It's hard to overstate what a bad idea I think it would be to offer NATO membership to Georgia at this time. Allowing a country to join NATO isn't just some random 'screw you' gesture to Russia. It's entering into a military alliance, whereby we construe an attack on that country as if it were an attack on us. It means accepting a binding commitment to send our army to fight and die for that country. And we should never, ever enter into such a commitment lightly.I supported expanding NATO to include Eastern European countries. I wanted to make that commitment to them, to ensure that the Iron Curtain would never again fall with them on the wrong side. But I think it would be madness to take the same view of Georgia. For one thing, if we're going to enter into a military alliance with some country, that country should not have ongoing territorial disputes with Russia. If it does, then unless we are willing to go to war with Russia over those territorial disputes, we have no business entering into a military alliance with that country. For another, that country should have a basically reasonable government -- the sort of government that would not do something completely stupid, like attacking a city garrisoned by the Russians. Moreover, its political system should give us confidence that this reasonable government is not a fluke.
Another way to look at the question is: are we going to allow Russia to reassemble the old Russian empire? At its heart, that's what this is about. Maybe we should; maybe it's none of our business who Russia decides to invade, or what puppet governments they decide to prop up, so long as they don't share a border with Germany.
I don't mean that sarcastically--I can make all sorts of arguments in favor of this attitude. On the other hand, it has obvious, dramatic costs, including the fact that Russia's imperial ambitions are unlikely to stop at the Georgian border. Also, as far as I know, Georgia controls the only major pipeline to Europe not owned by Russia or Iran--Russian control of Georgia would dramatically increase its negotiating power with the entire European Union.
If this war ends up with Russia occupying Georgia, NATO will probably be worse off than it would have been if it had let Georgia join--though to be sure, the US might still be better off. I don't know how likely such a scenario is. But it's been clear for a long time that Russia's goal is to regain its former imperial borders, effectively if not nominally.
Can I use the term batsh*t insane in the comments?
One could have much success in tracing the current middle eastern troubles to the power vacuum that appeared after soviet collapse.
Since Russia's political system is not self sustaining, and can only last by supporting itself thru sales of natural resources, allowing them to rebuild their empire will just cause a similar situation in the future, when it collapses again. And of course, millions will die under extreme soviet oppression, much like last time.
I'm torn on this question, and this question of statecraft makes me glad that I am not in a position to make the decision on US involvement in Georgia, but now I wonder when are people going to start using the term appeasement? I remember a few weeks back when we started tentatively labeling modern Russia as "fascist," and my only question is this: Who will be the first to make the Georgia Sudetendland analogy?
And how right will they be?
I'd suggest letting the Europeans deal with Russia on their own. It's their pipeline they have to worry about.
If they can't handle it without our help, well, realpolitik sucks sometimes. I'd really like if we were to wrap up in Iraq and Afghanistan and then spend 10-20 years doing nothing more strenuous than invading Grenada when we get bored and we didn't have to pay for the military protection of Europe while they spend their money on universal health care.
Ahh, day dreams.
Russia's current government does not work and play well with others. Due to corruption and decay in Russia's scientific sector, Russia cannot compete in the high technology race. Russia's population is dying out due to low birthrates and high deathrates--particularly for men in their 50s.
In not so long term, Russia will be de-populated, and reduced to threatening and bullying based upon control of energy supplies and nuclear weapons stockpiles. Russia will not be able to field an army defend its borders, its military will be too out-moded to risk actual wars with real opponents, and a burgeoning muslim population will want a big piece of everything. China eyes Siberian mineral wealth, and calculates quietly.
I don't think we want war with Russia. But it might be in our own best interest to engage in some kind of détente with Iran.
ARe we to, once again, go abroad in search of monsters to destroy?
South Ossetia is apparently majority Russian and wants self-determination (or at least to not be part of Georgia.) So much of the world's troubles could be solved by letting people determine which nation, if any, they wish to declare allegience to. Think of the Kurds, or Tibetans. And yes I'm willing to let southern Texas and/or New Mexico vote to rejoin Mexico if that's what the majority there wishes.
