John McCain:
“Today, many are dead and Georgia is in crisis, yet the Obama campaign has offered nothing more than cheap and petty political attacks that are echoed only by the Kremlin,” said McCain aide Tucker Bounds in the statement. “The reaction of the Obama campaign to this crisis, so at odds with our democratic allies and yet so bizarrely in sync with Moscow, doesn’t merely raise questions about Sen. Obama’s judgment — it answers them.”
Just like the good old days, hey? The Democratic candidate is a puppet of Moscow! Evil empire, anyone?
Here’s neocon ideologue Bill Kristol:
When the “civilized world” expostulated with Russia about Georgia in 1924, the Soviet regime was still weak. In Germany, Hitler was in jail. Only 16 years later, Britain stood virtually alone against a Nazi-Soviet axis. Is it not true today, as it was in the 1920s and ’30s, that delay and irresolution on the part of the democracies simply invite future threats and graver dangers?
Kim,
But do you agree with what McCain said (not Tucker Bounds) or not? His expressed point of view seems to be sensible.
If you think that Putin is some sort of cuddly bear I suggest you read The New Cold War by Edward Lucas before trivialising this issue further. We’re talking about a man who has assassinated dissidents not only in Russia but even in other countries.
Jason, where did I say that Putin was a “cuddly bear” or in any way admirable?
I would expect intelligent readers to understand that there is more than one take on this and that what I’m focusing on is the domestic US political reaction - attempts by John McCain to politicise this war (quelle surprise!) and use it as a stick to beat Obama about with and the language which is highly reminiscent of cold war red baiting… and absurd and overblown hyperbole from the NYT’s resident neo-con which is a foreign policy response gone begging.
Are we back in the era when to talk outside approved dichotomies meant that you were a Communist or later a Saddam hugger?
I’d have expected better.
Sorry, Andrew, no time for a proper answer to you - have to run. Work!
Where the hell did that come from Jason?
The problem with McCain’s comments is the complete absence of criticism of the Georgian regime over its actions in South Ossetia, which were both wrong in principle and bound to be extremely destabilising. It is possible to make this point without diluting any criticism of Russian actions. Indeed, one would expect a prospective US President to clarify whether s/he thinks the US should be in the business of writing blank cheques for conspicuously “pro-Western” regimes which nonetheless behave badly or foolishly in geopolitically sensitive areas, as the Saarkashvili government has done in relation to South Ossetia.
There is also the point (which I made obliquely on another thread) that if Western politicians make grandly Wilsonian liberal statements about the rights of small nations in the former Russian/Soviet Empire and Eastern Europe, they should not be surprised when very small nations like the Ossetians act on the assumption that these principles also apply to them.
The Guardian has an interesting perspective on this issue.
Where I am coming from is that the Georgian issue is about more than Georgia, Georgia’s own mistakes notwithstanding. The book I referenced also details how Russia has been destabilising its neighbours including Georgia through a variety of tactics ranging right down to industrial sabotage. The author does make the case that it is a ‘new cold war’ and it is equally silly to automatically dismiss arguments couched in such rhetoric because they remind people of ‘red baiting’ There is nothing ‘red’ about Putin incidentally, his rule is a form of authoritaroian state directed capitalism notwithstanding superficial glosses like flatter taxes.
Paul,
I am not sure this is a “mistake” by Georgia. From my reading Russia has been using the cover of the ceasefire agreements to integrate South Ossetia and Abkhazia into the Federation for the last few years - issuing passports, integrating trade routes and various other measures. Georgia had to do something to stop this as in a few years there would have been little hope of achieving their re-integartion back into Georgia.
To me, this was their strategy to bring things to a head and force the US and their neighbours to deal with the problem.
The question of whether either of them should be in Georgia is (to me at least) an open one - which is why Georgia went into South Ossetia rather than Abkhazia. Militarialy, South Ossetia is theoretically easier too - but that is not the point (IMHO). It is, and has for a long time, been a part of Georgia. Abkhazia is another matter.
One of the complexities here is that Georgia itself is a creation of Russian empire. There were and are “georgian tribes”, yes, but it was the Russia and then the USSR that created the Soviet Republic of Georgia, and the adminsitrative region of Osettia within it. Osettians never really got along with Georgians - but that was the point - these “republics” were set up to be unstable - to advantage the Muscovite centre.
How Georgia got goaded into advancing troops in there is beyond me - thats surely what Putin was aiming for.
Poor old Sakashvili’s going to discover the west doesnt intend to do squat about it either - no matter what rhetoric is put about.
Lefty E,
I think a quick look at the history of Georgia might be in order for you. Georgia was a nation for a long time, with a distinct culture and people. THey just had the misfortune to choose to live between Russia, Persia and Turkey - with the occasional over-running by Mongols amongst others.
I would also suggest you not tell a Georgian that Georgia is a Russian creation. They were famous for blood feuds.
Kim,
You’ve simply played into the “dichotomy” that you wish to denounce by using the Russian invasion of Georgia as a stick to beat the neocons. To many, including me, it seems odd that you can write on this event as if it were nothing more than a plot line in the US election. People are being killed. It’s serious.
My view & plenty of other interesting ones…including SPECULATION…at:
http://www.roadtosurfdom.com/2008/08/11/caucasus-conflict-and-the-us-election/#comment-350106
Kim, just out of curiousity, why did you pick Doctors without Borders to donate too after the “pirate short story” thread? Bernard Kouchner has an interesting relationship to them.
Whatever the reality - well-grounded or propaganda fantasy, several issues remain:
Ethnic minorities, trapped by big-power decisions in an ethnically different state, will always strive for either independence or, if that’s not possible, incorporation in a neighbouring state of the same (or similar) ethnicity. The recent Balkan Wars were a grim warning of what rampant nationalist states do to ethnic minorities.
South Ossetia is ethnically to its northern neighbour what the ethnically-Germanic Sudetenland and Danzig were to Czechoslovakia and Poland 1919-1939.
At stake in South Ossetia is control of a crucial oil pipeline, Russia’s oil wealth, and the perceived power they impart to the it.
Republican USA has been rampantly pursuing its Cold War goals in post-USSR Eastern Europe, as late as this year’s NATO conference. Nuclear-armed, resource-rich Russia, with an increasing powerful “club” of of wealthy über-capitalists, is at least as much a rival now as it was before 1991 - and its resources only rub salt into the wounds of today’s ailing USA.
The comparison between the USA (& others’) invasion of Iraq for its oil and Russia of South Ossetia’s for the pipeline etc is all too obvious, and Republican USA is not the nation or regime it favours.
“How Georgia got goaded into advancing troops in there is beyond me - thats surely what Putin was aiming for.”
Maybe, but it is important to remember who has the most to gain from this outbreak of war. The American Republicans are obviously having a field day out of this one in an election period, as Kim has indicated.
It would not be a big surprise if Ms Rice gave Saarkashvili the nod and the wink, on her recent visit to see him, and is now out of phone call range. My bet is that Putin would have preferred a bit of free time at the Olympics but the Yanks have now sent him the old spit ball.
And his strong work ethic has kicked in.
Oops - “its northern neighbour what the ethnically-Germanic Sudetenland and Danzig were to Czechoslovakia and Poland 1919-1939.”
Should read “to Georgia” (or “Sud … and Danzig to Germany”)
Got confused there! Sorry.
“Kim, just out of curiousity, why did you pick Doctors without Borders to donate too after the “pirate short story” thread? Bernard Kouchner has an interesting relationship to them.”
What do you mean Nasking? It sounds like more than just curiosity to me. He founded the organisation and is (now) right-wing, but it’s utterly apolitical in practice as far as I can tell.
“If you think that Putin is some sort of cuddly bear I suggest you read The New Cold War by Edward Lucas before trivialising this issue further.”
Saddam & Osama were not cuddly bears either Jason…& look at the CONFLICT PROFITS gained & MAYHEM partially caused & perpetuated by the Repugs & their allies and enablers in the process of taking on those two EVIL DOERS.
And its Libertarians that will be CRUSHED as much as the so called “hard Left” & “progressives” in the course of this INSANITY if it is not stopped. Corporate Aristocracies will not stand for any DISSENT in the long run. Look at the Patriot Act & the establishment of all-seeing cameras & security systems via satellites & you’ll get my drift.
Any group of people willing to create DIVISION & CONFLICT during the ONE OPPORTUNITY for BRIDGE BUILDING, The Olympics, are freakin’ PSYCHOPATHS (perhaps temporarily insane due to circumstances)…I believe they are scared of losing power in case they are sent to the Hague, &/or their dynastic gains are redistributed…& they worry that the Iran nuke situation will be left to fester…& damage Israel & other countries in the long run. And there’s more than a bit of PRIDE & REVENGE in much of this too.
And some APOCALYPSE-style craziness…addiction. Not good. Not good at all.
