Many of us have gotten used to viewing the Russian press as a kind of tamed animal, for the most part parroting the Kremlin line on all things political. So it was with some surprise that I came upon this article written by a Swiss journalist stationed in Moscow.
“If the Kremlin is comfortable in its [Army] boots, the Russian press is tormented the day after Moscow officially recognized the independence of the two separatist republics of Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. … A prime reason for concern: the economic consequences of deteriorating relations with Moscow’s Western partners.” Read the rest of this entry »
As we Americans obsess about the presidential campaign, the Georgia crisis goes on -and is getting worse ‘hour by hour,’ according to French historian Alexandre Adler, aka/France’s foremost neo-con and fan of President George W. Bush.
“The general state of relations between Russia and the West is deteriorating by the hour. While, contrary to the agreement signed by Nicolas Sarkozy and Dmitri Medvedev, Russian troops continue to occupy portions of Georgian territory - outside of Abkhazia and Ossetia, rumors of a possible confrontation between Russia and Ukraine are gathering apace. … Yet it’s in the nature of extreme situations to produce effects that are excessively negative or excessively positive, according to the artfulness and ability that politicians bring to them.
“Here begins the careful surgery: the French and the other Europeans in their train must indicate clearly to the Russians that they will not alter their opposition on the presence of Ukraine and Georgia in NATO … at least in its current state. They must also make it known to Moscow that they will not pass a sanctions regime except as a last resort. But at the same time they must make clear to the Kremlin that the E.U. could quickly accept the candidacy of Ukraine or Georgia to the European Union. For reasons that are principled and not tactical, the enlargement of Europe can be carried out only with the consent of Russia; and only if Russia advances along a path as a partner with special status within the European Union, which would be at least on par with that of Ukraine. If Russia agrees to enter into such a mechanism of negotiations, Russians and Western Europeans could then build a continent-wide dialogue that would change the face of the world.”
For many in the world, the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympic Games encapsulated the changes at the top of the global political food chain. As the pageantry and power of China gripped the world, conflict in the Caucuses seems to have overturned what we used to call the ‘New World Order.’ According to Germany’s former foreign minister Joschka Fischer, American and Russia need one another - and as long as the two remain at each other’s throats, the main global beneficiary is China.
The unease in Europe is palpable - even if Americans by and large remain blissfully ensconced in the U.S. presidential election and coverage of Hurricane Gustav.
“China not only won first place among participating nations; with its presentation of these Games it demonstrated to the entire world its progress and its power. … With his Iraq policy, George W. Bush maneuvered the West into its first strategic impasse. The U.S. has dissipated its power and credibility, so that finally - if all goes well! - it will leave behind a status quo that is difficult to sustain and leaves Iran as the new hegemonic regional power. Bush’s political legacy is a confrontation between the West and the Islamic world, the end of which is not yet in sight. …
“Many will benefit from America’s disaster in Iraq, but not the West nor the cause of human rights and democracy. One regional beneficiary is Iran, but the global winner is China. While the United States, the leading Western power, fritters away its credibility and power in the so called “war on terror” - read: against large portions of the Islamic world - China grows strong in the wake of its strategic foolishness. … Now the West is in danger of maneuvering into another impasse: a confrontation with Russia over the Caucasus. And to this as well, little grief will be felt in Beijing.”
And touching on the U.S. Presidential campaign, Fischer warns:
“The United States will soon choose a new President, and election campaigns are seldom characterized by strategic clarity. We’ll have to wait and see how much campaign rhetoric and how much strategic conviction is expressed by the candidates. As an observer, however, one can’t avoid the impression that a tendency toward a confrontation with Russia prevails. If this comes about, the political and strategic folly of the Iraq War will be multiplied many times over.”
In order to boost Palin’s “experience” credentials, including her national security and defense credentials, and her experience to be Commander-in-Chief “on Day One,” the McCain campaign and her supporters have been touting that, as Alaska Governor, Palin has extensive experience in such national defense roles as the Commander-in-Chief of the Alaska National Guard.
Maj. Gen. Craig Campbell, adjutant general of the Alaska National Guard, considers Palin “extremely responsive and smart” and says she is in charge when it comes to in-state services, such as emergencies and natural disasters where the National Guard is the first responder.
