Valuable columns by Tom Friedman and David Ignatius. Friedman concentrates on the error of Nato expansion, and the consequent humiliation of Russia, which has now come back to bite us.
I don't think we fought the cold war to give young Russians freedom, actually, but put that aside.[S]ince we had finally brought down Soviet communism and seen the birth of democracy in Russia the most important thing to do was to help Russian democracy take root and integrate Russia into Europe. Wasn't that why we fought the cold war -- to give young Russians the same chance at freedom and integration with the West as young Czechs, Georgians and Poles? Wasn't consolidating a democratic Russia more important than bringing the Czech Navy into NATO?...
No, said the Clinton foreign policy team, we're going to cram NATO expansion down the Russians' throats, because Moscow is weak and, by the way, they'll get used to it. Message to Russians: We expect you to behave like Western democrats, but we're going to treat you like you're still the Soviet Union. The cold war is over for you, but not for us.
The risks of humiliating Russia after the Wall came down were perhaps given too little weight. The dilemma was certainly understood by advocates of Nato enlargement, and there were attempts at outreach through various forms of partnership between Russia and and the alliance, though perhaps this seemed like adding insult to injury. But bear two other points in mind. One, Nato was not enlarged all the way, out of concern for Russia's reaction: Ukraine and Georgia have been sort of promised membership, but with no timetable. Two, the question was, what were we to say to Poland, Hungary, and then-Czechoslovakia, desperate for release from Russo-Soviet imperium and for the protection of the West? Remember also that the success of their post-socialist transition to market economics was very much in doubt. This was a finely balanced argument.
The real mistake, to my mind, was in taking too long to admit the Eastern Europeans to the European Union--and that in turn owed everything to the fact (a grave mistake in its own right) that the EU had deepened its political integration too fast and too far. A shallower economic union, rather than a United States of Europe in progress, would have been able to embrace Poland and the others more eagerly. As it was, the only fast-acting institutional support for the East European reformers was Nato, a military alliance explicitly created to confront the Soviet Union, and implicitly still aimed at Russia. Friedman accuses the Clinton and Bush foreign-policy teams of "rank short-sightedness" in all this. He makes a good point, but the error was not as clear-cut as he says.
Ignatius focuses on John McCain's penchant for the "zinger":
McCain likes zingers. We've all seen that mischievous look -- just before he shot a quip or sarcastic one-liner at GOP rivals such as former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. It's one of his appealing qualities, but in this case it worries me. Zingers don't make good foreign policy. They embolden friends and provoke adversaries -- and in the Georgia crisis, that has proved to be a deadly combination...
So what encouraged Saakashvili to make his reckless gamble? Partly it was the ambivalent policy of the Bush administration, which told the Georgian leader one month that "We always fight for our friends" (as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in July in Tbilisi about Georgia's bid to join NATO) and the next month cautioned restraint. And partly it was cheerleading from the pro-Georgia lobby, in which McCain has been one of the loudest voices...
There's a moral problem with all the pro-Georgia cheerleading, which has gotten lost in the op-ed blasts against Putin's neo-imperialism. A recurring phenomenon of the early Cold War was that America encouraged oppressed peoples to rise up and fight for freedom -- and then, when things got rough, abandoned them to their fate. The CIA did that egregiously in the early 1950s, broadcasting to the Soviet republics and the nations of Eastern Europe that America would back their liberation from Soviet tyranny. After the brutal suppression of the Hungarian revolution in 1956, responsible U.S. leaders learned to be more cautious, and more honest about the limits of American power.
Now, after the Georgia war, McCain should learn that lesson: American leaders shouldn't make threats the country can't deliver or promises it isn't prepared to keep. The rhetoric of confrontation may make us feel good, but other people end up getting killed.
I think Ignatius is absolutely right about this. The empty threat is a very bad way to conduct foreign policy. Now, recognizing this gets you only so far. It does not tell you whether Nato enlargement--in effect, a threat backed up with tanks--was a good idea. Does Georgia ever join? What about Ukraine? Should Poland have been brought in? Should Nato have been shut down altogether after the collapse of the Soviet Union? Those hard questions don't go away. But in the meantime, as Ignatius says, the diplomatic zinger is best avoided.
Finally, some common sense.
Bush does first and only then thinks. USA are cowards. The same happened with the Baltic countries - USA said "we will come to free you" which never happened. Instead the Baltic countries came to free the US.... Money, oil, wealth, pleasure etc. rules the world, so why don't we think and act accordingly. And forget abouut Georgia, you lost it. Unless you are willing to face the rick of a nuclear attack from Russia, stay in your shitty hole.
Bull take a step back and look at the whole picture. A nuclear attack in this day and age is a threat and nothing more. No person with any common sense is going to start that catostrophic event and destroy the planet. The Georgian overstepped their bounds by trying to be tougher than they are because they are our friends, why would we risk everything for some other governments risk taking. Russia overstepped as well by invading the other country. If they were truly worried about their people the call them back, dont go killing people. Even if it is to spit in the US's general direction by attacking one of our allies. Why doesn't Russian youths understand this and call for changes for peace not to revert its nation into another cold war. It's only going to push the country into deeper solitude, especially with holding fuel over other countries heads. Eventually the world will discover another type of readily available fuel and then Russia's new found push for tyranny will end again in shame. How about next time Mother Russia talk to the west who you say you want to make stronger connections with.
It would have been unconscionable to deny the legitimate and fully justified applications of the former captive nations to join NATO. The EU, on the other hand, has been a mixed blessing, and its downhill from here.
Georgia was probably a bridge too far, and it certainly is now. But I think it's silly to blame Bush for the recent crisis. It has been well documented that everyone from the desk officer at State to Bush himself directly to Shaakashvili warned Georgia not to take the Russian bait. There were hundreds of tanks already in the tunnel to South Ossetia, the Black Sea Fleet was off the coast of Abkazia, and the Russians recently ran a huge military exercise in the area that turned out to be an exact preview of the invasion. One did not need to be Nostradamus to see how this was going to develop, and anyone in Georgia who thought we were going to ride to the rescue was stupid beyond belief. Ignatius makes a good point about our over-promising, but a much better example would be our disgraceful abandonment of the Iraqis in 1991.
If NATO meant anything during the Cold War it meant that an attack on one NATO state was an attack on all of them, and each of them was pledged to come to the defense of the state or states under attack. It was the tripwire for WWIII.
If NATO membership is going to be enlarged to effectively surround Russia, then the purpose of the organization needs to be redefined. It needs redefinition because no American president is going to be able to go to the American people and explain in any plausible fashion why they should be willing to risk war with Russia, possibly a nuclear war, over a border dispute in Eastern Europe (any more than a president could justify a nuclear war with China over Taiwan).
During the Cold War the stakes were, or at least appeared to be simple. Would the Soviets come west and try to do to Western Europe what they had done to Eastern Europe? What are the stakes now and for who?
I understand why former parts of the Soviet Union and before that the Russian Empire want Western protection. The question is; what does the rest of Europe want? And what do we want? What exactly are the stakes worth going to war over for the United States, a country that hasn't faced a foreign invasion since 1812?
I resist the impulse towards isolation because I believe the United States has played a positive role in world affairs when it has properly understood its strategic interests (when it hasn't, not so much). But we are unique in human history in our habit of finding ourselves involved in major wars on other continents (9 in less than a century depending on how you count them) while facing no threats in our own region of the world.
Given our unwillingness to debate these issues in our politics (NATO expansion, China policy and their implications have played no role in any presidential campaign including this one; terrorism played no role in 2000, Vietnam none in 1960), and our unwillingness to be taxed any longer to pay for our foreign commitments, it may be time to discuss bringing the troops home from everywhere until we understand why we sent them where they are in the first place.
Out of the foolish concern for Russian sensitivities that Friedman displays we denied NATO membership to Georgia -- and as the inevitable and predictable result Russia gobbled it up.
This should serve as awakening to us. If Georgia had been admitted to NATO, this wouldn't have happened. If we want to avoid a further Ossetia, this time in Crimea, NATO must admit Ukraine NOW.
And as a sidenote, isn't it contemptuous and patronising in the extreme to see everything Russia does as a mere response to supposed Western insults?
They treat Russian imperialism as if it was a child's temper tantrum, instead of a dictatorial power's organized, intentional, premeditated, careful grab for territory and influence. STOP SEEING RUSSIA AS AN IMMATURE CHILD -- start seeing it as a superpower that must be held responsible for its own evil acts, same as America, same as China, same as every other country. STOP EXCUSING IMPERIALISM AS MERE "HURT FEELINGS".
Russia is a lot of things, but a temper-tantrum-throwing child is not one of them. "We should be more understanding" is an advice for parents, and we're not Russia's parents. We're not its teachers. We're not its babysitters.
Because it's not a child, it's not a student, it's not a baby. It's an imperial power. START TREATING IT AS ONE.
NATO should have been disbanded in symmetry with the disbanding of the Warsaw Pact.
US administrations, from Clinton through Bush, have trashed a historic opportunity to reach out to Russia-- which was more than willing to be our partner.
Unless the next administration radically changes direction, we can expect to go back to cold war tensions.
Except this time, Russia is not an economic disaster hobbled by a command economy, but an authoritarian state managing a profitable capitalist economy, vast energy resources that western Europe depends upon and a nationalistic population that supports its leader -- unlike the US where most Americans think we're going in the wrong direction.
