A one-shot strategy
Inside the old gothic fortress Carmen sang, and Carmen danced, a special one-off. A dazzling performance to entertain the European Union's foreign ministers during their meeting in Avignon. The soaring voice and the spinning across stage were however marred by strange undergraduate gimmicks: a small rotating plinth videoed and projected on to the back wall of the Papal Palace not only flowers and sparklers, but images of a World War II fighter plane and models of what appeared to be World War I soldiers in the trenches.
No expert on classical music, the reference to 20th century wars in this 19th century opera baffled me. Perhaps the earnest director just hoped not to distract and entertain the ministers but to return them to the subject at the front their minds: war, European war, the first European war of the 21st century.
The ministers had a wide-ranging discussion ahead of today's trip to Moscow by Sarkozy, Barroso and Solana. This is a potentially pivotal moment for the European Union. For those who passionately want it to develop a coherent and strong foreign policy it's the test of a position that is tougher than expected, which some insiders are portraying as no longer lowest common denominator, but highest common factor.
It was the French president who insisted that he led the mission to demand the Russians to implement the peace deal he negotiated.
But it's very high risk to send your very highest delegation for the first meeting. They could have sent technical staff to prepare the ground for a low level official meeting which would in turn quietly test the water. This the highest possible level that the EU could send... As one senior diplomat put it to me, "We've got one shot. If they snub us, it is a serious situation and it can't be business as usual."
Some of a more hawkish tendency within the EU think this might be a good thing. Of course they would rather the delegation gets what it wants. But they would prefer a clear rejection to subtle shades of grey. The argument goes that if the Russians tell Sarkozy to get lost then the European Union will be plunged into a discussion about what consequences Russia will suffer. Wafting around are suggestions about boycotting next year's Eurovision song contest or cooperation over research and development of space policy.
"Ouch" you may say, bet that'll make Putin think again. But no-one is under any illusions that this is a dispute that will be over by the end of the week. Some senior figures argue that all the tools at the disposal of the European Union are long term tools, to be used in an argument that will run for 15 years but can't be settled in the short term.
This is probably a rather grown up view. But we all live a short term, quick reaction world, and if the European Union looks as if it reacts to a snub by scratching its collective 27 heads and pausing for months it will be ridiculed in many quarters.
But is President Sarkozy feeling a little bit guilty?
There is an interesting story , which I have heard from a highly respectable source. According to my source, the French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner and the Finnish foreign minister Alex Stubb (as chairman of the European Organisation for Peace and Stability) had negotiated a ceasefire within the overarching frame which insisted on Georgia's territorial integrity, a point that is now vital. But just before they were to fly to Moscow from Tbilisi, Sarkozy phoned up and demanded they waited for him.
According to this story, Sarkozy insisted on his own deal, which missed out the crucial point about territorial integrity and was in bad French with the President's name misspelt. My source argues this was proof that the ceasefire was handed down by Moscow. One of the apparent loopholes will be the crux of today's talks. It reads: "Russian military forces must withdraw to the lines occupied before the start of hostilities. Until an international mechanism is put in place, Russian peace keeping troops will implement the security measures".
This obviously leaves lots of wriggle room for the Russians about who are peacekeepers and who should be withdrawing. I expect this is how the discussion in Moscow will proceed. But if it doesn't and the Russians are more hard-line the EU will again have a dilemma. Perhaps ministers should consult their programme notes for "Dialogue de Carmen" which state that her tragedy was being torn between desire and status.
PS. Re my last post: At school I got used to comments like " good work spoilt by appalling spelling" but the spell checker should make such errors a thing of the past. Apologies for the stupid mistakes that have so distressed a couple of you.
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~09~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Mark,
Regarding you postscript.
Please do not feel the need to apologise. My spelling is often atrocious and I forget to spellcheck before I post I ma so keen to post my comment.
To err is human and your insights via this Blog are touched with humour and humanity which makes for interest.
The people who jusdge you by their spelling are ignorant of the personal nature of Blogs and should simply get off their high horses and be less puerile!
Keep up the good work. It is joy to read you Blog entries.
Complain about this comment
I think that people in Europe will have to accept that they have to be grown up about what the EU can do if Russia tells Sarkozy to get lost.
In a way, the fact that France is holding the Presidency of the EU during this crisis is a good thing. If the French (on behalf of the EU) are snubbed by Russia, then one can envisage France taking it very personally and with their usual Gallic lack of humour feel very supportive of the EU collectively planning retribution and being in the forefront of driving any EU mandated retribution.
I would feel very much less confident of the French being supportive of collective action against Russia if they were merely part of the EU herd.
As regards what the EU and European Leaders can do if Russia snubs Sarkozy, I would agree that there is very little they can do in the short term. Sanctions will beget Sanctions from Russia and this will escalate Europe towards more desperate measures.
Your suggestion about the Eurovision Song Contest made me chortle - I'd like to hope Europe does abandon these pathetic Euro-TV programs as a matter of sanity anyway! The TV Ballroom Dance show the other night was another example of something that is so dire that Europe should abandon it as anyone outside of Europe must think Europeans are all mad to particpate in such shambolic programs!
Russia is definitely trying to corner the fossil fuel sector and Europe has got to, primarily, get itself off the hook as regards reliance on Russia for future gas and petroleum supplies. Failure to do so will be a strategic error with appalling consequences some time down the road in time.
If the Chinesse can slipstream in behind the backs of the Americans and obtain proprietary oil prospecting right in Iraq (as reported yesterday) then Europe should be collectively doing similar deals behind Russian and American and Chinese backs elsewhere in the world AND Europe should be working to ensure that alternative East-to-West pipelines do not come under the control of the Russsians.
Otherwise, Europe is stuffed and a Russian rebuff now is the least of our individual and/or collective worries.
Complain about this comment
Mark,
Carmen would have made short shrift of these EU wimpish types as they occupy themselves with their 'priming pins' (Act 1, recitative just after the Habanera).
Putin and Medvedev are likely to prove just as dismissive.
I second Menedemus above regarding your lapses in spelling and grammar: I value frequent informative and entertaining posts over well presented anodyne commentary.
Complain about this comment
The only short term goal that has to be achieved, and it's a big one, is the withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgia proper. This is probably achievable.
