Nicaragua then, Georgia today

I must be very old because I have a long memory of the many times the USA has let down those who trusted in us. Hungary 56, the last chopper out of Saigon, the time we told the Iraquis to overthrow Saddam, and now Georgia. Really it's beyond me why anybody falls for our bs. You'd think that our brand would be more respected if we gave our word sparingly but always kept it.

But to the matter at hand. It is likely that Russia will recover its various Alsaces and Lorraines. The question we must answer and answer right is whether this will be necessarily and inevitably a bad thing for the USA. After all, we got along fine with a Russian Empire up til 1917, and there are areas in which we and Russia can be of much use to one another. Besides, to put the matter coldly, all these quarrelsome little countries, particularly the ones down there, are pains in the butt, dangerous ones at that. It's better for everybody if there's a big boot pressing firmly down on them.

Probably when things shake out, and it will take a while, the world will look like Orwell's division between Oceania, Euraisa and East Asia. Islam won't have a place, but no matter, they'll be in their heaven.

On reflection I'm not sure which side is right here. Although I do know

1: US Marines occuppied Nicaragua from 1912 to 1933. Although it was never officially "part of the US" conquest or occupations by Americans were not uncommon.

2: You're bordering on making a moral equivalency between the US and the Soviet Union.

3: I'm not a 100% certain our involvement in Nicaragua was even "well and good" or at least it had good and bad points.

As a lefty, even I agreed with Pat Buchanan's assessment that NATO expansion was becoming belligerent; not bold. It's encouraging to see other 'conservatives' echoing that. I think Mr. Buchanan's book was called something like A REPUBLIC, NOT AN EMPIRE. (*I do not endorse Mr. Buchanan's views on World War II*).
I wonder how much credibility our government has with NATO after Iraq. Remember Mr. Rumsfeld complaining about 'Old Europe'?
It's been kind of surreal to watch Bush at the games while I read on the Internet about what's happening in Georgia. Does he even care about it? Does he even know what's going on? Didn't he read Mr. Putin's soul? Are we becoming like Rome?
Even conservative George Will was aghast on ABC's Sunday news show.
If what McCain and Cheney were saying had any real meaning at all, we'd probably have to have a nuclear war.
I don't necessarily despise all conservatives. Heck, I'd like to see Ron Paul make a third party run. I might even vote for him. But, mainstream conservatism is dead.

"The difference is that the USA is a benevolent and free democracy without territorial ambitions in Nicaragua." Aaron.

TR: That's probably overstating it. The US, even in the 1980s, did like to retain some control in North America. And not all our actions in Latin America were benevolent.

Still there is a very big difference between us and Russia. Even if we're not purely benevolent we are certainly more benevolent. Panama today is more developed and democratic than Russia. Despite some brutality the Philippines is more positive on us than many to most former Soviet lands are to Russia.

"Nicaragua had no such geopolitical prizes." Kit Stolz

TR: They've at times been considered as an alternate canal and I think the original idea was for the Canal to be in Nicaragua. They've traditionally been an important source for some fruits.

Realpolitik: The USA would be stupid/crazy to get involved in the Caucasus.

Rights and wrongs: It's a tough call. Neither Russia nor Georgia are all that nice or democratic. South Ossetia was historically part of neither country, but was united with N Ossetia, as Ossetia. If there were an Ossetian independence movement, to reunite the two halves of the country as an independent state, the R&W would be clearer.

Another point: One shouldn't make too easy an equivalence between different ex-Soviet states. Ukraine and Belarus are essentially invented nations, with little history of independence, and languages that are just dialects of Russian. Georgia is different, having an older history than Russia, and an unrelated language.

Point for Rod: This must be your nightmare - a war between two Orthodox countries. How does this affect your perspective? I'm asking, not trolling.

I very much would like to hear some proposed soultions from the anti USA in Kosovo...

There is no solution. It's none of our business. Period. And neither is Kosovo or any of these other oddball countries. If you feel so strongly about the issue, jump on a plane and go fight yourself.

That said, if the Serbs had attacked occupied Kosovo and killed ten our troops there, how do you think we'd react? That's pretty much what the Georgians have done. The loudest voices calling for the Russians to restrain themselves today would be the loudest ones demanding we level Belgrade.

His really cannot stand and can we all agree a SOviet Invasion of all of Georgia be a bad thing? Or perhaps we can't

Do you know what the word "soviet" means? You might as well call this a "Romanov invasion."

