While Moldova and Russia appears to be thinking about a Gagauzia style solution of closer integration for Transdniestria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia are both “lost for good,” in the words of a leading Washington commentator. For that, blame the Rocket Man from Tbilisi who didn’t think things through. Not to put too fine a point on it, but someone should’ve pointed out a few minor details to him first:

Vladimir has ten thousand tanks. You have three. Why would you start a war?

Seriously, though, there are now some in Washington who after the fact are beginning to wake up to the reality that there are consequences to starting wars:

President Saakashvili’s almost-inexplicable decision to unleash a massive artillery bombardment of Ossetian civilians and then attempt a swift reconquest of the region has permanently altered the political landscape.

So says E. Wayne Merry, who is a senior associate at the conservative American Foreign Policy Council in Washington, DC. He also endorses the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in all but name, adding that:

It is now inconceivable that any living Ossetian or Abkhaz would willingly return to Georgian sovereignty.

E. Wayne Merry also happens to be a former State Department and Pentagon official who has previously negotiated with the Moldovan government and is well aware of Transdniestria-related issues.

His latest article was published by The Nixon Center’s magazine National Interest which is known as a voice advocating responsible realism in U.S. foreign policy. It also carries another Washington-expert’s piece today, “Gordon N. Bardos: Revenge of the Balkans.” That article compares some aspects of South Ossetia / Abkhazia with Kosovo, in detail and from the point of view of international law. In reference to statements made by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov it notes that:

Lavrov is on strong ground here (…)

and then goes on to explain why.

With formal diplomatic recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia now a reality, Russia is merely recognizing the obvious: That for the better part of the past two decades, these two lands have been running their own affairs as de-facto independent states; free of Georgian rule. And that after the latest attacks which were started by Georgia there is no longer any possibility of peaceful co-existence within the same state.

Western politicians would be better off holding back on the cries of indignation and instead react calmly, because formal recognition changes nothing: It merely codifies what has already long been the actual reality on the ground. And, despite paying lip service to the territorial integrity of Georgia, through years of passivity the West has got used to the idea of the breakup of the Caucasus republic.

Germany’s Berliner Zeitung writes:

It would not only be ridiculous but also counterproductive to want to isolate Russia. The global scarcity of natural resources and the resulting high prices have turned Russia into an economic superpower. The country was still a great power militarily and politically because of its veto power on the UN Security Council and its nuclear weapons arsenal. One cannot isolate great powers. They are always required as major players. Without Russia there would be no diffusing the world’s most dangerous trouble spots, no solution for Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, North Korea or Pakistan, if the situation there gets more serious.

While it is good news for Abkhazia and South Ossetia that they are no longer in legal limbo vis-a-vis their largest neighbor, there are also the usual Big Power double standards at work. From both sides:
The United States claims that what is good for the Kosovars is not good for Abkhazians and Ossetians. And Russia can’t find it within itself to even mention the existence of Transdniestria.

Having received formal and official recognition from Russia, both Abkhazia and South Ossetia can now legally consider themselves free, independent and sovereign nations. They are no longer part of Georgia and they will not be able to ever again become part of Georgia, whose rulers tried to kill them.

They have now achieved recognition of their freedom and their liberty.

It is the true democratic will of the people who live there.

Democracy and freedom are values which are not just for the West.

They are for Abkhazia and for South Ossetia, too.

One of Washington’s most influential law professors, Kenneth Anderson, is a right wing establishment voice in international law who has actual experience on the ground in Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Georgia. His views are very often the most accurate barometer of the direction that foreign policy wonks in the U.S. capital will take over the coming weeks and months. And now he is coming around to supporting independence for South Ossetia and Abkhazia in a post which asks:

Who should actually govern South Ossetia and Abkhazia?

and which then answers:

it is a grave error to conflate rolling back Russian expansionism with the idea that Georgia should have actual political, security, and military control over South Ossetia and Abkhazia. This is a difficult point, but it is essential. Based on what I saw in the brutal, unforgiving, as-bad-as-Yugoslavia, ethnic cleansing wars of fifteen years ago, in my view it is simply impossible for Georgia to govern those territories. I don’t think it was possible from the moment that Georgia declared independence; after all, secession happened practically moments later. And I emphatically believe that the level of brutal violence on each side sealed it.

There is more, but the bottom line is that Abkhazia and South Ossetia will now be free and that the prevailing wisdom in Washington is about to slowly get used to that idea.

There are of course very practical reasons for this, as Kenneth Anderson explains:

It cannot possibly be, in other words, in the foreign policy interest of the United States to commit itself to a policy of actual, in-fact Georgian political and military and security control over Abkhazia and South Ossetia. It would be in the same general ball-park as suggesting that, in the name of territorial integrity, Serbia could or should run Kosovo.

Or alternatively, if you don’t like Balkan analogies, simply say it is not in the foreign policy interests of the United States to endorse the creation of another India-in-Kashmir situation. Once you are in it, as India is in Kashmir, then you might have to deal with it, but why you would create it in the first place, merely in order to satisfy a formal legal idea of sovereignty over territory, is quite beyond me.

