Leading article: Careless talk can cost lives
Tuesday, 12 August 2008
Any hopes that there might be a quick, relatively clean, resolution to the crisis in the Caucasus were dashed yesterday. Indeed, the stakes seemed to be growing higher last night with the confirmation that Russian forces had advanced into Georgia proper.
Hard as it was to see through the clouds of propaganda emanating from the two sides, Russia clearly has the upper hand militarily. So the future would now seem to hinge on what Vladimir Putin's intentions are (for it is now apparent that it is the Russian Prime Minister, rather than the new President, Dmitry Medvedev, who is calling the shots). Is this an exercise in "shock and awe" to teach the Georgians a lesson? Or, as looks increasingly feasible, an attempt to depose Mikheil Saakashvili, the politically inept Georgian leader who has handled this crisis so badly.
Whatever the truth, the diplomatic response from the outside world to this crisis, in particular from the United States, has been woeful. Leaving aside the wisdom of encouraging President Saakashvili's ambitions to join Nato, the manner in which the West has reacted to the sudden flare -up of hostilities has been largely counter-productive. The decision to airlift Georgian troops back from Iraq to join the conflict was a clear signal from the United States that it is backing Georgia in this fight. And the condemnation of Russian "aggression" from the US Vice-President, Dick Cheney, yesterday rammed the point home. What hope is there that the White House can help to be an honest broker of a ceasefire now?
There is an absence of realism here. The US, let alone Europe, is never going to go to war with Russia in defence of Georgian sovereignty. Russia holds too many geopolitical cards – from control of energy supplies to its central role in negotiations over Iran – for Western threats to be credible. Talking up the conflict is foolish. What the crisis needs is firm diplomatic pressure on both sides to cease hostilities, not the championing of one party. The best that can be hoped for in the immediate term is a European Union-brokered ceasefire and at least a temporary re-freezing of the South Ossetian issue.
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited
As well as Moscow's intentions in this conflict, George Bush's role should be looked into. It is unthinkable that he did not know in advance that his ally was going to take this foolish action. Could he be allowing the inevitable instability because this would play to believed Republican strengths in the American election? Much cynicism is in order after the WMD deception and the similar campaign against Iran's nuclear intentions.
Posted by Charles Southwood | 12.08.08, 15:02 GMT
Is Russian flexing its muscles to reclaim the lost reputation after it goofed by trusting the US?
Though the US can not weigh in militarily thanks to the shame and harm it has already suffered in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Importantly, bipolar world is better than a unipolar one.
So what is happening in Georgia is a wake-up call that things can not remain the same forever.
Though the invasion of Georgia by Russia is sacrilegious, it should be noted that we need to treat all countries equally.
What will the US do in this regard as a sole so-called superpower?
Diplomatic muscles are more effective and better than military ones.
If anything, Georgia-Russia conflict worthy more efforts than even oily gulf and its ballyhoos and hoo-has.
Posted by Nkwazi Mhango | 12.08.08, 14:51 GMT
I suspect this has something to do with slowing down the, "controled demolition" of the petrodollar, by making the euro less attractive. Well, with petrocashcowdollar less defensible, they're going to do something, aren't they ?
Posted by John Somebody | 12.08.08, 13:56 GMT
Georgia breaks away from Russia (in 1991) – that’s acceptable to the USA.
South Ossetia breaks away from Georgia (to remain with North Ossetia, which has been part of Russia since 1761) - that’s unacceptable.
Regime change in Iraq, by means of warfare – acceptable to the USA.
Regime change in Georgia by means of instigating pro-USA uprisings – acceptable.
Hints of regime change of those USA puppets – unacceptable.
Israeli attacks on Palestine for territorial gain, ethnic cleansing and colonization – acceptable to USA.
Georgian attacks on South Ossetia to annex the country and ethnically cleanse its population- acceptable.
Retaliation against Israeli military incursions in Palestine – unacceptable
Retaliation of Georgian military incursions in South Ossetia –unacceptable
Dual standards and hypocrisy – acceptable to the USA but unacceptable to true democracies.
Posted by Peter Reilly | 12.08.08, 12:51 GMT
Israel and the US have armed Georgia so Russia can disarm it and then the said Israel and US will be able to pulverise Iran with little 'real' retaliation from Russia. The PNAC site explains clearly enough how Corporatist America intends to have multi-front activites and this is a good example. Set up the pieces and watch the dominos fall. I'd call it "intelligent fascism" and you've got to be in it to win it!!
Posted by kevin | 12.08.08, 08:11 GMT
A bit of sanity at last. I was fearful that the entire 'Western' media had completely lost the plot. However, what were the Americans and Israelis thinking in arming Georgia up to the hilt?
Posted by CheesedOff | 12.08.08, 02:50 GMT