Russia's current government does not work and play well with others. Due to corruption and decay in Russia's scientific sector, Russia cannot compete in the high technology race. Russia's population is dying out due to low birthrates and high deathrates--particularly for men in their 50s.
In not so long term, Russia will be de-populated, and reduced to threatening and bullying based upon control of energy supplies and nuclear weapons stockpiles. Russia will not be able to field an army defend its borders, its military will be too out-moded to risk actual wars with real opponents, and a burgeoning muslim population will want a big piece of everything. China eyes Siberian mineral wealth, and calculates quietly.
I can think of a worse outcome: If Georgia had been admitted for future NATO membership a few months ago. Then today we'd be faced with the choice of watching a NATO member get overrun by the Russian Army or sending the 82 Airborne to Tbilisi.
I don't think we can admit them to NATO as long as they have an outstanding conflict with Russia this way. I do think someone needs to tell Putin thatl yes, he's made his point, he has a huge wang, etc - now it's time to back the hell off before Uncle Sam goes all 1973 Airlift. The Russians have won their gambit for South Ossettiam, and they will get it, for whatever good it will do them. I don't think the Russians are quite ready to fight the US yet, and while the Army and Marine Corps are quite busy in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Navy and Air Force are rather at loose ends.
As for "protecting Russian citizens", these are rather insta-citizens. If was the Soviets that put the Ossettians in two different countries.
Finally, when those Georgian Soldiers are sent back from Iraq, they should all be given goody bags containting Stingers and ATGMs.
Or Russia decides that attacking a NATO member and facing the reprisals that come with that decision isn’t worth the risk.
South Ossetia is apparently majority Russian and wants self-determination
If all this were only about South Ossetia, the Russians would have no reason to fight on.
Isn't this a case for a Coasian bargain? If there is a cost/benefit to Russia for invading Georgia and a benefit to Europe for an independent Georgia, then Europe should pay off Putin to keep Georgia independent. A thousand years ago, the capitals of old Europe would be sending a ransom east. No one's that sophisticated today.
Is it fair to say this is just another episode in the Oil Wars? If Russia hadn't had the income of high oil prices this last decade, it would have collapsed even farther. They might still have attacked, but they might have had too much unrest and poverty at home to consider it. And without high oil prices, Georgia would not have been as much of a prize.
Not only are we not going to fight Russia (and they know that), we don't have any armed forces to spare from Iraq and Afghanistan. We are maxed out. We also have no money to spare.
So all we can do is watch. You want to turn off these wars, then get off oil.
I with creech on this one.
South Ossetia gets to pick or else every nation state is sovereign and you don't get to complain about Tibet, Turkey, or Zimbabwe. Of course we already ignore election irregularities depending on the candidates allied status.
Perhaps we should consider the Georgian empire rather than the Russian?
If Russia was in any mood to expand it would take something worthwhile such as Kazakhstan with its huge gas reserves.
Does it really make sense to wait until a decade after a province declared independence, then wait for an attack on said province and then, and only then battle the Georgians back. If they wanted an empire including Georgia it would be done.
"If all this were only about South Ossetia, the Russians would have no reason to fight on."
The reason seems to be to hit Georgia hard enough so that it remembers the lesson.
Perhaps if so much of the world's diplomatic efforts weren't perennially wasted on spurring fruitless negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians, the dispute over South Ossetia could have been dealt with before it exploded into war.
I’m guessing that the fact that the governments of old Europe who thought that paying ransom was the solution are no longer around suggests that it wasn’t quite as “sophisticated” a solution as some would like to imagine.
Another way to look at the question is: are we going to allow Russia to reassemble the old Russian empire? At its heart, that's what this is about. Maybe we should; maybe it's none of our business who Russia decides to invade, or what puppet governments they decide to prop up, so long as they don't share a border with Germany.
