Analysis: Obama, McCain and The Russian Conundrum
As we enter the second day of hostilities between Russia and Georgia, I see that the two major party candidates have already weighed in on the subject. (Has anyone even bothered asking the President, I wonder?) In a previous column, I posed the question, “do we even have a dog in this fight?” Some readers were quick in displaying the intellectual honesty to eschew any dithering over American parental obligations to the nascent Georgian democracy and the fragile Rose Revolution, pointing out the threat which exists to the strategic Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, which brings Caspian oil to the west. (If nothing else, this crisis should remind us yet again of how our dependence on foreign oil supplies – controlled by countries who rarely have our best interests in mind – impacts each and every move we make on both domestic and international fronts.) Even the Washington Post decided to opine that Russia must be “stopped.”
John McCain came out with an aggressive approach, demanding that the Russians withdraw from Georgia and calling for an emergency session of the U.N. Security Council and a “neutral and independent peacekeeping force in South Ossetia.” Obama, on the other hand, issued a call for “all sides to show restraint” and stressed the importance of the United States working with “international partners.” While Obama’s comments are devoid of both teeth and specificity, they may still prove to be superior to McCain’s rehtoric on this situation.
First, why would anyone even bother calling for a meeting of the Security Council? Whether it be a resolution to condemn the actions or pushing for a neutral peacekeeping force, Russia will use their veto to squash the motion. Making demands of the Russians at this point in time seems even less plausible, as such calls will likely be properly viewed as empty saber rattling. We would be foolish indeed to think that the Russians are unaware that our military forces are currently, shall we say, otherwise occupied. It is also worth taking a look at the current state of Russia, both militarily and politically, when gauging our response.
Unlike the laughable militias of Saddam Hussein or the Taliban in Afghanistan, Russia is far from being a toothless paper tiger, though their strength is greatly diminished from the salad days of the Sovet Union. According to Janes Security News, Russia can still field nearly 800 ICMBs with nuclear warheads on short notice. They have also recently taken up long range bomber patrols, replete with in flight tanker and fighter support. Perhaps even more alarmingly, Janes estimates that the Russians are ready to deploy a permanent naval presence in the Mediterranean at any time, with support bases at Syria, and have recently expanded their submarine fleet with next generation boats. Such a presence could provide a highly destabilizing factor in the Middle East, with severe implications for Israel. This would result not only from their increased ability to project military might, but their known abilities in the gathering of intelligence.
Intelligence experts point to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s emphasis on the importance of intelligence gathering during a meeting of top military brass on 25 July. The Israeli press has speculated the products of these efforts could be shared with the Syrian and other governments hostile to Israel in the region and, in the worst case scenario, with Iran.
And what is the state of Russia’s economic capability to put such plans into action? An interesting analysis by RIA Novosti, with an eye on the Baltic press, notes that Russia’s hard times have been seeing a turnaround of late, and the reason is a familar one.
“Russia is enjoying a ‘cash cow’ period, with unfavorable times having changed for the better thanks to world prices for energy resources. But how and for what purposes is Russia using the opportunities that have arisen?”
Yet again, oil is the culprit. And what of the current state of affairs between the Russians and some of the other bad actors in the global village? In one of the better bits of analysis on U.S. Russian relations through Vladimir Putin’s presidency, the Moscow Times recently published an account of how Putin used a triangulation policy – similar to that employed by Richard Nixon in the seventies – to keep America at arm’s length while building ties with countries we consider enemies.
In our time, triangular diplomacy is very much alive, but the country effectively pursuing it is no longer the United States but Russia. During the eight years of Vladimir Putin’s presidency, Russia adopted this type of diplomacy by creating several mini-triangles. Within each triangle, two of the three sides belonged to Russia and the United States. The third country differed each time, although the main criterion always remained the same: That country had to lack diplomatic contacts with the United States and reside on the enemy list of U.S. President George W. Bush.
Russia thus chose to form strategic alliances with Iran, North Korea, pre-2003 Iraq, Syria, Venezuela and even Hamas. Some came in the form of semitransparent arms deals, as in the cases of Iran and Syria. Some led to greater energy ties, like with Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela. Paralleling those partnerships, Russia maintained an ostensibly stable relationship with the United States, which is a necessary precondition for successful triangular diplomacy.
With all of this in mind, we may want to ask ourselves exactly how aggressive we want to get with the Russians. Pushing very hard and rattling sabers is likely to result in the Russians thumbing their noses at us and being told to mind our own business. Putin, while not in office, still retains the real power in that country. He may well feel that, given our positions in Iraq and Afghanistan, America is far overextended and that he can act with impunity. And he may not be far off the mark on that one. Expanding Russia’s sphere of influence to include Iran, Syria and Venezuela, you have the formula for some serious leverage to use against us. Keep these things in mind before you’re too quick to call for “strong action against Russia” while sorting out the Georgia problem. The Russian Conundrum is probably more complicated than you might think.
BONUS ROUND: Be sure not to miss James Joyner’s take on the situation this morning. He ponders the question of whether or not the situation with South Ossetia was an inevitable fallout from the independence of Kosovo. The possibility is also examined that Russia has a valid complaint about sovereignty.
“What is the unit of measure for national sovereignty? The county? The village? The city block? The individual?” It’s an age-old question (going back to at least the Peace of Westphalia) and one that remains unsettled.
Is the “fight for freedom and independence” a noble cause when we agree with the political ideology of those seeking seccession, but a “dangerous threat to national sovereignty” if we disagree with them? How far do the rights of sovereign nations extend in matters which take place inside their own borders? Complex questions, and lessons the major powers have not learned over decades of messing about with the borders and identities of other nations.
23 Responses to “Analysis: Obama, McCain and The Russian Conundrum”
[...] The Moderate Voice – Domestic and international news analysis, irreverent comments, original reporti… Copyright © tax sc_project=3641399; sc_invisible=1; sc_partition=43; [...]
[...] The Moderate Voice – Domestic and international news analysis, irreverent comments, original reporti… Copyright © life sc_project=3641399; sc_invisible=1; [...]
[...] The Moderate Voice – Domestic and international news analysis, irreverent comments, original reporti… Copyright © internet sc_project=3641399; sc_invisible=1; [...]
[...] The Moderate Voice – Domestic and international news analysis, irreverent comments, original reporti… Copyright © home based business sc_project=3641399; sc_invisible=1; [...]
[...] Original The Moderate Voice – Domestic and international news analysis, irreverent comments, original reporti… [...]
[...] The Moderate Voice – Domestic and international news analysis, irreverent comments, original reporti… Copyright © home business sc_project=3641399; sc_invisible=1; [...]
While Russia may not be a “paper tiger”, let's not exaggerate their military prowness either: Their naval forces weren't that great even during the Cold War, their aircraft were always nearly a generation behind NATO's, and their nuclear forces were always at a lower level of readiness than the US. And now, with a military budget that, in 2005, was 1/8th of the US (not including Iraq/Afghanistan spending), they're not exactly a major threat.
It is (partly) for reasons of this sort that I strongly advocate the development and deployment of new energy and energy efficiency alternatives ASAP. Thomas Friedman, not one of my favorite pundits, wrote an article in the NYT a couple of months back pointing out the inverse relationship between oil prices and the tendency for nations to move in the direction of democracy. Or, in other words, the higher oil prices are the more likely are totalitarian influences. IMO, that's true of both exporting countries and importing countries. Russia is a particularly noteworthy example. As oil prices rose Putin moved to nationalize oil and natural gas interests. Now he is using them as a cudgel.
Many months ago, before he got caught up in his “drill here, drill now, pay less” crusade, made essentially the same point as Friedman. In his case he noted that one of the big reasons we maintain such a large military force is to protect our energy interests around the world. There are other considerations to be sure, but If we didn't have to do that we could cut back.
We in the US are not the only ones that can benefit from better energy security, either. However, we more than any other nation possess the expertise and infrastructure to develop the necessary technologies to make it happen. I am thoroughly convinced that smart investment in new energy and energy efficiency technologies, although it may be more expensive in the short term, can pay off immensely in the long term — both economically and politically, tactically and strategically.
It might also be worth noting that McCain's top foreign policy adviser, “Randall Scheunemann, lobbied for the nation of Georgia for four years, including for about a year after he joined the Republican senator’s presidential campaign staff in early 2007.”
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/46982…
Russia is also free to be belligerent because there are few political consequences for them doing so. When the world is tried/frightened of US dominance then they are more willing to let countries like Russia and China in the front door. The old Cold War method of “winning the war of ideas” and all that. Strengthening our image would severely constrain them. In things like this it's all about political maneuvering.
The US (well certain BigOil factions of it) set the ball rolling by invading a sovereign nation to control oil.
I think those Russians are being cheeky and putting one right back in our face citing a need “to protect our territory from being overtaken”. If you think about it, logically, they know why the US is in Iraq. Everyone but US citizens seem to know that. And their thought is probably if they don't secure their former State of Georgia, the US will march right in and take that too. In fact, when Iran threatened to shut down the Strait Of Hormuz, the Russians took notice. But remember, BigOil got the ball rolling on all of this. The lies to Congress, invading a SOVEREIGN nation, killing its citizens, all in the name of oil.
How can we condemn the Russians without looking bad ourselves?
And as to who this invasion favors politically in our presidential race? Well, let's just say it puts the short pants right back on Obama, and sticks a lollipop in his hand for good measure..
The democrats better nominate a stronger candidate or we are finished. Actually, the world could use the proven diplomacy and international respect of one of our former presidents….oh, nevermind….
[...] The Moderate Voice – Domestic and international news analysis, irreverent comments, original reporti… Copyright © make money online sc_project=3641399; sc_invisible=1; [...]
While Obama’s comments are devoid of both teeth and specificity, they may still prove to be superior to McCain’s rehtoric on this situation.
Appearances to the contrary notwithstanding?
Let's see. John McCain is chided for calling for the UNSC to meet? Because Russia will veto the outcome? That is called diplomacy, and Obama's feckless hapless 3AM punt demonstrates that he is Carter Redux, just as McCain is making the best of a bad situation.
Russia should be forced to justify its invasion in the UNSC. McCain is correct. If the proprietor of this blog were not so in-the-tank for Obama, he would agree that that is the only real first step. Second step is to show that NATO still exists and that Bush's prattle about Democracy is not just the empty exhalations that most of his pronouncements have been concerning the USSR-reborn that Putin is fashioning.
This is an opportunity for McCain to demonstrate why he is the candidate that will at least assert American interests in a region where we have already many energy & “democracy” interests, including the nascent democracy in Georgia, which Russian tyranny dearly wants to crush.
Bush is hiding in his bolt-hole, enjoying his old stomping grounds in Beijing [where my FSO buddies told me he used to party-hearty while his poppy was Ambassador in the seventies.] It'll be hard for this fellow to do anything but look in the other direction. Maybe Condi can grow a set & make GWB look like the frat-boy he appears to be.
If the proprietor of this blog were not so in-the-tank for Obama, he would agree that that is the only real first step.
Thank God you came along. For the last week or more, with all of the posts on energy policy and education, I had been called “in the tank for McCain” so often I was beginning to believe it myself. Now that I'm in the tank for Obama, things look so much brighter and unicorny! (Unless you meant Joe Gandelman, in terms of the “proprietor” in which case you just don't have any command of the English Language.)
How the phrase “devoid of teeth and specificity” regarding Obama could be taken as “in the tank” for him is a mystery, unless of course, one were a blind partisan hack, but that's… oh, wait… never mind.
UN — world government — not taken seriously by serious people.
At least for Obama and the Dems' sake, this is happening now rather than in the last week before the November elections. While the public is burned out on Iraq and “Dems are soft on terrorism as they are on crime” failed to deliver for the GOP in 2006 as it did in 2002 and 2004, a separate event (as would be the case with Iranian naval mischief in the Persian Gulf or in Lebanon, more open and greater mischief than is the case today) might bring back this problem for the Dems, as would any idiotic hints at a return to the failed 1960s-era Democratic agenda of the Left. (Deservedly so, of course.)
What would the most childish people do if we were found to have provided mines and anti-aircraft weapons and other things to the Georgians or even to hear the Bush people hint at sending our forces into the Caucasus?
Support US interests, Dave in Boca, at least the more ethereal things that normally the Left gushes about but who is absent wher e it counts, US interests and standing up to adversaries and to tyranny, as you correctly identified.
All but the truly-fringe “Carter and Clinton, imperialist warmongers” Left were not merely silent about Clinton's bailing out Europe in the Bosnian situation, which were less in our interests than other conflicts; they were ecstatic about the misuse of our military to support the restoration to power of Marxist-style president Aristide in Haiti, something that was not in US interests at all. Count on them to be against our standing up to Bruno, given his Soviet legacy that still leaves many of them wistful. (“The wrong side lost the Cold War!”)
Europe's heartland, not only the other nations bordering Russia, are going to be quiet because they need Russia's GAZ. [scene of Russian pipeline workers spinning valves on pipelines whistling to the tune of "Frosty, the Snowman"]
“new energy and energy efficiency alternatives ASAP”
In this case, it means 10-20 years if not longer. That's the real world.
Changing to this is not the sole logical, or even a logical, conclusion from Bruno's current mischief.
“This is an opportunity for McCain to demonstrate why he is the candidate that will at least assert American interests”
ABSOLUTELY.
Meanwhile, why doesn't Obama have words for Russia similar to those for Sudan, at least?
“Second step is to show that NATO still exists and that Bush's prattle about Democracy is not just the empty exhalations…”
daveinboca – Which country in NATO do you honestly think would send troops to Georgia to fight the Russians? Do you think McCain is crazy enough to fight the Russians all by ourselves? We can barely handle the Iraqis and Afgans, how do you think our overstretched military would handle the Russians on their territory. Yes our Air Force could wreck havoc but without boots on the ground, Georgia would be lost. Get Real.
Did DLS just have a conversation with himself? I can't follow the chronology of these posts.
Anyway, on the situation in Georgia, the reason McCain is on dangerous ground here is that Saakashvili is not exactly a model democratic player. He's in the right about stopping Putin. But he's in the wrong re: taking Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
All of this begs the big question: what do we do when one of our democratically elected allies does something stupid? The answer: prevent our democratically elected ally from doing something stupid in the first place. So, why did Saak think he could go ahead and retake Tschingvari without consequence? Did he really think the West believed South Ossetia is forever Georgian?
Usually you shouldn't miss the forest (Russia-US relations) for the trees (South Ossetia/Abkhazia). But in this instance, you can't ignore the trees either.
There are no good guys here. Trying to make it such, as McCain-Schuenemann is doing, sounds dangerously close to Iraq circa 2003.
And Russia's build up is ALL fueled by soaring Oil and Gas prices.