After a lot more about why Georgia will never get to lord it over Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Anderson then contradicts himself by going into a verbal tail-spin about why this ‘de facto’ independence shouldn’t be recognized by the U.S. and others because it would “reward Russia’s invasion” or some such.
Instead, he advocates ambiguity, which is just about the worst possible outcome because it would put these two new countries in limbo - The same sort of legal limbo that Transdniestria finds itself in, and has found itself in for 18 long years. A legal no-mans-land: Not part of Moldova, but also not recognized internationally for what it really is.

Let us ALL hope - Moldovans, too - that what happened in South Ossetia will never happen in Transdniestria.

The only problem is: It already did. In 1992, less than 24 hours after Moldova had been admitted to the United Nations as a new and sovereign member state, it launched its first attack on the city of Dubossary in Transdniestria and caused the first fatal victims of the 1992 independence war.

That year, more people died in the struggle (on both sides) than the total number of victims in this year’s horrendous South Ossetia attacks.

What is worth remembering is that Transdniestria never attacked Moldova and never sent tanks or troops into Moldova proper. The tanks came from Moldova and crossed into Transdniestria; but never the other way. This is similar to what Georgia did in South Ossetia (although in a revisionist bout, Georgia’s leaders now claim that they were “provoked”).

Now it remains to see how Moldova plans to solve its territorial dispute over Transdniestria.

When they do, just keep in mind that nothing good comes from war. So this message is to Moldova: Please do not start the killing again.

In a chilling reminder of what happens to ordinary people when they get caught up in the power games of nations, the U.S. based Columbia Journalism Review recounts a first-hand eyewitness report from inside South Ossetia this week:

An elderly man approached us and, with a gesture, invited us into his house. We walked into the bedroom, he brought us over to the bed - a big double bed - pulled back the cover, and there were his wife and daughter, both burned and headless.

Georgia started a war, nothing less. The not terribly pro-Russian news agency Fox describes the assault as follows:

Georgia, a U.S. ally whose troops have been trained by American soldiers, launched a major offensive overnight Friday. Heavy rocket and artillery fire pounded the provincial capital, Tskhinvali, leaving much of the city in ruins.

Today, in that large double bed, now lies a mother and a daughter.

Just two of the accomplishments of these American-trained soldiers:

The Kosovo precedent means that pundits on both sides are now comparing South Ossetia and Kosovo, with mixed results and mixed levels of honesty.

One of the better and more accurate looks at the similarities comes from an influential London-based analyst. It is all worth reading, but what really struck me is this piece of additional commentary:

if South Ossetia really wanted to gain international support it had to show its capacity to interact with the outside world, to speak its language and to reach out to those constituencies within the international community who care deeply about human rights and small nations.  So far, however, it has been seen mostly as a ‘Russian puppet’ as an instrument of influencing Georgia and preventing its integration with the outside world.

Try replacing the names:

if Pridnestrovie really wanted to gain international support it had to show its capacity to interact with the outside world, to speak its language and to reach out to those constituencies within the international community who care deeply about human rights and small nations.  So far, however, it has been seen mostly as a ‘Russian puppet’ as an instrument of influencing Moldova and preventing its integration with the outside world.

Those of us who know the reality in Transdniestria are fully aware that it is today more European and more Westernized than Russia and has the elements in place for a growing, modern, free-market economy … the “Russified Luxembourg” model.

These are the facts.

But to get this true message out, much additional work is clearly needed by the Transdniestrians.

While war-president George W. Bush is trying to falsely equate sovereignty with territorial integrity, Dmitry Medvedev, the new, young President of Russia, knows the real differences. Here, he explains:

What is sovereignty? It is the supremacy of central government. Does Russia recognise Georgia’s sovereignty? Without any doubt it does, just as it recognises the Georgian government’s independence from any other governments. But this does not mean that a sovereign state has the right to do whatever it pleases. Even sovereign states have to answer for their actions.

Indeed, and this is in fact well codified in international law: Jus Cogens.

Regarding the issue of territorial integrity, this is a separate concept. Sovereignty is based on the people’s will and on the constitution, but territorial integrity is generally a reflection of the real state of affairs. On paper everything can look fine but the reality is far more complex.

Territorial integrity is a very complicated issue that cannot be decided at demonstrations or even in parliament and at meetings of leaders. It is decided by people’s desire to live in one country.

Although he doesn’t mention Transdniestria by name here, the statement has a lot to do with the situation in Transdniestria and the heartfelt wish of the vast majority of Transdniestrians to live in freedom in their own state rather than being forced under Moldova’s (mis)rule:

You were right in asking if the Ossetians and Abkhazians can and want to live within Georgia. This is a question for them to ask of themselves and it is they who will give their own clear answer. It is not for Russia or any other country to answer this question for them. This is something that must take place in strict accordance with international law. Though, over these last years international law has given us numerous very complicated cases of peoples exercising their right to self-determination and the emergence of new states on the map. Just look at the example of Kosovo.

