Buy My Book Here

Fox News Ticker

Please check out my new books, "Bullied to Death: Chris Mackney's Kafkaesque Divorce and Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and the World's Last Custody Trial"

Friday, August 15, 2008

Georgia Vs. Russia: Answering the Moral Equivalency Critics

So far, whenever I point out someone that makes moral equivalency between the actions of Georgia and Russia, I merely point out that they are playing right into the hands of Vladimir Putin. I have so far not addressed the substance of their argument. I recently received this comment to another post.

Let's look at the facts:Georgia attacks a city with artillery and multiple rocket launchers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BM-21Then lots of Georgian tanks move in the region and reportedly kill civilians and run over people who are trying to escape.Now, let's imagine that it is not 500 russian peacekeepers are stationed there but 500 american soldiers and 90% of the civilian population of that city (around 50000) hold US citizenship and at least 1000 civilians and 20 soldiers are already dead as a result of the attack.Let's just hypothetically assume that while all this
happening, United States would go to UN to quickly get a resolution that would condemn the violence and some kind of action to stop the conflict. And after hours of delibirations by diplomats in UN nothing gets done at all, while more civilians killed.

The interesting questions to answer for yourself in this hypothetical situation.

1. Would there be any military action by the United States against the Georgia?

2. Would it matter if Georgia is a democratic country or not?

3. How proportional the american response would be?

4. Would any country support Georgia?

My answers to these questions are:

1. You bet. Current administration wouldn't even bother going to UN. The response would be quick and powerful.

2. Nobody gives a damn whether you are democracy or not if you commit these atrocities.

3. I doubt there be any buildings standing in Georgia if it would kill over 1000 americans.

4. Not only nobody would support them, I doubt that anybody would even give them any humanitarian aid at all.So why is it any different if we are talking about Russia it is bad aggressor but if it is US it is a victim that has all rights to protect itself?



Now, this particular comment pretty much sums up the justification for this moral equivalency. Of course, much like everything in geopolitics, no situation is cut and dry. There is plenty of room for partisans to spin anything. There is plenty of room for Putin apologists to report this conflict as all the fault of a devious and aggressive Georgia government. If your mind is really warped, you could even blame this crisis on Bush/Cheney. None of it would stand up to any serious examination and all frivilous explanations of this crisis hold great danger. They give Vladimir Putin more room to maneuver.

Now, let's examine the facts. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Georgia was one of many former republics that eventually gained its independence. For nearly a decade the country was ruled like a dictatorship much like the former Soviet Union under the "leadership" of Edward Shevardnadze. Shevardnadze was a former power player in the Communist Party in the Soviet Union and the Foreign Minister under the government of Mikhail Gorbachev. This government was very much a puppet of Russia. In 2003, under what was called the Rose Revolution, Shevardnadze was displaced and a fairly democratic government took over. That new government was lead by Mikheil Saakashvilli. Saakashvilli was educated in the West. He is fluent in English, and Georgia began moving rather briskly from dictatorship to democracy. For many reasons, this new government became a great ally of the West and mainly the United States.

The Rose Revolution occurred at roughly the same time as the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine. That dynamic had many similarities to the one in Georgia in which the government moved from dictatorship puppet of Russia to a Democracy. That revolution nearly stalled when its leader, Viktor Yuschenko was poisoned and nearly died. While there has never been definitive proof who was responsible there continues to be strong suspicion that the Russian government lead by Vladimir Putin was involved.

While the former Soviet Satellites were moving from dictatorship to Democracy, Russia had nearly the exact opposite dynamic. Vladimir Putin was consolidating power into his own hands internally. Furthermore, oil skyrocketed and brought great wealth to his nation. To Putin, his greatest threat was a thriving Democracy on his border.

Meanwhile the province of South Ossetia, within Georgia had long attempted to maintain independence from the government of Georgia. The make up of the population was mostly loyal to Russia and they had long formed their own autonomous government. The province had also long had paramilitary operating within its borders outside of any recognized government. The situation is further complicated because Russia maintained a few thousand peace keepers in South Ossetia.

Then, on August 6th, 2008, Saakashvilli sent in Georgian military to confront the paramilitary loyal to South Ossetia. Now, it has become a topic of great debate just how wise this move was. Furthermore, some have claimed that it came without the blessing of the United States. While all of that can be debated, in my opinion, for the purposes of this discussion it is still totally irrelevant.

In two days, the Russians sent in an organized and overwhelming force to as Putin put it "protect their peace keepers". As long time military man Ralph Peters clearly points out this operation was well planned and coordinated and thus it is extremely unlikely it wasn't long planned. Of course, within days, Russia was moving well into other areas of Georgia long out of the reach of merely protecting their peac keepers. The rest of course continues to unfold nearly in real time.

Now, then, the argument is that Georgia was in fact the aggressor. They bombed villagers and Russia was only moving to protect their interests from an unwarranted attack. Furthermore, had the U.S. been in a similar position we would do that and more.

Of course, this entire argument would be silly if its ramifications weren't so silly. First of all, it's very important to understand what Mr. Peters, retired but long standing military professional, has to say.

The Kremlin decided it was time to act, since Georgia was only growing stronger under its democratically elected government. Although NATO has been hemming and hawing about admitting Georgia, the Russians didn't want to take any chances. (Just last month, 1,000 US troops were in Georgia for an exercise.)

Calculating that the media and world leaders would be partying in Beijing, the Russians ordered North Ossetian militiamen, backed by Russian "peacekeepers" and mercenaries, to provoke the Georgians earlier this month.

Weary of the Russian presence on their soil, the Georgians took the bait. President Mikheil Saakashvili ordered his US-trained military to respond.

That was the excuse the Kremlin wanted. Immediately, a tank brigade from Russia's 58th Army (the butchers of Chechnya) crossed the international border into Poland - sorry, I meant Georgia.

How do I know that the Russians set a trap? Simple: Given the wretched state of Russian military readiness, that brigade could never have shot out of its motor pool on short notice. The Russians obviously "task-organized" the force in advance to make sure it would have working tanks with competent crews.

Otherwise, broken-down vehicles would've lined those mountain roads. The Russians planned it. And they hope to push it to the limit


Peters correctly paints a devious leader that had long planned such an operation and was merely looking for an excuse to execute it. In other words, it's clear to any military student that this wasn't merely an operation in response to world events, but one carefully planned. Putin's motives are of course important but they aren't the only thing we should focus. Furthermore, Putin's invasion and explanation are dangerously similary to that of Hitler's actions and explanations in Sudetenland.

What's most important here is that whatever happened between Georgia and the rebels in South Ossetia that was an internal conflict. That is a Civil War. Russia had no reason to interject into another country's Civil War. If this was always merely about the peace keepers, their force would have been much smaller and their tour much shorter. As such, it is blatant aggression, bully tactics of a weaker opponent, and most importantly a totally ilegal act of war.

Now then, the other argument is that if the shoe were on the other foot, the U.S. would act as aggressively and worse. Of course, that hypothetical is difficult to answer since there is no U.S. military presence that is similar to what the Russians have in Georgia.

Let's say for the sake of argument though that the Italian government sent in troops to confront a paramilitary operation in one of their provinces and their happened to be U.S. troop presence caught in the cross fire. It's likely we would send in troops to remove our forces from trouble. That said, there is no way that our troops would then continue on with an operation deep into Italy. We would not cut the country in two. We would not violate multiple cease fires. We would not demand the removal of the government before we negotiated, and we certainly wouldn't find ourselves on the edge of Rome.

Furthermore, there is another moral equivalency argument that says the U.S. is in no position to lecture another country about invasions because the U.S. invaded Iraq. This absurd argument would also be silly if it weren't so dangerous. Saddam Hussein was an evil tyrant. Furthermore, he had invaded Kuwait. After that invasion, the U.S. lead a coalition of military under the umbrella of the United Nations. When the UN beat Hussein back, he signed an agreement with the UN. He agreed to many different conditions and if any of those were broken, that meant a resumption of war. He then proceeded to violate said agreement seventeen times until the U.S. finally decided to actually enforce this agreement and removed him from power. To compare Russia's act of naked aggression to our removal of Saddam is dangerously absurd.

The morally equivalent argument would make such a hypothetical a reality. While the world is much more gray than black and white, there is more often than not good guys and bad guys. Here, the world must recognize the good guys and the bad guys. Moral equivalency in a time of war is not acceptable.

7 comments:

Seven Star Hand said...

Yo Mike,

Good article. I agree completely that the Russians planned this ahead of time, but so did USA/Israel. Here's some more light onto the subject matter.

Here's another analysis on the Russia-Georgia shenanigans. Only this one addresses the machinations of the "hidden hands" behind this and other dastardly events.

It's time for people to wake-up to the true nature of the world leaders that have set this thing into motion. It is far more deceptive, contrived, and sinister than most would believe. That is why I have been patiently setting a very unique trap for these snakes. Take the time to understand and then hold their feet to the fire !!!

This whole Russia-Georgia affair is a purposely-orchestrated and easily-pierced theatrical production. How convenient is it that the Bush Administration trained and prepped Georgia and then (some...) US troops-trainers pull out just before they initiate an "apparent blunder" that the Russians have been ready and poised to respond to, for months. Remember, nothing of this scale can be pulled together quickly, and all sides have been watching each other, like hawks, for decades.

Also remember that both sides have satellites and very well equipped spy agencies, so any assertion that anyone was surprised is laughable. It goes without saying that the leaders on all sides of this strange little war have something up their sleeves that most people have no clues about. All the pieces were placed on the board before major world leaders went off to the Olympics, pretending to be surprised, and pretending to be mad at each other afterwards.

Likewise, isn't it just a little too contrived that the US media is spinning that McCain is being helped by a war that the Bush administration openly and undeniably helped to start? This is one more key to the truth about this slimy little affair and the low-life snakes that arranged it. Here's more help connecting the dots and closing the trap door on these evil halfwits.

Time to get a clue, before its too late...

Peace and Wisdom...

Anonymous said...

Hello,

I came across your blog and your posts on the Russian/Georgian conflit.

Thanks for raising awareness.

I am half-georgian / half-american and my family is there, as well as the ones of some of my friends.

I am trying to aggregate as many information as I can on this website I just started [http://sakartvelo-war.blogspot.com/] to help people get news from home.

cheers

mike volpe said...

SSH, I am sorry I didn't respond earlier, but I stopped reading when you included Israel in your conspiracy theory.

Rune said...

The Rose Revolution occurred at roughly the same time as the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine.
- Ah yes. The Rose Revolution. The Orange Revolution. People who have never been to Ukraine and only read Western media, will tell you that it was a spontaneous popular uprising by the people against a unpopular dictator. While the last part is certainly correct, so is the first part not. In fact it was merely one segment of the population, represented by the crook Viktor Yuschenko, which deposed of the former ruler, which represented another segment of the population. These days Yuschenko has a backing in the single digit percentage, even Stalin which oversaw an Ukrainian massacre is more popular. And his co-revolutionary Tymoshenko abandoned him and turn her favours east-wards – like a good deal of the population.

While the former Soviet Satellites were moving from dictatorship to Democracy,
- Saakashvilli coming to power initially through a putch and later "voted" in with a whooping 96% of the votes. Saddam would approve. Saakashvilli later proceeded to close all independent media, set the army on peaceful demonstrations, imprison political opponents, etc. Georgia is no more or less democratic than Russia.

While there has never been definitive proof who was responsible there continues to be strong suspicion that the Russian government lead by Vladimir Putin was involved.
- This is merely idle speculation, since the fact is that we just don’t know if there even was a poisoning. See for instance: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3699748.stm
http://www.km.ru/magazin/view.asp?id={3E375E67-2659-4DCE-A9F7-255AF1215628}

To Putin, his greatest threat was a thriving Democracy on his border.
- Putin has several thriving democracies on his borders. Finland for instance. Doesn’t seem to bother him. Finland is getting rich doing business in Russia like there is no tomorrow.

Then, on August 6th, 2008, Saakashvilli sent in Georgian military to confront the paramilitary loyal to South Ossetia.
- if by "confront" you mean shelling the civilian areas of SOs main city with rocket batteries and heavy mortars, followed up by a tank assault and air bombardments, then yes that is what happened. And all a mere hour after Saakashvilli on national television had told the Ossetians that they could go peacefully to sleep, because he had just signed a peace agreement.

