Wars often start for seemingly absurd reasons connected to tendentious issues of honor, perceived military commitments and, most of all, erroneous expectations that escalation can be limited and managed. No one anticipates a war now between Russia and NATO. That is what is worrying. Only when a nuclear exchange is imaginable does controlling one become truly feasible. Even if the chances of a larger war are small, the stakes are stupendous and ought to give leaders and opinion leaders a pause.
Please pause. The hot rhetoric could start an unnecessary fire.
Remember that World War I, the granddaddy of 20th century folly, was triggered by the act of an anarchist in the Balkans. When forces already are poised for confrontation, as they were then, it doesn't take much to launch hostile actions, and often the fuse is lit by a minor figure.
In retrospect, it is clear that Russian-Western tension before the Ossetia debacle was much greater than almost anyone realized. This dispute is not just about ethnic rivalries and boundary lines in the Caucasus, but rather the whole post-Soviet relationship and "New World Order." It is bigger even than Russia's fear of "encirclement" or the fears of its near neighbors that Russia wants to swallow them up. Both sets of fears are genuinely held, but it is likely--as good diplomacy could show--that neither set is justified.
But, it is in the context of the current fears that certain rashness in the dotted-line locale of tiny South Ossetia, an operetta country with a population less than that of South Philly, becomes magnified. One thinks of the apparently reckless shelling of Tskhinvali by the Georgians (without the knowledge or agreement of Georgia's ally, the United States). Or did the Georgians merely respond to provocations set up by the Russians in South Ossetia to provide an invasion excuse? At this point, the origins of the war are still clear only to the antagonists and their propaganda outlets, just as each side sees only its own victims and not the others'. In a way, the precise origins are ceasing to matter. Give credit to Orthodox Patriarch Alexei of Moscow and All Russia, who is mindful that all the raging combatants in the initially affected region claim to be Orthodox Christians, and is pleading for mercy and peace.
But now it is tit for tat, Russia against Georgia, Russia's nervous neighbors to the West and NATO. Russia's southern neighbors in Central Asia and China (the Shanghai Cooperation Organization), are not supporting their Northern friend, which should tell the Kremlin something.
But if it does, the Kremlin isn't listening. According to Prime Minister Putin and various United Russia party officials, the situation in Ossetia and Georgia is part of a plot by Republicans in the White House to elect Senator John McCain. Some novice political analyst in the Russians' Washington embassy must have come up with that explanation. Never mind, apart from everything else, that Sen. Obama has taken Georgia's side (though not as stridently as McCain) and that Sen. Biden, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, just returned from a cheer-leading trip to Tbilisi. Who does the Kremlin think is buying this line?
President Medvedev says boldly that he is not afraid of reviving the Cold War. Really? Well, maybe that would be good, because at least in the final stages of the Cold War the West and the Soviets had better communication than the Russians and the West enjoy now. That is how bad things have become in this ominous month of August.
Ominous and ridiculous. Yesterday the Russians banned the import of American chickens, an adolescent Kremlin protest against the U.S. statement of a day or so earlier that we would cease cooperation on nuclear issues--also adolescent. Who is supposed to be impressed by these gestures and who is supposed to benefit? For perspective, recall that it was less than 20 years ago that Americans were sending free chickens to starving Russians. ("Bush's legs," the Yeltsin-era Russians nicknamed them.) Now American poultry suddenly is found to be "unsanitary." Such gratuitous regulatory decisions connected by strange coincidence to some political objective have become too familiar.
In any event, American chickens truly are coming home to roost. That is because we let a unique opportunity with Russia languish in the 1990s. Other than sending hundreds of self-appointed advisers to Russia, along with the chickens, both the Bush 41 Administration and the Clinton Administration failed to respond adequately to what was then a fervent desire in Russia to become our bosom friend. We "won" the Cold War and then--unlike in Germany and Japan after World War II--we lost the peace. There was no Marshall Plan for Russia.
The full story still waits to be told. But while Russian gangster-billionaires were fleecing former Soviet economic entities, corrupt bureaucrats were bilking gullible Western investors and old age pensioners were reduced to foraging for food in garbage cans, the United States and Europe squandered our "peace dividend" on high living and domestic distractions. The Russian humiliation was real and while we didn't cause it, we didn't much mind it. Whatever drove Boris Yeltsin to drink, let it be said he did follow through on key reforms that enabled his successor, who had fierce self-discipline as well as resolve, to complete at least many economic reforms and preside over an unprecedented boom.
Russia, under Vladimir Putin, having modernized in painful economic spasms, almost ruthlessly seized the upsurge of oil and gas markets to re-launch the centralized Russian State. Putin made his point. Russia is back. The real Russia--the subject of this blog site and a project at Discovery Institute now for three years--has become one of the most dynamic economies and cultures on Earth. We have much in common to share with them, much to work on together. Russia in the age of terrorism is not a natural foe, but a natural ally. From a commercial standpoint also, there is no advantage to Russia or the West in unfriendly competition and everything to be gained by cooperation.
