In Moscow yesterday, President Dmitry Medvedev gave every indication that Russia was winding up its military operation in Georgia. Meanwhile, his forces continued to advance into that sovereign nation and bomb widely dispersed strategic targets there. The contradiction was consistent with the Russian regime's behavior throughout this crisis: Its words have borne no connection to its actions; its actions are untethered to international norms. We're pleased to publish on the opposite page today an analysis by former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev. He sees the origins of this crisis very differently from how we do, but he agrees that "hostilities must cease as soon as possible." What he doesn't spell out is that such an outcome rests entirely in the hands of Mr. Medvedev - or of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, depending on who is really in charge. Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili has accepted a French proffer of an immediate cease-fire. Russia, by contrast, seems determined to depose Georgia's government because it has not been willing to act as vassal and submit to Russia's resurgent imperial ambitions.Russia’s War of Ambition - New York Times editorial
No one is blameless in the dangerous game that has erupted into deadly war in the Caucasus. Georgia’s president, Mikheil Saakashvili, foolishly and tragically baited the Russians - or even more foolishly fell into Moscow’s trap - when he sent his army into the separatist enclave of South Ossetia last week. The Bush administration has alternately egged on Mr. Saakashvili (although apparently not this time) and looked the other way as the Kremlin has bullied and blackmailed its neighbors and its own people. There is no imaginable excuse for Russia’s invasion of Georgia. After pounding both civilian and military targets with strategic bombers and missiles, Russian armored vehicles rolled into Georgia on Monday, raising fears of an all-out assault on the capital and Mr. Saakashvili’s democratically elected government.Vladimir Bonaparte - Wall Street Journal editorial
The farther Russia's tanks roll into Georgia, the more the world is beginning to see the reality of Vladimir Putin's Napoleonic ambitions. Having consolidated his authoritarian transition as Prime Minister with a figurehead President, Mr. Putin is now pushing to reassert Russian dominance in Eurasia. Ukraine is in his sights, and even the Baltic states could be threatened if he's allowed to get away with it. The West needs to draw a line at Georgia. No matter who fired the first shot last week in the breakaway Georgian region of South Ossetia, Moscow is using the separatist issue as an excuse to demolish Georgia's military and, if possible, depose its democratically elected government. Russian forces moved ever deeper into Georgia proper Monday. They launched a second front in the west from another breakaway province, Abkhazia, and took the central city of Gori, which lies 40 miles from the Georgian capital of Tbilisi. These moves slice the country in half and isolate its ports, most of which Russia has bombed or blockaded. Moscow dismissed a cease-fire drawn up by European nations and signed by Georgia.Message from Moscow - Los Angeles Times editorial
The conflict between Russia and Georgia that started as a regional spat over a pair of breakaway republics is looking increasingly like an all-out invasion, and perhaps even the start of a Russian drive to begin rebuilding the old, dismantled Soviet empire. Some are calling on the United States and NATO for a strong, perhaps military, response. What these hawks seem to have forgotten is that their beaks and talons are as sharp as marbles. With the US thoroughly bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, and NATO anchored by complacent Western European countries that believe the threat from Russia ended with the Cold War, a military response is out of the question. At the United Nations, meanwhile, the Security Council has held five emergency sessions on the Georgia-Russia conflict in as many days, even though with Russia as a veto-wielding member, there is no chance of strong UN reprisals.War of the Hotheads - Boston Globe editorial
Russia's attacks on Georgian troops, territory, and infrastructure over the weekend were brutal and unjustified. For the sake of all the people in that region of the Caucasus, and to avoid a calamitous new rift between Russia and the West, there must be an immediate cease-fire and negotiations to resolve the disputes that caused the current war. Chief among these are tangled old quarrels over the status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, breakaway regions of Georgia that have received Russian protection. But it is not enough to condemn Russia's bombing and shelling of Georgia. This was an avoidable war, one that many parties had a hand in touching off. It is a war that can have a destabilizing effect not only in the region, but also on energy supplies for Europe, and on international efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin told refugees from South Ossetia that Georgia had forfeited any right to rule that region after Georgian forces attacked the South Ossetian capital, Tskhinvali, last week. In other words, the Kremlin was demanding independence for South Ossetia - something most of the population there would welcome - or virtual annexation by Russia.Empire Strikes Back - The Australian editorial
