Obama, McCain and Russia's War on Georgia

While I have lived, worked and frequently visited Georgia since 2002 and have written extensively on Georgian politics, I am not going to address the specifics of the conflict here. Instead, it might be useful to explore some of the questions which the conflict between Georgia and Russia raises for domestic politics in the US. The conflict has, appropriately, led to debate online and elsewhere about the limits, impact and attitudes of American power foreign policy. It has also, again not unsurprisingly, become an issue in the presidential race as Senator McCain has responded with blustery statements stressing Russian aggression and the need to defend Georgia, while Senator Obama has emphasized these points, but also stressed the need for partnership with Europe on this issue.

McCain has attacked Obama for being soft on the Russians and being "bizarrely in synch with Moscow". Red baiting like that is almost quaint, but unfortunately McCain was being serious. The contrast between McCain's bellicosity and Obama's more measured tones is more significant than their view of the war itself. They both seem to agree that Russia is the aggressor here and that the US should support Georgia in whatever way it reasonably can. However, McCain's approach has emphasized the need for the US to be tough with little regard for the need to build alliances and think through the broader issues.

Among the punditry and on the blogosphere, discussions seem to have moved in two directions. On the one hand we have seen combative rhetoric about Russian imperialism, a new Cold War, Russia's irrationality, the need to respond aggressively and Russia's inability to understand anything but force. Others have argued that Russia is doing nothing different than what we have done around the world, Georgia is an American puppet, and this a result of our foreign policy in Iraq, Kosovo and elsewhere over the last decades. While there are elements of truth in both those positions, they are both extreme and will not lead to meaningful solutions or progress in the region. The latter position is clearly a fringe one that is barely even relevant to the events in Georgia, but it shows that the impact of the disastrous US foreign policy of the last eight years has direct bearing on the difficulty that the US now faces in trying to craft an effective policy towards Russia and Georgia regarding this conflict and beyond.

An appropriately nuanced view of the US role and possible options regarding the events unfolding in Georgia now require all Americans regardless of partisan affiliation, view of the Bush administration or preference in the upcoming presidential campaign to simultaneously hold at least the following six ideas in their heads.

1. The US has dramatically overstated the strength of Georgian democracy and the
democratic credentials of Saakashvili personally helping Georgia evolve, in the eyes of many, into a virtual client state of the US.

2. Because of our invasion of Iraq and other unilateralist actions we have lost any moral high ground on this type of an issue. Statements by people like Dick Cheney or George W. Bush that this is "unacceptable" or John McCain commenting that "in the 21st century nations do not invade nations" not only underscore this but demonstrate the extent to which the current leadership of the US is unaware of the damage we have done to ourselves over the last five years.

3. Saakashvili can be aggressive, arrogant and stubborn, but with regards to human rights he is not comparable to Milosevic as suggested by Russia. For this reason the Kosovo example is a very tenuous precedent on which to rest the Russian position. The Russian charges of ethnic cleansing by Georgians in South Ossetia have not been substantiated by human rights groups and are tremendously exaggerated. Russian claims of self-defense should be tempered by the recognition that no Georgian soldier or airplane has crossed an international border, shot a gun on Russian soil, or flown into Russian airspace.

4. Russia is capable of doing bad things. For many in Eastern Europe, this is evident, but for some in the US, our extreme, if understandable, focus on our foreign policy mistakes has obscured this important truth.

5. If Russia believes it has achieved its goals in Georgia without facing any consequences, it will likely continue to assert its new power over various neighbors. An emboldened Russia is not just a threat to some abstract and misguided sense of American superiority and dominance, but it is viewed as a great danger by millions throughout Eastern Europe. If Russia is not held accountable for these actions, their influence will almost automatically increase in the Baltic States, Ukraine, Poland and elsewhere. These countries will be less free and independent as a result of this.

6. South Ossetians and Georgians are both suffering because of this war. There are thousands of Ossetian refugees fleeing northward and thousands of Georgian fleeing Russian troops going to the capital and other safer parts of Georgia. Efforts to provide humanitarian assistance to all the victims of this war are essential.

