Georgia: winners, losers, and lessons learned
All right, it may be a bit too soon to start talking about winners and losers in Georgia, but not too soon for a provisional tally, or to learn some lessons from the events of the past week.
Obvious loser: Georgia, and more especially, President Mikheil Saakashvili. He thought he could resolve the long-standing dispute with separatists in South Ossetia by military force - and he was wrong.
Obvious winner: Russia, and more especially, the Medvedev-Putin double act. They reacted swiftly and effectively, and demonstrated to their neighbours with brutal efficiency that it is definitely not a good idea to stamp on Russia's toes.
Less obvious loser: the US. It was slow to react, and gave its allies in the region the impression that when push comes to shove, they're on their own. Ukraine, Poland, and the Baltic states will all have taken note. (Last night, Poland signed on the dotted line for a US anti-missile installation to be built on its soil, although the foreign minister, Radoslaw Sikorski insisted when I interviewed him on last night's programme that the decision to sign had nothing to do with events in Georgia. I leave you to make up your own mind ...)
Less obvious winner: the European Union, and more especially President Nicholas Sarkozy of France. As the current older of the EU's rotating presidency, he was impressively quick out of the starting blocks, and with the help of his hyper-active Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner (whose CV, incidentally, includes having worked as a Red Cross doctor in Biafra in the 1960s, and then co-founding the relief agency Medecins sans Frontieres in the 1970s), he brokered an admittedly fragile ceasefire within less than a week of the conflict erupting.
We've learned a few useful lessons over the past week. First, Russia's Putin-inspired national confidence can be - and will be - translated into military action when the Kremlin decides that's what's needed. (Arguably, the Chechens learned that lesson several years ago.)
Second, the Western enthusiasm for intervening in other people's conflicts (Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, East Timor) hasn't survived the new millennium. (Afghanistan and Iraq were very different stories, which don't need to be retold today.) The Nineties were the first post-Cold War decade, and post-Soviet Russia was in meltdown, so for a brief few years, the West had things pretty much its own way. Remember President Bush Senior's "new world order"?
Then, on the very last day of 1999, President Yeltsin resigned. His successor, Vladimir Putin, lost no time in rebuilding Russia's self-confidence and national pride. Steadily rising oil prices meant cash was soon pouring into the Kremlin's coffers, and Georgia has seen over the past few days what that can mean for Russia's neighbours.
And here's a lesson that the Kremlin has learned. If the West backs breakaway Kosovo, against the wishes of the sovereign UN member-state Serbia, on the grounds that it's the wish of the majority, then Moscow can back breakaway South Ossetia, against the wishes of the sovereign UN member-state Georgia, on precisely the same grounds.
Life was a lot simpler when everyone agreed that "territorial integrity" was a sacrosanct principle. But now that the UN, no less, has agreed on a new principle - the "responsibility to protect" people at risk - then why shouldn't Russia protect the people of South Ossetia when they come under attack from Georgian forces? Isn't that exactly what NATO did in Kosovo when ethnic Albanians came under attack from Serb forces?
Back in 1992, in the warm glow of those early post-Cold War days, the American academic Francis Fukuyama famously wrote in "The End of History": "What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalisation of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government."
Now the warm glow has long gone. Not so much the "end of history"; more the beginning of a new, more complex, and arguably more dangerous, history.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~40~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Politics aside, one must concede that Vladimir Putin is by far the strongest leader in the world today. He played a weak hand brilliantly. He had one ace up his sleeve, fossil fuel energy and he used it to the hilt. The rest of the world including President Bush, Obama, McCain, Sarkozy and the rest just aren't in his leage. Putin knows exactly what power is and how to use it to its best advantage. He may well gain control over all of Georgia, Ukraine, and indirectly many former SSRs. He could have a choke hold on Europe's vital oil and gas before much longer and will be in a position to dictate terms to them. They will not be generous terms.
Sarkozy is a buffoon. While he made pronouncements about Russian withdrawl from Georgia, the Russians were moving in deeper. The whole ploy was nothing short of stunning. First they infitrated South Ossetia and Abhazia, then they organized and supported the rebels. When the Georgians responded to what amonted to an insurrection, the Russians had the perfect excuse to move and delcare Russian nationals there vicitims in need of protection. It was beautifully stage managed. Bush can scream while he licks his wounds all he wants to but it won't do him one bit of good. The US will not risk nuclear war with Russia over Eastern Europe, especially those nations not already in NATO. What will Europe do about all of this? Probably try to cozy up to the US and say let bygones be bygones. As far as I am concerned, no dice. Let them solve their own problems with their own money and soldiers. Especially old Europe.
