Who Wants to Die for Sukhumi

Via Farley and Nexon, an instance of what Nexon terms NATO issuing "checks it probably can't cash" in the Russo-Georgian conflict over Abkhazia. Quite so.

It would be appallingly stupid for the United States or our other key allies to put anything whatsoever on the line for the sake of Georgia's efforts to reassert control over its rebellious province. The question of maintaining a good relationship with an important country, Russia, versus standing up for the independence of Russia's neighbors poses some tough dilemmas. But when the issue is Georgia's effort to rule over a province that by all indications doesn't want to be ruled by Tblisi, the dilemma really isn't difficult at all. We should just stay far, far, far away from this dispute and try to make it clear to our friends in Georgia that we don't encourage them to do anything stupid.

Comments

we don't encourage them to do anything stupid.

The Bush administration should discourage people from doing stupid things?

I bite my tongue.

Posted by Duncan Kinder | June 9, 2008 11:36 AM

No, this is too far into isolationism for my taste. If Canada started offering citizenship to the inhabitants of Seattle, or France started encouraging the Walloons to secede from Belgium, we'd say that this was pretty unwarranted interference and would merit a pretty stout diplomatic response. Obviously it makes no sense to fight a war, but in general states which do stupid and aggressive things ought to find it more difficult to get their own wishes from international diplomacy realised and that's what Russia is doing. If NATO isn't going to do the job of telling Russia where to get off, who will?

Posted by dsquared | June 9, 2008 11:42 AM

I'd agree that we should encourage the Georgians not to do anything stupid and that we should not imply that we'll send troops into a shooting war here. But, I think you're not getting the situation quite right. Abkhazia is primarily a criminal enclave that broke away in hopes of keeping mafia-type activity going. They were supported in this by Russia as part of Russia's attempts to re-assert control over for former Soviet republics. There is good reason why we should try to discourage expansionist activity by Russia against the former republics. How, exactly, this can be done is a hard question but one that won't be answered by a sort of simple-minded realist analysis like this one. At the least we need to try to promote multi-lateral talks to prevent war but also to make as clear as possible to Russia that it can't cut pieces off of the former Soviet republics just because it would like to. The best path would lead to Georgia re-asserting some level of control over the mafia statelet of Abkhazia but at the minimum keeping the Russians from taking it ought to be the goal of significant pressure.

Posted by matt (not the famous one) | June 9, 2008 11:43 AM

dsquared, I agree with you in the abstract. However, I'm not sure exactly NATO would be able to go about telling Russia to knock it off. Russia knows we aren't going to commit troops to Georgia. This isn't a big enough deal to us that we would be willing to fast track Russian WTO membership if they played nice. Europe is becoming increasingly dependent on Russia for oil and natural gas (Putin wrote his thesis on how the Soviet Union could use its energy resources to leverage power over Europe). What tools do we have at this time against Russia?

Posted by Reality Man | June 9, 2008 12:08 PM

Anne Applebaum is hiking up her stockings and loading her M-16. She's ready to parachute in at a moment's notice. This is critical to America's future. If Georgia is not free, America is not free.

Posted by bjk | June 9, 2008 12:29 PM

Matt writes, "....when the issue is Georgia's effort to rule over a province that by all indications doesn't want to be ruled by Tblisi"

Well, yes and no. Like many things in life, the situation is much more complicated. To answer only the point about what the Abkhaz want - Sukhumi does indeed prefer not to be ruled by Tbilisi. However, the current governent and ethnic composition of Abkhazia is the result of a bloody civil war which culminated in the ethnic cleansing of over 200,000 ethnic Georgians from the region. (ICG report 2006)

While there were many atrocities on both sides of the conflict, I only mean to point out that it is disingenous to claim that the "people" prefer rule by Moscow, considering the means by which the current demographic balance was reached.

Posted by &chik | June 9, 2008 12:32 PM

Readying for my term paper for my (middle aka Heraclius to Basil II) Byzantine class, I can only remark that the tribes in the Caucasus have been killing, oppressing, and getting killed by each other since the beginning of recorded human existence.

The best take on this was the War Nerd's articles on Chechnya, Beslan, and Ossetia. These people will literally fight until there is no one left (the Chechens will probably vanish, for example).

Posted by Greg | June 9, 2008 12:38 PM

Yes, it is quite disingenuous to claim that the "people" of Abkhazia prefer rule by Russia to Georgia. That's like saying the "people" of Darfur prefer rule by Khartoum.

