Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> TalkLeft

Legal Commentary

: TalkLeft

Did Putin Lose?

By Big Tent Democrat

Kevin Drum say yes. I beg to differ. Kevin writes:

My take, roughly, is that Putin screwed up. . . . Putin got greedy — or just made a mistake — and sent Russian troops into Georgia proper. . . . [I]t succeeded mainly in uniting virtually everyone in outrage against Russian aggression. Putin can pretend all he wants that he doesn't care about Western opinion, but he obviously does — and what's more, Western unity makes a difference in concrete terms too. . . . [I]n the end, the countries on Russia's border are more firmly in our camp now than they were even before the war.

This strikes me as an utter misreading of the situation. I'll explain why on the flip.

The NYTimes reports:

Russia on Sunday pledged to begin withdrawing its troops from neighboring Georgia on Monday, following up on a cease-fire agreement to halt fighting that has stirred some of the deepest divisions between world powers since the cold war.

[Russian President] Medvedev did not specify the pace or scope of the withdrawal, saying only that troops would withdraw to South Ossetia and a “security zone” on its periphery.

It is my view that this "concession" by Russia was always its intention. It was foolish to argue, as some did, the Russia intended to occupy Georgia. It was foolish because now when Russia moves back to South Ossetia and the periphery permitted by the cease fire, it will have "shown restraint." Russia accomplished its goals in my opinion. Condi Rice says otherwise:

Condoleezza Rice, said on “Fox News Sunday[]” that Russia’s reputation as a modern country ready to integrate into the West “is, frankly, in tatters.”

Well, coming from Condi Rice, this means next to nothing frankly and I am not at all sure what it is supposed to mean to Russia. Drum says "Putin cares what the West thinks." On one level, I agree with him. He wants the West to think that expanding into Russia's "Near Abroad" is not the same thing as expanding NATO into Poland and the Baltic states. That message was delivered.

Kevin argues "the countries on Russia's border are more firmly in our camp now than they were even before the war." I say, so what? The issue is not the willingness of Georgia to join NATO, etc. The issue is Europe's willingness to go along with such an expansion. My own view is that, five months from now, when George Bush is no longer President, no one in Europe will want any part of this problem. Words are easy, as German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Sarkozy prove:

Mr. Sarkozy said there would be “serious consequences” for relations between Russia and the European Union if Russian compliance was not “rapid and complete.” The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, in Tbilisi to meet with Mr. Saakashvili, warned that “this process should not drag out for weeks.”

Those words are offered now that Russia is ready to move back to pre-conflict positions. This is an obvious dance. These words were not offered before today. Here are more empty words:

Ms. Merkel also reiterated her previous support for Georgia’s eventual membership in NATO, a step Russia has fiercely opposed. Georgia, she said, “is an independent and sovereign state and an independent and sovereign state can be a member of NATO.”

(Emphasis supplied.) Of course, what Ms. Merkel did not say is that unstable countries with existing territorial disputes can NOT be members of NATO. General Clark pointed this out the other day. Does anyone think Georgia's territorial dispute is resolved? Here is where we stand on the South Ossetia dispute:

Mr. Medvedev said Sunday that Russian troops would pull back to a security zone established in 1999 by the Joint Control Commission, an international body created to monitor seething tensions between ethnic Georgians and Ossetians. The commission designated a “conflict zone” of 15 kilometers around Tskhinvali, the South Ossetian capital, as well as a long “security corridor,” which extends 14 kilometers into Georgian-held areas.

In short, there will be no Georgian membership in NATO anytime soon. What the West is offering Georgia instead is pretty words:

Ms. Tkeshelashvili said Ms. Merkel’s presence in Tbilisi signaled Western support for a narrowed Russian mandate in Georgia. The German chancellor’s approving mention of eventual NATO membership for Georgia, she added, drove to the heart of the conflict between Russia and Georgia. “One of the goals that the Russians had in this very pre-planned aggression, was to finish off any threat, as they see it, emanating from Georgia’s members in NATO,” she said.

A Georgian soldier has a better view of the situation:

Several Georgian soldiers, upon learning that a reporter in their midst was American, vented rage at the United States.

“If American could do something, why didn’t they help us?” one soldier said, his voice rising almost to a shout. “The Russians took Gori, Senaki, Zugdidi. They are on our bases. Don’t ask us questions. Go ask your president.”

(Emphasis supplied.) This action from Russia's perspective was not to convince Georgia or Poland to be more pro-Russian. Drum really misunderstands that. The point was to draw a line in the sand - for the West. I think Putin made his point. And a year from now, we'll see that Georgia lost this encounter and Putin won.

Speaking for me only

Full post as published by TalkLeft on August 17, 2008 (boomark / email).