I don't think there's much point in me writing anything more about the crisis in Georgia. You can read more accurate fact and opinion elsewhere. I'd only originally started blogging about it because I was annoyed at certain bloggers delighting in Russia's rampant aggression.The fact is, what started off as pro-Russian pandering by a few misguided bloggers has now descended to little more than farce. This morning, scrappy journalist Neil Clarke decided to launch the 'Russophobe of the Week award,' attacking journalists who criticized "Russia's perfectly legitimate and proportionate action to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide in South Ossetia."
Honestly - there's no need for me to try and repudiate that rubbish. It's just so utterly blinkered that anybody with an ounce of journalistic integrity is rolling in the aisles after reading it.
Even Mancunian-in-Mexico The Exile, who has been successfully wading through the facts and fiction of this war (and less successfully, trying to put a pro-Russian spin on it) admitted today that "the war over South Ossetia was an old fashioned land grab."
You can interpret the origins of this crisis any way you want - but you can't deny how it's all ended up. Russia is occupying Georgian territory and clearly has no intention of leaving until their aims are accomplished - specifically the absorption of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Whatever feeble higher moral ground Russia might have had has been abandoned now they've got their eyes on the prize.
6 comments:
I just responded to some of your claims over on Neil Clark's blog..
On second thoughts I might as well repost it here:
Russia already had troops in South Ossetia and Abkhazia as a result of an international agreement which the Georgians were signatories to. Whether the agreement was just or not, its existence is a fact. The Georgians (or rather Saakashvili) then launched an assault to take South Ossetia back by force. So what would you expect the Russians to do? Simply accept the killing or expulsion of their peacekeepers (not to mention the Ossetians themselves)? Once the Russians countered, they were within their rights to take the battle to the rest of Georgia. Yes they should withdraw eventually, but the US claim that the Russian counter was disproportionate is illogical. Georgia chose the location and the timing of the start of the conflict. The victor chooses the location and timing of the end. The US expressed alarm that the Georgian military was being systematically dismantled. Meanwhile in 1999 the Americans saw no problems with bombing targets from Montenegro in the south to Vojvodina in the north, areas outside of Kosovo. They were acting to destroy all military targets in the country they were fighting. By what logic would they have restrained themselves to merely attacking Serbian troops in Kosovo? But by this pseudo-logic they expect the Russians to fight by standards they have not held themselves to. Furthermore if someone attacks you it is reasonable that you dismantle his ability to attack you again or at least inflict a heavy enough defeat that they think twice about doing so again. Therefore I see no problem with the fact that Russia attacked targets throughout Georgia in order to disable the Georgian army. Bush may have preferred for the US-trained Georgian army to remain intact, but the argument that the Russian response was disproportionate or immoral is both hypocritical and illogical. In 1999, the US saw fit to bomb civilian targets such as the RTS television station, bridges, roads, power stations, factories (throughout Serbia and Montenegro). The Russians have demonstrated no such venomous appetite to debilitate the lives of the Georgian people. Had they done so, we would not be watching Saakashvilli on our TV sets every night. Nor would the oil pipeline have remained untouched.
You say that 100,000 Georgians have been ethnically cleansed. This is inaccurate. First, no one on this earth has an accurate idea at this time of how many people have been displaced. Therefore large, round, six-figure numbers designed to make headlines should be treated with caution. Secondly those Georgians that fled the Russian probe into Georgia proper did so out of fear of an advancing foreign army and because they did not want to be on the frontline in the midst of a war. They were not physically evicted. They left before the Russians even got there. I honestly believe that they will not be prevented from returning to their homes once the Russian forces have left Georgia, which I believe they will do (not including S. Ossetia and Abkhazia).
Hey Serbialives - interesting response. I appreciate you posting it here - Neil vigourously moderates his comments, so it may take a while for them to appear on his blog.
I can't argue about Georgia's attempts to retake Ossetia. That was the spark that set this whole conflict off. It's entirely fair, however, to say that the Russian's pumped the inflammable gas in, though.
They supplied training, men, money and equipment to the separatists to encourage them to fight for autonomy, cynically knowing that this situation would soon arise (and they could take advantage of it.)
Secondly, the Russians argued vehemently that Kosovo should remain within Serbia's territory in the nineties, despite 90% of the population being Albanian. Why are they reversing their position when it comes to the 90% Russian province of South Ossetia?
Political expediency, that's why.
