Georgia: the aftermath

77 comments from readers

michaelpetek
21 August 2008 at 12:56

The record of recent meetings of the Security Council make interesting reading.

South Ossetian forces under the direction and control of Russian defence and security agencies opened fire first, on 2 August. Since they have, for months of not years, been under Russian direction and control they are effectively Russian forces in aggressive occupation of Georgia in violation of the ceasefire agreement.

Russia claims to have intervened for the protection of its nationals. There are about 160,000 of them in Abkhazia and 60,000 in South Ossetia.

But these people had the citizenship of Georgia, which does not allow dual nationality. They lost their Georgian citizenship when they were naturalised as Russians within the past five years and do not have Georgian residence permits as is required of aliens.

Russia has affirmed several times in Security Council resolutions that it accepts the territorial integrity of Georgia within its internationally recognised boundaries.

So the Russians owe the rest of the world an explanation of why they have not taken the time - which they have had plenty of - promptly to resettle their Russian citizens in territory which is indisputably Russian.

The fact that they have not yet come up with one might be one of the reasons why, this week, not one single solitary member of the Security Council spoke up in support of Russia. Not Vietnam, not Indonesia, not South Africa, not China.

All of a sudden, Ivan the Bear is all alone in the world.

ikotubo
21 August 2008 at 14:29

So, was any atrocity ever committed by the Georgians in this conflict? This is news to me - I've been relying solely on mainstream media. Nor was I ever aware that it was the Georgians who provoked the Russians by invading the province first. That supposedly free media organizations could all choose to become mouthpieces for Western governments (who clearly encouraged the Georgians to provoke the Russians) makes me very worried indeed. And I speak as no gret lover of the Russian government.

Douglas Chalmers
21 August 2008 at 17:15

"We are dealing with a psychotic dictator, an inadequate person whose actions cannot be foreseen whatsoever..."

So utterly precious for an American gringo to go there to Georgia (the real one) and to pretend that the USA is not the cause of the problem, Matt Siegel.....

From "The Art of Peace":-

"Peace originates with the flow of things --- its heart is like the movement of the wind and waves. The Way is like the veins that circulate blood through our bodies, following the natural flow of the life force. If you are separated in the slightest from that divine essence, you are far off the path.....

The Art of Peace is medicine for a sick world. There is evil and disorder in the world because people have forgotten that all things emanate from one source. Return to that source and leave behind all self-centered thoughts, petty desires, and anger. Those who are possessed by nothing possess everything..." http://omlc.ogi.edu/aikido/talk/osensei/artofpeace/

michaelpetek
21 August 2008 at 17:18

We've discussed this before, Ikotubo!

It might be helpful if you read the record of the UN Security Council meetings, taking at face value the uncontradicted assertions of the Georgian and Russian representatives.

Once you've done that,come back and tell me who really fired first.

michaelpetek
21 August 2008 at 18:00

I've just had an idea!

The Russian far eastern districts opposite Alaska: Magadan, Chukotka, Kamchatka and Sakha, have a combined population of 1,500,000, comparable to Sussex.

Suppose the United States were to distribute US passports among that population. Then they could invade and annex the territory on the pretext of protecting its citizens.

All of a sudden they all get American wages and living standards.

Tempting offer, isn't it!

ikotubo
21 August 2008 at 20:21

The most frightening aspect of this man-made tragedy (quite aside from the avoidable deaths on both sides) is that we can't yet be sure where it will all end as each side seeks to gain some advantage over the other. Another east-west confrontation might suit the neo-con fantasists in Washington and their chums in the arms trade (and enable the child-like Georgian ruler to fulfil his lifelong dream of being a Western lackey), but what about the rest of us who will be forced to endure another arms race?

writeon
21 August 2008 at 22:30

The Georgian regime's "strategy" in as far as such an irresponsible and reckless group can really be said to have or understand strategy, seems to have been to attack the main civilian centres in South Ossetia so violently and with such force that the people would be forced to flee to safety and "where they now belong" in North Ossetia/Russia.

Now thousands more have left to join the thousands who left during the last civil war in the disputed region. This form of warfare directed at civilians may succeed as who would really want to live in an area that may be attacked by the Georgians again in a few years when they've been rearmed and retrained by their American masters?

Of course a policy of deliberately targettting civilian areas is unlawful in international law, a clear warcrime, and ammounts to ethnic cleansing, some have called such methods genocide in other contexts.

The idea that the population of South Ossetia are somehow "illigitimate" and close to "illegal aliens" squating on Georgian soil and that as holders of Russian passports they have voluntarily lost their rights and should move north, has absolutely no basis in Georgian or international law. This warped idea is false, not only that it's close to being a form of justification or excuse for ethnic cleansing of an unwanted minority, and that makes it abhorrent and disgusting and close to fascist.

And that brings us neatly to the concept of fascism. If, as the hypocritical leaders of most western countries seem to think, all forms of force between nations to settle territorial disputes are unacceptable in this new century, surely this applies to Georgia's relations with the region of South Ossetia as well? Why is the regime in Georgia allowed to use force internally to subjugate it's own people without criticism? And this ridiculous falsehood that they can use violence because they are not bombarding their own but Russians, therefore it's not a crime, is an "argument" that is beneath contempt. It's a form of fascist law.

And that's part of a bigger problem. The ultra-nationalist in many of the countries formally under Soviet occupation are very dangerous people. What disturbs me is that people in Britain are so unaware of what these people stand for and we are now supporting them. Their democratic credentials are bogus and deeply suspect. Many of these parties are united by one thing - an irrational and virulent, bordering on rascist hatred of the Russians, and one can add other minorities and ethnic groups. Mostly they remind one of the British National Party mixed with destructive and ultra-liberal economic and social policies, quite an explosive cocktail! And Britain is edging towards war with Russia dragged along by these people, pure, unadulterated, madness!

ikotubo
21 August 2008 at 23:04

Writeon: Great post! But it's the sheer one-sidedness of the reportage in the Western media that I find most disturbing. It all reminds me of one popular anecdote about press freedom during the cold war (can you see the irony?): A group of Soviet reporters had been invited to New York, where they were proudly given a number of newspapers to read - a clear attempt to showcase press freedom in the United States. But it all backfired spectacularly when the Soviets noticed, not just the breathtaking uniformity of the reportage, but the fact that much of the published material consisted of official platitudes - complete with direct quotes from White House sources - so much so that one of them remarked: "At least, we can justly claim that back home, we have no choice but to toe the party line; what excuse have the Americans got?"

michaelpetek
22 August 2008 at 07:02

Writeon says: "The idea that the population of South Ossetia are somehow "illigitimate" and close to "illegal aliens" squatting on Georgian soil and that as holders of Russian passports they have voluntarily lost their rights and should move north, has absolutely no basis in Georgian or international law. "

If you visit www.legislationline.org you'll find that I've done my homework on this one. There are about 200,000 former Georgian citizens who lost that nationality when they became Russians.

They now need residence permits to live in Georgia, and they don't have them. The Russian Federation has had more than enough time to see to their resettlement in their own country. They haven't taken it, and they have no excuse.

If you look closely at the Statute of the International Criminal Court, you'll find that ethnic cleansing - deportation or transfer of a population - only applies to the displacement of a population from a place where they are lawfully present.

If they are not "lawfully present", then the matter is one of the collective expulsion of aliens, a breach of human rights of a civil nature, but not of itself a legitimate cause for going to war.

Writeon says: "If, as the hypocritical leaders of most western countries seem to think, all forms of force between nations to settle territorial disputes are unacceptable in this new century, surely this applies to Georgia's relations with the region of South Ossetia as well? "

That would be the case if South Ossetia had emerged to de facto independence without the illegal intervention of foreign States. South Ossetia declared independence from Georgia on 10 December 1991. A civil war followed, and Russia began to intervene in political support of the insurgents. That is illegal in international law, and if a new state emerges as a result of it, it is as illegal as a South African bantustan.

South Ossetia is, in any case, not constitutionally independent, and so lacks an essential characeristic of a state under international law.

Its Prime Minister Yuri Morozov was imported from Russia and was previously an official in Bashkiria. Its Minister for the Interior Mikhail Minzayev is a Russian police colonel who led the counter-terrorist operation in Beslan.

Since March the South Ossetian Minister of Defence has been Vassily Lunev, a general in the Russian army. The head of the Border Protection Service is Oleg Chebotariev, a colonel in the FSB.

As for the accusations of genocide and war crimes in the Georgian bombardment of Tskhinvali, these have not been independently corroborated. The Russians have occupied the place for many days, and they haven't shown the media one single mass grave, nor one single body.

writeon
22 August 2008 at 08:46

MichaelP,

Your interpretation of Georgian and international law is just plain wrong. You are entitled to your opinion, but it's highly problematic, biased, sectarian and partisan.

