Russia and Georgia: International Law and Norm Considerations

October, 02 2008By David Barouski
David Barouski's ZSpace Page
Join ZSpace

Many insightful analyses have been written on the recent Russia-Georgia war. Some writers looked at what the war means in the context of the "great game." Others examined what might have motivated Georgia to instigate such a seemingly impossible fight with Russia. Another approach was to analyze the United States' influence on the conflict. This particular composition will utilize a few basic applications of international law to briefly analyze the war.

On July 31st, Russian railroad troops finished work repairing a strategic railroad in Georgia's semi-autonomous region of Abkhazia. Its completion would allow Russia to deploy military equipment and reinforcements directly in the region to a position located just outside Georgian artillery's reach. Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili and his advisors knew that if he was going to ratchet up the pressure on the country's separatist regions to bring them more under Georgian control, he would have to do so soon before Russian reinforcements and equipment had the opportunity to arrive. On the night of August 1st, Georgian soldiers attacked the north end of Tskhinvali, the capital of another semi-autonomous region of Georgia called South Ossetia.1 They exchanged gunfire with Ossetian militia forces and following a two hour firefight, the Georgian Army shelled the area and withdrew. Over the next few days, Georgian forces deployed to the South Ossetian border for a more definitive strike. Georgian and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) officials both denied any military buildup was occurring.2 On August 6th, another battle occurred in South Ossetia and the Russian barracks were targeted. After a night of gunfire that claimed several lives, the Georgian Army resumed artillery fire at daybreak on August 7th. On the evening of August 7th, after an all-day battle between the Georgian Army and Ossetian fighters, President Saakashvili declared a unilateral ceasefire.3 He publicly announced on television that the Georgian Army had been ordered to cease all hostilities. In addition, President Saakashvili offered South Ossetia unlimited autonomy within Georgia and stated that Russia would be allowed to enforce the agreement.4

However, while talking peace, President Saakashvili prepared for war. Tanks and heavy weapons were moved to the South Ossetia border.5 On the night of August 8th, President Saakashvili violated his own ceasefire as the Georgian Army unilaterally attacked fellow Georgian citizens in Tskhinvali. The attack was coordinated to coincide with the opening ceremony of the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing because the eyes of the international press would be focused there, and by the time they were completely aware of the full-scale war in Georgia, Russian tanks were already rolling in and their air strikes were underway. President Saakashvili reinforced this myopic version of events to the public by focusing on the Russian forces that crossed into Georgia during his press conferences and interviews. In addition, China's preoccupation with the Olympic Games prevented them from responding to the crisis by backing Russia either politically and/or militarily. Russia's Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin, and several other high-ranking Russian statesmen were also in Beijing for the opening festivities to meet with other world leaders, including United States President George W. Bush. Their preoccupation allowed Georgia to publicly respond to the crisis first and disseminate their version of events.

Also apparently lost on the western press was the fact that the Georgian Army committed war crimes and crimes against humanity by targeting civilian structures in Tskhinvali. Initially, they targeted schools, hospitals, housing complexes, and the city's university with BM-21, 122mm, and 152mm mortar shells. When the attack was initiated, artillery shells began raining down while the town's residents were sleeping in their homes. Rockets were launched on the town shortly after. Then, Georgian tanks rolled in along with ground forces and encircled the town while the Georgian Air Force took flight. The area quickly fell under siege. Ossetian militias and Russian peacekeepers engaged the Georgians. The Georgian Army also advanced on Abkhazia, which has a mutual defense pact with South Ossetia. Abkhazian militias pushed Georgia out of the Kodori Gorge. By the end of August 8th, Russia responded by commencing airstrikes on Gori and other military targets while sending in thousands of soldiers along with tanks, transport vehicles, and heavy weaponry. Based on the speed and size of the response, it is clear that Russia had pre-planned for this scenario and was militarily ready and able to deploy before August 8th. Georgian officials admitted to dropping Israeli-made M-85 cluster bombs at the Roki Tunnel, where the Russian infantry, tanks, and vehicles crossed into Georgia.6 Russian warships were sent to the Black Sea, where at least one Georgian ship was sunk. The Georgian armed forces, though trained by the United States and Israel, did not really stand a chance against the large-scale Russian deployment and their air superiority. After the Russian Army pushed the Georgian Army out of South Ossetia and moved into Georgia Proper, Ossetian militias looted and burned Georgian homes in Tamarasheni, Kekhvi, Kvemo Achabeti (Nizhnie Achaveti), Zemo Achabeti (Verkhnie Achaveti), and Kurta.7

