Russia goes to war

I would suggest reading Applebaum from Guns and Lawyers, and Joyner from Outside the Beltway to get a bigger picture. This has been brewing for a long time, and I do not expect the Russians to back down. Putin has used Russian nationalism, and oil prices, to reinvigorate the country. Kosovo's independence gives them the political cover to interfere in South Ossetia. Russia is probably past the Afghanistan fiasco and ready to exert itself again. Key quote from Aplebaum.

"“The Putin dynasty’s legitimacy is based around the idea of Russian national resurgence, and if a ridiculous little country like Georgia manages to give the Russian Empire a bloody nose and get away with it, Putin and Medvedev become vulnerable. This, I think, is the most dangerous part of the crisis for Georgia. Russia will pull out the stops to win this war; if they can’t win easy, then they’ll win hard, because Russia’s leadership really doesn’t want to be beaten. The problem isn’t just external. I don’t really believe that reputational effects matter for international politics, but even I wonder whether the rest of Russia’s Near Abroad would get restless if the Russians failed to discipline Georgia. And I’m damn sure that Putin and Medvedev do take reputation very seriously, and will spend considerable blood and treasure to make sure Russia’s neighbors remain intimidated.”

Joyner also points out that a 4 Billion Dollar pipeline is expected to be finished going through Georgia, close to Ossetia, in 2009. This line is expected to carry about one million barrels a day of oil.

Poulos had a nice post about a month ago about how Russia could be the key to solving many of our international problems. We don't have to be best buddies, but we have mutual interests in many areas. Securing nuclear material from the old USSR should remain a high security priority for us also. Given our current major troop commitments, I cannot see us doing much more than transporting Georgia's 2,000 troops out of iraq and supplying some arms.

Steve

Troll alert. Ignore him.

Cody = moron

Georgia is a sovereign nation. It was attacked by another nation - Russia. Is that too hard for you to understand?

If the Russians lost 10 fighter-bombers on their first day, that probably means some Western special forces were already deployed.

Just why should Russia have a special entitlement to a "historical sphere of influence"?

Is there a timeline of events on what provoked this out there somewhere? Based on what I've read, here's my understanding:

1. Fall of the Soviet Union; Georgia gains independence according to the boundaries of the Georgian SSR, including South Ossetia, where lots of ethnic Russians live.

2. South Ossetia wants to be part of Russia.

3. The Russians send peacekeepers to S. O.

4. Apparently, along the border, South Ossetian militants are shelling Georgian territory, causing negotiations to break down.

5. Georgia attacks South Ossetia on the pretense of shutting down the shelling. News reports of 1000 dead civilians from Georgian hands.

6. Russia comes in with bombers to try and stop the Georgians.

Do I have that right?

3. The Russians send peacekeepers to S. O.

You left out the "violating Georgian sovereignty" part.

I am now truly glad that we didn't bother extending NATO membership to Ukraine & Georgia.

Let 'em fight it out. If Russia wants to deal with occupying _another_ hostile region (plus Chechnya), they're welcome to it. Let America focus on stuff less tangential to our interests, e.g., securing Russian fissile material, or reducing Russian nuclear stockpiles, or gaining Russian acquiescence to SDI deployments (only) within the US homeland (not Europe).

Note that our primary national interest in the Eastern hemisphere is not "making the world safe for democracy", but rather ensuring that Eurasia doesn't fall under a single power's hegemony. Given the current distribution of power among East Asia, China, India, Europe, & Russia, this strikes me as unlikely even with Russian conquest of Georgia. Even if Russia were to reconquer all the old SSR's, I'd advise restarting Lend-Lease & the Arsenal of Democracy (using the aforementioned Eurasian powers as our proxies vis-a-vis Russia) before expending much of our own blood & treasure.

Regarding whether Russia or Georgia is in the right...I really don't much care. In the territorial disputes of Eurasia, there's often no truly "right" side, just sides with varying degrees of filth on their hands. Which is one reason why abstaining from involvement in such disputes is not such a bad idea.

P.S. I wonder what Russia could do to the dollar & oil prices if it put its mind to it....

ROd I disagree with you on this and I think McCain is right on. I am sorry RUssians invading Georgia. I don't think that can stand. Also as to Russia's Sphere's of influence. I can recall how far that went not too far in the distant past and don't relish going back to those days

Please stop genocide of Ocetian nation!