Complain about this comment
Your analogy of the right of NATO to protect the Albanian majority in Kosovo to the right of Russia to protect the S Ossetian population against Georgian invasion is appropriate though not watertight. Kosovo is after all a legitimate province of Serbia while S Ossetia's status as an autonomous part of Georgia is somewhat obscure and fraught with historically disputed claims. There was no survey made that I know of by NATO in Kosovo before it attacked Serbia regarding wishes of the population for independence while the Russians claim they have surveyed the much smaller S Ossetian population. As for the future, it appears that while Serbia is powerless to prevent Kosovo from getting its independence, the growing disputes between Georgia and the disputed territories of Abhkazia and S Ossetia will only become worse and a growing source of irritation between the US and EU on one side and Russia on the other.
Complain about this comment
Your World is about power politics. But is it not the indigenous people over whose land the behemoths of the past squabble who are always the losers? The Ossetians who came from the ancient Alan nation, descendants of Samaritan tribes, has been split in two for a couple of hundred years, are they not to be considered at all?
It can be argued that the release of the suppressed need for a people to have some structure to acknowledge their history is a bad thing. But Ossetia and the Ossetians, in my view, should be at least encouraged to celebrate their ancient history. The present situation of forced separation is not a good way to proceed.
The Great Powers have for so many generations squabbled over and lied to the indigenous peoples of this part of the globe, is it not time to be more constructive and respectful of their proper desires? Georgia mostly contains Georgians, but its borders were set by the Czars and then Stalin.
Europe fears separatists who would see themselves in the same position as the Ossetians. We fear having to acknowledge the rights of the Basques, Catalans and the two Belgiums in the same was as we have in the UK of the Scots and the Welsh.
Subsidiarity is Europe's acknowledgement of the need for an evolving World to celebrate and give room to historic divisions without engendering much more then healthy and friendly competition. The idea of inviable territory is an error by whoever uses it as a reason for military conflict. This concept applies mainly, in this case, to Georgia who wished to crush Ossetian separatists.
Complain about this comment
Generally, a first-rate column.
However, where does the assertion that the "Right to Protect" has become normative find justification?
Can one not argue that that concept is as nebulous as "democracy"?
I become uneasy when assertion masquerades as fact in the lips of pundits.
___________________
I have a queasy feeling that, if Russia decides to stay and take over Georgia, there is nothing that the USA will do about it.
Complain about this comment
#1 MarcusAureliusII
"Sarkozy is a buffoon."
Well partly, maybe, but he's finally waking up to the potential problems he has in his own backyard, and wondering whether it was really such a good idea for France to be so gung ho about Kosovo.
The Spanish saw from the beginning that it would be a reg rag to a bull for their Basque and Catalan separatists - hence no recognition from Spain.
As perhaps the most centralist country left in Europe, Sarkozy must be looking at the minorities on his fringes: Savoyards taken from Italy, Alsatians from Germany, Flemish from Belgium and especially Basques and Catalans around their border with Spain who will be only too likely to want to join new states if their "Spanish" brothers and sisters achieve the independence they crave.
Look for France to start behaving much more like the Russian Federation over the next decade.
Complain about this comment
#3 John_from_Hendon
Good post, and spot on re The Basque Country, Catalonia and the two Belgiums.
The latter may be what the Eurocrats are most afraid of. Just imagine the EU HQ being in a divided city reminiscent of Berlin in cold war days albeit hopefully without the guns and barbed wire.
For the '10s (Teenies?), the elephant in the room will be in the Pyrenees.
Complain about this comment
The Russian annexation of South Ossetia and Abhazia will establish several precedents that are the first steps in a process that may lead to nuclear war. Top US officials and former officials of politically different stripes as well as indendent expert analysts have said in agreement on American television in recent days that the Russian objective is to regain control over its former sphere of influence with the goal of re-establishing itself as a world dominating power akin to the former Soviet Union. This is consistent with a policy that has characterized around 400 years of Russian history. The complete control over Georgia and Ukraine will give Russia an enormous political lever to exercise control over western Europe by holding a significant portion of its vital oil and gas supplies hostage to Europe's compliance of Russia's political demands.
