The New Adventures of the Buchanan Brigades
Schmemann, who regularly publishes diatribes about Russia in the Times itself, has written in regard to Russia’s most recent elections, comparing them to those in Soviet times: “Anyone who followed the serial transitions of the final act of the Soviet Union — Brezhnev-Andropov- Chernenko-Gorbachev — leader ever left office voluntarily.” So Putin voluntarily left office and is to be lauded as a democrat! The minor matter of remaining in power as prime minister and making state visits to countries like France where he’s treated as if nothing had changed, because it hasn’t, means nothing.
Isn’t this exactly how we got in trouble with Hitler?
Perhaps Schmemann’s pièce de résistance, though, came on July 1, when his paper published a trilogy of editorials on Russia penned a set of the most bedraggled Russophilic scoundrels that could be imagined. First came the seething Russian nationalist and racist Dmitri Rogozin, identified for the lay reader only as “Russia‘s ambassador to NATO.” Then came politics professor Stephen Cohen of NYU, he who regularly spews out Chamberlain-like calls for appeasement of Russia in the rancid pages of his wife Katrina vanden Heuvel’s left-wing extremist screed The Nation (Professor Cohen, too, has been regularly roasted for his misstatements on my blog). And then to round things out the IHT offered us none other than the doddering Henry Kissenger, desperate to carve out some sort of limelight for himself in his dotage, rehabilitating himself from the Nixon taint and all those rumors about being a war criminal, by telling us he can fix up everything for us with Putin, only a few knowing whispers and smiles being needed.
All three of them screeched a chorus of conciliation with the Putin dictatorship; not a single tough critic of Putin was invited to the party. This is what passes for tolerance and diversity on the pages of the Gray Lady these days. As Kim Zigfeld reported on Pajamas a few months ago, when Putin first came to power the Times was just as full of hope for his potential as this terrifying triumvirate is about him now, and acknowledgement of wrongdoing has been conspicuously absent from its pages in recent years.
And what passes for liberalism. Not one of the three called for us to stand up for democracy or human rights in Russia. None mentioned the purge of all opposition parties from the Russian parliament and all opposition candidates from the most recent presidential race, including former Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov. None mentioned the convictions for state-sponsored murder in Chechnya or the unsolved murder of hero journalist Anna Politkovskaya or the litany of other political murders that have occurred on Putin’s watch. None could recall the show trial and Siberian exile of Mikhail Khodorkovsky. All seemed to feel that Putin’s spate of strategic bomber overflights of Western targets, his provision of weapons to Iran and Venezuela, his support of Hamas and Hezbollah were all just the temper tantrums of a neglected child who would coo and fawn if only showered with kindly attention.
And worst of all, none considered even for a moment that the proud KGB spy who rules Russia with an iron hand might possibly bear us permanent ill will for destroying the USSR, that he might believe the USSR’s condemnation of American freedom and democracy was legitimate, that he might only be biding his time until he could lash out at us in revenge. According to each of them, Putin is just a misunderstood little puppy, who only messes on the carpet and nips at our heels because he hasn’t been given enough attention and kibble. Little do they realize that Russians find this patronization far more offensive than confrontation, nor do they imagine how Putin is grinning from ear to ear as he listens to the drumbeat of appeasement.
If we had been whipped in the Cold War by Russia, is that what we would have done? Given up on freedom and democracy, and adopted totalitarian communism just so long as we received the proper amount of friendly respect from our Soviet overlords?
Not long ago, Pajamas Media contributor Sheryl Longin issued a stinging condemnation of the lunatic Pat Buchanan’s worldview aptly headlined “Buchanan Lied, People Died.” Buchanan, too, is a big fan of “being reasonable” with Putin. Buchanan says that “our next president will likely face a Russia led by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, determined to stand up to a West that Russians believe played them for fools when they sought to be friends.” He writes: “The hubris of Bill Clinton and George Bush II [Pat actually writes Bush I, but later he say that Bush I and Ronald Reagan had converted Russia into an ally, so apparently it’s a typo], and the Russophobia of those they brought with them into power, has been a primary cause of the ruptured relationship. And the folly of what they did is evident today, as Putin’s party, United Russia, rolls to triumph on a torrent of abuse and invective against the West.”
