El blog de Albert Esplugas

¿Putin austriaco?

Estas declaraciones de Vladimir Putin en Davos sobre la crisis suenan bastante austriacas:

The entire economic growth system, where one regional centre prints money without respite and consumes material wealth, while another regional centre manufactures inexpensive goods and saves money printed by other governments, has suffered a major setback. (...)

This means we must assess the real situation and write off all hopeless debts and "bad" assets. True, this will be an extremely painful and unpleasant process. Far from everyone can accept such measures, fearing for their capitalisation, bonuses or reputation. However, we would "conserve" and prolong the crisis, unless we clean up our balance sheets. I believe financial authorities must work out the required mechanism for writing off debts that corresponds to today's needs.

También alerta sobre la tentación de agrandar el Estado en tiempos de crisis, aludiendo a la Unión Soviética como ejemplo de sistema intervencionista "totalmente anti-competitivo" y que "nadie quiere verlo repetido".

Reportaje de la BBC: Georgia no es inocente

Un documental de investigación de la BBC pone en tela de juicio la versión georgiana del conflicto, a saber, que la incursión de su ejército fue una respuesta a la entrada de tropas rusas en Osetia, que supuestamente penetraron por el túnel de Gori antes de que los georgianos tomaran la región (Michael Totten aquí). La prueba parece ser una conversación telefónica medio fantasma (estuvo "perdida" durante semanas) entre oficiales rusos que delata la movilización del ejército con anterioridad al avance georgiano. Pero hay varios hechos que no encajan con esta versión, y múltiples testigos desmienten que los rusos llegaran la noche del día 7 como alega el Gobierno georgiano.

El documental acusa a los georgianos de atacar indiscriminadamente a civiles (Human Rights Watch cuenta entre 300 y 400 muertos civiles). Incluye opiniones de ambos bandos y también acusa a los rebeldes osetios de atacar civiles (y al ejército ruso de no contenerlos).

Seumas Milne, en The Guardian, sobre el documental:

Georgianos descontentos y pruebas contra Rusia

Las críticas contra Saakashvili están arreciando ahora que se han levantado las restricciones a la libertad de expresión en Georgia (vigentes durante la contienda). El Washington Post informa que varias voces reclaman investigaciones sobre los errores diplomáticos y tácticos cometidos por el Gobierno, y algunos analistas predicen que Saakashvili será presionado para que renuncie.

David Usupashvili, leader of the opposition Republican Party, said he had serious concerns about the decision to fight the much larger Russian army. "I don't believe that the Georgian government started this military action, but I condemn my government's action to respond with a full-scale military conflict" (...)

David Gamkrelidze, leader of the opposition New Rights party, said that "[b]y his military rhetoric, and all kinds of provocations, Saakashvili tried to show that he can return these territories by the military way, that he has this capacity, he has this force." (...)

Officials present at some of the prewar discussions said that Saakashvili and a tight group of supporters seemed convinced they had the military power to win back South Ossetia -- which Georgian forces attacked on the night of Aug. 7 -- within a few hours or days and were not interested in opposing points of view.

La política exterior de USA y la chica con minifalda

Doug Bandow, en su artículo "Georgian Fantasies: Where are the Americans?", ahonda en la tesis de que la política exterior norteamericana ha contribuido al estallido de la crisis del Cáucaso, que mencioné en esta entrada.

U.S. behavior provided an almost perfect example of a mixed message. The Bush administration counseled caution, yes, but also meddled in Georgian affairs to promote Saakashvili's rise to power through the Rose Revolution, helped arm and train his military, provided abundant economic and military aid, championed his nation's candidacy for NATO, lavished praise on him for being a wonderful democrat and friend of America, and sent President Bush to Tbilisi. Says Charles Kupchan of the Council on Foreign Relations, "Through private channels [the U.S.] was saying: ‘You have to behave' but publicly it was portraying him as a knight in shining armor, a beacon of freedom." The result, notes Jon Sawyer of the Pulitzer Center for Crisis Reporting, was "that Mikheil Saakashvili approached this thinking that he could be an extension of the West, a partner of the United States." In July Secretary Rice visited Tbilisi and declared, with Saakashvili next to her: "Mr. President, we always fight for our friends." During the war Vice President Richard Cheney told Saakashvili that "Russian aggression must not go unanswered."

None of these actions or statements formally committed the U.S. to go to war, but they could easily have been interpreted that way by an authoritarian populist used to getting his own way and a man desperate to fulfill his campaign promise to reconquer lost territory. Certainly he wanted to believe Washington's expansive professions of comradeship. Observes Kupchan, U.S. policy made Saakashvili "overreach, it made him feel at the end of the day that the West would come to his assistance if he got into trouble."

Human Rights Watch denuncia crímenes en Osetia del Sur

La ONG Human Rights Watch denuncia la quema y saqueo de pueblos étnicamente georgianos en Osetia del Sur por parte de milicias separatistas.

Recent satellite images released by the UN program UNOSAT confirm the widespread torching of ethnic Georgian villages inside South Ossetia, Human Rights Watch said today. Detailed analysis of the damage depicted in five ethnic Georgian villages shows the destruction of these villages around the South Ossetian capital, Tskhinvali, was caused by intentional burning and not armed combat.

“Human Rights Watch researchers personally witnessed Ossetian militias looting and burning down ethnic Georgian villages during their research in the area,” said Rachel Denber, deputy director of the Europe and Central Asia division of Human Rights Watch.

¿Quién disparó primero en el Cáucaso? (Actualizado)

El contrapunto a la tesis de que Georgia inició el enfrentamiento invadiendo Osetia del Sur lo pone Michael Totten con su reportaje sobre el terreno "The Truth About Russia in Georgia" (vía Barcepundit). Según el relato de Totten, los separatistas osetios violaron el alto el fuego atacando pueblos étnicamente georgianos y una columna rusa estaba penetraron en Osetia del Sur antes de que el ejército georgiano empezara a movilizarse.

On the 6th, (...) The shelling intensifies during the night and there is, again, tit for tat, but this time with weapons coming from the South Ossetian side which are not allowed under the agreement. By that time, the Georgians were seriously worried. All their armor that was near Abkhazia starts moving, but they are tanks, they don't have tank transporters, so they move slowly. They don't make it back in time. On the 7th, this continues. That afternoon, the president announces a unilateral ceasefire, a different one from the previous ones. It means I stop firing first, and if you fire, I still won't fire back. That holds until the next part of the story.