Unleash… the Sarkozy! The Russian Georgian crisis gets worse. August 12, 2008
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Uncategorized.trackback
Sarkozy has being dispatched, or is dispatching himself (it’s difficult to tell), to Tbilisi. He intends to meet Medvedev in Moscow before going to the embattled capital. It’s all getting very 1980s around here, isn’t it? But this time there is no over-arching ideological framework within which to contextualise this sort of conflict, merely competing nationalisms of varying sizes, and most importantly varying military weights. So, just as the Georgians could crush South Ossetian forces given a free hand equally so could Russia quash Georgian pretensions.
All that said it’s somewhat difficult to divine the Russians intentions. Is the goal regime change with Mikheil Saakashvili being deposed either by his own people or in some form of pressurised coup? A full scale invasion and occupation of Georgian territory seems unthinkable, or at least did until the reports of Russian forces entering and taking Georgian towns outside the disputed territories were confirmed by independent observers. And perhaps this is due to a lack of certainty on the part of Russia itself as to what purpose all this serves. I don’t doubt now that they had had this sort of operation in planning well in advance (that’s not a slight on them, any serious military will make precisely such plans to cover any and every contingency).
Indeed the New York Times reported yesterday that:
Several American and Georgian officials said that unlike when Russia invaded Afghanistan in 1979, a move in which Soviet forces were massed before the attack, the nation had not appeared poised for an invasion last week. As late as Wednesday, they said, Russian diplomats had been pressing for negotiations between Georgia and South Ossetia, the breakaway region where the combat flared and then escalated into full-scale war.
“It doesn’t look like this was premeditated, with a massive staging of equipment,” one senior American official said. “Until the night before the fighting, Russia seemed to be playing a constructive role.”
So perhaps this truly was a case of seize the day.
But there is a sense as it progresses of Russia covering every option. So it was that on Channel 4 News last night the Russian deputy President could appear certain that no such incursion were going on when simultaneously Russian units were deploying and consolidating.
And the results?
All of these policies collided late last week. One American official who covers Georgian affairs, speaking on the condition of anonymity while the United States formulates its next public response, said that everything had gone wrong.
Mr. Saakashvili had acted rashly, he said, and had given Russia the grounds to invade. The invasion, he said, was chilling, disproportionate and brutal, and it was grounds for a strong censure. But the immediate question was how far Russia would go in putting Georgia back into what it sees as Georgia’s place.
There was no sign throughout the weekend of Kremlin willingness to negotiate. A national humiliation was under way.
“The Georgians have lost almost everything,” the official said. “We always told them, ‘Don’t do this because the Russians do not have limited aims.’ ”
But as noted elsewhere it may be time to finally put away the myth that state sovereignty has any meaning at all in this world at this time. Because what ever else we see this week is that only those with the means to defend it are in a position to seriously articulate it. Russia will probably go more or less as far as they can, simply because they can. I’d see the most likely outcome as perhaps the deposing of Saakashvili. It obviously depends whether the international community (such as it is) can rally behind him. Whether the famed Sarkozy can work his magic. Er… well… maybe not. Interesting to note the Chinese response. They too know the problems of separatism.
Another article in the New York Times asks:
It may take time to work out the messages Mr. Putin has sent in the past week, but this one is clear: Russia insists on being seen as a great power. “The problem is, what kind of great power is emerging?” said Mr. Trenin, of the Carnegie Center. “Is this a great power that lives by the conventions of the world as it exists in the 21st century?”
To which the answer must be, incontrovertibly, yes. Precisely by those conventions. Unfortunately.
Russia will probably go more or less as far as they can, simply because they can.
But not because they can out of caprice, but so that they can say to the Americans ‘look what we are doing to your client’.
“But as noted elsewhere it may be time to finally put away the myth that state sovereignty has any meaning at all in this world at this time.”
I would say that this was always true. The small ciountries in Europe survived because the big ones counterbalanced each other, hence the term buffer countries.
There need sto be some initiative that will prevent or slow a new arms race escalation.
Those in the EU who were gung ho for a military aspect have a case to answer. A positive engagement with Russia in the aftermath of the fall of the USSR might have stood a chance of a good relationship.
Instead Russian parnoiia was fed and now we will get pleas for even more militarism over here.
Why is it so easy to send armies abroad and not relief.
Since the Cubans stopped sending armies and sent loads of doctors their standing has never been higher.In fact it has partially broken the blocade with this.
What is needed is not just to limit this awful war but a conference to sort out the problems of the aftermath of the USSR et.
Obviuosly the problems of small nations need to be centre stage, not just pawns for the little Napoleons of the new world.
I pity the minorities all over. Georgians in the breakwaays and minorities in Georgia proper. Ex Jugoslavia is a bad portent.
A carnival of reaction beckons.
Losing Russia is a good Foreign Affairs article on the background to this from a US perspective.
Jim Monaghan – You speak about “those in the ERU gung ho for military solutions” – but you do not acknowledge that it was the EU majority – including Germany and France – that blocked the US plan (half heartedly suppiorted by the UK) to offer Georgia immediate NATO membership. The EU has also attempted a strategic dialogue with Putin including radical steps towards economic, political, security and human rights cooperation. The US has bitterly opposed it. Putin (on a nationalist oil driven “high”) is not interested. The UK inclines to the Washington position. If Ireland gradually disengages from the EU as a result of a second “No” vote to the Lisbon Treaty it will almost certainly be drawn closer to the US/UK axis and away from those who want an independent European foreign policy based on UN authority and values.
Please forgive my typos.
Please forgive my typos
Likewise
What is needed is an European initiative which would look at all the problems from Kosovo to Georgia which if left fester could flare up. The irresponsible biourgeois leaderships like S would see bouncing their larger allies is the way to realise their aims.
This worked for the Croats who were the big winners in the ethnic wars in ex Jugoslavia. The Bosnaiks were the big losers and the least guilty.
I am sure the Balts and Ukraine are extremely worried. Russian success in Georgia would feed into a possible aim of partioning Ukraine. Remember the Crimea was given to Ukraine as recently as the Kruschaev era.
I am not as convinced of the EU as John is. The EU rep in Washington is the pro USA Bruton who has the neo con agenda himself, a sort of warmed up Christian Democracy agenda.
Again time for a real and major initiative. This could be the Moroccan/Agadir crisis and we can sleepwalk to Sarajevo.
What can the Left do. Simply
“Oppose your won bourgeoisie.” The Greeks and Turks who oppose their own bourgeoisies show the way. Not a happy place when everyone is caught up in a World War One type of frenzy where the young are convinced war leads to glory and victory, rather than mutilation.
Jim – You may be surprised but I agree with a fair amont of what you say. I particularly agree with the need for a overview analysis of all the minorities/borders/nationalisms conflicts which involve in particular Russia and the European Union. I would go further. We should be thinking of what kind of sovereignty sharing community might be aimed at which could unite these countries – perhaps in an initially more modest type of arrangement we see with the EU itself. I see no reason why this should not include, the EU, those who wish to join and countries beyond including Russia and the Caucasus. Of course it will take time and of course it will have to be based on democratic principles (which is why the Putin regime will not be interested). There is only two ways in the long run of resolving these hugely gangerous pre-1914 type of disputes: either through military conquest or through the creation of a wider community within which borders etc cease to have the present ideological significance. “Oppose you own bourgeoisie” may be a start but it is not enough by a very long chalk.
Hugh, it’s a fascinating article which I covered last December here http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2007/12/21/foreign-affairs-journal-the-us-presidential-candidates-and-russia-going-going-well-no-perhaps-not/
Bottom line is that some sort of European security structure is essential to safeguard stability on the continent. The EU has played a not ignoble line in all of this and least has greater authority than the US/UK axis, albeit less hard power. But that may well be an advantage.
It would probably amuse those who know my history but DeGaulles vision of a Europe which stretched to the Urals could be discussed. A Europe without walls where ever positioned.
Prosperity and the satisfaction of democratic asperations is key.
John Palmer is right there are a multitude of degrees between full independenc and no autonomy.
