Trouble in the Caucasus, Day 2

Edward Lucas concludes his op-ed in The Times on the Ossetian dilemma with this:

The fighting should be a deafening wake-up call to the West. Our fatal mistake was made at the Nato summit in Bucharest in April, when Georgia's attempt to get a clear path to membership of the alliance was rebuffed. Mr Saakashvili warned us then that Russia would take advantage of any display of Western weakness or indecision. And it has.

Indeed, as I suggested yesterday, Russia has taken advantage of "western weakness" by responding to a Georgian offensive. Given that Saakashvili has been bold enough to send his troops into South Ossetia even though his determination to join NATO was thwarted last year, one can only assume that he would have been even bolder had his country joined the alliance. And if a Georgia vs Russia conflict is dangerous now, it scarcely bears thinking how much worse it might be if Georgia were a NATO member.

Russia may have provoked this crisis, and one may be properly critical of, indeed deplore, many aspects of recent Russian policy in the Caucasus or the Ukraine, but the immediate responsibility for this crisis must be borne by Tbilisi. That Georgia  - despite recent crackdowns on the opposition - remains a more free country than Russia (according to Freedom House) doesn't require us to immediately endorse their view of the situation.

Meanwhile, Iain Dale cheerfully admits that he'd "never heard" of South Ossetia and then leaps in to suggest "something must be done" to back the Georgians and thwart Moscow. Seriously. I'm far from a Caucasus expert, but it's not obvious that there's one party wearing White Hats and another sporting Black Caps to help us determine who are the "good" guys and who're the "bad" ones.

UPDATE: In the Guardian Svante Cornell also castigates Russia. As I say, there's plenty to dislike about recent Russian policy, but one thing might also be worth remembering: the Osettians (and the Abkhazians) want to be Russian, not Georgian. This may seem daft or incomprehensible to many people, but there it is anyway and one might think it something worth mentioning from time to time even if, clearly, it's also an inconvenient truth.

UPDATE: Meanwhile, James Traub's piece in the NYT is perhaps the best and most nuanced background piece I've read today.

UPDATE: That said, if Russia does, as the Georgians claim it intends to, land troops on Georgia's coastline then this would on the face of it, seem a clumsy over-reaction, transforming the conflict from the defence of Ossetians who want to be Russian into an aggressive war against Georgia. Moscow may not care about that, of course and, thinking it unlikely to receive much sympathy in the west anyway, may think it worthwhile to use a bigger stick than might be thought wise or necessary...

UPDATE: Cats lie down with dogs! This Guardian editorial makes sense.

UPDATE: Daniel Larison makes some similar points here.

UPDATE: Greg Djerejian also deploys a powerful sqaudron of arguments decrying the simplistic anti-Russian response we've seen from McCain, The Washington Post et al.

Comments

[Anthony]

I think Iain Dale at least does a service by inviting people to come up with specific things we can (in theory) do. It's a step up from most of the other stuff sloshing about out there, which goes long on the "This is a key moment. We must stand up to the Rooshians." rhetoric and very, very short on the practicalities.

[Pieter Friedrich]

In the James Traub article, please notice the picture of the Georgian soldier wearing MARPAT. This is the distinctive camouflage pattern which is unique to the U.S. Marine Corps - just one demonstration of recent material U.S. support for Georgia.

[Anthony]

Pieter, the Americans have been training and equipping the Georgians for a while now, not least because they have put troops into Iraq. A large chunk of the Georgian armed forces use surplus American uniforms and as far as I am aware the equipment they use is a mixture of Russian and American stuff.