But, in an interview with The Associated Press on Sunday, he said he and Palin play no role in national defense activities, even when they involve the Alaska National Guard. The entire operation is under federal control, and the governor is not briefed on situations.
Cindy McCain will probably disagree and maintain that Palin not only has solid foreign policy experience because Alaska “is next to Russia,” but also solid national security, military, and commander-in-chief experience because, Alaska, being “next to Russia,” is the first line of defense against a Russian ground invasion, and Palin is there to stop it, moose-hunting rifle and all.
William Kern, from our “competing” site “Worldmeets.US” reports on an August 29 article in the Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf, how “the Dutch intelligence service has halted a very successful operation to ’sabotage’ Iran’s weapons program due to an imminent American attack that would have put its activities and personnel at risk.”
(I say “competing” in a friendly way, because I translate Dutch and Spanish articles for Worldmeets.US’ competition, WatchingAmerica.com)
Anyway, I found the story very interesting and somewhat alarming. While I found no updates in the Dutch press over the weekend, I did find that there is an awful lot of “chatter” on the subject in Dutch blogs.
The following are some translated passages from one of those blogs.
The site “Argusoog” reports in detail on “Operation Brimstone” from a few weeks ago, a joint U.S., U.K. and French naval exercise in the North Atlantic, “as preparation for a naval blockade against Iran, which will probably lead to war in the Persian Gulf.”
It also reports:
At the end of May, the U.S. Senate accepted legislation where it was proposed to block the Persian Gulf. This would under international law be seen as a declaration of war. We can see this as intimidation to elicit an attack from Iran. As today’s news in De Telegraaf tells us, it looks like NATO itself will initiate the attack…Would the present administration in Washington attack Iran? Before November 4, when a new president will be elected?
The post then discusses recent U.S.-Russia tensions:
The recent entry into the Black Sea of 15 NATO navy ships, with an additional 15 ships on the way. Russia’s recent initiative to send its naval ships to the Mediterranean, where the Russians now have a naval base at the Syrian port of Tartus.
Venezuela’s plans to shortly receive the visit of a Russian fleet, coinciding with the visit of Russian president Medvedev.
Russia’s declaration that it will arm its ship-launched ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads as a response to the U.S. building of the “missile shield” in Europe and NATO’s involvement in its conflict with Georgia.
The Belgian publication HLN.Be in its Flemish edition reports tomorrow on Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez giving Russia the “green light” for the future transit of Russian military ships and aircraft via Venezuelan territorial waters and airspace. Chavez reportedly pointed to the “strategic alliance” between his country and Russia.
According to the publication, Chavez says:
Russia is a strategic partner of Venezuela, and everyone needs to know this…If Russian aircraft need a Venezuelan airport to refuel, they are welcome.
Either the Dutch press is being overly alarmist and sensationalist, or we have been too engrossed in our presidential races and, just very recently, too focused on the immediate and rising threat of hurricane Gustav, to notice other rising threats and dangers.
For future translations of such Dutch and other European press reports, keep an eye on WatchingAmerica.com
Even as all eyes turn to the impending storms in the south with their possible impact on the upcoming Republican convention, and lips are flapping over Sarah Palin’s nomination, it is worth remembering the unfolding story on the Russo-Georgian border. No matter who next occupies the West Wing, they will need to step into the office with an effective, comprehensive plan for dealing with an increasingly complicated situation in Eastern Europe.
In the early 1300’s, the medieval version of Georgia was ruled by King George the Brilliant. Recouping losses incurred by Queen Rusudan’s disastrous appeasement of the Mongols, he restored the nation’s earlier borders and regained access to the Trebizond coastal area on the Black Sea. This was accomplished using a clever balance of alliances in a historically volatile part of the world. Recent events along the Russian border demonstrate the current dearth of brilliance and the penalties modern Georgians may expect to pay.
