~by Michael J. Totten

Last month Russia invaded, occupied, and de-facto annexed portions of Georgia. During that time it was difficult, if not impossible, for reporters to see for themselves what was actually happening. I wanted to see for myself what Russia had wrought, but everything behind the front lines was closed.

The breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia were off-limits to anyone without a Russian visa. It takes months to acquire a Russian visa, so traveling to those areas was out of the question.

I tried to get into the occupied city of Gori with Caucasus expert and author Thomas Goltz, but even that city was closed to us though it is inside Georgia proper and beyond Russia’s acquired new territories. Occasionally Russian soldiers would let journalists pass, but Thomas and I weren’t among the lucky few.

So I went to Borjomi, an area that by all accounts was bombed by Russian jets, but was never occupied or controlled by its ground troops. Borjomi is a tourist town next to the Borjomi-Kharagauli National Park – the first of its kind in the Caucasus region – and Russian jets had reportedly dropped bombs in the forests and set the region on fire.

~read the rest at Totten’s website

Or, You Reap What You Sow

I am an American and I love America. I was born here, I live here, and I really cannot imagine living anywhere else. Sure, I would not mind living abroad for a few years, but I would definitely want to return to America eventually.

That being said, I definitely do not agree with everything our country has done. Specifically, what America has done in the Balkans is absolutely disgraceful and terrible. To give but a few specific examples, the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999 and the recognising of Kosovo’s independence. Both of these events, along with many others, are a stain on our great country’s history and reputation.

That is why I cannot help but feel a bit of amusement at the anger of the countries (America, EU countries, and more) who condemn Vladimir Putin’s Dmitry Medvedev’s decision to recognise the independence of the breakaway Georgian region of South Ossetia. Is this not exactly what America and loads of other countries did with Kosovo? What right did Kosovo have to secede from Serbia? Kosovo is Serbian. They had a Serbian majority until the Serbs were driven out. Now Kosovo is a predominantly Muslim nation recognised by many countries around the world. Oh yes, is that not exactly what we need: another Muslim nation in Europe, in addition to the lovely Albania (that was sarcasm).

Since Russia’s war with Georgia, relations with Russia are at an all-time low. Yes, I do think Russia responded with rather disproportionate force in Georgia. Still, I do not think we can blame this entirely on them. America ought to bear some share of the responsibility: it is like a Kosovo for a Kosovo, so to speak. We have been antagonising Russia at the cost of appeasing Islam. We have supported Muslims in the Balkans, even when they have committed unspeakable atrocities (which are then attributed wrongly to the Serbs). Look at the future we face, especially in light of what happened on September 11: is it truly a smart thing to alienate a potential powerful ally? Russia may not be perfect, but they are much less unsavoury than the Islamic countries we have supported, both in the Balkans and not in the Balkans. Both America and Russia’s dalliances with Islamic countries are shortsighted. America and Russia ought to be allies, not enemies.

Map credit.

Originally posted at birdbrain.

It appears that Russia’s favorite dictator is once again stirring the nationalist waters, poking at the US, and generally acting the part of totalitarian hawk.

“U.S. citizens were indeed in the area in conflict,” Putin said. “They were acting in implementing those orders doing as they were ordered, and the only one who can give such orders is their leader.”

Right.

In an exclusive interview with CNN’s Matthew Chance in the Black Sea city of Sochi Thursday, Putin said the U.S. had encouraged Georgia to attack the autonomous region of South Ossetia.

Putin told CNN his defense officials had told him it was done to benefit a presidential candidate — Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama are competing to succeed George W. Bush — although he presented no evidence to back it up.

And here is where the Lefties and the Pro-Russian nationalists join up.  Now if Putin had only tossed in some remarks about the evil Zionists…

If you don’t read Totten’s work, you should.  And for a very close and revealing look at the Russian aggression in Georgia, read his latest piece, reported from Tblisi…

TBILISI, GEORGIA – Virtually everyone believes Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili foolishly provoked a Russian invasion on August 7, 2008, when he sent troops into the breakaway district of South Ossetia. “The warfare began Aug. 7 when Georgia launched a barrage targeting South Ossetia,” the Associated Press reported over the weekend in typical fashion.

