Posts
As far as I can tell, the following are all true:
1. South Ossetia has, it seems, closer historical and current ties with Russia than it does with Georgia. Over half the population of South Ossetia are Russian citizens.
2. Russian peacekeepers are in South Ossetia due to the agreement reached the last time there was a conflict between Georgia and the Ossetians.
3. South Ossetia has been a de facto autonomous state for over a decade.
5. Georgia started the conflict by sending troops into South Ossetia.
6. Russia, defending its interests and citizens in the region, sent in more troops to support the peacekeeping forces already in South Ossetia.
7. The Russians defeated the Georgians pretty thoroughly.
Now, perhaps someone can explain something to me here. How is it that Georgia invades an area that is historically and culturally distinct from Georgia, that has been de facto autonomous for quite some time,
Is there some inability had by people who lived much of their lives during the Cold War to realize that the political situation in the Caucasus is different than it was before the fall of the Soviet Union? Am I only able to see the absurdity of the "Oh nos, teh Russian are moving, wesa gots ta do sumting!!!!" line of thought because the Cold War ended and the Soviet Union fell before I was even a teenager?
Is it because Russia is not as democratic as we think it should be? Democracy is not and has never been the criteria for legitimate government.
And why are the events happening in the Caucasus any of our business? There is a chance that Russia has acted as it did because it resents the US trying to get all the countries along its border, countries that Russia has had long political interests and involvement with, stretching back to before the Soviet Union and into the Russian Empire, into NATO. Why, oh why would Russia feel threatened by US troops and missiles all along its borders? Is that really a difficult question to answer?
Moreover, why does NATO still exist? The Soviet Union fell, it has served its purpose. What can it do now but antagonize Russia and make it more likely that US troops will die for no good reason? Why do we need to be so involved in the Caucasus anyway? How does this protect American citizens? The job of a government is to look after the common good of its citizens, not to police the world and spread democracy as if it was the only legitimate form of government.
Look, lets be clear: Georgian President Saakashvili is the one who foolishly started the shooting. Did he really expect Russia to not respond? There is a price to folly, and, while his foolishness does not absolve Russia of overreaching in this conflict and violating ius in bello, it does make it difficult for me to view Georgia as a blameless victim of Russian imperialism.
That being said, please pray for peace and reconciliation between these two Orthodox peoples. And toss up a few for Christian unity while you're at it.
EDIT:
A clarification on my position, since discussion elsewhere have demonstrated that it is needed:
1. There are historic, ethnic and cultural reasons to view South Ossetia's desire to secede from Georgia and rejoin North Ossetia as part of the Russian federation as a legitimate desire.
2. Georgia escalated this conflict into full-scale military action, and it did so not hours after it declared a unilateral cease-fire and offered to meet with Ossetian leaders with full autonomy for South Ossetia on the table.
3. Russia's response to the death of civilians and Russian troops legitimately stationed in South Ossetia may have been justified based upon my first point--it may have had a legitimate ius ad bello--but its disproportional response was unjust and a violation of ius in bello.
4. There are no good guys here.
5. The fact that there are no good guys here makes placing all moral blame in Russia's hands, as the Western media has certainly seemed to do, an act of untruth, if not an act of outright lying.
EDIT, part deux:
Pat Buchanan lays it out nice and simply.
EDIT the third:
Dr. Trifković's analysis may be the best I've seen.
8 comments:
Moreover, why does NATO still exist? The Soviet Union fell, it has served its purpose. What can it do now but antagonize Russia and make it more likely that US troops will die for no good reason? Why do we need to be so involved in the Caucasus anyway? How does this protect American citizens? The job of a government is to look after the common good of its citizens, not to police the world and spread democracy as if it was the only legitimate form of government.
So, you are actually saying that NATO is but a relic of the Cold War?
I'm not so certain that it's actually outlived its usefulness, especially in light of our current times, ironically enough.
-e.
So, you are actually saying that NATO is but a relic of the Cold War?
Yes. NATO's purpose was to contain the Soviet Union. There is no more Soviet Union. Thus, NATO has no further purpose.
It is no good to point to Russia seeking to establish power and influence over other states in the Caucasus and say that this is equivalent to the actions of the Soviet Union. Russia traditionally had such power and influence long before the Bolsheviks.
I'm not so certain that it's actually outlived its usefulness, especially in light of our current times, ironically enough.
