(2) sounds eerily like April Glaspie's conversations with Saddam just prior to the invasion of Kuwait.

Don't these people have functioning memories?

It's funny how each of the Left's loony theories are coming unstuck with each new news cycle.

Time to come up with another one!

No one could have imagined them taking a number of tanks and driving them straight into Gori.

If only we had a Russian expert in the cabinet with the ear of the president.

Also, if the Georgians are our allies, how about giving them some warning? "If you guys try this, we're not helping, the Russians will probably beat you, and the de facto independence of will likely turn into de jure independence, and thousands of your citizens will die."

Ugh. With friends like the Bush Administration...

The Georgians couldn't possibly have been stupid enough to believe the US would protect them. They either got false assurances from Putin or bad intelligence that Russia wouldn't react.

If only we had a Russian expert in the cabinet with the ear of the president.

When she was screwing up Iraq, we were told it was partly because she was a "Russia/Cold War expert" who didn't know much about Al Qaeda, Iraq, and "GWOT." Now we find out the she doesn't know much about Russia either.

Incompetence is her name. Messing up is her game.

We were OK so long as Russia 'just' took Ossetia? Remind me again why Obama is an "appeaser."

Here’s another particular fascination - John McCain’s chief foreign policy advisor has been consulting with Georgia for four years, and this whole thing smells really fishy. Another convenient war for a Republican politician. I’m just sayin…

(2) We as much as invited the Russians into Georgia by telling them we wouldn't mind them slapping down Saakashvili too much as long as they confined themselves to South Ossetia.

'"My good friends, for the second time in the Bush administration, an American Secretary of State has returned from abroad bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time."

The first time was when Colin Powell went to Afghanistan in the first months of the Bush administration to negotiate a pipeline deal with and upwards of $80 million in foreign aid to the Taliban regime.

That went well, too, right?

Actually, are there any definite proofs of Russia entering Georgia proper? There are reports coming about Russia taking Gori and then about Russia bombing Gori -- you don't bomb a town you just took, do you?
Now that Russia has officially halted the hostilities and declared that it's not going to take Tbilisi and the rest of the Georgia, will this be seen as a case of self-restraint?

Now that Russia has officially halted the hostilities and declared that it's not going to take Tbilisi and the rest of the Georgia, will this be seen as a case of self-restraint?

Only if you're Russian.

Well, yesterday all the news were "OMG, the sky is falling, they've taken Gori, they are going to take Tbilisi now" -- all the while Russia hasn't actually left the South Ossetia, these reports being either deliberate Georgian disinformation or the results of panic. And the rest of the world seemed to accept the fact that Russia is going to annex Georgia. Now that it's clear that this was not a case, and that there actually were _no_ signs that this was going to be the case, aren't "the sky is falling" guys about to look stupid? Or are they going to argue that only the forceful rhetoric of Bush stopped Russia in their "war for oil" aggression (funny how this theme got accepted so fast)?

AND, this, I suppose, another brilliant BRAINCHILD of our Russian "expert" SOS? George surely can pick them...so why is everyone so worried that Obama would do worse than the incredible team that BUSHCO brought us?

Bush was reading "My Pet Goat" when al Qaeda struck the US in 2001. He vacationed in Crawford, Texas while one of the strongest Atlantic storms in recorded history struck the Gulf Coast. He sat with Putin in the VIP section of the Olympic opening ceremonies and posed for photo ops with the bikini-clad women of the US beach volleyball team while Russia invaded Georgia.

Our President always seems to be a few steps behind events and then, after all hell breaks loose, he tries to spin the crisis into a right wing-left wing confrontation for the benefit of the GOP.

To have so much information at our fingertips and to do so little with it is simply neglectful. This is not the kind of leadership our country needs in a rapidly changing and interconnected world. We need a leader who can use information to anticipate and shape events, peacefully, wherever possible. Instead, Bush has let events shape America and his responses have often been bellicose, inadequate or both.

Hey, you know those Republicans.

They are political realists, players of the Great Game and better at it than those damed Democratic Peaceniks. They play hardball, and they understand the Russian leaders. They know how to deal with those dictators.

I'm sure that the regent Cheny carefully advised his charge, Bush, and let him know what to expect and how far the Russians had agreed to go. It was safe for Bush to be photographed reading "MY Pet Goat" to second graders or some similar PhotoOp.