Russia’s pace of egress from Georgia was uncertain, yet the withdrawal seemed inevitable from the outset. The Kremlin will fall back to their own lands with residual forces perched in the disputed territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. This protracted exit may provide a window of opportunity for pensive reflection and analysis by pundits, U.S. government officials and presidential candidates alike. Among each of these classes we have observed a rattling of sabers combined with what seems to be a nostalgic desire to revisit the bad old days of the cold war, with an easily defined evil empire. Georgia provides an all too convenient damsel in distress, chained outside the cave of the Russian bear with plaintive wails for rescue rising on the morning breeze.
Tempting though the analogy may be, the roles of the actors might be hard to define, and slaying the beast may provide unwelcome trophies. Georgian President Saakashvili’s methods since his ascension to power have certainly called his democratic bona fides into question, and his ham-handed attempts at triangulating the United States against Russia’s interests in the region have doubtless left some in the current administration with a growing sense of buyer’s remorse.
Paul Saunders, a Bush surrogate and executive director of the Nixon Center, wryly noted, “it wouldn’t matter to Georgia’s president whether the United States was a democracy, a theocracy or ruled by Martians so long as he could use Washington to change the dynamics of Georgian-Russian relations.”
Calls for Russia’s departure have abounded, along with suggestions that they be expelled from the G8, excoriated by more properly civilized nations and, ideally, drawn if not quartered. Such admonitions came quickly from Republican candidate John McCain, followed by a more reluctant, though equally bellicose response from the vacationing Barack Obama. One of the few voices of caution and diplomacy, surprisingly, came to us from Libertarian hopeful Bob Barr, who questioned the cost vs. benefit analysis of prodding the Russian bear with America’s few remaining sticks.
Such prudence might be well advised, as demonstrated by the jaw-dropping timing of Secretary Rice’s announcement that our next missile defense batteries would be in the keeping of Poland and the Ukraine. The Kremlin responded with an even greater lack of enthusiasm than was demonstrated for our earlier plans in the Czech Republic, declaring that such installations might well be the target of full scale military attacks. The dreaded nuclear option was even invoked in their harangue, leaving little doubt as to who they feel is the true big dog on the Eastern European block.
Summoning France’s president to the principal’s office to settle down the warring parties was another fractured brick in an already crumbling wall. While the new administration in Paris carries a more “Bush Friendly” brand, the international community has not forgotten the now infamous Freedom Fries incident. President Medvedev certainly struggled to contain a smile when letting the French mediate the matter rather than some envoy from the Beltway.
In the end, America and her NATO allies have likely learned a valuable lesson regarding the viability, wisdom and intentions of Eduard Shevardnadze’s replacement. The Georgian leader may have been similarly enlightened as to the full extent of the West’s commitment to his administrative longevity. Putin – with his presidential proxy in tow – has played some strong cards and found the West unwilling to go all in against a potential royal flush.
Russia and China find themselves in the enviable position of being power players in an increasingly complicated muddle with Iran and Venezuela, fully aware of America’s overextended military position on other fronts. Our next president will lack the luxury of treating Russia like some kicked dog in the ruined backyard of the former Soviet Union, with discretion and diplomacy trumping rumbling rhetoric.
This brings us to the question which should be put to American hawks: why would Putin wish a return to a failed and economically untenable Soviet Union when a more compact and manageable Tsarist hegemony would be far more desirable? And if there is to be fresh Russian royalty in Eastern Europe, perhaps a modern version of courtly intrigue would prove more efficacious than American armies trundling across the Caucasus Mountains.
Russia turned to its fellow members in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (formed to build relations between China and former Soviet republics) for backing in its actions against Georgia and specifically in its recognition of the separatist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.The member states of the SCO are Russia, China, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan. States with “observer” status are India, Iran, Pakistan and Mongolia. (Bloomberg) Eurasia.Net predicted that Russia would find “succor” in the East. Didn’t quite go that way. Condemned by its fellow G8 members (BBC 8-27-08) and looking for support from its fellow SCO members, Medvedev seems to have met mainly with shrugs.
August 28th, 2008 By JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
Tensions are rising between Russia and the European Union as the EU talks of possible sanctions — and Russia pointedly tests a new intercontinental missile.
At issue: Russia’s invasion of Georgia and the larger issue of whether Russia now intends to clamp down on what goes on in its neighborhood, whether those in its neighborhood like it or not. The BBC reports:
EU leaders are considering sanctions “and many other means” against Russia over the Georgia crisis, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner has said.
