Bloodless Coup in Georgia? 11/22/03--Following Georgia.

nimh wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
why should we do those things? Defending Georgia is not a priority of our nation

Why? Because the Russian tanks in Georgia concern "a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing"?

Yeah, I suppose there were plenty of Americans saying what you said now about Hungary in 1956 too.

Probably so. But I must say, not every situation is directly comparable to Hitler or WW2. This is the sort of comment that I would give a right-winger a hard time about.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

This is the sort of comment that I would give a right-winger a hard time about.

How so?

Your argument here was pretty simple:

Quote:

I am not personally willing to see the US extend itself further at this time. You stated in another post the things you thought the EU and US should do; but why should we do those things? Defending Georgia is not a priority of our nation and we have plenty of problems to deal with at this point

I.e., whatever the merits of the case, we just dont care enough to intervene, sorry, we've got more important things to attend to. Seems like a pretty direct paraphrasing of Chamberlaine's remarks, which is why I quoted them.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
This is the sort of comment that I would give a right-winger a hard time about.

How so?

Your argument here was pretty simple:

Quote:
I am not personally willing to see the US extend itself further at this time. You stated in another post the things you thought the EU and US should do; but why should we do those things? Defending Georgia is not a priority of our nation and we have plenty of problems to deal with at this point

I.e., whatever the merits of the case, we just dont care enough to intervene, sorry, we've got more important things to attend to. Seems like a pretty direct paraphrasing of Chamberlaine's remarks, which is why I quoted them.

Yes, but your implication is that such behavior eventually leads to crisis for the country who displays it. I don't think that's necessarily the outcome here.

Frankly Nimh we do have more important things to attend to. Man. I can't figure out why on one hand, people bitch about the US acting like the 'world policeman,' and then on the other hand, when we DON'T act that way, there's an equal amount of criticism.

The truth is that the dealings between Georgia and Russia really don't have much to do with us at all. Unless we are looking to start another world crisis, I'm not sure what our options are. Russia is brimming with Petrodollars right now and the idea of cutting them out of trade agreements is one that I think you will not see get very far. So what the hell are we to do about it?

I've never been a 'defend fellow democracies to the death' kind of guy. And I don't think most Americans are, either. I don't want there to be bloodshed or trouble in that region, but I don't think there's much we can do to halt it; at best we can seek to punish Russia after the fact, for we sure as hell aren't sending troops in.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

(edited post before last to include a re: OE.)

Quote:

Remarks by President Bush in the Rose Garden on Wednesday about the crisis in the former Soviet republic of Georgia, by as transcribed by CQ Transcriptions.

The Associated Press - 30 minutes ago

Good morning. I've just met with my national security team to discuss the crisis in Georgia. I've spoken with President Saakashvili of Georgia and President Sarkozy of France this morning.

The United States strongly supports France's efforts, as president of the European Union, to broker an agreement that will end this conflict.

The United States of America stands with the democratically elected government of Georgia. We insist that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia be respected.

Russia has stated that changing the government of Georgia is not its goal. The United States and the world expect Russia to honor that commitment.

Russia has also stated that it has halted military operations and agreed to a provisional cease-fire. Unfortunately, we're receiving reports of Russian actions that are inconsistent with these statements.

We're concerned about reports that Russian units have taken up positions on the east side of the city of Gori, which allows them to block the east-to-west highway, divide the country, and threaten the capital of Tbilisi.

We're concerned about reports that Russian forces have entered and taken positions in the port city of Poti, that Russian armored vehicles are blocking access to that port, and that Russia is blowing up Georgian vessels.

We're concerned about reports that Georgian citizens of all ethnic origins are not being protected. All forces, including Russian forces, have an obligation to protect innocent civilians from attack.

With these concerns in mind, I have directed a series of steps to demonstrate our solidarity with the Georgian people and bring about a peaceful resolution to this conflict.

