Mr Hitchens leaves out s few salient points in his analysis of the Russo-Georgian conflict

1. Georgia invaded South Ossetia; a republic that had been de facto independent of Georgia since 1992. If the Georgians had not invaded, no of this would have happened, none.

When the Soviet Union broke up there were, and still are many anomalies in the borders of the new states. Georgia is one example; Nagorno-Karabakh in Armenia is another. Under the Soviet Union these boundaries were internal and meant little or nothing for the peoples living there. Over night they became international frontiers meaning a great deal. In Ossetia (both North and South) Georgian villages have lived side by side with Ossetian villages for hundreds of years. Therefore Mr Hitchens’s claim that the South Osestian enclave was left there on purpose is absurd.

1. The Georgian President, Mr Saakashvili, is not exactly en example of truth, justice and the American way. He came to power in a coup d’etat against former Gerogian President Schvardnadze. He then called for elections to legitimise his claim to power. The elections, held in January of 2008, only eight months ago, were widly questioned by international obersrvers. The OSCE said they were not free and fair by democratic standards. Indeed Mr Saakashvili’s own people began to demonstrate against him in exacltly the same manner as they did aginst Mr Schvardnadze.

1. The Russian troops in South Ossetia and Abkzazia were there because of UN resolution. According to the United States State Depatrtment:

The June 24, 1992, Sochi Agreement established a cease-fire between the Georgian and South Ossetian forces and defined both a zone of conflict around the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali and a security corridor along the border of South Ossetian territories. The Agreement also created the Joint Control Commission (JCC), and a peacekeeping body, the Joint Peacekeeping Forces group (JPKF). The JCC was charged with demilitarizing the security zone in the conflict region and facilitating negotiations; it is Co-Chaired by Georgian, Russian, South Ossetian, and North Ossetian representatives. The JPKF is under Russian command and is comprised of peacekeepers from Georgia, Russia, and Russia’s North Ossetian autonomous republic (as the separatist South Ossetian government remained unrecognized). South Ossetian peacekeepers, however, serve in the North Ossetian contingent. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) agreed to monitor the ceasefire and facilitate negotiations

The Sochi Sgreement was codified by the United Nations in August 1993 (see <link> ) giving Russian peace keeping forces every right to be in both of the break away regions of Georgia. What are peace keeps to do when the area they are guarding is being invaded?

Don’t get me wrong: there ahs been a lot of wanton brutality from the Russian forces; there is no excuse for that. What I want to say is the picture is not black and white, there are no “good guys” and “bad guys” here, only bad and worse.

Briefly, if chronological invasions or incursions cum imperialism are the benchmarks for your logic and deductions; then I guess Poland should be "nuked", as it was once under Russian/Soviet hegemony.

alaskajoe:

Briefly, if chronological invasions or incursions cum imperialism are the benchmarks for your logic and deductions; then I guess Poland should be "nuked", as it was once under Russian/Soviet hegemony.

You are being too brief to make a coherent point. The OP is pointing out extra complexities of the situation and you respond with a jump to nuking Poland?

As someone who has tried to watch this closely, but can't seem to get many straight answers from either side, I thank you for that information.

However, what goes along with that is WHY Georgia "invaded". My initial understanding, based on loose news reports is that Georgia invaded because they were getting shelled from inside S.Ossetia, or other things were going on inside of S. Ossetia that negatively effected the rest of Georgia and that perhaps Russia had something to do with the trouble.

I also heard that there were invasions of airspace and the like perpetrated by Russia in the last few months that contributed as well.

Does anyone here have any links to information relating to the above?

And, WHO IN THE HELL decided it would be a good idea to have "peacekeeping" troops made up from the warring factions? Shouldn't it have been someone neutral, like, oh I don't know, the U.N. (even though I have about as much faith in them as I do the Devil himself)?

It seems to me both sides were wrong in what they did, but I can't escape the feeling that Russia was more wrong - inciting and poking at a nation to see what happens. Unfortunately, the Georgian president is a hothead and took the bait. So far, that's the way I've been seeing it.

Saakashvili had promised to militarily retake South Ossetia, it was an election campaign promise.

It was never a question of 'if' but only when.

