Last Friday, after the world’s leaders had arrived at the Beijing Olympics, Georgian troops launched an all-out assault on the region of South Ossetia, which has enjoyed de facto independence for more than 16 years. The majority of the region’s population are Russian citizens. Under the terms of the 1992 agreement to which Georgia is a party, they are afforded protection by a small number of Russian peacekeeping soldiers. The ground and air attack resulted in the killing of peacekeepers and the death of an estimated 1,600 civilians...Honestly, I don't find this convincing that Russia is being "proportionate" in its response, even assuming all of this is true. But it does a good job, I think, of laying out Russia's perspective on the action.
There can be little surprise, therefore, that Russia responded to this unprovoked assault on its citizens by launching a military incursion into South Ossetia. No country in the world would idly stand by as its citizens are killed and driven from their homes. Russia repeatedly warned Tbilisi that it would protect its citizens by force if necessary, and its actions are entirely consistent with international law, including article 51 of the UN charter on the right of self-defence.
13 Ağustos 2008 Çarşamba
The other side of the Russian/Georgian conflict
A new commenter here at Mod-Blog challenged us to take a different view of the conflict between Russia and Georgia than was common wisdom, so it seemed worthwhile to post a pro-Russian editorial that lays out their case pretty well.
Kaydol:
Kayıt Yorumları (Atom)
Thanks for posting this... things make a lot more sense now. I think that Russia, in general, is known (or portrayed as) a country that responds, not in kind, but rather with what it will take to stop things. On the one hand, it does seem to lead to an over and above response. On the other hand, if you can decisively end something in a couple days, doesn't a country have an obligation to their own people to take that route to minimize their own casualties? On the first hand, it seems that even with the "excessive force" that Russia uses, they still have problems with terrorists / rebels.
YanıtlaSilNomad, thanks for posting this. You see there are always two sides to each story and we just pick one. That's the fact, that unfortunately doesn't make things better. People still die on both sides and leaders keep making wrong decisions. We just never learn. Do you think politics are actually possible without wars and weapons?
YanıtlaSilIt's hard enough to be sympathetic to Russia's argument as it is, but it's getting more and more difficult to see them as anything but the blatent aggressors in light of today's actions.
YanıtlaSilhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080814/ap_on_re_eu/georgia_russia
i think the argument is pretty bogus. it would be like Quebec declaring independence from Canada. Canada puts up with it for a while then decides to bring Quebec back into the fold. Just because a lot of pansy Americans live in Quebec doesn't give the US a right to go off on Canada. Quebec is still part of Canada - no matter how much they believe they're not - and Canada has the right to bring provinces into line with the rule of law.
YanıtlaSilObviously the Georgian military shouldn't have fired on innocents, but that doesn't change the fact that the argument is bogus.
What is US doing in Iraq? The reason to attack was bogus.... Iraqis never asked Bush for help either... Why are Americans there? And i don't mean to change the topic, but only to bring your attention to similarities in the reaction of countries with power.
YanıtlaSilThe old "you did it too" line isn't a reason. If it was wrong, it was wrong. Plus, using that argument is essentially conceding the point.
YanıtlaSilWe are talking about Russia's reaction to Georgia's action. Was Georgia at least somewhat at fault? Yes. But that doesn't mean Russia was then given the green light to use excessive force.
We don't want to get into a discussion of the differences or similarities between this an Iraq. Or maybe we do. But I'd say let the Mod-Blog posters get that discussion underway.
Oh, and in response to Galia's question... one Undeniable Truth of Life is that the world is governed by the aggressive use of force. Peace is kept by the threat of force, that is the reason the US has a powerful military (and I am sure Russia has at least partially the same reason).
This seems unfair and horrid, but it is one of those Nash Equilibrium things. If everyone was peaceful, everyone would be happy. But if one country was warlike, they would take over all the others. So we have to all be somewhat warlike to keep the peace.
Here's a great article on the conflict from American Thinker. The author seems to have done his research, and it jives with the other things we have been talking about and hearing.
YanıtlaSilhttp://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/south_ossetia_the_perfect_wron.html
Galia,
YanıtlaSilI don't think Iraq is comparable. The USA entered based on the belief that Sadaam Hussein had approached terrorist organizations to support them, and had weapons of mass destruction which could be given to them. GRANTED, THIS TURNED OUT TO BE BAD INTELLIGENCE (which everyone in the West had wrong). But the reason for entering Iraq was to address an apparent threat to America post-9/11. Georgia, whichever way you look at it, is a conflict between nations (2 or 3) over the political future of a minority.
So, I'd prefer to keep the discussion on Georgia/Russia/South Ossettia.
Out of curiosity, what is your idea of the RIGHT ending to this story? South Osettia as its own country, as a part of Russia, as a part of Georgia, as an independent entity which is not a nation-state?
And I think you'll find if Russia has truly stopped its offensive - unlike the other times they said it was stopped and CNN showed it was advancing - I think you'll find American opinion changing quickly... or at least moderating.
Oh, and before we get into another side conversation, no I do not think that preemptive war is a good policy. I would hope the next President repeals the Bush Doctrine on that point.
YanıtlaSilI think, it was obvious from the beginning why US went to Iraq. And if it wasn't, well i guess it's all in " The way of the World". ANd i am not bringing this up to "concede the point". But first, it's hard to take criticism seriously from the government that doesn't really practice what it preaches. And second, the answer to "What is Russia still doing in Georgia" is somewhere the same as the answer to the question "Why is US in Iraq?" Political, business, security interest. Russia doesn't want to see US missiles in its backyard. There is oil in the region, that both Russia and US are interested in. Russia and US want to appear as they are in charge of the situation. Wicked, weak, fear and pride based political strategies. Let's hope and pray one day we will see different kind of leadership.
YanıtlaSilYour comparison is still invalid though for several reasons.
YanıtlaSil1) Did Georgia invade a sovereign country? No. They sent troops into one of their own provinces because of ultra-nationalists causing trouble. Iraq did invade a sovereign country, when they invaded Kuwait. (And don't think that this isn't anything but a continuation of what we were not allowed to finish in the first Gulf War.)
2) Did Georgia send nationals to try and assassinate either the President or Prime Minister of Russia? Not that I know of. Iraq did send assassins after the US President.
3) Did Georgia use biological and chemical weapons against their own people? No. Iraq did.
Those are just three ways right off the top of my head for why your comparison falls apart. The situations are not similar at all.
I think an even bigger difference is that everyone knew the US did come up with an internatioanl coalition (though many poo poo that coalition because it doesn't contain "big names") and went before the UN several times to get resolutions etc.
YanıtlaSilPoint is, everyone knew the US was looking to go in to Iraq, whether you agreed or not, and the US did pursue other avenues, whether you agree they were enough or not.
Russia didn't do anything really before pushing in militarily, and they did so alone.
I understand you trust your government and justify its actions. And the points that you brought up may seem significant factors to you, on the other side, I see it as details. As a large picture, both countries did what was in their interest, though Russia usually doesn't "sugarcoat" their actions and unlike US, doesn't make up evidence to justify their action in eyes of their citizens and other countries.
YanıtlaSilCheck this out, entertaining, Georgian president http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWlQ_fzECl4&NR=1
YanıtlaSil