I disagree that the EU should insist on some short term actions JUST for propaganda's sake. It was clear from the beginning that the appropriate responses here are long term. If the EU wants to apper to be doing things, announce the long term strategies.
Energy independence should be FAST tracked. Economic reliance on Russia and investment there should be reduced to absolute required minimum or zero if possible... who needs an unreliable and unstable investment partner?
Complain about this comment
I hope the French led EU initiative fully succeeds. Georgia is yet :"another little country far away about which we know little and care even less" to paraphrase Chamberlain in 1938. In 1939/40 Russia, allying itself with Nazi Germany, invaded five current EU member countries : Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania. It was only Hitler's attack on Russia in 1941 that forced temporary withdrawal from "empire". Because in 1945 the Russians came back , took even more territory and stayed, and stayed, and stayed. In Poland's case to 1994! The same behaviour with the same explanations and excuses are being currently seen in Georgia. The Russians are making the usual noises about "protecting the interests of their citizens" in other countries which is their standard excuse for armed intervention and occupation/takeover. At least their "peace loving initiatives" are being shown for what they really are (try reading the comments of the Russian Genral who is Chief of their General Staff).
If the French and Germans have woken up to the reality of Russian imperial policy then that is all for the good. Free market economic pressure (collapse of the Moscow stock market over the past few weeks, a run on the ruble), blocking of cheap loans to Russian corporations, the implementation of an EU wide energy strategy/policy with an associated unbundling of the distribution pipeline networks from the oil/gas producers would be a salutary impediment to Russian imperial ambitions......
Complain about this comment
i doubt the russians would be so stupid as to snub the eu delegation. i think their intention is to drive a wedge between the hawkish americans and the more conciliatory europeans (french and germans at least). more likely i think the russians will say the right things to keep the eu sweet and will work with sarkozy to maximise their wriggle room. i think eventually (perhaps after many more rounds of talks) they will agree to withdraw their "peacekeepers" to abkhazia and south ossetia, out of de facto georgia but not out of de jure georgia, in order to be replaced by an eu (not nato and definitely not us) force. they will agree with the eu to disagree over the status of the breakaway provinces. they will then leave the dust to settle and saakashvili to stew in the soup he has made himself, and mull over which of ukraine, moldova or belarus to turn their attentions to next.
Complain about this comment
I hope the French led EU initiative fully succeeds. Georgia is yet :"another little country far away about which we know little and care even less" to paraphrase Chamberlain in 1938. In 1939/40 Russia, allying itself with Nazi Germany, invaded six current EU member countries : Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania. It was only Hitler's attack on Russia in 1941 that forced temporary withdrawal from "empire". Because in 1945 the Russians came back , took even more territory and stayed, and stayed, and stayed. In Poland's case to 1994! The same behaviour with the same explanations and excuses are being currently seen in Georgia. The Russians are making the usual noises about "protecting the interests of their citizens" in other countries which is their standard excuse for armed intervention and occupation/takeover. At least their "peace loving initiatives" are being shown for what they really are (try reading the comments of the Russian Genral who is Chief of their General Staff).
If the French and Germans have woken up to the reality of Russian imperial policy then that is all for the good. Free market economic pressure (collapse of the Moscow stock market over the past few weeks, a run on the ruble), blocking of cheap loans to Russian corporations, the implementation of an EU wide energy strategy/policy with an associated unbundling of the distribution pipeline networks from the oil/gas producers would be a salutary impediment to Russian imperial ambitions......
Complain about this comment
benagyerek @ 6
I sincerely hope you are right.
As the Russian seek peacekeeping between Gerogia and it's want-away enclaves of South Ossetia and Abkhazia it would seem the most appropriate solution would be to approach the United Nations for the UN to provided peacekeepers.
It has got to be wrong for Russia to be in the Georgian territory of the two enclaves as 'peacekeepers' having recently been in direct warfare with the 'other side' as it were. One can hardly call the Russians independent.
Similarly, I would fully accept that the EU would not be ideally independent providers of peacekeeping troops as the EU Peacekeepers would de facto be troops that might otherwise be used in NATO missions.
As Russia is the only nation to have recognised the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia it would also be more appropriate for the UN to nominate independent and non-Russian peacekeepers within the two enclaves.
Complain about this comment
@Menedemus,
Its very kind of you to offer these comforting words to Mark. Of course, to err is human. However, when someone earns his bread and butter with writing, (even "just" a blog) then I expect them to write properly. As a non-native speaker, I might even think this is proper english and start using it myself. Furthermore, the BBC is a beacon of professionalism and thus I expect correct grammar and spelling.
Complain about this comment
@ Gheryando
"Pompous" and "arrogant" are a couple of words you might like to spellcheck for me.
I am not sure if I spelt them correctly!
ROTFLMBO
Complain about this comment
#10 Menedemus
Bit harsh, I thought. The point about non-english speakers picking up false spellings is well made.
Mind you, non-english speakers can teach us a thing or two as well. I particularly liked post #89 in the previous thread where WebAliceInWonderland said of the USSR's muslim states "We grabatised them in times Russian Empire". Very succinct
Apart from that, I couldn't care less about spelling, etc. as long as I can understand the point being made.
On the main issue, the EU can quite easily get up Russia's nose by cultivating Russia's closest circle of friends.
Bridget Kendall already made the point http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7575813.stm
that Russia's close allies have not been very warm in their reaction to the Georgia thing.
The problem with that, of course, is that it's not very 'announcable' but then, EU citizens probably do not want it looking too bellicose anyway. It can all be said in private, though.
Complain about this comment
To expand a little on why I do not feel that Mark has anything to apologise for!
This Blog is Mark's personal opportunity to give us all a little bit of insight into the background behind stories about Europe.
If Mark is reporting an item on the BBC News or bbc.co.uk/news I would expect his work to be grammatically correct, unbiased and completely truthful as he would be doing his paid job as "Europe Editor" for the BBC.
On this Blog, if he makes spelling mistakes or grammatical errors then they simply add piquancy to the fact that the Blog entry is entirely Mark's personal take on the news or the background behind the unfolding news event. We are all better informed by having this Blog and should just be thankful that Mark is kind enough to to take the time to give us the background to the news from Europe.
