Georgia on my mind

[Rich]

On the battle between Russia and Georgia, Obama took the same stand as President Bush and most world leaders, that there should be a cease-fire and negotiations. McCain stood solidly with Georgia, demanding that Russia withdraw its troops. Was Obama right that we have to accept reality and keep a reasonable relationship with Russia, or is McCain right that you back the democracy whatever the consequences?

Is the fact that McCain's principal foreign policy adviser was a paid lobbyist for Georgia until a month or two ago relevant to this discussion?

[jsteele]

As I believe you know Rich, Maria is a native of Georgia. She has a nephew who is a reservist that has been called up. So, this is hitting kind of close for us.

The problem with this sort of conflict is that by the time you reach this point, too many mistakes have already been made. The seeds of this outbreak of violence were sown when we recognized independence for Kosovo. The Russians were not going to stand by helplessly while the West took a chunk out of a Russian ally. The Russians are showing that they can play that game too (but by Russian rules were are not as subtle as ours).

When McCain says we should support Georgia, I'm not sure what he expects us to do. 2,000 of the best Georgian troops are in Iraq. Does he want us to assist those troops in returning to Georgia (Georgia has called back 1,000 of them)? Won't that weaken the situation in Iraq?

McCain's official statement looks like a bunch of huffing and puffing, but not much of real action. He wants a statement from the Security Council. Doesn't he realize that Russia has veto power in the Security Council? No statement that is not satisfactory with Russia would be allowed. McCain want to convene a meeting of NATO. What does he think NATO can do? Does he expect French and German troops to engage Russian? I don't think so.

One reason that diplomatic statements are often low key is that making threats that you can't carry out exposes you as a paper tiger. McCain, with all of his calls for action that can't produce results, creates a real risk of doing just that. Clearly, he is influenced by his Chief of Staff's financial ties to Georgia as well as McCain's own connections. One bit of trivia, when Saakashvili was first elected, he asked which US politician he most admired. His answer was "John McCain".

[jsteele]

The situation in Georgia is getting worse by the minute. Russia has now invaded Georgia proper, capturing Gori (Stalin's home town) and Senaki. This has severed the Eastern and Western parts of Georgia. So far, the best that both Democrats and Republicans can come up with is disapproving foot stomping. I don't think there is much the US can do in this situation, but the foot stomping simply highlights our weakness. The Georgians -- especially Saakashvili -- that put their hopes in America are having a rude awakening. Add to the list of Bush's "accomplishments", destroying America's credibility as an ally. If the Russians make a play for the BTC oil pipeline, I imagine Bush will suddenly decide he needs to focus on something beyond the backsides of female volleyball players.

[Anonymous]

I don't know enough to point fingers at either of these nations but all I can say is that I hope the fighting is over soon. The picture on the front page of WaPo yesterday was quite disturbing. We don't need more bloodshed.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote: The Georgians -- especially Saakashvili -- that put their hopes in America are having a rude awakening. Add to the list of Bush's "accomplishments", destroying America's credibility as an ally. If the Russians make a play for the BTC oil pipeline, I imagine Bush will suddenly decide he needs to focus on something beyond the backsides of female volleyball players.

So what do you think Pres. Bush should have done? What steps need to be taken to save America's credibility as an ally?
America is between the rock and the hard place here.
BTW Obama could not recommend a good solution to this situation either (well because there is none

In my opinion Georgia is partially to blame for the current conflict. They attacked South Ossetia first and killed many civilians. What did Saakashvilli hoped to achieve by doing that?
It is naive to think that Russia will just stand by and watch Georgia take over a territory which Russia considers to be under its influence. Saakashvilli hoped that America and other Western countries will provide military help to Georgia. This was a very naive belief, because neither us not Western Europe are ready for war with Russia now. (or ever, hopefully).

