Do our Media Understand the Russia-Georgia Conflict?

by Deb Cupples |   I don't know much about the current conflict between Russia and Georgia, and some media accounts differ so widely that I'm confused.  For example, a recent Slate article begins with this paragraph:

"It is impossible to think about the Russian assault on Georgia without feeling like a heartless bastard or a romantic fool. Should we just let Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev roll their tanks into Tbilisi in recognition of Moscow's sphere of influence—and let a fledgling democracy die?"

That paragraph gives the impression that Russia is acting out of pure meanness, with no reasons whatsoever. 

The Times of London recently published an article (Analysis: roots of the conflict between Georgia, South Ossetia and Russia), which starts with quite a different paragraph:

"Many factors are involved in the present conflict but the central one is straightforward: the majority of the Ossetes living south of the main Caucasus range in Georgia wish to unite with the Ossetes living to the north, in an autonomous republic of the Russian Federation; and the Georgians, regarding South Ossetia as both a legal and an historic part of their national territory, refuse to accept this." (Times of London)

If the Times author (a professor at Kings College in London) is correct, then it seems that there may be more to the current conflict than arbitrary meanness on the part of Russia.

My co-blogger Damozel wrote two posts on the crisis (here and here), based largely on information from British media. She wrote, for example:

"The Russians have apparently provided military support to the rebels in South Ossetia and Abkhazia"-- and they certainly seem disposed to take advantage of this opportunity. But they went into South Ossetia because they've had an obligation since 1992 under the Commonwealth of Independent States agreement to act as "peacekeeper." (BBC News)

The fact is, the Georgian president wishes to "unify" Georgia against the wishes of the people in the regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, both of which have declared their independence. (BBC News)  The Georgian president launched a surprise attack intended to subdue South Ossetian separatist forces after agreeing to allow Russia to mediate the dispute....

The BBC's information suggests that the Russians are merely responding to the Georgian president's agreement-breaching acts of violence against South Ossetia.  If that's how it happened, then are the Russians wrong for defending South Ossetia?

On the other hand, the conservative British Telegraph argues that the Russians have been opportunistically waiting for an excuse to attack Georgia.

Again, this is not my area, so I don't know what's really going on.  What seems clear is that the situation is far more complex than reflected by some of the analogies and sound bites that some media are feverishly repeating.

Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo has similarly expressed "deep skepticism about a great deal of the coverage we're seeing about what's happening."

Booman Tribune says there's an information war going on now and that virtually no sources are reliable:

"Any Russian annexation of Georgia would threaten British Petroleum's assets to such a degree that British sources are not reliable. American sources are suspect for the same reason. I would not trust Russian sources, either. Perhaps the East Asian press can be seen as an honest broker."

If Booman's right, then it's sort of like the position of us taxpayers back in 2003 regarding Iraq.  We were dis-informed until the cows came home -- and left and came home again.  Only in hindsight (after it's too late) will we get some idea of the situation's reality.

Memeorandum has commentary.

Recent Buck Naked Politics Posts:

* Dems Shoot at Their Own Feet Again

* House Judiciary to Probe Forged Evidence re: Iraq

* More on the Russo-Georgian Conflict

* Iraq Wants Troop Withdrawal Timeline

.

Comments

[Ralph Dreifus]

It is always interesting to receive more than one view of a geo-political event. The truth of the matter is most of the conflicts for the next ten or fifteen years are going to center around fossil fuel. The warning flag was raised over thirty years ago and it has only gotten worse. The greed factor in the long run will be the undoing of mankind.

[Adam]

As I said in a message to Damozel, it's increasingly clear to me that none of the local players are good guys.

For Georgia's part, this is something like Serbia of the 1990s attempting to hold their nation together. Georgia is one of the few true Democracies in the region, and that's great, but it doesn't necessarily make the president a good guy. There's a fierce Georgian nationalism at play that leads to a strong anti-Russian sentiment, both toward Russia the nation and Russian people in general.

For Russia's part, this is part of a broader goal to reassert military hegemony over as much of the former Soviet Union as is possible. Georgia is of particular strategic interest to them because of the oil pipeline. They want to control all the oil pipelines from Asia to Europe.

As Ralph Dreifus observes, there's a big resource motivation here. Of course, that's nothing new. In a real sense, this is just a big long extension of the "great game". That originally began as a battle between the British and Russian Empires in the early 1800s for control over southwest and central asia, with the USA taking over for the Brits after WW2. It's been one long battle to keep Moscow from getting access to the Persian Gulf.

The neocons who dominate the editorial pages want us to help Georgia not because they give a crap about Georgia, but because a friendly Georgian regime is key to outflanking Russia towards the Caspian oil fields.

Seen in this context, fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and agitating for a third front in Iran, is just a continuation of historical norms. It's the classic 19th century answer to our 21st century problems.

[Deb Cupples]

Ralph,

You make a good point. Please note that I have NO OPINION, because I don't know the facts -- and obviously the media are giving conflicting stories.

Perhaps I'll learn some truths from the history books one day -- depending on who writes them :)

[Deb Cupples]

ADam,

What you say makes sense, though I still have too little info to argue anything except that 1) media stories conflict, and 2) that some media seem to be jumping to unquestioned conclusions of others.

Where have we seen that before?

If the BBC quote is correct -- that when Georgia attacked it violated a political/contractual obligation to allow Russia to mediate -- then is it accurate for anyone to say that Russia had no justification at all to attack?

Again, I can't separate the spin from the facts.

Sounding rather neocon-ish himself, Obama said that Russia had "no justification."

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/obama_no_possible_justificatio.php

Maybe he doesn't mean it -- is just trying to sound tough.

The good news is that Memeorandum headlines indicate that Russia responded to pressure and has ceased.

[Adam]

I think it's fair to say that Russia had no justification to bomb targets in Georgia outside South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Moreover, the idea that Russia was an honest broker in peace talks was a farce. They were agitators in this conflict, supporting the seperatists.

That said, there are humanitarian issues, and I'm not trying to paint the Georgians as good guys.

[Deb Cupples]

Adam,

On WHAT GROUNDS do you assert that Russia had no justification?

If various national media are telling different stories, how do you know enough to assess what really happened?

Seriously. If the U.S. and Britain and Georgia have oil interests tied to the conflict that are at odds with Russia's oil interests, don't you think it's possible that various officials are slanting what they say to the press?

I know U.S. officials are capable of it. Remember the Iraq war lead up?

I DON'T know what's really going on either, which is why I'm suspending judgment. But do I blindly believe our political officials?

Nope. Not after 2002-03. And I'm surprised that you do, given that there's no practical benefit from simply taking their words at face value and coming to a judgment at this moment.

[Adam Tarr]

It's just very hard for me to imagine any reasonable set of explanations whereby Russia bombing targets in Georgia proper, outside of the seperatist regions, is justified.

[Deb Cupples]

Adam,

I don't know what's really on. I any case, McCain and Obama have both made it clear that they think Russia is the black hat.

I, frankly, don't know what to believe. And I don't see how you could know either (unless you're moonlighting as an on-the-ground military strategist or diplomat over there).

Haven't we watched politicians and media deceive us on matters of war?

[J A R]

I am not an expert here, but I was in Russia at the outbreak of the conflict and watched Russian TV news reporting for more than a week. I thought the Russian TV reporting had some fairness, as it also showed the headlines about the coverage from European and US newspapers, with translations of the lead paragraphs. So it was not just a question of, you will only hear what we want you to hear.

Russian peacekeepers have been in South Ossetia for a number of years. The Georgian troops are not supposed to be in the area. The border crossing between Georgia and South Ossetia has three guard stations: Geogian troops on the Georgia side, South Ossetian troops on the South Ossetia side, and Russian troops in the middle.

The population of South Ossetia has a majority of ethnic Russians. When the Soviet Union was dissolved, citizens of the member republics were given the choice of which new country they wanted the citizenship of. The ethnic Russians in South Ossetia for the most part are citizens of Russia, not of Georgia.

Georgia is obviously unhappy with having two autonomous provinces, and wants to bring them fully under its control. It launched a full-scale attack on Tskhinvali, the capital/largest city of South Ossetia, on August 8, the opening day of the Olympic games. They killed more than 90 Russian peacekeeping troops. Tskhinvali was just about leveled. Not a single block was unharmed. Even the cemeteries were destroyed. Russian residents fled to North Ossetia, which has been a part of Russia at its own request since the 1770s (calling it Russian-controlled is like calling New York US-controlled: a really stupid choice of words). North Ossetia took in 34,000 refugees from South Ossetia ... not the direction you would ever flee if Russia had launched the attack.

The president of Georgia is English-speaking, and used this to his advantage in disseminating news (I would call it disinformation) to the press. He blamed the Russian troops for the attack on Tskhinvali. The Russians responded in the same way that I believe the US would respond if its citizens and its troops were attacked.

Abkhazia has a reciprocal agreement with South Ossetia, that if one is attacked, the other will help defend. That put Abkhazia into play.

The Western press shows it bias when it reports only what Georgia announces in its press conferences. I wonder why it does not translate any of the Russian news reports?

[Deb Cupples]

JAR,

I guess you agree that our media doesn't really understand the conflict (yet).

Thanks for all the info and insights!

[T N K]

J A R

I read your comment - cnacubo! - everything is great except one note: the 90+ majority of South Ossetia population are Russian citizens, but they are not ethnic Russians - they are ethnic Ossets

[ib]

Much of this conflict isn't clear but the hypocrisy of the US&European governments seems very obvious. All media outlets have mentioned that Georgian artillery targeted a population center. No western governments have criticized this. Instead they have been adamant about 'Georgian territorial integrity' - hard to believe US would bring out this argument while their forces are occupying two countries.

[Deb Cupples]

IB,

You too make some good points!