This is therefore a question that the Ossetians and Abkhazians must answer themselves, based on their history and taking into account everything that has happened over these last few days.

Jonathan Widell has an opinion in the decision (for now at least) by The Tiraspol Times to observe Moldova’s harsh ban on pro-independence media:

Why? There is no denying that The Tiraspol Times is in favour of the independence of Pridnestrovie. So why would the Moldovan gag order matter to them? They don’t recognize the Moldovan authority over Pridnestrovie in other fields so why are they so afraid of Moldovan media laws? What kind of armchair independists are they? They could make the independence of Pridnestrovie happen just by defying the ban.

He also wonders why The Economist, in particular, is so obsessed with hustling Transdniestria.

As regular readers of this blog now, it boils down to self-confessed nutjob Edward Lucas being in charge of covering that particular piece of real estate for the publication. He has his own personal, commercial interest in peddling a Cold War view of the world … and will happily mold the truth about Transdniestria so that it fits his longed-for stereotypes.

State Department officials and their assorted hangers-ons are busy contradicting themselves as their explain why international law and state borders must be respected (except in Iraq) and why unilateral declarations of independence must never been recognized (except in Kosovo).

And now the double-speak flows so fast and furious that they even contradict their own words.

Take the strange case of one Paul R. Williams.
Mr Williams heads up something which he calls the Public International Law & Policy Group in Washington, D.C. He is also a former U.S. State Department official which today still has close ties to the U.S. administration and works as a “fixer” whenever the boys in Washington need someone to rubberstamp their decisions with a quick coat of legalese legitimacy. In one of his more recent incarnations, our hero was chosen to play the key role in establishing the Iraqi court which condemned Saddam Hussein and later hanged him.

Now, Williams writing for the CIA-created and CIA-funded “Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty” (RFE/RL), parrots the Bush line that South Ossetia is part of Georgia and has no right to independence … but that Kosovo is different. He argues that -

Under the 1974 Yugoslav Constitution, Kosovo was granted the status of an autonomous province with virtually the same rights and responsibilities as the six Yugoslav republics, granting Kosovo an implied right of secession. (emphasis mine)

These are weasel-words, coming from a lawyer. “Virtually” and “implied” won’t stand up in court, just as you can’t be half pregnant.

More blatantly, however, Williams then goes on to claim that:

South Ossetia had no such right under the Soviet Union.

According to Article 72 of the 1977 Soviet Constitution only the 15 republics possessed the right to secede from the union. Georgia emerged from the Soviet Union as an internationally recognized, independent state, and South Ossetia was considered part of its territory.

And this is where the plot thickens. Because a few years ago, a certain Paul R. Williams wrote in another report that autonomous areas within union republic (such as South Ossetia within the Georgian SSR) had the right to secede on their own and declare independence, not staying with any of the 15 republics. In the words of our very own Paul R. Williams:

This act fully complied with existing law.

Indeed, the 1990 Soviet law titled “Law of the USSR Concerning the Procedure of Secession of a Soviet Republic from the USSR,” provides that the secession of a Soviet republic from the body of the USSR allows an autonomous region and compactly settled minority regions in the same republic’s territory also to trigger its own process of independence.

Williams, here, is referring to the law of the USSR of April 3, 1990 (published in Register of the Congress of the People’s Deputies of USSR and Supreme Soviet of USSR. 1990, issue No. 13, p. 252) which is entitled “Concerning the procedure of secession of a Soviet Republic from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.”

On September 20, 1990, when South Ossetia declared its independence and proclaimed the establishment of the Republic of South Ossetia, there was no such thing as Georgian law. The independent and sovereign Republic of Georgia did not yet exist (and it therefore had no sovereign territorial integrity either). The overriding law of the land was the law of the then-still-in-existence USSR. And under the law of the USSR, South Ossetia’s declaration of independence was clearly legal.

Now, South Ossetia’s independence declaration wasn’t recognized at the time (just as Kosovo’s first 1990s independence declaration and, in fact, the declaration of independence of the United States which itself took years before it was internationally recognized).

But as Williams well knows, lack of recognition does not equal lack of statehood. The 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States set forth the traditional criteria for statehood. Textually, the Convention - to which the United States is a party - makes it clear that international recognition is not required for statehood. It is merely enough to have a permanent population, a defined territory (even one that is disputed), a government, and the capacity to conduct foreign relations. South Ossetia has long fulfilled not only these requirements, but also subsequent EU Bad Inter Commission guidelines for international recognition; notwithstanding the pained hairsplitting by Paul R. Williams and other State Department lackeys to the contrary.

South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transdniestria have long argued that they have stronger historical as well as legal claims to independence than Kosovo. On a strict reading of both history and international law it turns out that they are right.

