I'm gathering that people here see Vladimir Putin's Russia as some kind of counterweight to Capital.
If I seem harsh, it's because that's not an idea that I take seriously.
There is no Leninist model for the world we're in now. There is no nation-state that is a counterweight to Capital - that I can see, anyway. I'm sorry if that sounds terribly Marxist and everythng, but that's what I believe.
There are more- and less-developed capitalist states. I would put Russia on the fourth tier of these (EMU states being the first tier, U.S. the second, and countries like, say Korea the third). I would probably put Georgia on the fifth or sixth tier. In my view there is no way for these states to have armed conflict resulting in moral victory. All these states can do is develop towards socialism as quickly as possible - they need democracy, law, transparency, information for the populace and maximum worker (not state, worker) control of capital. Nothing Putin is doing aids that development.
What is the advantage for anyone in having the 4th tier beat up the 6th tier to embarrass the 2nd tier and maintain its ability to economically pressure the 1st tier. I don't *want* the 4th tier to get more powerful because they are clearly even worse than the tiers above. Nobody on this list sees Putin's Russia as a positive alternative to Western Europe and the United States. And war does not bring out the best in Capital - needless to say - so I'd rather not see it at all, thanks.
I don't buy the morality play here because it's very clear to me that absolutely nothing morally positive is going on. Thug Capital is having a fight and the bigger thug is winning easily. George Bush's ineptitude and brutality has knocked the U.S. off the top of the capitalist development pyramid and given opportunities to *many* of capitalism's more lowbrow players. I think that's bad for everyone.
Unless you're Doss, talking your book, why take the Russian side in this?
Reason 1: Georgia was using especially brutal, genocidal methods.
Response: While it's true that American, European and other well-financed and modern armies do not rely on artillery rockets, most national armies - including the Russians - do. This kind of "ground-clearing" artillery is inaccurate and therefore does cause a lot of civilian casualties, which are the two reasons - taken separately - why more modern armies don't rely on it. But it is cheap and effective - and of course it was developed by the Soviet military and adopted worldwide for exactly that reason. So while it is a brutal weapon, it is simply a reality of all wars fought by the armies of most nations. Iran-Iraq saw huge deployment of these weapons with horrifying casualties on both sides.
Georgian targeting may have been brutal. I wouldn't doubt it for a second, but we don't yet know. There had been exchanges of fire in the days before the Georgian action, and obviously the Russians were ready, so it's difficult to tell whose munitions did what damage in and around Tskhinvali.
If the Russian action reduced the loss of life, that's wonderful. But the Russian action has caused a LOT of potential danger. And if Russia "had to" respond militarily against Georgia, it's not as if they were innocents in the history leading up to this last conflict. They filled that powder keg with some Russian powder long before the Israelis and Americans started.
Reason 2: Russia was acting in a humanitarian capacity to protect a minority oppressed by Capital.
Response: First, if you are going to get into some comparison thing between Bosnia/Kosovo and South Ossetia, just stop before you do.
If you didn't buy or were suspicious of the argument when it came from the United States and Europe, then you should pretty much be prepared to reject it out of hand when it comes from the Putin government. Putin has a very, very long way to go before he is presumed a champion of human rights.
Rather, consider this: Vladimir Putin's government has been consistent from the beginning and even more consistent in this present Medvedev incarnation that it considers security to be the most important priority for the Russian state. An action like this is potentially very destabilizing. There are 100 thousand South Ossetians, and at least 25% of them are Georgian. There are easily ten times that many oppressed people along Russia's borders and the Putin regime sees no reason to intervene on their account, but is happy to let many live under appalling dictatorship.
So even if we didn't know anything about the history between Georgia and Russia, we would have to assume that the Putin government has primary, high-level strategic objectives in taking this risk in the first place. And of course when we look into the situation we see two overwhelming acronyms: NATO and BTC.
Reason 4: Why consider Putin's reasons at all if the "facts on the ground" were overwhelmingly important at that moment?
Response: This is - by definition - short-term thinking and I believe it will bring us to grief.
For Putin EVEN TO HAVE TAKEN THE RISK that he might have to get into this mess - which risk he has NOT taken in other border states - he had to be looking at far, far more important strategic concerns than the happiness of and justice for the perhaps 60 thousand South Ossetians who wanted his help. Putin's reasons will affect his tactics and what tactics Putin chooses define how much risk he creates for the rest of the Causasus and the world.
Ask yourself this: Had the Russian mission in South Ossetua been a humanitarian-inspired mission, what would it look like?
Now compare that model to what we see.
Would there be troops in Gori? Would there have been attacks almost all the way to Tbilisi? Would there be an immediate declaration that Abkhazia, too, would not only be defended, but that Russia unilaterally considered it a separate country - or, well, Russia?.
Would Kokoitny have dissolved the South Ossetian government?
Would Russian "troops" now be "withdrawing" to let in Russian "peacekeepers"? In Gori? Are there South Ossetians in Gori I don't know about? Would there be short-range ballistic artillery missiles in South Ossetia, capable of reaching all of Georgia?
Now, *** I *** was expecting all of this, because it was clear to me that Russia was acting on a larger, strategic plan without much regard for the South Ossetians - although they may benefit in the short term.
But how does it fit in with the Putin humanitarian thesis?
If the present Russian deployment really does look to you more like a humanitarian mission than a war of occupation for oil, then you're going to conclude that the ends justified the means. And I guess that's fine.
You'll have to pardon me for not buying that because, again, I'm from New Jersey and there are two things I'm pretty darn sure I know: I know a mafioso when I see one and I know the stink of petroleum when I smell it.
I see a war of occupation for oil in Georgia, the conditions of which were put in place by a war of occupation for oil in Iraq and a war for who-the-hell-knows-what-at-this-point in Afghanistan, perpetrated by someone even more brutal than Bush and much smarter - Putin.
Did Putin have provocation? Of course. Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were fairly provocative, too, but it doesn't justify what America has done.
Reason 4: South Ossetians are Russian citizens.
Response: This is the most-bizarre defense of the whole action, but one that I like, in an odd way.
I prefer my Imperialism straight-up.
I joked with a "business Republican" friend of mine that maybe the U.S. should adopt this method - like with Mexico. He said "well, I think we'd be interested in an equity deal with Mexico, but not in the common stock." This is the way he - and America - thinks. It's tragic.
I like the idea that if you are going to be imperialist, be Imperialist all the way. If you're going to change a people's government, don't put in some troublesome intermediary but change their government to your government - formally and with all the rights and privileges.
So I kind of - in an odd way - support the concept. Of course it's a little easier promise to make when, like Putin, you have a LOT of control over your citizens in the first place.
Arguably, the EU is this kind of imperialism, but in a "soft" variety. They have a system. They have strategic interests in expanding that system. There are countries that are more than willing - eager - to adopt that system, so it works for everyone. Maybe I'm naive, but ultimately, I think it could work well for Russia. I don't see any reason they couldn't be part of the EU.
But Russia of today is not the E.U. or even a pale imitation of it. I think the South Ossetians may come to regret accepting the proffer of Russian citizenship - or is it C.I.S citizenship - and did the C.I.S. vote on it? I don't get it.
But anyway, I still like the honesty.