If international law, or any law, for that matter, was a clear-cut and simple as you present it there wouldn't be much need for lawyers, one could just let a supreme judge or jury decide, only it isn't. Why do you insist on presenting yourself as some kind of expert in law when you are not, you twist it to suit your own agenda, which basically is to find some "lawful" way to justify Georgia's attempts to "ethnically cleanse" South Ossetia of its non-Georgian population. This is really crude nationalism and something close to fascism trying to cloak itself in thin veil of "international law", but it's not only futile it's also irrelevant.

Great powers make "law" and break "law" as they choose to suit their interests. Lawyers and historians will probably spend a lifetime discussing what happened and why, but this won' effect realities on the ground. Trying to use "law" as propaganda tool to justify or ligitimize or stigmatize actions by powerful states is tiresome and so transparent. Why bother to try? Trying to use "law" to justify immoral acts and agression and the use of force to settle disputes between nations is a route leading to confusion and probably insanity.

Even you biased interpretation of the negotiations in New York at the United Nations is wrong. The core problem is that the Russians want the regime in Georgia to state that they will not use violence to force the people of their breakaway regions back into Georgia, that any "re-unification" must occure by peaceful means. The Georgians refuse to do this, beause they are a right-wing nationalist regime that wants to use war as an instrument of policy.

For the record I do not think that anyone has committed "genocide" in this conflict. However, this concept has been used, abused and prostituted in recent years, so much so that it has almost lost its meaning, it's become a propaganda phrase used almost glibly against those one dislikes or is in conflict with.

voice
22 August 2008 at 09:43

Kosovo Albanians were holders of Serbian passports and yet the US and UK gave them the green light to break away. What's good for the goose.................

Anneke
22 August 2008 at 09:54

One should not forget the Abkhazian people have a right to inhabit their ancient homeland. Whether they possess Georgian or Russian passports is irrelevant. There was an Abkhaz kingdom 1,300 years ago in this land, and before that an Abkhaz nation within the Roman Empire. The people are not interlopers in the Georgian state, and their rights to some sort of autonomy should be respected. That said, the Russians are merely opportunists, their record in Chechnya and the other ethnic enclaves of the north Caucasus is even worse. Their "protection" of these peoples is a joke, in the wake of the Chechen war.

KeithDouglas
22 August 2008 at 09:58

Michael Petek - where is the evidence that Russia invaded 'Georgia proper' first. That scenario is likely to be false, as it would not have served Russian interest.

Clearly the pro U.S. propagandists would like to perpetrate such a story to justify Georgia's invasion of South Ossetia and the resultant genocidal murders of innocent people.

The facts of the matter are that U.S, sponsered aggression using their "'spiv'" 'puppet': Saakashvilli

was designed to provoke Russia in order to justify U.S.

ambitions to get NATO control into the "oil rich" zone of the Georgian Caucuses.

The Dick Cheney (Project For A New American Century) "scream machine" clearly now needs a new global "fear" pretext - as the Iraq,Afghan,Islamaphobic 'models' are now "wearing thin". What could be better than to resurrect the "cold war fear" of the "Evil Russian Menace" !

I am inrigued to know MicaelPetek's view on "Israel/Palestine". Let me guess. . . . solidly behind the fascistic puppet Zionist regime no doubt !!

Keith Douglas

michaelpetek
22 August 2008 at 12:16

Writeon, if you think that my understanding of Georgian and internatiuonal law is 'plain wrong', could you do me a favour and do your own homework on the issue.

Visit the website I referred you to, and have a look at the part of the Statute of the International Criminal Court under the Article on the crime against humanity of enforced displacement.

Voice, the Kosovo Albanians were exclusively Serbian citizens on a portion of Serbian territory on which they were 90 per cent of the population.

The Abkhazians and the South Ossetians are exclusively Russian citizens on Georgian territory. Different case altogether.

Anneke, the Abkhazians would have kept the right to live in their ancient homeland if only they had not chosen to be naturalised as the citizens of another country and so triggered the loss of their Georgian citizenship.

The same applies to singer Katie Melua and her parents and brother, all full ethnic Georgians, who automatically lost their Georgian citizenship when they became British citizens earlier this year.

Keith Douglas, I'm surprised at you! Most people of your persuasion are convinced that the governments of the USA and her allies are puppets of the fascistic Zionist regime, not the other way round.

writeon
22 August 2008 at 13:27

MichaelP,

You continually make the same mistake. You take your biased interpretation of bits of law and words used in those laws and demand that others accept them without question. And then use you interpretation of these laws to morally justify heinous crimes and objectionable attitudes. My old law professor used to say not 'possession is nine-tenths of the law' but 'interpretation is nine-tenths of the law'! This is of course what keeps lawyers like my brother so busy and so rich. He consults on international trade agreements, very, devilishly, complex agreements and laws. He once spent a week arguing with an American lawyer what the word 'and' really meant in a sentence. You sound like an undergraduate whose studied a bit of law and stopped way before one gets the interesting stuff, when one moves beyond this legalistic, formal, banter and gets to the core of what "law" really is.

Law isn't really about sets of rules, regulations, treaties; law isn't about even laws written or otherwise. Basically, put very simply, law is, and has always been about Power relationships.

Now, in theory, law should be about other things as well and it should apply equally to everyone, powerful or not. Many laws are there to protect people from the excesses of power. One can argue that the powerful don't even need laws because they are perfectly capable of protecting themselves in so many other ways. But this kind of discussion rapidly moves into the realm of the philosophy and history of law and becomes rather esoteric.

Today, in practice, in the real world, laws reflect power relationships, especially as the vast majority of laws are about property rights one way or another. Property and wealth are joined at the hip with how power is distributed in society. This is all basic stuff really and uncontroversial.

Most of the above, on far larger scale, also applies to relations between nations.

What makes the current crisis in the Caucasus so dangerous is that it reflects a process in international relations where 'might' is increasingly replacing 'right', a process which the United States started. We aren't entering a cold war, we are moving towards a hot one. The cold war was relatively stable compared to today. We are returning to the era of the nineteenth century when rival imperialist, capitalist, countries and blocks rubbed up against one another. The date, the real date, is 1908, not 2008, though some think it's 1914!

What's happening is that we are allowing tiny countries on the borders of the great powers to draw us into proxy conflicts which risk expanding and running completely out of control, like in 1914.

In the West especially, because we, the Americans, have seen their empire expanding unopposed for almost a generation after the fall of the Soviet Union, have simply got used to having things their own way and invading any country they felt like and pressuring others to accept their will. They have even deluded themselves into thinking that they were invincible militarily and there were no limits to their power and the age-old dream of ruling the world made them drunk with ambition and greed. But they should have studied more Greek culture and the concept of Hubris.

ikotubo
22 August 2008 at 14:35

Writeon: Your excellent post reminds me of my first year at university, when someone deemed it necessary to introduce us to the very basics of constitutional law. As a result, a friend of mine, who became convinced he'd learnt all there was to learn about law, went out and got himself so drunk until he became a nuisance to the public. The more I (and other friends) tried to help, the more adamant he became - that he was entitled to get drunk in public in a free society. Meanwhile, unknown to us, someone had alerted the police who promptly arrested him at the train station. But things merely got worse; for instead of accepting a mere warning, he got into a heated argument with the police, convinced that he'd committed no crime. Before he realized it, he was in court and was convicted for being "drunk and incapable" and for assaulting a police officer.

Who was it that said "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"?

michaelpetek
22 August 2008 at 17:40

Writeon, could you please address the points I made on the specifics of Georgian nationality law and the Statute of the International Criminal Court? Then give me your opinion as to why the Russians, having naturalised 200,000 Georgian citizens, have let them live in an internationally sensitive area instead of evacuating them to the safety of Russian territory.

Suppose the law really is about power relationships.

The Russian economy is one tenth the size of that of the USA and consists of nothing of significance besides gas and oil. The military machine and the economy that supports it make Russia resemble the upper body of Arnold Schwarzenegger on the legs of Woody Allen.

Now look at the Russian Far East. It is slowly, but surely, slipping into the hands of China. The share of Chinese nationals in the population is rising steadily as Russians either move out or die of old age.

Russian girls in the area tend to marry Chinese men, since they tend to make better husbands than Russian men. They're kinder, they don't beat their wives, they work harder and they don't drink themselves to death by the time they're sixty.

The conduct of Russia in naturalising 200,000 residents of Georgia and then intervening to protect them sets an interesting precedent that the US might follow if it ever wanted to take its piece of Siberia.

Imagine if the US were to offer its citizenship to the 1,500,000 inhabitants of Chukotka district, just across the Bering Strait from Alaska, and of Magadan, Kamchatka and Sakha.

Just imagine!

Nilsey105
22 August 2008 at 18:36

michaelpetek

22 August 2008 at 17:40

you started off in Georgia went to the bearing straights via

a multitude of places, offered 1.500,000 people passports and told us

how Russian men beat their wives and Chinese husbands are good to their Russian wives

And then you have the audacity to use the word IMAGINE.JL turns in his grave.

While Poland dragged its feet over the signing of an agreement with the USA over the placing of the STAR WARS hardware on its territory, the US manipulated the Georgians into an unprovoked attack on the disputed areas of South Ossetia.

