Pro-Georgian Rally in Riga
RIGA – Some of my photos that I took this afternoon during the peaceful march in Riga in support of Georgia. All photos © 2008 All About Latvia. If you need to use them, go ahead, but don’t forget to let your readers know where you got them.
The Flash Player and a browser with Javascript support are needed..
August 12th, 2008 at 14.42
Thanks for the pictures. I am sorry that our camera is in Ireland with my wife. The rally was a sweet/bitter experience. Sweet because of the numbers (including lots of friends) and just for the show of support. Bitter because of arguments with Russian youth who were polite but quite strident in their arguments in favour of Russia’s right to imperialism.
Thanks again.
August 12th, 2008 at 17.06
I think the ‘who started it’ argument is a moot point, and Russian media-informed morons should be removed from the discourse. The reality is that Georgia has been for the past 17 years not a very nice place to live with limited opportunities.
The promise of reform and Westernization brought a lot of interest in the country and the region and gave its young people — who tend to be quite involved given that the president is 40 years old — something to hope for. Could it be that Georgia could become a normal place where people vacation and do business? I certainly hope that dream is not over.
I went to the rally yesterday in Tartu because I do not want to see that hope shattered. The Georgians I know are good people, and without Western support and pressure on Russia, their Napoleonic leadership would have pushed their armies straight to Tbilisi.
A puppet government, set up in th wake of “regime change” would be no help for Georgia’s future. The people would not trust the government; there would be no dialog for reform. If Saakashvili needs to go, then that is up to the Georgian people — not Moscow.
The reason that the Baltics and others have been so stridently “anti-Russian” is that they know that if they did not lead the condemnations to get Russia to quit, nobody would.
So their position seems “anti-Russian” when, in fact, I am sure they are all privately pissed at Saakashvili. But they had to wake up the rest of Europe for it to respond. If they hadn’t done that, there may have been no ceasefire today. Sarkozy and Kouchner are there because of the loud clamor from people like Zatlers.
August 12th, 2008 at 17.14
The arguments on the Russian side seemed kind of ridiculous. Some dive into history to explain how South Ossetia came about. Others explain that Russia was defending its “peacekeepers.” One headline in Kommersant when the war broke out read, “The First Peacekeeping War.” I think it says it all.
Sarkozy said the Kremlin has a right to defend its interests wherever they might be. It’s sending a signal to the Baltics that if Moscow chooses to, they could change the government under whatever pretext they wanted to, which is why it’s just an important topic for the region. And it also bring forth questions regarding the security in the region. The Baltics joined NATO in hope that people like Gordon Brown or George W. Bush would come to their rescue should the situation merit it. Now I’m not so sure that mere membership in these organizations will protect the independence of the Baltic States in the future.
August 12th, 2008 at 17.16
Also, several protests scheduled for tomorrow in Riga, including the one by local Russians in defense of Russia’s actions in South Ossetia. I’ll be there to watch.
August 12th, 2008 at 17.45
“Now I’m not so sure that mere membership in these organizations will protect the independence of the Baltic States in the future.”
I actually think that NATO will be more willing now to show that they control NATO countries. The problem is that without NATO, the situation would be worse, and with NATO, you are stuck in the middle of this international conflict.
What we don’t need is more Bronze Soldier incidents. The scale of relations with Moscow should be narrow, as to give them as little leverage over the region as possible. The less chances for arguments, the less opportunities for manipulation.
August 12th, 2008 at 17.51
The less chances for arguments, the less opportunities for manipulation.
Would that not be seen as appeasing Moscow, which would make a Balt cringe?
August 12th, 2008 at 21.05
There are many aspects to this situation, but I do think that NATO, in the context of “spheres of influence” (something dear to Russia), is very important. I suspect Russia felt somewhat emboldened by NATO not putting Georgia on a “path” to membership. That’s certainly not the only motive for Russia’s recent actions in Georgia, but it sure didn’t help. Having said that though, had NATO indeed put Georgia on a track towards future membership, Russia probably would have adopetd just as harsh a line on Georgia. For the foreseeable future, plans to have Georgia and Ukraine join NATO will be on hold, unfortunately.
To touch on Justin’s point about NATO membership for the Baltics, I have to say that I am, once again, disappointed with the behaviour of “Old Europe” in this matter. I fully agree with the value of NATO, and that the joint statement by Est, Lat, Lit, & Pol forced the hand of Sarkozy into acting more decisively. And a good thing too! But NATO membership would not bring about instant “allied” action to the defence of a member under attack. There would be a lot of toing & froing before then, after much inflicted pain and misery. But NATO would act, it would have to, otherwise it has no reason to exist.
August 12th, 2008 at 21.37
Actually, I was quite impressed with the Italian opposition, Pierre. Anytime they give it to Silvio Berlusconi I am a happy u o m o.
August 12th, 2008 at 23.22
Frankly, I fail to see why the lack of tangible NATO support to Georgia justifies the idea that NATO would be reluctant to act in defense of its members such as the Baltic States. After all, Georgia is not a NATO member, and NATO has never made any commitment to come to its aid. In fact, Georgia’s inability to control its territory (and hence the potential for a clash like the one we have just witnessed) has been the main reason why Georgia was denied membership in the first place.
Just because Mr. Saakashvili likes to make his televised speeches in front of the EU flag does not mean that EU and NATO are obliged to take sides in the conflict. Let us not forget that it was Georgia that started the war. Whatever we think of Russia’s policies, there is a lot of similarity between their actions and the NATO operation against Serbia nine years ago. In both cases, the war was provoked by a popular, nationalistic president with questionable democratic credentials launching an attack against an ethnically different breakaway province, using disproportionate force with little regard for civilian safety. Russia’s invasion of Chechnya is another obvious parallel to Georgia’s action.
August 14th, 2008 at 4.51
i hope this information makes it to georgian fighters, guerrilla fighting is your best hope, and learn what hurt us americans, build IED’s!!! you know where russian dogs will patrol. do what your enemy is not, americans are disgusted at the smug soviet attitude polluting the air, sea, and land of georgia. russians are stupid, build IED’s and take them out. raid your munition stores, and build IED’s for the russian attackers. IED’s make excellent gifts for russians!
August 14th, 2008 at 13.42
Great content. I’ll keep coming back for similar posts which I cannot wait to read….
August 30th, 2008 at 19.15
Georgia didn’t start the war.Russia bombed South Osetia itself and then told to people that it was done by Georgia. Russian Governmant is responsble for dead citizens in Georgia and in South Osetia.