Georgians do not buckle under Russian aggression
June 1st, 2010 lindalarsonPerhaps due to Europe’s need to have a self-image it can live with or maybe due to the Associated Press annointing itself a new role interpreting the news instead of giving us factual reports, it seems that a new conscensus has recast the events of the Russian invasion into Georgian territory as the consequence of President Mikhail Saakashvili recklessly and stupidly leading his country into a disastrous war with neighboring Russia nearly two years ago.
The charge that Saakashvili’s aggression initiated the military conflict is highly unlikely gvien the circumstances. First, Gerogia had two thousand troops in Iraq which would have made any action against the vastly superior Russian force even more unequal than otherwise. Troops had to be relocated from Iraq to Georgia to increase the small fighting force at home. Despite the fact that after the United States and Britain, Georgia had more troops in Iraq than any other country (2000), other than flying the troops home to fight in their homeland, the United States offered no direct military assistance.
A non-warship ship was deployed in the Northern waters of one of the Black Sea ports by the U.S. Navy to prevent attacks being launched from that port.
As further evidence that the action began under Putin’s prior orders, there are the photos of Bush and Putin sitting side by side at the opening of the Beijing Olympics on August 7th, 2008. At the same time the Russian army was making its way into Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Putin looks relaxed and is sitting shoulder to shoulder with President Bush making remarks back and forth with the American President. He is not talking on his cell phone or talking to deputies, just sitting back and appearing to enjoy the opening ceremonies.
No such move to commence a military assault could have been ordered without Putin’s authority. This means that as the two men sat together, Putin already haad given the order and knew as he sat there the attack had been launched.
The other indicator is that the Russian army is historically notoriously slow to deploy. In this instance, the Russians were ready to move.
Georgia, the victim of Russian aggression, has just voted in their first election since the ’08 war, to support by a 61% margin of Tbilisi residents, the United National Movement, the party of Saakashvili. If, in fact, the Georgian president was as foolish as the convenient revision of history asserts, there is no way his party would still be in office. It is a tribute to the courage and resolve of the Georgian people that they were not intimidated by the Russian destruction of their homes and displacement of their people into voting the Western-backed party, the party of free speech and democracy out of office, but instead voting resoundingly to reinstate them.
Ukraine, on the other hand, in a radical departure from its pro-Westsern predecessor, Viktor S. Yushchenko, under the pressure of Russia’s interruption of the flow of oil to Europe over a trumped-up unpaid bill owed to Russia and after witnessing the fate of the former Soviet Bloc Georgian nation left swinging in the breeze by the West after the Russian military invasion of their country, elected a former Russian apparatchik, Viktor F. Yanukovich as the country’s new President. Yanukovich ran on a campaign promising closer ties with Russia and won not by much of a margin, but enough.
On a happier note, despite the enormous suffering that the Ukrainian people have experienced at the hands of the former Soviet Union, members of parliament celebrated the first act of alliance Yanukovich made with Russia (over extending Russia’s lease of the port of the Black Sea in exchange for a 30% discount in the cost of Gazprom energy) with a hearty round of egg throwing in the Parliament Building to protest Yanukovich being in bed with the Russians.
Madeleine Abright’s recent assessment of NATO’s reconfiguration for 2010 contains many worthy suggestions but there is one critical to NATO’s realistic defense. (NATO countries are expected to provide military assistance far from European shores. This is included as an accepted military obligation in her report.)
The most important military obligation is that NATO countries be able to defend themselves from attack or aggression, especially from Russia. In this instance, to be able to defend their own territory is crucial.
Ms. Albright points out NATO countries should be able to defend themselves, without necessarily bringing the U.S. military into play, critical to avoiding a confrontation with Russia. Conventional warfare or nuclear standoff.
Georgia obeyed the first rule of NATO-aspiring countries. It was, after U.S. and Britain, the third largest contingent of allied troops. We should have our priorities straight after Gerogia’s experience and Madeleine Albright’s wisdom. Georgia could defend against Al Qaeda in Iraq, but could not defend its own borders against Russian invasion. We could not risk an all-out military exchange with Russia.
Georgia, although not a NATO country, is the most painful example of ignoring Ms. Albright’s guide for reconfiguring NATO. Our only contribution to their military defense was to fly their troops to their home front. Despite their contributions to our far-flung military effort and their outstanding performance as our ally, they could not and we would not defend their sovreign territory.