Fedyashin reflects the Kremlin’s disdain for the Georgia president, and highlights the machinations that Russians believe are behind Georgia’s attempt to regain control of South Ossetia - particularly during the Olympic Games.
“It took the United States exactly a week to understand the damage that Mikheil Saakashvili’s ‘Ossetian blitzkrieg’ has caused him and his ‘Rose Democracy.’ Finally it seems, Washington has launched operation ‘Saakashvili’s Salvation’ in earnest.
“You don’t need to have the keenest insight to understand that the ‘humanitarian bridge’ being erected by the Pentagon has little to do with the humanitarian needs of Georgia. This is the first concrete step taken to support Saakashvili - steps that were not in evidence in the early days of his invasion of South Ossetia. … It’s telling that a week after the event, Washington has only now begun to lash out at the Kremlin.” And then later, “it’s hard to believe that a stateswoman as formidable as ‘Teflon Condi’ was unable to make it clear to Saakashvili what the White House wants or doesn’t want him to do.”
After deriding ‘teflon Condi’ and U.S. diplomacy in general, one-by-one, Fedyashin dismisses all of the likely sanctions that the West may impose on Russia for the way it has behaved.
Evenas Russia pledged tobegin withdrawing its forces from neighboring Georgia on Monday, American officials said the Russian military had been moving launchers for short-range ballistic missiles into South Ossetia, a step that appeared intended to tighten its hold on the breakaway territory.
The Russian military deployed several SS-21 missile launchers and supply vehicles to South Ossetia on Friday, according to American officials familiar with intelligence reports. From the new launching positions north of Tskhinvali, the South Ossetian capital, the missiles can reach much of Georgia, including Tbilisi, the capital…. (NYT)
Everyone agrees that the Georgia-Russia crisis requires European mediation. But the question is, who’ll settle the dispute among Europeans about what to do?
As WORLDMEETS.US and The Moderate Voice readers have seen from around the continent over the past two weeks - Eastern and Central Europeans are completely split over what to do about the resurgent Russian bear.
“Europe wants to mediate, but it is so divided itself, that it too, requires mediation. … For Moscow, which is acting from a position of strength since its campaign, it will be easy to use this division for its own purposes. The Kremlin wants to expand its influence and to keep neighboring countries which that aspire to the West in a state of permanent instability. The E.U. has no interest in allowing this - but given the disharmony, they have little to oppose the Russians with. This war sends a very clear signal that together with the united States, it’s high time to restrict Russia’s sphere of influence. However, not all want to hear that signal.”
As we’ve seen over recent days, there are two diametrically opposed positions within Europe about what has cause the Georgia crisis and what should be done about it.
The first, which has been perhaps best enunciated by the Polish, is that NATO must be strengthened and that the Alliance must stand up to Russia with ever-greater determination.
The other, well represented by this article from France’s Rue 89, argues that an ‘obsolete’ NATO’s ham-handed expansion eastward is at the root of the problem, and that eastward expansion should have taken place exclusively within the European Union - which is inherently less threatening to a badly-slighted Russia with decades of wounded pride to get out of its system.
“Many commentators of course condemn this drive into an independent country as a manifestation of resurgent Russian imperialism. This, first of all, is to somewhat ignore history; it also sets aside more than a few cases of wounded Russian pride, for the most part widely flouted before Putin; and incidentally, not to offend our new European Union partners from the East, it is a demonstration of the futility and even the toxicity of NATO.”
“Eastern Europe … with fear in the belly of the Russian bear, has never relied on European integration to ensure its security. In their view, only the United States could provide that. Hence their absurd following of the Americans into the Iraqi adventure. Hence their irrepressible desire to join NATO. … A grave error on their part, because the United States, entangled as it is in the Iraqi affair and with its allies in Afghanistan, won’t budge for a piece of the former empire’s confetti [Georgia] and perhaps not even in case of a more serious invasion. Especially since the new American leaders, starting in November, are likely to mobilize all their forces on domestic affairs.”
“[T]he alienation between the United States and Russia has rarely, if ever, been deeper,” says Steven Lee Myers. (NYT) He further states:
“The cold war is over,” President Bush declared Friday, but a new era of enmity between the United States and Russia has emerged nevertheless. It may not be as tense as the nuclear standoff with the Soviet Union, for now, but it could become as strained.
Russia’s military offensive into Georgia has shattered, perhaps irrevocably, the strategy of three successive presidential administrations to coax Russia into alliance with the West and integration into its institutions….
As much as Mr. Bush has argued that the old characterizations of the cold war are no longer germane, he drew a new line at the White House on Friday morning between countries free and not free, and bluntly put Russia on the other side of it.
“With its actions in recent days Russia has damaged its credibility and its relations with the nations of the free world,” Mr. Bush said in his fourth stern statement on the conflict in five days, and the strongest to date. “Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century.” (NYT)
As we have pointed out before, given Poland’s history of being governed by imperial Russia and then the Soviet Union, the events in Georgia have had a tremendous impact in that country.
So what should be done, according to Warsaw? To put it simply: Stand Tough.
“One could say: ‘Today Georgia, tomorrow the Baltic States and Ukraine.’ And the day after that? Will it be, perhaps, the “near abroad”? Such is the euphemism Russians use to describe countries that were once under their sway and which in their view should again find themselves in Moscow’s sphere of influence. Poland is one of them. … Poland was part of that empire for 200 years, except for two intervals - including this one - of 20 years apiece.”
“The “catchphrase” of not irritating the Russian bear is a manifestation of magical thinking. That bear has a well-established sense of its imperial interests. Only a tough stance on the part of E.U. members who understand the Russian danger are capable of setting a steadier course for the Union regarding the Kremlin. What is needed now is determination.”
Having labored under the yoke of Soviet domination in the very recent past, the countries of Eastern Europe and the Caucasus have a visceral feel for the politics of the now blossoming conflict between Russia and its former territory Georgia.
“In no case will he jump to defend the territorial integrity of Georgia with weapon in hand, even though there are still 100 American soldiers there training Georgian troops. The times when Russia was a weak state and that the U.S. could build a bridge to Georgia are over.”
“The Moscow Bear cannot be challenged through the bars of its own cage: Georgia is within Russia’s sphere of influence, which is why Tbilisi has no reason to hope for NATO entry anytime soon.”
With French leader Nicolas Sarkozy occupying the rotating seat of the EU presidency, what do the French have to say about the widening crisis in the Caucasus and America’s role in it?
“South Ossetia might seem like beautiful, distant confetti lost in the Caucasus, but the fighting taking place there must be taken very seriously. An open war has begun between Russia and pro-Western Georgia, over Georgian territory where Moscow supports secessionist aspirations. But this issue goes far beyond that. This concerns the relations that Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Dimitri Medvedev Russia wish to establish with its ‘near abroad’ and the Atlantic Alliance.
“Calls for the immediate cessation of hostilities are needed, as is insistence on Moscow’s compliance with the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia within its internationally-recognized borders. But to impose such fine principles, we’ll have to make them forget the precedent of the unilateral independence of Kosovo which the Kremlin brandishes to justify its intervention in support of the Georgian separatists.”
“Is NATO going to risk a war with Russia to save Georgia? In bombing the base where U.S. instructors are stationed, the Russian Air Force has pointed its finger at Western impotence. Now that Moscow has unleashed its tanks and planes into the battle, Georgia doesn’t stand a chance … he conflict between Moscow and Tbilisi has been brewing for a long time. Now that war is at the gates of our continent - the European Union, under the French presidency, must regain the initiative to ensure that relations with Russia don’t irreversibly deteriorate.”
Now that the 2008 Beijing Olympics have begun and President Bush along with about 80 other heads of state are in attendance, can it be said that all the demonstrating by Western human rights activists was for naught?
Having been imprisoned behind the iron curtain for decades, the people of Poland are particularly sensitive to this question, which is why the author of this article from the Gazeta Wyborcza, Ewa Siedlecka, points out that she is proud that Poland’s leaders have are not attendingtoday’s opening ceremony.
“Today’s opening ceremony for the Olympic Games in Beijing will be attended by the leaders of the free world, the president of the United States first and foremost. It is a day of triumph for communist China. So was it worth protesting? … It was. The worthwhileness of the matter isn’t measured by ‘winning’ or the chance of winning. Opposition to evil is a moral duty and a question of conscience, which every one of us must critically examine for ourselves.”
And of those who have braved the authorities in recent months to express their disapproval of the Beijing regime’s human rights record, Siedlecka writes:
“All of those who display Tibetan flags, demonstrate in front of the Chinese Embassy, protest, sign petitions and go to Beijing so that for a dozen seconds they can yell slogans or unfurl a banner before Chinese security drags them away - are living proof that the world hasn’t been completely bought off by China’s more-or-less virtual money.”
