Contradicting the 'West' bashing

 
by Martin Thu Aug 14th, 2008
 
I have to strongly disagree with several diaries and comments, both posted here in ET (e.g. The Ruskies are back. Praise the Lord!) or at dkos in Jerome's most recent (diaries on the Georgian War):

• Georgia: oil, neocons, cold war and our credibility
• Neolibs use Gazprom as tool to break French & German energy companies

The narrative is, that the Western press would unanimously condemn Russia and generally ascribe Putin as 'evil' compared to the 'good' west.
 
For the beginning I want to start with translation of an article from the pro-atlantic, conservative German newspaper FAZ, which was earlier this day on their online front page at the top:

Zerwürfnis in der Nato
Politik des leeren Stuhls
 
Sorry for such a long article, but I wanted to prevent the accusation to suppress anti-Russian statements. And with the long translation I have now no energy left for highlighting.
 
As I see it, there is no such thing as a common Western position and Russia is not painted as simply evil.


About Putin there were press articles describing how he  gave flowers to Merkel and held breakfast with her, how he visited Dresden, the city where he lived some time, and so on. Sure, there are critical articles, but a demonisation - no.

[Translation could improve ... last paragraph now machine translated]

Rupture in NATO / Politics of the empty chair

[by Nicolas Busse]

More quickly than even pessimists feared, the war in Georgia is leading to a serious rift in NATO. Since the beginning of this week, several meetings have taken place at the alliance's Brussels headquarters, which have revealed deep differences of opinion between the 26 allies - about how to deal with Russia and about the question of whether NATO should side with Georgia.

The two camps from the Iraq crisis are forming again: Americans with the British and Eastern Europeans on the one side against Western Europe led by Germany and France on the other. "This divide is getting deeper and deeper," says one diplomat.

The immediate reason for this is the meetings of the alliance with Russia. The Americans had already helped to prevent a meeting of the NATO-Russia Council by demonstratively staying away from a preparatory meeting. The Russians themselves did not make things any easier, however, by demanding that the Council be held before a meeting of the NATO ambassadors with the Georgian ambassador, which most allies felt was not possible due to scheduling constraints.

[...]

NATO noticed how quickly the Russians moved their troops after the Georgian advance. After all, there were around 10,000 soldiers in Abkhazia and between 10,000 and 20,000 in South Ossetia. It seemed as if Moscow was just waiting for an opportunity to teach the Georgians a lesson. The result was definitely massive. Important military infrastructure in Georgia has been destroyed, including an air radar facility that was actually supposed to be used to exchange data with NATO. The four brigades with which Georgia advanced into South Ossetia have apparently been largely destroyed and fled. The country's defense now consists of just one brigade, which was brought back from Iraq with American help and is now protecting Tbilisi.

Russia itself, however, also wants to rethink its relations with NATO. "Our relationship with the alliance can only change," said the Russian ambassador to NATO, Dimitrij Rogozin, to a television station in his country. He complained that NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer had not said a word about the victims of the Georgian attacks in an official statement. This came as no surprise to anyone in NATO. The Dutchman De Hoop Scheffer is considered to be Washington's informant within the alliance.