Virtually everyone is wrong. Georgia didn’t start it on August 7, nor on any other date. The South Ossetian militia started it on August 6 when its fighters fired on Georgian peacekeepers and Georgian villages with weapons banned by the agreement hammered out between the two sides in 1994. At the same time, the Russian military sent its invasion force bearing down on Georgia from the north side of the Caucasus Mountains on the Russian side of the border through the Roki tunnel and into Georgia. This happened before Saakashvili sent additional troops to South Ossetia and allegedly started the war.

Regional expert, German native, and former European Commission official Patrick Worms was recently hired by the Georgian government as a media advisor, and he explained to me exactly what happened when I met him in downtown Tbilisi. You should always be careful with the version of events told by someone on government payroll even when the government is friendly as democratic as Georgia’s. I was lucky, though, that another regional expert, author and academic Thomas Goltz, was present during Worms’ briefing to me and signed off on it as completely accurate aside from one tiny quibble.

Goltz has been writing about the Caucasus region for almost 20 years, and he isn’t on Georgian government payroll. He earns his living from the University of Montana and from the sales of his books Azerbaijan Diary, Georgia Diary and Chechnya Diary. Goltz experienced these three Caucasus republics at their absolute worst, and he knows the players and the events better than just about anyone. Every journalist in Tbilisi seeks him out as the old hand who knows more than the rest of us put together, and he wanted to hear Patrick Worms’ spiel to reporters in part to ensure its accuracy.

“You,” Worms said to Goltz just before he started to flesh out the real story to me, “are going to be bored because I’m going to give some back story that you know better than I do.”

“Go,” Goltz said. “Go.”

Read the rest….

(Totten asks for donations as he is a free-lance journalist.  His reporting is so much more in depth and interesting than most of what the MSM provides, I highly encourage people to donate what they can!  Totten’s reporting is so much more than a blog, and so much better than mainstream…)

Gordon C Chang has harsh words for NATO.  Harsher words for President Bush.

That’s it? Russia invades a country, and the Atlantic Alliance sets up a commission? Dmitry Rogozin, the Kremlin’s NATO envoy, put it best. He labeled the emergency summit a “mountain that gave birth to a mouse.”

But we shouldn’t blame the Alliance for its uninspiring response. The establishment of an organizational structure to deepen ties to endangered Georgia actually looks resolute in comparison to the American reaction.

Chang is correct.  The NATO reaction is flawed, but the utter lack of any sort of meaningful diplomatic reaction from the Whitehouse is stunning. The silence, as they say, deafening.

Mr. President, your Russia policy, which appears to have been based on your personal relationship with an autocrat, was fundamentally misguided. Yet what is especially disheartening is that, when it is clear that the assumptions underlining that policy have been proven wrong by the events of the last eleven days, you have failed to change course or even show leadership. This, as you may have noticed, is a critical moment for the West.

Where are you?

...but will they?  And now the New York Times reports that

the Russian military had been moving launchers for short-range ballistic missiles into South Ossetia, a step that appeared intended to tighten its hold on the breakaway territory.

Russia has succeeded in capturing South Ossetia and manufacturing a pretext for the attack: the supposed “defense” of the province from the power-hungry Georgians. Now that Russia has South Ossetia in its grasp and it has acquired a launchpad on the Georgian side of the Caucasus Mountains, it will move to bring Georgia’s days of independence to an end. If Georgia doesn’t play along, the Russians have already shown that they can charge forward to Gori and cut the country’s road and rail transports in half, leaving western Georgia disconnected from the capital of Tbilisi in the east. Russia can now station thousands more troops in South Ossetia than were there for the supposed “peacekeeping” mission and they can have much heavier weapons since they aren’t meant to be peacekeeping troops any longer.

The United States needs to take swift, decisive action to prevent Georgia from being cut down like a tree by Russia. We chose not to intervene while Russia was defeating Georgia militarily and killing its civilians which was, in my estimation, a mistake since it is always more difficult to eject a party from an area than it is to keep them out in the first place. The United States’ best (and perhaps only logical) option now is to increase the number of American troops in Georgia significantly. Russia has already shown its hand by raiding Gori: that will be their first destination when they try to undermine the current Georgian government. Therefore, the United States should station a significant number of troops in and around Gori as well as stationing more troops in Tbilisi. It would be wise to sprinkle more troop contingents throughout Georgia near possible targets of the Russian military but the largest numbers should remain in Gori and Tbilisi.