Starting 1989 nationalistic fascist Georgian government tries to annihilate and expel Ocetian nation from its territory. As the result of Georgian warfare against small nations, tens thousands of Ocetian, Abhasian, Armenian and Russian people died since 1991. The scale of genocide is concealed by Georgian mass media. Brutality of Georgian fascists and freaksville torture of the local population overrode the torture of fascists during the Second World War.

Georgian mass media stir up the sickness of Georgian nation – they believe they are only people deserving life on Georgian territory, they are exclusive, elitist; other nations should move out or be killed.

At the moment the tragedy is happening – Georgians systematically shooting dead the Ocetian people in their own houses or burying under the falling homes.

Georgian fascists destroyed Ocetian settlements and town Tskhinvally – they lay even with the ground.
The number of victims buried by Georgian fire under the ruins cannot be calculated – it is amounted to thousands.
Georgians destroyed all hospitals. Medics cannot work under the fire of Georgians. People saved in underground stores do not have food, water, electricity, gas for 3 days – they cannot go out because of Georgian fire and cannot move out of town because Georgians are trying to take hold with tanks and armored vehicles of the only road from the town to tunnel controlled by Russians.

At that Georgian president insincerely is saying that he tries to make constitutional order and peace, and suggesting lefthandedly to cease fire. All his actions are aimed towards USA and NATO (he even speaks with his nation in English so that you understand him).

USA has strategic interest in region – pipeline going through Georgia. So official government of USA will never realize that Georgian president is criminal politician betrayed its nation (in fact people in Georgia do not want war), instead government of USA will support him (several hours ago a train with NATO armored machines came to Georgia).

The next victim of Georgian fascists will be Abhasian nation.

People in USA and Europe please force your politicians to stop Georgians.

Because that entitlement helps keep things somewhat orderly in a chaotic part of the world,

It seems to be the chaos-creating component now.

and respect for it on our part provides some justification for us to maintain our historical sphere of influence in the Americas.

Chavez has started to break that down and the Vieques story shows it doesn't much viability left. When the Castro rule ends in Cuba it's over. Maybe the War On Drugs can prolong it a little, but Columbia seems to be slowly wrapping things up.

Realpolitik may not be pretty, but it's usually the best way to approach these sorts of issues.

Maintaining and violently defending colonial enclaves in the midst of the territory of hostile societies is no longer acceptable behavior.

And I hope W shows some modicum of good sense and keeps us out of this one. The Caucasus has been Russia's backyard problem for centuries, and there's no reason for us to join in because the Georgians decided they wanted to push the envelope, and found that envelope broken.

Yes, the peoples of the Caucasus are definitely building armies to invade and take the Ukraine and lower Volga for Islam. The Russians are victims merely defending their higher morality in South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Drat this software.... c'est moi at 6:44.

bty

You say McCain is addicted to war. Perhaps you can point out what in McCain's statement you find so alarming. Perhaps Rod can chime in too

South Ossetia = Sudetenland.

Explication please?

Why are we provoking the only other nuclear power - over Georgia?

We need Russia to deal with Iran.

This is their backyard. Leave it alone.

While I find much of Pat Buchanan's analysis outlandish, the expansion of NATO without any discussion is insane.No American soldier should have to be stuck defending Georgia, unless it's the Georgia Ray Charles sings about.

This is ugly. It's about pipelines and money, and 2 groups of oligarchs fighting over how that oil cash gets divided.There's much to dislike about Putin's Russia, but little sensible reason for any American to die for this.

The last time we heard talk of "spheres of influence," in the last years of World War II, it was a prelude to the Soviets' annexation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania; military occupation of Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria; support of satellite regimes in Yugoslavia, Albania and North Korea; backing of communist insurgents in Greece and elsewhere; and long-term attempts to subvert and/or intimidate democracies and emerging states.

Count me as an Obama supporter who's with McCain on this one. Our explicitly stated position should be that Russia's sphere of influence is...Russia, period.

Our response to its invasion of a weak neighbor should be to treat Russia as a rogue nation. If it floods Iran with arms, we should respond by arming insurgencies against Russia in the Caucasus, much as we did in Afghanistan. As we repatriate 2,000 Georgian troops from Iraq, we should send them home with some lethal new toys.