The Baltic nations, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Armenia are all different countries with different relationships to Russia and different relationships to Europe and the US. It's a simplistic mistake to imagine we should have one universal approach to "former territories of the Russian empire" which we apply uniformly to Estonia, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan. Georgia is significantly less European, farther away, and more ethnically screwed up than any of the Baltics, and it managed to get itself into a long-running territorial dispute with Russia by going on a chauvinist campaign against one of its own indigenous minorities in the early 90s, which was really dumb. Given that situation, the presence of Russian "peacekeepers" etc., there was no clean way to get Georgia into NATO without risking conflict. NATO integration for the Baltic states was a lot simpler and easier, and that's part of why it was a good idea. "We should seek to extend a military umbrella to protect fledgling democracies wherever it doesn't screw things up and get people killed, but perhaps not where it screws things up and gets people killed" is a perfectly defensible and not incoherent position.
This is the pertinent question, and the answer is affirmative.
Even back in the Bush 41 administration, Yeltsin's Russia was formulating foreign policy objectives which would ultimately lead to this point by logical extension. This was when Russia euphemistically referred to the lost soviet republics as the "near abroad," something of a Russian version of the Monroe Doctrine, but with a much clearer aim of Imperial Russian "land reclamation."
The Russians lost the chaotic Yeltsin years, but the old police state returned with Putin, eager to reassemble its military capacity by reversing its declines. I would even argue that, had 9/11 not occurred, the Russians would still have undertaken this action sooner or later once the opportunity arose. Absent 9/11, the Russians knew as well as we knew and NATO knew that any attempt at stopping such a staged fight could not be stopped. We had already tacitly accepted and acknowledge their "near abroad" theory, even if we had tried to seduce the newly independent states with promises of NATO and/or EU membership.
What I would anticipate is for an "independent" government in Georgia to arise that demands Georgia become a satellite state of Russia, not entirely unlike Belarus.
I think that every American president, at his first meeting with whoever is really in charge of Russia (perhaps at the summit with whomever is nominally in charge) should say "I am so glad I don't have your problems.
Russia wants and needs to be a great power, like Britain, France, Germany, Japan, and China (and the USA). They have a nasty rump of the old Soviet empire to turn into a nation. There are ethnic Russians scattered all over the old Soviet Union. The Soviets moved Russians wherever they needed politically reliable people. There are all sorts of non-Russian ethnicities in Russia. Now it's comming back to bite them.
We helped stir up the trouble with military aid to Georgia. Georgia got too big for its britches. Instead of negotiating over tax revenue they tried to settle the South Ossetians by force. The Russian reaction was predictable.
We need to face the fact that the USA has less than 5% of the world's population. Our demographics mean we have much less than 5% of the world's military service age population. We never really did run the world and we cannot run it now.
I suggest that we don't want to run the world.
At some point the USA will need a foreign policy more like what we had in the 1800s. Confine our attention to things that clearly affect us. Make it obvious that we are too dangerous to mess with.
Talk softly and carry a big stick. Teddy Rooseveldt sounds better all the time.
We need to face the fact that the USA has less than 5% of the world's population.
What % of the world's population has Russia?
Russia has about 2.3% (140.7M estimated July 2008 population per World Factbook).
Michael Kaminsky: Who will be the first to make the Georgia Sudetenland analogy?
And how right will they be?
It's "a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing."
No, I don't know what to do either.
Megan... I find it incredible that you can post on the topic and not mention the actual events that led up to this invasion. I mean if someone were to just read your post, they'd think that Russia just invaded just because. The Georgians bombing their own people has no relevance at all? I'm not supporting what Russia has done, at all. But not even beginning to comment on any of the actual facts on the ground in this imbroglio, and just engaging in "rollback Russia" boilerplate is seriously irresponsible.
And of course, millions will die under extreme soviet oppression, much like last time.
If people want to be taken seriously, they need to actually treat words as if they have meanings. To call the current Putin authoritarianism in Russia "Soviet" just beggars belief. It isn't Soviet in any meaningful sense whatsoever.
Megan, the irony of this post is that it shows such an assumption that the US is an empire that can dictate what happens on every point in the globe. This is such a neocon line you are taking here: did you not learn anything from the Iraq fiasco?