These American troops are going to serve a very important function for continued Georgian independence. They considerably raise the price of a potential attack by hostile Russian forces. By intermixing American troops with Georgian troops, Russia will have to carefully consider any attack on Georgia because if they kill American troops then they will either have to withdraw from Georgia under international pressure or face the brunt of an American retaliation against the Russian forces that would be invading Georgia to destabilize it. This is a tactic that has been used many times in military history: utilizing human shields. Many times the human shields were hostages from the enemy that were important people because they would think twice before possibly killing them unintentionally in an attack. In this situation, however, our troops will be acting as a foot in the door preventing it from shutting on Georgian independence as well as one of our few footholds close to Russia. If our troops are killed by Russian forces perpetrating an attack on Georgia that gives us a legitimate right of unlimited retaliation including an unremitting air campaign to assist Georgian ground forces in not only pushing the Russians back but also driving them out of South Ossetia and into North Ossetia.

Some may be saying that it is foolish to antagonize Russia over a small country such as Georgia. I disagree. Georgia is an American ally and that should mean something. Russia’s attack on Georgia is a slap in the face to America. They know that Georgia is our ally and they dare us to do anything to stop them from overrunning the entire country. Today it may be Georgia but if we do not extract a price from the Russians for attacking one of our allies, the next time the attack will be more bold. The next time it won’t be an attempt to kill the leader of Ukraine. The next time it will be a military strike on Ukraine to bring it back under Russia’s yoke as a satellite country.

Russia has made great amounts of money from its oil and it has used that money to rebuild and vastly improve its military. History shows us that armies are not built for peace; they are built for war. Vladimir Putin has bent the government in Russia to his will and ensconced himself as the leader of Russia in perpetuity. There was a time 70 years ago when an autocratic leader overseas acted belligerently and demanded territorial concessions based on questionable ethnic ties. The major powers foolishly thought that giving up this land would quench his thirst for conquest and bring peace. Instead, it only whetted his appetite for war and convinced him that the other powers were gullible and could be defeated by a concerted attack. The leader was Hitler, the territory was the Sudetenland and the small country that the major powers sacrificed on the altar of peace was Czechoslovakia. The Sudetenland contained most of Czechoslovakia’s industrial and military might so when Czechoslovakia was forced to cede it to Germany it was left nearly defenseless against the later onslaught by Germany. If the West sacrifices Georgia in the misguided hope of “peace” with Russia and not starting any trouble, it does so at its own peril. The West has seen what appeasement does to the countries that lay down at the feet of the bully. We would do well to remember the principle lesson from the Munich Agreement: “Peace” kills.

By Andrew L. Jaffee, netwmd.com

Russian President Putin’s goon-squad is using “’scorched-earth’ tactics” in Georgia, has promised to annex territory (South Ossetia and Abkhazia), and now is threatening to attack Poland. This is pure madness, but look at the reaction from Europe (or, should I say, lack thereof?), as described by the brave Russian soul, Garry Kasparov:

Russia’s invasion of Georgia reminded me of a conversation I had three years ago in Moscow with a high-ranking European Union official. Russia was much freer then, but President Vladimir Putin’s onslaught against democratic rights was already underway.

“What would it take,” I asked, “for Europe to stop treating Putin like a democrat? If all opposition parties are banned? Or what if they started shooting people in the street?” The official shrugged and replied that even in such cases, there would be little the EU could do. He added: “Staying engaged will always be the best hope for the people of both Europe and Russia.”

The citizens of Georgia would likely disagree. Russia’s invasion was the direct result of nearly a decade of Western helplessness and delusion. Inexperienced and cautious in the international arena at the start of his reign in 2000, Mr. Putin soon learned he could get away with anything without repercussions from the EU or America.

Russia reverted to a KGB dictatorship while Mr. Putin was treated as an equal at G-8 summits. …

Think about the rhetoric which flows from Western Europe regarding Israel. “Israel is the greatest threat to world peace.” “Israel is illegally occupying foreign territory.” “Israel is an aggressor nation.” Hmmm… Israel — with a population of 7.3 million; a country 290 miles long and 85 miles across at its widest point — is the “greatest threat to world peace?” But Russian neo-imperialists are not a threat, merely to be “engaged” and never confronted?

