Meanwhile, over in Georgia

everyone wants to be on the side of the winning mob, you know

Andrew Sullivan's apologia.

a little late, asshole

some fella in the local spar was explaining the situation to his mate on the till and mentioned "soviet tanks". i was going to correct him, but i didn't want to look like a smartarse.

I think my favorite part of this whole fiasco, if such a thing is possible, was when Zalmay Khalilzad (USA's man at the UN) disclosed a confidential phone call Condi had with the Russian Foreign Minister, who told her that the Georgian leadership had to go. Zalmay is all "Is Russia seeking regime change in Georgia?" And Russia's man at the UN says "That's an American expression."

Not read Sullivan in years but I just read that and it's very good.

Zalmay is all "Is Russia seeking regime change in Georgia?" And Russia's man at the UN says "That's an American expression."

okay, that's gold.

I have to say, reading this thread is so bizzaro... all the comments from the west about how Russia has backed the US into a corner, etc. etc. etc. where the "analytical" perception here in Russia is that the Russia has been suckered into doing something that has sharply turned world opinion against it (and thereby undermined its influence, short of playing the bully whenever it wants something)

Yeah, but what if the Russian government gets what it presumably wants? Does it care about saving face that much? (Serious question.)

Russia vs. Georgia settling scores OLYMPIC BEACH VOLLEYBALL right now. Come on Georgia!

Yay Georgia!

i.e. Brazil!

Christ, can it be even clearer than this? Even the Bush administration admits that it may have gone too far in prodding Georgia to attack:

The United States took a series of steps that emboldened Georgia: sending advisers to build up the Georgian military, including an exercise last month with more than 1,000 American troops; pressing hard to bring Georgia into the NATO orbit; championing Georgia’s fledgling democracy along Russia’s southern border; and loudly proclaiming its support for Georgia’s territorial integrity in the battle with Russia over Georgia’s separatist enclaves.

But interviews with officials at the State Department, Pentagon and the White House show that the Bush administration was never going to back Georgia militarily in a fight with Russia.

In recent years, the United States has also taken a series of steps that have alienated Russia — including recognizing an independent Kosovo and going ahead with efforts to construct a missile defense system in Eastern Europe. By last Thursday, when the years of simmering conflict exploded into war, Russia had a point to prove to the world, even some administration officials acknowledge, while Georgia may have been under the mistaken impression that in a one-on-one fight with Russia, Georgia would have more concrete American support.

You could multiply that first paragraph many times and it still wouldn't amount to the US causing this thing. It's not unreasonable to expect Georgia to show a bit of nous to interpret things properly. (I still maintain that they did this, knowingly taking a big gamble that just didn't pay off - but of course after the fact everything gets interpreted to make the US look like the bad guys)

This is a perfect example of how useless nomenclature like "good" and "bad guys" are in a situation still unfolding and multifarious.

OK, 'principal actors' if you'd prefer. Fact is, we aren't always at the centre of things. Georgians, like everyone else, are quite capable of fucking things up for themselves

You keep telling us they're not stupid, so surely they wouldn't be stupid enough to do this if they thought the US and NATO and the EU wouldn't back them up in some way - some way more than yap yap yap, tut tut tut?

Well, we don't know what led them to the calculation that this was the thing to do. They might have been banking on:
- Russia's deployments being weaker than proved to be the case
- Russia's will to fight being low
- Medvedev being the top man now (he seems to place more emphasis on international law)
- Georgia's armed forces being stronger than they proved to be
- intelligence that Russia is planning a build-up this autumn, so this was the last chance to strike
- intelligence that Russia was looking for a way out (maintaining troops in Ossetia being an expensive business)
- any number of other things, the impact of western words being one of these
I doubt that direct western intervention (which I assume is what you mean by more than yap yap yap) was a factor they were relying on. Why would they?

I'm not saying it wasn't a stupid thing to do. It turns out to have been stupid, but that's in retrospect. At the time, it was a gamble based on unknowns. All I'm saying is that they're as capable of and in as good a position as anyone to assessing these unknowns (and their relative importance) as anyone else. The suggestion in our media always seems to be that US support is the overwhelming factor in their thinking. I doubt that was the case

georgians say russian tanks heading for the capital, should we be worried or is this just propaganda on the georgians' part?

russians deny this move, but i don't think i can believe what either country is saying.