From China and Russia comes confirmation, if it were needed, that history did not end in 1989. The enticing thesis, famously expounded by Francis Fukuyama, that the fall of the Berlin Wall heralded worldwide convergence towards Western-style liberal democracy has well and truly collapsed. Staging the Olympic Games in Beijing has afforded the outside world a close-up look at modern China, a country that has taken giant economic and social strides but has scant regard for democratic values. Economic reform has not heralded political reform as some Western theorists glibly predicted. Some 6000km further west in the Caucases, a belligerent Russia has attacked neighbouring Georgia in an extra-territorial show of force that some have compared to Prague in 1968. The comparison is apt. Robert Kagan in his recent book The Return of History and the End of Dreams says it has become clear that the end of the Cold War was not a historical transformation but "merely a pause in the endless competition of nations and peoples. Nationalism, far from being weakened by globalisation, has now returned with a vengeance." In China and in Russia we have seen the entrenchment of a new form of authoritarianism under strong-arm governments that enjoy a measure of popular legitimacy. Their compact with their own people permits open economic activity while suppressing political activity. People making money will keep their noses out of politics, says Kagan, "especially if they know their noses will be cut off".Four Days of Silence that Condemn Britain - Daily Telegraph editorial
At about 3.45pm yesterday, Downing Street issued a statement on behalf of Gordon Brown in which he condemned Russia's actions in Georgia and urged Moscow to agree a ceasefire in order to avert a "humanitarian catastrophe" in the Caucasus. The sentiments were to be applauded; but why had it taken four days since the crisis began for the British Prime Minister to comment in such terms? Where, too, has the Foreign Secretary been? We know he is on holiday; but could his officials not have found him a television camera to stand in front of to make Britain's outrage at the treatment of Georgia apparent from the outset? Mr Brown and Mr Miliband have been content to let President Sarkozy of France, President George W. Bush and other world figures lead the condemnation while tempering Britain's own response.Georgia on our Conscience - National Review editorial
Though the order “Lights, camera, action!” was given by Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili, the wartime drama now unfolding in the Caucasus was devised, scripted, directed, and produced in Moscow by Vladimir Putin and his fellow siloviki (or former KGB kleptocrats.) For almost two decades Russia has sought to divide and destabilize the new independent states in its former backyard by helping to establish, finance, and protect “breakaway” ethnic statelets such as South Ossetia and Abkhazia within the sovereign territory of Georgia. Throughout this calculated aggression, the Russian media has played an inglorious but technically brilliant role. They have used the most modern techniques of journalism and marketing to broadcast the worst lies of the Kremlin. Those lies themselves have been cleverly designed to imitate the West’s own justifications for the Kosovo intervention: “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide.” Doubtless the Georgian forces committed crimes in their incursion into South Ossetia. There are plausible reports that they shelled villages. But they were overwhelmed so quickly that they simply could not have committed crimes of the scale alleged by the Kremlin. Besides, Russia’s long patronage of South Ossetian attacks, its invasion across internationally recognized borders, and its relentless bombing of a country that has retreated and offered a cease-fire deprives it of any right to make such accusations. Russian policy is a war crime in itself.Stand Up to Russia - Max Boot, Los Angeles Times