The timing of this, is clearly all Georgia. It's reasonable to say the South Ossetians were engaged in regular smallish conflicts with Georgians...frankly these skirmishes went back and forth from both sides, Georgia too, for years.

Call it Russia goading Georgia if you must, just realize that is a U.S. interpretation..deny their involvement in arming/training the Georgian army, emphasize the Russian support of South Ossetia.

But there is no reasonable way to suggest, these smallish skirmishes that began years ago, somehow resulted in the precise timing of an attach on the eve of the olympics...this was all Georgias timing. They are responsbile for their behavior.

All this 'but how could Russia be so prepared' is easy to answer. Saakashvili promised to do this attack, as part of his election campaign. He promised to take these areas back.

Russia had been warned for many years, of course they were prepared. It's amazing to me, how people who, quite frankly actually know better, are kind of postulating theories they know are quite false....because they also know they are only trying to convince a public that can never wade through all the facts.

How are you really going to judge this, when each and every little detail needs to be corrected first, before you get to a basis where you can judge it?

That's the main issue, is someone really needs to read both English and Russian, realizing both are full of half truths, and develop a better picture from that. (never mind reading Georgian, thats nothing but pure fiction).

Excellent post Robert.

It is pathetic how the Russiaphobes are all feigning surprise at the swiftness of Russia's response to Georgia's attack, as though this was not the worst kept secret in the Caucuses. The uniformity of the media talking point (ie. that invading sovereign countries is a crime all of a sudden) indicates that the script was ready to be rolled out in the event of a Russian response.

If the US and Israel can have hundreds of military and intelligence assets inside Georgia, then surely Russia must have a few of their own, not to mention the fact that Russia knows this region, and her politics, intimately.

What few people know, is that Russia had a military base in Morthern Ossetia, less than a half day trip from South Ossetia. It has been reported that Georgia sent spy drones over he region and these were shot down, so Georgia knew the risks they were taking.

The question that has to be asked, is did Georgia believe that the US would come to their rescue in the event of a Russian response. If not, then did they either a) call Russia's bluff or b) do this to divert attention from say, Iran?

Brilliant, Robert. Absolutely brilliant. I took one look at this latest attempt by Hitchens to intellectually bluff his way through a complex, tragic international situation based on nothing but pompous, self-righteous British bluster and a whole lotta ignorance -- and my heart just sank. This is the kind of wheezing, "tour de force" special pleading that we've come to expect from the Importunate Pundit himself and it grates that so many people, naive vulgar Anglophiles all, fall for it.

Besides all the labor-intensive substantive debunking you came up with, your post has the enormous advantage over Hitchens' in that it is presented with clarity and elegance. Nothing about the intellectual joke that Hitchens has become is as embarrassing as the clumsy, tortured style which results from his determination to argue his way around simple political facts such as Kosovo having once belonged to Serbia. His rhetorical and, indeed, moral sloth were never so much a blight on the blogosphere as with this particular spew in Slate, and you have my gratitude for helping to clean up the historiographical mess he so sloppily left behind.

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" . . . .

You people have the audacity to accuse HITCHENS of "ignorance" . . . . after all the idiotic pro-Russian apologetics I see here? Go look in the mirror! Hitchens could run circles around any of you arrogant pompous fools over this issue. I am tired of arguing with such people as you. There is not enough space in this forum to elucidate, piece by piece, all the lies perpetrated by the Russian regime. I have been doing so for the past two weeks, in many forums, and I'm sick of it. Apologists for totalitarians will only believe what they want to believe.

I happen to have a degree in the history of this region. I speak Georgian, as well as a bit of Armenian and Russian. I know the history of Abkhazia and the Caucasus since the early Czarist period. I was a witness to Mr. Saakashvili's election. Do you honestly believe you can KNOW the roots of this conflict by reading blogs, or the tirades of people who cannot even spell a coherent sentence? How many of you have actually been to the Caucasus or Russia? Mr. Saakashvili did, indeed, make a tragic blunder by responding, in the manner in which he did, to a long stream of provocations by South Ossetian separatists who are financed by Russia. However, that response did not happen in a vacuum. We are exposed to a lot of propaganda that tries to condition us to the notion that those who are PORTRAYED as having fired the "first shot" are the ones who "started" the war. It ain't necessarily so. Dig deeper. Set aside your knee-jerk conspiracy theories about the Israelis or the Americans in Georgia, and actually study the HISTORY of the region from a variety of sources, in DEPTH. Search for, and examine, objective evidence about what the Russians actually have been doing, and ARE doing, ON THE GROUND . . . . and in their own government. I don't have time anymore to explain it over and over. Don't assume that you really know any subject until you have devoted SERIOUS scholarship to it. PLEASE!

