This is one of the headlines from today's New York times:
Georgia Claims on Russia War Called Into Question. The begining of the Article says "TBILISI, Georgia — Newly available accounts by independent military observers of the beginning of the war between Georgia and Russia this summer call into question the longstanding Georgian assertion that it was acting defensively against separatist and Russian aggression."
"Instead, the accounts suggest that Georgia’s inexperienced military attacked the isolated separatist capital of Tskhinvali on Aug. 7 with indiscriminate artillery and rocket fire, exposing civilians, Russian peacekeepers and unarmed monitors to harm."
I am not surprised in the least and fits with how I saw the situation as it unfolded despite the Western media's take on the whole situation as poor little Georgia being innocently beat on by big bad Russia.
Don't get me wrong I am not a supporter of Russia, nor do I think their actions are or were paragons of Nation-State virtue (but really what Nation-State can ever really claim this?). However, I did feel that the US and Europe were reaction out of both feelings for an underdog and persistent fears of the great Bear that are centuries old and not really responding to the situation on the ground. The article goes on to say that the reports (that are in part from international monitors) are inconclusive but do call into question Georgia's account of how hostilities began. Georgia of course disputes these accounts, but the monitoring team does not seem to be made up of people who would take sides in the conflict.
But my thought was this just points out what I had thought all a long that the US and Europe reacted to the situation out of an historic distrust and fear of Russian and not out a true response to the situation. As far as Russia's actions I think they were self-centered and opportunistic like the actions of any self-respecting nation-state. Not good, but not some horrendous evil either.
You know, I had heard about this possibility soon after the invasion, but it was being spread in some of the questionable areas of the internet.
ReplyDeleteThere was a girl who had been in Georgia when the fighting happened who was interviews on Fox News and tried to say that the Georgian military had attacked first and she was shut down pretty quickly. Also, I remember reading about an interview with Gorbachev saying that Georgia attacked first, but arguing that the current Russian administration didn't handle it terribly well. But none of this made it to the regular news.
What I find odd about the situation is that the news media is now taking up the issue after the election is over. It's almost as if they didn't want to add another complication to the campaign.
Oddly enough, if Georgia did attack first, it does make the US candidates calls for both sides (Georgia & Russia) to settle down make much more sense.
The only surprising thing is that this is being brought up now.
ReplyDeleteIt was well-known throughout most of the world within a day or two, except in the USA, where the "mainstream" media were trying to spin it as Russian aggression against Georgia -- they seemed to have a vested interest in restarting the Cold War (but why would they want to do that?)
Could it be that the US media are doing this about-face because of the election, and the result indicating that a majority of Americans would prefer a saner foreign policy? Could it be that the media are positioning themselves for a change in which the American public are less likely to buy bullshit?
Yes Gavin and Steve I too did find it interesting that it was brought up now in the New York Times.
ReplyDeleteSteve I too was aware of this from other sources though, I did find a number of European sources (BBC and the Economist, and some French and German news outlets) that had taken the same stance as the American news media. At least initially. I have to admit I did not follow this terribly closely after the initial reports.