If we persist in the demonization of Russia, we'll alienate even more nations, see Russia pump up its support for our asymmetric warfare foes and start to supply advanced weapons systems to the ever-growing number of nations that dislike our imperious foreign policy. The Russians are concluding a naval base agreement with Syria, for example.
Of course, we'll be supported by Poland, the Baltics and other nations we can't defend, and Israel, the only nation in the world more hated than we are.
Great job, guys.
In any discussion of whether we should limit Russia's behavior regarding Georgia and other former satellites, there's 1 factor to keep in mind. We worry about the security of our borders a lot less than just about any other country in the world because most of our borders are either oceans or very small countries that can easily be dominated. (Yet we have never disavowed the Monroe doctrine!)
We should remember this when considering the security needs of other countries. In the case of Russia, the problem is particularly acute because of the sheer size of the country and size of its borders. The Mongol invasion of the 12th (?) century is etched in the Russian memory because it took 2 centuries to repair the damage.
All of this changed with the introduction of the ICBM. Now we worry about the possibility direct attack from several countries. Our military now sees a much broader threat and has acted accordingly. A 2006 article in the prestigious Foreign Affairs journal describes our new policy initiated soon after the collapse of the USSR: a stealth nuclear attack against Russia to destroy their their entire nuclear capability. This is fully documented and undisputed, but remains unreported or discussed in our media for obvious reasons. But the Putin crowd is well aware of it, and the Georgian conflict is very much about it.
The fact is, we are every bit as fierce about protecting our borders as are the Russians. Pointing fingers at them is nothing more than high minded self rightousness. We ought to be thinking of better ways to guarantee Russia's borders.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85204/keir-a-lieber-daryl-g-press/the-rise-of-u-s-nuclear-primacy.html
The article:
This situation in the Republic of Georgia is similar to what happen in Cuba in 1963. The lesson is that the Russians did not have any business to be in Cuba in 1963 and so the americans should butt out of the Republic of Georgia, in Russians backyard. All this talk about democracy is that b.s. talk.
I hope that the american government will regain its senses in Jan. 20, 2009 at 12:00pm EST.
As far as the Republic of Georgia both Senators McCain and Obama are deadly wrong. They should remain out this problem and let the Russians run their part of the world, the same way the USA runs the banana republics and other similar satrapies in our own backyard.
The American Media took Georgia's side before knowing all the facts. Even when when The Ossetian woman and girl went on Fox News and blamed the Georgians; they were not allowed to finish lambasting the Georgians. Fox News gave the excuse that they had run out of time. However; I have seen them go over the allotted time period if the persons are lambasting Democrats , liberals and any one that doesn't agree with their neo-conservative agenda. I expected this behavior from Fox but MSNBC, CNN,NBC, ABC, CBS BBC and all the alleged liberal and/or moderate TV stations were believing every thing that Georgia's ,Mr. Saakashvili's, said and treating him like The John F. Kennedy.President Eduard Kokoity of South Ossetia and The Ossetian citizens confirmed that Georgia committed genocide; The American TV News Stations and The rest of the Main Street Media gave their statements a couple of sentences. Wednesday's New York Times gave Mikhail Gorbachev a space on their OP-ED page entitled,"Russia Never Wanted a War and today's The New York Times puts Ossetia's criticism of Georgia on page A8 and gives 8 paragraphs to The celebration at Tskhinvali , South Ossetia's Capital. They seem to be the only Newspaper that is still somewhat Independent of the Corporate/Republican controlled Main Street Media. South Ossetia wants it's independence from Georgia and wants to rejoin Russia. The Bush Administration has been dishonorable in it's dealing with Russia since They invaded Irag ignoring Russia's opposition. In fact ; they didn't give them and the rest of The UN Security Council any respect. They couldn't build a coalition of powerful countries except for their court Jester England. So they asked The Eastern European Countries like Georgia,The Czechs,The Ukrainians and Poland for troops in exchange for economic assistance. However; they didn't stop there. Bush's Ideological and Idealistic doctrine that under every Eastern European; there is an American pushed the Eastern Europeans to build Radar and antimissile bases in their countries. This is testament to Russia asking Mexico, Central America and South America To install Russia Radar installations and missle bases in their countries. We consider Mexico and Latin America to be within our sphere of influence. Russia considers Georgia, The Ukraine, The Czechs and The Poland to be within their sphere of influence. Mutual Assure Respect is better for the world then returning To Mutual Assure Destruction. Of course; Russia is not going to launch their ICBM's at The USA. They will use conventional forces,Oil reserves and especially their Rich Gas reserves to intimidate America's four puppets in Eastern Europe and to make friends with America's enemies such as Syria.They will also stop all assistance to The USA in Afghanistan by not allowing them passage through Russia for supplies. They will also challenge America's allies in Western Europe with their gas supplies. Western Europe needs their gas supplies more then their oil supplies. Eventually; China will be drawn into the conflict between their Communist Neighbor Russia and their business client-The USA. China has received harsh criticism from The USA for their alleged Human Rights Violations. Their Olympic Torch Bearers and even boycotts of The Olympics were voiced by members of The Bush Administration and US Groups. Some of The European nations such as England Threatened to have their athletes enter the Olympic Stadium wearing gas masks.Just like The Russians who place honor above cooperation with the West ; so do The Chinese. The Bushites should have read Henry Kissinger's book on REAL Politic before going into the world stage with an Evangelical bible.However; the worst is yet to come President McCain is one of those who think we shouldn't have left Vietnam until we had won. Even if winning meant using Nuclear Weapons. He has advocated for the removal of Russia from the G-8 even before his nomination by the Republican Party. He is also the same person that stated equivocally that there would be no time table for withdrawal of troops until we won the war on terror in Irag. We will go from a religious zealot To a Military Zealot who is from the Generation that Thinks military might makes right. God Help Us All!
