Small nation pays price for being friend of the West
Rocky Mountain News
Published August 12, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
In November 2003, rose-wielding Georgians packed into Tbilisi's Freedom Square and ousted former Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze from the presidency in a bloodless revolution.
Today Georgia runs red not with the petals of roses, but with the blood of warfare. And that pro-Western joie de vivre is as good as putting a target on the nation's back.
The rebellion of Ossetians in Georgia began shortly after that country broke away from Russia following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Russia - home to the North Ossetia-Alania region - easily picked sides. Not only that, its troops there have been recognized by the international community as peacekeepers ever since.
These days, it's much more than geography that has Russia acting as if it's already annexed South Ossetia and Georgia's other breakaway region, Abkhazia. Georgia has blossomed into a successful post-Soviet state with ambitions to join NATO and a distaste for the type of corruption that has marred other post-USSR transitions. U.S.-educated President Mikheil Saakashvili likes to point out that no former Soviet country has done more to embrace democracy and integration with the West than Georgia, and this is what irks Russia to no end.
Russia's return to authoritarian rule only reinforces Saakashvili's claim.
"It is clear that Russia's current leadership is bent on restoring a neocolonial form of control over the entire space once governed by Moscow," Saakashvili wrote in Monday's Wall Street Journal. And with continued attacks into Georgian territory despite Saakashvili's pledge to cease fire (he obviously misjudged the reaction to Georgia's incursion into Ossetia last week to stop separatist attacks), Moscow is obviously relishing this opportunity.
After all, a "peacekeeper" keeps conflict at bay in the assigned territory. A "peacekeeper" doesn't launch an offensive on its neighbor from multiple fronts, pushing toward the nation's capital like the imperial Russia of old in an all-consuming land grab, firing on retreating troops.
To call Russia, which has plied the separatists with everything from Russian citizenship to cash - and, alleges Georgia, weapons - the region's "peacekeeper" is bewildering.
The question of South Ossetia should have been solved in a meeting room, not on a battlefield, as the formation of an entirely independent Ossetian homeland would result in mass displacement of the territory's Georgian residents.
Militarily, there's not much the West can do, but that doesn't mean the United States has to meekly accept Russia's conduct. The U.S. and its allies should push their resolution on the conflict - even if watered down by European nations concerned about jilting a key energy source - at the U.N. Security Council, calling for an immediate cease-fire. Of course, since Russia and its partner in veto power, China, will see to it that no condemnation passes, this action will be largely symbolic.
Meanwhile, Russia's status in organizations like the G-8, where it has been given a position disproportionate to its actual place in the world economy, should be reviewed. The threat of detaching Russia from the world banking system, for example, would certainly give Russians pause because they don't trust their own banks and government with their money.
Long-term, Europe should make it a priority to reduce its exposure to Russian energy blackmail.
In a Sunday Security Council meeting, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Zalmay Khalilzad said that Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told Condoleezza Rice that the democratically elected "Saakashvili must go."
In fact, it is the Russian troops who have been fanning out through Georgia who must go, as well as the "peacekeepers" in South Ossetia.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
August 12, 2008
3 a.m.
Suggest removal
TaylorMade writes:
It pains me how bias the American media, my media, is being in this whole thing. Obviously Russia has siezed on this chance to expand its influence and punish a regional rival, but your article paints Georgia as an (almost) innocent victim when the truth of the matter is that they invaded South Ossetia full force and took the capital killing, by their own, obviously flawed, estimates, 100 innocent civilizians. In truth of course the number is higher, if not the 2000 the Russians/South Ossetians are claiming. You make one scant reference to this important fact:
"he obviously misjudged the reaction to Georgia's incursion into Ossetia last week to stop separatist attacks"
Yes, SO is technically a part of Georgia, but its been de-facto autonomous for 15 years and, its no secret, armed and supported by the Russians. Georgia knew all this and still chose to stir up the hornets nest. Georgia is OUR client in the region, armed by us and our allies, so we're in some way responsible for its actions. I hear all kinds of very erudite (and of course, correct) explications of Russia's schemes in the region, but what about our schemes? Aren't we in fact trying to pick off countries in Russia's near-abroad and turn them to our side (ukraine, missles in poland, etc)? This is Great Power competition in the classic mold, its definitely NOT the one-sided aggression you paint it as.
August 12, 2008
6:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike_In_Hartsel writes:
TaylorMade says it all. Geogia started it. And we're telling Russia to back off?