It is certainly true that there is a long history of Russian-Caucasian conflict going back to the Tzarist period. And it is also true that there is a more recent but no less complicated history of Georgians and South Ossetians haggling, fighting and killing each other over their internecine disputes since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Robert of Norway has reminded us that the peacekeeping arrangements in that region, however fundamentally flawed, had the sanction of the international community and had nominally succeeded for over 15 years.

If you're going to badger us with knowledge claims in defense of Hitchens' article, you would do well to stick to the narrative outline he has provided. Robert did just that and managed to show, in rather convincing fashion I'd say, that Hitchens' laundry list of talking points is full of non-facts and vague allegations -- for instance, do we really know that the Russians intend to annex these regions, as opposed to approving their independence? Even the tendentious Julia Latynina, in her article which is being floated around the neocon blogosphere as "proof" of the Ossetians' inveterate criminality, maintains that Kokoity has worked not so much in tandem with Moscow's intentions as athwart them. It may very well be that Russia does not want to be responsible for another miserable, corrupt Caucasian border region.

There is also plenty of reason to suspect Saakashvili's carefully built media reputation as a knight of democracy and transparency. This year's elections were hardly clean; when his opponents protested he ordered his police to shoot at them. And there are allegations of less than pristine business transactions; apparently, as happens so often in that part of the world since "market forces" were given the upper hand, "privatization" has led to a certain amount of cronyism. The actions of August 7-8, then, when Georgian peacekeepers fired on their Russian counterparts in a sweep to the Roksky Tunnel while the world was distracted by the Beijing Games, were the stratagem of a highly ambitious politician, not a saint.

No, this doesn't mean I'm buying into Russian propaganda. Moscow’s claims of ethnic cleansing were exaggerated; their response, even if momentarily justified as a response to Georgian actions, has gone on too long; and they should be doing more to stop the Ossetians from taking revenge, instead of throwing up their hands and saying "see what happens when local vendettas are set loose?"

But you don't counter propaganda with more propaganda; too much Western coverage has been preoccupied (sometimes in most sensational fashion) with filing an amicus brief on behalf of Tbilisi, where every instance of cherry-picking and spin-cycling from the Kremlin is to be met with an equal and opposite counter-distortion. The goal of journalistic inquiry should be the deepest, broadest depiction of the truth possible, not an exercise in "pick your favorite victim and craft a compelling narrative." The problem in this case is obviously compounded by the existence of a whole foreign-policy infrastructure left over from the Cold War which is obviously chomping at the bit to justify its funding by successfully reviving the ossified paradigms of that era.

But there is only one point of view, one political and rhetorical pose, from which one could prosecute the Russians for imperial bullying, that is, by predicating one’s own position on a respect for the principles of international law. This we Americans cannot do, since our own government has so often flouted such principles in recent years. And the unmistakable irony of the current argument consists in Hitchens’ status as one who furiously goaded our government on to this position, in the arrogant conceit that we have the moral right to punish our terroristic enemies in self-anointed, vigilante fashion, since we are infallible. Putin and Medvedev can easily argue that they have in fact been much more restrained and caused much less collateral damage than Bush and Cheney in their determination to prevent their citizens from being attacked by evil-doers.

Superb rebuttal Mark,

As you rightly point out, there is no shortage of irony in sonofeire's claim that we are falling for propaganda when in fact the overwhelming volume propaganda we have been fed in the MSM is clearly biased in favor of Saakashvili.

Obviously it is simplistic to limit the dabate to who fired first, but where has the media or the narrative, or even Hitchens thesis for that matter, even tried to address the complexity or history of the region?

For all his study and expertise on the subject, sonofeire demonstrates his bias by selectively turning a blind eye to the BS we are being fed that benefits the Georgian account, while attacking the opposing argument.

So tell me sonofeire, as a witness to Mr. Saakashvili's election, what do you have to say about this faux democratic uprising and the bromide on which it was cast (ie. the Irange revolution of the Ukraine)? How does one win more than 90% of the vote in a rue democracy?

How do you feel about the BS we were fed over cause of Viktor Yushchenko's disfigurement, which was alledged at the time to have been caused by his opponent?

Please enlighten us on how having visited the Caucasus or Russia makes one an expert, much less impartial on the subject? Putin and Saakashvili are both more familiar than you or I on the region, yet both will give you opposing accounts of what transpired over a week ago.

What is so knee-jerk about quesrioning what business Israelis or the Americans have in Georgia? Would you be dismissing these coincidenses if Hezbolah or Iran had assets in that country, especially given the history of Israel's and America's fingerprints on flash points around the world?

As for what the Russians actually have been doing, and are doing, on the ground and in their own government, my question to you is WHAT BUSINESS IS IT OF OURS? What gives us the right to influence or control what goes on in Russia? Who are we to decide if Russia has any legitimate concernes over what is taking place on it's own borders.

Most importantly, answer this. What would we be doing if we were in Russia's position? Then and only then, do you can you begin to lecture to us about SERIOUS scholarship.

"This is a disaagreement between far away people, about whom we know nothing" - Neville Chamberlain

Obviously, I use the Chamberlain quote intentionally, because what seems to be missed in all the discussion about the situation in Georgia is that the most obvious analogy between the current situation and the past is not any from the Cold War but Hitler in the Sudetenland.

All the parallels are spot on:

Western liberals and conservatives joining in common cause in pointing out that the agressors, who were losers of a long and bitter struggle they started many years before, were somehow treated unfairly by the winners. Seething resentment by the aggressors at being denied their proper "sphere of influence" by the victors. An uncertain balkan-like ethnic framework. A contested sliver of another nation to whom the aggressors feel a great deal of cultural kinship. A "reckless" government of the small country daring to assert its sovereignty. A few in the West who raise voices in protest and called "warmongers" or told, "you just don't understand the situation." And a scheming strongman at the top, taking advantage of all this moral weakness.

Finally, we have the rest of the world, seething with righteousness but managing, after endless dithering, to conclude that the victim has it coming. They are agressors, you see. Well, that's a relief. We don't have to do anything at all.

Well, perhaps the Georgians overplayed their hand by breaking a truce, after much provokation, in a civil war in their own territory. But they have every right to do this: not even the worst appeaser on the Fray would argue that South Ossetia isn't de jure part of Georgia, any more than South Carolina was in 1860. The fact that the Georgians might have been more reasonable is beside the point. They took action, as they saw it, to defend the integrity of their country, and they got stomped on. Miscalculation? Sure. Because the stomping is very calculated, and the stomper intends to send a clear message to the countries of Eastern Europe: "you are no longer independent."

Look, if we all want to agree that Russia is simply stomping on Georgia to make a point, and that there is litttle we can or are willing to do about it; then fine. But please don't rewrite history to make a case on behalf of the agressors against the nation of 4.5 million the agressor is attempting to partition. It is rather sickening, and besides, it will make us look worse in the history books. But hey, we still have "Peace in our time."

Your obvious ignorance of the details of what has happened in South Ossetia in the last decade or so give the lie to your smug self-regard -- as if you had the "key" to the situation in the cliché analogy. Get over your laziness and read a newspaper once in a while. Equating Putin with Hitler is so facile and dumb it gives even the most amateurish "history" a bad name.

Any relation to Gunder Haag? No? He was a great runner. He and Arne Anderssen set six world records over the mile run during world war II. Of course, the rest of the world was fighting the war at the time, in which Sweden was very carefully neutral, and a big supplier of iron ore and other necessary raw materials to the Nazi war machine. That left Arne and Gunder free to set world records.

I'm sorry, where were we? Oh, we were talking about Georgia and Russia. I had forgotten, apparently, that this is the "Russian Appeasement Post". Can't imagine why that reminded me of WWII Sweden. Forgive me for giving an opinion that doesn't correspond to the prevailing groupthink. Smug you say? Well, it seems I am forever accused of being smug by people with no other argument to rebut my statements. My laziness? Have you been following me around? Read newspapers? But I thought that the Western press was full of "lies and distortions"! Where am I to go or the truth?

Putin and Hitler comparison - facile? Well, Putin hasn't written Mein Kampf, if that is what you mean. It's not like he's killed anybody or anything like that. Still, your post doesn't seem to have rebutted my position....

I'm very sorry that I didn't accept your previous screeds at face value and attempted to inject some reality into this series of post. I now agree, of course, all minority ethnic groups should have their own nations, unless, of course, they wish to leave Russia. Wow, that was easy! Now I don't need to worry about Georgia any more. They DID have it coming, didn't they? Now if I can only find a way to pin this on the US and the Jews. Where's my copy of The Nation...

The "Russian Appeasement Post". What else can it be? After all, there is onyl one truth and we all know that God is on our side and therefore, by definition, that makes us 100% infallible.

So how is it that this event reminds you of WWII Sweden? Ar eyou Swedish and were you alive at the time? Or dare I say, you read it in a book?

It seems you also have somewhat of a persecution complex, or is it delusion of grandeur. You have made a handful of posts but you neverheless feel "forever accused of being smug".

Putin compared to Hitler? How novel. How many is that since Dubya came to power? First there was Saddam, then Amadinejad, then there was Chavez and..have I forgotten anybody? Now as for killing people, do you really want to go there?

In your world (evidently still flat) which minority ethnic groups should have their own nations? Who stopped Georgia from leaving Russia? This started becasue someone wanted to leave Georgia. But hey, why let facts get in the way of your smugness right?

It's not that easy to pin it on the US dude. The last time someone tried to park missiles off our shore, we threatened them with nuclear war and we still look back on that moment with pride. When someone else demonstrates the same resolve, that makes them a tyrants.

Yeah, I'm sorry that being smug means more to you than acknowledging reality.

Carry on...

Delusions of grandeur? Oh yes, the fame and fortune that must accrue to those of us with "more than a handful of posts". Actually I think I've had a hundred or so over time - but who the hell cares and why would the number of my postings matter? Persecution complex? Oh my...I have been accused by three people on Slate in the past couple of weeks (four if we count you) and in every case, the accusation basically arose when accuser didn't really have any other argument to make. Which brings us to you.

I love it when people, who frequently seem to be on the left, but not always (since stupidity is actually pretty evenly distributed accross the political spectrum), make trite comments about how someone who disagrees with them - for example, Mr.Haag clownishly suggesting that I read a newspaper (in the internet age, no less!) - although, actually, my father was a newspaper editor and I've spent a good portion of my life getting ink stains on my hands. I also like his "popular history" quip - it's good because it means absoutely nothing, but is intended to force the victim to go on the intellectual defensive. I guess Mr. Haag doesn't read popular history - maybe he doesn't read anything. Then your little quip about the flat earth society - I actually have a pretty good grounding in science thank you. But, I suppose you meant that my views on international relations were rooted in some pre-science age, or something like that. Pretty nonsensical insult, really.

Anyway, rather my responding to your mindless and ignorant personal insults. Let's see if there is anything in your post that even attempts to discuss the issues.

"God is on our side"? Hmm, sorry, I don't recall saying that. Whose side is that anyway? Georgia? "100% infallable" Who again, is this infallable person or persons you refer to? What the hell are talking about?

The analogy wasn't really Hitler, it was the Sudatenland. It doesn't need to be original to be correct. On the other hand, many of the idiotic conspiricy theories ("Cold War plot") and the flailing around trying trying to find a moral equivalence in the positions of Georgia and Russia are neither "original" or correct. They are simply mindless.

Killing people? Don't go there? Why on earth not? Have the Georgians committed any massacres lately that I'm not aware of? By all means let me know. Oh, I get it, you are suggesting that as Americans (presumably) we are somehow morally tainted by (presumably) Iraq and so "can't go there". Well, that really has nothing to do with Georgia, but is in any case a pretty pathetic non-argument. So please, go there if you can.

If you have anything enlightening to say, I'm all ears. If you are just going to use crude invective at anyone who doesn't toe the party line, because they would rather we didn't cheer Russia on as she attempts to invade her way back to big power status, I don't think anyone's buying.