Peter Lavelle is this post’s guest-blogger and the emphasis is mine. His post isn’t really about Transdniestria directly, but in a very real sense it is of course very much about the fate of Transdniestria, too:

There is no such thing as a “splendid little war” anymore. In the current and rapidly changing world order, reliance on a quick war to alter geopolitics and to dramatically improve the prospects of a single country’s foreign policy is an illusion. This is what Saakashvili tried to achieve. His reckless gambit to unite his country through force witnessed the senseless death of thousands, his country’s sovereignty forever compromised and Russia’s relations with the West altered for the worse. The outcome of all of this is the creation of new geopolitical “red lines.”

Tbilisi started a war and Russia finished it. There are those, almost exclusively found in the West, who claim that Russia used “disproportionate force” in reaction to Saakashvili’s order to invade South Ossetia. However, few in the West acknowledge that Saakashvili’s invasion of South Ossetia can only be called an absurd use of disproportionate force. The South Ossetian military (actually a glorified police force) did receive limited aid from Russia. But Russia always relied on its peacekeepers to keep the peace. Peacekeepers that Tbilisi asked Russia for in the first place.

However, this cannot be said of American support of Georgia’s military. Tbilisi’s armed forces were much more – the U.S. created a Georgian military to do much more than police. Over the past few years Tbilisi’s military budget ballooned, among the top 5 countries in the world in terms of military spending per GDP. The Georgian military was developed to make war in its neighbourhood (and support American military operations globally). In the end, Saakashvili favoured force over diplomacy. He also favoured confrontation with the hope of outside intervention (U.S. and/or NATO). Saakashvili’s gross risk-taking ended in failure with global implications.

Has Russia’s actions in Georgia been disproportionate? I am not a military expert and I can’t say with precision. However, I note the lazy and biased commentariat is always an expert on just about everything when it spins its spin. My sense is that Russia’s military doesn’t want to have to repeat this exercise again. That means ensuring the Georgian military and its political elite pay a very high price for what they have done. All of this translates into disrupting any infrastructure that could aid Tbilisi in a future military adventure against its breakaway republics. Of course, when Russian forces start returning to their barracks, there will be claims that Russia only worsened Georgia’s humanitarian woes. The commentariat will give this issue blanket coverage in the coming days.

Standing alone and very open to criticism, I would rather stand on the side of avoiding more senseless armed conflicts.

Before I address the “new red lines” created by Saakashvili’s “splendid, but huge catastrophe,” I want to address the claim – actually from those who crave conspiracies theories – that Russia planned this war and created a trap for Saakashvili. This is simply rubbish. All major militaries prepare contingency plans. We all knew things were brewing between Russia and Georgia. This is why a contingency plan was devised! There is also a mountain of evidence that Tbilisi was planning a conflict contingency plan as well. Preparing for a conflict is not a smoking gun pointing to guilt. It does not give cause to apportion blame. Experienced and sober leaders always hope not to fallback on contingencies. I am convinced that Saakashvili didn’t believe in contingencies. He believed in only force.

Ok, what are the new “red lines?”

Saakashvili had long hoped to make himself an important surrogate of American foreign advancement into the post-Soviet space. He very much succeeded. Ignored are the facts that Saakashvili is a gross Georgian nationalist and autocratic. NATO membership is the perfect cover for Saakashvili’s amazing deficiencies. In the West he is called a “democrat who embraces American values.” The fact is that Georgia’s democracy is very frail – if it can even be called a democracy at all. Russia’s democracy is in fact more stable, but with lots of room to develop. But then again, Russia doesn’t try to export democracy or any other ideology through force, like Washington or Tbilisi.

So, what is the first “red line?” Saakashvili has dashed his claim to preserve and protect Georgia as a sovereign state. South Ossetia and Abkhazia will have a fate beyond Tbilisi’s control. The longer Saakashvili, Bush, Rice and the EU claim otherwise, the longer it will take all them to find Georgia in NATO. And because none of these actors can understand this gives me reason to believe Georgia’s NATO ambitions will be on hold for a very long time.

This creates other “red lines.”

The EU is divided and will remain divided on Georgian and Ukrainian NATO membership. Over the past few days we have witnessed this. And it actually has nothing to do with Georgian events. It has everything to do with Russia. The US and New Europe are pitted against Old Europe. All this causes paralysis when engaging Russia. This state of affairs is unconstructive for all involved. What about Russia-EU energy relations? What about the new Russia-EU partnership agreement? What about desperately needed new security agreements? All of this is at stake because of the most famous Georgian since Stalin! Why is all of this being held hostage due to the ravings of a single madman hoping the West would save his political career, legacy, and protect his country in spite of himself?

Let’s consider another “red line” and its called Ukraine. The vast majority of Ukrainian citizens are against NATO membership. Now a minority of them, going for broke like Saakashvili, may appeal to the West for protection against Russia. The commentariat’s lease on life will be extended still gain.

This could go as far a splitting Ukraine. This is not an exaggeration. The US made it loud and clear that there will be “consequences” for Russia’s reaction to Saakashvili’s adventurism. But all of these reactions to date are benign to say the least, like cancelling a military exercise, throwing Russia out of the G8, and denying Russia WTO admission. Wow! Now that is a powerful toolbox full of retaliation! Today, now more than ever, it is patently clear that the US will not follow up protecting its so-called friends. The demonstration effect is already in play. Nonetheless, I expect more Saakashvili-inspired “wag-the-dog” enterprises.

Another “red line” is the important legal difference between territorial integrity and a state’s sovereignty. Because of the Kosovo precedent, the great powers of today can decide which principle they prefer more, based on geopolitical interest and advantage. Almost a century of international legal prudence is in tatters. This is truly a sad state of affairs. But it is the US that set this precedent. It is hypocritical of Washington to lash-out at those who do the same.

Let’s turn to the large-scale global “red line.” Bush told Medvedev to get out of Georgia. Well, Medvedev could, just as easily, tell Bush to get out Iraq! (With all the same predicted outcome!). Russia’s military forces will leave Georgia when the security situation on the ground allows it to. But in the meantime Washington really needs to figure out what it wants from Russia. Does it want a partnership or just another “junior partner of the willing?” Or does it want confrontation? Russia is prepared for all options.

Russia’s actions to protect South Ossetia, Abkhazia and punish Saakashvili’s megalomania say it all. Russia’s actions demonstrate that it protects its security concerns within its neighbourhood based on practiced legal norms by the West.

Finally, let’s look beyond South Ossetia. The West and its leader, the US, have some hard thinking ahead of them. There are some very real and difficult realities facing the international community: international terrorism, Iran nuclear program, the unpredictable regime in North Korea, the spread of WMDs, for the food and energy crises, and climate change. Can any of these issues be decide without Russia’s participation? The answer is no.

This is how I see things: The post-soviet space is undergoing enormous change. We must recognise that the community of neighbours that this space will determine its own future. Western definitions of what “democracy means” is a cover for sidelining very real security interests. Outside meddling isn’t the answer. And we aren’t entering a new Cold War. In fact, the West (really the US) is finally beginning to see that it can’t remake the world in its own image. Russia won’t let this happen. Why, you might ask? Because it has the power to do so.

Longtime U.N.-insider Rene Wadlow writes from the United Nations in Geneva:

Following the Kosovo precedent, the most stable outcome of the conflict in Georgia is independence for Abkhazia and South Ossetia with rapid membership within the United Nations. UN membership should be a sufficient guarantee against attack. There is probably no need for peacekeeping forces, especially not Russian peacekeeping forces. The United Nations should provide human rights monitors as well as providing help for economic planning with a regional focus. Independence with UN membership can provide a new and stable political-economic framework so that people may try to pull their lives together which they have not been able to do since 1992.

Wadlow makes it clear that he is impartial, noting in his text that that “I had no reason to favour the Abkhaz more than the Georgians.”

But although he specifically cites the Kosovo precedent there are still barriers to membership of the United Nations for everyone involved: The Kosovars, the Abkhaz and the South Ossetians.

However, this moment now would be a good time for realism and for some of the large powers - the U.S., Europe and Russia - to set aside their hypocritical double standards.

Just like in Transdniestria, the people who live in Kosovo, Abkhazia and South Ossetia have all made it clear that they will not be part of the larger neighboring countries that have territorial claims to them. This means that Moldova, Serbia and Georgia have to face up to reality. With a nudge and a push from the United States, Europe and Russia they will be able to do so.

Very long and detailed report in French about Transdniestria’s response to the South Ossetian crisis, with the added bonus of analysis and background info on Transdniestria in general.

Link to the full post:

La Republique de Pridnestrovie répond à G.W.Bush

If you can’t read French, just run it through a translator here or here.

Also on the theme of South Ossetia, an American citizen and his family experienced Georgia’s attacks on civilians first hand. He uses the term “genocide” for what Georgia did:

…and a 12 year old American girl was a first-hand eyewitness when Georgia’s bombs started raining down on the unprepared civilians in the main city of South Ossetia:

There is no point in talking about so-called “territorial integrity” if the country that claims it has NEVER been able to actually ruled over the area it has designs on. That holds for Moldova, of course - just as it does for Georgia.

Nevertheless, Georgia began its current war by launching all-out attack on South Ossetia to “restore constitutional order,” as as The Guardian puts it, “in other words, rule over an area it has never controlled since the collapse of the Soviet Union.”

In the process, Georgia made the fatal (no pun intended) mistake of killing Russia’s legally-stationed peacekeepers in the area. So Russia acted swiftly to send reinforcements. This prompted the U.S. and Britain to accuse Russia of invading Georgia, despite the fact that Russia has every right to keep troops in the disputed areas under a number of agreements signed with Georgia in 1992, 1994 and 1996.

As the Americans and the British protest loudly, The Guardian points out the hypocrisy:

Could these by any chance be the leaders of the same governments that in 2003 invaded and occupied - along with Georgia, as luck would have it - the sovereign state of Iraq on a false pretext at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives? Or even the two governments that blocked a ceasefire in the summer of 2006 as Israel pulverised Lebanon’s infrastructure and killed more than a thousand civilians in retaliation for the capture or killing of five soldiers?