The current situation in the Caucasus is in part a response by Russia to NATO expansion. I certainly would be displeased if Russia put military bases, radar stations capable of spying on our military installations, and missiles aimed at the US in Canada and Mexico. But his is exactly what we are doing to Russia by expanding NATO into the states along its borders. Part of the reason Russia acted as it did to the Georgian attack on South Ossetia was to demonstrate that they were not going to take such things lying down. This does not excuse any Russian violations of ius in bello, as my post should make clear. But it does help explain the rational behind Russia's actions.
It also, quite frankly, does no good to say that Russia is governed by thugs who are opposed to true liberal democracy. Liberal democracy is not and has never been the criteria of a good and just government.
Moreover, the internal ordering of foreign powers is not the business of the United States unless said ordering is an immediate and direct threat to our security and the safety of our citizens. The current Russian political regime is, as far as I can tell, no such threat. Russia has been trying to work with the US in areas where we have common cause. We have responded by trying to expand NATO and set up military bases and missiles on their border. The fact that Russian interests may run contrary to US interests at times does not make Russia our enemy. It simply demonstrates the fact that not all countries will always have the same interests. And if each country is working towards the true common good of its people, this is not surprising.
Brendon:
You seem to be operating on a various number of assumptions, avoiding several facts in the matter inter alia (1) the FSB operatives that established/runs the new Russia (2) the genuine intentions of the new KGB state (which is NOT about the re-emergence of the former Soviet empire) (3) the new Russia has a right to expand its sovereignty beyond its present borders (4) that this new Russia is but a heroic protagonist trying to come to the rescue of a poor little region
- a region, mind you, that is internationally recognized as part of Georgia
- that the supposed transgression is a real one
Please see here:
Evidence in Georgia Belies Russia's Claims of 'Genocide'
By Andrew Osborn in Tskhinvali, Georgia, and Jeanne Whalen in Moscow
EXCERPT:
'Russia's assertions that it was provoked into war by "genocide" in South Ossetia and that it is observing a cease-fire in Georgia came under new challenge Thursday, as the U.S. stepped up diplomatic pressure on Moscow.
Washington agreed to base missile interceptors on Polish soil, in a new sign of how Russia's invasion of Georgia is redrawing the geopolitical map.
On the ground in South Ossetia -- the contested region where fighting broke out last week between Georgia and Russia -- there was little evidence that Georgian attacks killed thousands of civilians, as Russia has said."
and consider:
Georgia can 'forget' regaining provinces
TBILISI, Georgia - The foreign minister of Russia said Thursday that Georgia could "forget about" getting back its two breakaway provinces, and the former Soviet republic remained on edge as Russia sent tank columns to search out and destroy Georgian military equipment.
...
The Russian president met in the Kremlin with the leaders of the provinces, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, a clear sign Moscow could absorb the regions even though the territory is internationally recognized as being within Georgia's borders.
(1) the FSB operatives that established/runs the new Russia (2) the genuine intentions of the new KGB state (which is NOT about the re-emergence of the former Soviet empire)
The internal governance of Russia is not my business, nor is it America's. The current Russian government is not an immediate and direct threat to the safety and lives of United States' citizens, and is thus not the business of the United States' government.
Moreover, the current government is popular with the Russian people, who view it as having saved Russia from economic destruction and having respect, even reverence, for Russia's historical traditions and Orthodox faith. The Russian people may be incorrect, even foolish, in this view, but it is not the business of the United States to meddle in their business and forcible change things for their own good.
(4) that this new Russia is but a heroic protagonist trying to come to the rescue of a poor little region
What part of: "There are no good guys here," is so difficult for people to understand?
I, quite frankly, neither care that South Ossetia and Abkhazia are internationally recognized as part of Georgia, nor that Russia will not allow Georgia to regain possession of the regions. Historically speaking, both South Ossetia and Abkhazia have strong arguments for being separate from Georgia and closely tied to Russia. There are certainly stronger historical arguments for this than there are for an independent Kosovo separate from Serbia, a situation that has no historical basis whatsoever. I am not at all surprised that Russia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia view international recognition as a joke after Western nations recognized the illegal separation of Kosovo from Serbia so quickly, yet refuse to recognize the independence of historically distinct South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgia.
I have defined my views on conservatism elsewhere, but they boil down to this: history, tradition and order are more important than autonomy and political liberty. Russia has traditionally been the major power in the Caucasus, and she was so long before there were any Bolsheviks. This is both the historical and real order of the Caucasus, and as such it demands to be dealt with prudently and "as is" rather than with a foolish demand for "Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité," which is what an irrational meddling in the affairs of Caucasian countries for the sake of liberal democracy boils down to.
