Here's an interesting article by Gary Kasporov:

http://www.theotherrussia.org/2008/08/15/kasparov-the-west-fueled-putins-sense-of-impunity/

Except I can't fault Saakashvili one little bit.

Jeremy, your analysis is 100% correct.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

WSS

Why not delve deeper into local politics? Since before the 1991-2 war, the entire region has alleged that Russian has been behind the independence movement in South Ossetia, undoubtedly in an effort to destabilize a fully independent Georgia. An attempted truce, before Russia's full-on invasion, offering much greater leeway to the Southern Ossetians was rejected outright. They pushed for full independence, and would accept nothing less. This certainly served Russia's interest, for when President Saakashvili decided to end it for good by surrounding and taking the South Ossetian capital-what he considered the wellspring of violence within his nation--the Russian army went into action. I can't disagree that perhaps Saakashvili should have abstained from using force in this instance; other accords may have succeeded. I don't know the exact circumstances in his mind that made him finally strike at South Ossetia's heart.

If you were indeed to ask Southern Ossetians who was sovereign over their affairs, they would respond, resoundingly, "Russia." Russia now wants to skip the puppet government they've allegedly installed in Tskhinvali, skip the handing out of Russian passports to Southern Ossetians, skip the subterfuge, and just simply take the whole region back.

Georgia's response to Tskhinvali's stubbornness has given Russia an excuse to put troops in Gori, 47 miles from Tblisi. That's about the distance between Baltimore and Washington DC. I would indeed wonder what humanitarian effort could be served by this; how South Ossetia's interests are served by this. Or by conducting sustained air-strikes against Georgia's military bases. Or by seizing the Black Sea port city of Poti, a major oil shipping route. Or, as I've just read according to Reuters, setting up a checkpoint 30 miles from Tblisi, despite Russia declaring that they will abide by a new ceasefire. I wouldn't take the South Ossetia independence movement, wars, attacks or any of that at face value when Russia has so obviously been attempting to undermine Georgian authority there for almost two decades. Neither would I call Georgia completely innocent in the matter, except insofar as Russia has no right to enter Georgian territory. That is not a grey issue. They are not just inside South Ossetia. Look at the maps.

Jeremy: Despite holding transparent elections and striving to enter the West, with all its might, Georgia has not yet earned the right to have its sovereign territory respected by its neighbors?

Georgia has hardly been sovereign over South Ossetia since 1991. There has been a de facto complete autonomy since the last bout of killings in 2001. What do the sovereign folk of South Ossetia have to say about the Georgian bombing of their capital? I know there are only 70,000 of them, but maybe we should ask them who is 'sovereign' over their affairs.

As for the Abkhaz, what is the principled reason that this ancient people must accept the suzerainty of Georgia? Perhaps Objectivism demands that an Abkhazia remain under whatever authority history has devolved upon it -- as exemplified in Rand's rejection of separatism in Quebec and Catalonia, and her dismissal of ethnicity as meaningful or necessarily related to statehood or autonomous function.

But what about the danged Abkhaz? What about their truncated autonomy under the previous Georgian regime? What do they have to say about the disposal of the region in which they have lived for many centuries?

Saakashvili may be a fine actor in the Western freeman mold, but he made a mistake in using force in this instance. Georgia has lost any short-term chance of securing the loyalty of South Ossetians to the Georgian state without force.

Remember that this section of the world has been roiling with conflict since 1989.

WSS

I agree, Richard, that time will tell in some matters. For one, Russia's ultimate motive.  But whatever the motive for its move against Georgia, or its history with Kosovo,  the problem is Russia. 

And yes, if this incursion is permitted by the civilized world without economic or other sanctions against Russia, or another bordering country should imperceptibly upset Russia and prompt the Kremlin to invade and bisect that country with tanks and paratroopers, we should go to war with Russia.  The 'we' and the type of war are matters for future discussion. (But hopefully it doesn't come to that.) 

Lindsay is correct in his initial assessment: this kind of thing leads to World Wars. That such a thing is unimaginable in our current age doesn't make it impossible, unfortunately.  Russia did this in part because they don't think anyone can or will stop them.  Are they right?  Will they do it again?  We'll see.

Jeremy, if their intentions are broader than supporting South Ossetia and Abkhazia, then that intention will become clear. At the moment it's not clear to me. What I do know is that Russia opposed the independence of Kosovo vehemently, and what we have here with South Ossetia and Abkhazia is a parallel. Why should Russia take any notice of the West in supporting independence for those two provinces when the West took no notice of Russian concern over Kosovo? In my view the West has been equally digging this hole.

As far as supporting Georgia goes, it should be supported. That's not the issue with me.

Sure it does, Richard, when taken with the other facts.

