Russia Pushes Deeper into Georgia

The bumbling of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili is a stunning sight to behold. This much seems clear: Putin and his surrogates in South Ossetia set a trap and the Georgians ambled into it, naively expecting his allies in the West to come to his rescue. And it is too early to tell just where the blame lies, though convincing arguments can be made for both camps. Georgia argues that it was responding to an attempted annexation of South Ossetia and consistent provocations from the Russian military; Russia claims it is merely defending the Russian passport holders of Ossetia from Georgia's all-out attack on Tshkhinvali, the regional capital. Both sides are engaged in heated, overblown rhetoric; both are making shocking and unverifiable claims. Georgia says that Russia is engaged in a campaign of "ethnic cleansing." Russian President Dmitri Medvedev told reporters that Georgia is engaged in "genocide." Both of these statements are to be treated with circumspection, of course, just as it is impossible to determine if the civilian casualty figures reported are accurate.

The propaganda war is in full swing, with both sides limiting access to certain media outlets. According to The Moscow Times, a reporter for Russia Today, the Kremlin's English-language propaganda channel, was fired for mentioning on-air that Russia was bombing inside Georgia. The same story noted that Georgia "terminated broadcasts of Russian news channels Channel One, Rossia and NTV and blocked web sites in the .ru domain."

That said, the Russians have made it abundantly clear that they desire to overthrow the democratically elected Georgian government. So the question of proportionality is not just one of force, but of end results. If the Russians only desire to expel Georgian forces from South Ossetia and reestablish "peace keeping" forces in the region (it is, of course, a bit odd to have one of two interested parties acting as "peacekeepers"), why attempt to bomb oil pipelines? Why send Russian troops into the contested region Abkhazia? Why bomb the Kodori Gorge—a stronghold of ethnic Georgians in Abkhazia? Or military bases bordering Abkhazia? Or the airport in Tbilisi? Or send troops into the town of Senaki, deep into Georgian territory? According to this breaking story from CNN, the Russian military currently controls half of the country.

Again, Russia has made it clear that it wants Saakashvili to go. But as British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said today, there is simply no justification for Russian military's occupation of areas in Georgia proper (Although many would claim that Ossetia and Abkhazia too are Georgia proper, as enunciated in multiple UN resolutions, but I won't wade into that dispute). But if Saakashvili is indeed correct that Russia is "in the process of invasion, occupation, and annihilation of an independent, democratic country," the justification for its initial incursion into South Ossetia seems to have been rendered irrelevant.

Bonus video: Watch this BBC reporter's car come under attack by the Russian air force.

Comments

Nigel Watt | August 11, 2008, 2:41pm | #

Somehow I doubt the Georgian people will think too much of Russia installing a puppet, and it's not like there isn't regional knowledge about how to make life hell for an occupying superpower.

John | August 11, 2008, 2:45pm | #

The Russians want to re-establish their old Soviet Borders. When NATO decided not to give Georgia client status, Putin, rightly I think, took that as a signal that he could invade and annex Georgia without too many problems from the US or Europe.

Any guess on how long before the Urkraine gets the message and starts doing as ordered?

Nigel Watt | August 11, 2008, 2:48pm | #

John: Ukraine, last I heard, was talking about not letting Russian ships back into their base at Sevastopol, so I don't think that's the way things are going.

Kolohe | August 11, 2008, 2:50pm | #

why attempt to bomb oil pipelines?

I find it credible that they missed on purpose.

I also find it credible that they just simply missed.

joe | August 11, 2008, 2:54pm | #

If John McCain had had his way, we would have been obligated by the NATO Charter to go to war against Russia two days ago.

I think we can safely put the "no difference between Obama and McCain on foreign policy" shtick to bed now. As it turns out, whether a candidate intends to withdraw from Iraq at precisely the speed recommended by Ron Paul is not the only issue one nees to consider when evaluating the options.

R C Dean | August 11, 2008, 2:54pm | #

the Georgians ambled into it, naively expecting his allies in the West to come to his rescue.

Yes. The Georgians were fools to think the Euros would lift a finger to prevent annexation and ethnic cleansing.

If any of the Ossetians who so eagerly accepted Russian "aid" thought the outcome of this was going to be independence, they are even bigger fools than the Georgians who thought Fwance would save them from Ivan.

You can forget all the nattering back and forth about peacekeepers and South Ossetian independence. This is Imperial Russia dipping its toe into the waters. The first domino has fallen.

Episiarch | August 11, 2008, 2:55pm | #

Well, we knocked over Iraq. I think the Russians got jealous and wanted to throw their weight around a little too. They used to be a superpower, you know.

R C Dean | August 11, 2008, 2:56pm | #

If John McCain had had his way, we would have been obligated by the NATO Charter to go to war against Russia two days ago.

Actually, if McCain had had his way, the Russians would not have invaded, because even Putin isn't crazy enough to invade a member of NATO. I think.

No, the refusal, under massive Soviet Russian pressure to admit Georgia was a clear signal to Putin that his way was clear.

Lamar | August 11, 2008, 2:57pm | #

George W. Bush should stand up to Russia, and tell them that we will not allow a country to invade a non-threatening foreign country that did not attack them, in violation of international law, for questionable purposes. Russia needs to be taught that dominance over an important fossil fuel is simply not a sufficient reason to take over a sovereign country.

joe | August 11, 2008, 2:57pm | #

Who was it standing in front of a crowed of Georgians promising them that the United States would "stand with them" back in 2005? One of those Euros, right? Someone Fwench?

R C Dean | August 11, 2008, 2:57pm | #

On the plus side, though, this can only increase the supply of hot Slavic women moving West.

Kolohe | August 11, 2008, 2:58pm | #

[why bomb] the airport in Tbilisi?

This is an easy one. If Pennsylvania was trying to maintain tactical air supperiority over Maryland, they would bomb BWI as well as Andrews.

Episiarch | August 11, 2008, 2:58pm | #

This is Imperial Russia dipping its toe into the waters.

We'll see. Picking on Georgia is one thing, being a Empire is another. Russia just doesn't have the juice for the latter any more.

Occam's toothbrush | August 11, 2008, 2:59pm | #

joe,

If Georgia were already a NATO member you can bet Putin Medvedev's calculus would have been quite different. Not saying it would have been a good idea, but this situation is a bit more complex than you indicate.

joe | August 11, 2008, 2:59pm | #

Actually, if McCain had had his way, the Russians would not have invaded, because even Putin isn't crazy enough to invade a member of NATO. I think.

Crazy is the idea that America, Britain, or Germany would start a shooting war with Russia over a former Soviet Republic. Not even post-surgery Dick Cheney is that stupid.

R C Dean | August 11, 2008, 3:00pm | #

Ah, but joe, this is Bush doing as so many have wished for all these years - no unilateral action here, consult with allies until the problem goes away, er, I mean, let the Euros take the lead. Isn't this exactly how you want Bush to behave in an international crisis? Wait patiently for unambiguous direction from the UN?

Regis Carnifex | August 11, 2008, 3:01pm | #

Russia needs to be taught that dominance over an important fossil fuel is simply not a sufficient reason to take over a sovereign country.

But Russia's intelligence service had convincing evidence that Georgia was manufacturing WMD's and conspiring with terrorists. And, President Saakashvili is a corrupt thug bent on denying the freedom-loving peoples of Abkhasia and South Ossetia their natural right to self-determination.

Er, something.

Naga Sadow | August 11, 2008, 3:04pm | #

They can have Georgia. I hate that damn state. "Deliverance" anyone? (looks at globe) Oh, well there seems to also be a country called Georgia as well . . . all the same I stick by my original comment.

Occam's toothbrush | August 11, 2008, 3:04pm | #

joe,

So if Russia invades Finland, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania -- all former Soviet domains -- we sit back and watch?

I actually would agree with you, but I want to make sure you agree with yourself.

Nigel Watt | August 11, 2008, 3:05pm | #

Russia just doesn't have the juice for the latter any more.

Agreed, you can't run an empire when your country is the Limberger cheese of corruption.

joe | August 11, 2008, 3:05pm | #

It's a tough call what would be less likely: an American president starting a shooting war with Russia when a former Soviet republic sets off a conflict over some disputed territory, or an American president ignoring the NATO charter.

That's why NATO doesn't admit countries in the old Russian Empire*; because it would be faced with one or the other of those options, and neither is acceptable.

*except the Baltic states, which for some reason, Russia seems less touchy about.

R C Dean | August 11, 2008, 3:05pm | #

Crazy is the idea that America, Britain, or Germany would start a shooting war with Russia over a former Soviet Republic.

In that case, I suppose that Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Slovenia, et al should start brushing up on their Russian as well. Can't see America, Britain, or Germany starting a shooting war over that lot, either.

ed | August 11, 2008, 3:05pm | #

Russia claims it is merely defending the Russian passport holders

So if Canada issues passports to Oregonians, they have a right to bomb Californians?
Please say yes.

Yuri Pattonovich | August 11, 2008, 3:06pm | #

If the Russians only desire to expel Georgian forces from South Ossetia and reestablish "peace keeping" forces in the region [why do all the stuff they're doing]?

Clark, you magnificent bastard! I read your book!

Seward | August 11, 2008, 3:07pm | #

FYI: NATO did promise a future invitation for Georgia. Not quite sure what the time window was though.

joe | August 11, 2008, 3:07pm | #

Isn't this exactly how you want Bush to behave in an international crisis? Wait patiently for unambiguous direction from the UN?

Yes. You'll note a complete lack of criticism from me about the fact that Bush hasn't sent a bunch of other people's kids to die in the Caucasus, RC.

Too bad he shot off his mouth and encouraged and uprising he had no intention of supporting when push came to shove. Just like his daddy. Absent that, the Georgians might not have made this blunder.

ed | August 11, 2008, 3:08pm | #

Ray Charles never saw this coming.

Mad Ivan | August 11, 2008, 3:09pm | #

Hmmm, and wasn't Saakishvili massacring opposition just last fall or something?

There's rather big вшааукусту between democratically elected and pro-American...

joe | August 11, 2008, 3:09pm | #

Occum,

Funny, I was typing that comment about the Baltic states being different even as you were posting.

I don't know why both sides treat them like Hungary and Bulgaria instead of like Georgia and Chechnya, but they very obviously do.

Mad Ivan | August 11, 2008, 3:09pm | #

Sorry... ...rather big difference...

Occam's toothbrush | August 11, 2008, 3:10pm | #

It might not be such a good idea to start a shooting war with China by invading the Sudan*, either. Right joe?

* Yes, sending thousands of troops into an unwilling sovereign country is an invasion, whatever euphemisms you may prefer.

Joe | August 11, 2008, 3:11pm | #

The U.S. should establish a No Fly Zone over Georgia, a staunch U.S. ally, just as we did for the Kurds of northern Iraq (another staunch U.S. ally).

Russia seems to think they can bully who they want, to regrow their empire, and that no one in the world will have the guts to stand up to them.

Put U.S. jets into the sky over Georgia and make it clear that we stand with our allies when they are attacked. Georgia sent 2,000 of her sons and daughters to Iraq at our behest, and Georgia was as a result the 3rd largest contingent of forces after the U.S. and UK. Ditto Kosovo, where Georgia sent her forces.

It's time for the U.S. to be a better friend to our allies and help them out when they face possible extinction because of unwarranted military hostility by the Russians.

We don't need anymore Pragues or Warsaws. I'm Polish and I can't stand to see us trade off long term disaster (a resurgent Russia thinking it can conquer nations to regrow the "new" Russia into something akin to the "old" USSR) because we fear the short-term consequences of defending our friends.

We don't need to engage in any military action other than a defensive posture to protect the sovereign nation of Georgia.

Pro Libertate | August 11, 2008, 3:11pm | #

This is our fault? What idiot would expect the U.S. to go to war with Russia? Unless he wants to wear leather outfits and drive around in a car wired to explode if the gas tank is tampered with, of course. Then WWIII is a great idea.

Rimfax | August 11, 2008, 3:12pm | #

Why am I envisioning Bush cowering under the desk in the Oval Office while a plush Ronald Reagan doll sits upright on the desk?

joe | August 11, 2008, 3:13pm | #

Occum,

Are you under the impression that China has invaded Darfur? That China has military units in Sudan? That China considers Sudan to be its backyard? That it has "peacekeepers" in place in Sudan? That Sudan was long, and until very recently, part of China?

Or do you just make a point of not understanding the differences between extremely different situations?

joe | August 11, 2008, 3:14pm | #

Yes, sending thousands of troops into an unwilling sovereign country is an invasion, whatever euphemisms you may prefer.

Oops, I see Occum answered my question with a hearty "yes."

anon | August 11, 2008, 3:14pm | #

This problem isn't unique to Georgia, there are ethnic Russians living through out the former Soviet Union, many of them wanting to be part of mother Russia again. Always an excuse for Russian aggression, remember the poor oppressed Germans in the Sudetenland. The Russians will keep pushing until someone pushes back.

Industrial Military Complex | August 11, 2008, 3:14pm | #

Who cares about some rag-heads from the middle east when we can get us a new cold war going?

1/2rat,1/2cat,1/2dog | August 11, 2008, 3:15pm | #

Does anyone see any historical parallels between this conflict and the one that took place on Naboo? Think about it...scary....

Kolohe | August 11, 2008, 3:16pm | #

*except the Baltic states, which for some reason, Russia seems less touchy about.

There was sometime last spring a big friggin deal with a WW2 memorial in Latvia (?) (Lithuania? Estonia?) that resulted in some rioting between ethnic Russians and the Latvian/Lithuanian/Estonians.

The only reason I was aware of it is that I was in Thailand where there was a sizable Russian tourist presence and so the cafe where I had breakfast alternated between the BBC world report (which didn't cover it all that much) and it's Russian (english language) equivalent (where it was the lead story). So it seemed to me that it was a big deal in Russia.

Pro Libertate | August 11, 2008, 3:16pm | #

Rather than a Cold War, might I suggest a Bold War? Perhaps a Bold and Beautiful War?

squarooticus | August 11, 2008, 3:17pm | #

Here's a novel idea: why don't we stay the hell out of a conflict between two countries neither of which is called "The United States of America"? Let them hash out whatever conflict they have, and make it clear we'll trade with either of them peacefully.

Russia may be acting the bully here, but until they come after us---something that is exceedingly unlikely---we should not be in the business of telling them what not to do. This is none of our business.

Episiarch | August 11, 2008, 3:18pm | #

What idiot would expect the U.S. to go to war with Russia? Unless he wants to wear leather outfits and drive around in a car wired to explode if the gas tank is tampered with, of course.

I am gravely disappointed. Again you have made me unleash my dogs of war.

Just walk away!

Occam's toothbrush | August 11, 2008, 3:19pm | #

Kolohe,

Here is what you're thinking of (it was Estonia).

Fluffy | August 11, 2008, 3:19pm | #

All this "the Russians are rebuilding their empire" stuff is really a bit much.

We have steadily advanced the borders of our own military empire towards the Russian center since the Soviet Union fell. Finally one of our client states decided to launch an offensive against an ethnic enclave, and the Russians chose to intervene militarily.

We bring whole nations under the NATO umbrella, and the Russians intervene to stick up for an ethnic enclave of 70,000 people, and it's Russia that's an imperial power on the march?

How is what Russia is doing in South Ossetia any different from what we did in Kosovo? The Georgians are the Serbs in this situation, folks.

. | August 11, 2008, 3:19pm | #

"Here's a novel idea: why don't we stay the hell out of a conflict between two countries neither of which is called "The United States of America"? Let them hash out whatever conflict they have, and make it clear we'll trade with either of them peacefully"

I say we stay out of it until Obama gets elected. After that, our intentions will be good so it will be ok

Kolohe | August 11, 2008, 3:19pm | #

What's ironic (ok, at least interesting) is that this is the crisis that Condi Rice has trained all her life for.

joe | August 11, 2008, 3:20pm | #

Kolohe,

Russia certainly does still maintain an interest in the Baltic states, but did nothing but complain when they were admitted to NATO. Whereas they've been trying to undermine Georgia for some time, and actually had forces on the ground to defend the pro-Russian areas of Georgia.

QSL | August 11, 2008, 3:20pm | #

It's a tough call what would be less likely: an American president starting a shooting war with Russia when a former Soviet republic sets off a conflict over some disputed territory, or an American president ignoring the NATO charter.

My total guess is that the charter would be ignored. Which would be somewhat dependent on what nation was getting the pounding, I suppose.

I'm thinking if Georgia was in NATO, there's still no way we'd be duking it out with Russia right now. Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania... I still don't think so, but not as sure. Any of Eastern Europe... then yes, then we'd be in it.

Kolohe | August 11, 2008, 3:22pm | #

Occam-
Yep.

Industrial Military Complex | August 11, 2008, 3:23pm | #

Rather than a Cold War, might I suggest a Bold War? Perhaps a Bold and Beautiful War?

The generals and me could never make no real sense from those little border disputes between the camel jockeys. Now, land wars in Europe, that I understands.

joe | August 11, 2008, 3:23pm | #

Fluffy,

How is what Russia is doing in South Ossetia any different from what we did in Kosovo? We didn't invade Serbia outside of Kosovo.

I agree that the nice little story about Russia picking on the poor, innocent Georgians - you know, the ones who used rocket fire and tanks to capture a city - is bunk, but Russia's response throughout Georgia demonstrates pretty convincingly that they've got more than defending South Ossetians on their minds.

Occam's toothbrush | August 11, 2008, 3:26pm | #

Fluffy,

If NATO is an empire, Monica Lewinsky is a virgin. If Georgia joins NATO it is because Georgia wants to, not because the US does. Why should Russia have a veto over the foreign policy decisions of its smaller neighbors?

Industrial Military Complex | August 11, 2008, 3:26pm | #

Nothin boots up the economy faster than deficit spending on big military toys. Fuck the subprime mess, let the war games begin.

Mad Ivan | August 11, 2008, 3:26pm | #

Kolohe -- Russians generally look down on people who build monuments to Nazi collaborators.

JHoe's polish... That explains a lot.

joe | August 11, 2008, 3:28pm | #

Kolohe | August 11, 2008, 3:19pm | #

What's ironic (ok, at least interesting) is that this is the crisis that Condi Rice has trained all her life for.

I was thinking the same thing.

QSL,

The fact that Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia were admitted indicates to me that the western powers would, in fact, fight for them.

There's more than "it's not rush week" behind the "delay" in admitting Georgia. There's also the fact that it has ongoing territorial disputes with Russia, and a government that, well, would try to pull something like this.

Fluffy | August 11, 2008, 3:30pm | #

We didn't invade Serbia outside of Kosovo.

We did not limit our military activity to Kosovo.

I agree that the nice little story about Russia picking on the poor, innocent Georgians - you know, the ones who used rocket fire and tanks to capture a city - is bunk, but Russia's response throughout Georgia demonstrates pretty convincingly that they've got more than defending South Ossetians on their minds.

They're taking advantage of the situation to attempt to deliver a crippling blow to the Georgian military infrastructure, sure. But I'll be very surprised if it turns into a war of conquest. I think they want to smash things up real good and then leave. When we get into one of these "limited" conflicts, we also tend to try to smash the military infrastructure of our opponent, in addition to try to accomplish our stated policy goals. We just do it with strategic bombing and not with tanks.

Industrial Military Complex | August 11, 2008, 3:30pm | #

What's ironic (ok, at least interesting) is that this is the crisis that Condi Rice has trained all her life for.

Russia just picked McCain's running mate.

Kolohe | August 11, 2008, 3:30pm | #

Russia certainly does still maintain an interest in the Baltic states, but did nothing but complain when they were admitted to NATO.

Because they could do nothing but complain.

Now that they've been working out, (and taking some of that petroleum/gas peformance enhancers) they got a little more to work with.

However, they are still a pale shadow of what they were back in the day. (which we found out in retrospect had a lot more bark than bite)

(note that the above is just an opinion of capabilities)

ed | August 11, 2008, 3:31pm | #

It's 3 a.m. and the phone is ringing...

TrickyVic | August 11, 2008, 3:32pm | #

"""I think we can safely put the "no difference between Obama and McCain on foreign policy" shtick to bed now."""

As far as I can tell their difference is in their rhetoric. I doubt McCain or Obama would put the US at war with Russia over this issue.

"""Well, we knocked over Iraq. I think the Russians got jealous and wanted to throw their weight around a little too. """

I think Russia is attempting to show that, unlike the US, they know how to get it done fast. They have a chance to show the world a superiority over the US in waging war by demostrating that smart tactical decisions without real sophisticated weaponry is better than the reverse. Can Russia pull it off? It's going to be interesting to watch. The citizens are the wildcard. I'm sure Russia as paid close attention to our time in Iraq and will use what they learned.

"""Who was it standing in front of a crowed of Georgians promising them that the United States would "stand with them" back in 2005? One of those Euros, right? Someone Fwench?"""

Yeah, it's also a propaganda war. Russia is showing the Georgians that we are weak by creating a situation that the powers in the west can't live up to its talk.

Occam's toothbrush | August 11, 2008, 3:32pm | #

I thought the whole point of having a military alliance was to protect members from aggressive neighbors. I guess [West] Germany was lucky we weren't so gunshy back in the day.

joe | August 11, 2008, 3:33pm | #

The thing people often forget in politics, wither domestic or international, is that they work the same way for the "good guys" and the "bad guys."

Saying "NATO isn't an empire because they're good guys" doesn't go very far in helping you understand the significance of its actions and the likely responses of others.

Occam's toothbrush | August 11, 2008, 3:35pm | #

I think Russia is attempting to show that, unlike the US, they know how to get it done fast.

The US did get "it" done fast in Iraq, if "it" means military conquest and destruction of the existing govt.

If Russia aims to turn Georgia into a shining example of democracy in the Caucuses, then that's a just comparison.

John | August 11, 2008, 3:35pm | #

Ultimately, Georgia is not within our sphere of influence. I don't see what we can do to stop the Russians in the short term. In the long term, we could arm an insurgency against them and tie them down. But the Russians deal with insurgencies by leveling cities and killing civilians by the 1000s. I am not sure how that would help the Georgians much and since it is the Russians doing it instead of the US or Israel, it is not like the ICRC or the UN or any other international organization caring. The Georgians are screwed.

What scares me about this is that the Russians are not going to stop there. The problem is that they will take success as a green light to bully and invade any country on their border they wish. How long before they miscalculate and go one country too far? That is how wars start, miscalculation.

Pro Libertate | August 11, 2008, 3:36pm | #

I'd like avoid nuclear war. It's a new goal of mine, since becoming a father. Before that, well, sure, I'd have liked to have yelled and cussed and acted real primitive in a post-apocalyptic Yukon.

I think we can put enormous amounts of diplomatic and, if it comes to that, economic pressure on Russia to behave. A military response, however, would be the greatest folly. Besides, this action probably will backfire in spades without our help. If Russia is actually attempting to regain its empire, as stupid as that would be, then we can figure out where we need to draw a line in the sand. Don't see that as necessary here just yet.

Fluffy | August 11, 2008, 3:37pm | #

If Georgia joins NATO it is because Georgia wants to, not because the US does. Why should Russia have a veto over the foreign policy decisions of its smaller neighbors?

You people are bound and determined to act out all the crazy Rockwellian caricatures of American hypocrisy in foreign policy, aren't you?

Basically you're saying that because we're the "good guys" and everyone should know we're the "good guys" that it's completely unreasonable for Russia to feel threatened as we systematically surround her with a network of military client states. Beyond that, you're saying that as we build that network, any step Russia takes to undermine what we're doing is "aggression" and "imperialism".

Here's a bit of history for you: when we enunciated the Monroe Doctrine, we did not specify the form of government of the European states we wanted to stay the hell away from us. It didn't matter if you were a monarchy or a tyranny or a republic - if you were European, you weren't allowed to be involved in the Americas. I think it probably similarly doesn't matter to the Russians much if the network of military states advancing on them are democracies or not.

Brandybuck | August 11, 2008, 3:37pm | #

The scary thing is, I got a serious email from a "conservative" urging a US attack on Russia in retaliation. Sigh.

Kolohe | August 11, 2008, 3:38pm | #

We just do it with strategic bombing and not with tanks.

They are also doing with strat bombing (e.g. the Black Sea port of Poti*)

*this name has struck me as if we named New Orleans 'Riverville' (although Maryland does have an 'Ocean City')

joe | August 11, 2008, 3:39pm | #

Fluffy,

We did not limit our military activity to Kosovo. Nor did I claim we did. I wrote the specific words you quoted, and not some other set of words, for a reason. Russia has put tanks and troops into several different areas of Georgia - hence, the headline "Russia pushes deeper into Georgia" - which we did not do in Serbia.

But I'll be very surprised if it turns into a war of conquest. I think they want to smash things up real good and then leave. I think they are going to strengthen their hold on both South Ossetia AND Abkhazia, but want just to smash up the Georgian parts of Georgia in revenge attack. I'll note that they've been providing services to the locals in both of those Russia-bordering breakaway regions.

Occam's toothbrush | August 11, 2008, 3:39pm | #

joe,

Membership in an empire isn't voluntary. Consent is a fairly objective criterion, unless you're of the "all sex is rape" crowd now.

kinnath | August 11, 2008, 3:39pm | #

joe, in what way is a vast military alliance (e.g., NATO) synonous with "empire". Because as far as I can tell, all the members of NATO are free states that run their countries any damn way they want.

Kolohe | August 11, 2008, 3:44pm | #

What scares me about this is that the Russians are not going to stop there. The problem is that they will take success as a green light to bully and invade any country on their border they wish.

Russia will reach fairly quickly the limits of its abilities (c.f. 1980 Afganistan) or Western forebearance (c.f. 1939 Poland).

I'm more concerned by what sort of green light China will take from this.

(but, I think the silver lining is that it will make the Taiwan govt a lot more circumspect)

Kolohe | August 11, 2008, 3:47pm | #

Membership in an empire isn't voluntary. Consent is a fairly objective criterion, unless you're of the "all sex is rape" crowd now.

You can willinging join an empire (1840's texas, and I'm sure there's some Roman example)

Seamus | August 11, 2008, 3:47pm | #

All I can say is that I'm glad that NATO *hasn't* admitted Georgia (just as I'm glad that the Warsaw Pact hadn't admitted Grenada at the time we decided to go invade in 1982).

Fluffy | August 11, 2008, 3:48pm | #

joe, in what way is a vast military alliance (e.g., NATO) synonous with "empire". Because as far as I can tell, all the members of NATO are free states that run their countries any damn way they want.

But that doesn't mean anything to the nations outside the alliance, against whom the alliance has been organized.

No citizen of Russia gets a vote in any of the elections held by the member states of NATO. Frankly, given the psycho we elected the last two times, the fact that the US is a democracy should mean absolutely nothing to any nation that has US military forces stationed anywhere near it.

From the perspective of Russia, NATO is an alliance of states whose form of government is meaningless compared to their military capabilities and strategic actions. Our strategy for the last decade and more has been to push our military alliance forward, towards Russia. Given the experiences of many of the former Soviet republics, this was logical for us and logical for those former republics. But you are learning today that Russia's perspective matters, too.

joe | August 11, 2008, 3:48pm | #

Maybe, Kolohe. Maybe the only difference between the Baltic states and the Caucasus is the Russians' sense that they're in a position to push back now.

TrickyVic,

I doubt McCain or Obama would put the US at war with Russia over this issue. I don't doubt that he would engage in brinksmanship which could well result in hostilities.

Occam's toothbrush | August 11, 2008, 3:32pm | #

I thought the whole point of having a military alliance was to protect members from aggressive neighbors. It is. Hence, the members of an alliance are willing to admit countries they are willing to fight to defend, and not countries they are not willing to fight to defend. It isn't a lack of NATO membership that made Europe and (America-John McCain) unwilling to fight for Georgia, but an unwillingness to fight for Georgia that results in their lack of NATO membership.

I guess [West] Germany was lucky we weren't so gunshy back in the day. Lucky has nothing to do with it. Central Europse is a place we're willing to fight to defend - heck, these days, so is was used to be called "Eastern Europe" - and the Caucasus are not.

John, you think the Russians intend to annex/occupy Georgia proper?

Kolohe | August 11, 2008, 3:49pm | #

1840's texas,

Different example, both better and worse-
1890's Hawaii

(it depends what you mean by voluntary - they took a vote, but had to depose the current govt to do so)

joe | August 11, 2008, 3:53pm | #

Occum,

Read Fluffy at 3:37. The Russians, Chinese, and every other power don't really care if the superpower working to encircle them are da good guyz.


kinnath,

joe, in what way is a vast military alliance (e.g., NATO) synonous with "empire". In the sense that it is a large military force that exists for the purpose of projecting power to distant lands, at the expense of someone else (whether a local or another empire) who wants to project power in those lands.