Our policy towards Georgia has to reflect an understanding of all of this as well. While this may, in fact, be a key moment where it would be detrimental to the US and the world to let Russian aggression go unchecked, what that response looks like and who responds are extremely important questions.

While the fighting may well end soon, the fallout from this conflict will not go away. The questions of administering the contested regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, guaranteeing Georgian sovereignty, confronting Russia, and the broader role for the US and Europe in the region will be only some of the questions which this war will force the next president to face. The US can best stand up for our allies and against Russian aggression if we are able to build an consensus with our European allies, because without European support, threats to push Russia out of the G8, bar their entrance into the WTO, boycott the Olympics in Sochi, will be seen by the Russians as just talk.

Russia hawks, and friends of Georgia, would be wise to consider this when making a choice in November. We can be comforted by McCain's words which Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili described as "cheering", or we can reach our goals through Obama's more serious and pragmatic, but equally tough, approach.

Comments

[phd2]

"For this reason the Kosovo example is a very tenuous precedent on which to rest the Russian position."

In order to assess how NATO bombing of Belgrade compares to Russian agression in Georgia you need to have adequate knowledge not only of Georgia but also of Serbia.

"The Russian charges of ethnic cleansing by Georgians in South Ossetia have not been substantiated by human rights groups and are tremendously exaggerated."

This is quite possible. Now: how many people do you think died in Kosovo before NATO starting bombing civilian targets in Belgrade and Novi Sad - cities several hundred miles from Kosovo? Perhaps 100,000 as President Clinton said?

"Russian claims of self-defense should be tempered by the recognition that no Georgian soldier or airplane has crossed an international border, shot a gun on Russian soil, or flown into Russian airspace."

All this makes the analogy with the invasion of Kosovo all the more compelling.

[research]

Ossitia declared independence at the same time as Georgia.

Ossetia is disputed. Ossetian welcomed Russian peace keepers died in the Georgian attack.

Georgia attacked Ossetia after agree to a cease fire.

Stalin grouped Ossetia with Georgia.

[research]

McCain threw Georgia to the wolves to scare us into voting for him.

We should have explained the facts of life to Georgia and told it to forget about Ossitia. Instead McCain's foreign adviser took lobbying money from the Georgian governments and convinced them Ossitia was theirs and they should take it back. Israel provide weapons to Georgia and the USA provided military training just a week before. Ossitia is disputed. Georgia signed a peace treaty agreeing not to invade Ossitia. Ossetia asked for an got Russian peace keepers, some of whom were killed in the Georgian attack.

You conservatives Threw Georgia to the wolves to win an election.

[cunuck]

"Pipeline politics" - what happened in Georgia wouldn't have mattered one whit if it wasn't for the pipelines that carry oil and gas from the Caucasus.

[Harod]

Jimmy Carter had Rose Garden policy I guess Obama goes to the beach..

[randyjet]

People need to remember that the US INVADED the Soviet Union right after WWI. I would think that this would make the Russians a little anxious given that history. The fact is that the existence of Georgia is not at stake since the Russians could have taken Tblisi at any time they chose.

Gorbachov also mentioned the FACT that Georgia launched its attack on Ossetia at night while all the residents were asleep and at home with shelling the whole area. They didn't bother with hitting only military targets since you have a hard time seeing much at night. The Russians were seen to be hitting military targets in the daylight. Big difference. The President of Georgia also REFUSED to answer L. Kings question as to why Georgia attacked first and attacked civilian targets.

[LaFilleEnRose]

And not to mention that when Obama merely traveled to Europe and met world leaders he was "presumptuous." When McCain admits he's calling and been calling the prez of Georgia during all this...what the hell is HE doing? Acting like our prez? Where's the media criticism on that. And what the hell is he saying on these calls? Did he contribute to this with all his earlier calls? Where's the media scrutiny when its needed???

[styleturn]

@Michale32086

It seems you've noticed that by not responding to the actual message your messages can float to the top with the added benefit of relieving them of context.