In fact, the majority of the population of Abkhazia until the recent ethnic cleansing was Georgian and does not support an independent Abkhazia and certainly doesn't support annexation by Russia, which is what is really on offer here.

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that we should support Georgia, but I think you are using weasel words here. Feel free to abandon former Soviet states to Russian aggression and dismemberment if you desire that, but don't pretend that you are following the popular will in such cases.

Posted by Hektor Bim | June 9, 2008 12:47 PM

While I'm generally very sympathetic to Putin and the Russian cause, I feel it would be best for Russia to let Chechnya go. Russia is already 10% Muslim and she _really_ does not need an extra 1 million Muslims within their border, particularly a traditionally violent and fundamentalist culture like the Chechens. She would do much better to jettison Chechnya and other Muslim regions of the Caucasus and let them go their separate ways. Let them have their polygamy and headscarves. Much good may it do them.

Posted by Hector | June 9, 2008 12:49 PM

What's you view on the Orange Revolution? After all, Russia has made it very clear that it doesn't support Ukraine getting closer to the West, isn't happy about it joining the EU, and is apoplectic about it joining NATO. If Russia tries to foment an uprising in the Crimean peninsula or the Donbass, would you be in favor of not upsetting the Russians?

Posted by Hektor Bim | June 9, 2008 12:51 PM

"While I'm generally very sympathetic to Putin"

What part of that reign most appealed? the organised racial violence? The seizing of private assets for state gain? The use of natural resources as a weapon? Recreating the secret service? Fixing an election he would have won anyway? Destruction of the fragile free media?

I'm guessing from the delightful sentences which follow it's the racial violence.

"Traditionally violent" - as opposed to the centuries of tranquility 'white' Russians enjoyed, I'm assuming.

Posted by James | June 9, 2008 1:27 PM

Well, you know it's a proven theory if you let the Russians take over Abkhazia, all of Europe will go. Dominos, people, dominos! God, you'd think we didn't learn anything from Vietnam.

Posted by Glenn | June 9, 2008 1:49 PM

What part of that reign most appealed?

Highly questionable use of the past tense there, James. Of course, your comment will just be erased anyway, I'm sure.

Posted by Glenn | June 9, 2008 1:52 PM

Hi Glenn,

It was deliberate, since 'officially' Putin is no longer in power, being Prime Minster. Of course in reality it's all a show to tighten his grip.

Posted by James | June 9, 2008 1:57 PM

I'm not sure why you think Putin ought to listening to the carping of Western liberals, instead of doing what the Russian people need. If that means staying in power indefinitely, so be it. Thankfully, Putin has better sense than to listen to you guys. I like Putin because he took some time to slap around the capitalists and the Western collaborators and because he has made the point that Russia will not be anyone's lapdog.

I'm not white, so your nonsense about racial violence is just silly.

Posted by Hector | June 9, 2008 2:04 PM

Hector,

I didn't say anything about him listening to the West. I was commenting about your ill-informed fanboy praise for Putin.

What part of 'racial violence' is silly? If you have no knowledge about the increasing attacks on foreigners in Russia, and the evidence of at least some of them being state coordinated, then you really are clueless.

And given that only half of the Muslims in Russia identify themselves religiously as such, given religions obliteration through communism, then perhaps you are identifying them by other means. Racially perhaps? or just by a headscarve count?

I'm not sure where being 'not white' translates into 'I can't be a racist/bigot'.

'white' russian was a play on 'White' and 'Red' Russia, you know, the Russian revolution. I obviously overestimated you to know that, let alone figure it out.

Posted by James | June 9, 2008 2:15 PM

Regarding Matt's comment: Abkhazia is primarily a criminal enclave that broke away in hopes of keeping mafia-type activity going. They were supported in this by Russia as part of Russia's attempts to re-assert control over for former Soviet republics.

You could not be further from the truth, and it saddens me that people are so reckless with their words before they have conducted the proper research necessary.

Abkhazia is a sovereign nation in all ways possible, except of course recognition by the world. These people endured years of hardships under Georgian oppression and have every right to declare themselves a free state. They merely want the same rights that Georgians enjoyed. The war in 1992 broke out precisely for that reason: they were treated like second class citizens and had been for decades, if not centuries. They were forced to join Georgia a few times in the past, the most recent time being under Stalin's (an ethnic Georgian)rule. Georginization took effect in the 1920's onward, with Abkhazians not being allowed to learn their language in schools and maintain their culture. Fearing assimilation and other sources of concern, they broke off.

Mafia-style activity, as you so eloquently put it, exists all over Russia and its former republics. Georgia is DEFINITELY not immune to this. Thus, this comment is quite stupid. Do you mean to insinuate that the entire Abkhazian nation indulges in criminal activity?

This is why mass media is scary sometimes. You have people like Mr. Matt here writing garbage that he probably knows little about or probably quoted from someone else, and we the naive public are supposed to take it to heart. No, sir, thankfully this time there are ways to find out the truth about Abkhazia. You can start by searching this site here: http://www.circassianworld.com

Cheers.

Posted by Katia | June 9, 2008 4:43 PM

Regarding Matt's comment: Abkhazia is primarily a criminal enclave that broke away in hopes of keeping mafia-type activity going. They were supported in this by Russia as part of Russia's attempts to re-assert control over for former Soviet republics.

You could not be further from the truth, and it saddens me that people are so reckless with their words before they have conducted the proper research necessary.

Abkhazia is a sovereign nation in all ways possible, except of course recognition by the world. These people endured years of hardships under Georgian oppression and have every right to declare themselves a free state. They merely want the same rights that Georgians enjoyed. The war in 1992 broke out precisely for that reason: they were treated like second class citizens and had been for decades, if not centuries. They were forced to join Georgia a few times in the past, the most recent time being under Stalin's (an ethnic Georgian)rule. Georginization took effect in the 1920's onward, with Abkhazians not being allowed to learn their language in schools and maintain their culture. Fearing assimilation and other sources of concern, they broke off.

Mafia-style activity, as you so eloquently put it, exists all over Russia and its former republics. Georgia is DEFINITELY not immune to this. Thus, this comment is quite stupid. Do you mean to insinuate that the entire Abkhazian nation indulges in criminal activity?

This is why mass media is scary sometimes. You have people like Mr. Matt here writing garbage that he probably knows little about or probably quoted from someone else, and we the naive public are supposed to take it to heart. No, sir, thankfully this time there are ways to find out the truth about Abkhazia. You can start by searching this site here: http://www.circassianworld.com

Cheers.

Posted by Katia | June 9, 2008 4:44 PM

Regarding Matt's comment: Abkhazia is primarily a criminal enclave that broke away in hopes of keeping mafia-type activity going. They were supported in this by Russia as part of Russia's attempts to re-assert control over for former Soviet republics.

You could not be further from the truth, and it saddens me that people are so reckless with their words before they have conducted the proper research necessary.

Abkhazia is a sovereign nation in all ways possible, except of course recognition by the world. These people endured years of hardships under Georgian oppression and have every right to declare themselves a free state. They merely want the same rights that Georgians enjoyed. The war in 1992 broke out precisely for that reason: they were treated like second class citizens and had been for decades, if not centuries. They were forced to join Georgia a few times in the past, the most recent time being under Stalin's (an ethnic Georgian)rule. Georginization took effect in the 1920's onward, with Abkhazians not being allowed to learn their language in schools and maintain their culture. Fearing assimilation and other sources of concern, they broke off.

Mafia-style activity, as you so eloquently put it, exists all over Russia and its former republics. Georgia is DEFINITELY not immune to this. Thus, this comment is quite stupid. Do you mean to insinuate that the entire Abkhazian nation indulges in criminal activity?

This is why mass media is scary sometimes. You have people like Mr. Matt here writing garbage that he probably knows little about or probably quoted from someone else, and we the naive public are supposed to take it to heart. No, sir, thankfully this time there are ways to find out the truth about Abkhazia. You can start by searching this site here: http://www.circassianworld.com

Cheers.

Posted by Katia | June 9, 2008 4:44 PM

my understanding is that this "independence" movement was instigated by Russia to block the planned pipeline path from the Caspian to the Mediterranean, and increase Russian control over the oil in that region.

This is still the Great Game

Posted by frank | June 9, 2008 4:45 PM

Regarding Matt's comment: Abkhazia is primarily a criminal enclave that broke away in hopes of keeping mafia-type activity going. They were supported in this by Russia as part of Russia's attempts to re-assert control over for former Soviet republics.

You could not be further from the truth, and it saddens me that people are so reckless with their words before they have conducted the proper research necessary.