I agree that some of the Russian actions in Chechnya are a disgrace…WAR CRIMES…the same goes for how they dealt w/ some hostage situations…Waco style. Mosul style. And beyond.
But when we get so called “Humanitarians” like Bernard Kouchner of “false flag”/”Moslem baiting” Sarkosy’s government charging in to SAVE THE DAY my DON’T BELIEVE THE HYPE/”There’s more to this than meets the eye” radar starts up:
In September 2007, Kouchner’s public comments on the Iranian nuclear situation attracted much attention and controversy. In an interview on September 16, 2007, he said, “We will negotiate until the end. And at the same time we must prepare ourselves […] for the worst…. The worst, it’s war….”
Like so many others, Kouchner has CHANGED…and like so many others, this CHANGE has occurred I reckon due to family genes & experiences…& lust for power…perhaps even blackmail. I can understand their TRAUMA…but their goals seem INSANE & RECKLESS. And GREEDY.
People are not disposable objects.
You need to understand that Mr. Kristol. No “Get out of jail free” card if we can help it.
N’
nasking,
Just a polite observation. You may have something interesting to say, but I, for one, find your use of capitalisation both distracting and annoying. It detracts enormously from any desire I may have had to read your comment.
I dont dispute that Georgians are a “distinct culture and people”, Andrew. The problem is that nation-states are a quite different thing, with like, borders n shit. Those are based on nothing little than the administrative region determined by the predecessor state.
Ossetians also claim to be a “distinct culture and people”.
that was “based on little more than…”
Shorter mel: It’s wrong to draw attention to the fact that the conflict is being politicised in the US, because that would be to politicise it.
Huh?
I should add that Russia and then the USSR did all this deliberately to screw up potential breakaways. There’s also weird ethnic loyalties in the Kremlin - I believe this is how Ukraine got Crimea under the (Ukrainian) Krushchev.
Surely one of the reasons so much attention is paid to US elections is precisely because the outcomes of their plot lines can result in people being killed.
As others have observed in the past, the only point from history that the neo-cons ever learned was Munich 1938. Ever since then they’ve been searching out potential aggressors so they can scream ‘appeasement’ if we don’t Take a Hard Line with them.
What precisely does McCain suggest should be done? He wants Georgia to become a member of NATO. If that was so today, Georgia would presumably be calling for NATO to come to its defence and get into a shooting war with Russia. Brilliant.
The old USSR is going through the pains of nation-building. Teh West has no moral right to tell them how to do it, any more than Europe had the moral right to direct developments in the North American continent in the 19th century. If the USA wants to act out of naked material self-interest then let it do so, but these endless attempts to present US foreign policy as a selfless program of Christian benevolence are nauseating.
The US has been trying to encircle Russia and China since the end of the Cold War. It’s good sensible power politics but they can hardly whine when the Russians and Chinese push back. And Australia should stay well and truly out of the whole business.
Lefty E - I don’t really know where your argument is going, but Georgia is definitely not a creation of the USSR (unlike Moldavia, Belarus, and most of the ‘Stans). There was a Georgian kingdoms before it was absorbed into the Russian empire.
I’m getting conflicting reports as to how the Ossetians stand with the Georgians. Some folk say they got along and intermarried; others have them former being exploited and ethnically cleansed by the latter. This part I don’t understand, but then I don’t understand why Saakashvili would lob shells into Tskhinvali.
Im saying its present, actual borders (ie the ones that included Sth Ossetia, but not Nth Ossettia) were indeed a creation of the USSR - whichh Georgia inherited successor state style.
No one is denying Georgia is a people, a nation or whatever. The actual borders of that nation are what Im talking about - they are, like many post-colonial states, an artifice to some degree. Perhaps I havent expressed it well.
And yes: I dont undertsand Saakashvili’s action either….
Another complicating factor in the former USSR was the practice, by both the Tsarist regime and the Soviet regime, of engineering large-scale transfers of populations from one part of the empire to others in such a way as to snarl different ethnic,cultural and religious groups in ways which make it very difficult to draw nation-state borders around discrete national populations. The practice of settling Russians in non-Russian parts of the empire similarly complicated matters - rather like Great Britain’s relocation of a great many Protestant Scots from Scotland to Northern Ireland in an attempt to create a loyal Protestant enclave.
Putin is no “cuddly bear” but let us be realistic as to the geo-politics of this event. Russia does not want NATO puppet-states on its borders. It thinks it has the sole right to shape the environment on its borders - and now, whether or not you or I or anyone else reading this thinks this is either right or wrong, it now *possesses the ability to impose its will on the small nations on its borders*. That’s the REALITY. Part of this reality is that the USA was encouraging Georgia to join the western orbit. Georgia has now overplayed it’s hand and is suffering Russian wrath for doing so.