Europe has neither the physical military strength nor the political will on its own to resist short of a suicidal nuclear war by Britain or France. Western Europe has needlessly and irrationally alienated the US in the mistaken belief that its usefulness to them was over and that American interests could be ignored or even thwarted with impunity. It will now learn that this was a fatal mistake.
As an American, I see no profit in the continued sacrifice of American money and lives in the defense of Europe nor do I see Russian domination of Eurasia as a threat to the United States, certainly not one of sufficient potential magnitude where the cost of obstructing it would be justified from America's standpoint. Europeans think that they can talk their way out of anything and everything. OK, lets see them talk their way out of this one. Go negotiate, if America's memory is longer than five minutes, it's Europe's only hope.
Complain about this comment
Robin,
Your angle when asking if the war in Georgia would change Polish public opinion on the deployment of patriot missiles was an object lesson in journalism, the interviewee was obviously flustered and you managed to coax and answer from him without being too confrontational.
The B-T-C pipe line is up and running again after being damaged by the PPK in Turkey but, the Georgian economy minister, Eka Sharashidze said that the Buku-Supsa was hit with two Russian missiles South East of Tbilisi which the Russians have denied doing.
Given that the Russians haven't denied, to my knowledge bombing the port of Poti, why would they deny the damage to the Baku-Supsa pipeline?
Complain about this comment
Hello - I'm new. I've just registered. This is my first comment on a BBC blog (welcoming applause) Thank you, thank you.
I live in UK and like many here have relied on largely on the BBC for my news, especially Radio 4. However, I am amazed at the misleading reporting over his crisis in Georgia, particularly BBC TV news. Whilst snippets of accuracy occurred initially, on R4, the TV coverage in particular seems to keep portraying Russia as engaging in a land grab, an extension of it's borders. South Ossetia claimed a change in it's status in 2006 and was 'turned down' not just by Europe but also Russia. So to keep describing this as a Russian ambition to take over seems to misdirect opinions.
The TV coverage has also omitted to mention the presence of around 1000 American military trainers in Georgia who left just a week before the conflict. Ralph Peters, the American journalist and former US Colonel who leans to the right, referred to the US army in Georgia in an article in New York Post recently.
It seems to me that Russia has simply attended to a confrontation between Geogia and South Ossetia and prior to the recent conflict would have preferred South Ossetia to be administered by Georgia.
Complain about this comment
The philosophical argument about democracies is all well and good, but, what price is free speech in the UK when a concerned individual can castigate anyone on radio talk shows except when accusations are made against global corporations.
Complain about this comment
Richard_SM
What evidence do you have that BBC is deliberately misleading you about the situation in Georgia? It seems pretty clear to me, a pattern that had been consistant for decades just repeated itself again. Russia's objective under Putin always was to annex South Ossetia, Abkhazia, to install a puppet regime in Tiblisi, and to recreate a Russian empire. He said the fall of the USSR was the worst event in history. Russians infiltrated South Ossetia (and Abkhazia) supported, armed, and trained a Russian cadre of rebels who recruited locals to their cause, escalated violence that precipitated a strong reaction by Georgia's government to put down the rebels and reassert its Sovereignty, and that gave the Russian government the pretext it needed to invade. Hitler used similar tactics. I haven't heard one commentator mention that the so called brutality of the Georgian government was no worse than Russian brutality in putting down the rebels in Chechnya when they demolished Grozny.
In a recent book a Russian KGB defector said unsurprisingly that as far as the KGB was concerned, the cold war never ended. Russia's enemies in order of importance are the US, NATO, and China.
Only a fool would say he'd looked into Putin's eyes and saw into the man's sould and could trust him. And only another fool would think that by getting them to sign a piece of paper they will abandon their political goal of regional dominance anymore than thinking that economic sanctions will thwart Iran's ambitions for power in its region of the world. Western leaders do not understand the dynamics of political power, the enemy does.
Waking up to the wars we are in for our survival as a civilization whether we like them or not is long overdo. The US has not done nearly enough, Europe has done practically nothing.
Complain about this comment
Hi Marcus Aurelius
I can respond very easily. I don’t wish to get into ongoing dispute on Robin’s page, so I set out my opinion as objectively and briefly as I can:
Two great opposing affiliations occurred after WWII – NATO and in response Warsaw Pact.
To 90's: Washington promises not to extend NATO borders further east beyond Germany. Cold War ends. Berlin Wall comes down. Warsaw Pact dismantles.
