I have to say, I don't like to hear that Barack Obama is going slow on supporting Georgia against Russia's land-grab. Russia not only attempts to exert economic and military hegemony over its neighbors; it has a distinct dislike for free elections.
On the other hand, I don't know enough about South Ossetia and Akhazia to say whether they really want to be part of Russia, or just don't want to be part of Georgia. I suppose my feelings about local self-determination extend to the right to join massively unfree megastates.
The thing is, Barack Obama doesn't seem to have any actual objection to supporting Georgia's bid; he's just moving cautiously. This is letting Russia establish, as Jonathan Kulick says, "facts on the ground".
I'll bet Obama's foreign policy advisors were thinking, "We shouldn't be too upset - Georgia is doing same thing to other states...." (http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2008/feb/25/border-dispute-heinous-assault-georgia-tennessee-l/)
No, wait....
This is a touch hyperbolic, don't you think?
This criticism might be valid once Obama's elected president, but taking action against Soviet, er Russian expansionism resides in the job description of the current incumbent until 1/20/09.
I suggest you file your complaint with Mr. Bush or Dr. Rice, as they're actually in a position to do something (well, not really, but you know) now.
Once Obama's sworn in, if he is, then you can start blaming him for all manner of foreign policy shortcomings. Fair enough?
Perhaps we should send troops to Georgia to prevent the expansion of Communism. A free and democratic Georgia could have a domino effect, toppling the Soviet Empire and halting the spread Communism throughout Europe and Asia.
Simple economics. If he was sure he could win Georgia in the general election, Obama would publicly care more.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Never mind.
"Once Obama's sworn in, if he is, then you can start blaming him for all manner of foreign policy shortcomings. Fair enough?"
well, no. Not really. Other countries watch what the people who may end up running the country have to say. Pointed out what Bush is or is not doing has nothing to do with this. If you are voting and are anti-Bush I assume a reason you picked the person you are voting for is because of what you think that person will do, not just because he/she isnt Bush. At least I hope that's why.
If you took a poll today (impossible as that would be in what is effectively an annexed part of Russia), you would likely find a substantial majority in both enclaves who prefer to be part of Russia rather than part of Georgia. Of course, the main reason for that would be that a couple hundred thousand Georgians were exiled from those areas by the Russians. As ethnic cleansers, teh Russians are still able to make the rest of us look like pikers.
"Other countries watch what the people who may end up running the country have to say. "
And then they do what they want anyway.
"Pointed (sic) out what Bush is or is not doing has nothing to do with this."
If your objective is to check Putin's initiatives substantially to restore the USSR's former borders and sphere of influence, then what Bush does now has everything to to with it. He has the apparatus of government under his control today. Even if you buy into the proposition that Putin's calibrating his actions by what Obama says, wouldn't that incentivize Pooty-Poot to execute his nefarious plan that much faster (i.e., before Obama's election)?
If, OTOH, your objective is to get a shot in at Obama, then you, Megan, et al have worked in your cheapie. I don't see any compare-and-contrast with Clinton's or McCain's respective positions, BTW. Does McCain even remember where Russia is? And is Clinton waiting for polling data to calculate her triangulation points?
"...I assume a reason you picked the person you are voting for is because of what you think that person will do..."
Yes, and there are plenty of substantive issues such as the economy (including jobs, trade, health care, financial market reform); Iraq, Afghanistan and the ME more generally, Greater China, etc. that likely will decide the election. I'm sorry, but I just don't see Russia vs. Georgia as being one of them. At least Florida vs. Georgia holds the prospect of renewing "The World's Greatest Outdoor Cocktail Party" and so likely would carry some weight with SEC fans.
The ethnic Russians that currently live in Abkhazia and South Ossetia probably do want to be part of Russia. The ethnic Georgians that made up the majority of the local population of both areas prior to being ethnically cleansed by the Russians during the Georgian Civil War in the early 90s probably have a different opinion on the matter.
Dear Johnny,
Had you bothered to click through to the article, the very first paragraph reads "Russia has annexed the Georgian regions of Abkhazia and Ossetia in all but name, and the international reaction is furious. All of the alphabet-soup IGOs, Georgia’s friends in Europe, the United States, George W. Bush, John McCain, and Hillary Clinton have condemned the actions."
I understand that this would have interfered with your ability to condemn our gracious host's writings as a "cheapie", but your outrage is somewhat less than effective under the circumstances.
Regards,
Neil
I think Russia gave up any credibility that it had when it created its own September 11th and used its own FSB agents to create our September 11th. And every politician alive gave up his or her foreign policy credibility when they ignored Alexander Litvinenko's accusations and subsequent nuclear death. At least during the Cold War people were skeptical of supposedly non-state terrorism. But now that it's over, not even the conspiracy theorists will accuse Russia. But tons of dead Russian journalists and former spies have, and have died for it, and it looks like they've died in vain.
"The ethnic Georgians that made up the majority of the local population of both areas prior to being ethnically cleansed by the Russians during the Georgian Civil War in the early 90s probably have a different opinion on the matter."
Well ethnic georgians were never a majority in South Ossetia. The main ethnic group were and are , of course, the Ossetians who before the 1990's made up around 66% of the population.
Not that the Russians are really into compromise, but what about joining South Ossetia (in Georgia, at least nominally) and North Ossetia (in Russia and bordering on South Ossetia) into a sovereign Ossetia?
Every time Obama responds to a foreign policy question, I am stunned by his superficiality.
Wait, you mean there's a politician* out there besides Ron Paul who thinks that we shouldn't stick our nose in every country's business? *gasp*
Aren't we involved in enough conflicts already?
*And yes, I know, Obama's certainly not an isolationist.
Dear Niel,
I do appreciate your demonstration that chivalry isn't quite dead. Given that Megan's a pro, I've no doubt that she could post me up and dunk over me any time she wanted; but it was sweet of you to try in her stead.
Had you bothered to read that same article you'd have seen nothing more than a fifth-rate attempt at a hit piece. Kulick's knickers supposedly are in a twist not because of Obama's actual position but because his campaign supposedly hasn't been quite as loud about it as the Clinton and McCain camps. (Links?)
Rote condemnations might be comforting to see (or would've been if we could've read what Clinton and McCain actually said), but they still don't tell us what either of them would do. As Sen. Clinton already has threatened nuclear war in defense of Israel, how far are she and Sen. McCain prepared to go in defense of Georgia?
Just to clarify, I'm not outraged, faux or otherwise. But I do know projection when I see it.
Cheers,
Johnny
P.S. Thanks for the condescension. Not only does it help prove my point about sharpshooting, but also it really becomes you.
If you are voting and are anti-Bush I assume a reason you picked the person you are voting for is because of what you think that person will do, not just because he/she isnt Bush.
The candidate that isn't Bush, that narrows it down to ... all of them.
Not that the Russians are really into compromise, but what about joining South Ossetia (in Georgia, at least nominally) and North Ossetia (in Russia and bordering on South Ossetia) into a sovereign Ossetia?
Posted by JohnAnnArbor
The new "Ossetia" would promptly merge into Russia. The Ossetian may not like the Russians, but they prefer them to the Georgians, Ingush or CHechens. Even so, the Russians wouldn't go for it. This isn't about land, it's about power. The last thing Russia wants is for local plebiscites to be recognized as to what should be part of Russia. Chechnya, which is much more valuable than Ossetia, would be gone in an instant.
Russia's goal is to force acceptance of a very broad interpretation of the agreement made when the Soviet Union collapsed. The US had recognised the USSR when it entered war with Germany. The first Bush administration agreed to let Yeltsin deal as he saw fit with entities within the pre-WWII USSR borders, but said it would raise a stink about Russia interfering in the affairs to the possessions that the USSR aquired at the end of WWII - the Baltic states etc.
Georgia was part of the pre-WWII USSR. It was originally separated with a government very friendly to Russia, with a supposedly functioning totalitarian aparatus that was intended to keep it that way. It didn't work out. Now Putin wants control back. The international community, rightly, believes in no "take-backs".
Realistically, nobody is going to interfere with the measures Russia is taking. Ironically, giving South Ossetia the exact same treatment that Kossovo got (self determination) might gain the region for Russia at the expense of Russia's true objective.
Wait, you mean there's a politician* out there besides Ron Paul who thinks that we shouldn't stick our nose in every country's business? *gasp*
Russian imperialism in the Balkans was a major factor starting the First World War, Russian imperialism was a major factor in getting the Second off the ground (Molotov-Ribbentrop, anyone?), and then Russian imperialism defined the shape of the world for fifty years.
If the Third Rome decides to start pursuing its imperial dreams again, the mess isn't going to stay confined safely far away this time than it did before.