I’ve been watching with alarm the devloping situation between Russia and Georgia. I first became aware of the issues at play earlier this year after reading a Slate.com piece describing the author’s visit to the contested area of South Ossetia. He described the territory as pervasively pro-Russian and resentful of Georgia’s claimed authority, as well as locked in a Soviet-style, cold-war era state of existence. I remember half-chuckling at the irony of a police state striving to “free” itself from one of the region’s most democratic, free-market governments.
I’m not laughing anymore.
However absurd it seems that a group of people would resist taking part in the freedoms offered by a Western-style government, the fact of the matter appears to be that both the South Ossetians and the Abkhazians would prefer home-grown (or Russian-administered) oppression to what they believe is a foreign government (Georgia’s) seeking to impose its rule upon them. Each region fought mightily to gain independence in the early nineties, which resulted in a Russia-mediated ceasefire enforced by Russian peacekeeping forces. The Georgian president, however, made it a central part of his policy efforts to bring Abkhazia and South Ossetia “back into the fold,” and, one way or another, his insistence on this point has led to the conflict taking place today.
As is frequently the case in war, we may never know who shot first - whether Russian sympathizers initiated attacks on pro-Georgian groups in order to draw Georgian forces into South Ossetia, or whether Georgia voluntarily initiated a crackdown in the breakaway region. But we do know that Russia’s response seems, shall we say… disproportionate to the alleged offense, if not premeditated. Whoever is ultimately at fault, it’s hard for me to believe that either side truly deserves to prevail.
Categories:
Powered by FireStats