USSR fragments. SOssetia objects to reporting to Georgia, having previously reported direct to Moscow, forms it’s own administration. Unresolved issue. Ongoing Georgia v SOssetia skirmishes.
Now to when Kosovo independence being considered, Spain and Russia warn will lead to more separatist claims. Russia aware of many large Russian minorities stranded in new ex USSR states. Ignored by Bush. Kosovo independence recognised against Russian advice.
Georgia/SOssetia is now hot-spot.
Washington starts supplying and training Georgia army.
Skirmishes continue. Russian peace keepers go into SOssetia.
Georgia shells SOssetia. Russia sends in troops 12 hours later to protect civilians in SOssetia and pushes Georgia army back into Georgia.
Most BBC TV news concentrated on my last sentence. Radio4, World Service and BBC website set the reports out with more background information.
Complain about this comment
The attempt to draw an equivalence between the Warsaw Pact and NATO, between Kosovo and South Ossetia, between the US and the USSR, between what is superficially a duality on both sides is an easy trap to fall into but a clear mistake. It's an attempt to draw a tit for tat, quid pro quo, an analogy where none exists.
The Warsaw Pact was not NATO. The Warsaw pact governments were puppets of the Communist Party of the USSR. The Soviet goal was worldwide domination. NATO was strictly a defensive pact among freely elected so called Western Democracies, at least by comparison to the Warsaw Pact nations.
Emigration of ethnic Russians into the 14 non Russian SSRs was part of a strategy to essentially rob those nations of their ethnic identity and individuality, to colonize them and Russify them. That those emigrees and their descendants are now stranded in nations that are hostile to Russia, fearful of its territorial ambitions, resentful of its past domination of them is no one's fault but the prior Russian government's.
Comparison of Kosovo with South Ossetia and Abkhazia is also absurd. The genocidal war the Serbian government waged against Croatia, Bosnia-Herzagovina, and Kosovo to kill or drve out ethnic non Serbians to create a greater Serbia was the reason for the loss of Kosovo. In the winter of 1998-1999 one million Islamic Kosovars were driven from their homes into the snow to die by the Serbs and their militias ostensibly to fight separatists. At that point, Serbia lost all legitimate claim to Kosovo. There was a unified demand by European governments that the US intervene militarily. Many in the US including most conservatives felt this was a European problem and that they should handle it. But the images of so many old people, women, children struggling in the snow seen night after night on our TV sets was more than many Americans including Congress could stomach. The last straw came with an image of Kosovars being forced to board trains. This brought back West Europe's worst nightmare, the Nazi deporation of Jews to concentration camps. It was shortly after this image that the US began the systematic bombing of Serbian military targets in Kosovo and Serbia. At that point, with Islamic Kosovars constituting 90% of the population of Kosovo, its fate was sealed.
We are less familiar with the particular details of what has happened in recent decades in South Ossetia and Abkhazia but it's a fairly safe bet that the separatists were in large part aided and abetted by the Russian government, particularly the KGB as part of a strategy to carve up and destabalize the government of Georgia. The entire event was undoubtedly stage managed by the Russian govenment and has played out so far exactly as they planned it.
Events in Ukraine and South Ossetia closely parallel the events of 1938, first in the Anschluss of Austria and then in the occupation of the Sudatenland and for exactly the same pretexts. The outcome may be entirely different. What happens next is anyone's guess but it will not be surprising if Ukraine and Georgia push hard for immediate entry into NATO as a way to stem further Russian military expansion. Russia is playing a very dangerous game. It may seem to hold the high cards now but that could change much to its disadvantage quickly. The recent weakness of the US and Europe should not be counted on as an opportunity not to be missed. Things have a funny way of turning around quickly when there is a perceived common enemy. For all its oil, unless it is prepared to use nuclear weapons, by comparison to NATO, Russia is far weaker. In a conventional war it is no match for NATO. In a nuclear war, it would be committing suicide.
Complain about this comment
Forget al Qaeda and the War on Terror
with Russia invading Georgia
(that Geor, Geor, Geor, Geor, Geor, Geor
Geor, Geor, Georgia's always on my mind -
- Paul McCartney, or is it John Lennon, or
both) a new cold/hopefully-not-hot war with Russia is hotting up. The media are quick to fall in line showing just how dastardly those Ruskies can be...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/foronenightonly/pip/aj66v/
Yeah, of course, they are all screaaming blue murder. They got found out with their plan to use Georgia as NATO base on Russia's southern frontier.