[Anonymous]

So what do you think Pres. Bush should have done? What steps need to be taken to save America's credibility as an ally?
America is between the rock and the hard place here.
BTW Obama could not recommend a good solution to this situation either (well because there is none

In my opinion Georgia is partially to blame for the current conflict. They attacked South Ossetia first and killed many civilians. What did Saakashvilli hoped to achieve by doing that?
It is naive to think that Russia will just stand by and watch Georgia take over a territory which Russia considers to be under its influence. Saakashvilli hoped that America and other Western countries will provide military help to Georgia. This was a very naive belief, because neither us not Western Europe are ready for war with Russia now. (or ever, hopefully).

Jeff answered in another thread what Bush should have done - at a minimum, he should have stopped watching the beach volleyball matches in Beijing and consider some sort of diplomatic effort to broker a cease fire, as just about every other major leader in Europe is doing at the moment.

Even taking every one of your statements as fact, don't you think Russia's response was more than a little disproportionate?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
So what do you think Pres. Bush should have done? What steps need to be taken to save America's credibility as an ally?
America is between the rock and the hard place here.
BTW Obama could not recommend a good solution to this situation either (well because there is none

In my opinion Georgia is partially to blame for the current conflict. They attacked South Ossetia first and killed many civilians. What did Saakashvilli hoped to achieve by doing that?
It is naive to think that Russia will just stand by and watch Georgia take over a territory which Russia considers to be under its influence. Saakashvilli hoped that America and other Western countries will provide military help to Georgia. This was a very naive belief, because neither us not Western Europe are ready for war with Russia now. (or ever, hopefully).

Thanks to 17:22 for having my back. First, I'm not sure you can identify a right or wrong side in this conflict. There is blame to go around.

However, Bush has made significant commitments to Georgia. In 2005 he went to Tbilisi and promised Georgians that the American people would stand with them. Recently, the US supported Georgian entry into NATO. Had that been accepted, the US would now be at war with Russia. I agree that it would be naive to expect the US to respond militarily in this instance, but it was probably not wrong to expect something more than has happened. I wonder if at the first sign of Georgian military activity the US communicated to Georgia that the US would offer nothing but angry denunciations? Its more likely that the US -- if not offering outright encouragement to the Georgians -- kept quiet to see if the Georgians got lucky.

As mentioned by 17:22, I wrote this in another thread.

Here is what European leaders are doing:

"France's president Nicolas Sarkozy is to try to mediate in Moscow today while Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany is to meet Russia's president Dmitri Medvedev in Sochi, just outside Georgia on the Black Sea, on Friday."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/11/georgia.russia13

Meanwhile, Bush is being photographed with bikini-clad volleyball players.

Cheney called Saakashvili to say that the "Russian aggression must not go unanswered." Well, how does he plan to answer it? Angry foot-stomping is not an effective policy. If Cheney does not plan to back his words with actions -- and all evidence is that he does not -- he should just remain silent. Otherwise, that kind of language weakens the US negotiating position.

If the US is not prepared to aid Georgia -- which appears to be the case -- then we should attempt to save our credibility by working to end the fighting through negotiations. When you hear US officials talk, their statements are very hostile toward Russia. That only makes the situation worse. The tone should immediately be changed to one more suitable for negotiations. Bush claims to have looked into Putin's eyes and seen his soul. He is Saakashvili's closest ally. Why not offer to host both for peace talks? Why not dispatch Condi for some shuttle diplomacy. Why not grab a couple of the other leaders in China and fly to Moscow for talks? Basically, why not show some leadership?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So what do you think Pres. Bush should have done? What steps need to be taken to save America's credibility as an ally?
America is between the rock and the hard place here.
BTW Obama could not recommend a good solution to this situation either (well because there is none

In my opinion Georgia is partially to blame for the current conflict. They attacked South Ossetia first and killed many civilians. What did Saakashvilli hoped to achieve by doing that?
It is naive to think that Russia will just stand by and watch Georgia take over a territory which Russia considers to be under its influence. Saakashvilli hoped that America and other Western countries will provide military help to Georgia. This was a very naive belief, because neither us not Western Europe are ready for war with Russia now. (or ever, hopefully).

Jeff answered in another thread what Bush should have done - at a minimum, he should have stopped watching the beach volleyball matches in Beijing and consider some sort of diplomatic effort to broker a cease fire, as just about every other major leader in Europe is doing at the moment.

Even taking every one of your statements as fact, don't you think Russia's response was more than a little disproportionate?

Pres. Bush and W. European leaders are pushing for cease fire. They are doing what they can, but there is very little that can be achived diplomatically at the moment. Russia will not stop until it proves a point . They have already indicated that any ceasefire agreements will need to include political consessions from Georgia. Vitali Churkin, a Russian rep. to the U.N even hinted that they want Saakashvilli to resign before negotiations can be started. And obviously Russia will want to secure a ligitimate, military presence of its troops in S. Ossetia and Abhazia, to which Georgia will never agree.
As far as Russian response being "disproportionate". Well , if you consider the goals they are trying to achieve it is not. Russia wants to teach the West and the neihboring countries a lesson, to demonstrate the might of Russian military machine.
Concern over civilian lives was not the main reason for Russia to intervine in this conflict, IMHO.
The idea is that now Ukraine, Georgia and other countries will think twice before electing pro-American politicians or joining NATO.
Those nations now see that if Russia invades them , America and E.U will stand by concentrating on "diplomatic efforts" instead of helping out military.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So what do you think Pres. Bush should have done? What steps need to be taken to save America's credibility as an ally?
America is between the rock and the hard place here.
BTW Obama could not recommend a good solution to this situation either (well because there is none

In my opinion Georgia is partially to blame for the current conflict. They attacked South Ossetia first and killed many civilians. What did Saakashvilli hoped to achieve by doing that?
It is naive to think that Russia will just stand by and watch Georgia take over a territory which Russia considers to be under its influence. Saakashvilli hoped that America and other Western countries will provide military help to Georgia. This was a very naive belief, because neither us not Western Europe are ready for war with Russia now. (or ever, hopefully).

If the US is not prepared to aid Georgia -- which appears to be the case -- then we should attempt to save our credibility by working to end the fighting through negotiations. When you hear US officials talk, their statements are very hostile toward Russia. That only makes the situation worse. The tone should immediately be changed to one more suitable for negotiations. Bush claims to have looked into Putin's eyes and seen his soul. He is Saakashvili's closest ally. Why not offer to host both for peace talks? Why not dispatch Condi for some shuttle diplomacy. Why not grab a couple of the other leaders in China and fly to Moscow for talks? Basically, why not show some leadership?

I do not think that the U.S is the most appropriate mediator in this instance, considering how bad Russian-American relationships are. I think EU is in much better position to negotiate with Russia than us because an agreement brokered with the help of EU will have more credibility with the Russian people.

[Anonymous]

Pres. Bush and W. European leaders are pushing for cease fire. They are doing what they can, but there is very little that can be achived diplomatically at the moment. Russia will not stop until it proves a point . They have already indicated that any ceasefire agreements will need to include political consessions from Georgia. Vitali Churkin, a Russian rep. to the U.N even hinted that they want Saakashvilli to resign before negotiations can be started. And obviously Russia will want to secure a ligitimate, military presence of its troops in S. Ossetia and Abhazia, to which Georgia will never agree.

I disagree with your conclusion that little can be done diplomatically, although I think at this point little IS being done (though there are the pending meetings of Merkel, Sarkozy, et. al.) I think the point is that without a more cogent international response, the chances of a negotiated diplomatic resolution will grow smaller, but I don't think it is fair to say at this point that little can be achieved. In fact, in my mind the points that you raised, along with several others that have plagued Georgian-Russian relations (especially in relation to S. Ossetia and Abkhazia) for decades, will undoubtedly surface in any cease fire negotiations.

As far as Russian response being "disproportionate". Well , if you consider the goals they are trying to achieve it is not. Russia wants to teach the West and the neihboring countries a lesson, to demonstrate the might of Russian military machine.
Concern over civilian lives was not the main reason for Russia to intervine in this conflict, IMHO.