So basically, Obama is right?

So basically, Obama is right?

He's more right.

Besides that Goergia is it's own country and was heading in the right direction. I very much would like to hear some proposed soultions from the anti USA in Kosovo (not saying this is you ROD) crowd.

Kosovo created this problem. You had a minority majority in one section of a country (Serbia) that wanted independence. Instead of either working to resettle the minority in a country that already had a majority population or getting the minority to stop acting violent and the majority to respect the minority, we decided to bomb the heck out of Serbia. Now we have a large Russian minority located in Georgia and they are concentrated mainly in one section of Georgia. Now you're upset that Russia basically is doing to Georgia what we, NATO, did to Serbia. Goose meet gander.

What's the solution, stay out of it. Quietly voice our concerns with Russia and maybe work out some sort of land/population transfer deal. No matter what though, stop the stupid sword waving.

This isn't the Cold War. Georgia, with the help of the U.S. and E.U., spit in the eye of Russia, and now everyone is learning a lesson.

If you think what is happening in Russia is a travesty, just remember that Bill Clinton and George Bush did almost the exact same thing in Kosovo. Russia practically begged the U.S. not to allow Kosovar independence. I'm not making moral equivalence, just facts. If you want to launch a first strike on Russia and annex the whole country, and carve it up with the EU and China, then at least you are an anti-Russian realist. Otherwise, accept the reality that Russia gets respect because of its power, not its morality, and if you blatantly disrespect it, you will pay.

First, drawing equivalence between the U.S., a democratic power, and Russia, an authoritarian-going-on-totalitarian power, is unseemly and, from an American point of view, self-defeating.

Second, you're overlooking the obvious Western Hemisphere analogy: not Nicaragua but Cuba, which, if never part of the U.S., was an American satellite for nearly 60 years, from the Spanish-American War until Castro's revolution. During the Cold War, the only time we contemplated direct military intervention (as distinguished from embargo, subversion or support of proxies) was in 1963, when the Soviets attempted to install offensive ballistic missles on the island. JFK, of course, opted instead for quarantine and diplomatic pressure. So even in the case of Cuba, we never intervened as blatantly as the Russians are now in Georgia.

Great-power imperialism in the 19th and early 20th centuries contributed directly to most of the international crises we've seen recently in the Balkans, Caucasus, Middle East, Africa, Latin America and South and East Asia. Redrawing the map into neo-imperialist "spheres of influence" is not a prescription for stability.

For years I have been jokingly saying that The end days will begin in the Caucaus Mountains, where Geogia is located, that Gog was a Caucasian and that the Anti-Chirst was from there. That was why I did not want to be called a Caucasian but a Northern European.

Now I am beginning to think maybe I wasn't joking at all.

What a mess! Sakashvili let himself be goaded into overplaying his hand. The Russians have responded disproportionately, with ground attacks extending way beyong S. Ossetia.

It's one thing to go to war on our terms (wisely or unwisely). It's a very different thing to have our hand forced by the rashness of an ally. I don't like bailouts. This reminds me of Fannie and Freddie, but with a much higher, not-only-monetary cost to the potential bailout.

Is it possible to cut a deal where Georgia loses S. Ossetia in exchange for its survival as a state? We should make it clear to Sakashvili that he should not expect us to go to the mat for a better outcome.

You're bordering on making a moral equivalency between the US and the Soviet Union.

Posted by: Thomas R | August 11, 2008 10:28 AM

Who dares to border? USSR was the most puritanic empire in the world! We even had no sex in USSR (scenes in american films where men and women kissed were cut off as corrupting morals:)

Yes, masha, the USSR was a great moral paragon. It censored movies and committed genocide in Ukraine.

These are the opening shots of Cold War II. I would suggest the following policies:

1. Achieve energy independence by any means necessary. Drill everywhere, conserve as much as possible, build nuclear and wind farm powerplants, etc. Bringing down the price of crude oil was what finished the Soviet economy. Current high oil prices are enabling Putin. Bringing them down will hurt him.
2. Re-arm to Cold War levels, including robust anti-missile defenses. Russia's baaaack, and the only question is whether the new Russian Empire is neo-czarist or neo-fascist. If it's neo-czarist, we can probably work out a modus vivendi. But if it's neo-fascist, the only option is containment by all available means, political, economic, and military.
3. Wind up the War on Islamic Fascism. By bombing Iran, Syria, and, if necessary our good and dear friends, the Saudis, back to the sand age (not even stones left). Oderint dum metuant.