The hardnosed Republicans understand how these things work. They've been doing it for seven and a half years, you see. They are irreplaceable.

The reports that the Russians went on to take Gori MUST be wrong. They agreed to only invade South Ossetia. Reporters never get anything right.

It is just petty, cheap personality-based mockery of the strain that dominates (and degrades and destroys) our political discourse -- it is Al Gore inventing the Internet and claiming to be the inspiration for Love Story, and John Kerry wind-surfing and speaking French.
---------------------
althea

Washington Treatment Centers

I saw and heard a soundbite outake of Obama's statement on the Russia-Georgia war issue today on TV news that astounded me, principally because noone called Obama on the huge gaffe he made. I could not believe that Obama would make such an ill-considered, stupid statement. Didn't anyone else catch the terrible gaffe he made!! He said:
"We should continue to push for a United Nations Security Council Resolution calling for an immediate end to the violence."

By all that is right, this gaffe will hurt Obama. Does he not realize that Russia sits on the UNSC and has VETO power over any and all its resolutions??? Surely, he does not expect Russia to vote against its own actions.

The entire Bush Admin response is CYA. We're toothless tigers in this spat, and Russia knew it. It wouldn't matter what we told Saakashvili and Putin, they both knew, or should have known, what our response would be - nothing.

As many of us who opposed the Iraq war can now say, we told you so.

The incompetence of this administration's foreign policy is again obvious.

Don't blame the State Department and Foreign Service. The politicos and political appointees from top to bottom are disconnected from reality. Where in the world is Condi? Imagine considering Georgia as a military (NATO) ally. Imagine not getting straight the consequences of Georgia trying to control South Ossetia. Understand our lack of standing and lack of support among our "friends."

As Pogo said "we have met the enemy....and he is us.

I'd be curious to know what inside baseball briefings McCain is getting from the administration that Obama isn't privy to.

fred kaplan has had some sage words over at slate, but the most interesting ('cause the writer actually has been to georgia?) take was anatol lieven's piece in the times of london:
Analysis: roots of the conflict between Georgia, South Ossetia and Russia

Anatol Lieven

Many factors are involved in the present conflict but the central one is straightforward: the majority of the Ossetes living south of the main Caucasus range in Georgia wish to unite with the Ossetes living to the north, in an autonomous republic of the Russian Federation; and the Georgians, regarding South Ossetia as both a legal and an historic part of their national territory, refuse to accept this.

Twice in the past century, when the empire to the north weakened and Georgia declared its independence, the southern Ossetes revolted against Georgian rule. It happened in 1918-20, between the collapse of the Russian empire and the Soviet Union’s conquest of Georgia in 1921; and it happened again in our own time with the fall of the Soviet Union.

In 1918-20, between 5,000 and 15,000 people died, depending on whose figures you believe. For the conflicts since 1990, the figure is about 4,000 and rising.

As the Soviet Union began to crumble in 1989, and Georgian nationalist moves for independence gathered pace, so too did Ossete nationalism and demands for separation from Georgia.

The Ossete national movement was encouraged by the Soviet Government in an effort to exert pressure against Georgian independence.

In November 1989 the Soviet assembly of the South Ossetian autonomous region passed a motion calling for union with North Ossetia. Thousands of Georgian nationalists marched on Tskhinvali, the South Ossetian capital, in protest but were blocked by Soviet forces.

A year later, after the election in Georgia of a pro-independence government led by the extreme nationalist Zviad Gamsakhurdia, the same assembly declared South Ossetia a Soviet republic separate from Georgia. The Gamsakhurdia Government then sent thousands of Georgian armed police and nationalist militia into the region. These were fought to a standstill by local Ossete militia backed by Soviet Interior Ministry troops.

I was in Georgia at the time, reporting for The Times, and could hardly have imagined that this obscure conflict would one day create a major international crisis. Tskhinvali was a typical grey Soviet Caucasian Nowheresville, of bleak, crumbling concrete offices, potholed roads and faceless compounds. The only colour I remember was on the uniforms of the Georgian fighters: one was wearing a blue and white bobble hat, another had made for himself the uniform of an officer in the Georgian forces of 1918-21.