This also should prompt us to launch a Manhattan Project-style effort to develop workable alternatives to petroleum and natural gas - the economic trumps that are enriching Russia for its hegemonic adventures and enabling it to pressure its neighbors and Europe.

Another thought: The Russians have employed cyberwarfare against the Balts and now against Georgia. We should be leading a counteroffensive on this front - for openers, blocking all communications to and from anything suffixed .ru and hacking the bejeebers out of any Russian network we can access.

We need to make clear to Putin, in every way we can, that he is not the next Stalin. There will be no next Stalin.

Now would be a good time for Bush the Younger and his Coterie to stay OUT of this particular fight, for a whole host of reasons.

1) The US has no vital interests in this conflict. No oil, no particular financial ties, no bases nearby, no legally binding alliances with local powers. Shoot, there's not even a large enough group of Georgian-American voters to cause a Congressman or Senator to care, so there aren't even reasons of electoral politics. The DC elites (regardless of faction) simply don't have a dog in this fight.

(The American people don't have a dog to back in this fight, either. Not that their concerns/interests matter overmuch in these sorts of discussions, but completeness requires that I note that.)

2) The American military is overstretched with its deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is also the little matter of logistics; there is simply not enough transport and supply capacity---or available troops in any large numbers, for that matter---for America to appreciably affect the situation.

3) The American leadership cadre does not possess enough knowledge about the region (history, ethnic backgrounds or local politics) to make an intelligent assessment of the situation, let alone to affect it in any meaningful way. Not knowing enough to know what they're doing in any particular situation or region has been a long-standing problem for American foreign-policy makers for the last century or so; I see no reason to believe that this situation is any different.

4) There are more than enough foreign-policy problems for the DC cadre to deal with closer to home that require attention that they're not getting. To wit: Mexico's invasion of our Southwest, our general lack of an immigration policy and keeping the Red Chinese and Cubans from drilling for oil off our continental shelf, for starters.

In short, the best things for what passes for a leadership cadre in this country to do with regards to Georgia/South Ossetia are: say nothing, do nothing, sit down, shut up and STAY OUT.

Come to think of it, those are pretty good ideas for American foreign policy-makers to follow in most situations.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

Why are we provoking the only other nuclear power - over Georgia?

Ummm...what about Britain, France, Israel, Pakistan, India, China, and (possibly) North Korea?

"Count me as an Obama supporter who's with McCain on this one. Our explicitly stated position should be that Russia's sphere of influence is...Russia, period."

Where's the US and in the matter Israel's sphere of influnce end, begin?

Would Russia show that much force if our sphere of influnce wasn't knocking on their "sphere"? Why are we protecting other countries with missile defense, which threatens Russia?

"Russia's sphere of influence is...Russia, period..."

Ok, cowboy! What's the American sphere of influence then?

Kosovo? Irak? Pakistan? Afghanistan? Mexico? Please stop that redneck’s way of thinking!

After the fall of the Soviet Union, courtesy Ronald Reagan, Walesa and Wotjila, the US and UE had the opportunity to build a unified "West" from Vancouver to Vladivostok. And seeing what boiling up on the southern borders of the US, Europe, Russia and China a "unified West" could turn up real handy!

But instead of helping Russia recover from 72 years of the worst dictature ever the US-UE didn't stop bullying the wounded bear and taking adavantage of it's weakened situation.

Wrenching Kosovo from Serbia in order to build the AMBO pipeline topped it all. The US sided up with ben Laden's islamic friends to fight the Christian Orthodox Serbia... not speaking about crushing it with your B-2s bombers.

Now Russia is paying us back and shows she can turn off the spigots of the BTC pipeline.

We had it coming, no?

Asterix

What a coincidence that the bear decided to make a reappearance just a scant three months before the US elections. I can't see Putin wanting to deal w/ McCain over Obama, though. The great temptation for McCain is to cast himself as another Ronald Reagan, although Reagan he ain't.

You do know Kosovo never belonged to Russia right? Besides that if you oppose Kosovar independence, for whatever reason, wouldn't that mean Russia intervening in another nation is bad as well regardless of any claim to humanitarianism? Or do you think Russia is so much better than we are they wouldn't do it for bad reasons? If you think that why? They are a nation more crime-ridden, more autocratic, where abortion rates are higher, and belief in God weaker. So if they have the moral high-ground what put them there?