The reason for this was to arouse Poland into signing.Job done. Its as simple as that.

michaelpetek
22 August 2008 at 19:26

Nilsey105 - Just goes to show the Russians really walked into this one, didn't they!

Nilsey105
22 August 2008 at 20:49

@ michaelpetek

22 August 2008 at 19:26

perhaps once the gaunlet was thrown down it was time to test how hot the water was.

There always comes a time when bullies have to be stood up to. In this case two of them.

michaelpetek
22 August 2008 at 21:51

Nilsey105, name one single contribution Russia has made to the benefit of humanity since they shot Tsar Nicholas!

writeon
22 August 2008 at 22:02

Michaelp,

Reading your posts and the way you talk about the Russians is actually making me feel more and more sympathetic towards them! I'm utterly convinced now that there are forces and feelings being released that are incredibly dangerous and that we in Britainl, unless our leaders really want to go to war with Russia, should be very wary of forging any sort of alliance with the ultra-nationalists in eastern or new europe. Next time I'm invited to Moscow to a literary function I'll certainly have lot to talk to my Russian friends about.

The West and it's vassal states in new europe have had one abiding passion since the demise of the old Soviet Union, weakening Russia and the dream of seeing it break into smaller and smaller and more managable pieces. Now the Russian central government has stopped this decline and is pushing back and good for them.

This wishful thinking that Russia will be overwhelmed by the Chinese won't happen any time soon, simply because the Chinese realize that they too are in the American crosshairs and their interests are best served by entering into a de facto alliance with Russia and probably Iran. I'm convinced we're heading for more wars in the areas around Russia's old borders. I hope there isn't one in Europe though. Unfortuantely we might be far closer than most people realize.

The stationing of American rockets in Poland is an incredible provocation aimed at Russia. These rockets give the Americans a strategic advantage over Russia, a first-strike capability. The United States is moving towards nuclear primacy. What this means is that they believe they are now so powerful they could fight a nuclear war with Russia and emerge victorious. Their first strike would be so devastating the Russians wouldn't really have much of an answer left, perhaps only a handful of rockets and these, in theory, could be neutralized with the rockets in the starwars shield, which is of course why they are being placed in Poland.

The Americans are undermining the MAD balance that has been the foundation of relations between the atomic powers for decades. This is highly provocative and highly destabilizing. What is Russia supposed to do about this obvious threat to their security? Should they just calmly wait until the Americans think it's time to teach the Russians a lesson? Should they wait until their only real alternative, appart from launching an atomic war first, is to surrender?

I think the United States is pursuing a very, very dangerous course that appears to be moving us closer and closer to war. And do you know what? The Americans want that war to be fought in new europe and if the new europeans have to die in their millions then that's a small price to pay for an American victory!

Now, what were your points about the finer detail of Georgian nationality law and the international court that you seem to think are so important, again?

Nilsey105
22 August 2008 at 23:10

michaelpetek

I dont play childish games. If your so immature as to want to play this crap you throw out then i aint the one to take you on . Go find someone of your own level.

Bush and Cheyney are not interested in anything other than their own engrandisment. They are part of that DUPONT alliance from the 19th century.

If you know your history you will know what i mean.

Nilsey105
22 August 2008 at 23:22

writeon

22 August 2008 at 22:02

i agree with what you say totally.

The Bush administration has 5 months to run. He wants to go out with a bang. And what a bang to end on.

Endex.

georgios.tsipinias
23 August 2008 at 00:11

Isn't this exactly what happened at Kosovo?

Nilsey105
23 August 2008 at 00:17

Donald Rayfield is emeritus professor of the school of modern languages, Queen Mary University of London

wrote this about the conflict

http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/the-georgia-russia-conf...

michaelpetek
23 August 2008 at 06:49

Writeon, you're wrong about the Chinese. Neother China and the US want a war with each other, and China regards the US and western Europe as more important trading partners than Russia.

To them, Russia's expendable.

Douglas Chalmers
23 August 2008 at 15:08

"Scheunemann is the neocon agent in place in McCain's camp. The neocons got their war with Iraq. They are pushing for war on Iran. And they are now baiting the Russian Bear. Is this what McCain has on offer? Endless war? Why would McCain seek foreign policy counsel from the same discredited crowd that has all but destroyed the presidency of George Bush.....

He is a dual loyalist, a foreign agent whose assignment is to get America committed to spilling the blood of her sons for client regimes who have made this moral mercenary a rich man..... Get Georgia a NATO war guarantee. Get America committed to fight Russia, if necessary, on behalf of Georgia..." http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=73068

John Black
23 August 2008 at 18:11

"Nilsey105, name one single contribution Russia has made to the benefit of humanity since they shot Tsar Nicholas! "- Michaelpetek

Ever heard of the Poincare Conjecture?

michaelpetek
23 August 2008 at 18:15

I said 'Russia', not 'France'!

John Black
23 August 2008 at 18:25

Yes, the conjecture was French.

The solution is Russian.

A Russian mathematician solved the Poincare Conjecture in 2005.

The implications for science and engineering are far-reaching.

michaelpetek
23 August 2008 at 19:44

Yes, but apart from that!

What have the Russians ever done for us!

writeon
23 August 2008 at 20:05

Michaelp,

'Name one single contribution Russia has made to the benefit of humantity since they shot Tsar Nicholas!'

Gosh that's almost too easy. You must really have it in for the Russians that you're so blinded by hatred of everything Russian that you're willing to make such a fool of yourself in public!

I could make a long list but that would be tedious. There's so much in Russian culture that's been influential and important. I'll keep away from art, music, film, and just mention two monumental things that we in the West should be aware of and thankful for.

The battle of Stalingrad and the battle of Kursk. These two battles broke the back of the German army, which until then had appeared invincable, and effectively signalled the end of the Nazi dream of becoming masters of all Europe. After Stalingrad and Kursk the Second World War was effectively won, if not over. The Red Army then went on to battle and drive 80% of the German army all the way to Berlin.

I think defeating the Nazi's, at least for us in the West, qualifies as benefit to humanity in spades.

Riaz Ahmad
23 August 2008 at 22:45

America has the right to use force to secure access to natural resourses any where in the world, this is the well known Clinton doctrine. This doctrine was implemented by George Bush to invade Iraq and take control of its oil. Afghanistan was invaded to get the Taliban out of the way to facilitate the construction American pipeline carrying central Asian oil via Afghanistan to the brand new Pakistani deep water Arabian sea port at Gwader. The plan back fired, Taliban have not been defeated.

Goergia is a small underdeveloped country, the gas pipeline from Azerbaijan to Turkey runs through its territory. It is not Georgea or its democracy the west admires so much, it is the gas pipeline, the real object of their admiration of Georgia.

Stupid and Naive Georgean president, encourged and aided by the Israelis and Neocons fell right in to the Russian trap, not knowing that the Russian had already out manouvered and out thought the neacons. Israeli army had finished training the Georgian Army shortly before the Georgean adventure.

It is all to do with oil, and if anyone believes otherwise, than better start reading neutral press, the truth wont come from the BBC, CNN or Russian news channels.

Arab oil is already under American control, but they cant control Iranian oil, hence the reason for including Iran in the Axis of evil. It will reamin their till Iranian oil is open for plunder, like the British and Americans did in the past by over throwing Musedegs democratically elected government and Installing a puppet in the form of Raza Shah Pahlevi.

Ari Rusila
24 August 2008 at 01:45

Please let me site US view to clarify start of conflict in Georgia. The US ambassador to Moscow, John Beyrle, in a rare US comment endorsing Russia's initial moves in Georgia, described the Kremlin's first military response as legitimate after Russian troops came under attack.

"Now we see Russian forces, which responded to attacks on Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia, legitimately...", Beyrle told the newspaper. He said Washington had not sanctioned Georgia's initial actions when on August 8, after a succession of tense skirmishes, Georgian forces attacked South Ossetia, triggering a massive Russian reaction when its peacekeepers there came under fire. "We did not want to see a recourse to violence and force and we made that very, very clear," Beyrle was cited as saying in quotes the US embassy confirmed as accurate. "The fact that we were trying to convince the Georgian side not to take this step is clear evidence that we did not want all this to happen".

I do not want to repeat my earlier opinion pieces here related to Georgia events, but if you are interested them you are welcome to visit in my Balkanblog http://arirusila.wordpress.com.

michaelpetek
24 August 2008 at 06:44

Writeon, Stalingrad and Kursk were battles in a world war the Soviet Union started as co-aggressor with Germany when they carved up Poland and the Baltic States.

Monty Python still wants to know: apart from that, what have the Russians ever done for us?

Riaz Ahmad
24 August 2008 at 11:22

Michaelp,

What has Russia done. If it was not for Russia, you and I would have been colonial citizens of Nazi Germany. Never mind the westren prepogenda, it was Russia that distroyed the German armies on the eastren front and lost million men in the process.