What order to do what? I'd start by plowing Iran under, first. This accomplishes three things. It preempts Iran's nuclear ambitions. It eliminates the world's largest overt state sponsor of terrorism. And it sends a message to Putin & Co. that if they start trashing our friends, we can start trashing theirs. Most of the (Sunni) Arab world would be glad to see us do it.

Rearmament would probably go more quickly than energy independence. But once both are in place, we settle up with the Saudis and the Syrians. Once that's done, it's classic cold war tactics of military containment and economic strangulation.

I think it's possible that the question of "what we should do about it" is over-shadowing the moral question inolved here. I understand there's some dispute about who started what (I keep hearing that Georgia bombed the disputed land, but then there's the claim that there were missiles being fired from there into Georgia).

But in general, is it morally right for a huge power to invade and dominate a lesser power? Doesn't Russia have plenty more options than a full scale invasion to bring pressure to bear on a puny country like Georgia? Why has no one mentioned the just war principles? Was the invasion really a "last resort" after all other options failed? Was it proportional? Is the damage and death being inflicted actually necessary for a justifiable purpose?

It's quite possible that we could decide that Russia is doing something patently immoral that deserves our condemnation, and still decide that we cannot intervene militarily to stop that immoral behavior. We seem to have no problem making that distinction when Africans are killing each other, and we seem fully capable of coming up with other ways of opposing the rogue nations in Asia and Africa too. But here all we are discussing is whether we should send troops. Why? Is there no room for a moral campaign similar to those organized around Darfur and Tibet in this situation?

And I have to say I have a very hard time believing the Russian claims that are being made here about who is to blame and why their actions are justified. An authoritarian government that eliminates a free press and controls information has thereby given itself a very high burden of proof to meet when trying to convince outsiders of their case. Let the press be free and follow democratic norms, and then we will have a bit more reason to give some credence to one's statements. All the Russian-philes here who are crying about "Russian-haters" who are ready to condemn Russia should go and lobby their political leaders for democratic reforms so that people will have some reason to take Russia at its words about its justifications.

The same thing goes for trying to draw parallels from other situations -- the fact that someone else did something that was arguably wrong does not make one's current actions morally correct. That's a childish argument. And there will always be room to argue that the analogies are improper or that there is additional inforation that changes the analogy, so they aren't all that persuasive.

If you think Russia's invasion and bombing campaign deep into Georgia is morally correct, explain why and give some real openly available evidence for your claims. I would argue that those who make such claims have a heavy burden of proof, and given the authoritarianism mentioned above, you're going to have an even more difficult time convincing the world of the truth of your claims.

Rod - I know you keep claiming that your faith has nothing to do with your analysis of this issue. All I can say is, it seems to me like you are much more circumspect and searching for nuance and complexity in stories involving Russians and Orthodox nations than I see in the great majority of cases involving anyone else. Perhaps it is worth some reflection, and perhaps you should consider trying to extend the same courtesy to non-orthodox?

To Sally Rogers,
Do you really believe Russia would fight to annex that microscopical spot of land while we presented pieces of land to China for free?

Remember that it was Georgia who started the war, it destroyed a big city, shelled villages, when russian army arrived they throwed grenades in basements of houses where civilians were hiding. This is what was told in russian news,was it told in American?
I don't believe Ossetian side provocated the conflict, what for would they want to be attcaked, they didn't need georgian territory, Russia didn't need that either. Saakashvili on the contrary was planning war. There are lies all the way, now he tries to present that Russia bombs peaceful cities and wants to conquer Georgia, and everyone in the west believes him, whereas it was he who bombed peaceful places and russian army targets were military bases from which planes and machines went to attack Ossetia.
I would like our army to leave Ossetia and take all Ossetians in Russia, but that would be not easy now.

There is control of information in Russia and press is not free, but at least we have european chanel Euronews with simultaneous translation into russian so we can see what europeans thinks, there is no need to buy special equipment or to pay for it. And leader of free democratic Georgia prohibits russian TV and internet. You are getting your news from this person.