If you just want grammatically correct writing, unbiased reporting and no flavour - go to the News itself and be happy.
If you want personality and flavour then put up with the grammatical errors (Honestly, I am positive they are not deliberate!) and try to read what Mark is saying - you will be better informed knowing the full background or snippets of information that Mark is able to bring to us via this Blog rather than just reading the news.
Many of my own grammatical errors in my own comments are simply typographical - I am, for the most part, quite literate but occasionally (and sometimes more than occasionally in any one comment!) I might misspell something - it does not lessen the value of my comment thus I am not going to apologise for misspelling any words I write although I will apologise for any words that I misuse - mute and moot being examples of two words a spellchecker will not autocorrect and I forever misuse.
Complain about this comment
#89 (previous thread) WebAliceInWonderland
I just re-read this post and it really is quite beautiful in its use of english, albeit not the english favoured by native speakers. Our loss.
Thank you for the lesson in Russian / Soviet culture and history.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Russia did ask for foreign peacekeeping troops, to re-place itself, in Georgia.
Foreign Affairs minister Lavrov did, a week ago.
He's asked EU though, not UN I think.
I may be wrong, but I still think we've asked EU, who took the role of mediators in the conflict, to continue naturally (while UN did nil).
So the principal agreement is there, no problem for both sides, the devil as usual hides in the details.
First, what we've asked for is a wonder who nobody knows where to get from.
We've asked for not ordinary peacekeepers, blue berets,
but foreign blue berets with the skill and desire to work as ordinary policemen in the "buffer zone".
Not to simply sit in the garrison with rifles and interfere when clashes begin, but to go around the houses, put nose into all kitchen pans, knows who is who in the zone, every house (Osetian or Georgian), and prevent the conflicts before they begin. This look more like police duties, or "peacekeepers with extended duties."
Second, it's the location of these peacekeepers. Russian suggestion is to put them on the borderline, but still on the "Georgia proper" ground. That's why we don't object them being NATO. Georgians are happy with NATO, and it will be a tiring task for Russia to be so petty-cash, look into each and every peace-keeper onwards, oh what country he happens to be from? oh, what if these 5 went and a re-placement was sent from a NATO country? This is going to be a long appointment, and impossible for us to trace in future anyway.
The work isn't going to be a marvel, so it will be enough that someone does agree to go there, especially with the local language and police skills.
Complain about this comment
oj oj oj. The meeting in Moscow - the agreement is not going to be easy. It's is already the 4th time my Russian TV says"...And after 3pm after 3:15 pm after 3:30 pm... after 4pm ... we will show you the direct broadcast of..." !
It was the same thing when Sarkozy was here, and when they finally emerged to the journalists, both Medvedev and Sarkozy looked like out of the hot bath. Medvedev very angry, Sarkozy like a quick-silver sparrow with distorted feathers.
And same with Angela Merkel, only she said it straight to the media, for the beginning - "We haven't completed, we need more time, so we'll just tell you little bit, and will return back discuss further."
Complain about this comment
Meanwhile while nothing happens I'll explain on "grabatise" term.
A young democracy in the prev. forum was pestering me about it, and then I got a compliment from chillo (No 11 here) that it's actually not bad.
Yes, I am afraid this is my invention, I tried to translate myself from Russian into English "succinct."
The eti-o?-mology of the word goes back to Perestroyka here, when state enterprises were becoming private ones. They were "privatised", as we thought, and the process was "privatisation" (privatizatsia).
As fortunes were made in the process in a flick? of a second, like, future-to-become oligarchs were grabbing huge enterprises for nothing, via friends and acquaintances in high places, this looked like a robbery of wealth created by work of ordinary people.
So one unknown Russian joked about it, and inserted a letter "h" in the middle of the work. Instead of "privatizatsia" it became "priHvatizatsia". From Russian root to "Hvat"=to grab.
Thus the process of privatisation turned into the process of "grabatisation", by adding one additional letter.
And from the noun "grabatisatia" it is easy for me of course to make a verb "to grabatise" - which is not a simple verb to "grab", but a more shameless and cynical degree of it. And also more funny, like, we laugh at ourselves. So when Russians want to be critical of themselves, they tend to say local equivalent of "grabatise", instead of "grab".
Anyway this is all boring explanations, I see absolutely all got the angle intuitively, without explanations.
We grabatise English roots aplenty, Russian language is voracious in this respect, and nobody gets here hysterical about it, like I know the French are against foreign borrowings.
Russian standpoint is the language ought to be able to stand for itself, otherwise what is it a language that can't stand an influx of foreign words. Foreign words are not a plague to be scared of, a normal thing.
I am sure by the way, people like, I don't know, David Crystal, or Melvyn Bragg, all the language scientists, would simply list the verb "grabatise" under "regional dialects of English." A Russian dialect!
Complain about this comment
chill0 @ #14
Why insult me?
Ingrate!
Complain about this comment
Mark, it is the EU leaders going to Kremlin, and not the Russian leader to Brusselss.
This shows clearly who's the master, three of them, what a shame...
Complain about this comment
Mark, your source is almost certainly right. Of course the socalled cease-fire was handed down by Moscow. But the EU just could not resist claiming the 'credits' for it. They so desperately want to be a 'player' on global level, yet to this date utterly lack a popular mandate for it.
Anyone who saw that the topic of territorial integrity was not mentioned in the cease-fire, knew that those were Russian terms.
Fact remains: warmonger Saakashvili started it.
Complain about this comment
chill0 - to avoid misunderstanding.
I did not refer your comment @ #14 to the Moderators. That was either the moderators or someone else referring?
I really don't mind being insulted as I do believe in the saying "Sticks and stones can break my bones but words will never hurt me".
Complain about this comment
#18 Menedemus
Did you refer my #14 to the moderators ?
All I said about #12 was 'Toady'.
Are you going to do it again ?
...and do you expect me to be 'grateful' for your comments ?
Complain about this comment
EU: “I don’t like Mondays”
Having watched and commented on both press conferences of the informal EU summit in Avignon, France, I have come to the conclusion that the EU has no set plan formulated to engage Russia – and I doubt this will happen any time some. And before this happens the EU is in for a rough ride internally.
I really don’t know what to make of French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner. He isn’t much of a diplomat. He doesn’t seem to know much about the history of the post-Soviet space or much about Russia’s absolute insistence that Moscow’s foreign and security policy interests be finally respected. Kouchner appears convinced that when the EU delegation arrives in Russia on Monday, Medvedev is going to be in the mood to compromise. French President Nicolas Sarkozy and company are in for a big and very disappointing surprise. As far as Russia is concerned, it compromised too often with the EU (and the West in general) since the collapse of the Soviet Union and got precious little in return. Those days are over. Monday is going to be a rude awakening for Brussels.
What struck me as almost surreal is the EU’s insistence that everything related to Tbilisi’s assault on South Ossetia be returned to the status quo ante. This insistence is akin to pretending that nothing has changed in the South Caucuses. Well, everything has changed there and the world has too. During both press conferences, the past, present, and future status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia were simply not mentioned (even when journalists raised questions on this issue).
I fully expect the first thing the Russian side will bring up with their EU colleagues on Monday is exactly this – South Ossetia and Abkhazia are now political realities on the ground. Moscow will tell them “Once you get use to this idea, we can talk.” That is going to wipe off Sarkozy’s signature public relations smile in a heartbeat. Medvedev might give him a pat on the back with the words “Welcome to the new world, Russia is back, but we can still be friends.”
The EU has made it clear that it does not accept Russia is implementing the six-point ceasefire agreement (that Sarkozy designed). Kouchner went as far as to say that Russia is only in compliance on two points (though he did not elaborate on which ones). Russia claims it is in full compliance on all points – though with its own timetable. The EU can talk all it wants about this, but this issue is closed as far as Russia is concerned. Moscow will want to talk about the here and now.
The Russian side wants to know if the EU’s wonderful generosity with humanitarian and reconstruction aid also applies to South Ossetia – the targeted victim of Saakashvili aggression. And what about American and NATO aid? Why do military ships transport civilian aid? Why is the US and NATO using provocative means if their goals are merely humanitarian? Why is Dick Cheney kicking up dust when the EU talks the talk of moderation? Russia also will ask who will be the go-between for Moscow and Tbilisi. Moscow rightfully will not utter even a word directly to Saakashvili. I can see blank expressions from the great and proud EU delegation!
I mention all these issues (and I could easily go on) because of something that Kouchner said today. He made it clear that the future of Russia-EU relations would depend on what happens in Moscow on Monday. Incredibly, he delivered a veiled threat. In essence he proclaimed with great bravado that if Russia didn’t see things the EU’s way, Brussels would…well…do something! Well that something is a Pandora’s Box for the EU.
It is obvious to me that the EU is going to Moscow with no new ideas. It will make its demands and Moscow will say – “This is nothing new and so what?” It is fair to ask: why is the EU doing this? In my humble opinion, the EU has actually found no real consensus. It has not formulated a new Russia policy. An ambiguous approach toward Russia is the EU’s only policy, maintaining the slightest sense of consensus among its members for now. After Monday, that ambiguity will turn into dividing lines within the EU. In the meantime, Russia will seek dialogue with members of the EU truly interested in dialogue. And it will continue to keep the peace in the South Caucasus (and start to watch the Georgian domestic political scene fall into chaos).
All of this reminds me of a song by the Boomtown Rats: “I don’t like Mondays” If the EU miscalculates – and it is set to – this song might be remembered for a completely different reason.
Complain about this comment
chill0. Please see my comment at #22.
No, I did not refer your comment at #14.
My response at #18 was stupid and I apologise. Please accept my apology.
You do not have to be grateful for my posts and my use of that word in #18 was something I regret writing.
Complain about this comment
#21 Menedemus
Apologies. #14 was meant light-heartedly.
No matter.
I certainly hope my words never hurt anyone.
Complain about this comment
#22 Me
Menedemus
...and just to nullify my own stupid utterance, I am grateful for your comments.
Complain about this comment
I don't know whether you're keen to risk another round of discussions about capital cities, but I hope you or at least one of your colleagues will be back in The Hague for Wednesday morning when the District Court (Landgericht) will be giving its judgment in the civil action being brought by Srebrenica survivors against the Ducth state. The failure of the international community stands alongside - if not overshadowing - the atrocities of Karadzic and Mladic.
Complain about this comment
andrey124 @ #23
I suspect you may be right in much of your analysis.
You wrote, "What struck me as almost surreal is the EU's insistence that everything related to Tbilisi's assault on South Ossetia be returned to the status quo ante. This insistence is akin to pretending that nothing has changed in the South Caucuses. Well, everything has changed there and the world has too. During both press conferences, the past, present, and future status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia were simply not mentioned (even when journalists raised questions on this issue)."
I agree that everything has changed in regard to the relationship of Russia with the rest of Europe and the EU and with the USA.
I think the issue being peacefully resolved or becoming a major disruption for "business as usual" between the EU and Russia will transpire very quickly.
I have regard to the EU Extraordinary Meeting of the Council of Ministers and the [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]that was the output is going to be the guideline for EU reaction to a Russian rebuff to Sarkozy, Barroso and Solana.
If the EU approach, which is less hostile than the USA approach, is rebuffed by Medvedev then the EU will fall into the USA Camp and a cold war will likely ensue. If the EU is given platitudes but no more from Russia then the EU is likely to reconvene the Council of Ministers meeting and there will be an end to "business as usual" with Russia leading to a longer term startegy of diengaing from dealings with Russia.
Personally, I think that, whatever the outcome of today’s meeting with Medvedev, the relationship between Russia and the EU is ruptured and not likely to be repaired any time soon. This will result in Russia having to look eastwards for inward investment and to support diversification from reliance on cornering the fossil fuel sector of the global economy.
The options for short-term retaliation for a Russian rebuff are, as Mark has implied in this Blog Entry, limited but, longer term, Russia would face isolation from the rest of Europe and loss of inward investment opportunities and the income from European purchase of fossil fuels will diminish over time and coincide with Russia's dwindling resources of fossil fuels.
As I mentioned in an earlier comment, a rebuff for Sarkozy is probably the best thing that could happen for the EU as it will generate a French desire to push for a stronger retaliation than might have been the case if it were either Poland or the United Kingdom holding the current Presidency of the EU.
It can be a funny old world, and France currently having the EU Presidency gives this crisis a real fillip for Europe working together for the collective benefit of all rather than each member state being rather laissez-faire about what really matters. A Russian rebuff is going to mean that France will have to actively engage with the rest of the EU rather than simply look after it's own interests as it does usually. Oh joy!
Complain about this comment
Saakashvili – the shame of the Western media
Much to my delight, the word is getting out. Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili is slowly but surely being seen for what he is: a liar and an opportunist. However, my delight will never make up for the disdain I have for those among the commentariat who have protected him and covered up his lies. Western mainstream media continues to disgrace itself. And at the same time it lectures Russia about media standards. Again, we witness in front of our very eyes the death of outrage.
During Saakashvili’s war, we mostly heard from Saakashvili – not his victims or the Russian side. This of course was all so convenient for Saakashvili and his Western handlers. It was supposed to be that way. Saakashvili after all is Western – he’s “just like us.” But is he? Well, if he is just “like us,” we should be ashamed of ourselves and change – and look for better stooges to advance Washington’s neocon agenda.
The timelines are now becoming clear. Saakashvili ordered an attack against civilians he called his own. He said he “loved” the South Ossetian people and that we would never harm them. Only hours later, he attacked them in their beds – a 12-hour assault against innocent civilians. When things didn’t go the way he expected, he blamed Russia. The West’s commentariat swallowed this hook, line, and sinker. This was the commentariat’s first shame in the affair - much more follows.
To this day, Saakashvili is getting away with murder. Saakashvili started a war, with Washington’s support, and now expects a very pliant Western media to bail him out. Amazingly, and almost meeting his expectations, he nearly pulled it off. But the truth is catching up with him. Finally, there are those connecting the dots – Saakashvili has problems with dots being connected. He never really expected this. His Washington handlers in Tbilisi and the US were tasked with sanitising all of this. But it is not happening.
CNN, the BBC, Sky News, and all the American domestic networks cannot admit to their appalling coverage of Saakashvili’s preemptive war. Now they all prefer to ignore the facts that are coming to light. They simply lack the professional guts to admit they were wrong when the world needed the truth. Sadly, this is very much part of a trend.
I am pleased that at least more and more print media outlets are now reconsidering what really happened a month ago. They certainly don’t have a balanced view of Russia’s position regarding this conflict, but at least they are distancing themselves from Saakashvili’s. This is a small step towards correction and commitment to the truth.
Saakashvili is on his way out. Something tells me he won’t get the Western media coverage he wants and expects. The West’s media loves winners and morally defensible heroes. The more we learn, the less Saakashvili is either.
Complain about this comment
andrey1234 wrote:
"South Ossetia and Abkhazia are now political realities on the ground.
The Russian side wants to know if the EU?s wonderful generosity with humanitarian and reconstruction aid also applies to South Ossetia ? the targeted victim of Saakashvili aggression. And what about American and NATO aid? "
South Ossetia and Abkhazia are now Georgian's provinces occupied by russians army.
Georgia is independent country and a member of UN. In accord with Article 51 of the Charter of UN Georgia can ask other countries to provide military aid against the aggression.
And what about the targeted victim of Putin's aggression against Chechnya?
Complain about this comment
To be fair andrey1234, the Russians did Saakashvili's job for him by keeping everyone out of South Ossetia. We STILL have no idea who is really to blame here and a good deal of the blame can be laid at the Kremlin's feet. Why are you keeping observers out when there is nothing to hide? At the moment it appears the Georgians are not without blame, but the bulk of it actually lies with the South Ossetians and the Kremlin. Perhaps if the EU is actually allowed in properly, a different picture will appear.
Complain about this comment
In fear of the Grammar Police the above would read better as:
"We STILL have no idea who is really to blame here and a good deal of the blame FOR THAT can be laid at the Kremlin's feet."
Complain about this comment
to : alexius_3
UN will take it’s time to recognize (all they need is 12 more recognitions). Just like Kosovo
Complain about this comment
The EU has responded to Russia’s actions in the South Caucuses – and it was a real non-event. As I expected a lot of heat was created, but precious little light. Of course, as I expected, there were no punitive sanctions announced and the only “punishment” Russia faces is a postponement of negotiations on the Russia-EU Strategic Partnership Agreement. Big deal! How is it that the EU response is so benign?
Hours before the emergency EU summit, the Western media quoted anyone (even if that person was no-one) saying Russia must be punished and taught a lesson. The “dumb and dumber” duo, Gordon Brown and David Miliband, wanted all of us to face up to the facts that the West must confront the Russian bear. Well it didn’t happen. The reasons why this didn’t happen are obvious.
The conventional wisdom tells us that the EU is weak because of the difficulty of this body in reaching a consensus on almost anything. Broadly speaking this is true. But then again, the EU does function and makes “progress” for lack of a better word. The real question that needs to be asked is why the EU is so powerless when dealing with Russia. Is it because Russia is so strong when dealing with the EU? (Or because of Russia’s energy “hold” over Europe?) The answer is no. The problem the EU has with Russia is its lack of understanding what the new Russia is all about.
Let’s have a look at the reasons for this lack of understanding:
First, Russia was never really expected to recover (politically, economically, or militarily) from the Soviet collapse. And if it did, Russia would be squarely under the heavy influence of the EU and the U.S. Russia’s democracy and embrace of capitalism was supposed to protect and advance the West’s global agenda. For reasons that I have mentioned before, this of course didn’t happen.
Second, post-Soviet Russia’s security interests have never been seriously recognised. This has been a very grave mistake. Russia has not and will not aspire to superpower status again. The Soviet-world system cost Russia and Russians greatly. The Kremlin of today has never given any serious thought of returning to the global confrontation with the West known as the Cold War. Russia simply wants its legitimate security interests recognised and respected. At the moment this has been translated into the demand that Russia will caveat its regional security and protect Russian citizens beyond Russia’s borders. The EU (the U.S. and NATO) grossly miscalculated on this score. Russia is indeed interested in its neighbourhood.