Russia has the moral right to do what it does, but you wouldn’t know it from only reading/watching Western mass media.

There is a reason for this: In a just-published analysis, The Exile explains the inner workings of Georgia’s advanced and well-oiled PsyOps propaganda machine.

(Also on Exile: The War Nerd has his own take on Georgia’s madness.)

This will surely sound familiar to anyone who knows even the slightest about the territorial dispute over Transdniestria. But it is actually about South Ossetia:

… what we’ve got here is a bloody war started by Georgia against a small, pro-Russian province it wants to rule - against the will of the people who live there. And when Russia retaliates against Georgia, the people of South Ossetia, along with the people of Abkhazia - the true victims of this war, the true underdogs, the true Davids - are grateful to Russia for saving them.

The above is from Israel which has a dog in this fight.

The situation is the same, except that Transdniestria has so far escaped the wrath of Moldova in this round. Thanks to the five-sided peacekeeping format that is in place, the last time Moldova attacked to kill was in 1992.

The small, pro-Russian province that Moldova wants to rule is Transdniestria, against the very clear will of the people who live there.

The former Israeli Ambassador to Georgia Shabtai Zur says that Georgia modeled its army after Israel’s. This is reported by Israel’s news agency Ynetnews.com in an article where he reveals that “Georgian government officials used to tell me that they wanted to model their army after the IDF.”

The IDF, the Israeli Defense Force, is widely seen as one of the worst most brutal and repressive armies, in particular as an occupying force against the would-be state of Palestine which unsuccesfully has sought independence and recognized statehood for the past fifty years in the face of Israeli and American opposition.

The ex-Ambassador also confirms that Israeli Brigadier General Gal Hirsch (Galilee Division commander during the Second Lebanon War) “has been operating in Georgia for some time now and is providing consultation to the Georgian army.”

In 2006 Israel’s IDF launched an invasion of Lebanon. Despite repeated calls for a ceasefire at the UN-level, an American veto at the Security Council blocked a ceasefire resolution and allowed the Israeli invasion to go ahead unimpeded for the better part of a month, causing heavy Lebanese losses. This post is filed in the “Dept. of Double Standards” because they are now quickly calling for a UN ceasefire resolution to save the miscalculated Georgian attack, forgetting their obstructive stand in a similar situation just two years ago.

But it turns out that the links are even tighter. Soldiers from U.S.-proxy Israel also participated in the attack on South Ossetia, writes the-exile:

When Georgia mounted her ferocious attack on South Ossetia early on Friday morning she didn’t just have tanks, artillery and infantry, she had Israeli military advisers as well. According to Debka.com up to a 1,000 Israelis were training the Georgian forces and many of those men were directly involved with the attack.

However, Douglas Farah’s respected Counterterrorism Blog points out that -

It is not wise, strategically, to open a military front -via proxies- against the Russian Federation in the Caucuses.

- adding that “many in Washington and Brussels are still in Cold War mood.” That mood leads to a one-sided black and white view of events which is wrong, warns Georgetown University professor Charles King, author of “The Moldovans” and an expert on Transdniestria. He has previously argued that independence is the best solution for Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transdniestria. And after the recent events there are no other options left. In the words of Charles King:

For Georgia, this war has been a disastrous miscalculation. South Ossetia and Abkhazia are now completely lost.

Charles Ganske writes from Washington State:

Predictably, in the wake of Russia sending reinforcements to back up its peacekeepers under siege by the Georgian army in the tiny disputed territory of South Ossetia, Arizona Senator and Republican Presidential candidate John McCain is denouncing the move as “Russian aggression” against Georgia. Nevermind that it was the Georgian army which launched the offensive that ignited the present round of fighting.

The article also uncovers the “drive by media” which disinforms more than it informs. The whole thing is a must read, especially now that Transdniestrians, too, are becoming involved in defending the South Ossetians from annihilation.

Conflict background info and latest updates here.

Additional links:

* Wally of the Week: Mikheil Saakashvili
* The US and Britain: Olympic Champions in Double Standards
* The Exile: South Ossetia conflict
* U.S. Attacks Russia Through Client State Georgia

And an apt Kosovo comparison, from commentary on Byzantine Blog:

(…) basically that Serbia was an “aggressor” who disrespected international laws and rules by defending its own citizens in its own province of Kosovo and Metohija, and it had to be stopped — bombed — and further punished by getting its ancient territory severed, declared a separate state and recognized by the self-styled champions of democracy, the West.

South Ossetia, on the other hand, a Russian province generously gifted to Georgia by Stalin during his dictatorship, may, should and indeed must be attacked by Georgia’s army and police, because, unlike Serbs in their province of Kosovo, Georgians are merely “restoring peace and order” in South Ossetia. Where Serbs were “aggressors”, Georgians are allowed to be a “legitimate power” and the only ones allowed to get in and do whatever they want to do to those Russians. Russia must not interfere! The EU may, NATO may, U.S. may and should interfere, but Russia must get out of the way.

And people buy this crock?! Unbelievable.

