Russia

I must say I was surprised by Fraser’s praise for Mikheil Saakashvili on Friday and his support for the stance taken by David Cameron and Liam Fox on matters Russian and Georgian. Surprised, because I’d thought Cameron’s dash to Tbilisi last year one of the more reckless moments of his leadership that demonstrated that, like John McCain, his judgement in foreign affairs was too often too open to accusations of rashness.  Apart from anything else, as Carl Thomson ably demonstrates, Saakashvili is a poor poster boy for liberalism, even by the standards of the Caucasus. If Georgia is, in Fraser’s description, “a light of democratic freedom” it’s a light that

There was an interesting, if occasionally frustrating, profile of Valery Gergiev in last week’s New York Times magazine. Frustrating because the article was headlined “The Loyalist” (the cover line was “An Overture to Russian Nationalism”) that seemed to want to condemn Gergiev for being a) proud of being Russian and b) far too close to the Kremlin. The former charge seems perverse unless, that is, any expression of Russian patriotism is inherently threatening and the latter seems, in some ways, almost inescapable if the Mariinsky Theatre (formerly the Kirov) wants to be able to do business and thrive in Russia. Still, the article opens with a striking scene: Gergiev conducting

Well, sort of. According to this report from Charles Bremner in the Times: With Russian tanks only 30 miles from Tbilisi on August 12, Mr Sarkozy told Mr Putin that the world would not accept the overthrow of Georgia, Mr Levitte [Sarko’s chief diplomatic advisor] said. “I am going to hang Saakashvili by the balls,” Mr Putin replied. Mr Sarkozy responded: “Hang him?” “Why not? The Americans hanged Saddam Hussein,” said Mr Putin. Mr Sarkozy replied, using the familiar “tu”: “Yes but do you want to end up like (President) Bush?” Mr Putin was briefly lost for words, then said: “Ah, you have scored a point there.” …President Mikhail Saakashvili,

The Yorkshire Ranter explains why this matters and why we should all be grateful to this Soviet Air Force colonel.

I guess this is going to get some attention: EXCLUSIVE: GOV. SARAH PALIN WARNS WAR MAY BE NECESSARY IF RUSSIA INVADES ANOTHER COUNTRY Well, yes and no. Here’s what Sarah Palin told ABC News’s Charlie Gibson: GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia? PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help. But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to — especially with new leadership

Bill Keller’s piece on “Springtime for Autocrats” in the New York Times has received plenty of attention (See Yglesias’s sane response for instance) but for Russian and Caucasus commentary I’d recommend Neal Ascherson’s article in the Observer. It’s probably the best-balanced, most historically aware and, for that matter, humane piece I’d read on the whole grisly affair. As he puts it, we’ve been here before in the Caucasus and only the Russians have learnt anything from history. A foolish, counter-productive Georgian policy has failed (again) and the west should think long and hard about when and how it plans to bluff in the future… Ascherson, a veteran Black Sea hand,

How about this for an opening sentence? The details of who did what to precipitate Russia’s war against Georgia are not very important. Who, you ask, is this clown? None other than Robert Kagan, writing today in the Washington Post. His second sentence is also a doozy: Do you recall the precise details of the Sudeten Crisis that led to Nazi Germany’s invasion of Czechoslovakia? And how about this? Historians will come to view Aug. 8, 2008, as a turning point no less significant than Nov. 9, 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell. Russia’s attack on sovereign Georgian territory marked the official return of history, indeed to an almost 19th-century

Edward Lucas concludes his op-ed in The Times on the Ossetian dilemma with this: The fighting should be a deafening wake-up call to the West. Our fatal mistake was made at the Nato summit in Bucharest in April, when Georgia’s attempt to get a clear path to membership of the alliance was rebuffed. Mr Saakashvili warned us then that Russia would take advantage of any display of Western weakness or indecision. And it has. Indeed, as I suggested yesterday, Russia has taken advantage of “western weakness” by responding to a Georgian offensive. Given that Saakashvili has been bold enough to send his troops into South Ossetia even though his determination

Charles Crawford, formerly Our Man in Warsaw, Sarajevo and Belgrade, thinks we should have told the Saudis to hop off and let the BAE corruption trial proceed. Not because anti-corruption investigations are good in themselves but because it would have been a demonstration of toughness. In the longer term, then, the national interest would have been better served by exposing the Saudis. But that’s not our style… The Russians too are outstanding negotiators, but in a different sense. They are taught negotiating technique in a way which is quite foreign to British and European methods. Russian diplomats’ First Rule of Negotiating is simple and profound: “Never move position, even when

Rod has an excellent and rather moving wee tale about how Time magazine ended up with a photograph of Vladimir Putin not an icon to illustrate its decision to hail Putin as its Person of the Year. It’s a reminder that non-believers can find much to admire in believers. Or, to put it another way, religious devotion that is sincere and modest and personal – and thus the exact opposite of how religion has come to be used in the American political arena – is a tough road to follow but one who’s virtues ought to be apparent even to those of us who remain unpersuaded by organised religion. I

“News” you expected from Russia: Russian President Vladimir Putin’s party has won a landslide election victory, official results show. With more than 80% of ballots counted, his United Russia had 63% of the vote. The opposition Communists and two other parties were also poised to win seats. Opposition allegations of fraud were dismissed by the electoral commission. News you may not have expected from Venezuela: Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has narrowly lost a referendum on controversial constitutional changes. Voters rejected the sweeping reforms by a margin of 51% to 49%, the chief of the National Electoral Council said. Mr Chavez described the defeat as a “photo finish”, and urged followers