This may be just me splitting hairs, because I think ultimately we agree on this point, but I think the fact the Russia is trying to teach its neighbors a lesson through the use of excessive force, or as your put it "to demonstrate the might of the Russian military machine", is exactly what a disproportionate response is.

The idea is that now Ukraine, Georgia and other countries will think twice before electing pro-American politicians or joining NATO.
Those nations now see that if Russia invades them , America and E.U will stand by concentrating on "diplomatic efforts" instead of helping out military.

I don't want to speak for him, but as I understand it, that is exactly the point Jeff is making for why Bush needs to sense more urgency on this issue!

[Anonymous]

Excellent article on this subject

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1831857,00.html?cnn=yes

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:there is very little that can be achived diplomatically at the moment.

Famous last words, perhaps?

Sarkozy, rather than spending his time slapping bikini-clad volleyball players, actually got on a plane and flew to meet with Russian President Medvedev. As a result of the meeting, Medvedev agreed to Sarkozy's proposed cease-fire plan:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7557457.stm

Sarkozy is now in Tbilisi and, given that the plan is well beyond Saakashvili's wildest dreams at this point, I can't imagine he won't accept it.

This result is good for France, good for Georgia, and good for Russia. It is, however, a terrible loss of prestige for the US. At this critical time, Bush did nothing but make meaningless statements while preoccupied with a sporting event. Condi Rice stayed on vacation. Leadership was assumed by the French and Germans.

Several points will not be lost on the Georgians, Ukrainians, and other nations. The US is not an ally that can be trusted. When one of those famous "3 AM calls" comes in, you had better hope that Sarkozy or Merkel answers, because Bush will simply let it ring.

If McCain had his way, we would be at war with Russia. As for Obama, he was not quite as useless as Bush, but not as counter-productive as McCain. Across the board, there is nothing about these events that gives me hope for American's role in the future.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:there is very little that can be achived diplomatically at the moment.

Famous last words, perhaps?

Sarkozy, rather than spending his time slapping bikini-clad volleyball players, actually got on a plane and flew to meet with Russian President Medvedev. As a result of the meeting, Medvedev agreed to Sarkozy's proposed cease-fire plan:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7557457.stm

Do you really believe that "Medvedev agreed to the cease fire plan"? I believe he actually authored it because this plans provides Russia with everything they hoped to achieve politically and military. This was not a cease fire plan, but a capitulation agreement. Russia has won and now it dictates the terms on which Georgia can surrender.
In my opinion, Sarkozy was simply a messenger. I do not think he had a pivotal role in the agreement.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Do you really believe that "Medvedev agreed to the cease fire plan"? I believe he actually authored it because this plans provides Russia with everything they hoped to achieve politically and military. This was not a cease fire plan, but a capitulation agreement. Russia has won and now it dictates the terms on which Georgia can surrender.
In my opinion, Sarkozy was simply a messenger. I do not think he had a pivotal role in the agreement.

Have you read either the terms of the agreement or any prior Russian statements? The agreement clearly upholds the territorial integrity of Georgia -- meaning that South Ossetia can neither become independent nor part of Russia. The Russian troops that entered into Georgia must return to Russia and the current peace-keeping force that includes Russians will be internationalized. It would be reasonable to expect that Russia would want to keep its troops there and to have some mechanism leading to South Ossetian succession from Georgia. Far from the six points being dictated, Saakashvili was actually able to get significant modifications.

To downplay Sarkozy's achievement as a negotiator is to grossly misunderstand the situation. Compare Sarkozy's accomplishment to those of the Americans. Cheney said that Russia's actions "must not go unanswered." How is that working out for him? If there was an answer, I missed it. All the Americans had to offer were empty threats and petulant foot-stomping. There is no way around it. American has suffered a historic loss of prestige.

[Anonymous]

Why would the US defend Georgia when we (foolishly) have so much on our plates?