Russia has no desire to be the United States' enemy. She is willing to work with us in friendship where our interests and hers converge. Where they do not, she will work towards her own interests and this is how it should be. The sooner we realize these facts and choose to deal with them, rather than foolishly believing that we have some mandate to spread liberal democracy and meddle in the internal affairs of other nations when they do not pose a threat to the wellbeing of our citizens, the better off we will be.
Brendon,
"The Russian people may be incorrect, even foolish, in this view, but it is not the business of the United States to meddle in their business and forcible change things for their own good...Russia has traditionally been the major power in the Caucasus, and she was so long before there were any Bolsheviks."
So you're saying that the empire-building that Russia seems currently engaged in is justified due to it having been a Great Power historically?
To what extent are you going to justify such efforts at the cost of the innocents that may suffer as a result of it?
To what extent will you condemn those other countries who rightfully protest against what should be seen as such an injustice?
It's amazing that there were those who protested against America's so-called 'empire-building' with Iraq and, yet, when it comes to the New Russia, such a notion is seen with such benign gloss as to even go so far as to justify her actions.
So you're saying that the empire-building that Russia seems currently engaged in is justified due to it having been a Great Power historically?
No. I am saying that dealing with reality necessarily means dealing with history, tradition and how they inspire and influence actions in the present. And I am saying that even if Russia's actions were not justified, that does not make them the business of the United States.
To what extent are you going to justify such efforts at the cost of the innocents that may suffer as a result of it?
There is a distinction between what is done and how it is done. This is the distinction between ius ad bello and ius in bello, among other things. Since I have explicitly stated that there is no excuse for violating ius in bello, even if a nation has a justifiable ius ad bello, I have explicitly denied that such actions can be justified at the cost of innocent suffering. Unless of course one wants to argue that even if all conditions for ius in bello are met, the innocent will still suffer, and thus no military action can ever be justified. But if one believes that, then one should look towards fixing one's own nation first, since that is where one has a real duty and real influence.
To what extent will you condemn those other countries who rightfully protest against what should be seen as such an injustice?
None. But if you are discussing the specific situation in South Ossetia, then you are begging the question. There are historical and existential reasons to see the secession of South Ossetia from Georgia and her joining with Russia as justified. And if these are justified, any protest against them cannot be considered justifiable.
It's amazing that there were those who protested against America's so-called 'empire-building' with Iraq and, yet, when it comes to the New Russia, such a notion is seen with such benign gloss as to even go so far as to justify her actions.
I am continually amazed with people's inability to deal with historical and existential particulars, which leads them to compare apples and oranges in completely illegitimate ways. I am similarly amazed at their lack of reading comprehension, the kind that can somehow read, "There are no good guys here," as, "Russia is completely justified in both what she did and how she did it." But the world is full of all kinds of strangeness, so I suppose we'll both just have to suffer through as best we can.
Brendon,
If you were truly of the opinion that "There are no good guys here," you wouldn't be so bent on submitting such arguments as "There are historical and existential reasons to see the secession of South Ossetia from Georgia and her joining with Russia as justified.", "Moreover, the current government is popular with the Russian people, who view it as having saved Russia from economic destruction and having respect, even reverence, for Russia's historical traditions and Orthodox faith." and the like, which seemingly try to put such a positive spin on Russia so as to provide certain justification for her actions.
In other words, what you say with one side of the mouth seems inconsistent with what comes out of the other.
This may be unintentional, I grant you; however, it cannot helped but be noticed.
If you were truly of the opinion that "There are no good guys here," you wouldn't be so bent on submitting such arguments as "There are historical and existential reasons to see the secession of South Ossetia from Georgia and her joining with Russia as justified."
To argue that South Ossetia's desire to secede from Georgia and enter into the Russian federation is justified, and that Russia is justified in assisting the Ossetians in this, is not to argue that the particular, concrete actions taken to bring this situation about were just. Particular actions are not just simply because they have just ends. These ends must also be accomplished through just means. Thus there is nothing contradictory or two-faced about saying both, "There are no good guys here," and, "There are historical and existential reasons to see the secession of South Ossetia from Georgia and her joining with Russia as justified."
"Moreover, the current government is popular with the Russian people, who view it as having saved Russia from economic destruction and having respect, even reverence, for Russia's historical traditions and Orthodox faith."
The point of this statement is that the Russian government is the business of the Russian people and not the United States. I admitted quite honestly that the Russian people might be wrong and foolish in their view of their government. I am not sure how this implies one thing or another about Russia's actions in South Ossetia. What it does do is explicitly state that not everything we might consider bad falls within the sphere of our duty to fix.
Post a Comment