NYT - Nice Analysis Of Events Leading to Georgia Russia Conflict - Bush FP At Work

[Median Democrat]

Here is a nice analysis of the events that lead to the current conflict. I asked in a separate thread how is that the US was "surprised" by Georgia's initial attack given the close relationship between the US military and Georgia? Well, perhaps they weren't based on this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/11/world/europe/11ticktock.html?em

/snip

Several other long-term factors had also contributed to the possibility of war. They included the Kremlin’s military successes in Chechnya, which gave Russia the latitude and sense of internal security it needed to free up troops to cross its borders, and the exuberant support of the United States for President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia, a figure loathed by the Kremlin on both personal and political terms.

Moreover, by preparing Georgian soldiers for duty in Iraq, the United States appeared to have helped embolden Georgia, if inadvertently, to enter a fight it could not win.

American officials and a military officer who have dealt with Georgia said privately that as a result, the war risked becoming a foreign policy catastrophe for the United States, whose image and authority in the region were in question after it had proven unable to assist Georgia or to restrain the Kremlin while the Russian Army pressed its attack.

* * *

This feeling was especially true among Russian specialists, who said that, whatever the merits of Mr. Saakashvili’s positions, his impulsiveness and nationalism sometimes outstripped his common sense.

The risks were intensified by the fact that the United States did not merely encourage Georgia’s young democracy, it helped militarize the weak Georgian state.

/snip

[DailyGrind51]

1. Great article! It is complimentary to this one concerning Russian Nationalism.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2242/is_1626_279/ai_77712793

"Dugin belongs to the school of what is called Eurasianism, a philosophical and quasi-political movement that began with Russian emigres who had fled the Bolshevik regime in the 1920s. Eurasianists were in many ways similar to traditional Russian nationalists. For example, they believed in the corporate/collectivist nature of Russia/Eurasia and asserted that Western-style democracy was foreign to the country's political culture. They also berated the West for its absence of a grand goal and a sense of spiritual messianism. For them, the West was crass, materialistic and, of course, morally rotten. What made the various brands of Eurasianists different from traditional Russian nationalists was their assumption that Russia's spiritual tone was not so much Slavic as Asian in origin. The leftist branch of the movement soon forgot about its anti-Bolshevik stand and began to identify with the communists. In their view the Marxist coating of the regime was merely a thin veneer, and beneath it one could easily discer n that the Bolsheviks were traditional Russian nationalists/Eurasiansists because they had made Russia strong again and had established an empire.

Since the collapse of the Soviet regime, there has been a growing dissatisfaction with the West, and the Eurasianists' views are becoming increasingly popular among various groups of the Russian nationalistic elite. Dugin is the most prominent spokesman for this group of intellectuals, and thus while planning my trip to Russia recently I thought it might be a good idea to interview him. I was anxious to meet this prophet of the coming nationalistic revolution which would lead Russia/Eurasia to a final Armageddon with the West.(read more)..."

Is it so difficult to imagine that there are Russian versions of "Neo-cons", Russians who dream of a "greater Russia" and willing to do anything to achieve that dream? They may fail, but cause a great deal of destruction in their efforts.

[Supersedeas]

2. a legacy of incompetence -- what book with Condi Rice write to revise the record

[Median Democrat]

3. How Does GOP They Spin This? If the US Truly Did Not Know...

That Georgia was going to launch a "surprise" offensive, then someone in the CIA needs to be fired. We have 150 military advisors working with Georgia and 2000 Georgian troops in Iraq. So, are we to believe that the US was once again caught by surprise by the actions of one of its allies?

Or, did Georgia initiate this attack with the tacit approval and support of the U.S.? Is the real miscalculation by the U.S. that Russia would not be able to mass it forces in response to a surprise attack by Georgia? According to the article, Russia did not seemed poised for an invasion, so the US and Georgia got caught flat footed by the swiftness of Russia's counter-attack.

Perhaps this explains the deer caught in headlights look of George Bush. Does he disclaim knowledge of the Georgia attack? Or, does he own up to it, and acknowledge that he promised to back-up Georgia, but is surprised by the ferocity of the Russian counter-attack, which has been threatened since at least 2006.

So, if we are going to follow this charade that the US did not know about Georgia's initial attack because it was a surprise, then I guess they should fire the CIA Director to complete the illusion.

Neither Russia nor Georgia are in the complete right or wrong in this one, but regardless, the US is stuck with a screw up of a foreign policy mess.

[On the Road]

4. Much of the Time,

Condi's background as a Soviet expert may have been irrelevant. Occasionally it may have been an obstacle.

This is one situation you would have thought she should have been on top of.

[AuntPatsy]

5. and the msm will ignore it while the war drum enablers beat continuously....

[Disturbed]

6. Ms. Rice has been to busy shopping for shoes & playing piano.

She cannot be expected to keep up with what is happening anywhere.