Saakashvili continues to use gullible journalists to push the lie that he advanced in South Ossetia to head off a column of Russian tanks bearing down on Tskhinvali. The complaint about the tanks did not show up in any interviews with Saakashvili or any of his officials until, near as I can tell, Mr. Worms told Mr. Totten about it—now that meme is cropping up in many interviews with Georgian officials.
I would guess, if Russia actually was moving tanks through the Roki tunnel into South Ossetia, Georgia would have been complaining about it in the hour before they launched their cease-fire offensive into the breakaway region. Or they would have raised it at the emergency UNSC meeting on August 7th/8th. Or it would have been mentioned at all before August 25—perhaps in one of Saakashvili’s many op-eds in Western papers.
The problem is, because Americans are inclined to side with Georgia— in part because Russia’s atrocities and intransigence are more visible (let us not forget the South Ossetians complaining of Georgian war crimes against their civilians), in part because Georgia is a “democracy,” only one with rigged elections and an unfree press just like Russia, and in part because Saakashvili has spent the last few years making himself an amenable personality in Western press (which neither Putin nor Medvedev have bothered to do).
So, he gets nice little puff pieces like this one. And Totten’s. And the lie that Georgia invaded South Ossetia because of a phantom Russian advance continues.
Bonus Content: a few weeks after we were discussing how Russia is actually the big loser in this conflict, Foreign Policy posts an interview with Paul Goble, who says much the same thing.
This post was written by...
Joshua Foust – author of 1801 posts on Registan.net.
Joshua Foust is a Fellow at the American Security Project and the author of Afghanistan Journal: Selections from Registan.net. His research focuses primarily on Central and South Asia. Joshua is a correspondent for The Atlantic and a columnist for PBS Need to Know. Joshua appears regularly on the BBC World News, Aljazeera, and international public radio. Joshua is also a regular contributor to Foreign Policy’s AfPak Channel, and his writing has appeared in the New York Times, Reuters, and the Christian Science Monitor. Follow him on twitter: @joshuafoust
For information on reproducing this article, see our Terms of Use
{ 12 comments }
Not to plug my own blog, but if you look at my translations of news reports on the days of August 7 and 8 (http://tarjimani.blogspot.com/2008_08_07_archive.html and http://tarjimani.blogspot.com/2008_08_08_archive.html), it’s quite obvious that Russian forces didn’t come into the country until the 8th.
And if you read the news reports coming out of Georgia on the 10th (http://tarjimani.blogspot.com/2008_08_10_archive.html) you can see that the Georgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs is just churning out propaganda. One minute they say that the Russians have almost been forced out of South Ossetia; the next that Georgia has left South Ossetia entirely.
Interesting that Paul Goble is “Director of Research and Publications” at the Azerbaijan Diplomatic Academy, the same body that recently hosted Michael Totten and company.
Ryan,
Don’t worry — I do the same thing. I figure so long as it’s relevant, it’s fair game. Thanks.
Richard, I noticed that too. I would wager he has a pro-Azeri view of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, and you can see some hints of that in his discussion of Azerbaijan’s posture and military and capabilities. But I don’t know what kinds of biases exist in his discussion of Georgia. It was just an interesting symmetry, is all.
It wouldnt be surprising if Thomas Goltz were involved with the Azerbaijan Diplomatic Academy junket as well. He has lectured there before and he is close to the Azeris. Also how is it that he happens to be in Tiblisi at this time?
I think it is becoming increasingly evident that this conflict is a setback for Russia, and I’ve said so over at my blog.
Has Totten admitted–in any way–that his information is suspect?
Richard, I couldn’t say.
Dan, I think there might be a growing concensus that this war will be bad news bears for Russia. As for Totten, he hasn’t admitted as much, though a growing number of his commenters are finding reasons to be skeptical of his account.
There is no truth, or lie, that justify Russia’s bearing down a tank column into Georgia proper.
I haven’t seen the news media behaving this way since the invasion of Iraq. Even the AP is spinning the SCO meeting, claiming that President Medveyev failed in his stated objective of winning support for recognition of the two territories. Even though Medveyev issued a statement in advance that it was not his objective and was unlikely to occur. In fact, China is taking a studiously neutral position on the conflict. Yet this is being portrayed as a political defeat.
China’s position is correct – its time to end the war of words before there is direct military conflict between Russia and NATO. China is calling for dialog and also for Russia to remain as peacekeepers. NATO should get its nuclear armed missile cruisers out of the Black Sea before this escalates any further.
Meleager–really? Was there no truth, or no lie, that justified the US bombing Serbia “proper” in 1996? If the Russians are right, and the Georgians mounted an offensive on South Ossetia aimed at retaking the provence and, along the way, killed South Ossetian troops that would not justify striking back at Georgia’s base of operations? If we take you literally, then no war is ever justified. Are you a pacifist?
meleager, if Russia were actively seeking out civilian targets, then I would agree with you. But in a battle you try to cripple or limit your enemy’s offensive capabilities as quickly as possible — which is why Russia went after Gori, Poti, and Senaki. All three had military installations. Unfortunately, civilians live in those areas, too, and many died in the crossfire — such is the tragedy of war.
Please don’t think that I’m saying this because I’m a Russophile. In fact, if anything, the opposite is true. Georgia was my home for almost 9 months over 2007-08. I would much rather live in Georgia than pretty much anywhere else in the world. I don’t claim to be an expert, but unlike just about any other blogger out there, I know the language (both Georgian and Russian), understand the people, and the political situation there. Based on my experiences in Georgia, on what I’ve seen and heard with my own eyes and ears, I know that Saakashvili must go, for Georgia’s sake if not the world’s.
Mr. Foust,
FYI: Totten engaged in the same type of ‘independent journalism’ while in Lebanon. I know you decided to go the high road and stick to the ‘facts’ — ie, is he right or wrong, and I commend you for that, but there is a patently disturbing pattern in his work of relying on those engaged in the business of strategic communications. Nothing wrong with that I suppose — all things being fair in love and war — but just wanted to encourage you to stand your ground.
Cheers. And nice site.
I’ve been looking at a document here which purports to be a STRATFOR analysis, dated 8-3-04, titled “Georgia: The Approaching War with South Ossetia.” The author of this note concludes, after discussion with certain Georgian military officials, that it would be just a matter of time before Georgia would resort to military force, if necessary, to gain control of South Ossetia. Sealing the Roki Tunnel would be a key part of this operation. (Search ‘STRATFOR Ossetia’ on Google Groups.) Then we have Saakashvili’s pledge to get control of the “disputed territories,” and the history of warnings against military adventurism given to him by U.S. officials. According to the LA Times, David Fried “pleaded” with him, on 7-4-08, to disabuse himself of the notion that he could contend with Russian troops. During the same meeting, Bruce Jackson pointedly remnded him that Georgia hadn’t won a war in 2000 years. Against this backdrop, I see nothing sinister in Russia being “ready to roll” to counter a Georgian advance into South Ossetia. Saakashvili obviously bore watching.
I’ve also been looking at the transcripts of the remarks of the participants in the emergency meeting of the UN Security Council called by the Russian Federation on the late evening of 8-7-08. After informal discussions, the Council formally convened at 1:15 a.m. on 8-8. In the course of his address, Mr. Alasania, the Georgian representative, recites a long list of key South Ossetian officials who had previously served as Federation “operatives.” I’m not sure this leads where Mr. Alasania would take us. South Ossetia does seem to have been a de facto Russian protectorate for some time. As I understand it, Georgian governance in South Ossetia was constrained to a handful of small villages there located. The Russians were pretty much in control of the rest of it, and had troops there. They were in effective control of the Roki Tunnel, and were obviously moving towards recognizing South Ossetia’s independence.
The first emergency meeting of the Council seems to have received scant media attention. I have come across an AP dispatch mentioning this session, “Georgian army moves to retake South Ossetia,” dated 8-8-08. This relates that the Council reached a stalemate after the U.S., Britain and “other members” sided with Georgia in refusing to “renounce the use of force,” language demanded by the Federation. This, it seems to me, takes us to the crux of the matter: the reality that the use of force, not further diplomatic dithering, would be necessary for the realization of Georgia’s objectives. All Russia had to do, to thwart Georgia’s admittance to NATO, and remain in effective control of South Ossetia, was to sit on the status quo.
As far as who initiated the exchanges of shelling and gunfire between the lines and villages before everything broke loose, I think we need rather more than the averments of Saakashvili and his apologists.