Third, the EU recklessly expanded eastward without serious consideration of just who was inducted into the club. The origins of the EU were based on reconciliation of former enemies. The French and Germans today refrain from using history when discussing current political problems. That can’t be said of the Poles and the Baltic states. They spoil for a fight with Russia every chance possible. And they want to drag the EU into these fights. This damages the Russia-EU relationship to the point that it is seriously dysfunctional and hence the press conference of today in Brussels.
Fourth, the EU very much likes to see itself as a fair broker. Indeed, Russia was hoping that the EU would play such a role on the international stage. However, the EU has squandered this idealised role with its support of the Saakashvili regime. The EU moralises about the rule of law and human rights. When has it ever spoken out about Saakashvili’s illegal war and the gross violation of human rights for the South Ossetians and Abkhazians? Russia feels a deep-seated sense of betrayal.
Fifth, the EU for some odd reason believes its “grand morality” play should somehow translate into real political power. This is short-sighted. In the eyes of Russia, the EU protects the rights of member countries that abuse the rights of ethnic Russians living with the EU (like in the Baltic states). The EU is deluding itself. It wrongly thinks of itself as being morally superior to Russia and Russians. This is still another grave mistake.
The EU says it will review its relations with Russia from top to bottom. I suggest something far simpler. The EU should get to know the new Russia and stop thinking so highly of itself. Russia is waiting to work with a partner, not an ill-informed crusader.
Complain about this comment
#31 Freeman
I agree with you completely.
...and why were there Russian army manoeuvres in North Ossetia in July ?
...and why has the Georgian presidency website suffered attacks since July ? Russians say that Russian news websites have suffered attacks originating in Georgia. Are the Russian press so much in government hands that the Georgians must fear them ? Or did someone else do it all ?
The consensus of opinion among people I have spoken to is that the Russians originated all of this but the Georgians were suckered into some bad behaviour.
Complain about this comment
Did the NATO presser on the South Ossetian crisis presented by the alliance’s head Jaap de Hoop Scheffer make any sense to you? I didn’t know whether to cry or laugh. It was an appalling exercise in doublethink and confusion.
Scheffer started out by saying: “it’s not business as usual with Russia.” That is the only thing he said that reflects reality. NATO’s “business as usual” is to ignore Russia’s legitimate security interests – particularly when it comes to expansion eastwards. The rest of his less-than-media-slick presentation demonstrated that NATO is simply at a loss – completely disconnected with how the world has changed after its favourite Georgian son fully de-legitimised NATO’s mantras of “spreading democracy” and “projecting peace.”
How is NATO deaf?
De Hoop Scheffer’s not-ready-for-prime-time show glaringly tells us that he and the alliance he heads will not listen to criticism or respect the security interests of others. When asked to justify the alliance’s existence almost two decades after the end of the Cold War, he was defiant and basically speechless. When asked about Georgia’s culpability for starting the war against South Ossetia, he was silent. He simply refused to answer a journalist’s question - “business as usual.”
How is NATO mute?
De Hoop Scheffer refuses to comprehend that Russia is adhering to its commitment to the ceasefire plan in a way that any actor in a complex conflict zone must always face. Yes, it is far easier to enter a conflict zone than to leave it. A military alliance should understand this. But then again, NATO is only really interested in promoting very specific geopolitical interests that ignore the security of others like Russia. Indeed, “business as usual.”
NATO has shown zero responsibility when it comes to security in the south Caucasus. Even after Saakashvili’s recklessness, Tbilisi is still welcomed into the alliance. If this isn’t the death of outrage, I don’t know what is. Georgia is neither peaceful nor democratic. But that doesn’t matter. NATO has a two-decade long tradition of saying one thing and doing another - “business as usual.”
How is NATO blind?
NATO is an organisation that demands to exist for existence sake. The alliance needs a ten-step self-help programme to wean itself off bad habits. It cannot see how the world has changed. The Cold War is long over. It would seem that the alliance likes living in the past. But alas, it needs an enemy to keep those generous paychecks coming. Russia is not NATO’s enemy. But NATO’s behaviour tells us the opposite.
Even Helen Keller could sense that NATO is going down the wrong path. NATO and Russia face a multitude of global security threats. Why should one madman in Tbilisi derail all of this?
I suppose it is "Business as usual.”
Complain about this comment
WebAliceinwonderland @17,
Thanks for the etymology of 'grabatise'.
Complain about this comment
#17 WebAliceinwonderland
Thank you for explaining the etymology of 'grabatise'.
It makes the word even better.
Complain about this comment
Re my previous post, for those whose english is a second language: 'Etymology' is the history and derivation of words, and their study.
'Tautology' is is an unnecessary and usually unintentional repetition of meaning, (except when a 'wa' replaces the 'ua' when it pertains to the study of EU leaders).
Complain about this comment
To Freeman ( No 31) - "Russia did Saakashvili's job for him", by not letting anyone go into South Osetia and see for himself.
We did let! Heaps of people were there!
Are there! Anyone! Under fire, among Russian tanks, when it got quiet, non-stop, without interruption. Please, go! The more - the better!
But: "Heaps of people" - with a technical correction - FROM MEDIA ACCREDITED DURING THE CONFLICT IN MOSCOW.
Western media during the war simply streamed to Tbilisi. Georgia is offended, right? Georgia - attacked. It is a "Crisis in Georgia".
South Osetia? - well, it is a part of Georgia, its naughty province.
Summary: let's fly down to Tbilisi and see what Saakashvili has to say.
An improved version: let's fly down to Tbilisi
and take any break-neck taxi to Gori, and from there try to approach South Osetia from the Georgian army side.
I doubt 1 managed.
1 Dutch, who really undertook this trip, in the heat of the war, 3rd day I think - was killed in Gori. As far as I know, noone went everafter further than Gori.
Russian Deputy Head Commander Nogovitsyn was blamed for this journalist's death by Financial Times, I think.
Nogovitsyn was giving daily briefings on the war for 2 weeks, from 3rd day of war on, in Moscow, at 4pm. 100 int'l media accredited.
And they got answers. Nogovitsyn was extremely, break-neck open. There you knew it all.
We think he got the crazy task of handling int'l media - in punishment, because he is our Marshal of Aviation, and our airplanes were hit down by Ukr base in Georgia in this war like simple birds.
