News so far has been slow coming out of South Ossetia and Georgia and trying to figure out just what's happening there is difficult. The Russians have one view of events, the Ossetians another and the Georgians their own - each side telling a story that helps their case. For example, the Russians and Ossetians are claiming more than 1,500 people have been killed - many of them civilians, the Georgians say the number is less than 200 with only about half being civilians. Experience shows that in situations like these the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle.
One thing that has been clear though in the vast majority of the media reports I've seen/read is that the western press is framing the conflict in terms of Georgia good/Russia bad. Take for example this piece by Edward Lucas from the Times of London. I've seen Lucas speak several times; he is a bright guy with a solid understanding of events in Russia. But he's also very anti-Putin, which colors his assessment of the situation. In this article Lucas glosses over the flaws of Georgia's president Mikhail Saakashvili because Saakashvili is standing up to Putin.
But that there is the problem. Both the Russians and Georgians have spent months bungling the situation in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and making stupid, aggressive steps that ratcheted up the tension to a point where it finally exploded (it also looks like it was Georgian military action that provided the spark - something else Lucas downplays). International organizations - the UN, European Union, etc - also dropped the ball by ignoring the frozen conflict in South Ossetia (and a few other regions in the former Soviet Union) for years rather than pursuing a negotiated peace.
The important thing now is to bring the conflict to a quick end. We need an objective view of events for that to happen, not a narrative that fits the opinions we have already formed about those involved.
No comments:
Post a Comment