The big Georgian gamble

Associated Press writer Jim Heintz had a very balanced and insightful piece on the reasons behind this recent upsurge in violence from the Georgian perspective, which, counter-intuitive as it may seem for a country of 4.5 million, was the instigator of military conflict with Russia.

Some interesting excerpts below:

MOSCOW — Behind the hostilities in South Ossetia are two nations that have long been spoiling for a fight, with Russia eager to show it’s boss in the region and U.S.-backed Georgia determined to prove it can stand up to its huge neighbor [. . .]

But the gamble may backfire: Washington hasn’t endorsed Georgia’s power play, and Moscow’s counteroffensive has brought the two sides into a fight it will be hard for Georgia, a former Soviet state, to win [. . .]

If Georgia violated its own cease-fire, it could be a crushing blow to its drive to integrate with the West.

Although the United States and other NATO members have sent substantial aid to build up Georgia’s once-shabby military, diplomats have often shown clear discomfort with Saakashvili’s headstrong ways [. . .]

The West, already deeply concerned about Russia’s rising military assertiveness, is likely to see Russia’s involvement as naked aggression and its frequent calls for peace as disingenuous [. . .]

Georgia’s thunderous assault may have been a go-for-broke move by a country that felt it was out of options amid Russia’s growing dominance in the region. Or South Ossetia’s separatists may have provoked Georgia once too often.

Furthermore, to look at this as a possible first step by Russia in recreating its empire also doesn’t hold up. The situation in Abkhazia and South Ossetia has been a war waiting to happen for a very long time. Ever since Saakashvili took power in Georgia, relations between the two countries is comparable to the Cuba-U.S. relationship, with the added flashpoints of these break-away regions, which Saakashvili has vowed to retake and Russia has pledged to defend.

I like that the article focuses on the key aspect of the conflict that is buried in nearly all Western media stories—that Georgia shot first. Now obviously Russia had knowingly put them in a bad position, and likely secretly hoped Georgia would break the cease-fire giving them an excuse to send in their tanks, but to portray Saakashvili as the innocent democratic leader facing a foreign invasion is way off mark.