The only relevant questions here are:
1) What will the USA do about it? What CAN the USA do about it even if it wanted to?
2) Is it prepared for a ground war against Russia over Georgia? If it is prepared for such a war, does it have the capability to carry out such a war?
3) If any answer to any of (3) is NO; Why did America encourage Georgia to think it would be afforded American protection? Why did the Americans encourage Georgia to act provocatively towards South Ossetia? If they did not encourage Georgia, why did they not then restrain Georgia? Did American badly miscalculate Georgian intentions (intelligence failure yet again)? Did America badly miscalculate the Russian reaction (intelligence failure yet again)? Is there something else going on here? Is it just straight political incompetence? <– (hint: likely answer I think).
4) In the absence of forceful persuasion, what peaceful means does the USA and Europe and others have to impose their will on Russia? In the absence of imposing their will on Russia (that is to say, it just ain’t gonna happen), what else can the international community do about it - hint: very little; they will accept whatever solution Russia imposes - probably the annexation of South Ossetia to Russia, if not Kosovar-style independence.
All other talk - comparing Russia to Germany, this event to the annexation of the Sudetenland, etc, is just HOT AIR. Although I can’t view McCain specifically here because I have no sound on this computer, the conservative political community particularly are totally out of their gourds on this one as far as I can tell. Do they think that Georgia is worth another world war? How are they going to fight such a war (on THREE FRONTS or more) even if they do? The Americans have no spare capability for such a war, even if by some miracles the Europeans agree with them over fighting such a war.
Expect a lot of high-minded words and very little actually effective action. Sorry, Georgia, that’s just the geo-political reality. Act nice to Russia in the mean time.
It is bloody sad, but i don’t think that the Georgians were walking softly or carrying a big stick. they don’t have a big stick, and if there are Georgians who thought that the US sponsering them for NATO was a big stick, they are getting a very rude shock.
McCains timming should serve him well, as Russia has probebly achieved 90% of it’s aims already and is now in the process of keeping the west guessing. by being as vague as he was and simply tying to present himself as well informed and a steadfast friend to the Georgians, McCain should be able to successfully talk up the projection of US power should Putin and co go all cautious and coy and pull back to the ‘borders’ of SO and A. I recon that it will all go pear shaped for him if the Russians want more than just SO and A, as the US is not really in a position to do much. this will further expose the Reps freedom rhetoric as the empty bluster that it is, as the Bush administration does sweet FA.
“And yes: I dont undertsand Saakashvili’s action either….”
Lefty E, some reason you prefer to deny the most obvious explanation.
The bloke is a republican puppet.
He is just paying back a debt at the right time.
In his history of the Russian Revolution, A People’s Tragedy, Orlando Figes reports that Bertrand Russell temporarily shifted from his critical stance towards the Soviet regime to a view that it was somehow peculiarly appropriate to Russian conditions. When challenged over this by a female friend, Russell replied “Ask yourself how Dostoyevsky’s characters should be governed. Then you will understand.” What Russell himself had (temporarily) failed to ask himself was how Dostoyevsky’s characters would govern. The antics of Saakashvili, Putin and Yeltsin before him, and a series of Tsars and General Secretaries before that, furnish an answer to that question.
In other words, the US State Dept told Georgia to invade South Ossetia just so McCain could get a sound bite for his presidential campaign..
I loved Geroge W’s comments today - that invading a sovereign state “is unacceptable in the 21stC” .
Too right George.
No, just the idiot left’s preferred candidate (not that all his supporters are the idiot left). Much the same idiot left that actually were puppets of Moscow in the past. This business will separate the sincere peace warriors from the anti-west stalinists at heart. I guess ANSWER, MoveOn, and StopTheWar are too busy mobilising protests to make statements right now.
Cough.
McCain is right to criticise Obama’s weak initial statement. “Let the UN decide” is the province of cowards. Not that I can see what the carrot or stick would be to provide a happy outcome for Georgia. It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that we’re going back to 1968.
The Russians have now declared their hand. They plan to conquer Georgia. They now appear to have major elements of two motor-rifle corps involved. The speed at which they responded indicates that these units have been preparing to invade Georgia for six or more months. That is the preparation time needed for this.
So this is a long planned war of aggression by Russia against Georgia. It cannot be anything else.
Cue the UN…
OK, then. Doubtless the UN will leap into furious inaction some weeks from now.
Russian troops took the key town of Gori after the Georgians fell back on Mtskheta, about 10 miles east of Tbilisi. By taking Gori and reaching Senaki, at the western end of Georgia’s the Kolkhida Lowland, they have made Tbilisi indefensible. BTW, Gori is far beyond South Ossetia, and Senaki is far beyond Abhkazia.
The Georgian government has attempted (at the advice of the EU) ‘restraint’ and has stated that it will surrender South Ossetia (to which it was offering full internal autonomy, BTW, well before the Russians invaded), however, there has been no response to their call for a ceasefire and negotiations. The Russians have stated that their aim is the destruction of the democratic government of Georgia. A Russian puppet government is probably intended to follow the invasion. Or they may annex the whole country, which I do not think likely yet.
The implication is obvious: Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Byelorussia, Poland and Ukraine are being passed a crystal-clear message. So is the EU. The EU will do nothing, we learned that from Bosnia-Herzegovina. They rely exclusively on the USA to pull their chestnuts out of the fire.
The Georgian military situation is now impossible, unless they retreat south behind the little Caususes range and back up against the Turkish border. If they do this, and do not either surrender fall back in to Tbilisi (where their army will be annihilated and the city smashed if they do), then the dynamics change. A democratic Georgia still exists while it has an army in the field. If the Georgians have learned the lessons of Case White well, this is what they will do.
If we still understand the lessons of the 1930s (which the EU does not, by previous policy in the Balkans), then the logical path is to support the Georgian Army, if necessary with airpower, to force the Russians out of Georgia proper (the Georgians will in all likelihood be forced to accede to losing South Ossetia and Abkhazia).
To do otherwise is to let a democratic state be extinguished by an authoritarian state. This would also lead to the Russians being able to affect the ‘near abroad’ states, which would know that NATO/EU would not help them. The impact on the power balance in Europe from this could be profound.
The next 36 hours may well determine much of the shape of the European strategic situation for the coming decades, and the world just became a much more dangerous place.
Hope that the NATO and the US, in concert with the Turks, intervenes to prevent the conquest of Georgia, the destruction of its democracy, and its re-incorporation into the Russian Empire.
In the next 36 hours, we may move much closer to the next cycle of Great Power wars.
MarkL
Canberra
PS there are unconfirmed reports that Tbilisi is being bombed.
“This business will separate the sincere peace warriors from the anti-west stalinists at heart.”
Presumably with the former supporting US interests and the latter Russian ones? Oooh… sophisticated!
““Let the UN decide” is the province of cowards. Not that I can see what the carrot or stick would be to provide a happy outcome for Georgia.”
So, not the carrot or the stick. But also not the only available alternative to either. Thus I conclude you are a foreign policy authoritarian who believes only in carrots and sticks, even when you concede that neither looks promising. Cool! Helpful!
“It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that we’re going back to 1968.”
Those are just flashbacks mate. Sit down and have a couple of deep breaths.
Even if one accepts that analysis, for the sake of argument, MarkL, and it’s certainly true is that the UN is completely useless when one of the security council members is at war, though the principles of peaceful settlement and non-aggression are worth rhetorically upholding, it’s worth pondering this axiom from the military historian Edward N. Luttwak:
That seems to me to sum up the strategic position of the US in all this.
Spoken like a UN Secretary General FDB!
From my reading of the news Obama and McCain seem to be turning this into a foreign policy competition chapter of their election campaign. It’s a complex situation. The politics of the region are, shall we say, a little unenlightened. But what can you do?
.
The Neocon harping on re the Threat of Dark Forces isn’t entirely without foundation. The Russian Federation is still what Russia’s been since the Grand Duchy of Muscovy first decided to become even grander and didn’t stop ’til it reached the sea (all of them). Right now it’s a Gangster Capitalist Quasi-dictatorship run by an ex-KGB technothug - fun, fun, fun. McCain wants to rattle his sword, Obama’s stressing multilateral interference. Neither is realistic but that’s not the point. They’re both trying to outdo each other playing America the Cop.
.
America is not going to war against Russia. Neither’s anyone else. Russia knows this. Time to grab some of the Empire back. Trouble is Georgians are tough and so’s everyone else in the region. I wonder if the Russians are enrolling in Afghanistan II: You didn’t learn the first time. Dumbarse. A lot of that going around. Thing is: if there are no consequences for the Russians will the Chinese decide they want an additional slice of
Taiwancake as well? See that’s the trouble Dubya doofus. When you break the rules everyone else does as well - thanks a bunch. I really can’t wait ’til you fuck off..
