Rene — WINNERS, LOSERS AND JOKERS OF GEORGIA WAR
Comments Off on Rene — WINNERS, LOSERS AND JOKERS OF GEORGIA WARAnother one in the archive of speculations on Georgia. What is very interesting about this one is that the biggest winners become the war-hawks in the US.
WINNERS, LOSERS AND JOKERS OF GEORGIA WAR
By Linda S. Heard
Online Journal
Aug 20, 2008, 00:20
Now that a peace accord has been signed by both parties to the
Georgian-Russian conflict, it’s time to reflect on gains and
losses. With hundreds, if not thousands, dead and upwards of 100,000
refugees, ordinary people have once again borne the brunt of reckless
decisions made by their governments.
As the fog of war dissipates, it’s obvious that the biggest loser was
its instigator. Georgia’s US and Israeli-trained and armed military has
been humiliated and the lack of resolve of its allies exposed. It’s
further clear that Georgia’s sovereignty rests entirely on Moscow’s
goodwill.
As I write, there are Russian tanks just 25 miles from the Georgian
capital Tbilisi. Their very presence signals who’s in charge; they
don’t even have to fire a shot. Unfortunately, President Mikheil
Saakashvili still hasn’t got the message. He’s still claiming his
country will never surrender (although it has) and he gets no marks
for diplomacy after calling the Russians 21st century barbarians.
Moreover, the breakaway Georgian provinces of South Ossetia and
Abkhazia that Saakashvili promised to return to the national fold
are probably lost forever as under the terms of the peace accord,
Russian peacekeepers have a right to not only control the enclaves
but a lso a corridor within Georgia proper outside the disputed zones.
In the end, Saakashvili gained nothing by his foolish misadventure
except the temporary support of his own electorate, which had little
choice other than to back him up while under siege. Once the Russians
have left, the Georgian president is likely to pay a heavy political
cost.
While nominating the biggest loser is relatively simple, working out
who is the biggest winner warrants rather more analysis. Let’s start
with Russia.
The Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin must have derived some
satisfaction from giving Saakashvili — a man for whom Putin harbours
a visceral dislike — a bloody nose.
In Putin’s eyes, Saakashvili is a man who is collaborating with Western
power against Moscow’s interests; firstly due to his eagerness to join
NATO and secondly because of his enthusiasm for the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan
pipeline, which resulted from a US plan to cut Russia out of the
Caspian energy equation.
Russia has also successfully challenged the lone superpower and shown
that not only does it still possess heavy muscle, it isn’t vulnerable
to US threats.
Its aggressive response to Georgia’s belligerence can also be construed
as a firm message to former Soviet states to the effect the Russian
bear is once again on the prowl.
But Russia’s gains, through impressive, may be superficial and
short-lived.
In f act, the biggest winners are the more hawkish elements of the
US government.
Georgia served as their sacrificial lamb in an effort to force Moscow
to unveil so that Russia could reoccupy its pinnacle as enemy of the
West. After all, the “War on Terror” was getting old and confronting
Iran turned out to be more complicated than initially thought.
New enemy
The military-industrial complex needed a new enemy to provide a pretext
for its growth and has now got a tried and true remodelled one. And,
indeed, the Western media have once again obliged, consistently
ignoring the facts to paint Russia in the worst possible light in
the same way it coloured Iraq in the run-up to the 2003 invasion.
There has also been an important knock on effect, which may or may
not have been part of Washington’s plan. Russia’s role in the conflict
served to push Poland off its fence to agree to US interceptor missiles
being stationed on its soil. The Czech Republic has already agreed
to accept US radar installations, and now Ukraine is apparently
clamouring to get in on America’s missile shield deal under which
participants are promised Washington’s protection.
Now that the gloves are off, former Soviet states can no longer
straddle the divide. Theirs is an invidious position. Their firm
alliance with the West makes them Russia’s enemies; particularly
uncomfortable given their proximity to Moscow, which has already
warned Poland that it’s now become a potential nuclear target.
In the meantime, the US and Europe are threatening Russia with
suspension from the G8 and are warning that its future membership
in the World Trade Organisation is at risk. But Russia isn’t Iran or
North Korea and attempting to isolate it could be a highly dangerous
strategy especially for Western Europe which is reliant on Russian gas.
A surprise winner could be Republican presidential hopeful John McCain,
whose experience and military credentials may give him an edge over
the new kid on the block in light of a new US-Russian face off.
Last, but not the least. Kudos to McCain, George W. Bush and
Condoleezza Rice for providing some comic relief.
In the 21st century nations don’t invade other nations, said McCain,
who must have been experiencing a “senior moment.”
Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign
policy in the 21st century, said Bush, forgetting that people in
glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
But it was his secretary of state who brought tears of mirth to
our eyes with “This is not 1968 and the invasion of Czechoslovakia
where Russia can threaten a neighbour, occupy a capital, overthrow
a government and get away with it.” Is this a case of early onset
Alzheimer’s or chronic double-standards?
Linda S. Heard is a Br itish specialist writer on Middle East
affairs. She welcomes feedback and can be contacted by email at
heardonthegrapevines@yahoo.co.uk.