naked capitalism

tyaresun says:

Thanks for the Gerogia-Russia link.

Anonymous says:

Stocks may continue to soar like an eagle towards the moon, but from what I see the dividend check will not be in the mail, thus I wonder how sustainable this new trend will be, as the foundation (for future growth) is exposed as being worthless.

Dan Duncan says:

Richard,

It might be best (and far more insightful) to play the little 6 Degrees of Seperation game with Kevin Bacon—as opposed to this 6 Degrees of US “neo-imperialist” foreign policy. [Yes, it pains me to write "neo-imperialist"...god what an annoying "sub-intellectual" phrase that is. Can we get a "post-fascist" please?)

First off, you've taken one side of the story as fact: That Georgia unilaterally attacked a Russian protectorate. This has not been established as fact.

A more accurate portrayal is to state that Russian troops first entered Georgian territory late last week under disputed circumstances. Russia says Georgia had launched an unprovoked assault on South Ossetia Thursday night and that Russia was obliged to protect its peacekeepers and citizens.

Georgia, on the other hand, retorts that South Ossetian troops breached a ceasefire Thursday and launched a major attack, while Russian forces were already en route to back them up.

You've conveniently chosen the narrative that that justifies your rant. For some reason, it makes sense to you that a country with a "tinfoil" army would unilaterally attack a much stronger neighbor...all because of some vague "encouragement" by BushDick. Your foreign policy "analysis" is like a Seifeld episode. "I saw him wink, did you see him wink? Yeah, that's what I thought. OK, let's attack!"

The best part about all this is your ability to connect the dots between an issue which pre-dates the Bush-Cheney tenure by 10 years (the SEPARATION of Abkhazia from Russia) with Bush-Cheney IMPERIALISM...ah sorry, NEO-IMPERIALISM....

[Sorry for the cap-lock abuse. But the distinction between one regions desire to be independent and USA's "desire" to be imperialst seems to be lost on you.]

Trenchant stuff this is: A flare-up over an early 1990s SEPARATION of a vowel-lite alphabet soup region is actually a covert “NEO-IMPERIALIST” plot designed by Bush—possibly while he was governor of Texas—only to be executed 3 months prior to end of his admittedly interminable presidency with a wink and a slight head nod.

I am in a state of neo-post-uber-hegemonic-stupefication over this one.

Richard Kline says:

So Dan D., I have followed Georgia and it’s ethnic subdivisions for decades, and I have a close perspective on millennia of history in the Caucasus, the ethnic groups, and languages, and much else. Simply because I do not choose to parse and footnote all that in a toss-off comment needn’t imply a lack of familiarity. Just for your information. The Ossettes have nothing whatsoever to do ethnically or otherwise with the artificial boundaries of a state sovereignty grandfathered to the Georgian SSR when Big Daddy SSR fell apart. Their determination to maintain a single Ossettian communal state, that artificial boundary nothwithstanding, is as valid as any other independence movement one might care to find elsewhere in the world at this time or in the last two hundred years of ‘imperial’ Empire dissolutions. That poses a big problem for the Georgians in that they have other ethnic separatist groups who have no love of the East Georgian (to simplfy) population and government who numerically dominate that multi ethnic state. Etc., etc., but I do not see the Georgian government in any way in the right, even if they surely have a right to negotiate a mutually agreeable outcome. The Georgians have been short on negotiation, for many and complex reasons, but the ball has been in their court for years. Instead, Saakashvili has chosen to recruit foreign diplomatic support and military cover in a context which his country cannot afford, inherently exacerbating a confrontation with Russian that is madness for his state. No amount of American applause will sustain Georgia in the face of Russian hostility, near term or long term. An independent Georgia whatever its borders has to live with the reality of Russia, and the faction running Georgia for some time cannot bring themselves to do that.

Furthermore, Dan, your characterization of the events of the last week in the Caucasus strikes me as inaccurate at best, and exceedingly favorable to Saakashvili and his nutcase colonels. Who did or did not violate the ceasefire of _years_ duration may be unclear; your buying into the propaganda that it was ‘those dastardly renegades’ when they had no need whatsoever to do so seems less than even handed. What is certain, and which I recommend that you consider, is that Georgia had a major military push READY TO GO because they crossed into S. Ossetia rapidly, in force, with a defined objective. Think about that; not the kind of thing one prepares in less than 48 hours even if a major provocation happened, especially given the risks which are now only too obvious. This smells planned. It is an easy thing to run a little border raid, scream one is ‘attacked,’ and then go for broke, even if that may not be the case, here. Then there are two other things clearly missing from your brief summation, all that we know for certain given that pervasive lack of detailed news and natural exaggeration from reports relayed by panicked civilians. Georgian forces clearly entered the major town in S Ossetia in force, but were either ambushed or badly handled, with many vehicles destroyed and significant casualties—before the Russians entered S Ossetia; that is, the Georgians went looking for a fight in the one place the Ossetians would have to fight, but even then got more then they bargained for. Second, there are clearly hundreds of slain Ossetian civilians at least, particularly in that wrecked town (I discount claims in four figures until and unless they are verified). The Georgians have the blood of hundreds of people on their hands over what to that point had been a border clash at most. Where is your sympathy, concern, or outrage over that? My clear impression is that once the Georgians were pinned down in that town they bombed and shelled it more or less indiscriminantly because they were taking fire in the city center. That is a war crime in anyone’s book. Where is your concern, circumspection, and judicious weighing of events in relation to that clear decision by the Georgians? The fact that this voluntary destruction of the major urban area in S Ossetia is not at the center of your response to the events in the Caucasus, just as US media can’t quite get its mealy and well-fed mouth around the substance of the Georgian _offensive_, let’s call it what it was, even with the cause unstated, tells loudly whose life and right you weigh more dearly. I do not share that view.

To me, the issue of ‘who started this’ is puerile, the kind of issue that comfortable people who never get bombed concern themselves with when reading about rude natives in other lands. The Georgians sent a major military force into a region where they had been barred for a dozen years, with severe and probable consequences that they must have understood or should have, with massive loss of civliian life there. This was an OPTIONAL act; Georgia, even if itself attacked, had many choices. We see the one Saakashvili prefered. And that one, and what follows from it, is on him. It is an obligation of heads of state with military command authority to act with restraint with maximum concern for the long term outcome beyond short term advantage. Saakashvili has been indescribably reckless, no matter what provocation did or did not happen. For the record, I see this as wholly Georgian provoked, with US complicity, as I stated, but I’ll grant that that ‘isn’t proven.’ He’s a danger to his people, a very large number of whom wanted him replaced. He probably lost that election last year, there was massive fraud. He has no legitimacy in my eyes. Do I want him overthrown? Well, it would be better if the Georgians did it, but they tried and he used the Army on them—which the US trained, equipped, and practically leads. What does THAT say, Dan?

Regarding my characterization of Dick and Geordie’s program as neo-imperialism, I’m not going to summarize their polices, stated and in action, in a score of countries over two Administrations here. I do not use that wording either lightly or without regard to its meaning, Dan. Their policy IS imperial in effect. They have a clear modus operandi; this is a matter of looking at events closely and comparing them and the associated language over time. I didn’t mention July 06 in my previous comment, but the present events in Georgia are a carbon copy, nothing changed but the names and dates. The manifest aggressor then, as now, was rankly defeated, having used massive firepower on civilian areas in a patently pre-planned offensive. I’m referring to the Israelies and the Georgians, just in case you drank the koolaid on that one so that the inference isn’t apparent. Think about that, if you care to Dan, and the substance, schema, and trajectory of my remarks may better hold. Your view may differ; that is of course your choice. I think mine is both accurate and well defensible in relation to the facts.