Maybe their reason for intervening isn't humanitarian so much as a belief that an autonomous or independent Ossetia is in their interests. That it would be a weaker-state that can become a virtual Russian base to regain more clout in the Caucasus. Maybe our reason for invading Iraq was it's centrally located as a base to attack other Mideast nations. I've considered that. If I can think that of us why is it so bad to think potentially the same of Russia?

And likewise what if both our motivations were good? What if we wanted freedom for Iraq and they want stability for Ossetians?

MI, the occupation of the Sudetenland, in what what was Czechoslovakia was the first military of a resurgent Germany under Hitler. Hitler's pretext for the occupation of the Sudetenland was the "mistreatment" of ethnic Germans there. Does it sound familiar, now?

If he gets away with this, Putin will use the same tactic with the rest of the former Soviet Empire. He'll stir up ethnic Russian separatist groups, and invade countries that try to suppress them.

What can we do about it?

1. Offer immediate NATO membership to any former republics not already members. And upgrade their militaries with lots of anti-armor and anti-air missiles. Create contingency plans to reinforce them with lots of air power.
2. Bring down the price of oil. Oil revenues are powering Putin's expansionist policies. We need to start drilling in every domestic location, step up efforts to extract oil from oil shale, increase production of energy from alternative sources, and increase fuel economy in all new vehicles.
3. Cut off trade with Russia.
4. Take Iran out. Wipe out their nuclear facilities, their armed forces, and their civilian infrastructure (except the oil production facilities - we still want to bring down the price of oil, long term). Occupy the Iranian side of the Strait of Hormuz, if necessary. Blow up enough of their country that they need every petrodollar they can scrape up to rebuild, and have nothing left over for terror groups. Make it bad enough that either the mullahs quit, or the Iranian people hang them.

Carey J--

So what you're saying is that we should launch two major wars--one, an invasion of Iran that would "take the country out" including the "civilian infrastructure" (hospitals, schools, water plants, that sort of thing, I assume). This would have no effect, of course, on our own barely-functioning control over Iraq, and the bombed-to-bits Iranian people will naturally turn on their mullahs and not want to kill as many Americans as possible.

At the same time, we need to start a Second Cold War, giving nuclear weapons to Ukraine and Georgia and Estonia and whoever the hell else, and provoking Russia to a possible nuclear confrontation over disputes on *their own borders*.

Oh, and we're going to reduce the price of oil to $1 a gallon thanks to our massive new drilling efforts.

anything else? Can our new Martian colony help out in these efforts?

Carey J - Oh, I understood your historical reference. What I don't see - still - is an explanation of how Russia today threatens US national interests the way Nazi Germany of yesteryear did. Arguably, intervention against the latter was necessary to keep it and Imperial Japan from dividing & dominating Eurasia between them. (Although it can be argued, per Russett, that once Russia tossed back Germany's initial invasion, this was no longer the case.) Today, Russia is merely one of many Eurasian powers (and not clearly the most powerful, either). Russian hegemony of Eurasia today seems a bit less likely than Axis hegemony during WWII, or even Soviet hegemony during the Cold War.

NATO membership for former SSR's, and blockading Russia, are needless provocations unless our national interest requires confronting Russia. You have failed to explain why this is the case. I have no problem selling arms to former SSR's, but this can be done on a cash-and-carry basis, independently of any promise of alliance.

As for Iran...I'd think we'd have our hands full just confronting Russia. Wouldn't it make sense to form an alliance of convenience with the mullahs in the short term (at least 'till Russia had been dealt with)? After all, I doubt they'd find Russian domination very welcome, unless we gave them a reason to.

The timeline and the truth are a bit screwy yet. I'll reserve judgement on who did what to whom first for now. Suffice it to say, thousands of people in Georgia are going to die, thousands already have. Our hands are tied: we would be unwise to do anything but insist loudly that Russia honor any request to ceasefire and accept international mediation. Any military aid to Georgia at this point would only exacerbate the situation.

The situation is complicated, and the history of our involvement in post-Soviet breakaway states is even more complicated. We aid and abet breakaway states from breakaway states at our own peril, diplomatically, at least. Georgia's leaders have not behaved in the past 10 years either, this is not a clear-cut case of Big Bad Russia attacks Little Democracy.