Hitlers biggest mistake was attacking Russia, otherwise the Germans would have mopped up the rest of Europe like they did with France before attacking Russia. If you take bias and hatred out of your mind then it will become capable of noticing many things Russia has done, at the moment you are not looking at reality, because you dont want to see the reality, instead you are looking at precieved images and ideas in you mind.

michaelpetek
24 August 2008 at 15:25

Riaz, World War Two would never have started as it did if Hitler and Stalin hadn't agreed to carve up Poland between themselves and agree that the USSR could swallow whole the independent states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, seize Carpathian Ruthenia from what was left of Czechoslovakia and slice Bessarabia from Romania.

Once the war started, Stalin set his Communist puppets in the West to run a Stop the War campaign to undermine the Allied war effort, and supplied Nazi Germany with food and raw materials to assist its own.

By the time Hitler invaded Russia the USSR had helped itself to bits of Finland and - in the early 1930s -committed against the Ukrainians the first genocide since the Armenian massacres of 1915.

When you've finished trying to sweep Russia's aggressive role in starting WW2 back under the carpet, see if you can find a decent answer to this one:

What have the Russians ever done for us?

ikotubo
24 August 2008 at 16:34

I wonder what it would take for this fellow called "michaelpetek" to realize that his posts just don't make any sense to anyone else in this forum. What a damn nuisance!

michaelpetek
24 August 2008 at 17:20

Ikotubo, what part of my previous post don't you understand?

Pencils
25 August 2008 at 00:35

"... name one single contribution Russia has made to the benefit of humanity since they shot Tsar Nicholas!" MichaelPetek

How about universal free healthcare, education, housing and full employment in all the territiories under Soviet influence - a big contributing factor to the West European capitalist class having to make similar, if much less extensive, concessions to their people? And, of course, the export of that model to communist China, where socialised healthcare created the greatest improvement in mortality statistics in human history.

Is that a bad thing because

the capitalists defeated it? No doubt Petek would support the view that the fall of the Soviet Union shows that socialism doesn't work so ' if we don't let the weak go to the wall, we'll all go to the wall' - the sort of society envisaged by Hitler, Thatcher and the New World Order i.e. rich people and slaves. The problem the NWO have with Russia is that there are still elements there, capable of resurgence, in favour of some degree of economic independence, and that Russia still has the military power to resist.

As to WWII, all that shows that Stalin tried to avoid war at all costs, but tried to create a defensive buffer zone just in case - Hitler made his aggressive intentions towards Russia evident as early as the publication of Mein Kampf.

michaelpetek
25 August 2008 at 08:58

"How about universal free healthcare, education, housing and full employment , , . "

Fair enough, but the West did all that without committing genocide as well.

HappyFlower
25 August 2008 at 12:08

The legalistic arguments used by michaelpetek to justify Saakashvili's murderous attack on South Ossetian civilians are essentially the same as those used by the Nazis to justify their crimes. Any country with a corrupt leadership and compliant parliament can pass any law it likes to make its actions legal. The Nazis passed laws to remove citizenship for groups they wanted to get rid of. Does that mean they had respect for the "rule of law"? If we want to be legalistic about it, there is probably an argument that Georgia's secession from the USSR was invalid since it failed to uphold legal obligations re the future status of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Since Russia is legally the successor state to the USSR, perhaps it is entitled to regard the whole of Georgia as a continuing part of of its territory. It's so funny that people who hate Russia and its history so much are prepared to work themselves into a frenzy over the "territorial integrity" of meaningless lines drawn on a map by Stalin.

michaelpetek
25 August 2008 at 12:27

HappyFlower, you simply don't understand the first thing about what you're talking about.

Georgia is one of many countries around the world which don't allow dual citizenship, and have laws which automatically remove their citizenship from persons who of their own free will take the nationality of another country.

There is nothing unjust about this - in fact the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that no one shall be denied the right to change his nationality.

And no, Georgia's secession from the USSR was not invalid, since it declared independence and then succeeded, without the illegal intervention of other states, in completely displacing Soviet power, in any event on 26 December 1991 when the USSR dissolved itself of its own accord. South Ossetia never did this in relation to Georgia, as it was assisted by illegal Russian meddling from the outset.

Russia is legally the successor of the USSR only for the puposes of membership of the United Nations.

HappyFlower
25 August 2008 at 15:44

Michaelpatek, I stand by my comments. Perhaps you should listen to what Gorbachev has been saying. With all due respect, I think he knows more about the dissolution of the USSR than you do. You are being very selective in your interpretation of history and your response has served simply to prove my point that partisan "legal" argument is ultimately meaningless. Yes, Georgia created its own legal reality when it "succeeded in displacing Soviet power". Do you think it would have done so if Saakashvili had been Soviet President instead of Gorbachev? There would have been no separation, at least not without much bloodshed and what you might call "illegal meddling" from other countries. I am not disputing that Georgia and many other countries prohibit dual citizenship. The point is that laws can be made for legitimate purposes or they can be made for sinister purposes. Many countries have permanent residents who are not citizens. However, I don't think many of those countries would think they had carte blanche to launch a military attack against such people. If your position is that this is acceptable behaviour because the vitims are "Russians", then you should just say so. The legal doubletalk serves no meaningful purpose. Get your head out of the sand and recognise the reality that Georgia has no valid historical claim to these provinces and that they have been de facto independent for 15 years. History tells us that what is "illegal" today will become "legal" tomorrow.

michaelpetek
25 August 2008 at 16:51

HappyFlower, I'm not going to get into a discussion of what might have been had Saakashvili been President of the USSR instead of Gorbachev. All we can say for certain is that Gorbachev, but not Saakashvili, has been a member of, and has held high office in, a criminal organisation, namely the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

It was on Gorbachev's watch, not Saakashvili's, that the Soviet Army assisted the Azerbaijan SSR' s Interior Ministry troops in its attempt to resume the Armenian Genocide when both countries were part of the USSR.

It was Gorbachev who confimed that South Ossetia was part of Georgia when South Ossetia tried to break away from Georgia, reaffirming as it did so the sovereignty of the Soviet Union.

The international community, including Russia, recognised South Ossetia and Abkhazia as part of Georgia. Officially, the Russian Federation still does, otherwise today's vote in the Russian Parliament calling on the President to recognise them as independent wouldn't have been necessary.

Presumption stands in favour of internationally recognised boundaries, unless and until there is clear and certain proof that a new state has - without internationally wrongful assistance - come into existence, with its own territory, population and independence, exercising the functions of a state to the exclusion of any other.

The truth is that South Ossetia is and has always been as independent as Bophuthatswana. How could it be otherwise given that its Defence Minister is a serving Russian general, it's Interior Minister is a serving FSB officer and its Prime Minister is a Russian civil servant from Bashkiria?

There is nothing sinister about Georgia's citizenship laws outlawing dual nationality. All of Russia's western neighbours have similar laws. When they were enacted it was never expected that Russia would undertake a mass naturalisation programme in other countries in order to give themselves a pretext for invading them.

You've also completely twisted what I've been saying about South Ossetians who are also Russian nationals. The South Ossetian forces the Georgians attacked in Tskhinvali were not a rag-tag militia with hunting rifles.

Under the command of the Russian general who pretends to be the Defence Minister of an independent country, they are as well trained and equipped as any Russian unit. They are, in law, deemed to be Russian forces and are as such agents of a long-standing Russian aggression.

If a contingent of the community of, say, Humberside, were to take Russian citizenship, raise a militia and put it under Russian control, ethnically cleanse the place of British nationals and throw off the administration of the United Kingdom, what do you think the UK and its army would do? Invite them to join the Commonwealth?

writeon
25 August 2008 at 17:09

I agree with HappyFlower. One can argue until the cows come home about who is 'right' and who is 'wrong'. In relations between states, and internally between the constituent parts of a state, the 'law' is only the Law, as long as everybody more or less agrees what it is. Once they don't everything becomes far more complicated and dangerous. History has too many examples of this too mention.

This is getting tiresome, having to state the obvious, over and over. Trying to force another country, or a people in what one considers one's own country, to obey and accept a partisan interpretation of the 'Law' and what's 'right' and 'wrong', is futile, counterproductive and usually lead to violence, once the 'concensus' and 'norms' relating to how we live together begin to break down.

Really it doesn't matter a monkey's what the Law and the words on piece of paper say or don't say, once trust, convention and compromise are wrecked. And this is what has increasingly been happening over the last twenty years.

The West, which means the Americans, who lead the West, have felt so powerful that they have shredded and trampled over international law, conventions, human rights law, the Geneva convention, and the US Constitution. The United Nations castrated and sidelined. Magna Carta a central building block of western law with it's central element of Habeus Corpus, thrown out of the window, just like that, after almost a thousand years!

The Neocons in the United States believe that they are above international law, domestic law, all laws in a time of war. In fact they argue that the President, in his role of commander in chief, is the Law. The President as the 'decider' not only embodies the Law in his person, he has the right to define what is 'right' and 'wrong' without and above constitutional control or restraint.