Contrary to your assertions Georgia started this conflict while the U.S. and Israel were doing military training with the Georgians. Saying that you don't believe that doesn't alter the facts. Saying that you don't believe that Saakashvili promised to reunite Georgia within a year upon taking office doesn't change anything either. Georgians wanted South Osseta and Abkhazia back under their control since the 1990s. People in those provinces, on the other hand, don't want to be a part of Georgia and have Russian passports to prove it.

Saakashvili bragged about his troops killing and bayonetting Russians that were assigned to protect South Osseta. He was triumphant when they downed two Russian Jets. If that same thing happened to the U.S. no one should doubt that the U.S. would respond aggressively. See Iraq.

Saying that Georgia was wrong and Russia has been showing some restraint does not mean that Russia has not done terrible things when trying to win a conflict. Nor are they alone.

Most Americans want the U.S. to succeed by being the best they can be. Not by supporting tyrants in their misguided vendettas.

Protecting Georgia will probably always require diplomatic solutions not military ones. Saakashvili does not appear to be a very honorable leader though he does seem to think McCain owes him.

[Michale32086]

}}}}}}}}
Contrary to your assertions Georgia started this conflict while the U.S. and Israel were doing military training with the Georgians.
}}}}}}}}}

Georgia was handling an INTERNAL matter, which is their right.. South Ossetia is part of Georgia. THAT is the fact that you refuse to accept..

}}}}}}}}}
People in those provinces, on the other hand, don't want to be a part of Georgia and have Russian passports to prove it.
}}}}}}}}}

Russia is the ONLY country in the world to recognize the claim that South Ossetia is part of Russia.. Why do you think that is???

As far as the international community and international law is concerned, South Ossetia is part of Georgia. Those are the facts...

While I have conceded that Georgia could have handled things better that does not negate the FACT that Russia is morally, ethically and legally in the wrong with their invasion of Georgia proper...

These are the facts. Whether you choose to acknowledge them or not.

Michale.....

[styleturn]

You say that killing people in South Osseta is an internal matter yet, much like countries such as Bosnia before, others disagree. America has often argued that protecting people from the evils of their own misguided governments is a worthy cause. Some say that was supposed to be the point to invading Iraq. Is right exclusive to the U.S.?

More critically you didn't address whether bragging about killing Russians to the world is good public policy for Georgia. As I implied before, if some country did this to U.S. soldiers do you think that America should turn a blind eye? The central question from a strategic perspective has less about Georgia somehow having some right to punish people in South Osseta than it is about the U.S. supporting a tyrant .

Russia was clearly wrong in Afghanistan and any number of other situations in the past. For a lot of people that is not so in the specific case.

If Russia stays in Georgia longer than necessary or switches to the violence that has often been seen from their many occupations of the past then almost everyone will be against them. But that situation will unfortunately be based upon the irrational decision by Georgia to attack members of the military of a country that is huge in comparison.

This is not about moral or ethical. There is plenty of bad going around. This is about stupid and smart.

Georgia was stupid and we shouldn't reinforce stupid behavior.

[richdoll]

mccain got made by georgia.. he opened pandora's box .. now the world has to fix what he created
as for saakashvili it is apparent he struck first.and russia retaliated but he's just as incoherent as mccain. the both of them are responsible for the 2000 lives lost all to prove who could be better as commander in chief. i ope america hears you. we really do not need another administration that thinks it can rule the world. and alienate us from the world.

[Michale32086]

@PumaAnn

{{{{{{{{{{
There's an argument to be made on the other side. Georgia instigated this.
{{{{{{{{{{

I am not sure if you are stating what you believe or if you are stating the propaganda that Russia is putting out..

Regardless, Georgia no more "instigated" this than the US would have "instigated" anything by sending troops into Texas or Puerto Rico...

Michale.....

[dgr]

You are of course wrong on both points that you try to make.

Georgia signed a treaty in 1992 agreeing not to use force in S. Ossetia; so it is obvious that they broke the treaty, thereby instigating the conflict.

