Indeed, strong pro-Georgian views in the U.S. media and foreign policy community correlate heavily with strong pro-Kosovo views. This highlights the fact that the underlying issue here is simply a disposition to take a dim view of Moscow and to favor aggressive policies to roll back Russian influence rather than some kind of deep and sincerely felt desire to help Georgia.I think this pretty much sums up the US’s stance on Georgia. We are supporting them because it annoys the Russians, not because we have some sort of deep strategic need to preserve Georgia as it exists. This is not to say, of course, that the Russians ought to be free to take away provinces from Georgia (that don’t, in fact, seem to want to be, or are in any meaningful way, a part of Georgia). But it does mean to say: what are we going to do about it? The answer seems to be: not a whole lot.
DP was discussing earlier why provinces wish to breakaway from countries. The conclusion I've come too is, if Kosovo should be allowed to determine its own fate, I can't see a reason why the Georgian provinces should be controlled by a government that, well, already doesn't control them. The fact that it is wrapped up in a larger set of political circumstances doesn't have much to do with that.
Update: And then, of course, Russia seems to invade the rest of Georgia:
The advance appeared to answer the question on which the conflict had been pivoting: Would Russia simply occupy the two separatist territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, or would it push into Georgia, raising the possibility of a full-scale invasion?The situation is, as they say, fluid. Russia taking over two provinces that already don't want to be part of Georgia is one thing. Russia just taking over Georgia is a different matter entirely.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment