, as they were, as Gene says, inexperienced.

To act to try to prevent massive aggression is not itself an act of aggression, unless you belong to the camp that thinks Israel started the 1967 War.

Here’s an RFE/RL timeline:

http://daledamos.blogspot.com/2008/08/time-line-of-events-leading-to-russia.html

The same New York Times article was also siezed on by Thomas PM Barnett, about whom more here. Blogger tdaxp raises an eyebrow at Barnett’s reaction, writing that there’s “no need to get worked up by a takedown of an irrelevant red herring three months after the fact.”

I’m pleasantly surprised that Gene wrote this.

As as for support for Russian imperialism?

Well, Georgia may have kicked off last summer’s hostilities, but the fact remains Russia has imperialist ambitions and engages in some pretty aggressive posturing.

Saakashvili was “elected” with a ludicrously high percentage of the vote and all he could find to say was that the previous elections had also been rigged, so that was all right, then.

The aggression was the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia, with its large number of Russian citizens, in order to prevent a territory which was never part of Georgia until Stalin, of all people, redrew the map, and which has not actually been run from Tblisi since the fall of the Soviet Union, from taking a stand against incorporation into global capital, European federalism and American “full spectrum dominance”, all of which have in any case collapsed between that day and this, as Saakashvili is now on the brink of discovering at the hands of his own people.

Good for Russia, going to the aid of anyone taking that stand, never mind her own citizens with close ties to those in the neighbouring part of Russia, from whom and from which they were only ever sundered by fiat of one of the worst mass murderers of all time.

I don’t see how this account reveals anything we didn’t already know or contradicts the idea that Georgia was acting in self defence. Russian backed terrorists didn’t need to be attacking at the precise moment Georgia struck back for it to be self defence, in the weeks leading up to war there were numerous attacks on Georgia reported in the news.

Not only do you find yourself on the side of Vladimir Putin on this one, but also on the side of David Lindsay. That is how wrong you are!

“Saakashvili was “elected” with a ludicrously high percentage of the vote and all he could find to say was that the previous elections had also been rigged, so that was all right, then.”

It goes without saying that Mr Lindsay is simply lying about Saakashvili saying anything like that. Also his “ludicrously high percentage of the vote” was 53%, about the same as Barack Obama got last week.

Poor Ross, even the writers on Harry’s Place don’t agree with him.

“European federalism and American “full spectrum dominance”, all of which have in any case collapsed between that day and this”

That means you, Ross.

And “global capital”, of course.

Didn’t you see the result of the American Presidential Election, Ross? Didn’t you see, not only who won, but with whose votes? The votes of the people whose offspring are actually sent out to fight these pointless wars of coercive utopianism.

Iraq will limp on for a while. And Afghanistan really does need watching. But basically, it’s all over. You certainly aren’t going to get your war of economic and “cultural” (if that is the word) conquest against Russia.

Thank God for that.

This is interesting, though I’d point out that the fact still remains that Russia broke international law with it’s actions, while Georgia did not. Setting aside the morality of the issue (which I believe leaves Russia and Georgia around 50-50), South Ossetia was De Jure Georgian territory, and thus technically the Georgian government can do what the hell they like there. Of course if their actions conflict with Human rights, or amount to genocide, there is recourse to take them to task, even militarily. That recourse is the UNSC, and just with America and Iraq, Russia bypassed that lawful recourse and under took action unilaterally. That is clearly illegal, as is the Iraq war. I think it is a shame that Russia has managed to commit an act of gross illegality, but there’s little recourse because the precedent was set by America in Iraq.

Welcome to a return to 19th century politics of nationalist power plays, that is all this is.

“Didn’t you see the result of the American Presidential Election, Ross? Didn’t you see, not only who won, but with whose votes?”

No and neither did you, on account of it being a secret ballot. I notice you don’t defend your claim that 53% of the vote is “ludicrously high”.

“The votes of the people whose offspring are actually sent out to fight these pointless wars of coercive utopianism.”

Actually the one region of the USA where McCain did better than Bush was in the Appalachian states, whose inhabitants are far more likely than the national average to join the military. Facts aren’t really your strong point are they?

Old Labour, if you can only address other posters by their surname, keep quiet. It’s basic courtesy.

Macpherson - Morgoth’s postings display a far greater sense of judgement and aptitute than your disgraceful apologias for Putin.

Oh, FFS, grow up! Morgoth equates failure to exonerate Saaskavili in a action with killed far less than one thousand people over the course of a fortnight with one which was killing many times that every day. Out goes “aptitude”.

Morgoth thinks 12 = 4. Out goes “judgement”.

Morgoth and you think you merely have to say something and it becomes truth. So, I may not have once justified the Russian response. I may have called it wholely bereft of moral authority. But because I don’t agree with Old Labour and Morgoth, I am issuing “disgraceful apologias”. No further explanation is required.

Maybe you think “Alec Macpherson” is spelt “David Lindsay”. Or maybe the pair of your are post-modern hypocrites hiding behind a keyboard.

Does anyone know is Sakashvili is still going to re-route the trans-Georgian Caspian pipeline through Turkey?

Was part of the reason for Sakashvili’s suppression of the South Ossetian separatists (wrong, in and of itself, in my view, as point of information) threats of sabotage to the Caspian pipeline?

Sesession of those populations to Russia could work in Georgia’s favour. It would establish a defensible border, which would tend to increase, rather than reduce, security of supply. No?

Well, Saakashvili did get 96% of the vote first time round - a little bit embarrasing for a bright hope of democracy (lol). Hardly surprising that his support should be a bit lower at elections brought forward prematurely following protests against his regime that were violently put down - even if some of the major opposition candidates were in exile (Okruashvili) or persauded at the last minute not to campaign (and how did that fellow die at that mansion in Surrey incidently not long afterwards?) And his party’s share of seats in parliament (to which the most recent elections were held earlier THIS year)…erm, is not that which one would expect of a democracy.

Does anyone know is Sakashvili is still going to re-route the trans-Georgian Caspian pipeline through Turkey?

Does anyone know is Sakashvili is still going to re-route the trans-Georgian Caspian pipeline through Turkey?

Not to my knowledge (if you mean change the existing pipelines from Baku, Azerbaijan to Ceyham and Erzurum - both of which I think i’ve spelt wrongly - in Turkey)

Was part of the reason for Sakashvili’s suppression of the South Ossetian separatists (wrong, in and of itself, in my view, as point of information) threats of sabotage to the Caspian pipeline?

Also not to my knowledge. More a question of national pride (and election promises) methinks: some success had been acheived by peaceful means in SO, too.

Sesession of those populations to Russia could work in Georgia’s favour. It would establish a defensible border, which would tend to increase, rather than reduce, security of supply. No?

This MIGHT (perhaps) apply to Abkhazia (although frankly I see no prospect whatsoever of that region coming under georgian control any time soon) - but it definitely does not apply to South Ossetia. The de jure border between Russia and Georgia, the Great Caucasus range (including between South Ossetia and North Osetiya Alaniya) is almost the dictionary definition of a defensible border (which means you think Georgia would have blocked the one land entry route to South Ossetia from Russia before launching hte attack). If SO is under (de facto) Russian rule - it gives them a very good forward base in the South Caucasus; that can only be detrimental to Georgian security. The border between “south ossetia” and the rest of georgia - is by no means such a natural, easily defended border

Duncan,
far too seldom Russia are seen as the bad guys without any indepth look at the issues.

I believe Novodvorskaya more than you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGwWDjZKblc&NR=1

Brave Valeriya Novodvorskaya, the last of dissidents who are (still) alive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valeriya_Novodvorskaya

Anna, I generally respect and, even, agree with your comments, but why does your blog-roll include a self-proclaimed “Russophobe” who says the only way for Russians to be accepted is to leave their country or culture?

BY GEORGIA
I smell censorship. Ask Harry to enlighten you? After all, he is a trendy, leftist liberal.