And also would the neocons please stop crapping on about WW2. If this was WW2 I suspect you guy’d be sporting lots of black shiny leather with scarlet trimming and skulls on yer cap - just sayin’.
‘Neo-con’ should be retired as a descriptor of anything it has become an all purpose insult devoid of meaning. For what its worth Russian aggressiveness doesn’t fit the neo-conservative view that everything evil in the world is the product of malign ideologies, Communism or Jihadism, magically made flesh. But in the comments here there’s a lot of fake realist distancing going on, I expect to see Richard Woollcott wheeled out at some stage, it all serves to evade making a judgment, we can add up rights and wrongs on both sides but eventually a decision has to be made. There’s more excitement about what John McCain has said than what Vladimir Putin has done. This doesn’t place a section of the Australian intellectual left in a good light, as they appear terrified of power or ever making a decision, but the policies of left of centre governments are more likely to follow the example of Clinton, as argued by Richard Holbrooke, than the odd combination of evasion and ‘realism’ we see here.
Adrien,
You do not even need to go back as far as 1979/80 to see what happens when the Russian invade. Chechnya will do - they are still losing lots of people there.
Yeah and many have decided that asking that question is something unthinkable. The Bolsheviks certainly did not. I’m sure it’d come as an insane suggestion to what’s left of Western Marxist-Leninism that they’d be setting up show trials, concentration camps and paying guys in cellars to drink vodka and shoot people in long shifts - but I reckon they’d be doing it in no time if they got the chance.
.
Trouble is some culture’s really do have authoritarian violence wired very hard into them. Russia’s the world heavyweight champion of authoritarian violence as a mode of governance. It sucks because they’re also so brilliant.
I nominate Sakashvili for the Galtieri Award of 2008.
Luttwak had it nailed, Mark (other than stating the glaringly obvious).
As demonstrated in WW2 when the Americans’ strategy of fighting two wars simultaneously in separate hemispheres failed so spectacularly.
We all remember their humiliating surrrender to the Japanese in Tokyo Bay.
What other pearls of wisdom does Edward N. Luttwak have for us?
“… we can add up rights and wrongs on both sides but eventually a decision has to be made.”
Aaahh the wonders of the passive voice! Who has to make a decision? About what? Why?
Agree and not. It’s a term that has a smear-like definition in terms both of being fuzzy at the edges and insulting. I use it specifically to describe that ideological subset which endorses Patriotic Conservatism but rejects the traditional realpolitik position for one of Evangelical Capitalist-Democracy or as some would say: imperialist expansion. It’s also used both to be covertly anti-semitic and to silence people with accusations that they are being covertly anti-semitic. As usual I didn’t even think about it until it raised it’s appalling head again.
.
Many of PNAC’s original signatories have now disowned it in light of the consequences. In the specific sense of a conservative-based view that American military strength should be used to change non-democratic regimes to democratic ones - I think it’s a valid label. Here’s a list of signatories to various documents associated with PNAC. Not all of them could be considered neocons.
.
Considering that Dr Rice became disillusioned with Carter’s disasterous capitulation, saw success under Reagan and’s now come full circle under Bush II: I wonder what she really thinks. She’s cozy with Obama these days. I’m deadset against the current administration’s foreign adventurism and she’s gotta wear it but I can’t help admiring her.
.
I’d bet green money she’s glad she didn’t sign PNAC.
Guess which chief invader of Iraq said this:
“Russia has invaded a sovereign neighbouring state and threatens a democratic government elected by its people. Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st century.”
And this:
“Russia’s actions this week have raised serious questions about its intentions in Georgia and the region. These actions have substantially damaged Russia’s standing in the world. And these actions jeopardise Russia’s relations with the United States and Europe.”
I’ve heard scuttlebutt that the Rooskies are pulling out of Georgia.
Just so I am clear, do people on this blog truely beleive what is happening in Georgia is because of the Americans?
Do people here really believe that?
On a second note, being part of NATO wouldn’t have resulted in NATO going to war with Russia, because Russia would not have attacked in the first place. That’s precisely why Russia is so implacably against it — they know they won’t be able to attack Georgia or Ukraine if they join NATO, and invasion is one of their prime bargaining chips with those countries. They don’t want to lose that option.
Russia halts attack on Georgia - from the Wall Street Journal. The gist is that they’ll stay put in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, but go no further. I expected them to take those provinces - as far as Georgia is gone, they’re lost - but I’m surprised at the report that Putin and Medvedev have stopped their advance.