Texas has not declared Independence and written its own constitution and been defacto inedependent since 1991.

South Ossetia does not want to be part of a government that wishes to annihilate its population.
Get it?

[Michale32086]

@serena1313

}}}}}}}}}
As I understand it NATO does not get involved in territorial disputes.
}}}}}}}}}

It would if it's very survival is at stake..

Which is the case here...

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

@wornsmoot

}}}}}}}}}}
The author of this blog is quite correct in stating that Russia is capable of "bad things". It reminds me of what I was told when Russia threw off it's totalitarian Party in 91 and allowed democratic elections. "When you shave the stripes off a tiger, they still remain on it's skin, no matter what cloak you cover him in".
Comparing America's recent(and overall short) history with that of Russia's is,well, not comparable.
{{{{{{{{{{

Well said...

The Russia cheerleading you see permeating this blog is nothing more than thinly disguised Bush/USA bashing...

It is certain that if Bush HAD supported the illegal Russian invasion of Georgia, these exact same people would be castigating Russia as vehemently as they are supporting Russia right now....

It's sad, I know...

Michale.....

[wornsmooth]

Michale,
There is lots of blame to go around. There are no doubt issues that being an American go right over our heads. While I tend to reflexively side with anyone who has a fight with Russia, (Nazi Germany excepted) I know it is always more complicated than that.
My reason for replying though is this. You included Bush and USA bashing as one. Bush/Bush administration is an anomaly that has corrupted American politics, the rule of law (both domestic and international) and America's strong record on Human Rights. They well deserve bashing, and quite possibly, criminal prosecution. Hopefully history will record them as something outside the normal American experience. Only time will tell if they have permantly changed America, which then will lead to very justified bashing of this once proud example of liberty,freedom and justice.
Implying this administration is "America" is, I hope, erroneous.

[Michale32086]

}}}}}}}}}
There is lots of blame to go around.
{{{{{{{{{

Agreed....

As to the rest, I disagree that Bush deserves to be bashed.. But that really is another subject all together... If you would like to discuss THAT, meet me over here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russ-wellen/impeachment-truth-and-rec_b_118082.html

... and we can have at it. :D

MY beef is that people are so blinded by their hatred of Bush that they will support ANYONE or ANYTHING no matter how morally foul it is, SOLELY on the basis of their hatred of Bush...

The hysterical Left would run into the open arms of Satan himself, if they thought that Satan was against Bush...

Do you see the inherent illogic of such a position??

It is that attitude that really bugs me... These people don't give a rip about all the lives that are being lost. They don't give a rip that Russian snipers are shooting at reporters or that South Ossetian irregulars are looting and burning and pillaging Georgia..

All they care about is their hatred of Bush.

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

@PaulLee

}}}}}}}}}}
Sadly it did look like Obama was playing "catch up" but is that what really happened? Initially it was unclear who had initiated hostilities - so a response calling for restraint on both sides would seem appropriate.
{{{{{{{{{{

Perhaps... Had Obama waited to see that it was clear that Russia initiated this mess, he would have conceded the floor to McCain initially.

So you do raise a good point.

}}}}}}}}}
Russian then pushed to Georgia's borders and Obama asserted that Georgian border integrity should not be violated - again it would seem an appropriate response. However as Russia pushed further into Georgia there was a more robust statement from Obama. Furthermore it is significant that he consulted with Sec. Rice to obtain as much information as possible - not because he was presumptious, but adhering to protocol - there is only one president/administration at a time. It would now seem that it was indeed Georgia who fired first - sadly giving Russia the excuse it needed to kick them hard.
}}}}}}}}}

Very good points. Under those circumstances, yes Obama was clearly the smarter one..

However, I think your points are too nuanced for the average voter.

All they will see is McCain coming out strong from the outset and Obama following McCain's lead.

Perception wins the day. Regardless of whether or not it is accurate...

Michale.....

[Patrick McCabe]

You are correct on the Obama initial analysis of the conflict. He was accurate as a surgeon on the Georgian role and the overbearing response of the Russians who played the role of protectors agressively, while destroying Georgia strategically. The agression was well orchestrated.

