Commentary
Thomas de Waal
{
"authors": [
"Thomas de Waal"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie Europe"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Europe",
"programAffiliation": "russia",
"programs": [
"Russia and Eurasia"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Caucasus",
"Russia",
"Georgia"
],
"topics": [
"Security",
"Foreign Policy"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
Distorting the Russian-Georgian War
Popular depictions of the 2008 Georgian-Russian conflict over South Ossetia have served primarily to obscure what really happened and undermine any potential opportunity for the two sides to come to a rapprochement.
Published on Sep 19, 2011
Source: National Interest
Every month that goes by adds more obfuscation. I was not expecting balance in Dick Cheney’s account of the conflict in his memoir In My Time. You get the drift when he writes about imposing a freedom agenda on the Russians: “In the end, we need to make clear to the Russians and our friends and allies that we will be aggressive in expanding the borders of the free world and that the Russian government has to make a choice.” But I would have expected that the former vice president had decent fact-checkers. Cheney writes that Abkhazia and South Ossetia had “large Russian populations.” Not so; it was merely Abkhaz and Ossetians who took Russian passports. He also states that “In August [2008] South Ossetian forces under the command of Russian commanders, fired on Georgian villages in South Ossetia.” Again this is wrong: there were skirmishes between Georgian and Ossetian villages, but Russian peacekeeping forces did not take part in the fighting before the Georgian offensive began on August 8.
On the Russian side the latest salvo in the post-war reckoning comes from the state film fund, which has just announced that it is spending 250 million rubles (about nine million dollars) on a new blockbuster entitled August ’08.
This is an obvious riposte to Hollywood’s version of the conflict, 5 Days of War, directed by Renny Harlin, more famous for having made Die Hard 2, which aired to tiny audiences in Washington, DC last month. Having gone to see it (for professional reasons), I can confirm that it’s as bad as you heard. The movie combines lots of bombs and exploding cars with beautiful Georgian landscapes, dodgy accents (though Andy Garcia puts in a credible impersonation of Mikheil Saakashvili) and outrageous distortions of reality. The scene of Russian jets deliberately turning a Georgian wedding from celebration into bloody carnage crudely combines folkloric Georgian footage with action-movie gore.
The premise of the Georgian-financed Harlin film is that Russia invaded Georgia but nobody in the West noticed. The brave journalist and his beautiful Georgian companion spend the entire movie trying to dodge wicked Russian killers in order to get a precious memory card showing the wedding massacre out to the world. The cheekiest notion is that the Western media was apparently only interested in the Russian version of events. We see only five Western journalists covering the war, and when our embattled hero rings in, his producer says there is no interest (while an interview with Vladimir Putin on CNN plays in the background). No glimmer here of John McCain’s “We are all Georgians” and the massive pro-Georgian response of large parts of the Western media. Human Rights Watch has not surprisingly objected to the way it is cited as a source for a heavily biased version of reality.
After seeing Hollywood-meets-Georgia I took a look online at Russia’s first cinematic attempt at depicting the war, Olimypius Inferno. Strangely enough, it has precisely the same plot as 5 Days of War, but in mirror image. An American entomologist (a slightly more original touch at least) goes to South Ossetia to film a rare butterfly but instead catches the start of the Georgian offensive on Tskhinvali, carried out with U.S. support, on his night camera. But the whole world believes that it was Russia who started the war! He and his Russian girlfriend, a journalist, want to get the truth out to the world. They run through scenes of carnage as wicked Georgian soldiers wantonly kill Ossetian civilians and try to seize their memory card.
The similarities are striking, down to the personification of evil in a sadistic Russian/Georgian soldier on each side. It’s a fascinating that the Russian movie also casts an American as the legitimator of truth for the world, even as it portrays the Americans as plotting the war against Russia.
Naturally, neither movie conveys anything of the real complexity of the conflict in which, as we know now, the Georgian side attacked first and then Russia responded with great brutality. The competing Russian-Georgian cinematic versions of reality will doubtless be fruitful material for a PhD student in cultural studies. But we are still waiting for a version of August 2008 that does justice to the political realities of what happened and honors the victims on both sides of the conflict.
About the Author
Thomas de Waal
Senior Fellow, Carnegie Europe
De Waal is a senior fellow at Carnegie Europe, specializing in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus.
- Europolis, Where Europe Ends
- Taking the Pulse: Is It Time for Europe to Reengage With Belarus?Commentary
Thomas de Waal, ed.
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Europe
- Resetting Cyber Relations with the United StatesArticle
For years, the United States anchored global cyber diplomacy. As Washington rethinks its leadership role, the launch of the UN’s Cyber Global Mechanism may test how allies adjust their engagement.
Patryk Pawlak, Chris Painter
- Global Instability Makes Europe More Attractive, Not LessCommentary
Europe isn’t as weak in the new geopolitics of power as many would believe. But to leverage its assets and claim a sphere of influence, Brussels must stop undercutting itself.
Dimitar Bechev
- Europe on Iran: Gone with the WindCommentary
Europe’s reaction to the war in Iran has been disunited and meek, a far cry from its previously leading role in diplomacy with Tehran. To avoid being condemned to the sidelines while escalation continues, Brussels needs to stand up for international law.
Pierre Vimont
- Taking the Pulse: Can European Defense Survive the Death of FCAS?Commentary
France and Germany’s failure to agree on the Future Combat Air System (FCAS) raises questions about European defense. Amid industrial rivalries and competing strategic cultures, what does the future of European military industrial projects look like?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
- Macron Makes France a Great Middle PowerCommentary
France has stopped clinging to notions of being a great power and is embracing the middle power moment. But Emmanuel Macron has his work cut out if he is to secure his country’s global standing before his term in office ends.
Rym Momtaz
