Name: Scheisskrieg

I borrowed some words from a colleague of mine that put a good perspective on the whole ordeal

What's going on in Georgia
Or, Mike Stevens on Foreign Affairs, Part Deux

Sorry, would have hopped on this sooner, but it's fairly complex and I've had to work for a living. Anyways, here's what I got:

Let's go back to the mid 1700s. At this this time, Georgia is spending most of its time trying not to be annexed by either the Ottoman Empire or the Persian Empire. Georgia's main ally is the Russian Empire, the only major Christian power in the area. However, Russia is a bit ambivalent towards Georgia, and only sends troops occasionally (and when they do, it's not enough to settle things decisively). Eventually, Catherine the Great persuades Georgia that its best hope lies in becoming part of Russia. Georgia agrees somewhat reluctantly, and becomes an autonomous grand duchy within the state of Russia (much like Finland).

Almost immediately, the Russification of Georgia begins. The Orthodox Church within Georgia is stripped of its autonomy, and becomes a subset of the Russian Orthodox Church. Russia starts dictating laws and successors to the Georgian throne. This forces Georgian nationalists to start uprisings, the uprisings lead to persecutions, and the persecutions lead to more uprisings. Eventually this is all interrupted by the Russian Revolution, which gives Georgian nationalists the opportunity to declare independence. All is going swimmingly, except when the Bolsheviks finally consolidate power and begin to reassert their power over the old Russian nations that declared independence. Georgia is brought back into the sphere of Russian control, albeit this time under the Soviets.

Soviet rule over Georgia further emphasizes the Russification started under the Russian Empire -- the Russian language is given emphasis over native Georgian, religion is replaced with Bolshevism, and Russian leaders are again emphasized over native Georgian ones (with the possible exception of Georgia's most famous native son, Ioseb Jughashvilli -- better known under his nom de guerre, Joseph Stalin). Now, even though the Soviet Union pursued a policy of Russification, that's not to suggest that everything was done to stamp out Georgian culture. In fact, Georgia was a separate political entity from Russia (both members of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics),

This continues until the Soviet Union collapses, and Georgia declares its independence with the rest of the old Soviet Republics.

During Soviet rule, there were several autonomous regions within Georgia which were set aside for ethnic minorities. These regions being Abkhasia and South Ossetia. In much the way that Georgia was set aside to make sure the ethnic Georgians had some say in a country, these regions were set aside to make sure Georgia didn't do the same to them. Now fast forward to Georgia's independence: One of the first things Georgia's first major post-Soviet leader, Eduard Shevardnadze, does is eliminate these autonomous areas -- incorporating them into Georgia proper. This alarms the Ossetians and Abkhasians, who call on Russia to help them out.

So, Russia sends in troops to secure Abkhazia and South Ossetia from the Georgian government, hands out subsidies and passports to its residents, and sends in (relatively) capable Russian administrators. This is not out of respect for ethnic minorities (remember its bloody campaign in Chechnya), but instead to disrupt the internal government of Georgia.

Anyways, let's get back to the post-Soviet leader of Georgia, Mr. Schevardnadze. The man, like many post-Soviet leaders, is an undemocratic president-for-life. The guy rules the country rules the country with the iron fist, and pays more attention to staying in power than he does to the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Basically, it takes all of the power of the state to keep him in power, and they can't afford any spare troops to maintain territorial sovereignty. For the most part, though, things reach a status quo -- Georgia pretty much allows Russia to control the breakaway areas, and Schevardnadze stays in power.

Fast forward to 2003. In what was supposed to be a proper sham election, Georgian President Schevardnadze ends up loosing to challenger Mikheil Saakashvilli. There's a little bit of apprehension over what exactly to do, but after major protests, the results of the election are upheld and Saakashvilli becomes president. With a new democratically-elected president, the security and military establishment can be directed in new ways -- such as upholding territorial integrity. In fact, one of Saakashvilli's planks involves extending control of the federal government over the entirety of the nation. He starts by removing several autonomous strongmen, and is fairly successful. Each success has emboldened him, which brings us to the two breakaway regions.

This brings us to the offensive into South Ossetia that started about two weeks ago. President Saakashvilli saw an opportunity in the region, and believed that his pro-western alliances would make Russia keep out of this conflict (of course, with the US in Iraq and NATO in Afghanistan, don't count on it). When Georgian troops rolled in, so did the Russian ones. In short order, the Georgian troops were thoroughly routed and forced to retreat. The Russian troops then occupied areas outside of South Ossetia (and inside of Georgia proper), which technically, is a war crime.

But to call it a war crime is a bit overkill, especially when there's enough blame to go around. When Saakashvilli went before international media and badmouthed Russia to the entire world, it was as a bratty little kid who picked a fight and lost. Yes, Russia was wrong to stir up resentment in Georgia's breakaway areas. But Georgia should've respected South Ossetia's original requests for autonomy. Yes, Georgia has a right to territorial integrity. But you don't just go and start a fight with a superior military that's itching for a fight and feels it has something to prove.

---

So where does that leave us? Russia won this round. Now, do we send in our troops to support a young democracy assert control over an ethnic minority area, and risk full-on war with Russia? Do we do nothing and let Russia slowly gain control over a pro-western ally? This is the position we find ourselves in after the failures of President Bush. Our oil-based economy guarantees Russia's wealth, and the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan finds us militarily and diplomatically impotent.
_________________