Meanwhile, over in Georgia

I'm speaking for the 99.9% of the people who watch CNN or BBC who have very little interest in hearing about anything other than the body count.

I know you are! Stop it!

By the way, the idea that television is some kind of accurate reflection of the totality of a nation's desires for entertainment and information has been disproven over and over.

Heh! I've just spent half an hour typing a very long email to a pal setting out how I think this whole thing will pan out (regime change and a proxy russian finger hovering over the pipeline tap, I can exclusively reveal), then I refresh here and find that, uh, I got it a bit wrong. Thankfully I concluded with that Churchill quote about 'a riddle wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma'

Note to self: always caveat everything (if appropriate)

Well to be fair that could still happen. Russia doesn't mind playing a long game.

Russia says it's concluded operations:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7555858.stm

but Lavrov is calling on Saakashvili to step down, among other things

The Russian airforce attacked a key oil pipeline running through Georgia on Tuesday but there was no word yet on whether it had been damaged, the secretary of Georgia's National Security Council told AFP.

"Russians bombed the BTC pipeline south of the city of Rustavi," said Alexander Lomaia.

"We don't know yet whether it was damaged. It's a second attempt to bomb this pipeline since August 10."

A spokesman for British energy giant BP, which operates the pipeline, said the company was unaware that it had been attacked.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jkO1FVRBFvudN6Oll6x_LRTRQ3LQ

but Lavrov is calling on Saakashvili to step down, among other things

That's hardly surprising. The Georgians do seem to be telling an awful lot of porkies.

If Georgian politics were anything like ours, it'd be hard to see Saakashvili not stepping down, given that it was his outrageous gamble that failed so quickly and so spectacularly. But it's not Lavrov's call to make

The point of view here (Moscow) is that this was all an elaborate gamble by Washington.

1. The Russian response to Georgia's actions was 100% certain.
2. Saakashvili would never have provoked Russia to that extent without, at the very least, the explicit agreement from someone in Washington.
3. Given the way the situation exploded, one side or the other must now "win" - there will be no settling back into the stalemate we've seen for the last 12 (?) years.
4. Georgia, and now probably most of the West, will insist on UN/EU/NATO peacekeepers replacing Russian ones as part of any peace settlement.
5. This means that Russian troops will leave South Ossetia, which will ultimately be seen as a defeat. And Saakashvili's real objective was to get the Russian troops out, anyway.
6. Washington wins because Russia "loses," although one consequence may very well be that Saakhashvili loses US support somewhere down the road (covert trade-off to Russia for leaving South Ossetia).

I don't think we'll be seeing Georgia in NATO or the EU any time soon

Esp. not if Saakashvili is still in charge

Eh, that was totally unrealistic even before this

Was it?

I think so. Georgia has a history of political instability, sits in the middle of a flashpoint with ties into Russia's own Caucasus issues. Far too much of an obligation for NATO to take on.

I think Saakashvili can stop constantly being photographed in front of the Georgian and EU flags because that's not going to work either.

So I guess the Russians basically made Sarkozy look like a dope for flying all the way to Moscow only to have the war end just a few minutes before he arrived? Of course, that's exactly how Russia wanted it -- "thanks but no thanks, we've got our business under control and we don't particularly need your input."

Anything that makes Sarkozy look like a dope is fine by me

anyone post Fred Kaplan's article?

The second half of the article is good, but I don't like this:

It's heartbreaking, but even more infuriating, to read so many Georgians quoted in the New York Times—officials, soldiers, and citizens—wondering when the United States is coming to their rescue. It's infuriating because it's clear that Bush did everything to encourage them to believe that he would

No it's not, it's infuriating because it paints the Georgians as naive, vulnerable idiots. I don't for a minute think they were banking on the Americans wading in - they were banking on making the Russians retreat with one blow - but if they were, they had no grounds to do so. Grounds for believing Bush wishes them well and will support them to an extent, but come on

I wish I shared your certainty that Sakaashvili is not an idiot

The eXile has it's own take

Saakashvili just didn’t think it through. One reason he overplayed his hand is that he got lucky the last time he had to deal with a breakaway region: Ajara, a tiny little strip of Black Sea coast in southern Georgia. This is a place smaller than some incorporated Central Valley towns, but it declared itself an “autonomous” republic, preserving its sacred basket-weaving traditions or whatever. You just have to accept that people in the Caucasus are insane that way; they’d die to keep from saying hello to the people over the next hill, and they’re never going to change. The Ajarans aren’t even ethnically different from Georgians; they’re Georgian too. But they’re Muslims, which means they have to have their own Lego parliament and Tonka-Toy army and all the rest of that Victorian crap, and their leader, a wack job named Abashidze (Goddamn Georgian names!) volunteered them to fight to the death for their worthless independence. Except he was such a nut, and so corrupt, and the Ajarans were so similar to the Georgians, and their little “country” was so tiny and ridiculous, that for once sanity prevailed and the Ajarans refused to fight, let themselves get reabsorbed by that Colussus to the North, mighty Georgia.