Abkhazia is a sovereign nation in all ways possible, except of course recognition by the world. These people endured years of hardships under Georgian oppression and have every right to declare themselves a free state. They merely want the same rights that Georgians enjoyed. The war in 1992 broke out precisely for that reason: they were treated like second class citizens and had been for decades, if not centuries. They were forced to join Georgia a few times in the past, the most recent time being under Stalin's (an ethnic Georgian)rule. Georginization took effect in the 1920's onward, with Abkhazians not being allowed to learn their language in schools and maintain their culture. Fearing assimilation and other sources of concern, they broke off.

Mafia-style activity, as you so eloquently put it, exists all over Russia and its former republics. Georgia is DEFINITELY not immune to this. Thus, this comment is quite stupid. Do you mean to insinuate that the entire Abkhazian nation indulges in criminal activity?

This is why mass media is scary sometimes. You have people like Mr. Matt here writing garbage that he probably knows little about or probably quoted from someone else, and we the naive public are supposed to take it to heart. No, sir, thankfully this time there are ways to find out the truth about Abkhazia. You can start by searching this site here: http://www.circassianworld.com

Cheers.
P.S. By the way, ethnic cleansing of Georgians? You are aware that the numbers they insinuate were "ethnically cleansed" is incorrect, right? And that the bulk of those numbers constitute people who left Abkhazia due to the rising tensions between Georgians and native Abkhaz? How can a poorly equipped and simple people who were entirely unprepared for the Georgian invasion of their land could have come up with such an extensive and well planned plot to ethnically cleanse their neighbors? Does that make sense to anyone? Anyone who's been in the region knows that there's something wrong with this claim. And yes I know it has been recognized by OSCE and whatever, I am most interested in learning how they came to that conclusion and with what evidence. If there are supposedly 250,000 (another inflated figure) IDP's in Georgia, how many were killed and how many actually fled?

This is why you shouldn't take mass media reportings to heart and try to ferret the truth of a particular issue for yourself.

Posted by Katia | June 9, 2008 4:48 PM

Regarding Matt's comment: Abkhazia is primarily a criminal enclave that broke away in hopes of keeping mafia-type activity going. They were supported in this by Russia as part of Russia's attempts to re-assert control over for former Soviet republics.

You could not be further from the truth, and it saddens me that people are so reckless with their words before they have conducted the proper research necessary.

Abkhazia is a sovereign nation in all ways possible, except of course recognition by the world. These people endured years of hardships under Georgian oppression and have every right to declare themselves a free state. They merely want the same rights that Georgians enjoyed. The war in 1992 broke out precisely for that reason: they were treated like second class citizens and had been for decades, if not centuries. They were forced to join Georgia a few times in the past, the most recent time being under Stalin's (an ethnic Georgian)rule. Georginization took effect in the 1920's onward, with Abkhazians not being allowed to learn their language in schools and maintain their culture. Fearing assimilation and other sources of concern, they broke off.

Mafia-style activity, as you so eloquently put it, exists all over Russia and its former republics. Georgia is DEFINITELY not immune to this. Thus, this comment is quite stupid. Do you mean to insinuate that the entire Abkhazian nation indulges in criminal activity?

This is why mass media is scary sometimes. You have people like Mr. Matt here writing garbage that he probably knows little about or probably quoted from someone else, and we the naive public are supposed to take it to heart. No, sir, thankfully this time there are ways to find out the truth about Abkhazia. You can start by searching this site here: http://www.circassianworld.com

Cheers.
P.S. By the way, ethnic cleansing of Georgians? You are aware that the numbers they insinuate were "ethnically cleansed" is incorrect, right? And that the bulk of those numbers constitute people who left Abkhazia due to the rising tensions between Georgians and native Abkhaz? How can a poorly equipped and simple people who were entirely unprepared for the Georgian invasion of their land could have come up with such an extensive and well planned plot to ethnically cleanse their neighbors? Does that make sense to anyone? Anyone who's been in the region knows that there's something wrong with this claim. And yes I know it has been recognized by OSCE and whatever, I am most interested in learning how they came to that conclusion and with what evidence. If there are supposedly 250,000 (another inflated figure) IDP's in Georgia, how many were killed and how many actually fled?

This is why you shouldn't take mass media reportings to heart and try to ferret the truth of a particular issue for yourself.

Posted by Katia | June 9, 2008 4:51 PM

So Abkhazians are basically helping Russians to screw themselves? Does that make sense to you?

Posted by Katia | June 9, 2008 4:57 PM

P.S. I am sorry for the double posting, seems my connection is a bit off here.

Posted by Katia | June 9, 2008 5:00 PM

I'm afraid I'm just going to have to disagree with you, Katia. It's an area of the world I'm pretty interested in, having lived in Russia for quite a while and having friends in many countries in the caucus countries. I think that what you're presenting is pretty much pure Russian propaganda, of the sort shown in RTR or CTC all the time but not believable to anyone else.

Posted by matt (not the famous one) | June 9, 2008 5:19 PM

If it is "Russian propoganda" then why not disprove it? Can you prove that the Abkhazians are essentially a part of the Georgian nation, and have never been surpressed, never had independence, and want to be a part of either Russia or Georgia?

I lived in the Caucasus for years as well and still have a family home there. I'm very curious to learn what type of media you read or watch.

It's very easy to dismiss an opinion or information that you don't agree with or, in fact, know nothing about, as "pure Russian propoganda".

Posted by Katia | June 9, 2008 5:41 PM

If it is "Russian propoganda" then why not disprove it? Can you prove that the Abkhazians are essentially a part of the Georgian nation, and have never been surpressed, never had independence, and want to be a part of either Russia or Georgia?

I lived in the Caucasus for years as well and still have a family home there. But this is besides the point. I probably should not mention that I've been in Abkhazia several times, including the time they were at odds with Georgia in 1993. Hence, I'm very curious to learn what type of media you read or watch. I did not realize that having Caucasian friends and living in Moscow made you an expert on Abkhazian history?

It's very easy to dismiss an opinion or information that you don't agree with or, in fact, know nothing about, as "pure Russian propoganda".

Posted by Katia | June 9, 2008 5:43 PM

If it is "Russian propoganda" then why not disprove it? Can you prove that the Abkhazians are essentially a part of the Georgian nation, and have never been surpressed, never had independence, and want to be a part of either Russia or Georgia?

I lived in the Caucasus for years as well and still have a family home there. But this is besides the point. I probably should not mention that I've been in Abkhazia several times, including the time they were at odds with Georgia in 1993. Hence, I'm very curious to learn what type of media you read or watch. I did not realize that having Caucasian friends and living in Moscow made you an expert on Abkhazian history?

It's very easy to dismiss an opinion or information that you don't agree with or, in fact, know nothing about, as "pure Russian propoganda".

Posted by Katia | June 9, 2008 5:45 PM

Re: Katia

I'd be the first to admit that the Georgians under Gamsakhurdia took a nationalistic approach to their new-found independence and bear much blame for the conflicts in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. In their rush to throw off Russian domination, Georgians shortsightedly flew to a new extreme, forgetting their cosmopolitan and multi-ethnic past, and creating valid fear in the non-Georgian enclaves that only ethnic Georgians would have place in the new Georgia.

However, it is factually incorrect to claim that the Abkhaz had no rights in the Georgian SSR. Abkhazia was one of only a few autonomous republics in the USSR, and enjoyed national rights that the Chechens, for example, did not.

It is also factually incorrect to state that the Abkhaz were subjugated for centuries by the Georgians. Abkhazia, like Georgia, was part of the Russian empire from the late 1800s onward. So, if the Abkhaz felt oppressed, they only needed to look northward, rather than east.

As someone who has "spent time in the region," I know that it is not feasible to believe that the Abkhaz had the military or organizational strength to combat a national army. However, Georgia did not have a national army, and the Abkhaz did not fight alone. Circa the early 1990s, the Georgians had no army and were fighting with a ragtag militia. The Abkhaz were fighting with the tacit and non-tacit support of Russian troops in Abkhazia. These troops were remnants of the Soviet position on the Black Sea and answered (albeit tenuously) to Moscow.

Finally, I am inclined to believe the OSCE, UN, and ICG over a random Abkhaz-sponsored website. However, all are welcome to form their own conclusions as to the motivations and factual basis of various sources.

Posted by &chik | June 9, 2008 5:54 PM

"Abkhazia is primarily a criminal enclave that broke away in hopes of keeping mafia-type activity going"

And this is different from Kosovo how?

"You have people like Mr. Matt here writing garbage that he probably knows little about or probably quoted from someone else..."

Yeah, that pretty much sums up Matt. He can't talk about Iran, but he can babble about some like fucking place in Eastern Europe nobody gives a rat's ass about.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 9, 2008 6:43 PM

&Chick, commenting on some of your remarks:

1) However, it is factually incorrect to claim that the Abkhaz had no rights in the Georgian SSR. Abkhazia was one of only a few autonomous republics in the USSR, and enjoyed national rights that the Chechens, for example, did not.

K: The Abkhaz, as I stated, were not treated like their Georgian neighbors. I already elaborated on that above. Why do you think Georgians invaded Abkhazia? Precisely because they were not willing to grant the Abkhazians the autonomy and rights that they deserved. This is all documented and you can easily look this up.

2) It is also factually incorrect to state that the Abkhaz were subjugated for centuries by the Georgians. Abkhazia, like Georgia, was part of the Russian empire from the late 1800s onward. So, if the Abkhaz felt oppressed, they only needed to look northward, rather than east.

K: Really? Yes, indeed they were subjegated by Russians, but you neglect to note that Abkhazia became an independent republic after Lenin took over. It was only a short while later that the newly created Soviet Union forcibly integrated it back within Georgian borders. I am not sure you realized that.

Overall, this is a sad state of events, but I am writing here merely to note on the fact that mass media, perhaps for various reasons (one of which I can surmise has to do with who pays their salaries and owns them) continuously neglects to note the Abkhazians' version of this problem. By the way, that site is an independent site and not sponsored by the Abkhaz government. Perhaps if you read some of the articles posted there instead of choosing to just go with the consensus mainstream and blindly support Georgian opinion, you might become more enlightened as to the true events that occured there. I suppose bringing up the fact that hundreds of thousands of Abkhazian diaspora now live in foreign countries and do not have priority to return to their ancestral homelands doesn't mean anything to someone like you.

Thank you for reading what I had to say. Although I am definitely disappointed, but not surprised, that you would choose to bury your head in the sand regarding this issue.

Cheers,
Katia

Posted by Katia | June 9, 2008 6:45 PM

&Chick, commenting on some of your remarks:

1) However, it is factually incorrect to claim that the Abkhaz had no rights in the Georgian SSR. Abkhazia was one of only a few autonomous republics in the USSR, and enjoyed national rights that the Chechens, for example, did not.

K: The Abkhaz, as I stated, were not treated like their Georgian neighbors. I already elaborated on that above. Why do you think Georgians invaded Abkhazia? Precisely because they were not willing to grant the Abkhazians the autonomy and rights that they deserved. This is all documented and you can easily look this up.

2) It is also factually incorrect to state that the Abkhaz were subjugated for centuries by the Georgians. Abkhazia, like Georgia, was part of the Russian empire from the late 1800s onward. So, if the Abkhaz felt oppressed, they only needed to look northward, rather than east.

K: Really? Yes, indeed they were subjegated by Russians, but you neglect to note that Abkhazia became an independent republic after Lenin took over. It was only a short while later that the newly created Soviet Union forcibly integrated it back within Georgian borders. I am not sure you realized that.

Overall, this is a sad state of events, but I am writing here merely to note on the fact that mass media, perhaps for various reasons (one of which I can surmise has to do with who pays their salaries and owns them) continuously neglects to note the Abkhazians' version of this problem. By the way, that site is an independent site and not sponsored by the Abkhaz government. Perhaps if you read some of the articles posted there instead of choosing to just go with the consensus mainstream and blindly support Georgian opinion, you might become more enlightened as to the true events that occured there. I suppose bringing up the fact that hundreds of thousands of Abkhazian diaspora now live in foreign countries and do not have priority to return to their ancestral homelands doesn't mean anything to someone like you.

Thank you for reading what I had to say. Although I am definitely disappointed, but not surprised, that you would choose to bury your head in the sand regarding this issue.

Cheers,
Katia

Posted by Katia | June 9, 2008 6:47 PM

Richard, sorry, but I give a rat's ass about that fucking shithole in Eastern Europe (by the way, it's in the Caucasus, not Eastern Europe). My ancestors lived and died there for millenia and beyond. And now we're in danger of full extinction thanks to corrupt foreign powers trying to muscle their way in and rape the land of natural resources and what not. Justice can be served here for once. That is why I chose to write.

Cheers.

Posted by Katia | June 9, 2008 6:55 PM

Katia,

I'll concede that your emotional interest in this issue is greater than mine, but I'm not ceding an inch on the facts.

You claimed in your original post that the Abkhaz were "treated like second class citizens and had been for decades, if not centuries"

In turn, I pointed out that from the late 1800s onward the Abkhaz were ruled by the Russians, not by the Georgian. I did, in fact, know that the Georgians took over de jure control after Lenin. However, I was merely contesting your original point that the Abkhaz had been dominated for centuries. Let's do some math: 1992 - 1931 (when Stalin ceded Abkhazia to Georgia)= 61. Sixty-three does not equal centuries, no matter what kind of math you do.

Posted by &chik | June 9, 2008 7:47 PM

Oops - Even by funny math I meant to write sixty-one, not sixty-three.

P.S. I have read the relavent docs (in Russian, at that) and know the arguments. I just believe that the Georgians are on the right side of this issue. To assume that anyone who doesn't agree with you is ignorant or "burying their heads in the sand" doesn't show a lot of intellectual flexibility. How about this - I will respect that you know about this subject (and the human cost) and that you hold a certain set of beliefs. In turn, you'll have to take me at my word that I'm not some ignoramous who just spouts off at a moment's notice and concede that it is possible to know and understand the facts and still disagree.

Miru Mir?

Posted by &chik | June 9, 2008 7:52 PM

*sigh*

&Chick, what about the pre-Russian rule? Come on...

Ironically, emotional interest does not fare as much as years of research into the matter. I am a fairly logical person and work in a field where I'm forced to use logical means on a daily basis. I do have roots from the region, but if they were wrong, I wouldn't mind saying so. However, I am hesitant to believe that my family's stories and all the evidence that I have piled up for years in my library are based on fabrications.

While I appreciate you pinpointing and focusing on that one comment alone (which I could have very well made clearer with a few edits), I am confused as to why you believe the Georgians are in the right. Perhaps you can explain that to me while I ask my grandmother if she lied to me about her grandparents' exile from their homes.

Instead of focusing on this fact, which I regret at this point even mentioning, how about trying to look at it from their perspective? Who knows, you may actually learn something.

Bottom line: don't judge a book by its cover.

And yet again, I'm disappointed by a bunch of strangers on the Internet who talk about a subject they know little or not much of and choose to spout off on it without realizing that they lack a great deal of information about it.

Cheers, gentlemen.

P.S. &Chick, I am fully aware of the Georgian version of events. However, I would advise you to do some research on their history. You may be surprised by what you find.

Take care, all the best. This will be my final... comment.

Posted by Katia | June 9, 2008 7:59 PM

Just one more thing, &Chick:

If I was a Georgian, would my words have made a difference?

Posted by Katia | June 9, 2008 8:30 PM

Katia: "My ancestors lived and died there for millenia and beyond. And now we're in danger of full extinction..."

Ethnic extinction happens all the time. Nothing for the US to give a damn about - which is the point here.

My other point was that Kosovo is a state full of Muslim Mafia and apparently nobody cared to bring that up when Clinton decided to bomb Serbia - and now we're supposed to recognize independence for it as well.

Bottom line: Not one thin dime of US taxpayer money should be expended to deal with any country's problems outside of the US - unless it is a question of a natural disaster. And no, political conflicts which result in genocide or whatever are not "natural disasters".

If someone who lives in the affected region wants to argue with someone else who lives in the affected regime, fine. But 99 percent of the US population doesn't give a shit - and shouldn't.

The problem for Matt here is that IIRC he supported Clinton's intervention over Kosovo. Now he goes the other way on some other little place nobody in the US ever heard of.

In fact, why is Matt even bothering to comment on what NATO does? NATO is not the US, regardless of our treaty obligations. Let NATO get its ass shot off if the EU is stupid enough to do so. Let the US stay out of it. Why does the US have to take the lead on every NATO issue that arises?

Answer: Money. Somebody has oil, or somebody has drugs, or somebody has resources some rich assholes in the US and Europe wants. It's that simple.

But you never hear this from Matt - because he doesn't know and doesn't care. He prefers to babble on as if any of this actually is related to some sort of "international principles" or "humanitarianism."

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 9, 2008 8:44 PM

Abkhazia is in no way even a quasi-independent state. More than 3/4 of the people remaining (that weren't ethnically cleansed in the war) have taken Russian citizenship. Russia even made sure to annul their election when they had the temerity to pick the wrong candidate. Abkhazia is a puppet state of Russia, who is using it for its own ends, mainly to keep Georgia poor, divided and dependent on Russia instead of shifting to the West.

Now, some residents of Abkhazia might wish to be absorbed by Russia, but it's a little harder to pull the heart strings against "foreign domination" when you want to switch one overlord for another.

There's a case to be made that Georgia isn't worth us upsetting Russia about, but then one has to start worrying about Ukraine, the Baltic states, and the Central Asian republics. I don't think even Matt would settle for Russia annexing whatever choice bits of Poland and the Baltics Russia believes it is entitled to. So I find this post somewhat disingenuous. You could replace Sukhumi for Talinn and little would have to be changed in the text.

Posted by Hektor Bim | June 9, 2008 9:37 PM

Katia - The thing about the interwebs is that I don't know that you aren't Georgia. Your name could be Keti Shalikashvili for all I know, or Giorgi Kapeladze. The point is that it would not make any difference if you were Georgian, because none of us have any way of knowing who the rest of the folks who post here are in real life.

And here's the thing - I'm not doubting your story, or that of your grandmother, or your grandmother's neighbor. I opened my comments on this thread by admitting that Georgians bore much of the responsibility for the conflicts in the early 1990s. However, every story has two sides. I can simultaneously believe that your family and thousands of other families suffered greatly, and believe that you cannot allow an ethnically cleansed region to "choose" independence.

It turns out that one can hold many opinions at the same time, even opinions that sometimes clash with one another. The world isn't a simple place, and sometimes it requires nuanced and attenuated thinking.

I'm off, as it is late and I'm winding down. It was good to hear your informed thoughts.

&chik

Posted by &chik | June 9, 2008 11:46 PM

You know, I play Medieval 2 Total War a lot and while we try to avoid nationalistic discussions, without a doubt the most ANNOYING country is Georgia. Georgians are not only often rabid about the importance of their country (and how the British developers neglected them) often times modifications are made (that takes lots of work) specifically so that Georgia (in it's Golden Age) exists. I have a very negative view of Georgians solely because of their relentless annoying (dammit Georgia was unimportant even DURING it's Golden Age!) nationalism.

Hungarians and Poles (God, the angst expended on the Winged Hussars is nauseating) are also quite nationalistic but at least the Poles confine it to the Hussars and while the Hungarians make mods, they don't tear up forums with nationalistic fervor.

Posted by MNPundit | June 10, 2008 2:31 AM

"There's a case to be made that Georgia isn't worth us upsetting Russia about, but then one has to start worrying about Ukraine, the Baltic states, and the Central Asian republics. I don't think even Matt would settle for Russia annexing whatever choice bits of Poland and the Baltics Russia believes it is entitled to."

Why?

Why should the US care? Is Russia going to become a superpower again and start the Cold War all over because it re-absorbs a small portion of the former Soviet Union?

I think not.

Instead, I think the people who care about these half-ass nations are trying to start the Cold War all over again because they just don't like Russia, or Putin, or they are obsessed with the US Empire - or, as I said above, they think somebody has something they want.

Georgia has 4.3 million people - half the size of fucking New York! Anybody want to go to war for that? How about the 7.2 million of Israel?

Get a grip. Everyone's fucking ethnic problems are not the problems of the US taxpayer!

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 10, 2008 4:26 AM

There are short term and long term reasons why the US should care. The short term reason is that we have signed mutual defense treaties with Poland and the Baltics and are obligated to defend them from foreign attack.

One long term reason is that countries that pursue territorial claims and bully their neighbors don't tend to stop until they suffer defeat in war or other countries stand up to them. Russia, for example, has consistently attempted to control countries to the west of itself for at least the last two hundred years, if not longer. At this point, nationalism is being cultivated by the Russian government and many Russian government officials agitate for the reclamation of the Baltics and whatever else they view to be sovereign Russian land.

Another long term reason is that small countries on the border of larger powers that are not well-enmeshed in defense treaties tend to pull other countries into destructive wars. The US has historically not been able to avoid involvement in European wars, so it devised things like NATO and encouraged things like the EU to provide an alternative to war for countries to settle their differences. And that has been extremely effective at preventing war. So retreating and tearing up these treaties and agreements is quite likely to lead to ruinous war.

Posted by Hektor Bim | June 10, 2008 10:28 AM