Furthermore, some have claimed that it came without the blessing of the United States.
- not only did it not come with the blessings, but with explicit and repeated advice to not do it.

totally irrelevant
- irrelevant who started? In fact nobody really disputes which side initiated hostilities. Georgia did. The Georgians themselves say as much. As does the USA. As does pretty must all Western media. The controversy is mostly over weather the Russians used "excessive force" or "disproportional force". See how words keep coming back. Next week, it’ll be Israel being accused of excessive or disproportional force. Or the USA.

extremely unlikely it wasn't long planned.
- I should hope so. It would be extremely foolish if the Russians didn’t have plans for such an eventuality. Especially in light that all the indications were that the Georgians were planning something major. I expect the USA military has plans for all kinds of eventualities too, from a conflict with Iran to an invasion of Canada. If it hasn’t it would be failing its responsibilities gravely.

under its democratically elected government
- yeah right. There’s that democratically buss word again. Well repeating it doesn’t make it true. And in fact anyone who has ever been to Georgia could tell you that Georgia is in an economic black hole. Even Ukrainians travelling there thinks it’s poor. Their main exports seem to be nuts and scrap metal. They were hoping tourists could spring some life in their economy. Who knows when that will happen now? Especially as the main tourists in these parts are Russians. It is though true that they have received massive military aid from the USA. But that alone doesn’t make a nation growing stronger.

Weary of the Russian presence on their soil, the Georgians took the bait.
- That sounds suspiciously like the line you so often hear from wife abusers. Look what you made me do! Well the Georgians have to answer for their own actions.

Furthermore, Putin's invasion and explanation are dangerously similary to that of Hitler's actions and explanations in Sudetenland.
- lets draw the Hitler card why don’t we. Next you’ll be going with Bushitler or something?

Russia had no reason to interject into another country's Civil War.
- Russia had no reason to halt a civil war and humanitarian catastrophe going on at its doorstep?

importantly a totally ilegal act of war
- are you a lawyer? In fact it was probably legal, since the Georgians breached former entered agreements regarding the end of the conflict in the early 90’s. Not that it matters. And for that matter, intervention in Kosovo was illegal, so was Iraq they keep telling us. So what?

etc.

You have a large segment on the prehistory of the conflict, but seem to skip lightly over the actual part which made all this happen. The part in the early 90’s where the Georgian rode to independence on a particular nasty and chauvinistic form of nationalism. Slogans like "Georgia is only for Georgians", "Ossetians are not humans, they are trash that must be removed by Georgian broom" and more, are the platform on which the first Georgian president was elected. He then immediately proceeded to remove the status of SO as an autonomous region and tried to make the use of the Ossetian language illegal. The Ossetians rebelled and the rest is history. The Georgian lost any moral right to rule the area by their percussion of the Ossetian people.

And the basic fact today is that the Ossetians wants nothing to do with Georgia. They hate their guts. And vise versa. There is no way, the two people can live together again peacefully in a single nation. It’s a harebrained idea. It’s just not going to happen. Yet the West stance seems to be, that yes the Ossetians should be forced against their will to be subjected to the state of Georgia which they hate and have already fought two wars to be rid of. It’s not a policy which takes account of the basic facts on the ground.

mike volpe said...

Rune, your comment is silly if not meticulously well detailed. You go on and on trying to prove that Ukraine and Georgia are not Democracies. Well, they aren't perfect, and neither leader is the beacon of freedom, but they are democracies if not imperfect ones.

You claim that Russia had every reason not to allow a humanitarian crisis on their border. Not only is this argument ridiculous but it has been well established that not only did Georgian troops not cause a humanitarian crisis but that Russian troops have. Furthermore, I hope you aren't against the Iraq War because a humanitarian crisis was the smallest reason for invading that nation. No matter how you slice it, Russia used another country's civil conflict to invade the nation and inject themselves into that conflict.

Comparing this to Kosovo and Iraq is silly. In Kosovo there actually was ethnic cleansing as opposed to what Russia has made up here. In Iraq, Saddam violated seventeen resolutions that ended a previous war.

Rune said...

Silly?
- Good to see you can get your hands dirty and really dig into it and address the points. Thumbs up!

You go on and on trying to prove that Ukraine and Georgia are not Democracies. Well, they aren't perfect, and neither leader is the beacon of freedom, but they are democracies if not imperfect ones.
- Same can be said for Russia. And that’s what I say. Georgia is about as democratic as Russia is. Ukraine is a little better. Ironic this means that its pro-Western leader are now set for a fall.

You claim that Russia had every reason not to allow a humanitarian crisis on their border. Not only is this argument ridiculous
- how is that argument ridiculous? The whole Western intervention in Kosovo was based on preventing or stopping alleged humanitarian crisis. You don’t think neighbouring countries ever have a reason to stop humanitarian crisis happening on their doorsteps?

but it has been well established that not only did Georgian troops not cause a humanitarian crisis
- you tell that to all the folks who without warning suddenly found themselves bombarded by missiles and mortars and had tanks roll through their streets. In fact, according to Western aid agencies, around 30.000 Ossetians fled to Russia. That’s out of a population of around 70.000. Around 40%. Give or take.

but that Russian troops have.
- Absolutely. That’s what you get in wars. NATO created a humanitarian crisis in Serbia too.

Furthermore, I hope you aren't against the Iraq War because a humanitarian crisis was the smallest reason for invading that nation.
- I’m not against the Iraq War. Merely pointing out that, that too was decried as "illegal". Of course the Kosovo war was a direct breach of international law and UN resolution. So what? Lawyers should not tell us what is right and wrong.

No matter how you slice it, Russia used another country's civil conflict to invade the nation and inject themselves into that conflict.
- You mean like the West did in Kosovo? Don’t do as I do, do as I say. It sucks when others do what we just did.

Comparing this to Kosovo and Iraq is silly.
- I don’t think anyone compares it to Iraq. However you have to bend over backwards and jump through hoops not to see the similarities with Kosovo. The fact is. The West set a precedent in Kosovo, which now cannot be ignored.

In Kosovo there actually was ethnic cleansing as opposed to what Russia has made up here.
- In fact as it turned out the major cleansing in Kosovo happened after NATO took action and was done to Serbians. See for instance:
Don't forget what happened in Yugoslavia. Further you don’t consider 40% of the population forced to flee ethnic cleansing? How about the Georgian slogans I posted earlier: "Georgia is only for Georgians", "Ossetians are not humans, they are trash that must be removed by Georgian broom" – how do they sit with you?

In Iraq, Saddam violated seventeen resolutions that ended a previous war.
- NATO violated UN resolution 1244 in Kosovo. And Georgia violated the previous peace agreement they had entered into in 1991.

So you actually think SO should be forced back into Georgia? The two people hate each other and have already in two wars tried to murder each other. Do tell me how you think that’s going to work out.

mike volpe said...

With all due respect, comparing the governance of Saakashvilli and Putin is silly. To say that Saakashvilli is as much of a tyrant as Putin is just absurd and it is hard to take you seriously after you make such a claim.

I think that countries may in fact have a reason to stop ethnic cleansing except that Russia hasn't done that. They have committed the ethnic cleansing. They have continued to stay in country long after there was ethnic cleansing. Russia used that as trojan horse to invade a sovereign nation and cut the nation in half.

Most of your piece is nothing more than Russian propaganada. Yeah, it was NATO that created the humanitarian crisis in Kosovo. It is Georgia that created the humanitarian crisis in Georgia. That's dangerously silly. Russian tanks have rolled into most of the country and displaced the people in those cities. People on the ground said there was no evidence that Georgia created any humanitarian crisis. I don't know who these so called Western Aid agencies are but according to the WSJ article I read, the people on the ground said that there is no evidence that Georgia created a humanitarian crisis.

Again, if Russia were merely trying to stop a humanitarian crisis, they wouldn't have cut the country in half and rolled their tanks through many of the cities, and set up shop within fifteen miles of Tblisi. Your argument doesn't hold water with any examination of what has happened.