i) just because NATO's original mission had been fulfilled, that is no reason that it could not find a new purpose and a new mission;
ii) Russia does not "own" its sphere of influence, and neither does the US. But there is a difference. Georgia, Poland, Romania, ... are reaching out to the US and the West for economic integration and a security blanket. What kind of a friend/ally is it who says "we're with you" and then says "sorry, but you're in Russia's sphere of influence, so they own you."
iii) Russia's economy is slightly ahead of other resource-based economies (there is some science and research) but by and large, if they don't reform considerably, respect property rights, and draw foreign investment, their economy will be in tatters in a decade. Building a pipeline from the Caspian through Georgia will dramatically reduce Russia's monopoly power on Western Europe vis-a-vis energy.
iv) The US and Russia did cooperate in a few significant ways in the 1990s -- admission to the G8 was one more-than-symbolic step; shared missions at the Space Station, Nunn-Lugar bill to rein in the loose nukes.
v) The US's greatest asset, greatest power, is its soft power. Abandon that for short-term harmony, means that in the long term, the world will be back to spheres of influence.
Russia needs the US and Western Europe -- they can turn the spigot off and make the Germans and French and Dutch freeze, but what will they eat? Their economy would tank. It's the interdependence of the world economies.
The Russians place honor above cooperation with the West? Russia has no concept of honor, beyond the most primitive and brutal chauvinism. Putin's pathetic effort to revive the empire of the czars will fail. The West needs to concentrate on making sure that Russia's coming collapse is as peaceful as was the fall of the Soviet Union.
The Russian Parliament is just about to introduce legislation to recognize S. Ossetia’s independence from Georgia. To me that means that it was not independent from Georgia before, even by Russian standards. Troop movements by Georgia to protect its citizens in S. Ossetia were far more justified than Russian troop movements to protect its citizens. To go beyond the Ossetian border into Georgia proper was blatant aggression on Russia’s part. To play games with the cease-fire agreement, to let an army general speak for Russian policy added insult to injury. The population of Georgia is 4 million, that of Russia is 140 million. Georgia should have stuck with diplomacy playing on sympathy for the Georgian victims Ossetian attacks, this much is true. But given the imbalance of power between the two nations, the failure of Russia to appeal to diplomatic means before launching its attack, the lack of even an ultimatum is inexcusable. To paint this as any kind of meaningful victory for Russia is laughable.
Having said all that what I see here is another attempt by the Bush administration to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. What happened here is a grave matter to Georgians and all the former Soviet Republics that are now independent nations on its border. The US should not be lagging in support but it should not be leading this fight. To do so weakens the case made by the above nations. There is no doubt that Russia would like to re-instate the Yalta agreement of 1944 that thrust the nations East of Berlin in to the Soviet sphere of influence without their consent. This is their fight, and it must be seen as such. The US must give them the opportunity to lead in this matter, forgetting about Nato, EU and the mythical missile shield. Yes, all the above should be strengthened re-enforced. But the US must not be seen as just another 500 pound gorilla. Leave that moniker to remain in the Russian domain.
Russia has a lot to lose here. Despite its oil wealth it can easily founder on the rocks of a renewed arms race
It should be remembered that it has bankrupted a much larger Soviet Union in the past and will do the same to a resurgent Russian empire. In the mean time a new East European Union could come close to matching in population the colossus that is Russia and together with EU and American assistance could surpass it in technological sophistication. I believe US policy needs to be more subtle, more nuanced. By contrast the Clinton administration was far better at this.
...to give young Russians the same chance at freedom and integration with the West as young Czechs, Georgians and Poles?
Totally wrong and in fact ignorant assumption. The Russians do not want freedom, never had it, they prefer a tsar ruling over them and prefer command to law.(see Flight from Freedom by Richard Pipes)