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

Bush's Georgian Betrayal

Back in 2005, speaking before a crowd of more than 150,000 exuberant Georgians cheering "Bushi! Bushi!", President Bush made a promise to the people of that former Soviet republic: "The path of freedom you have chosen is not easy, but you will not travel it alone. Americans respect your courageous choice for liberty. And as you build a free and democratic Georgia, the American people will stand with you."

So where was Bush as Russia launched a major military attack against Georgia? Monkeying around with the U.S. women's volleyball players -- and otherwise amusing himself at the Beijing Olympics.

This is not to suggest that Bush should have sent in the Marines. But his impotence in the face of such a gravely destabilizing move highlights not only his personal loss of stature, but how deeply he has diminished American authority on the world stage generally and, particularly, in the eyes of Russia.

That's a bunch of stupid hogwash.

A Path to Peace in the Caucasus

By Mikhail Gorbachev
Tuesday, August 12, 2008; Page A13

MOSCOW -- The past week's events in South Ossetia are bound to shock and pain anyone. Already, thousands of people have died, tens of thousands have been turned into refugees, and towns and villages lie in ruins. Nothing can justify this loss of life and destruction. It is a warning to all.

The roots of this tragedy lie in the decision of Georgia's separatist leaders in 1991 to abolish South Ossetian autonomy. This turned out to be a time bomb for Georgia's territorial integrity. Each time successive Georgian leaders tried to impose their will by force -- both in South Ossetia and in Abkhazia, where the issues of autonomy are similar -- it only made the situation worse. New wounds aggravated old injuries.

Nevertheless, it was still possible to find a political solution. For some time, relative calm was maintained in South Ossetia. The peacekeeping force composed of Russians, Georgians and Ossetians fulfilled its mission, and ordinary Ossetians and Georgians, who live close to each other, found at least some common ground.

Through all these years, Russia has continued to recognize Georgia's territorial integrity. Clearly, the only way to solve the South Ossetian problem on that basis is through peaceful means. Indeed, in a civilized world, there is no other way.


The Georgian leadership flouted this key principle.

What happened on the night of Aug. 7 is beyond comprehension. The Georgian military attacked the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali with multiple rocket launchers designed to devastate large areas. Russia had to respond. To accuse it of aggression against "small, defenseless Georgia" is not just hypocritical but shows a lack of humanity.

Mounting a military assault against innocents was a reckless decision whose tragic consequences, for thousands of people of different nationalities, are now clear. The Georgian leadership could do this only with the perceived support and encouragement of a much more powerful force. Georgian armed forces were trained by hundreds of U.S. instructors, and its sophisticated military equipment was bought in a number of countries. This, coupled with the promise of NATO membership, emboldened Georgian leaders into thinking that they could get away with a "blitzkrieg" in South Ossetia.

In other words, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili was expecting unconditional support from the West, and the West had given him reason to think he would have it. Now that the Georgian military assault has been routed, both the Georgian government and its supporters should rethink their position.

Hostilities must cease as soon as possible, and urgent steps must be taken to help the victims -- the humanitarian catastrophe, regretfully, received very little coverage in Western media this weekend -- and to rebuild the devastated towns and villages. It is equally important to start thinking about ways to solve the underlying problem, which is among the most painful and challenging issues in the Caucasus -- a region that should be approached with the greatest care.

When the problems of South Ossetia and Abkhazia first flared up, I proposed that they could be settled through a federation that would grant broad autonomy to the two republics. This idea was dismissed, particularly by the Georgians. Attitudes gradually shifted, but after last week, it will be much more difficult to strike a deal even on such a basis.

Old grievances are a heavy burden. Healing is a long process that requires patience and dialogue, with non-use of force an indispensable precondition. It took decades to bring to an end similar conflicts in Europe and elsewhere, and other long-standing issues are still smoldering. In addition to patience, this situation requires wisdom.

Small nations of the Caucasus do have a history of living together. It has been demonstrated that a lasting peace is possible, that tolerance and cooperation can create conditions for normal life and development. Nothing is more important than that.

The region's political leaders need to realize this. Instead of flexing military muscle, they should devote their efforts to building the groundwork for durable peace.

Over the past few days some Western nations have taken positions, particularly in the U.N. Security Council, that have been far from balanced. As a result, the Security Council was not able to act effectively from the very start of this conflict. By declaring the Caucasus, a region that is thousands of miles from the American continent, a sphere of its "national interest," the United States made a serious blunder. Of course, peace in the Caucasus is in everyone's interest. But it is simply common sense to recognize that Russia is rooted there by common geography and centuries of history. Russia is not seeking territorial expansion, but it has legitimate interests in this region.

The international community's long-term aim could be to create a sub-regional system of security and cooperation that would make any provocation, and the very possibility of crises such as this one, impossible. Building this type of system would be challenging and could only be accomplished with the cooperation of the region's countries themselves. Nations outside the region could perhaps help, too -- but only if they take a fair and objective stance. A lesson from recent events is that geopolitical games are dangerous anywhere, not just in the Caucasus.

