[Peace-discuss] Geopolitical machinations

[Morton K. Brussel]

My comments follow.

On Aug 23, 2008, at 8:57 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

> I think there are problems with this account. Some comments:
>
>
> [1] "Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, on 7 August, invaded  
> the tiny
> breakaway province of South Ossetia. The initial attack on the  
> South Ossetian
> capital, Tskninvali, soon extended to an all out war, which  
> eventually invited
> Russia's wrath, and the death of thousands of innocent civilians on  
> both sides."
>
> Baroud's right to begin with the fact that the proximate cause was  
> an attack on
> civilians ordered by the half-mad president of Georgia, but he's  
> entirely too
> even-handed.  Georgia attacked civilians with rockets, artillery  
> and ground
> troops; the Russians seem to have been careful to attack the  
> Georgian military,
> in spite of what the USG and media said.

I don't believe we know very accurately the extent of casualties and  
destruction  caused by both sides. There are conflicting reports.
>
>
> [2] "Prior to Saakashvili's war, *little was known* about the  
> political
> specifics of that area and the brewing decades-long territorial  
> disputes which
> date back to the early 20th century..."
>
> Some people knew them, because in fact the Georgian/Ossetian  
> animosity is much
> older.  The Financial Times wrote, "Hostility between Ossetians and  
> Georgians
> stretches back at least as far as 1839 when Mikhail Lermontov,  
> wrote 'Demon', a
> poem about the enmities that pervade life in the high mountains of  
> the Caucasus. When a Georgian prince was ambushed on his way to his  
> wedding, 'the wicked
> bullet of the Ossetian / found him in the darkness', Lermontov  
> wrote."  The FT
> points out, "Ossetia was independent of Georgia but was absorbed  
> into the
> Russian empire with Georgia, in 1801."

Perhaps he meant that little was known by most of the world.
>
>
> [3] "The small region of South Ossetia [is] majority ethnic  
> Russians and
> minority Georgians..."
>
> That's just wrong, and importantly wrong.  Only about 2% of the  
> population of
> South Ossetia is ethnic Russian.  Ossetians are a different people  
> from
> Georgians and Russians -- they speak a different language (a  
> dialect of Farsi). South Ossetia has about the population of  
> Champaign-Urbana -- but two-thirds is
> Ossetian and less than a third Georgian.  Baroud may have been  
> misled because
> about 70% of South Ossetians have Russian citizenship, as a result  
> of the
> resistance to Georgia and Russia's peace-keeping role.

OK.
>
>
> [4] "The fact that South Ossetia belongs to Georgia was hardly  
> contested."
>
> Nonsense. "When the Soviet republic of Georgia was formed,  
> following the
> revolution of 1917, the southern part of Ossetia became part of it.  
> North
> Ossetia stayed in Russia. As the USSR collapsed in 1991, South  
> Ossetians moved
> to reclaim their independence from Georgia and, aided by Moscow,  
> fought a brief
> civil war, broke away and began running their own affairs ... For  
> the 12 years
> following the civil war an uneasy truce reigned between Tbilisi and  
> the
> breakaway capital in Tskhinvali" [again, the FT].

As you indicate, North Ossetia became part of Russia; S.Ossetia  
wanted independence, but Russia was not ready to support them, and in  
that sense they acquiesced to a status quo that reigned for some time. .
>
>
> [5] "Since the collapse of the Soviet Union ... the US and NATO  
> expanded their
> boundaries of influence and territorial outreach, while Russia  
> struggled to
> maintain a level of influence and halt the encroachment of the US- 
> led NATO."
>
> In fact, the US promised not to expand NATO into E. Europe at the  
> time of the
> unification of Germany, a promise which the Clinton administration  
> spectacularly
> broke while trying to reduce Russia to a Third World country in the  
> Yeltsin years.

Both statements seem right, and not contradictory.
>
>
> [6] "By embarking on a war against a tiny province, because, as he  
> claimed, he
> ran out of patience, Saakashvili was following a script that was  
> hardly of his
> own writing."
>
> Nonsense again. Saakashvili believed that all the US and Israeli  
> money and
> munitions presaged US support for solving his political problems by  
> force, when
> the US was just staffing part of its general Middle East policy:  
> South Ossetia
> is not needed for the pipelines that the Clinton administration  
> arranged for
> Georgia to build.

You know exactly what Saakashvili had in mind? You believe the Bush  
administration's denials of knowledge in this affair?
I believe Baroud's statement to be a not unreasonable conjecture.
>
>
> [7] "The logic behind the war was to test Russia's resolve..."
>
> That's just silly.  The US and Saakashvili had rational if vicious  
> -- but
> different -- political goals. Saakashvili wanted to subdue a  
> province in revolt
> with the strong arm tactics that even the US State Department  
> admits he used
> against his domestic opposition; the US wanted to advance its  
> constant policy of
> control of ME energy resources -- in this case from the region of  
> the Caspian Sea.

My previous comment applies.
>
>
> [8] "It's rather interesting how a controversial and unpopular plan  
> that has
> raised the ire of the Polish people -- 70 per cent of the country  
> is against it
> -- was overcome within days of war ... Now Poland is all for it. It  
> return,
> Poland would receive US assistance in overhauling its military,  
> reminiscent of
> the Israeli-US efforts in aiding Georgia's military, which  
> emboldened the latter
> to pursue war with Russia."
>
> The Polish government was not scared into acquiescence by the war:  
> Washington
> sweetened the deal!  Both the USG & the Polish government knew they  
> could use
> the Russian action as a propaganda cover for a more cynical  
> arrangement.  The
> Polish government may have thought that propaganda useful against  
> its domestic
> opposition -- but I bet a majority of Poles are still against it.

I think this is the most interesting of Baroud's conjectures. That  
the Polish populace turned so abruptly for the U.S. base, agreeing  
now with its government, is remarkable, showing that the stupid lie  
that the base would be to prevent Iran's missiles from striking  
Europe or the U.S. was nonsense. The poles believed now they needed  
the missiles as protection from an agressive and traditional enemy,  
Russia.
>
>
> [9] "...the US will do its utmost to maintain a level of tension,  
> if not
> hostilities in the region, for without it neither a missile shield  
> nor the 270
> billion barrels of oil in the Caspian basin can be brought within  
> Washington's
> reach."
>
> He ends well. --CGE
>
Your certainty about what has transpired is astounding, and  
puzzling.  --mkb
>
> Brussel Morton K. wrote:
>> Interesting analysis of the Georgia/Ruassian/USA conflict.
>> *The Saakashvili Experiment* August 23, 2008
>> By Ramzy Baroud
>> Ramzy Baroud's ZSpace Page <http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/ 
>> ramzybaroud>
>> Join ZSpace <https://www.zcommunications.org/zsustainers/signup>
>> ...
>