It was like "Can't fly? Then - tell the press about it!"
Poor Nogovitsyn. They were tearing him apiece. One question worse than another.
We saw it all, in direct broadcast, every day.
I didn't miss one. Never saw anything more interesting in my life.
Simply note that Russia is disaster in PR and marketing, who else on earth would have encharged its Marshal of Aviation as key speaker on behalf of the state!
Especially in such eh, media conditions.
Not a diplomat! Not a PR agency! A Marshal of Aviation, for crying out loud!
Nogovitsyn actually was not so bad, given his, eh, unsuitable skills. If we had a diplomat there - we'd know nil. All the phrases would be read from a paper and licked-out in advance, and we won't hear one live word.
So, like, when he was asked about the Dutchman killed by the air-raid of Gori.
"I don't know. I didn't know there is a journalist there. Regret and sympathise of course, if it is so, and he is killed by our air-raid, or by anything else - doesn't matter, killed, as you say.
(I don't know the name of the man, we only know because Nogovitsyn was asked).
But may I say I cannot be accountable for
the death of an individual journalist who goes to the battle field. Georgia does not warn us, when media goes where, from their side.
We are in war. Have no communication with the Georgian side, you know.
I strongly recommend you not to take individual raids out to be between two armies. Because I know many of you do, or plan to do it. The risk you then take on yourself.
I cannot trace all of you where you are, have other things to do.
(getting more enthusiastic)
How can I know, where all of you are! You are running back and forward through the tunnel like crazy, what do you want to find there, in the battle field? 30 thousand army from one side, and 21 thousand from another! And you creep into the middle, un-armed. No tanks, nothing!
And still you seep through, every day!
Go when we take you in by groups, at least you have cover of the army! The helicopter trip we arranged you to Tshinvali - only 4 of you were wounded, because the 6th brigade covered you.
I stress it - lightly wounded. (Where is that paper? ah here it is) See - it says here - only one of your folk still in the hospital, 2 days after.
This is - "sanitary loss". Not "unrecoverable" loss.
And those of you who opt to get accredited in Tbilisi - let the Georgian governmnent take care of their safety!
My list of you (where is that paper?) - yes, 120 - is full. Somehow you are all alive, right? (I guess I am simply lucky).
And I intend to see that this will continue to be the case!
Under the wing of the Russian army - journalists carry no unrecoverable loss! "
Complain about this comment
andrey1234 wrote:
'to : alexius_3
UN will take it?s time to recognize (all they need is 12 more recognitions). Just like Kosovo'
Should other countries recognize russian administration in South Ossetia as government of independent country or they should recognize also the independence of Abkhazia where Abkhaz formed 17% of population in contrast to Kosovo where Albanians comprised 83% ?
Complain about this comment
why cant I post?
is criticism of E.U not allowed or what?
Complain about this comment
to alexius_3:
regarding
Should other countries recognize russian administration in South Ossetia as government of independent country
Russia recognized country, pluss UN adm.
Honduras, Syria, Byelorussia, Libya, Serbia, Venezuela, Cuba, and many more to recognize soon and the rest to fallow
Complain about this comment
Thank you, chill0 and MaxSceptic,
the pleasure of "etymology" is all mine!
Complain about this comment
On SO and Abkhaz recognition, to Alexius-3
How do you know there were 17% Abkhasians in Abkhasia in 1992 ?
I mean, as Stalin defined the fortunes of elections in Russia for, eh, quite a while ahead: "It doesn't matter how they vote. It matters who does the counting."
So, who would count you think? may be a kind of a census... in expiring USSR ? improbable. However all happens.
These 17 % then fought really tooth and nail, when Georgia made the 1st attempt to join Abhasia in. They were pre-bombed very well - as one can still see by their government building in the main square - in all photos now when they celebrated independence - BBC included - and then invaded, and still managed to hold the place their own.
Because Russian army wasn't there, at least, not so hysterically quick as now. Some months after? A year?
The present day is they are Abkhasians there. And - plenty of ex-Georgians still claim their houses in Abkhasia, fact. And plenty of Abkhasians now in Georgia as well, as a matter of fact! Who lost their houses in Georgia's bombing Abhasia, and fled to South Osetia, and now are bombed out their, theirr 2nd homes in a row!
I think the settlement commission, to deal with refugees from all sides, will get crazy within the nearest 2 months. Poor commission.
Complain about this comment
Why forget Nicaragua? Nicaragua recognised both already, 4 days ago.
Another 100 years, at this pace, and it will be, why, not worse than Northen Cyprus!
Or is it already better? Who recognises Northern Cyprus but Turkey?
Complain about this comment
Very sorry, I forgot about Nicaragua)
Complain about this comment
WebAliceinwonderland wrote:
'On SO and Abkhaz recognition, to Alexius-3
These 17 % then fought really tooth and nail, when Georgia made the 1st attempt to join Abhasia in. They were pre-bombed very well '
Georgians were forced into exile from Abkhazia by hirelings including the Chechen field commander Shamil Basayev with fire support from the russian air forces and navy
Complain about this comment
So, how is everyone's impressions, on the meeting? The results of it?
What I understood we promised to be out of 5 positions in Georgia's mainland, including one in the port of Poti - in 7 days.
And out of the "buffer zone" btw "Georgia proper" and S.Osetia - in a month.
During which month "international mechanisms are put in place" in this buffer zone.
And then they listed those "mechanisms" for hours, peaceful watchers from here, peace-keepers from there, additional EU peace-keepers and watchers and monitors and all combined - I got lost among them - who will be EU who UN.
Simply means there will be lots of foreigners - and all without exception on the land of "Georgia proper".
Int'l police - what Russia asked for the buffer zone - we didn't get (so far).
So my feeling is Osetians with the houses in the buffer zone should pack up and "emigrate" to the South Osetia.
Or - stay where their houses are, but take Georgian passports, and forget they are Osetians as much as they can.
What a choice - to decide on what country to put their stakes on. People are not caterpillars, they can't take a house with. Georgian side by the way may turn attractive, if EU gives Georgians proper working visas permissions or ease of naturalisation in EU, or something.
But if it doesn't.
Same options must be considering now Georgians whose houses are in South Osetia land. To go? To stay?