If Georgia had been admitted into NATO there is no doubt that we would be in the most horrendous crisis at the moment with the very real risk NATO being recked.
I speak very much from a European perspective here. A certain toughness is going to be needed by the Europeans in dealing with Russia, but we will have to respect the Russians and learn to get on with them.
What the Georgians have done is incredibly foolish--entirely led astray by the neocons of course. Saakashvili is no democratic paragon and Russians are generally happy with their government and approve of its current track. The original assault by Georgia was vicious--quite in line with the Russian response, and indeed the Serbian assaults on the Kosovars for which we bombed Belgrade.
This is not to excuse the Russian behavior or say that there shouldn't be concerted action to make Russia act more reasonably. But the coverage is so ludicrously one-sided, and your comments seem to reflect it.
I find it incredible that you can post on the topic and not mention the actual events that led up to this invasion.
Perhaps you should share your knowledge with us all if you know what really happened on the ground.
BobW,
I think one could argue that is what the USA is doing. The devil will always be in the details. What constitutes a threat to the US? Well someone who we think is making WMD, who pays terrorists, who is an ally to terrorists, who is aging (and perhaps would love to take Americas with him to the grave?), who is a dictator, who controls a large portion of the worlds oil (like it or not you're sitting here reading this as a direct result of that), who flaunts UN resolutions, who has ethnically cleansed before, who has invaded neighboors before.
The decision to use the big stick you speak of was made in the case of Iraq but no in the case of a dozen other countries who have no interest or are not perceived as being a real threat.
Notice that even though North Korea is run by a despot persuing nuclear weapons we did not go after them. Our foreign policy is restrained. Maybe you'd like it to be even more so... maybe we shouldn't act until we find out a building is blown up or we start seeing those russian paratroopers landing in Oklahoma... but for the rest of the real world, we do fight where it is in our interest and we avoid fighting where it is not.
Heinz, does this post contain one scintilla of information about the actual invasion and what initiated it? I don't think you can have a fair discussion about an event in foreign policy without discussing the actual issues at hand. I'm not asking for ground-breaking reporting; this information is available all over.
Heinz, does this post contain one scintilla of information about the actual invasion and what initiated it? I don't think you can have a fair discussion about an event in foreign policy without discussing the actual issues at hand. I'm not asking for ground-breaking reporting; this information is available all over.
Maybe you'd like it to be even more so... maybe we shouldn't act until we find out a building is blown up or we start seeing those russian paratroopers landing in Oklahoma
OK, again, simply no grounding in reality whatsoever. Russian paratroopers in Oklahoma? Are you serious?
Why do so many people allow their visions of foreign policy be dominated by video game-style fantasy?
Freddie makes a fair point. It would be more realistic to speak of Russia as a KGB / police state. But the "soviet" concept has a long pedigree in post-soviet Kremlinology. The "union" of "soviet republics" of which the Russian Federation makes up the rump were only called "soviets" to appear independent. So referring to modern Russia as defined by Putin as "neo-soviet" or soviet revivalist simply captures what it is that Russia strives to achieve.
The only question is which country falls next. Will it be the isolated and partly subverted Ukraine? Or will it be the Baltic states who are already in NATO and the EU?
The Russians know that the EU and NATO are easy to divide against one another.
sam:
Was that true of Kosovo?
I suggest that Ossetia is partially payback for Kosovo. Ossetia and Georgia are more important to Russia than Kosovo and Serbia are to us. Let's hope that Georgia is less important to us than Serbia was to Russia.
Here's a summary from the Christian Science Monitor, with a timeline.
Roots of Georgia-Russia Clash Run Deep
Dear MarkG,
Please watch Red Dawn. Learn sarcasm. Remember to smile.
Apologies, it wasn't MarkG that hasn't a clue of classic 80s movies, but Freddie (no surprise)
Please watch Red Dawn. Learn sarcasm. Remember to smile.
Thanks for posting this Megan. I tend to think people need to be asking these questions, and you're the only one doing it.
