Tbilisi!

http://travel.nytimes.com/2009/05/10/travel/10next.html?pagewanted=1&hpw

Comments on Kristof Article

Thursday, November 20, 2008
readers' comments
Obama, Misha and the BearBack to Article »
President-elect Barack Obama needs a new approach to Russia if we want to avoid a new cold war, and we also need to get over our crush on Georgia’s president, Mikheil Saakashvili.
Share your thoughts on this op-ed column.
Post a Comment
Editors' Selections
RSSAll Comments - Oldest First
1.
November 20, 2008 6:16 am
Link
Kristof, thanks for telling the truth. The last thing NATO needs is Georgia, and both campaigns (especially McCain's) hid the truth behind simplistic anti-Russian rhetoric.
— Jeff, Oakland, CA
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers
2.
November 20, 2008 6:16 am
Link
If the US abandons Georgia everybody, friend and foe alike, will know that the US is a treacherous ally and a harmless enemy. The US should not cow in the face of Russian aggression, but contain it and wait till the bluff becomes apparent. That's what Reagan did with the IRBM saga and that's how the US won the Cold War. Then and now Russia's strategic goal is to peel off countries from the Atlantic alliance. If the US validates Russia's bullying they will achieve them.
— keyah, Madrid, Spain
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers
3.
November 20, 2008 6:16 am
Link
I agree that the US shouldn't allow Georgia in NATO. We have to deal with the realities as they are, thanks to Pres. Bush.Because of the invasion of Iraq, Putin feels emboldened to invade any country where he considers he is justified, whether it's Chechnya or Georgia. And he doesn't fear us.Secondly, the price of oil has soared in the last six years in part because of the invasion upset the balance of power in the region and caused so much instability. This has strengthened Putin's hand tremendously (to say nothing of Chavez and Ahmadinejad, the other winners of the Iraq War)So, what should Obama do? Tread lightly and speak clearly, but with authority. Yet, it's no time for America to flex its muscles. We need to rebuild our credibility, repair our relationships, and choose our battles wisely. It's going to take a while.
— Adam Hohenberg, Memphis, TN
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers
4.
November 20, 2008 6:16 am
Link
I think it should also be pointed out again, that while John McCain was fulminating about going to war to defend Georgia ("We're all Georgians")Condoleesa Rice engaged in some "shuttle diplomacy" to try to resolve the crisis. She talked to NATO, she talked to Georgia, she visited everyone involved EXCEPT RUSSIA! This kind of arrogance and cold-war thinking in US foreign policy is a large part of the reason Russia feels angry and threatened. Hopefully the new administration will negotiate with Russians in an atmosphere of mutual respect and desire to preserve the peace. Saakashvili is a self-serving little dictator attempting to protect himself with American and NATO power.
— Jim Doyle, Honolulu
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers
5.
November 20, 2008 6:16 am
Link
Thank you, Mr. Kristof, for your cautionary observations. As tempting as it is to make the August war an example of Russia bullying a weaker neighbor, the real situation seems to make candidate Obama's initial comment, that there was blame on both sides, all the more rational.
— Lee Dittmann, Kingman, AZ
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers
6.
November 20, 2008 6:16 am
Link
What is certain is that Misha played Putin's hand. The Russians started concentrate troops and hardware, in Abkhasia, at least in two months before the war. Russian media reported about heavy military traffic on the highway between Sochi and Sukhumi.Even if Misha didn't lost the nerve the Russians would have moved. Seventy years ago a man of mine acquintance, one Mr. Ivanov, commanded Fire to his battery, firing onto the Soviet territory; thus began the Soviet-Finland war, in 1939. Does anyone believe that there is an unlimited stock of honor in Mr. Putin and his gang? As to NATO for the Georgians now it will be one more invitation to Mr. Putin to swallow Georgia, with impunity. It's enough to look at NATO, minus the US, perfomance in the Balkans and Afganistan, to understand that NATO cannot and will not save the Georgians. So for the time being Misha better sits tight.
— Felix, Mountain View
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers
7.
November 20, 2008 6:16 am
Link
Well, Saakashvili is certainly a genius and a democrat- attacking a civilian enclave with the certainty of Russian response- and presumably the prayer of American intervention? You know, since our army isn't too busy lately. Has anyone looked into the obvious question of US assurances/ prodding with hopes of influencing an upcoming election? I mean, we keep being told what great friends McCain and his people were with Saakashvili...
— Sev, Pomona, NY
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers
8.
November 20, 2008 6:16 am
Link
A flat tax, which is a tax that falls most heavily on those least able to pay, is, in fact, morally corrupt in itself.Any country that uses such a tax is unworthy of any kind of suppot from the United States.
— marik7, wailiku, hi
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers
1 - 8 of 8

Kristof -- Obama and Georgia

Although this piece does not discuss this, appointing Hillary Secretary of State raises the possibility that we will still pursue the disasterous policy of trying to get Georgia into NATO.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/opinion/20kristof.html?_r=1

Georgia

Haven't had Georgia On My Mind for awhile.


Georgia Claims on Russia War Called Into Question

new_york_times:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/world/europe/07georgia.html

By C. J. CHIVERS and ELLEN BARRY
Published: November 6, 2008
TBILISI, Georgia — Newly available accounts by independent military observers of the beginning of the war between Georgia and Russia this summer call into question the longstanding Georgian assertion that it was acting defensively against separatist and Russian aggression.
Blog: Analysis of the Regional Tensions
More Topics: South Ossetia Abkhazia
Related
Georgia Fired More Cluster Bombs Than Thought, Killing Civilians, Report Finds (November 6, 2008)
Instead, the accounts suggest that Georgia’s inexperienced military attacked the isolated separatist capital of Tskhinvali on Aug. 7 with indiscriminate artillery and rocket fire, exposing civilians, Russian peacekeepers and unarmed monitors to harm.
The accounts are neither fully conclusive nor broad enough to settle the many lingering disputes over blame in a war that hardened relations between the Kremlin and the West. But they raise questions about the accuracy and honesty of Georgia’s insistence that its shelling of Tskhinvali, the capital of the breakaway region of South Ossetia, was a precise operation. Georgia has variously defended the shelling as necessary to stop heavy Ossetian shelling of Georgian villages, bring order to the region or counter a Russian invasion.
President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia has characterized the attack as a precise and defensive act. But according to observations of the monitors, documented Aug. 7 and Aug. 8, Georgian artillery rounds and rockets were falling throughout the city at intervals of 15 to 20 seconds between explosions, and within the first hour of the bombardment at least 48 rounds landed in a civilian area. The monitors have also said they were unable to verify that ethnic Georgian villages were under heavy bombardment that evening, calling to question one of Mr. Saakashvili’s main justifications for the attack.
Senior Georgian officials contest these accounts, and have urged Western governments to discount them. “That information, I don’t know what it is and how it is confirmed,” said Giga Bokeria, Georgia’s deputy foreign minister. “There is such an amount of evidence of continuous attacks on Georgian-controlled villages and so much evidence of Russian military buildup, it doesn’t change in any case the general picture of events.”
He added: “Who was counting those explosions? It sounds a bit peculiar.”
The Kremlin has embraced the monitors’ observations, which, according to a written statement from Grigory Karasin, Russia’s deputy foreign minister, reflect “the actual course of events prior to Georgia’s aggression.” He added that the accounts “refute” allegations by Tbilisi of bombardments that he called mythical.
The monitors were members of an international team working under the mandate of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, or O.S.C.E. A multilateral organization with 56 member states, the group has monitored the conflict since a previous cease-fire agreement in the 1990s.
The observations by the monitors, including a Finnish major, a Belorussian airborne captain and a Polish civilian, have been the subject of two confidential briefings to diplomats in Tbilisi, the Georgian capital, one in August and the other in October. Summaries were shared with The New York Times by people in attendance at both.
Details were then confirmed by three Western diplomats and a Russian, and were not disputed by the O.S.C.E.’s mission in Tbilisi, which was provided with a written summary of the observations.
Mr. Saakashvili, who has compared Russia’s incursion into Georgia to the Nazi annexations in Europe in 1938 and the Soviet suppression of Prague in 1968, faces domestic unease with his leadership and skepticism about his judgment from Western governments.
The brief war was a disaster for Georgia. The attack backfired. Georgia’s army was humiliated as Russian forces overwhelmed its brigades, seized and looted their bases, captured their equipment and roamed the country’s roads at will. Villages that Georgia vowed to save were ransacked and cleared of their populations by irregular Ossetian, Chechen and Cossack forces, and several were burned to the ground.
Massing of Weapons
According to the monitors, an O.S.C.E. patrol at 3 p.m. on Aug. 7 saw large numbers of Georgian artillery and grad rocket launchers massing on roads north of Gori, just south of the enclave.
1
2
3 Next Page »
C.J. Chivers reported from Tbilisi, Georgia, and Ellen Barry from Moscow. Olesya Vartanyan contributed reporting from Tbilisi, and Matt Siegel from Tskhinvali, Georgia.

