Georgian Update: A Different War
Russian envoys say that one of Russia's objectives in attacking Georgia is to remove its president, Mikheil Saakashvili.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made the statement in a phone conversation with Condoleeza Rice, the American secretary of state, saying that Saakashvili "must go." And Russia's envoy to the United Nations, Vitaly Churkin, confirmed the gist of it publicly afterward in a conversation with Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. envoy to the U.N.
If they are representing Moscow's true intentions -- they could simply be floating a trial balloon, or engaging in traditional local bombast -- the West is facing an entirely different foreign policy crisis. That is, the forcible change of a Western-backed, democratically elected leader hosting highly strategic Western economic assets.
Other reports: The New York Times reports that Russian ground troops have left South Ossetia proper, and are marching on the Georgian-held town of Gori. Another (Russian language) report is that -- in the western part of the country near Abkhazia, Georgia has agreed to allow Russian peacekeepers to conduct joint patrols with the United Nations and Georgia of the town of Zugdidi. Both reports also suggest an important shift in this two-day old conflict.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made the statement in a phone conversation with Condoleeza Rice, the American secretary of state, saying that Saakashvili "must go." And Russia's envoy to the United Nations, Vitaly Churkin, confirmed the gist of it publicly afterward in a conversation with Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. envoy to the U.N.
If they are representing Moscow's true intentions -- they could simply be floating a trial balloon, or engaging in traditional local bombast -- the West is facing an entirely different foreign policy crisis. That is, the forcible change of a Western-backed, democratically elected leader hosting highly strategic Western economic assets.
Other reports: The New York Times reports that Russian ground troops have left South Ossetia proper, and are marching on the Georgian-held town of Gori. Another (Russian language) report is that -- in the western part of the country near Abkhazia, Georgia has agreed to allow Russian peacekeepers to conduct joint patrols with the United Nations and Georgia of the town of Zugdidi. Both reports also suggest an important shift in this two-day old conflict.
Labels: georgia, nato, Putin, Russia, saakashvili
10 Comments:
Mr. (Dr.?) LeVine, any educated guesses on Moscow's ideal replacement for Saakashvili? Are either Okruashvili or Shevardnadze THAT opportunistic? Basically, who in Tbilisi hates Saakashvili enough to become Moscow's man? (Or woman; I suppose Nino B. is a distant possibility, though her nationalist creds are pretty robust.)
Welcome DJT: This is where this scenario flummoxes me. My understanding of Georgian politics is that, unlike in Chechnya, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the Russian embrace would be political suicide. Even if one would grab that straw for reasons of ambition or hatred of Saakashvili, she/he would be rapidly swallowed up by Georgian nationalism. This makes me wonder whether Lavrov and Churkin were free-lancing. How about yourself -- do you have a guess? Best Steve
Whether the Russian government wants Saakashvili out or not, he has committed political suicide by doing one thing Europe has begged him not to: escalate the regional conflicts. I suppose American intentions are less clear. I would also like to note that the press has consistently avoided discussing the political factors within Georgia that created the decision to retake S.Ossetia. It was a massive blunder, and so it's hard to imagine anything but dire changes in Tbilisi.
Thanks Steve. Even with all these on-site reporters, I still can't gauge Georgian public mood. Will they rally around Saakashvili or string him from a rope? If he can spin this as "Blame the Yankees for hanging us out to dry," then he just might hold on, and any domestic opposition is automatically branded as treasonous.
Yes, the big contingency is that Lavrov's "he must go" quip was negotiable. That sounds naive, but Moscow's overriding post-war diplomatic priority will be Western acquiescence to Georgia losing S.O. and Abkhazia. Leaving "Misha" in charge of a bombed-out Mini-Georgia could be tolerable if his Western patronage is finished. And that seems inevitable now; either his own nationalist posturing blames us, or he becomes too autocratic for us to condone. And again, it's all incidental if Ivan doesn't stop at Gori anyway.
But as for who gets the privilege of being the next President of Georgia ... (exaggerated shrug)
So Steve, do you think the recent statement from the Georgians (about Russia attacking the BTC pipeline) was just a matter of drawing Western attention to Georgia's plight and get the US more interested in ending the conflict?
Although Moscow has "clarified" Lavrov's statement, Russia's intentions could be no less clear. Regarding what client they could recruit as their pawn, there is always a willing candidate and it is not necessarily constructive to speculative as to whom that might be (Okruashvili, recall, has been convicted in absentia and when he was MinDef, he was MORE of a sabre rattler on S.Ossetia than Saak). While your skepticism about Moscow's hotting pipelines is well heeded, recall the mantra of recent book: "anything goes." The bear has taken its first brazen swipe at a democratic, Western country. Little reason for it to stop now.
I think that Georgia was trying to hit Washington's hot button by claiming a bombing attempt on BTC. That wasn't serious. Georgians will rally around Saakashvili. Unlike Chechnya, no Georgian would stand up as a pro-Russian candidate. If one did, she/he would be politically dead within minutes. The only way MS is out is if the Georgians themselves push him out. And his replacement would not be pro-Russian; perhaps less outspoken, but the policies would be similar.
Steve,
I have been following this off and on over the weekend, amazing to see in the 21st century but maybe not too surprising coming from the "new Russia".
What are your thoughts on comparing this to Hitler's armies marching into the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia whereby Germany was responding to supposed "separatist demands" from the large German population there? Sounds like Russia in this scenario, stating they are merely "honoring Ossetian desire for reunion" with Russia. And, will NATO, the West, USA stop it forcefully? Probably not, just UN resolutions apparently.
All ridiculous when one goes through the looking glass, but fascinating to compare.
Keep up the great work!
--Vincent
Steve,
Isn't it best if Georgia accepts Russia's current demands: a) pull out the troops from S.Ossetia and b) sign a legally binding agreement for both sides not to use force? Then Georgia can focus on boosting its economy and the standard of living of its people. S.Ossetia will grow poorer under the continued FSB/Ministry Defence joint venture with criminals because that group's sole interest is embezzling the money the Kremlin sends to support the breakaway province. Then you will have a classic Cold War example: West Berlin vs. East Berlin, South Korea vs. North Korea, with the bulk of S.Ossetians wanting to live a decent life just like those in the next village on the other side of the hill. Both Washington and Bruxelles will be happy to pour funds into Georgia to realize this scenario. And in the short-term, there is an added bonus: every shell fired into Georgia proper will be more damaging to Russia and S.Ossetia. Plus, no more obstacles for joining NATO for there won't be any potentially violent instability in Georgia any longer.
N.: this has gone beyond simply pulling out of South Ossetia and signing an agreement. It's clear that Putin wants much, much more. As for comparisons with Czechoslovakia, I refrain from that emotion-laden precedent. I think it's not useful. Thanks both of you and best, Steve
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home