I’m not certain if it is true, but I tend to believe it. Putin is not a nice man, but I’m guessing that he can foresee what would happen if Russia annexed Georgia. The answer is (drum-roll) guerilla war - exacerbated by under-the-table funding by the US. (After all, it definitely worked in Afghanistan, even if the blowback was a bitch.) The Russians have already got a counter-insurgency war in Chechnya - do they want another one at the same time?
I’m not trusting Putin’s and Medvedev’s benevolence - I’m trusting them to be smart enough to quit when they’re ahead.
It’s times like this you wish the Culture were real.
Everyone:
Again I ask …. how many American casualties [military or civilian] have there been so far in this war? So far I’ve counted 1 American journalist wounded …. are there any others?
GregM, were the Americans fighting solo on two fronts? And how much force did they have to exert in comparison to how much they have now?
As to the “Americans caused this”, I haven’t seen anyone saying that. It must be projection.
As to whether US interests in Georgia are part of the equation, and the NATO thing is a factor, that’s just obvious.
A bit of background (pulled off the net, so questionable) addressing some of the info questions here… I read on the web (but didn’t do old-skool actual research, so don’t know how much is true) that South Ossetia is composed more of ethnic Russian citizens than of native Ossetians (who are not very numerous); that these Russians are substantially drawn from the ranks of old-time Kremlin style cliques (KGB, Army etc) who operate there in a hazy grey area between Russian and Georgian judicial writ, which can be convenient for doing certain kinds of, um, business; that the Ossetians have periodically shelled Georgian villages (or maybe not the Ossetians per se, but the shells were coming from there); and that the Israelis seem to have been mucking about in the region with arms dealers and ‘advisers’. Don’t know how true this stuff is, but it sounds plausible at least. MarkL must surely be correct that the Russian invasion, judging from it sheer speed, ferocity and tactical competence, had to have been planned, and effectively begun, many months ago. What all these things mean when taken together, I don’t know.
Kim: “attempts by John McCain to politicise this war (quelle surprise!) and use it as a stick to beat Obama about with”
Hate to break it to you, Kim, but in elections, candidates use the issues (and their value differentials) as sticks to beat one another with. It’s often called ‘debate’. McCain is not ‘politicizing’ this war; it is a relevant *political* issue, and what these two chaps have been doing is, practicing politics, which is what the job they’re applying for consists of. This is a major international crisis affecting US interests in a myriad of ways; it is perfectly reasonable for the candidates to discuss their different approaches to it, and to criticize one another where they differ. Unless we’re all just supposed to give upon discourse and give that idiotic two-handed “O” salute (have you seen this fucking thing?!) which I’m sure will make everyone feel better, including the Georgians.
Obama has promised the country (and the world, no less) “a new kind of politics”. Well, here’s a classic old-style political crisis, and it’s fair to ask how the ‘new kind of politics’ will handle it. If the new style is or smells like a failure, we must draw conclusions about that; and if Obama retreats from his vaunted new style, and takes up the ‘old style’ all over again, then on points, what has he to offer, except the same old shit with much less experience and a lot more conceptual confusions? These are legitimate questions for voters to ask.
The only thing “reality-free” here is your robotic cheerleading.
Down and Out at 50, I’m not surprised by the political dynamic here. The Russians make it appear they’re going to go further, and then halt, having achieved their real objective, while allowing the Americans and others to save face and spin it as being somehow related to their calls for restraint.
Oooh, rawrrrrrrrrrrr!
More projection, j_p_z.
There’s nothing in the post saying how wise and statesthinglike Obama is. Nor is it a critique of politicisation. It’s a critique of hyper-politicisation invoking images of treachery within reminiscent of the Cold War.
And if you go back and look at earlier substantive posts by Kim on this year’s election, she certainly wasn’t backing Obama during the primaries and has expressed her underwhelminess with the Obamamania thing on many occasions.
Why is it so difficult to understand that there are more than two positions in any given debate? To criticise McCain’s campaign is not identical to praising Obama’s.
“Why is it so difficult to understand that there are more than two positions in any given debate? To criticise McCain’s campaign is not identical to praising Obama’s.”
Because for some people, in light of their relentless obsessions (such as the the evil left), any sense of nuance is impossible. It’s a scary world when all you allow yourself to see is black and white.
# 57 — oh, you silly! relentless obsession, my Eye. (hey, there’s that word again!) No seeing the world in black and white for you there, eh chum.
