Meanwhile, over in Georgia

cheney says russian aggression "will not go unanswered" wtf does that mean? is the us really gearing up for military conflict with russia?

It means "strongly worded letter to follow."

seriously tho, shit is scary.

anyone really think the us is going to get involved militarily?

after hearing bush talk about it, not really. seems like the most they're gonna do is help georgian troops get back home from iraq to help out.

The U.S. can't get involved militarily with Russia, not that it would be advisable in any form. The logistics of our troops in Iraq+Afghanistan are hardly sustainable as is.

god, i hope so.

So as the situation worsens with fighting spreading to Abkhazia and Russia's naval presence storms the Black Sea... at the Security Council mtg Russia was launches into a litany of grievances held over from the past 4-6 years against the US when told it must pull out immediately.

Fucking great. Thanks for setting the precedent Cheney.

Isn't this also what this admin was warned against regarding preemption in 2002?

http://www.rferl.org/content/Heated_Words_But_No_Action_On_UN_Security_Council/1189975.html

Khalilzad's angered Russian counterpart, Vitaly Churkin, fired back that accusing Russia of terrorizing the civil population is "absolutely unacceptable."

"Now, let me say about Mr. Khalilzad's statement regarding 'terror' against the civil population," he began. "Such a statement, honorable Mr. Khalilzad, is absolutely unacceptable; moreover when it comes from a representative of a country whose actions with regard to the civil population are well known in Iraq, in Afghanistan, even in Serbia."

They can - and will - use Iraq to justify anything.

Georgia's hopes of joining NATO are comatose; its sovereignty on life support

Sorry for lack of editing in that post and all my posts for the last 7 years; pulling an all-nighter again here, and don't care to self-edit. Oh, ILX, how I explain myself to thee

>>anyone really think the us is going to get involved militarily?

-- jeremy waters, Sunday, August 10, 2008 9:04 PM<<

No but considering McCain was saying talking about expelling Russia from G8 *last* week this whole thing couldn't get more serious on a diplomatic front.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-07-29-voa68.cfm

Richardson calling McCain out yesterday lol - http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=66226§ionid=3510203

Good commentary from Moscow Times:

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/article/1016/42/369524.htm

The G8 expulsion could once again divide the world order into pro-U.S. and pro-Russian domains. The world's rogue states would eagerly join a pro-Moscow bloc, and this would make it difficult for the United States to fulfill its key foreign policy objectives. At a time when Washington intends to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions, secure loose nuclear materials, stabilize Iraq and achieve resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it cannot afford to instigate a Cold Peace in U.S.-Russian relations.

Hell, even quintessential hawk Bolton opposed McCain's expulsion idea - as of last week :
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/07/29/john-bolton-questions-mccains-foreign-policy-proposals/?mod=googlenews_wsj

Been trying to think who Saakashvili reminds me of, I think it's Rupert Pupkin in "The King of Comedy".

^

The totally underrated Institute for War and Peace Reporting has had reporters in the Caucasus writing regularly for the past several years -

http://www.iwpr.net/?p=crs&s=p&o=-&apc_state=henh

I've been quite surprised by how one-sided the reporting of this conflict has been on the Beeb and elsewhere

But all down to rolling news tho, innit? We have film and lots of juicy photos of Georgian civilians suffering and dying in Gori but we don't have anything from South Ossetia; we have the Georgian President, who speaks good English and likes to put on a performance for the cameras while the Russians aren't saying much and they're all a bit faceless and grey anyway.

Check out 'background'.

http://indepth.news.sky.com/InDepth/topic/Georgia

People actually *watch* the news to see dying and suffering civilians -- nobody gives a crap about background or context. Explaining complicated and sensitive political issues that require one's concentration = boring. Dead people = ratings.

i read ilx for the challops

They can - and will - use Iraq anything to justify anything

They can has anything

nobody gives a crap about background or context.

Speak for yourself.

In the middle of South Ossetia, the formerly quiet village of Kheiti is now a hive of activity.

A newly-built red-roofed block of flats sits in an empty swathe of land. The site around the building, all mountains of sand and cement, is swarming with trucks, cranes and other heavy machinery, all of them busy constructing new apartment blocks here.

The red-roofed building is home to 30 Ossetian families, who were moved here by (the pro-Georgian “provisional administration” of South Ossetia, led by Dmitry) Sanakoyev... in early November.

...

This ... administration of South Ossetia has provided each of the 30 families with a flat equipped with new household equipment and furniture, as well as with the sum of 6,000 laris (around 3,800 dollars).

In addition, one member from each family has been given a job in the temporary administration and receives a monthly salary worth 500 US dollars, which is paid onto a plastic card and can be drawn at a bank near the block of flats.

One Kheiti resident, who wished not to be named, told IWPR that the work was a pure formality, and the new employees were receiving the money for doing nothing.

“In actual fact, they do no work”, he said. “They are simply registered as employed and get wages.”

The apartment block has a central heating system, and is served by guards, cooks and maids round the clock, all free of charge. This prosperity is causing resentment among other locals.

Life is tough in the Georgian villages a short distance from Kheiti, and the locals do not conceal their anger at the luxuries being enjoyed by the Ossetian arrivals.

“We are nearly starving,” said Robinzon Babutsidze, 51, who is unemployed and lives in the village of Kvemo Anchabeti. “We can’t find jobs. We used to make a living by selling apples. But the Tskhinvali road has been closed for a long time, and taking apples to the market by the detour road is too expensive.

“Instead of helping us, they brought in Ossetians to Kheiti, who live there as if they were presidents. Is this what we fought for in the Nineties?”

Georgia’s Showcase in South Ossetia
http://www.iwpr.net/?p=crs&s=f&o=342149&apc_state=henfcrs342276

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/08/war_in_south_ossetia.html

Beautiful pictures, though taking pleasure from them does make me feel a bit guilty. I wonder how distant a war needs to be before aesthetics win over compassion?

Looks like Russia isn't backing off any time soon. I'm guessing this will end with regime change in Tbilisi, and yet more bleating about Western hypocrisy in protesting this when it's just the same as Milosevic in the Hague. I wouldn't fancy being Saakashvili right now. He either flees exposing him for a western stooge (cue more bleating) or, what? What happens to renegades sent to answer to Moscow these days?

On the other hand, Ivanov is on telly just now absolutely denying that Russian troops will cross into Georgia-proper. It's like Schrödinger's Cat in there.

For someone who gives a crap about background and context: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200011/kaplan-georgia

Good historical info arguing that this Caucasus region was never wholly "Western"... before getting more recent

belgravia comes out of retirement for this:

http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/2008/08/georgia_on_my_mind.html

Noticed that as well. (And have been tartly dealing with a commenter who is resolutely missing the point.)

That Atlantic article is fantastic

Surprisingly informative Dealbreaker forum on the conflict in 2 parts:

http://dealbreaker.com/2008/08/qa_on_wtf_is_going_on_with_rus.php
http://dealbreaker.com/2008/08/qa_on_wtf_is_going_on_with_rus_1.php

so what is russia actually trying to do here?

assert territorial hegemony

is western military involvement still unlikely?

hell yes.

no one in the west is sending their army over there no way in hell

although it's funny that we gotta give up some of our fighting buddies in iraq.

Khalilzad indicating US is gonna play the Hezbollah-style cleanup role here. There are some noises about G-8 action, but it seems dependent on what Russia does now (i.e. on Abkhazia?) and not all that likely.

Good job by former NY corporate lawyer (and Columbia Law grad) Saakashvili, but it's not like Putin isn't being a dick and taking full advantage

So from the little I've read it seems as if Georgia were totally banking on the US/NATO coming in to boost their numbers when they started this off. And of course that hasnt happened (did they forget Iraq was going on or something?), and Russia have issued smackdown and I just read an article quoting some Georgian soldiers saying "we have democracy and this is how the US repays us, by spitting on us, where are they?".

I am finding this all a little confusing but I'm sure I'm not the only one.

More context: Greenwald interviews Pro. Charles King.

"Mr Saakashvilli may also have banked on support from his closest ally, US president George W Bush, whose administration is said to have given tacit support for a Georgian assault on South Ossetia in the believe that the territory could be recaptured within 48 hours. "

from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2529986/Georgia-conflict-Screams-of-the-injured-rise-from-residential-streets.html

so who really knows.

If its true BushCo quietly said "go git em, it'll be a pushover and we'll back you up" and are now standing back and ignoring the whole thing, thats pretty damn cunty.

ya, not like him at all.

LOL well, I certainly wasn't suggesting it was a suprise.

I spent most of yesterday telling people here (Moscow) that I found it absolutely unimaginable that what everyone here believes -- that Saakashvili would've never ordered an attack without the full and explicit support of Washington -- was simply unimaginable. That Bush, given everything else he has going on in the world, plus his abysmal approval ratings, would approve military action by an unstable government in a tiny country that would be *guaranteed* to enrage the Kremlin (and, in the height of bad taste, do it just as the Olympics were beginning). No sale.

The front page article on one of the business papers here yesterday called on the government to raze Georgia's infrastructure and throw the country into chaos, otherwise the world community would never give Russia the respect it deserves (and virtually in that language). Admittedly you didn't read that everywhere, but that's a publication focused on business news.

From the beloved Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...easefire.html#

One pro-government tabloid, Tvoi Den, claimed that President Saakashvili made a suicide attempt because he realised the war was lost.

'His bodyguard knocked the gun out of his hand at the very last moment,' said the paper, which also claimed the 40-yearold president was mentally ill and spiced its report with lurid allegations about his sex life.

Thanks for committing nationalistic suicide first! If the Larson post that Belgravia linked to is accurate - most def. worth reading here - http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/08/09/georgia-and-russia/ - then Mr. Saakashvili has been anticipating this for a hell of a long time:

Soon after taking office, he succeeded in regaining Georgian control over the southwestern province of Ajara. Then, in the summer of 2004, citing growing banditry and chaos, he sent Interior Ministry troops into South Ossetia. After a series of inconclusive clashes, the troops were forced to make a humiliating withdrawal.

Not to mention the April 21st phone call Belgravia claims in which Putin explicitly warned Saaky to knock it off or else. I can't sympathize much for Saaky or his WSJ op-eds asking for Western intervention now - only with the Georgian people

Unless, of course, the rumors of an American bait-&-switch re: NATO are actually true. Then I can sympathize with Saaky. Still not advisable to go around kicking waking bears though, is it?

That Belgravia post again, which is excellent: http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/2008/08/georgia_on_my_mind.html

Man, I just hope we're not in the early days of some Threads-like situation.

From the Greenwald inteview with Charles King to which I linked above:

GG: One of the things that's a little difficult to understand is this idea that Georgia miscalculated what would be Russia's response. I mean, hasn't Russia been fairly unequivocal in the past, including the recent past, about that fact that they did intend to defend those provinces from incursions by Georgia, or an attempt to sort of take away their semi-autonomous status. It is really a surprise that Russia reacted the way that it did?

CK: Well, it's not a terrible surprise, but I think you also have to look at things from the Georgian perspective. Over the last several years, Georgia has become increasingly convinced that it's a real partner of the United States, that the US would defend Georgia - practically regardless of what Georgia did - that Georgia was simply reasserting control over bits of territory that are still internationally recognized as Georgia's own.
--------------------

Given the US's precarious condition militarily - where we're occupying two countries, fighting two wars - versus Russia's strength, and then you look at the aspect of soft power or moral credibility, there's that exchange in the UN where the US ambassador to the UN said that Russia had intended 'regime change' in Georgia, to which the Russian ambassador replied that that was an American concept, obviously referencing Iraq. Even if the US were inclined to do more, and Georgia's expectations of what we would do had been accurate, what would really our options be to intervene in any meaningful way in this conflict in a way that would influence Russia?

CK: Well, it would be absolutely impossible, I think. A great deal at this stage, in strict technical terms, not to mention the possibility of escalating what is really a very, a rather small and localized, however tragic, conflict into a confrontation between two major world nuclear powers. I mean, one can't imagine that scenario unless Russia pushes things much farther forward. I do think at the stage the ball is really in Russia's court.

From the US perspective, this is of course an illegal operation, it wasn't sanctioned by the United Nations, it doesn't fall under any kind of UN Security Council mandate, but so far, in fact the Russians have exercised a degree of restraint - that is to say, you haven't see, at least as of this morning, bombing of major Georgian cities. A few pieces of munitions seem to have gone astray, the city of Gori was hit, there may be some indications the city of Zugdidi, which is near the border with another secessionist entity, may have been hit. But these are cities are very near the zone of conflict.

yeah we don't have much of a leg to stand on here. Thanks, dubya.