So the fact that Putin purged the electoral rolls of all legitimate opposition parties and rigged the subsequent vote shamelessly (in some regions, like Chechnya, United Russia scored over 99% of the ballots) means nothing. The fact that Putin is a proud KGB spy steeped in anti-democratic hostility means nothing. The only thing that counts is what Pat thinks, and Pat thinks Pooty-Poot is just swell, and the only problem is that we are provoking him.
That’s right – the New York Times and Pat Buchanan are on the same page. Can you conceive of anything more disturbing? By contrast, the Washington Post is a shining example of a genuine effort to defend so-called “liberal” values in Russia. In recent weeks, the Post has published stunning op-ed pieces by leading dissident figure Oleg Kozlovsky and firebrand journalist Yulia Latynina, the heir apparent to Politikovskaya. The Times hasn’t even run a news story about Kozlovsky’s repeated illegal, politically-motivated arrests.
The appallingly misleading character of the Cohen-Kissenger-Rogozin axis can perhaps best be seen in the fact that the Cohen column was bizarrely and inexplicably appearing in the IHT for the second time. It was published on May 2, 2008, under the headline “Russia, the Missing Debate” and then again on July 1st under the lead “Wrong on Russia.” Both columns contained the following Cohenism verbatim:
In the U.S. policy elite and media, the nearly unanimous answer is that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s antidemocratic domestic policies and “neo-imperialism” destroyed that historic opportunity. You don’t have to be a Putin apologist to understand that this is not an adequate explanation.
You don’t have to be an apologist, no, but it certainly does make things much simpler. How it could be possible that the paper would publish the same article twice without notifying readers defies imagination. How it could be so pathologically obsessed with rationalizing Putin’s rule is not that difficult to understand, however, not if you’ve been a regular follower of Schmemann’s own writing or the New York Times’ consistent pathology of appeasement.
We wrote to IHT to ask them about the double publication. Their curt reply: “The Cohen article was published a second time in error. The mistake was corrected in later editions of our print edition.” They apparently feel no need to make any notation of the issue on the web page that contains the second publication. Then, an act of naked dishonesty, they simply killed the July 1st link, as if it had never happened.
Isn’t this how Jayson Blair got started?
Posted in editorial
Andrei Soldatov, of Novaya Gazeta and Agentura.ru, writing in the Moscow Times:
The latest round in a boxing match between Russia’s and Britain’s secret services began on July 4, when an article appeared in the British press quoting the MI5 counterespionage unit as saying that the number of Russian spies flooding the country had made Russia the third-greatest threat to Britain after Iran and al-Qaida. Meanwhile, in the Daily Mail, Member of Parliament Andrew MacKinley was accused of meeting too frequently with Alexander Polyakov, a counselor at the Russian Embassy who the MI5 suspects reports to Russian intelligence.
But that was only the beginning. On the BBC “Newsnight” program on July 7, an anonymous MI5 source stated that the agency considers the Russian government responsible for the poisoning death in London of former Federal Security Service agent Alexander Litvinenko and for the attempted murder of self-exiled billionaire Boris Berezovsky.
The Kremlin retaliated in a statement to RIA-Novosti on Thursday, when a source with the Federal Security Service claimed that Chris Bowers, the British Embassy’s director of trade and finance, was a British intelligence agent.
Moscow’s aggressive reaction underscores just how different the two countries’ methods are in the prolonged conflict. For the past year, the British government has limited its reactions to political statements protesting Litvinenko’s death, while Moscow has used more blunt instruments.
The British have initiated only one spy scandal in the past few years. In fall 2007, a former British Army cadet, Peter Hill, was arrested in Leeds. But this was a case of pure provocation. The cadet had written a letter to the Russian Embassy offering cooperation, but it was intercepted by the MI5. A British agent posing as a Russian intelligence operative named Andrei met with Hill in a cafe. The result: Hill spent a few months in jail, but all charges were later dropped. It is clear that Russian intelligence did not suffer in any way from this operation for the simple reason that it was not involved.