Residents of Transdniestria’s Tiraspol poured into the streets Friday for a mass protest meeting against the killing of 1,400 civilians in merely the first day alone of the war against South Ossetia. The Transdniestrians fear that, if successful, Georgia’s military solution to the South Ossetian “frozen conflict” will embolden Moldova to try a similar tactic against Transdniestria.

With the world press distracted due to news coverage of the Olympic opening ceremonies in Beijing, Georgia launched a long-planned military offensive to take control of South Ossetia which has been governing itself as a “de facto” independent country since winning a war for independence in 1992.

Five ethnic Ossetian villages have already been completely razed to the ground with tanks and bulldozers. In the first day alone, Georgia killed 1400 civilians on the South Ossetian side. This is nearly 2% of the population. If this pace is kept up, it will take only two months for Georgia to exterminate the entire population of South Ossetia. But - not surprisingly - a total of 30,000 refugees have already fled the fighting. With almost half the population on the run, this is proportionally far worse than what is happening today in Darfur. Yet CNN merely reported that “Russian tanks are moving in and there are more than 1000 civilian deaths,” falsely leading viewers to believe that the Russian tanks had caused the civilian deaths.

South Ossetia’s government is urgently trying to bring the reality of Georgia’s systematic annihilation to the attention of the world:

The International Community that has been hypnotized with the crying misinformation of the government of Georgia

Georgia’s invasion started three hours after Georgian President Saakashvili had gone on TV to publicly proclaim a ceasefire and offer peaceful negotiations. Using this deceit to trick South Ossetia to let down its guard, Georgia moved heavy troops into South Ossetia in the dead of the night and specifically went for Tskhinvali civilians in a move aimed to sow fear and terrorize the population as quickly as possibly. OSCE was forced to abandon its peacekeeping- and observer posts in the area. At the same time, Georgian peacekeepers (who were part of a UN-sanctioned multinational force also including Russians and South Ossetians) began shooting their Russian and Ossetian colleagues at short range. Peacekeepers who were merely wounded got “finished off” with mercy-shots fired to the temple of each one of them by the Georgians.

Georgia destroyed South Ossetia’s capital city Tshinvali and its suburbs with a barrage of Grad rockets and missiles hitting densely-built areas full of civilians. There can be no excuse for the usage of multiple-launch rocket systems against a peaceful population made up mostly of civilians.

Russia only sent in the extra troops AFTER Tshinvali was bombarded for 14 hours in a row.
Despite Georgia’s hollow-sounding claims of now being attacked, Russian troop presence in South Ossetia is actually completely legal: They are allowed to be there upon mutual agreement with Georgia, as part of the 1992 OSCE-brokered agreement. Russia’s decision to reinforce the peacekeepers with additional troops to protect South Ossetia shows that Russia is simply holding its side of the bargain.

It was Georgia, not Russia, who violated the status quo of several years of peace with their blitzkrieg.

After the legally-stationed Russian peacekeepers came under heavy attack, with deaths and wounded Russian troops, it is understandable that Russia decided to send reinforcements. Similarly, if US troops had been attacked, would the US government sit and do nothing?

Daniel Larison is sympathetic to their current position:

To understand the Russian response, imagine how Americans would respond if Serbia launched an attack into Kosovo while our KFOR troops were still there, and then imagine how much stronger the U.S. response would be if, in the course of the attack to retake the province, our troops took casualties because of that attack.

Kosovo tries to secede from Serbia - Serbia tries to stop it - so NATO rolls in with blazing tomahawks and planes to stop the Serbian move.

South Ossetia tries to secede from Georgia - Georgia tries to stop it - Russia rolls in with tanks to stop the Georgian move.

What is the problem here, other than double standards?

US-backed Georgian forces invade South Ossetia under the pretext of “restoring constitutional order” (the Constitution, in this case, being the Georgian one and not South Ossetia’s own Constitution which is regarded as the only valid constitution of South Ossetia by the majority of the inhabitants there). How would it play if Serbia tried to “restore order” to Kosovo? Would the titles be “Serbia reacts to USA-backed Kosovar separatists?”

Claims that Ossetia was Georgian territory for centuries are wrong. Up to 1774 Ossetia was an independent kingdom, and in 1774 it has joined the Russian Empire because there was an immediate threat to it from Islamic states. Georgia (also a kingdom back then) joined the Russian Empire in 1801 due to the same threat. Now, Ossetia was split into South and North in 1921 when already a part of Soviet Russia and Georgia-born Stalin then made South Ossetia part of Georgian Soviet republic. Contrast this with Kosovo, on the other hand, which was historically Serb territory for centuries, and where - moreover - up until late 1940s there were barely any Albanians.

Western press is showing bias, but to read between the lines of articles in CNN or The Economist, and for some bittersweet fun in the midst of tragedy, just try changing the words Georgia into Serbia and South Ossetia into Kosovo in their articles. After killing 1400 Ossetian civilians in less than 24 hours it is crystal clear that Georgia is carrying out a plan of ethnic cleansing and genocide against the independence-seeking non-Georgian population of South Ossetia. This could help to justify Russian air attacks against Georgian cities and infrastructure — just like NATO did in Serbia.