With broadband there is a possibility of dispersed nationalities living a national/cultural life.
Alas even in Belgium there is no sign of a breakthrough. The Flemings regard the current position as payback for generations of Wallon arrogance.
We need some vision of a Europe of diversity.
There was an interesting article by Williams in the Sunday Business Post where he discussed how the European elites have become distanced from their peoples. A bit like the interrelated Royal Families of pre 1914.
The EU needs to engag with the people. Oh Yet more arrogance form Frank McDonald in the Irish Times. How ashamed he is as he passes through Rome airport. Did he nor notice the Fascists and Racists in the government there.
It would be a mistake to jus bandage the Georgian problem. There needs to be a genuine paece agreement across the region. With incidentally the Armenian issue dealt with as well.
An European conference with all these issues dealt with in an exhaustive way. With international guarnatees that they will not be revoked.
We do not want a temporary agreement that can suffer a revocation. (shades of the revocation of the edict of Nantes, wwhich we suffered for here.)
-
Again I go along way with your approach Jim. I would quibble with your point about Belgium. It is true that for eons the Belgian ruling class spoke French (even those of Flemish origin). But in recent generations Dutch speaking Flanders has had the upper hand. It has been the main beneficiary of post war economic development and too many Flemings look down on the Walloons in much the way that some British Tories view ith disdain the Liverpool or north eastern old working class – as bastions of traditional trade union militancy. Anyway the Walloons – although they speak French as a rule – should be distinguished from the Frencophone elite. Wallon itself is an old language related to Stimmie and Picard in the north of France.
There is a need for a comprehensive settlement of the nationalities/minorities issue across the Cascasus and within Russia itself (Chechens, Tartars and many others). This can only be achieved a/ through the development of democracy and b/ through a willingness to share sovereignty in a wider community. The best (though far from perfect) model for that kind of approach is the EU itself.
Let me add one point to what I said earlier – linking the Belgian and wider European points. If ever Flanders and Wallonia were to divorce (unlikely in my view) both entities would inevitably seek deeper integration into the EU and would expct the EU to play more of the role which the Belgian state might have played before. Ditto if Spains regions – or in the UK, Scotland Wales – secede: their action would propel the EU towards further integration. The eastern European experience shows that EU membership for countries like Hungary, Slovakia and Romania (where there were major unresolved border and minority nationality issues) these problems became easier to manage when borders disappeared in the EU. A lesson for the Caucasus?
I wonder about Hungary. The Hungarians are minorities in at least 3 countries. In all 3 they face discriminations.
What are the Serbs up to in the former autonomous province of Voi? (cannot spell it).
There is also the Europe wide question of the Roma.
Not a problem that is likely to become military but that should not be a reason for neglect.
A section of Irish opinion has looked to the EU as a way of avoiding being absorbed by the big neighbour.
An EU where the bigs are checked and balanced.
This is also an element of Gaullist foreign policy–keep the Germans locked in.
“these problems became easier to manage”
Yes, I accept this. But managed but nor sorted.
We need a sort of progressive Vienna conference based on respect and democracy.
But I see naked self interest (and short term interest as well) and a failure of the Left to mouth anything but platitudes.
I to date I have not mentioned Moldavia which I guess is lurking there.
The position of the Hungarian minorities in Slovakia and Romania is greatly improved on what is was before EU accession. That is in part because EU law on the treatment of minorities is in force. The Roma problem is more a question of poverty and discrimination than inter-state rivalries. The minorities in Voivodina have had a rough time from the Serb central government – many have migrated particularly to Hungary. Moldova has the unresolved issue of trans-Diniestra which the Russians exploit a la South Ossetia and Abkahzia. Some Moldavans would like to unite with Romania (they share a similar language) but accession is impossible until the mafia/crime grip on the state nis dealt with.
It’s a central paradox about smaller nationalities (like our own) and the EU. They’re the ones, like the SNP approach (and I know I’m eliding party and nation – but hey), who believe that the EU upholds their national identities in a way quite different from the old socio-economic structures that they’re currently, or were recently, part of – such as the UK. And you know, I think they’re right.
Very interesting discussion incidentally…