You two, try to get this through your heads: the observation that this is an expression of great power politics, ie empire building, has absolutely nothing to do with whether you like one of the empires better. Politics work the same way for parties you like as for parties you dislike, and it doesn't even matter if you can write up a list of really, really good reasons why you are right to like one of the empires.

TallDave | August 11, 2008, 3:54pm | #

I blame Ted Turner.

Episiarch | August 11, 2008, 3:54pm | #

The Russians can't hold on to Georgia (without serious brutality). They'll teach them a lesson and leave. They have our experiences in Iraq fresh in their minds, and can clearly see that "win fast and leave" is the right way to go.

If they try and actually hold it, it will be a good indication that Putin Medvedev is fucking insane.

Rimfax | August 11, 2008, 3:55pm | #

Before anybody pops wood over how the US military could play cavalry, take a quick look at your handy globe, preferably one with bumps where the mountains are. There will be no US ground support. There may be US bomber support out of Turkey, Iraq, Saudi, Kuwait, or even Diego Garcia, or possibly off of carriers in the Med. That would be all, outside of intelligence support.

The Black Sea has been the Russian's bathtub for 50 years now. A US task force in the Black Sea would be about as scary to them as a Russian task force in the Gulf of Mexico would be to us.

kinnath | August 11, 2008, 3:57pm | #

You two, try to get this through your heads:

Dude, the Soviet Union was an empire. NATO is an alliance set up to counter that empire.

NATO still exists. Russia fears it. As it should.

Alliances allow members to project far more power that any empire could. They are the best defense against future empires. Russia has not learned that lesson yet.

John | August 11, 2008, 3:57pm | #

"John, you think the Russians intend to annex/occupy Georgia proper?"

In effect yes. I think they will go all the way to Triblisi and put their own puppet government in. That seems to be what is happening. Why else are they pushing so deep into Georgia?

Fuffy,

So George Bush is a psycho presumably because he invaded Iraq. What does that make Putin for invading Georgia? Is invading sovereign countries in violation of international law is okay as long as it is country close by?

I am not saying we should go to war over this, but only a shit bag of the first order could defend Russia on this or somehow think it is the US or NATO's fault.

Dave | August 11, 2008, 3:57pm | #

As a student of conflict resolution, I must say that US and other democratic countries' failure to condemn Georgia for killing innocent people in South Ossetia when the world was in Olympics, the symbol of peace and harmony, has prolonged the conflict. Russia would have done the same even if Georgia was a member of NATO. It would probably have caused WW3, but Russia would never have been blamed for that anyway.

Occam's toothbrush | August 11, 2008, 3:58pm | #

Fluffy,

The problem was with your use of the term "empire" and claim of moral equivalence between NATO and the Soviet Union, which I see you've corrected. Also, what you call "us extending our alliance" is a result of those areas wanting to be part of our alliance.

As for the Kremlin's feelings on the matter, yes, we should be aware of them, even respectful due to Russian military might; the same attitude we should take towards a New York City mafia family.

joe | August 11, 2008, 3:59pm | #

Look:

A: Your dog came into my yard and bit my dog! Keep your dog the hell out of my yard!

B: My dog is nice. Your dog is mean. My dog never piddles on the rug; your dog takes a dump in the living room.

A: I don't give a crap, keep your dog off my lawn!

B: My dog doesn't bark at houseguests. I hear your dog all night. My dog rolls over on his back so people can rub his tummy; your dog snaps at people who try to pet him.

A: So what? It's my yard, and your dog is bullying mine.

B: My dog is clean, with a shiny coat. Your dog has fleas, and has obviously been rolling in something nasty.

A: I. Don't. Care. Keep your dog out of my yard. (pulls back shirt) See this? If your dog ever bites my dog, I'm going to shoot him.

B: You bastard! How dare you threaten my dog!

TallDave | August 11, 2008, 4:01pm | #

The Russians want to re-establish their old Soviet Borders.

They might like to, but that chicken has long ago flown the coop.

Russia wants the partly-Russian parts of Georgia; this is similar to what Hitler did with the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia, right down to the competing claims of genocide, but the major difference Russia is only a third-rate military power and has little ability to project its power much farther even if it wanted to.

I would not be surprised if South Ossetia and Abkhazia are annexed to Russia or made independent, but it probably ends there.

SugarFree | August 11, 2008, 4:03pm | #

Why else are they pushing so deep into Georgia?

Because that's the way she likes it. She's a dirty girl.

joe | August 11, 2008, 4:04pm | #

John:

I think they will go all the way to Triblisi and put their own puppet government in. That seems to be what is happening. Why else are they pushing so deep into Georgia? You might be right, but "to beat the snot out of Georgia so they won't pull this shit again" is a strong possibility, too. Also, "to weaken Georgia militarily so that Russian influence/dominance/control/protection of the breakaway regions won't be threatened."

We'll see, won't we?

Anyway, Fluffy didn't say that this war was "the US or NATO's fault," just that our actions precipitated this. It's a wholly predictable outcome, when John McCain is threatening to put an anti-Russia military force on Russia's borders "from the Baltic to the Black Sea," that Russia is going to act to defend itself and consolidate its position.

TallDave | August 11, 2008, 4:04pm | #

I think they will go all the way to Triblisi and put their own puppet government in.

How is that ever going to work? Are they going to make it a dictatorship and shoot anyone who protests? This is no longer the Soviet Union, I doubt they could get away with anything like that.

doxn138 | August 11, 2008, 4:05pm | #

BBC sucks! It always turns black into white, turn White into black.

This article claims getting reference from CNN, but apraently it deliberately forget to mention CNN get reference from the President of Georgia, which spoke less then 10% about the truth.

Western media and society is more becoming a mob culture. BBC is a typical symbol of this culture.

TrickyVic | August 11, 2008, 4:05pm | #

"""The US did get "it" done fast in Iraq, if "it" means military conquest and destruction of the existing govt."""

"It" means to accomplish whatever your objective is. Fast is not a word that describes the Iraq war.

Occam's toothbrush | August 11, 2008, 4:06pm | #

In the sense that it is a large military force that exists for the purpose of projecting power to distant lands, at the expense of someone else (whether a local or another empire) who wants to project power in those lands.

Necessary but not sufficient conditions for empire status. An empire must also be centrally controlled and pieces of the empire can't leave without a fight. Your continued attempt to downplay the importance of consent is interesting.

TallDave | August 11, 2008, 4:07pm | #

Your continued attempt to downplay the importance of consent is interesting.

Heh. You would think, on a libertarian site, that would be an important detail...

joe | August 11, 2008, 4:07pm | #

Russia wants the partly-Russian parts of Georgia; this is similar to what Hitler did with the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia, right down to the competing claims of genocide, ...I would not be surprised if South Ossetia and Abkhazia are annexed to Russia or made independent, but it probably ends there.

Um, if Russia intends to annex or "liberate" S.O. and Abkhazia and end it there, the situation most certainly is not like the Sudentenland, which was a pretext for the conquest of all of Czechoslovakia. It this is like that event, then Russia is using those regions merely as a pretext.

doxn138 | August 11, 2008, 4:08pm | #

Is American sodier with NATO are doing killing civilians very day in Iraq and Afganistan?

John | August 11, 2008, 4:08pm | #

"Russia wants the partly-Russian parts of Georgia; this is similar to what Hitler did with the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia, right down to the competing claims of genocide, but the major difference Russia is only a third-rate military power and has little ability to project its power much farther even if it wanted to."

I would like to think you are right. Certainly against a US armed foe, the Russians are cannon fodder. But, Georgia and the Ukraine are not US armed. I think part of the answer to this is to start sending serious military aid to the former Soviet Republics so they can defend themselves. It would be nice if the next time the Russians trie this they got the shit kicked out of them leaving Putin to answer to the ultra nationalists for why he humiliated the country.

Occam's toothbrush | August 11, 2008, 4:09pm | #

TrickyVic,

LOL. This morning my objective was to pull all the weeds around the flower bed in the back yard. I accomplished it in but fifteen minutes. I guess that makes me superior to both the US military AND the Russians!

Fluffy | August 11, 2008, 4:09pm | #

only a shit bag of the first order could defend Russia on this or somehow think it is the US or NATO's fault

Who said it was the US' or NATO's fault?

I personally think it's Georgia's fault. The situation with the ethnic enclaves was in a sort of rough equilibrium for years, and Georgia decided to start shooting again.

I was taking issue with the notion that somehow this is "the Russian bear waking up" or "the beginning of a new Russian imperialism" or "the Sudetenland all over again" when the Russians have been extremely quiescent for years as the NATO alliance has advanced upon them, and the fact that they decided that if the Georgians wanted to start shooting again they'd oblige them does not make them this scary aggressor state that's going to try to conquer the world.

The Russians have accepted US strategic moves on their borders that we would never, ever accept from them. After they sat quietly for years through the aggressive expansion of NATO, if they punish Georgia for the Georgian military action against South Ossetia, it's hardly a new Red Menace, and it's really offensive for the most aggressive US imperialists [Kristol et al] to complain about their action. They have to remove the beam from their own eye before they denounce the mote in Putin's.

Joe | August 11, 2008, 4:10pm | #

It's amazing to me to see some people here so ready to disregard an attack on American ally as "none of our business."

What point is there to have an ally if you are not there to help them when they are face possible military domination and extinction as a sovereign nation?

What nation would want to ally with the U.S. and be there when we call upon them to stand with us if we will not stand with them when they are attacked.

Russia is testing how far they can go, and so far the lack of any real assistance to Georgia is setting a dangerous precedent that the Free World will face the consequences of for decades to come.

We need not fight the Russians, but we surely can provide air cover and ensure that Russian jets do not violate Georgian airspace.

We told the Russians when we were flying back the 2,000 Georgian troops from Iraq, so that they would not shoot the aircraft down.

Similarly we should deploy U.S. fighters and bombers and make it clear that we will not tolerate a U.S. ally being overriden by anyone, least of all the Russians who seem to think they can decide who is and is not admitted into NATO.

joe | August 11, 2008, 4:11pm | #

Occum's toothbrush,


Your continued attempt to downplay the importance of consent is interesting.

Your insistence that proclaiming our moral superiority is relevant or important in this discussion, as if it has any bearing whatsoever on what is going on, what caused it, and what is likely to happen next, is not even the slightest bit interesting.

Naga Sadow | August 11, 2008, 4:11pm | #

Episiarch,

I gotta get to work but I'll lay this on you real quick.

Narrator: My life fades. The vision dims. All that remains are memories. I remember a time of chaos. Ruined dreams. This wasted land. But most of all, I remember The Road Warrior. The man we called "Max". To understand who he was, you have to go back to another time. When the world was powered by the black fuel. And the desert sprouted great cities of pipe and steel. Gone now, swept away. For reasons long forgotten, two mighty warrior tribes went to war and touched off a blaze which engulfed them all. Without fuel, they were nothing. They built a house of straw. The thundering machines sputtered and stopped. Their leaders talked and talked and talked. But nothing could stem the avalanche. Their world crumbled. The cities exploded. A whirlwind of looting, a firestorm of fear. Men began to feed on men. On the roads it was a white line nightmare. Only those mobile enough to scavenge, brutal enough to pillage would survive. The gangs took over the highways, ready to wage war for a tank of juice. And in this maelstrom of decay, ordinary men were battered and smashed. Men like Max. The warrior Max. In the roar of an engine, he lost everything. And became a shell of a man, a burnt out, desolate man, a man haunted by the demons of his past, a man who wandered out into the wasteland. And it was here, in this blighted place, that he learned to live again...

TallDave | August 11, 2008, 4:12pm | #

But, Georgia and the Ukraine are not US armed.

Well, I doubt the Ukraine can be reconquered (again, how do you govern it? It's not like they can just hold elections).

And ask yourself how Poland would react to an invasion of the Ukraine. If Russia goes beyond what can be justified as merely protecting minority Russians, I think you would quickly find NATO arms involved one way or another. We saw how even a small contribution worked out for the Russians in Afghanistan.

Kolohe | August 11, 2008, 4:13pm | #

Anyway, Fluffy didn't say that this war was "the US or NATO's fault," just that our actions precipitated this.

I will agree that 'our actions precipitated this' in a very narrow sense.

It looks to me to be a similar diplomatic comms error that was made in Gulf War 1. In that case, what we said was read as, 'you can do what you want and we won't stop you'. In this case, it was read as 'you can do what you want and we will help you.'

How is that ever going to work? Are they going to make it a dictatorship and shoot anyone who protests? This is no longer the Soviet Union, I doubt they could get away with anything like that.

Installing puppet governments in areas with weak extra-political institutions is comparitively easy, and have been for at least a century now
("it does not matter who votes, it matters who counts the votes")

Episiarch | August 11, 2008, 4:13pm | #

it's hardly a new Red Menace

WOLVERINES!!!

Fluffy | August 11, 2008, 4:15pm | #

Necessary but not sufficient conditions for empire status. An empire must also be centrally controlled and pieces of the empire can't leave without a fight.

Tell me, what happened to Cuba when it decided it would no longer be a US client state, but would be a Soviet client state?

What happened to Iran when it elected a parliament that did not want to be in the Anglo-American sphere of influence any more?

What happened to opposition parties in Italy and Greece that wanted to switch sides in the superpower conflict?

What happened to the government of Nicaragua when it wanted to be a Soviet client state instead of an American one?

The governments of Chile and Guatemala didn't even change sides. They just adopted domestic policies that made some US politicians suspect they might change sides in the future. What happened to those governments?

Occam's toothbrush | August 11, 2008, 4:15pm | #

The Russians have accepted US strategic moves on their borders that we would never, ever accept from them.

Really? Which country on our borders -- hell, which country in the whole fucking hemisphere -- has gotten ants in its pants wanting to join an alliance with Russia?

SugarFree | August 11, 2008, 4:15pm | #

Is American sodier with NATO are doing killing civilians very day in Iraq and Afganistan?

Georgia are tank bomb is oil airspace defend Warsaw subject/verb agreement.

Occam's toothbrush | August 11, 2008, 4:17pm | #

Fluffy,

We're talking about NATO here, not US foreign policy in general. None of the examples you give involve ruling governments of NATO members wanting to get out.

joe | August 11, 2008, 4:17pm | #

Kolohe,

It looks to me to be a similar diplomatic comms error that was made in Gulf War 1. In that case, what we said was read as, 'you can do what you want and we won't stop you'. In this case, it was read as 'you can do what you want and we will help you.'

Once again, that same thought occured to me.

I'd say an even closer model would be the Shiite uprising during Gulf War 1.

TallDave | August 11, 2008, 4:18pm | #

I will agree that 'our actions precipitated this' in a very narrow sense

Yes, Reagan caused this problem by bringing down the Soviet Union.

Ah, the good old days of stability, before those pre-neocon radicals brought their divisive concepts of freedom, democracy, and consent of the governed to Asia.

joe | August 11, 2008, 4:18pm | #

Fluffy keeps pre-butting Occam's Toothbrush.

That's not very nice, Fluffy.

Episiarch | August 11, 2008, 4:19pm | #

We need not fight the Russians, but we surely can provide air cover and ensure that Russian jets do not violate Georgian airspace.

Wow, you must really think that antagonizing them like that would have no repercussions.

Russians don't take a dump, son, without a plan.

TallDave | August 11, 2008, 4:19pm | #

The Russians have accepted US strategic moves on their borders that we would never, ever accept from them.

I must have imagined that whole Soviet-backed Communist dictatorship in Cuba.

TrickyVic | August 11, 2008, 4:19pm | #

"""How is that ever going to work? Are they going to make it a dictatorship and shoot anyone who protests? This is no longer the Soviet Union, I doubt they could get away with anything like that."""

Come on, you have been paying attention to Iraq. Russian could install a pro-Russian Georgian government. They could pull it off as long as that government quickly addresses the basic needs of the people. Kickout the old government, bring in the new, and give the people what they want. Isn't that the successful model for revolution, at lest for a while.

James Butler | August 11, 2008, 4:20pm | #

Russia is purportedly also attacking Georgia's cyberspace, through denial of service attacks and re-routing Internet traffic into and out of Georgia.

Blog post about it is here.

Kolohe | August 11, 2008, 4:20pm | #

I personally think it's Georgia's fault. The situation with the ethnic enclaves was in a sort of rough equilibrium for years, and Georgia decided to start shooting again.

I agree, but there is some evidence that there was also a slight escalation from the Osseitan seperatists (which may -or may not - have been egged on by Russian intelligence agencies).

That the Georgian govt attempted to 'fix the glitch' with one overwhelming action is obviously (especially in hindsight) a mistake.

joe | August 11, 2008, 4:21pm | #

Yes, Reagan caused this problem by bringing down the Soviet Union.

Ah, the good old days of stability, before those pre-neocon radicals brought their divisive concepts of freedom, democracy, and consent of the governed to Asia.

Wow, I guess 1991 really was the end of history.

Mad Ivan | August 11, 2008, 4:21pm | #

Hmmm, isn't US training and equipping Georgian army?

TallDave | August 11, 2008, 4:22pm | #

Tell me, what happened to Cuba when it decided it would no longer be a US client state, but would be a Soviet client state?

Fidel stayed in power for life?

Occam's toothbrush | August 11, 2008, 4:22pm | #

Your insistence that proclaiming our moral superiority is relevant or important in this discussion, as if it has any bearing whatsoever on what is going on, what caused it, and what is likely to happen next, is not even the slightest bit interesting.

Moral considerations don't matter in foreign policy? I think I'll save this quote for the next time you defend our involvement in Kosovo or potential involvement in Darfur.

joe | August 11, 2008, 4:22pm | #

I must have imagined that whole Soviet-backed Communist dictatorship in Cuba.

TallDave is a lot smarter and more realistic than you, even though he's never heard of the Bay of Pigs or the assassination attempts on Fidel.

Ken Hagler | August 11, 2008, 4:22pm | #

Joe wrote:

"It's a tough call what would be less likely: an American president starting a shooting war with Russia when a former Soviet republic sets off a conflict over some disputed territory, or an American president ignoring the NATO charter."

That's not a tough call at all, as an American president already _has_ ignored the NATO charter, by launching an unprovoked attack on Serbia in violation of said charter.

Fluffy | August 11, 2008, 4:23pm | #

Really? Which country on our borders -- hell, which country in the whole fucking hemisphere -- has gotten ants in its pants wanting to join an alliance with Russia?

If Mexico announced that it was joining a military alliance with Russia, was buying Russian weapons, was going to participate in a Russian space-based weapons program, and was going to allow the installation of Russian intermediate range missile systems, we would object. And we would go beyond objecting, up to and including toppling the Mexican government and threatening military action.

When Cuba wanted to host Soviet strategic weapons, we threatened global thermonuclear war, and Khruschev decided we meant it. But Russia is not supposed to find Georgia's overtures to NATO threatening?

Personally I think Putin is a dick. And I think Russia's democratic and capitalist credentials are starting to look a little threadbare. But that doesn't mean I expect them to like everything that happens on their borders. You guys seem to think that Russia should find "Well, NATO is a defensive alliance of free states, so you guys shouldn't feel threatened," a compelling argument, and that's just not reasonable.

TallDave | August 11, 2008, 4:23pm | #

Georgia are tank bomb is oil airspace defend Warsaw subject/verb agreement.

Grammar good is being, humor much found is there.

joe | August 11, 2008, 4:24pm | #

Moral considerations don't matter in foreign policy?

Moral considerations can be very important in deciding what we should do with the power we gain in the international sphere.

Moral considerations play no role whatsoever in deciding how the person playing white is going to respond to the black rook being moved to white's second rank.

Read your Morganthau. Look up who that is, then read him.

Occam's toothbrush | August 11, 2008, 4:25pm | #

Good strategy, joe. Ignore the post that undercuts Fluffy's reasoning and pick on the one that's obviously weak.

John | August 11, 2008, 4:26pm | #

"The governments of Chile and Guatemala didn't even change sides. They just adopted domestic policies that made some US politicians suspect they might change sides in the future. What happened to those governments?"

Yeah the communists in Chile and Guatemale were just benevelet locals who wanted to change sides in the cold war like deciding to be Yankees fan rather than foreign armed murderous thugs intent on turning the countries into prison states. Not at all. And both of those places would be so much better off today if only they had gone the way of Cuba.

Why is Georgia a threat to Russia? Why does Russia care if Georgia is a democracy and allied with the US? The only reason Russia and Putin care is that it is a lot more profitable for them to have their own thugs running places like Georgia. If the US invaded Mexico you would shit your pants over Bush being a pschotic. But Russia invades Georgia, a democratic country that has slowly been getting its act together over the last 10 years and Russia is just defending its borders against US aggression and punishing the Georgians for what you don't quite know but you are sure they deserve to have their cities leveled and country occupied. In fluffy world, the US must always be the worst actor in the field and every advasary of the US must be defended no matter how vile.

Occam's toothbrush | August 11, 2008, 4:27pm | #

If Mexico announced that it was joining a military alliance with Russia, was buying Russian weapons, was going to participate in a Russian space-based weapons program, and was going to allow the installation of Russian intermediate range missile systems, we would object. And we would go beyond objecting, up to and including toppling the Mexican government and threatening military action.

No.

TrickyVic | August 11, 2008, 4:28pm | #

"""Really? Which country on our borders -- hell, which country in the whole fucking hemisphere -- has gotten ants in its pants wanting to join an alliance with Russia?"""

Does Cuba count? Cuba isn't on our boarders which is to say we take great offense even when it's not our border.

What do you think we would do if Mexico decided to team with the Soviets? Or if California decided to become a breakaway state? When the South tried that crap, look at what the US government did to Atlanta, burn baby burn.

joe | August 11, 2008, 4:29pm | #

Ken Hagler,

That's not a tough call at all, as an American president already _has_ ignored the NATO charter, by launching an unprovoked attack on Serbia in violation of said charter.

And when we jump into a universe where Serbia used to be a Soviet republic, the Kosovo War began with Kosovars rolling tanks into Serbia, and Russian forces went into Serbia and pushed them out while bombing Kosovo, and our engagement involved a shooting war between us and Russia, you will have made an awesome point.

TallDave | August 11, 2008, 4:29pm | #

If Mexico announced that it was joining a military alliance with Russia, was buying Russian weapons, was going to participate in a Russian space-based weapons program, and was going to allow the installation of Russian intermediate range missile systems, we would object. And we would go beyond objecting, up to and including toppling the Mexican government and threatening military action.

Ha. We would laugh. At most, we might threaten to build a real wall to keep out their illegal immigrants.

When Cuba wanted to host Soviet strategic weapons, we threatened global thermonuclear war, and Khruschev decided we meant it.

Actuall, the Soviets forced us to remove missiles from Turkey, and they already had tactical nukes there anyway.

Occam's toothbrush | August 11, 2008, 4:32pm | #

joe also has another interesting strategy: making broad, sweeping general statements and then complaining that the counterexamples to those statements don't exactly match the facts in this particular situation.

TallDave | August 11, 2008, 4:33pm | #

What do you think we would do if Mexico decided to team with the Soviets?

We'd giggle and watch their government fall next time elections were held.

joe | August 11, 2008, 4:33pm | #

John,

You are imagining a moral stand in Fluffy's comments where none exists. He has not "defended" Russia's actions, he has said they are predictable responses to a foreign power strutting around in what even you are aware is "their sphere of influence."

TrickyVic | August 11, 2008, 4:33pm | #

You think we would find if funny if Mexico did that? What, funny like a clown? Or we are going to cut of all aid and subvert your government and sabatoge your military funny?

QSL | August 11, 2008, 4:34pm | #

What happened to the government of Nicaragua when it wanted to be a Soviet client state instead of an American one?

One can also ask, in more recent times...

What happened to the governments of Venezuela and Bolivia when they wanted to be a "Soviet" client state instead of an American one?

joshua corning | August 11, 2008, 4:34pm | #

If John McCain had had his way, we would have been obligated by the NATO Charter to go to war against Russia two days ago.

Russia probably would not have invaded if Georgia was in Nato.

By the way where the hell is the UN on all this?

joe | August 11, 2008, 4:34pm | #

Occum,

Giving up on trying to talk about Russia and Georgia, and talking about me instead, is probably a good idea, given how this thread is turning out for you.

I know, why don't you make another vague comment about me and my "strategy?" Better than trying to defend your indefensible statements.

Mad Ivan | August 11, 2008, 4:35pm | #

Joshua -- UN... they are talking, as uusual.

Fluffy | August 11, 2008, 4:35pm | #

Moral considerations don't matter in foreign policy? I think I'll save this quote for the next time you defend our involvement in Kosovo or potential involvement in Darfur.

Let's talk about moral considerations in foreign policy for a moment.

We always asserted that the NATO alliance was a purely defensive alliance, forced into being by the threat of Soviet domination.

The Russians for their part always asserted that the Warsaw Pact alliance was also defensive, forced upon them by threatening moves by the US.

I think that NATO was in the right and the Warsaw Pact was in the wrong. Morally, the formation of the NATO alliance was the right thing to do.

But the Warsaw Pact is gone. The Iron Curtain is gone. And if our statement to Russia in the post-Soviet era has been: "You were wrong to think that you needed to militarily dominate the countries on your borders to be secure. We never wanted to threaten you. We want all states to live in peace with each other," we don't advance that message by marching our military alliance right up to their borders.

If we want to convince the Russians that the great-power Eurasian politics of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries are over, we should act as if they are over. And we haven't done that. We've just given each other high-fives and pressed our advantage.

joe | August 11, 2008, 4:36pm | #

We'd giggle and watch their government fall next time elections were held.

Sure. Like we did with Chile. Or Nicaragua.

TallDave | August 11, 2008, 4:39pm | #

Or if California decided to become a breakaway state?When the South tried that crap, look at what the US government did to Atlanta, burn baby burn.

California is not part of NATO. That would be an internal matter. It would be extremely unlikely that CA would do so, because the people wouldn't enjoy the economic consequences. It's economics and consent of the governed that holds liberal democracies together.

As for the South, there was also the small problem of the millions of slaves who didn't get any say in the matter. It wasn't like the South just woke up one day and said "Hey! Let's secede for no particular reason!" Again, consent of the governed.

joe | August 11, 2008, 4:39pm | #

But...but...my dog never chews the furniture, and your dog scares children!

If your dog doesn't like my dog coming into your yard - if you don't like it - it can only be because the two of you are bad guys.

joe | August 11, 2008, 4:41pm | #

"Consent of the governed." You mean, for South Ossetians and Abkhazians, both of whom voted by huge landslides for independence?

No, TallDave, you don't mean that. Principles are stated and discarded whenever it's politically convenient, because for all of your talk about moralistic foreign policy, you don't believe in anything but expanding American power, and don't engage in any moral thinking beyond "America is the good guys."

TrickyVic | August 11, 2008, 4:41pm | #

"""Russia probably would not have invaded if Georgia was in Nato."""

Why not? NATO isn't doing very well in Afghanistan and NATO nations haven't been very interested giving more resources to that cause. As long as Russia sticks to old Soviet Union states, NATO will not be that committed.

Fluffy | August 11, 2008, 4:42pm | #

Yeah the communists in Chile and Guatemale were just benevelet locals who wanted to change sides in the cold war like deciding to be Yankees fan rather than foreign armed murderous thugs intent on turning the countries into prison states. Not at all. And both of those places would be so much better off today if only they had gone the way of Cuba.

All of that is true, but absolutely irrelevant to what we're talking about.

Someone posted a claim that the US can't be said to have an "empire", because all of its allies are volunteers, who can come and go as they wish.

I posted a list of historical examples of states that opted to change the posture of their relationship to the US, and discovered that their clientage wasn't so voluntary after all.

That's it. I didn't say that Arbenz or Allende were in the right. If you could retain some memory of what other posters here say over time, you'd remember that in other contexts I have noted that I would happily have pulled the trigger on Arbenz and Allende myself. But if the question is, "Can a US client state leave the US empire whenever it wants without reprisal?" the answer is pretty definitively No.

TallDave | August 11, 2008, 4:42pm | #

It's economics and consent of the governed that holds liberal democracies together.

Which is why, of course, Mexico could never move into the Soviet sphere: even as a one-party state, they were much too economically dependent on us. A threat to U.S. trade would have ended the PRI's grip on power very quickly.

TallDave | August 11, 2008, 4:43pm | #

I posted a list of historical examples of states that opted to change the posture of their relationship to the US, and discovered that their clientage wasn't so voluntary after all.

You still haven't named even one.

TallDave | August 11, 2008, 4:46pm | #

But if the question is, "Can a US client state leave the US empire whenever it wants without reprisal?" the answer is pretty definitively No.

I still haven't seen a single example of a country that left the alliance and suffered full-scale military invasion as a result. Generally at most, we armed local dissidents.

joe | August 11, 2008, 4:48pm | #

TallDave has moved the goalposts, from "object to foreign powers securing military alliances on your borders" to "responde with a full-scale military invasion."

TrickyVic | August 11, 2008, 4:48pm | #

Liberal democracies are lame, that's why we are a constitutional republic.

joe | August 11, 2008, 4:49pm | #

TallDave | August 11, 2008, 4:46pm | #

But if the question is, "Can a US client state leave the US empire whenever it wants without reprisal?" the answer is pretty definitively No.

I still haven't seen a single example of a country that left the alliance and suffered full-scale military invasion as a result. Generally at most, we armed local dissidents.

TallDave | August 11, 2008, 4:49pm | #

France did at one point actually more or less leave NATO:

The unity of NATO was breached early on in its history, with a crisis occurring during Charles de Gaulle's presidency of France from 1958 onward. De Gaulle protested the United States' strong role in the organization and what he perceived as a special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom. In a memorandum sent to President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Prime Minister Harold Macmillan on 17 September 1958, he argued for the creation of a tripartite directorate that would put France on an equal footing with the United States and the United Kingdom, and also for the expansion of NATO's coverage to include geographical areas of interest to France, most notably Algeria, where France was waging a counter-insurgency and sought NATO assistance.

Considering the response given to be unsatisfactory, and in order to give France, in the event of a East German incursion into West Germany, the option of coming to a separate peace with the Eastern bloc instead of being drawn into a NATO-Warsaw Pact global war, de Gaulle began to build an independent defence for his country. On 11 March 1959, France withdrew its Mediterranean fleet from NATO command; three months later, in June 1959, de Gaulle banned the stationing of foreign nuclear weapons on French soil. This caused the United States to transfer two hundred military aircraft out of France and return control of the ten major air force bases that had operated in France since 1950 to the French by 1967.

In the meantime, France had initiated an independent nuclear deterrence programme, spearheaded by the "Force de frappe" ("Striking force"). France tested its first nuclear weapon, Gerboise Bleue, on 13 February 1960, in (what was then) French Algeria.

Occam's toothbrush | August 11, 2008, 4:50pm | #

It is possible for a skilled 'bater to argue the point at hand and note the dishonest tactics of his opponent. I will not allow my opponent to prevail by subterfuge after demonstrating his position is morally, intellectually, and I can't help but notice, aesthetically bankrupt.

Brush your teeth with this!

.ooooooooooooooo
.|||||||||||||||
===================================

joe | August 11, 2008, 4:51pm | #

France would be a fine historical comparison. If it had sought to join the Warsaw Pact. Heck, even if it had taken a neutral stance. But it didn't - France remained a close military ally of the western powers against the Soviets under DeGaulle and after, which is quite a bit different from Georgia trying to join NATO.

TallDave | August 11, 2008, 4:51pm | #

Of course, they did many decades later suffer the awful consequence of Congressional "freedom fries" at the Capitol cafeteria. So I guess NATO really is an empire.

SeeingI | August 11, 2008, 4:51pm | #

That headline is kind of a turn-on.

joe | August 11, 2008, 4:52pm | #

It is possible for a skilled 'bater to argue the point at hand and note the dishonest tactics of his opponent.

Yes. You ceased to try to argue the point at hand a long time, after Fluffy went to town.

Occam's toothbrush | August 11, 2008, 4:52pm | #

But 14 minutes after chiding me for commenting on his debate tactics, joe complains about TallDave's!

TallDave | August 11, 2008, 4:54pm | #

Oops, I omitted the best part:

Though France showed solidarity with the rest of NATO during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, de Gaulle continued his pursuit of an independent defence by removing France's Atlantic and Channel fleets from NATO command. In 1966, all French armed forces were removed from NATO's integrated military command, and all non-French NATO troops were asked to leave France. This withdrawal forced the relocation of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) from Paris to Casteau, north of Mons, Belgium, by 16 October 1967. France remained a member of the alliance, and committed to the defence of Europe from possible Communist attack with its own forces stationed in the Federal Republic of Germany throughout the Cold War.

So they left NATO for the specific purpose of being able to negotiate a separate peace with the Warsaw Pact, which pretty much takes them out of any "empire" NATO could be, and suffered no discernible consequence beyond being called "cheese-eating surrender monkeys."

Occam's toothbrush | August 11, 2008, 4:56pm | #

joe,

My case needs no further arguing. You and Fluffy are just putting forth your smoke and mirrors and attacking anyone who calls you on it in your typical smug condescending fashion.

I consider the truth to be my sphere of influence, and trust me, I don't feel at all threatened by your empire, if you get my meaning.

Fluffy | August 11, 2008, 4:58pm | #

We're talking about NATO here, not US foreign policy in general. None of the examples you give involve ruling governments of NATO members wanting to get out.

Greece was a member of NATO, and when faced with the prospect of left-wing parties coming to power we supported the revolt of the colonels and the imposition of junta rule.

In any event, if the best you've got here is to say, "Yeah, well, none of the US client states that got crushed when they wanted out of the empire were actually NATO members. So there!" I guess I'll just say: Wow, touche. You really got me there.

I tend to think that, had a Communist government achieved power in a non-nuclear NATO nation, we would have treated them like Mossadeq - but that's just a speculation and can never be proven. So I guess I'll just say, "Yes, Occam, you are right that the US historically only crushed non-NATO states that charted a course we didn't think served our strategic interests."

TrickyVic | August 11, 2008, 5:00pm | #

"""It is possible for a skilled 'bater to argue the point at hand and note the dishonest tactics of his opponent."""

A skilled 'bater knows discussing dishonest tactics of his opponent does not further his own arguement and would leave it out of the debate altogether. ;-)

Occam's tootbrush | August 11, 2008, 5:03pm | #

Filtering all the red herrings out of Fluffy's post leads me to believe that he admits that NATO is indeed a voluntary alliance.

Brush your teeth with this!

ooooooooooooo
|||||||||||||
|||||||||||||
===============================================

Occam's toothbrush | August 11, 2008, 5:07pm | #

TrickyVic, (appropriate handle)

If a debater does not point out the fallacies and misrepresentations on the part of his opponent, no one can be counted on to do so. I'm not so self absorbed to think this argument is just about me and my opponents; I am also concerned that the audience will be fooled by dishonest tactics.

TrickyVic | August 11, 2008, 5:13pm | #

The bottom line is NATO wouldn't do shit to help Georgia if they were a member except economic and political sanctions. It's a cost benefit analysis. Russia has a strong military, it's been out of sight out of mind for a while so people have doubts. Russia has been beefing up their military quietly as part of there new global stratgey.

Some people will over estimate their capabilites and under estimate their opponents. These people believed the Iraq war will last weeks, not months or years.

Fluffy | August 11, 2008, 5:15pm | #

Occam, our discussion began because you asked:

Why should Russia have a veto over the foreign policy decisions of its smaller neighbors?

And the bottom line answer is "Because the US in principle and in practice has asserted such a veto over the foreign policy decisions of its own smaller neighbors for 200 years."

TallDave | August 11, 2008, 5:15pm | #

Greece was a member of NATO, and when faced with the prospect of left-wing parties coming to power we supported the revolt of the colonels and the imposition of junta rule.

Our support was pretty minimal, and Greece was also facing the prospect of a possible left-wing coup. They had also just gone through a very nasty Communist insurrection backed by the Warsaw Pact. We later encouraged the establishment of a liberal democracy, and apologized for supporting the coup.

This is nothing like the tanks rolling into Prague in 1968. That was an empire acting to rein in a province. And they didn't apologize.

joshua corning | August 11, 2008, 5:19pm | #

I posted a list of historical examples of states that opted to change the posture of their relationship to the US, and discovered that their clientage wasn't so voluntary after all.

What? Did they discover that they would stop getting free money?

Oh the humanity!!!

TrickyVic | August 11, 2008, 5:20pm | #

"""If a debater does not point out the fallacies and misrepresentations on the part of his opponent, no one can be counted on to do so"""

What about the debate judges? Or in this case the reader.

Don't get me wrong, it's fair game on a message board such at this. But in a real debate it's about how you prove your case, not how the other side fails to make theirs.

Occam's toothbrush | August 11, 2008, 5:24pm | #

Fluffy,

No. Our debate began when you referred to NATO as "our empire", and said that Russia was right to object to us "expanding it" by allowing willing countries to join!

Fidel Castro | August 11, 2008, 5:26pm | #

And the bottom line answer is "Because the US in principle and in practice has asserted such a veto over the foreign policy decisions of its own smaller neighbors for 200 years."

Yes, I am kept muy busy with my constant calls to Washington to make sure they approve of my foreign policy decisions.

Huge Chavez | August 11, 2008, 5:27pm | #

I know, jefe, it is a real problem. Sometimes I have to wait days before our regional power will approve of my policies.

Daniel Ortega | August 11, 2008, 5:27pm | #

Yo quiero Taco Bell!

joshua corning | August 11, 2008, 5:31pm | #

No. Our debate began when you referred to NATO as "our empire", and said that Russia was right to object to us "expanding it" by allowing willing countries to join!

And fluffy loses...Joe probably did as well but i have been paying less and less attention to his posts as they have become more and more layered with misdirection to hide his deep socialist sympathies.

Occam's toothbrush | August 11, 2008, 5:32pm | #

Tricky,

If we leave that work to the reader, why bother having the debate at all? Just say, "Russia-Georgia conflict" and let them look everything up.

In competitive debate, remember, nothing is actually decided on the basis of the debate; it is just an exercise, an intellectual and communicative game if you will. The judges agreement or lack thereof with each side is irrelevant.

Cardenas | August 11, 2008, 5:32pm | #

Hey, remember when I nationalized all the U.S. oil equipment in Mexico? Heehee!