This has been the fatal flaw in NATO expansion from the outset. Its historical purpose has been to counterbalance, and if necessary, fight Soviet forces. Is it wise to make alliances with countries it is not in our interest to defend, especially when making such an alliance possibly INCREASES the chances these countries would be targeted in Russian military action? Are any of these countries worth defending except in a clear case of genocide (in which case we may intervene almost anywhere?) Russia is a big enough power to rate a certain sphere of influence.

Georgia has some 2,000 troops in Iraq, and we have trained them to our standard and equipped them rather well to boot. The poor guys now have to fly home to a situation which risks making the current situation in Iraq look like a collection of low level skirmishes and occasionally violent riots.

Russia has enough artillery to reduce plenty more neighboring little countries to rubble, to say nothing of the thousands of nuclear warheads which are standing in the middle of this discussion like rather a lot of proverbial elephants. Any action on our part would have consequences.

The time for a working and cooperative relationship with Russia, against common threats of nuclear security and extremist groups and in our mutual interests, has probably now passed. The ABM treaty and placing anti missile defense systems on Russia's borders lowered the chances of any cooperation considerably. Russia was simply waiting for the last straw, it didn't have to be a large one.

NATO may unravel by the end of this, at least on its eastern front. And Georgia will probably lose a large chunk of its territory. We could have influenced things more to our advantage with diplomacy, but that is not the choice we made.

Sorry I conconfused with that numbers.
Here is an article of american journalist, i just read it:
www.thenation.com/doc/20080818/ames

Carey J - The extent to which Germany threatened US interests in WWII is (still) debatable; see, e.g., Bruce M. Russett, "No Clear and Present Danger" (*). In any event...so what if some people were ignorant of the threat posed by Germany pre-WWII; this still doesn't answer the question of how Russian conquest of Georgia threatens US national interests.

As for "dealing with Putin", my strategy involves America sitting back & doing nothing, and letting the other Eurasian powers I mentioned do the job of containing him (via arms if necessary). Europe, China, East Asia, & India, for example, do not lack for men or money; plus, all except East Asia possesses nukes. None of these powers have to like us; they merely have to dislike Russian domination. If these powers start having trouble - which I doubt - we can start selling them arms, and maybe send over advisers.

As for Iran...I'm sure we could bomb them back to the stone age; but I see no reason to do that absent a clear Iranian threat to US interests. On the contrary, as I mentioned above, if we're going to try containing Russia, an alliance of convenience with Iran would seem more prudent than inflaming a second front.

(*) Available online here: anthonyflood.com/russettnoclearandpresentdanger2.htm

This situation isn't very complex. Putin cannot tolerate a western-oriented, liberal democracy on the border of Russia. He wants a pliant authoritarian regime like the one in Belarus. The South Ossetia situation is just a tool that Putin is using. I recognize that Putin will most likely succeed in this gambit. However, I am very disappointed that the posters here seem to show no concern that a western democratic nation is being swallowed up by tyranny.

Carey J - I'm still waiting to hear how an expansionist Russia threatens US national interests.

Methinks you underestimate Western Europe. They do have plenty of wealth & manpower, and their weapons aren't bad. (Even if they were, we could still sell them ours.) As for fighting spirit...admittedly, Europeans haven't done much fighting lately, but why would they, with America underwriting their security? Put their backs against the wall, and I suspect you'll see a bit more aggressiveness. (See, e.g., WWI & WWII, Algeria, & the Falklands.) Plus, France & the UK have SSBNs; even absent US intervention, they could answer Russian threats of conquest with the prospect of nuclear annihilation.

Your silence regarding the other capabilities of the Eurasian powers is noted.

As for whether Iran is deterrable...I'm agnostic on the issue. Insufficient data. On the one hand, they have been quite bombastic; OTOH, that's par for the course in the region. Plus, IIRC the Soviets said lots of wacky stuff during the Cold War; but that didn't make them any less rational WRT deterrence.

Even without deterrence, an Iranian nuclear arsenal is only a threat if deliverable. Last I checked, Iran had no ICBMs, SLBMs, or long-range bombers. Even if they did, there's missile defense & Aegis. Plus competent border security to deal with smuggled nukes.

I am unconcerned about Iranian threats to Israel. Even - especially? - if the latter's arsenal does not deter nuclear attack by the former, I suspect we won't have to worry much about Iran after Israel responds with the "Samson Option".

