I'm over-limit here, but I tuned back into this list after the Georgia thing exactly because I expected to read interesting DEBATE about the implications of the incident.
What did I find?
I remember Grozny and the fact that Chris Doss took a strongly pro-Russian position with which people on this list and known to this list very strongly objected. I was not in that discussion much that I remember, but I also strongly disagree with a lot of the things he said about Grozny. The Russian tactics there were barbaric. Grad rockets are children's toys compared to what the Russians hit Grozny with - and by the way they also rained Grad rockets on the heads of the Chechens with abandon as well.
But when it comes to Tskhinvali, there are thousands dead, it is genocide by artillery and saving them is the overwhelming reason that Russia is invading Georgia. And here I find there there is no debate, just TOTAL consensus on these points
Well, there weren't thousands dead, the evidence does not show anything that might be called attempted genocide by artillery - as in Grozny and Sarajevo - and the idea that the Putin regime would do all this to save a few thousand of seventy thousand Persians is totally inconsistent with that regime's behavior anywhere inside Russia or in the CIS. The story wasn't believable so I didn't believe it. And I was right not to.
If I was hyperbolic, it's because I was reacting to an extreme, emotional, propagandized and unrealistic view of the conflict.
If I didn't criticize Saakashvili, it's because I first didn't know enough about him, then found that everything said about him from either side was overheated propaganda, then saw that everything the man himself said was a lie. He's made himself a completely irrelevant, unanalyzable figure here so I don't bother with him.
And, really, honestly if I didn't criticize the Bush/Israel "strategy" in Georgia it's because it is imponderably stupid. I mean that. What can you even say about it? It's what happens when a country's foreign policy is taken over by a zionist/evangelical/neo-con fantasy. The "logic" is completely impenetrable to me.
But the Kremlin is much clearer on its aims and far more logical. There simply can't be any question that the strategic interest of oil had to be what tipped the balance on this decision. The action was too huge and presented too much potential risk to the economic future of the Russian people. A smart leader like Putin would not have undertake it without hope of some large gain for the people of Russia - not just a few thousand Persians. He's not stupid. He's not irresponsible. He's no humanitarian.
These are facts:
There were not thousands dead.
The evidence clearly indicates a military use of artillery and rockets by Georgia, albeit without the proper consideration of the effects on civilians of an urban fight, but nothing indicates that the Georgians intended or were able to mount anything but an attack against Russian and South Ossetian troops.
Russia now occupies and has clearly stated its intention to occupy Georgian territory outside of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which it also occupies.
Russian troops are the controlling marshal authority of the port of Poti, close by the Kulevi oil terminal.
As for oil and gas, the Georgian railroad is now open, after the Russian shut it . Poti is open, and the pipelines are open - and completely acccessible to Russian troops and missiles and tottaly under their control as they are clearly the marshal authority in the area. And of course Azerbaijan has asked Russia to double flow through its Baku-Novorosiisk oil pipeline. The BP-TNK talks are ongoing and an interim decision will apparently be reached by the end of next month. I'd say Russia has strengthened its hand there.
So you be the judge of what these facts tell you about the original scenario everyone immediately accepted around here - MUCH to my surprise.
As for who was "right" and who "wrong" here, I don't know. I really don't and I don't find it a debate that's really very useful or important, frankly. I almost never get into these debates. I'm sorry as many people got hurt as did. I wish people had acted more responsibly.
These are very big powers playing a very dangerous game in a very small place, as I see it. I'm not unsympathetic to any of the people directly involved, but I think the larger questions are really important because of how many more lives could be affected.
I think there is just a lot of recklessness and venality informing all these actions and I don't see a victory here for anyone.
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 5:18 AM, Matt <lbo4 at beyondzero.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 03:03:56PM -0700, boddi satva wrote:
>
>> As for the book proposal in question, I recommend going with the
>> Kremlin line: children's books are hot this year and you can't go
>> wrong with a fairy tale.
>
> I think the pouncing on boddi has run its course. OK, fine, s/he took
> on a strawman arguing people were seeing Putin/Medvedev as
> revolutionary forces - because no one argued that.
>
> But now people are satirizing boddi's claim that part - a large part -
> of Russian foreign policy is about strategic influence on energy
> supplies in their part of the world.
>
> Why is that so absurd? I would be shocked if the Russian government
> wasn't considering this aspect, just like I would be shocked if US
> foreign policy in the Middle East had nothing to do with oil.
>
> My first reaction during this conflict was to take the Russian "side"
> because it was a giant spit into the face of the Bushies, who I loathe
> with all my being. Which is, for the most part, a kind of "enemy of
> my enemy is my friend" thought, which is not necessarily the best way
> to think when it comes to the bigger picture.
>
>
> Matt
>
> --
> GnuPG Key ID: 0xC33BD882 aim: beyondzero123
> http://blogdayafternoon.com yahoo msg: beyondzero123
>
> Puritanism: the haunting fear that somebody, somewhere,
> might be having a good time.
> -H.L. Mencken
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>