In this first Romanian translation from WORLDMEETS.US about Barack Obama, Adrian Deoanca of Romania’s Cotidianul newspaper gives his reckoning of why Europeans are so taken by the young senator.
“Barack Obama was greeted like a superstar in Berlin. He wasn’t acclaimed for his indisputable talent at oratory, but because he’s the antithesis of the much-derided current president. The senator is much like a European, while Bush is perceived as the embodiment of the lack of high culture and barbarism which is often - and too often wrongly - attributed to America and Americans. Unlike Bush, Obama seems to oppose a patriotism that verges on nationalism, which frightens a Europe that wants to be post-national; and he appears to advocate a middle path between a pragmatic liberalism and an attenuated form of socialism that is closest to the European spirit.”
“Anti-Americanism has always been a topic of discussion in Western Europe, even a common one, especially among the intelligentsia. But the reign of George W. Bush gave a patina of legitimacy to European prejudices and brought into line the attitudes of intellectuals, politicians and the masses against the United States, and made ridiculing Bush a habit in cafes and eateries. In the Bush era, the American century plumbed its lowest depths and anti-Americanism became the new global religion.”
It seems - as we saw yesterday at WORLDMEETS.US with the editorial translations of a number of regional German newspapers - that after an orgy of Obama-mania in Berlin, Germans are having some second thoughts.
“Those who cheer Obama today may have to negotiate with him over Afghanistan tomorrow. … The United States will not accept an indefinite situation in which they wear themselves out fighting the Taliban, while the Germans offer friendly help with reconstruction.”
“While the government already knows what’s coming its way, the voters for the major parties could soon experience a rude awakening - when they find that Obama’s new America has the same old objectives. Up to now, Germans could refuse a more robust mandate for Afghanistan by quietly hinting that one really mustn’t follow the lead of George W. Bush. But it will be much harder after one has just applauded him, to reject the first urgent request from a President Obama.”
Whether or not it helps him get elected, there can be no doubt that with his world tour, Barack Obama has succeeded in dramatically improving America’s image abroad - particularly in Europe.
“Reputed to be inexperienced because he only has three years of his term as senator behind him, the Democratic candidate has shown that he has no difficulty dealing with the international scene.”
“the enthusiastic welcome extended to him by 200,000 Berliners showed how much he has already contributed, solely by his presence at this stage in the presidential race, to restoring America’s luster. It’s been a long time since the United States benefited from such a public relations exercise overseas.”
“A superstar in Berlin, anointed in Paris, Barack Obama will have to come down to earth and plunge back into the election campaign. His European triumph won’t automatically make him the next president of the United States.”
So how are people in other parts of the world, for example Brazil, interpreting Barack Obama’s global tour. And is this trip - as John McCain charges - simply an ‘electoral caravan’ on the part of Obama’s campaign? And if it is, does it matter?
“John McCain is right when he says that his adversary is only committed to running an electoral caravan. And so what? One gets a good sense of what this sensational candidate (Obama, of course) has to say about the changes he seeks to impose on American foreign policy. And they don’t seem to amount to all that much change.”
“As his main stage, Obama chose Berlin - the capital of Germany, immediately sparking jealousy in London and Paris, which are considered more ‘Atlanticist’ (especially by Sarkozy, of course), than the ’suspect’ Germans, who have understandings, particularly with Moscow and other obscure places to the east. … Even in Germany, Obama’s monumental number of advisors (700 aides!) acted with a level of subtlety that, as far as the Europeans were concerned, wasn’t discrete enough. Obama will speak in front of the Victory Column - which is decorated with cannons that Napoleon used during several campaigns, and that later, during the wars that led to the founding of the first German empire in 1870, the Germans took from the French. In other words the following day, it will be an awkward note to arrive in Paris on. And London frankly feels itself ignored by the American Democratic candidate.”
“With the Victory Column, another good place has been found for his appearance. Obama need only characterize this in the proper light. First - the Column represents victory - and that’s not a bad omen for someone in the midst of an election battle.”
“And there’s plenty of room for an audience around the Victory Column, for it stands in the midst of the Tiergarten [the park in the center of Berlin]. Obama should be a somewhat grateful to Adolf Hitler for this. He had the Victory Column brought there in the context of his plans to rearrange Berlin as the world capital of Germania. To be precise, the monument stood in front of the Reich building [the Reichstag - or Parliament]. There, the America candidate would have had to battle the central district’s Urban Green Space Planning Office, which is even more stubborn than Angela Merkel.”
