Georgia: U.S. Watched as a Squabble Turned Into a Showdown
 

August 18, 2008

By HELENE COOPER, C.J. CHIVERS and CLIFFORD J. LEVY

NY Times

WASHINGTON — Five months ago, President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia, long a darling of this city’s diplomatic dinner party circuit, came to town to push for America to muscle his tiny country of four million into NATO.

On Capitol Hill, at the State Department and at the Pentagon, Mr. Saakashvili, brash and hyperkinetic, urged the West not to appease Russia by rejecting his country’s NATO ambitions.

At the White House, President Bush bantered with the Georgian president about his prowess as a dancer. Laura Bush, the first lady, took Mr. Saakashvili’s wife to lunch. Mr. Bush promised him to push hard for Georgia’s acceptance into NATO. After the meeting, Mr. Saakashvili pronounced his visit “one of the most successful visits during my presidency,” and said he did not know of any other leader of a small country with the access to the administration that he had.

Three weeks later, Mr. Bush went to the Black Sea resort of Sochi, at the invitation of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia. There, he received a message from the Russian: the push to offer Ukraine and Georgia NATO membership was crossing Russia’s “red lines,” according to an administration official close to the talks.

Afterward, Mr. Bush said of Mr. Putin, “He’s been very truthful and to me, that’s the only way you can find common ground.” It was one of many moments when the United States seemed to have missed — or gambled it could manage — the depth of Russia’s anger and the resolve of the Georgian president to provoke the Russians.

The story of how a 16-year, low-grade conflict over who should rule two small, mountainous regions in the Caucasus erupted into the most serious post-cold-war showdown between the United States and Russia is one of miscalculation, missed signals and overreaching, according to interviews with diplomats and senior officials in the United States, the European Union, Russia and Georgia. In many cases, the officials would speak only on the condition of anonymity.

It is also the story of how both Democrats and Republicans have misread Russia’s determination to dominate its traditional sphere of influence.

Rest at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/18/washington/18diplo.html?_r=1&th=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=th&adxnnlx=1219107657-h5h8PKE6y2JdiLdQekqurw

Some things never change.

I have no idea whether there is anything the US should have done differently, but once again our Secretary of State appears to be without a clue. She chastised Russia for its aggressiveness, but didn't explain why Georgia was any better. And what credibility does she have to be lecturing anyone about respecting other countries' sovereignty?

Ain't it the truth.

"It is also the story of how both Democrats and Republicans have misread Russia’s determination to dominate its traditional sphere of influence. "

Oh goody. Let's re-elect some more wonderful Demopublicans, soon.

B

Not sure we would respond any better to Russia taking steps to include Central and South American nations in a revived Warsaw pact kind of deal.

Of COURSE it is all W's fault!

This has nothing to do with Imperial Russian ambitions nor the fact that they had effectively cut Georgia in two.

The Russians want to dominate their old empire again. I am sure that they will not stop at Georgia, but will now go after the rest of the caucuses and their former Central Asian colonies. I do think that Tadjikistan would be better off under Russian domination as they seem to be unable to go it alone.

However, If I were the Ukraine or Turkmeniststan I would be hitting myself over the head for giving up my nukes!

I just hope that NATO does not hang Poland out to dry (Poland is a NATO mamber) when it is Warsaw's turn to knuckle under to Czar Putin

It can't be W's fault. He doesn't have enough of a clue to be at fault.

Everything from high oil prices to the common cold is W's fault according to some. It is a running joke to see who can blame the poor b@st@rd first

x2.

According to who? It's much more like running straw-man for the other side.

Exactly.

You are really that naive? What has Georgia being better have to do with anything? As to credibility, what difference would it have made if Thailand or Switzerland said it? Those are all words. Do you think Russia would care more if Germany or France or Spain said it? Probably not. Only you seem to think it matters. What is going to matter in the end is how much that Russian adventure is going to end up costing them vs the gain.

and where they are going to muscle into next... If I were anywhere in the area surrounding Russia I would be *****ting bricks right now...
I am sure the Azerbajani oil fields look awfully good to Czar Putin right now...

That depends on whether that would be in our interests or not. If so, we would be raising a big stink. Otherwise, if they wiped out say Darfur, think we'd care or even hiccup? OTOH, we should help them if they every decide to take over Nigeria. Not that I fall for their scams but I am getting tired of the spam from that area.

That seems to be the way of the world. All the nice sounding, well meaning speeches are good for a laugh. Do something that affects me and watch me spew out all the moralistic crap that seems to mean something to some stupid listeners. Do something that is morally wrong that DOES NOT affect me and watch that eye turn blind.