what's this?

Tbilisi and Gori and Dzhugashvili, Errr...Stalin

A good article, bringing Georgia and Stalin and Gori into focus.

Even After a War With Russia, Many Georgians Revere Stalin

Justyna Mielnikiewicz for The New York Times
Jamil Ziyadaliev, a Stalin impersonator in Georgia, with his wife, Fakizar. He says his resemblance to the most famous Georgian gets him many free meals.
writePost();
new_york_times:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/world/europe/01stalin.html

By DAN BILEFSKY
Published: September 30, 2008
GORI, Georgia — With his signature mustache, medal-encrusted Soviet marshal’s uniform and determination to be addressed as “Comrade,” the Stalin impersonator Jamil Ziyadaliev should perhaps be out of work in Georgia, a country still reeling from a war with Russia.
Justyna Mielnikiewicz for The New York Times
But Mr. Ziyadaliev, 64, an avuncular father of two who dresses as Stalin even on days off, insists that business has seldom been better. He is a frequent hired guest at weddings, where he dances to Soviet Katyusha music from World War II.
The benefits of looking eerily like the former dictator, he boasts, include free meals, free car repairs — and free passage through Russian checkpoints.
“Looking like Stalin is like having a visa in Georgia,” said Mr. Ziyadaliev, a Muslim originally from Azerbaijan, who drove a taxi, peddled vegetables and worked as an accountant before deciding on a career as a modern incarnation of the brutal, diabolically brilliant Soviet tyrant.
“All Georgians respect Stalin, because he was a great leader who created a great empire — and of course, he was the most famous Georgian who ever lived,” Mr. Ziyadaliev said.
Not everyone agrees. Nika Jabanashvili, a Georgian construction worker whose grandparents were deported by Stalin from Tbilisi to Central Asia as part of his repression of ethnic minorities, views Stalin as little more than a murderer.
“Stalin was a Satan,” he said. “He killed more people than Pharaoh. I don’t care if he was Georgian. He was a bad man.”
Whatever the range of opinions, an enduring cult of Stalin persists in this small but proud nation of 4.6 million, where the Georgian-cobbler’s-son-turned-20th-century-titan remains a towering if contentious figure. A recent survey on Tbilisi Forum, a popular political Web site, asked whether people were proud that Stalin was Georgian; a vocal minority of 37 percent of the several hundred respondents said yes, while 52 percent said no and 11 percent said they did not care.
Vakhtang Guruli, a historian of Georgia who works in the K.G.B. archives in Tbilisi, said that most Georgians regarded Stalin as “higher than man, more than human and less than God.”
He said contemporary Georgian history books still lauded Stalin for vanquishing Hitler’s fascism and transforming the Soviet Union into an industrial superpower, even as they criticized him for engineering the Red Army invasion that ended Georgia’s short-lived independence in 1921.
Stalin’s lust for power, Mr. Guruli added, was a decidedly Georgian characteristic, the outgrowth of having an outsize ego in a tiny, macho country long consumed by banditry.
“Russians tend to forget that Stalin had a Georgian last name, Dzhugashvili, which was overshadowed when he adopted the nom de guerre of Stalin, meaning man of steel, when he was in his 30s,” Mr. Guruli said. “But every Georgian knows Stalin came from here. He may have given his execution orders in Russian, but he did so with a heavy Georgian accent” — a lineage, Mr. Guruli said, that Khrushchev seized on after he denounced Stalin’s rule in 1956, mocking him and his henchmen as uncouth Georgian peasants.
Simon Sebag Montefiore, author of “Young Stalin,” which chronicles Stalin’s violent upbringing as an aspiring priest who became a Marxist revolutionary in Tbilisi, said that even when Stalin became the supreme Soviet leader, he retained a deep attachment to Georgia.
He wrote frequently to his mother here, vacationed in Abkhazian sea resorts and retained an abiding love of Georgian wine, food, poetry and folk music.
“There are two Stalins: the Russian Stalin and the Georgian Stalin,” Mr. Sebag Montefiore said. “In the Georgian version, Stalin is still the street Marxist, the Georgian boy from Gori. In the Russian version, Stalin is the most important leader of the 20th century and his Georgian identity has been laundered and Russified.”
Liana Imanidze, 71, whose grand home in Tbilisi has a sculpture of Stalin in the backyard and is decorated inside with a replica of his death mask perched on a pedestal, lamented that younger Georgians were ignorant about Stalin, including her own grandchildren, who she complained were more interested in Paris Hilton than in World War II.
She regretted that her Stalin-worshiping husband was “more in love with Stalin than with me,” but she nevertheless lauded Stalin as a flawed genius.
Sociologists here said the residual appeal resulted from the lack of historical reckoning about Stalin’s darker deeds after Georgia gained independence from the Soviet Union in 1991.
1
2 Next Page »

Comments on "Stuck in Georgia"

