Project for Philosophical Evaluations of the Economy |
__________________________________________________________________________________________
THE CAUCASIAN CONUNDRUM
Three Q&As between Noah denkt™ and its Alter Ego on the Georgian - Russian conflict,
published on Aug. 13, 2008 (see also our open questions with respect to this conflict under ("Fragen in Deutsch und Englisch")
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part I: Judging from the TV Coverage - (first drafted on Aug. 10, 2008)
Question from Alter Ego of Noah denkt™ (AE): What does Noah denkt™ make of the fighting that is going on currently in South
Ossetia?
Answer by Noah denkt™ (Nd): Well, it’s very disconcerting to hear the news that is coming from the area
AE: And what do you make of the stance that the warring parties have taken in this issue?
Nd: It seems to us that the Russian reaction towards the Georgian army’s incursions is quite disproportionate. And we believe that
it was unwise and callous on the part of the Georgian government to send its troops into the region and affirm its national
sovereignty there.
AE: But isn’t South Ossetia part of Georgia? And isn’t therefore understandable that the central government in Tbilisi wants to assert
its control over the territory there?
Nd: As far as we know, the allegiance of this territory or province is too contested in order to take a legalistic stance there.
AE: You refer to the fact that the people of South Ossetia, although internationally recognized as being part of Georgia, would much
rather be part of Russia than of Georgia?
Nd: Exactly. Obviously, you cannot pretend to be in favor of self-determination when it concerns a far away place like Tibet, and deny
that right to your local people once you do not like the gist of their affiliation desire.
AE: So you think it was a wrong decision by Georgia to impose its own point of view there by military means?
Nd: This is the conclusion that we have come to. Of course, you have to take into account that Noah denkt™ has no first-hand
knowledge of the region. And so we do not know the degree of provocation by separatists and foreign forces that has led to the
Georgian activities.
AE: And what do you make of Richard Holbrooke’s assertion whereas pro-western and US trained Georgian President Saakashvili
is a constant thorn in the side of Russian politics and that therefore Moscow is doing everything it can to destabilize and topple his
government in Tbilisi?
Nd. It may be true that Saakashvili is a constant nuisance to Russia’s ambition in what it considers its Near Abroad. That however
would not justify to habitually and automatically take the Georgian side in this conflict, just because Saakashvili is such a telegenic
Western ally.
AE: So Noah denkt™ believes that a good part of the Western reaction to the events on the ground in South Ossetia is fueled by
traditional anti-Russian instincts?
Nd: Well, the least you can say, is that its reaction is fueled by nationalistic calculations that are far from being impartial.
AE: So what then is the way forward from here?
Nd: First of all there needs to be an immediate cease-fire in the region and a show of restraint from all warring parties. And after that
it is the Security Council that has to sort out this mass that has been lingering there for a quite a while.
AE: And in deed the first steps have been taken in this direction?
Nd: Right, in deed it is a positive that the Security Council is working on this and that Georgia has declared a unilateral cease-fire. If
it is true however what both sides claim that not all Georgian units have left the region and that Russian tanks are on their way to
Abkhasia then there is quite some ways that both parties still have to go before a reasonable settlement to the contested issue can
be found.
___________________________________________________________
Part II: Even Washington’s poster boy for Democracy in the Middle East turns out to be a leadership joke
Q&A on Mr. Bush’s freedom export policy in the Middle East ( first drafted on Aug. 11, 2008)
Abstract: No one would be surprised if Hamid Karzai or Nouri Al-Maliki will one day unveil themselves to be the political shambles
that they probably are already today. That even Washington’s poster boy for Democracy now turns out to be a leadership joke
highlights the futility that has been marring Mr. Bushes freedom export attempts from the start.
Question from Alter Ego of Noah denkt™ (AE): How is Noah denkt™’s view on the fighting in South Ossetia evolving?
Answer by Noah denkt™ (Nd): Well, first of all, we are satisfied to note that the world finally has come around to understanding that
Mr. Saakashvili isn’t as innocent in this issue as he likes to portray himself.
AE: So you are relieved that the one-sided Russia bashing has ended in the Western media?
Nd: Absolutely. However we stick to our opinion that Russia’s reaction to Georgia’s devastating activities in South Ossetia is
disproportionate.
AE: Okay! Are there any other comments you would like to make on this issue?
Nd: Yes, we would like to go on record by saying that Mr. Saakashivili’s mishandling of the South Ossetian issue does not only
wreak havoc on his own country but it also deals a severe blow to Mr. Bush’s foreign policy of forcefully exporting freedom to hitherto
feudal and totalitarian countries in the Middle East.
AE: Why do you say that?
Nd.: Well after all, Mr. Saakashvili was Washington’s poster boy case for bringing Democracy to the Middle East. So it is actually
quite devastating for the US if this earlier role model now unveils himself to be a another leadership disaster .For too much does
Mr. Saakashvili’s mishandling of the current crisis highlight the reality disconnect that has been marring Mr. Bushes perceptions
from the start that you could now still argue that the latter are based on sound assumptions.
AE: I do not understand this. Why would Mr. Saakashvili’s overplaying of his cards demonstrate the inaptness of Mr. Bush’s freedom
push?
Nd: Because it was Mr. Bush who hailed Mr. Saakashvili as a fine example of Western-mindedness. And so it is him who could not
to see through the telegenic freedom veneer that Mr. Saakashvili so cleverly presented. For too much is Mr. Bush caught up in his
own messianic beliefs that he would now still be able to sufficiently question them.
AE: Granted, it may not be enough to be US-trained and have an open communication policy in order to have a sound reading of
reality’s intentions.
But the fact that Mr. Saakashvili got it wrong mustn’t necessarily mean that Mr. Bush’s overall freedom policy is discredited. After all,
this is only an individual mishap. And so you could not deduce from it a general rule.
Nd: So what you are saying is, that you want to wait until Hamid Karzai and Nouri Al-Maliki have equally proved themselves as being
a leadership shambles before you are prepared to pronounce a final judgement on Mr. Bush’s foreign policy in the Middle East?
AE: Perhaps. After all, there is no alternative to this! Or is there?
Nd: Well, the alternative is not to fool yourself and try to be as honest and understanding as you possibly can even if it concerns your
own adversaries.
AE: And it isn’t a wimpish appeasement approach to be understanding and all that.
Nd: We do not think so.
AE: And what guarantees does Noah denkt™ have, that it is right?
Nd: There are no guarantees. There is just a belief in the healing quality that an honest search for the truth can instigate.
AE: And what does this mean for the cooperation that you would want to extend to Mr. Al-Maliki and Mr.Karzai?
Nd: Well, obviously you have to constructively work with them in order to minimize the potential for disaster that is inherent in their
government At the same time tough you have to be prepared for all kind eventualities.
AE: In other words, your support for them would be nothing else but lukewarm?
Nd: Perhaps. But then again our support for them would not be any less lukewarm than their support would be lip service-like to us.
AE: What do you mean by that?
Nd: What we mean by this is that we are convinced that Mr. Karzai and Mr. Al-Maliki deep in their heart are as sceptical about Mr.
Bush’s democracy hopes for the Middle East, as we are.
AE: Which would mean that in fact you would see eye to eye with them when speaking with a split tongue?
Nd: Right. Although we do not consider our tongue split. After all, we have publicly attested to our beliefs here, haven’t we?
AE: Yes, you have.
Nd: So, we can rest in peace?
AE: Yes, you can rest in peace
Nd: Thank you.
___________________________________________
Part III: An amazing perception divide
Q&A on the split international reaction towards the hostilities in the Caucasus (drafted and published on Aug. 13, 2008)
Question from Alter Ego of Noah denkt™ (AE): Isn’t it amazing that all Western-oriented neighbours of Russia, i.e. the Baltic
countries, Poland and Ukraine tend to interpret the Russian operation in the Caucasus as an imperialist effort for regime change
whereas those who are a little further away from the Russian borders (Germany, France) tend to primarily inculpate Mr. Saakashvili
for the outbreak of hostilities.
Answer by Noah denkt™ (Nd): Excellent point! In deed, it is amazing to see this perception divide. And what makes this split even
more problematic is that those who actually understand Russian or have had a first-hand personal experience with it prefer to side
with Mr. Saakashvili in this. (Take for instance Strobe Talbot).
AE: Why would the fact that the pro-Saakashvili faction has a certain insider experience with Russia exacerbate this split in
perceptions?
Nd: Well, obviously, you could easily argue that because of this proximity to Russia they have a better take on what is going on than
those who are further away from the facts.
AE: I see. So you could argue that those in the anti-Russian camp must interpret the softer reaction from countries like Germany as
a naive appeasement approach that does not really understand the true nature of the aggressive Russian bear?
Nd: Right. But likewise those further West could easily fall into the trap of insinuating that those who are geographically closer to
Russia are so traumatized by that countries earlier brutalities (witness Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan etc...) that they are
now psychologically impaired when it comes to analyzing Russia’s moves with an open mind.
AE: How then do you balance these opposite views?
Nd: Well, certainly there is a kernel of truth in both of them.
AE: And what is that?
Nd: For instance, there can be no doubt, that Russia would like to see Mr. Saakashvili go as soon as possible. There can also be
no doubt that they were waiting for the first opportunity to beat him up. And thirdly, there can be no doubt that Russia’s reaction to
Georgia’s activities was disproportionate. On the other hand, though, it is also true, that Russia has not send its troops to Tbilisi
and deposed Mr. Saakashvili out of its own doing. Furthermore, Russia’s position is coherent when it argues, that it has to defend
the security both of its own “peace-keeping forces” as well as that of those in the (separatist) region who hold a Russian passport.
And what’s more, it is certainly true that Russia can point towards the West’s own self-determination rhetoric when it justifies taking
sides with territories who have clearly stated their preference to be incepted into the Russian Federation.
AE: But still, Russia should have pushed for a peaceful resolution of this, instead doing it the way it did, correct?
Nd: Well, if it is true that they were attacked by Georgian military then certainly they had a right to self-defense.
AE: Well, if this is Noah denkt™’s opinion what then does it say to its friends in Poland and elsewhere who argue that you
constantly have to stand up against the Russian bully in order to be able to somehow manage his aggressiveness peacefully?
Nd: We say to them that it is wrong to dismiss whatever a bully says just because he is a bully. Because such an approach is just
going to keep him a bully for the rest of his existence. - No, if you truly want to turn a bully into reasonable human being you have to
show him that you truly appreciate it when, for a change, he actually decides to take a reasonable stance. For too little will you have
else encouraged him to change his ways that you could now still hope to ever witness such a transformation.
AE: Now, obviously it is easy to argue in favor of such an soothing approach when you yourself do not have to bear the
consequences if such an “understanding” tactic if the latter should go wrong some day?
Nd: True. But what is the alternative. The alternative is to forever live in fear and never relax even a little bit. Isn’t that going to be
equally destructive on yourself?
AE: Nevertheless, you are asking a lot, if not too much, of your friends?
Nd: Perhaps, you are right.
AE: So how do we then go about this issue here?
Nd: We try to justice to all parties involved, and we try to be firm in defending what we consider just and fair.
AE: And that is going to reconcile the two camps in this case?
Nd: Well, you have to hope that it eventually will....
________________________________________________
Three Q&As between Noah denkt™ and its Alter Ego on the Georgian - Russian conflict,
published on Aug. 13, 2008 (see also our open questions with respect to this conflict under ("Fragen in Deutsch und Englisch")
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part I: Judging from the TV Coverage - (first drafted on Aug. 10, 2008)
Question from Alter Ego of Noah denkt™ (AE): What does Noah denkt™ make of the fighting that is going on currently in South
Ossetia?
Answer by Noah denkt™ (Nd): Well, it’s very disconcerting to hear the news that is coming from the area
AE: And what do you make of the stance that the warring parties have taken in this issue?
Nd: It seems to us that the Russian reaction towards the Georgian army’s incursions is quite disproportionate. And we believe that
it was unwise and callous on the part of the Georgian government to send its troops into the region and affirm its national
sovereignty there.
AE: But isn’t South Ossetia part of Georgia? And isn’t therefore understandable that the central government in Tbilisi wants to assert
its control over the territory there?
Nd: As far as we know, the allegiance of this territory or province is too contested in order to take a legalistic stance there.
AE: You refer to the fact that the people of South Ossetia, although internationally recognized as being part of Georgia, would much
rather be part of Russia than of Georgia?
Nd: Exactly. Obviously, you cannot pretend to be in favor of self-determination when it concerns a far away place like Tibet, and deny
that right to your local people once you do not like the gist of their affiliation desire.
AE: So you think it was a wrong decision by Georgia to impose its own point of view there by military means?
Nd: This is the conclusion that we have come to. Of course, you have to take into account that Noah denkt™ has no first-hand
knowledge of the region. And so we do not know the degree of provocation by separatists and foreign forces that has led to the
Georgian activities.
AE: And what do you make of Richard Holbrooke’s assertion whereas pro-western and US trained Georgian President Saakashvili
is a constant thorn in the side of Russian politics and that therefore Moscow is doing everything it can to destabilize and topple his
government in Tbilisi?
Nd. It may be true that Saakashvili is a constant nuisance to Russia’s ambition in what it considers its Near Abroad. That however
would not justify to habitually and automatically take the Georgian side in this conflict, just because Saakashvili is such a telegenic
Western ally.
AE: So Noah denkt™ believes that a good part of the Western reaction to the events on the ground in South Ossetia is fueled by
traditional anti-Russian instincts?
Nd: Well, the least you can say, is that its reaction is fueled by nationalistic calculations that are far from being impartial.
AE: So what then is the way forward from here?
Nd: First of all there needs to be an immediate cease-fire in the region and a show of restraint from all warring parties. And after that
it is the Security Council that has to sort out this mass that has been lingering there for a quite a while.
AE: And in deed the first steps have been taken in this direction?
Nd: Right, in deed it is a positive that the Security Council is working on this and that Georgia has declared a unilateral cease-fire. If
it is true however what both sides claim that not all Georgian units have left the region and that Russian tanks are on their way to
Abkhasia then there is quite some ways that both parties still have to go before a reasonable settlement to the contested issue can
be found.
___________________________________________________________
Part II: Even Washington’s poster boy for Democracy in the Middle East turns out to be a leadership joke
Q&A on Mr. Bush’s freedom export policy in the Middle East ( first drafted on Aug. 11, 2008)
Abstract: No one would be surprised if Hamid Karzai or Nouri Al-Maliki will one day unveil themselves to be the political shambles
that they probably are already today. That even Washington’s poster boy for Democracy now turns out to be a leadership joke
highlights the futility that has been marring Mr. Bushes freedom export attempts from the start.
Question from Alter Ego of Noah denkt™ (AE): How is Noah denkt™’s view on the fighting in South Ossetia evolving?
Answer by Noah denkt™ (Nd): Well, first of all, we are satisfied to note that the world finally has come around to understanding that
Mr. Saakashvili isn’t as innocent in this issue as he likes to portray himself.
AE: So you are relieved that the one-sided Russia bashing has ended in the Western media?
Nd: Absolutely. However we stick to our opinion that Russia’s reaction to Georgia’s devastating activities in South Ossetia is
disproportionate.
AE: Okay! Are there any other comments you would like to make on this issue?
Nd: Yes, we would like to go on record by saying that Mr. Saakashivili’s mishandling of the South Ossetian issue does not only
wreak havoc on his own country but it also deals a severe blow to Mr. Bush’s foreign policy of forcefully exporting freedom to hitherto
feudal and totalitarian countries in the Middle East.
AE: Why do you say that?
Nd.: Well after all, Mr. Saakashvili was Washington’s poster boy case for bringing Democracy to the Middle East. So it is actually
quite devastating for the US if this earlier role model now unveils himself to be a another leadership disaster .For too much does
Mr. Saakashvili’s mishandling of the current crisis highlight the reality disconnect that has been marring Mr. Bushes perceptions
from the start that you could now still argue that the latter are based on sound assumptions.
AE: I do not understand this. Why would Mr. Saakashvili’s overplaying of his cards demonstrate the inaptness of Mr. Bush’s freedom
push?
Nd: Because it was Mr. Bush who hailed Mr. Saakashvili as a fine example of Western-mindedness. And so it is him who could not
to see through the telegenic freedom veneer that Mr. Saakashvili so cleverly presented. For too much is Mr. Bush caught up in his
own messianic beliefs that he would now still be able to sufficiently question them.
AE: Granted, it may not be enough to be US-trained and have an open communication policy in order to have a sound reading of
reality’s intentions.
But the fact that Mr. Saakashvili got it wrong mustn’t necessarily mean that Mr. Bush’s overall freedom policy is discredited. After all,
this is only an individual mishap. And so you could not deduce from it a general rule.
Nd: So what you are saying is, that you want to wait until Hamid Karzai and Nouri Al-Maliki have equally proved themselves as being
a leadership shambles before you are prepared to pronounce a final judgement on Mr. Bush’s foreign policy in the Middle East?
AE: Perhaps. After all, there is no alternative to this! Or is there?
Nd: Well, the alternative is not to fool yourself and try to be as honest and understanding as you possibly can even if it concerns your
own adversaries.
AE: And it isn’t a wimpish appeasement approach to be understanding and all that.
Nd: We do not think so.
AE: And what guarantees does Noah denkt™ have, that it is right?
Nd: There are no guarantees. There is just a belief in the healing quality that an honest search for the truth can instigate.
AE: And what does this mean for the cooperation that you would want to extend to Mr. Al-Maliki and Mr.Karzai?
Nd: Well, obviously you have to constructively work with them in order to minimize the potential for disaster that is inherent in their
government At the same time tough you have to be prepared for all kind eventualities.
AE: In other words, your support for them would be nothing else but lukewarm?
Nd: Perhaps. But then again our support for them would not be any less lukewarm than their support would be lip service-like to us.
AE: What do you mean by that?
Nd: What we mean by this is that we are convinced that Mr. Karzai and Mr. Al-Maliki deep in their heart are as sceptical about Mr.
Bush’s democracy hopes for the Middle East, as we are.
AE: Which would mean that in fact you would see eye to eye with them when speaking with a split tongue?
Nd: Right. Although we do not consider our tongue split. After all, we have publicly attested to our beliefs here, haven’t we?
AE: Yes, you have.
Nd: So, we can rest in peace?
AE: Yes, you can rest in peace
Nd: Thank you.
___________________________________________
Part III: An amazing perception divide
Q&A on the split international reaction towards the hostilities in the Caucasus (drafted and published on Aug. 13, 2008)
Question from Alter Ego of Noah denkt™ (AE): Isn’t it amazing that all Western-oriented neighbours of Russia, i.e. the Baltic
countries, Poland and Ukraine tend to interpret the Russian operation in the Caucasus as an imperialist effort for regime change
whereas those who are a little further away from the Russian borders (Germany, France) tend to primarily inculpate Mr. Saakashvili
for the outbreak of hostilities.
Answer by Noah denkt™ (Nd): Excellent point! In deed, it is amazing to see this perception divide. And what makes this split even
more problematic is that those who actually understand Russian or have had a first-hand personal experience with it prefer to side
with Mr. Saakashvili in this. (Take for instance Strobe Talbot).
AE: Why would the fact that the pro-Saakashvili faction has a certain insider experience with Russia exacerbate this split in
perceptions?
Nd: Well, obviously, you could easily argue that because of this proximity to Russia they have a better take on what is going on than
those who are further away from the facts.
AE: I see. So you could argue that those in the anti-Russian camp must interpret the softer reaction from countries like Germany as
a naive appeasement approach that does not really understand the true nature of the aggressive Russian bear?
Nd: Right. But likewise those further West could easily fall into the trap of insinuating that those who are geographically closer to
Russia are so traumatized by that countries earlier brutalities (witness Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan etc...) that they are
now psychologically impaired when it comes to analyzing Russia’s moves with an open mind.
AE: How then do you balance these opposite views?
Nd: Well, certainly there is a kernel of truth in both of them.
AE: And what is that?
Nd: For instance, there can be no doubt, that Russia would like to see Mr. Saakashvili go as soon as possible. There can also be
no doubt that they were waiting for the first opportunity to beat him up. And thirdly, there can be no doubt that Russia’s reaction to
Georgia’s activities was disproportionate. On the other hand, though, it is also true, that Russia has not send its troops to Tbilisi
and deposed Mr. Saakashvili out of its own doing. Furthermore, Russia’s position is coherent when it argues, that it has to defend
the security both of its own “peace-keeping forces” as well as that of those in the (separatist) region who hold a Russian passport.
And what’s more, it is certainly true that Russia can point towards the West’s own self-determination rhetoric when it justifies taking
sides with territories who have clearly stated their preference to be incepted into the Russian Federation.
AE: But still, Russia should have pushed for a peaceful resolution of this, instead doing it the way it did, correct?
Nd: Well, if it is true that they were attacked by Georgian military then certainly they had a right to self-defense.
AE: Well, if this is Noah denkt™’s opinion what then does it say to its friends in Poland and elsewhere who argue that you
constantly have to stand up against the Russian bully in order to be able to somehow manage his aggressiveness peacefully?
Nd: We say to them that it is wrong to dismiss whatever a bully says just because he is a bully. Because such an approach is just
going to keep him a bully for the rest of his existence. - No, if you truly want to turn a bully into reasonable human being you have to
show him that you truly appreciate it when, for a change, he actually decides to take a reasonable stance. For too little will you have
else encouraged him to change his ways that you could now still hope to ever witness such a transformation.
AE: Now, obviously it is easy to argue in favor of such an soothing approach when you yourself do not have to bear the
consequences if such an “understanding” tactic if the latter should go wrong some day?
Nd: True. But what is the alternative. The alternative is to forever live in fear and never relax even a little bit. Isn’t that going to be
equally destructive on yourself?
AE: Nevertheless, you are asking a lot, if not too much, of your friends?
Nd: Perhaps, you are right.
AE: So how do we then go about this issue here?
Nd: We try to justice to all parties involved, and we try to be firm in defending what we consider just and fair.
AE: And that is going to reconcile the two camps in this case?
Nd: Well, you have to hope that it eventually will....
________________________________________________
| © Landei Selbstverlag, owned by Wilhelm ("Wil") Leonards, Gerolstein, Germany. All rights reserved. Reminder: Noah denkt™ is a project of Wilhelm ("Wil") Leonards and his Landei Selbstverlag (WL & his LSV). Consequently, all rights to the texts that have been published under the Noah denkt™brand name are reserved by WL & his LSV. The commentary and the reasoning that was provided on this page is for informational and/or educational purposes only and it is not intended to provide tax, legal or investment advice. It should therefore not be construed as an offer to sell, a solicitation of an offer to buy, or a recommendation for any security or any issuer by WL & his LSV or its Noah denkt™ Project. In fact, WL & his LSV encourage the user to understand that he alone is responsible for determining whether any investment, security or strategy is appropriate or suitable for him. And to leave no doubt as to what this means we urge our user to also note our extended Legal Notice. |
__________________________________________________________________________________________
| Addition to these Q&As on Aug, 14, 2008: It needs to be stressed in this context that it is clearly unacceptable that Russian troops have entered into Georgia proper on the day after the cease-fire was accepted by both parties. And it is equally unacceptable that Russian troops have not done enough to reign in the looting and other atrocities that are being committed against the Georgian people and property in South Ossetia by separatist militias which are fighting under Russian protection. Especially the latter has nothing to do with self-defence and needs to stop immediately. ------------------------------ Message to Russian's UN ambassador Churkin, added on Aug. 15, 2008 : Even if the international community accepts that it was necessary to destroy the weapon dumps near Gori, and even if it accepts that President Medvedev has issued an order to reign in the paramilitary factions in the region, Russia is at this point not doing enough to bring the latter under its control. In any case, it seems that these weapons dumps have now been destroyed and so it is time now, to retreat from proper Georgia territory. |