And now a roundup for the other election

So, what's going on south of the border today?

1. Well, Palin is still lying about the Bridge to Nowhere.

2. McCain released yet another despicable ad, this time accusing Obama of referring to Palin with his "lipstick on a pig" remark, and meanwhile, this continues to be one of the stupidest examples of faux outrage in all of political history.

3. The GOP is trying to suppress voter turnout in Michigan.

4. The WaPo is fed up with McCain:

IT'S HARD to think of a presidential campaign with a wider chasm between the seriousness of the issues confronting the country and the triviality, so far anyway, of the political discourse. On a day when the Congressional Budget Office warned of looming deficits and a grim economic outlook, when the stock market faltered even in the wake of the government's rescue of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, when President Bush discussed the road ahead in Iraq and Afghanistan, on what did the campaign of Sen. John McCain spend its energy? A conference call to denounce Sen. Barack Obama for using the phrase "lipstick on a pig" and a new television ad accusing the Democrat of wanting to teach kindergartners about sex before they learn to read.

5. While Palin was mayor of Wasilla, rape victims would be charged for their own medical exams. Seriously.

6. Joe Klein, who has really turned on McCain with a vengeance these past few days, is actually tackling some policy instead of pigs with lipstick. And he discovered that John McCain's health care plan would actually increase taxes on employer-provided health care benefits:

John McCain wants to tax your employer-provided health care benefits. He wants to replace those benefits with an insufficient tax credit -- $2500 for individuals and $5000 for families (the average cost per family for health insurance is $12000).

There is a positive, progressive tax aspect to this: wealthier people should have to pay for health insurance themselves, without tax breaks from the federal government.

But make no mistake: this plan will do little or nothing for those who do not have insurance now -- unless they are young and healthy -- and it may well hurt a fair number of workers, especially unionized workers, who get gold-plated benefits from their employers.

It will certainly do nothing for families with members who have pre-existing conditions or children with special needs -- because it makes no provision to regulate the insurers, forcing them to cover all comers at "community" rates that don't discriminate against the people who need health insurance most.

7. Okay, let's get back to the important stuff: Palin.

Today she had her interview with Charlie Gibson (to his credit, not all the questions were softballs). I'll quote this one excerpt:

GIBSON: Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?

PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia.

GIBSON: Because Putin has said he would not tolerate NATO incursion into the Caucasus.

PALIN: Well, you know, the Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution, those actions have showed us that those democratic nations, I believe, deserve to be in NATO.

Putin thinks otherwise. Obviously, he thinks otherwise, but...

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help.

Okay, first of all, I guess it's half-way reassuring that she at least seems to understand what NATO membership implies. But it's downright chilling that she seems so cavalier about letting two countries with VERY rocky relations with Russia into NATO, and even acknowledges the possibility of getting drawn into a war with Russia. Why should these two countries be allowed into NATO? Because they "deserve" it. What the fuck does that even mean?

Look, I'm certainly no fan of Putin. I think Russia's recent actions in Georgia were criminal, and I'm certainly in favor of the West punishing Russia in various ways. But not by letting their biggest enemies into a fucking military alliance!

I have no idea how this interview will play with the public, but the above passage alone chills me to the bone. Think about it. She could be the leader of the free world in as little as three or four months. If that doesn't scare you, it damn well should.

Scattershots

1. I think this guy has the right idea vis a vis Russia/Georgia:

Don't abandon Georgia to Moscow's 'sphere of influence'

I notice many on the Left have drawn an equivalence between this current crisis and the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, and thus have limited their criticism of Russia. But remember that old saying "two wrongs don't make a right"?

The truth is that the US was wrong to invade Iraq, and Russia was also wrong to invade Georgia. And Saakashvili is no Saddam Hussein either. This was no "humanitarian intervention"; Russia just wanted to slap Saakashvili down to teach him and any other shitty little country in Central Asia with delusions of grandeur not to snuggle up to the US and NATO. And judging by the results so far, and the general unwillingness of the international community to take any strong action in support of Georgia, it looks like mission accomplished.

2. Canada has finally won a few medals at the Olympics! Still less than half of Michael Phelps' total, though. That guy's a freak. Literally! His joints bend funny and his wingspan is more than his fucking height.

3. So much political ridiculousness going on south of the border, I can't even catalog all of it. But this video of MSNBC's David Shuster taking on the Hillary die-hards of PumaPac was a riot:




(h/t Balloon Juice)

And may I just suggest to all the morons in the US media that John McCain demonstrating his ignorance of recent history and eagerness to start a war with Russia is NOT "displaying his foreign policy credentials". Christ, what will it take for these idiots to wake up?


4. Courtesy of MovieWeb, the first photos of The Dark Knight DVD and Blu-ray releases:



Unfortunately, it doesn't look like there'll be a Blu-ray set that includes the Bat-pod or the mask, which is a real bummer. No release date yet, but they are probably aiming for a December release.

A bad peace

Despite scattered reports of ongoing Russian operations in Georgia, a ceasefire agreement has been agreed to by both parties in the conflict. Russian troops remain in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and in control of several key highways in Georgia proper.

Even if the ceasefire holds, it remains to be seen what the end result of this conflict will be. If Russian forces continue to occupy the two breakaway regions, in violation of international law, and succeed in forcing the removal of the democratically elected Saakashvili, the repercussions will be grave, not only for Georgia, but for the entire world. This cannot be allowed to stand. This behavior by a despotic Putin-led Russia cannot be validated.

If Russia is allowed to dominate Georgia in this fashion, what is to stop them from doing the same in other former SSRs? Surely there are "Russian citizens" in those countries to protect, separatist movements to foment, and pretexts for war to manufacture. Why stop at Georgia? After all, neighboring Azerbaijan has vast oil and natural gas reserves, and a Russian minority of 141,000.

It may yet become clear that Georgia's hands are far from clean in this conflict. Russian claims of massive civilian casualties in South Ossetia are likely gross exaggerations, but they may contain a kernel of truth. The Georgian assault on Tskhinvali may have been indiscriminate, and that is something they will have to answer for. But that does not excuse Russia's actions this week, nor their ongoing actions over the years in destabilizing Georgia.

Escalation

It's a little difficult to piece together what's going on in Georgia with all the conflicting reports and general fog of war, but it seems that the Russians have indeed advanced beyond South Ossetia, and are now threatening Georgian towns. The Georgian army seems to have pulled out of Gori in the face of advancing Russian tanks to reinforce the capital, Tblisi.

To put it mildly, the Georgians are at an extreme disadvantage. The Russians can boast total air superiority, despite the loss of at least 4 combat aircraft (the Georgians claim to have shot down 18), and Georgian ground forces are heavily outnumbered and out-gunned. If the Russians decide to occupy the capital, they most likely can, if not without some degree of bloodshed.

In any case, this marks a dangerous escalation of the conflict. Russia has moved beyond any pretext of protecting Ossetian autonomy (already a very flimsy case), and now appears to have regime change in mind, as they are, to this point, rejecting all calls for ceasefires, landing troops in Abkhazia and attacking targets in and around the Georgian capital.

Russia's actions here are illegitimate and illegal under international law. In violating Georgian sovereignty without any international mandate from the UN security council and acting entirely unilaterally, they have made just as grave an error as the US did in invading Iraq. This sets a very poor precedent, not only for UN legitimacy, but also for the sovereignty of all the former SSRs, especially those that dare defy Russia.

And meanwhile, the Georgians are wondering why no one has come to their aid:

One soldier, his face a mask of exhaustion, cradled a Kalashnikov.

“We killed as many of them as we could,” he said. “But where are our
friends?”

It was the question of the day. As Russian forces massed Sunday on two
fronts, Georgians were heading south with whatever they could carry. When they
met Western journalists, they all said the same thing: Where is the United
States? When is NATO
coming?

Unfortunately for President Saakashvili and his country, no one is coming. NATO and the US will not go to war with Russia over Georgia. If anyone assured Saakashvili that the opposite was true, that NATO would strongly back Georgia's efforts to retake S. Ossetia, then they must take their share of the blame for this conflict. Otherwise, it was a very stupid move of Saakashvili to provoke Russia in this way.

Which is not to excuse Russia's actions; they are blatantly geo-political and self-interested. As I previously noted, Russia has worked for years to destabilize Georgia, and their claims of only invading to protect "Russian citizens" are eerily reminiscient of Nazi propaganda over the Czech Sudetenland. Russian citizens or not (and Ossetians are not Russian anyway), they have no right to invade and occupy the sovereign nation of Georgia without any international mandate, something they didn't even attempt to get.

What now for Georgia?

It's hard to say where things are going to go from here. Georgia wants a ceasefire, and has pretty well withdrawn from South Ossetia. But Russia has landed troops in Abkhazia (another breakaway region of Georgia), and has bombed targets in Tblisi. The Russians seem to be in control of Tskhinvali, which appears to have suffered major damage, and the Russians claim as many as 2,000 dead there as a result of the Georgian offensive that began Thursday. This is most likely an exaggeration, and the Russians have killed Georgian civilians as well as a result of the bombing missions they have carried out.

The roots of this conflict are now becoming clear, or at least less opaque than they were two days ago. Russia has consistently undermined the Georgian state over the past decade, hitting them with trade boycotts and cutting off gas supplies, and fomenting separatist movements in places like Abkhazia and S. Ossetia. This is a culmination of those efforts, aiding by some spectacularly stupid decisions by Georgia's president, and also some hubristic actions by the US.

The population of South Ossetia numbers about 70,000 in total. Most of these people favor independence from Georgia. There isn't much an economy to speak of, mostly limited to organized crime, with almost the entire population living in the provincial capital, Tskhinvali. The idea that such a region could form a viable independent country is laughable. Douglas Muir describes it thusly:

Couple of things you need to grasp if you’re going to understand South
Ossetia. One is, it’s not very horizontal. It’s all mountains, with just enough
flat ground for one modest-sized town. Almost all of it is over 1000 meters up,
about a third of it over 2,000 meters.

Two, it’s not that big. There are only around 75,000 people in South
Ossetia. In both area and population, it’s the smallest of the frozen conflicts.

Three, it’s poor. Really poor. I mean, Transnistria is one of the
poorest corners of Europe, but Transnistria is Switzerland compared to South
Ossetia. It’s basically 75,000 people living on rocks. Okay, okay, not rocks,
but this is a region whose traditional economy consisted of driving sheep uphill
in spring and back down again in autumn. There’s no industry to speak of. About
one-third of the state’s income comes from charging tolls on the single highway.
South Ossetia doesn’t export much but timber, sheep and people. Well, and there
was a big counterfeiting operation making US $100 bills a couple of years back.
But anyway, point is, not much there.

But Russia has been busy, putting these people on the fast track to Russian citizenship, installing "peacekeepers" in the region (obstensibly to protect S. Ossetia from Georgia, but lacking any international mandate), and riling up separatist sentiment.

Meanwhile, Georgia accepted Western military aid and training, and transformed their army into a small but competent and well-equipped force, ready to deal with domestic insurgency....or be accepted as a member of NATO.

NATO membership has long been a primary goal of Georgia's government, which they no doubt assumed would help them resolve any outstanding disputes with Russia, and give them a freer hand to deal with separatists. The significance of this was not lost on Russia, who also saw other former SSRs like Ukraine talking about joining NATO and/or the EU. The US promoted these efforts, and both Ukraine and Georgia sent military forces to help in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In retrospect, it may have been a grave error for the US to cultivate these relationships, encroaching as they were on what Russia still views as its own region of influence. Russia has taken this opportunity to aggressively push back against these unwelcome developments.

This guy seems to know what he's talking about, and this is how he describes Russia's aims in Georgia:

As in the good old days of the Cold War, this has also been a testing ground
between Western doctrines and arms against their Russian counterparts, and to
state the obvious, the former has come off very badly. True, the Russians came
in greater numbers, but the lesson for a lot of the other post-Soviet republics
is clear - fancy Western military aid and training doesn't mean you can stand up to the Bear,
so it may be prudent to avoid antagonising the Bear by forming military (or any
other) relationships with the West in the first place. So kiss goodbye to a lot
of our influence in the post-Soviet space.

Hilzoy also has a good post up on the situation, with lots of links to further reading, for anyone interested.

The question now is how far will Russia go? Will they confine their operations to South Ossetia (and now, Abkhazia), or will they push into Georgia proper? Will they only be satisfied with the removal of President Saakashvili?

Russia invades Georgia

It looks like Russia and Georgia are at war, for all intents and purposes. James Joyner has a pretty good run-down of the crisis. (h/t Balloon Juice).

Most people don't even know where Georgia is, but the region around the Caucasus is a frequent flashpoint between Russia, the former Soviet republics of the region, and various rebel groups that still want to break away from the former or the latter. Georgia is a particularly thorny case, being a former Soviet republic with rebel groups within its borders as well as Russian "peacekeepers" obstensibly there to mediate between the two sides. What happened today, as Georgian forces attacked rebels in South Ossetia, has both sides claiming the moral high ground, Georgia describing it as an unprovoked Russian attack on its populace, and Russia claiming they are only acting to defend Russian citizens in S. Ossetia (of which there are many).

The subtext to all of this is that Georgia was trying very hard to become a NATO member. Now it will never happen. Why? Because the whole idea of NATO is that if one member state is attacked, all other member states must come to its defense. But as long as Georgia has uneasy relations with its northern neighbor, NATO won't risk getting drawn into a conflict with Russia, and thus won't risk allowing them to join. Putin, who still sees NATO as an anti-Russian alliance, surely knows this.