Well, like I’ve said before, there’s nothing as dangerous as victory. Makes people crazy. Saakashvili started thinking he could gobble up any secessionist region—like, say, South Ossetia. But there are big differences he was forgetting—like the fact that South Ossetia isn’t Georgian, has a border with Russia, and is linked up with North Ossetia just across that border. The road from Russia to South Ossetia is pretty fragile as a line of supply; it goes through the Roki Tunnel, a mountain tunnel at an altitude of 10,000 feet. I have to wonder why the Georgian air force—and it’s a good one by all accounts—didn’t have as its first mission in the war the total zapping of the South Ossetian exit of that tunnel. Or if you don’t trust the flyboys, send in your special forces with a few backpacks full of HE. There are a lot of ways to cripple a tunnel. Hell, do it low-tech: drive a fuel truck in there, with a car following, jackknife the truck halfway through with a remote control or timing fuse—truck driver gets out and strolls to the car, one fast U-turn and you’re out and back in Georgia, just in time to see a ball of flame erupt from the tunnel exit. And rebuilding a tunnel way up in the mountains is not an easy or a fast job. Sure, the Russians could resupply by air, but that’s a much, much tougher job and would at least slow down the inevitable. Weird, then, that as far as I know the Georgians didn’t even try to blast that tunnel. I don’t go in for this kind of long-distance micromanaging of warfare, because there’s usually a good reason on the ground for tactical decisions; it’s the strategic decisions that are really crazy most of the time. But this one I just don’t get.

Sure, the Russians could resupply by air, but that’s a much, much tougher job and would at least slow down the inevitable.

Even if Georgia had intended for this to blossom into war between Russia and Georgia, which I doubt, I don't think it would have been in their interest to prolong the conflict once it started.

perhaps Sarko's flying to Russia caused them to hold up a bit?

Saakashvili would never have provoked Russia to that extent without, at the very least, the explicit agreement from someone in Washington.

o rly?

I wish I shared your certainty that Sakaashvili is not an idiot

-- Tom D., Tuesday, August 12, 2008 6:56 AM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Link

OTM. A very camera-savvy, media-ready idiot, with strong friendships with American conservatives aside from McCain going back to before he was even elected

How does such rubbish, advocating active US military involvement, get published in the lol "liberal media" ?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/152012

Even the National fucking Review's goddamned slanderous editorial (omitting any of Saaky's provocations) didn't espouse that

Ah I forgot tipsy mothra already linked to that, but still. It's kind of infuriating.

It's a pretty amazing article.

I think Paul Krugman's definition of "know-nothingism" is apt:

know-nothingism — the insistence that there are simple, brute-force, instant-gratification answers to every problem, and that there’s something effeminate and weak about anyone who suggests otherwise

I guess the reports of the death of neo-conservative hawkishness were somewhat premature. Soon "realist" will be as much of a dirty word in foreign policy debate as "liberal" has become in domestic politics.

Obama, naturally, is going the pragmatic route, calling for UN intervention, a review of Russia's global status, and most telling of all, "deepening relations between Georgia and transatlantic institutions, including a Membership Action Plan for NATO."

The President-In-Waiting clearly understands what his upcoming gig demands. NATO expansion is but one of many tasks on the docket. The only "change" we can believe in is how Obama will polish the same old bullshit using fresh, uplifting rhetoric. Yet I suspect in the short-run, when shoved and slimed by a desperate McCain, Obama may very well dispense with the niceties that have endeared him to so many hopeful consumers, and show that he too can growl and promise sadistic punishment for our many enemies. Not that his liberal followers will mind all that much....

http://dennisperrin.blogspot.com/2008/08/another-chokehold-routine.html

know-nothingism — the insistence that there are simple, brute-force, instant-gratification answers to every problem, and that there’s something effeminate and weak about anyone who suggests otherwise

that Perrin post is pretty nonsensical. "UN intervention, a review of Russia's global status, and most telling of all, "deepening relations between Georgia and transatlantic institutions, including a Membership Action Plan for NATO" = "Sadistic punishment of our enemies"? uh yeah, okay buddy.

I don't think I've seen a Perrin post that wasn't nonsensical.

(Granted the only ones I've seen are the ones Morbius posts.)

Obama's working on a McCain-style League of Democracies (ie, a better rubber stamp than the UN) too.

the nerve of that guy, trying to get people to cooperate and talk to each other

no, to agree to sanctify our holy bombings, Mo.

Don't you ever get bored of being the most one-note poster on the political threads?

do you have a link for that? this is all i could find:

[foreign policy advisor Anthony] Lake was sympathetic to aspects of Mr McCain’s idea of a League of Democracies, one of the centrepieces of the Republican’s foreign policy plans.

Stressing that he had not spoken to Mr Obama about it, he backed the general idea of a grouping that was “not an anti-Russian device but an effort to find ways for the democracies to act together on issues of defence of our common values . . . specifically on issues when the UN can’t act”.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/039d5b8a-47b2-11dd-93ca-000077b07658,dwp_uuid=729ab242-9cb1-11db-8ec6-0000779e2340,print=yes.html

I think drawing that conclusion is a bit premature

x-post

Painting Obama as a bloodthirsty war-crazed holy bomber is a little uhhhh

goole, see Prez thread

everything's relative, Shakey. But he does want to be the American President.

"find ways for the democracies to act together on issues of defence of our common values . . . specifically on issues when the UN can’t act won't suck our dick with the precise pressure and speed we demand”.

so you think we should just limit our foreign policy to what the UN approves

this event is a interesting (funny? sad? gross?) test-case of media coverage and diffusion of just basic knowledge of the situation. coverage on center-left blogs and media like slate has been pretty good (and on ilx lol), on the right it has been disgusting, the center-mainstream-cable is been just moronic, what i've been able to watch of it anyway.

it's clear that, if john mccain's ideas about foreign policy were followed, we'd be in a nuclear standoff with russia by now. and even now he still wants to bring georgia into NATO, effectively dragging the rest of the west into georgia. i haven't turned on a tv in about three days, but, you think that would be a problem for him...

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/Pictures/336xAny/p/a/i/Gordon_Brown_4_ready.jpg+http://www.liveyp2008.org/web/images/patrons/david_milliband.jpg=http://www.geotimes.ge/uploads_script/news/8e86bf9d2b38eb6.jpg

Derbyshire, making sense:

Either you believe the U.S.A. ought to commit — in writing — that we shall go to war on behalf of Georgia (Estonia, the Ukraine, etc.), or you believe we ought not.

If you do believe it, as our President does (or else what were all those efforts to get Georgia and Ukraine into NATO about?) then you ought honestly to admit the nonzero probability that Putin, or some future Putin, will call our bluff. Then we shall be at war with Russia. On behalf of Georgia. ("The U.S.A. should commit to go to war against Russia on behalf of Georgia" — anyone care to estimate how that would poll among the U.S. population?)

George Will's line — "If we had succeeded in getting those countries into NATO, then Putin wouldn't have dared, because no NATO country ever had its territory invaded … well, all right, only the one …" — is just wishful thinking. Conservatives are the people who believe in the meaning of words. If we are not willing to go to war with Russia over Georgia, let's not commit ourselves to it. If we are, then of course we should commit … but I'd like to see those poll results first.

At this moment, Putin & his pals are rolling around the Kremlin floor laughing helplessly at our stupidity and gullibility. As a patriotic American, I don't like to contemplate that. What could we do to wipe the smiles off their faces, though? Bomb Moscow? They know we're not going to do that. That's why they're still laughing. Game, set, and match to Putin.

As for the reader who raised my many indignant remarks about Chinese aggression against, and occupation of, Tibet and Eastern Turkesan: unless something happened while I was walking my dog just now, we have not gone to war on behalf of those countries. Nor should we. Nor have I ever advocated doing so, or committing ourselves to do so. Indignant protestations are what free people utter when their sense of justice is outraged. Going to war is what nations do when they believe their interests are gravely threatened. Two different things.

woah, that is frighteningly sane

Are you sure that's the same Derbyshire?