Things have spun almost out of control in Georgia. There's a ton of information out there, and it's moving fast, but I'll try to give you a brief overview. First, let's start with the facts on the ground.
Russia invaded Georgia on the pretense of protecting some ethnic Russians in the northern part of Georgia. As shaky as that rationale was, they have now gone well beyond all reasonable explanation. They have signed peace treaties, promising to withdraw...but they haven't withdrawn. In fact, they've even gone so far as to suggest that we forget all about Georgia's sovereign borders. They have blocked Georgia's main port city, and are digging in to permanent positions. They have halted their cooperation with NATO. There is widespread violence and brutality from Russian soldiers throughout Georgia, causing massive refugee problems. While Russia keeps saying they'll withdraw, they keep pushing forward.
Poland and Ukraine have taken steps to secure U.S. protection from Russian aggression, Poland with missile systems and Ukraine with satellite cooperation and restrictions on the Russian Navy. They are clearly preparing for further Russian aggression. In response, Russia has threatened that the missile defense of Poland will go beyond diplomacy, and has said it would not hesitate to nuke Poland if any additional U.S. assets were moved into place there.
So, those are the main events. What should we think about them? This is much more tricky. There is no shortage of commentary on this subject, but I'll try to narrow things down to a few ideas that make a lot of sense to me.
The most cohesive, comprehensive explanation I've seen is that Russia wants to flex its muscles. It has been itching for payback at the humiliation of losing the Cold War, and wants to re-establish its status as a global player. Its people are suffering from decades of poverty, and its population is dying out, so they don't have much of an eye for the future. With the recent spike in oil prices, though, Russia finally has something it never had during the 80s: cash. It is one of the world's largest oil producers now, and is raking in the bucks as fast as it can.
Melik Kaylan writes in the Wall Street Journal that Russia's actions in Georgia are a strategy specifically designed to test the resolve of the U.S. and the West: primarily, are we willing to use force to restrain Russia? If you look at a map of the region, you'll see a narrow corridor of former-Soviet nations (of which Georgia is one) through which a major oil pipeline crosses. That pipeline is the only one to directly supply Europe with oil without Russian or Middle Eastern control. If that pipeline goes down, we'll see another spike in oil prices, and Russia will just get that much more revenue flowing. Also, if Russia is not restrained from occupying Georgia, there is no reason to think they wouldn't continue their push into those other former-Soviet nations, which gives them a straight shot to Iran, another prime U.S. enemy, raising the stakes from just Georgia to the entire region of central Asia and the Middle East.
Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton says that we (the U.S.-led West) royally screwed up by not preventing Russia's invasion in the first place (they were building up troops on the border for months), and now it's time for a gutcheck. He sees the stakes that Kaylan wrote about all too clearly. He is not alone. But, drawing a line in the sand is not without risk. One of the more ominous warnings came from Gabriel Schoenfeld, who suggests that Russia's nuclear bluster is very, very real. He writes that Russia actually has more nuclear weapons that can be deployed effectively in the region, which means they have a definite upper hand if it came to an actual war.
Another aspect that plagues the U.S. is the relationship between Russia and Iran, which has been growing closer over the past few years through nuclear aid and various arms and trade deals. The problem for us is that Russia is a member of the U.N. Security Council, so we need to at least appear to play nice with them to get international approval on actions in the Middle East. Then again, Russia is clearly picking a fight with the U.S., so what are we to do? [Side note: my opinion is that we should ditch the U.N. altogether and make sure we protect the interests of us and our allies first, regardless of international pressure -- a thought echoed by many who are much smarter than I am -- but I doubt our leaders will have the guts to buck international pressure that way. An Obama Presidency guarantees it'll never happen. This is one of the core problems with the U.N. - relying on international approval rarely helps us.] Similar to the situation with Iran, Syria stands to become even more of a problem if Russia has its way with this conflict.
These considerations go straight to the core of some of the most delicate U.S. foreign policy right now, and could have a big impact if addressed incorrectly. Regardless, with Russia's bold new assertions, the question that the world is now required to answer is: will it be Russia's way, or America's way?
What we should do depends entirely upon who you ask. Some think we need hard, tough leadership. Some think we need to step up or shut up. Some say we should play hardball on a number of fronts, isolating Russia until the back down. The Moscow Times has a very intriguing piece laying out the case that the entire Georgia conflict is a trap for the United States that, if we step into it, will undermine all future U.S. promises of aid to new democratic nations, and reducing global American influence in general. It makes a disturbing amount of sense.
A look at our two Presidential candidates shows another stark contrast. Barack Obama shrugs, saying that we can hardly come down on Russia for invading Georgia when we are guilty of the same thing in Iraq. [This is patently absurd - Russia overtly invaded a sovereign, democratic neighbor for the express purpose of expansion; we invaded Iraq to remove a murderous thug dicatator whom we know was providing aid and assistance to our enemies, and who threatened to use WMDs on us. Oh, by the way, we also brought freedom to millions of Iraqis and closed down the rape rooms and torture chambers that Saddam Hussein had running night and day. Just a wee bit of difference, Senator Obama!] Obama has also pledged to disarm America's nuclear program, our missile defense program, and just about all other major defense programs. Russia has made no such pledge. Obama seems to believe we can sit down with Putin, sing a few refrains of Kumbaya, and all will be well.
On the other hand, McCain has taken a hard stance against Russian aggression. As I've cited before on this blog, McCain understands that Putin is KGB through and through, and that Russia needs to be restrained, by force if necessary. A recent statement included this:
He realizes this is no game, and he has the guts to follow through on his promises. The two candidates have staked their positions, and in that light, Cal Thomas perhaps sums it up the best:
Do we want another war? No, of course not. But, as radical Islamists proved on 9/11, it is very possible to have a war thrust upon us without wanting it. The question we can't avoid is how we will react to that forced war. Will we put on blinders and think happy thoughts, or will be man up and come out fighting? History shows us that Americans don't generally run from a fight.
There's my two cents.
Russia invaded Georgia on the pretense of protecting some ethnic Russians in the northern part of Georgia. As shaky as that rationale was, they have now gone well beyond all reasonable explanation. They have signed peace treaties, promising to withdraw...but they haven't withdrawn. In fact, they've even gone so far as to suggest that we forget all about Georgia's sovereign borders. They have blocked Georgia's main port city, and are digging in to permanent positions. They have halted their cooperation with NATO. There is widespread violence and brutality from Russian soldiers throughout Georgia, causing massive refugee problems. While Russia keeps saying they'll withdraw, they keep pushing forward.
Poland and Ukraine have taken steps to secure U.S. protection from Russian aggression, Poland with missile systems and Ukraine with satellite cooperation and restrictions on the Russian Navy. They are clearly preparing for further Russian aggression. In response, Russia has threatened that the missile defense of Poland will go beyond diplomacy, and has said it would not hesitate to nuke Poland if any additional U.S. assets were moved into place there.
So, those are the main events. What should we think about them? This is much more tricky. There is no shortage of commentary on this subject, but I'll try to narrow things down to a few ideas that make a lot of sense to me.
The most cohesive, comprehensive explanation I've seen is that Russia wants to flex its muscles. It has been itching for payback at the humiliation of losing the Cold War, and wants to re-establish its status as a global player. Its people are suffering from decades of poverty, and its population is dying out, so they don't have much of an eye for the future. With the recent spike in oil prices, though, Russia finally has something it never had during the 80s: cash. It is one of the world's largest oil producers now, and is raking in the bucks as fast as it can.
Melik Kaylan writes in the Wall Street Journal that Russia's actions in Georgia are a strategy specifically designed to test the resolve of the U.S. and the West: primarily, are we willing to use force to restrain Russia? If you look at a map of the region, you'll see a narrow corridor of former-Soviet nations (of which Georgia is one) through which a major oil pipeline crosses. That pipeline is the only one to directly supply Europe with oil without Russian or Middle Eastern control. If that pipeline goes down, we'll see another spike in oil prices, and Russia will just get that much more revenue flowing. Also, if Russia is not restrained from occupying Georgia, there is no reason to think they wouldn't continue their push into those other former-Soviet nations, which gives them a straight shot to Iran, another prime U.S. enemy, raising the stakes from just Georgia to the entire region of central Asia and the Middle East.
Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton says that we (the U.S.-led West) royally screwed up by not preventing Russia's invasion in the first place (they were building up troops on the border for months), and now it's time for a gutcheck. He sees the stakes that Kaylan wrote about all too clearly. He is not alone. But, drawing a line in the sand is not without risk. One of the more ominous warnings came from Gabriel Schoenfeld, who suggests that Russia's nuclear bluster is very, very real. He writes that Russia actually has more nuclear weapons that can be deployed effectively in the region, which means they have a definite upper hand if it came to an actual war.
Another aspect that plagues the U.S. is the relationship between Russia and Iran, which has been growing closer over the past few years through nuclear aid and various arms and trade deals. The problem for us is that Russia is a member of the U.N. Security Council, so we need to at least appear to play nice with them to get international approval on actions in the Middle East. Then again, Russia is clearly picking a fight with the U.S., so what are we to do? [Side note: my opinion is that we should ditch the U.N. altogether and make sure we protect the interests of us and our allies first, regardless of international pressure -- a thought echoed by many who are much smarter than I am -- but I doubt our leaders will have the guts to buck international pressure that way. An Obama Presidency guarantees it'll never happen. This is one of the core problems with the U.N. - relying on international approval rarely helps us.] Similar to the situation with Iran, Syria stands to become even more of a problem if Russia has its way with this conflict.
These considerations go straight to the core of some of the most delicate U.S. foreign policy right now, and could have a big impact if addressed incorrectly. Regardless, with Russia's bold new assertions, the question that the world is now required to answer is: will it be Russia's way, or America's way?
What we should do depends entirely upon who you ask. Some think we need hard, tough leadership. Some think we need to step up or shut up. Some say we should play hardball on a number of fronts, isolating Russia until the back down. The Moscow Times has a very intriguing piece laying out the case that the entire Georgia conflict is a trap for the United States that, if we step into it, will undermine all future U.S. promises of aid to new democratic nations, and reducing global American influence in general. It makes a disturbing amount of sense.
A look at our two Presidential candidates shows another stark contrast. Barack Obama shrugs, saying that we can hardly come down on Russia for invading Georgia when we are guilty of the same thing in Iraq. [This is patently absurd - Russia overtly invaded a sovereign, democratic neighbor for the express purpose of expansion; we invaded Iraq to remove a murderous thug dicatator whom we know was providing aid and assistance to our enemies, and who threatened to use WMDs on us. Oh, by the way, we also brought freedom to millions of Iraqis and closed down the rape rooms and torture chambers that Saddam Hussein had running night and day. Just a wee bit of difference, Senator Obama!] Obama has also pledged to disarm America's nuclear program, our missile defense program, and just about all other major defense programs. Russia has made no such pledge. Obama seems to believe we can sit down with Putin, sing a few refrains of Kumbaya, and all will be well.
On the other hand, McCain has taken a hard stance against Russian aggression. As I've cited before on this blog, McCain understands that Putin is KGB through and through, and that Russia needs to be restrained, by force if necessary. A recent statement included this:
The implications of Russian actions go beyond their threat to the territorial integrity and independence of a democratic Georgia. Russia is using violence against Georgia, in part, to intimidate other neighbors - such as Ukraine - for choosing to associate with the West and adhering to Western political and economic values. As such, the fate of Georgia should be of grave concern to Americans and all people who welcomed the end of a divided of Europe, and the independence of former Soviet republics.
We have other important strategic interests at stake in Georgia, especially the continued flow of oil through the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline, which Russia attempted to bomb in recent days; the operation of a critical communication and trade route from Georgia through Azerbaijan and Central Asia; and the integrity and influence of NATO, whose members reaffirmed last April the territorial integrity, independence, and sovereignty of Georgia.
Yesterday Georgia withdrew its troops from South Ossetia and offered a ceasefire. The Russians responded by bombing the civilian airport in Georgia's capital, Tblisi, and by stepping up its offensive in Abkhazia.
Russian President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin must understand the severe, long-term negative consequences that their government's actions will have for Russia's relationship with the U.S. and Europe. It is time we moved forward with a number of steps.
We have other important strategic interests at stake in Georgia, especially the continued flow of oil through the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline, which Russia attempted to bomb in recent days; the operation of a critical communication and trade route from Georgia through Azerbaijan and Central Asia; and the integrity and influence of NATO, whose members reaffirmed last April the territorial integrity, independence, and sovereignty of Georgia.
Yesterday Georgia withdrew its troops from South Ossetia and offered a ceasefire. The Russians responded by bombing the civilian airport in Georgia's capital, Tblisi, and by stepping up its offensive in Abkhazia.
Russian President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin must understand the severe, long-term negative consequences that their government's actions will have for Russia's relationship with the U.S. and Europe. It is time we moved forward with a number of steps.
He realizes this is no game, and he has the guts to follow through on his promises. The two candidates have staked their positions, and in that light, Cal Thomas perhaps sums it up the best:
"Whatever the political outcome of Russia's invasion of Georgia, the incident has reminded American voters that in uncertain times it is dangerous to choose a rookie with no foreign policy experience and a juvenile approach to world affairs over one tempered by war who understands that U.N. resolutions might as well be written in disappearing ink. John McCain knows that peace through strength is what defeated the Soviet Union and that it's peace through strength that will best preserve free nations and advance their interests."
Do we want another war? No, of course not. But, as radical Islamists proved on 9/11, it is very possible to have a war thrust upon us without wanting it. The question we can't avoid is how we will react to that forced war. Will we put on blinders and think happy thoughts, or will be man up and come out fighting? History shows us that Americans don't generally run from a fight.
There's my two cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment