IS PUTIN THE NEW JFK?

Comparisons are fun. Everyone loves them. David Cameron, for example, compared himself (yesterday) to Margaret Thatcher and Benjamin Disraeli. John Prescott compared Gordon Brown to Al Gore, the other week. This summer has often been compared to shit, as has the European Union (for no real reason!). But there is another comparison, I would like to write about. Carl Bildt, Swedens foreign secretary, compared Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler (quite indirectly, but still...). Mr Bildt has been right about quite a few things during this awful war between Georgia and Russia in the last few weeks. However, this comparison is quite over the top. Hitler was a vegetarian and Putin eats meat. No, honestly, I read a comment by Gabor Steingart, the internationally relatively well known author and correspondent of Germany's "Der Spiegel" news magazine. Mr Steingart argues that Putin should not be compared to Hitler (or Stalin), but instead to John F. Kennedy. - Yeah, i admit that sounds shocking, but there is some logic behind it. Georgia is for Putin what Cuba was for Kennedy. JFK wanted to keep his backyard "American", in the same way as Putin wants to keep his backyard "Russian".
Also, Putin represents the new Russia, as Kennedy represented the new America. Putin is loved by his people, as was JFK.
(This might be bad news for Mr Obama, who tries so hard to be the new JFK... ) I am not too sure if I agree with Mr Steingart, but his remarks definitively made me think very differently about Mr Putin's brutality in the Caucasus. Schreiber

WHY WAS THERE NO JOINT STATEMENT?

A very important statements came from America today: Peaches Geldorf married her boyfriend, Max Drummy. And, let’s be honest, it was about time for them to get married - they have known each other already for nearly four weeks!
Okay, that was not quite the statement I was actually thinking of. Instead, I was thinking of statements made by US President George W Bush and his Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. Both politicians demanded that Russia ends all military operations in Georgia, as they have promised to the EU Presidency (being represented by Nicolas Sarkozy at the moment). In an impressively direct and Russia-critical press conference that was broadcasted around the globe, Mrs. Rice warned Russia of consequences, but failed to name any.
Looking at Russia’s ongoing military intervention way beyond the actual zone of conflict (many journalists reported that Russia continues to bomb Gori, a city outside of South Ossetia), Mrs Rice said: "I have heard the Russian president say that his military operations are over. I am saying it is time for the Russian president to be true to his word." The Secretary also warned Russia, saying that “things have changed” since the end of the USSR.
Not knowing what the consequences for Russia could be, it is not quite clear yet, if they will lead to an end of the war.
Mr Bush gave an equally important press conference earlier today, saying: "The United States stands with the democratically elected government of Georgia and insists that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia be respected." Whatever one may think about the US-reactions to the crisis, one cannot but notice that these statements should have been made by a EU-European politician.
And yes, you may say, European politicians made similar statements. This is in fact true, but only on national levels. What worries me, however, is that the EU was (once again) unable to come up with a common policy for the crisis. At the beginning of the conflict I was rather confident that the EU would find a common South Ossetia policy, however, I was wrong (at least that's how it looks like at the moment).
It might have been the wrong decision to sent Mr Sarkozy to deal with the crisis and enforce some sort of ceasefire. Maybe it would have been better to send a EU politician and not an (after all) ‘national’ politician. But, to be honest, could Javier Solana (the de facto and to a certain extend also de jure EU Foreign Minister) have made a big difference? Would Russia be truer to its words, if the ceasefire would have been promised to Mr Solana instead of Mr Sarkozy? I am not too sure about it… I only know that it is truly shameful for the EU to not be able to find a common policy on this problem.
However, it is not too late yet. There is still time for statement of all EU members demanding that Russia stops its unlawful military intervention in Georgia immediately. The EU would also have to promise South Ossetia and Abkhazia that their self-determination as a state can be guaranteed by the Union.
Schreiber

WHAT WE LEARNED FROM THE WAR

The war is over for now. This is great news for everyone. Firstly, it is great news for the people of the Caucasus (obviously!), but then, it is also good news for us people in “the west”, as the oil market will stabilise again, after going berserk in the past few days. Russia called a halt to military actions this afternoon, however, making clear that it would re-intervene, as soon as it is judge necessary. Dimitri Medvedev, who was relatively quiet during this war, declared that Georgia was sufficiently punished. This is an utterly dangerous statement, who does Mr Medvedev think he is? Is he a one person war crimes tribunal?! But instead of criticising a man, who is criticised by everyone anyway, let us have a look at what we have learned from this terrible and devastating war. 1. We noticed that despite all predictions of having reached the End of History, as many commentators predicted after the fall of the Berlin Wall, history did not quite yet come to an end. A great mind, Chrystin Freeland of the FT, actually says that instead of having reached the End of History, we have entered the New Age of Authoritarianism. I agree. For the first time since the fall of the USSR, Russia fights a war outside its own territory again. (This is true as long as you see Chechnya as Russian territory). No-one was able to do anything against this pointless bombing. Not even David Cameron’s comparison between Russia and Nazi-Germany helped much (apart from reminding Mail readers that we all have to fear a Russian Blitz). Even politicians who actually have some power (in contrast to Mr Cameron), could not do very much. Dick Cheney’s demand that Russian “aggression […] must not go unanswered,” does not really mean much. Nicolas Sarkozy, at the moment the head of the EU, might have had something to do with Russia finally agreeing to a ceasefire, but his role in all this is not quite clear yet. It is not only Russia though, that represents the New Age of Authoritarianism: we see “oil-powers” across the globe turning autocratic. This is the case in many African and Asian countries, but also in South America. We even enthusiastically watch the Olympics in a country that does not value freedom too much. 2. We learned that Mikhail Saakashvili is one of the least clever politicians around. I mean, let’s be honest, attacking a wannabe independent and Russian-backed South Ossetia and thinking that people won’t notice by the world because of the Olympics?! That’s just chuckleheaded, to say the least. Nevertheless, Mr Saakashvili was clever enough to represent himself well in the Western media. Today, people actually forget that it was he who started the war. Yes, Russia’s reaction was wrong and, no doubt, over the top, but it was Georgia that went to war with a semi-independent country that does not want to be part of an “unstable, immature, chaotic, corrupt, but hopeful” Georgia (to use the Guardian’s words). 3. We discovered that Vladimir Putin is most definitively still the macher in Russia. Dimitri Medvedev was not as prominent as his predecessor Putin during this war. There are a few more things we have learned from this terrible and unnecessary war, like how some UK papers preferred reporting about Maddy McCann, Sienna Miller, Stella McCartney and the like on their front-pages instead of the war. However, Mr Franklin and I are trying to keep the blog entries relatively short… Schreiber

Georgia v Russia on the beaches....

The fighting between Russia and Georgia is ceding as I write; tomorrow it is due to move from the familiar territory of Georgian blocks of flats to the less familiar territory of the beaches. Not in true D-Day style but on the manufactured pitches of the volleyball arena in Beijing. In scenes reminiscent of the 1956 Melbourne games when Russia invaded Hungary hours before their water-polo match, their men's volleyball teams will face each other.

The last match ended with Turkey victorious but with one player seriously injured in the bloodiest Olympic contest ever, (discounting the Ancient Greek games littered with lion mauled slaves, but you see the point), monikered the, 'Blood in the Water match.'

So tune in on the 13th August, my money's on Georgia, I never could resist an underdog. Unless of course the Russian withdrawal is on the condition of Georgia taking a fall, they wouldn't, would they? Imagine cheating at the Olympics, who'd have thought it! Franklin

EUROPE AND SOUTH OSSETIA

Only 75’000 people live in South Ossetia. Nevertheless it might very well become one of the most controversial hot spots of this decade.
How should Europe react to the problem? Mainly, Europe will need to start speaking with one voice. At the moment we see Britain, France and Germany saying nothing actually helpful. Chancellor Merkel’s spokesman demanded "an immediate stop to any use of force” - This statement certainly will not end the escalating crisis.
PA reports that UK Foreign secretary (and wannabe PM) David Miliband fears that the conflict might spread to other parts of the region (as it has happened by now, with Russia sending troops to Abkhazia). But he does not seem to have a plan to solve this problem (surprise, surprise!).
The best idea comes from one of the new EU members: Poland’s Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski called for an emergency EU summit to debate the war in Georgia. This is indeed the best idea so far. At some sort of special European Council the EU leaders could come up with a common resolution and bring peace to the troubled region.
Sweden's Foreign Minister Carl Bildt agrees with his Polish colleague and demands a "very strong response" from the EU. In order to present such a response a meeting of the EU leaders will be necessary.
This Council (the official name for meeting of EU leader) would have to be organised by the French, as they hold the EU presidency at the moment. But this meeting could be highly confrontational, as EU countries have very different approaches to the problem. On one hand you have the Sweden, several central-eastern republics and the Baltic countries, which strongly support Georgia. On the other hand you have France and Germany, two countries that keep relatively quiet about the entire problem. Nevertheless, the EU will be able to reach a common South Ossetian/Abkhazia policy.
Would Russia and Georgia stop bombing each other after the EU comes up with a statement? Probably not. But at least the EU would have a common negotiation basis. A Europe speaking with one voice has a far better chance to solve the problem that any other country, including the USA.
Schreiber