Then there's the frightening policy that the United States is allowed to launch pre-emptive, or preventive wars against states that might, at some future time, possibly pose a 'threat' to American interests. This is a recipe for international chaos and anarchy, and is an attempt to codify and conventionalize agressive warfare, which is normally thought of as the ultimate international crime.

Obviously all these actions have virtually destroyed the international norms and conventions and laws that we have tried to construct over at least the last couple of centuries to control strong states, their behaviour and 'right' to conduct warfare.

The arguments we in the West are using in relation to Russia, criticizing them for doing precisely what we've been doing, only on a far smaller and less bloody scale, is intensely hypocritical and must seem incredibly insulting, insulting to their intelligence. In reality our criticizims have no effect on them, but are clearly propaganda aimed at domestic Western audiences.

This shows the Russian leadership that we aren't serious and have no real interest in dialogue or compromise. What we want is basically surrender. The Russians have a choice, as Dick Cheney recently said, accept the and 'integrate' into the West, or get ready for isolation and confrontation.

It's important to realize that the sword of chaos, once taken out of the scabbard, cuts both ways. This is something the Americans in their staggering and collosal arrogance simply don't understand, even though they've been warned of the consequences of their irresponsible actions over and over again. Yet they just won't listen. They are determined to pursue their 'destiny' to rule the world, no matter what, even over the edge into disaster for them and the rest of us.

michaelpetek
25 August 2008 at 17:41

Writeon, the one question that needs to exercise you is this one. Which of the following wars was NOT within the power of the Security Council to authorise:

(a) NATO's assault on Yugoslavia;

(b) the US assault on Iraq;

(c) Russia's assault on Georgia.

Answer: (c) President Saakashvili isn't Milosevic, neither is he Saddam Hussein.

(a) could have been authorised by the Security Council, as it was after the event, because Yugoslavia was persecuting, and eventually pillaged and expelled, its ethnic Albanians.

(b) the US assault on Iraq could have been authorised by the UNSC, as it was after the event, because the sources of Iraq's aggression against Kuwait - the regime itself - were still in existence and continued to threaten international peace.

The only threat Saakashvili posed to Russia was the threat of a good example. If you're living next door to a mafia boss like Putin, whatever you do don't clean up corruption, and don't crack down on smugglers.

"What we want is basically surrender".

Yes, and why shouldn't we?

writeon
25 August 2008 at 20:44

MichaelP,

So you really think that Russia should 'surrender' do you? Well, this is an attitude that's prevalent in various circles in the West. It's also incredibly dangerous and counter-productive. The Russians won't do it, the time when Russia was on it's knees is over, and we should just get used to it. They won't 'surrender' without resistance and a fight. What counry would?

You seem so sanguine about the prospect of such a scenario, very strange, as such a conflict might involve a devastating nuclear exchange in the heart of Europe, but then of course, why shouldn't we?

FKJuliano
25 August 2008 at 22:51

Michaelpetek has aided and abetted genocide in this forum. He did so by expounding cynical and spurious legalistic arguments in order to justify the patently criminal actions on the part of the Saakashvili regime in South Ossetia. He is therefore an accomplice in the attempted and partially successful genocide which the government of Georgia has committed against the South Ossetian people. In a truly just world he would be arrested, tried, convicted and imprisoned.

And though his justification for genocide against the South Ossetian people is beneath contempt, it is worth exposing its absurdity for the sake of thoroughness. He claims that Georgia may exterminate the South Ossetians because they are non-citizens of Georgia living in that country. First of all, as natives of South Ossetia whose ancestors have occupied that land for millennia, the South Ossetians have a natural right to dwell there in peace, regardless of any arbitrary contingency imposed by Georgian law. But leaving that aside for the moment, even if the South Ossetians could indisputably be considered illegal aliens as, for instances, many Mexican citizens living in California are, the notion that they are subject to extermination by being shelled with heavy artillery and otherwise attacked by an army equipped with state-of-the-art American technology is beyond all bounds of international law or simple human decency, just as it would be if the US Air Force started bombing East Los Angeles. To commit such an act is clearly a crime against humanity, and to defend that act is one as well.

There is ample precedent for that assertion. At Nuremberg, Alfred Rosenberg, one of the main ideologues of Nazism, was sentenced to death and hanged for advocating genocide and war of aggression.

Free speech is rightfully seen an an intrinsic human right, but when it is used to help deprive others of the most basic right of all, the right to live, it has clearly reached a limit.

michaelpetek
25 August 2008 at 23:30

FK Juliano, you really are clueless about the concept of genocide aren't you. To you, deporting illegal aliens is genocide. Saying 'boo' to Vladimir Putin is genocide.

For that matter, if you're going to evacuate the term of all meaning, we might as well write up Putin's assassination of Anna Politlovskaya, Galina Starovoitova and Alexander Litvinenko is genocide as well.

Professor Paul R Williams of the Public International Law and Policy Group has wtitten an article "No Comparison Between Kosovo and Sout Ossetia" in which he states that no atrocities similar to those committed in Kosovo have been committed in South Ossetia.

"Major conflict between Georgia and South Ossetia lasted only two years, from 1990-92. No compelling evidence has emerged that the recent actions of the Georgian government to re-establish constitutional order in South Ossetia reached the level of those undertaken by the Serbs in Kosovo. Russian claims of genocide in South Ossetia appear wholly unfounded."

Not once on this blog have I ever advocated the exetermination of South Ossetians. What I do say, and God knows I've repeated it often enough, is that they are illegal aliens whom the Russian authorities should have evacuated to Russia, the country of their new nationality, within the past five years.

There is no reason why they should not have done so in an orderly manner and in a way which would have done them no physical or mental harm beyond the usual stress that anyone gets when moving house.

In the meantime, Georgia has the right to send its armed forces to close with and kill hostile armed forces in aggressive occupation of its territory. The Russians, as occupiers of part of Georgian territory, have the primary responsibility to ensure that civilians living there are kept out of harm's way.

FKJuliano, you really insult everyone's intelligence with your Mexican example. The USA has the right to deport aliens present in the US without a visa, but they'd be entitled to bombard them with heavy artillery if they resisted deportation with tanks, aircraft and heavy weapons of their own.

Just today the Daily Telegraph reports that President Medvedev issued a warning to Moldova of a military response if it followed the Georgian example of trying to regain control of its own breakaway region of Transdniester, whose rebel leadership has long been backed by Russia.

Since Transdniester has no border but with Moldova and Ukraine, that can only mean he's preparing a war of conquest against Ukraine.

If he's going to take that attitude, I say: To the Volga! Roll, Wehrmacht, roll!"

And this time, Writeon, the Russians really can surrender. They can surrender Konigsberg. They can surrender Petsamo and Karelia. And they can surrender South Sakhalin and the Kurile Islands.

michaelpetek
26 August 2008 at 12:03

Found this interesting post on the Daily Telegraph blog today, by Andrew Webb:

"Much of my wife's family come from Abkhazia, and they tell a different story to yours [Michael Abele]. The daily Russian shelling of Sukhumi, the murderous rampages by Abkhaz separatists and Russian "volunteers" the daily bombing and sniping, the massacre of refugees by separatist militia, the raping and looting. Wrong was done on both sides, but the Russians did the worst. I have many friends and relatives, ethnic Georgians, Russians and Abkhaz, who are all refugees from Abkhazia, here in Tbilisi. How do you explain that 87% of the population of Abkazia fled into the rest of Georgia? Do these people not have a right to return home, just as your wife and her family? The reason for the isolation of the nasty little regime in Gudauta of Ardzinba, was the fact that he had committed ethnic cleansing on a massive scale.

Try reading Svetlana Chersonavya's book "Conflict in the Caucasus" for a balanced view. She too was an eye witness, and she firmly blames Moscow and the Abkhaz separatists for the worst excesses of the conflict, the funny thing is she was Russian and sent there to write a pro Russian account. The KGB were none too pleased when she told the truth."

writeon
26 August 2008 at 17:57

MichaelP,

You continually lose yourself in detail and miss the larger geo-strategic 'game' that's being played. The United States is determined to confront the Russians, one way or another. This has nothing to do with democracy, human rights, or 'freedom'. It is simply about power, who controls and has access to the vast energy resources of Central Asia and Siberia, and for whose benefit.

We are now in the 'propaganda phase' of the conflict, where our ruling elite 'frames' the enemy in the context of 'bad' whereas we are 'good'.

The same methods were used to demonize Iraq, they are being used against Iran, and they are just as bogus, designed to obscure our real motives which are agressively imperialist, we want their resources for our own use, why is our oil under their ground?

If we really cared about territorial integretiy and national sovereignty, why doesn't the West support the Palestinians, who have been attacked, occupied and driven from their land?

The West really can't have it both ways. But then again we can, because we believe that we make the rules and we make the laws and we judge who is 'good' or 'bad'. But underneath all the rhetoric one finds our insatiable appetite for markets and resources. That has been the real 'Western model' for centuries, the very root of Western expansionism and imperial rivalry and conquest.

What makes the current situation so dangerous is that 'the West' is confronting a rival 'imperial' power in the shape of Russia. Your simplistic and naive belief that one of these competing 'Mafia clans' is 'good' whist the other is all 'bad' is rather touching, and at the same time rather frightening.

john61
26 August 2008 at 21:22

the americans are the source of most of the wars lately. they have and will use any stooge such Saki the sicko and the neonazi to commit genocide genocide to realize their world domination. THEY HAVE TO BE STOPPED NOW.

Ari Rusila
26 August 2008 at 23:33

Federation Council, the upper chamber of the Russian parliament, is backing independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia - Georgia's two rebel provinces. The vote came after a brief war between Russia and Georgia following Georgia's assault on the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali Aug. 7. President Medvedev is too supporting independence. Both countries won de-facto independence in the 1990s after wars with the government in Tbilisi. The road which started from Kosovo UDI seems to continue long because it is estimated that there is about five thousand ethnic groups on globe.

After Georgia's separatists my bet is that in Europe Transnistria could be the next breakaway province. Let's look this maybe next new state closer:

Pridnestrovie - also known by the unofficial name, Transnistria - is a new and emerging country in South Eastern Europe, sandwiched between Moldova and Ukraine. Although widely seen as part of Moldova, historically, Pridnestrovie and Moldova were always separate. Throughout 2500 years of history, the Dniester River forming the current border has been a traditional border between Slav lands (Scythia, 450 B.C.) to the East and Romanian lands (Dacia) to the West.

The population is some 550.000. The inhabitants of Pridnestrovie are for the most part Slavic. This is in stark contrast to Moldova, on the other side of the Dniester River, where 4/5ths of the population are of Romanian descent and where ethnic Russians and ethnic Ukrainians only make up 6 to 8 percent, respectively.

Pridnestrovie meets the requirements for sovereign statehood under international law, as it has a defined territory, a population, effective elected authority, and the capability to enter into international relations. It is currently seeking international recognition of its de facto independence and statehood.

The economy of Pridnestrovie is a mixed market-based economy. Following a large scale privatization process, most of the companies in the country are now privately owned. The economy is export-oriented and based on a mix of heavy industry and manufacturing. According to the latest data from the nation's Customs, Pridnestrovie - which is also known as Transnistria, or Transdniester - now trades with 99 foreign countries.

Source and more info about Transnistria e.g. from

www.tiraspoltimes.com and

http://arirusila.wordpress.com

FKJuliano
27 August 2008 at 01:57

What galls me about this whole issue is the rank hypocrisy the U.S. and its vassal states are (once again) displaying. How can one logically and morally be opposed to the independence of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transdnistria on the grounds that the recognized borders of a sovereign state cannot be altered and at the same time affirm the right of Kosovo to secede from Serbia? This is one example of real-life doublethink that even the unfortunate denizens of the world of "1984" would have some trouble swallowing.

Ronald Reagan said in 1983: "I believe that communism is another sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages even now are being written." That was prescient, but little did he know that was true of the USSR then is now equally true of his own exalted USA. The world is tired of a nation that is bankrupt in every conceivable way, ruled by criminals, and inhabited by half-literate yahoos, arrogating to itself the right to lord it over the whole world in a way that is not only high-handed but highly stupid. Thank God for their asinine policies that have produced terminal trade and budget deficits, thank God that for the subhuman beast they put in charge of their of their government, and above all thank God for Peak Oil, which will mercilessly dismantle their "non-negotiable" way-of-life.

When that long-awaited but fast approaching day comes, that of the Fall, the world will recall another American, this one truly worthy of admiration, who was persecuted by his government and finally paid for his integrity with his life. In the words of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.:

"Free at last. Free at last. Thank God almighty, we are free at last."

FKJuliano
27 August 2008 at 01:59

By the way, long live the free and independent Kingdom of Hawai'i.

FKJuliano
27 August 2008 at 02:30

One more thing: michaelpetek rather pathetically cited a paper entitled "No Comparison between Kosovo and South Ossetia" from something called the Public International Law and Policy Group, as if it were a respectable academic tract that should be given consideration. The publishing entity claims to be a "a 2005 Nobel Peace Prize nominee, is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, which operates as a global pro bono law firm providing free legal assistance to states and governments involved in conflicts." What it is in actuality is a propaganda front of the government of the US government, which among other causes advocates the patently illegal invasion and continuing occupation of the sovereign nation of Iraq. They can be afford to be "pro bono" because they are generously funded by the CIA and other branches of the global Yankee mafia. As to their Nobel Peace Prize "nomination", anyone who wishes can be so honored. Essentially, all it takes is to compose an essay expounding the peaceful virtues of one's nominee (oneself, for instance) and then expedite it to Oslo, where in the case of the Public International Law and Policy Group it will soon make its way to an environmentally friendly Norwegian rubbish disposal facility.

taghioff.info
27 August 2008 at 04:09

@Michael P

"But these people had the citizenship of Georgia, which does not allow dual nationality. They lost their Georgian citizenship when they were naturalised as Russians within the past five years and do not have Georgian residence permits as is required of aliens. "

Life is not so simple. If these areas were majority ethnic Russian, and were so for a long time, it is not clear that the Russian population should move to Russia, just becuase a Georgian state was declared over their heads.

You put the cart before the horse by treating people as secondary to the law, rather then seeing that fundamentally the law is supposed to serve the people. The displacement of 200,000 people is a major trauma, and not just like moving house at all. The legal position on the internationally accepted position of what should happen to people who find themselves in the wrong state, despite having changed neither location nor ethnicity is very unclear, hence Palestine, Kosovo, Darfur etc....

What is clear in all these situtations is that the people on the ground suffer because of the machinations of the powerful, and this is made possible by precisely the kind of de-humanising ways of speaking and doing that you put forward here. This is not a game of chess, it is a power struggle with little by way of rules, and real people being put on the line.

The EU seems wise to this position, and is playing it pragmatically. We do not want a war with Russia, because it costs us far more in Europe than it does for the US, and it is the US's idea in the first place.

What will happen, and this is a fairly pragmatic response, is that the EU will push NATO membership in a way that encricles Russia and thus limits its scope for expansion. This will cost less lives than all out war, and like most European solutions, will be slow but effective.

Meanwhile the hotheads will call for war, justified by whatever principles they can lay their hands on. But we do not want a big war in our backyard, and Georgia has played into the American agenda to get one, and has paid the price.

Michael P, you are playing in to the US power moves, and thus are complicit in Georgia's fate. If you really want peace for Georgia, you should be calling for people to sit tight and play the long game for NATO membership. This is not a matter of Genitals, but a question of making intelligent moves to avoid war.

gcarth
27 August 2008 at 14:06

"You continually lose yourself in detail and miss the larger geo-strategic 'game' that's being played." says 'writeon' in his excellent summary of Western and global thinking.

Michael Petek clearly has an issue over Russia. Of course it is true to say that Russia has been guilty of terrible crimes over the centuries but Russia has also contributed immensely to the world's arts and culture - especially the western world. Every nation I can think of(even the peaceful but once belligerent Sweden) has a history of dark deeds.

M. Petek is undoubtedly an exceptionally intelligent man but I find it quite disturbing, through all the sophistry, to observe , such intelligence undermined by his deeply ingrained prejudices. His kind of intelligence is dangerous. This kind of initially plausible but flawed intelligence is the kind that the NWO neocons rely on to enable them to rationalize and propagandize their arrogant but plainy stupid agenda.

Lisa Clark
27 August 2008 at 14:54

I wrote this message, addressed primarily to MichaelP, in the comments to Larisa Sotieva's piece, also published on 21 August. But I have a feeling that that string of comments has dried up. It is, in many ways, pertinent to the discussion going here as well.

To writeon:

pls. accept my feelings of solidarity, we forgive all your typos as you reacted to Michael's remark about the Wehrmacht.

To MichaelP:

I agree with practically nothing you say. But I don't think anything I could say would help you change your ideas. Except for one analogy you made (where I found your words so offensive to Larisa):

the correct analogy for South Ossetians receiving Russian citizenship would not be someone living in England (maybe you meant a recent immigrant!), but rather a German-speaking South Tyrolean in that part of northern Italy that borders with Austria (I am writing from Italy). Or, more poignantly, Bosnian Serbs living in Bosnia getting Serb passports (which of course were the only passports they could ever get during the war). Or Kosovan Albanians living in Kosovo getting Albanian passports.

All these examples are of peoples/communities who have always lived in that land: it is the land of their forefathers, where their cultural roots lie. In areas where there is a conflict of a minority (that is, incidentally, a majority in its own region) pitted against a central government, the quick-fix solution you offer (they had five years to move to Russia ...!) is to preach ethnic cleansing at best, genocide at worst. If Larisa and her people did not take the chance they had to get out - you seem to imply - they had it coming to them! I am shocked, but I hope that you had not really worked out the implications of what you said.

Perhaps you should apologize to Larisa, and to writeon, too.

michaelpetek
27 August 2008 at 22:44

Take a look at the Times website right now. It's reported that South Ossetian troops are murdering and ethnically cleansing Georgians living in the buffer zone in Georgia proper.

I won't go as far as to say this is genocide, because I believe in using the term accurately and according to its genuine meaning. I won't even say this is a crime against humanity, as there'sno evidence that it's being committed on a wide enough scale. But it's definitely a war crime committed within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, of which Georgia is a member.

If you look at the history of the twentieth century you'll see that, if ethnic cleansing were an Olympic sport Russia would hoover up so many gold, silver and bronze medals that there wouldn't be any left for anyone else.

That's why the northern part of East Prussia is entirely Russian-speaking today, though it was as solidly German-speaking within living memory, as when my mother was growing upin the bit they gave to Poland.

(Don't get any ideas! Her father set out to kill Hitler, of which I am well proud!).

She was evacuated by the German military authorities in late 1944 with her mother, sister and two brothers. There was nothing unlawful about that, as it was for their own safety.

Actually, that's what I've been advocating for anyone in Georgia who has Russian nationality, except that in their case it's because they are illegal aliens. In fact a faIr portion of the South Ossetians have taken their Russian passports and migrated of their own accord to all parts of Russia because that's where the job opportunities are.

The bit about "land of their fore fathers" doesn't impress me either. My maternal grandparents were Polish, my mother German, my father and paternal grandfather Slovenian and my paternal grandmother Hungarian. I'm a citizen of the United Kingdom and of no other country.

I don't see why I should have the run of these other countries as of right just because my ancestors are buried there. I lived in Germany as a student and I had to get a residence permit, valid for my periodof study. . But I wouldn't have considered myself a victim of ethnic cleansing if, having overstayed, the German police had picked me up bodily and carried me to the French border.

The 1997 European Convention on Nationality is a treaty which Russia has signed, but not yet ratified. Article 7 provides:

"1. A State party may not provide in its internal law for the loss of its nationality ex lege or at the initiative of the State party except in the following cases:

(a) voluntary acquisition of another nationality . . . "

If you want to read the rest of it google it, and if you think this kind of provision qualifies as an act preparatory to ethnic cleansing or genocide, then consider this.

The Russian government expects the world to believe that a 24-hour military assault by Georgia's little army on a single town qualifies as genocide, less than five months after the lower house of the Russian parliament insisted that Stalin's extermination by famine of 7-10 million Ukrainians doesn't.

By the way, the German-speaking South Tyroleans are Italian citizens, aren't they?

FKJuliano
28 August 2008 at 04:29

So michaelpetek is American. Not exactly a big surprise. What I wonder is what his reaction would be to the following scenario: in 2018 the US government is officially bankrupt and thoroughly discredited, much like the USSR in 1991, and the new Mexican majority in the American Southwest, which includes California, Texas and everything in between, declares independence and establishes their long-dreamed of República de Aztlán. Like Georgia did with South Ossetia soon after its independence, Aztlán outlaws double citizenship, thus forcing the erstwhile Americans to become citizens of a country with which they do not at all identify and which is in fact inimical to them, or pack their bags and leave.

The only difference between this hypothetical and the Georgia-South Ossetia conflict is that the Ossetians have a much stronger claim to their land than the Americans do in the US Southwest, having been there since time immemorial, while most Anglos are not even native to the region that they conquered only a century and a half ago. Regardless, I would be willing that Petek and his compatriots, hypocrisy through long practice having become second nature to them, would be foaming at the mouth at the "injustice" of it all.

michaelpetek
28 August 2008 at 06:25

FK Juliano, there's one bit missing from your narrative.

We'll assume that Aztlan emerges to statehood wuthout the illegal intervention of another state (unlike S Ossetia). The erstwhile Americans become citizens of Aztlan automatically by state succession.

The Americans have two choices. They can stay there as Aztlan citizens. Or they can opt for US citizenship, and when they lose their Aztlan nationality in consequence they can apply for a residence permit. If they get one they can stay. If they don't they can pack their bags and leave.

Suppose the new state is inimical to them. They can try to secede from it, and if they do it without illegal assistance from another state, they'll get their own as well. If Aztlan commits genocide or crimes against humanity, then they'd be entitled to assistance including by the use of military force if it came to it.

writeon
28 August 2008 at 06:59

There's actually a far 'simpler' 'argument' for Georgia having the ligitimate 'right' to use military force to take back it's territory from the 'Russian' illegal aliens now occupying the breakaway regions.

Using 'international law' as way to 'de-ligitimize' Russia morally and show that they are in the wrong doesn't really work and becomes incredibly complex and loses most people. And anyway, as any have decent student of law knows, trying to use something as complex and ill-defined as international law to 'prove' who is 'right' and 'wrong' in a conflict is a recipe for confusion and endless debate. How many Georgians or South Ossetians can balance on the end of a Kalashnikov exactly? Didn't Alexander the Great find a solution to the problem of the Georgian Knot by slicing through it with his sword?

Instead of recource to 'international law' I believe one should concentrate on the issue of 'ethnic cleansing' which has artificially altered the ethnic make-up of both regions over the last eighteen years, since the first 'civil war' and the independence of Georgia. In both regions, it is alleged, Georgian majorities were systematically driven out turning them into minorities and they haven't been allowed to return. The new 'artificial' majorities can now freely claim to be 'democratic' and have the moral right to self-determination having 'rigged' the ethnic balance in their favour.

So the current regimes in the two breakaway regions don't really have a legal, moral, 'democratic' or ethnic 'right' to sefl-determination or independence from Georgia. Therefore, the Georgians have every right to feel agrieved and use force against them. The aliens are like temporary lodgers who suddenly demand the right to stay, without paying rent and then start to demand that you move out of your own house!

Ah, if only the real world was so simple. One is tempted to wonder where the Georgian majorities in both regions originally came from in the first place? Who really decides where and when the borders on maps are drawn?

As a final aside; of course it isn't only the evil, agressive, wrong 'n' bad, Russians who use the term 'genocide' loosely and for propaganda purposes. The West does it all the time. If one looks at the way 'genocice' was used, and defined, in relation to the fighting in Kosovo and the resultant NATO intervention, one will find that the Russian use of the word is every bit as 'correct' and loaded as our own.

michaelpetek
28 August 2008 at 14:34

The Russian use of the word 'genocide' evidently doesn't extend to the 'holodomor' the systematic slaughter by starvation of 7-10 million Ukrainians in 1933.

The State Duma denied that this was genocide, even though the archive evidence is overwhelming that Stalin intended to destroy, in part, the Ukrainian ethnic group, as such.

He signed the last of the laws and decrees implementing it in December 1932,and by March 1933 Ukrainians were dying at the rate of 25,000 a day, 1,000 an hour, 17 a minute.

Hitler authorised the Final Solution in December 1941, but it wasn't until the Hungarian Jews were sent to Auschwitz in 1944 that the gas chambers and crematoria ran at their maximum capacity of 10,000 per day.

So Stalin killed more Ukrainians in a year than Hitler killed Jews in four.

That's why I watch Russia's creeping rehabilitation of Stalin with foreboding. He's running neck-and-neck with Peter the Great in a TV poll for Greatest-Ever Russian (even though he was Georgian).

If Russians vote in a big majority for Stalin, then they will lose my sympathy for the suffering they endured in the Second World War. I find it difficult enough as it is to forgive them for not dynamiting that statue of Uncle Joe while they were occupying Gori.

Actually, I don't recall the term 'genocide' being used to justify the NATO attack on Kosovo. Cases before the International Criminal Tribunal relate, as far as I can find in regard to Kosovo, to crimes against humanity. These already provide enough justification for the use of force.

If you think all these allegations are figments of someone's Serbophobic imagination, then I take it that you're seriously thinking of a career as the David Irving of Balkan holocaust denial.

HappyFlower
28 August 2008 at 17:11

Michaelpetek, you are being disingenuous with your comments about the Ukrainian famine of 1933. There is no reputable evidence to support your claim of 7-10 million deaths. Most non-partisan historians attribute the famine to a combination of natural causes and government economic mismanagement. They reject the politically charged claims of Ukrainian nationalists and their sympathisers that the famine was deliberately engineered. Furthermore, they point out that the famine affected all nationalities of the region in proportion to their representation in the overall population. None of this is to say that the central government wasn't grossly negligent and culpable for what happened, but you can't call it genocide without debauching the true meaning of that word. It bears no sensible comparison to the actions of Nazi Germany, which actively pursued a clearly defined policy of exterminating specifically targeted groups of people, based on their ethnicity. Finally, you must have a very selective memory if you don't recall the word "genocide" being freely thrown about by the US and NATO during the Kosovo conflict. But, as you said, crimes against humanity provide sufficient justification for the use of force, in any event. Saakashvili committed such crimes when he embarked on indiscriminate shelling of South Ossetian civilians and Russia's response by force was therefore entirely justified. Saakashvili should now be sent to the Hague for trial.

michaelpetek
28 August 2008 at 18:05

HappyFlower, one of the things I really hate is to have to deal with holocaust deniers.

Andrew Gregorovich writes that there were in fact two Ukrainian famines in 1932-1933. The 1932 famine was local, and due to the callousness and ineptitude of the authorities.

But the 1933 famine was different. Between August and December Stalin signed laws and decrees which could have no effect but genocide through starvation. Theft of socialist property - even as much as a few grains of wheat - was punishable by death. The Ukraine was sealed off from the outside world including the rest of the Soviet Union.

People were forbidden to leave their local area and railway stations in the Ukraine were forbidden to sell tickets to locals. If anyone tried to take food into the Ukraine it was confiscated, and anyone trying to get out could be stopped, arrested or shot.

We know that the harvest did not fail that year, as Ukrainian soil produced enough food to feed everyone. As the famine raged in Kharkiv region the neighbouring region of Belgorod in Russia was unaffected.

Now, it really will not do to protest that the famine affected non-Ukrainians in the area. Of course it did - how could it not? But that's irrelevant. Stalin's measures were also applied in Ukrainian ethnic areas outside Ukraine in the Caucasus, in the Kuban region and along the Volga.

But they were clearly enough aimed at the Ukraine as at no other particular part of the USSR. Stalin killed and despoiled Ukrainians with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the Ukrainian ethnic group, as such.

As for Saakashvili's shelling of Tskhinvali, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court is on the case, and I'd be very surprised if he holds him indictable for crimes against humanity committed in just a day.

An essential ingredient of a crime against humanity is a widespread and systematic attack against a civilian population.

HappyFlower
29 August 2008 at 02:07

Michaelpetek, you hate holocaust deniers? Yeah, me too. I’m also not too crazy about people who resort to smears and insults during a debate instead of arguing the merits of the issue. You can smear me if you want to. I won’t cry over it. What is of more concern is that you are smearing reputable non-partisan historians who have undoubtedly spent more time looking into these events than you have.

You commented on the “effect” of government policy and decisions with regard to the famine and that is exactly my point. There is no definitive evidence from which you or anyone else can conclude that it was a deliberate policy of genocide, within the accurate meaning of that word. All that you, I or anyone else can do is examine what information is available, make inferences and draw conclusions. Ultimately, that is all we can ever do when looking back at historical events because conclusive evidence to attribute causes and motives is more often than not just not available.

I have simply pointed out in my previous post that the conclusions you have drawn in relation to this event are at odds with the conclusions drawn by mainstream historians. Your view (and that of Gregorovich, whom you quote) is on the extreme end of the scale. Does that mean I am right and you are wrong? Not necessarily, but I am looking at this with an open mind and I am more inclined to accept the conclusions and opinions of reputable non-partisan historians than the slanted interpretations and opinions of someone like yourself, who seems to be nothing more than an amateur pseudo-historian with a patently Russophobic agenda.

The Ukrainian famine was undoubtedly a human tragedy and it is perhaps an insult to those who perished to be arguing over semantics and playing the blame game 75 years later. But, an accusation of genocide is a serious matter and, since you chose to raise this issue as part of an attack on the present day Russian government and its politicians, your extremist opinion and rhetoric has the potential to fan the flames of further hatred and conflict and thus cannot go unchallenged.

michaelpetek
29 August 2008 at 08:15

HapplyFlower, try googling the names Danilov and Zelenin, whose knowledge of Soviet archives is unrivalled, and look for references of Stalin's secret decree of 22 January1933.

Then observe Russia's creeping rehabilitation of Stalin, and tremble.

HappyFlower
29 August 2008 at 17:16

Michaelpetek, I did as you suggested, followed your leads and found myself transported to various Ukrainian nationalist and émigré websites, where the “historians” seemed to be performing all sorts of interesting intellectual gymnastics and obfuscations in a desperate attempt to interpret the facts, evidence and so called “secret decrees” in a way that would support the conclusions they had already decided they wanted to reach, before even starting out on their “analysis”.

Perhaps I am being too hard on them. I’m sure they are/were diligent employees and presumably on the payroll of the organisations on whose websites they appear and so were simply producing the opinion they were asked and paid to produce. In any event, I was disappointed. I went there in search of the smoking gun you promised me and failed to find even a water pistol.

I’m sorry, but it really is difficult to take your leads seriously. However, even if I were to suspend my disbelief for one moment and accept the sincerity and intellectual honesty of these people, it still all comes down to a question of interpretation and the scholarly record clearly shows that there are differing interpretations in relation to this issue.

Since you were kind enough to offer me these leads, I will in turn refer you to the likes of Tauger, Davies and Wheatcroft. I believe they offer a more impartial and reasoned analysis of the facts and evidence. You may disagree and I suppose you will accuse these scholars of being communists or Russian apologists. If so, well that’s fine. You are entitled to your opinion and we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I think we have however demonstrated that this is an area of genuine debate and controversy in the academic world. You may be interested in pushing a particular interpretation for political purposes, but I don’t think that gives you the right to smear as “holocaust deniers” the legitimate and impartial scholars who have different interpretations and have reached different conclusions. Your approach might be a good way to stifle dissent (Stalin would no doubt have approved), but it is intellectually dishonest.

As for the Russian rehabilitation of Stalin, I wouldn’t worry too much about that, if I were you. That’s one competition the Georgians seem to be winning at the moment. Saakashvili is clearly a fan and that lovely statue in Gori has been getting a lot of publicity lately, hasn’t it?

michaelpetek
29 August 2008 at 18:53

HappyFlower, you're David Irving, aren't you?

michaelpetek
29 August 2008 at 19:19

By the way, excellent article by Robert Parsons here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/29/georgia....

HappyFlower
30 August 2008 at 07:31

Michaelpetek, your sadly predictable "David Irving" comment unfortunately tells everyone here much more about you than it does about me. If you can't win the argument, resort to smears. Enough said.

Mishania
31 August 2008 at 19:36

I read the comments, and , I must admit the level of the argument is very high. In order to avoid all misaunderstanding I have to say that I am Russian. I also have to say that I support Medvedev and Putin despite the fact that I loathe some of their internal policies re the pension law etc.

Let me add some first-hand knowledge of a person who was everywhere during the Soviet times: in Georgia many times, in Abkhazia and in South Osetia. I was in London in August 2008 when the war started. My God, the propaganda I had been seeing and reading...

I met with an American Air Force Major...At a Notting Hill cafe... He didn't even know that the Americans had been supplying the Georgians with the most sophisticated weapons... What bloody for, may I ask? And the Brits (the government that is) is the forefront of the whole thing. The game was clever and calculating. Putin has won. Americans have lost. Lost millions of poumds of their military hardware and most importantly, their image. Of course they are furious. But then again, I know Americans and respect them. I know the British and respect them. I know the Georgians and respect them. I know Osetians and I just love them.

Unfortunately during my trips to the Soviet Georgia I saw such things I thought could never occur in a civilised country. The subjugated position of women - they couldn't even sit at the same table with men. Attacks on single women in the streets of Tbilisi. Raping of women. The cult of money over justice. Many Brits and Americans know about this. But they are silent.

Saakashvili is building a society with all the trappings of a Western civilasation but using the old Georgian habits of a small empire. Georgia is for the Georgians! If you are born an Osetian, you would probably mind this slogan. It's like Britain is for the English! Rings the bell?

You surely don't want to start another Crimean War. Another attack of the Light Brigade and then monuments to the fallen heroes? And who cares about the fallen Russians? Leo Tolstoy was writing about them...

I saw Osetians in the early 90-s when Zviad Gamsakhurdia attacked them - that was a nation under a threat of annihilation. Does that mean that if you call yourself a Western democracy you can kill and displace 200,000 people!? Let you listen to their stories and hear therir cries in Osetian, Georgian and Russian... Maybe then your heart melt...

Yours truly...

writeon
31 August 2008 at 22:06

Happyflower,

Militant, rabid, nationalism doesn't respect argument, or logic or facts. These things not only don't matter, they are irrelevant and a source of irritation, cured by a jackboot in the face.

The point is to be on the 'right' side as opposed to the 'wrong' side. Good versus Evil. You are either with us or against us! Nationalism is a dangerous hybrid that is designed to appeal to the heart not the head. Projecting an emotional response onto a set of circumstances or problems, rather than cool, level-headed, objective analysis.

In fact rationality is seen as a sign of weakness and betrayal of the 'national cause', one places oneself outside the 'folk' and the consequences of this can be disasterous for the 'other folk' who often lose the right to be called a 'folk' and end as a 'sub folk' and one knows where they eventually end up, as smoke!

Trying to debate with militant nationalists is futile. They don't want to talk. They want war. War is at the very core of Nationalism gone wild. It's like a mental desease and when it goes untreated leads to chaos and disaster.

michaelpetek
01 September 2008 at 18:08

Here's an interesting report:

http://georgiandaily.com/repository/CACI%20-%20Russias%20war...