US and allies (UK Germany Etc) were quite prepared to turn a blind eye to murder of innocent Ossetians to achieve their aim of a 'unified' Georgia.
Trouble is this is third time in century Georgians have tried to massacre Ossetians; 1918, 1992, and now.
Georgia broke long term joint-agreement on policing Souh Ossetia, turned their guns on Russian joint peacekeepers and tried to ethnically cleanse Ossetians, killing 2,000 and causing 30-40,000 to flee north, and now they (the Georgians) are getting punished. Russia is sytematically reducing their military capability so it doesnt happen again. Georgians have only their 'leader' and the US to blame. Sakasvilli is US puppet, trained at Harvard, pushing his bosses neo-con agenda, along with Poland, Ukraine and Baltic states, who want to provoke a 'cold war' and worse, again. Their main complaint is that Russia has vast resources the 'West' cant get their hands on, ie cant exploit. A former ass. sec. of the US Treasury under Ronald Reagan has condemned the neo cons around Bush for dreaming of starting a war in Europe between these states and Russia so the US can step in and pick up the peices. The plan may also have been to set the agenda for the next Prez,
as a fait accomplii.
It's OK for the good ol' US to invade who they like (Vietnam, Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan), continuously interfere in other countries, overthrowing governments (Chile etc etc), set up bases in other people's countries (like Cuba, etc) and refuse to get out. Everything THEY do is OK, but 'woe betide' anyone who goes against them.
Well, they got stuffed this time, hooray!!!!
Following the failed Georgian 'adventure', McCain suddenly became animated after a previously leaden Prez campaign, demanding a tough line against Russia etc. And guess what, it came out that he shares a neo-con advisory team with .... Saakasvilli!
Back in eighties the Cold War came to an end with Reagan-Gorbachev agreements. Then, the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union were dissolved. Yet, instead of fading away and disappearing, NATO starts pushing more agressively, trying to surround Russia with hostile states, building up militarily, installing missile bases and provoking tension, etc. Why, you might ask.
Simple really, Russia has great resources and the 'west' wants their hands on them.
In the Daily Telegraph last Saturday, John 'mad dog' Bolton, ex US rep at the UN, breathes fire aginst Russia complaining about a threat to 'our access to the Caspian Basin's Oil and Gas resources'. There is a pipeline comes through Georgia from Baku to Turkey. The Russians HAVE NOT touched this, merely acted to repulse the Georgian attack. But vast NEW fields have been discovered in the North Caspian region; in Russian territory.
So access the rest of the worlds oil resources is NOT ENOUGH for these people. They care nothing if people die, just as long as they get their greedy hands on the stuff.
Complain about this comment
Russia has one standard for Chechnya where it flattened the city of Grozny to put down rebels in a revolution it didn't like while it has another for South Ossetia where it attacked another nation, Georgia for putting down a revolution Russia fomented. Russian hypocricy will backfire. All the nations which were former captives of the Soviet evil empire will feel the threat of being re-occupied.
I am glad to see that Poland and the US have tweaked the bear's nose. The US will undoubtedly continue to try to contain Russia by forming alliances with its neighbors. The day of the Russian empire is over. Russia's only friends are rogue states like Syria, Iran, and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. Even Cuba wants no part of it anymore because it knows its only hope out of desperate poverty inflicted by Soviet Communism lies in better relations with the US. The small temporary gain Russia has gotten from occupying portions of Georgia will in the long run bring a very heavy price.
Complain about this comment
I don't know much, nor will I ever claim to, but what I do know, is this. It seems like everyone wants to point the finger at "Crazy Ivan," ... well, why not it worked before. There also seems to be a lot of strong posturing aimed at making "Ivan crazy."
I'm just a stupid ole American who thinks, before one takes a side in, makes strong remarks to, or about any parties involved in such a potentially volatile conflict, that can only get worse if handle improperly ... facts need to be known.
When I first heard of this, it sounded like the old Russian war machine just decided ... lets take a stroll. And, all the folks in the band rolled up their sleeves and began to beat on their drums ... "Ivan's crazy!" News stories seemed dedicated to strumming old cold-war sentiment up, not reflecting on it. Yet, the more I hear now, it does not seem to get the same attention (in my illrelevant opinion), that just perhaps Georgia was taking shots at small game without a "hunting permit," right in front of the Bear's den. Who should be surprised to see the Bear come out swinging?
