EPTThis is my second blog post, and today the topic is the Georgia region, which has been open to a lot of debate and argument lately between big nations with nuclear arsenals, namely our good friends the US and Russia.
The story goes thus: In 1992, after the 1991 breakup of the Soviet Union following losses in Afghanistan and a general disillusion throughout traditional and ethnically drawn states, a country called Georgia emerged. Georgia briefly existed as a democratic nation in the 1920s.
The new country of Georgia has a population of 4.4 million approximately. 84% of these are Georgian ethnicity.
However, in 1992, two regions of Georgia, Abkhazia and Ossetia, declared that they would prefer to side with the Russian Federation, newly democratic, nevertheless with a parliament filled by ex-KGB men.
Under UN law, Georgia had sovereignty over these areas, and despite their quest for independence, were never recognised as separate states nor countries.
However, building up this year was tension, especially in the South Ossetian region. Ossetia is divided into two parts, the North exists in Russia, the South in Georgia. South Ossetians carry Russian passports, they are Russians in everything but name, and in this region, and in Abkhazia, local militia were building up to create strikeforces that had the Georgians worried.
So, technically exercising his legal right, the President of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili (one of the members responsible in part for the 2003 Rose Revolution - a bloodless change of power following civil unrest), sent Georgian troops, numbering just over 1000 as I recall in total numbers, flying only 7 jet planes, and having perhaps 300 APV, into the South Ossetian region, trying to take back what was his. The Russians did not agree, and invaded Georgia. Not only did they invade it, they practically decimated it, drawing criticism from World Leaders, particularly the United States.
All this stuff is fairly background, but I want to discuss exactly what Russia's motives in this are, and what the US and Western world are trying to achieve also.
Last year, Russia got a new President, Dmitri Medvedev. The previous president, Vladimir Putin, one of Russia's most loved leaders, was able to transition from this role to Prime Minister.
Originally in the conflict, we did not see much of Medvedev. On the television, responding to Saakashvili's bravado filled and not entirely bright speeches, was Vladimir Putin. By the rules of the Russian democracy, Putin has served all the terms applied to him as President that he can, in a row. However, he can reapply from a position like Prime Minister.
Now this has me, and a lot of other people, suspicious to his motives. Putin is ex-KGB, like many of the Federation's leaders, and has been critical of the United States for a long time. Medvedev is young, he won in a landslide backed by Putin, and it seems as if perhaps he is only playing the role of caretaker/puppet for Putin.
However, lo and behold, a little while later, and into now, Medvedev has taken control, which is a positive sign, but it doesn't destroy doubt.
What does Russia have to gain from attacking Georgia? Were they merely overzealous in their attempt to defend the right to sovereignty? I don't really think so.
They went in, and they went in hard. The Russians at their disposition had, if memory serves me correctly, 44000 footmen, and over 1000 tanks and jet fighters. They came closer and closer to the Georgian capital, and took a vital city, Goti, that patched resources from the Caspian to the capital, which I'll also get to in a moment.
I personally think that this is obviously a statement of Russian military might. They were looking for an excuse. Russia is huge, and has a fair amount of the world's nuclear weapons, second to the US, and although they've signed the non-proliferation treaty, doubts are cast, in the same case as the US if the nukes are being rid of. Is Putin trying to reassemble some kind of former glory to Russia, despite its size being relatively forgotten, except in the gold and oil industries.
Russia has since defied NATO, and along with Nicaragua, a country that hates America with a Hugo Chavez inspired passion, recognised both Ossetia and Abkhazia as separate entities to Georgia. And whilst this is happening, the United States aren't willing to get involved, save to provide resources, but along with Britain are condemning the action. Meanwhile, Saakashvili is still brazenly calling out the Russians to duel, thinking in his deluded little fantasy world that the Americans will bring in the heavy stuff. Which is getting him into more trouble that he should want to handle.
So now, I want to look at the Western view on these events. America, a nation famous for war, isn't doing a thing, despite all the media hullabaloo that this would be a new Cold War, and despite comparisons to Poland in World War II, or Belgium in World War I. Instead, they're campaigning to NATO, they're campaigning in the UN, they're disagreeing with a war based in ethnicity and reasonable conflict, all the while fighting a war that doesn't belong to them in Iraq, without heeding a word from the UN. Why hasn't this become a war of ideals on the same scale as the Cold War? There's as much, or even greater reason for this to blow up into something big.
Especially when you consider that the Georgians are responsible for oil pipelines that fuel Europe and are part of a transport link to the US. I'm puzzled at why exactly the US isn't doing anything, although we must commend them on their 1 billion dollar rebuilding fund.
Perhaps the Americans have become sick of war. Perhaps they're afraid of the Russians. American Foreign Policy once again baffles me.
I think perhaps that they don't want to directly draw the Russians out, and despite the refreshing nature of a lack of US involvement, perhaps troop deployment has been misappropriated. This almost certainly proves as a victory for Russia. They achieved their goals, Georgia didn't offer much of a fight, and it exposed an assertive Russia that doesn't have to listen to NATO or the UN in its aggressive foreign policy.
Georgia is a multi layered issue. Personally, I think the right to demand Georgia's sovereignty over Ossetia and Abkhazia is granted, but in consideration wasn't a smart move. Russia was jumping at the seams for a chance to prove themselves on a world stage as that old ruthless enemy we love to hate, and Saakashvili's constant "draw them out then hide away" business brought a large amount of destruction and loss on his own nation, which shouldn't endear him to his people. At the same time, Ossetia and Abkhazia have the right to ask for independence, although why is questionable in this immensely globalised society that only deals in absolute currencies, and obviously the usage of militia was not an intelligent and diplomatic method of getting their desire. The Russians have been only vaguely following the six step plan, without any real economic restrictions or any kind of punishment allotted to them by the Western Hemisphere, despite England and America constantly badgering Russia to withdraw entirely, and this is a sign that Russia is perhaps not out of the ring yet, and could still be a potential area to watch in the future.
I wrote this at about 11 at night, so if I'm rambling on about the obvious, please forgive me...I felt like writing about this topic, and I wasn't sure when I'd feel this urgent, so I apologise for its crappiness.