The Russian conscripts by contrast were not colourful at all: drab, demoralised and loathing the whole situation. They were, however, much better armed than the Georgians – and still are today.

The conflict rumbled on for several years, with peaks of fighting interspersed with truces. When in 1991 the Soviet Union collapsed and Georgian independence (within the borders of the Georgian Soviet Republic, and therefore including South Ossetia and Abkhazia) was recognised by the international community, South Ossetia rejected this and continued to assert its independence. Georgia declared the South Ossete autonomous republic abolished.

Russia has not recognised this, but Russian forces have remained as the de facto defenders of the South Ossetian separatist region.

In 1996 the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) brokered an agreement whereby Russian and Georgian peacekeepers would patrol different sectors of the region.

The OSCE remained until the Georgian Government of Eduard Shevardnadze, the former Communist leader, was overthrown in the Rose Revolution and replaced by the radical nationalist administration of Mikhail Saakashvili.

Russia’s policy is driven by a mixture of emotion and calculation. The Russian security establishment likes the Ossetes, who have been Russian allies for more than 250 years. They loathe the Georgians for their antiRussian nationalism and alliance with the US. For a long time they hoped to use South Ossetia initially to keep Georgia within the Soviet Union and later in a Russian sphere of influence.

That Russian ambition has been abandoned largely in the face of the Georgians’ determination to escape from this influence.

What remains is an absolute determination not to be defeated by Georgia and not to suffer the humiliation of having to abandon Russia’s South Ossete client state, with everything that this would mean for Russian prestige in other areas. Vladimir Putin’s Kremlin made it clear again and again that if Georgia attacked South Ossetia, Russia would fight. Georgian advocates in the West claimed that Moscow was only bluffing. It wasn’t.

Anatol Lieven is a professor at King’s College London and a senior Fellow of the New America Foundation in Washington DC. In 1990-96 he was a correspondent for The Times in the former Soviet Union, including Georgia

State Department official:
We thought we had an understanding with the Russians that any response would be South Ossetia-focused.

So it sounds like the "understanding" didn't even rule out Russian attacks outside Ossetia; it's just that such attacks weren't supposed to be part of the "focus[]". In other words, apparently, the US wasn't surprised that Russia attacked other parts of Georgia, just the extent to which they did so.

"Russia sits on the UNSC and has VETO power over any and all its resolutions???"

In a nutshell, why the UN failed.

The US and Russia didn't want to be deterred by international law. Birds of a feather.

It shouldn't be possible for Russia to flout international laws in this way. Because Russia's economy is now integrated with the rest of the world, unlike during its Communist period, Russia should be vulnerable to economic reprisals.

The key here, therefore, is to assemble a coalition of major economic powers to sanction Russia for this assault on Georgia's sovereignty. Russia is testing the world's resolve to enforce its own standards. The world needs to pass this test.

p.s. Erika S.--Obama's call for a UN security counsel resolution was no gaffe. McCain called for it too. As McCain said, it at least subjects Russia to the world's judgment, even if Russia would ultimately veto it. Diplomacy involves a certain amount of symbolic action.

(2) We as much as invited the Russians into Georgia by telling them we wouldn't mind them slapping down Saakashvili too much as long as they confined themselves to South Ossetia.

Wow...back in Gulf War I we also as much as invited Saddam into Kuwait by telling him we had no opinion on inter-Arab conflicts. And come to think of it, some of these same incompetent boobs (including Condi Rice -- Russia expert, my eye) were involved.

....which points gyrfalcon and B made at the top of the thread. Apologies for skipping.

Bush & Cheney like to outsource so much, sounds like a job for Erik Prince & Blackwater!!!

Actually, are there any definite proofs of Russia entering Georgia proper? There are reports coming about Russia taking Gori and then about Russia bombing Gori -- you don't bomb a town you just took, do you?

Russian bombs, bullets and missiles certainly seem to have entered Georgia proper.....

Bush/Cheney didn't really give a crap about Georgia because, inspite of an oil pipeline, there is not oil there. No fields to disenfranchise from the Georgians in favor of ExxonMobile. No oil fields, no real interest.

They were merely putting Georgia on as a way to lightly tweak Russia. It was entirely a back show.