At the moment Russian block-posts in the buffer zone look like caravan-saraj, total gypsy camps. Many whose houses are burned down simply moved to live with the soldiers. Because there is food there and roof. Children ran around, old, able, unable, cooking, it's like a refugee camp, nobody knows who is who and what to do.
Georgians, by the way, say many nice things about Saaka, but all close face by one hand looking into the camera. Because we will leave and they will stay.
One thing I am happy about, that Russian block-post in the port of Poti will go home.
I think they are immensely happy themselves. They stand there to spy on humanitarian help from US ships. Because it can fly at us any day, if Saakashvili will change his quick mind. But the lay-out is pathetic. They are on the shore. 1.5 miles off shore-directly opposite them, stands Mount Whitney. And they heroically spy on it! One of the last things in the world one can possibly"spy" on. The ship whose intelligence, eh, well, I don't think there is one technical thing in the world which is missing with Mount Whitney. And behind it stands an ordinary warship, to cover it from sea-side. No, of course, it is kind of honorary, to compete with MW.
I also played chess once with a world champion, at a school health campus... He played against 300 of us combined...
Besides, their schedule is rather full.
Day time they have to stand with stone faces and pretend nothing happens.
In the morn. there arrive buses from Tbilisi, bringing in protest rallies, same people we see for 2 weeks.
They take movies, posters in English and Georgian. Facing the cameras, not Russians.
At 5 pm protestants roll up and are exported away, so there come locals, to discuss how is life in Russia since we divorced 15 yrs ago, prices, and all.
In the day time they cannot talk with Russians, because one man tried, threw his poster down, and went to talk with soldiers. There immediately appeared 3 chaps from behind, tucked him into an ordinary car with black windows, carried him away, and noone saw him everafter. As min he lost the job. We hope he is allright, must have been a brave man.
Russian TV is also there, filming the show from time to time. And to see that nothing happens to our lonely block-post! Anyone can offend !
So evenings are social life there. And no time to allocate to Mount Whitney either.
Pathetic.
I am glad we are out.
Otherwise life is getting slightly more normal there, if not for the ruins. There is a Russian channel that shows only South Osetia, 24 hrs, non-stop. There is a small bridge there, over a river. People ran back and forward between Georgia and South Osetia across the bridge. "Basket for my granddaughter", "to see my God son", to check how they are after the war on that side", etc. Once saw Mayor of Gori on the bridge. We delivered there another 25 tons of tinned meat, that's why. Apparently he finds it of more use that US bottled water.
Ironically, Russian Army was the first with "humanitarian help" to Gori, on Aug 12th. Nobody refused, neither back then, not now. Saakashvili stands firm on the number that we killed 40 civillians. And that 150 is his total army loss.
Nogovitsyn gives much more horrible numbers. Both.
Saakashvili simply cannot admit the true losses, scared of his opposition.
Nogovitsyn was very worried for a long time, about discrepancy in our figures.
Local milk factory, under Russian occuptaion, began to send trucks with milk, like, one bottle of milk per a truck of ice. Then Coca-Cola developed a sudden interest in ice. Nogovitsyn said, like, it's easy to take a city, try to get out of it. When we stood in Gori, he was always afraid that dead soldier bodies, re-dressed in civillian clothes, would turn up in picturesque assortment in the main square, or in the houses, when we leave. Said he warns the Georgian side simply on TV, since we don't have other means of comms. But warn or not warn - where is the difference.
Complain about this comment
To russian-proeussians,
Khezbula has already recognised OS. and Abkh.
CONGRATULATIONS!
Complain about this comment
re comment No 50.
- I told you we are friends with the muslim world. And you, like, "lie! all lie! you're lying!"
Complain about this comment
The EU blinked first
Russia and the EU have signed a new agreement on ensuring security in the South Caucasus. It’s a deal all parties involved can (and should) embrace. The agreement is a major step towards resolving the “Georgian crisis” that neither Russia nor the European Union wanted. And with one exception, the EU accepted all of Russia’s demands.
Prior to today’s agreement, the EU showed itself to be in restive mood. Over the weekend, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner talked tough and implied that Russia would face consequences if the EU wasn’t listened to. In the end, it was the EU listening closely to what Russia had to say.
Russia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia had long wanted the Tbilisi regime to sign a pact on the none-use of force. Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili always refused, claiming he would never use force against his “own people.” The new agreement demands that Saakashvili sign such a document in the presence of the EU. Now the EU will make sure Saakashvili keeps his word. I find it simply a disgrace that we had to go through all of this because of one man’s blind and violent ambitions.
Russia has been strongly criticised for not removing its peacekeepers from Georgia proper. With security conditions in place on the ground and EU guarantees to sponsor monitors, Russia completes this part of the six-point ceasefire agreement. The media won't have this issue to chew on any more.
Within days, 200 European Union observers will start deploying in areas near South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Ten days after their arrival, Russian forces will complete their withdrawal. Again, the EU will demand that the Georgian side keeps the peace. The Georgians call the Russian military presence in their country occupation. Now they can complain about the occupation of EU monitors! This is always what the Kremlin had in mind.
On top of this, it was agreed that all Russian-manned observation posts along the line between the Black Sea port city of Poti and Sekaki to the north-east will be vacated within seven days. With this act, Russia will leave Georgia though remain in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The status both regions will be discussed as part of an international conference next month in Geneva. I suspect most of the discussion will concern refugees. As far as Russia is concerned, the status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia has already been decided. Tbilisi has lost – forever – the moral right to rule over them.
The EU won’t say it, but it has essentially recognised that South Ossetia and Abkhazia are no longer and will never again be part of Georgia. This is a victory for the people of both and a vindication of Russian patience throughout the crisis.
The new agreement accepts the political realities on the ground. Saakashvili used force to recapture South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Now the EU will make sure – through peaceful means – that Tbilisi never resorts to violence again. Saakashvili has only himself to blame for destroying the territoral intergrity of his own country.
The EU chose pragmatism. And Russia has never asked for the unreasonable. I am sure the commentariat won't see it this way. And I am curious about how the US will respond.
Complain about this comment
Mark:
about your post script: thanks for it, you are not always going to have to spell every word...that is why, spell-checker is on a computer...and on Word Documents programme.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS