Georgia: Who encouraged whom?

Sat, 08/16/2008 - 8:06pm

Kevin Drum does yeoman's work here in batting down the argument, frequently offered in recent days, that the Bush administration somehow encouraged Mikheil Saakashvili's reckless attack on South Ossetia:

Look: Saakashvili came to power on a Georgian nationalist platform of recovering Abkhazia and South Ossetia. He's been jonesing for an excuse to send troops in for years, regardless of anything the U.S. did or didn't do. Likewise, Putin has been eagerly waiting for an excuse to pound the crap out of him in return — again, regardless of anything the U.S. did or didn't do.

Kevin correctly lists Kosovo and NATO enlargement among several "general" drivers of the conflict, but I would be more specific. Let's roll the tape.

When Western countries recognized Kosovo in February, then-President Vladimir Putin immediately threatened to do the same regarding South Ossetia and Abkhazia and promised to deploy more "peacekeeping" troops there. And he made good on his warning in April, granting the two breakaway regions a status just short of official recognition.

The Georgians were duly provoked, and they got busy mobilizing troops and preparing fuel supplies. In May, Russia deployed troops to Abkhazia; Georgia's state minister warned that the two countries were "very close" to war. By August, volunteers were pouring into South Ossetia from southern Russia, and the two sides were trading fire. All the while, as Kevin points out, State Department officials were trying to convince Saakashvili to "stay cool."

Foolishly, he didn't, and here we are. But if anyone encouraged this conflict, it was Moscow, not Washington. If Saakashvili thought the U.S. military would come to his aid, then he's simply delusional -- there was no way it was going to happen.

On a broader level, the Bush administration made two key mistakes. The first was setting an awkward precedent in Kosovo. It would have been smarter to leave the situation ambiguous, like Taiwan. The second was in trying to bring Georgia into NATO prematurely. When in April, Germany and France delayed Georgia's membership action plan (MAP) until it had settled its internal conflicts, that was basically an invitation to Putin to destabilize the country. It would have been better not to push for a MAP at all.

In short, a naive and overconfident West has badly misjudged how Putin would respond to its diplomatic moves. That's the real problem here -- not some imagined whispering in Saakashvili's ear.

( filed under: )


Advertisement

 

It works for Putin in so many ways...

that you almost have to admire how finely this Georgian invasion was calculated.
  1. It's payback for humiliating Russia's ally, Serbia.
  2. It's a unilateral action that mirrors the last eight years of US foreign policy.
  3. And last but not least: there's only one way to announce your great power status. You need to humiliate another great power, and Putin's managed that here as well.
There are several sour notes for Putin, though. Recent events have hardened anti-Moscow sentiment, as we've seen in Poland. And elsewhere. According to CNBC's Business Russia, Moscow will be looking for more western investment in the coming year and Western investors, already alarmed over the Russian's government interference in the "shareholder's dispute" with TNK-BP's CEO Robert Dudley are even more jittery.

How Russia proceeds from here will tell us just how far Moscow is willing to snub the international system—even after winning her point in Georgia—for the undoubted domestic political gains United Russia stands to make. Watching the reaction in the rest of South Asia and Eastern Europe will tell us how much work lies ahead for the US.

In an article about 'who

In an article about 'who encouraged who' shouldn't there be some mention of the military aid given to Georgia by the United States for the last several years? http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/08/did-us-military.html

Yes, but

That was all counterinsurgency training and equipment. As we saw, it didn't do much for them against the Russian tanks and airpower. To the extent that U.S. military aid encouraged the Georgians, I think the onus here is on the Georgians.

In addition to unit

In addition to unit training, there has been performance-oriented training and practical exercises similar to those taught at the National Defense University, Joint Forces Command, and U.S. Army War College. Also the US military participated in two major exercises in Georgia and on the Black Sea in July. In the land exercise, "Operation Immediate Response[!!!]," 1,000 US military servicemen took part in the three week exercise including the United States Army Europe, 3rd Battalion, 25th Marine Expeditionary Unit, 1st Battalion 121 Infantry Regiment Georgian National Guard (Atlanta, Georgia) and 5045th General Support Unit.

Brave Georrgia troops in war

Brave Georrgia troops in war against childrens and women Whach this: http://www.youtube.com//watch?v=koWWyrDXQVs

And there were the thousands

And there were the thousands and thousands in South Ossetia and Abkhazia who had received Russian passport recently. Daniel Antal

Germany on NATO

Does anybody have a transcript, or additional info?

AP story: German Chancellor Angela Merkel is offering strong support for Georgia, saying the country is on track to become a member of NATO. [...] Merkel also suggested that NATO could help rebuild the tattered Georgian military.

The AP headline says "Germany offers support for Georgia's NATO bid" but that is quite ambiguous. We still don't know what concrete steps will be taken, or if Germany is now happy with a MAP for Georgia.

Jeff @ Armchair FP

the video of Saakashvili and Merkel's

press conference should be available at CNN. I watched what I think was the whole thing this morning. Good luck.

I found the video...

here. It appears to be in three parts.

If the glove doesn't fit you must acquit

Let's see if I understand this. Foolishly, Saakashvili didn't "stay cool," and it was not because of (1) visits from the US president and secretary of state with promises of support, or (2) six years of US military training, or (3) joint US/Georgia military exercises, or (4) a close US/Georgia military relationship in Iraq. No, the reason that Saakashvili didn't "stay cool" was because Russia "encouraged the conflict" and because of Russian volunteers puring into South Ossetia AFTER Saakashvili's artillery began to destroy Tskhinvali, an act of genocide on his own countrymen. Not only didn't Saakashvili "stay cool" but he was "simply delusional" (in spite of 1, 2, 3, and 4) to think that the US military would come to his aid, and that's Russia's fault too. Clearly, the US is blameless, in spite of all the evidence. The glove doesn't fit; you must acquit.

It's enough to make Saakashvili eat his tie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kid379OjuC0

U.S. support for what?

The United States explicitly told him not to try and take South Ossetia by force. He was the one who responded to Russia provocations by trying to do that, while all the evidence suggests that the State Department was pleading with him not to take the bait. The volunteers began pouring into South Ossetia before August 7. What we can blame the United States for is naivete about Russia's reactions to Kosovo, NATO, etc. So no, I don't hold the Bush administration blameless.

It's not naivete, it's a policy of militarism

You don't know what Rice told Saakashvili in July, and this business about US naivete is baloney. The US engineered the Rose Revolution and has had a conscious militaristic policy of promoting Georgian belligerence for six years. And there has been no naivete toward Russia. Every great empire needs great enemies in order to promote its militarism; Russia and China serve that role for the US. There has been an ongoing campaign in Washington against Moscow. The stocks of US "defense" industries have just gotten a boost from this new US belligerence toward Russia. Talk about disproportional -- why else exacerbate a conflict with a major world power over a minor conflict on its border, far from the US?

Soviet Trolls!

I see a few of the paid Soviet trolls have been posting here...remarkable the extent to which you guys have been visiting and pasting comments into the blogosphere.

tortmaster/troll

Definition: An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion. Do you have anything to say on-topic, tortmaster/troll?