Opinion
All NYT
Wednesday, August 27, 2008


readers' comments
Stuck in GeorgiaBack to Article »
When the Europeans meet next week, they should agree to put on hold a trade and security deal with Moscow so long as it continues to occupy Georgia.
Comments are no longer being accepted.
Post a Comment
Editors' Selections
RSSAll Comments - Oldest First
1 2 3 4 5 Next »
1 - 25 of 118Show:
Oldest First Newest First Readers' Recommendations Editors' Selections Replies
1.
All Editors' Selections » EDITORS' SELECTIONS (what's this?)
August 27th, 2008 6:12 am
Link
The problem with Georgia is that Russia has abundant oil and gas resources within its borders while the U.S., which has effectively none, has spent billions building oil pipelines that traverse Georgia, half a world away, and is securing those facilities with an arms buildup on Russia's Caucasian flank that poses by any definition an unacceptable threat to Russia.Anti-Russia propaganda in the U.S. is meant to obfuscate this simple fact: the U.S. is not entitled to threaten any country, especially a major power this way.The correct solution to the U.S.'s lack of adequate domestic fossil fuels is to apply its capital and ingenuity to developing technological alternatives. Dabbling in failed 19th Century geostrategic power politics is dangerous in the first place and inherently doomed to fail as a consequence of geography.
— Bill Appledorf, San Francisco
Recommend Recommended by 63 Readers
2.
August 27th, 2008 6:12 am
Link
If Russia made it a national goal and election issue to direct outcomes and affect control miles from our border, in Tijuana, I'm sure Americans would be upset and deeply concerned. McCain, in attempting to do so (with the help of the usual suspects) is twisting common sense in an attempt to create an election issue, where we are certain to create trouble for ourselves. The GOP is ignoring good midwesten common-sense regarding alliances that kept this nation wise. Americans must reject these entanglements. They are illusions of industry and elections with very real and dangerous potential consequences.
— John, St. Louis
Recommend Recommended by 31 Readers
3.
August 27th, 2008 6:12 am
Link
All right then. They should also agree to put a hold on any trade or security agreements with any nations occupying Iraq or Afghanistan, Kosovo, Palestine, any part of Lebanon, Haiti, Somalia... This way, we'll finally get rid of NATO, put some pressure on Israel, and freeze basically all world trade.
— christian h., Chicago
Recommend Recommended by 35 Readers
4.
All Editors' Selections » EDITORS' SELECTIONS (what's this?)
August 27th, 2008 6:12 am
Link
Since Communism is gone, this distinction between "West" and "East" is a lot of oil-related baloney. Putin's party United Russia fills the space between libertarian and Communist. In other words, he's the Russian equivalent of a centrist Republicrat. This is not the rebirth of Communism. This is a resource competition, nothing more. This is a competition over oil.
— Patricia, Pasadena, CA
Recommend Recommended by 34 Readers
5.
August 27th, 2008 6:12 am
Link
Could it be that Vice President Dick Cheney and his associates encouraged Mr. Saakashvili to take Tskhinvali by force? If yes, it makes sense for him to go to Georgia and pat Mr. Saakashvili on the back. No doubts that Mr. Putin and his associates did a good job provoking Mr. Saakashvili. People enjoy doing what they know how to do. Cold war warriors need a cold war to fight.
— MB, Mountain View, CA
Recommend Recommended by 17 Readers
6.
August 27th, 2008 6:12 am
Link
As we assess this debacle it is legitimate to ask whether in having a senior foreign policy advisor to John McCain on its payroll the Georgian government believed it had information and leverage. The issue is not whether that perception was accurate, only that we may assume it was not paying $200,000 monthly for cooking tips. Certainly Senator McCain´s response to the Russian invasion was exactly what Georgia could have asked for. Even if that reflects knee-jerk militarism rather vulnerability to influence peddling it still raises questions about his judgement and reveals enormous gaps in his understanding of the geopolitical realities between the Black and Caspian Sea.
— Jack, Portland, OR
Recommend Recommended by 35 Readers
7.
August 27th, 2008 6:12 am
Link
Instead of just complaining about Russia's actions in Georgia, the West should coolly think why they have lost Russia? After the break up of Soviet Union, a democratic Russia was emerging after thousand years of authoritarian rule, except that the Yelstin's era was a period of anarchy and kleptocracy. The choice for Putin was to allow the anarchy to continue leading to a break up of Russia herself or establish order and stability. However instead of supporting the new state, the West in general and Europe in particular kept lecturing Russia, continued playing the cold war politics and has pushed Russia too hard.The West is seeing the consequences of this intellectually bankrupt policy. What is the basis of West's recognition of Kosovo as an independent country? Russia is only copying West's action in the Balkan and Kosovo in Georgia. Instead of falling in the trap of just criticizing Russia, the United States should take the lead to bring Russia back in our fold as a democratic ally. This will require a change in mindset on the part of the West including a change of cold war thinking and a mutually agreed approach to solve the international problems. It is time that we start treating Russia with respect otherwise we will only push her in to the waiting arms of communist and fascist China.
— Krishna, USA
Recommend Recommended by 37 Readers
8.
All Editors' Selections » EDITORS' SELECTIONS (what's this?)
August 27th, 2008 6:12 am
Link
Your editorial says Georgia's president has learned nothing from the past two weeks. To the contrary, Mr. Saakashvili has learned that the international political consequences of his having ordered a massive night-time shelling of one of his own provincial capitols are predominantly favorable to him -- praise from his main foreign backer, the Bush Administration; pledges of continued support from both "major" US presidential candidates; widespread backing by our Congress; condemnation by "the international community" of Russia for responding with military force to his prior exercise of military force; and the prospects of more financial and military support from the US and other "civilized" nations who apparently have no problem with shelling their own civilian populations when "territorial integrity" is in play. I'd say Mr. Saakashvili has learned well that crime pays when the criminal is the president of a small "democracy" whose "bad judgments" invite retaliatory action by a large democracy that the "international community" deems untrustworthy because of an undemocratic history. It is of course somewhat odd to this Korean War veteran who grew up during the Great Depression and World War II to see Germany prominent among the "international community" who distrust Russia because of its undemocratic history. But then our Government's backing of Georgia's "sneak attack" on one of its own cities is somewhat odd, since this American remembers Pearl Harbor.
— Richard Young, Bayfield, Colo.
Recommend Recommended by 59 Readers
9.
August 27th, 2008 6:12 am
Link
One thing a lot of folks do not seem to realize is that the War has never ended. We just dropped the word Cold. Soviet Union lost the first round, which did not result in peace. To the contrary, The US and NATO responded by pushing deeper and deeper into the old Soviet sphere of influence. Even though Russia become a democratic nation under Yeltzin, has the NATO ever believed that the Russia is not a threat anymore? The Russians may have naively believed that the West will build a true partnership with Russia. A lot have happened to prove them wrong. Why place the missile shield systems in those countries? Are we truly believing that the Russians will continue to be fooled into accepting our spin that they are aimed at Iran? This is where we seem to disconnect from the reality. The Russians have awakened to the brutal reality and they responded brutally.The Cold War has transformed into a Warm 'n Fuzzy War. We talk nicely but act nasty. Well, it is in your own interest if we stick our fingers in your eyes. We are not really against you, you know, just don't feel threatened if we armed your neighbors. You have nothing to fear whatsoever. Well, fear it is!!!This whole thing should be looked at in this context.The West has one choice to make. It is time to drop the Cold War mentality and treat Russia as a true partner. If you want to include the former Eastern European countries into NATO, accept Russia as NATO member as well. Why not if Russia is not an enemy? Russia suggested that they join NATO. What was the response they got? Enough said.There is a funny argument going around saying that Russia will lose dearly if they do this or that. No, they've lost enough already and they will lose more if they don't react. Now, they are actually gaining by turning the tables. All the perceived losses are only pies in the sky.This War will continue and another balance will be reached. In the short term, Russia will score a few points. Face it and live with it.
— JD, California
Recommend Recommended by 30 Readers
10.
August 27th, 2008 6:12 am
Link
As far as I can recall the matter, it was Georgia who invaded first. In my opinion Europe should work even closer with Russia. Russia is our trade partner, we depend on their deliveries and they are purchase our manufactured goods.Why should we spend a cold winter, only because the USA can't access so easily to the Caspian oil with the aid of the New York lawyer and today president of Georgia?Why don't we stop instead the trade with the USA, who after all invaded ilegally a country and brought us the terrible present of a "free" Kosovo?Sorry but I find the attitude of this article not honest and not neutral at all.
— Bandidita, Germany
Recommend Recommended by 56 Readers
11.
August 27th, 2008 6:12 am
Link
