Thoughts on Georgia

The media response in even the more analytical organizations is disappointing. The assumptions the organizations are relying upon are that the Georgian government is trustworthy, the Russian Government is not, that International Law dictates that infringement into a country is impermissible, and that the US must back the Georgians.

Most of these (not all) assumptions are wrong. There has clearly been a conflict there for nearly two decades as a result of both pre-existing and communist inspired population movements. Georgians and Ossetians do not have a pleasant history together nor do the Abkhaz. The conflict has involved people “voluntarily” leaving after their houses have been torched and life made unpleasant in other ways in both Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Georgians have not been models of good behavior either and many incidents of villages taken by Georgian troops suffering the same fate.

Clearly the conflict is bitter. Let us bear in mind the maxim that “truth is the first casualty of war” and trust nothing claimed by either of the sides unless independent verification can be obtained. Sadly, this day in age interprets “independent verification” to be journalists at a government press conference or materials supplied by a government influenced organization. The Georgians are better able to influence the Western diplomats and journalists by interacting more frequently with it and without the Communist baggage and Russian support that isolates South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Georgia’s government is not a neutral party and still should not be trusted implicitly. Journalists however are parroting the government line due to a convergence of ideological fear of Russia, sympathy for the perceived underdog, and material concerns of physical safety and the need to deliver a story.

Neither Russia nor Georgia are democracies. Putin clearly displays himself as the power in a thinly veiled autocracy. Shalikashvili is more refined and while not much more democratically minded, knows how to play upon the West’s expectations and hopes. Rarely do Westerners think but rather emote when several buzzwords are detected. Democracy is one of them. By repeating the term to journalists and diplomats, and using phrases that sound as if they came from a liberal democracy, a false impression can be conveyed. Only actually investigating the situation on the ground would make such a strategy unwise as democratic rhetoric uncoupled with actual circumstances on the ground irritates some people.

The irrational trust in the Georgians is coupled by a semi-rational fear of Russia. Russia is acting in accordance to national interests that sometimes collide with those of Western countries or even of the entire West. The Russian government is not the most honest government around to use more than a little understatement. Ukraine suffered a bout of Russian efforts to keep it in Moscow’s orbit with the various cultural, economic, and security concerns that entails. The means to achieve it were embarrassingly thuggish by the Russians. Russia however does have concerns that few would dispute in principle. The lack of rights of the Russian minority in Estonia, the expansion of NATO in what is clearly an offensively placed series of alliances and bases directed towards Russia, and the fates of Russians and pro-Russian groups outside Russia.

The right of self-determination invoked by the republics who left the Soviet Union should apply to those who do not want to be part of the new states is the Russian position. This is a logical argument on behalf of Russian interests. Georgia’s interest is in the viability of its state and independence and for that, territory controlled is vital. Georgia’s continued survival and independence gives an imperative for territory even at the price of locals rebelling and Moscow taking a renewed interest. As Georgia has been backed by the West, backing down would humiliate the leaders and people who back Georgia. The credibility of Western force and intervention lies in not backing down and acting. The US has an informal alliance with Georgia and thus must back it.

All parties are acting on rational strategizing on the state level. The concern in that unlike the partially constrained Russian media, the Western media is free but stupid. Instead of a strategic conflict of interests and strategies with moral implications, the situation is seen a pure democratic Georgia against an unprincipled Russian invasion. Given the amount of effort the South Ossetians had to employ to get Russian to back against increasing Georgian efforts to regain control of the territory, Russia was acting on principles of non-intervention more that supposed. The South Ossetians were players just as much as Russia.

McCain’s fury at Russia’s actions in defeating the Georgian assault on the anti-Georgian statelets and invasion of the rest of Georgia stems from his believing Georgian and US propaganda. Geo-politics is nothing to be ashamed of. Sadly in a society the prizes idealism, rational strategy must be sugarcoated in ideals to be palatable. In worse cases, outright lies are told. The effect is to make policy-makers fanatical and make policy erratic and unpredictable for those being interacted upon.

International Law is generally a fiction. Actors do what they can in cases of deep interest even beyond what they would do if the cases were not as important to them. Law may dictate relations between less interested parties but if concerns are raised, law becomes disregarded. Even still, International Law has become a concept in flux. The NATO backing of the UCK (Kosovo Liberation Army) and war against Yugoslavia was somehow mandated by international law while the Russian backing of South Ossetia and invasion of Georgia was impermissible?

International Law is often appealed to but as the defining nature of the state is that it is sovereign, there is no real body of law governing them save what states apply to themselves. There are treaties and accepted concepts but these are insufficient basis to pronounce judgment upon a situation where there are not treaties.

Given the power of Russia, constraining an increasing hostile Russia is the main US strategy. The various actions of the Clinton diplomatic legacy shattered a tenuous trust and respect between the US and Russia and the erratic fanaticism of the Clinton lackeys has made Russia distrustful of the US. Any ability to repair the relationship is unlikely without a larger threat that requires clear thinking. Georgia has sought the US as an Ally wheras Russia has disdained the US. The US has accepted the allegiance of Georgia and the new relationship must be acted upon even when one party is wrong. The value of allying with and accepting the direction of the US relies on benefits received from such a relationship. Those benefits are nowhere more extreme than in a war. Given Georgia’s defeat and Russia’s strength, the US can only offer peri-military aid and diplomatic support and condemnation of Russia. US credibility requires that the US back Georgia.

With this in mind, let us act rationally and not believe the Georgia or media propaganda the Georgia did not commit atrocities (ethnic expulsions occurred on all sides) and even murders (unarmed villages got shelled). We must support Georgia because they are allies, not because we are idiots.