Please watch Red Dawn. Learn sarcasm. Remember to smile.
So you don't think this is a big deal, then, right? You can't selectively apply sarcasm to your quote. If you attached that bit of sarcasm to an overall point advocating American militarism, then my confusion is a product of your inability to articulate.
Please read a book on composition. Learn to be coherent. Remember to smile.
Didn't Megan say she'd stay away from foreign policy?
And when will vegeterians learn to keep their hands away from Russia?
Didn't Megan say she'd stay away from foreign policy?
And when will vegeterians learn to keep their hands away from Russia?
I'll second MarkG's comment that Freddie made a fair point. It's worth noting the proximate cause of the current war, which appears to be Georgia's surprise attack on South Ossetia last Thursday (according to this BBC timeline). Some commenters on the Small Wars Journal site have speculated that, due to the incompetence of the Georgian military (e.g., not destroying the trans-Caucuses tunnel connecting Russia and South Ossetia, to prevent Russian reinforcements), this must be some sort of trap set by the Russians. If the BBC time line is right, this was a gross miscalculation by Georgia's president.
The bigger question is that in this day and age, would Russia even want the old Empire back? They are unlikely to attack the Baltic states or major (or any) NATO/EU states. I can't think of any such states that have real territorial issues with Russia, but I'm not expert on that. The Romanovs didn't have to deal with things like the proliferation of small arms and explosives in Central and South Asia, the spread of Islamic jihad ideas, the rise of modern nationalisms (at least to the same extent), etc. Part of the reason the Soviet Union fell was over the invasion of Afghanistan. Somehow I doubt the Russians really want to repeat that. If they do, then they'll just learn a lesson again why that's a bad idea.
And when will vegeterians learn to keep their hands away from Russia?
I think Tolstoy would have had difficulty keeping his hands away from Russia.
I guess the core question is whether Russia is attempting to install a client government in Georgia as a whole or just seizing South Ossetia and the other independent province whose name I can't remember.
I like the idea of extending NATO's membership to protect Georgia's democratic government and its oil pipeline, but I am not crazy about writing Georgia a blank check to go in and conquer South Ossetia's formerly independent government, even if it has a legal right to do so.
The next few weeks should tell us a little bit about whether cautious diplomacy, aggressive diplomacy, or outright war was the right answer. Of course, by then it will be too late.
The best thing the international community could do would be to solve the South Ossetia and Other Place I Can't Remember issue, presumably with a solution involving (1) allowing those areas a referendum on whether to be part of Georgia, Russia or nowhere and (2) massive payments from the international community to Georgia (for surrendering some of its rights) and to any displaced families, that, while massive, are still cheaper than a war.
As far as McCain proposal re: NATO membership, I see that more as a gesture of solidarity. The Romans used the phrase si vales valeo, If you are well, I am well, which, in a way, is the logical condition of an alliance. His talking of a NATO alliance is the equivalent of the Roman statement. It is in this spirit that he would do what he could.
Reality Man,
My impression from several year's residence in Russia is, yes, they would like the 'old Empire' back. They consider themselves to be a great power and their conception of their power is much more extensive than Russia's present borders.
That said, it wouldn't hurt to define terms because that Empire has ebbed and flowed, and the Russian Empire is not the same thing as the Soviet Union. And neither of those things may be the 'psychic Empire' that Russians seem to crave most, i.e. equal status with the US, the EU and China. They recognize the charade of their own membership in the G8, resent that it's not based on merit, and debate whether they should orient with 'the West' or are simply superior to it in their Russianness. All of which has been a standard feature of Russian history for centuries.
I don't see the Russians rolling into the Baltics or the former Warsaw Pact nations. History has moved too far for them to do that without starting a major conflagration. Ukraine is less certain and Belarus might even go willingly (though Lukashenko is unlikely to want to give up or share power). But the West is going to have to decide whether it wants to treat Russia like a real player or continue with the (wink-wink, nudge-nudge) 'acknowledgement' the Russia is powerful. Really. Absolutely . . .