The Dude:
Yes Russia is very dependent upon trade. The problem is that their principal export -oil and gas, is the lifeblood of western civilization. We've seen the effect of the price rise caused by a minor supply/demand imbalance. Imagine the effect of taking the second largest oil exporter (they are roughly tied with the Saudis) off the market. An economic crisis of great proportion would immediately ensue.

I can't be quite as upset about this supposed semi-tacit agreement as most here. It is clear to all players, that the US has no real capability to prevent annexation of S Ossetia. So rather than run the risk of wider war, surely it is better to agree upon acceptable limit for both parties ahead of time.

Of course this won't jive with the Republicans tough no compromise image. But part of the cost of being the governing power, is to take your lumps in public opinion when reality doesn't correspond with campaign rhetoric.

The real question now, is Russian objectives. My guess is the annexation of South Ossetia, and probably Abkazia as well. They also want to take down the Georgian military to a low level, as well as humiliate the US. And of course the example of slapping around a small country will make their neighbors pay more attention to their complaints. Let us hope these are sufficient objectives, things could get dicey if their ambitions are greater.

Now that it's clear that [the Russians are not going to take all of Georgia], and that there actually were _no_ signs that this was going to be the case, aren't "the sky is falling" guys about to look stupid?
___________________

Your correct, of course. Silly them. All this amounts to is a normal Russian land grab using the pretext of defending ethnic populations they have concern about, anyway. The Ossetians and Akbhazians aren't the issue here - they're just being used as pawns. It's a pretty sure bet that if they were unhappy under Georgian democracy, they're not going to be ecstatic under Russian rule. Not that they have a choice, now.

Russia had all the best of this round. Entice the Georgians into over-reacting, stomp on them hard, pour l'encouragement d'les autres, poke the West in the eye, and grab some more land and a nice slice of Black Sea coastline. The best part is that they can always count on those in the West to make the usual excuses and moral equivalency arguments. Life is good, if you're Putin.

I believe Nick Lowe said it best: "All day discussions with the Russians, but they still went ahead and vetoed the plan."

No one could have anticipated Russia's advance into Georgia. Diplomacy is hard work.

That's their story and they're sticking to it.

[yawn]
.

Russian bombs, bullets and missiles certainly seem to have entered Georgia proper
I'm not disputing this. The goal was to destroy Georgian military capacities, not to occupy the country (given Chechnya's experience, a very bad idea). And that's a big difference.

It's funny how each of the Left's loony theories are coming unstuck with each new news cycle.

They're so cute when they get new talking points!
.

"The goal was to destroy Georgian military capacities."
_________________

And to throw enough of a scare into the West that they'll do nothing. That sets things up nicely for then next time Russian decides to expand at someone's expense.

If Bush and Condi actually had an agreement with the Russians that their response would be limited to S. Ossetia and told Saakashvili this... well that was a mistake, wasn't it? Basically that told Georgia that they could poke the bear and it's response would be reasonable by American standards. The Russians lied, what a state craft concept. Who could have predicted?

Perhaps now we can put to rest any more nonsense about adding Georgia to NATO.

NATO doesn't need to expand anymore. Every single expansion lately has been a direct, intentional tweak at Russia. It is a prod to try to make Russia respond (and perhaps start a new Cold War to feed the Military-Industrial complex on a long-term level).

The neocons have always regretted the ending of the Cold War and all the super money to be made in armaments and in military standoffs.

The goal was to destroy Georgian military capacities, not to occupy the country (given Chechnya's experience, a very bad idea). And that's a big difference.

Actually, no, that's not such a big difference. By destroying Georgia's military capabilities, they leave Georgia powerless and once again within Russian hegemony. They can therefore gain most of the benefits they would have from actually occupying Georgia without the long-term cost and expense (economic, military and diplomatic) of actual occupation.

Well, the real story is that the GWOT just wasn't living up to its intent. Too enigmatic.

Easier to fall back on something tried and true like the Cold War.

"NATO doesn't need to expand anymore. Every single expansion lately has been a direct, intentional tweak at Russia."
________________

Yes, yes! The only righteous defense stance for the West is one of submission. Those meanie Russians won't ever do anything if we just avoid acting so butch.

