SIR - Your briefing on the Russian-Georgian conflict is the most thorough and balanced I have encountered in the non-specialist media. I do think, however, that your leader missed a salutary opportunity for at least the democratic West to assert a principle most oft observed in the breach: that of national self-determination (“Russia resurgent”, August 16th).
Russia has invoked Kosovo as a precedent for its extrajudicial intervention in Georgian affairs. Let European Union countries take this seriously to call for internationally monitored referendums on independence in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. You suggested that such referendums, if truly free and fair, might well result in Abkhazia choosing independence and South Ossetia remaining within Georgia. Of course the devil is in the details, but the democratic West has nothing to lose from such a position, since the forcible maintenance of imperial control over minorities is prima facie at odds with democratic principles, and Russia, given its recent rhetoric, would at least be faced with a choice between being wrong-footed on its own possible imperialist designs or coming across the self-proclaimed hypocrite.
The subtler and more eloquent the jaw-jaw, the greater its superiority to war-war.
Robert Dulgarian
Boston
SIR - All now await the position of the Europeans on the Russian invasion of Georgia. Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have all stood fast with Georgia, at issue is whether west Europeans will. Will a couple of “mechanical problems” in the natural-gas lines from Russia render the Europeans into “peace in our time” cowards, or will they do the right thing. History would lead one to believe that The Economist is now fervently preparing justification articles for that position.
Robert Vaughn
Portland, Oregon
SIR - You rightly accuse the Russian government of cunning and manipulation in the run-up to the war against Georgia. And you propose some mild diplomatic sanctions. Should Europe also have imposed such sanctions against the American and British government for their cunning and manipulation in the run-up to the Iraq war?
Paul Sievers
Munich
SIR - You published a letter from the Russian director of policy planning at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Moscow stating that “As a matter of principle, we do not believe in the punishment or isolation of sovereign states”. I can only assume that the word “not” was a typographical error.
Alex Goldbloom
London
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
I think Robert Dulgarian is one of many people who seem to still believe that governments act on the basis of moral principles or ideology. They well may invoke moral and ideology as talk costs little and it sound good to the folk back home. It suited the Western democracies to break up Yugoslavia. but not to the extent that it would allow the Bosnian Serbs to separate from the rest of Bosnia-Herzegovina. During Britain’s final decade as a failing superpower Whitehall decided to grant the Gold Coast and several other colonies independence but denied Cyprus its right of self-determination until 1960 when it imposed upon the new republic a constitution that was patently unworkable. Once again in the Caucasus region the West is alarmed at Russia’s attempt to break up Georgia “Kosovo-style” while many in the EU are urging de facto recognition of the Turkish-occupied part of Cyprus. No power supports the Kurds attempt to re-establish their own historic country out of a large part of Anatolia and northern Iraq with smaller bits of Syria and Iran. It is simply not in foreigners’ interest to recognise Kurdistan and one doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist to know the reason why. Russia supports independence for bits of Georgia but waged war to retain Chechnya when its people bid for self-rule. People grumble about the Chinese forty years occupation of Tibet but do nothing.The dreary fact, as always, is that geopolitics and the ongoing struggle between the superpowers determine their stance on every such issue; all they have to do is find the appropriate-sounding moral or ideological argument to support their selfish causes.
It is ridiculous that you bring up comparisons of Putin to Hitler, Saakashvili invaded S. Ossetia and is the aggressor (the similarity to Hitler is Saakashvili’s blitzkrieg). Russia fulfilled its peacekeeping mission and saved more people from dieing. It is disgusting how you trivialize that the Georgian attack killed 1000 South Ossetians.
Some facts you have conveniently left out 1. Georgia waited for Putin to be away in Beijing (and Medvedev and the commander of Russia’s Southern forces to be on vacation) for its attack on S. Ossetia. 2. Georgia did not sign the complete agreement agreed to with Sarkozy initially, leaving out the part of stopping the use of violence. 3. The Russian proposed UN declaration was not accepted because the US and Georgia objected to wording that said violence should be ended. 4. The day before the Georgian invasion NATO put out a statement that Georgia was not massing troops and was not going to invade. 5. Finally, you leave out that the US signed the missile defense agreement with Poland as a reaction to the conflict in Georgia it blamed on Russia. If this is a reaction to Russia, clearly the shield is against Russia.
Consider if a few months ago Serbia had invaded Kosovo and the US had intervened to stop the bloodshed, would we have seen “USA invaded Serbia” in the headlines?
Also, the ending of your article just disintegrates into slander, how is the “chance for liberalization” now being gone for Medvedev follow from this conflict? The reason Russian society may get more nationalistic is because of propaganda like the kind you print.