Georgia defended its attack on South Ossetia by invoking the sacrosanct principle of sovereignty. Indeed, South Ossetia is still a legal part of the sovereign state of Georgia because it has not received diplomatic recognition from other sovereign states or international organizations like the United Nations (UN). Georgian officials stated that it is their right to use force against separatist militias that threaten the sovereignty of the Georgian state, which is defined here as a monopoly of force and legal authority over an internationally-recognized geographic territory.8 Initial armed intervention to legitimately protect the peace of a sovereign nation is an internationally accepted legal norm articulated in Article 51 of the UN Charter. Their other argument is essentially that the Russian Army, by crossing into Georgian territory and attacking Georgian state forces, committed an Act of Aggression as defined by United Nations (UN) General Assembly Resolution 3314 (1974) and also violated Article 2.4 in Chapter 1 of the UN Charter.9 President Saakashvili tried to reinforce these arguments to the international community by repeatedly claiming that Russia's ultimate goal was to overthrow his government, not protect the Ossetians.10 Russia's advance into Georgia Proper, as opposed to simply securing South Ossetia, was used as evidence for his claim. President Saakashvili also accused Russia (without providing evidence) of committing acts of ethnic cleansing, a war crime and crime against humanity.11 Finally, one can argue that Russia's political influence within South Ossetia undermines Georgia's legal authority (a part of sovereignty) over the region.12

Russia had its own justifications and precedent to attempt to explain their intervention. One argument is that they were coming to the aid of Russian citizens who were being unilaterally attacked by the Georgians.13 Most South Ossetians have Russian passports and are afforded all the benefits of a native-born Russian passport holder. As such, South Ossetians are considered de facto Russian citizens by Moscow. In addition, Georgia attacked the Russian soldiers that were legally deployed in South Ossetia as a part of the peacekeeping force set up in the 1992 ceasefire agreement between South Ossetia and Georgia. These soldiers are native Russian citizens and by August 8th, several Russian peacekeepers were killed in the attacks by Georgian forces.14 Russia invoked the inherent right of self-defense to defend these Russian citizens, and Article 51 of the UN Charter allows the use of force for self-defense from an armed attack until the Security Council undertakes measures against the aggression. However, Matthew Bryza, the United States Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs and a National Security Council (NSC) member, attempted to counter this argument by stating that although Georgia attacked on August 7th, in his view the conflict began much earlier and was originally provoked by South Ossetian militias.15

Russia also infers reference to the "Just War" principle, which sets out ethical guidelines for using force other than for self-defense purposes. This concept, the cornerstone of the "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine, is defined by: Right intention, last resort, proportional means, reasonable prospects for success, right authority, just cause, reasonable withdrawal of forces. As their argument goes, just cause was provided when the Georgian offensive targeted Ossetian civilians, causing large-scale loss of life. Russian officials sought to reinforce this justification by accusing Georgian forces of committing genocide; however no evidence for this accusation has yet to be presented. Their authority (or perception thereof) would be derived from Russia's role as a state authority protecting their citizens from harm. The right intention was the Russians' stated intention of protecting their citizens who were under siege. Russia's superior air power allowed for an almost certain chance of "success" (i.e. defeating the Georgian forces). Russian officials likely believed they had fulfilled the "last resort" measure because several diplomatic initiatives went unheeded. NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer called for a ceasefire on August 8th that was ignored by both sides.16 An emergency UN Security Council meeting on the night of August 7-8th to create a Russian-sponsored ceasefire resolution ended in failure when the Security Council members could not come to an agreement.17 Additionally, preplanned talks between South Ossetian and Georgian ceasefire negotiators were scheduled to be held on August 8th.18 The Georgian attack on that day ended this initiative. The United States seeks to nullify the "just war" argument by stating that Russia used "disproportionate force."19 China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, all members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), voiced their consent for Russia's "active role" in Georgia as an attempt to counter the United States' statement.20

