BANDOW: Strategic partners for what?

US interests in Georgia and Russia cannot be compared to each other, but one thing is for sure that the US has been involved in building energy pathways bypassing Russia to avoid Russia’s monopoly and thereby to create a stage of competition in energy prices in benefit of Europe and at the same time to have political leverage on reasserting Russia. It is obvious that such political and business investments have good profit potentials and Caucasus in general is quite attractive for risky investors. For these reasons it is important to have security guarantee of the region. Simply speaking, this issue so far was taken superficially by western politicians and it is time to demonstrate their “assistance” to Georgia for their own benefit. Regarding who stated the war, don’t forget why Russia withdrew from the 1996 CIS trade ban of Abkhazia without consulting the CIS heads or Georgian government and then started military buildup in Georgia’s breakaway provinces few months before the August 2008 war.

The ban on military and economic, financial, and other ties was imposed on Abkhazia following one of the worst episodes of ethnic cleansing of the past decades. Over 300,000 ethnic Georgians and others were chased from their homes by separatist militias, supported by Russian mercenaries. Most remain internally displaced persons, eking out a difficult living in the rest of Georgia. Since late ninties Russia has been issuing Russian passports to about 90% of the remaining, mostly Abkhaz, population. The Russian Government and Russian businessmen have seized assets throughout the province that legally belong to the Georgian state or to IDPs. Opening of military and trade relations with illegal regimes of Abkhazia and South Ossetia facilitated large-scale criminal activities, including drug and weapon smuggling and money laundering. The instructions given by Putin on March 6, 2008 and April 16, 2008 and subsequent Russian military build-up in Georgia’s breakaway regions clearly demonstrated that Russia was getting ready for forceful attack on Georgia and possible recognition of independence of these two provinces as its answer to the recognition of Kosovo by the UN and several of its member countries.

STATEMENT BY MEMBERS OF THE PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE IN RESPONSE TO THE PUTIN APRIL 16, 2008 INSTRUCTIONS ON BOOSTING TIES GEORGIA'S BREAKAWAY PROVINCES WITHOUT CONSULTING GEORGIAN GOVERNMENT The undersigned, 1. express deep concern over the decision of the Russian Federation to establish bilateral legal links with the Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia; 2. note that this destabilising decision undermines the internationally recognized sovereignty of Georgia; 3. consider that the current policy trend toward integrating part of Georgia’s territory into the Russian Federation violates international law and severely undermines the Government of Georgia’s efforts at peaceful reunification; 4. recall that the Abkhazia separatist de facto rule was established by forcibly expelling hundreds of thousands of civilians on the basis of ethnicity; underscore that Russia’s support to these rebels effectively legitimizes an internationally recognized act of ethnic cleansing; 5. recall Russia’s freely undertaken obligations and commitments to the Council of Europe, in particular as regards its commitment to conflict resolution through dialogue; 6. urge Russia to reverse this decision and respect its commitment to the territorial integrity of Georgia; 7. further note that in light of these developments, Russian troops operating as CIS peacekeepers under the ceasefire agreement of 14 May 1994 are not neutral but are a party to the conflicts; 8. call upon the UN Security Council to: replace the Russian contingent with truly impartial UN peacekeeping forces; boost the mandate and resources of UNOMIG to progressively replace CIS peacekeepers across Abkhazia, Georgia.

US interests in Georgia and Russia cannot be compared to each other, but one thing is for sure that the US has been involved in building energy pathways bypassing Russia to avoid Russia’s monopoly and thereby to create a stage of competition in energy prices in benefit of Europe and at the same time to have political leverage on reasserting Russia. It is obvious that such political and business investments have good profit potentials and Caucasus in general is quite attractive for risky investors. For these reasons it is important to have security guarantee of the region. Simply speaking, this issue so far was taken superficially by western politicians and it is time to demonstrate their “assistance” to Georgia for their own benefit. Regarding who stated the war, don’t forget why Russia withdrew from the 1996 CIS trade ban of Abkhazia without consulting the CIS heads or Georgian government and then started military buildup in Georgia’s breakaway provinces few months before the August 2008 war. The ban on military and economic, financial, and other ties was imposed on Abkhazia following one of the worst episodes of ethnic cleansing of the past decades. Over 300,000 ethnic Georgians and others were chased from their homes by separatist militias, supported by Russian mercenaries. Most remain internally displaced persons, eking out a difficult living in the rest of Georgia. Since late ninties Russia has been issuing Russian passports to about 90% of the remaining, mostly Abkhaz, population. The Russian Government and Russian businessmen have seized assets throughout the province that legally belong to the Georgian state or to IDPs. Opening military and trade relations with illegal regimes of Abkhazia and South Ossetia facilitated large-scale criminal activities, including drug and weapon smuggling and money laundering. The instructions given by Putin on March 6, 2008 and April 16, 2008 and subsequent Russian military build-up in Georgia’s breakaway regions clearly demonstrated that Russia was getting ready for forceful attack on Georgia and possible recognition of independence of these two provinces as its answer to the recognition of Kosovo by the UN and several of its member countries.

Bandow’s article is flawed. Firstly, much of what he represents as “fact” regarding the recent events in the Republic of Georgia are, in fact, nothing of the sort. For instance, his reference to OSCE reports comes from a discredited (and fired) OSCE source. Furthermore, Georgia is very much of strategic interest to the USA! Not that long ago, Mr. Bandow was a member of a favourite organization of mine: the CATO institute. Ask why they parted ways.

A balanced article. And other one which i read today. Remarks on the Georgian – Russian conflict of August 2008 and on Abkhazia (1995) By John Colarusso http://www.abkhazworld.com/articles/conflict/171-remarks-on-the-georgian-russian-conflict-of-august-2008-and-on-abkhazia-1995.html

BANDOW: Strategic Partners for What? 1/9/09 Amen, Mr. Bandow! The Masters-of-the-Universe mindset is still alive and well in our currently-reigning president, who--by his ham-fisted "diplomacy"--has done a good job of resurrecting the Cold War (among his other unnecessary troublemaking-ventures worldwide). His "strategic partnership" with Georgia now is a lot like Premier Krushchev arming Cuba in 1960; the U.S. considered the USSR's action to be an outrageous interference in our affairs and a real threat to our security back then, just as Russia currently views President Bush's present actions. Following the demise of the USSR in 1991, there was a window during which the U.S. and Russia could have gone a long way toward making peace, but President Bush insisted upon kicking Russia while she was down, and scrubbing her face in the mud. That policy gave Vladimir Putin credibility with the Russians, and now--as Russia's indisputable strongman--he is creating the framework by which to return all those favors we did Russia, with interest.

It has been signed already! It means that chances for construction of Nabucco gas pipeline has been dramatically increased and so decreased Russia's chances to freeze Europe. I would suggest Bandow and his fans to invest money in this venture.

Do we have a "strategic partnership" with any other state? Is this really a security treaty?

Yes, strategic partnership charters exist between the US and South Korea, the Baltic States and since the last December with Ukraine. As Georgian FM Grigol Vashadze noted today at his interview with FP this charter is "a very powerful signal to everybody that nobody -- first of all the United States -- is going to tolerate something like [the August war] again."

A former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, Mr. Bandow is probably one of those who advised the president against supporting Afghan resistance to Soviet occupation. Mr. Bandow would also argue that the US had no strategic interest in defending S. Korea from communist N. Korea, supported by Stalin. Mr. Bandow would also critisize the US involvement in British – Nazi German front or defending West Germany from Soviet troops in 1945-1990. West Germany, South Korea, and Afghanistan were bordering the Communist Space, therefore in Russia’s “area of privileged interests”. What strategic partnership could the US have with those war-torn poor countries? The answer is – that is exactly where the front line was. The front line between democratic world and Russian/Soviet expansionist imperialism. If the West gives up Georgia, Kremlin will demand to give up Ukraine. Then Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan. Then Putin will demand to give up Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Czech Republic, and many others. Keep in mind that even Finland used to be a part of the Russian Empire from 1809 to 1917, therefore it is also in Russia’s “area of privilieged interests”. Open any Soviet history book. “In 1939 Stalin had to reclaim (invade) Finland, because its borders were too close to St. Petersburg (then Leningrad), threatening Soviet Union’s security”. Does this sound familiar? If it does not, then you should learn more about Russian expansionism from 17th century. But before you get there, I will remind you that Russia opposes Georgia’s and Ukraine’s NATO aspirations, because the alliance is “encroaching Russia’s borders”. Think of a gangster neighbor who tells you that you are not allowed to be friends with people he does not like. Russian political leaders do not think in terms of international law, they think in terms of 17-19th century concepts. If you give Georgia (population of 5 Mln) and Ukraine (population of 52 Mln) to Russia today, tomorrow you will have to deal with Russia that is ready to commit to a war nearly 200 Mln of population (not 140 Mln as of today). If Russia subdues Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan today, tomorrow you will deal with Russia that controls twice as much energy resources. In 1920-25 the West ignored Russia invading all these countries. 20 years later, the West had to deal with Stalin (a model leader for Putin) who controlled not only Soviet Union (350 Mln), but also East and Central Europe. Now, think about the US strategic interests again…

Great article Joseph Kennedy. However the OSCE monitor you mention withdrew his statement in an interview with the Wall Street Journal and said he never claimed there were no provocations by the Russians and South Ossetians. Anyone familiar with Georgia before August will know there were numerous provocations by the Ossetian militias. However it seems anyone with an agenda and an ignorance of the region has been milking that quote for all its worth.

Mind you having watched both the hardly impartial Ryan Grist and Bandow's own Antiwar?.com contribute their own selective, bigoted version of events on the tacky Putinette propaganda channel Russia Today, makes the tone of this article hardly surprising. Amazing how a website called Antiwar.com is frantically justifying ethnic cleansing and occupation by the Russians in Georgia. Makes me wonder who is paying the bills nowadays Dougy?

It was a reasonable article on the strategic alliance idea. The Georgians and Neocons should know that Russia will bomb Saakashvili or a new puppet to dust no matter how many strategic partners they may have if they proceed with their typical behaviour. This is a coward people acting from behind what is inherited in them, and no US money will help them unless they realize that next time Tbilisi will be grounded if provocations on Abkhaz or Osetian borders happen again. A nation who asked by its own goodwill for an alliance with Russia 300 years ago and grunted a requested independence 20 years ago, today behaves provocative and deserves to be forced to behave by all means available. For US there is no point to be a target while "strategically partnering" with a bunch of cowards.

To TommyGandalf: The british colonel who was OSCE monitor in the field resigned because his bosses were not happy with the truth - that Georgia was the aggressor. He made an investigation on his own initiative, against the order to go back to Tbilisi.I remind you that the US private military company MPRI was training Georgians, thousands of the Georgian officers got training in the US and NATO countries. Total bill - 3 bln doll from the pockets of the US taxpayers. My guess is it was the last shot of Mr Cheney in his plans on global control of energy resorces transportation routes.