I just hope hope that we lookers on would stop throwing rocks. And God only knows, I hope this is not ongoing, which it already seems far beyond that, and when we finally get a new president over here, I hope it's not in the hands of another cowboy. The really scary part in all of this to me, is Bush has the chance to act on it.
Regardless of true intent, plays, ploys, and schemes, we are ultimately held to our actions and reactions. Life is 20% action and 80% reaction. Russia, would be a fool to think they could just "take" something in the world environment we have today, and to not know they would lose more than they would gain. The strong posturing on the part of the west against them seems foolish to me. Even better, the fact that the posturing was so slow to begin with ... makes me think that someone, somewhere, knew that ...
"Well Mr. President, our intelligence does indicate that Georgia did, in-fact, cast the first stone."
Oh the possibilties. Please, keep reporting.
Complain about this comment
P.S.
If there was any real-grounded/validating concern by any of the "big sticks" in NATO about Russians ploys and plots for world dominance, I would have to imagine, something should have been done to prevent this long ago. And ... if this was allowed to escalate by the west in order to use it specifically to try and back the Bear into it's corner ... what blistering fools.
That's the kind of ideology that needs to die ... with old men who hold tight to it.
Complain about this comment
Yada yada yada. Not that any of you will know this but we were all having a strong and heated debate on this very matter over on the bbc's the editors forum seperating fact from fiction. Now the BBC seems to have closed this site down not because people weren't talking but rather because they didn't like the way the arguement was headed, specifically the case was being put that the UK media are wrong in their portrayal of this war, and basically cowards. There were a few bloggers posting in support of the status quo, but not many, and the arguement was being won. Obviously the BBc didn't like the way things were headed and shut the whole thing down. Or when I say the BBc what I really mean is certain people within your organisation. I appreciate that it was probably a joint decision, but that still doesn't make it right. We the public should be allowed to speak freely on the internet to discuss these contemporary matters, amongst educated adults, and without fear of censorship. Big Brother was a concept George Orwell invented to mimic the Soviet power over every-day people in his work of fiction 1984. How much sadder then that we can see certain elements of this control taking place now today. Ok think about it..
Complain about this comment
For the Russian government, the FSB the cold war never ended. They have not accepted their defeat, they have not given up the fight to build a Russian empire that dominates Eurasia.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10785968
http://cicentre.com/Documents/konstantin_preobrazhenskiy_bio.html
This is the informed opinion of former high KGB intelligence officers and of Western Intelligence experts.
The USSR was bankrupted by the cold war. Now that it has a few bucks in its pockets you'd think that a rational society would begin to tackle the countless problems of a nation that spent 74 years going nowhere under Communism. Instead it is preoccupied with international power politics. Not only is this a misuse of its new found source of wealth which may not last forever but it will keep Russia isolated, primitive, and Russian society impovrished and hopeless for the indefinite future. It is making a very bad mistake. It's neighbors feel increasingly threatened and some will surely seek alliances with those who have the power to defend them, the US and NATO. This will only divert more of Russia's resources in a futile attempt to intimidate its neighbors and increase the risk of a hot war with the West. As a military power, short of nuclear war, Russia would be no match for the US in a hot shooting war, its military a faint shadow of its former self, its antiquated equipment useless against the latest generation of American weapons and tactics.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAurelius
Islamic-Kosovars????
Where did you find this kind of description?
What an stupid,ignorant description,i have so far engaged a few times in a debate with you,and i thought you had some kind of knowledge about world affairs,i can see you living up to the stereotype American.
Complain about this comment
Robin Lustig has made in this article a very bad and malicious reporting.
Kosovo conflict can not be compared with Ossetia conflict in any kind of aspect,wether be it,Legal Historical or political.I challenge anybody to give serious evidence otherwise.
I i am sure Robin Lustig knows this very well,and also knows very well that this article is nothing but malicious,pro-Russian anti-American propaganda.
Complain about this comment
And you can not say that somehow Russia has the right to interfere militarily where it wants to because the west has interfered in some different conflict through history,without taking into acount the circumstances,the legality ,history and politics of every conflict.
The west has interfered with a U.N mandate almost in every conflict,and almost always with the suport of the opressed in that particular conflict,the suport of which has been proved by free elections by the populations whenever posible.
Russia's war deserves no respect or reciprocity to the West's respect for human rights and democracy.
There are no parallels to be drawn.
Shame on the BBC for reporting Russia's propaganda and West's concern as equal point of view,and with a clear bias towards Russia.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS