The Call of Past Regrets
Iraq is an interesting prism through which to look at Georgia. After the 1990 Gulf War, certain intellectual quarters in the U.S. regarded Iraq as undone business -- neo-cons and others wanted to go back and remove Saddam Hussain as a priority.
One wonders whether just this sort of thinking is at least partly a motivation for Vladimir Putin's relentless push on Georgia.
The antecedent in this case would be 1993, when Russian-backed separatists in Abkhazia seized power, and triggered a drive by other anti-government forces onto the capital of Tbilisi. I was reporting for Newsweek there when the drive was halted about an hour and a half west of Tbilisi, ironically by Russian forces sent to keep the country from outright disintegrating.
In Moscow, some may regret that moment, which saved then-President Eduard Shevardnadze. Perhaps they wish that the rebels had captured power, and installed a perhaps more pro-Russian leader.
The main thing I learned about Russia while researching Putin's Labyrinth is that, in pursuit of its aims, Russia practices a policy of bespredel, or anything goes. By way of example, one case I used was the 2006 murder of KGB defector Alexander Litvinenko with a nuclear isotope, which seemed about as stark as one might get.
But the current Russian assault is another dramatic case of bespredel. If Russia's aim were to secure the lives of repressed peoples, as Putin claims, that was accomplished early with the Georgian flight from South Ossetia.
But the Russian push out of Abkhazia and into the town of Senaki, and the reported occupation of police buildings next door in Zugdidi, demonstrates a broader objective.
The Georgians have announced that the country is effectively cut in half now; it previously had said that its troops had withdrawn to protect Tbilisi. I wonder whether all the soldiers made it since Georgian troops stationed in the West might be trapped on the other side of Gori, which is now in Russian hands.
If in fact Putin is seeking a return to unfinished business, he may be disappointed.
Georgia isn't Chechnya, where President Ramzan Kadyrov was installed by Putin and is happy to do his bidding. No Georgian politician would allow himself/herself to be injected into power; and if one did, he/she would last about five minutes. Any replacement for the reviled Mikheil Saakashvili might not be as ascerbic, but would be just as pro-Georgian and anti-Russian.
One wonders whether just this sort of thinking is at least partly a motivation for Vladimir Putin's relentless push on Georgia.
The antecedent in this case would be 1993, when Russian-backed separatists in Abkhazia seized power, and triggered a drive by other anti-government forces onto the capital of Tbilisi. I was reporting for Newsweek there when the drive was halted about an hour and a half west of Tbilisi, ironically by Russian forces sent to keep the country from outright disintegrating.
In Moscow, some may regret that moment, which saved then-President Eduard Shevardnadze. Perhaps they wish that the rebels had captured power, and installed a perhaps more pro-Russian leader.
The main thing I learned about Russia while researching Putin's Labyrinth is that, in pursuit of its aims, Russia practices a policy of bespredel, or anything goes. By way of example, one case I used was the 2006 murder of KGB defector Alexander Litvinenko with a nuclear isotope, which seemed about as stark as one might get.
But the current Russian assault is another dramatic case of bespredel. If Russia's aim were to secure the lives of repressed peoples, as Putin claims, that was accomplished early with the Georgian flight from South Ossetia.
But the Russian push out of Abkhazia and into the town of Senaki, and the reported occupation of police buildings next door in Zugdidi, demonstrates a broader objective.
The Georgians have announced that the country is effectively cut in half now; it previously had said that its troops had withdrawn to protect Tbilisi. I wonder whether all the soldiers made it since Georgian troops stationed in the West might be trapped on the other side of Gori, which is now in Russian hands.
If in fact Putin is seeking a return to unfinished business, he may be disappointed.
Georgia isn't Chechnya, where President Ramzan Kadyrov was installed by Putin and is happy to do his bidding. No Georgian politician would allow himself/herself to be injected into power; and if one did, he/she would last about five minutes. Any replacement for the reviled Mikheil Saakashvili might not be as ascerbic, but would be just as pro-Georgian and anti-Russian.
Labels: georgia, Putin, putin's labyrinth, Russia, saakashvili
8 Comments:
Wait a sec. When you say 'other anti-government forces', are you talking about Zviad Gamsakhurdia?
Because if so, nobody in Russia is wishing that he'd won. Gamsakhurdia was Saakashvili 1.0 -- just as nationalist, but meaner and dumber. And he hated Russia and Russians from the bottom of his curdled little heart.
Doug M.
Welcome Doug. Zviad precisely. Zviad himself would not have lasted long. I interviewed him at the time both in Grozny and Zugdidi. He was already as nutty as a fruitcake. The Russians would probably have sought a substitute. Thanks for picking up on that. I'll link to him and repost. Best Steve
Steve:
It seems slightly inappropriate for someone of your stature to be making such accusations against Russia.
You wrote:
"... But the current Russian assault is another dramatic case of bespredel. If Russia's aim were to secure the lives of repressed peoples, as Putin claims, that was accomplished early with the Georgian flight from South Ossetia..."
Russia has specifically reiterated that it is attacking military installations in Georgia proper. It is Russia's opinion (maybe not yours) that in order to prevent another reckless assault by Saakashvili on South Ossetia or Abkhazia it, Russia, needs to fully neuter Georgia's military capability.
The question of whether these actions are disproportionate or not is quite subjective. Based on Saaks statements and history I think that Russia is correct to knock out his military capabilities.
Russia has stated multiple times during the last 48 hours that it is not intending to taker-over Georgia. In fact, a Reuters correspondent is reporting from Gori that there are no Russian troops inside the city. This while the Georgian officials scream "the sky is falling."
Russia's response has been tough but certainly not indiscriminate. Therefore, your use of the term "bespredel" is inappropriate.
To even bring up the Litvinenko affair, for which you have no hard proof of Russian government involvement, is not only inappropriate but also irresponsible for someone like yourself.
Timothy Post said...
Russia has specifically reiterated that it is attacking military installations in Georgia proper.
To which I reply: sure, they say that. But why should we believe them? We have all seen the pictures now from Gori and Senaki. It is obvious they are hitting civilan apartments.
Timothy Post said...
It is Russia's opinion (maybe not yours) that in order to prevent another reckless assault by Saakashvili on South Ossetia or Abkhazia it, Russia, needs to fully neuter Georgia's military capability.
TWIR: that may be their opinion, but you miss the point. They are exceeding their mandate as 'peacekeepers' by doing this. Such an action is much more appropriate for conquerors.
BTW: conquerors often deny their motive is conquest. Why would Russia be any different? Do you really expect us to believe Russian spokesmen are more honest than all the other conquerors in recent history?
Hi Tim. Thanks for the comment.
Bespredel does not imply indiscriminate, at least not in my dictionary. It can mean without limits, but I specifically cited the also-accepted translation 'anything goes.'
In his conversation with Condoleeza Rice, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov specifically said that MS had to go. When confronted on that discussion, U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin acknowledged Lavrov's remarks. Yesterday, I raised the possibility that Lavrov was free-lancing and did not have authority to make that demand. Yet, given his position in government, the remark is certainly as credible as statements to the contrary from other government officials. And I would characterize that stated aim, along with the presumption of the right to neuter the military might of another country, as 'anything goes.' The removal of a head of state and the neutering of the state's military, at least in my book, is bespredel.
Moreover, after Chechnya, I would argue that Putin is rich indeed to point fingers about tactics used in Georgia.
Regarding Litvinenko: as you know I argue in Labyrinth that Putin is complicit in the murders and deaths profiled in the book because he created the atmosphere in which they could take place with impunity. In today's blog posting, I might have used more carefully chosen words -- not suggesting proven direct Russian state guilt in the Litvinenko affair; but a convincingly alleged Russian role nonetheless. It is not as the Kremlin suggests -- that since no one has been convicted, ergo the allegations have no standing. That's not how it is in that part of the world. The guilty are rarely convicted, and if one goes by Western rules of justice, one would almost never be able to adequately analyze the situation.
Thanks again for the comment and best, Steve
From everything I can tell, he started off pretty nutty. Khrushchev's people put him in a psych ward for a while in the late 50s. Of course his real 'illness' was being a nationalist and a dissident, but if you weren't a bit funny going into a Soviet mental health spa, likely you were coming out. Certainly his subsequent career did not give strong evidence of mental stability.
I made sort of a study of him a while back, and was impressed -- in a 'my god can this really be as bad as it looks' sort of way. A bit later, my first intimation that Saakashvili might not be all that came when he abruptly revived the Cult Of Gamsakhurdia.
-- Now I'm curious. What was he like when you interviewed him?
Doug M.
Doug, I actually spoke with him twice in Zugdidi, and once (in March 1992) in Grozny. It would be better if I look back at my notes, which I do have, but I recall thinking in the Grozny interview that this was a totally normal guy stuck in a bizarre world with his wife (whom I also met). So that when I met him again, there was quite a contrast, with hysterical claims of atrocities, and predictions of imminent and glorious conquest. I recall feeling that this fellow wasn't going anywhere -- he would remain in Zugdidi.
Steve, I was still very young when Gamsakhurdia became the president of our newly independent republic, but quite frankly, as you said, it was impossible to ignore the complete irrationality of the person, although his father was very eloquent and a very well known writer in Georgia. Although many tried to hype up Zviad's talents and multi-lingual abilities, his whole outlook on politics and beyond were far from "normal"...
Clearly the initial seeds of the problems we are experiencing now, including this terrible war escalating by the day were planted during Zviad's time and in many ways through his actions and "moves" from the day he assumed power in Georgia.
Thanks for keeping an eye on what's going on back home, Steve.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home