I'm sending Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to France, where she will confer with President Sarkozy. She will then travel to Tbilisi, where she will personally convey America's unwavering support for Georgia's democratic government. On this trip, she will continue our efforts to rally the free world in the defense of a free Georgia.

I've also directed Secretary of Defense Bob Gates to begin a humanitarian mission to the people of Georgia headed by the United States military. This mission will be vigorous and ongoing.

A U.S. C-17 aircraft with humanitarian supplies is on its way. And in the days ahead, we will use U.S. aircraft, as well as naval forces, to deliver humanitarian and medical supplies.

We expect Russia to honor its commitment to let in all forms of humanitarian assistance. We expect Russia to ensure that all lines of communication and transport, including seaports, airports, roads, and airspace, remain open for the delivery of humanitarian assistance and for civilian transit.

We expect Russia to meet its commitment to cease all military activities in Georgia, and we expect all Russian forces that entered Georgia in recent days to withdraw from that country.

As I have made clear, Russia's ongoing action raised serious questions about its intentions in Georgia and the region.

In recent years, Russia has sought to integrate into the diplomatic, political, economic, and security structures of the 21st century. The United States has supported those efforts. Now Russia is putting its aspirations at risk by taking actions in Georgia that are inconsistent with the principles of those institutions.

To begin to repair the damage to its relations with the United States, Europe, and other nations, and to begin restoring its place in the world, Russia must keep its word and act to end this crisis.

Thank you.

I'd never thought I'd say this, but Go George Bush. He said exactly what needed to be said.

He used his access to the biggest bullhorn in the world to emphasise and warn against Russia's continuing military operations. And he announced how the US will now do some of the few things that it can do. All steps that primarily serve to send a message, and do so without being reckless, but do make it less possible for America to just dump Georgia in the worst case scenario.

Reminds me of the only time Bush ever said something in these 8 years that made me start a thread praising him (President Bush, Yalta and the Baltic States/Eastern Europe).

I hope that Obama and McCain will follow the same line. I think this is one of those subjects where, really, most Americans and Europeans should agree.

____
On a sidenote, the only sad possibility is that now a certain type of Democrat/liberal will go off to seek a hundred ways to argue that it's Russia who's right and being victimised by malicious Georgians and US machinations. Because, basically, if Bush supports a side, it must be the wrong one, and (a worse flaw in thinking), if he is against someone, there must be something to be said for them. Kind of like the certain kind of Republican that, improbably enough, embraced Serbia once President Clinton's administration started attacking it.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Frankly Nimh we do have more important things to attend to. Man. I can't figure out why on one hand, people bitch about the US acting like the 'world policeman,' and then on the other hand, when we DON'T act that way, there's an equal amount of criticism.

Seems to be a contradiction on the surface, but really isn't. I think the problem is more that extreme points of view, absent the presence of a third (or fourth or fifth) party, are more mainstream in the US.

You have (or had, it has lost a bit of steam now) one side arguing for outright interventionism, for nation building. A "if nobody's with us, we'll do it alone" attitude. The United Nations, the Western allies, and international conventions be damned.

And then you have the other side arguing for complete isolationism. For complete withdrawal from Iraq. Let's just get out, and not worry about what will happen next. This is not our conflict. We have more important things to do at home.

This seems to have gotten more extreme over the last couple of years - the Bush administration, the influence of the neocons, the Iraq war.

I don't think the two positions were as extreme when Clinton led NATO's intervention in former Yugoslavia. Sure, there were accusations that it was a distraction from his situation at home... You'll always get that. But not those very extreme positions.

I'd like to see a return to a position where America, rather than acting unilaterally, would use its weight to work within the alliances and institutions that had at least reasonable success in the past. Work on reforming the UN. Work within NATO. That kind of thing...

1 Reply

I'm still mostly just reading and learning (and appreciating how much good info is being provided on this thread), I don't really have any firm opinions yet. (That is, broad outlines have been there for a while and details are swerving my own opinion one way and then another -- still happening as I learn more.)