In apportioning the blame in this debacle, the NYT is, unfortunately, once again parroting the Bush administration.One, Russia did not attack Georgia, it was the other way around. Georgia, not Russia, was the aggressor.Two, while Russia's support for the independence of Abkhazia and Ossetia is against international law, the USA and Europe set precedents that Mr. Putin is only following. The situation is identical with Kosovo. There, a region that wanted independence from its nation was supported in her intent by the USA and Europe, to the cost of 1 billion € a year, several thousand NATO and now European troops, an almost one month of indiscriminate bombing of Serbian targets. It was the USA and Europe that flaunted international law then.Three, as soon as Georgia attacked, Russia called an urgent meeting of the Security Council, it did the right thing by international law. The USA and UK refused to have the Security Council call for an immediate ceasefire, because then Georgia was winning. The USA and the UK prevented the UN doing what it was built for.Fourth, Russia's security concerns have being all but ignored by NATO after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. It was the West, particularly the USA, that was giddy, blind be her success in the cold war. Why, otherwise, arm Georgians to the teeth (70% of Georgia's budget was spent on weapons supplied by the USA and Israel) and encouraging them to attack? This blustering, imperial attitude of the USA does nothing for peace and security.Let's hope that the new President will change course -- with the help of the press that used to be objective and free of this poisonous chavinism. I also hope our European leaders will finally stop taking their clue from the Pentagon and develop a unitary foreign and military policy that serves our European interests and not the American ones. Power less concentrated in one country would be good for everyone.
— Garlo Geneletti, Italy
Recommend Recommended by 75 Readers
12.
August 27th, 2008 6:12 am
Link
I wish I could see the guiding principle.There are times we staunchly support small provinces breaking away from dominant neighbors, such as Kosovo vs. Serbia. Other times we staunchly oppose it, telling Ossetians they must obediently bow to the violent rule of Georgia.Do we support a breakup when it weakens an adversary (Serbia), and do we oppose it when it splinters an ally (Georgia)?I hope I'm wrong.Finally, I wonder how much weight our outrage carries, given the moral hole we're speaking from. Yesterday the UN confirmed 60 children were wiped out by a single NATO raid in Afghanistan. I won't rattle off the depressingly long list of atrocities we've committed in the name of good the last seven years, but I challenge anyone, including the Times, to make their own "who has killed more civilians in this millennium"-list, before they call the kettle black.
— erik harrison, mountain view, ca
Recommend Recommended by 58 Readers
13.
August 27th, 2008 6:12 am
Link
To put some real short-term pressure on Putin, the West should move past largely symbolic gestures like rescinding G8 or blocking WTO memberships, of which Putin could care a wit, and focus on a few truly nasty actions that can raise his temperature without raising the chances of military confrontation. Here's one: how about putting some pressure on the Russian oligarchs that have ensconced themselves in thoroughly Western places like London's Billionaire Row and the French Riviera, not to mention NYC towers, LA beaches, San Francisco hilltops and Miami waterways right here at home. These "titans" of Russian industry and finance are to a one variously guilty of money laundering, tax evasion, corruption, fraud and often murder. How about going after some of these guys to let them know that life for them changes, if Putin doesn't. They might be able to get to Putin in ways that others and standard diplomacy cannot, so hound them until they understand that they might actually have to live in Russia, rather than the comfortable West, unless they do something about Putin. Now, Putin is a Russian nationalist while the oligarchs are primarily the soulless children of Soviet apparatchiks that enriched themselves in the least admirable ways, so they may very well buckle long before Putin begins to feel any heat, but no reason not to try. No moral quandary at all in putting the screws to a few less than holy Russian oligarchs and seeing what turns out.
— Bob Paje, CA
Recommend Recommended by 5 Readers
14.
August 27th, 2008 6:12 am
Link
American journalists continue to invent their own reality. Can anybody tell, what kind of rebellion the recognition of the SO&AB can inspire in Transdniestria and Karabakh? Both have long seceded from their former countries and I really fail to see what they may rebel about.As for Russia's own ethnic enclaves, it should be understood that Ossetia and Abkhazia's independence is a move to join Russia, in all practical terms. What happened greatly improved Moscow's standing with the peoples of the North Caucusus, not the other way around. By the way, Chechen units participated in this war alongside the Russian Army, and, reportedly, were good. As for Tatarstan, it does not have a really strong secessionist movement but it is O.K. for an NYT journalist to be unaware of this. Not misspelling the place's name is already a kind of achievement.
— DDF, Moscow
Recommend Recommended by 23 Readers
15.
August 27th, 2008 6:21 am
Link
The situation between the United States and Russia is becoming very dangerous and tensions are moving up quickly and I hope the United States and Russia will come to a sensible conclusion soon before we head down toward another cold war which I think would be bad for both Russia and the United States and both countries have much to loose if they don't resolve this situation quickly. The Bush administration and John McCain approached have failed to resolve this situation quickly and has created a tension that should has been resolve quickly. Bush and McCain have offered strong rhetoric and no actions to back up their words. Bush and McCain destroyed America's credibility when we invaded a sovereign country, Iraq, we don't have credibility to stop Russia from doing likewise.The facts are, Russians understand that the United States and NATO have much to loose if they try to isolate them. First, the United States is fighting two wars, both in Iraq and Afghanistan, we will need the Russians help on intelligence, cooperation, and counter insurgency tactics to battle the Taliban. If we isolate the Russians, they can easily supplies our enemies will weapons. Second, we will need the Russian to help stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The Russians can easily hinder us in both the UN security council and supplies Iran with weapons if we try to isolate them. Third, most of Europe receive their natural gas and oil from Russia. If Europe isolate Russia, it can easily stop the flow of gas and oil which will be detriment to their economies. Fourth, we will need Russia to deal with our enemies in the Asia - pacific like North Korea. If North Korea and Iran see that there is division between Russia and the United States, they will exploit it. Lastly, Russia has more nuclear weapons which most countries that are enemies of the United and terrorists need, if any of these nuclear weapons fall into the hands of terrorists, we are all doom. So it is important that United States try to build a relationship between Georgia and Russia. After all, they are neighbors and relatives. We should stop the aggressive approach and lambasted statements from Georgian president and try to bring these parties together to solve the crisis quickly. It is not in anybody interest if the United States and Russia are fighting among themselves.
— D. Johnson, New York City
Recommend Recommended by 11 Readers
16.
August 27th, 2008 6:21 am
Link
Oh, it is so easy to be hawkish on that side of Atlantic...ps. Just in case, I will be buying some extra warm mittens and scarfs for the coming winter...
— Nick M, Landshut, Germany
Recommend Recommended by 19 Readers
17.
August 27th, 2008 6:21 am
Link
It seems that the Times is on its way to recognize the realities of the situation in Georgia. Its advice to, essentially, 'take it easy' is commendable. It is ironic for me to, in effect, defend the Russians almost exactly 40 years after I had to leave my native Czechoslovakia after their arrival in Prague on August 21. Well, personally I have to be grateful to them: their action forced me to overcome my hesitation to come to this wonderful country where I have spent the best years of my life. Maybe this is coloring my rejection of the US and western overreaction towards the Russian assertion of initiative in the disputed areas of Georgia. The 'recognitions' of the breakaway regions as independent states is, in my opinion, quite equivalent to the unilateral recognition of the independence of Kosovo, as the Russian like to remind us.Violation of international law? Perhaps in both instances. Yugoslavia used to be one 'sovereign' country before it started to disintegrate following Tito's death. Are there any provisions in the 'international law' for that? And what about Clinton's bombardement of Serbia that did the job of removing Milosevic but was it completely kosher? I do not think so.Moscow has been patient for a long time but the real, not imaginery humiliation was taking its toll. Good that the Times at least mentions 'real' humiliation along with an imaginary one. President Gorbachev explained their point of view very clearly in this paper a few days ago.International politics apparently depends, to some extent, on meaningless rituals we are now indulging ourselves in. They are harmless unless some immature leaders of small nations take them seriously and cause more violence and suffering of their own people.Soviets were satified for decades with a neutral Finnish government that was very careful not to irritate them during their superpower years. Onion has a wonderful piece describing Rice advising all nations strongly not to have borders with Russia. 'We will not be able to defend if you insist on those borders' Onion Rice says. Seems to me that Onion is bit ahead of the Times in their analysis of the situation.Still, Cheyney's bluster (a trademark of his destructive behavior) may be quite harmful. No chance, of course, that he will listen to theTimes - he probably never reads the paper. He probably does not read, period.Fortunately, 40 years ago and now the military movements did not result in too many casualties. In Czechoslovakia the Russian casualties were mostly because of accidents - precursor of Carter's great Persian debacle?I am not sure whether a summary of Russian and Georgian losses are available - each side will, of course, adjust its numbers up or down without much respect for reality. But there was some fighting and the Times should make its point about foolish plans continue with it to the Georgian president stronger.
— Ladislav Nemec, CA
Recommend Recommended by 15 Readers
18.
August 27th, 2008 6:21 am
Link