Occam's toothbrush | August 11, 2008, 5:34pm | #

joshua,

joe is an old soul, I can tell from his aura. And he would be a powerful force for libertarianism if he could be turned.

Rielle Hunter | August 11, 2008, 5:35pm | #

I don't care, I'm still not having his baby.

TrickyVic | August 11, 2008, 5:38pm | #

Fluffy is correct if you believe the rules should apply equally to everyone. Russia has just as much of a "right", if one dare calls it that, to object to Georgia joining NATO as the US has in objecting if Mexico wanted to join a Soviet pact. It's silly to think we wouldn't object. The only question would be real war or covert war. I think we would take the latter, the Russians have taken the first. They are both means to the same end, but Russia has a lot to win if they succeed, little to lose if they don't.

John Edwards | August 11, 2008, 5:39pm | #

There are two Americas, and I'm fucking both of them.

joshua corning | August 11, 2008, 5:44pm | #

but Russia has a lot to win if they succeed, little to lose if they don't.

You are living in a fantasy world.

Russia has a lot to lose if they win and a lot to lose if they lose.

They have seriously fucked themselves on this one.

TallDave | August 11, 2008, 5:46pm | #

It's silly to think we wouldn't object.

It's even sillier to think we would militarily invade and overthrow a democratic government.

Objecting doesn't make us a military empire.

Nick Leitner | August 11, 2008, 5:51pm | #

You think the Russians would have learned their lesion after Afghanistan and Chechnya. What stupid people run this world. Never forget the rule that for every one person you kill ten will replace him/her. Then you have incidents such as the Beslan School Massacre and innocent children and civilians die. In the end, the civilians who remain alive from South Ossetia will show the world who the brutal aggressor was in this conflict when guerrilla warfare kicks in. If the Russians speak the truth then the Georgians will have South Ossetian terrorist cells to deal with. If the Georgians are right and the Russians attacked unprovoked, well then Russia has more "Chechen" territory to deal with.

joe | August 11, 2008, 6:10pm | #

I wonder if the people who think Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela are wicked awesome rejoinders to the argument that we would not use force against a nearby country that sought to join a hostile military alliance have actually never heard of the Bay of Pigs, the CIAs years-long efforts to assassinate Castro, the Contras, the mining of Nicaraguan harbors, or the 2002 coup - or if they are just playing dumb.

TrickyVic | August 11, 2008, 6:10pm | #

"""You are living in a fantasy world.

Russia has a lot to lose if they win and a lot to lose if they lose."""

What do they lose if they win?

Mad Ivan | August 11, 2008, 6:12pm | #

Tricky -- obviously, they are still Russians, so they must lose by definition.

TrickyVic | August 11, 2008, 6:19pm | #

""""If we leave that work to the reader, why bother having the debate at all?""""

Most of the readers here are capable of finding the fallacies on their own. This isn't the AOL message board.

People believe a fallacy because it fits their belief. For that crowd, explaining the fallacy does no good.

Ska | August 11, 2008, 6:21pm | #

Is that the Ivan Drago Principle?

Occam's toothbrush | August 11, 2008, 6:22pm | #

Tricky,

The US won in Iraq. We've still lost a lot.

joe,

Those nations are not NATO members. The dispute was about whether NATO was a voluntary alliance, not whether America has been an eternally wholesome player on the world stage.

TrickyVic | August 11, 2008, 6:24pm | #

"""Never forget the rule that for every one person you kill ten will replace him/her."""

Yeah, but you can buy them off with goods, services and cash. Isn't that what we did in Anbar?

TrickyVic | August 11, 2008, 6:32pm | #

Loss and cost are two different things. Iraq cost us quite a bit in life, resources, and world clout so Iraq would one day be a better place. It's not a loss when you get something in return for that which you lose in the cost of doing business. Russia will pay a price in exchange for what it wants. Russia will lose only if it can't acheive its desired outcome. Until then, it's just the cost of doing buisness.

Seamus | August 11, 2008, 6:34pm | #

We'd giggle and watch their government fall next time elections were held.

Sure. Like we did with Chile. Or Nicaragua.

Well, in the case of Nicaragua, that's kinda what we did.

joe | August 11, 2008, 6:50pm | #

The dispute was about whether NATO was a voluntary alliance, not whether America has been an eternally wholesome player on the world stage.

No, Occum's toothbrush, it was not. The dispute was about whether the Russians were demonstrating some sort of aberrant behavior, different from our own, by opposing a non-aligned nation on its border joining a hostile military alliance.

You decided that parsing the definition of "empire" so as to laud the United States was somehow relevant to the question.

joe | August 11, 2008, 6:52pm | #

Seamus,

That is indeed what we did in 1992. I think it was 92.

But that most certainly is not what we did in 1984, when the Sandinistas were about to win an election. In that case, we paid the Contras to carry out a campaign of terrorist bombings at polling places and assassinations of polling officials, then declared that the elections were illegitimate because of the violence.

joe | August 11, 2008, 7:01pm | #

Oh, one more point: TallDave tried to get a great deal of mileage over the difference between "pressure" aimed a regime change and a full military invasion.

I'll note that Russia spent years engaged in covert ops in South Ossetia and elsewhere, and only engaged in a (grossly disproportionate, shock-and-awe style) full scale military invasion AFTER Georgia responded to that pressure by sending dozens of tanks and hundreds of rockets into the disputed region.

TallDave | August 11, 2008, 7:19pm | #

What do they lose if they win?

WTO membership, trade with E Europe, the heaping of international disapproval.

It's funny, based on the examples given America seems to get blamed for any change of government that results in a pro-American gov't, even if all we did was indicate we'd be supportive. We're the Empire Of Approving Nods!

Emperor of NATO | August 11, 2008, 7:21pm | #

Fear the Nod!

Matthew | August 11, 2008, 8:39pm | #

TallDave,

If you are referring to their successful retaking of Georgia, I'd wager that none of those things will happen, except for the "international disapproval" which Putin and his puppet already had. No, it's a little worse.

Matthew | August 11, 2008, 8:40pm | #

Now it's a little worse.

BG | August 11, 2008, 8:56pm | #

I think one issue here is "What is NATO for, in a post-cold-war world?".

Obviously the alliance was already set up to protect against the possibility of the Soviet army, along with the armies of its allied govenrments, marching into western Europe. There was no other power at the time that would have been in a position to threaten any member country. Expanding NATO beyond its initial member countries was also part of a general policy to contain the Soviet Union.

But now that there is no communist, or othrewise totalitarian, superpower. There is no need to "contain" Russia. Russia has no ideology to export except Russian Nationalism (which naturally has limited appeal).

So the reasons for the alliance seem to be:

1 - Protect member states from any other country that might attack them (which very few countries will want to do, especially to a NATO member).

2 - Advance causes related to human rights, such as preventing ethnic cleansing in the Balkans.

If that is the case then NATO should avoid admitting countries that have unresolved territorial disputes, since that means we won't always be able to discern if a war is defensive or not.

It also means that NATO should not accept any member coutries that don't have a strong domestic committment to human rights, the rule of law, etc. During the cold war, NATO included fascist Spain and a Greek junta for a few years. At that time the argument was that any anti-communist government would be better than the expansion of communism. But if NATO's mission today includes opposing atrocities committed by non-member states, then it should not give protection to regimes that commit such atrocities while in charge of member countries. We don't need to maximize NATO membership, because there is no threat to global freedom and security comparable to the USSR.

By the same token, if Russia wants to start a mutual defense alliance, and recruit countries from the western hemisphere to join, we have no reason to object - unless we have reason to believe that they have some illegitimate goal in mind in addition to self-defense. If Mexico or Venesuela or whoever decide they want to join a "Warsaw Pact 2 - The Mosocw Pact", I don't see why we should regard that as a problem.

BG | August 11, 2008, 8:59pm | #

* "Moscow Pact", not "Mosocw Pact".

We should always object to countries joining incorrectly spelled alliances.

slchilders | August 11, 2008, 9:38pm | #

I think Obama has it right...both sides need a timeout. Give me a BREAK!!!

Ceesaxp | August 11, 2008, 11:41pm | #

Nigel: "Somehow I doubt the Georgian people will think too much of Russia installing a puppet, and it's not like there isn't regional knowledge about how to make life hell for an occupying superpower."

They won't be installing anyone. They will organize elections, and let people choose. And believe me, votes will swing even without Russian troops being there. If you think that Georgians are oh-so unanimously supporting Saakashvili, you are very much mistaken...

Late poster | August 12, 2008, 11:39am | #

I think the analogy here is Chechnya.

Georgia learned from Russia what you do with a region that wants autonomy.

Results may vary.

Seamus | August 12, 2008, 12:09pm | #

During the cold war, NATO included fascist Spain and a Greek junta for a few years.

Spain didn't join NATO until 1982, years after Franco's death and the establishment of democracy.

BG | August 12, 2008, 1:40pm | #

Spain didn't join NATO until 1982, years after Franco's death and the establishment of democracy.

You're right, my mistake. I was thinking of Portugal, which was at least semi-fascist at the time but was still a founding member of NATO.

And the Greek Junta thing still stands.

TrickyVic | August 12, 2008, 8:04pm | #

""""WTO membership, trade with E Europe, the heaping of international disapproval.""""

You really think that?

B | August 12, 2008, 8:59pm | #

"And it is too early to tell just where the blame lies, though convincing arguments can be made for both camps."


Let me get this straight. Russian invades a sovereign democracy and you can't decide who is to blame? Either you are a moral retard or a total fucking idiot.

Mad Ivan | August 13, 2008, 11:52am | #

B - Russian _invaded_ someone? Really...
If you can't see that Georgians asked for it by shelling civilians, you're as much idiot as Saakishvili...