Point is also taken about the average American missing the finer details which the McCain bravado overshadows in the headlines. Obama's response was cautionary to the whole intial report which was a different story than the response McCain trumpheted to the Russians and the world immediately following the breaking of the news. Even Bush our president was more even tone initially.

[myrddin]

What some people see as McCain coming out strong others will see as bellicose. McCain scares the hell out of me. He sees war as the only solution to too many problems.

[PaulLee]

"Perception wins the day. Regardless of whether or not it is accurate..."

Sad but true, there is no room for critical analysis in a soundbite world for the "average voter". But for those who have the time and inclination to analyse these things there is no excuse. "Country first" would dictate that support should go to the person showing "good judgement", there is too much at stake to blindly follow along party lines.

[ApolloSpeaks]

PUTIN THROWS THE LEFT INTO DISARRAY

Obama and the Left are in total disarray over the Georgian catastrophe. Here's Barack Obama trying to make a case for the use of diplomacy and soft power to resolve international disputes against an administration of hawks and "neocon warmongers" that love to "invade countries and shed oceans of blood." And what happens? Putin orders the invasion and brutal rape of a democratic country as a first step to rebuilding the old Russian empire.

For the last eight years Bush and the EU have been bending over backwards trying to accommodate Putin's Russia and turn her into a friend and trusted ally. For eight years we used diplomacy and soft power in an attempt to humanize Putin and integrate his delapidated country into the world community as a partner for stability and peace. And look at what it has come to?

In just one day Putin has discredited the Obama Doctrine; in just one day, the anniversary of Ned Lamont's short lived victory over Lieberman, Putin has practically placed the wreath of election victory on McCain's furrowed brow.

[Skua]

Speaking as a representative of "the Left", I hereby exculpate Sen. Obama of the false charge of being of "the Left". As he is not of the Left, and basically supports the expansion of American power through southwestern Asia, he will not point out to you that Saakashvili, McCain's great personal friend who is in contact with him all the time, brought on this crisis at this time by unilaterally attacking Russian and South Ossetian forces and trying to recapture a region that they haven't controlled for fourteen years. I have to do that. I probably also have to be the one to point out that occupying, maybe temporarily, a few miles around Gori at the south end of South Ossetia doesn't constitute Georgia being eaten by the Russian Bear.

If I were part of the Obama campaign, however, I might make a couple points:

- Obama wasn't the guy who claimed to see Putin's soul. If the US has been pursuing a failed policy toward Russia "for eight years" as you say, and if it has backfired, whose fault is that? Don't you mean that the "Bush doctrine" has been discredited, rather than the "Obama doctrine"?
- According to the McClatchy papers, the US satellite network was so bogged down with watching Iraq and Pakistan/Afghanistan that they didn't have time to see Russian forces mobilizing to enter Georgia. This supports Obama's idea that the Iraq war has been a big diversion.

[ApolloSpeaks]

On July 24th Barack Obama held a mass rally in the country that plunged humanity into the most destructive wars in history; the country that emboldened Russia's rape of Georgia by blocking its entry into NATO. And to worsen matters this self-proclaimed mastermind on world affairs shared his stage with a German war memorial celebrating the crimes and atrocities of Prussian militarism, symbolically summing up the depth of his stupidity and ignorance. Wherever we look we're met by ominous signs warning that Obama is unfit to command, unfit to lead, unfit to be Commander in Chief in these perilous times.

[research]

You conservatives threw Georgia to the wolves to scare us into voting for McBush.

You "projection" and "big lie" are obvious.

[PumaAnn]

I don't see a big whup in this. Mac expressed support for an ally. There's an argument to be made on the other side. Georgia instigated this.

O was super-wishy-washy, but he adjusted. He's an adjuster.

Putin is being a jerk. Telling us to choose is going too far.

[JiminNC]

If we wanted to attack Russia, it would be over ... years ago. If Russia wanted to attack us ... the same.