Who Is It Good For?

TOL ^ | 7 August 2009

[lizol]

Who Is It Good For?

BBC Monitoring 7 August 2009

An oppositionist Russian website says South Ossetia’s leaders are angling for another war that neither Russia nor Georgia really wants.

[A year after the August war between Georgia and Russia, the rhetoric sounds familiar, with each side accusing the other of aggression. Many Russian media have speculated on whether or not war will break out again. Others, including Boris Vishnevskiy, the author of this commentary, suggest that Moscow has bought itself a headache through its support of South Ossetian President Eduard Kokoity – TOL.]

Text of Boris Vishnevskiy report: "Just Under a Year" by Russian Grani.ru website on 3 August

A year after the Russo-Georgian war, it is impossible to be confident that it will not be repeated – judging by how the assertiveness of Russia's governors general in South Ossetia has grown as of late. This assertiveness has been verbal thus far, but last year's war was anticipated by threatening statements also.

South Ossetian "President" (the titles that are employed in Tskhinvali have to be put in quotation marks – what sort of presidents and ministers can there be in a Russian occupation zone?) Eduard Kokoity has called the United States, Ukraine, and Israel "responsible for the genocide of the Ossetian people since these countries are continuing to arm Georgia," complained that Georgia "has become one of the world's most militarized states," and accused Georgia of having "mined the border" in order "to prevent the return of residents of the republic of Georgian nationality to South Ossetia."

"Defence Minister" Yuriy Tanayev then said that Georgia "has not abandoned its revanchist plans against South Ossetia" and that "the leadership of Georgia is waiting for a suitable moment to strike a blow on the quiet in the back of our republic and our independence."

The "Ministry of Foreign Affairs" of South Ossetia then "warned Georgia against continuing the military aggression" and said that "the leadership of Georgia remains geared to adventures."

Finally, the Defence Ministry (without quotation marks) of Russia took the stage, accusing Georgia of shelling Tskhinvali and its surroundings and saying that "should there be further provocations posing a threat to the population of the republic and the Russian military contingent stationed in South Ossetia, Russia's Defence Ministry reserved the right to employ all available forces and resources to protect the citizens of the Republic of South Ossetia and Russian service personnel."

The European Union observer mission spoke in response about the lack of any proof of "fire being delivered in the direction of Tskhinvali or other localities in South Ossetia," noting that "for a comprehensive evaluation of the situation, the observers' access to South Ossetia is essential" (which Moscow, as we know, prohibits). The Foreign Ministry of Georgia accused Tskhinvali of shelling Georgian villages, saw the statement of the Russian [Ministry of Defense] as an "unconcealed threat to Georgia," and recalled that "events in August of 2008 developed according to the same script."

A USEFUL DISTRACTION

Truly, everything began the same way a year ago. Whether a new conflict will begin, it is hard to tell. But it is not hard to tell who needs it and why. Georgia, for which shelling South Ossetia, risking a new Russian invasion with fatal consequences, would be suicidal, absolutely has no need of it.

Russia, which could not fail to become involved in the conflict, were it to begin, and if so, would find itself in even greater diplomatic isolation than a year ago, absolutely has no need of it. This time no one in the world (except, perhaps, Hamas or Hugo Chavez) would believe that Russia was "defending its citizens," rebuffing "Georgian aggression." Furthermore, the war of 2008 began at the peak of the oil price – and Moscow's corresponding self-confidence – today the economic situation is radically different.

The United States, which is talking about a "reset" of relations with Russia and demonstrating in every possible way its love of peace, absolutely has no need of it. It was with good reason that U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said in Tbilisi that the States will not render Georgia military assistance and called on Mikheil Saakashvili to resolve the situation involving South Ossetia and Abkhazia by exclusively peaceful means.

And who does that leave of the participants in the "Caucasus process"? We obtain by the method of elimination the sole answer to the set problem: only South Ossetia is in need of a new military conflict. And for this reason it is most likely the Tskhinvali authorities that are organizing the shelling of Georgian villages, not the other way about.

Why is war beneficial to the Kokoity regime and why is peace not beneficial to it? Because only war ensures for it (exactly as for Hamas) a comfortable and profitable life,;peace threatens a heap of troubles.

Let's imagine for a minute that lasting peace reigns in South Ossetia. What then?

There is on this territory, where, it is variously calculated, from 30,000 to 50,000 persons live, no industry, no agriculture, no mineral resources, no tourist attractions. For many years this was a "free criminal-economic zone," which manufactured bootleg vodka and through which a tumultuous stream of contraband passed in both directions. What would happen were this territory to be made independent, its borders securely closed, and it told: boys, you are free, but only now you yourselves make the money for your needs?

I believe that the answer is obvious: Kokoity and his associates would quite swiftly be called to account the full nine yards, as they say, by his own citizenry – as soon as it satisfied itself that in peaceful and independent South Ossetia none of its problems was being resolved. At the time of the recent parliamentary elections, which were conducted in the best traditions of "administrative resources," the oppositionists said that Kokoity's personal-power regime had been installed in South Ossetia (which they called "tyranny"), that "the air in South Ossetia is now imbued with desperation and hopelessness, fear and hatred," that the money that is being sent from Moscow for restoration is being stolen and not reaching those in need of assistance, that in the time that has elapsed since the war nothing has been done to improve the people's life and social conditions, and that 80 percent of the populace lives below the poverty line. But there are in South Ossetia not only the above-mentioned Foreign Ministry and MoD and others "ministries" but also an anti-trust committee and an interior policy administration in the office of the president (all this, we would remind folks, with a population comparable to an average Petersburg municipality).

But war – or armed confrontation, at least – is for Mr Kokoity something else entirely! It makes it possible to retain power at the expense of Russia, which has become his hostage because, in the event of war, it would be forced not only to support Kokoity but also to fight instead of him.

For it is understood that it would not be "South Ossetian irregulars" but regular Russian Army units that would be fighting and taking losses were a conflict to begin – while Mr Kokoity would, as a year ago, be providing commentary and talking from a secure location about "thousands of casualties" and "genocide." We would note that the true number of casualties on the part of South Ossetia – even according to the data of the Russian Investigation Committee – was less by an order of magnitude than that announced by Tskhinvali (and dutifully duplicated by Moscow) propaganda, but the talk about "genocide" continues, as we can see, to this day. Discussion of the issue of ethnic cleansing would be far more appropriate – in the light of the well-known statement of the Tskhinvali Duce that the Georgians driven from South Ossetia will never return to their homes – and these homes have long since been demolished and torched by Ossetian militants.

In addition, Russia, were anything to happen, would be forced to finance South Ossetia even more and to arm it even more. And when Mr Kokoity speaks about the "militarization of Georgia," it should be recalled that, first, no international sanctions have been imposed on it and that any country is entitled to sell it arms, second, it would be no bad thing for it to take a look in the mirror. It is South Ossetia that is a super-militarized country – 65 military personnel per 1,000 of population, whereas in Abkhazia there are 59, in Russia, approximately 10, and in Georgia, fewer than 7; as far as tanks are concerned, South Ossetia has 189 per 1,000 residents, Abkhazia, 35, Russia, 16, and Ukraine [as published], fewer than five.

And if there is anything to which the international community might take exception, it is not the "militarization of Georgia," it is the deployment of Russian military bases in South Ossetia and Abkhazia and Russian border guards putting under protection the borders separating the occupied Georgian [territory] from Georgia proper. Is it after this any wonder that no one wishes to recognize their "independence"?

Territory that is held through a neighbouring country and that is not recognized by anyone in the world other than by this country and that is guarded by this same country and populated mainly by people with passports of this same country cannot be called an independent state.

As far as financing is concerned, the Russian budget at the end of 2008 and in 2009 allocates South Ossetia 12.8 billion rubles [$410 million] for "socioeconomic development and a balanced budget." This money, as distinct from much other budgetary expenditure, was not "cut" owing to the economic crisis. In addition, expenditure on the construction of military bases and the support of the occupation forces and border guards is entered under other budgetary items.

That Russia has driven itself into a Caucasus impasse is becoming increasingly obvious. The long sequence of evidence includes the refusal to recognize the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia even by those on whom Moscow was counting (the Belarusian Foreign Ministry has ordered citizens of the republic to enter Abkhazia and South Ossetia exclusively from Georgia, then the authorities of Azerbaijan issued a similar statement). And Joe Biden's statement that his country will never recognize the independence of the occupied territories of Georgia. And a similar statement of the European Union, which is extremely unhappy with the fact that Moscow is blocking the efforts of international observers and is effectually abandoning its commitments recorded in the "Medvedev-Sarkozy Plan."

But Moscow is emphatically unwilling to acknowledge that a most glaring political mistake was made a year ago – although it is duty bound to understand that the unleashing of a new war would have nothing but negative effects.

And, meanwhile – judging by the bellicose statements of Russian generals and the bravery of South Ossetian representatives (aware of the "big brother" behind their back) – the supporters of a more judicious policy in the Caucasus have no serious support in the Kremlin.

[lizol]

Eastern European ping list

---

FRmail me to be added or removed from this Eastern European ping list

[tired1]

I find it interesting to look at ANY conflict: political, social, military in terms of who will financially gain from it.

This tends to make one very cynical, though.

[Steely Tom]

War.