[Rhodes22-list] South Ossetia - not sailing but international 'politics' - Art please note politics was at end until I amended subject line for you

[Brad Haslett]

Ed,

Interesting update to follow, as Paul Harvey would say, "and now for the
rest of the story".  Let's hope Condi can work some magic with that Phd in
Russian studies.

Brad

----------------

Russo-Georgian conflict is not all Russia's fault But war could ignite
further disputes in the region. *By Charles King*

from the August 11, 2008 edition





  Washington - Following a series of provocative attacks in its secessionist
region of South Ossetia late last week, Georgia launched an all-out attempt
to reestablish control in the tiny enclave. Russia then intervened by
dropping bombs on Georgia to protect the South Ossetians, halt the growing
tide of refugees flooding into southern Russia, and aid its own peacekeepers
there.

Now, the story goes, Russia has at last found a way of undermining Georgia's
Western aspirations, nipping the country's budding democracy, and countering
American influence across Eurasia. But this view of events is simplistic.

American and European diplomats, who have rushed to the region to try to
stop the conflict, would do well to consider the broader effects of this
latest round of Caucasus bloodletting – and to seek perspectives on the
conflict beyond the story of embattled democracy and cynical comparisons
with the Prague Spring of 1968.

Russia illegally attacked Georgia and imperiled a small and feeble neighbor.
But by dispatching his own ill-prepared military to resolve a secessionist
dispute by force, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili has managed to lead
his country down the path of a disastrous and ultimately self-defeating war.


Speaking on CNN, Mr. Saakashvili compared Russia's intervention in Georgia
to the Soviet invasions of Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, and
Afghanistan in 1979. Russia has massively overreacted to the situation in
Georgia. It has hit targets across Georgia, well beyond South Ossetia, and
has killed both Georgian military personnel as well as civilians. The
international community is right to condemn this illegal attack on an
independent country and United Nations member.

But this is not a repeat of the Soviet Union's aggressive behavior of the
last century. So far at least, Russia's aims have been clear: to oust
Georgian forces from the territory of South Ossetia, one of two secessionist
enclaves in Georgia, and to chasten a Saakashvili government that Russia
perceives as hot-headed and unpredictable.

Regardless of the conflict's origins, the West must continue to act
diplomatically to push Georgia and Russia back to the pre-attacks status
quo. The United States should make it clear that Saakashvili has seriously
miscalculated the meaning of his partnership with Washington, and that
Georgia and Russia must step back before they do irreparable damage to their
relations with the US, NATO, and the European Union.

The attack on South Ossetia, along with Russia's inexcusable reaction, have
pushed both sides down the road toward all-out war – a war that could ignite
a host of other territorial and ethnic disputes in the Caucasus as a whole.

The emerging narrative, echoing across editorial pages and on television
news programs in the US, portrays Georgia as an embattled, pro-Western
country struggling to secure its borders against a belligerent Russia. Since
coming to power in a bloodless revolution in late 2003, Saakashvili has
certainly steered a clear course toward the West.

The EU flag now flies alongside the Georgian one on major government
buildings (even though Georgia is a long way from ever becoming a member of
the EU). The Saakashvili government seeks Georgian membership in NATO, an
aspiration strongly supported by the administration of George W. Bush.
Oddly, before the conflict erupted on its own soil Georgia was the
third-largest troop contributor in Iraq, a result of Saakashvili's desire to
show absolute commitment to the US and, in the process, gain needed military
training and equipment for the small Georgian Army.

Russia must be condemned for its unsanctioned intervention. But the war
began as an ill-considered move by Georgia to retake South Ossetia by force.
Saakashvili's larger goal was to lead his country into war as a form of
calculated self-sacrifice, hoping that Russia's predictable overreaction
would convince the West of exactly the narrative that many commentators have
now taken up.

But regardless of its origins, the upsurge in violence has illustrated the
volatile and sometimes deadly politics of the Caucasus, the Texas-size swath
of mountains, hills, and plains separating the Black Sea from the Caspian.

Like the Balkans in the 1990s, the central problems of this region are about
the dark politics of ethnic revival and territorial struggle. The region is
home to scores of brewing border disputes and dreams of nationalist
homelands.

In addition to South Ossetia, the region of Abkhazia has also maintained de
facto independence for more than a decade. Located along Georgia's Black Sea
coast, Abkhazia has called up volunteers to support the South Ossetian
cause. Russia has now moved to aid the Abkhazians, who are concerned that
Georgia's actions in South Ossetia were a dress rehearsal for an attack on
them.

Farther afield, other secessionist entities and recognized governments in
neighboring countries – from Nagorno-Karabakh to Chechnya – are eyeing the
situation. The outcome of the Russo-Georgian struggle will determine whether
these other disputes move toward peace or once again produce the barbaric
warfare and streams of refugees that defined the Caucasus more than a decade
ago.

For Georgia, this war has been a disastrous miscalculation. South Ossetia
and Abkhazia are now completely lost. It is almost impossible to imagine a
scenario under which these places – home to perhaps 200,000 people – would
ever consent to coming back into a Georgian state they perceive as an
aggressor.

Armed volunteers have already been flooding into South Ossetia from other
parts of the Caucasus to fight against Georgian forces and help finally
"liberate" the Ossetians from the Georgian yoke.

Despite welcome efforts to end the fighting, the Russo-Georgian war has
created yet another generation of young men in the Caucasus whose worldviews
are defined by violence, revenge, and nationalist zeal.

*Charles King is professor of international affairs in the Edmund A. Walsh
School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. He is the author of "The
Ghost of Freedom: A History of The Caucasus."*


On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 7:18 AM, Tootle <ekroposki at charter.net> wrote:

>
> Folks,
>
> South Ossetia has made recent headlines.  Why is Russia so interested in
> it?
> The Russians claim most of the citizens of this provence are Russian, but
> is
> that the real reason?
>
> Consider the oil pipeline that runs thru South Ossetia to Europe.  It is
> the
> only other pipeline that connects Europe with Caspian oil fields that does
> not run thru Iran.
>
> Why does Russian support Iran?  Add to their support of Iran and there
> victory in South Ossetia what does that do to European oil supplies?
>
> And there is a large portion of the U. S. and European populations that
> believe negotiations are the answer.  So was appeasement just prior to WW
> II.  Russia is trying to regain its empire.  Are there real options?
>
> The above is presented for educational purposes, no position taken.
>
> Ed K
> Greenville, SC, USA
> Addendum: "Negotiation is also a process in which a successful outcome
> depends on convincing the other side of our tenacity; it's easy to say "I
> can't possibly accept that offer," but it's not so easy to persuade the
> other side you really mean it. So there is a natural tendency to bluff, and
> to seek ways to give credence to our claims. One way of backing up our
> claims is through emotions: an angry outburst or a teary interlude may make
> the other side think: "Wow, s/he really means it, it's coming from inside."
> Fake emotion, like all bluffing techniques, is in need of ethical
> evaluation."   Rabbi Dr. Asher Meir
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/South-Ossetia---not-sailing-but-international-%27politics%27---Art-please-note-politics-was-at-end-until-I-amended-subject-line-for-you-tp18912720p18912720.html
> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
>