How much of the Georgia/South Ossetia/Russian conflict can be laid at the hands of a corrupt cabal of former soviet ministers bent on lining their own pockets? Perhaps a great deal.
Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili has handed his Russian counterpart, Dmitry Medvedev, a victory over the “siloviki” in Russia. And if Medvedev is able to take advantage of the fruits of this victory, the consequences will be significant not so much for Tbilisi as for Moscow.
So, why is this a victory over the siloviki — those in the Russian ruling elite with close ties to the state security organs? Because there is no way the regime in South Ossetia can be in any sense called “separatist.” Who there is a separatist? The head of the local KGB, Anatoly Baranov, used to head the Federal Security Service (FSB) in the Russian Republic of Mordovia. The head of the South Ossetian Interior Ministry, Mikhail Mindzayev, served in the Interior Ministry of Russia’s North Ossetia. The South Ossetian “defense minister,” Vasily Lunev, used to be military commissar in Perm Oblast, and the secretary of South Ossetia’s Security Council, Anatoly Barankevich, is a former deputy military commissar of Stavropol Krai. So who exactly is a separatist in this government? South Ossetian “prime minister” Yury Morozov?
However, alas, I also cannot say this regime is “pro-Russian.” On the contrary, all the recent actions of Eduard Kokoity, the leader of the breakaway South Ossetian government, have run counter to the interests of Russia in the Caucasus — beginning with his embarrassing Russia in the eyes of the international community and ending with his ratcheting up the tensions in the very region where Russia might begin to come undone. South Ossetia is not a territory, not a country, not a regime. It is a joint venture of siloviki generals and Ossetian bandits for making money in a conflict with Georgia. For me, the most surprising thing in this entire story is the complete lack of any strategic goals on the part of the South Ossetians.
[...]
Again — nothing that is going on in South Ossetia makes any sense from the point of view of strategy. It only makes sense as a means of making money. And we aren’t talking about small sums. Running a gas pipeline through the mountains from Russia — a precaution in case Georgia decides to cut off the 70,000 residents — cost $570 million. And then there is the secret budget Russia has allotted for the struggle — estimated at somewhere around $800 million. And don’t forget the pensions and wages for state-sector workers, who officially number some 80,000 but whose actual numbers are not more than 30,000.
Yulia Latynina lays out a convincing case that this war is not about ethnic tensions, nor about Russian power plays, but instead about the soliviki creating the tensions necessary to loosen the Kremlin’s purse strings. Towards that end, Kokoity is using the PLO playbook:
Whenever someone starts telling us about shelling in Tskhinvali, it is important to keep in mind exactly what Tskhinvali is. It is not a city somewhere in the middle of a republic that is being fired upon by saboteurs. On three sides, Tskhinvali is surrounded by Georgian villages. The edge of Tskhinvali is a military outpost. South Ossetian forces fire from there into the Georgian villages, and the Georgians respond with fire of their own. To help keep Georgian fire from hitting civilians in the city, all the South Ossetians would have to do is move their military base forward a couple hundred meters.
But, of course, it is a fundamental principle of terrorists the world over — set up firing points in civilian areas and then when your enemy fires on you, you gleefully parade the bodies of your own children in front of the television cameras. Kokoity’s terrorists are following this same principle. If South Ossetia can in any way be considered a state, it must be considered a terrorist state.
When we are told about “peaceful civilians” in South Ossetia, we must keep in mind that the situation there is similar to that in Palestinian refugee camps. South Ossetia, like the Palestinian Liberation Organization before it, is not a state or an ethos or a territory. It is a peculiar form of mutated government in which residents have been turned into militarized refugees. It is a quasi-armed force that is not allowed by the authorities to occupy itself with anything other than war — a situation that gives the authorities absolute power and absolute control over the money at its disposal. It is a place where the hysteria of this disfigured population is the primary means of filling the authorities’ personal coffers.
Without endorsing Ms. Latynina’s views, I have to admit that they are quite compelling, and that a lot of it makes logical sense.
[HT: Joshua Foust]
“It is a fundamental principle of terrorists the world over — set up firing points in civilian areas and then when your enemy fires on you, you gleefully parade the bodies of your own children in front of the television cameras.”
With all due respect: this is crap.
It’s definitely impossible to take into account anything said by someone capable of thinking this kind of sh*t.
Versio:
Do you really expect to be taken seriously with condescending remarks like that?
Uh, Versio. Could you enlighten us lesser beings as to what is so wrong about that particular statement? Are you denying that this is what terrorists do? Or, are you saying it doesn’t apply in this case? Inquiring minds would like to know.
Lance:
Saying that terrorists of any kind “set up firing points in civilian areas” for “gleefully parad(ing) the bodies of (their) own children in front of the television cameras” is the same nonsense as saying that Israelis want to be bombed to show the world they’re victims and their policies are fine, or saying that kidnapped people want to be kidnapped just to gain notoriety.
Absurd. Nonsense. Bullsh*t.
In this particular case, saying that Osetians wanted to be bombed down for the cameras is plainly shallow, given that no media reports form Ossetia. Surprinsingly, for Western media every victim is Georgian.
I cannot stand the people who blame the victim. Never.
but no one is saying that or comparing them to those made up scenarios. It was a pretty specific comparison of placing military targets in civilian populations to either hide behind civilians or to propagandize any resulting civilian casualties.
To expand upon Chris’ response, we are not blaming the victim. When terrorists purposely set up amidst civilians, which the PLO, Hezbollah and Hamas most certainly do, it is the civilians who are the victims. What we are saying is most certainly not nonsense, it is a purposeful tactic of some combatants. Israel most certainly does not do that, its enemies purposely target civilians, not military targets purposely locating in residential buildings as in the case of Israel’s antagonists. By identifying civilians so closely with the terrorists in their midst you blur what is really going on. So the “Palestinian people” are not the guilty party, the terrorists are. You can express your moral dudgeon all you want, the fact is these organizations do do exactly what is claimed. You can excuse it, justify it or condemn it. Denying it just makes you naive.
If you are claiming the Ossetian combatants haven’t been doing that, maybe so, Michael is just reporting what was said. However, stomping your feet and making the kind of statement you do is just burying your head in the sand. If it isn’t true in this instance argue it with facts and references. The victims deserve to have the guilty fingered.