Luis Gómez plantea tres hipótesis sobre la causa del conflicto armado en Georgia, del que hablo en esta entrada. Su conclusión:
Yo, particularmente, creo que una mezcla de las dos últimas tesis nos acerca a la verdad. El provincianismo de Mikheil Saakashvili y su servilismo a los intereses norteamericanos jugó en las manos de un Putin presionado por quienes desde las altas esferas rusas exigen un papel más relevante del país en su “zona de influencia”.
Si tuviera que apostar, creo que yo también lo haría por esta combinación.
Actualización: Otra columna de Justin Raimondo sobre Rusia y Georgia, esta vez respondiendo al artículo de Kristol en el NYT que menciona Luis en su entrada. Con las gafas pro-rusas puestas.
Aside from memorializing Stalin's policy of imprisoning ethnic minorities within larger administrative entities, refusing to recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states allows the U.S. and the European community to maintain the fiction of Russian "expansionism." According to Washington, the Russians invaded "Georgia"; Saakashvili's invasion of South Ossetia doesn't qualify as aggression, since how can you invade your own country? South Ossetia and Abkhazia are part of Georgia, you see. Just like a small mammal is part of the anaconda that swallowed it whole. (...)
This dictatorial tradition is today carried on by President Mikheil Saakashvili, who unleashed police on demonstrators, injuring 500 people, during the hotly contested elections and shut down independent media with the same alacrity displayed by his Menshevik predecessors. It is little short of astonishing that Kristol holds up this smarmy regime of small-time hoodlums with big-time regional ambitions as some kind of model, the ideal U.S. ally whose fate we might even go to war over.
Actualización II: Charles King en Christian Science Monitor, siguiendo de cerca las hipótesis 2 y 3.
Russia must be condemned for its unsanctioned intervention. But the war began as an ill-considered move by Georgia to retake South Ossetia by force. Saakashvili's larger goal was to lead his country into war as a form of calculated self-sacrifice, hoping that Russia's predictable overreaction would convince the West of exactly the narrative that many commentators have now taken up.
Actualización III: Anthony Gregory, tremendo. Es lo mejor que he leído sobre el conflicto desde un punto de vista liberal. Gregory considera agresores a las dos partes: Georgia ha agredido Osetia del Sur, y Rusia ha agredido a Georgia con la excusa de estar defendiendo Osetia. Echando mano de abundates referencias, Gregory explica las raíces de la crisis, ahonda en la analogía con Serbia y Kosovo, y pone en tela de juicio las credenciales democráticas del actual gobierno georgiano.
Indeed, Russia should be criticized. Aside from driving the Georgians out of South Ossetia, it bombed Georgia, including civilian infrastructure, ports and roads. The main airfield outside of Tbilisi was reportedly hit. Georgia claims 90% of Georgian casualties in the conflict were civilian, although before it put the figure at 20%. Either way, for this there is no justification. (...)
Some people argue that South Ossetia has no claim to be independent, that it is naturally a part of Georgia. But for seven centuries, the Iranis have been settled in the Caucuses. While South Ossetia has an ethnic minority of Georgians, 20% of the population, two years ago the nation had a referendum. 99% voted for complete independence. It would seem that even if there are disagreements about pre-Soviet history in the region, this secession is fairly valid and the nation’s independent status for almost a generation should be respected.
Georgia should stay out of South Ossetia, Russia should stay out of Georgia, and the U.S. should stay out of it all.
(gracias Manuel)