Rombald, the various Orthodox Churches in the US would tell Putin to go sit on an onion dome. ROCOR separated from the Moscow Patriarchate in response to Communist attempts to influence the Russian Orthodox Church. None of the other jurisdictions would give Putin the time of day.

Regarding China, if they tried to be troublesome, I'd ask them if they wanted to continue selling their stuff to the US. If that proved insufficient inducement to cooperate. I'd ask them where they planned to get the oil they need to run their economy. No pipelines to Russia, and the US Navy is good at commerce warfare.

Japan and Europe would go along, just as they did during Cold War I. They wouldn't always be happy about it, but they'd go along.

Today I have two contradictory feelings. The first is that we should replace the E Pluribus Unum on our national seal with Turds R Us because we have thrown a little country that fought along side us in Iraq under the bus. It's not the first time either. The second is, boy, I'd give my eye teeth to turn that Putin into our ally.

Carey:
1. The USSR was explicitly anti-Christian. Russia could easily become explicitly Orthodox, and, indeed, the self-proclaimed Defender of World Orthodoxy - remember the Third Rome. That would put quite a different colour on it for Orthodox elsewhere - ask Rod.

2. Japan and W. Europe largely acknowledged that Communism was a BAD THING, even if they didn't always see eye to eye with the USA. However, the issue is much less clear when it is merely one of realpolitik, as CW2, with Russia, would be. I find it much easier to imagine Western Europeans agreeing to go to war against Muslims than against Russians.

3. I doubt if China would be as easy to push around as you imagine.

From today's New York Times, an opinion editorial on how Russia allegedly provoked this crisis to have a pretext for invasion (I'm not saying this is 100% correct either - just to show there are more than one story being told about how this started):

"Russia Blames the Victim"

But the truth is that for the past several months, Russia, not Georgia, has been stoking tensions in South Ossetia and another of Georgia’s breakaway areas, Abkhazia. After NATO held a summit in Bucharest, Romania, in April — at which Georgia and Ukraine received positive signs of potential membership — then-President Vladimir Putin of Russia signed a decree effectively treating Abkhazia and South Ossetia as parts of the Russian Federation. This was a direct violation of Georgia’s territorial integrity.

It came after years of growing Russian efforts to assert control over these regions, for example, by distributing Russian passports to citizens and arranging the appointment of Russians to the territories’ governments. Mr. Putin, who is now Russia’s prime minister, oversaw a build-up of Russian “peacekeeping” forces in Abkhazia, which was clearly intended to provoke Georgia into a military response.

Yet Georgia showed restraint — in large part because Mr. Saakashvili understood that military adventurism would harm his NATO prospects. Moscow, in turn, transferred its efforts to South Ossetia, where pro-Russian rebels carried out attacks on Georgian forces and villages, finally provoking the response that Moscow had sought as a pretext to intervene.

I don't think I can post a link, but it's over at the NYTimes today. Rod could do so if he wished....

Vlad Putin as Defender of the Orthodox Faith???? Bwahahahaha! Rombald, you come up with some of the funniest stuff I've ever heard. Oh yeah, I can see the churches of Poland (Katyn Forrest), Ukraine (The Holodomor), Georgia (current events), Hungary, the "lands of the Czechs and Slovaks", etc. voluntarily lining up behind Russia's leadership - in a dope dream. And if the Russian-derived Orthodox jurisdictions in America (ROCOR, OCA, etc.) started taking a pro-Russian line, they'd start hemorrhaging converts (and cradle Orthodox) to the Greeks and the Antiochians.

Seriously, if the Slavic world is so enamored with Russia's leadership, why are they all trying to get into NATO? Because they don't see Russia as a protector. They hate Russia and all things Russian, and for damnned good reason.

It's possible that Western Europe no longer has enough spine to stand up and defend themselves. Their futile attempts to appease the Muslims they've let into their midst are a source of concern. However, I wouldn't be asking them to go start a war with Russia. All we need from them is military and economic containment of Russia, along the lines of Cold War I policies.

Japan, however, is another breed of cat. If nothing else, she understands that alliance with America has freed her to spend more money on civilian economic development.

Regarding China, who would replace the US as a market for Chinese goods? A unilateral US ban on Chinese imports would cause an economic crash in China to rival the Great Depression. And if that were insufficient deterrent, the US Navy could completely close off the sea lanes to Chinese commerce. No tankers coming in, no container ships full of manufactured goods going out.