But he said he hoped the matter would “be solved by negotiation”.
Moscow’s military action in Georgia and its recognition of independence for rebel regions has angered the West.
At a key summit, Moscow’s Asian allies have not followed suit in recognising independence but Russia’s president says he has their “understanding”.
There’s a reason besides a military one that explains why the EU is treading lightly: every day Russia pumps 1.2 million barrels down the Druzhba pipeline to fuel Europe — and it’s economy. But the EU’s exploring sanctions signals that, more than ever in recent years, Russia is now facing diplomatic isolation.The White House issued a statement saying it was “premature” to talk of sanctions.
Meanwhile eyebrows have been raised over Russia’s new missile test, coming as the threat of sanctions was raised and several other events that were likely displeasing to Moscow:
Despite at times being disappointed that our nation isn’t living up to its promise, most Americans - left, right and center - regard this country as the greatest in the world. But how often do we hear such sentiments from the foreign press, let alone the Middle East or even Israel?
“Many believe that today, as a new global system forms, China, Brazil, India, Russia and China have an undeniable role to play. … The tremendous economic growth of these powers does come along with political influence. … But can we expect these countries to exercise the role that the United States plays at the global level, or in clearer words: Do these countries possess the audacity to forcefully intrude on international affairs, like the United States does?”
“America’s great generosity and sacrifice, both in money and in lives, is well-known. No nation in history has offered its sons to death and drained its coffers for the sake of others the way the United States of America has. ‘Courageous intrusion’ requires a spirit that stands apart from industrial growth or agricultural development. Today’s newly-industrial states don’t presently have this spirit, nor will they have it in the future. Because such a spirit requires so much money and so many souls that if any of these nations had such courage, its coffers would quickly be emptied and its economy would collapse, never to rise again.”
“Russia is dying with desire to be what it hates most - a new America. An America which goes to war in Iraq without U.N. backing; An America that punishes Serbia; and an America that is godfather of the new state - Kosovo. ‘Europe is part of the periphery’ said a Russian MP. Russia has begun to imagine itself as a rising superpower confronting a declining America. The Russian media, entirely controlled by the Kremlin, has been feeding its readers with propaganda about new Russian grandeur.
“Russian MP Serguei Markov, a political scientist attached to the Kremlin, said that the signal to begin military operations had been given personally by Dick Cheney, and that Russia was at war against America - the only rival worthy of the new rival Russian power.”
August 26th, 2008 By MICHAEL STICKINGS, Assistant Editor
I’m being facetious, of course. But she’s apparently on her way to war-torn Georgia, if she isn’t there already.
“McCain has been a staunch supporter of Georgia in that country’s clash with Russia, and sending his wife there underscores his commitment,” notes the AP. “It also could deflect attention from Michelle Obama’s convention speech in Denver as the Obama campaign seeks to introduce the family to voters.”
Really.
McCain may be a staunch supporter of Georgia, but he’s also a stupid one, rooted firmly in Cold War politics, talking tough with nothing to back it up but his own unstable temperament, pushing policies bound to aggravate Russia and drive a wedge into the heart of U.S.-Russian relations.
And now Cindy’s off to do what? Broker peace? Smile for the cameras and pretend she has a clue?
This is politics, nothing else, with the clear intention of undermining Michelle Obama: While she’s giving a speech, it will be said, Cindy McCain is off risking her manicure life in a dangerous foreign land. McCain may or may not care about Georgia, but he certainly cares about his political fortunes, and, as always, he’s willing to do anything, and take advantage of any opportunity, even sending his wife over to Georgia for a photo-op, to score points.
The media will no doubt give him a free pass — and Cindy, too (see Time, for example, which presents her as a courageous do-gooder unmotivated by political considerations) — because they always do, but the real McCain is fully in evidence here: dangerously wrong on policy, shamelessly opportunistic on politics.
He’s just grasping for attention this week. Try to ignore it.
As we in the US prepare for the organized chaos of the Democratic and Republican conventions, there is a bit of political chaos of a more serious kind taking place overseas.
In Pakistan the government coalition has collapsed with the withdrawal of the Pakistan Muslim League-N from the ruling coalition. Party leader Nawaz Sharif cited broken promises by Asif Ali Zardari’s Pakistan Peoples Party as well as other conflicts between the two groups.
At this point, most political experts think that the PPP will be able to cobble together a new ruling coalition with other minority parties so it will probably not result in new elections. But with the resignation of a President, the double suicide bombing of a secure facility and now the collapse of the ruling government, things are not well in Pakistan.
Meanwhile, in Zimbabwe, we may have seen a turn for the better as the opposition party has unexpectedly won a victory in the election for Speaker of the Parliament. By a vote of 110-98 they elected Movement for Democratic Change candidate Lovemore Moyo as speaker over a candidate of Mugabe’s ZANU-PF party.
Although they had won a majority in the recent elections there were doubts as to whether or not the opposition would be able to keep control of the legislature. Indeed two opposition members were arrested prior to entering for the vote. This election is a positive factor for democracy but will likely result in continued tensions as Mugabe tries to hold on to power.
In Russia, the parliament has voted to support Georgian rebels, declaring the breakaway provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia to be independent. So far neither the US or the UN have recognized the independence of these regions although both have declared de-facto independence.
This will not help in efforts to defuse the conflict between Russia and Georgia.
In Iraq however we have some positive news, or at least some hopeful news. Iraqi officials have declared that an agreement has been reached for the withdrawal of US troops by the end of 2011. Although this news has not been confirmed by US authorities, it would seem unlikely that we could ignore the demands of their government.
On another front, we may be seeing a first small step towards the end of the violence. A 13 year old female suicide bomber has turned herself in saying she did not want to die. While this is just one out of many, it is a step in the right direction.
Why would historian Alexandre Adler, who is often characterized as France’s foremost neo-con and who greatly admires John McCain, want to see Barack Obama elected president of the United States?
“If I was an American voter, I would campaign enthusiastically for the election of Ms. Rice to enter the White House. The nature of things means that unfortunately it won’t be her, but Illinois Senator Barack Obama, who is likely to become the first Black president of the United States. … Read the rest of this entry »
First, I share unreservedly the belief that Russia is deliberately undertaking a dangerous, threatening, imperial expansion in the “near abroad” and that it must be opposed and rolled back…
Second, NATO is going to undergo a reshaping in two directions out of this crisis…[T]he idea of NATO evolving into some kind of post Cold War ‘legionnaires of the good guys’, into which Russia would eventually become attached in some friendly way, is dead…On the other hand, the idea of NATO as a genuine mutual protection club is back, at least as far as the Eastern Europeans are concerned; since the Western Europeans are much more interested in gas than protection, however, the forward path of NATO as a re-invigorated mutual protection association is cloudy…
Third, it is a grave error to conflate rolling back Russian expansionism with the idea that Georgia should have actual political, security, and military control over South Ossetia and Abkhazia. This is a difficult point, but it is essential…You can tell me about how Georgia is a democracy and allied with the US and NATO and those things wouldn’t happen any more. Maybe. But frankly I doubt it…[Georgia, he says, is guilty of ethnic violence in the effort to hold South Ossetia and Abkhazia and would need to engage in more such violence in order to keep the two provinces within Georgia.]…It cannot possibly be, in other words, in the foreign policy interest of the United States to commit itself to a policy of actual, in fact Georgian political and military and security control over zones that would be in the same general ball-park as suggesting that, in the name of territorial integrity, Serbia could run Kosovo…
Fourth,…US policy must also disentangle “democracy” from what Georgian democracy currently is - which is best characterized not as democracy, but instead as “participatory ethnic nationalism.”
As I suggested here, it will take a subtle hand to deal with Russia. According to Anderson, it will take the same subtlety in dealing with Georgia, encouraging democracy with a fair-minded regard for the rights of minorities there. (See also here.) (TY to Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit for pointing to Anderson’s post.)
[You can enjoy more thrilling blog rides on the Daniels-Go-Round by going here.]