Without european dependence on russian oil, russia would have neither the means to support its expansionaist policy nor the possibility of energy blackmailof europe. The only reasonable decision that can be made is to free europe as quickly as possible from the need of russian energy. This should be done in a two-step program: first, invest massively in nuclear energy, aiming for a >80% electricity production from nuclear energy within 5 years; second, a massive investment in R&D in renewable energy. This would not only rapidly diminish our dependence of russia, but would as an added bonus diminish world oil prices, diminishing the leverage of the arab states.
— Erik De Koster, Brussels
Recommend Recommended by 5 Readers
19.
August 27th, 2008 6:21 am
Link
VP Cheney is far savvier defender of US interests than the NYT editorial board. With its record of imbecilities, hysteria and hyperbole, it still speaks of catastrophic and intolerable casualties in Iraq, it has no right to sneer at anyone's judgment.The editorial speaks of Russia's vast oil wealth when in fact her oil production, as in her huge west Siberian fields, is declining. Her move against Georgia can be understood as an effort to inch towards the pipeline that runs across that country and links Europe to Central Asia's 200 billion barrels of oil. With that in her grasp Russia could pipe the tune which Europe would have to dance to. That the bear has such ambitions and seeks to revive his lost empire is in no way the fault of Bush or Cheney, no matter how often NYT ideologues say it is.It is not Putin's resentment him that is the problem, as the NYT suggests, its the reverse. He has too little fear and respect for the US, in part due to his contempt for our NYT mentality.One forgets that the only western country to ever have the real respect and devoted friendship of post tsarist Russia was Nazi Germany. Thus, across the first 3 years of WWII Stalin's Russia delivered daily trainloads of petroleum and strategic metal ores to the Reich, even as the Wehrmacht was devouring the Continent and the Luftwaffe was blitzing Britain.Russia, like all aggressive bullies, has always only understood strength.What she now would understand would be a US base in Georgia. We could station there our 35,000 men now in Afghanistan, who could be replaced by NATO forces. Stopping a recrudescing Russian empire is a vital European interest. If that 26 nation alliance, which includes Turkey's million man military, cannot supply another 35,000 combat troops, it is useless in any event.If Europe refused then the loss of Afghanistan to the Taliban would be her fault and shame. It would not diminish us. We have no strategic interests there, though the NYT, Obama and the Left have since 2002 sought to make Afghanistan the focus of our principal military effort. Whether Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda have their HQ in Afghanistan as against some nook in Pakistan, Sudan, Yemen, Lebanon, etc., does not make the US any more or less safe. But stopping Russia in its tracks, before it gets started lassoing in its lost dominions, and intimidating Europe, is in our vital interests.Cheney is quite right to go see what can be done. The NYT editorial board in sum hasn't half his brains.
— nacl, Herndon, Virginia
Recommend Recommended by 8 Readers
20.
August 27th, 2008 6:21 am
Link
First of all, congratulations and good luck to the people of Nagorno-Karabakh, Ossetia, and Abkhazia who have successfully, so far, shaken off the oppressive yokes of Azerbaijan and Georgia respectively. These enclaves/hostage populations were deliberately and cynically created by Stalin in the 1920s to divide and rule the region. How the NYT, not to mention the West, can deem such provocative, and recent, borders sacrosanct is ironic and hypocritical.Secondly, please note that for the Caucasian leg of his trip, Dick Cheney is visiting Azerbaijan and Georgia - both countries with breakaway enclaves and strategic oil interests - but not Armenia, who is aligned with the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh in neighboring Azerbaijan. Why is Armenia undeserving of his somber presence? Could it have anything to do with oil?
— riddley walker, inland
Recommend Recommended by 8 Readers
21.
August 27th, 2008 6:21 am
Link
I applaud your accurate characterization of Russian dictator Vladimir Putin as a "dark hand" and of the country he rules as "poorly developed, corrupt and fragile." I also applaud your call for Europe to stand up to naked Russian aggression against a defenseless neighbor ruled by a democratically elected leader.It has now been revealed that the Russian government lied brazenly about the damage done by Georgian troops when they invaded the breakaway region of Ossetia after rebels there launched an unprovoked assault on Georgian forces (following months of violations of Georgian air space by Russian war planes, acts which were condemned by an offician UN finding). Days into the war Russia claimed 2,000 civilians had been killed in Ossetia by the Georgians. This week, Russia admitted the actual total was a mere 133.But there are two serious problems with your analysis.First, your gratuitous and partisan attack on the Bush administration will be seen by Putin as a sign of weakness. Indeed, it might even be used by him as justification for further aggression. The least you could do is wait until they actually make a mistake before attacking them. You can't seem to forsake any opportunity for a cheap pot shot at Bush, seemingly unable to see how good he looks compared to the monster that governs Russia.Second, you have totally failed to recognize your own past mistakes on Russia. You published an editorial on March 26, 2000, just after Putin was "elected" to his first term, in which you called him a "democrat" who was "impressed by the benefits of liberty and free markets" and noted that "a steady hand in the Kremlin would be welcome." It stated that "Mr. Putin helped build the beginnings of a capitalist economy in the early 1990's" -- a ridiculous falsehood, because Putin, who holds no economics or business credentials whatsoever, was in those years nothing more than the clueless lackey of a corrupt local politician who used to be his professor -- and speculated that he might choose "to advance reform while protecting the newly won liberties of the Russian people" and make "government an effective, honest and compassionate agent of change."You were wrong, needless to say. Your line on Russia has for too long been misleadingly soft and inaccurate, and you've not owned up to that. Hard to see how you can demand the Bush administration admit its own mistakes and change if you are unable to do so.
— Kim Zigfeld, New York
Recommend Recommended by 3 Readers
22.
August 27th, 2008 6:21 am
Link
When the Europeans meet next week, they should agree to put on hold a trade and security deal with Washington so long as it continues to occupy Iraq and to build missile sites around Russia. Stop the hypocrisy please.
— iconoclast3, canada
Recommend Recommended by 35 Readers
23.
All Editors' Selections » EDITORS' SELECTIONS (what's this?)
August 27th, 2008 6:21 am
Link
Dear Sir,Let me say first I have been for all my life a staunch supporter of US policy in world affairs: Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Desert Storm, the Iraqi war of 2003, you name it and I rooted for the US. One of the reasons I never forget, apart from being imbued with Western culture, is that in the aftermath of World War II Italy and Western Europe were saved from the bleak prospect of hunger and above all the terrifying perspective ofStalin-styled Communist rule by the Marshall Plan, Nato and the US resolve and military might.I had doubts when the US and Western Europe, Italy included, bombed and strafed Serbia for more than 80 days over the Kosovo crisis in 1999, but convinced myself that was a humanitarian intervention, as so it was depicted at that time.Then the Russo-Georgian crisis came and now the picture has become clear to me.I believe the US and Western Europe have been making the same short sighted mistakes in respect of the Russian Federation that France and the UK made towards Germany in the aftermath of World War I: in short, we have been humiliating a great and proud nation in every possible way.We need Russia's support, inter alia, in the fight against islamist terrorism and in preventing the spread of nuclear weaponry. Yet the US and Western Europe recognised Kosovo's independence disregarding Serbian and Russian protests and making short shrift of international commitments, history, logic and, I believe, our long term best interests.We violated the cardinal principle of no unilateral modification of the European borders as redrawn after World War II.Besides, the US and Western Europe have been pushing Nato membership closer and closer to Russian borders and encouranging rashly nationalistic leaders in their seek of aggrandisement, thus playing havoc with the Russians' deeply ingrained fear of encirclement and invasion, rooted as it is both in Russian history and the Russians' mentality owing to the ongoing invasions of the Mongols, Poles, Lithuanians, Swedes, the Emperor Napoleon's Grande Armée, the Austro-Germans in World War I and, lastly, the Axis Powers in World War II. On top of all that the US did not renew a missile limitation agreement with Russia.In short, we have been practicing a policy of 'roll back' with respect to the Russian Federation.Now somebody marvels that the Russian Federation is retaliating in Georgia, in respect of which Mr. Putin's warnings during the Sochi meeting with Mr. Bush were not heeded by the US President.I only hope the Georgian imbroglio does not develop in a major confrontation.E.S., Italy
— E.S., Italy
Recommend Recommended by 41 Readers
24.
August 27th, 2008 6:21 am
Link
Why is it that Politicians of all people have the dubious ability to 'not' learn from history? My dog has more foresight.
— AER, Cambridge, England
Recommend Recommended by 11 Readers
25.
August 27th, 2008 6:22 am
Link
If it is any consolation, Russia was repeatedly humiliated by the West as events events unfolded in Kosovo, Serbia, Abrogation of Treaties, NATO encroachment etc... So its a two way street. West lost a golden opportunity after the cold war to bring Russia into the fold rather than continuing to treat it as rogue nation of sorts.On the other hand, you need to look at the Russian point of view. Did you really expect them to do nothing. I'd say had the Russians gone on a massive bombing spree, like Israel did in Lebanon - 2006, or rounded up Saakashvilli and executed him, like US did in Iraq, then you could call that disproportionate.
— S Z, Atlanta
Recommend Recommended by 41 Readers
1 2 3 4 5 Next »
1 - 25 of 118

Moscow and Tbilisi Go to the Democratic Convention!

Guns Silent, Moscow and Tbilisi Open New Front in Denver

new_york_times:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/us/politics/26policy.html

By PETER BAKER
Published: August 25, 2008
WASHINGTON — Just hours before the Democratic National Convention was gaveled open on Monday, several party leaders sat down with the delegation from Georgia. But for these Georgians, the term “battleground state” had an altogether grimmer meaning.
Skip to next paragraph
Related
E.U. Treads Gingerly in Georgia Crisis (August 26, 2008)
The Caucus
The latest news from the convention in Denver and around the nation. Join the discussion.
Times Topics: Democratic Convention
Election Guide More Politics News

They came from the small former Soviet republic that fought a brief and disastrous war with Russia this month, and they were in Denver to plead their case to representatives, senators, delegates and any other political figures they could buttonhole.
A competing set of envoys from Moscow likewise made the rounds at the Democratic gathering, hoping to repair some of the damage to American-Russian ties. The Georgian and Russian governments plan to send representatives to the Republican convention in Minnesota next week as well.
With the guns now silent, the war between Russia and Georgia has shifted into a new phase, one for the hearts and minds of the Americans. The Georgians have a head start, embraced by the Bush administration and many in both parties as a small, emerging democracy bullied by Moscow. The Russians argue that the situation has been distorted and that in any case the relationship between Washington and Moscow is far too critical to let it unravel.
The timing proves particularly delicate, heading into two weeks when the parties formally anoint their presidential nominees. The attention on the Russia-Georgia conflict in recent weeks has already thrust national security back to the top of the campaign agenda and may have helped inspire Senator Barack Obama to choose Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware as his running mate.
Mr. Biden had just traveled to Tbilisi to show solidarity with the Georgians, and Cindy McCain, the wife of Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, made an unannounced trip there on Monday as part of a humanitarian mission. The man Mr. Biden seeks to replace, Vice President Dick Cheney, announced Monday that he would go to Georgia the day after addressing the Republican National Convention next week.
The shadow struggle in Denver got under way with envoys from both Georgia and Russia seeking out influential players.
“It is important for us to meet the key politicians in this country to make sure they have the right sense of what’s happening in our country and the right sense of what happened,” David Bakradze, the chairman of the Georgian Parliament and a former foreign minister, said by telephone from Denver.
Among those Mr. Bakradze and his compatriots met with on Monday were Madeleine K. Albright, former secretary of state; Richard C. Holbrooke, former ambassador to the United Nations; and Susan E. Rice, senior foreign policy adviser to Mr. Obama. (A session with Howard Dean, the party chairman, was postponed.)
In all their discussions, the Georgians argued for bipartisan firmness against Moscow.
“It’s not about Georgia,” Mr. Bakradze said. “It’s a much higher risk at stake. It’s about Russia forcefully changing the borders of the post-Soviet space.”
On the other side of the struggle in Denver was a delegation led by Mikhail V. Margelov, chairman of the foreign affairs committee in Russia’s upper house of Parliament, both of whose houses just recommended that Moscow recognize the independence of two Georgian breakaway regions, South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
In addition, Igor Yurgens, a close adviser to Dmitri A. Medvedev, the Russian president, traveled to Washington last week for a back-channel effort to smooth over tensions and assess the state of relations. Mr. Yurgens, who runs a Moscow research organization headed by Mr. Medvedev, met with officials at the White House, the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency as well as Russia scholars outside government, and spoke with advisers to Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain.
Mr. Yurgens did not come as an official representative of Mr. Medvedev, but said his trip had been approved by senior Russian officials. In an interview, he said he wanted to find a way to lower the heat over Georgia and make clear that in Moscow’s view, the Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili, had provoked the confrontation. He said several of the Americans agreed that Russia had had a right to respond but felt that the response was too heavy-handed.
Either way, Mr. Yurgens said, he emphasized the value of ties between the United States and Russia.
“Is it too much to sacrifice for essentially one man, a bipartisan relationship of this magnitude?” he said. “We have to calm down a little bit and step back.”
A Bush administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Mr. Yurgens had been told in strong terms that Russia needed to abide quickly by its agreement to withdraw fully from Georgia, something Moscow says it has done but Washington, Paris and Tbilisi dispute.
“Their actions,” the official said, “sooner rather than later, are going to make a huge difference in what we’re going to be able to do and how we might be able to get things back on track.”
Mr. Yurgens got a similar warning during a private lunch presided over by former Senator Gary Hart at the Nixon Center, a Washington research organization.
“At our meeting, the message was delivered loud and clear,” said Dimitri K. Simes, the center’s president. “I’m not aware of a single person in the mainstream who thinks it’s O.K. for Russia to keep forces in Georgia.”

Kids Trapped in Georgia

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: August 21, 2008
Filed at 5:11 a.m. ET
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) -- A New Jersey congressman met with Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili in hopes of arranging safe passage for two young girls stuck there, even as the girls' family worried over Russian troops only miles away.
Reached on the phone in Georgia, Rep. Chris Smith said Wednesday he was meeting with anyone he could -- Georgian officials, U.S. officials, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and contacts in the Russian parliament he knows through his work on refugee issues.
''This could break open any second,'' Smith said. ''We're trying every tool. I can't tell you how many conversations I've had with diplomats and others. I keep stressing to the Russians that there are American children who are trapped.''
Smith has been trying to get the Russians to open up a humanitarian corridor that would allow 7-year-old Ashley and 3-year-old Sophia Evans to leave western Georgia, as well as others stuck in the region.
The Evans girls were visiting their maternal grandparents when Russian troops invaded Georgia two weeks ago. Russian checkpoints have blocked their paths to escape.
Their parents -- Joseph Evans, of Howell, and his Georgian-born wife, Tea-h -- have been trying to get their daughters out of the country. Joseph Evans was on a plane to Georgia on Wednesday, a Smith spokeswoman said.
Tea-h Evans' brother, Beso Tsutskiridze, flew to Armenia from New Jersey last week, crossed the border and made his way on foot around Russian troop positions to get to his parents' farm in the western village of Chiatura.
Reached on his parents' cell phone Wednesday, Tsutskiridze said he -- like other men in the area -- was staying awake through the night so he could rush his parents and nieces into nearby woods if Russian troops arrived.
The Russians, he said, have been getting closer each day.
''They are really close to us,'' he said. ''Yesterday, it was like 20 to 25 miles from us. Now it's 10 miles -- 10 to 15 miles.''
The U.S. State Department is monitoring about 30 U.S. citizens under 18 who are in Georgia without their parents. Meanwhile, Smith said he has been working on the cases of about a dozen other children stuck in the country.

