Georgia's Independence Day “Celebrations”

Georgia's President Mikheil Saakashvili chose an interesting way to celebrate the 20th anniversary of his nation's independence – by sending in riot troops to break up a protest against his regime in a move that left at least two protesters dead and several dozen others injured. As we reported here earlier in the week, about 6,000 people turned out for a protest against what they say was the growing autocracy of Saakashvili's regime (a protest that was also broken up by the riot police) and planned for an even bigger showing on Wednesday, Georgia's Independence Day. Saakashvili was quick to blame the protests on his old nemesis – Russia, contending that the demonstrators weren't Georgians asking for better government, but rather were provocateurs acting on behalf of Geogria's “enemy and occupier” (here Saakashvili is referring to the regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia which both declared their independence from Georgia. Russia currently has peacekeeping troops based in both).

Saaakashvili's statement begs two questions: First, why do these leaders always insist protesters are crazy or foreign agents or “on drugs” as Libya's Moammar Gadhafi and Uganda's Yoweri Museveni both have recently done? Can't they just accept the fact that in any country, no matter how well or poorly run, there will be people opposed to your rule for a whole host of reasons? Scapegoating the protesters only makes the ruling regime look weak.

Secondly, and more importantly, is how long will the United States continue to have a double standard in responding to the violent putdown of obstensibly pro-democracy protests? Shortly after Saakashvili sent in the riot troops, US ambassador John Bass said “it is also important to remember that there were clearly a number of people included in that protest who were not interested in peacefully protesting, but were looking to spark a violent confrontation.” By comparison, the European Commission said that while they understood the need to restore order, the use of force was “very regrettable”, especially since Saakashvili had riot troops violently breakup pro-reform protests just four years ago, a fact ignored by Ambassador Bass.

It's not surprising since the United States has been more than willing to overlook Saakashvili's democratic shortcomings for years now because he is staunchly pro-Western and is seen as a check against Russian influence in the region. But he's also part of a disturbing pattern in US foreign policy. While the US has been vocal in its support for the Libyan rebels who are opposing Gadhafi and after deciding that Hosni Mubarak was no longer worth the trouble, the US threw its support behind Egypt's pro-democracy movement; America has been largely silent about the government of Bahrain's violent put-down of that country's pro-democracy movement because the current rulers of Bahrain a) allow their country to be used as a base for the US Navy's Fifth Fleet and b) are tightly allied with the House of Saud. So as long as Saakashvili remains reliably pro-Western/anti-Russian, and allows his country to be used as a transit route for western-bound oil and Afghanistan-bound troops, he'll likely get no complaints from the United States.

On the topic of democratic reform movements then, the United States is sending some very mixed signals; the problem is that the rest of the world is listening.

Arab Spring: Georgian Edition

We've already seen that the pro-democracy/pro-reform demonstrations called the “Arab Spring” are spreading far beyond the Arab world, to places including Uganda in sub-Saharan Africa and now, apparently to the southeast corner of Europe. On Saturday an estimated crowd of 6,000 turned out in Tbilisi, Georgia to protest against the rule of President Mikhail Saakashvili in what they hope will be a prelude to more massive demonstrations on May 25, the 20th anniversary of Georgia's independence from the Soviet Union.

The complains from the Georgian demonstrators have a familiar ring to them: They accuse Saakashvili of turning into an autocrat, rigging elections, trying to eliminate political opposition to his rule and muzzling the nation's press. They claim that Saakashvili's turn to autocracy has only grown worse since he led Georgia into a disastrousfive-day war with Russia over control of two break-away regions in Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, in 2008. The irony in their charges is that Saakashvili came to power himself in the wake of similar protests, the “Rose Revolution,” that pushed former President Eduard Shevardnadze from office.

The Western-educated Saakashvili has been viewed by governments in the United States and Europe as a valuable strategic ally and a way of blunting Russian influence in the borderlands of southeastern Europe and northeastern Asia, an image he has been happy to polish by actively promoting himself as a pro-market reformer while raising the threat of Georgia becoming a Russian satellite if he were to fall from power. Western governments have thus been willing to overlook charges raised by the Georgian opposition of oppression and substantial allegations that Saakashvili's government interfered in the January 2008 presidential elections – while at the same time condemning Russia over allegations of similar interference in their elections.

And that points out a bit of the hypocrisy that has surrounded Western (primarily the American government's) reaction to the Arab Spring protests – they have been fully behind the Libyan rebels attempts to oust Moammar Gadhafi from power, but practically silent on the oppression of protesters in Bahrain, home to the US Navy's Fifth Fleet and whose royal family is closely allied with Saudi Arabia's. Given that measure it's doubtful that Wednesday's demonstrations against Saakashvili will be met favorably by the West.

Georgia vs. Russia; Two Years Later

The two-year anniversary of the August 2008 conflict between Russia and Georgia passed recently with little fanfare, in the United States at least, save for a Washington Post editorial by Sen. John McCain that was largely a call to relaunch the Cold War (McCain was and is a staunch backer of Georgia). Since I've written about it numerous time before, I won't go into a discussion about how America's position that Georgia should be allowed to regain control over their quasi-independent former regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is awfully hypocritical considering that the United States was perhaps the biggest backer of independence for Serbia's breakaway province, Kosovo, other than to note that Georgia is staunch an American ally, while Serbia is not; feel free, dear reader, to draw your own conclusions from there.

Of course Georgia has as much hope of regaining control over Abkhazia and South Ossetia as Serbia does Kosovo, which is to say none at all short of launching an all-out war to retake the territories, a highly-unlikely prospect in either situation. For his part, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev marked the two-year anniversary of the conflict by paying a state visit on his Abkhaz counterpart, President Sergei Bagapsh (Russia is just one of a small handful of countries that recognizes the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia).

Once again though the Abkhazia situation shows that American foreign policy tends to be incredibly short-sighted. The US has been stubbornly arguing for the “territorial integrity” of Georgia, when in reality the smart play in the region would be to recognize the independence of both places and begin normal diplomatic relations, here's why: with their current status being in international limbo and with hostile relations between them and their former parent state of Georgia, both Abkhazia and South Ossetia are becoming increasingly dependent on their patron, Russia. Both places do have long-standing ties to Russia; in the period between the early 1990s, when both places fought civil wars and became self-governing territories only nominally still part of Georgia until the 2008 war when they made their final break, Abkhazia and South Ossetia relied on trade with Russia for much of their respective economies, the Russians, meanwhile, passed out Russian passports to many of the citizens of both regions. But now the governments, especially the Abkhaz government, are taking this whole “independence” thing pretty seriously; for them independence doesn't mean becoming a satellite state of Russia. In the official photo of his meeting with Medvedev, Abkhazia's Bagapsh looked particularly uncomfortable. The reality is that without broader international recognition, both tiny states – Abkhazia's population is somewhere around 300,000, South Ossetia's is only around 80,000 – will be forever tied to the largesse of Moscow.

To be honest, South Ossetia's future options are pretty limited. With a tiny population, and landlocked within the rugged and restive southern Caucasus region, being a self-governing Russian satellite is probably their best play (estimates are that 98% of the South Ossetian economy is linked to Russia). Abkhazia is rather different. During the Communist era, Abkhazia's Black Sea coastline was considered the “Soviet Riviera”; meaning it has great potential as a tourist destination (there are a fair number of countries around the world who have built fairly respectable economies on the tourist trade). Add to that the fact that in less than four years time the Winter Olympics will be held just up the road in Sochi, Russia; the world will literally be coming to Abkhazia's door. Of course all of this will mean a lot less to Abkhazia so long as they are compelled to take their marching orders from Moscow. So far Russia has been supporting Abkhazia not only economically, but also militarily; Russia's explanation – that they have to defend Abkhazia against future Georgian aggression - is not one you can easily dismiss given the boasts on the part of Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili that Georgia will reclaim both breakaway regions. But the Russian military footprint is growing within Abkhazia, it now includes some of their most-sophisticated weapons (including the S-300 anti-aircraft system) and plans to expand a Black Sea naval station; signs that clearly point towards Russia planning a long stay in the region.

Neoconservatives, along with left over Cold Warriors in Washington, warn against Russia trying to reestablish a Soviet-style “sphere of influence” in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Of course when you isolate a region diplomatically, you help to push them into closer relations with the few places that do recognize their existence. All of which makes an interesting case for the United States recognizing Abkhazia's independence and launching full diplomatic relations with them. The United States shouldn't be as foolish as we previously were with pro-western governments in Ukraine and Saakashvili's-own in Georgia and expect Abkhazia to choose between the US or Russia – given their position as next-door neighbors, you would both hope and expect Russia and Abkhazia to have close and friendly relations. But that is something different than being a satellite of Russia. Sure, recognition will upset the Georgians greatly, but the United States had no problem in telling Serbia to, in essence, “get over” losing Kosovo; for the good of the region, it is a message worth repeating to the Georgians as well.

Stalin’s Gori End

The Georgian government took down a towering statue of former Soviet leader Josef Stalin Thursday night.  Two things that make this story noteworthy are that the statue was located in Gori, Stalin’s birthplace, and that Georgian officials for some reason decided to take the statue down in the middle of the night.  There is speculation that they removed Stalin under the cover of darkness to avoid any protests, though it’s hard to tell if there would have been protests in the first place.  Gori has a strange relationship with Stalin: like in Russia, he remains popular among older people who survived World War II, who tend to remember him as the “strong leader” who saved the Soviet Union from the Nazis; younger people though tend to view Stalin more harshly (focusing instead on the gulags, forced labor, ethnic persecutions, etc.); the fact that their hometown is also his birthplace is something of an embarrassment.

Georgia’s President Mikhail Saakashvili said: “a memorial to Stalin has no place in the Georgia of the 21st Century,” echoing the younger generation’s viewpoint of the Soviet leader.  Stalin’s replacement though is likely to provoke further controversy: the statue’s pedestal will be recycled and used as the base for a memorial dedicated to the nearly 400 Georgians killed or still missing from the country’s August 2008 conflict with Russia.  The two sides fought a five-day war over Georgia’s two breakaway republics Abkhazia and South Ossetia (Gori is located just a few miles from the border with South Ossetia).  Georgia initially framed the conflict as a Russian invasion, though increasingly international analysis has shown Georgia started the fighting when they shelled the Ossetian capital city, Tskhinvali during the night of August 7.  Since the conflict, Abkhazia and South Ossetia have both declared their independence, a claim only recognized by Russia and a handful of other countries. 

Georgia Becomes Ground Zero For Conspiracy Theories

In the past few days the Russian press has floated a couple of pretty remarkable conspiracy theories surrounding their neighbor to the south, Georgia.

On Friday, Russia Today ran a piece suggesting that terrorist groups were being trained by “foreign instructors” at bases in Georgia to then launch attacks aimed at destabilizing the already fragile Northern Caucasus region of southern Russia. In the past year, several of Russia’s Northern Caucasus republics have been rocked by high-profile terrorist attacks, including the attempted assassination of the president of the Republic of Ingushetia. Last year, Russia’s top security agency, the FSB, even went so far as to accuse the Georgian military’s special forces branch of actually training al-Qaeda operatives to conduct terror attacks in southern Russia.

It’s worth remembering here that in 2008 Russia and Georgia fought a five-day war over the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Russia has since recognized the independence of the two regions and has stationed peacekeeping troops in both, while the Georgians insist that the two places are still part of Georgia.

Meanwhile in Ukraine, the frontrunner in today’s presidential election, Viktor Yanukovych, is claiming that Georgia is trying to interfere in his country’s political process. He warned that in the past few days three charter flights have arrived from Georgia carrying “400 athletic men”. Why these 400 athletic men chose now to visit Ukraine is unclear, though the inference is that they’re in town to disrupt the election. For the past few years Ukraine and Georgia have grown closer as their respective pro-Western leaders have tried to distance their countries from Moscow. But Yanukovych is widely seen as being pro-Russian and the belief is that if he’s elected president he’ll try to rebuild the close Ukraine-Russia relationship at the expense of Ukraine’s relations with the West.

Interestingly, Ukraine’s election commission earlier refused to register 3,000 observers that Georgia tried to send to monitor today’s election. The Georgians were attempting to send more election monitors than all of the other countries and international organizations watching the vote combined, a move that raised some eyebrows and sparked charges that the “monitors” were really meant to disrupt the election instead.

Perhaps feeding into this regional paranoia over Georgia is a recent report issued from a member of the United States Senate; Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican member of the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee issued a carefully-worded report warning of a de facto arms embargo against Georgia. The logic goes that because of lower costs and familiarity in dealing with the weaponry thanks to their shared history as parts of the Soviet Union, the Georgian military is still largely equipped with Russian-made gear. But Russian firms are refusing to sell their wares to Georgia, which is still trying to rebuild its military from the 2008 conflict. The Georgians are touting the report as justification for the United States to begin arms sales to them, though the Lugar report never explicitly endorses this idea.

Officials from Abkhazia and South Ossetia, meanwhile, are saying that the Georgian desire to acquire American weapons is another indication that Georgia is in fact a belligerent, destabilizing force in the Caucasus region.

Another Nation Jumps on the Abkhazia Bandwagon

The would-be nations of Abkhazia and South Ossetia received a Christmas present of sorts - more international recognition of their independence. Since the August 2008 conflict between Russia and Georgia over the two Georgian regions, official recognition has been hard to come by for the two fledgling states; so far only Venezuela and Nicaragua have agreed with Russia that the two regions are actually independent nations.

But now another country has joined the list, the tiny Pacific island nation of Nauru. Never heard of it? You're not alone, I'd be willing to guess few people in either Abkhazia or South Ossetia knew of its existence either before the Nauruans opened diplomatic relations with them. Nauru is the smallest island state in the world, in fact with a population of just 12,000, it's so small that it's the only nation in the world without a capital city. So why would a tiny speck of a nation in the Pacific bother to get involved with post-Soviet politics half a world away? Likely for money.

Nauru's recognition comes as Russia grants the island state a loan of $50 million, money Nauru desperately needs. Nauru's economy had been largely built around an enormous phosphate mine at the center of the island - the result of centuries of accumulated droppings from migrating birds. But the guano mine played out in the 1980's, plunging the nation into a financial crisis. Nauru enjoyed a brief reprise as a money-laundering center, but international regulations put a stop to that as well; the country cannot even rely on tourism since according to Wikipedia: "there is little to see or do here, the climate is very unpleasant, and there are few facilities for tourists." The CIA estimates the economy is in such dire straits that Nauru lacks the funds to even have a functioning government.

Russia's loan is likely enough to keep Nauru solvent for the better part of the next two years. Of course the bigger question is why does Russia care about establishing Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent nations anyway?

The conventional wisdom is that supporting the independence claims of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is a way for Russia to rebuild its sphere of influence in the world. While it's hard to disagree with this notion, even the great minds in the Kremlin have to realize that no one will ever confuse Russia and a collection of statelets like Abkhazia, South Ossetia and perhaps Transdniestria for the Soviet Union. The deep personal dislike between Russia's Vladimir Putin and Georgia's Mikhail Saakashvili also likely has something to do with Russia's strategy - nothing would make Saakashvili look worse than to officially lose to sizable chunks of his country's territory; Putin, meanwhile, would revel in the embarrassment of his Caucasus adversary.

But one factor - a major factor that is being overlooked - in Russia's drive to get international recognition for the two regions are the upcoming 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi. Like Sochi, with whom it shares a Black Sea coastline, Abkhazia was once part of the "Soviet Rivera" - the favored vacation retreat for the Soviet elite. The Sochi region shares a border with Abkhazia (the places are so close, Georgia even tried unsuccessfully to get the Olympic committee to move the 2014 Winter Games in the wake of the 2008 conflict citing "security concerns"). Russia is hoping the Winter Games will spark a resurgence of the Sochi region as a world-class resort destination, and Abkhazia factors into their plans, both as a source of cheap labor and material in the run-up to the 2014 Games and in their post-Olympics development plans as well. Of course this makes a lot more sense from the Russian point of view if Abkhazia is a compliant satellite state rather than a region of their regional competitor, Georgia.

With the Winter Olympics being seen as a coming out party for the "new" post-Soviet Russia and Abkhazia factoring into their Sochi plans, don't be surprised if the Russian government doesn't dole out more foreign aid to some pretty unusual corners of the globe.

Georgia: The Movie

Hollywood is descending on Georgia (the country, not the state) for a re-telling of last year's conflict with Russia over the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. In fact the project, titled simply "Georgia", will be the biggest-ever movie production in the southern Caucasus country - Renny Harlin, of "Die Hard 2" fame will direct and Andy Garcia will star as Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili.

The filmmakers insist that their movie won't be a propaganda piece and will carry a strong anti-war message. I'm a little suspicious though since the Georgians, according to media reports, are pulling out all the stops to help get this production made. Garcia has even met privately with Saakashvili and has been working hard to master his speech patterns and mannerisms. No word on whether this includes the Saakashvili method of nervously eating one's own tie as he was caught doing by the BBC in this clip:



The Georgian army has also loaned the film crew tanks and other equipment, while thousands of Georgians turned out to recreate the "victory" celebration of August 12th, 2008 that marked the declaration of a cease-fire with Russia.

And that brings us back to the propaganda uses of "Georgia". Saakashvili, on August 12th, painted the conflict as a victory for his country, even though Russian forces were fully in control of both Abkhazia and South Ossetia, had advanced to within a couple dozen miles of Tbilisi and had sunk almost all of Georgia's navy. Saakashvili even spun last month's report on the war by the Council of Europe that debunked his two major claims - that Russia had started the conflict and had massed troops in South Ossetia for an invasion of Georgia - into a vindication of his actions. I'm sure no matter what story the movie "Georgia" tells, Saakashvili will again say it shows his country was the victim of Russian aggression.

Georgia Started The War: European Report

A report commissioned by the Council of the European Union on last year's conflict between Russia and Georgia has finally been released and the blame for starting the war has been put firmly on the Georgian side.

According to Swiss diplomat Heidi Tagliavini, who was the head of the fact-finding mission that researched and drafted the report: "In the mission's view, it was Georgia which triggered off the war when it attacked Tskhinvali (the capital of South Ossetia, and home to about half the region's citizens) with heavy artillery on the night of 7 to 8 August, 2008." The report also contradicts one of the main claims of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili - that Georgia was forced to act to prevent a Russian takeover of his country, saying: "there was no massive Russian military invasion under way" when the Georgians opened fire on Tskhinvali.

The report though has its share of criticism for the Russian side as well saying that the Russians tried to "provoke" the Georgians into action by, among other things, passing out Russian passports to citizens in the disputed regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia; that the Russian military response was 'disproportionate' (in other words far too harsh); and that the Russians (as well as the Georgians) failed to take steps to protect civilians within the conflict zones, and actually allowed ethnic cleansing to take place in villages in South Ossetia - under international law, an occupying force has a responsibility to protect civilians within a conflict zone.

Needless to say, both sides are viewing the report as justifying their actions in the conflict. It's hard though to see how the Georgians can spin this in their favor. The official position of the report is that the Georgian military opened fire on a city filled with civilians in the middle of the night, for no apparently justifiable reason. The report rejected Saakashvili's claim the Russians were massing their forces within Tskhinvali for an invasion of Georgia. It's worth noting that under the agreement that ended the Georgia-South Ossetia and Georgia-Abkhazia conflicts that sprang up in the early 1990's after the Soviet Union disolved, the Russians had the right to station peacekeeping troops within both territories. But having a small force of Russian peacekeepers, who were allowed to be there in the first place, is something quite different than a massive army poised to strike.

It's very clear that both sides, the Russians and the Georgians, were sniping at each other through the early months of 2008 (something we covered here in a number of posts with both sides committing violations of the Sochi cease-fire agreement), but these tit-for-tat measures were nothing new, and in fact were something that Saakashvili was using as a bargaining chip in his efforts to get Georgia into NATO. It will be interesting now to see if this report changes the relationship between the United States and Georgia. Vice President Biden caused a stir when he visited Georgia earlier in the year, giving his support to Georgia in the face of Russian 'aggression', a move the Russians said undermined all the talk of a 'reset' in US-Russian relations that Pres. Obama and Sec. of State Clinton had been pushing just weeks earlier. Now, with the official European report clearly stating that Saakashvili started the war, not to mention the months of domestic protests against his rule as being 'undemocratic' you have to wonder if the United States will continue to cultivate a close relationship with Georgia, at least Georgia as ruled by Mikhail Saakashvili.

More Recognition for Abkhazia, South Ossetia

Add Venezuela to the list of countries recognizing Abkhazia and South Ossetia's independence from Georgia. Of course, that's a pretty short list that includes Russia and Nicaragua, and that's it. But it is at least a little boost for the independence dreams of the two breakaway regions, and another reason for the United States to be angry with Hugo Chavez. The US continues to push for "support for Georgia's territorial integrity", despite explicitly NOT respecting Serbia's territorial integrity when it comes to Kosovo...but that's a topic we've talked about here on numerous occasions, so no need to rehash now.

So why did Pres. Chavez make the decision about Abkhazia and South Ossetia now? He's in the middle of a world tour and today's stop had him speaking with Russia's President Dmitry Medvedev - Russia is the patron of both would-be countries. And according to the last line in the VOA story: "President Medvedev also announced that Russia will sell Venezuela tanks and whatever weapons it asks for."

Media Fight Over The Georgian War

Today is the one-year anniversary of the five-day conflict between Russia and Georgia over the breakaway Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. And a new battle is on, though thankfully this time it’s in the opinion pages.

Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili yesterday published an op-ed in the Washington Post, while Sergei Bagapsh and Eduard Kokoity, Presidents of Abkhazia and South Ossetia respectively, took to the UK's Guardian to make their case for their would-be countries. As you'd expect there's a fair amount of spin going on from both sides.

Saakashvili casts last year's events as nothing short of a Russian invasion of Georgia, conveniently ignoring the (now) fairly well-established fact that it was Georgia's shelling of Tskhinvali, South Ossetia that started the fighting in the first place. He also goes on to commit himself to democratic reforms - presumably the same reforms he's promised to deliver in 2003, 2007 and 2008. Not to be outdone, Bagapsh and Kokoity make the case that theirs are legitimate countries trying to escape Georgian oppression and welcome the world to take a look at what they've done so far (though they'd prefer you not ask any questions about the tens of thousands of ethnic Georgians driven from their homes, I presume).

That last part is why getting involved in affairs in the Caucasus region is such a tricky thing (hopefully you're reading this post Mr. Vice President). Georgia says they have thousands of refugees driven from their homes in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Ask the other side though, and the Abkhaz and Ossetians will point to Georgian attempts at ethnic cleansing in the 1990s and 1920s when the Soviet Union grafted their territories onto the Georgian SSR. Keep talking and you're likely to get stories (like one BBC reporter did) of pogroms dating back to the 11th century, or earlier.

And, as I've stated in other posts, the United States comes off as fairly hypocritical supporting Georgia's 'territorial integrity' (keeping Abkhazia and South Ossetia in the fold) when we've argued so forcefully against Serbia's territorial integrity by recognizing the independence of their breakaway region, Kosovo.

But at least the leaders of the respective sides are doing their fighting this time with op-eds and not bullets. For now at least.

Twitter, Facebook Outages, Latest Battle in the Russia/Georgia War

So were you wondering why your Google, Twitter or (like me) Facebook account was acting strange yesterday? The trouble has been apparently traced to the account of a single blogger who goes by the screen name "CYXYMU".

More accurately, the problems were because of a series of cyber-attacks against CYXYMU's accounts on various blogging platforms. A little backstory - CYXYMU is the handle of a Georgian blogger, likely from the disputed Abkhazia region (CYXYMU is based on the Cyrillic-text name of Abkhazia’s capital, Sukhumi). He/she has been a vocal critic of the actions of the Georgian and Russian governments over last year's conflict in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which is apparently what put CYXYMU in the cyber-attacker's crosshairs yesterday.

But as Evgeny Morozov points out on the blog Net Effect, CYXYMU isn't a crusading investigative journalist and, in Morozov's opinion (he has also followed CYXYMU's postings on LiveJournal, the most popular blogging site in Russia and where CYXYMU does a lot of their writing), not terribly interesting. So, Morozov suggests, that the coordinated cyber-attack was more an exercise in showing off on the part of the attackers than a real attempt to silence CYXYMU.

In his commentary, Morozov asks if CYXYMU could become the first, as he calls it, "digital refugee". A blogging platform (Twitter, Blogger, LiveJournal, take your pick) when faced with a problematic user, in this case CYXYMU, could just choose to shut down their account in order to keep the service operating smoothly. It's not censorship, per se, rather a business decision to not disrupt the habits of millions of other users, though the end effect is the same.

It is an interesting take on the future of free speech in the world of new media.

Georgia vs. Russia, Round 2

Summer is sequel season, so perhaps it's inevitable that as we approach the one year anniversary of the Russia-Georgia conflict (this coming Saturday for those of you keeping score) the two sides are talking bluntly about another conflict.

Georgia is warning of a new wave of Russian aggression after Russian troops briefly set up and then removed an observation post on what the Georgians say is their side of the poorly-defined Georgia-South Ossetia border. The Georgians were quick to call this an attempted land grab. The Russians, meanwhile, say that Georgian forces have twice shot mortars towards the South Ossetian capital, Tskhinvali. Monitors from the European Union in the area couldn't confirm either allegation, though Russia's Defense Ministry was quick to announce that they would use force to protect Russian peacekeeping forces and South Ossetian citizens from Georgian "aggression".

All of this is sounding a lot like the situation last year, when both sides spent months trying to provoke the other, mostly over Georgia's other breakaway region, Abkhazia. On a number of occasions, Georgia flew drone aircraft over Abkhazia, in direct violation of a cease-fire agreement; while Russia sent in troops to upgrade a railroad that runs between Russia and Abkhazia. In the end, the conflict started over South Ossetia after Georgian forces shelled Tskhinvali on the night of August 7/8. The five day conflict devastated Georgia's military forces (while also illuminating some of the weaknesses of the Russian side as well), and ended with Russian troops stationed in both Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which Moscow then recognized as independent states.

Back in May I wrote that it was fairly likely there could be a new Russian-Georgian conflict this summer, mostly because every side involved could rationalize an upside to a renewal of fighting. That's why it's important to look at these events along the border not just as minor nuisances, but as potentially the start of something big.

And On The Fourth Day, Biden Totally Steps In It

Vice-President Joe Biden had been doing a fairly good job during his visit to Ukraine and Georgia this week of supporting both countries without upsetting US efforts at resetting relations with their touchy neighbor, Russia. That is until his speech today to Georgia's Parliament and a visit to Georgians displaced by last summer's conflict with Russia.

Biden told the refugees that Russia "used a pretext to invade your country" and had "isolated itself more" because of the conflict. I'm sure that went over well with the Georgians, but it's not really a good description of last August's events unless you call the Georgian military's attacking the South Ossetian city of Tskhinvali in the middle of the night a 'pretext', then sure, Russia used a pretext to invade Georgia.

The reality of the situation is that no one has clean hands over last summer's conflict. For months before the conflict, both the Russian and Georgian sides were trying to provoke each other - an expression of the deep personal dislike between the leaders of the two countries: Russia's Vladimir Putin and Georgia's Mikhail Saakashvili. The European Union has been sitting on a report that puts most of the blame for last year's conflict squarely on the Georgian side, saying it was sparked by Georgia's attack on South Ossetia (an idiotic attempt of bringing the breakaway region back under Georgia's control after 15 years). And as for Biden's other claim - that Russia is "isolated" - he might want to check with the EU, NATO and his boss, Barack Obama - all of whom are working to rebuild relations now with Moscow after a lull following the conflict. So much for pretext and isolation…

Biden went on to tell the Georgian Parliament, to a standing ovation, "we will not recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states and we urge the world not to recognize them." So far South Ossetia and Abkhazia have been recognized as independent states only by Russia (and Nicaragua). But while we are urging the world not to recognize Georgia's breakaway regions, we do want them to consider Serbia's breakaway region, Kosovo, as its own country. I’ve yet to hear a good explanation from the US government as to why the difference. The main reason seems to be that Georgia is an ally of ours while were not too crazy about Serbia.

As you'd expect, Biden's comments have already angered Russia (according to the BBC this evening), I am sure there will be more fallout there in the coming days. Biden did tell Georgian authorities that getting South Ossetia and Abkhazia back by force was not an option, and that Georgia needed to do more to "deepen" their democracy. President Saakashvili pledged (again) to institute democratic reforms, but he's promised reforms a number of times in the past without actually doing anything to make them a reality.

And there's my problem. I think that the United States should support the peaceful, democratic development of both Georgia and Ukraine and support the Georgians and Ukrainians, but we should do nothing to encourage or support the utterly dysfunctional governments of either state. Neither Georgia nor Ukraine is ever going to move forward until they get rid of their current, petty leaders.

VP Biden On Cheer-Up Tour of Georgia, Ukraine

Vice-President Joe Biden is heading overseas for a visit to two of our Eastern European allies, Georgia and Ukraine. The context for the visit is basically to tell them not to worry, that even while the United States is trying to 'reset' relations with Russia, we won't forget about them and their desire to join NATO. But supporting their NATO ambitions now is exactly the wrong thing to do.

First, it violates (again) a pledge that the United States made to the newly-independent Russia just after the end of the Soviet Union back in the 90’s when the countries of Eastern Europe were clamoring for NATO membership: don't worry, we won't let NATO expand into the former Soviet Union. It's a promise that the US has already broken by supporting the membership of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. (And if you want to know why US-Russian relations are in a bad state, broken NATO promises are a big reason).

But second, promises aside, neither Georgia nor Ukraine deserves NATO membership, at least not now. NATO membership has been one of the 'rewards' to Eastern/Central European countries for making the transition from Communism to Democracy. But the governments of both Ukraine and Georgia are a mess. Ukraine has been paralyzed by political infighting for almost two years; their parliament just ended its session this week with a fistfight among some of its members. Meanwhile in Georgia, protesters have occupied parts of Tbilisi for three months now, charging that President Mikhail Saakashvili has become exactly the same kind of petty autocrat that he helped depose during Georgia's much-celebrated 'Rose Revolution'.

Biden's also going to Georgia to tell them (and Russia) that the US supports their 'territorial integrity' and their claim to the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia that Russia has recognized as independent countries. Of course in May during his own 'reset' mission to Serbia, Biden told the Serbs that the United States did recognize the independence of their breakaway region Kosovo, that Kosovo was gone and the Serbs needed to stop their crying about it. Mix messages Mr. Vice-President?

Meanwhile European officials are delaying the release of a report into last summer's conflict between Georgia and Russia over South Ossetia because the report, apparently, will put a lot of the blame on the Georgian side by suggesting they started the fighting - a move that's not politically popular with the British (or the US for that matter), who want the blame for the war to fall squarely on Russia. EU officials say they don't want to release the report now because they're worried about raising tensions in the region.

Like Biden's visit isn't going to do that, especially given Biden's penchant for, shall we say, going off script? I expect there's a good chance that Biden's visit will undo all the progress that Presidents Obama and Medvedev made in mending US-Russian relations two weeks ago in Moscow.

Europeans Set To Blame Georgia For Last Year's War

According to documents obtained by Germany's Der Spiegel magazine, the European Union is ready to slam Georgia for starting last August's war with Russia over the breakaway region, South Ossetia.

While it's clear there was a war in South Ossetia, how that war started has been anything but. Almost as soon as the fighting began, Georgia's President Mikhail Saakashvili launched a PR campaign, pushing the story that Russian troops poured into the disputed region on August 7th, quickly overwhelming small Georgian force stationed there. Russia, meanwhile, said that it was the Georgian side who invaded South Ossetia first after bombarding the South Ossetian capital, Tskhinvali during the night of August 7th/8th, killing some Russian peacekeepers in the process, and that Russian troops only went in to keep their peacekeeping forces from being wiped out.

Western governments quickly embraced the Saakashvili version of events (anyone remember Senator, and at the time presidential candidate, John McCain's declaration that "we're all Georgians now" after the fighting started?), but the EU investigation finds they shouldn't have. The EU report will apparently largely back up Russia's version of events, finding that Saakashvili ordered the military action against South Ossetia and that the Russians only entered the territory after the Georgians began the fighting.

And while the European Union report is important, it's not the first to dispute Georgia's version of the war. Last November the New York Times published an in-depth piece based in large part on observations from officials with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) that did not find evidence of the large-scale Russian offensive the Georgians said they were responding to, and at roughly the same time the BBC published their own in-depth analysis based on eyewitness reports from observers in Tskhinvali who said the Georgians opened fire on a sleeping city. (If at this point you're asking why would the Georgians launch such an attack, a probable reason is Saakashvili trying to make good on a campaign promise to bring the region back under Georgian control for the first time in over a decade by any means necessary).

The EU report, apparently, won't find the Russians blameless - it will cite them for responding with excessive force against Georgia – after retaking South Ossetia, Russia occupied part of Georgia temporarily and largely dismantled the Georgian military - and also for not protecting civilians in South Ossetia once they controlled the region (many ethnic Georgians were reportedly killed or driven from their homes by South Ossetian militias - as the occupying power, Russia had a responsibility to protect those civilians).

Have protests in Georgia hit a turning point?

For two months now thousands of protesters have occupied the center of Tbilisi, demanding the resignation of Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili. So far though Saakashvili has ignored their calls, stating just a few days ago that he had no plans to leave office before his term ends in 2013.

And now, the first cracks are appearing in what had until now been a largely united front among Georgia's opposition politicians. Overnight on Wednesday opposition leaders split between moderates wanting to continue rallies outside government buildings and those urging more 'direct action' - namely blocking the country's main east-west railroad. In the end, the activists won out, shutting down rail service to the capital for several hours on Wednesday, but only after opposition leaders had a public fight - on-stage at a rally in front of the parliament building.

Pro-Saakashvili forces are already trying to capitalize on the feud between the opposition's leaders. Tbilisi Mayor (and Saakashvili ally) Giorgi Ugulava said that the railroad shutdown showed that the opposition was now "hostage" to their more radical elements, which raises the idea that the so-far largely peaceful protests could turn violent.

And what about the target of these protests? While tens of thousands were gathering at Tbilisi's soccer stadium to demand his resignation, Saakashvili was reported to be in another soccer stadium - in Rome watching the UEFA Cup final between Barcelona and Manchester United. It's a move that shows Saakashvili is either a political genius (what better way to show you're not concerned over opposition protests then by leaving the country for a soccer game?) or that he, as some in the opposition claim, is in fact nuts. Georgian opposition leader Eka Beselia said Saakashvili's trip shows that "the country lacks a president simply because Saakashvili is only thinking about his personal wellbeing." Opposition leaders have long questioned Saakashvili's mental fitness, citing his ill-conceived decision to go to war with Russia last summer over South Ossetia as an indication of his mental instability.

Saakashvili though could find himself under pressure from a higher authority - Ilia II, Patriarch of the Georgian Orthodox Church on Thursday called the situation in the country "explosive" and said the two sides should either begin immediate negotiations or that the country should hold snap elections. But in a move that angered the opposition, Patriarch Ilia II went on to ask what had Georgia gain by ousting two of its presidents since declaring independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, a statement seen by them as a quiet endorsement of Saakashvili.

Reset Button Pt. Deux: Biden goes to Serbia

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced with much fanfare (and a wrongly-worded prop) that the US wanted to 'reset' relations with Russia. Last week Vice President Joe Biden jumped on the reset bandwagon and tried to mend fences with another country - Serbia.

US-Serbian relations have been in poor shape since the United States prompted NATO to launch a two-month aerial bombing campaign against the Serbs to force them to halt military action in Kosovo in 1999. Those relations were further strained last year when the United States was one of the leading members of the international community to recognize Kosovo's claim of independence.

So Biden traveled to the Balkans to show the flag and tell the locals that the US was interested in turning the page. I talked with a Serbian friend this weekend who told me though that folks in Belgrade were more annoyed that large parts of their city were locked-down for the visit of the Vice-President of the United States than they were interested in what he had to say. Biden's meeting with Serbian President Boris Tadic didn't fare much better.

Biden encouraged Serbia to join the European community (something most Serbs want at this point anyway), but said that the US and Serbia would have to 'agree to disagree' over the status of Kosovo - Serbia, which views Kosovo as an integral part of their country, adamantly refuses to recognize Kosovo's independence.

I've expressed my opinion a number of times on this site that recognizing Kosovo's independence was a big mistake - that it's doubtful Kosovo is a viable independent state and that its current leadership includes former terrorists and possible war criminals - so I won't rehash that argument here. Biden's subtext to Tadic was though that Kosovo wasn't going to give up their 'independence', so Serbia might as well just accept it (Biden might want to present that same argument to his allies in the Georgian government about Abkhazia and South Ossetia).

But that attitude could cause problems in another of the Biden Tour's stops - Bosnia. There the Vice-President endorsed the idea of a multi-ethnic state in Bosnia, though infighting among the country's three ethnic groups: Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks), Croats and Serbs have brought the government to a standstill. And thanks to the example of Kosovo, the Bosnian Serbs have talked about leaving the Bosnian Federation all together and seeking unification with Serbia.

And the United States’ renewed interest in the Balkans isn't sitting well in the capitals of Europe, according to the Guardian newspaper in Britain. According to them, the United States is quite worried that Bosnia could dissolve into another civil war and is prodding the Europeans to get more involved; meanwhile the Europeans see Bosnia as a governance problem and believe that despite some tough talk, none of the three sides really has an appetite for a new round of conflict.

Is another summer war coming for Georgia?

A sequel to last August's conflict in Georgia - the one that saw Russian troops push almost to Georgia's capital Tbilisi and Georgia lose what little control they had over their two breakaway regions, Abkhazia and South Ossetia - is looking more and more likely.

Let's start with NATO's ill-conceived decision to go ahead with exercises this week in Georgia. Rightly or wrongly, Russia is terribly paranoid about NATO's eastward expansion, especially where Georgia and Ukraine are considered. NATO's response has been that these exercises were scheduled more than a year ago, before the August conflict between Georgia and Russia, and that Russia was even invited to participate. That may all be true, but given the war and the tense feelings, postponing the exercise until things were calmer would have been the wise move. But NATO didn't want it to seem like Russia was bossing them around, so for pride’s sake, NATO went ahead with the Georgia exercise, despite the possibility they could destabilize the fragile peace in the region (an ironic move for an organization dedicated to promoting peace and security).

But Russia isn't blameless either. Just after the NATO exercises began, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed two pacts giving Russia jurisdiction over Abkhazia and South Ossetia's borders with Georgia - a move the European Union, in turn, says will destabilize the region. This will put Russian troops eye-to-eye with the same Georgian forces they faced last August. And its not the first military agreement Russia has signed with the two regions they (and Nicaragua) recognize as independent nations - Russia has been setting up military bases in both places and recently agreed to establish a new naval base in Abkhazia, which could one day host part of Russia's Black Sea Fleet.

Then there's Georgia itself, which, to put it bluntly, is a mess. Opposition protests against Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili are moving into their second month, with rallies drawing tens of thousands demanding he step down - they blame Saakashvili for failing to go through with democratic reforms, for ruining the economy and for the disastrous August war. Last week an entire tank battalion in the Georgian army, stationed just outside Tbilisi, briefly mutinied, before surrendering peacefully.

Saakashvili blamed the mutiny on Russian agents; the opposition said that Saakashvili staged the whole thing to discredit them, while the commander of the battalion said that his troops revolted to protest the ongoing fight within the government. None of the explanations are good for Georgia though - if Saakashvili's right then Russia has infiltrated Georgia to such a degree then its only a matter of time until he's gone; if the opposition's right then there is no telling what Saakashvili might do to stay in power; and if we take the commander at his word then it shows a deep level of frustration among members of the military with the civilian government and a growing willingness to take action.

So Georgia seems to be teetering on the edge while being pushed by forces both external and domestic. But what makes a second conflict this summer such a possibility is how almost every side can see how more fighting would be in their best interests.

Saakashvili has staked much of his reputation on getting back the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia (a desire which led to last summer's war) - he could see a new conflict as a way of boosting his own reputation, while also hoping that new fighting would spark 'rally 'round the flag' feelings among his fellow Georgians. At the same time, the opposition could view a new war as the final nail in Saakashvili's coffin and hope that it would be the thing most Georgians would need to see him as an incompetent, unstable leader and finally turn on him.

Russia could also see a renewed conflict as a way of finally getting rid of the wildly pro-Western Saakashvili and hopefully replacing him with a more pro-Moscow leader. Russia would like a Georgian leader more willing to follow Moscow's lead on energy policy (Georgia currently hosts the only oil pipeline from Central Asia that does not pass through Russian territory) and desperately wants to reopen land routes to Armenia, a strongly pro-Moscow ally in the region, but one that is also cut off from Russia (a big problem for the Russian military forces based there).

Finally Abkhazia and South Ossetia could see a new conflict as a way of deepening their economic ties to Moscow and gaining more recognition as independent nations from the international community.

All in all it is likely to mean another summer of conflict in the Southern Caucasus. The simple fact of history is that when people want to go to war, they usually find a way.

Kerry misses facts, pushes for Georgia partnership

Senator John Kerry, along with Representative David Dreier, apparently have a solution to all of Georgia's problems - a free-trade agreement with the United States. Our two esteemed Congressmen make their case for yet-another free-trade agreement in today's Washington Post, unfortunately it's one that gets a few of the important facts wrong.

Kerry gets off on the wrong foot by repeating the now fairly thoroughly disproven claim that Russia started last August's conflict with Georgia (most now agree that Georgia sparked the conflict with their midnight artillery barrage of Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia). He then goes on to boast about the $1 billion in post-war aid the US doled out to Georgia. Except that a report at the end of 2008 found that, even with tens of thousands of Georgian refugees displaced from Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Georgia spent 20% of the bil on helping Georgian businesses, including spending $30 million to build a luxury five-star hotel (for the business community to use mind you, not the poor folks who lost their homes in the fighting).

Finally Kerry goes on to praise Georgia for their wholehearted commitment to democracy, which begs the question why then have there been tens of thousands of people protesting in the streets of Tbilisi for the past three weeks against the anti-democratic rule of President Mikhail Saakashvili?

Kerry and Dreier go on to say that a free-trade agreement is the best way to "hold Tbilisi accountable in its efforts to enshrine the rule of law and build the institutions that are the foundation to both democratic governance and economic prosperity." That sounds great, but it also sounds like Kerry and Dreier have made a great case for dropping the decades-long embargo against Cuba and signing a free-trade agreement with them instead, since what better way to truly bring about change on the island?

Bottom line is that right now Georgia is a mess. Sure, we should encourage the Georgians in establishing democracy, free markets and the rule of law - but those are problems the Georgians need to figure out for themselves, and until they do we shouldn't tie ourselves tighter to their chaos with free-trade agreements or by pushing for their speedy entry into NATO. And John Kerry, as the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, ought to know better.

Georgians take to the streets to push Saakashvili out

In 2003 tens of thousands of Georgians took to the streets in the capital, Tbilisi, demanding a change in leadership, mass protests that eventually brought President Mikhail Saakashvili to power. Today, tens of thousands of Georgians have returned to the street to tell him it's time to go.

That was the message some 60,000 Georgians were sending today in Tbilisi who, in an echo of Georgia's much-heralded "Rose Revolution" of 2003, are promising to stay on the streets outside the Georgian Parliament until Saakashvili resigns. According to the Associated Press, many Georgians are still angry with Saakashvili over last August's conflict with Russia over the disputed regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. While Western governments were quick to blame Russia for the war last year, more and more evidence has emerged showing that Saakashvili himself sparked the conflict - an attempt, perhaps to make good on a 2008 campaign promise to reintegrate the two breakaway regions into Georgia before the end of his term.

But the war went badly and both regions have since made claims of independence, claims backed up by Russian peacekeeping troops on their territories. Georgians, as the AP points out, are angry at Saakashvili for in effect losing about a quarter of their country, though in reality the anger with Saakashvili goes back further than last summer's war. Even as early as 2007 there were large-scale protest in Tbilisi over Saakashvili's failure to make good on promises to reduce unemployment and spread the country's economic growth throughout all sectors of the population. There were also charges that he was turning into exactly the same type of autocrat that the Rose Revolution deposed in 2003. Saakashvili responded to the peaceful protests by sending in the riot troops to break them up - an action ignored by his supporters in the West who in the wake of the August conflict tried to paint him as the George Washington of the Caucasus, the father of Georgian Democracy.

Reality, though, seems to be catching up to Saakashvili. The political opposition, which was previously fractured, is using Georgia's defeat in the conflict as a rallying point to oppose Saakashvili. Mikhail himself is being portrayed as an impulsive, incompetent leader who blundered his way into a war that he could not possibly win. While there is still much anger with Russia over the conflict, many in Georgia see the importance of friendly relations with Russia (not to mention the deep cultural ties between the two nations) and are not receptive to Saakashvili's continued angry talk towards Moscow. His stock even seems to be falling among his supporters in the West who have made some overtures towards former parliament speaker (and former Saakashvili ally) Nino Burdzhanadze, who is now looked on as a possible successor to Mikhail.

Whether Saakashvili remains in power at this point likely depends on the resolve of the opposition and the protesters in the streets.