Ossetia Endgame
Aug. 13th, 2008 01:44 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
4thofelevenIt looks like the worst of the situation is over; Georgia has withdrawn from South Ossetia, and the Russian government is apparently agreeing to EU mediation and have halted their advance. I imagine we’ll see something of a return to the status quo, with Georgia being forced to agree not to intervene in Ossetia or Abkhazia again, but with nether region gaining official independence. Meanwhile, the western media seems to have actually managed to work out what’s going on, and a few sources have actually realised the conflict might merit a higher level of attention than the Olympics…
It is interesting to notice that the Georgian government is clearly much more media-savvy than the Russians. President Saakashvili has been pretty clearly playing to the western media since the conflict started, making constant speeches in English in which he paints Georgia as a freedom loving democracy, claims that Georgia is under attack because the Russians hate their freedom, argues that the Russians won’t stop at Georgia, they’ll go after the rest of Europe unless they’re stopped, that the line must be drawn here, etc, etc. Even when he’s touring the front lines, he’s still speaking English; pretty much all of his statements have as their intended audience westerners, and specifically Americans. Note also how often Saakashvili is shown speaking in front of a backdrop of Georgian and EU flags; never mind that Georgia isn’t part of the EU, isn’t even close to gaining EU membership – he wants people to make a subconscious connection, encouraging people unfamiliar with the area or the situation to believe that Russia has invaded the EU itself…
In contrast, the Russian government has made very little effort to engage foreign audiences. In part, I suspect this is because unlike Saakashvili, none of the senior members of the Russian government are particularly fluent in English, so that puts them at a media disadvantage in the west. But also it’s cultural – the Russian government sees itself as a global power that doesn’t need the approval of foreigners to justify their actions. I imagine that the Russian government is making great efforts to sell the intervention in South Ossetia to the public – but all their statements are directed at an internal audience, at the Russian people themselves. This is not a specific criticism of the Russian government – how often does the US bother to justify its actions to, say, European audiences?
The big question, of course, is just what the hell was Saakashvili thinking? Was he expecting the threat of western and NATO intervention would stay the Russians hand? Or did he just think the Georgian army would be able to occupy South Ossetia fast enough that the Russians would be unable to quickly dislodge them? Obviously, he thought that the west would prove more supportive – probably one of the few good things to come out of this mess is that it will kill all possibility of Georgia joining NATO. Hint to the US – countries with long term secessionist movements and border disputes may not be the sort of partners you want in your alliance… especially if you’re not willing to back them in those areas…
But I think there’s a deeper cultural issue that led Saakashvili to think the western powers would support him. See, Georgians tend think of Georgia as an integral part of Europe. The problem is western Europeans tend not to agree. So I imagine that at the back of Saaksahvili’s mind, he puts Georgia in the same category as Poland or Germany or France, and assumes that NATO would respond to a Russian incursion in Georgia the same way they would to Russian incursions in any other European nation. The problem, which I imagine he was consciously aware of but never really subconsciously believed, is that western Europeans don’t put Georgia in that category – they lump it in with Azerbaijan or Kazakhstan or Afghanistan – not that important, not that close, and not really Our Sort of People. Even with his public relations offensive, and even with a lazy media taking his interpretation as gospel – it’s still not really close enough to home for western audiences to really get too worked up about.
It is interesting to notice that the Georgian government is clearly much more media-savvy than the Russians. President Saakashvili has been pretty clearly playing to the western media since the conflict started, making constant speeches in English in which he paints Georgia as a freedom loving democracy, claims that Georgia is under attack because the Russians hate their freedom, argues that the Russians won’t stop at Georgia, they’ll go after the rest of Europe unless they’re stopped, that the line must be drawn here, etc, etc. Even when he’s touring the front lines, he’s still speaking English; pretty much all of his statements have as their intended audience westerners, and specifically Americans. Note also how often Saakashvili is shown speaking in front of a backdrop of Georgian and EU flags; never mind that Georgia isn’t part of the EU, isn’t even close to gaining EU membership – he wants people to make a subconscious connection, encouraging people unfamiliar with the area or the situation to believe that Russia has invaded the EU itself…
In contrast, the Russian government has made very little effort to engage foreign audiences. In part, I suspect this is because unlike Saakashvili, none of the senior members of the Russian government are particularly fluent in English, so that puts them at a media disadvantage in the west. But also it’s cultural – the Russian government sees itself as a global power that doesn’t need the approval of foreigners to justify their actions. I imagine that the Russian government is making great efforts to sell the intervention in South Ossetia to the public – but all their statements are directed at an internal audience, at the Russian people themselves. This is not a specific criticism of the Russian government – how often does the US bother to justify its actions to, say, European audiences?
The big question, of course, is just what the hell was Saakashvili thinking? Was he expecting the threat of western and NATO intervention would stay the Russians hand? Or did he just think the Georgian army would be able to occupy South Ossetia fast enough that the Russians would be unable to quickly dislodge them? Obviously, he thought that the west would prove more supportive – probably one of the few good things to come out of this mess is that it will kill all possibility of Georgia joining NATO. Hint to the US – countries with long term secessionist movements and border disputes may not be the sort of partners you want in your alliance… especially if you’re not willing to back them in those areas…
But I think there’s a deeper cultural issue that led Saakashvili to think the western powers would support him. See, Georgians tend think of Georgia as an integral part of Europe. The problem is western Europeans tend not to agree. So I imagine that at the back of Saaksahvili’s mind, he puts Georgia in the same category as Poland or Germany or France, and assumes that NATO would respond to a Russian incursion in Georgia the same way they would to Russian incursions in any other European nation. The problem, which I imagine he was consciously aware of but never really subconsciously believed, is that western Europeans don’t put Georgia in that category – they lump it in with Azerbaijan or Kazakhstan or Afghanistan – not that important, not that close, and not really Our Sort of People. Even with his public relations offensive, and even with a lazy media taking his interpretation as gospel – it’s still not really close enough to home for western audiences to really get too worked up about.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
on 2008-08-13 09:09 am (UTC)no subject
on 2008-08-14 08:16 pm (UTC)He should try talking to some Americans who aren't major government officials. The conversation would go like this:
AMERICAN: So, where are you from?
SAAKASHVILI: Georgia.
AMERICAN: Really? You don't sound Southern.
Embarrassing ignorance for us, but I'd still like to see it...
no subject
on 2008-09-01 03:59 pm (UTC)______the Russian government sees itself as a global power that doesn’t need the approval of foreigners to justify their actions._______
I would say (motivations is clearer from side I am within) we did not hope for be listened to. We know that the most of western people lives in Cold War paradigm (though the times had changed many years ago - for example, I had grown without any "socialism v/s imperialism" dogma or any another traces of Grate Opposition. It's a history in our country - ancient history. New generation don't know anything about old bipolar world (unless high achievers remember it, but almost untill they take their history exams)
But also we know that we have no any "friends" on the West (I don't know why, it's a subject for very long and very serious international scholar studies). A priory we don't hope for fair judge (both in common resonance on politic events and in international sport competitions), that's why really reasonable (not sympathizing, just reasonable) assertion is both surprising and pleasure (and once more thank you!). There is nothing to do, it's CW's inheritance.
For example: all of Saakashvili's delirium is published (but it's rather good, 'cause people in the world can see (tomorrow if not now) that it's true delirium), thereas speeches of our representatives is distorted, cuted, twisted.
But we were ready to see it. It's called "the inforamational war", as teachers in universities say.
I dislike termin "informational war", 'cause it means lies, intricate dirty games and false from all participants. I don't know what our leaders think about IW, but also I did not find any lie in their words (though I look at our political events from critical point of view and I don't belong to "President fans").
And if truth is sufficient, lie is unnecessary - even in politic game, I guess. I think "to win in IW" for Russian means "to be heared and to find fairly assertion".
And in advance I'm sorry for my English...