European cowardice in fact “turns reality, and history, upside down.” Europeans still haven’t learned their lesson after their homelands were the setting for two of the world’s greatest evils, Stalin and Hitler.

Soviet Russia’s ethnic cleansing of its neighbors (Tartars, Ukrainians, Balts, etc.) during the 20th century wasn’t enough? Will Europe sit back and watch a repeat of these horrors again, waiting until the U.S. steps in to save their lazy, morally complacent rear ends again?

Joe Klein over at Time makes a great case for drug testing journalists (though to be fair - they rarely hold real jobs - like arresting criminals, building stuff, growing food, teaching or killing enemies).

Responding to super fly Dr Robert Kagan (Oh! He got game!) and his Putin’s move making WaPo essay Time scribe Klein became mentis non compos.

Dr Kagan laid it prett straight - chalking up a historic moment:

“The events of the past week will be remembered that way, too. This war did not begin because of a miscalculation by Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili.

It is a war that Moscow has been attempting to provoke for some time

. The man who once called the collapse of the Soviet Union “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [20th] century” has reestablished a virtual czarist rule in Russia and is trying to restore the country to its once-dominant role in Eurasia and the world.

 

Armed with wealth from oil and gas; holding a near-monopoly over the energy supply to Europe; with a million soldiers, thousands of nuclear warheads and the world’s third-largest military budget, Vladimir Putin believes that now is the time to make his move.”

Klein freaked and launched a rambling, discombobulating pitifully unwondrous example of weak minded, weak willed, out of touch, weeded up paranoia prose pose and not to put too fine a point on it - BORING and embarrassing.

It’s not Russia, Ossetia or Abkhazia. Or even Kosovo.

It’s raining neocons!

“But it is important, yet again, to call out the endless neoconservative search for new enemies, mini-Hitlers. It is the product of an abstract over-intellectualizing of the world, the classic defect of ideologues. It is, as we have seen the last eight years, a dangerous way to behave internationally.

And it has severely damaged our moral authority in the world…I mean,
after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, after Abu Ghraib, after our blithe rubbishing of the Geneva Accords, why should anyone listen to us when we criticize the Russians for their aggression in the Caucasus?”

 

Finally! A regime change Klein can live with it!

Klein’s klutzy irony is easily addressed.

1st off, tolerant egalitarian societies with all the hot stickie goodies like transparent, periodic elections, free, uncensored press, an indy judiciary under elected Gov oversight, a military under civie control and a nat’l treasury under public accountability are like kryptonite in Smallville.

Autocrazies, despotries, tyrannies (horrid or benign) cannot help but to act out against free societies. Especially any in weapons range.

Such malignant magnetism is a cool homage to Great Satan and all her democratic best grrlfriends forever.

“Creative destruction is Great Satan’s middle name. It is a natural function, for she is the one truly revolutionary country in the world for more than 2 centuries. She does it automatically, and that is precisely why the tyrants hate her guts, and are driven to attack her.

An enormous advantage, tyrants fear her, and their oppressed peoples want what she offers: freedom. “

So, intolerant, unfree, (some nigh unhinged), illegit, murderous, corrupt regimes having their feelings, purses, prestige and control freak apparatus dissed, damaged or marginalized is “…a dangerous way to behave? ”

Au Contraire Mon Frer’ !

It is exactly how hot! democracies should behave - constant confrontation and selective intervention - letting geopolitical gangstas act out militarily is the perfect catylyst for a sexyful diplopolitical future military hook up.

Neo bashing RE: Russia vs Georgia (psychically predicted and followed up by American Power) is not confined to neoconspiracy Klein. Confauxderates, ammoral corrupt cult of stability accolytes, the enemy of my nation is my friend anarchy heirarchy heralds a phony daemoneoconic cacophony that seems retarded - in the classic sense no less.

Freely elected President of Georgia Mikheil Saakashvilli survey’s the stakes.

“Most obviously, the future of my country is at stake. The people of
Georgia have spoken with a loud and clear voice: They see their future in Europe. Georgia is an ancient European nation, tied to Europe by culture, civilization and values.

In January, three in four Georgians voted in a referendum to support membership in NATO. These aims are not negotiable; now, we are paying the price for our democratic ambitions.

