Don’t let the Russians be mistaken. Since our independence there has never been a prorussian president in Georgia and Putin’s Communist-fascist regime won’t be able to find a puppet Georgian politician who can run us with Russian support.

We will fight till last Ivanushka-Durachok leaves our country or finds his tomb in Georgia.

http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2008/08/11/conflict-opens-front-in-the-media/#comment-21750

As an aside, I’ll link you all to <a href=”http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2008/08/11/conflict-opens-front-in-the-media/#comment-21750″>a post I just commented on</a>, which might offer some amusing insight into where I’m coming from. My way of thanking you all for taking me in these past few days

None of the weapons they’re using in Georgia are better than a generation old…

So?

Eduard Shevardnadze, who was at best only mildly pro-Russian

A point right there. One of the things that often gets missed in Georgian politics is that Shevardnadze was as pro-US as Saakashvili in some respects. American tilt/orientation predates the Rose Revolution by a decade.

The Georgians are incredibly anti-Russian.

What else is new. Hasn’t prevented 200 years of Russian domination. Anyone who neighbors Russia, is “incredibly anti-Russian.”

but they are in no position to occupy the country

They occupy the country.

So let’s cool down the “Russia is an invincible juggernaut” talk, yes?

Sure will, as soon as I allege it.

Here’s the thing: two factors that no one is talking much about carry enormous consequence.

1) The Russian military is for all intents and purposes a paper tiger. None of the weapons they’re using in Georgia are better than a generation old, and last time they were used widespread it was either in a far smaller territory (Chechnya) or a badly lost battle with a vastly better equipped and trained army (Afghanistan). The Georgians are much more anti-Russian than the Chechens, and they enjoy the benefit of having a good six years of U.S. army surplus. Russia simply cannot commit enough force to occupy Tblisi, or to enforce a puppet regime. It won’t happen.

2) The Georgians are incredibly anti-Russian. So much so that, even Eduard Shevardnadze, who was at best only mildly pro-Russian even despite being the former Soviet Foreign Minister. He was not a particularly bad ruler, but was still forced out after a mildly fraudulent election. Georgia will not tolerate Russia dictating terms.

Both of these mean that Russia will enforce what it considers to be appropriate punitive measures, quite probably including the ouster of Saakashvili, but they are in no position to occupy the country in such a way that they overwhelm any chances of a widespread revolt the moment they step back. And they can’t afford to stay very long, either, not with the way their economy is reacting to the fighting.

So let’s cool down the “Russia is an invincible juggernaut” talk, yes?

Also, I agree Lee, it is close enough to annexation for government work, and I am not even sure they won’t formally annex. Putin may make that mistake, and a mistake it would be. Either way, I think Putin has made a mistake. Putting up with an insurgency like we did in Iraq for the sake of national interest/moral imperative is a lot different in its effect upon your own nation than something less noble (at least in theory) and right on your doorstep. One would think they had learned that lesson by now with Afghanistan and Chechnya. Puppet governments don’t insulate you, in fact, they usually just draw you in.

There’s no similarity at all…and that is highly instructive for this question. Our two wars, Afghanistan and Iraq, are wars to confer independence on a freed people. Russia’s efforts, should they result in a proxy state, are an effort to coercively revoke the independence of a people against their will, and in a very real sense, annex the state.

I think most Georgians would recognize the essential indifference of it too. You don’t need the Russian flag flying over the State Chancellery, to endure unpardonable submersion under the yoke of distant Russian domination. Indeed, a gutted sovereignty, with its own flag preserved but robbed of all meaning, is in many ways the most insidious sort of imperial confiscation.

As for the intricacies of client relationships… there is an enormous body of literature on that. Russia doesn’t have to create a dependent state, just clear the way for one of the many pro-Russian opposition groups to take up power in the capital. I wouldn’t exactly call that annexation any more than I’d call our own aggressive policies of regime change annexation.

so what culpability does the West have?

How far have its troops penetrated into Russia now? Russia is the sole architect of this war. And you seem to be in disagreement with yourself on that matter. As you noted correctly earlier, if it wasn’t now, it would be tomorrow, or the next day.

That’s because as you also note, Russia is pursuing long-standing strategic aims and they’ve already changed their public conditions for success four times by my count a) cease-fire, b) Georgian withdrawal c) Georgian area disarmament d) Georgian leadership change (only partially public on this last one so-far)…

As for your hostility to the notion of Russian annexation, the reestablishment of a patrimonial regime in Georgia is annexation by another name. You needn’t own territory if you can comprehensively control it.

And I think you’re terribly mistaken that an advance on the capital is out of the question, with perhaps a fourth to half of Georgian territory now under occupation….and if Saakashvili holds out? They’ll advance. He cannot be allowed to remain in power under any circumstances.

Apart from all that, one of your better posts Josh. I enjoyed it for a change.