In the eyes of the rulers of the United States, Kosovo yes but Ossetia no… However, if Kosovo has the right to independence, so does Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transdniestria.

Georgia’s President Saakashvilli, who is a citizen of the United States, receives a substantial sponsoring from the US government, something that was made public during his re-election campaign not so long ago. His military and most of the Georgian economy is subsidized by US funding.

A large part of the officers and personnel of the Georgian army have, in the last few years, been trained by US military instructors. The United States has almost one thousand military “advisors” on the ground in Georgia. To me, this seems strange, and reminiscent of US tactics in the beginning of the Soviet-Afghanistan war when CIA operatives trained and helped organize the Taliban to counter Soviet influence in the region.

Greg Moses, of Dissident Voices, clearly backs immediate recognition of an independent South Ossetia:

In consideration of the longstanding “de facto” independence of Tskhinvali, the boundary of Georgia’s “integrity” should be rethought to exclude that portion of South Ossetia known as the breakaway republic. (…) Peace for South Ossetia means relinquishing hardline claims that it falls within the “sovereign” borders of Georgia.

This view is backed by Ian Brockwell, in American Chronicle, who writes:

It is the will of the people of South Ossetia to choose a different destiny (not with Georgia) and they confirmed this desire with a vote, isn´t that democracy too? America made the same choice when it fought for independence from Britain, have the rules changed since then?

I am forced to have to agree here. Because in the end, it shouldn’t be about what Russia wants or what Georgia wants. The key democratic principle has to first and foremost be about the rights of the Ossetians who voted overwhelmingly against being reintegrated forcefully into Georgia. The same holds true in Transdniestria vis-a-vis Moldova.

New blogger Tiraspol Streets just moved from Chicago to Tiraspol where his family will start their new life.

He lauds the fact that Tiraspol has “lots of gorgeous women” and low prices but is not to keen on the fact that Internet here is slower than in the States. Interestingly, he apparently DOES like the sort of petty traffic cop corruption which is rife all over South Eastern Europe (and which Transdniestria doesn’t escape). Strange.

Some highlights from his debut post:

Over here, nobody is really in any hurry, everything is much calmer, people just sitting down, drinking a beer, hanging out…because money is not as important to them as it is for Americans. In Tiraspol, there are no Income Tax, Property Tax, Sales Tax…

There is something else he likes about Transdniestria, too:

Labor is pretty cheap here, for now at least…so when we went to a “good” restaurant we paid a total of 100$ for 6 people. And we had salads, 2 bottles of wine, dinner plates, and the whole nine yards. The food here is very good, so I cannot complain about that.

Notwithstanding the odd flood, July and August are the months when Transdniestria gets the most tourists. And occasionally some of them blog about it:

the guidebook we had and all the information we’d read on the Internet painted a picture of a country out of the worst Soviet Union nightmare (in the eyes of the west anyway)

Best guess is that his guidebook is the Looney Planet’s Romania book which is written by an American who lives in Romania, and who by the looks of it wrote his Transdniestria chapter based on second-hand reports from Romanians who claimed to have visited.

However, the scenario painted by the guidebook predictably proved to be bollocks - everyone we had contact with was nice and we went round seeing the sights and everything else - in fact, the place seems actually RICHER (if not by much) than Moldova,

Predictably, this visitor - after having seen Transdniestria first hand - now refers to it as a country. It is, and this is what a personal first hand visit is living proof of. Only those who haven’t been to Transdniestria still cling to the fiction that it is somehow “part of Moldova.”

Transdniestria’s Olvia Press reports on how the state still gives free housing to public employees of Transdniestria. In the latest example, an apartment block with 80 homes was inaugurated in Tiraspol and housing given mostly to workers of the PMR national railroad.

The railroad was established in 2004 when Transdniestria took over the operations of the rail service running within its territory. The article notes that earlier, when under Moldovan control, workers who had no housing did not get any apartments; nor were any planned.

If all this sounds “Soviet” then the article also notes that water heating is now done with Danish equipment located in each apartment so that residents don’t rely on city-heated water. The latter is notoriously only available during the cold season and residents get no hot water during summer months.

Pop Quiz: If you were a recent East European flood victim, would you rather be a citizen of ..?
A) Ukraine
B) Transdniestria
C) Moldova
Although the death toll has risen in both Ukraine and Moldova, and these two recognized countries have received aid from dozens of fellow U.N.-member states, there are not yet any concrete plans on how to allocate resources directly to flood victims.

Compare this with the actions of the unrecognized republic of Transdniestria:

The Transdnestr government plans to give $23,500 to help people whose houses are uninhabitable rebuild their lives, and to provide up to $3,000 for owners to repair damaged homes. It says the payments will be made by September 1.

More, in English, on the flooding of Transdniestria here and here.

Germany’s DPA (rightly) notes that Transdniestria already has “effective independence.” Which brings us to the principle of effectivités.