“There was no mistaking the power and symbolism of the opening ceremonies for the Beijing Olympic Games on August 8. That multimedia spectacular did far more than trace China’s 5,000-year history; it was a statement that China is a major civilization that demands and deserves its rightful place in the global hierarchy.
There was also no mistaking the symbolism of seeing President George W. Bush, waving cheerfully from his spot in the bleachers while Chinese President Hu Jintao sat behind what looked like a throne. It’s hard to imagine that China’s government, which obsesses over every minute issue of diplomatic protocol, had not orchestrated this stark image of America’s decline relative to the country to which it owes $1.4 trillion. It would be hard to imagine Franklin Delano Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan accepting a similar relative position.”
“The world is not ready for the post-American era … until it is, the world needs a new kind of American leader - a leader able to inspire Americans to fix their problems at home and work with partners across the globe in promoting a common agenda as bold and progressive as the order built from the ashes of World War II 60 years ago.”
While we are waiting for Barack Obama to announce his vice-presidential pick, and while we are waiting for Russia to pull all its troops out of Georgia—what was it that Adlai Stevenson said to Russia’s Zorin at a Security Council meeting during the Cuban missile crisis? Something like “…until hell freezes over”?—I want to say just a few words on a good opinion piece by former Moscow correspondent for Time magazine, Andrew Meier, in Wednesday’s LA Times.
Discussing the Russian military intrusion into Georgia in his “Let Russia join NATO,” Meier laments both Russia’s aggressive behavior and the West’s ineffective response:
Let no one be deceived: Putin has drawn a dangerous new line. Russian troops have trespassed into a sovereign nation for the first time since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. But all such retributive Western campaigns are misguided and, like every attempt to twist Russian arms since the end of the U.S.S.R., sure to backfire.
He then suggests a surprising solution (as the title gives it away): “There’s really only one lever left: Invite Russia to join NATO.”
Some of Meier’s arguments:
In Putin’s Russia, muscle — be it tanks or banks — rules. Gazprom, the state giant that controls at least 25% of Europe’s natural gas supply, hungers to enter the U.S. market. So do a raft of Russian oil giants and those who control the country’s sovereign wealth funds, flush with at least $157 billion in oil money. What should the West do? Many in Washington and on Wall Street will whisper the obvious reply: Bring them in. “If our goal all these years, since the Soviet breakup, has been ‘Get them to play by our rules,’ ” one former high-ranking national security aide in the Bush and Clinton administrations told me recently, “what better way to do it?”
And,
So too on the diplomatic front. Now is the time, before the conflagration in the Caucasus spreads, to reverse course and embrace Russia more tightly than ever.
While I agree that we need to appeal to Russia’s economic interests and “bring them in” economically and in other ways, I don’t believe that letting Russia join NATO is the solution. If including Russia in NATO, as Andrew Meier suggests, could “twist Russia’s arm” to become less belligerent and expansionist, perhaps we should push for a Global Treaty Organization (GTO) that also includes China, North Korea, Iran, etc., and then we can all just sit back and sing Kum ba yah, knowing that we are all committed to everyone else’s mutual defense.
Sadly, as history has shown us, treaties, alliances and defensive compacts alone, a panacea do not make. Neither does a foreign policy—such as we have seen during the past seven years—that relies on bullying, retribution, cajolement, and even bribery. In my humble opinion, diligent and intelligent diplomatic, social and, yes, economic efforts and programs have a much better chance to “twist” nations’ arms.
Europeans have taken note of Barack Obama’s ever-more apparent vulnerability. Given the tightening of the polls, how dire is his situation - in the eyes of people across the Atlantic? According to Pierre Rousselin of France’s Le Figaro:
“The international crisis in Georgia has reminded Americans that they should perhaps choose a president with experience, who is able to respond with firmness and determination in a world where the interests of the United States are being increasingly challenged. … McCain’s strategists have succeeded quite well in defining the choice between the two men. … The Republican campaign has made spectacular progress in recent weeks by entering a hyper-offensive phase.”
“The convention in Denver will be even more decisive than these generally grand celebrations of partisanship usually are. Its success or failure will depend on three issues: Will Obama’s arrival there transform his character onto something more presidential? Will he finally add substance to his slogan of ‘change’? And above all, will he succeed in imposing the terms of debate for the rest of the campaign and the three televised duels with McCain?”