But isn't this problematic?

Quote:

I'm sending Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to France, where she will confer with President Sarkozy. She will then travel to Tbilisi, where she will personally convey America's unwavering support for Georgia's democratic government. On this trip, she will continue our efforts to rally the free world in the defense of a free Georgia.

Doesn't this seem to imply that we're ready to jump in there militarily -- hopefully with the rest of the "free world" giving us some help?

Isn't this the kind of thing that (arguably at least) emboldened the Georgians to provoke Russia in the first place?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

I'd like to see a return to a position where America, rather than acting unilaterally, would use its weight to work within the alliances and institutions that had at least reasonable success in the past. Work on reforming the UN. Work within NATO. That kind of thing...

I agree with this...

0 Replies

Quote:

Remarks by President Bush in the Rose Garden on Wednesday about the crisis in the former Soviet republic of Georgia, by as transcribed by CQ Transcriptions.

I basically agree with everything that he said. Well done. This is exactly what I would have liked to see when I said, earlier, that appearance and image is important.

He doesn't condemn Russia as the aggressor, but he makes it very clear that there's this line in the sand, and Russia should better not cross it. He's sending Rice to Paris and Tbilisi, in a diplomatic effort. And he's sending US aircraft and naval forces, but on a humanitarian mission.

I'm impressed.

0 Replies

Well yes, I would like to see a return to the US being the leader of the UN and marshaling combined world forces to combat problems, as well. But our current group has heavily damaged our ability to effectively do that at this time. We just don't have the international support we used to, and who can blame them?

I also do not trust the current bunch of leadership to make the correct and necessary decisions in foreign affairs. Nimh can applaud Bush's speech above, and why not? It was empty of any real threats against Russia.

I predict that we will in fact do nothing.

Cycloptichorn

on edit:

I can't believe that the two of you would be impressed by Bush's speech. It essentially does nothing to punish Russia and there is no credible threat of force by the US. Pretty, hollow words. I have a hard time seeing them make a difference.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Man. I can't figure out why on one hand, people bitch about the US acting like the 'world policeman,' and then on the other hand, when we DON'T act that way, there's an equal amount of criticism.

I can only speak for myself but I'm probably fairly typical for a certain kind of European liberal / leftwing critic. It's actually pretty consistent; we would like you to do the same we would like the EU to do. Use all the power you have - and you have plenty of diplomatic, economic and strategical/military tools at hand - for good causes ... short of going to war and invading/occupying countries, certainly not on your own.

See, to my mind it's you folks who keep switching sides. If a Democrat suggests major action the Republicans rail against it, if a Republican suggests it, the Democrats rail against it. So you have Reps lambasting Clinton for attacking Serbia but now urging hawkery re Georgia, and Dems cheering on Clinton but now ridiculing McCain for hawking on Georgia. I mean dudes, could you make your minds up about some underlying concept for your positioning? Oh, and while we're at it, there's options between invading the place and turning away saying sorry, cant help. A lot of options. Things that can be surprisingly effective, even if they dont involve bombing a place.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

I'm still mostly just reading and learning (and appreciating how much good info is being provided on this thread), I don't really have any firm opinions yet. (That is, broad outlines have been there for a while and details are swerving my own opinion one way and then another -- still happening as I learn more.)

But isn't this problematic?

Quote:
I'm sending Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to France, where she will confer with President Sarkozy. She will then travel to Tbilisi, where she will personally convey America's unwavering support for Georgia's democratic government. On this trip, she will continue our efforts to rally the free world in the defense of a free Georgia.

Doesn't this seem to imply that we're ready to jump in there militarily -- hopefully with the rest of the "free world" giving us some help?

Isn't this the kind of thing that (arguably at least) emboldened the Georgians to provoke Russia in the first place?

I agree, but as he's doing it now, there's already the six-step-ceasefire plan, proposed by the European Union and accepted by Russia and Georgia. Georgia has already withdrawn from South Ossetia and declared a unilateral ceasefire. Russia has already declared a ceasefire, too.

I see this course of action as way less problematic now than it would have been just three days ago. At the same time, it makes America's and the West's commitment towards Georgian sovereignty quite clear.

I also like the fact that, for a change, this at least has the notion of the US and the EU being on the same side - in the diplomatic effort, with the ceasefire proposal, and in practical terms.

It seems now that the OSCE will send 200 observers into South Ossetia (there are currently 100 there), and that the European Union will send "observers/advisers", hopefully under a UN mandate. Having the US joining that effort is a very good thing, I'd say.

0 Replies

OK, thanks.

I thought Russia is still being aggressive, despite the ceasefire agreement; hence begging the "and if Russia doesn't stand down, then..?" question.

Hmm, maybe less aggressive than I'd thought. I read this earlier today:

Quote:

U.S. officials tell NBC News that between 8 a.m. and 10 a.m. ET today, there was a movement of Russian Forces from Ossetia toward the vicinity of Gori, but no indication of any engagement with Georgian military or civilians.

"We were trying to figure out what they [Russians] were up to, and still havent," one official said.

The officials could not immediately confirm reports the Russians had turned back north to Ossetia. At this hour, the officials see no evidence of any Russian offensive operations anywhere inside Georgia.

As of early this morning, U.S. military and intelligence officials reported that Russian forces had withdrawn back into Ossetia, there were no Russians in the vicinity of Gori and no Russian warplanes engaged in any bombing strikes.

"That was right early this morning," an official said, "but later that all changed."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/08/13/1264105.aspx

and what I retained is that it still hadn't been determined what the Russians were up to. Evidently nothing more has happened?

0 Replies

No, this was 43 minutes ago:

Quote:

OUTSIDE GORI, Georgia - Russian troops and paramilitaries rolled into the strategic Georgian city of Gori on Wednesday, apparently violating a truce designed to end the conflict that has uprooted tens of thousands and scarred the Georgian landscape.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/georgia_russia

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I can't believe that the two of you would be impressed by Bush's speech. It essentially does nothing to punish Russia and there is no credible threat of force by the US. Pretty, hollow words. I have a hard time seeing them make a difference.

I've heard this "we have to punish Russia" line a couple of times today, now. Doesn't make sense to me. Casting judgement is, at the moment, very low down on the list of priorities (even though Georgia has filed suit against Russia at the ICJ in the Hague today.... so we'll see where that will go).

At the moment, it's more important to return to a status that guarantees the safety of the populations in Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Georgia.

Making threats against Russia isn't helpful to achieve that. Making clear that America (and the West, the EU, NATO etc.) will stick up for their allies.... all of that seems to be what needs to be done now.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

OK, thanks.

I thought Russia is still being aggressive, despite the ceasefire agreement; hence begging the "and if Russia doesn't stand down, then..?" question.

I've read contradicting reports from German correspondents in Georgia on that account. Apparently, Russian troops and tanks were still moving towards Tbilisi. Later, they seem to have stopped about 50k outside of the capital.

One correspondent has been following that tank brigade (which included South Ossetian militia), but couldn't get any comment of it when contacting superiors in Moscow. Apparently, the convoy was not supposed to be moving towards Tbilisi. The Russian Army issued a statement saying "There are no Russian troops moving towards Tbilisi".

Later the convoy stopped, apparently waiting for orders from Moscow.

0 Replies

The AP article says:

Quote:

Russian at first denied that tanks were even in Gori but video footage proved otherwise.

About 50 Russian tanks entered Gori in the morning, according to Lomaia. The city of 50,000 lies 15 miles south of South Ossetia, where much of the fighting has taken place.

(I hope I'm not coming across as argumentative -- I'm mostly interested but confused at this point.)

0 Replies

I have yet to see anyone of you call the Russian invasion of Georgia an "illegal war".