The people in those countries don't really understand concepts like freedom and democracy, anyway. Just give 'em enough borscht and vodka and they'll be happy enough. Besides, we in the West just don't have enough moral authority to say anything, so somebody else will need to do it. Maybe we can talk Robert Mugabe into running NATO, or something.

Wow...Trashy is bloodthirsty enough when he advocates the ongoing occupation of Iraq, but he really has a hard-on for a new Cold War.

Besides, we in the West just don't have enough moral authority to say anything

One thing's for sure, Trashy...you sure as hell don't.

Shame on you.

They can therefore gain most of the benefits they would have from actually occupying Georgia without the long-term cost and expense (economic, military and diplomatic) of actual occupation.

Well, that _is_ a big difference. The biggest problem with Hitler was not that he was evil, but that he was not rational. Russia annexing Georgia would be a crazy thing to do in a sense that it would eventually be counter to the self-interest. Russia annexing Georgia would be a first step to the eventual demise of the country, and believe me, when Russia breaks up, you're gonna miss good old Putin a lot, just like you missed tzarist Russia after the Communist revolution.

Putin's regime is a moderate fascism, in Franco's or Greek generals' vein, it's crappy and leaves a bad taste in the mouth (believe me, I live in Russia), but it's not self-destructive, which is what countries that cause great damage to the world are.

Speaking about land grab, as far as I know, most of the USA's 19th century consisted of such land-grabs, yet it didn't lead to the end of the world. I hope that we don't try to grab Crimea.

Befopre Brian dismisses me as "overwrought" again he should look at trashhaulers comment at 12:02. My goodness! Fetch the fainting couch!

For the record, one of the reasons that I thought making war on Iraq was a bad idea was because I never trusted the Russian Federation. I find the idea of the Russian mob running that huge country with all those nuclear weapons - and unencumbered by Communism - wholly unsettling. Then throw in the fact that China is about fifteen minutes away from a blue-water navy, and it's time to stack furniture in front of the door to my anxiety closet.

Where bu$h saw a splendid little war to enrich his cronies, I saw the opportunity to fuck up the US standing on the world stage for the next half century. (Guess who was right? Again.)

And before anyone says something stupid like Russia and China don't play in the same league as we do - remember I live in KC - there are a lot of minor league ball clubs that could take the Royals standing up.

Chamberlain's mistake was looking into Hitler's eyes and thinking he could trust him. Bush's mistake waslooking into Putin's eyes and thinking he could trust him. At least Chaimberlain got a piece of paper

"Before Brian dismisses me as "overwrought" again he should look at trashhaulers comment at 12:02. My goodness! Fetch the fainting couch!"
________________

Oh please. I was not advocating anything stupid. I was just reacting to the same, old, nigh-on inevitable "well-perhaps-it-worked-out-for-the-best" impulse that some love so much.

Why can't you folks ever admit that sometimes the other guy wins, even if he is a right bastard? Why must everything be a morality play? The Russian win doesn't necessarily mean the US was wrong, or Georgia was wrong, or that NATO is a bad idea. Russia just pulled of a first class heist. So what? Chalk it up as a lesson learned and press on.

It was Linday, wasn't it, who wrote the article citing a HouTower (that's the Hoover Institution for you non-Stanford folk) thinker surmising that Putin used his KGB caseworker skills on Georgie Boy?

The best explanation I've read yet on how Bush the Lesser could have misread Puti-put so severely. Putin displayed just exactly the soul he knew Georgie Boy wanted to see, and Georgie Boy, who values more than anything his gut feelings about people, bought it hook, line, and sinker.

Sorry I don't have the link, but in was in the comments here a few days ago.

Where bu$h saw a splendid little war to enrich his cronies...

Well, he did enrich his cronies.

Chalk it up as a lesson learned and press on

Sorry Trashy, Bush doesn't "do" learnin'.

Irony alert: Trashy, who still claims "we're winning" the occupation of Iraq, wrote: Why can't you folks ever admit that sometimes the other guy wins, even if he is a right bastard?

Then:

The Russian win doesn't necessarily mean the US was wrong, or Georgia was wrong, or that NATO is a bad idea. Russia just pulled of a first class heist. So what? Chalk it up as a lesson learned and press on.

Shorter Trashy, who enjoys posing as some kind of foreign policy expert when not slandering my betters on these threads: Please pay no attention to yet another foreign policy fuckup by the Administration I carry water for.