Britain behaved exactly the same way in the Litvinenko affair. The British prosecutor’s office was careful to name only the prime suspect in the murder case, Andrei Lugovoi, but not the person or entity that ordered the killing or their possible motive. This was a deliberate attempt to avoid having to pose any awkward questions to the Kremlin.
Sanctions against Russia were limited to dissolving a commission on the struggle against terrorism — a nonfunctioning body for all intents and purposes — and four Russian diplomats were expelled from London in July 2007. But this was not because the Kremlin had ordered Litvinenko’s murder. It was because Russia refused to extradite a Russian national to stand trial in a foreign country, something that would have violated its own Constitution.
The ensuing BBC episode did not help matters. The MI5 source offered only his opinion and not the official position of the agency. Sure enough, a few days later, a Downing Street spokesman repudiated the unidentified source and announced that MI5 did not have the authority to make official statements and that Litvinenko was killed by a single individual who should stand trial.
The problem is that Moscow — in contrast to London — did not constrain itself in this battle of the spies. While the British are content to complain about the number of Russian spies roaming their country, the Kremlin takes the more drastic steps of shutting down the British Council in Russia and sending FSB agents into TNK-BP. While the British suggest that one of their army cadets is getting a little too cozy with the Russian Embassy staff, the FSB delivers a knockout blow, pushing a high-ranking diplomat out of a group involved in the sensitive TNK-BP negotiations.
These differing approaches reflect the different cultures in the two countries. The British apparently feel that it is necessary to keep the door open for compromise at all times, while officials in the Kremlin consider this approach a sign of weakness. It resembles some sort of strange boxing match in which the British fighter constantly appeals to the referee and the audience, while his Russian opponent punches him repeatedly below the belt.
Posted in cold war II, russia
The Moscow Times reports that the wages of ordinary working Russians will fall by 25% in 2008 as the result of inflation — these are folks who are already burdened by slave wages on the order of $4/hour. Remember, general inflation of just 5% is viewed in the United States as a life-threatening crisis. The price of a Mercedes or BMW is only rising at half that rate, so Russia’s rich can console themselves with that fact even as their own standard of living plummets considerably.
The inflation rate for the nation’s poor is set to hit 25 percent for 2008, according to a recent survey, well above the 14 percent it projected for the country as a whole.
During the first half of 2008, the cost of a minimum basket of foodstuffs rose by 20.6 percent, FBK Consulting Group said in a statement released Monday. The effect is amplified because food costs comprise 45 to 50 percent of low-income consumers’ total purchases, Igor Nikolayev, FBK’s director of strategic analysis, said in the statement.
“What’s really notable is that the prices of the products that comprise the minimum set of foodstuffs purchased by the Russian poor are rising at the fastest rate,” Nikolayev said.
The cost of the basket also rose sharply in 2007, by 22.3 percent, with a 13.1 percent increase in the first half. By contrast, from 2003 and 2006, the cost of the minimal set of foodstuffs rose an average of 10 percent per year.
The government is currently forecasting inflation at 10.5 percent for the year, although analysts and many in the government say the target will now be difficult to reach. Inflation was at an annualized 15.1 percent in June, according to the State Statistics Service.
From January to June, prices for fruit and vegetables increased by 36 percent, pasta by 26 percent, sunflower oil by 25.9 percent, bread and bakery products by 20.7 percent, and cereals by 20.4 percent, the report said.
As a result of the rising food prices, FBK said, the number of people living below the poverty line could increase in Russia for the first time since 2000 — from 18.9 million last year to 20 million people in 2008.
Other economic specialists, however, were skeptical about the deleterious effects that the price hikes would have on the poor.
“It’s difficult to say how exactly inflation will affect the lower classes because we cannot say by what percentage wages will increase or decrease in the future,” Alfa Bank economist Natalya Orlova said.
In addition, analysts said, if wages keep up with or rise faster than the cost of food, lower-income consumers will not be hit as hard in real terms. In June, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said the government would increase spending on wages and social benefits to serve as a cushion against rising food prices.
“It is highly likely that the government will increase wages in response to the increase in inflation,” said Pavel Trunin, an analyst at the Institute for the Economy in Transition. “Because wages are currently rising at a faster rate than is inflation, the nation’s poor won’t be poorer.”
The Moscow Times reports that the wages of ordinary working Russians will fall by 25% in 2008 as the result of inflation — these are folks who are already burdened by slave wages on the order of $4/hour. Remember, general inflation of just 5% is viewed in the United States as a life-threatening crisis. The price of a Mercedes or BMW is only rising at half that rate, so Russia’s rich can console themselves with that fact even as their own standard of living plummets considerably.
The inflation rate for the nation’s poor is set to hit 25 percent for 2008, according to a recent survey, well above the 14 percent it projected for the country as a whole.
During the first half of 2008, the cost of a minimum basket of foodstuffs rose by 20.6 percent, FBK Consulting Group said in a statement released Monday. The effect is amplified because food costs comprise 45 to 50 percent of low-income consumers’ total purchases, Igor Nikolayev, FBK’s director of strategic analysis, said in the statement.
“What’s really notable is that the prices of the products that comprise the minimum set of foodstuffs purchased by the Russian poor are rising at the fastest rate,” Nikolayev said.
The cost of the basket also rose sharply in 2007, by 22.3 percent, with a 13.1 percent increase in the first half. By contrast, from 2003 and 2006, the cost of the minimal set of foodstuffs rose an average of 10 percent per year.
The government is currently forecasting inflation at 10.5 percent for the year, although analysts and many in the government say the target will now be difficult to reach. Inflation was at an annualized 15.1 percent in June, according to the State Statistics Service.
From January to June, prices for fruit and vegetables increased by 36 percent, pasta by 26 percent, sunflower oil by 25.9 percent, bread and bakery products by 20.7 percent, and cereals by 20.4 percent, the report said.
As a result of the rising food prices, FBK said, the number of people living below the poverty line could increase in Russia for the first time since 2000 — from 18.9 million last year to 20 million people in 2008.
Other economic specialists, however, were skeptical about the deleterious effects that the price hikes would have on the poor.
“It’s difficult to say how exactly inflation will affect the lower classes because we cannot say by what percentage wages will increase or decrease in the future,” Alfa Bank economist Natalya Orlova said.
In addition, analysts said, if wages keep up with or rise faster than the cost of food, lower-income consumers will not be hit as hard in real terms. In June, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said the government would increase spending on wages and social benefits to serve as a cushion against rising food prices.
“It is highly likely that the government will increase wages in response to the increase in inflation,” said Pavel Trunin, an analyst at the Institute for the Economy in Transition. “Because wages are currently rising at a faster rate than is inflation, the nation’s poor won’t be poorer.”
Yulia Latynina, writing in the Moscow Times:
Things have not been going so well for our siloviki. The BBC ran an interview on July 7 with an anonymous high-ranking agent of Britain’s MI5 counterespionage unit who declared that Russian authorities were behind the poisoning death in London of former Federal Secret Service agent Alexander Litvinenko.
The declaration will probably lead to a new wave of angry recriminations against foreigners, and many will be asking why this unidentified MI5 agent made these accusations during a popular BBC program. But the answer to that question is simple, albeit unpleasant, for the Kremlin: to support and defend the rule of law. In normal countries, people are not usually poisoned with polonium-210 in the heart of a major world capital, with the murderers walking away scot-free.
In another case, British spymaster Alex Allen, who is also chairman of the country’s Joint Intelligence Committee, was found in a coma in his London apartment two weeks ago. British newspapers speculated that al-Qaida or the Russian secret service might be responsible for his condition.
To be honest, I don’t think Russian agents could have pulled off such a major feat. They are limited to more modest and blunt operations, like blowing up a bus in Nalchik or a market in Sukhumi. But Alex Allen? Don’t make me laugh. This is nonsense. An agency more accustomed to shooting down unarmed people in Nazran and then photographing the bodies with planted weapons in their hands is hardly qualified to orchestrate a sophisticated operation against an ace agent like Allen.
At the same time as these events were unfolding, the London court agreed to hear the claims of businessman Michael Cherney against oligarch Oleg Deripaska. Cherney accused Deripaska, his former business partner, of failing to pay the full price for his shares in Russian Aluminum.
I don’t want to guess the outcome, but I think Cherney’s claims aren’t worth the paper they were written on. Cherney’s industrial empire, in which Deripaska once participated, was built upon extremely informal connections between the various players. The ownership documents Cherney has in his possession, and which both he and Deripaska have signed, are quite typical for such shady transactions — that is, they might carry some validity in the criminal world, but not in a British court of law. Nonetheless, the British court agreed to hear Cherney’s case on the rationale that he was unable to obtain justice in Russia. It is truly a sad testament to the current state of affairs when a London court considers Russia’s reputation as being worse than Cherney’s.
They say that it takes the first half of your life to build your reputation, but during the second half, your reputation then works for you — or against you, as the case may be. Cesare Borgia, the 15th-century Italian military commander, probably did not sleep with his sister, as has been claimed. He just sent killers to knock off her husband, and when they failed in the first attempt, Borgia ordered them to go back and try again. The second time, however, they finished off the wounded man in his bedroom, in front of Borgia’s sister. Objectively speaking, Borgia was an excellent commander and a brilliant statesman, and it is unlikely that he was responsible for half of the killings attributed to him. Nonetheless, he has been stuck with a largely negative reputation.
Before Litvinenko’s poisoning death, Russia had one reputation, but now it has a different one. That new reputation won’t change until the murder case is investigated and brought to its full conclusion — and until murder suspect and State Duma Deputy Andrei Lugovoi gives an honest deposition instead of giving self-promoting news conferences and television interviews.
In democracies, there are certain things that should never be bargained away or swept under the carpet. Murder is one of them.
Posted in cold war II, espionage, murders, russia
The Moscow Times reports:
President Dmitry Medvedev on Tuesday unveiled a new foreign policy strategy that grants unprecedented rights to Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and shows that the Kremlin will maintain the tough course set during Putin’s presidency.
The foreign policy strategy, signed by Medvedev on Saturday but released Tuesday to coincide with a keynote speech to ambassadors, says the prime minister will be allowed for the first time to implement foreign policy measures, a right previously assumed to be monopolized by the president.
Amid speculation that presidential powers would be weakened after Putin left the Kremlin, Medvedev said immediately after his election in March that he would retain the presidential right to control foreign policy.
A Kremlin spokesman declined to comment on the redivision of foreign policy powers Tuesday, and the Kremlin did not release further details about the prime minister’s new role in foreign policy.
Other than this and several other differences, the new strategy strongly resembles one approved by then-President Putin in 2000, reiterating Russia’s interest in reasserting itself as an international player in a multipolar world where UN and international law reign supreme and unilateral actions by countries like the United States are unwelcome.
“The vague and somewhat incomprehensible expectations that there might be some kind of liberalization in foreign policy” under Medvedev have proven unfounded, said Dmitry Trenin, political analyst with the Carnegie Moscow Center.
Medvedev himself reiterated the continuity of Putin’s foreign policy course in his Tuesday address to dozens of Russian ambassadors flown in from all corners of the world for an annual Kremlin meeting. Medvedev criticized U.S. plans to deploy parts of a missile-defense shied in Eastern Europe and Western nations’ failure to ratify the revised Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe.
“This common [security] heritage cannot survive if one side selectively destroys isolated elements of the strategic regime. This does not satisfy us,” Medvedev told the envoys.
Medvedev also said Russia cannot rely on oral promises by other countries on national security, in an apparent reference to the reluctance of U.S. President George W. Bush’s administration to sign or extend new arms treaties or allow Russia to closely monitor its planned missile-defense shield in Eastern Europe.
The 2008 foreign policy meticulously lists Russia’s grievances vis-a-vis the United States and NATO, including not only missile defense and the CFE treaty, but also NATO’s plan to expand to include Georgia and Ukraine. Russia has suspended its participation in CFE after a number of NATO members failed to ratify it.
The strategy also calls for a new comprehensive security pact to be developed and adopted by European countries to prevent further erosion of existing arms controls. It also reiterates Moscow’s idea to transform the U.S.-Russian Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which bans medium-range nuclear-capable missiles, into an international treaty. Previously, this proposal was considered more of a bargaining chip in negotiations with the United States over an entire spectrum of arms-control issues. The inclusion of it into the foreign policy strategy demonstrates that Moscow is serious about trying to convince other nations to scrap their medium-range missiles, which is unrealistic, said Alexander Golts, an independent defense and foreign policy analyst.