August 12, 2008
8:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
gs writes:
The South Ossetians made a pact with the devil and now their province has been destroyed. I still wonder what their complaint was and do they feel they got justice. And if anyone responds please go into the history of the conflict pre Soviet Union. From looking at a map the South Ossetians had no business obtaining independance as the area is contiguous to the rest of Georgia. And, as long as the Russians withdraw, Georgia hasn't lost that much. I feel sorry for the South Ossetians but in fact they asked for it.
August 12, 2008
8:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Truth writes:
I'm a conservative, and I sincerely hope that Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the national government shut up about this and mind their own business. This is a sectional dispute that the US has no business getting involved in. It's time the rest of the world learned how to take care of their own problems, and it's time we stayed out and let them.
In fact, I admire the Russians in that once they decide to use force, they do it and do it right. None of this "Go fight the war, but be nice about it" BS. I believe I heard this from a Marine: "The only unfair fight is one that we lose".
August 12, 2008
8:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
AngelontheSidelines writes:
Georgia made their own pact with the devil(Bush), and Americans will end up paying with their blood.
August 12, 2008
9:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
dakar writes:
taylormade does NOT have it right. The fact that Georgia isn't innocent doesn't give Russia the right to actively invade and bomb. Georgia is a pro-American democracy and does have some importance in that region. If the US wants states to open their governments and become pro American, then the US must stand by them. The US and Europe need to punish Russia to let them know such actions will not be tolerated before Russia rolls their tanks into other places.
August 12, 2008
10:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
fatheromalley writes:
Georgia a democracy. Russia a communist tyranny masquerading as a democracy.. Hmmm . which side to choose?
And we have our own "plans". wow.. Freedom.. how arrogant of us to wish the world free of tyranny and we might even have new friends.. Oh but we don't "deserve" other free nations as allies..
We've been arrogant in our freedom and we must destroy ourselves in an orgy of self sacrifice.. we've got it, and the rest of the world wants it and we have to give it up.. bwahahahahah
I get it. America bad, Russia good.. there is a moral equivalency between a democracy of representative government and communism/socialism?
Give me a break..
www.numbersusa.org
www.jihadwatch.org
www.votesmart.org
www.petitionproject.org
www.fairtax.org
and of course www.fatheromalley.com where you can find the click throughs to each of these..
Love to all,
Father O'Malley
August 12, 2008
11:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
vendari01 writes:
From what I've been reading here and elsewhere, the United States is an evil empire that sells nothing but guns and hate, and silences all who oppose it. Yet I'm reading those opinions, which suggests that the authors have not been sent off for "reeducation", as yet. I also seem to remember some massive- and continuing- shipments of wheat, while practically every warlord equips his private army with AKs! This country has many faults, including corruption and imperailism. Try not to forget, however, the number of people who were tortured and who died under the regimes of Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Khampuchia, and those who are dying, right now, in the Sudan. We live well, and have the freedom and luxury time that allows us to complain about it all.
August 12, 2008
11:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
mikeyg writes:
"The more things change, the more they stay the same."
Nothing could be more true about this conflict. Soviet, er, Russian aggression met with a shrug by the world community as it murders thousands and imprisons millions. Soviet, er, Russian apologists in America who make excuses for the Soviets, er, Russians that seek to justify the atrocities by blaming...America.
To my friends who are too young to remember the USSR and the state of world tensions at the time, this type of stuff was the status quo. Both Soviet aggression and American apologists. Contrary to the myth they print in history books the USA was not united in confronting and containing the Soviet menace. Radical leftists (most often found in the Democratic party) ALWAYS blamed America for being too confrontational with the Soviets and too morally bankrupt to challenge the Soviets.
Their fears came to a head with the election of Ronald Reagan, a man who promised to take the USSR head on. He was despised and pilloried on university campuses, in European streets, by the mainstream media and by Democrat partisans for it. He was a "war-monger" in their world view, the Soviets merely convenient scapegoats for him to shovel money to the "military-industrial complex".
Turns out he was right to confront and destroy them. Today, a former KGB master who romanticizes the USSR is busy recreating that monstrosity. And today's American leftists are behaving as they and their kindred spirits did decades ago. The history books were rewritten to portray the leftists as though they were united in the fight against the USSR. Putting themselves on the side of the victors meant they didn't have to learn any lessons. So when one asks, "when will they ever learn?" the answer is "when the history books finally get it right".