A new Cold War does not help anyone, a hot war with Russia would be a scary and dangerous undertaking, but appeasing a dictator like Putin is begging for great problems to come.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

Thanks for that, Robert. That they were prepared, though, is not surprising, given that the conflict isn't a new thing, and that it has gained a momentum since, and because of, Kosovo. It also doesn't enlighten us as to longterm intentions. Time will tell. I do know that a new cold war scenario isn't going to be good for anyone.

 "The European Union took the lead in diplomacy, with results approaching Neville Chamberlain’s moment in the spotlight at Munich: a ceasefire that failed to mention Georgia’s territorial integrity, and that all but gave Russia permission to continue its military operations as a “peacekeeping” force anywhere in Georgia. More troubling, over the long term, was that the EU saw its task as being mediator – its favourite role in the world – between Georgia and Russia, rather than an advocate for the victim of aggression."

 -John R Bolton former US Permanent Representative to the United Nations.

Russia will hardly be shaking in their boots over 27 EU member states seeking some sort of comfortable-who cares if it's shabby- consensus, will they?

"The ultimate result of shielding men from folly is to fill the world with fools."

-Herbert Spencer 

People are thinking that because Georgia is simply yet another Balkanized cast-off of the Soviet Union, we shouldn't really care. Isn't that really the issue, Richard? Despite holding transparent elections and striving to enter the West, with all its might, Georgia has not yet earned the right to have its sovereign territory respected by its neighbors?

Just the other day the Russian ambassador questioned the validity of Georgia's borders entirely. What does that have to do with humanitarian efforts on Russia's part?

speaking of apologists here is a conspiracy theory for you

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/12/EDCD129NI4.DTL

as usual they blame the US for everything. Its all just a ploy to get us into a nuclear war.

on a more serious note, history shows time and time again, if you are weak and your words carry with them no threat of action, nobody will listen to you. Its called Europe and the UN. Russia can walk all over Europe and they know it.

http://www.navoine.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?p=551

I commend this military analysis of the situation to your attention.

Pay attention to this observation from the analysis:

"... For the ships to have arrived on Saturday, they would have to have sailed on Friday, just hours after Georgian troops crossed into South Ossetia."

Forget for a moment all of the press reports, editorials, & speculation about Putrid's motives. Look to what Russia is doing right now. Identify that, and then the question becomes what ~must~ you do in response - not what would you ~like~ to do in response.

Ask yourself why the Russians were this well prepared to respond to Georgian 'aggression' and why a country with an airforce of less than 30-aircraft, 50-tanks, and 20,000 soldiers poses such a grave threat to the Russians that they've launched such an assault. Ask yourself why they are digging in, rather than withdrawing as the ~two~ cease fire agreements that they've signed have stipulated.

The question isn't whether the West should go to war with Russia, but whether Russia is about to declare war (Cold or Hot) on the West.

Note that the Russians have threatened to target Poland with nuclear missiles for impertinently agreeing to allow ICBM interceptor missiles on their territory. These are not offensive weapons. They are designed to defeat single ICBMs lobbed at the West.

Note that Russia has been gunning for Georgia and other bordering nations for some time.

And as an aside: Putrid's apologists in Russia & elsewhere are laying the blame for all of this at Dick Cheney's door.

Have you checked the map?

Kinda strategic, wouldn't ya say?

What do you want to do? Go to war with Russia? Russia is giving the South Ossetians what the US gave Kosovo. I wonder, if Serbia invaded Kosovo, would America hammer Kosovo in support of their independence. The whole lot of it is kind of sickening.

Yes, I was puzzled by your expression. Didn't think Russia's mighty foray could be called a "lurch."

-Mindy

Russia is a former superpower.  It did the lurching.  Keep up, Mindy.

...is a former "superpower?" How many centuries back are you looking?

You would think that if anyone would have learned that appeasing dictators doesn't work, it would be the French.

I think that the response of the West has been anemic, and if it were stronger, then our democratic ally Georgia would not be forced into signing such a one sided terms of unconditional surrender, which, let's face it, is what is being proposed.

What does Georgia get out of those terms, other than to continue to exist, but at the legal sufferance of the USSR (oh, I mean Russia)? This is utterly shameful.

Is this how we stand up for our allies?

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

Very true Johnson

Sarkozy signed a cease-fire deal that gives the Russians pretty much what they desire.

Apparently they drafted 6 principles :http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=96060

I see another Kosovo in sight.

Submitted to Real Clear Politics go there now to vote for the article. Unfortunately you can't link directly to the SOLO submission, only the "reader's articles" page, so you may need to search for it.

10 votes gets the SOLO submission bumped to the front page and drives traffic back to here.

You need to register to vote, if you haven't already done so you can register here.