It took the Red Army - excuse me, the Russian army - only two days to secure Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Now Russia is pressing its attacks into the heart of Georgia, threatening to cut the major east-west highway and vital oil pipeline. Moscow's ultimate goal remains unclear, but it may well be to topple the democratically elected government of President Mikheil Saakashvili and replace him with a pro-Kremlin stooge. That is what the Russians did in Chechnya in 1999-2000. The difference is that, while Chechnya had aspirations of nationhood, Georgia has already achieved it. Since the collapse of the Soviet empire in 1991, it has been a fully sovereign country. More recently, as a result of the 2003 Rose Revolution, Georgia has become a democracy - admittedly an imperfect democracy, but with far greater rule of law than Russia. By crossing Georgia's borders, the Russians have committed their worst violation of international law since the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.Russia's Power Play - George Will, Washington Post
Asked in 1957 what would determine his government's course, Harold Macmillan, Britain's new prime minister, replied, "Events, dear boy, events." Now, into America's trivializing presidential campaign, a pesky event has intruded - a European war. Russian tanks, heavy artillery, strategic bombers, ballistic missiles and a naval blockade batter a European nation. We are not past such things after all. The end of history will be postponed, again. Russia supports two provinces determined to secede from Georgia. Russia, with aspiring nations within its borders, generally opposes secessionists, as it did when America, which sometimes opposes secession (e.g., 1861-65), improvidently supported Kosovo's secession from Russia's ally Serbia. But Russia's aggression is really about the subordination of Georgia, a democratic, market-oriented US ally. This is the recrudescence of Russia's dominance in what it calls the "near abroad." Ukraine, another nation guilty of being provocatively democratic near Russia, should tremble because there is not much America can do. It is a bystander at the bullying of an ally that might be about to undergo regime change.Russia Advances in Georgia, but How Far? - Mike NIzza, New York Times
While the fighting in South Ossetia has been well-covered, both sides seemed to disagree on Monday on key aspects of the conflict. In comments from government officials and reports from news organizations, a complicated picture of the continuing fight emerged. Georgia is arguing that the entire country is threatened, while Russia insists that its ground assault remains limited to the first conflict zone. According to President Bush, Russia was responsible for a “dramatic and brutal escalation.” Colonel General Anatoly Nogovitsyn of Russia declared Monday that “we are not crossing the (de facto) border,” a rule that he described as “our key principle.” But President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia told reporters that “their purpose is to depose the democratically elected government of Georgia.”Putin Capitalises on US Ambivalence - Gerard Baker, The Times
Say what you will about Vladimir Putin, the man certainly has chutzpah. As his forces drove further into Georgia yesterday across the border from the province of South Ossetia, the Russian Prime Minister lashed out at the US for helping Tbilisi in the escalating war. In a speech to Russian officials Mr Putin condemned the US for facilitating the emergency transfer home of some of Georgia’s 2000 troops serving alongside Americans in Iraq. "It is a shame that some of our partners are not helping us but, essentially, are hindering us," Mr Putin said. For Georgians, the accusation that the US was assisting them in their struggle must have added cruel insult to mounting injury. Despite years of efforts by Mikheil Saakashvili to cement relations between his country and the distant Superpower, despite Georgia’s strenuous moves to push for NATO membership, and despite the courageous efforts of Georgian forces in supporting the US invasion of Iraq, the sum total of actual American assistance to the beleaguered former Soviet state in the last few days has amounted to a few verbal protests against the Russian action.Putin Calls Shots to Salve Old Wounds - Ellen Barry, New York Times
Vladimir V. Putin, who came to office brooding over the wounds of a humiliated Russia, this week offered proof of its resurgence. So far, the West has been unable to check his thrust into Georgia. He is making decisions that could redraw the map of the Caucasus in Russia’s favor - or destroy relationships with Western powers that Russia once sought as strategic partners. If there were any doubts, the last week has confirmed that Mr. Putin, who became prime minister this spring after eight years as president, is running Russia, not his successor, President Dmitri A. Medvedev. And Mr. Putin is at last able to find relief from the insults that Russia endured after the breakup of the Soviet Union. “Georgia, in a way, is suffering for all that happened to Russia in the last 20 years,” said Alexander Rahr, a leading German foreign-policy scholar and a biographer of Mr. Putin’s. With Russian troops poised on two fronts in Georgia, speculation abounds on what Mr. Putin really wants to do.A Path to Peace in the Caucasus - Mikhail Gorbachev, Washington Post
The past week's events in South Ossetia are bound to shock and pain anyone. Already, thousands of people have died, tens of thousands have been turned into refugees, and towns and villages lie in ruins. Nothing can justify this loss of life and destruction. It is a warning to all. The roots of this tragedy lie in the decision of Georgia's separatist leaders in 1991 to abolish South Ossetian autonomy. This turned out to be a time bomb for Georgia's territorial integrity. Each time successive Georgian leaders tried to impose their will by force -- both in South Ossetia and in Abkhazia, where the issues of autonomy are similar -- it only made the situation worse. New wounds aggravated old injuries. Nevertheless, it was still possible to find a political solution. For some time, relative calm was maintained in South Ossetia. The peacekeeping force composed of Russians, Georgians and Ossetians fulfilled its mission, and ordinary Ossetians and Georgians, who live close to each other, found at least some common ground.When Frozen Wars Heat Up - James Robbins, National Review
The breakup of the Soviet Union left a number of loose ends, border issues located largely on the periphery of the old Soviet empire, unsettled disputes that the Russians refer to as frozen conflicts. The war that has broken out in Georgia is one of these, a festering political dispute in which the implications of the issues involved are far more important than the territory in question. In retrospect the conflict is not entirely surprising; the last few months have seen a number of violent incidents in the separatist enclaves of South Ossetia and Abkhazia — shellings, bombings, kidnappings, shootings, and so forth. The frozen war was clearly defrosting. Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili’s attempt to take back South Ossetia by force was certainly ill-timed and unwise. Perhaps he thought the inexperienced Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who is nominally in charge of Russia’s defense policy, would be too indecisive to act. Or that the more capable Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who actually runs the country, would be too distracted by the opening ceremonies of the Olympics to take concerted action. Whatever Saakashvili was thinking, his offensive was a rash act, and the Russians demonstrated not only their willingness to intervene but their capability to drub the relatively small Georgian armed forces in a conventional fight.Putin Sends Emphatic Message - David Blair, Daily Telegraph
By seizing the opportunity to pound Georgia with air strikes and military incursions, Vladimir Putin, Russia's prime minister, is sending an emphatic message with global consequences. The curtain has fallen on the era when Nato steadily expanded into Eastern Europe and onwards to embrace former republics of the Soviet Union - and Russia was able to respond with nothing more than bluster. Moreover, Mr Putin has demonstrated that the Kremlin will use force to protect the 25 million Russians who inhabit the Soviet Union's successor states, well beyond the mother country's borders. The importance of this message cannot be exaggerated. Whether the populations of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Georgia's two breakaway regions, are genuinely Russian or merely the recipients of passports recently issued from Moscow matters little. Dmitry Medvedev made the crucial point last week when he stated that as Russia's president, he was obliged to protect the "security and dignity" of all Russian citizens, wherever they may live.How the West Can Stand Up to Russia - Schmitt and De Lorenzo, WSJ
Given the cutthroat politics Moscow has practiced at home and abroad in recent years - with only the softest protests from the US and its allies - no one should be surprised by Russia's decision to conquer the two breakaway regions of Georgia. Nevertheless, it should once and for all disabuse policy makers in Washington and Brussels of hopes that Russia intends to become part of the post-Cold War condominium of democratic peace in Europe. The point of the Kremlin's invasion of Georgia, which now threatens the capital city of Tbilisi, is to demonstrate to the world how impotent that security order has become. For Moscow, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili's mistake in finally taking the bait of Russian provocations and ordering his troops in South Ossetia last week was the opening they sought - and for which they had been planning for some time.Roots of Georgia-Russia Clash Run Deep - Fred Weir, Christian Science Monitor
Ancient ethnic strife, fanned by East-West rivalry and Moscow's growing regional ambitions, lie behind the war over Georgia's breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, where Russian troops opened a second front Monday. For dozens of young Ossetian men lined up at a Russian Army recruitment center in the North Ossetian capital of Vladikavkaz, the conflict is a replay of endless clashes with their traditional foe: Georgia. For Georgians, whose forces are retrenching after failing to retake the separatist province of South Ossetia, the war appears just the latest futile effort to unite their country against what they see as Moscow's neocolonial designs. US and Russian diplomats, who sparred angrily over the crisis at a United Nations session Sunday, were falling back into the language and passions of their long, bitter cold-war standoff.Grappling With an Emboldened Russia - Timothy Snyder, Boston Globe
Much more than in Iraq, world democracy is at stake in Georgia. Russia has preserved the form of democratic elections, within which cliques of secret policemen and economic oligarchs run the country. All the democratic revolutions in Europe in the last 20 years, beginning with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, are presented as "operations" of Western states. The "rose revolution" in Georgia in 2003 and the "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine in 2004-2005 are seen not as changes of regime but as losses to Russian power. Georgia has been an irritant to Russia because, along with Ukraine, it seems to demonstrate that democracy and a Western orientation are possible in post-Soviet states in far Eastern Europe. The nightmare scenario is a "colored revolution" in Russia itself.Rebuke of a President, in the Boom of Artillery - Andrew Kramer, New York Times
All but under the thumb of the Russian Army, this city (Gori) might seem an unlikely place for a news conference by the Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili, the New York lawyer who became one of the youngest presidents in the world when he was elected here in 2004 at the age of 36. Wearing slacks and a flak jacket looped over his strapping shoulders, he took a few steps toward the backdrop he had in mind - bombed apartment buildings - when a Russian jet flew overhead. It hissed faintly as it moved quickly over the city. His guards pointed at the sky. They yelled “Air! Air!” and a moment of panic ensued. They shoved the president hard backward toward a wall covered in grape vines, then onto the ground, and held a flak jacket over him. Some piled on top, to shield him from possible shrapnel. A moment later, he was back in the SUV and speeding down an alleyway here, in a city that he announced on Georgian television had been overrun by the Russian Army - though the Russians, and other Georgian officials, denied it. For a moment, though, hunkered on the ground, Mr. Saakashvili looked totally vulnerable in what may be a defining image of his presidency.Saakashvili's 'Calculated Gamble' - Miller and Baum, Los Angeles Times
Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, a US-trained attorney regarded by Washington as a pro-democracy wunderkind, has made a political career of brinkmanship with neighboring Russia. This time, he may have overplayed his hand. Saakashvili helped oust former Soviet Foreign Minister and Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze in the so-called Rose Revolution in 2003 and became Europe's youngest president the following January at the age of 36. He has been jousting with Moscow ever since over control of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, two pro-Russian regions of his country. A lover of Georgian wine and Western culture, Saakashvili is described as supremely confident and even autocratic. He moved troops into disputed South Ossetia last week as a new Russian president presided in Moscow, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and President Bush visited Beijing, and much of the world's attention was focused on the Summer Olympics. Georgian forces came under overwhelming air and ground attack and were quickly repelled.The Russia-Georgia Grudge Match - Simon Sebag, The Times
The Russian tank columns rumbling into Georgia reveal the anger of a tiger finally swatting the mouse that has teased it for years. South Ossetia may seem as distant, trivial and complicated as the 19th-century Schleswig-Holstein question but Russia's fury is about much more than the Ossetians. The Caucasus matters greatly to the Russians for all sorts of reasons, none greater than the fact that it now also matters to us. The troubles in Georgia are not the equivalent of an assassinated archduke in Sarajevo. But historians may well point to this little war, beside the spectacular Olympic launch of resurgent China, as the start of the twilight of America's sole world hegemony. If the new Great Game is for the oil of the Caucasus and Central Asia, the West may be in the process of losing it.Brutality to Make a Point - Richard Cohen, Washington Post