Perhaps Russia's strongest defense for their actions is the precedent set by NATO in Kosovo. In 1999, NATO violated Serbia's sovereignty in an aerial bombing campaign. Prior to the bombing campaign, the UN Security Council did not pass a resolution mandating a collective intervention under Chapter 7. NATO itself could not attack under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty because Serbia had not attacked a member of NATO, which would have allowed them to invoke the collective security agreement. As a result, in order to justify their actions, NATO claimed the bombing campaign was to prevent Serbians from committing ethnic cleansing against Albanians living in Kosovo, then a province of Serbia. Thus, officials claimed that the bombing campaign was really a "humanitarian intervention" conducted in order to save the Albanians. In the end, NATO officials and pilots were never sanctioned for their actions. This precedent is important because the same basic reasoning was used by Russia to justify its intervention and violation of Georgia's sovereignty. Sir Michael Jackson, Deputy Commander to General Wesley Clark in NATO's Kosovo Force (KFOR) from June to October 1999, admitted that Russia had a valid point by stating they were intervening to protect their de facto and de jure citizens.21

I suspect the debate on who was "right" or "wrong" in this war will go on for quite some time. I also doubt that international law will hold anyone accountable for what happened. Regardless of what subjective or collective conclusions are drawn from further studies of the war, I only hope that it does not start up again and/or lead to a new "Cold War" with an accompanying arms race.

1 On 9 April, 1991, shortly before the official collapse of the Soviet Union (USSR), Georgia opted to withdraw and declare its independence as a republic. Abkhazia declared de facto independence as a nation-state from Georgia in 1992, but failed to receive any international recognition. The Abkhazians defeated Georgia in a civil war that lasted from 1992-1993 and led to the ethnic cleansing of Georgians from the territory and the installation of a UN-monitored mission (UNOMIG).

South Ossetia became an autonomous oblast (equivalent to a province) in the Georgia Soviet Republic beginning in 1922. The Soviet Constitution of 1936 confirmed South Ossetia's autonomy within the newly formed Soviet Socialist Republic. In November 1989, the South Ossetian regional council asked the Georgia Supreme Soviet for independence. Their request was denied and Georgia banned all regional parties. South Ossetia turned to Moscow for help but they were turned away because Moscow was mired in its own serious problems. The Ossetians responded by declaring themselves a Soviet Democratic Republic within the Soviet Union and even held elections. In December of 1990, the Georgian Government revoked South Ossetia's autonomous status. War broke out with Georgia Proper in 1991. When Georgia became independent, South Ossetia failed to receive any diplomatic or international recognition. As a result, South Ossetia retained its de facto independent status. A European-monitored referendum in 2006 resoundingly reaffirmed the Ossetians' desire for full independence, but the international community, including Russia, again refused to recognize the referendum. They stated the reason was because the collective population of Georgia did not participate in the voting and the central Georgian Government of President Saakashvili did not recognize the results.

2 "NATO 'Not Aware' of Any Georgia Buildup, Urges Calm," Reuters. 5 August 2008.

3 "Saakashvili Appeals for Peace in Televised Address," Civil Georgia. 7 August 2008. http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=18931. Accessed 28 August 2008.

4 "South Ossetia: An Avoidable Catastrophe," Thomas De Waal. Institute for War and Peace Reporting. 11 August 2008.

5 "Georgian Tanks Head for South Ossetia," Russia Today. 7 August 2008. http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/28601. Accessed 3 September 2008.

6 "Group: Georgia Admits to Dropping Cluster Bombs," Associated Press. 1 September 2008.

Note: M-85s, manufactured by Israeli Military Industries, were also found in Shindisi, a town located north of Gori. Russia is not known to possess M-85s. ("MoD Says it Used Cluster Bombs, But Not in Populated Areas," Civil Georgia. 1 September 2008.)

7 "South Ossetia: Tskhinvali's Apocalypse," Tanya Lokshina. Opendemocracy.net. 1 September 2008. http://www.opendemocracy.net/Russia/article/South-Ossetia-Tskhinvali-Apocalypse. Accessed 4 September 2008.

8 Note: Another definition often used is the traditional "Westphalian Sovereignty," which includes nation-state sovereignty through self-determination, legal equality between states, and the principle of non-intervention in other states' affairs, which is also a foundational tenet of the UN Charter. This original definition's modern relevance is under continuing debate in wake of post-Cold War issues arising from supranational institutions/bodies, international terrorism, the proliferation of non-state actors, unilateral military interventions, assertive multilateralism, and globalization to name but a few. All of these encroach, and/or have the potential to encroach on one or more aspects of sovereignty. They are also part of, or directly influence, the modern international system.

9 Note: There is debate in regards to the interpretation of Article 2.4. In this example, a very literal and strict interpretation is used. However, the UN Charter itself does not define or distinguish the terms "aggression" or "war," though it makes use of the terms. For this reason, some argue Article 2.4 is not precise enough to constitute a legal norm. Both Russia and Georgia formally declared war after their initial respective attacks began.

10 "Saakashvili Offers 'Patriot Act'," Civil Georgia. 29 August 2008.

11 "Saakashvili Calls on World not to Accept Ethnic Cleansing," Civil Georgia. 4 September 2008.

12 Note: A former part of Russia, South Ossetia still retains close ties to Moscow. Not only do South Ossetians carry Russian passports, they also use the Russian Ruble as currency.

13 "Medvedev: Russia Will Protect its Citizens in S. Ossetia," Civil Georgia. 8 August 2008.

14 "Russian Peacekeepers Confirmed Killed in Georgia," Russia Today. 8 August 2008.

15 "U.S. Official: Tbilisi Attacked Tskhinvali on August 7, But War Started Earlier," Civil Georgia. 4 September 2008.

Note: It is noteworthy that Undersecretary Bryza is an energy policy coordinator for Eurasia and was a special advisor to the President and Secretary of State on Caspian Basin energy diplomacy from July 1998 to March 2001. Pipeline transportation corridors that circumvent Russia are the West's primary strategic interest in Georgia. These corridors currently include the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline and the Baku-Supsa pipeline. However, a complete analysis of this topic is far beyond the scope of this composition.

16 "NATO Calls for Ceasefire, Direct Talks," Civil Georgia. 8 August 2008.

17 "UN Council Split on South Ossetia, Russia Angry," Civil Georgia. 8 August 2008.

18 "Talks Planned for August 8 - Russian Negotiator," Civil Georgia. 7 August 2008.

19 "U.S. Says Russia Used 'Disproportionate' Force," Sue Plemming. Reuters. 14 August 2008.

20 "Russia Wins Backing from China, Central Asia Over Georgia," Agence France Presse. 28 August 2008.

21 "Georgia: Let's Not Start World War III," Mike Jackson. The Independent. 17 August 2008.

From:	Z Space - The Spirit Of Resistance Lives
URL:	http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/commentaries/3636

While you were away...

Here it comes campers. In case you were too baffled by the complexities of the coming merger between the state and the financial sector, we have some more old-fashioned, Bush administration saber-rattling for those of you so inclined. Please pay no attention to the woman behind the curtain.

While I have been referring to the nationalization of the lending industry as socialism for the wealthy, which to some extent it is, the strict definition of a state-corporate nexus is fascism. Many have a hard time with the word because of its association with The National Socialist Party of Germany - The Nazis. It has more connotations than the references to the Third Reich or Mussolini's National Fascist Party, since Il Duce initially coined the word to describe the cooperation of industry and state codified into law.

What we are witnessing now in the meeting rooms of DC and Wall Street is, in fact, the final stage of incorporating a fascist state, a project that has been ongoing for decades. Those for whom this is the fruition of their wettest dreams dance in their closets for the total elimination of any regulation whatsoever. Government oversight will be touted in the corporate media as quaint and unnecessary, when those of us paying attention have seen that the exact opposite is true time after time after time. It will be interesting to watch the weak and futile protests of the Democratic Party before they allow and even expedite this plan into law. Just try to find any mention of the many thousands of homeowners and other debtors who are literally dying on the vine. Their concerns are less than secondary to those of the suddenly endangered wealthy. Who cares about those irresponsible defaulters, anyway?

In the midst of all this, however, we have the Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, giving it her all to distract us from the historic devastation of the US - and by extension - global economies. In a speech touted by the State Department as an important statement on relations with Russia, she rattles BushCo's saber toward Moscow, saying that its objectives have put it on a path to "self-imposed isolation and international irrelevance" - a daring move that must have taken quite a bit of practice to pull off convincingly, since it is in fact the US that totters down this very path.

For those who've been watching, this is in reference to what the entire corporate media calls "Russia's bloody invasion of Georgia". While Moscow did indeed invade Georgia and continues its occupation of it, the initial "attack" was a response to Georgia's feeble but equally bloody attacks on South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Russian protectorates now recognized as independent nations. Georgia's plan to re-annex the territories, once integral parts of Georgia before the dissolution of the USSR, originated within the CIA and Israel in cooperation with the US-puppet government of Georgia. The plan to provoke Moscow to protect its sovereign states seems to have worked perfectly and now the illegitimate Bush administration, along with its corporate media mouthpieces, get to scold Russia for its murderous "aggression", while never once mentioning the acts of aggression that originally provoked the response. The more things change...

It now seems that BushCo wants to ramp up old enmities between our respective nations. Ms. Rice actually had the audacity to say that the emerging picture "is that of a Russia increasingly authoritarian and aggressive abroad". Damn, that took cojones, huh? Didn't even look at the floor or flinch once! Quite impressive.

No telling where all this casting of aspersions will lead just yet, since the Russian media simply laughs at the utter hypocrisy of Washington's positions. Doubt they're going to find it funny for long, though. Can't say that I blame them.

Cheney Scales New Heights of Hypocrisy

I am aware of the campaign to mislead the citizenry regarding Georgia's attempt to "reclaim" South Ossetia and Azkhaban. Rest assured that this campaign originates from within the illegitimate Bush administration and is carried out by its misinformation dissemination branch - the corporate media.

I listen to my friends and co-workers referring daily to the new Russian "aggression" and what will happen if this continues. There is usually no mention of the US aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention the saber-rattling toward Iran, and if there is, it is usually to parrot some GWOT bullshit. Like lemmings to the sea...

No one seems to step back and examine the scenario, since the media does our thinking for us now, and we need not question its beneficence. No one else seems to believe that the situation suspiciously favors the warrior candidate, Johnny Mac Cain, and any mention of this possibility is usually met with doubt and sometimes utter derision. Such is the lot of the free-thinker.

Georgia is the US's bitch, campers. The history is clear - read up, babies! The only pipeline to the Caspian not under Russian control runs through South Ossetia. Bill Clinton, in the early nineties, said that it is the most important line in the region. Let's meditate on that, shall we?

But when Vice Resident "Big" Dick Cheney starts pontificating about Russian aggression and breaches of sovereignty (!!!!), you know something about the situation is seriously fucked. This is a signal to look deeper than the corporate media, plaything of the wealthy and powerful.--Pete

By ROBERT FANTINA, COUNTERPUNCH

While Alaska Governor and Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin is getting all the attention, the current vice president, Dick Cheney, was able to pontificate about Russia and Georgia with barely any notice from the media. However, while hardly anyone was watching, Mr. Cheney echoed the hypocrisy of his boss, President George Bush. While traveling in Italy, Mr. Cheney decided to become the moral arbiter of Russia’s foreign policies. His incredible remarks are worth studying.

“Recent occurrences in Georgia, beginning with the military invasion by Russia, have been flatly contrary to some of our most deeply held beliefs. Russian forces crossed an internationally recognized border into a sovereign state; fueled and fomented an internal conflict; conducted acts of war without regard for innocent life, killing civilians and causing the displacement of tens of thousands.”

If anyone doubted the vice president’s disdain for those who elected him and kept him in power, this speech should have been an eye-opener. How he could make that statement with a straight face is beyond comprehension. Was he not a major force in the U.S. military invasion of Iraq? Mr. Bush may not have needed much encouragement to embark on this deadly oil grab, but whatever encouragement he may have needed was gladly provided by the vice president.

Did not U.S. forces cross an internationally recognized border into a sovereign state? At least Russia’s incursion was to a country it bordered; the U.S. sent 130,000 soldiers halfway across the world to invade and occupy sovereign Iraq.

Russia, says Mr. Cheney, ‘fueled and fomented an internal conflict.’ It has been some time since people have been talking about civil war in Iraq, possibly because with the increase of 30,000 soldiers, Iraq may have finally, after five bloody, terrifying years, been cowed into submission. The U.S. overthrew the government with nothing to put in its place, disbanded the police, and turned a once peaceful nation into an inferno of deadly, daily violence.

He goes on to decry the idea that Russia ‘conducted acts of war without regard for innocent life, killing civilians.’ When Mr. Bush’s horrific and unspeakable ‘Shock and Awe’ campaign began, residential areas were targeted. The president said he was invading Iraq because it had weapons of mass destruction aimed at the U.S., but since he didn’t know exactly where they were, he would simple practice genocide on the Iraqi people and hope the weapons of mass destruction would turn up eventually (they didn’t). At the time his bombers were dropping death from the air over Baghdad, over half the population of that city was under the age of 15.

As far as conducting acts of war is concerned, could someone point out to Mr. Cheney that the invasion of a sovereign nation is probably the ultimate act of war? Occupying it for years, killing a million of its citizens and terrorizing much of the population for over five years may be business as usual for U.S. foreign policy, but that does not make those actions any less acts of war.

One could also point out that torturing political prisoners, some as young as 15, is an horrific act of war. The torture chamber that the U.S. operates at Guantanamo Bay is only the most famous; the U.S. uses ‘rendition’ sites around the world to torture those it considers dangerous. The supposedly cherished rights, such as due process, that the U.S. is said to stand for are meaningless to those who get in the way of Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney’s imperial designs.

The Russian incursion, said Mr. Cheney, caused ‘the displacement of tens of thousands.’ That number pales in comparison to the millions who have been displaced in Iraq due to the U.S. invasion and occupation. At least a million Iraqis are in crowded refugee camps, forgotten by the media and certainly ignored by that master terrorist, Dick Cheney. Perhaps two million more have had to leave their homes, although they remain in Iraq.

“The United States and many in Europe have made clear that Russia's actions are an affront to civilized standards and are completely unacceptable.” Mr. Cheney did not bother to explain why these behaviors exhibited by Russia are ‘an affront to civilized standards,’ and why they are ‘completely unacceptable,’ but when the exact same acts are perpetrated by the U.S., although on a far larger scale, they are, apparently, just fine.

“For its part, Russia has offered no satisfactory justification for the invasion -- nor could it do so.” In over five years since the U.S. invaded Iraq, it has offered ‘no satisfactory justification’ for doing so. All the original lies, including the falsehoods that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, was close to developing nuclear weapons, etc., have faded into oblivion, like the blood of millions of Iraqis on the desert sands. Mr. Bush also stated the need for ‘regime change;’ why he and his neocon cohorts felt this was their right has also never been explained.

“Differing views on the status of these two areas, within the sovereign borders of the Georgian democracy, cannot justify a sudden and violent incursion by Russia. This much, at a minimum, should be understood by all people of good will in the year 2008.”

Yet apparently the belief that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the U.S., despite the fact that United Nations weapons inspectors were combing Iraq and finding nothing, could justify a sudden and violent incursion by the U.S. People of good will in the year 2008 understand that that is simply wrong, as they did in 2003.

“This chain of aggressive moves and diplomatic reversals has only intensified the concern that many have about Russia's larger objectives.” The U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, continued threats against Iran and Cuba, and the fact that the U.S. has enough weapons of mass destruction to destroy the entire planet several times over have certainly intensified concern about the U.S.’s larger objectives.

Eight long years ago, Mr. Bush promised to bring dignity back to the White House. In his war-mongering mind the fact that President Bill Clinton had had an extra-marital affair was so disgraceful that the reputation of the U.S. was in tatters as a result. Today, following the Iraqi invasion and occupation that most of the world, including most of the U.S.’s allies, opposed from the start, the U.S. is the most hated and feared nation on the planet. With Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney now prancing around the world, criticizing Russia for actions that parallel in action but not in scope, the exact behaviors they have practiced and continue to practice, another mark of hypocrisy has been struck against the U.S.

As the U.S. plods towards the conclusion of its every-four-year election farce, the race for president is said to be too close to call. The Republican presidential candidate, the elderly Arizona Senator John McCain, the man who is so wealthy he does not even know how many houses he owns (or perhaps it is simply senility), calls for change by offering more of the same. This is the model his idol, Mr. Bush, used following the 2006 Congressional elections. After the war-mongering Republicans were thrown out of Congress, replaced by the spineless but equally war-mongering Democrats, Mr. Bush led the country on a ‘new way forward,’ by escalating the war. Mr. McCain has consistently supported Mr. Bush’s worst policies.

Mr. McCain’s Democratic challenger, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, has inspired many with his call for ‘change we can believe in.’ Whether or not we can actually believe in his idea of change, at the very least he offers a glimmer of the hope that U.S. citizens and the world have lived without for eight long years. He selected as his running mate Senator Joe Biden, a distinguished senator with a thorough knowledge of foreign policy, having served for many years on the senate Foreign Relations Committee, which he currently chairs. Mr. McCain selected Mrs. Palin, an (almost) one-term governor of a state with a population of less than 1,000,000. Her previous political experience was as mayor of an Alaskan town with a population of less than 7,000. She opposes every progressive movement known to man, encourages the shooting of wolves from airplanes, and believes that global warming is a natural occurrence, and not a man-made threat.

One wonders how more of the same will help to rebuild the reputation of the U.S. throughout the world, especially when it is ushered in by a cowgirl brandishing a gun and a chastity belt. Yet that is what change means to Mr. McCain.

The world is watching to see if the U.S. voters will make the same disastrous mistake in 2008 that they made in 2004. There was no excuse for it then, and there will be even less so if they do it again. The consequences of those mistakes grow with each one. It will not be long before those consequences are irreversible, to the detriment of the entire world population.

Robert Fantina is author of 'Desertion and the American Soldier: 1776--2006.

BushCo's dangerous game of Russian Roullette

This Is London - Moscow has issued an extraordinary warning to the West that military assistance to Georgia for use against South Ossetia or Abkhazia would be viewed as a "declaration of war" by Russia.

The extreme rhetoric from the Kremlin's envoy to NATO came as President Dmitry Medvedev stressed he will make a military response to US missile defence installations in eastern Europe, sending new shudders across countries whose people were once blighted by the Iron Curtain.

And Moscow also emphasized it was closely monitoring what it claims is a build-up of NATO firepower in the Black Sea.

The incendiary warning on Western military involvement in Georgia - where NATO nations have long played a role in training and equipping the small state - came in an interview with Dmitry Rogozin, a former nationalist politician who is now ambassador to the North Atlantic Alliance.

"If NATO suddenly takes military actions against Abkhazia and South Ossetia, acting solely in support of Tbilisi, this will mean a declaration of war on Russia," he stated.

Yesterday likened the current world crisis to the fevered atmosphere before the start of the First World War.

Rogozin said he did not believe the crisis would descend to war between the West and Russia.