While the Russian media have, generally, covered the election of Metropolitan Cyrill as Patriarch of all Russia positively, opinion in the Western press has been centered on two fronts.  Some are debating if the new Patriarch is “for” or “against” the Kremlin.  Others — if he is a “modernizer” or a “conservative”.

The Economist, for example, labeled Metropolitan Cyrill “a tough and sophisticated practitioner of geopolitics” (whatever that means), labeled one of his “opponents”, Metropolitan Kliment, as a “cautious conservative” and another, Metroplitan Juvenaly, as a “loyal son of the state, while acting in private to protect the church’s liberals”.  The fact that The Economist offers labels and no facts shows that they don’t really what they’re talking about.

The wires offer similar material.  The AP calls Patriarch Cyrill a “modernizer who could seek a historic reconciliation with the Vatican and more autonomy from the state” and the LA Times expects the new Patriarch to “undertake some modest modernization”. Finally, Reuters seems to believe that the  most important issue is when (and not even whether!) he will meet with Pope Benedict XVI.

To label Patriarch Cyrill a “modernizer” and a “reformer” is to show utter ignorance of Orthodoxy. What exactly is he proposing to reform? Theology? Practice? Liturgy? This is the man who, as Metropolitan, said: “I am categorically opposed to any reforms … If a reform destroys faith, tradition, values, then such a reform is called heresy”.

The problem is that anyone outside the Church is inclined to label all events within the Church a struggle between “liberals” and “conservatives”, even when such a dichotomy fails to exist. Those news sources with a blatant dislike of the Kremlin (like The Economist) tend to show the same dislike for the Russian Orthodox Church. Others need to find some issue that divides said “liberals” and “conservatives”, and they’ve found it in a proposed meeting with the Pope.

The reality for those who consider Patriarch Cyrill their “great lord and father”, though, is quite different. Whom the Patriarch decides to meet is his prerogative and of little tangible importance.  Far more important are some of the important issues he will have to face.  Here are just some of them:

Parish Life — Implementing the Parish Bylaws of the 1917-1918 Local Council and the normalization of parish life, destroyed during the years of state persecution.  This will mean first and foremost the resolution of property issues — the State must finally return to parishes all property confiscated from the Church following the Bolshevik Revolution. This will mean keeping a register of parishioners, creating parish assemblies and parish councils to administer internal parish affairs as well as the further development of parish schools, libraries, and the like.

Missionary Outreach — Reaching out to those in Russia who consider themselves “Orthodox” but are not churched. This begins with implementing the Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture (OPK) curriculum in public schools, which has so far been stymied by the Ministry of Education.

Social Outreach — Broadening the social ministry of the Church. The most pressing issue here is the implementation of the Army and Navy chaplaincy programs.

The Jurisdictional Issue — The five-year transitional period following the ROCOR-MP reconciliation will be over during Patriarch Cyrill’s tenure.  He will have to lead the Synod into making important decisions about jurisdiction in the diaspora, resolving the problem of parallel structures in a way that unites, not divides.

Fundraising — If parishes in the cities are fairly well off, parishes and monasteries in the villages are still for the most part in ruins.  Priest’s salaries are virtually non-existent.   The new patriarch will need to find a way to channel donor funds to places that need them most.  One suggestion has already been made — the creation of a bank that will issue credit to village parishes.

Lay involvement — Unfortunately, the term concerned Orthodox lay people has become synonymous with supporters of the deposed Bishop Diomides. The new patriarch will need find creative ways to get laity involved in more tangible issues. Some members of the Local Council have already aired one idea — the creation of a consultative body composed of laity, similar to Russia’s Public Chamber.

The Estonian Issue — Solving the conflict with the Ecumenical Patriarchate over jurisdiction in Estonia will be a top priority in Inter-Orthodox relations.  Until Moscow and Constantinople reach agreement on this issue, all further work toward the calling of a Great Council of all the local Orthodox churches will be meaningless.

Relations with the Old-Ritualists — Patriarch Alexey II was instrumental in establishing cordial relations with two jurisdictions of priestly Old-Ritualists.  In addition, the late Patriarch supported increased interest in pre-Nikonian liturgics.  The creation of the Patriarchal Center for Ancient Liturgical Practice in Moscow as well as the increased usage of Znamenny chant in many parishes and monasteries provide some hope that reconciliation with the Old-Ritualists is possible.

