The coming Russian-American face-off in Georgia
James Forsyth 1:50pm
The New York Times reports that Russian troops are still in the key Georgian cities of Gori and Poti; reports about them handing over control of Gori to the Georgian police appear to have been premature. With US humanitarian aid also flowing into Georgia in US military transports, the likelihood of Georgia turning into a battle of wills between Russia and the West has increased.
The New York Times, whose coverage of the crisis has been superlative, quote a senior Pentagon official describing the strategic thinking behind the Pentagon-led humanitarian mission thus:
The State Department is also taking a tougher line, with Secretary Rice saying:“to show to Russia that we can come to the aid of a European ally, and that we can do it at will, whenever and wherever we want.”
As we say in our editorial this week, if Georgia is prepared to respect South Ossetia and Abhazia’s right to determine their own destinies, then the same right should be accorded to Georgia. If Georgia wishes to become more Western-oriented and join Nato, then it should be allowed to. To back away from offering Georgia Nato membership now, would be to encourage further Russian aggression in its near abroad.“This is not 1968, and the invasion of Czechoslovakia, where Russia can invade its neighbor, occupy a capital, overthrow a government and get away with it,” she said. “Things have changed.”
PS I think it is important to stress that Georgia is not the aggressor—even if it did walk into a trap as our editorial notes--and that Russian accusations about ‘genocide’ being carried out in South Ossetia appear to be distortions of the truth. The New York Times again:
“In South Ossetia, investigators began to look into accusations of atrocities. Human Rights Watch reported that researchers witnessed “terrifying scenes of destruction” in four ethnic Georgian villages, and said the villages had been looted and burned by South Ossetian militias.Anna Neistat, one of the researchers, said by telephone from Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, that they had found no evidence to substantiate Russian assertions of widespread brutality by Georgian troops. Human Rights Watch has been able to confirm fewer than 100 deaths.”
Previous
Comments
Ted Tedford
August 14th, 2008 3:25pmDiplomatic sources in Georgia are reporting that Russian forces in South Ossetia have been fighting the separatist forces there as well. It seems they ordered the S Ossetian troops to stop looting and shooting the Georgians who couldn't get out. Not clear if it was because the Russians thought it was *their* job to loot etc. Anyway, the separatists took exception to being denied their rightful spoils of war, and a gun-battle broke out. Now even the S Ossetians, like the Serbs, are seeing that having Russia 'on their side' is not an unambiguous blessing.
Jack Burton in the Pork Chop Express
August 14th, 2008 3:42pmIts great to see pictures of tanks on the tv news again. I'm dreading the ceasefire actually working almost as much as the wannabe Kate Adies in Gori are: it means we'll be back to more tedious wall-to-wall propaganda for Johnny Chinaman.
Joe
August 14th, 2008 4:04pmWhat propaganda exactly and what the heck is the pork chop express?
Jack Burton in the Pork Chop Express
August 14th, 2008 4:23pmJoe: The Pork Chop Express is eighteen wheels of bad attitude, and it's rolling right into YOUR town, buddy...
By the way, I meant the Olympics.
BCS
August 14th, 2008 4:26pmGeorgia, has, even since the reign of Catherine the Great, been part of Russia's sphere of interest. Thus the suggestion that Georgia should be able to act with absolute independence, and affiliate itself with Russia's main strategic rival, is absurd. The West has consistently tormented Russia since 1991, in the Baltic States, in Kosovo, in the Ukraine, and over Georgia's possible Nato membership. Is it any surprise that Russia is trying to reassert a supremacy it has enjoyed for centuries, with only a brief recent interruption after the collapse of the Soviet Union? And, further, is it any surprise, given recent that it is going about this in a distinctly belligerent fashion. Until we recognise that Russia is once again a great power, and should be treated as such, episodes like this will become increasingly familiar and increasingly violent.
It is unfortunate that The Spectator has allowed its conservatism to become infected by the naive liberal idealism of Woodrow Wilson.
Stalin
August 14th, 2008 5:04pmBCS - maybe just semantics - but I'm not sure I would describe Russia as a "great power". What exactly have they done that is so great in recent years?
They don't appear to be illuminating the world with their artistic and scientific prowess. Rather they are gorging themselves on their natural resources (nothing wrong with that), bullying their neighbours to fend off a security threat that doesn't exist and supplying the world with cheap prostitutes.
On the surface, many of the new-found riches of its population appear to be spent on Western products. However, that would be to dismiss the incredible efficiency and successful of its counterfeit and piracy business and the tacit support of the ruling elite.
They maybe powerful - but not great.
David Lindsay
August 14th, 2008 5:06pmWhen (not if, and sooner rather than later), Nagorno-Karabakh does a Kosovo, backed up to the hilt by Russia, which side will you be on, and why?
homegirlwhit
August 14th, 2008 6:09pmthis ocean you england ocean stay global head woman speed cube
CG
August 14th, 2008 6:18pmWe shouldn't be taking sides. Robert Gates seemed much more pragmatic than some of the columns here today.
Oscar
August 14th, 2008 8:37pmIt is far too early to pronounce that Georgia "is not the aggressor". And, since their shoddy, one-sided report on the Gaza strip beach explosions a couple of years ago, I do not trust Human Rights Watch. The fact is we simply don't know what atrocities were committed when Georgia invaded S.Ossetia on the night of 7 August. And as for getting pious about Georgia's right to independence - it's hypocritical not to appreciate Russian sensitivities. How would we take to Russia lecturing us about Scottish independence? Mind you - I bet Gordon Brown would love to retake Scotland by force if he could.
Phil H
August 15th, 2008 12:11am"If Georgia wishes to become more Western-oriented and join Nato, then it should be allowed to"
Really? One wonders if teh author has read the text of the NATO treaty. Article 5 states, in effect, that an atatck against one member shall be regarded as an attack against all, and all other members will take action "including the use of armed force" to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic Area (i.e. the territory of its members).
If the author wishes to argue that Georgia should be allowed to join NATO, he must surely also argue why Britain et al should be prepared to go to war to protect it.
Mind you I do wonder if Britain and France would really go to war to protect Poland (didn't work out too well last time), or Bulgaria or indeed any of the old Russian satellites. If we wouldn't then perhaps NATO is not the organisation it pretends to be and should be wound up.
Ross
August 15th, 2008 1:40am"The West has consistently tormented Russia since 1991,"
Yeah how the Russians must have hated all those billions of dollars worth of aid and invitations to the G8 etc.
Adam
August 15th, 2008 8:42amFrankly, I'm amazed Russia got enough of its tanks working to actually invade something...
John
August 15th, 2008 11:09am"And as for getting pious about Georgia's right to independence - it's hypocritical not to appreciate Russian sensitivities"
It's the height of hypocrisy to attach ANY importance to Russian 'sensitivities'. You might as well have considered German 'sensitivities' towards Poland in 1939.
Bill
August 15th, 2008 3:26pmIt's the height of hypocrisy to attach ANY importance to Russian 'sensitivities' - quote from John at 1109am.
What planet do you live on? The belligerent Bushites plan to plant missiles around Russia, in their backyard, and expect them to meekly accept it. They suck Georgia into their orbit and plant military 'advisors' there.
I don't know how old you are but I remember how the the Yanks reacted when the USSR decided to plant missiles in their ally Cuba. Insensitive doesn't begin to describe how the US responded and it could easily have led to WW3.
Try to be more open minded. Please DON'T trust the Western media - surf the web for a wide spectrum of info, pro and con, as I do. That way you get a lot closer to the true facts
B.J. McKay and my best friend The Bear
August 15th, 2008 4:04pmBill: There is a moral difference between the US missile defence shield and Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba. NMD upsets the regional balance of power only if Russia intends to use its missiles, and if you think the US is sufficiently emboldened by the shield to launch a first-strike on Russia. If you believe that...
Your lazy assertions remind me of those who complain that the US forces countries to host McDonalds and its cinemas.
If Russia wants to do something about the US "sucking" Georgia into its orbit, perhaps it could try offering her, and the Baltic states and the Ukraine, something more attractive than invasion and energy blackmail.
And while I'm sure everyone on this site would applaud your dedication to truth-seeking, the conclusions you draw from your omnivorous study are simply risible.
Oscar
August 15th, 2008 4:09pmWell said Bill. And John - comparing the complex situation in S.Ossetia to Germany invading Poland is offensive rubbish. I suggest you read this informative article from Open Democracy written in November 2006 (after S.Ossetia held a referendum on autonomy) for a more balanced picture: http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-caucasus/south_ossetia_4100.jsp
Guy Incognito
August 15th, 2008 4:34pm@Bill: I'm old enough to remember the US reaction to the Russian attempt to base missiles in Cuba. The Russians denied it was even happening, they were exposed. The US government pursued its points through the UN. And still there were plenty of people accusing the US of being the aggressors.
The current missiles ae interceptors, not offensive weapons, and the shield base treaties have been negotiated in the open, between democratic governments. That's a big difference.
David Lindsay
August 15th, 2008 5:22pmWake up, Uncle Sam: the Russians don't care what you think.
The American century was the last one, just as the British century was the one before that. "Damage relations with the United States"? They don't care.
Get used to this, because you're going to be receiving a lot more of it. Welcome to being what you made us (although we have since declined even from this): one among half a dozen very powerful countries in the world, but that is all.
By way of illustration, Russia, with Serbia and others (most obviously Armenia and Belarus), could and probably will announce a firm intention to recognise and defend any declaration of independence by South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabakh or the Republika Srpska, including any decision to be incorporated into any of the states so announcing, all the while as enclaves both against Islam and against its pretended enemy but in fact close friend, those who have moved from "neither Washington nor Moscow, but International Socialism" to "neither Christendom nor the Dar al-Islam, but Global Capitalism".
Bobski the builder
August 24th, 2008 6:09pmAmericans-don't trust'em. Stitched Poland up after ww2.
Russians-don't trust'em. stitched Poland up after ww2.
United nations- Can't make a firm decision on anything.Lacks vision,unity and teeth.
As for south Ossetia we probably won't know the truth for some time.
Should it not be the U.N that carries out the peace keeping in that region and not Russia?
If south Ossetia wants it's independence shouldn't the U.N have a predetermined procedure that enables regions who democratically decide they wish to have independence, to carry out that wish without all the Baggage of the Georgians' Russians and Americans getting in the way.
Call me naive or idealistic if you will but I had hoped that in the 21st century we might have world affairs and borders that work for people, not against them.
All the parties concerned with South Ossetia remind me of a load of kids in the playground at school."he did this", "they did that","I didn't do any thing wrong". I've heard it all before, and it's not the way to deal with it.
We need a U.N that can hold Russia and America back from each other, and oversee a peaceable solution, because there is always a peacable solution,always.
How many other regions in the world are seeking independence?
Should there not be a recognised procedure for obtaining independence without the need for terrorism,force and conflict.
Think Tibet, Scotland, the Basque region and Kashmir the list is endless and the violence and illfeeling unneccesary.
Come on you "super powers" it's 2008 not 1008 wake up to your responsibilities.