Shame on you, Trashy.

For those who want to get a sense of the difficulties of life in Georgia, try to see the documentary, "Power Trip", about an attempt of an American company to set up an electrical utility there. Electricity is too expensive, so the people steal it…which in turn raises the costs of electricity for the small amount of people who are actually paying for it. You oughta see their homemade electrical lines. The whole situation is nightmarish if you like peace, order and good government.

The whole situation is nightmarish if you like peace, order and good government.

I see we have a Canadian among us!

Kevin, folks: wouldn't you agree that it is problematical for us to be fully assured that the Russians acted wrongly in intervening to help South Ossetia etc. (even though no excuse for trashing Georgia as a whole) when we pushed to split off ethnic minority enclaves elsewhere? I realize those minorities were treated worse (?) than the Ossetians, but our own precedent should be taken into account shouldn't it? (As IIRC Pat Buchanan noted.)

any of you geniuses have any constructive ideas about how our next President prevents further further Russian bullying of other democracies on its border Europe as a whole?

Uh, why is it up to our next president? Isn't Bush still president? What's he going to do now, at this moment, while the bullets are flying? I mean, I know he's busy watching the Olympics and all, but you'd think this might be considered within his ambit of responsibility.

Typical conservative -- always trying to kick the can down the road....

nice dodge...not.

Is Bush still the president of the United States or isn't he? I know it's hard to remember, given how lately he actually gets done and how much Republicans would like to forget he ever existed, but if I recall correctly I think that technically he still is.

The entire Bush Admin response is CYA. We're toothless tigers in this spat, and Russia knew it. It wouldn't matter what we told Saakashvili and Putin, they both knew, or should have known, what our response would be - nothing.
...
As many of us who opposed the Iraq war can now say, we told you so.

On the whole, I don't find this as demoralizing as Hungary 1956 or Czechoslovakia 1968 or the Berlin Wall -- or China in Tibet. I expect that there are other regions of the "near abroad" that Russia is prepared to take back, and I doubt that there is anything the U.S., E.U., NATO or anyone else is prepared to do to prevent them, except maybe delay Russian entry into the WTO: eastern Ukraine and possibly the Crimea; Moldova; eastern or all of Belarus.

The most pertinent analogy seems to be Kosovo, not Iraq.

Reading, as we all have in recent years, and again in recent days, of the histories of Abkhazia, Ossetia, and Georgia, it seems as though this is independent of the Iraq War, unless Saakashvilli believed that the American presence in Iraq and discussions (no promises!) of entry into NATO promised support of his (apparently popular in Georgia, at least at first) attack on S. Ossetia.

It's too bad that Putin has stifled the nascent democracy in Russia. But if Russia had a democracy, this would probably help him get re-elected, as it probably will Medvedev.

Nat: If Bush and Condi actually had an agreement with the Russians that their response would be limited to S. Ossetia and told Saakashvili this... well that was a mistake, wasn't it? Basically that told Georgia that they could poke the bear and it's response would be reasonable by American standards. The Russians lied, what a state craft concept. Who could have predicted?

Too much of a reach. The U.S. bombed Belgrade and bridges over the Danube river in order to liberate Kosovo from Serbia. The Russian attacks against the Georgian military have been similarly dispersed. Other writers have suggested that Saakashvilli leapt into a well-made trap.

we've got to get a unified front with Europe over a response to Russia, stating clearly that the next such display of naked agression by the Russian Bear is the trip-wire to .... expulsion from the G-8, etc.

Jesus Christ, expulsion from the G-8!?!? Wow, I guess no option is off the table, isn't it? You're really willing to back up that tough talk with some action!

John McCain can plausibly achieve this. Obama, no way. Putin will eat him for lunch.

If McCain is able to face up to Putin half as well as George Bush can, perhaps:

I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul.

Good evening. Great Site. Useful info. I will surely check back soon. Help me! There is an urgent need for sites: Alavert dose. I found only this - alavert together. Alavert, i offer that, in trainer, blog games healthy as data, off-road and greatness can also assist from the available bottom help. Alavert, tech ways, in this something escape you will inspire about the smart wealth. With respect :cool:, Zo from Zaire.