Luckily, Patriarch Cyrill is well prepared to address these issues.  Brilliantly educated, incredibly smart, an excellent orator, he is greatly respected both by his fellow bishops and by those outside of the Church.  If Patriarch Alexey’s tenure was the “Second Baptism of Russia”, then Patriarch Cyrill’s may well be Russia’s Second Chrismation.

Saint Alexander Nevsky won the “Name of Russia” contest yesterday. As Sergei Mironov, President of the Council of the Federation, Russia’s upper chamber, and head of the Fair Russia Party put it, it is indicative that, out of the twelve candidates presented, Russians chose the only saint.  That is a great achievement for modern Russia.

Of course to the BBC (that bastion of anti-Russian propaganda), what was important was not who won but that Joseph Djugashvili (alias “Stalin”) came in third.  An article on the contest covered not the winner (or the runner up), but the third place.  Imagine, for a second, if this was how the BBC covered the recent presedential eleciton in the United States.  The article would look something like this:

Nader comes in third in US election

Former consumer rights advocate Ralph Nader was beaten by the young Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, in the US presidential election.

Nader came in third, despite being responsible for the introduction of safety belts in automobiles, which saved the lives of millions of Americans.

Barack Obama ran a campaing promising political and economic change.

Second place went to Republican Senator John McCain, who fought during the Vietnam War.

Nader was an instrumental consumer rights  advocate in the 60’s and 70’s and has now made several runs for the US Presidency, claiming that there is no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats, the leading parties in the US political system.  He was hoping to gain 5% in the polls but was denied a slot in the presidential debates run by major US media networks, the BBC’s John Doe reports from Washington.

Nader took on the automotive industry and was instrumental in introducing safety belts in automobiles.  Experts believe that safety belts save the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans every year. He has now become an outspoken critic of Washington politics and lobbyists.

Many in America revere Nader for taking on the establishment, which they believe is corrupt.

Obama ran a campaign advocating for economic and political change.  He was also affiliated with the 1960’s terrorist movement “Weather Underground”.

He became popular with Democrats after defeating Senator Hillary Clinton.

John McCain is remembered for being shot down over Vietnam and spending several years as prisoner of war, tortured by the Vietnamese.

OK, so I got bored editing STATA output for my paper and decided to spend 2 hours of my life installing Linux on my iPod.

Turns out that, despite what the project claims, the installation was a pain in the wazoo. The installer does not run under 64-bit AMD – crashes with a seg fault. In the meantime, it managed to screw up my iPod’s partitions. So I had to backup my music, manually reformat the iPod, recreate all of the partitions and then manually install the ucLinux kernel. After messing around a bit, I got the kernel to work. The instructions were helpful.

Turning the iPod on, I got the boot menu — boots into Linux or Apple. The Linux program can’t access the Apple partition — although it should be able to (it’s FAT 32). That means you can’t play music from within Linux, which, again, you should be able to. Pretty limiting.

The Linux interface itself has a few utilities. Of these, perhaps the only marginally useful is the resistor codes table (if you are a physicist or engineer).  The image editor has an incomprehensible user interface and the the text editor is unable to save. There is a big selection of games, but I was never big on gaming.

The clock resets when you reboot, which is pretty annoying.

I was pleased to find a terminal, and enthusiastically tried to open everyone’s favorite text editor by typing vi.  I was disappointed to see that it is not fully supported.

In a move of desperation, I typed ping google.com. At least I got the comforting response: google.com: host not found.

For it to be a worthwhile adventure, at the least the iPod should be able to play music from your iTunes DB, while (remember, it’s Linux, so it should have no problem multitasking!) editing a text file.

The verdict: pretty neat, but completely useless.

In a recent article, The Economist lamented that Russia followed the West’s mistakes and not its way of life, “mistakes” referring to the West’s unilateral recognition of Kosovo. Yet Russia’s brief, victorious war in the Caucusus and the subsequent unilateral recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia have shown a much more measured foreign policy, with broad implications for Russia – NATO relations.

The funny thing is — the West’s recognition of Kosovo benefited no one but the Kosovo Albanians. The creation of yet another unstable Islamic state certainly does not benefit the West. I have commented in the past on the disaster of Western nation building called Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Bosnian example is an upper bound for Kosovo – at best, the unrecognized state will continue a tenous existance as a corrupt, poor, unstable region, continually propped up by the EU, NATO, and the UN. At worst, if the Western powers chose to abandon the project, it will turn into a mini-Somalia replete with gangs, warlords, drugs, and smuggling of weapons and people.

Of course, in the case of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the situation is quite similar. The continued existence of both unrecognized entities depends solely on Russia’s support. And while the ethnic situation is more stable than Bosnia (partially because the Abkhazians cleansed all of the Georgians out following the first war in the 90’s), realistically the regions can only become stable if they reach a peaceful agreement with their southern neighbor. But in this case, we see quite clearly a much better grasp of Realpolitik on the part of the Russians. If the West gets nothing out of the Kosovo debacle, Russia is only beginning to reap the benefits of the August events.

Take for example NATO, a strategic alliance without clearly defined goals. At its meeting today, the alliance decided not to extend Membership Action Plans (MAPs) to Georgia and Ukraine, even despite the outgoing Bush administration’s policy of apres moi, le deluge. Georgian membership in NATO would have meant a quite different outcome of Mr. Saakashvili’s August adventure, with the distinct possibility of tanks rolling around Poland, Lithuania, and Kalinigrad and missiles flying accross the North Pole, some of them nuclear. Remember, an attack on one is an attack on all.

Russia had insisted that there ought to be no MAP for Georgia. Following the events of August, NATO has indeed no choice but to recognize Russia’s position. Accepting a country without recognized borders and with an unstable regime is dangerous at the least. And while NATO member foreign ministers continue to insist that Russia has no veto over NATO decisions the stark reality for NATO is that, at least on this point, Russia does.

The incoming administration in Washington ought to reconsider the current state of Russia – NATO relation in general, and Russian-American relations in particular. The Neocons have effectively turned a potential strategic ally  into an enemy, and that hardly benefits anyone. As I have stated repeatedly, both Russia and the United States have much to gain from cooperating on common interests and agreeing to disagree on others.

President-Elect Obama has already made one positive step – stating that the Missile Defense Shield ought not be built unless it has been proven to work. This is a great diplomatic way of scrapping the useless program altogether.

The next logical step for an Obama administration (with a Clinton Secretary of State) is to freeze NATO expansion until NATO has clearly defined goals.  At this stage, there has not been a clear strategic reason for the continued existence of the trans-Atlantic alliance.

For its part, Russia ought to agree to a renegotiation of the CAFE treaty and to aid the peaceful resolution of the Trasdniestria situation.

If the incoming administration reveals itself to be more pragmatic then the last then we will see positive developments in Russia-NATO relations on the whole. The Europeans are quite conscious of Russia’s importance as a strategic ally; Washington ought to be more conscious as well.

It is not surprising that an article alleging corruption in the Russian Orthodox Church would appear on the website of Garry Kimovich Weinstein, better known to the world as Garry Kasparov. The former chess grandmaster has long been an outspoken critic of the current “establishment” in Russia with the unfortunate Gorbachevian trait of having more support abroad than at home. The article, “Help in the Name of Christ!”, was written by Alexander Khramov and appeared both on Kasparov’s website and on the anti-church forum Portal-credo.ru, where Khramov is a regular contributor.

Normally, I do not respond to comments by Kasparov or Portal-credo. The former has lost credibility since his alliance with the Neo-Nazi National Bolshevik Party and his staged demonstrations in Moscow and St Petersburg, a show for Western media where he addresses crowds in English and deliberately violates laws to get arrested. As for Portal-credo, the website is run by a cult, the so-called “Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church”, organized by the convicted pedophile Anatoly Rusantsev, who calls himself “Metropolitan Valentine”. Such “ideologues” are better left unacknowledged with the hope that lack of publicity will make them go away.

What prompted this response was the article’s subsequent appearance on Mark Stokoe’s infossip website ocanews.org with the comments that “problems of accountability and transparency in the Orthodox Church, sadly, are not to be found in the Orthodox Church in America alone” and that this “Thanksgiving let us give thanks to God for helping us [i.e., the OCA] forward, and offer a prayer that the Russian Church may find its way forward as well.”

I must preface by saying that Mr. Stokoe and I have clashed repeatedly over the content of his website, which, I feel, has continued to be anti-Russian and anti-Russian Orthodox Church in particular. Just one such example was the publication of Fr. Michael Oleska’s opus in which he blamed the current problems in the OCA on its bishops’ “Russian” attitude (none of the bishops is Russian, by the way) and, among other things, accused the ROC of creating the political coup of 1917 and being responsible for the murders of the New Martyrs. The Russian Orthodox Church has nobly kept herself out of the OCA’s crisis. Why then should Mr. Stokoe get involved in the affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church?

As I am banned from commenting on Mr. Stokoe’s website, I take my response to this article elsewhere.

The article alleges that, last week, His Holiness sent a letter to President Medvedev asking for help during the financial crisis. Among measures requested, the author claims, is deposit insurance for church bank accounts and tax exemption for church property. Here is a good place to note that in Russia, unlike many jurisdictions in the United States, the church has to pay property tax. The remainder of the article accuses the Russian Orthodox Church of lacking financial transparency, lobbying the interests of “Orthodox businessmen” in the State Parliament, issuing “kickbacks”, operating an investment portfolio, owning a lot of land, including much in the center of Moscow, and other sins.

It is true that church finances are notoriously difficult to manage, as anyone who has served on a parish council (myself included) will attest. Part of it stems from the nature of church “income”, much of which comes from anonymous cash donations and goes, in the form of cash disbursements, to pay for the living expenses of a priest. Many of our clergy, especially in the Russian Church, do not receive a “salary” and largely live off such cash donations for special needs services (“treby”). In the United States, the Internal Revenue Service has waived annual reporting requirements for churches, recognizing, in part, that accurate financial tracking of cash donations and disbursements would place an undue burden on churches, many of which do not have the money to employ a full-time accountant. This has never been an issue, at least before the current OCA financial scandal.

The allegation that the Russian Church is afloat with cash could only occur to someone who visits only one parish – Christ the Saviour Cathedral in Moscow. The reality outside the Garden Ring (Moscow’s equivalent of the Beltway) and especially outside Moscow, is quite different. The fact is, that most of the so-called “church properties”, including Christ the Saviour, are not owned by the church at all. They continue to be government property, given to the church for use. Confiscated following the 1917 coup, many of these church buildings are badly damaged from years of Soviet misuse as barns, factories, skating rings, video production studios, and the like. In only very few instances do the Federal or regional authorities pay for their restoration (in the cases of “historical monuments”). While it would only seem fair that the heir of a thief would pay reparations to the victims of theft, in most instances parishes and parishioners are on their own. The natural way to raise money for such projects is, yes, to “lobby” “Orthodox businessmen”, many of whom (for example, Viktor Vekselberg) give millions every year, and to operate “banks” at the Patriarchate level, which loan money for parish projects. Think of “FA ROCOR”, only bigger and more efficient. Many parishes in the United States (and I’m sure Mr. Stokoe’s as well) routinely invest in mutual funds, bonds, and other tradeable assets in anticipation of capital projects. This has never been against the law, Canon or otherwise.

Much of the accusations of “corruption” in the Moscow Patriarchate target “HPP Sofrino”, the church goods production factory. The fact is, however, that Sofrino operates at a net loss and has to be continually propped up by the Patriarchate, largely because monasteries and large parishes have realized that Sofrino’s reputation for low quality provides them with an opportunity to produce and sell church goods as well. Such is the nature of the market.

That the church has made millions importing tobacco is an old allegation raised by Moskovskie Novosti in 1995. It has yet to be independently confirmed. Mr. Khramov has not cited any new facts or proven any illegal activity on the part of anyone in the Church’s administration. This is not surprising — he does not really care about what happens in the Russian Church; his true fight is with the current government. He writes: “[S]tate support of financial endeavors of the ROC-MP [sic] is hardly justified — we all live in a secular society. The act of providing it [i.e., the church] with more benefits and loans, is criminal. Any state help directed to this religious organization must be suspended. This also applies to not only ROC-MP [sic] but to other organizations to whom Russian government is eager to provide help (the help which is obviously provided with tax-payers money).”

The funny thing is, when the state confiscated church property, when it blew up Christ the Savior, when it converted monasteries for use as nuclear weapons facilities, when it sent priests and monks to concentration camps, when it took village churches apart for firewood — all of this was done with tax-payer money. Our self-proclaimed ideologue of “Russian disestablishment” seems to ignore these facts.

Of course, those were different times. In those days, as the state built “democracy” and “freedom”, those opposed to such ventures were “reeducated” in the GULags. Now, they get to educate us in cyberspace. And, as if their blogs were not a big enough forum, they get additional bandwith from members of the OCA. How sad.

OK, so imagine the government tells you that you have to take $2000 of your money and invest it in a company that is going bankrupt. You lose everything.  Then, your grandchildren will have to pay that money in a few decades, with interest. Sounds ludicrous? Well guess what, that’s what the government is telling you to do, and it’s called the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.

It’s a piece of legislation, no less than 110 pages long, that is so bad, that, for once, socialists and paleocons agree on something! What a mess …

As I read the bill, a couple of things struck me. First, the sweeping powers that this bill gives to the Secretary of the Treasury, who, by the way, is not elected, and is a lame duck. We’re giving powers to somebody we don’t even know?!

But what’s more rediculous is the whole structure of this proposal. It used to be the case that markets were based on competition. If your company can’t compete, then it goes out of business. That now appears not to be the case: the government will now prop-up failing businesses. So let’s get this straight: imagine tomorrow everyone realizes that Windows stinks and switches to Linux (which they should do, anyway). Then the government comes in and bails out Microsoft Corp. so that it can continue making crappy operating systems. What?!

That’s right. And obviously it’s a case of competition in the market, since somebody out there does have money. JP Morgan Chase just bought WaMu and Wachovia is being sold to Citigroup. Some people are actually pretty well off, either because they were smart or got lucky. But that’s the nature of capitalism.

But two things are particularly striking: the wining on Wall Street and the threats on Capitol Hill. Politicians have scared voters to believe that we’re headed for a Great Depression unless this bail-out passes. Guess what? The economy is expected to grow 1.4% this year. We’re not even in a recession, at least officially. As for the Wall Street investors, they were being idiots bundling sub-prime mortgages and treating them as Markowitz portfolios. They know better than that (if they were paying attention in Econ 101). Why should the tax payer bail them out?

Though the bail-out failed today, it’s only a matter of time before something gets passed. An administration that already has many cringing (let’s see, record deficits, the largest increase in bureaucracy since FDR, a completely worthless “Economic Stimulus Package” …) wants to go out with a bang. And the scary part? Both of the people who wish to take over aren’t willing to make a stand against the bail out.

The author of this blog will be voting Libertarian …

Well, actually, the die was cast in February, when the West recognized the independence of Kosovo. It was then that we set the precedent of redrawing the boundaries of post-World War Two Europe. What happened today in Abkhazia and South Ossetia is only a natural continuation of the Kosovo case.

As in the instance of Kosovo, little will change on the ground now that Sukhumi and Tskhinvali have been recognized by Moscow. They have existed as de facto independent states for more than a decade, they have relied on commercial and political ties with Moscow, and they will continue to do so. They will not be able to achieve world-wide recognition or membership in the UN; but neither will Kosovo.

The response from Washington has been one of defeated anger. The war in South Ossetia, Mr. Saakashvili’s war, has demonstrated the limits of US power and has furthered a split in Europe. Mr. McCain’s comments that “the West ought to consider the independence of the North Caucusus and Chechnya, which suffered bloody attacks at the hands of Russia” are just plain stupid.

It remains to see what the formal reaction of Washington to this latest move will be. True, there are now American warships in the Black Sea, thought the Pentagon claims that they are on a humanitarian mission. Most indications, however, are that Washington will do little more than be angry. Enough cool heads will prevail, realizing that the United States does not need confrontation with Russia.

In other US political news, Senator Barack Obama announced his choice of Senator Joe Biden as running mate. Mr. Biden authored the resolution authorizing President Clinton to bomb Serbia and said, in 1999, that “all Serbs should be placed in Nazi-style concentration camps”. He also called Serbs “a bunch of illiterates, degenerates, baby killers, butchers and rapists” on none other than CNN’s Larry King Live.

Mr. Biden hasn’t spared words for Russia, either. After returning from a trip to Tbilisi, he said: “he war that began in Georgia is no longer about that country alone. It has become a question of whether and how the West will stand up for the rights of free people throughout the region. The outcome there will determine whether we realize the grand ambition of a Europe that is whole, free, and at peace.” He followed with promises to keep Russia out of the World Trade Organization and of other sanctions. In addition, he promised to introduce a bill approving $1 billion of emergency assistance to Georgia. That’s right, one billion dollars of your tax payer money.

So the real question now is who will be more bellicose: Senator Biden or Senator McCain?

In my prior coverage of Georgia’s invasion of South Ossetia, I posited that what Russia needed most was a quick and decisive victory, which would limit damage to merely the public affairs front.  As the fog of war begins to settle in the Caucasus (and the residents of Tskhinvali begin to pick up what’s left of their houses) we can see more clearly who are the winners and losers of Mr. Saakashvili’s gamble.

The Winners

Russian self-esteem.  The Russian military was able to deliver a swift and crushing blow to Georgian armed forces, armed and trained by the Bush Administration.  After the debacle in the first war in Chechnya and Russia’s failure to prevent the dismemberment of Serbia, this is a definite boost for Russian morale.  It shows that Russia is willing, and able, to defend its interests abroad.

Mr. Medvedev. Dmitry Medvedev was able to present himself as a confident and assertive war-time leader.  Prior to his election, Mr. Medvedev was virtually unknown; this proved to be the first major test of his presidency. This will also put an end to some of the speculation about who “is in power” in the Kremlin. Mr. Medvedev and Mr. Putin showed that they can work effectively as a team, the one on the foreign policy and military fronts, the other — on internal affairs, disaster recovery, and social programs.

Old Europe.  The Europeans in general were able to play the situation much more effectively than the Bush administration. In particular, the events in South Ossetia give further credence to Europe’s (most notably, Germany and France) opposition to letting Georgia join NATO.  Old Europe has taken a more pragmatic stance toward Russia. Note that it was Mr. Sarkozy who travelled to Moscow and Tbilisi with a cease-fire proposal, not Ms. Rice.  On the whole, Europe has made it clear that it does not want a fight with Russia.

John McCain. Mr. McCain was better able to capitalize on the situation than rival presidential candidate Barack Obama. As the Georgians carpet bombed Tskhinvali, Mr. Obama was vacationing in Hawaii. John McCain quickly made serveral statements condeming Russia and issuing support for Georgia. (To use his famous words, “we are all Georgians”.) Besides gleaning votes from anti-Russian rhetoric, John McCain used the situation to assert his image as a confident leader able to deal with international crises. To a large extent, Mr. McCain’s confidence on the issue had to do with his personal friendship with Mikhail Saakashvili and with the fact that his foreign policy advisor, Randy Scheunemann, was a lobbyist for the Georgian government. Though the media picked up on this somewhat, it is not clear that this conflict of interest will hurt Mr. McCain.

The Loosers

Georgian territorial integrity. The situation in the North Caucasus is deja vu: a simmering ethnic conflict; one side uses excessive military force; an ally gets involved, claiming genocide and ethnic cleansing; then, the ally declares the region independent and presents the world as a fait accompli. If it walks like Kosovo, and it talks like Kosovo, then it’s surely … well, you get the point. And while the word “Kosovo” was not on the lips of Russian diplomats, one could bet it was on their minds.

Mr. Saakashvili.  The Georgian president can only come out weaker, both at home and abroad.  At home — because he picked the right fight but lost it. Abroad — because he made it clear that he cannot be trusted. While the position of Washington is not yet clear, members of the Georgian opposition were treated much more warmly in Brussels (albeit still only in the couloirs).

Media integrity. The MSM revealed its ugly face again, one that we have not seen arguably since the conflict in Bosnia. From FoxNews cutting off a twelve year-old Ossetian girl who showed too much support for the Russians to CNN presenting footage of Tskhinvali and claiming it was Gori in Georgia, the coverage had a clear message. Mr. Saakashvili was right and Russia was wrong. Never mind that Georgian armed forces carpet bombed Tskhinvali, drove out the population, killed Russian peace-keepers, and violated the treaties they had signed in the 90s. Even such rivals as Liberation, Le Figaro, and Le Monde became friends for a week. By mid-week it became obvious that if Russia had won the war on the ground, it had lost the war of public opinion in the West.

Of course, the anti-Russian bias was to be expected. More evidence for the thesis of Danilevsky and other Slavophiles.

In the end, the biggest looser was the civilian population of South Ossetia. This war was completely unnecessary; yet 2,000 – 3,000 civilians were killed and countless others displaced.  I wonder if, as they were trained by American military consultants, Georgian forces learned, among other things, the term “collateral damage”. One of the great inventions of US English.

More South Ossetia coverage:  Dr. Trifkovic for analysis and Wayne Allensworth for some more background reading.

On Friday, Georgia invaded South Ossetia and used tanks and artillery to pound Tskhinvali into oblivion. Russia responded by sending its troops across the border and bombing Georgian military installations with its air force.

Whole books have been written on the causes of war, and this one will be no exception. So who’s got what to lose and what to gain from war in South Ossetia?

A bit of history

Ossetins are a small ethnic group in the North Caucasus. In 1774, they petitioned the tsar to be received into “free association” with the Russian Empire (sort of like Puerto Rico is a commonwealth in free association with the United States). In the 1920’s, by the decision of the Georgian-born Soviet dictator Iosif Djugashvili (better known to the world as Joseph Stalin) Ossetia was split into two parts — the northern becoming part of the Russian SFSR, and the southern joining the Transcaucasian SFSR, and then Georgia. In 1989, during the collapse of the Soviet Union, South Ossetia declared independence. After a brief war, Georgia and South Ossetia signed a truce with South Ossetia de facto independent, though not internationally recognized, and Russia guaranteeing the peace.

The pay-off matrix

In the latest conflict, the looser is undoubtedly Russia, regardless of the outcome. Remember that Russia is a traditional conservative power and it has the most to gain from the status quo. Any escalation of conflict in the Caucasus is bad for Russia, its economy, and its stability. The stock market already responded by falling 9% in one day. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin rushed from China to Vladikavkaz to calm the North Ossetins (who have already sent volunteers across the Russian-Georgian border). Russia’s grip on power has always been loose in the Caucasus, so further destabilization is at risk.

The best Russia can hope for is a speedy and decisive victory, driving the Georgians back south and restoring the pre-August 8 status quo. That will, so to speak, minimize the damage.

On the flip side, it’s not clear what the payoff matrix is for Georgia. It’s as obvious to Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili as to anyone else that Georgia cannot stand in a full-blown conflict with its giant neighbor to the North. In addition, one will hardly be able to persuade South Ossetia to re-enter Georgia peacefully, under any conditions of autonomy, after leveling 75% of Tskhinvali and killing 1,500-2,000 civilians.

But if Saakashvili cannot win the military war, he’s hoping to win the war of public opinion. And the Georgian President is master of propaganda.

He’s already doing extremely well. His televised addresses to the nation are a carefully choreographed show. Just note the background — behind Mr. Saakashvili stand the flags of Georgia and the European Union. If anyone had any doubts, Georgia is not a member of the EU; nor has it even been invited to join.

“Russia invades Georgia,” “Russia Is Waging `Full-Scale War’ Over S. Ossetia”. These are just some of the headlines in the Western media. The headlines are backed up by photographs of what appear to be Russian aircraft bombing Georgian towns and Georgian troops getting ready in Gori, just south of the front line (by the way, they’re lining up in front of a statue of Stalin, the local hero, who was born in Gori). Talk of destruction in Tskhinvali, 1,500 civilians dead and 35,000 refugees is renegated to the bottom of most articles. Most Western media have given support to Saakashvili’s comparison with the Soviet invasion of Finland in 1939 or Hitler’s invasion of Czechoslovakia the same year.

A War of Misinformation

Western audiences have proven themselves to be gullible to such television and newspaper propaganda. Afterall, it was NATO that fully perfected the art of television war in Kosovo.

But the question still remains: what has Georgia to gain from escalated conflict in South Ossetia? William Cohen, the former US Defense Secretary, said that Tbilisi’s assault was not without American backing. Given Saakashvili’s hopes to join NATO, he is probably not far from the truth. The Bush Administration has been increasingly supportive of Georgia’s aspirations of NATO membership. But the election in the United States is right around the corner — it’s unclear that an Obama Administration (which looks increasingly more likely) would be willing to risk confrontation with Russia over NATO expansion. While Mr. Obama’s rhetoric on Russia remains tuff, his policies will be more pragmatic. But the conflict could impact the outcome of the election. Any foreign crisis will be used in the American media to bring out John McCain’s foreign policy record and Barack Obama’s weaknesses.

It’s also unclear that other NATO members would support Georgia’s bid. Had Georgia been a member of the alliance on August 8, NATO would have been forced into a full-blown war with Russia. America’s European allies have much more to lose from conflict with Russia (hot or cold) than Washington. You don’t pick a fight with the guys who own your gas.

Of course, NATO doesn’t have to fight Russia with NATO troops. The concept of “proxy war”, used by the Soviets in Vietnam and the Americans in Afghanistan (the first time around), is well known. And American military equipment and dollars have been pouring into Georgia ever since the “Rose Revolution.” Modern Russia is not the Russia of the 90s, but it’s still no match for American military equipment, no matter who fires it — Americans or Georgians.

The Casualties

With Tskhinvali in ruins and 35,000 refugees pouring into Russia, the humanitarian situation is grim. There have been reports of Ossetin villages ethnically cleansed by the Georgian military. The Tskhinvali hospital was repeatedly bombed. In any game of politcal chess between superpowers, the civilian population is always the biggest looser.

Perhaps the only bright side is that Russia can solidify its role as the guarantor of peace not only in South Ossetia but in the region at large. Vladimir Putin’s government has already issued 500 million rubles ($25 million) to North Ossetia to cope with the immediate effects of the humanitarian crisis. Mr. Putin is pledging a further 10 billion rubles for the reconstruction of Tskhinvali. One can only hope that President Medvedev’s anti-corruption policies are working and that the money will indeed go to those in need.

Mr. Medvedev cannot win the war of information in the West, but he can win the hearts and minds of ordinary Ossetins. That’s exactly what he needs to do.

Sunday night reposed the Russian writer, Nobel laureate, and historian Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. His work is best summed up by the words of Metropolitan Hilarion: “during the horrific years of the godless regime, he bore courageous witness to the truth, speaking out about the sufferings of our fellow Russians.”

Like all men of genius, Mr. Solzhenitsyn never came to be fully understood by those around him. On yesterday’s “All Things Considered”, for example, NPR accused Mr. Solzhenitsyn of anti-Semitism, Russian nationalism, Christian moralism, and a disdain for liberal democracy.  That, of course, is tantamount to crimes against humanity.

In fact, Mr. Solzhenitsyn was none of the four. He was a devout Orthodox Christian, a true patriot of Russia, a pragmatic political thinker, and, above all, one of those unique men who challenge us to think critically.

It’s too bad, that so few can rise to that challenge.

In his last interview, given to the German Spiegel, Mr. Solzhenitsyn said a sentence, which, I think, encapsulate the entire Orthodox Christian teaching on salvation: “I no longer fear death.” His faith, as the faith of each one of us, revolved around the Paschal salutation, “Truly He is risen!”

Indeed, the West could not forgive Solzhenitsyn many misdeeds: his criticism of the years of plunder and disorder during the Yeltsin administration; his support, all in all, for Mr. Putin; his criticism of NATO aggression against Serbia; and, above-all, the fact that he did not become one of those pseudo-dissident political refugees dwelling in London and willing to subscribe their name to any anti-Russian op-ed published in the British media.

No, Solzhenitsyn remained faithful to his homeland. He endured her troubles with her, he struggled for the truth in her, and he became a witness to her (albeit slow and painful) resurrection. Perhaps for this he will be remembered by Russia and Russians, though never fully understood by the West.

You may read the full text of his interview here.