Now, imagine the following: Russian navy conducting military exercises with Cuba in the Gulf of Mexico, and the U.S. is not invited. How does it sound? Surreal. Well, today U.S. and Ukrainian Navy started joint military exercises "Sea Breeze" in the Black Sea (in Odessa), just a few miles away from Russia's border. A few amateur participants like Georgia have been thrown in to make the exercises look "international" rather than bilateral. Ukrainian news agency reports that "servicemen from Algeria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Britain, Canada, Denmark, Georgia, Kenya, Macedonia, Moldova, the Netherlands, Germany, Turkey, USA, Ukraine, France and Sweden are taking part in the exercises." The ships and equipment are American and Ukrainian, and Russian news agencies were unable to spot Algerian or German hardware or personal in the area.
The true purpose of the exercises--rather than to annoy Russia--is not clear to a common observer. It is probably to extend American military might in the best British/French/Soviet traditions of imperialism to the furthest corners of the planet. However, the Russia-Georgia conflict in August 2008 proved how insignificant the resistance from a former Soviet republic--even after all the U.S. training--can be when a small neighbor faces Russia. U.S. and NATO wisely would never put themselves in the middle of a local conflict, just the way they didn't in 2008. However, the good news is that (1) Russia is exercising patience and refrains from any moves or negative comments, and (2) maybe this is the time to celebrate the end of the Cold War. Imagine such exercises taking place five, 10, or 30 years ago! Back than it was called the "Cuban Missile Crisis." Today, it's a news item that is missed by all major outlets, and is not a news to the world population.
In comparison with the fires of protest and dissent burning throughout the Mideast leading to regime change, the events of late May in the Georgian capital of Tbilisi seem minor -- five dead and scores arrested but the protests and the ensuing crackdown there tell much about a bitter split in Georgia that could tear the country apart and deny its citizens an otherwise promising future. This article (http://www.economist.com/node/18774744) gives an excellent description, not only of another round of political violence in the Caucasus, but also of what the stakes are for Georgia.
Eight years after its Rose Revolution, the reformers who grasped power from Eduard Shevardnadze have clearly done much to pull Georgia out of its failed state trajectory. Yet the theatrics this article portrays are the
third round of major street protests since 2007, indicating that not everyone in the country is pleased with where things are going. In November 2007, the Western-minded President Saakashvili shocked the world by letting his toughs crack skulls in from of the Georgia's parliament. The hope this time was that his government might have learned a better way to address dissent than letting loose its dogs. In recent debates about the incident in Georgia's parliament, pro-government deputies accused those who questioned the heavy-handed response of treason.
The good news to which this article points is that there are some in Georgia who do see a path to political progress. Georgia's former ambassador to the UN, now an opposition leader, is quoted as saying that change will come from elections, not revolutions. This is an excellent sign, and if more Georgians get behind young, thoughtful leaders like Alasanaia, his hopeful prediction just might come true.