Editor's Selection -- On Gorbachev's View of Russian-Georgian War

All Comments - Editors' Selections
NYTimes.com editors aim to highlight the most interesting and thoughtful comments that represent a range of views.
1 - 13 of 13Show:
Oldest First Newest First Readers' Recommendations Editors' Selections Replies
1.
EDITORS' SELECTIONS (what's this?)
August 20th, 2008 7:34 am
Link
This crisis reminds me of the Cuban Missile Crisis. We have taken the role that had been held by the Soviets, the intruders trying to establish bases inside the bounds of the sphere of influence of the other. We even have the aspect of the insertion of missiles into a border country.As I recall, in spite of the saber rattling on a superficial level, that crisis was resolved behind the scenes by an agreement that the Soviets would do what we wanted in terms of removing missiles from Cuba, but we agreed to remove our missiles from bases in Turkey.Perhaps a similar agreement can be negotiated in this instance, with the United States agreeing not to install missiles in Poland (perhaps even reinstating the anti missile treaty which we breeched) and the Russians agreeing to withdraw from the non-separatist areas of Georgia. Unfortunately, it looks like the Bush team is still playing the "my way or the highway" approach. It is a strategy which has not served America well in recent years.
— Steve, Japan
Recommend Recommended by 219 Readers
18.
EDITORS' SELECTIONS (what's this?)
August 20th, 2008 7:41 am
Link
Gorbachev is right; it's important to remember that this did not appear out of some vacuum or random Russian aggression, but from a pattern of slights by the West and American in particular. NATO into Eastern Europe, Kosovo, NATO suggestions for Ukraine, missile defense in Poland - all of these led to what Gorbachev described as questioning as to whether Russians even care if they are a part of these organizations.Now it has come back with a vengeance, because when pressed on this, NATO and the US folded like a cheap paper plate, trying pathetically to cry "This had better stop, Russia, I'm warning you!" while also saying "Well, if push comes to shove, we'll stay out of the way militarily".The result now is that everyone is going to be hurt by this. The Russians are going to suffer a blow in reputation that is not entirely fair (and possibly lose membership in some organizations), Europe is going to re-affirm that they are dependent on Russian petrol and unwilling to act in concert with the US, Georgia gets a good lesson on what happens when you idiotically provoke a strong next door neighbor - and the US ends up with egg on its face for 20 years of poor post-Cold War decision-making and for foolishly promoting a false unity and solidarity with a country in public.
— Brett, The United States of America
Recommend Recommended by 149 Readers
22.
EDITORS' SELECTIONS (what's this?)
August 20th, 2008 7:41 am
Link
As an American living and working in Moscow, I am not alone in having witnessed a noticeable discrepancy between western and Russian coverage of the conflict in S. Ossetia. The balanced view of the conflict lies somewhere between the two sides as both sides seem to be aggressively serving self-interests in their own coverage.But in general, the American press with the right of being "free" unlike its Russian counterpart, must do more to fact check these politicians Gorbachev mentions who make absurd statements, so that our nation does not end up in another unnecessary battle. The US press has long been denying its readers of a fair and balanced portrait of the state of affairs in the world, and the coverage of the S. Ossetian conflict has brought this issue into the forefront. As much as this conflict was a war between Georgia and S. Ossetia, it has been a war between each PR machines under the guise of media coverage.Thank you to the NYTimes for bringing this opinion piece into the mix, Gorbachev's views are a breath of fresh air in the confused and conflicting coverage of the issue.
— Mandi, Moscow
Recommend Recommended by 202 Readers
26.
EDITORS' SELECTIONS (what's this?)
August 20th, 2008 7:41 am
Link
I wish Americans would adopt a more nuanced view of the rest of world. This article is wonderful in that it shows us that the situation is not as simple as we are led to believe. McCain was applauded for being decisive by condemning Russia. Obama was criticized for taking a more nuanced position. We need more of Obama's judgment, not McCain's.
— Girish, Brookfield, WI
Recommend Recommended by 96 Readers
83.
EDITORS' SELECTIONS (what's this?)
August 20th, 2008 8:02 am
Link
"Russia did not want this crisis." As usual with wars, there is much blame to be shared, but surely Mr. Gorbachev isn't serious when he fails to mention that Georgia's actions are precisely the pretext that Moscow was looking for to play out its "near-abroad" strategy. Nor does he mention Ossetian military provocations under the nose of Russian "peacekeepers." Georgia was hardly clever in dealing with these, but Russia's military and rhetorical responses suggest precisely what Mr. Gorbachev aims to deny.
— GKJames, Washington
Recommend Recommended by 27 Readers
118.
EDITORS' SELECTIONS (what's this?)
August 20th, 2008 8:20 am
Link
While Mr. Gorbachev is right that any hope of an effective resolution of this conflict must address the initial unjustified use of force by the Georgians, it is unclear how his call for a legally binding agreement rejecting the use of force makes any sense when Russian tanks are roaming the Georgian countryside. Mr. Gorbachev's call for a legally binding agreement, absent any mention of a body within which such an agreement could be formulated, is disappointingly empty. Instead of joining in the blame game, what is needed of leaders of Mr. Gorbachev's stature is a vision for how conflicts like this might be resolved. Why does Mr. Gorbachev make no mention of the United Nations? Surely the UN is precisely the sort of global body within which legally binding agreements regarding the use of force could be formulated.There is obviously a great deal of mistrust between the leaders of Russia and Georgia. Mr. Gorbachev is correct in his call for a legal process to resolve the conflict since only a process that would be accepted by both parties as balanced would provide an outcome that both sides could accept as fair. Assuming that Mr. Gorbachev is sincere in his desire for a peaceful resolution of this conflict, then his focus on the activities of the United States is distinctly unhelpful. Even if the U.S. had not defended Georgia without qualification, a single country, even the world's sole superpower, could not provide the means for a legal binding agreement.Mr. Gorbachev's response to this crisis has largely focused on the faults of the Georgians and U.S., apparently in response to a perceived bias against Russia. While a more balanced reporting could improve understanding of the sources of the conflict, it cannot provide a solution. I would like to call on Mr. Gorbachev to move beyond the rhetoric of blame and lay out a vision of how Russia and Georgia could enter into a legal process that would lead to legally binding agreements both sides could accept as fair and balanced. Could Mr. Gorbachev articulate a specific role the UN might play in such a legal process, perhaps involving the ICJ as well as the Security Council on a dual track? Or is Mr. Gorbachev aware of other global bodies that might be more effective in providing the context for such legally binding agreements?It seems to me that while many people are claiming that Russia is returning to 19th century politics, there is still hope that a more recent vision of resolving political conflict through the rule of law is viable. I would like to encourage world leaders like Mr. Gorbachev to use their stature and influence to move the various involved parties beyond accusations of blame and towards legally binding agreements that would leave Russia and Georgia with an outcome that both could accept as fair.
— Phil Enns, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Recommend Recommended by 15 Readers
123.
EDITORS' SELECTIONS (what's this?)
August 20th, 2008 8:20 am
Link
It's indeed refreshing to read about Russia's point of view of this conflict. If America wants to put the cold war behind it, it should also put the cold-war mentality behind it. Some American politicians. like John McCain, rushed to place all the blame on Russia and ascribe sinister intentions to it.Given the impending change in the American administration, it is an opportunity for the American voter to get rid of the cold-war mentality too. Mr. Obama's initial reaction was the correct one when he said that we must look at both sides of the issue before rushing to judgement.Russia is no fool to fall for the West's "sweet talk" on partnership when the actions of the West (such as expanded NATO membership) speak louder than words. If Russia is to be really integrated with the West, the West must be an impartial negotiator. That means giving serious consideration to Russia's point of view.It is really important for Americans to understand the psyche of a country that is severely dismembered. Like an earthquake that triggers a tsunami, the Soviet Union's dismemberment was like a political earthquake, and there are forces building in Russia hoping to reclaim lost glory, like a tsunami wave. If the West taunts Russia in unacceptable ways, it will provoke a severe reaction. Fortunately, we are only dealing with people and not mother Nature, and thus the crisis can be defused with the the foresight of statesmen and the genius of diplomacy. Given the nature of the cold-war, it will take at least two generations to really bury the cold war. In the meantime, it is the responsibility of the voters in the West to elect leaders who will vigorously continue to restrain the cold-war genie in its bottle, and not rake it up for short-term political gain.Can the real statesmen please step forward? Now is a good time.
— Kiran Achyutuni, Bangalore, India
Recommend Recommended by 22 Readers
149.
EDITORS' SELECTIONS (what's this?)
August 20th, 2008 10:49 am
Link
But the Russians also have wanted to be rid of Saakashvili for a long time. So I have to disagree: the Russians *did* want a war, to get rid of him if possible and scare the hell out of him if not.I agree that the West's attitude toward post-Cold War Russia has been too antagonistic. I also agree that Georgians started a fight they couldn't finish. But it is also the case that Putin is a despot, who uses belligerent rhetoric to bolster his popularity at home, nearly completely controls the Russian media and brooks almost zero political dissent. The blame for his rise cannot be laid at the feet of the West.I wish that Russia could become a free and democratic nation and join the European Community, which is where it belongs. It would only increase everyone's wealth, power and prestige.
— David Mebane, Stuttgart
Recommend Recommended by 11 Readers
216.
EDITORS' SELECTIONS (what's this?)
August 20th, 2008 11:36 am
Link
On the 40th anniversary of the Soviet invasion (August 20-21, 1968), I never thought I would be writing the New York Times to say, Yes! Mr. Gorbachev is right!!There is more truth and quiet reasoning in what he writes than in the 2 weeks of screaming in the Western media.My own gut level feeling is that this was engineered by the Bush administration to aid Mr. McCain and to pressure the Poles into signing the missile treaty. Other fallout was welcome, too, and the media have fallen in step. We are SO-O-O tired of this.Thank you, Mr. Gorbachev, and thank you NYTimes.
— P. Hedgie, Prague, Czech Republic
Recommend Recommended by 14 Readers
220.
EDITORS' SELECTIONS (what's this?)
August 20th, 2008 11:40 am
Link
Sounds to me like McCain knew all along what was coming and is attempting to use Georgia to get elected:FROM WORDPRESS:PETE YOST August 13, 2008 04:14 PM EST WASHINGTON -- John McCain's chief foreign policy adviser and his business partner lobbied the senator or his staff on 49 occasions in a 3 1/2-year span while being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by the government of the former Soviet republic of Georgia.The payments raise ethical questions about the intersection of Randy Scheunemann's personal financial interests and his advice to the Republican presidential candidate who is seizing on Russian aggression in Georgia as a campaign issue.McCain warned Russian leaders Tuesday that their assault in Georgia risks "the benefits they enjoy from being part of the civilized world."On April 17, a month and a half after Scheunemann stopped working for Georgia, his partner signed a $200,000 agreement with the Georgian government. The deal added to an arrangement that brought in more than $800,000 to the two-man firm from 2004 to mid-2007. For the duration of the campaign, Scheunemann is taking a leave of absence from the firm."People die so McCain can realize his political ambitions.
— Jane Smiley, California
Recommend Recommended by 5 Readers
303.
EDITORS' SELECTIONS (what's this?)
August 20th, 2008 1:38 pm
Link
I fully agree with President Gorbachev. The proximate cause of all of this was U.S. adventurism in Georgia. It was foolish to try to establish a client state there, foolish to try to extend NATO there, and most foolish of all to give our support to a hothead ultranationalist like Saakashvili.
— Mark Morss, Columbus, Ohio
Recommend Recommended by 11 Readers
305.
EDITORS' SELECTIONS (what's this?)
August 20th, 2008 1:52 pm
Link
I am originally from Krasnodar, South of Russia, and have lived in the states for almost 8 years and thought there could be a better news coverage. Oh well, it turns out that the US media is just as simply ignorant as any media that is controlled by the figures like Cheney.I am thankful that NYTimes listens to Mikhail Gorbachev and shows its respect to someone who is trustworthy in the US.It is disgusting that everyone on every corner shouts that Russia being a big bad guy who crushed the small shivering neighbor but no one claims any deaths of Ossetians, almost 2000 people in the first day of Georgia's invasion! And no reaction from the acclaimed and "unbiased" UN, not a soul from the American administration either. How can you forget about Ossetians dying? And sure I don't want to ignore Georgians being killed in this strife but who started it? How come nobody wants to hold Saakashvili responsible for striking up this bloody revenge-driven conflict?Indeed, Caucasus is a very complex territory and Americans along with the West and so-called democratic new growing country like Georgia cannot give honest opinion about the conflict.It is all about who gets what. What did Georgia get out of it? Even more anger coming from Ossetians, Abkhazians, and Russians toward Georgia and its common people, instead of having a well-thought compromised conversation with Russians for a better future.
— Natalia Novikova, New York City
Recommend Recommended by 2 Readers
364.
EDITORS' SELECTIONS (what's this?)
August 20th, 2008 3:32 pm
Link
Let's not forget that the author has his own axe to grind. This is not an unbiased opinion. This is a spin job by a skilled politician and diplomat. So skilled in fact, that he has managed to make his version of events sound more plausible than those presented by our own government.Maybe Gorbachev is right, but more likely his version is no more realistic than the Georgian version of events. To claim that Russia did not want this crisis belies the facts on the ground. Russian troop build ups in the area prior to this action were not accidental or coincidental.But in truth, the spin of events by both sides pales in importance to the real message behind Mikhail Gorbachev message.The Russian bear has once again decided to take it's place at the world table.We have choices; we can engage them and work together for our mutual benefit, we can engage them and work to exploit them for our exclusive benefit. We can ignore them and hope for the best. In a 21st Century plagued by conflict and the heightened possibilities of mass destruction, working towards our mutual benefit seems the most prudent course of action.Let's hope that our system of checks and balances can produce prudent decisions.
— Owat Agoosiam, NY
Recommend Recommended by 6 Readers