Interestingly, while the 2000 strategy devotes only two paragraphs to relations with the United States and speaks of the need to overcome “formidable differences” in relations, the new strategy elaborates much more on these ties. Despite the fact that relations have deteriorated in recent years, the new strategy speaks of “great potential” for cooperation in security, economic and other spheres and calls for “a strategic partnership.” It calls for retiring “strategic principles of the past” and focusing on “real threats” while also working to resolve differences in the “spirit of mutual respect.”
The new strategy strongly emphasizes the importance of international law, which should come as no surprise given Medvedev’s background as a lawyer, Trenin said.
Another key difference from the 2000 strategy is that it does not refer to the long-delayed creation of the Russia-Belarus Union as a priority. The new strategy only notes that the union should be based on principles of a market economy.
The new document also does not repeat the 2000 assertion that there are “good prospects for the development of relations” with Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. Instead, it refers to the European Union as a long-term economic and foreign policy partner and singles out France, Germany and Italy among the countries that Russia wants to advance relations with. It also says Russia would like to develop relations with Britain — a sign that Moscow wants to normalize ties strained by the murder of former KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko and the treatment of British investors at TNK-BP.
Russia in recent years has sought to develop ties with key EU member states, drawing accusations from the others that it is seeking to play EU members off one another. “The mentioning of individual countries sends a signal to the countries that are not mentioned that Russia doesn’t view them” as partners because of their unfriendly conduct, Trenin said.
Significantly, the new strategy no longer implies or asserts that the Commonwealth of Independent States is a vehicle for the integration of former Soviet republics. Rather, it speaks of the importance of developing ties with individual CIS members while giving priority to integration with select neighbors, such as those in the Collective Security Treaty Organization and the Eurasian Economic Commonwealth.
Unlike the old strategy, the new one also refers to the need to fight fascism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism, but it identifies no countries where these phenomena need to be addressed. Both Medvedev and Putin have repeatedly accused the Baltic states of violating the rights of Russian-speaking minorities and wrongly collaborating with Nazi Germany in World War II.
Medvedev noted that his strategy also differs in its list of priorities. At the top of the list is ensuring national security, followed by creating the foreign conditions needed to modernize Russia and protect its economic rights. It also vows that Russia will not allow itself to be dragged into a new arms race that could prove devastating for the national economy.
“These two key assumptions, if observed, would lay the cornerstone for a normal foreign policy,” Trenin said.
Posted in cold war II, halls of power, russia
Reuters reports further evidence on how the Putin regime has totally poisoned Russia’s relations with former Soviet allies Ukraine and Georgia. This, if no other reason, justifies exorcising the Putin regime from power, yet the people of Russia stand idly by watching it happen, until they are left just as in Soviet times utterly alone in the world, hellbent on a path to utter destruction.
One thousand U.S. troops began a military training exercise in Georgia on Tuesday against a backdrop of growing friction between Georgia and neighboring Russia. Officials said the exercise, called “Immediate Response 2008,” had been planned for months and was not linked to a standoff between Moscow and Tbilisi over the breakaway Georgian republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. “The main purpose of these exercises is to increase the cooperation and partnership between U.S. and Georgian forces,” Brigadier General William B. Garrett, commander of the U.S. military’s Southern European Task Force, told reporters.
The war games involve 600 Georgian troops and smaller numbers from the former Soviet republics of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Ukraine. The two-week exercise was taking place at the Vaziani military base, near Tbilisi, which was a Russian Air Force base until Russian forces withdrew at the start of this decade under a European arms-reduction agreement. Georgia and the Pentagon cooperate closely. Georgia has a 2,000-strong contingent supporting the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq, and Washington provides training and equipment to the Georgian military.
Georgia last week recalled its ambassador in Moscow in protest to Russia sending fighter jets into Georgian airspace. Tbilisi urged the West to condemn Russia’s actions. Russia said the flights were to prevent Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili from launching a military operation against South Ossetia. It was Russia’s first admission for at least a decade that its air force had flown over Georgian territory without permission. Georgia has said in the past that Russia trespassed in its airspace, but Moscow has always denied it.
NATO said Tuesday that it was troubled by the Russian overflights, saying they called into question Moscow’s role as a peacekeeper and facilitator of talks between Tbilisi and separatists. NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer urged all parties, including Russia, to support Georgian territorial integrity as called for in UN Security Council resolutions, alliance spokesman James Appathurai said. “The secretary-general is concerned by the recent escalation of tension in Georgia, he is troubled by Russia’s statement that its military aircraft deliberately overflew Georgian territory in violation of its territorial integrity,” Appathurai said. “These actions raise questions about Russia’s role as peacekeeper and facilitator of negotiations,” he said, speaking on behalf of de Hoop Scheffer.
Early this year, Russia established semiofficial ties with South Ossetia, and Abkhazia and beefed up the peacekeeping forces it has had in Abkhazia since the end of a war in the 1990s. Georgia accused Russia of trying to annex its territory, and Tbilisi’s Western allies said Russia was stoking tensions. Russia, angered by Georgia’s hopes to join NATO and the European Union, said it acted to defend the breakaway regions from Georgian aggression. The United States on Monday criticized Russia as well for intentionally violating Georgian airspace. U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said, “We are deeply troubled by Russia’s statement that its military aircraft deliberately violated Georgia’s internationally recognized borders.” In a statement issued late Monday, McCormack urged all countries, “including Russia,” to “support Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders.”
The Financial Times calls upon the West to “stand up to Russia”:
If proof were needed of the significance of the crisis facing the troubled Caucasus state of Georgia, it came on Tueday with the start of exercises involving 1,000 US troops.
US officials insist the long-planned wargames have nothing to do with the recent dispute between Russia and Georgia over the breakaway Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. But they give Washington a chance to support pro-west Tbilisi at a critical time.
The exercises come just after Moscow brazenly admitted sending war planes over South Ossetia last week, allegedly to stop an attack by Mikheil Saakashvili, the Georgian president. While Russia has encroached on Georgian air space many times in supporting Abkhazia and South Ossetia, this was the first time in recent years that it has openly confessed to what was a flagrant violation of Georgia’s territorial integrity. With the action coinciding with a visit to Tbilisi by Condoleezza Rice, US secretary of state, the message to the west was brutally clear: stay off our turf.
It is a message the US and the European Union must not accept. Russia is not interested in Abkhazia and South Ossetia per se. It has not recognised their independence claims for fear of setting precedents for its own Caucasus minorities. But Moscow is very interested in stopping Georgia developing as a pro-west state – and blocking its bid to join Nato. The west must be equally determined to help Tbilisi follow its chosen course. The problems involved in admitting a fragile state with separatist regions into Nato will take time to resolve. But the direction must be clear.
Georgia matters to the west because it is the current standard-bearer of the democratic revolt against Moscow that began in central Europe in 1989. While the flags of freedom flying in Tbilisi are stained by Mr Saakashvili’s authoritarian lapses, Georgia’s leaders still generally embrace democratic values. Also, Georgia straddles the only non-Russian route taking Caspian oil and gas to world markets. Lose Georgia, and Russia wins an even bigger say over energy supplies. The risks were highlighted by this week’s cut, for technical reasons, in Russian oil flows to the Czech Republic after Prague agreed to host part of the US missile shield.
Certainly, the west should try to engage Russia in talks over Abkhazia and South Ossetia, as long as they are based on preserving Georgian sovereignty. It should also redouble efforts to restrain hotheads in Tbilisi from resorting to violence. But when Russia bullies Georgia. the west must back its vulnerable ally.
 | ba on EDITORIAL: Russia is an Uncivi… |
 | Costas on EDITORIAL: Peter Lavelle, Scum… |
 | Peter Lavelle on EDITORIAL: Peter Lavelle, Scum… |
 | clearer on Peter LaVelle: Scum-sucking tr… |
 | Apricot on EDITORIAL: Barbaric Russia, mo… |
Very few English-language Russia blogs in the world have a higher Google page rank than La Russophobe.
La Russophobe 