Georgia's South Ossetia Conflict - Political Commentary

[jmm99]

Permission of the Turkish government should not be assumed. A timely article in EDM (as I work through brown bag reading):

TURKEY’S DELICATE ACT OF BALANCING IN THE BLACK SEA
By Saban Kardas
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
The aftershocks of the conflict in Georgia continue to dominate regional politics, highlighting the difficulties Turkey encounters in conducting its foreign policy in dangerous neighborhoods. The latest U.S. move to utilize military vessels to provide humanitarian aid to the war-torn areas of Georgia demonstrated starkly how Turkey has been forced to engage in a delicate act of balancing to preserve its interests. By maintaining strict adherence to the 1936 Montreux Convention regulating the rules of transit through Turkish straits, Turkey had a powerful legal backing for its cautious policy of balancing the demands of its long-term ally, the United States, and its increasingly assertive neighbor, Russia. Turkish policy experts, however, believe that an escalation of tensions, forcing Turkey to choose sides, is quite likely. Moreover, Turkey should be prepared to discuss the revision of Montreux, which it has jealously guarded......

http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article...cle_id=2373331

[jmm99]

I am too ignorant of Ukraine's politics and ethnic divisions to comment on this story from EDM, but Ukraine seems a somewhat unstable quantity here. Too bad. In college, a close friend was a Uke-American with close ties to the then emigré Uke community (his uncle was a bishop, archbishop or whatever they called it then - very anti-Soviet).

UKRAINE DIVIDED ON RUSSIAN RECOGNITION OF SOUTH OSSETIA
By Roman Kupchinsky
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
The official Ukrainian response to Russia’s recognition of the independence of Georgia’s two breakaway provinces, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, on August 25, 2008, was not unexpected. The Ukrainian foreign ministry issued a statement on August 26 which noted: “The declaration by the Russian parliament is viewed by Ukraine as a particularly dangerous precedent which will sharply destabilize the security situation in the Caucasus region and throughout the entire post-Soviet space and will have a negative impact on the peaceful solution to inter-ethnic conflicts throughout the world” (Ukrayinska Pravda, August 26, 2008). ...
....
Viktor Yanukovych, the leader of the opposition Party of the Regions, remained loyal to Moscow and urged the Ukrainian government to follow Moscow’s lead: “We must act without any double standards -- we must do what the West did when Kosovo declared independence. I believe that Ukraine should accept the expressed will of the nations of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and recognize their independence” (Ukrayinska Pravda, August 26, 2008).

http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article...cle_id=2373330

Some comment by someone with Uke credentials might be helpful here.

[jmm99]

from the Independent.

By Askold Krushelnycky in Sevastopol, Ukraine
Thursday, 28 August 2008
Ukraine's Crimean peninsula, home to the Russian Black Sea Fleet, could be the next flashpoint in the new Cold War. And any violent disturbance in Crimea could provide the political seismic shock to split Ukraine itself along its existing fault lines of ethnicity, language and religion.

The Crimean peninsula is the only part of Ukraine where ethnic Russians are in a majority. Many of them are deeply resentful about being part of Ukraine and openly call for annexation by Russia. Moscow has fostered pro-annexation groups for years. ....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...ia-910769.html

[Ron Humphrey]

Permission of the Turkish government should not be assumed. A timely article in EDM (as I work through brown bag reading):



http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article...cle_id=2373331

However, they question the authenticity of U.S. claims for providing humanitarian aid, and believe that it will increase tensions and undermine the stability. If the intention was genuine, the U.S. should not have insisted on carrying aid by military ships; civilian vessels or other transportation means would have served the same purpose (Radikal, August 23). The same argument is shared by many Turkish analysts who increasingly view American policy as a mere show of strength in the Black Sea as part of a growing confrontation, or a new ‘Cold War’ of sorts (for instance: Fikret Bila, Milliyet, August 24; also see reference to Onur Oymen).

Doesn't it seem somewhat disingenuious that the Russian's would find it bad form for us to send in Humanitarian aid on warships considering that they and theirs are supposedly there on a humanitarian/peacekeeping mission.

[badtux]

Doesn't it seem somewhat disingenuious that the Russian's would find it bad form for us to send in Humanitarian aid on warships considering that they and theirs are supposedly there on a humanitarian/peacekeeping mission.

If Russian warships were parading up and down the Florida Straits just outside U.S. national waters I suspect the United States would get a bit ruffled too. After all, we all know that when the Soviets stationed a few missiles in Cuba, the U.S. went ballistic and almost started WWIII over it despite the fact that Cuba was a sovereign country with every right under international law to have those missiles.

Point being, that major powers become nervous when people they perceive as enemies are parading military force near their borders. And believe me, the U.S. is perceived as an enemy right now. According to my source in Moscow (a former co-worker whose mother was a famous Sovietologist and who is married to a Russian wife), right now the U.S. is being portrayed in the Russian media as an out-of-control lawless thug state that randomly bombs and invades countries regardless of rule of law. The depiction of Georgia is pretty evil too, there's lots of the "those Georgians were being mean to those poor innocent Ossetians so of COURSE we had to step in to prevent ethnic cleansing and genocide". The other nation being demonized in the Russian media right now is the Ukraine, which is blamed for arming Georgia. Is the Crimea the next hot spot in the Black Sea? Based on what the Russian media (largely controlled by Putin cronies) is portraying in order to rattle up popular support for the notion, my suspicion is "yes".

[Stan]

And indeed nothing remotely new. This 23 JAN 08 article sums up most of what Badtux wrote. It's a mere matter of perceived threat, and the size of the country has very little to do with anything.

Russia concerned over NATO military buildup around its borders

MOSCOW, January 23 (RIA Novosti)...which is aimed at building up its military potential around Russian borders rather than strengthening European security, the foreign minister said on Wednesday.

Russia has been unnerved by NATO's eastward expansion and recent U.S. plans to deploy missile defense elements in Poland and the Czech Republic.

"We are certain that the geographical expansion of NATO cannot be justified by security concerns," Sergei Lavrov told a news conference in Moscow.

NATO has signaled its backing for the recent bids by Russia's former Soviet allies, Georgia and Ukraine, to join the alliance, a move that has infuriated Moscow.

The Russian Foreign Ministry said on Tuesday that the country would have to take "appropriate measures" if Ukraine were to join NATO.

Yesterday's O&A from the same news source brings out Russian perceptions best.

How Russia Clobbered Georgia and Lost the War

... Nor did the Americans simply lose control of the hot-headed and impulsive President Saakashvili. The pundits on the ground in Tblisi have a saying: "Saakashvili doesn't go to the bathroom without calling the U.S. Embassy." The Georgian president was played masterfully by the U.S.

What country bombs its own citizens while they sleep? Would Ottawa bomb Quebec if it voted to separate? Would Belgium bomb Antwerp? Would Spain bomb its Basque regions? Even China, arguably the most repressive regime on the planet, does not bomb Tibet. The fact that Saakashvili bombed and rocketed civilian buildings in the middle of the night is a pretty good indication that he doesn't consider them citizens.

The result of Russia's counter-strike has been exactly what the U.S. wanted. Russia's political influence in the world is now diminished. With the international community almost unanimous in its condemnation of Russia, it no longer has the credibility to criticize the U.S. for its military adventures. And the powerhouse Russian economy also sustained serious damage. Foreign investors are now delaying or cancelling projects and the Russian stock market is paying the price. Meanwhile, the U.S. and its tiny partner get to express their moral outrage while painting the Russian bear as irascible and expansionist.

This was a carefully developed and magnificently executed strategy. But it fails to recognize how important it is to have Russia inside the community of nations rather than cast a pariah state.

And, perhaps a way out with a good reason that Yanks like to currently hear:

Likewise Russia's help is essential in the global war on terror. The U.S. simply cannot go it alone and hope to have any meaningful success over the long term. But now Washington says Russian Navy ships are no longer welcome to take part in the Active Endeavour counterterrorism and nonproliferation operation in the Mediterranean. That helps no one.

The world needs a cooperative and productive relationship between Russia and the U.S. - a relationship built on reciprocity. Rather than undermining and vilifying Russia, a more productive strategy for the U.S. would be to engage with Russia as much as possible as a partner on the world stage. Both Russia and the United States have legitimate national and international interests. Both can realize their interests. It is not a zero sum game. Russia does not need to be made to lose in order for the U.S. to win.

[kaur]

badtux said:

According to my source in Moscow (a former co-worker whose mother was a famous Sovietologist and who is married to a Russian wife), right now the U.S. is being portrayed in the Russian media as an out-of-control lawless thug state that randomly bombs and invades countries regardless of rule of law. The depiction of Georgia is pretty evil too, there's lots of the "those Georgians were being mean to those poor innocent Ossetians so of COURSE we had to step in to prevent ethnic cleansing and genocide". The other nation being demonized in the Russian media right now is the Ukraine, which is blamed for arming Georgia. Is the Crimea the next hot spot in the Black Sea? Based on what the Russian media (largely controlled by Putin cronies) is portraying in order to rattle up popular support for the notion, my suspicion is "yes".

Last night the show continued.

Putin said his defense officials had told him it was done to benefit a presidential candidate -- Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama are competing to succeed George W. Bush -- although he presented no evidence to back it up.

Putin accuses U.S. of orchestrating Georgian war

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/eu...war/index.html

Why they are doing this?

Lev Gudkov
Russia's systemic crisis
Negative mobilization and collective cynicism

http://www.eurozine.com/articles/200...gudkov-en.html

Construction of ‘Reality’ in Russian Mass Media
News on Television and on the Internet

http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/russ-c.../Kratasjuk.pdf


Couple articles from Economist.

South Ossetia is not Kosovo
http://www.economist.com/PrinterFrie...ry_id=12009678

The cost for Russia
http://www.economist.com/world/europ...tures_box_main

What Russia will do next
http://www.economist.com/daily/colum...ry_id=11999551

Put out even more flags
http://www.economist.com/world/europ...ry_id=12009856

PS did you know that in Tshinvali there is street called Stalin?

[badtux]

This is a fascinating discussion. What it reveals is the difference between realpolitik and idealism.

On the realpolitik side, to misquote Lord Palmerston, nations do not have friends. Nations have interests. For example, nations will uphold mutual defense treaties only if it is in their best interests to do so. France, West Germany, Austria, etc. joined NATO because if the Soviet Army came smashing through the Fulda Gap, the Soviets wouldn't quit until they got to the boot of Spain, so it was in the interests of all members of NATO to stop the Soviets at the Fulda Gap. The U.S. was a member of NATO because Western Europe was an important economic partner and loss of Western Europe would result in significant loss of economic power to the Communist world. So it was in the best interests of all of the original signers of the NATO treaty to abide by its mutual defense obligation.

On the idealism side, when you give your word, your word is your word, and you can't go back on it ever, for any reason. For the idealist, a treaty is not a piece of paper expressing the mutual shared interests of the two (or more) parties to the treaty. For the idealist, a treaty is writ in stone, something permanently binding with the force of law, rather than a temporary expression of the mutual shared interests of two nations subject to revision or rescission if the shared interests which led to the signing of the treaty ever go away.

When it comes to NATO expansion, the problem is that there are few mutual shared interests between potential and current new entrants to NATO and the longstanding NATO members. None of the new entrants provide significant military or economic power to NATO. Without mutual shared interests, a treaty is just a piece of paper with little worth. Realpolitik is about to run into idealism here, and generally when that happens, idealism loses. Small weak nations joining NATO in hopes of being protected by larger more powerful nations need to look at the reality of the situation and decide whether they can really trust the larger more powerful nations to come to their defense. Lacking any significant value to the larger more powerful nations they've signed a treaty with, they may find themselves disappointed in the end. Because in the end, nations have interests, not friends. And starting WWIII over a small nation that provides little value to the alliance may not be something that the remainder of the alliance is willing to do, even if it means the end of NATO...

All of which is just to point out that from a realpolitik perspective, it may not be in the best interests of a small powerless nation right next to a major regional power to do things that irritate said major regional power, no matter how much they believe they are supported by larger powers and no matter how many treaties they have with said larger powers. If they have nothing of their own that makes it vital for the larger powers to come to their assistance... well. That rarely goes the way that the small powerless nation hoped.

[davidbfpo]

France, West Germany, Austria, etc. joined NATO...

No, Austria never joined NATO and still has not. She is involved in PfP and is a full member of the EU. During the Cold War her defences were against all-comers, in particular a flanking attack on West Germany. A point well made on a recent visit to some Cold War fixed defences by an Austrian Army officer.

davidbfpo

[kaur]

Post-Mortem on Europe’s First War of the 21st Century

The small war between Georgia and Russia from 8 to 22 August 2008 has shattered any remaining illusions over the frontiers of the normative map of Europe. All the primary parties have to be criticised: Russia for setting a trap for Saakashvili to fall into, the Georgian leadership for its astounding military and political blunder in falling into it, and the United States for having failed to restrain its protégé. The first consequence is that Georgia has paid the price of Saakashvili’s folly, with the definitive loss of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The second consequence is triggered by Russia’s continued occupation of strategic points in Georgia-proper, which means not peacekeeping but threatened strangulation of the Georgian economy and its role in the transit of oil and gas from the Caspian to the West. It also means that business as usual has become impossible, as already announced between NATO and Russia, and with more important decisions pending in both the EU and US. The third consequence is that the EU should immediately step up its policies to integrate Ukraine, with real perspectives of membership subject to the standard criteria. The fourth unknown consequence is how far this deteriorating process between Russia and the West will go. Russia may pretend, with its petro-power and wealth, to be immune from any actions by the West, but beyond the short-term it is vulnerable. Whatever these unknowns, already Russia has crossed a red line with its strategic occupation of Georgia-proper, rather than the option just to push Georgia out of South Ossetia. This latter option would have met with widespread understanding internationally. But with its chosen option Russia has placed itself in another category, which is a throwback to earlier times, and totally incompatible with the political and moral principles of modern Europe.

http://shop.ceps.eu/BookDetail.php?item_id=1697

[UrsaMaior]

I am a bit worried about Russia's reliance on western investors. With oil prices skyhigh the Gulf states have more money than they can spend. Besides we are in the middle of GWOT more or less obviously against ALL muslim radicals (such as saudi wahhabites).

The mutual reliance (between Russia and Europe) is IMHO another myth of the Cold War. The EU can hardly offer anything the chinese do not have. Chinese funds can also replace western investors who -like I decribed in the above story- are not really desired in Mother Russia.

I even risk saying the Russians are trying how much economical ties are limiting them.

[Steve Blair]

No, Austria never joined NATO and still has not. She is involved in PfP and is a full member of the EU. During the Cold War her defences were against all-comers, in particular a flanking attack on West Germany. A point well made on a recent visit to some Cold War fixed defences by an Austrian Army officer.

davidbfpo

Quite so. They were supposed to be neutral throughout....making them a great playground for spies and such.

[Ron Humphrey]

This is a fascinating discussion. What it reveals is the difference between realpolitik and idealism.