The writer was the last president of the Soviet Union. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1990 and is president of the Gorbachev Foundation, a Moscow think tank. A version of this article, in Russian, will be published in the Rossiyskaya Gazeta newspaper tomorrow.

Black Sea Watershed

By Ronald D. Asmus and Richard Holbrooke
Monday, August 11, 2008; Page A15

In weeks and years past, each of us has argued on this page that Moscow was pursuing a policy of regime change toward Georgia and its pro-Western, democratically elected president, Mikheil Saakashvili. We predicted that, absent strong and unified Western diplomatic involvement, we were headed toward a war. Now, tragically, an escalation of violence in South Ossetia has culminated in a full-scale Russian invasion of Georgia. The West, and especially the United States, could have prevented this war. We have arrived at a watershed moment in the West's post-Cold War relations with Russia.

Exactly what happened in South Ossetia last week is unclear. Each side will argue its own version. But we know, without doubt, that Georgia was responding to repeated provocative attacks by South Ossetian separatists controlled and funded by Moscow. This is a not a war Georgia wanted; it believed that it was slowly gaining ground in South Ossetia through a strategy of soft power.

Whatever mistakes Tbilisi has made, they cannot justify Russia's actions. Moscow has invaded a neighbor, an illegal act of aggression that violates the U.N. Charter and fundamental principles of cooperation and security in Europe. Beginning a well-planned war (including cyber-warfare) as the Olympics were opening violates the ancient tradition of a truce to conflict during the Games. And Russia's willingness to create a war zone 25 miles from the Black Sea city of Sochi, where it is to host the Winter Games in 2014, hardly demonstrates its commitment to Olympic ideals. In contrast, Moscow's timing suggests that Putin seeks to overthrow Saakashvili well ahead of our elections, and thus avoid beginning relations with the next president on an overtly confrontational note.


Russia's goal is not simply, as it claims, restoring the status quo in South Ossetia. It wants regime change in Georgia. It has opened a second front in the other disputed Georgian territory, Abkhazia, just south of Sochi. But its greatest goal is to replace Saakashvili -- a man Vladimir Putin despises -- with a president who would be more subject to Moscow's influence. As Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt pointed out Saturday, Moscow's rationale for invading has parallels to the darkest chapters of Europe's history. Having issued passports to tens of thousands of Abkhazians and South Ossetians, Moscow now claims it must intervene to protect them -- a tactic reminiscent of one used by Nazi Germany at the start of World War II.

Moscow seeks to roll back democratic breakthroughs on its borders, to destroy any chance of further NATO or E.U. enlargement and to reestablish a sphere of hegemony over its neighbors. By trying to destroy a democratic, pro-Western Georgia, Moscow is sending a message that, in its part of the world, being close to Washington and the West does not pay.

This moment could well mark the end of an era in Europe during which realpolitik and spheres of influence were supposed to be replaced by new cooperative norms and a country's right to choose its own path. Hopes for a more liberal Russia under President Dmitry Medvedev will need to be reexamined. His justification for this invasion reads more like Brezhnev than Gorbachev. While no one wants a return to Cold War-style confrontation, Moscow's behavior poses a direct challenge to European and international order.

What can we do? First, Georgia deserves our solidarity and support. (Georgia has supported us; its more than 2,000 troops are the third-largest contingent in Iraq -- understandably those troops are being recalled.) We must get the fighting stopped and preserve Georgia's territorial integrity within its current international border. As soon as hostilities cease, there should be a major, coordinated transatlantic effort to help Tbilisi rebuild and recover.

Second, we should not pretend that Russia is a neutral peacekeeper in conflicts on its borders. Russia is part of the problem, not the solution. For too long, Moscow has used existing international mandates to pursue neo-imperial policies. We must disavow these mandates and insist on truly neutral international forces, under the United Nations, to monitor a future cease-fire and to mediate.

Third, we need to counter Russian pressure on its neighbors, especially Ukraine -- most likely the next target in Moscow's efforts to create a new sphere of hegemony. The United States and the European Union must be clear that Ukraine and Georgia will not be condemned to some kind of gray zone.

Finally, the United States and the European Union must make clear that this kind of aggression will affect our relations and Russia's standing in the West. While Western military intervention in Georgia is out of the question -- and no one wants a 21st-century version of the Cold War -- Moscow's actions cannot be ignored. There is a vast array of political, economic and other areas in which Russia's role and standing will have to be reexamined. Moscow must also be put on notice that its own prestige project -- the Sochi Olympics -- will be affected by its behavior.

Weak Western diplomacy and lack of transatlantic unity failed to prevent an avoidable war. Only strong transatlantic unity can stop this war and begin to repair the immense damage done. Otherwise, we can add one more issue to the growing list of this administration's foreign policy failures.

Ronald D. Asmus, a deputy assistant secretary of state in the Clinton administration, is executive director of the Brussels-based Transatlantic Center of the German Marshall Fund of the United States. Richard Holbrooke, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in the Clinton administration, writes a monthly column for The Post.

South Ossetia "threw off" Georgian rule in the 90s. Are we sure we have the entire story? We may hate the spectre of Russia becoming larger, but isn't the will of the people involved more important?

Not considering this overkill response by Russia....

And what is it that people would suggest the US does about this - other then diplomatically focusing on it by keeping pressure on Russia, through continued discussion?

Froomkin really nails the optics issue.

Quote:

Bush's Georgian Betrayal

Back in 2005, speaking before a crowd of more than 150,000 exuberant Georgians cheering "Bushi! Bushi!", President Bush made a promise to the people of that former Soviet republic: "The path of freedom you have chosen is not easy, but you will not travel it alone. Americans respect your courageous choice for liberty. And as you build a free and democratic Georgia, the American people will stand with you."

But this is why you cant just surrender the Georgians to Russia now. The history of Eastern Europe is a graveyard of betrayals. From Chamberlaine's "peace with honor" through to the world powers' divvying up of the region at Yalta, through to encouraging the Hungarians to rise up in 1956 and then leaving them alone when they did.

It's time the West reclaims its self-respect and protects those countries in Eastern Europe that want to be part of the EU, NATO etc, against any potential agression. Promises bring responsibility. This time it was Bush who made the promise, but a President Obama would have spoken the same words. And now you can't just give them up again.

Nimh and OE -

I'm an American Liberal, and I don't think that intervention is exactly the way we want to go at this time. Where the hell is Europe in this? Why don't their Liberals take care of what needs taking care of?

Josh Marshall.

Quote:

Beware

[..] To the best of my understanding, the separatism in these 'breakaway' regions of Georgia is not something ginned up by Russia, though certainly they've exploited it in their effort to either reclaim or dominate parts of what was the Soviet Union. And the Georgians themselves triggered this crisis, however 'disproportionate' the Russian response may be.

This is a vexed part of the globe we're talking about, with a host of overlapping ethnic and separatist conflicts that can make the difficulties of Kosovo and the Palestinian territories seem tractable by comparison. As the standard line goes, my point is not to justify Russian actions. And I should be clear that I have not researched the details of this conflict nearly as deeply as I would now like to. But we should be clear that there are small state actors in the region (Georgia being one of them) interested in making high stakes gambles vis a vis the Russians and they are trying to do it on our dime -- that is, both literally on our dime but more importantly by trying to involve us militarily in their defense.

I don't think the US should speak. The agencies representing the world should be the mouthpiece. What of China??? Have they said anything?

Georgia Asks China for Help With Russia

Georgia has asked China to use its influence to push for a resolution to a territorial flare-up with Russia. [..] Georgia's ambassador to China, Zaza Begashvili, met with China's foreign minister to seek support in the dispute with Russia.

Afterwards, Ambassador Begashvili held a briefing for a small group of foreign and Chinese journalists.

Begashvili would not say how the Chinese responded to the call for help. But, flanked by several embassy staff and supporters wearing red arm bands that read "Stop Russia!" he said he hoped China, as a great power, would make the right conclusion.

He says he is sure that China recognizes Georgia's borders, that it is as an independent state, and that it is a member of the United Nations. He says he is sure that China, as a member of the U.N. Security Council, will express its opposition to this aggression against an independent state.

China's Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang issued a statement during the weekend saying the conflict should be resolved peacefully through dialogue.

The statement joined the United States and other countries in calling for an immediate cease-fire.

Meanwhile, shirking back from opening up full-fronted war with Russia like that, I know more realistically minded pundits would declare me crazy for suggesting it, but at least we could send them weapons, couldnt we? Or even a secret elite unit to help with the trickier stuff..

And again, more level-headed people will probably think it reckless, but couldnt NATO send ships onto the Black Sea for a demonstrative military exercise? Purely to intimidate Russia into checking itself and withdrawing, at least from Georgia proper, and stopping the bombing. I mean, Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey are all in NATO, they're on the Black Sea...

Something, in any case, to send the message that this is not just all beanbag to the West, some backyard problem of theirs that in the end, the West will shrug at and move on..

I mean, even short of that kind of military sabre-rattling, we should massively retaliate diplomatically. Kick Russia out of the WTO negotiation process, where they're close to membership -- the West should be able to block that shouldnt it? Nix the EU/Russia and US/Russia trade agreements that were made in the last four years. Withdraw all ambassadors. I dunno, I'm no expert on this.

What I do know is that Russia is doing this because they think they can get away with this without any long-term harm done to their international position. They're just counting on the West handwringing but ultimately looking away and proceeding with business as regular - again. After all, it's a tiny country, Saakashvili isnt blameless either, it's in Russia's backyard, there's presidential elections going on...

I dont know whether a massive show of diplomatic retaliation would make Russia think again and check themselves, but it might well. They're tired of this pesky Georgian thorn in its side, but it's still a tiny country -- if they have to choose between going back to just suffering it or facing a massive crisis with the West, they might well think again.

We should try, in any case. Use all means short of getting our own army in -- that would already be much, much more than the EU and US have done so far re Russia's meddling. And if it were up to me, stage a show of force in the Black Sea or even start sending in weapons, the way the West shamefully refused to do with Bosnia when it was being overpowered.

Did the U.S. Prep Georgia for War with Russia?
By Nathan Hodge
August 08, 2008