Second, Russia’s future is at stake. Can a Russia that wages aggressive war on its neighbors be a partner for Europe? It is clear that Russia’s current leadership is bent on restoring a neocolonial form of control over the entire space once governed by Moscow.

If Georgia falls, this will also mean the fall of the West in the entire
former Soviet Union and beyond. Leaders in neighboring states — whether in Ukraine, in other Caucasian states or in Central Asia — will have to consider whether the price of freedom and independence is indeed too high.”

It’s pretty much the case now that any international crisis involving the potential deployment of U.S. military power will be denounced as a “neocon plot” by many in the left-wing press and blogosphere.

Think Progress continues the genre with their sensational post this morning upon news of a possible cessation of hostilities in the Causcasus: “Ceasefire in Georgia Dashes Neocon Predictions of Russian Expansion in The Region.”

Taking it even further is Robert Scheer, who argues that neoconservatives are manufacturing a foreign policy crisis: “Georgia War a Neocon Election Ploy?“:

Is it possible that this time the October surprise was tried in August, and that the garbage issue of brave little Georgia struggling for its survival from the grasp of the Russian bear was stoked to influence the U.S. presidential election?

Before you dismiss that possibility, consider the role of one Randy Scheunemann, for four years a paid lobbyist for the Georgian government who ended his official lobbying connection only in March, months after he became Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s senior foreign policy adviser.

Previously, Scheunemann was best known as one of the neoconservatives who engineered the war in Iraq when he was a director of the Project for a New American Century. It was Scheunemann who, after working on the McCain 2000 presidential campaign, headed the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which championed the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

There are telltale signs that he played a similar role in the recent Georgia flare-up. How else to explain the folly of his close friend and former employer, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, in ordering an invasion of the breakaway region of South Ossetia, an invasion that clearly was expected to produce a Russian counterreaction? It is inconceivable that Saakashvili would have triggered this dangerous escalation without some assurance from influential Americans he trusted, like Scheunemann, that the United States would have his back. Scheunemann long guided McCain in these matters, even before he was officially running foreign policy for McCain’s presidential campaign.

In 2005, while registered as a paid lobbyist for Georgia, Scheunemann worked with McCain to draft a congressional resolution pushing for Georgia’s membership in NATO. A year later, while still on the Georgian payroll, Scheunemann accompanied McCain on a trip to that country, where they met with Saakashvili and supported his bellicose views toward Russia’s Vladimir Putin.

Scheunemann is at the center of the neoconservative cabal that has come to dominate the Republican candidate’s foreign policy stance in a replay of the run-up to the war against Iraq. These folks are always looking for a foreign enemy on which to base a new Cold War, and with the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime it was Putin’s Russia that came increasingly to fit the bill.

Yes, it sounds diabolical, but that may be the most accurate way to assess the designs of the McCain campaign in matters of war and peace. There is every indication that the candidate’s demonization of Russian leader Putin is an even grander plan than the previous use of Saddam to fuel American militarism with the fearsome enemy that it desperately needs.

Diabolical? God, that’s taking things to the extreme.

I noted previously that even Democratic foreign policy eminences, like former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, have seen naked Russian brutality and hegemony in Russia’s war with Georgia.

So there’s no doubt that anti-neocon fervor has been quickly stoked by war the Russo-Georgia war.

In this case, the push to discredit neocons has an interesting electoral component, not just in Scheunemann’s ties to Georgia, but also in the situation that McCain has long warned of Russian bellicosity, and his foresight is another strong reminder of his unrivaled foreign policy experience this year.

As Ben Smith noted yesterday:

While virtually every other world leader called for calm in Georgia last Thursday morning, John McCain did something he’s done many times during his career in public life: He condemned Russia….

McCain’s confrontational stance on the Caucasus crisis stems from a long, personal skepticism of Russian intentions, one that dates back to the Cold War and that eased only briefly in the early 1990s.

Indeed, McCain, who publicly confronted Putin in Munich last year, may be the most visible — and now potentially influential — American antagonist of Russia. What remains to be seen is whether the endgame to the Georgia crisis makes McCain seem prophetic or headstrong and whether his muscular rhetoric plays a role in defining for voters the kind of commander in chief he would be.

What is not in doubt is McCain’s view of Russia. His belief that Moscow harbors dangerous aspirations goes back a long way, as does his fervent view that the only way to quiet the Russian bear is through tough talk and threat of real consequences — and certainly not through accommodation.

This kind of strategic clarity is anathema to the Democratic left. For example, check out Josh Marshall, who is sounding tocsin in his post on McCain, “Dangerous and Unstable.”

There’s a whole lot of left-wing unseriousness on foreign policy this season, but the Georgia crisis has really shown how genuinely silly many of these people are.

~cross-posted at American Power

Under Putin:

- Russia’s free press has basically been shut down by government censorship;

- Russian journalists have been murdered;

- “The control Putin is building over the country’s corporate sector resembles the kind of fascism instituted by Italian dictator Benito Mussolini or Spain’s Francisco Franco…”

- Use of torture by Russian troops in Chechnya is rampant;

- Putin has rigged all elections, arresting opposition leader Gary Kasparov, a chess player;

- The last “vote” held “may be the least democratic election since the USSR collapsed;”

- Putin tried to cover up the tragic loss of the Kursk’s Russian sailors;

- “The excessive violence and force used to break up the recent peaceful political demonstrations in Moscow and St. Petersburg highlight the increasing pressure on civil society in Russia…”

- Russia has be intimidating and persecuting the Ukraine by withholding energy deliveries;

- Putin tried to poison Ukrainian President Yushchenko because he didn’t like his politics; and,

- Putin has tormented tiny Estonia because he’s such a big, tough hero.

Now read the Christian Science Monitor’s description of Georgia as a “young democracy”. for some perspective….

Control of Georgia's oil pipeline may be at the heart of this conflict.

“I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest.”

~WInston Churchill

The Russians are tricky. They have suckered the world into thinking that they are a more peaceful, progressive nation than they were during the Soviet era. We have been duped into believing this over the years, despite mounting evidence to the contrary. Now, as Georgia burns, and the world wonders whether a ceasefire will hold or whether Putin’s puppet Medvedev will simply (as the Russians so often do) say one thing and do another…

Neo-Neocon writes:

The fact is that, unless we are willing to back up our rhetoric with military force or the meaningful sanctions to which Europe seems averse, talk is cheap. And if you compare Obama’s statement on the topic with that of McCain, you’ll find that both contain some meaningless cheap talk of the “the Security Council needs to condemn this” variety (at least McCain acknowledges the Russian threat of a veto; Obama does not).

For the rest of the article, read Russia and Georgia, and wars cold and hot: the Kingdom of Earth.

Her prose is really quite excellent, and it was this piece, along with an interview on NPR with Marshall Goldman, author of Petrostate, that made me write yet another piece on the Georgian conflict.

(more…)

~by MIKHEIL SAAKASHVILI

As I write, Russia is waging war on my country.

On Friday, hundreds of Russian tanks crossed into Georgian territory, and Russian air force jets bombed Georgian airports, bases, ports and public markets. Many are dead, many more wounded. This invasion, which echoes Afghanistan in 1979 and the Prague Spring of 1968, threatens to undermine the stability of the international security system.

Ostensibly, this war is about an unresolved separatist conflict. Yet in reality, it is a war about the independence and the future of Georgia. And above all, it is a war over the kind of Europe our children will live in. Let us be frank: This conflict is about the future of freedom in Europe.

No country of the former Soviet Union has made more progress toward consolidating democracy, eradicating corruption and building an independent foreign policy than Georgia. This is precisely what Russia seeks to crush.

This conflict is therefore about our common trans-Atlantic values of liberty and democracy. It is about the right of small nations to live freely and determine their own future. It is about the great power struggles for influence of the 20th century, versus the path of integration and unity defined by the European Union of the 21st. Georgia has made its choice.

When my government was swept into power by a peaceful revolution in 2004, we inherited a dysfunctional state plagued by two unresolved conflicts dating to the early 1990s. I pledged to reunify my country — not by the force of arms, but by making Georgia a pole of attraction. I wanted the people living in the conflict zones to share in the prosperous, democratic country that Georgia could — and has — become.

In a similar spirit, we sought friendly relations with Russia, which is and always will be Georgia’s neighbor. We sought deep ties built on mutual respect for each other’s independence and interests. While we heeded Russia’s interests, we also made it clear that our independence and sovereignty were not negotiable. As such, we felt we could freely pursue the sovereign choice of the Georgian nation — to seek deeper integration into European economic and security institutions.

