As the Georgian fiasco unfolded factual on the ground reporting was hard to come by. Snippets of "facts" were everywhere. It did become clear that Georgia attacked and entered South Ossetia, in strength, on August 7. It also became clear that Russia’s prompt response, with overwhelming strength, had been planned for. Large forces of armor and personnel need massive amounts of fuel and support and the column that swept through South Ossetia and into Georgia was no ad hoc security force, brought quickly together. The Russian Black Sea fleet had steam up and was ready to go.
President Bush, showing alarm garnished with embarrassment and anger, set the tone for England, France and Germany to wail and the media said little to bring balance to the picture. After all, Democrat or Republican, who was going to offer justification much less rational understanding that could be taken as justification, for the marauding Russian bear.
Extensive video coverage, a virtually unlimited forum, for the distraught Georgian President to present his case, worked against him as each time he slid further into a the quicksand of sloppy lies.
As I scanned newspaper accounts of what had and was happening I noted that many, here and abroad, that were printing "news" as well as commentary , were showing a time line of events. Many commenced the time line on August 8, stating that this was when the Russians invaded Georgia.
August 7 and the events leading up to it were initially ignored.
Finally, on August 18, The New York Times printed an article (link below)
(
http://(http//www.nytimes.com/2008/08/18/washington/18diplo.html?em)
that provides a broader perspective and it is very helpful though it does not go far enough in reviewing the history of the Caucasus in general and Georgia and South Ossetia in specific. I find it interesting to consider that Georgia has been part of Russia, or what ever it was called, for longer than where I live, Maine, has been a state in this country.
In the article, describing how President Bush and Vice President Cheney embraced the President Saaskashvilli and today’s independent Republic of Georgia, that they promoted and even created, you have to wonder about the hubris and blind spots of both of them. What had they seen and what were they seeing. In a column of mine published in 2000 I touched on how I always watched the eyes. An excerpt follows:
"ALWAYS WATCH THE EYES
In my career I have had to walk into a room to negotiate this or that and the people on the other side of the table were frequently not known to me before the meeting. While one looks for all sorts of clues to learn about the adversary from clothing, haircut, size, build etc. the key to me has always been the eyes. Sooner or later the eyes do not lie. Body language is complex and revealing but sooner or later the eyes provide the key to break the performance code. Now, some people are awfully good actors and some can really control all of the extraneous little signals but as the husk is discarded the nut of the problem is usually revealed in the eyes.
So, if TV is of limited value for lots of things I find that it provides scads of information when you get to look at the national and political figures strut their stuff. To me Secretary of State Madeline Albright has the flat eyed stare of a stone cold assassin and Acting President of Russia, Vladimir Putin has a look of reptilian coolness. President Clinton has the eyes of a consummate deceiver. His problem is that we have all seen him flick them into different modes and what we know is that he is simply a person with no center. You want tough he flashes tough ("Now I want you to listen to me. I did not--") you want sincere he gives you sincere, you want fawning, just look at the old picture, when as a teenager when he came to Washington and shook hands with President Kennedy."
If our leaders had really watched the eyes of Mr.Saaskashvilli before the fiasco they would have seen a scheming and fawning neophyte. Had they watched him at his numerous post invasion news conferences they clearly should have thought things through before rushing to give Georgia unconditional support.
As it is, what the U.S and NATO are threatening to do to Russia so that, as Vice President Cheney states, "their action can not go unanswered," is a joke. The threat to bar Russia from the G- 7 and G - 8, the large country fraternities, is nuts. In the 1990's, Russia was basically bankrupt and close to anarchy and thus badly in need of credibility. They wanted and needed international acceptance and recognition. Those days are well behind them. Locking the big dog out of the kennel makes one wonder just who is locked up. Borrowing a line from the movie "Animal House," putting the Russia of today on "double secret probation" is just too funny.
It is equally absurd for our government and untold number of pundits to declare that "spheres of influence," are a thing of the past. After all, NATO is just one example of a western sphere of influence. It is the way this whole mess started.
At the special meeting of NATO, today, the representatives played double kissy cheek with our Secretary of Sate Condolleeza Rice and then frolicked around before they got down to business to issue stern warnings to Russia and do nothing. Which, after all, is better than if they had tried to do something.
So what to do.
Short term we will not be able, or wise, to try and do anything. War with Russia is neither justified or wanted. Our new president is going to have to lead a careful review of our entire foreign policy posture. Just consider the mess in Pakistan much less the Caucasus. It behooves us to sit down with Russia and learn their red lines and to let them know ours.
To me, Russia, at this time, does not appear to seek world domination. Neither does China or India the other predominant growing powers. they just want a bigger piece of the pie.
That could change.
However, a true understanding and rational acceptance of what these countries really want is critically needed. At the same time if their "eyes" and the facts indicate that what they want they cannot have we better reshape our own national character and direction to protect our "red lines."
