Understanding the Russia-Georgia Conflict
Tuesday August 12, 2008
As is typical of most conflicts, the escalating tensions between Russia and Georgia arose from a complicated set of issues. When Russia made its move, the situation was made even more complicated. So what do you need to know about the Russia-Georgia conflict?
Russia moved farther into Georgia than was necessary to protect separatists
Abkhazia entered the conflict in support of the South Ossetians
Pre-Existing Issues
- Georgia was a part of the former USSR
- Georgia's diverse ethnic population means that certain regions seek independence from Georgia, including South Ossetia and Abkhazia
- Georgia desires to keep its territory intact
- Russia gave many South Ossetians Russian passports to recognize and encourage separatists
- Georgia wanted to join NATO despite opposition from Russia
- Georgia's President Mikhail Saakashvili is known to be Western-leaning
- The United States may have helped train Georgians, who were poised to strike separatist regions as soon as they were ready
Complications During Attack
In brief:
Russia has long smarted from the loss of countries that broke away after the collapse of the Soviet Union and has backed separatists in Georgia. Georgia intends to keep lands currently under its jurisdiction, and may have been waiting for an appropriate moment to assert its power over separatists. BBC sums up what many believe to be true about Russia's purpose. . . was this operation part of a much more ambitious plan to reassert Russian control over a region Moscow has for centuries claimed as its rightful sphere of influence, and which it feared was about to be turned - by the Americans - into a Nato outpost in the Caucasus?
On the other hand, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin suggests that Georgian behavior towards South Ossetians is equal to genocide, and President Medvedev concurs:
The ferocity in which the actions of the Georgian side were carried out cannot be called anything else but genocide, because they acquired a mass character and were directed against individuals, the civilian population, peacekeepers who carried out their functions of maintaining peace.
While fighting may currently be at a halt, a resolution to the situation may be a long time coming.
Comments
Thanks for that summary Kerry. I think that many people in the West became suddenly aware of this conflict, although looking at the timeline it seems to have been building up for some time.
Because news in certain parts of that continent seems to be below the radar for most news gatherers, it’s sad that it takes an escalation into a war to bring it to peoples’ attention. Hopefully the fighting will now stay halted and the people that are paid to be politicians will finally start earning their money and find a solution through negotiation. One can live in hope..
Right now, the blame-game is still being played by government officials and the media. This takes us in circles, unfortunately; the motivating factors for this game are mired in some of the most base political tactics. Too few leaders are interested in solving problems peacefully or setting precedents with peace. In addition, the public’s understanding is colored by unabashed media bias.
Yes, the stance of the government officials is reprehensible, and I think that’s the case in whichever conflict/war is taking place. I’m also recently becoming very much more aware of the role that the established media plays in presenting a somewhat distorted view of the situation. I think with the advent of credible citizen journalism, and blogging that the public will learn the real truth, although in some cases they’ll need to do some work to find it.
You’re right of course – setting precedents with peace doesn’t seem to be fashionable, maybe because it simply takes too long!
It’s interesting to see how this conflict has evolved and the role the media have played in it. To me it seems that the media themselves have inadvertently been biggest antagonists.
The media has allowed both sides to accuse each other of starting the conflict and of committing atrocities, to which either side responds with their own accusations again through the media.
Because neither side is willing to talk to each other directly the accusations continue providing the media with better and better material. I’m not saying the media has done this on purpose it’s just the way it panned out.
If I were to guess at how this conflict started, I would say South Ossetian irregular forces fired upon Georgians, Georgia responded without thinking it through in great detail, Russia inline with its peace keeping role stepped in but did so heavy handed, which isn’t really a surprise.
As to the atrocities, I would say the Russian army has held it’s discipline but what control do they have over South Ossetian irregulars, who are probably mainly to blame for any accusations around ethnic cleansing, Vadalising, disturbing the peace ect.
South Ossetian irregulars in this case had everything to gain and nothing to loose.
By starting a conflict between Russia and Georgia they must have know that Georgia started it then Russia would be excused for stepping in and Georgia would be no match for Russia in a war. Also it would be plan to see that in the aftermath it would cause political instability in Georgia providing an easy route for South Ossetia to either join Russia or be declared an independent state.
Hmm. I can agree with premeditated actions to cause instability, but I do wonder about the U.S. motivations behind their willingness to take sides rather than the South Ossetian’s actions. I’m sure more than one warmonger (be he from the U.S., Georgia, Russia, or elsewhere) was salivating at the thought of large-scale instability in the region. After all, Poland was convinced that agreeing to U.S. missile bases on Poland soil was desireable. If this conflict had any benefit to the U.S., this was it. Everyone is trying to pull strings. The question is, who will pull harder, and where will it get us?