Russia relentlessly provoked conflict with Georgia: former Putin deputy

If you support a progressive agenda, then support a progressive candidate.

The conventional wisdom among my friends on the left is that Georgia is primarily responsible for their conflict with Russia over South Ossetia and Abkhazia. If G. Walker Bush condemns the Russian intervention, then the Pavlovian response must be that Georgia deserves what they get for being friendly with Bush. Oddly, they do not apply such logic to the genocide in Darfur, which Bush has also deplored.

The left-wing conventional wisdom is that Georgia launched an unprovoked military action in what is internationally recognized as their sovereign territory and they did so just for shits and giggles. Conventional wisdom further states that Russia was a disinterested, neutral party until this point and launched Operation South Ossetian Freedom for the sole purpose of protecting South Ossetians.

No word on why Russia continues to occupy undisputed Georgian territory long after the truce. No word on Russia's fairly explicit desire for regime change in Tblisi, including comments by the Russia's head of state referring to Georgia's president as a living corpse. No word on Russia's fairly explicit militaristic desires, which resulted in Russia's head of state bragging that the Georgian invasion showed that Russia was a country to be reckoned with.

To many on the left, occupying a sovereign country is bad when the US does it but someone else's fault when Russia does it.

Trying to impose regime change on another country is bad when the US does it but someone else's fault when Russia does it.

Militarism is bad when the US does it but someone else's fault when Russia does it.

I've heard outrageous apologias for the Russian aggression, such as "When you mess with the bull, you get the horns."

I can imagine R. Bruce Cheney saying the exact same thing to Saddam. (Sure, Saddam never did anything to America. But neither did Georgia ever do anything to Russia)

I've heard ethnic cleansing trivialized. The only bad thing about burning villages and expelling people, apparently, is that it's a waste of perfectly good lodging.

I can imagine Slobodan Milosveic saying this to his militias.

These deplorable comments were not made by far right militarists but by members of the left.

One of the consistent lines is that while Russia might have overreacted just a tad (a remarkably restrained definition of 'just a tad'), Georgia threw the first stone. So if Russia wants to emasculate Georgia as punishment, then Tblisi deserves what it gets. They deserve whatever Russia unilaterally imposes, because Georgia started it. After all, Russia has the right to tell its former colonies who they can and can't be friends with and what political and military alliances they can and can't join.

But this premise, that Georgia launched this unprovoked action in South Ossetia just for the heck of it, even true?

Not according to the man who was once a close ally of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, Russia's de facto leader and architect of its new imperialist foreign policy.

Mikhail Kasyanov was named Russian prime minister, shortly after the Putin became president in 2000.

Far from Georgia being the primary aggressor, Kasyanov claims that Putin and Russia "relentlessly provoked the conflict in every way."

And when the Georgian leadership 'gave in' and took Russia's bait, the Kremlin, '"instead of fulfilling its peacekeeping mandate, started a large-scale war against the independent sovereign state of Georgia. Not only the disproportionate use of force, but in fact a full-scale war."

Putin's former deputy added that "it was obvious that the Russian authorities were amazed by the reaction of the civilized world... That is why it's crucially important that countries of the civilized world act in unison."

He also pointed out how Putin's regime is relentless whipping up nationalist hysteria to support its militaristic policies. "The propaganda streaming today from television screens and newspaper pages is, in a simplified way, calling on the nation to rally together and to protect the motherland. Hinting that war is on the threshold, that the enemies are knocking on our gates and that Russia is surrounded by enemies who want to break Russia into pieces... They want to cover the problems they've created in the last few years . . . by alleging that evil forces surround Russia and dream of its destruction."

Remember, these aren't the opinions of Mikhail Sakashvilli or of some Georgian nationalist or of some Russophobe. It comes from the mouth of the man who used to be the number two to Russia's current strongman. Maybe he's saying something worth taking into consideration.


The interview with The Los Angeles Times is a very interesting perspective from someone who once worked closely with Putin. The full interview can be accessed here

South Ossetians party like it's 1099!

Following their liberation by the magnanimous Russian imperial armed forces, South Ossetians have chosen to celebrate their newfound 'freedom' by engaging a series of ethnic cleansing parties.

Human Rights Watch (obviously a huge fan of the Bush administration's great respect for the rule of law) has reported that its researchers have personally observed South Ossetians burning ethnic Georgian villages, 'massive looting' by Ossetian militias in Russian occupied territory, to say nothing of liberating 'Russian tanks systematically firing into the homes.'

Additionally: "Human Rights Watch researchers spoke with several members of the Ossetian militias who openly admitted that the houses were being burned by their associates, explaining that the objective was to ensure that ethnic Georgians would not have the houses to return to."

My initial reaction is to deplore this ethnic cleansing. But rest that if the Bush administration condemns these actions, I will retract my criticism and give these freedom parties my seal of approval!

'Koran abuse' worse than ethnic cleansing?

If you support a progressive agenda, then support a progressive candidate.

I read an interesting article in The Chicago Tribune about the spin coming from the Russian and Georgian governments recently. A few interesting tidbits:

Regarding hysterical Russian claims of genocide:

"Genocide is what's happened," said Russian Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov, a longtime member of Putin's inner circle. "Widespread physical destruction—with artillery shells, tanks and guns—of thousands of Russian citizens. Basically, an ethnic cleansing operation was carried out."

But when Human Rights Watch researchers talked to doctors at Tskhinvali Regional Hospital, they were told that most of those killed in the capital were brought to the hospital, and the toll was 44, a count that included combatants and civilians. Bodies were not taken to the city morgue because the fighting had knocked out the city's electricity.

"That's 44 too many, and clearly unacceptable," said Marc Garlasco, a senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch. "But the Russian propaganda machine is clearly working very hard right now."

And regarding allegations that Georgia arbitrarily launched an unprovoked assault of South Ossetia for no particular reason, the Tribune piece reports:

Much of the information war has focused on who instigated the conflict. Russia has repeatedly insisted that Georgia waged its assault on South Ossetia unprovoked. "Who, after all, started military action in South Ossetia?" [Russian de jure president] Medvedev said at a news conference Friday. "Was it Russian peacekeepers, Russian forces or the Georgian army?"

Medvedev did not mention the barrage of shelling from South Ossetian separatists directed at Georgian villages that preceded the Georgian assault. While [Georgian President Mikheil] Saakashvili has been widely criticized both in Georgia and in the international community for overreacting to the South Ossetian shelling, the beginnings of the conflict were not as black and white as the Kremlin has portrayed.

But while Georgia's shelling of a town drew loud condemnation from the much of the North American left, 'massive'* Russian bombardement of Georgian civilian areas merits barely a mention.

(*-Human Rights Watch's description)

A Human Rights Watch (HRW) report weighed in on the situation.


It notes that both armies have used 'indiscriminate' force at various times in the conflict. It criticized the Georgians for "indiscriminate force during their assault on Tskhinvali [the South Ossetian capital] and neighboring villages."

HRW has "confirmed the Russian military’s use of cluster bombs in two towns in Georgia."

It also reported that the Russian military has 'targeted' civilian convoys fleeing the conflict for aerial bombing. It also accuses the Russian military of "Ongoing looting, arson attacks, and abductions by militia are terrorizing the civilian population, forcing them to flee their homes and preventing displaced people from returning home."

In other words, Georgia's crime was recklessness. Russia's crimes were conscious and planned. Both are unacceptable, but they are not equal, neither in intent, nor in scale.

Another HRW report accuses South Ossetian militas, armed by Moscow, of burning and looting Georgian villages. Essentially, the same ethnic cleansing that Russia attributed to Georgia... except far more fitting of such a high charged phrase.

The North American left's response to all this? Silence. Or some half-hearted apologia that tosses in a little token criticism of Russia while implying that Georgia got what it deserved for befriending Bush.

The progressive left shouldn't stick their finger in the wind, find out what the neo-cons argue and base their principles on the opposite. If the progressive left is going to claim to stand against imperialism and for human rights, it must unequivocally condemn all war crimes and all militarism, including Russia's.

Certainly, ethnic cleansing and targeting fleeing civilians for bombing are at least as worthy of outrage as 'Koran abuse.'

Satire is impossible with reality like this

If you support a progressive agenda, then support a progressive candidate.

Launching an unprovoked aggression against a foreign country under the fake pretexts of protecting security and human rights with the real objectives of seizing the country's resources and imposing regime change on a defiant government.

According to the Bush administration, such behavior 'has no place in the 21st century.'

President Bush himself called such behavior “bullying and intimidation" and demanded the invaded country's sovereignty and territorial integrity 'be respected.' He also said that such actions damaged the invading country's credibility and international standing.

By all accounts, this was said with a straight face.

My guess is that the Bush administration uses the Ethiopian calendar.

Under that system, March 2003 was in the 20th century.

Top 'diplomat' admits Russia's true expansionist intentions in Georgia

Russia's original position when it launched its aggression against Georgia was that it was merely bitchslapping an insolent little child as 'punishment.' It claimed that once the child cowered into proper obedience to its master, Russia would stop its 'defensive' action.

Perhaps realizing that its actions have revealed its words as lies, especially after basically ignoring the 'cease fire' they agreed, Russia has finally admitted what was its true desire from well before the invasion: annexing Georgian territory.

Russia's foreign minister told the press that the world "can forget about any talk about Georgia's territorial integrity" because it has unilaterally decided that South Ossetia and Abkhazia don't want to remain part of Georgia.

If this is really the case, then Russia would surely have no problem letting its occupation force be replaced by UN peacekeepers while the international body conducted a referendum so that South Ossetians and Abkhazians could decide their own futures rather than being dictated to by Moscow. (wink/nod)

Can you imagine the international outrage if under Saddam's rule, the US snapped its fingers and unilaterally declared that Iraqi Kurdistan would henceforth be an American commonwealth like Puerto Rico?

Some have asked why I'm giving Georgia's President Sakashvili a free pass. That's not true. I've stated several times that the military action in South Ossetia was reckless stupidity of monstrous proportions. I read yesterday that US Sec. of State Rice said she warned Sakashvili several months ago not to provoke Russia.

But it's true I've criticized him far less than Russia's de facto leader Prime Minister Putin. And the simple fact is that Sakashvili's sin of grotesque stupidity is far less grave both in moral terms and geopolitical implications than Putin's sin of aggressive imperialism. I view Russia's actions as a) far more dangerous to international stability and b) at best debatable in fact and totally out of control in scale. Both countries are wrong but I'm not going to pull a moral equivalency here. I'm far more critical of Russia because I believe they are far more wrong.

If there's compelling evidence from an objective source that Sakashvili is implicated in war crimes, then by all means he should be indicted. However, that 'objective' source can not be any Russian government official, especially Vladimir Putin crying 'genocide'... the same Putin who himself should've have been put up on war crimes and crimes against humanity charges years ago for Chechnya.

I understand Russia's fear of being 'surrounded' (at least on the west) by NATO countries. But on the other hand, I also understand the desire of most European former Soviet states to gain the protection of NATO membership.

It started with things like Russia meddling in Ukraine's domestic politics and poisoning the then-opposition leader; the man is now Ukraine's president and, not shockingly, isn't buddy-buddy with Putin. It continued with things like Russia's apparent cyberattack on Estonia. It's escalated with Russia cutting off energy supplies to former satellites for being pro-western, such as Poland and Ukraine. And it's reached its peak with Russia's aggression against Georgia. Well, let's hope it's the peak.

Let's not forget that places like Poland spent 45 years under Russian domination.

Let's also not forget that places like Georgia and Ukraine spent most of the 20th century as conquered lands under the formal subjugation of the Russian empire after being conquered.

So if these countries are mistrustful of Russia's true intentions, I'd say they have pretty darn good reason. The invasion of Georgia followed by Russia's now explicit desire to annex* parts of this small country only illustrates this wisdom of this mistrust.

(*-Excuse me, I mean re-annex)

Regime change is also widely believed to be a main objective of the invasion. Russia has declared it won't talk to the Georgian government until Sakashvili reigns. Reports suggest that Russian tanks continue to advance into Georgia, well beyond the zone of conflict, despite the cease fire Russia agreed to.

Russia has spent most of this decade destabilizing South Ossetia and enabling the criminal gangs there with close links to elements in the Kremlin. They'd fabricated an excuse to meddle in South Ossetia by giving passports to every Tom, Dick and Harry in the land. They'd whipped up anti-Georgian sentiment not only in South Ossetia but in Russia itself. All these factors were carefully planned pretexts to an invasion and annexation they obviously wanted for a long time... as evidenced by the statement of Russia's foreign minister.

What exactly was Georgia supposed to do in the face of all these years of provocation and destabilization of its territory?

Bear in mind, this is a country that twice in the last two centuries has been conquered and annexed by imperial Russia.

And it's a country that, we know now, Russia has designs on it yet again.

It seems Russia was always going to annex South Ossetia and Abkhazia one way or another. They seemed content on doing it slowly but had obviously prepared to do it quickly. Sakashvili's decision gave them a chance to fast track the process. But it was something that looked like was going to happen either way, regardless of what Sakashvili did.

International opinion seems clear on what Georgia should NOT have done, but what exactly WERE they supposed to do?

When Libya sent arms to the IRA in the 1980s, Britain was furious. Arming secessionists is only one aspect of Russia's destabilization campaign in South Ossetia.

When French President de Gaulle went to Montreal in 1967 and stoked Quebec nationalism, Canada was livid. The mass outrage was provoked by three little words: 'Vive le Québec libre.' This is less than peanuts compared to what Russia was doing in South Ossetia even before the invasion.

But when Russia does far worse to destabilize South Ossetia (before the full scale invasion), Georgia is supposed to say nothing, do nothing and hope their behemoth neighbor with a repeated history of conquering it might decide to play nice?

Again, critics make it clear what Georgia should not have 'provoked' Russia by trying to re-assert control over its territory, but what exactly should they have done?

I hate to say it but some countries are going to look at this and conclude, "If Georgia had nuclear weapons, they wouldn't have been invaded."

Then, some countries have looked at the invasion of Iraq and the non-invasion of North Korea and concluded the same thing.

Russia's Anschluss against Georgia

"I looked the man in the eye. I was able to get a sense of his soul ..." George W. Bush on Vladimir Putin, 2001


Although Russia occupies a sixth of the world's land mass, apparently this is not enough for the new Russian imperialists.

While Americans are focused on their quadrennial obsession with fencing and competitive kayaking, a war has broken out half way around the world. The Russian military has invaded the Republic of Georgia, in the apparent hope of annexing at least part of the country.

A little history is order. Shortly after the breakup of the Soviet Union, the region of South Ossetia unilaterally declared independence from the new Republic of Georgia. This declaration was not recognized by anyone other than Moscow. The region has had de facto autonomy since then. Over the last few years, Russia has stoked secessionist sentiment in South Ossetia as part of its comprehensive campaign to intimidate and destabilize former Soviet states that dare flinch from Russian domination. Just ask the Ukranians. Russian imperialism in Georgia has included the arming of separatist groups and the arbitrary attribution of passports to South Ossetians. This was done in order to create Russian citizens to invent the excuse for Moscow that its intervention in South Ossetia was 'to protect Russian citizens.'

Last week, the Georgian army was sent in to try and retake control of the breakaway region. Russia says its military intervention is solely designed to protect the Russian citizens in South Ossetia from alleged abuses by the Georgian army.

Yet the Russians have advanced deep into Georgia territory, coming within 60 miles of the Georgian capital Tblisi. This is far away from the zone they are allegedly there to protect. They also invaded the western part of Georgia.

Georgia's government claims the invasion is an attempt at regime change. The country's American-educated president has cultivated close ties with the US and Europe and this has infuriated Vladimir Putin's government*, which doesn't take kindly to any country trying to leave its sphere of domination. The tension has been excaberated by the fact that Georgia's president came to power via elections that ousted the country's pro-Russian government.

(*-Belligerent Russian imperialism started under Putin's presidency and has continued during his recent transition to the prime ministership, where observers believe he remains the country's most powerful man)

This op-ed in The Christian Science Monitor claims that the conflict is not all Russia's fault. It accuses Georgia's president Mikhail Saakashvili of overestimating the value of his country's partnership with Washington. But it also claims that Russia's invasion is solely to 'protect' South Ossetia. Even if this were a legitimate reason to invade a neighboring sovereign state, then why have the Russians invaded huge chunks of Georgia far beyond South Ossetia itself?

The clear purpose of Russia's aggression is to punish what it sees as Georgia's insolence in acting like an actual independent country. The invasion is not just a message to Georgians but also a warning to Armenia, Azerbaijan, Ukraine (not that it needed any warning), Kazhakstan and any other former Soviet republic that defying Moscow's diktats will have severe consequences.

This is only the most serious and criminal example of Russia flexing its muscles. It meddled in Ukraine's domestic political situation, even trying to poison the pro-western opposition candidate who eventually became president. Russia has also used its energy supplies to punish regimes that dared show independence from Russia. It's cut off gas supplies not only to Ukraine and Georgia, but also to Poland and Belarus. These all occurred not long after disputes between those governments and Moscow.

The American aggression against Iraq has backfired against the US by encouraging, rather than discouraging, countries like Iran from developing nuclear weapons. As this piece from TIME magazine pointed out, Russia is playing a dangerous game that just might backfire in the same way.

Russia is incensed that many former Soviet republics, including Georgia, want to join NATO. Many former Soviet republics are fearful of expansionist desires in the goliath neighbor. Russia's apparent attempt to annex at least part of Georgia will remind those countries precisely why they so desperately want the western alliance's protection.

According to reports, Putin has stoked anti-Georgian sentiment in Russia itself for severals. According to a poll discussed on the BBC, more Russians view Georgia as national enemy number one than even the United States. Putin also expelled thousands of ethnic Georgians from Russia.

Russia's incessant fueling of separatist activity in South Ossetia and their sudden pious concern for human rights in that region is more than a bit disingenuous considering how brutally the Russian army crushed a separatist movement in their own breakaway region of Chechnya with precious little concern for human beings.

Washington has criticized the Russian invasion. But when it comes to condemning an illegal of aggression by a giant army against a smaller but sovereign nation designed to unilaterally impose regime change, install a pliant government and seize its resources, the Bush administration's credibility is somewhat less than zero.

What should be done is this. Georgia should accept for the UN run a referendum in South Ossetia where the people can vote on remaining part of Georgia, becoming independent or joining Russia. But it must only do so after Russian troops have completely left all of Georgia and been replaced by UN peacekeepers. No credible vote can occur while the Russian jackboots are in South Ossetia... let alone beyond.

In response to Russia's massive invasion, Georgia has recalled all of its troops home from Iraq, where it was the largest contributor of soldiers behind the US and UK. It's ironic that Georgian troops will go from participating in an imperial occupation to combating one. Maybe this will make them see the light.

I'm sure it's too much to expect the same of Vladimir Putin.


Update: In an interview with BBC World television, Pres. Sakashvili accused the Russians of expelling all ethnic Georgians from occupied South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Further update: In case there's any doubt about Russia's hardly benign intentions, the country's foreign minister has demanded that Georgia's president resign. And Russia's (de jure) president bragged about beating what it views as an insolent little child by proudly declaring that Georgia had been 'punished.'

Yet another update: As this snipet from Foreign Policy reminds us, this is hardly the first time the Georgian Republic has been threatened by the Russian hegemon. Also this BBC report explains how the noble, peace-loving Russians respect cease fires they agree to. You'll note, yet again, how Russian violence is occurring far from the zone of conflict they pretend their intervention was only designed to protect.