Georgia and Russia nearing all-out war reads the NYT headline. This is very bad news. Before we go any further in this discussion, we should all bear in mind that Georgia has sought NATO membership. Is it really the case that the US would go to war to protect Georgia from Russia? Which of the former Soviet republics would Americans be willing to send their soldiers to die for?
Think about it. Think about it hard.
Read Stratfor's analysis from Friday afternoon. Excerpt:
Strategically, we said Russia would respond to Kosovo's independence, and they have. Russia is now declaring the Caucasus to be part of its sphere of influence. We have spoken for months of how Russia would find a window of opportunity to redefine the region. This is happening now.All too familiar with the sight of Russian tanks, the Baltic countries are terrified of what they face in the long run, and they should be. This is the first major Russian intervention since the fall of the Soviet Union. Yes, Russia has been involved elsewhere. Yes, Russia has fought. But this is on a new order of confidence and indifference to general opinion. We will look at this as a defining moment.
The most important reaction will not be in the United States or Western Europe. It is the reaction in the former Soviet states that matters most right now. That is the real audience for this. Watch the reaction of Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Nagorno-Karabakh and the Balts. How will Russia's moves affect them psychologically?
The Russians hold a trump card with the Americans: Iran. They can flood Iran with weapons at will. The main U.S. counter is in Ukraine and Central Asia, but is not nearly as painful.
Tactically, there is only one issue: Will the Russians attack Georgia on the ground? If they are going to, the Russians have likely made that decision days ago.
Focus on whether Russia invades Georgia proper. Then watch the former Soviet states. The United States and Germany are of secondary interest at this point.
Since Stratfor published this, Russia has moved closer to a full invasion. The Russian bear is back. I'm busy doing stuff in the backyard today (more on which later), but I find Daniel Larison to be a must-read in this crisis. I don't want to take a side until I have more details, but I am disturbed by McCain's hard line against Russia, and deeply uneager for America to interfere within Russia's historical sphere of influence. Ye who have time to read up and think about this today, please post your ponderings below.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
We probably shouldn't ask any nations in the east to join, but if they want to we should still let them. Russian whininess and paranoia notwithstanding.
Because Tblisi is well worth losing Boston, Atlanta or some other city.
If we had followed your policy, right now we'd be looking at either fighting a nuclear-armed Russia in the Caucasus with a stretched supply line (which didn't work out too well for the Germans), or backing down in one of history's most humiliating face-offs.
Carey J - I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree regarding European fighting spirit. What I view as dormant, you view as nonexistent.
As for smuggled nukes...I wasn't kidding when I mentioned "competent border security" in my 9:30 post. Inter alia, I'd have no problem with inspecting every single imported shipping container (on offshore platforms) prior to entering US ports. If this dramatically raises the cost of imports...well, as an advocate of tariffs, I view this as a feature, not a bug.
For more, see the addendum to this essay:
gravitron5.blogspot.com/2007/07/immigration-on-border-security.html
Carbon-fiber fishing nets could also be used to deter nukes smuggled by subs or nuclear torpedoes.
"Because Tblisi is well worth losing Boston, Atlanta or some other city.If we had followed your policy, right now we'd be looking at either fighting a nuclear-armed Russia in the Caucasus with a stretched supply line" DC
TR: You really don't know that. And if Russia is so paranoid they'd nuke us for simply allowing some nations to join NATO, which is all I said there, then they could do so for any number of other reasons. I don't think Russians are that suicidal and I don't think you do either. If you do you're wrong.
If Russia takes all of Georgia Russia is our enemy. We survived with Russia as the enemy before, we'd survive with it again. The alternate is an America that's lost what little morals it has left and let's an ally be gobbled up for expediency. I'd do everything I can to move to Ireland in such a case.
You people are odd. I hope I never get tempted to come here again.
All i have to say is Thank God this is happening while George Bush is still in office, as opposed to any number of past or present running spineless Democrats. I'm sure Bush will handle our involvement the best way possible. After all, HE is not too busy sleeping with Interns!! LOL. If it does not cease over there, it is our Duty to assist Georgia, even if it means war with Russia. What would that say about us, "The United States" if we let, as the one said above, Georgia get "Gobbled up"
Thank you, Masha, for posting the Russian perspective here. A very useful counterbalance.
We may have survived with Russia as our enemy before. But nuclear brinksmanship had us within MINUTES of mutually assured destruction. This state of affairs continued for decades. I was only ten years old in 1991. I could barely parse out where Canada and Russia were on a map at that age. But I fully understand now the chances we took. I find it hard to comprehend that so many here have forgotten, so quickly.
The thing is, Russia and the United States over the period of the same decades came up with a robust collection of treaties, established very high level military and diplomatic communications. There were rules well-established about how Russian and American sea vessels or aircraft behaved when they encountered one another. Everything was very formalized. Almost balletic. Everything was very balanced. It had to be, the alternative was unacceptable. But it was a brittle balance nonetheless.
Our government, through the course of several administrations, systematically and largely unilaterally dismantled this entire system, leaving only the START aggregate treaties. I'm still not entirely sure why. (Missile Defense? Couldn't we cooperate on a system that would prevent rogue states from lobbing a few nukes at either of us, or Europe??)
We have more to gain in cooperation with Russia, or more realistically, in communication and a negotiated "understanding" with Russia, than either party could ever gain by all this saber rattling and obfuscation over various small breakaway factions of various small nations (they are the ones who will suffer from all this, far more than either the U.S. or Russia.)
And as for acting now before Russia gets stronger? They are on the other side of the planet. They only have 100 million or so people. Their birthrate demographic will reset that considerably lower within two generations. They pose no threat to us, unless we push them into a corner.
We need to reformulate a workable framework with Russia, stat, in my not so humble opinion. One which will end in balance, and prevent further civilian casualties.
(And anyone who compares neutralizing Iran with neutralizing Serbia, by sheer airpower, has clearly not taken into account Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran's ability to undo by renewed insurgency all the hard-won gains in Iraq over the past two years, indirectly or directly. My Brigade Combat Team has lost several young men and women here in Iraq in the past year. I would hate to see this progress unmade. Iran's proxies can out-insurgency Al Qaeda any day.)
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.