They say a picture is worth a thousand words, but what about a political poster? Its charm, brilliance –or its insidiousness and crassness — depends on the political eye of the beholder.
Today, the international media’s eyes will be on Democratic presumptive nominee Sen. Barack Obama who will speak in Berlin to what is expected to be a huge crowd. His speech has been prefaced by what some consider a “snub” aimed at Republican presumptive nominee Sen. John McCain by the nation’s Prime Minister:
The German Chancellor Angela Merkel has praised Barack Obama’s political and physical strength as “Obamania” reached the highest levels of state on the eve of the Democratic presidential contender’s feverishly anticipated visit to Berlin today.
In a remark that could be interpreted as casting aspersions on his 71-year-old Republican rival John McCain, Ms Merkel told reporters: “I would say that he is well-equipped – physically, mentally and politically.”
One side issue — in a campaign now unfolding of partisan-fought side issues — is whether the poster above printed in German is inspiring or creepy. And, in the nature of political politics, the interpretation sometimes rests on partisan bias or an intent to find something to cast in the worst possible light (a light that probably would be interpreted a tad differently if it was referring to the candidate backed by the person doing the blasting). Witness some reaction to the brilliant/scary (pick a term that fits your political bias) Obama poster:
While Europe continues in its paroxysm of excitement over the impending visit of Senator Barack Obama, some on the Old Continent have begun to ask what will happen after his European triumph.
“While Barack Obama has embarked on a tour of the Middle East and Europe, the international community is eager to learn the new direction that the Democratic candidate would give American foreign policy - if he’s elected in November. His program includes lots of good news for the allies and for certain adversaries of the United States. But these will come at a price. President Obama would require much more of his partners than the unilateralist George Bush.”
“Europe, which benefited from money from the Marshall Plan and American protection during the Cold War is to be invited to repay that debt. “It’s time for the United States and Europe to renew their common engagement to fighting the threats of the 21st century.”
Obama’s World Tour – I was thinking of a way to start this column in any other way imaginable, but it is next to impossible. All of the political oxygen has left the country for the week and that has got to be driving the McCain campaign bonkers. As I wrote in my previous column this week, the Berlin speech has got to be an excellent one in order for this July trip to be a success. Obama has to be detailed in how he expects to rebuild the trans-Atlantic relationship; the diplomatic requirements that will be expected from both the European and American sides. All of the photo ops in the world won’t help him if he does not deliver the goods tomorrow.
McCain’s invisibility – The pure fact that his campaign did not plan for this press blackout is not a good sign for Team McCain. How many weeks did they have to plan for this inevitability? President George H.W. Bush went through the same scenario in 1992 when Bill Clinton made his first post-primary foreign visit in 1992 (and he was the President). If the lack of press coverage was a real issue, it would seem that the campaign would have made a series of VP selection announcements this week, perhaps ending with McCain’s choice of VP on the day of Obama’s speech.
Dobson’s reversal toward McCain – It is no mystery that Dr. James Dobson (Focus on the Family) and John McCain do not see eye-to-eye. A few days ago Dobson said “I never thought I would hear myself saying this…While I am not endorsing Senator John McCain, the possibility is there that I might.” The evangelical movement is not happy with either candidate but it seems to be moving in McCain’s favor. The move was expected, but the more interesting question is how much the evangelical Christian voting block will split in November. It will depend on how you define pro-life; reducing abortions or saving American soldiers and Iraqi lives by ending the war?
The bonehead play of the week: “Brandenburg-gate.” Some poor press advance person probably got fired this week because they didn’t know their presidential history and made a poor decision (that is what happens when your staff is mostly under 30 – ask Bill Clinton). While it is always good to look for the good camera shot for your candidate, a great shot can be a poor political decision. The advance team made the mistake of assuming Obama’s popularity in Germany should afford him a speaking engagement at the Brandenburg Gate and totally missed the historic connection between the venue and the President of The United States. The decision may cause Obama perception problems concerning arrogance in November…it has already caused unneeded tension with the German political leadership, and more importantly, may have raised a red flag with swing voters in purple states.
The controversy over Barack Obama’s upcoming speech in Berlin just keeps on going.
Now that the decision has been made not to hold the speech near the Brandenburg Gate, moving it instead down the road from the Brandenburg Gate to the Victory Column, some German politicians