Thirdly - the Russians have been gaily lobbing bombs at oil pipes and bridges. It just happens that they can't hit the side of barn door. Or did they really intend to bomb those civilian buildings?
Forthly, if an approaching army forces citizens to flee in terror as refugees, that's pretty much the definition of ethnic cleansing. are you arguing they should have stuck around to be murdered, like the Serbs did to the Bosnians?
Serbialives - I'm not going to argue that Georgia or even America has any moral high ground here. Georgia sparked this situation off, even if the Russians had manipulated it. Plus McCain's comments today (in the 21st century, one nation doesn't invade another) is difficult to quantify given the situation in Iraq.
I just object to people like Neil trying to justify what Russia's done. It's certainly no MORE justifiable than anything he's attacked the US for doing.
At the end of the day, it just goes to show that Russia's not interested in doing what's 'right' or 'wrong' and Neil isn't interested in the gory facts of the conflict, just blithly supporting the side he's picked.
I can't argue about Georgia's attempts to retake Ossetia. That was the spark that set this whole conflict off. It's entirely fair, however, to say that the Russian's pumped the inflammable gas in, though.
They supplied training, men, money and equipment to the separatists to encourage them to fight for autonomy, cynically knowing that this situation would soon arise (and they could take advantage of it.)
As I stated in my previous comment, there was a mutual agreement in place by which both Georgian and Russian troops were in South Ossetia. I don’t see how Russians provided men to the Ossetians when their own troops were there already. Maybe they supplied training, money and equipment; I simply don’t have the facts. But what was going on in Georgia at the time. Saakashvili had raised the military budget to 70% of GDP and US trainers were training Georgian troops. It’s unfair to say that Russia pumped the gas in when there was a status quo which was not ideal, but at least peaceful and mutually agreed. Saakashvili decided unilaterally that this did not suit him and attempted to resolve matters by military means. The blame for this mess lies with him and I don’t subscribe to this notion that the Russians and Georgians are equally to blame.
Secondly, the Russians argued vehemently that Kosovo should remain within Serbia's territory in the nineties, despite 90% of the population being Albanian. Why are they reversing their position when it comes to the 90% Russian province of South Ossetia?
Political expediency, that's why.
This may well be the case, but why is this surprising? America has shown in the last fifteen years that it has not the slightest regard for justice but that the law of the jungle applies. Why should Russia be so principled, following the letter of international law, when the superpower intent on surrounding it with client states, pays no attention to it? Having said that, the Kosovo and Ossetian cases are more different than is made out. Kosovo was never an independent state and never had a separate identity. There is no such thing as a Kosovan people, language, culture, flag etc. Ossetia on the other hand has a unique identity and from what I understand was never part of an independent Georgia. Apparently it was attached within the administrative borders of Georgia at Stalin’s whim. At the time it made not much difference since the USSR was together. Once it started breaking up the Ossetians were not happy with being left within Georgia.
Thirdly - the Russians have been gaily lobbing bombs at oil pipes and bridges. It just happens that they can't hit the side of barn door. Or did they really intend to bomb those civilian buildings?
It is true that they bombed civilian buildings. From what I can tell you accept that this was not intentional. That is hardly evidence that they can’t ‘hit the side of a barn door’. They bombed hundreds of military targets, hitting them successfully. Do you honestly believe that they wanted to bomb a static oil pipeline but were only prevented from doing so by their own incompetence? That would really be incredible.
Fourthly, if an approaching army forces citizens to flee in terror as refugees, that's pretty much the definition of ethnic cleansing. are you arguing they should have stuck around to be murdered, like the Serbs did to the Bosnians?
In my reply I noted that most Georgians fled before the Russian army rolled through their area and that Russian forces did not physically evict anyone from their homes. To claim that they would have been murdered if they had stayed around is a very grave accusation. The problem with this type of accusation is that anyone wanting to stir up passions can claim all manner of hypothetical extraordinary events would have occurred. The fact of the matter is that Russians are not murdering people or evicting them. Massive population movements occur during war as front lines become fluid.
Like I said earlier, I believe that the Russians will leave Georgia proper and that these civilians will all return to their homes. The situation is a temporary one, and Russia does not intend to stay in that area, much less ethnically cleanse anyone.
There is, I suppose, one consolation to be found in the 'work' of the Neil Clarks and Exiles of the blogging world when they turn to blatant propaganda: at least it IS blatant - subtlety is not their strong point.
Post a Comment