You wouldn't think it possible, but the Russians seem more credible than the Georgians at this point!

Sullivan:

I'm not used to instinctively suspecting America's actions in the world.

Oh, the height of the bar for "intellectuals" in this land of ours...

Remember: Sully really believes Reagan was a great president.

most read stories right now on the bbc news site:

1 Inflatable faeces raises a stink
2 Rocky Horror movie to be remade
3 'Sexercise' yourself into shape
4 Midweek quiz: Inventions
5 Mud phobia pig gets its own boots

But the most-read stories on a website are usually going to be the quirkies, aren't they? The GBP doesn't really need to read the the BBC news site's brief stuff on Russia/Georgia when it's on every TV and radio news bulletin and the papers have plenty of in-depth stuff for those who want it.

I'd like to see Moscow-based Mitya's answer to Ned's question before it gets buried and forgotten in this thread

Holbrooke was just on CNN repeating the admin line that "Russia started this"

I'm waiting on Mitya's answer as well -- we need to know more about this from the perspective he has and has access to!

so now bush wants to use military aircraft and ships to send aid to the region. is he fucking crazy?

Sully's been on fire the last couple of days:

It's possible to have differing views on how to handle Russia, although, depressingly, Obama seems to take the maximalist position of bringing Georgia into NATO. But what interests me about McCain's position is not so much the content as the tone. Check out the video above. McCain clearly believes that a nasty spat in the Caucasus is somehow the defining struggle of the next generation. He speaks in ominous tones about Russia, a state he obviously regards as some dark menace on the verge of dominating the planet. He speaks of faraway countries about which we know nothing in the manner of some Wilderness Years Churchill worrying about Hitler.

All of this is quite potty. Russia is no longer the Soviet Union. You'd think conservatives would understand this distinction. There is a difference between totalitarian states seeking world expansion and authoritarian petro-states in demographic collapse bullying neighboring states because of perceived humiliations.

Look: every Republican wants to be Churchill. But this is not 1938. And Putin's Russia is not Hitler's Germany. You'll have to find another fantasy on which to base a campaign.

Mud phobia pig gets its own boots

lol this story is still around

Something not quite thorough about "Russia's not dangerous so give 'em Georgia."

So have the tanks reached Tbilisi yet or is that more Saakashvili bull?

Tensions rose in Georgia today after an advancing Russian military convoy sparked concerns of a return to hostilities. President Bush today announced he is sending Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to France and then to Tbilisi, Georgia, in reaction to the conflict.

lol thanks for the throrough itinerary

so now bush wants to use military aircraft and ships to send aid to the region. is he fucking crazy?

I just saw the statement and this is nothing if not provocative (or maybe just naive). Russia now has ample opportunities to orchestrate 'incidents' in the Eastern Black Sea. Russia gets to do what it wants because the US has no ability to project power and Europe wants to stay warm this winter. I can't see any situation playing out where Russia doesn't 'win' by whatever standards it sets for winning.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7559252.stm

o shit

yeah, but is this world war III??!!

fucking NUKES people!

Can we for a moment NOT assume that we're about to see Threads all over again, thanks?

They're delivering aid. It's the least they can do. Chill, jeremy.

yeah, but russia isn't gonna stand for this, is it? they're going to see it as an act of aggression.

Five to four says the US told the Russians first before the public announcement.

more reassuring words please, i'm having a coronary, here.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but what exactly were Russian peacekeepers, who had been stationed in S. Ossetia for 15 years, supposed to do when the Georgian military invaded Tskhinval? Their entire purpose was to prevent such an attack from succeeding!

Five to four says the US told the Russians first before the public announcement.

Undoubtedly, but it still throws the Russians another grievance/bargaining chip.

Berlin Airlift, jeremy.

the russians will authorise this before hand you mean?

They will be delivering biscuits and blankets, or whatever it is they deliver in these circumstances, not bombs

I'm just saying we've fed their enemies from military aircraft before and no bombs went off.

More like, they can accuse US of brining in troops/arms whatever, then blockade, the US has to back down, Russia wins.

It's humanitarian aid, people! C'mon.