How Does Regime Change Feel On The Other Side?

This has the feel of unintended consequences.

Putin criticized the United States for viewing Georgia as the victim instead of the aggressor, and for airlifting Georgian troops back home from Iraq on Sunday.

"Of course, Saddam Hussein ought to have been hanged for destroying several Shiite villages," Putin said in Moscow. "And the incumbent Georgian leaders who razed ten Ossetian villages at once, who ran elderly people and children with tanks, who burned civilian alive in their sheds — these leaders must be taken under protection."

Look, there's no doubt that Russia's response, to incur far into sovereign territory and bomb civilian airports and empower separatists, appears disproportionate. But so did the bombing of Baghdad as a response to a terrorist attack they had nothing to do with. The President's denunciations and stern warnings just sound totally hollow. And to hear the Russians tell it, the initial assault on South Ossetia by Georgia has the earmarks of a genocide.

NOTE: It's not completely clear what's happening over there. Georgia is claiming that they're enforcing a cease-fire and yet there are reports of their troops firing on Russian positions. Each side is accusing the other of ethnic cleansing. The Georgians claim that the Russians have taken Gori but there are conflicting reports on that. So all reporting there has to be met with skepticism.

What is clear is that something was offered by the West to Georgia if they chose to blitzkrieg South Ossetia, and the Bush Administration failed to carry through, resulting in an almost impotent response.

Regardless of what happens next, it is worth asking what the Bush people were thinking when they egged on Mikheil Saakashvili, Georgia's young, Western-educated president, to apply for NATO membership, send 2,000 of his troops to Iraq as a full-fledged U.S. ally, and receive tactical training and weapons from our military. Did they really think Putin would sit by and see another border state (and former province of the Russian empire) slip away to the West? If they thought that Putin might not, what did they plan to do about it, and how firmly did they warn Saakashvili not to get too brash or provoke an outburst?

It's heartbreaking, but even more infuriating, to read so many Georgians quoted in the New York Times—officials, soldiers, and citizens—wondering when the United States is coming to their rescue. It's infuriating because it's clear that Bush did everything to encourage them to believe that he would. When Bush (properly) pushed for Kosovo's independence from Serbia, Putin warned that he would do the same for pro-Russian secessionists elsewhere, by which he could only have meant Georgia's separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Putin had taken drastic steps in earlier disputes over those regions—for instance, embargoing all trade with Georgia—with an implicit threat that he could inflict far greater punishment. Yet Bush continued to entice Saakashvili with weapons, training, and talk of entry into NATO. Of course the Georgians believed that if they got into a firefight with Russia, the Americans would bail them out.

Georgia has American and Israeli weapons, a long history with the President, troops in Iraq (until yesterday) and an ally in their quest for NATO inclusion. That they received nothing for all that just shows the limits of cowboy diplomacy and a belligerent foreign policy. We cannot back up the tough talk with action everywhere in the world, and by promoting militarism and aggression, people die. Furthermore, the unnecessary war in Iraq eliminated any claim to the moral authority of saying that Russia invaded a sovereign state.

No wonder Russian "expert" Condi Rice isn't coming off her holiday to get involved. This is a disaster.

FWIW, Anatol Lieven has a good backgrounder. And here's Obama's statement today, which is not cribbed from Wikipedia, to my knowledge. Obama's in a tough spot, because the failed foreign policy of the Bush years has made this crisis almost impossible for us to help manage.

At Least This Means He May Have Figured Out How To Use The Internet

John McCain's statement today on Georgia, ripped off from Wikipedia.

First instance:

one of the first countries in the world to adopt Christianity as an official religion (Wikipedia)

vs.

one of the world's first nations to adopt Christianity as an official religion (McCain)

Second instance:

After the Russian Revolution of 1917, Georgia had a brief period of independence as a Democratic Republic (1918-1921), which was terminated by the Red Army invasion of Georgia. Georgia became part of the Soviet Union in 1922 and regained its independence in 1991. Early post-Soviet years was marked by a civil unrest and economic crisis. (Wikipedia)

vs.

After a brief period of independence following the Russian revolution, the Red Army forced Georgia to join the Soviet Union in 1922. As the Soviet Union crumbled at the end of the Cold War, Georgia regained its independence in 1991, but its early years were marked by instability, corruption, and economic crises. (McCain)

Honestly, I don't care if he ripped off basic biographical facts from Wikipedia, though it kind of diminishes his pretensions to having a rich knowledge of the region. I do mind McCain stealing his ideological outlook on conflicts with Russia from General Jack D. Ripper. Contrary to Georgian President Saakashvili's claim that this is somehow a war for the West (which I think tips his hand as to the level of American support he was promised), his country provoked this war and has consistently tried to needle Russia and cement ties with the West. At this point, calling for Georgia's inclusion in NATO is tantamount to calling for war with Russia. Who would want that? Both sides are very clearly at fault, yet with Russia rumbling toward Tblisi and taking over Gori the Russians are clearly the aggressor at this point. I think this statement, however, is very right.

Russia must be condemned for its unsanctioned intervention. But the war began as an ill-considered move by Georgia to retake South Ossetia by force. Saakashvili's larger goal was to lead his country into war as a form of calculated self-sacrifice, hoping that Russia's predictable overreaction would convince the West of exactly the narrative that many commentators have now taken up.

The commitment of troops to Iraq was also a calculated move on Georgia's part, with the expectation, fueled in the minds of the population, of a quid pro quo.

As a Russian jet bombed fields around his village, Djimali Avago, a Georgian farmer, asked me: “Why won’t America and Nato help us? If they won’t help us now, why did we help them in Iraq?”

A similar sense of betrayal coursed through the conversations of many Georgians here yesterday as their troops retreated under shellfire and the Russian Army pressed forward to take full control of South Ossetia.

America may have wanted this kind of proxy attack or at least a show of force on Russia's border, and the massive response took everyone by surprise. As Dylan Matthews says, this is a disaster for the Bush foreign policy. His "freedom agenda" is in tatters as one of the progenitors of it gets crushed by an adversary; NATO expansion is dead, tensions with Russia are on the rise, and the Iraq "coalition" is seen for what it is, pure realpolitik. There are two responses to this mess - more testosterone-fueled foreign policy that would result in tactical nuclear weapon deployment or worse, or a calmer, less belligerent means of dealing with crisis. Guess which one each Presidential candidate fits.

Escalation

While Georgia is apparently acknowledging a catastrophic mistake by provoking a war with a world power, Russia is not letting up:

Russian tanks and troops moved through the separatist enclave of South Ossetia and advanced on the city of Gori in central Georgia on Sunday night, for the first time directly assaulting a Georgian city with ground forces after three days of heavy fighting, Georgian officials said.

Georgian tanks were dug into positions outside Gori and planning to defend the city, said Shota Utiashvili, an official in Georgia’s interior ministry. He said the city of Gori was coming under artillery and tank fire. There was no immediate comment from Russia.

The Russians are claiming that Georgia has not retreated, and they are not recognizing the truce called for by Georgian leader Mikhail Saakashvili. I think they see an opportunity to pound a Western ally into dust and maybe even take back some of their Soviet-era territory. This is a tense moment for the world.

...oh, and the McCain campaign's claims that Obama is bizarrely in sync with Moscow are laughable, and a typical attempt to paint the Democrat as a scary Communist. McCain is the one with the top advisor who was a lobbyist to Georgia. They tried to pull off a neocon's wet dream of taking on the bug bad bully Russia and they got spanked, like neocon military operations always do. He has absolutely no credibility on this.

Russia, Georgia, South Ossetia

This is shaping up to be a full-blown war between Russia and Georgia for the breakaway republic of South Ossetia. Russia has long maintained peacekeepers in the autonomous Republic, has given Russian passports to citizens there, and after the Kosovar independence it appeared that Russia was encouraging the splinter republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia to break away from Georgia. So Georgia invaded, and Russia has responded by bombing positions inside Georgia; the city of Gori experienced many casualties. Abkhazia is also restless, with their forces moving into South Ossetia (through Russia) and launching artillery strikes in the Kodori Gorge. Jerome a Paris says there are no good guys here:

First, let's be clear: there are two reasons only we care about Georgia: the oil pipelines that go through its territory, and the opportunity it provides to run aggressive policies towards Russia.

Second, let's also be very explicit: this conflict is not unexpected: it is a direct consequence of our policies, in particular with respect to Kosovo (and to all those that will claim that "no one could have predicted" this, let me point out to this comment, or this earlier one, or this article). I would even go so far as to say that it was egged on by some in Washington: the neocons.

Third, our claims to have the moral high ground are totally ridiculous and need to be fought, hard. This is not about democracy vs dictature, brave freedom lovers vs evil oppressors, but a nasty brawl by power-hungry figures on both sides, with large slices of corruption. The fact that this is turned into a cold-war-like conflict between good and evil is a domestic political play by some in Washington to reinforce their power and push certain policies that have little to do with Russia or Georgia. That needs to be understood.

The transit oil pipeline from the Black Sea is certainly a factor here, as are the resources in the South Ossetia region. The Georgian leader Saakashvili has been a committed neocon ally, and this reminds me of a Cold War skirmish where we try to bait the Russians into a guerrilla war with an army we have equipped. American statements, with their focus on "recognizing Georgia's territorial integrity," have certainly come down on the Georgian's side, though I doubt that the US would send troops or even advisers to the region (there are a couple hundred there now preparing the Georgian military for deployment to Iraq, where they have 2,000 troops stationed; given this conflict, Georgia is planning to recall all of them).

Robert Farley has a smart take.

I am less sympathetic to the Georgian case because I think that escalating the war (and providing an excuse for Russian counter-escalation) was a damn stupid thing for Saakashvili to do, and a remarkably damn stupid thing for him to do absent an extremely compelling cause. Small, weak states living next to abrasive, unpredictable great powers need to be extremely careful about what they do; in most cases, their foreign policy should, first and foremost, be about avoiding war with the great power. This is what Saakashvili failed to do. The war didn't need to escalate; it was a Georgian decision to move from the village skirmishes that were happening on Tuesday to the siege of Tsikhinvali on Thursday.

I understand that there can be a bit of "blaming the victim" to this analysis. Russia has consistently pursued imperial aims in its Near Abroad (so does every great power, including the US) and has treated Georgia badly, with a succession of threats, boycotts, and efforts to promote the secessionist forces which are causing the trouble today. Georgia had every right to seek NATO membership in order to limit Russian efforts (although NATO had every right to turn Georgia down). Russia has been a bad actor, but it was nevertheless a terrible and unnecessary mistake to pick a fight with Russia over South Ossetia, not least because the balance of perfidy on South Ossetia is uncertain. This is why I'm unsympathetic to Saakashvili and to his claims that Georgia is fighting for freedom against tyranny. For example, I think that the Taiwanese would be considerably more justified in a declaration of independence from the PRC, but such a declaration would still be reckless, and would leave me less sympathetic to Taiwanese calls for aid.

The United States also bears some responsibility. US rhetorical and material support for Georgia may have given the Georgians unrealistic expectations about likely US behavior in a Russia-Georgia confrontation. Specifically, anything other than "we will not support you in any way or under any circumstances" might have led to the Georgians having the wrong idea.

It looks to me like like both sides of this conflict have little reason to de-escalate, for largely political reasons. Let's hope the international community can put pressure on to end this as quickly as possible.