Is Russia determined to be an empire again?

Great Debates
21

You know, this is all very funny, really. Here’s the deal:

Georgia gets annoyed by separatist activities, declares a willingness to abide by a “cease-fire”, then almost immediately breaches said cease-fire, claiming that the separatists were violating it. On the eve of the Olympics, while Russia’s de facto head of state is off in Beijing, Georgia sends in its troops to assert control over the province that has had de facto independence for 16 years. In the process, Russian peacekeeping troops naturally come under fire, and Russia responds naturally by sending in troops to protect an area that is under at least nominal Russian guarantees of de facto independence from Georgia, until such time (if ever) as the mess is sorted out politically. Georgia then points fingers at Russia and says, “it’s all THEIR FAULT.”

Georgia is going to get exactly what it asked for with this unilateral attempt to re-impose control over an area it lost control of in 1992. If it is expecting its status as a new-found friend of the US to matter, it’s dreaming pie-in-the-sky stuff. As for the Russians, why anyone would expect a different response out of them in this situation is beyond me, even without evil motivations of reimposing some sort of control over Georgia.

22

Well, when you put it that way…

I’m leaning toward the Russian side in this conflict. The Georgian government came in with guns blazing to conquer territory that has been independent for 20 years, killing Russian troops and citizens, and Russia’s supposed to do what? Nothing?

23

In understanding the motivations of Russians, one first needs to realize that the fundamental driving instinct is to protect Mother Russia and the ethnic Rossiyanin people from invasion, incursion, and conquest. Russia has been invaded again and again from time immemorial and seeks first and foremost to create a barrier–physical, political, military, economic, et cetera–between herself and her potential enemies, which at last count includes everyone except the Huambisas people of Peru.

Stranger

24

Did Russia ever have a significant non-contiguous empire?

25

That is how I was trying to explain it to myself! Thanks!

26

Non-contiguous? No, not really. Their largest overseas venture was in adjoining North America - i.e. Alaska and very intermittently south to Fort Ross in Northern California.

27

Or, the opposing viewpoint…

April 1991. Georgia declares independence from the crumbling ex-Soviet state.

December 1991. A coup d’etat replaces the independent government. Civil war continues through 1995 on and off.

1995 Eduard Shevradnadze elected President. Abkhazia and South Ossetia begin rebelling and claim de facto independence from Georgia. The standard atrocities occur on both sides to a greater and lesser extent. Reports of us to 500,000 people in the two provinces being either killed or forces to depart the region for either other parts of Georgia or Russia.

Georgia holds ‘Rose Revolution’ and establishes fledging democratic state again. Revolution spurred by questionable parlimentary elections.

Begins accepting United States military and economic aid as well as pursuing closer ties with western Europe. Also supports US war in Iraq.

Russian commences military ‘probes’ into Georgia on a frequent basis. Increases ‘peacekeeping forces’ in South Ossetia and Abkhazia that it established in the region in the early 1990s. Continues to offer any in the region, even though the people are Georgian citizens, who wish Russian passports and commences public relations efforts about ‘protecting their own citizens’.

April, 2008. NATO offers ‘eventual membership’ to Georgia

Skirmishes and Shelling of Georgian villages in South Ossetia, reported by some on the ground (reliability unknown to this reporter) to be encouraged and inspired by the Russian government, leads to Georgian invasion towards the South Ossetian capital.

Russia responds with an air and armored invasion of the region. Reports are, at the times I’m posting here, prelim and unreliable in terms of targets, casualties, and Georgian response.

I would guess that the Russian goal here is not to conquer all of Russian but rather to increase the instability there and put on indefinite hold NATO membership (which they REALLY don’t want to have happen).

Hell, this isn’t even the first time this sort of thing has happened in the last 100 years. Following the Russian Revolution in 1918 Georgia broke away and declared itself independent and democratic. This lasted until 1921 (on my birthday, by the way) when the Red Army entered Tblisi and annexed it to the Soviet Union (through a series of steps, admittedly).

28

Not really, per se. She was late to the game in 18th-19th century colonial system and has mostly been significant prior to WWII for its geographic position straddling Europe and Asia, and as a major agricultural producer (or, at least the Ukraine and Belarus are). Her heyday was in being the world face of Marxist Communism and a purveyor of atomic and thermonuclear weapons in direct competition with the United States, although in the post-Lenin era the agglomeration of “client states” was almost exclusively about putting a buffer between herself and her new enemies, and later, providing resources and goods to keep the ailing centrally-planned economy buoyed at the expense of her children.

Stranger

29

and Mosier’s

Yet, the de facto independence was more akin to Kurdish independence or Basque separatists or Pakistani tribal areas even than say Taiwan’s. Russian troops there as “peacekeepers” were placing themselves in the middle of an area that was officially another country’s and they then went about granting these separatists citizenship in their country. (Those are the “Russian citizens” who were killed.) Their independent functioning was tolerated up to a point. But Russia placing troops there and granting citizenship to its inhabitants? That should have been tolerated? Why?

30

DSeid, who cares if it should have been “tolerated?” The point remains: Georgia launched a full-scale attack in an attempt to recover what it views as it’s own sovereign territory, in violation of the negotiated end to the conflict from 1992. This is crucial to understand. Whether or not they were provoked by Russian-sponsored shelling is irrelevant. Georgia started a military undertaking to retake full control of the province. Russia’s response is predictable, and even to some extent justifiable without the fiction of Russian “citizenship.”

31

Whether or not they were provoked is irrelevant? That’s absurd.

Providing a third party with arms and encouraging them to kill Georgian citizens is a clear casus belli for the Georgian government. Whether they wish to respond against the separatist provinces (reasonable) or against Russia itself (foolhardy in the extreme) I think they’d be able to make a case before the UN Security Council for either.

I find it somewhat amusing, in a cynical way, that Vladimir Putin is placing blame for the conflict at the feet of the United States for training and supplying Georgian soldiers. Though I do find that indicative of the OPs premise that Russia is attempting to establish a quasi-empire and is using this conflict as an excuse to curtail US and NATO expansion into the region.

The statement from Putin referring to Georgian Territory as having suffered ‘a fatal blow’ is also indicative of Russian intent to NOT withdraw at any point in the future. His statement stands as evidence the Russia plans not only to claim a piece of Georgia for peacekeeping purposes (which, in theory, have an end) but permanently. That’s not the act of a nation attempting to quell a fire. That’s an act of a nation attempting to expand its territory by force.

In addition, Russia’s expansion of the conflict out of the disputed provinces including the bombing of civilian regions (apparently accidentally but still) well outside the conflict zone is an escalation of the bloodshed that would be difficult to justify under the reasoning of quelling trouble in the disputed provinces.

32

Hmm. Russia’s fighter jets into Georgian territory and overt support of separatists are irrelevant?

Seems like Russia did what she did with full knowledge that Georgia’s response was predictable. The cease fire has, I understand, never been a stable thing. This set of events serves Russia’s interests well. It makes NATO ask itself if it really wants to extend its umbrella as far as it considering. Does it really want to commit to defending places like Georgia against Russia? This will be a limited conflict and the message will have been sent.

33

More hmmm. Others more informed than I have similar analyses.

The TimeOnLine believes this was a “trap” set by Russia.

The Guardian also sees this as Russia having successfully provoked Georgia.

This is exactly what Russia wanted to happen. And she will get exactly the result she wants. Not good for the region in my view.

34

Oh, dirty words and assorted expletives! I do not like this situation!

Obviously we cannot interfere militarily, but the US and Europe must continue our efforts to allow Georgia into NATO and the EU. Russia must not be allowed to succeed in disrupting that, or they will be encouraged to repeat this kind of adventurism, not only by the acquisition of territory (which we cannot prevent if they decide they want it), but by “diplomatic” success.

35

And of course this will be viewed through the prism of an American election.

First off, it does seem to me that Russia is responsible and desirous of the events as they have unfurled. That said, McCain sure does seem to short on understanding how to best defuse situations and quick with pouring gasoline around open flames. Dang, even Bush has learned that such rhetoric is unhelpful.

How will it sell? Ach. Joe American sure does like his leaders standing tall in the saddle. (Even though every one knows that standing tall only makes you more likely to be shot.)

36

Interesting to see who looks like a world leader. Surely not the one with no experience! Yet somehow Obama is the one lined up with the world’s democratically elected world leaders, and there’s McCain hotdogging it out in left field.

37

If Georgia were a NATO member wouldn’t the US be obligated to assist her militarily if Russia invaded? :confused: That would make things, much, much worse.

38

“Urraaa! Urraaa! Ve bring de Jubilee!”

39

The US among all the other NATO members. That makes a big difference, I think. And I think the first steps would be economic rather than military, although I don’t know the exact terms of the NATO agreements.

The point is, if the PBS analysts are right, Russia is doing this precisely to prevent NATO and EU alliances and trade agreements for Georgia, which is apparently both more progressive and less corrupt than Russia is at this time. Although they no longer have an ideological agenda, I think Russia would love to have its USSR borders back, and let’s face it - its government, like China’s, has as its first and most important goal keeping itself in power. Unlike China though, it would seem it has expansionist tendencies, in influence at least, if not in actual territory.
I think this cannot be rewarded with success, and therefore we must plow through and make these political and economic agreements with Georgia. Otherwise we are likely to see Russia nipping off pieces of other surrounding nations that look like they might be becoming too cozy with Europe or the US or some other part of the world. Russia shouldn’t get its own private market to control and dictate to, any more than we should or any other nation should.

40

Want your mind really blown? His next project was titled Three-Term Bush: Seize the White House!