On the realpolitik side, to misquote Lord Palmerston, nations do not have friends. Nations have interests. For example, nations will uphold mutual defense treaties only if it is in their best interests to do so. France, West Germany, Austria, etc. joined NATO because if the Soviet Army came smashing through the Fulda Gap, the Soviets wouldn't quit until they got to the boot of Spain, so it was in the interests of all members of NATO to stop the Soviets at the Fulda Gap. The U.S. was a member of NATO because Western Europe was an important economic partner and loss of Western Europe would result in significant loss of economic power to the Communist world. So it was in the best interests of all of the original signers of the NATO treaty to abide by its mutual defense obligation.

On the idealism side, when you give your word, your word is your word, and you can't go back on it ever, for any reason. For the idealist, a treaty is not a piece of paper expressing the mutual shared interests of the two (or more) parties to the treaty. For the idealist, a treaty is writ in stone, something permanently binding with the force of law, rather than a temporary expression of the mutual shared interests of two nations subject to revision or rescission if the shared interests which led to the signing of the treaty ever go away.

When it comes to NATO expansion, the problem is that there are few mutual shared interests between potential and current new entrants to NATO and the longstanding NATO members. None of the new entrants provide significant military or economic power to NATO. Without mutual shared interests, a treaty is just a piece of paper with little worth. Realpolitik is about to run into idealism here, and generally when that happens, idealism loses. Small weak nations joining NATO in hopes of being protected by larger more powerful nations need to look at the reality of the situation and decide whether they can really trust the larger more powerful nations to come to their defense. Lacking any significant value to the larger more powerful nations they've signed a treaty with, they may find themselves disappointed in the end. Because in the end, nations have interests, not friends. And starting WWIII over a small nation that provides little value to the alliance may not be something that the remainder of the alliance is willing to do, even if it means the end of NATO...

All of which is just to point out that from a realpolitik perspective, it may not be in the best interests of a small powerless nation right next to a major regional power to do things that irritate said major regional power, no matter how much they believe they are supported by larger powers and no matter how many treaties they have with said larger powers. If they have nothing of their own that makes it vital for the larger powers to come to their assistance... well. That rarely goes the way that the small powerless nation hoped.

One thing, Realpolitik vs Idealism vs Realism
Give em an inch they'll take a mile.
The interaction between international entities is all about lines and trying to redraw them for one reason or another. That's never changed and IMHO never will. Thus we are left with who's redrawing and why and what if anything others are going to do about it. That I propose is the real question and little or not, any soveriegn state and its condition are and should be of great concern to all. Interests are not always as clearly defined as we might like.

[kaur]

badtux said:

All of which is just to point out that from a realpolitik perspective, it may not be in the best interests of a small powerless nation right next to a major regional power to do things that irritate said major regional power, no matter how much they believe they are supported by larger powers and no matter how many treaties they have with said larger powers. If they have nothing of their own that makes it vital for the larger powers to come to their assistance... well. That rarely goes the way that the small powerless nation hoped

... or you have to find sponsor, that gives you financial, moral, military etc support. Like Israel.

realism vs liberalism, it seems that there is middle way.

Conservative Internationalism

http://www.hoover.org/publications/p.../26105009.html

[jmm99]

a treaty is a contract. As such, it is afflicted with all of the clarities and vagaries of contract law and contract practicalities - including (1) changes in the totality of circumstances (beyond the control of one or more parties to the contract); and (2) realization by one or more of the parties to the effect that - "why on earth did I agree to this ?"

One could also cite basic contract principles such as "meeting of the minds" (which do not always meet initially, and later can diverge even if they did initially meet); and "quid pro quo" (mutual consideration), which may or may not be "paid" - and which in hindsight may seem inadequate to one or more of the parties.

For a small nation dealing with a more powerful neighbor, a treaty (contract) is a slim reed on which to hang ten - since it is too easy to get hung. True, the small nation may seek a bigger brother - and that may be successful, if the big brother is in a position to provide realistic assistance or deterrence.

If it is able, the small nation (even if allied) would seem best advised to develop a self-contained defense capability - not to defeat the powerful neughbor, but to make an invasion non-cost-effective for that bear-like creature - and not to engage in bear-baiting.

[bourbon]

I even risk saying the Russians are trying how much economical ties are limiting them.

It seems that is kind of the aim, I’ve read this, but I don’t know this. The Siloviki, nationalist, goal: consolidate as much power internally with your group, and cut-off with the world. And this kind of thinking goes back to the Tsar.

I think a U.S. goal is going to be to drive a wedge into Sino-Russian relations. Try to bring China over to our camp. Particularly to try to send central asian gas and other resources toward China and away from Russia, since U.S. moves in this latest incarnation of The Great Game may have been chequed.
So I welcome any Russian rejection of China.

[kaur]

Allies Let Him down

Russia didn’t manage to enlist the support for its policy in the Caucasus of the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) members. According to the information of Kommersant, the SCO leaders orally expressed their approval of Moscow’s line, but in its final declaration, the SCO supported the principle of territorial integrity and condemned using force when addressing international issues. It means that Russia is left alone in its possible confrontation with the West.

Dmitry Medvedev’s negotiations with China’s Hu Jintao best demonstrated the attitude of the SCO members to the matter. According to the information of Kommersant, the Chinese leader understood the Russian position, but he explained that we’ll be unable to officially side with Moscow. “All SCO members have they own problematic regions. If one of the countries recognizes the independence of the Caucasian republics, claims regarding its own territories will follow,” complained the interlocutor of Kommersant. “In particular, the People’s Republlic of China will face the Tibet problem.” Another high-ranking diplomat told Kommersant that all other SCO heads-of-state told Dmitry Medvedev that they understood him but then they made excuses saying that they will be unable to officially make their positions the point.

http://www.kommersant.com/p1017558/S...upport_Russia/

[jmm99]

other times, not so silly:

Putin:19 US poultry producers will be barred from exporting to Russia, says move not political
Staff
AP News
Aug 28, 2008 15:10 EST
Vladimir Putin says 19 U.S. poultry producers will be barred from exporting their products to Russia. ...

http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=319204

-------------------------------------------
Russia and China have been working out oil-gas agreements for several years, not from mutual affection but from mutual self-interest. See generally, archives at

http://www.assaluyeh.com/page.php?archive-en

and, as examples,

Pragmatism, not love, draws Russia and China closer
Author : M.H.Hadavi-News From turkishdailynews.com.tr :: Date:: 2006-03-27

http://www.assaluyeh.com/news.php?sh...ive&id=3796-en

Russia Plays China Energy Card
Author : M.H.Hadavi-News From countercurrents.org :: Date:: 2006-03-26
Russia has made a new move to assert itself as a global energy broker and make other countries play by its rules. On a visit to China this week, President Vladimir Putin pledged to build two natural gas pipelines to China, as well as jointly develop Russian offshore gas fields. The two proposed gas pipelines would deliver 60 billion to 80 billion cubic metres of Russian gas to China a year, Mr. Putin said in Beijing. He also confirmed Russia's promise to build a diversion to China from a proposed oil pipeline from eastern Siberia to the Pacific coast. ....

http://www.assaluyeh.com/news.php?sh...ive&id=3780-en

Of more current interest, I found this a bit interesting:

Iran Becomes China"s 2nd Biggest Crude Supplier
Author : nazia kabri(re:shana) :: Date:: 2008-08-29
TEHRAN (PIN) – Iran became China"s second biggest crude oil supplier in July, exporting 2.4 million tons, the latest data from the Chinese General Administration of Customs showed. According to Kuwaiti news agency reported, Saudi Arabia was China"s top oil supplier in July, with shipments from the kingdom reached 2.6 million tons, followed by Iran with 2.4 million tons. Angola ranked third with 1.8 million tons. ...

http://www.assaluyeh.com/news.php?sh...ive&id=7565-en

As K's last reference illustrates, national self-interests drive policies - but lack of co-operation in one area does not equate to lack of co-operation in other areas.

[Ron Humphrey]

a treaty is a contract. As such, it is afflicted with all of the clarities and vagaries of contract law and contract practicalities - including (1) changes in the totality of circumstances (beyond the control of one or more parties to the contract); and (2) realization by one or more of the parties to the effect that - "why on earth did I agree to this ?"

One could also cite basic contract principles such as "meeting of the minds" (which do not always meet initially, and later can diverge even if they did initially meet); and "quid pro quo" (mutual consideration), which may or may not be "paid" - and which in hindsight may seem inadequate to one or more of the parties.

For a small nation dealing with a more powerful neighbor, a treaty (contract) is a slim reed on which to hang ten - since it is too easy to get hung. True, the small nation may seek a bigger brother - and that may be successful, if the big brother is in a position to provide realistic assistance or deterrence.

If it is able, the small nation (even if allied) would seem best advised to develop a self-contained defense capability - not to defeat the powerful neughbor, but to make an invasion non-cost-effective for that bear-like creature - and not to engage in bear-baiting.

with ALL of that

[jmm99]

to probably put on an index card (as a maybe) - and to consider the opinions stated with caution.

A Step At A Time
Reflections on the world post-9/11, by a British writer, translator and musician who engaged for many years in the debates of the Cold War, and who tends to see the world's present troubles as a continuation of the old common struggle with tyranny and oppression. The blog can also be accessed here

Thursday, August 28, 2008
Finnish Islamists back Russia

The possibility that Islamist movements in Europe and probably also further afield to some extent work in harmony with the Putin/Medvdev schemes in the field of military and foreign policy is evidenced by an interesting statement by the Finnish Islamic Party (Suomenislamilainenpuolue), which aims to represent the interests of Finland's small Muslim minority. The statement condemns the "aggressive acts of the Georgian leadership" and gives the party's full support to Russia. It also makes a savage attack on the president and government of Estonia, and demands that President Saakashvili be put on trial for war crimes. Although Finland's Muslims are mostly Tatars, and have little time for fundamentalist ideology, the document is a curious and revealing indicator of the sort of sources where the Kremlin may really be deriving support in today's world. The fact that the Hamas organization was the first to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia may not be a coincidence.

That some voices in Finland may be helping to foment a movement which they call a "Russian Intifada" among Estonia's Russian-speaking minority is shown by this blog, which is dedicated to the subject.

There has long been a noted connection between the Kremlin and Islamist groupings, and it is no secret that, as Alexander Litvinenko pointed out before he was brutally murdered in London, Al-Qaeda’s Ayman al-Zawahiri trained at a Federal Security Service (the former Russian KGB) base in Dagestan in 1998.

http://halldor2.blogspot.com/2008/08...ck-russia.html

Besides not liking Estonia, the SIP statement also hits NATO (see below).

-----------------------------------
The Suomen Islamilainen Puolue webpage (in Finn, but with some English pages) is at

http://suomenislamilainenpuolue.fi/tiedotteet.html

Besides text summarized above, SIP statement (Helsingissä 14.8.2008) also hit on NATO:

Suomen Islamilainen Puolue vaatii Suomen Tasavaltaa pidättäytymään Naton jäsenyydestä ja yhteistyöstä Naton eri operaatioista luoden näin ollen jännitteistä vapaan alueen ehdottoman puolueettomuuspolitiikan mukaisesti, sekä hyvien suhteiden ylläpitäminen Venäjän kanssa.

Boils down to a demand by SIP on the Finnish government to pull back from NATO membership consideration and from participation in NATO operations - and to return to accommodation policies and fellowship with Russia (in effect, "Finlandization" - I hate that term). Good luck on that one to SIP (which probably could meet in the average sauna room).

Lest I get hit by Crabtree's Bludgeon, not everything has to be explained by conspiracy - conscious parallelism (mutual self interests) are often a better explanation.

PS - Ron. Thank you for the kind words.