The Russo-Georgian War makes a better anti-Russian talking point if you rearrange the order of events. (cc photo: Dmitrij Steshin/Wikimedia)
When the US press takes sides, the necessary lionizing of allies and demonizing of opponents begins in earnest. And so the fascists and antisemites in Ukraine’s current “pro-West” government are downplayed or ignored (Fair Blog, 3/7/14), as is the US hypocrisy that denounces Russia’s military adventures while supporting the violent ouster of a democratic, if odious, Ukrainian government (Consortium News, 3/4/14).
Russian President Vladimir Putin has even been pronounced “delusional” for the rather obvious observation that, in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, the US “acted either without any sanction from the UN Security Council or distorted the content of these resolutions.”
The jingoistic process also requires a careful rewriting of history. Thus, in reporting and commentary on Ukraine, the 2008 Russo-Georgian War provides a handy anti-Russian talking point…if you leave out half the story.
On March 1, New York Times editors did as much when they suggested that Russian President Putin was not to be trusted in the current crisis, because, they said, “In 2008, he sent Russian forces into neighboring Georgia, ostensibly to protect the secessionist Georgian enclave of South Ossetia; the real goal was to weaken the pro-Western government in Tbilisi.”
The next day, Times reporter Steven Erlanger (3/2/14) described the 2008 conflict as “when Russia provoked Georgia into skirmishes that prompted an invasion and the annexation of two Georgian regions with sizable numbers of ethnic Russians, Abkhazia and South Ossetia.”
And the day after that, a Times editorial (3/3/14) headlined “Russia’s Aggression” upbraided Putin for the way he “humiliated Georgia in 2008, for looking wistfully westward.”
In fact, Georgia started the war with a large-scale military attack on Russian peacekeeping forces and separatist militias in the breakaway Georgian province of South Ossetia, according to an European Union-commissioned report on the war (Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia, 9/30/09). Georgia’s initial attack killed at least 10 Russian peacekeepers and an unrecorded number of South Ossetians. (Pursuant to a local treaty, Russian peacekeepers were in the two Georgian breakaway provinces, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, as part of the Joint Peacekeeping Task Force, which had Georgian peacekeepers protect other parts of the breakaway regions.)
In the days following Georgia’s attack, the Russian army came to the aid of its peacekeepers in South Ossetia, launching a brutal attack on Georgia. Over five days of fighting, hundreds died on each side, including many Ossetian and Georgian civilians. These details were laid out in the EU’s 2009 report, which faulted both Georgia for starting the war and Russia for going far beyond the mere protection of its peacekeepers in its retaliation.
As violent as its response was, Russia was not the initial aggressor in that war, as one might misperceive from recent Times coverage. The paper (9/29/09) seemed to get it right back in 2009, though, when the EU report was released:
After a lengthy inquiry, investigators commissioned by the European Union are expected to conclude that Georgia ignited last year’s war with Russia by attacking separatists in South Ossetia, rejecting the Georgian government’s explanation that the attack was defensive, according to an official familiar with the investigators’ work.
The New York Times isn’t alone in distorting the Russo-Georgian War for propaganda purposes. Take the Washington Post (3/6/14), where former George W. Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson, now a Post columnist, referred to the war only as Russia’s “invasion of Georgia in 2008.” Or the Post op-ed (3/6/14), “When Putin Invaded My Country,” by Mikheil Saakashvili, who as president of Georgia in 2008 gave the orders to attack Ossetians and Russian peacekeepers. According the Saakashvili, “Tens of thousands of Russian soldiers crossed our border, and planes started bombing us round the clock” for no reason at all. The former Georgia president fails to mention that Georgia attacked first.
Speaking of Russian aggression, CBS News correspondent Juan Zarate (CBS This Morning, 3/2/14) summed up the whole conflict with just a few words :
Russians play for keeps. And we’ve seen that with Putin before. We’ve seen that with the Russians in Georgia in 2008, when they invaded.
The half-baked history appeared in many news outlets, because media bias generally tracks with the US government preferences; and, in 2008, US officials–and their echo chamber in the press (Extra!, 10/08)–were all but cheering for Georgia and President Saakashvili, a particular favorite of US neoconservatives.
As Bruno Coppieter (Der Spiegel, 6/15/09), a member of the EU commission that produced the report observed, “The support of Saakashvili by the West, especially military support, inadvertently promoted Georgia’s collision course.” It remains to be seen whether that aspect of history will repeat itself.
Truth may be the first casualty of war
But lies often lead to it
That’s irresponsible on the media’s part. But that still doesn’t excuse Russia from violating the 1997 Friendship Treaty between Ukraine and Russia. That’s the crux of the matter. This is a distraction.
Well, it looks to me that, as of late last month, the Russians faced a coup d’état in their own backyard; the coup occurred just after Yanukovych agreed to cede power to parliament and accelerate the elections. Duly elected, Yanukovych’s overthrow came at the hands of many elements, all of whom received money from the US. This much isn’t even controversial, nor is the fact that the coup was extra-constitutional, which means the prevailing government has no legal authority. Many died during the protests, and now doctors and forensic experts are saying the deadly wounds came from the same guns, which means the same people were killing both policeman and protester. That’s interesting.
Now, the economics of it all, as the Russians had offered Yanukovych 15 Billion in low-interest loans and 30% discounted natural gas, which sharply contrasted with NATO’s offering an austerity plan and 1 Billion in loans through the IMF. Now, if the people of Ukraine had had a chance to mull over competing offers for a while, which assistance do you think they would have found more persuasive? Instead, a coup ensued, with the new government issuing a Fatwah against Yanukovych, as if he had control of the deadly snipers who were, as we know now, provacateurs firing at random. Of course, the IMF has now offered more loans to the coupsters, in apparent compensation for their overthrows of a neutral or Russian-friendly government.
Tell me where I’m wrong in this brief summation. No doubt the split between the Eurasian and European factions in Ukraine is a close one, but the coup was unconstitutional, and if Putin were to negotiate with the coupsters, as Kerry demands, wouldn’t that constitute a Russian admission that the coup was legitimate?
*** the Russians faced a coup d’état in their own backyard; the coup occurred just after Yanukovych agreed to cede power to parliament and accelerate the elections. ***
The February 21 agreement laid out a plan in which the Rada would pass a bill to return Ukraine to its 2004 Constitution, thus returning the country to a constitutional system centered around its parliament. Under the terms of the agreement, Yanukovych was to sign the enacting legislation within 24 hours and bring the crisis to a peaceful conclusion. Yanukovych refused to keep his end of the bargain. Instead, he packed up his home and fled, leaving behind evidence of wide-scale corruption among other things.
*** Yanukovych’s overthrow came at the hands of many elements, all of whom received money from the US. This much isn’t even controversial, nor is the fact that the coup was extra-constitutional, which means the prevailing government has no legal authority. ***
I’ll disagree with that. On March 4, President Putin himself acknowledged the reality that Yanukovych “has no political future.” After Yanukovych fled Ukraine, even his own Party of Regions turned against him, voting to confirm his withdrawal from office and to support the new government. Ukraine’s new government was approved by the democratically elected Ukrainian Parliament, with 371 votes – more than an 82% majority. The interim government of Ukraine is a government of the people and there will democratic elections on May 25th.
*** Instead, a coup ensued, with the new government issuing a Fatwah against Yanukovych ***
No Fatwahs were issued. This is Ukraine, not Palestine. Besides, Ukraine is predominantly non-religious but if you want to know what the most practiced religion in Ukraine is, it’s Eastern Orthodoxy.
*** Now, the economics of it all, as the Russians had offered Yanukovych 15 Billion in low-interest loans and 30% discounted natural gas, which sharply contrasted with NATO’s offering an austerity plan and 1 Billion in loans through the IMF. ***
Economics to me is a red herring. Whatever tensions there are between Ukraine and Russia, this still comes down to who violated the Friendship Agreement of 1994 and a country’s sovereignty. Russia did that.
*** the Eurasian and European factions in Ukraine is a close one ***
Yes, that’s true. But I can assure you that not many Ukrainians, except the most rabid extremists, want their own country invaded by a belligerent foreign power.
Ukraine is not an imminent threat to Russia. There is no threat to ethnic Russians in Ukraine, Russia’s military assets and there is no evidence of humanitarian crisis of Russians fleeing Ukraine. Heck, look at the photos from today’s protest in Moscow.
Good article.Pointing out a few of the complexities is only the beginning.Truth be told Russia and its old satellites is a bloody mess.Lawless much of the time.Backward.Criminal in a down and grimy sort of way that is pervasive.Get stopped by a cop for a traffic stop in the ukraine ,and they ask for your phone or anything else they want.Recourse?????Ha ha there is none.Half these people welcome Putin just to restore a semblance of order.God bless the USA
CIT is wrong again, and here’s hoping the “T” isn’t a misprint. Yanukovych was run out of the Ukraine and indeed, the new ruling government stated immediately that they wanted to execute him. That’s a fatwah, though I should have used a small “f’ the first time, since the death threat didn’t emanate from a clerical edict. Intimidated opposition members thus didn’t return to Parliament to vote with the deposed Yanukovych government. We heard the US plotting to put Yat in power, and we heard State’s Victoria Nuland curse the EU for wanting to take more moderate measures.
The coup ensued, with Yanukovych not able to enact the agreement because the violent right took control of the streets. The four right now dominates four key ministries, including that of defense; that’s their payback, for their shock troops spearheaded the coup. And the coup was against the existing Constitution, so the questions reasonably remain about the legitimacy of the current government.
*** CIT is wrong again, and here’s hoping the “T” isn’t a misprint. ***
I think we can discuss our disagreements without childish puns, John.
I’d like to know where you get your information from that the U.S. is behind a coup to oust Yanukovich and the parliament wanting to execute him.
Being unidentified invites puns. I put my name on what I write. Go to YOUTUBE and put in the words ” Nuland says f – – – EU, and then you can listen to the whole conversation between her and Ambassador Pyatt in which they mused over the US’ role in “midwifing” a new Ukrainian government. This isn’t even controversial, and if we didn’t have corporate run media, you’d have already heard it. Plus, there are various letters around as well.
The US tried to do the same in Venezuela, as you can read in leaked document 06 CARACAS 3356, if you want. This is an ongoing thing, to Bush NATO forward to Russian borders. The end of the Cold War just furthered US boldness; while the Warsaw Pact disbanded, NATO expanded. To fight what, I don’t know. Our response to the end of the Cold War was to encircle the globe with 498 more bases than we had in November of 1989, when the Wall collapsed. In 100 years, historians will see this unparalleled grab for expansion and hegemony for what it is.
I have no time for hollow conspiracies, John. Good-bye.
Okay, CIT, just read Stephen Cohen’s articles at the Common Dreams websites; He’s a Russian expert, and if you want a balanced article, then read Stephen Zunes’ articles at the same website.
I’m not being onspiratorial. Read and Victoria Nuland’s neo-con history and that of her husband. She was passing out cookies to the Kiev demonstrators and has always had a fuming hatred for Vladimir Putin. Obama and Ms.. Clinton let a lot of neo-cons like her hold over from the Bush and Cheney days.
@CTA- “Ukraine’s new government was approved by the democratically elected Ukrainian Parliament, with 371 votes – more than an 82% majority.” Sure, under clear duress, with the paramilitary thugs standing over their shoulders to make sure they voted the way the Western fascist forces wanted them to vote. See: http://consortiumnews.com/2014/02/26/cheering-a-democratic-coup-in-ukraine/
And: http://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2014/02/21/ukraine-protests-carefully-orchestrated-the-role-of-canvas-us-financed-color-revolution-training-group/
“The interim government of Ukraine is a government of the people…” Which people, exactly? Certainly not the Ukrainian people.
“…and there will (sic) democratic elections on May 25th.” Yes, and the government that results from THOSE elections is the one Putin has said he will recognize as legitimate. A fascist coup that installs a fascist government is NOT legitimate.
“No Fatwahs were issued. This is Ukraine, not Palestine.” Look up the definition of fatwah and get back to us. Nice straw man, though.
“Economics to me is a red herring.” Then you have bought into the Western propaganda. The “economics of it all” is THE issue in this conflict. Congrats, you have been successfully manipulated by the media (not something to be proud of, btw).
“this still comes down to who violated the Friendship Agreement of 1994 and a country’s sovereignty. Russia did that.” How exactly? Please cite the section(s) of the treaty that were violated.
“But I can assure you that not many Ukrainians, except the most rabid extremists, want their own country invaded by a belligerent foreign power.” You can assure us? Well now, that clears it all up. Case closed. We can all move on now. As for the “being invaded by a belligerent foreign power” meme, that’s an interesting opinion you’ve been given by Western media, but it’s simply not true. Russia is neither belligerent, nor did it “invade” Crimea.
I know the truth is hard to swallow, but everything John Wolfe stated is true. And you have presented nothing of fact nor substance to refute it.
Thanks to the writer for pointing out the systematic lies of corporate media propaganda regarding the Ukraine situation and specifically Saakashvili’s Georgian aggression.
I do see another problem here though, which is that the writer seems to be using negatively judgmental language exclusively against the Empire’s “official enemies”. — e.g. The ousted Ukranian gov’t was “odious” while the current putschist regime of ‘fascists and antisemites’ is “‘pro-West'” — why is the former labelled odious but the latter not? It should also be pointed out the ‘odious’ determination is not to be found in Robert Parry’s Consortium News footnote, which one might assume with it being placed so close to the link.
For another example of apparent bias by FIAR, in the context of Georgia’s attack on South Ossetia the writer indicates “the Russian army’s ‘brutal’ attack” and “Russia’s ‘violent’ response”. Whereas the instigator, Georgia, “started the war with a large-scale military attack”. Why a Georgian attack is merely ‘large-scale’ while Russia’s counter-attack is ‘brutal’ and ‘violent’, is confounding.
It seems counter-productive when FAIR and other alternative media manifest practically the same biases which they claim to expose and correct.