Kevin Boyd - "We are the friends of liberty everywhere. We are the guardians only of our own."

Readers are going to have to get used to Orthodox paleocon pundits in the West, like Rod and Larison, urging us all not to "rush to judgment" of Vlad Putin, and to take a "nuanced" view of a resurgent Russia, and to "recognize that Moscow has certain legitimate interests" in non-Russian territories in the Caucasus, in the Baltics, in Central Asia, and the Balkans.

Oh, get over yourself. I don't have any love for Putin, and I hope no illusions about him. I wish Russia wouldn't have attacked Georgia. I wish Georgia's leader weren't so aggressive and ridiculous about Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which the government in Tbilisi has been trying to regain after those provinces seceded. This is not a matter of Good vs. Evil. I hope for peace. But Russia does have legitimate interests in those areas. The US has legitimate interests in our geographical sphere of influence. "Legitimate interests" is an elastic term, of course, and should not be read as "a right to roll over any neighboring countries who disagree with the powerful nation." Still, do you really expect Russia to do nothing while NATO expands to its doorstep? That's simply unrealistic.

Mainly I don't think the US is in any position to dictate to the Russians what they should do here. We should push for a diplomatic solution, but Putin well knows that we are not going to risk a single American soldier's life for Georgia. Nor should we. Georgia 2008 is not Hungary 1956 or Czechoslovakia 1968. Shame on Bush for pushing NATO membership for the Georgians. Now the poor Georgians are having to learn the hard way how powerless NATO is to help them. Try to convince Americans, especially after living through the Iraq debacle, that our "freedom" depends on driving Russia out of Georgia. You won't do it, because it doesn't.

Now that Russia is pressing beyond South Ossetia, their troops will probably end up getting caught in a guerrilla war in Georgia. It will be a terrible thing for everyone. Pray for peace. But this is not America's fight.

"I am very disappointed that the posters here seem to show no concern that a western democratic nation is being swallowed up by tyranny." KB

TR: I'm concerned. Although I don't think it's entirely certain they'll swallow the whole country.

Still I do agree we can't do anything military for a variety of reasons. Also I think you're assuming people here would sympathize with Western democracy and I don't think that's a safe assumption. Rod might, but I think many here would not. Or would only pay lip service to respecting it while actually admiring some form of "restrained" or non-Western democracy. An Orthodox or Catholic version of an "Islamic Republic" would probably not get Rod's support, but I think it might get support of one or two people here.

"Readers are going to have to get used to Orthodox paleocon pundits in the West, like Rod and Larison" K

TR: I'm tempted to agree, but I think it's as much or more a distrust of the horrible "Neocon" US. Also I think many posters here are more immoderate on the matter than Rod himself.

Nevertheless the idea is NATO expands our "evil empire" so is automatically a threat to Russia. I guess the Russian feelings of being threatened are maybe not seen as valid for the reasons I'd though. It's not because Russia's so great it's because the US and the West are so very untrustworthy and decadent. Which is a theme that I think Rod encourages more or less.

"Try to convince Americans, especially after living through the Iraq debacle, that our "freedom" depends on driving Russia out of Georgia. You won't do it, because it doesn't."

I wish I could have that confidence in the government and in the people. Carey J here apparently believes there is real danger from Russia. The people, more of them than we want to think, who agree with what the U.S. has done in Iraq, would be more than ready to support another go against some new enemies in Russia. People who don't agree with the Iraq war could see Russia as an entirely different kind of case worthy of action and support. I don't necessarily think this will happen, but it will not surprise me at all.

Dear Rod,
The deep strategic thinker that Bush is missed the opening play of the world game. He could only find the pawns.
The Russians-old order-will look you in the eye and lie to you knowing that you know that they are lieing. In the old KGB you had to kill to get promoted, that from a past agent. But Bushed looked into his eyes, the rest is history.
They could use the A Bomb and be rid of the Georgians all-to-gather. Then they could have their resort back for fun and games.
Sincerely, J R Dittbrenner

I'm not sure why NATO still exists, but if they see at as a threat to them they're seeing themselves as Soviets more than we are.

Regarding the Russian take on NATO, I found this essay of interest:

carlisle.army.mil/usawc/parameters/98summer/hammers.htm

Given my druthers, we would've withdrawn from NATO after the USSR kicked it.

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.

"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.

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.)