We have worked hard to peacefully bring Abkhazia and South Ossetia back into the Georgian fold, on terms that would fully protect the rights and interests of the residents of these territories. For years, we have offered direct talks with the leaders of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, so that we could discuss our plan to grant them the broadest possible autonomy within the internationally recognized borders of Georgia.

But Russia, which effectively controls the separatists, responded to our efforts with a policy of outright annexation. While we appealed to residents of Abkhazia and South Ossetia with our vision of a common future, Moscow increasingly took control of the separatist regimes. The Kremlin even appointed Russian security officers to arm and administer the self-styled separatist governments.

Under any circumstances, Russia’s meddling in our domestic affairs would have constituted a gross violation of international norms. But its actions were made more egregious by the fact that Russia, since the 1990s, has been entrusted with the responsibility of peacekeeping and mediating in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Rather than serve as honest broker, Russia became a direct party to the conflicts, and now an open aggressor.

As Europe expanded its security institutions to the Black Sea, my government appealed to the Western community of nations — particularly European governments and institutions — to play a leading role in resolving our separatist conflicts. The key to any resolution was to replace the outdated peacekeeping and negotiating structures created almost two decades ago, and dominated by Russia, with a genuine international effort.

But Europe kept its distance and, predictably, Russia escalated its provocations. Our friends in Europe counseled restraint, arguing that diplomacy would take its course. We followed their advice and took it one step further, by constantly proposing new ideas to resolve the conflicts. Just this past spring, we offered the separatist leaders sweeping autonomy, international guarantees and broad representation in our government.

Our offers of peace were rejected. Moscow sought war. In April, Russia began treating the Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as Russian provinces. Again, our friends in the West asked us to show restraint, and we did. But under the guise of peacekeeping, Russia sent paratroopers and heavy artillery into Abkhazia. Repeated provocations were designed to bring Georgia to the brink of war.

When this failed, the Kremlin turned its attention to South Ossetia, ordering its proxies there to escalate attacks on Georgian positions. My government answered with a unilateral cease-fire; the separatists began attacking civilians and Russian tanks pierced the Georgian border. We had no choice but to protect our civilians and restore our constitutional order. Moscow then used this as pretext for a full-scale military invasion of Georgia.

Over the past days, Russia has waged an all-out attack on Georgia. Its tanks have been pouring into South Ossetia. Its jets have bombed not only Georgian military bases, but also civilian and economic infrastructure, including demolishing the port of Poti on the Black Sea coast. Its Black Sea fleet is now massing on our shores and an attack is under way in Abkhazia.

What is at stake in this war?

Most obviously, the future of my country is at stake. The people of Georgia have spoken with a loud and clear voice: They see their future in Europe. Georgia is an ancient European nation, tied to Europe by culture, civilization and values. In January, three in four Georgians voted in a referendum to support membership in NATO. These aims are not negotiable; now, we are paying the price for our democratic ambitions.

Second, Russia’s future is at stake. Can a Russia that wages aggressive war on its neighbors be a partner for Europe? It is clear that Russia’s current leadership is bent on restoring a neocolonial form of control over the entire space once governed by Moscow.

If Georgia falls, this will also mean the fall of the West in the entire former Soviet Union and beyond. Leaders in neighboring states — whether in Ukraine, in other Caucasian states or in Central Asia — will have to consider whether the price of freedom and independence is indeed too high.

Mr. Saakashvili is president of Georgia.

This essay was taken from the Opinion page at the Wall Street Journal.  I feel it is important that it is spread…

Russian tanks invade Georgia.

In 2003, the Georgian people peacefully overthrew their corrupt, despotic Soviet-era government and replaced it with a new, pro-Western, pro-capitalist, Democracy under the lead of Mikheil Saakashvili. Years after the fall of the Soviet Union, Georgia finally cast off the shackles of a corrupt, oppressive regime, and did so with almost no violence.

The violence so notoriously absent in the Rose Revolution is now catching up with the Georgian people.

MSNBC reports that:

Russia reportedly captured the central city of Gori and its armored vehicles rolled deep into western Georgia on Monday, seizing a military base and several towns and opening a second front of fighting. Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili said the Russian forces had effectively cut his country in half.

