Saakashvili Loses on Battlefield, but Wins on Air

American analysts are helping the Georgian leader to create a “true” picture of the current events in the Caucasus.

How is the conflict covered in the Western media?

One of the readers on the CNN forum posted a comment complaining that he used to consider the channel to be independent. But now, after seeing the way the South Ossetia crisis was depicted, he does not think so any longer. Indeed, if you look at a list of videos on the channel’s website, www.cnn.com, it is difficult to disagree with his opinion.

Already on Friday, August 8th, in his exclusive interview with CNN, Georgia’s president informed the world in good English about “Russia’s aggression.” Saakashvili cannot be denied being a good orator. It is not difficult for Americans to take the Georgia’s leader as “their own” after described in glowing terms how he studied in America and was always told that America defends its values. “Wake up! We are talking not about Georgia. We are talking about basic Western values that U.S. taught us…We are being attacked because we wanted to build a true democracy,” said Saakashvili. “If the US and Europe do not rise up to defend their values they will be threatened in Georgia today and somewhere else tomorrow.” His speech lasted 9 minutes and 35 seconds. Add to it an almost 5-minute CNN interview with Georgia’s ambassador to the UN Irakli Alasania; plus a speech by Georgia’s foreign affairs minister (5:25) and a statement by the former American ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke (over 3 minutes); and a detailed review of the situation by the former advisor of US National Security Council Mark Brzezinski.

All this anti-Russian media blitz contrasted with a 45 second statement by the Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, at a Russia’s Security Council meeting and a short piece from a statement of Vitaly Churkin to the United Nations. If not for more or less objective news about the events in the conflict zone by CNN reporters and observers, one would think that the American channel is being aired out of Tbilisi…

Saakashvli’s Advantage

It seems obvious that in the West, regardless of the situation in Tzvihali and around it, Georgia has a clear advantage in the informational war.

Leading media sources-–both in print and electronic form-–and analysts that are being quoted all seem to be conforming the story of the Georgian leader and its crew. New York Times began its cover story in the following way: “Russia conducted air strikes on Georgian targets on Friday evening, escalating the conflict in a separatist area of Georgia that is shaping into a test of the power and military reach of an emboldened Kremlin. Earlier in the day, Russian troops and armored vehicles had rolled into South Ossetia, supporting the breakaway region in its bitter conflict with Georgia. The United States and other Western nations, joined by NATO, condemned the violence and demanded a cease-fire.” The humanitarian situation in South Ossetia and the bombing of Tskhinvali was mentioned briefly and only in the end of the article.

The central part of the article has comments by the former American ambassador to the United Nations, Richard Holbrooke. “They have two goals,” he said. “To do a creeping annexation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and, secondly, to overthrow Saakashvili, who is a tremendous thorn in their side.”

Mark Brzezinski, a well-known analyst and a former employee of the National Security Council at the White House, explained in an interview with CNN what determines President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin’s understanding of current environment on the continent. First of all, in Brzezinski opinion, they are happy that Americans are stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan. Second of all, both Medvedev and Putin have developed an unrealistic picture of Russia’s potential to form and control Eurasia. “Many say that it has to do with imperialistic nostalgia in Moscow political elite,” noted Brzezinski. In his opinion, success of “siloviki” is being measured by the restoration of the former Soviet Union and its influence.

Such analysis undoubtedly reinforces Iraklia Asaniya’s words: “They (Russians) want to submit Georgia to them and prevent its inclusion into Euro-Atlantic structures. Moscow wants to show others what is going to happen to them if they try to become independent.”

Russia Without Orators

What is the reason for such a one-sided view of Moscow? The shift of political elite in the U.S. towards Georgia’s government certainly plays a role. This can be seen both in the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s statement asking the Russian Federation to withdraw its troops from Georgia’s territory and in Republican presidential-hopeful John McCain statement repeating the same demand. McCain’s competitor Barack Obama also said that was clear to him that “Russia was challenging Georgia’s sovereignty.”

It is also clear that Russia was not well prepared for an informational war. Russian officials are defending their position primarily via the channels of Russian state media. At the same time an appearance of Russian news makers on air or on the pages of western media is very limited. And the limiting conditions are not only the editorial politics of certain media sources (or an official line of their governments), but also an inertia and lack of interest (and skill) in achieving attention of other audience and being unprepared for communication.

Saakashvili, in addition to presenting at press conferences, is capable of giving tens of open interviews a day if he feels a necessity to do so. The Georgians leader knows English in perfection (and the leading media sources are in English) and speaks fluently several other languages. Russian diplomats speak foreign languages not any worse than Saakashvili does, but they are part of a very closed circle of people involved in this problem. Besides, showing up on TV screens is not part of their job. One needs politics and well-known experts to do that. Who is able to fight for the Western air time? A list of Russian politicians who evoke any interest abroad is small: they are Vladimir Putin and Dmitrii Medvedev.

The British Sweetened the Pill for Moscow

Meanwhile an unexpected approach to the situation was taken by some of the British media. The Guardian give the following review to the current events: Saakashvili has done everything in order to bring this conflict to the international level instead of keeping it on the regional level. He was loudly banging on NATO’s door and was inviting the American leaders. McCain for instance received a cross of St. George for visiting a Georgian part of the South Ossetia last year. “During the NATO summit in Bucharest the Germans and the French rose against Georgia’s demand to obtain an action plan for joining the NATO. Georgia’s recent actions show what a wise decision it was,” notes the newspaper.

The newspaper admits that Russia is not innocent, it has already destabilized independent sovereignties and has refused to give up its empire. “But this does not mean that NATO governments have to interpret everything they see literally. This is not a fight between courageous Georgian democrats and Russian tyrants. The players in this drama are much more sophisticated,” claims the influential British newspaper.

In a separate piece The Guardian posts comments by two experts on the issue. Tom de Vaal, an analyst of Institute for War and Piece Reporting, claimed: “It is obvious that there were incidents on both sides. But it is clear that this is a planned out Georgian operation to gain control of Tzvihali, which Georgians have had for a while. Maybe the Georgians assumed that while Putin was in Beijing they could occupy South Ossetia’s capital over these two days and then protect it over the following two months.”

Jonathan Ail from the Royal Institute of London called Georgia’s decision to bomb Tzvihali “an inexcusable attempt to insult the Russians.” “If they are able to take South Ossetia under their control, where there are probably around a thousand Russian soldiers so far, they will insult Russia and become the winners,” aaid the expert regarding the actions of Georgians. Ail warned that a push on Russia while Medvedev is trying to gain influence in his country is very risky. “There is an attempt to show that Russians are bluffing and are not able to afford a full-scale war with Georgia… I personally don’t buy it… Putin won’t accept others insulting him so openly and inexcusably. It is impossible for Russians to sit still,” concluded the expert.