Most of you have called the Iraq war illegal since we didnt have permission from the UN to invade.

Yet, even though Russia didnt have the UN's permission to invade, none of you can bring yourself to call it an "illegal war".
Why is that?
Why havent you all voiced your opinion to the Russian embassy in DC or the Russian UN ambassador?

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

The AP article says:

Quote:
Russian at first denied that tanks were even in Gori but video footage proved otherwise.

About 50 Russian tanks entered Gori in the morning, according to Lomaia. The city of 50,000 lies 15 miles south of South Ossetia, where much of the fighting has taken place.

(I hope I'm not coming across as argumentative -- I'm mostly interested but confused at this point.)

Yes, that seems to be the same story. Apparently, Gori was bombed right after Russia started its intial counter attack. Later, there were reports about troops and/or tanks in Gori. However, Kouchner and Stubb then safely went to Gori to see the damage before leaving for Moscow.

Now, there seem to be new reports about that convoy of Russian tanks in Gori. Later there were reports of a convoy, possibly the same one, moving East, towards Tbilisi.

Upon request, the Russian Army said that no troops were moving towards Tbilisi. And later still, the convoy apparently stopped 50k West of Tbilisi (which would be really closer to Gori than to Tbilisi). The assumption was that they were waiting for orders from Moscow.

No updates since then.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I can't believe that the two of you would be impressed by Bush's speech. It essentially does nothing to punish Russia and there is no credible threat of force by the US. Pretty, hollow words. I have a hard time seeing them make a difference.

It's odd that, as a biting critic of the neocon black/white policies, you seem to have bought into an underlying assumption of theirs yourself. What I mean is the assumption that the only meaningful offense involves threatening military action, and everything else is just "hollow words". Right?

No, Bush did not make a "threat of force" - he didnt threaten to go bomb anyone if X or Y happened. But that doesnt mean that his words were meaningless. Both in his choice of words and in the practical set of actions he announces, he sets very clear markers.

Remember, this is a region with a sad history of small countries being surrendered to the regional bully of the day because the other world powers had "other priorities", as you put it. And there's always local complexities and ambiguities to point to as reason not to intervene. Russia could reasonably have gambled that the US and EU would formally protest, but basically stay aloof, making statements that spread the responsibility for the regrettable escalation among all sides, and subsequently accepting any fait accompli the Russians put in place.

If Russia's troops are indeed still proceeding, despite the ceasefire, to take over strategical places inside Georgia proper, it would certainly suggest they were going for quickly establishing faits accomplis which the West would then not have the stomach to try to reverse. Bush is basically doing what he can, short of military manoeuvres, to call them out on that and saying, no game -- sending the message that continuing down that path will lead to escalation. That's an important marker.

Aside from the choice of words, the announcement that US aircraft and naval forces will fly into Georgia, if only to deliver humanitarian supplies, strikes me as a significant step. Russia will then have to choose to let them in, when it was probably counting on being able to isolate and cut off Georgia, or to not let them in, which would provoke a new level of diplomatic crisis, etc. The idea being to make the Russians think, wait a second, this might become a far bigger blow-up than we thought - is that still worth it? Over that tiny country? And choose to take a step back.

That's my take anyway - maybe OE has already given his by now..

1 Reply

OK, thanks.

Here's what I'm trying to wrap my head around.

- Bush pledged his "unwavering" support for Georgia (as in, presumably even if they do ugly stuff to provoke Russia), and that the "free world" would "defend their freedom."

- This seems fine if the crisis is over -- a sort of "hey, Russia, that was close, don't do it again, 'K?"

- This seems worrisome if the crisis isn't over. Does it mean that the U.S. will provide military support to Georgia to fight the Russians? Which leads to

- Is the crisis over?

I get that the fourth one is maybe unanswerable right now, but it does seem to me that Bush is making some sort of if-then threat, and the threat worries me.

No?

0 Replies

Bloodless Coup in Georgia? 11/22/03--Following Georgia.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know