PS - given that one of the Romanovs was assasinated by explosives, not to mention all the messy geopolitics Russia was involved in back then (read The Great Game sometime), it's fair to say that the Romanovs dealt with plenty of 21st century-like issues.
brooksfoe: "I think Tolstoy would have had difficulty keeping his hands away from Russia."
Touché!
This post betrayed once again McArdle's shameful, bloodthirsty neoconism. She did not learn anything from her fiasco in Mesopotamia. The fighting in Georgia will soon die down and before long Americans won't be able to recall the name of South Ossetia. But we should all remember what McArdle wrote here. If her ideas were more influential, many more would die.
Also, McArdle's vigorous opposition to Ron Paul's candidacy is now, at least for me, much easier to understand.
I know it's a real bummer for European politicians to have to come back early from their August vacation to deal with this war, but let's face the facts that if the Russians had invaded France, they probably would have waited until September to respond.
This is what gives me a chuckle each and every time the EU talks about having an army. They don't want to pay for it, and even if they did, an EU army would be lucky enough to defend the EU from a drunk airplane pilot or whatnot; they could never handle the Russians on any month other than August (when they would surrender).
"My impression from several year's residence in Russia is, yes, they would like the 'old Empire' back. They consider themselves to be a great power and their conception of their power is much more extensive than Russia's present borders."
Sure among the general populace. Living in Beijing I can definitely say most people would love it if tomorrow China reclaimed Taiwan. However, professional militaries tend to want to avoid fighting battles they are not sure they can win, which is partly way China hasn't directly attacked Taiwan in that they are too afraid of the consequences of losing to the combined strength of the US, Taiwan and possibly Japan and other Asian nations. If Putin invaded, for example, Kazakhstan and got his ass kicked by an insurgency, he would have trouble holding onto power. I doubt the Russian military elite wants to re-live the pain of the Afghanistan insurgency.
It's not whether we can defeat any one foe. We don't want everybody to gang up on us. We need to choose our battles carefully.
Russia has become a relatively benign authoritarian state. They could be useful allies. We might still salvage that, if we're careful. We might need them. Otherwise...
This represents the next bad consequence of the idiotic decision to invade Iraq. Russia watched the US invade a country that did not attack it and do so for its own reasons. Georgia sent 2000 troops to Iraq as part of the "Coalition" to buy itself membership in NATO and thus defend itself from Russia. Further, high oil prices - another legacy of the Iraq adventure - are filling Russia's coffers and buying Putin & Co. political capitol with the Russian people to start wars like this. Bush and his badly conceived and executed war have done a lot of damage to the US and our long term interests - and the interests of democracy and "international law". In truth, he's cracked the fiction that such a thing as international law exists. There are only strong countries and weak ones - those that can project their will and those who can't. Everyone who ever supported the Iraq invasion - and continues to do so - should feel at least a little guilty when they contemplate the war in Georgia. No one knows how this will end but if we're honest, we all know where it started.
Nathan:
So Kosovo doesn't count?
For Russia, Serbia is more important than Iraq. Serbia is a Slavic country, and Russia still sees itself as the protector of the Slavs. We forced Serbia to give up a province at no obvious benefit to ourselves. At the very least, Russia thinks the US government is nuts. At worst, they think the US government acts from personal motives, like Madam Secretary Albright.
Russia sees us as encircling them with alliances by expanding NATO to include the former Warsaw Pact countries. They don't like that. Russia sees NATO as a US tool. They are more impressed with NATO than we are.
We should have taken care to include Russia in the list of victors over the old Soviet Union.
From Russia's point of view Iraq is more clearly a matter of US national interest. The fact that things aren't going perfectly is merely an occasion for schadenfreud.
The invasion of Georgia works for Russia on so many levels.
The fact that the Bush administration happened to be on watch is not as important to Russia as the fact that they were able to act effectively despite us.
Perhaps the State Department screwed up in their advice to President Saakashvili. Echoes of their advice to Sadam Hussein. Most of the people in Foggy Bottom are career cookie pushers.