The Georgian Government invaded the breakaway province of South Ossetia last Thursday, and the Russian Government, supposedly in an act of protection on behalf of the Russian Ossetians, launched a counter-assault that has already left much of the Georgian State in ruins.

According to The Moscow Times,

Russia’s response, however, was way beyond what was necessary to, according to its initial explanation, “protect Russian citizens.” It is worth noting that the “Russian citizens” in question here are actually residents of South Ossetia to whom Moscow gave Russian passports.

The article goes on to denounce the harsh reaction of the Russian Government. Russian troops and bombers have crossed far beyond the Ossetia border, and are even now approaching the Georgian capital, T’bilisi.

The Russian bombing campaign, buoyed by far superior air forces, threatens to weaken, divide or even destroy the Georgian state. If this bombing continues for even a few more days, it is easy to imagine a scenario where Georgia’s infrastructure and economy could be set back a decade or more. It is also easy to imagine far worse scenarios.

Unfortunately the West has its hands tied, or at least this is the view most news outlets are reporting. While Georgia calls for Western (specifically US and NATO) military aid, they also have offered up ceasefire agreements which have been met with disdain by the Russians.

The Russian bombing campaign, buoyed by far superior air forces, threatens to weaken, divide or even destroy the Georgian state. If this bombing continues for even a few more days, it is easy to imagine a scenario where Georgia’s infrastructure and economy could be set back a decade or more. It is also easy to imagine far worse scenarios.

Russia, however, denies even having troops on the ground in Georgia. Thankfully news organizations are equipped with cameras and this sort of blatant Russian propaganda is quite easy to see through. Russian officials deny any aggression, and claim that operations to protect Ossetia are almost complete. According toCNN:

From the flashpoint South Ossetia, the Russian military moved south into the central Georgia city of Gori, Georgia said. Russia denies its troops are in the city.

A CNN crew in Gori saw Georgian forces piling into trucks and leaving the city at high speed.

The streets of Gori were nearly empty Monday. Over the weekend the city came under repeated aerial attack from the Russian military.

Russian troops were also in Senaki, in western Georgia, having advanced from Abkhazia, Russian and Georgian officials said.

American military officials claim that Russia has so completely destroyed Georgia’s radar infrastructure that it is likely Georgian officials have a very murky picture of their own predicament.

And so suddenly we are transported to a different time, an old battle, as though all at once we are face to face with the old Soviet threat. A Democratic ally is in fact being bombarded by the totalitarian government of Russia. They may not style themselves as the USSR any longer, but through this overreaction we can glimpse just how far Russia has moved toward once again reclaiming domination of the region–and we can also glimpse how impotent NATO and the West are in their utter lack of response.

I can’t offer up a quick solution any more than our elected officials can. The US is already extended militarily into Iraq and Afghanistan–and a unilateral US response to this crisis would be far too much of a risk diplomatically. NATO has a far better outlook of military intervention, but again, to actually move militarily to prevent Russian aggression is a phenomenal risk.

Nevertheless, not acting has its own share of consequences. Namely, the US and the West will have revealed our inability to counter Russian hostility, and their lack of resolve. We promised the ex-Soviet provinces our support, and now when that support is most dearly needed, we do nothing. We would wring our hands but for our sitting on them.

As Mitchell writes in the Moscow Times,

A military response is not the only option facing the United States and Europe, but it seems to be the one its Georgian allies would most like to see. Nonetheless, in the next days, the West must find a way to stop Russia from routing Georgia.

If we don’t, we risk undoing everything we’ve worked for since the fall of the Berlin Wall. The fall of Georgia will not only set that country back a decade in terms of economy, infrastructure, and so forth, but will push back international diplomacy into a lost era, an era we cozily thought was behind us.

Russia, and its all-powerful PM Vladmir Putin, will not let the West have its way, and they have learned over the past eight years that they can get away with a great deal of bullying, human rights violations, and nobody will stop them. A victory over the Democratically elected government of Georgia will only solidify this belief, will only embolden the Russian hawks and nationalists further.

Further Reading

We Helped in Iraq, Now Help us!

Analysis: roots of the conflict between Georgia, South Ossetia and Russia

Russia/Georgia conflict in pictures

Bush says violence in Georgia is unacceptable

Sign the petition to save Georgia.

~cross-posted at The Daily Elephant and at Newsvine