The Ossetian War is now three months past, but the battle over the war’s narrative continues. There has been a turn around in the Western media over the last few weeks. Whereas Russia was lambasted during the war as the evil villain and poor little Georgia the innocent victim, mostly thanks the Georgia’s use of Beligian PR firms, now Georgia is now blamed for a reckless attack, and even war crimes. To suggest anything of the sort three months ago would have been considered madness and laughed off as Putinist apologia.
The reevaluation of the war culminated today with the publication of a 76 page report by Amnesty International. The report, which declares a pox on both Russia and Georgia, details how Georgia carried out “indiscriminate attacks” on civilians and with Russia committed “serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law.”
As a whole the Amnesty reports doesn’t reveal any new information but rather corroborates what was already known with more testimony. The one part I was hoping to see more information on was the role of South Ossetian militias in the conflict. The report only devotes 3 of its 76 pages to this topic. From this it is still hard to evaluate the extent of Ossetian revenge violence against their Georgian neighbors.
Sadly, all of these journalistic correctives are now hopelessly academic. The war is over. The propaganda served its purpose at the moment when it was most needed. Journalists may be asking questions like: Why did the West ignore the truth about the war in Georgia? and running to pump out corrective articles by “talking to civilians” and getting the “facts” from the ground to salvage their credibility, but the real truth was that those “civilian accounts” and “facts” were always there. Not to toot my own horn, but I was able to see them. I didn’t even have to go to South Ossetia or Georgia to do so. All I did, like so many others who now feel vindicated, simply read the Russian press, (though I did fall victim to Russia’s claims of 2,000 civilian deaths. The revised number is a 159.) or the independent media. Granted, there is something to the “fog of war” and how that might obscure truth. Nevertheless, much of the Western media were either incompetent, or, because they are always willing to play their role in the war machine, simply just chose to ignore them.
Good article. I also knew the truth from the beginning of the propaganda war from Georgia. Mikheil Saakashvili was so obviously lying— way to much of a drama queen!
Keep up the good work for the truth!
I am afraid this may still not be over–Saakashvili is still crying he was in the right and you know how everybody believes him instead of the truth.
Thanks.
I don’t think the Russian/Georgia war narrative has changed much at all. In fact, there are news articles that are already revising the revision.
For example, NPR’s Ivan Watson story: “New Details Surface About Georgia-Russia War” which might sound like it is changing the narrative, but actually just reinforces Georgia’s viewpoint, with stories of Georgian soldiers on the ground.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97008964
And RFE/RL “Eyewitness Accounts Confirm Shelling Of Georgian Villages” by Eka Tsamalashvili, Brian Whitmore, which asserts the war started on August 2nd, with Pro-Moscow separatist forces shelling of Avnevi.
http://www.rferl.org/content/Eyewitness_Accounts_Confirm_Shelling_Of_Georgian_Villages/1349256.html
My understanding is that the Amnesty report suggests “there was deliberate misinformation and exaggerated reports during the conflict, and particularly in its early stages”. For example, Russia accused Georgia of “genocide” on 9 August when the Kremlin said that 2,000 civilians had been killed. Then on 12 October, the Russians revised the death toll to 159.
I’m more of the mindset that this back and forth with the newspaper articles is each side playing the media game. I also agree with Peter Semneby, EU’s special envoy to the Caucasus, who said “I’m not sure ultimately that that’s very interesting who shot the first shot on the seventh of August. It’s more relevant to look at the whole buildup of tension and escalation that took place over a fairly long period of time.”
It has been sad to read the plaudits that are now being given to the NYT’s sudden discovery that Saakasvili and co are not lily white virgins. C.J. Chivers (the NYT’s big georgia reporter who wrote the piece) is being held up by many as ‘all that is good in journalism’ is rightly exposed by RB Ware in JRL for perpetrating the lopsided reporting:
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/2008-206-36.cfm
…However, three months ago, the first article that the NY Times published on the Russia/Georgia war (which did not list Mr. Chivers as a contributor) was relatively balanced. NY Times reporting did not become irrationally anti-Russian until Mr. Chivers contributed to the second article published on the war by the NYT. All subsequent articles to which Mr. Chivers contributed continued in this erroneous vain. Hence, Mr. Chivers bears some measure of personal responsibility, a responsibility which his most recent article entirely neglects to examine. He now has an obligation to accept that responsibility as did Times reporter Judith Miller, in the aftermath of her disinformation concerning WMDs in Iraq….
Nevertheless, much of the Western media were either incompetent, or, because they are always willing to play their role in the war machine, simply just chose to ignore them.
You think the western media is always supportive of war?
I guess you were on walkabout during the runup to the Iraq War, and you weren’t around during the Vietnam war.
I think that as a title of an article, “Why did the West ignore the truth about the war in Georgia?” is unintentionally quite funny – the best of kind of satire.
Truth and war really aren’t two words that should be used in the same sentence.
Also, I really wouldn’t be surprised to hear about the Georgians having more than just one Belgian PR firm, but it would be tough to imagine how they could beat Kremlin spending in this area (Ketchum). I’m sure they’d really love to have their own fake CNN news channel beamed into every U.S. cable box.
At least in this blog most of the commenters did not buy the “Georgia is the victim” narrative. Having said that, Russia didn’t help itself by arguing its case in a clumsy and crude manner. Why keep on repeating the “genocide” and “2,000 dead” statements? You may remember that even though I believed Russia was justified in its military response, I thought those unnecessary exaggerations undermined Russia’s credibility. Another factor is that Georgia, besides having better PR, also benefited from the tendency spectators have to sympathize with the underdog–especially when the strong side has long been seen as the bad guy and it grossly outmatches the weak side.
<emAt least in this blog most of the commenters did not buy the “Georgia is the victim” narrative.
That’s correct, but quite a few of them bought into the “Russia has done nothing wrong” and the “US orchestrated the whole thing” narrative. In their haste to demonstrate they haven’t bought into one line of BS, they swallow another line of much the same stuff.
This is a problem with blogs in general IMO: everyone wants to show how different their thinking is to the mainstream that they are quite willing to buy into any crap which falls outside it.
YES! I knew they weren’t telling the truth. I have friends in russian so when i was telling my family over here inn idaho what they were hearing wasn’t true they said i was being fed lies. So much for that. Good work. I appriciate your information.
19 11 08 W.Shedd: – I also agree with Peter Semneby, EU’s special envoy to the Caucasus, who said “I’m not sure ultimately that that’s very interesting who shot the first shot on the seventh of August. It’s more relevant to look at the whole build up of tension and escalation that took place over a fairly long period of time.”
Semneby is talking the European book. That is what he is paid for. The EU is and has been fully aware from day one who started the war. Because of the need to handle the US with care, he would rather not talk about the embarrassing fact that that the West has praised Georgia and Sakaashvili to the skies for its democracy, human rights and press freedom despite all the evidence. If he had said it is “not convenient” to ask who shot the first shot on August 7th “it is more convenient and confusing to talk about the context”, that would have been true. Conversely had it been the Russians who had fired the first shot, boy, we would never have heard the end of it. The EU got agreement amongst its members by saying that the Russian reaction was “inappropriate” not unjustified. The few journalists who have asked what would have been an appropriate reaction have received no satisfactory reply. The reason for this is that the Russian response was entirely appropriate to a situation that was absolutely unacceptable on its borders judged by the norms of western reactions to situations on its own borders in the Balkans or in the case of the US in the Caribbean or Central and Latin America. Clinton specifically justified the invasion of Haiti in 1993 because “…it is in our backyard” despite being a very long way from the United states compared with Georgia in relation to Russia. Leaving aside Iraq, how can the West seriously maintain that a five day war in Georgia is “inappropriate” after bombarding Serbia for 78 days and allowing Israel to bombard Lebanon for 38 days? The point has been made that the Russians were wrong and “clumsy” to talk of genocide and exaggerate the casualties in Tshinvali. Perhaps but I think there was a more subtle point in the Russians’ words and actions. Their words were a deliberate and exact copy of western words in all of their many interventions particularly in Kosovo which the entire European political class understands was a precedent for Georgia even though they will not say so in public. This mimicking of Western rhetoric was in my view a deliberate message to Western leaders not to assume that the entire world accepts their version of events and above all will not do so in future. It also underlines the view that Western foreign policy has become totally illogical and incoherent if it is judged by what the West claims are its values.
I suspect one of the reasons for the recent swing towards reality in the press coverage in such organs as the NYT is the defeat of the absurdly pro-Georgian McCain in the US elections and by extension the weakening of the position of Cheney and friends who it is not unreasonable to infer, at the very least, encouraged the attack. Personally I shall be more impressed with the Western media’s new found integrity when a serious investigation into the role of the United States Israel and Ukraine in the attack gets underway.
“US orchestrated the whole thing” narrative.
————————————————
it’s not a “narrative” it is the truth, based on evidence, and the “evidence never lies” (Grisham, CSI). Have you ever heard of “Cuie prodest?” (Latin) – “Who benefited from”? If you don’t know who was behind, ask this question.
“I also agree with Peter Semneby, EU’s special envoy to the Caucasus, who said “I’m not sure ultimately that that’s very interesting who shot the first shot on the seventh of August. It’s more relevant to look at the whole build up of tension and escalation that took place over a fairly long period of time.”
This is Semneby’s way of saying “we don’t want to talk about it because we know the answer and it’s embarrassing. Let’s talk about something else.”
“That’s correct, but quite a few of them bought into the “Russia has done nothing wrong” and the “US orchestrated the whole thing” narrative.”
Those are two different narratives. Personally, I believe both that Russia did nothing wrong AND that the US was not involved.
“You may remember that even though I believed Russia was justified in its military response, I thought those unnecessary exaggerations undermined Russia’s credibility.”
Those claims were not Russian — they were South Ossetian claims made while the bombing of Tskhinvali was going on, probably in order to further goad the Russians into action.
What I found funny was the way CNN kept quoting “2000 dead!” without ever mentioning it was the Russian figure.
“Another factor is that Georgia, besides having better PR, also benefited from the tendency spectators have to sympathize with the underdog–especially when the strong side has long been seen as the bad guy and it grossly outmatches the weak side.”
This is sort-of true and sort-of not true. The true underdogs in this story are the South Ossetians.
“Cuie prodest”
That is some bad Latin…
Moreover, Dima, how exactly does the US benefit from a Georgian attack on South Oesstia?
The true underdogs in this story are the South Ossetians.
Thank you.
Doom loves the little peoples.
Doom’s barrista is an Ossetian, so all the crap about poor Georgia really sticks in Doom’s craw.
“Moreover, Dima, how exactly does the US benefit from a Georgian attack on South Oesstia?”
If it had worked there are those in the United States who would have regarded as a geopolitical victory. As it failed the United States government was able to push a reluctant Poland into agreeing to missile deployment on Russia’s border. Either way how does this benefit the people of the United States? As with much else in current US foreign policy, I would say not at all. Great for the arms industry of course.
Congratulations Sean on penetrating JRL with this article today.
Thanks!
I wrote:
“Another factor is that Georgia, besides having better PR, also benefited from the tendency spectators have to sympathize with the underdog–especially when the strong side has long been seen as the bad guy and it grossly outmatches the weak side.”
Chris replied:
“This is sort-of true and sort-of not true. The true underdogs in this story are the South Ossetians.”
Chris, I was writing about perceptions. In the US, for example, people didn’t know anything about Ossetia and the few who knew Georgia only knew Georgia is a tiny country next to huge Russia.
It’s true that it was the Ossetians who stated that they had either 1,8000 or 2,000 killed and that their capital was totally destroyed. Those claims, though, were repeated many times not only by the Russian media but also by Russian government figures.
The Bush administration was embarrassed by all this and tried to save face by acting with puffed up self-righteousness. I’m sure, though, that that US was very unhappy about Saak’s stupid decision to attack. As usual, the conspiracy-minded folks made their predictable claims that Georgia’s reckless attack was basically the US’s doing.
“It’s true that it was the Ossetians who stated that they had either 1,8000 or 2,000 killed and that their capital was totally destroyed. Those claims, though, were repeated many times not only by the Russian media but also by Russian government figures.”
True, but they didn’t have a lot of time or opportunity to check the figures. They had more pressing matters to attend to.
“If it had worked there are those in the United States who would have regarded as a geopolitical victory.”
“those (i.e., a number of people) in the United States” does not mean “the United States government.”
The JRL-propped Sean Guillory?
Kolya “As usual, the conspiracy-minded folks made their predictable claims that Georgia’s reckless attack was basically the US’s doing.”
So let’s get this clear. You think that little Georgia thought it would be a good idea to take on Russia without any encouragement from at least some bits of the US government? You imply that it is absurd to believe that the US could be implicated but at the same time you know the US record for interfering in all sorts of countries in all sorts of ways with billions of dollars and not just this administration. It has been going on for years.
What do we know for sure? The United States government does not try to pretend it did not know what was brewing. How could they? They say they told Sakaashvili not to do it but he ignored them and that, by implication, they were powerless to stop him.
However according to the usually reliable French newspaper the Canard Enchainé, French military intelligence reported that US personnel actually helped in the attack in particular by aiming the GRAD missiles. We know that Israel has been deeply involved in the Georgian defence effort and that the Georgian defence minister at the time was an Israeli citizen. We are told and have little reason to doubt it that the Ukrainians were helping the Georgians with their military build up. We know that whilst Bush was at the Olympics, Cheney, who has a separate chain of command linked into the US secret service set up, stayed behind in Washington in charge. We know that a NATO exercise was winding down but that equipment and troops were still in Georgia. We know that the attack on South Ossetia closely resembled the US backed Croatian surprise attack on the Bosnian Serbs in 1995. We know that, just as they did to protect Israel when it attacked Lebanon, the US and Britain moved to stop a call for a cease fire in the UN Security Council but immediately changed their tune when things went wrong for Georgia. It has recently emerged that the Rumanian President accidentally let drop that he knew “something” was going to happen on the 7th August before it happened. Rumania is a NATO member. In the background we also know that the European Union Foreign Policy chief Xavier Solana and former NATO general secretary told Members of the European parliament in 2007 that of course Kosovo was a precedent for Georgia but the trick would be to try and get Kosovan independence without giving away independence in the breakaway areas of Georgia. We also know about John “we are all Georgians now” McCain’s intense interest in Georgia and the financial tie up with his close adviser Randy Schoenemann. They are Republicans.
You don’t have to be conspiracy minded to believe that the some part of the vast US military intelligence set up helped and encouraged the attack. On the contrary you have to be stubbornly blind not to consider it very likely. ‘Stubbornly blind’ would not be a bad masthead motto for much of the Western media.
Me:
“It’s true that it was the Ossetians who stated that they had either 1,8000 or 2,000 killed and that their capital was totally destroyed. Those claims, though, were repeated many times not only by the Russian media but also by Russian government figures.”
Chris:
“True, but they didn’t have a lot of time or opportunity to check the figures. They had more pressing matters to attend to.”
Well, considering that PR is an important part of such conflicts and nowadays the news cycle is much faster than it ever was, this was not such a trivial matter. When this whole thing was taking place I thought (and still think) that Russia was justified in responding the way it did. Despite being thousands of miles away, though, even back then I expressed great skepticism about the claims of 1,800-2000 dead and the total destruction of Tskhinvali. And my doubts were based on reports available to everyone, reports of people who were right there in South Ossetia. I know that inaccuracies and false statements are inevitable in times of war and that all this is water under the bridge. Nonetheless, I think Russia would have scored more PR points and gained more credibility by trying to be more accurate instead of trying to compete with the typical Georgian (and Ossetian) hyperbole.
Robert, the US provided plenty of military assistance to Georgia and I’m the Georgians had some discussions with US officers on how to retake those enclaves as well as how to defend themselves against a Russian attack. I’m sure though that the US was not behind Saak’s decision to attack South Ossetia. Call me stubbornly blind if you want to, but the US was probably quite unhappy about Saak’s reckless attack. (This does not discount the possibility of a US military officer exceeding his authority and improperly encouraging Georgia to attack or perhaps trying to help Georgia once the war started. By the way, I have no idea whether there were such cases .)
(Hope this isn’t a duplicate; my last post was eaten alive.)
Even Anne Applebaum is getting in on the action!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/19/AR2008111903533.html
They already knew that? I guess they just didn’t think it was important enough to bother to bring it up when this news item was actually still news.
Hmmm . . don’t see it in the spaminator poemless. Who knows? It’s here now.
I saw Applebaum’s column and began ranting to my wife about it as she was trying to leave this morning. I thought about blogging about it, but just as I was starting I began to wonder why I would want to waste my time.
Applebaum’s thesis is quite hilarious. Yes, Saak isn’t perfect and we knew that. But that makes the Russians all the more sinister! They knew Saak was a hot head and tricked him into a war they were planning from the start! It’s amazing how utterly disingenuous her column is.
Her leaps of logic never cease to astound me. I’m almost tempted to giver her points for creativity and audacity. But the fact that she’s considered a credible journalist / “Russia expert” kind of pisses me off.
It’s interesting that I had a different reaction to Applebaum’s column. Perhaps that’s an advantage of having low expectations. No big deal, but knowing her bias and that Russia bashing is a given, I was mildly gratified to read sentences such as:
“We also knew, and have known for some time, that Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili is susceptible to extreme bouts of criminal foolhardiness.”
“Saakashvili’s attack on South Ossetia was a disaster, made worse by the bizarrely boastful celebrations he conducted afterward.”
Robert Harneis,
That was a long rant, but I think I got the gist. So, in the nutshell,
“What do we know for sure?
…Israel…Ukrainians…Bush, Cheney…Israel…US and Britain…Rumanian president…NATO…Xavier Solana…McCain…
They are Republicans.”
Is that what you were trying to say?
“Well, considering that PR is an important part of such conflicts and nowadays the news cycle is much faster than it ever was, this was not such a trivial matter.”
Sure Kolya, but I’m sufficiently a fan of all things Greeks (except thr boy-love part) to depise the very concept of PR, nobody how useful it may be. One should always aletheuein.
You don’t have to be conspiracy minded to believe that the some part of the vast US military intelligence set up helped and encouraged the attack.
Actually, in the absence of any evidence, a conspiratorial theory is all you have to go on.
On the contrary you have to be stubbornly blind not to consider it very likely. ‘Stubbornly blind’ would not be a bad masthead motto for much of the Western media.
What was I saying earlier:
In their haste to demonstrate they haven’t bought into one line of BS, they swallow another line of much the same stuff.
Not believing a scenario for which there is not a shred of evidence is not called being stubbornly blind, it is being sensible.
Chris, what’s “aletheuein”? Something like transparency? In any event, I’m also not fond of PR, propaganda, spin, advertisement and all those manipulative things, but, hey, that’s the world we live in. To paraphrase Rumsfeld: “We don’t live in the world we want, but in the world we have.”
Perhaps I was unclear, so just in case: I’m sure that the US is NOT blame for Georgia’s idiotic attack.
Robert, your long post above might just as well have been summed up (even more briefly than Candide’s synopsis) with the old conspiracy theorist’s saw, “connect the dots, maaan”. You have indeed shown us a lot of dots, but no real connection that I can see.
By the way, if we’re going to range into the realm of bat$hit conspiracy theories, has anyone considered the possibility that some of the shots being fired from the Georgian side which led to the escalation could have been fired by someone who had been paid by Russia to do so?
Anyway, I didn’t think Applebaum’s piece was outrageous at all, even in light of her previous writings on the topics involved. I guess the reactions of some above show that if you’re predisposed to detest some media personality then you will obiazatel’no find something detestable about everything s/he writes. Perhaps my favorite part of the piece was this:
It is very satisfying to describe Georgia as a tiny, brave and innocent democracy, proudly standing up to the evil Russian bear, as some did at the time. “We are all Georgians,” said John McCain. It is surely also very satisfying to describe Georgia as a tin-pot dictatorship, an evil American neocon lackey and the personal fiefdom of a major war criminal — as some are doing right now.
I think one of her points, with which I happen to agree, is that neither of these narratives is entirely true.
“Chris, what’s “aletheuein”? Something like transparency?”
I was being pretentious. “Aletheuein” is ancient Greek for “tell the truth.” “Legein talethe” = “say the true things.” It’s a big theme in Greek philosophy, which is (was) (half of) my specialty.
I know the Russian government doesn’t actually do this either, but that’s not the point.
Kolya “Call me stubbornly blind if you want to, but the US was probably quite unhappy about Saak’s reckless attack.”
They were unhappy because he failed. Had he suceeded we would have read all about it in sundry memoirs as we did from Holbrooke and others after the Croation blitzkreig. However those missing shreds will float to the surface over time. If Saak had pulled it off he would not be for the chopping block as he is now.
“They were unhappy because he failed. Had he suceeded we would have read all about it in sundry memoirs as we did from Holbrooke and others after the Croation blitzkreig.”
How did you gain your gift for paranormal insight, in which you can see the truth of affairs without any evidence whatsoever?
My Irish grandmother.
I am surprised that you above all are so nervous about calling a spade a spade as far as the US is concerned. No reference to the President elect intended.
Robert, except for stubborn blindness I don’t know how you can say that the US is responsible. The comparison with 1995 Croatia’s attack on Krajina doesn’t hold any water. First, I think the American involvement in Croatia is overstated, but even if it wasn’t the Krajina and South Ossetia operations were very different. A battled hardened Croatian army attacked an isolated Serbian enclave that had no powerful ally at her border. Krajina folded much quicker than expected, but Croatia incurred very little risk to itself in mounting that operation. On the other hand, Georgia knew not only that gigantic Russia is right next to her, but that Russia (under Putin, not Yeltsin as in 1995) made it very clear that it will not tolerate any such attacks. Croatia’s odds were excellent. Georgia’s odds were not.
I guess that Saak was stupidly convinced that if his troops quickly take over South Ossetia and close the tunnel, Putinist Russia will simply fume but do nothing else. What an idiotic assumption! The US has committed its share of blunders, but the responsibility of this one are squarely on Saak’s shoulders.
“I am surprised that you above all are so nervous about calling a spade a spade as far as the US is concerned.”
We do not possess your paranormal insight.
Why keep on repeating the “genocide” and “2,000 dead” statements?
I think this is a great example of the Hanlon Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. Just substitute stupidity with sloppiness, laziness, intellectual inertia, whatever.
This applies to both sides and both sides believed what they were saying. Russians believed their BS and the West believed theirs. Both were based on wishful thinking and presumptions that had little to do with reality.
Would you tell us about reality, Cyrill?
Would you tell us about reality, Cyrill?
Why would you want to know? It might upset your internal apple cart.
KOLYA(This does not discount the possibility of a US military officer exceeding his authority and improperly encouraging Georgia to attack or perhaps trying to help Georgia once the war started. By the way, I have no idea whether there were such cases .)
In truth we are not so far apart.
Cyrill.
I’m just checking that your claim has something to do with reality
What could a level of this officer be if he can encourage independent georgia, Kolya?