August 12, 2008
12:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
mikeyg writes:
OneCreek, you're a Libertarian I can tell. I have libertarian sympathies, but part company with the party because so many of them (and apparently you are one) have zero concept of practical and pragmatic devices used to accomplish a better goal than remaining "pure" allows to happen.
I take most issue with your (and most other L's) characterization of American foreign policy. Yes, we propped up some nasty characters in other nations after WWII. We had this little thing called the Cold War where our enemy embarked on an expansionist strategy to gobble up every nation they could around the world. They infiltrated democracies and nations of strategic importance with revolutionaries, gave them military and economic support and toppled freely elected governments (Georgia today?).
When democracies attempt to deal with foreign supported revolutions using courts and law enforcement techniques they will fail. In order to prevent the entire world around the US from becoming an extension of the USSR we had to prop up strongmen who cut corners on individual liberties. It would have been absurd to expect small countries to remain free from Soviet designs without our help, and without a form of martial law being imposed by our allies in those small nations. Just because the USSR used people from the region they were after didn't mean the nations weren't under attack by a foreign superpower. And martial law is often necessary in war to protect a nation from destruction from within.
I don't blame the US one bit for allying with Marcos, the Shah, Somoza, Babtista, Pinochet or any of the strong men we needed to fight the much larger menace of the USSR with. In fact, we're still paying a heavy price for pulling the rug from under the Shah of Iran and Cuba's Baptista instead of supporting them when they were under attack from elements hostile to the US. We were much smarter in how we let Pinochet and Marcos go, since the elements that replaced them were friendly to the US.
Utopian libertarianism cannot be achieved with a wave of the magic wand. Some evil is worse than other evil. When leftist Americans portray the US as the evil without compare in the world they display how ignorant and spoiled rotten they have become. Libertarians should know better than to align with socialist/communist group think.
August 12, 2008
3:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Marshdale writes:
Puti is a good man. I know, cause I looked him in the eye. (the whole time Puti is wondering who this idiot is).
August 12, 2008
5:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
mikeyg writes:
Hey, I gave OneCreek the benefit of the doubt when I suspected him of being a Libertarian. I did so because of his comments about ending the welfare state and controlling the national debt. But his latest rant went on about the corporate states of America are not libertarian by any stretch. He is an anarchist. He hates his government.
He has delusional fantasies about what this country is and has always been about. He got stuck on the first part of Churchill's quote, "democracy is the worst form of government ever devised...except for all the others." Or other variations, like "capitalism is the worst form of economics ever devised...except for all the others." And so on.
Just like the radical leftist socialists like MoveOn, DailyKos, Barack Obama think Marxism will work, if implemented as purely as Karl Marx envisioned (forget about exterminating anyone who disagrees, such trivialities when remaking society), so do the anarchists with right-wing backgrounds like OneCreek think that pure, direct democracy (as opposed to the constitutional republic the USA is), isolationism, protectionism and the destruction of any business that becomes too successful will work.
If the USA had isolated itself from the Central Powers of WWI, the Axis Powers of WWII or the Soviet Bloc of the Cold War we would have been strangled and destroyed by regimes hostile to our values. Only our projection of strength and support for allies keeps us safe at home. If we're not abroad there are plenty of nasty players on the world scene who will be happy to take our place. And despite the oceans on our coasts as 9/11 showed us we are not safe within our borders from a handful of wackos, imagine if we were surrounded by the entire world controlled by an enemy like Hitler, Stalin, Khomeini, now Putin. God forbid.
OneCreek: a case of where the extreme right meets the extreme left.
August 12, 2008
6:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
mikeyg writes:
OneCreek, you advocate a return to something that never was. Manifest Destiny, as much as we wring our hands in regret over the plight of the Indians, served this nation well in becoming the most prosperous, diverse, secure, integrated nation that has ever existed. We've ended up contributing more to the world as a result of M. Destiny then we, or the conglomeration of these lands would have without the policy.
The Monroe Doctrine has served this nation well in ensuring the safety and security of the American people and all the peoples of the Americas for that matter. Preventing European powers from carrying out wars of aggression and expansion that would bring them to our doorsteps has allowed generation after generation of American to live without fear of artillery shells or aircraft bombardment from hostile nations.
These are damn good outcomes as a result of policies that you seem to hold contemptuous. Yet you, and every other American are afforded the freedom to be the crybabies that you are as you chastise the USA for taking steps you consider distasteful, but gave you the prosperity and freedom to state, and even care about these issues.
Yes, we have engaged in other areas of the globe to protect US interests. YOUR interests. How much do you like $4 gas? Take away American protection of oil supplies and try $20 gas, $300 fill-ups, $400/wk food bills for a couple. I happen to believe we should maintain our quality of life, and if securing our energy needs abroad while we drill for new energy sources at home and develop new technologies for future needs is a good thing, despite the cost.
To compare our military actions with the actions of the Soviets, er Russians is obscene. We removed a dictator who supported terrorists around the world (harbored members of Al Qaida, paid Palestinian murder-by-suicide bombers $20k for killing Israeli's (and Americans) and did everything we could to minimize civilian casualties. In the rare instance we missed and killed civilians we were roundly condemned by the world. The Soviets, er, Russians just launched an attack where they TARGETED civilians to send them a message and the world isn't saying boo, or are like you and saying they're justified. The Soviets never cared about killing civilians in any military action, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, wherever. We hand-wring over us killing civilians accidentally, they tell everyone to deal with it and get over it when they target civilians. The comparison you make, the moral equivalence argument is obscene.
August 12, 2008
9:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
commoncents writes:
I wonder why there is no response to actions in Africa that have caused far more death and destruction than this conflict? My bad, there is an oil pipeline in Georgia. America is a fool for oil and should keep her mouth shut as it is becoming harder to listen to the hypocritical bull.
August 12, 2008
10 p.m.
Suggest removal
mikeyg writes:
OneCreek, good grief, those little black helicopters are coming for YOU!
You try to portray your knowledge of history as though you know something, but changing facts to suit your paranoia doesn't qualify for history. Nice fiction writer you could be, though. Maybe you could be a ghost writer for one of Oliver Stone's "historical" flicks.
War is war. In actuality the Russians have got it right in not giving a rat's behind about civilians being in the path of their bombs. To defeat an enemy you have to defeat the will of the citizenry to continue to fight. The U.S. once upon a time knew that. If we hadn't destroyed Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki we would have lost tens of millions more of our soldiers in an extended, bloody war, who because they lived became our parents, our grandparents and our great-grandparents. Maybe YOU (or me) would not have ever existed as a result. I'm, for one, am glad I'm here
If we had been more ruthless in Iraq and Afghanistan we would have made our stay much shorter and with much lower loss of American life and the lives of our allies, the only lives I really give a hoot about.
But your comment about the "sychophantic support of the Israeli State" says more about who you are and where you come from than all of the words you've typed: you are an anti-Semite. You hate Jews. You have no problem with Hitler, or Saddam, or Islamic Jihadists systematically murdering Jews. Concentration Camps? You probably think all the photos and were PhotoShopped and the testimonials were a big myth created by the "Jewish Lobby" and "Neo-Cons".
You share the international disregard of the "Never Again" mantra the world temporarily adopted after the Holocaust. Today murderous despots are free to exterminate their own people without consequence. Has happened in Iraq, the Balkans, Rwanda, Cambodia, Nicaragua, Sudan, countless spots on a map around the world. Where the U.S. and the world has intervened, as in Iraq and the Balkans, millions of people have been saved. Where the U.S. and the world has turned its head millions of people have been murdered.
You don't care if Islamic Jihadists unleash a "holy war" on our allies around the world. You wouldn't care until it was America against the Islamic world. That's a war we couldn't win. Thankfully, your kind of ignorance will never lead this nation, though Obama would be a step in that wrong direction.
August 13, 2008
9:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Hengist writes:
Way to go, OneCreek for your excellent response to the ZioCon Israeli-firster mikeyg who obviously advocates for the policies that have made the United States the most hated country in the world.
(But we're not doing anything wrong...they hate us for our freedoms, and our democracy)
August 13, 2008
12:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
mikeyg writes:
OneCreek, your pseudo-history psychobabble is laughable and pitiful. You try to justify your hatred of Jewish people with misinformation. Your one-man fan club showed up and you felt compelled to take a bow. Calling you anti-Semitic is not name-calling when it's true. And it's true in your case.
The "Never Again" mantra I described was not only to protect Jewish people, but all peoples from mass murder and extermination. Never Again means no more holocausts. Yet, the UN is littered with self-centered COWARDS like yourself who won't lift a finger to help prevent millions of people from being slaughtered in Rwanda, Sudan, Cambodia, the list goes on.
You even rewrite history to assert that Japan tried to sue for peace five months before their unconditional surrender, as if the Allies should have accepted their 'conditional' surrender then. Your ignorance is matched by your stupidity on that one. Japan's leaders, culture and behavior were barbaric at the time. To leave all those elements in place, which was one of their conditions would have been an affront to mankind and invited future conflicts.
"The slaughter of innocent civilians" is what you claim I support. Well, in warfare between nations and religious crusades the peoples of opposing sides will fight as long as they have the will to fight. If factory workers and farmers work to send supplies and provisions to their armies at the front without tasting extreme hardships at home they will continue to resupply their armies. When the burden becomes too great for civilians they will recall their armies. When the destruction around them becomes too great for civilians they will be emptied of any future ambition for military adventurism. That is what needed to happen in Japan and Germany, and honestly what needs to happen in the Middle East among the supporters of Islamic Jihadism.
Japan could not be left intact under their terms of surrender that you would have taken. They would have retained their Imperialist militaristic culture, and there would have been more wars between Japan and the US. And it could have been them who nuked us. For us to secure Japan with an unconditional surrender without the A-bomb would have meant millions upon millions of Americans would have died on Japanese soil, as would have millions upon millions of Japanese, probably more than the souls lost in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. Heck, the Japanese civilians threw themselves off cliffs on the islands we captured as we closed in on Japan.
You, OneCreek, are a pathetic loser. And a hater. You hate Jews, so let them die. You hate all that the USA has ever been and is today and only love some fantasy of what she should be according to you. Glad you are what's known as a raving lunatic in this society rather than mainstream. That little black helicopter....it's coming for YOU!
August 13, 2008
1:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hengist writes:
WoW! I hope American readers here are paying attention. There are foreign loyalists here, patrolling this forum, reporting anything critical of you-know-who. It was just demonstrated, that posters here can criticise any government in the world, EXCEPT you-know-who. I'm sure that OneCreeks' I.P. address was recorded and now he's being threatened...by a black U.A.V.
Too bad, Americans...we've lost our freedom of speech, our freedom from unreasonable searches and seizure, our freedom from illegal wiretapping, our right to Habaeus Corpus...it's all right here in front of you... We're doomed.
(I'm sure I'm next...the foreign internet enforcement monitors are going to send the black U.A.V. after me, too!)
August 13, 2008
4:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
mikeyg writes:
liberalpuke, you represent the leftovers of the Soviet apologists who always agreed with the USSR and complained about the US. Your drivel is not new, it is tired, old and discredited by history.
Hmmm, move to Russia, write a letter to the editor or post online your criticism of that nation and see if it ever gets published. And see how long you'll go without a knock on the door in the middle of the night before you disappear forever from all your neighbors.
You are blessed to live in a country like the USA that lets you spout your nonsense as often and wherever you want without fear. You're welcome.
August 13, 2008
8:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
mikeyg writes:
Ah, the liberal-pukes turn out in pairs. OneDimBulbCreek, you're a waste of human DNA. I flush you every morning. If I saw you in person I'd spit in your face, you NAZI-loving repugnant thing. Your hatred of Jews is obvious to everyone, your kind brings murderers to power. Your kind will most definitely burn in hell, for you are not anywhere near the house of the Lord. Believe you me, if it were you and I, man to man, I would kill you without breaking a sweat or have a moment of remorse.
And limpwristedlayer, you're just a minion of MoveOn, DailyKos, only able to regurgitate talking points you get on your blogs and Air America. Nothing original in your head, just a mind-numb leftist lemming. I know you don't mind paying through the nose for gas because you're busy saving the planet with Pelosi, but to middle Americans who have to work for a living and can't afford Prius's or get to stay home cashing welfare checks like you, they'd rather drill for oil to help their pocket books. Oil will be the reason you D's will not win a presidency you think is locked up, and is why you won't win the Senate seat in Colorado you covet. Keep your head in the sand so when we see you with your rear in the air we see you for what you actually are.
August 14, 2008
12:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
mikeyg writes:
OneDimBulbCreek, go hump your sheep instead of posting your hateful drivel here. The "questions" you've purported to ask all contain presumptions embedded in them that make them ridiculous and unworthy of discussion to confer legitimacy on them. You're a holocaust denier, a hater of Jews and advocate of mass-murder. The singular death of a bigoted psychopath like yourself in order to benefit all of mankind is a small price to pay. Do me, and the world the favor of taking your own life, you reprehensible, loathsome waste of DNA.
August 14, 2008
9:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
mikeyg writes:
one dim bulb creek, I see you've taken a break from popping your zits in the mirror.
...suicide is painless...try it just this once, I've got a rusty razor blade for you.