It would have been an easy thing for the Russians to throw the Georgians out of the two disputed enclaves of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Russia is mighty; Georgia is not. Russia is huge; Georgia is tiny. The whole thing is a mismatch from the word go, and the Georgians - when it is appropriate to do so - have to be reminded that you do not poke a sleeping bear with a stick. Little nations ought to know their place. But the bombing, including areas near the Georgian capital of Tbilisi, is not merely disproportionate, it is purposely, studiously, coldly atrocious. It is meant to punish -- not as a deterrent, the Israeli approach to such things, but as a way to show the world that the old Russia is reasserting itself. This is the Russia that looks at Georgia no differently from the way the czars did or, for that matter, the way of that most infamous of Georgians, Stalin himself. This is a Russia that wants a friendly leader on its border. It wants Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili to go.Russia Blames the Victim - Svante Cornell, New York Times
Russia is portraying its war in Georgia as a legitimate response to Georgia’s incursion last week into its breakaway region of South Ossetia. Many in the West, while condemning the disproportionate nature of Russia’s response, are also critical of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili for his attempts to bring South Ossetia back under Georgian rule, and of the United States for supposedly encouraging Mr. Saakashvili’s risk-taking by pushing NATO membership for Georgia. But the truth is that for the past several months, Russia, not Georgia, has been stoking tensions in South Ossetia and another of Georgia’s breakaway areas, Abkhazia. After NATO held a summit in Bucharest, Romania, in April - at which Georgia and Ukraine received positive signs of potential membership - then-President Vladimir Putin of Russia signed a decree effectively treating Abkhazia and South Ossetia as parts of the Russian Federation. This was a direct violation of Georgia’s territorial integrity.Welcome Back to the 19th Century - Josef Joffe, Wall Street Journal
Wait a minute, isn't this the 21st? Chronologically, it is. But last Friday, Russia - like the mad scientist Emmett Brown in "Back to the Future" - thrust us backward by about 150 years in the Caucasus: into the age of imperialism and geopolitics, resource wars and spheres of influence. It was strictly 19th-century when Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin casually announced that "war has started." In the old days, such pronunciamentos were routine; war, to recall Clausewitz, was just the "continuation of politics with the admixture of other means." (For the specifics, look up: the Crimean War, Prussia's conquest of Germany, the Balkan Wars; then go farther afield to the Spanish-American and Russo-Japanese wars.) But this is the 21st century, isn't it? At least in that vast swath extending from Berkeley to Berlin and to Beijing (with an outrigger in Moscow), anything "geo" could only refer to "economics." Welfare had replaced warfare. Tankers had replaced tanks, balance of payments the balance of power. At least in the Berlin-Berkeley Belt, all of us were playing win-win games, wheeling, dealing and consuming.Caucasus Caldron - Arnaud de Borchgrave, Washington Times
For several years after the implosion of the Soviet empire, and the end of the Cold War, the United States assured Boris Yeltsin and his successor Vladimir Putin that Washington was not interested in expanding NATO's writ to include former Soviet republics. That assurance was ignored when the three Baltic States were voted in to the NATO club. The United States then pushed hard to add Georgia to the NATO roster, but Europe's NATO members pushed back. At last April's NATO summit in Bucharest, the 26-country alliance split as Russia lodged a strong protest that said the promise to extend membership to now independent republics that were once part of the Soviet Union was "a huge strategic mistake." If tiny Georgia with 4.5 million people were part of the NATO alliance today, the US, Canada and NATO's European members would technically be at war with Russia. Article 5 of the NATO treaty makes an attack against one member an attack against all. And following Russia's attack against Georgia last week, pro-American, Harvard-trained Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili said Moscow would not have dared lunge into South Ossetia, and bomb Georgian targets, if his country had been a member of NATO.