“While we wait to hear of Obama’s decision, one may wonder why he waited until the last minute, leaving the field open to his rival before the conventions.”
One of the most important forces in Russian national history and one of the major keys to understanding Russia has been the country’s enormous collective inferiority complex relative to the West.
It explains why, three hundred years ago, with Russia’s elite bent on mimicking Europe and being more engaged in the life of the West, Peter the Great moved his capital to Saint Petersburg.
It also helps to explain some of the motivation behind the development of the Soviet “evil empire” and the late Soviet Union’s self-destructive spending on military domination.
Russian history is replete with the need of at least a sorry succession of leaders for Russia to be taken seriously by the outer world. When combined with the country’s culture of authoritarianism, it explains why Russia has behaved as it often has on the world stage: a brutal thug.
The past twenty years have been particularly hard for Russia, irrespective of the nation’s rising, if limited, freedoms. The pain seems to have been especially acute for Vladimir Putin, the real power in Russia today, who, as cited in my post of Wednesday described the breakup of the Soviet Union, an event which the civilized world greeted with joy, as the “greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century.”
This week I’m finding it increasingly odd when I compare our country’s response to Iran vs. Russia. When Iran tells the world that they will “wipe Israel off the face of the map” we hear from numerous sources in our country that we will “take them at their word.” This takes place while Iran, while certainly dangerous on their own turf, is widely acknowledged as not having any nuclear weapons. (At least not yet.) Their enemy, Israel, is the only nuclear power in the region and has a formidable military force. Fair enough.
But strangely enough, when Russia tells us that they may take military action against any of their neighbors who allow American missile defense systems near their borders, a different response is seen from our Secretary of State.
Rice dismissed blustery comments from Russian leaders who say Warsaw’s hosting of 10 U.S. interceptor missiles just 115 miles from Russia’s westernmost frontier opens the country up to attack.
Such comments “border on the bizarre frankly,” Rice said, speaking to reporters traveling with her in Warsaw.
“When you threaten Poland, you perhaps forget that it is not 1988,” Rice said. “It’s 2008 and the United States has a … firm treaty guarantee to defend Poland’s territory as if it was the territory of the United States. So it’s probably not wise to throw these threats around.”
Compared to Iran, Russia is a formidable nuclear foe with significant conventional forces who (oh by the way) has already gone to the mat with one of their neighbors. They not only have the ability to lash out, but a demonstrated history of doing so. The question then becomes, why would we not take them at their word as we do with the Iranians? And would you not factor this into decisions regarding putting missile defense systems a few miles from Russia’s borders?
“The disproportion of the military force used by Russia against Georgia belongs then, to the deep history that remains common to both peoples. The other certainty, no less historical, is the bankruptcy of the hegemonic role of the United States: driven by a resentment as irrational as it is mean-spirited, the American republic has continued to practice the delusional encirclement of post-Soviet Russia. Without a doubt, the twisted minds at the inept CIA’s Langley headquarters or the brains at the Pentagon have dreamed of having their own Cuba [reference to the Cuban missile crisis]. They thought they had found it in Georgia with their agent of influence, the current president Saakachvili.”
“And just like that retard Fidel Castro who, in 1962, wanted to launch atom bombs against Washington before the terrified eyes of his reckless allies in Moscow, here we have “Frankenstein-Saakachvili” wanting to involve his American patrons in the extreme and absurd logic that governs those who exalt in the narrow nationalism of Georgia. Indeed in Washington today, the climate is not indignation over the childishness of our news commentary, but about mutual accusations of irresponsibility, just as it was in Moscow the day after the Kennedy-Khrushchev duel over Cuba.”
So what’s the solution? Adler suggests:
“In the first place, put a permanent end to the logic of force to which Russia has tendency to give in to. Then, definitely inhibit the use of force by giving Russia the decent and necessary place that it must occupy in the construction of Europe. In addition, we must not push Ukraine toward confrontation with Russia. But also for Russia, do everything possible to ensure its historic reconciliation with our Polish and Turkish allies. This is a very tough, but indispensable road.”