But, having managed its transformation alone, and correctly gauging that Westerners are seldom willing to cut Russia the slack we almost always offer the Chinese, for example (and many other countries whose democracies don't match our self-referential standards), Russia has become bitter and cocky at the same time. And it may have reverted to the infamous Russian paranoia about foreigners. America's strange idea of pushing NATO to the Russian doorstep has fed that paranoia. If the Russians really did want to re-conquer countries like Georgia, and foolishly endure thereafter an interior colony of endlessly bitter antagonists, it would not help Russia politically or any other way. (Regardless of Russia's recalcitrant behavior in Georgia this month, it did not try to conquer the country, though there was no military obstacle to stop it from doing so.) But, in any event, the United States--let alone, the rest of NATO--is not about to fight a war with Russia over Georgia or even Ukraine. Why should we pretend otherwise?
If, for their part, Russians seriously imagine that the United States wants to encircle Russia, grind it down and stunt its future, they are sorely, tragically wrong. The truth, instead--and it is not altogether attractive, either--is that we in these United States are so spread out in our interests and commitments, and so busy trying to digest our own ungainly diversity--that we really don't think much about any other country. We didn't even care about terrorism until we couldn't avoid it any longer after 9/11. Once we win in Iraq, we probably will lose interest there, too. Sad, maybe even reprehensible, but the Great Republic is not spiteful or mean, just frequently negligent. Unless threatened, our attention span is short.
But Russia doesn't see us that way. The Kremlin advertises an America of plotters and connivers out to keep Russia down. It is so pleased with its nascent wealth--and sporting a class of newly rich who are breathtakingly vain and uninterested in helping anyone but themselves--and so determined not to be pushed around, that it is pushing back in ways that look a lot like aggression to the rest of the world. Russia today need not lecture America about perceived arrogance.
Can Mssrs. Putin and Medvedev really think that there is an economic future for Russia in scaring its neighbors, threatening its customers and frightening international investors? In a world economy with free markets, that is not usually a wise economic strategy--to put it mildly. One result is that normally passive Europe already is looking at new energy sources and Americans now overwhelmingly favor extensive new oil exploration off our shores and perhaps even in previously off-limits of Alaska.
Meanwhile, in Georgia, like the policemen in Pirates of Penzance, the Russians keep announcing that they are ready to go, but they don't go. And the Americans respond by sending warships stacked with consumer goods and diplomats preparing to twist Russia's arm until they agree to get along with us. Our governmentĂ‚Â-completely ignoring the lessons of the Cold War--sometimes seems to think that it is in OUR interest to reduce contacts with Russia.
Who is kidding whom? It almost sounds like a high school spat.
"I'll show you! We're not going to let you join our WTO club!" "Oh, yeah? I don't even want to be part of your stupid club!"
The difference is that high school conflicts don't normally get people killed. None of this is necessary, desirable or inevitable.
Let us put all of these issues on the table: self-government and safe borders for nations bordering Russia, NATO's role in Eastern Europe (and cooperation rather than confrontation), the interceptor missile shield and the genuine problem of Iran and nuclear proliferation, terrorism, energy and pipelines, economic partnerships and whatever else the Russians, East Europeans and NATO want to bring up. Get it off the broadcast news and into conference before more serious trouble erupts.
Bruce Chapman, president of Discovery Institute, is a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Organizations in Vienna.
http://www.robertamsterdam.com/2008/08/pavel_felgenhauer_on_russias_p.htm
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-65820#
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2008/08/the-truth-about-1.php
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-65820#
Georgia did could not invade the center of it's own country. And besides all the facts and points that led to the Russian invasion can be found in those articles...
great article. couldn't agree more.
Bruce, let me have a hit of the stuff you are using. I guess it is of a high quality.
How long are we going to stay in the sandbox? The leaders of today are a joke. Which leads me to the center of the Bible! Psalm 118:8 " It is better to take refuge in the Lord, than to trust in man."
At last, a teensy bit of the Washington Post's preference for Democrats overcomes their fear and loathing of Russia...
Hot or Cool on Russia?
By David Ignatius
In the days after the Russian invasion of Georgia, the world had a chance to examine the different foreign policy styles of John McCain and Barack Obama. It was a telling comparison that offered some clear signs of how the two candidates would react to crises.
The contrast was between hot and cool; between quick action and cautious deliberation; between a man with his eye on military and strategic issues and another who is focused on diplomacy.
GA_googleFillSlot("RCW_Interior_Middle_300x250");
Listening to McCain, you sensed the beginning of a new Cold War; hearing Obama, you felt a desire to prevent that Cold War from taking root. McCain's advice could be summed up as "get tough" to deter the aggressor; Obama's tone suggested a desire to go slow until it was clear what moves made sense.
It's conventional wisdom that the tough stance is usually a political winner and that the Russia crisis has helped McCain. But I wonder: The war in Georgia actually makes a strong argument for Obama's more deliberative approach. What created this crisis was a misreading of signals and a failure to communicate clearly about the looming confrontation. There was plenty of McCain-style rhetoric, but not enough Obama-style diplomacy.
Within hours of the Aug. 8 invasion, McCain was voicing his indignation and demanding that Russia unconditionally halt its military operations and withdraw its troops. Three days later, he called the attack "a matter of urgent moral and strategic importance to the United States of America" and urged a series of measures to check Russia. Most important, he argued that NATO should reverse its April decision and approve Georgia's request for prompt membership -- a move that would commit the alliance to go to war if Georgia were attacked.
Obama's first reaction was more measured: "Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint," he said on Aug. 8. He had sharpened his tone by Aug. 11, but the focus was still on diplomatic solutions. "Let me be clear: We seek a future of cooperative engagement with the Russian government," he said.
Which approach will play better with the American public? Normally, the answer would be McCain's aggressive stance. Vladimir Putin's Russia makes such a convincing villain, and plucky Georgia such an attractive victim, that McCain's hard line has won wide support, even among Democrats.
But America is also weary of war in Iraq -- and of the mind-set that led the Bush administration to commit U.S. lives and resources without clearly thinking through the consequences. So perhaps people will listen to a candidate who argues that we need to look before we leap in the Caucasus. America's eagerness to "pay any price, bear any burden" overseas, as JFK put it, is surely diminished.
The Georgia crisis, in truth, shouldn't have surprised anyone. It has been coming at us in slow motion for several years. The Russians, far from hiding their intentions, have warned repeatedly that U.S. attempts to bring Georgia into NATO were unacceptable and would have consequences; the Bush administration didn't respond to Russia's statement of its interests in a way that might have deterred Moscow. It didn't make clear in advance the consequences Russia would pay if it attacked. Instead, the United States tried to play both sides of the street -- encouraging Georgia's NATO hopes, but not just yet.
Georgia's president, Mikheil Saakashvili, kept poking the Russian bear -- and finally launched the attack on South Ossetia that gave Russia a pretext for its devastating response. The administration knew Saakashvili was walking into a trap; officials even told him so privately -- but not with a decisive, high-level intervention that might have checked the disaster.
The notion that we are locked in a new Cold War is the most dangerous misjudgment of all. That's what is driving Putin: He feels threatened and encircled by a NATO that, in fact, has no hostile intent toward Moscow.
Rather than matching him in this march backward, the United States should lead its allies in a careful but firm process of containment. In drawing lines, we need to make sure they are realistic and sustainable -- and that the promises we make are ones we can keep.
Because of Putin's inability to escape Cold War thinking, the next president will face a serious Russia problem. Does America want a leader whose instincts in this new test are aggressive and confrontational, or deliberative and diplomatic? There's no obvious right answer yet, which will make this debate interesting.
James,
Don't you work for Khodorkovsky's lawyer, Robert Amsterdam, or post on his blog? There's another James that posts here who has paleocon, if not slightly anti-Semitic tendencies.
Please, before Putin came out with the comment that this Georgia conflict was to benefit McCain for the election, myself and others had already commented on it. Very early on in the conflict too I might add. The republicans truly are immoral who will do anything to win, including instigating war and conflict abroad. A great post by my friend Kel highlights the history of this despicable behaviour;
http://the-osterley-times.blogspot.com/2008/09/how-far-republicans-will-go-to-win.html
, and also check out this;
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/patrick-cockburn-white-house-strategy-is-to-help-mccain-win-in-november-915712.html
Luckily for the Republicans, most R-voters are like sheep who will accept anything/one who they must follow..hence they're willing to swallow any claptrap as long as it makes them feel they can play 'follow the leader' and be absolved from critical thinking and asking hard questions..
I'm so disgusted I tell you..
Ingrid
The neo-cons and other Americans aim to break-up the Russian Federation is well-known. Madeleine Albright has said that "Siberia's resources are too vast to belong to any one country". And the former presidential adviser and until recently Obama's adviser, Zbigniew Zebrinski, in his "A Geostrategy for Asia" has actually advocated that Russia be broken up into 3 countries. Prior to 9/11 the Chechen Islamic terrorists were helped by the US through the Pakistanis. Americans instigated and co-ordinated the" colour" revolutions now coming apart at the seams, and sought to create an "energy corridor" in the Caucasus and Central Asia by militarising it.
Worst of all it set up NATO bases right up to Russia's borders, against public and private declarations to Gorbachev. And Georgia's organised and pre-planned attack against the Osettians couldn't have not been known to the hundreds of American advisers.
Russia has every right to take measures to defend its territory. and the Americans shouldn't be in Europe.