On Sunday’s This Week on ABC, host George Stephanopoulos seemed to buy into the idea that Georgia provoked war with Russia as he asked guest Mitt Romney, "Didn’t President Saakashvili of Georgia bring some of this on himself by going into South Ossetia?" After Romney informed viewers that Georgian troops were deployed in response to violent attacks by South Ossetians, the ABC host followed up by asking Romney to respond to charges that the push, presumably by the United States, to expand NATO and build a missile defense system was perceived by Vladimir Putin as "belligerent and aggressive." Stephanopoulos: "How do you respond to the argument that by pushing for Georgia to be in NATO, by pushing for Ukraine to be in NATO, by putting a missile defense system in Czechoslovakia, this was seen as belligerent and aggressive by Putin and kind of brought him in?"
The exchange came as the ABC host interviewed Romney and former Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle. While Stephanopoulos focused on the subject of the policy differences between John McCain and Barack Obama on Georgia, the ABC host asked of Romney: "Governor Romney, Senator McCain said this week, ‘We are all Georgians now,’ but didn’t President Saakashvili of Georgia bring some of this on himself by going into South Ossetia?"
After Romney credited President Saakashvili with Georgia "becoming a democracy and standing up for the principles of freedom," Stephanopoulos clarified: "But what about his military action in South Ossetia?"
Romney conveyed to viewers that the Georgian president was responding to violent attacks from separatists in South Ossetia: "Well, certainly when his truckload of policemen is attacked by South Ossetians and blown up, you have a responsibility as a government to protect citizens, as he had communities being attacked with rockets that were coming from South Ossetia, and so he, of course, took action to protect his nation. The Russians have been looking for an excuse to be able to punish either the Ukraine or Georgia or to flex their muscles in the Caucasus, and this is something they’ve been anticipating for some time."
Stephanopoulos followed up: "How do you respond to the argument that by pushing for Georgia to be in NATO, by pushing for Ukraine to be in NATO, by putting a missile defense system in Czechoslovakia, this was seen as belligerent and aggressive by Putin and kind of brought him in?"
Below is a transcript of the relevant exchange from the Sunday, August 17, This Week with George Stephanopoulos on ABC:
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor Romney, Senator McCain said this week, "We are all Georgians now," but didn’t President Saakashvili of Georgia bring some of this on himself by going into South Ossetia?
MITT ROMNEY: If you mean by becoming a democracy and standing up for the principles of freedom, did he bring it on himself? I would have certainly hoped that that not have been considered a-
STEPHANOPOULOS: But what about his military action in South Ossetia?
ROMNEY: Well, certainly when his truckload of policemen is attacked by South Ossetians and blown up, you have a responsibility as a government to protect citizens, as he had communities being attacked with rockets that were coming from South Ossetia, and so he, of course, took action to protect his nation. The Russians have been looking for an excuse to be able to punish either the Ukraine or Georgia or to flex their muscles in the Caucasus, and this is something they’ve been anticipating for some time. And that’s why I think it’s been so important that, frankly, President Clinton listened to John McCain and changed his course back in the 90s and said, "You know what, we are going to let the former Soviet satellite states become part of NATO." This is something John McCain has fought for. He’s been in, not only in South Ossetia, John McCain has, but also in Georgia time and again. This shows one more time that, in a dangerous and troubled world, it’s helpful to have a leader of your nation that knows these places, knows the people, understands the setting, and John McCain didn’t have to search around to figure out what to say what was going on. He knew what it was.
STEPHANOPOULOS: How do you respond to the argument that by pushing for Georgia to be in NATO, by pushing for Ukraine to be in NATO, by putting a missile defense system in Czechoslovakia, this was seen as belligerent and aggressive by Putin and kind of brought him in?
ROMNEY: Well, there’s no question that Putin, with his authoritarian bent, everything from what he’s done to the business community in Russia to what he’s done to the media in Russia, and former employees in Russia, that he has the ambitions of the old Soviet Union, to a certain degree. He’s certainly more in that direction than Gorbachev or leaders that are looking for a more democratic state.




GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor Romney, Senator McCain said this week, "We are all Georgians now," but didn’t President Saakashvili of Georgia bring some of this on himself by going into South Ossetia?















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Georgia
August 17, 2008 - 22:10 ET by NorthCoastergot suckered into responding without a backup plan. Russia used their action to hammer them down.
Georgia
August 17, 2008 - 22:16 ET by rick007Sounds like the old head in the sand liberals are back at it bigtime
Georgia
August 17, 2008 - 22:29 ET by rick007Just think these people full of hate want to lead our country.
I wonder if Stephanopoulos filled in for Monica when she could not make it to the Oval Office??????
Hmm, ya think Obama could
August 17, 2008 - 22:33 ET by GregEHmm, ya think Obama could have answered as Romney did, regarding the reasons for Georgia having taken action in South Ossentia in the first place?
It sounds like Steffie wants
August 17, 2008 - 22:33 ET by motherbeltIt sounds like Steffie wants to go back to the Cold War days when the Soviets did whatever they wanted and we worried constantly about "upsetting" them and "causing" them to do something rash.
It's always our fault
August 17, 2008 - 22:37 ET by bigtimerIt's always our fault mb...ask any lefty.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Looks like Georgie Snuffleupagus has fallen for the age-old...
August 17, 2008 - 22:41 ET by R D Helm...ruse practiced by military bullies since before the beginning of recorded history:
Launch a war of aggression and blame the other side for starting it.
-Dave.
Doh!
August 18, 2008 - 07:56 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsLaunch a war of aggression and blame the other side for starting it.
Didn't somebody do that in Europe about 65-70 years ago?? Ahhhh, history, who needs it!
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
"George Stephanopoulos has NOT fallen for …"
August 18, 2008 - 21:39 ET by needleGeorge Stephanopoulos has adopted the Kremlin’s talking points, just the same as the [communist] liberals have done ever since the Bolshevik Revolution, except that now they actually are playing apologist some of the greediest monopolist in recorded history. Putin makes not the slight pretence of being a communist.
Talk about "useful IDIOTS"...
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.
DFTT and needle, notice the Russians are still penetrating...
August 18, 2008 - 23:21 ET by R D Helm...Georgia, and this despite a "ceasefire."
Russia isn't leaving until they have the entire country in their hip pocket.
LOL-And Steffi will still be as hideously ignorant as he is now.
-Dave.
Not Necessarily The Liberals
August 17, 2008 - 23:05 ET by JoelCTI hate long post as much as the next blogger, but I just wanted to say the Patriot Post's Friday newsletter stated firmly that it wasn't just Russia doing all the dirty work here, and they are the least liberal newsletter I have ever seen. Here is what they said about the incident:
"Russia's military adventures in Georgia have been portrayed in the U.S. media as the result of Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's Napoleonic ambitions, but the truth is more complicated. The ethnic regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia broke away from Georgia in 1992 with Russian support. But Georgia has never relinquished its claims of sovereignty, and President Saakashvili provided the kindling for the current conflict when he sent troops into South Ossetia on 7 August in an attempt to bring the region back under Georgian control. The majority of South Ossetians are Russian citizens holding Russian passports, so Moscow's forceful response to the Georgian incursion was predictable. What was also predictable (though perhaps it did not occur to President Saakashvili) was that Russia would use Georgia's act of aggression as a pretext for escalating the conflict beyond South Ossetia's borders and invading Georgia itself. It is at this point that the differing views on the conflict (Russia as the victim vs. Russia as the bully) begin to converge: Georgia did in fact provoke a Russian military response by invading South Ossetia and killing civilians there (though the confirmed death toll was in the dozens, not thousands as Russia claims), and Russia has in fact taken advantage of the situation to once again put Russian boots on Georgian soil in a sort of Soviet Union redux."
"None of this discounts the fact that Russia has imperialist ambitions in Eastern Europe. In the past week, Russia warned the former Soviet bloc countries of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland that they would "pay" for criticizing Russia's actions in Georgia. And there can be little doubt that Prime Minister Putin intends to punish Georgia for its rapprochement with the West and its aspirations for NATO membership. However, by invading South Ossetia, President Saakashvili conceded the moral high ground early and ensured that his chief ally, U.S. President George W. Bush, would find himself in a very difficult position. Far from being "slow to act" or "timid," President Bush knows that history will record that Georgia pulled the trigger first, however disproportionate Russia's response."
The problem of ethnic Russians
August 18, 2008 - 00:10 ET by BlondeIn the former Sov provinces, isn't going to go away.
So...the way I see it, they can either return to their homeland (Russia) or become assimilated.
It is no longer the Soviet Union, they can't be ethnic Russians in a foreign land and expect to own it.
Brave New World.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
It is no longer the Soviet Union
August 18, 2008 - 17:41 ET by austinhookIt is no longer the Soviet Union, they can't be ethnic Russians in a foreign land and expect to own it.
The analogy you are making, in context of recent events in Ossetia & Georgia, yields an implied presmise that Ossetia is Georgia. However that premise is invalid. That's why you end up talking at cross-purposes to making sense of the situation.
Commies?...
August 18, 2008 - 17:53 ET by Clear thinkerCan we still call them Commies?
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
Making fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.w
Excuse me, austin?
August 18, 2008 - 17:55 ET by BlondeLast time I checked my map...it was Russia, not the U.S.S.R. My atlas that has the Soviet Union was published in the 80's.
The former Soviet empire is full of these type of situations, where RUSSIANS occupied (and settled, if you will) a conquered land. Seventy or fifty years later....voila, now we have various ethnicities, with various loyalties. When the former republics broke away from the Bear....well, there goes most favored ethnicity for the Ruskies.
I saw the Ukrainian President make the same point about the former Wermacht Republic last night.
Can you say Falklands? Or do you prefer the Maldives?
So tell me....are you thinking of ceding Alaska to the Russians, because they once had a territorial claim?
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
you're right blonde
August 19, 2008 - 09:19 ET by candanceA better analogy to this would be Northern Ireland, how England had many years to transplant English citizens into Irish soil, and then when Ireland forced her independence, the northern province was so heavily English the people there didn't want to leave the union.
It's an age old trick every empire does to prevent certain places from breaking away.
But wait
August 18, 2008 - 00:54 ET by KC MulvilleYeah, I hate long posts (pause to allow the NewsBusters community to explode...three, two, one...). Well, truth is, I prefer long posts. I don't go onto websites NOT to read! I want to read something interesting, with some substance.
But isn't this an interesting question: "Didn’t President Saakashvili of Georgia bring some of this on himself by going into South Ossetia?" The Georgians consider this Georgian territory. Why wouldn't they send troops to quell (what they consider to be) an internal affair?
That's why I don't take that argument seriously. If it's Georgian territory, the Georgians have every right to quell an internal incident. And if it isn't, then Russia would have to claim to be invaded, which they don't.
If it's Georgian territory,
August 18, 2008 - 03:41 ET by austinhookIf it's Georgian territory, the Georgians have every right to quell an
internal incident. And if it isn't, then Russia would have to claim to
be invaded, which they don't.
No. The Russians claim it's Ossetian territory, and that it is an area where the status as a nation state is not fully determined. Georgia never fully broke away intact from the Soviet Union in the early 90's, as Ossetian's didn't want to be part of that new Georgia, and resisted being included, since they are ethnically more like Russians than Georgians.
Just because the situation is somewhat ambiguous, doesn't mean it's up to Georgia to use it's army to force the fact. Sad that people are unable to acknowledge any complexities in thiese kind of affairs. It is not, in fact a simple Russian or Georgian terriroty issue. Regardless of the fact that the new Georgia would have gobbled up S.Ossetia if the Russians hadn't sympathized with their leaders in the early 90's, it doesn't make it right for Georgia to do so now. That kind of right is only the "might makes right" philosophy, and if you believe in that, of course the Ossetians had the might, despite you might think it unfair that they borrowed it from Russia.
All this doesn't make Russia a nice playmate. Russia has real problems with democracy, even as Georgia does. Killing for territorial manifest destiny is not really a democratic move, despite we might like to see Russia out of our hair in for the pipeline routing. Kashivilli is as cold blooded murderer as the Russian are more typically known to be. I have no sympathy for him.
It would appear that there was a midnight attack on S.Ossetia by Georgia. It also appears that there was a fabulous PR campaign in the USA to go along with it. If 2,000 lives were lost, among people whom the Russians identify with, even if not all of them were yet given Russian passports (since they wouldn't want them from Georgia), the reaction in Russia would be something like our reaction to 9/11 or to the bombing of Pearl Harbor. If what the Russians have done in Gerogia is an over-reaction, what kind of military reaction would you expect if they were the USA in such a position? If 2,000 is an exaggeration, then even 200 would have a similar political significance. I trust the numbers like "a couple of dozen killed" are war propaganda from the Georgian US lobby. There is no plausible reason to expect truth from Georgia given the stakes involved.
Ossetia
August 18, 2008 - 03:51 ET by Cool ArrowIs this different from Germany reclaiming Sudetenland with its predominantly German speaking inhabitants?
Are we going so far here as to agree with Buchanan that Hitler was provoked?
I ♣ my seal
Reclaiming Ossetia
August 18, 2008 - 14:09 ET by austinhookIs this different from Germany reclaiming Sudetenland with its predominantly German speaking inhabitants?
Well, yes, sufficiently different that the analogy is more distracting than helpful. In any case what we are talking about here is Georgia reclaiming Ossetia. It was a new move by Georgia, the previous move by Russia occured 16 years ago, preventing the full breakaway of the old soviet Gerogia, and allowing a smaller part of the territory to become the new Georgia.
You seem to have your timeline mixed up, not recognizing that the situation was semi-stable with a previous truce in place for years, Russian "peacekeepers" in place, and it was Georgia who initiated the strike. So, if anything, it was Georgia doing the "reclaiming" of it's "Sudatenland" where there wasn't even a predominant Georgian population.
Certainly there were Georgians in Ossetia, in fact, the area was really a patchwork of Ossetian families, interspersed with Georgian ethnics, so even the Ossetia that Russia was peacekeeping for, had interspersed areas of Georgian control. Makes for a difficult kind of adminstering, but the decision to use a full scale attack and lethal force to get total control, was made by Saakashvili. That puts him in the class of mass murderer, like most of our erstwhile leaders everywhere. Question, is when are we going to stop admiring this kind of leader? It's time to stop thinking only of the glory of the nation state, and return to thinking of cherishing the families and individuals that make up all the lands that leaders are so happy too kill them for.
Russian claims
August 18, 2008 - 09:22 ET by KC MulvilleBut then you're simply proving a point. If this is Georgian territory, then Georgia has a right to quell an internal matter. This is the Georgian view, which means that to the Georgians, they didn't provoke anything with Russia.
How about the Russian view? Is this an invasion of Russian territory? No, as I said, they're not claiming that. What are they claiming? They're claiming that they're coming to the defense of the South Ossetians, but not because they think that South Ossetia is a sovereign nation of its own. The Russian position (their publicly stated one, anyway) is that the South Ossetians are across their border, but are ethnically linked to Russia. That's different from saying that the Russians consider Ossetia a separate country. There are all kinds of disputes going on here, but that's what the Russians have stated publicly.
Just because Russia disputes Georgia's view doesn't mean that Georgia has to accept that. Remember, the original question was whether Georgia "provoked" this. It would be a provocation if Georgia also believed that the territories were disputable, but they don't.
Russian claims
August 18, 2008 - 14:28 ET by austinhookWell, yes, there is some slight point in what you are saying. However, the fact that Georgia is adamant that the situation is cut and dried Georgian territory, and that Russia says the situation is more subtle, does not particularly make less the provocation to the Russians. It's not like the Georgians did not realize how the Russians would take it -- if that is what you are driving at.
Anyway the decision to initiate a surprise attack with lethal force was Saakashvili's. Oh well, just another everyday war criminal... there are so many....
Even Germany negotiated the annexing of the Sudatenland, and was able to do it without making war. (A really defective analogy, of course...)
Thanks Joel....
August 18, 2008 - 00:55 ET by HillbillyKingfor posting the Patriot Post's take on this. I agree with it fully.
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937
so transparent
August 17, 2008 - 23:06 ET by candanceRussia instigated a revolt in South Ossetia and then blamed Georgia for having the gall to preserve their borders.
As others here have mentioned, Georgia's only mistake was not being more prepared.
Preserving borders
August 18, 2008 - 03:47 ET by austinhookWhat is so sacred about the borders established by the USSR? The USSR broke up, according to how much various ethnic groups
hated the Russians. USSR administered borders are sacred to you? Why
do you admire the previous USSR administration so much that you consider their brutally established borders as sacrosanct?
Russia instigated a revolt
August 18, 2008 - 14:53 ET by austinhookBut, you are saying this almost as if Russia did this instigating of a revolt this very summer instead of years ago in the early 90's. Also, it's a bold presumption on your part that Russia "instigated", even back then. How are you able to tell, at this late date, without an incredible bit of research if Russia "instigated" or merely took advantage of an Ossetian resistance to being included in the new Georgia, as it broke away from the old USSR?
I can understand a bias towards believing that the Russians conspired with incredible fore-thought, to make sure that not all of Gerogia could break away. But, if in those days in the early 90's, when the USSR was breaking up willy nilly, they had such careful planning in operation, you would think they would have stopped the succession of Georgia entirely.
I don't believe your conclusion about the Russians doing "instigating" back in those days of the incredible confusion of all those countries breaking away. It is much more plausible that the Russians took advantage of a situation, or even that they merely sympathisized with local Ossetians when they revolted against the idea of being incorporated into a new Georgia, and fully justified or not, supported that resistance.
The main point is that S.Ossetia was never a stabilized part of the new post-Soviet Georgia in any meaningful way. It's time to stop saying that S.Ossetia is Georgia, and to start recognizing at least some ambiguity in the issue.
Most of the misrepresentation of S.Ossetia's and Russia's positions is PR cooked up by Gerogia, and it's paid lobbiests in the USA, and those who have been beneficiaries of that lobbying effort (politicians, arms manufacturers, etc etc.) Not that Russia wouldn't like to misrepresent such facts as would be useful to it's viewpoint, but they just haven't had the cleverness fo pay enough lobbiests to state enough lies for them yet.
The first headlines I saw, were to the effect of "Russia invades Georgia". As soon as I looked harder into it, I knew that the master spinners were at work. Doesn't make Russia a saint, but at some point one has to resist the bullshit.
With Steffi's
August 17, 2008 - 23:24 ET by ConservativeRexWith Steffi's indoctrination..I mean education..nothing the Soviets do is ever wrong. Typical red diaper baby. And yes, I can dismiss him as easily as that, for the liberals in our crowd.
liberal loony commieland
August 18, 2008 - 01:28 ET by JWFOnly in liberal loonyland & commieland is a missle defense system considered belligerent and aggressive.
This might be nitpicking but ...
August 18, 2008 - 02:16 ET by hydrodynDMSTEPHANOPOULOS: ... by putting a missile defense system in Czechoslovakia, this was seen as belligerent and aggressive by Putin and kind of brought him in?
Hey genius - the country of Czechoslovakia hasn't existed for about 15 years.
You might want to look at a current atlas sometime - you know - what with you being a "news" guy, and all.
Stephanopoulos isn't the only one...
August 18, 2008 - 03:29 ET by sarcasmoPat Buchanan says so, too. The truth is, I was right when I said the other day that we've witnessed the nation state equivalent of the late Timothy Treadwell from the president of Georgia.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.