Mark — Kim bolded a reference in McCain’s speech to Obama’s position being “in sync with Moscow”, and then drew a bogus line with a crayon, directly connecting this (present) rhetoric to the decades-old rhetoric of the Cold War. Now, granted there is still a Kremlin in Moscow, but the guy sitting behind the desk there is no longer a Communist, just a dictator with a big army and some serious grudges, so the situation (both rhetorically and militarily) is… very different. On a variety of fronts. I’ll explain them to you if you like. Not that Kim can be bothered to point these differences out, so your criticism falls right on its face. # 57, what’s your opinion about all this amazing leftist capacity for nuance, eh?
As the election nominations narrow to two main candidates, one’s practical choices narrow as well, so Kim’s opinion of Obama in the primaries is less relevant today. Even Hillary Clinton is (technically at least) on the Obama train these days. That’s just how the system operates. The post was a roundhouse attempt to deny any validity to McCain’s perfectly valid reasons for criticizing his opponent, which is what opponents do. By removing Obama (rhetorically) from the arena of legitimate criticism, she is cheerleading for him in effect. Hey #57, can you follow this? Am I going too fast for you?
Furthermore, in one of Kim’s “substantive” recent posts on the election, her “substantive” summation of McCain was as a “nasty old bugger”.
Lots of nuance there.
I’m not sure how “nuance” crept in here, j_p_z.
Btw, j_p_z, way up the thread Jason started talking about a “new cold war”. In my experience, any time the switch is flicked to “Russia evil” as opposed to “Russia exemplary of democratic gutsiness and market reforms” the cold war frame is wheeled out of the store room and dusted off. Not that we’ve had “Russia exemplary…” etc for a long while - since Yeltsin - but you know what I’m getting at, surely.
The salient difference is not that Russia is now an oligopolistic capitalist autocracy with an ideology of “sovereign democracy” (Putin’s formulation) but that the rhetoric of “lying down in the face of the enemy” is absolutely identical in rhetorical form and political affect/effect.
Btw, when you think about characters like Dick Cheney, it’s possible to suggest that elements of the GOP would like to see America as an oligopolistic capitalist autocracy with an ideology of “sovereign democracy”.
“it’s possible to suggest that elements of the GOP would like to see America as an oligopolistic capitalist autocracy with an ideology of “sovereign democracy”
Hmm, I thought they’d already succeeded with that evil plan. They’re now busy cooking up fresh new ways to ruin the country…
I take your point about trotting out the “cold war” phraseology every time Russia is mentioned. (I don’t believe that’s what McCain was doing, but I’ll get to that below.) It’s a confusion of rhetoric that’s probably to do with laziness of thought patterns. “Cold War” can mean at least two things that are sort of different: a) the long stand-off against globally expansionist Communism, which happened to be led from Russia, or b) a long stand-off without direct engagement against a well-armed and giant but not terribly ideologically driven hostile national power (effectively Russia) without ever directly engaging militarily (hence the “cold” part). The first use is now historically irrelevant, and hopefully never will be relevant again; the second is not without its uses, but since it’s confusing, we should just come up with some new terminology to describe the new situation. I note that even Russian officials have kept on using “cold war” in their sabre rattling replies to US sabre rattling.
FWIW, I don’t think McCain was doing a “red-baiting” thing with his remark. I think he was questioning Obama’s competence and loyalty to his country specifically (as opposed to a kind of vague internationalist One World-ism which Obama has feinted towards quite often). If you look at how some of the better RW blogs in the US have handled the differential, nobody took the “pawn of Moscow” line; people said things like, “Obama is so post-American, he had to go and look up which side his country is supposed to be on.” In that regard, “in sync with Moscow” meant more like “cluelessly on the wrong side because of a lack of national loyalty” rather than the old Cold War tropes. Given BHO’s ludicrous speech in Berlin, this is not a zany position to take, and it’s certainly a part of the brand differential; McCain’s patriotic bona fides are long since past question; Obama’s are a little shaky, to say the least. McCain’s people have got to see that there’s a margin in that. How much of one, time will tell.
Well, to be sure they do. But what’s lurking behind the “lack of patriotism” line, I wonder, j_p_z? It’s partly the whole “not tough soldier type like McCain”, partly “too multilaterist” and also partly “weird and Black and not really American” - segueing into “Muslim sleeper agent” in the back woods if you like.
But I’d be interested - without polemics - to know what you understand by that.
I’d agree the Berlin speech was silly, but from my pov because it was too American. A lot of us in this part of the world don’t want Obama or anyone else to change the world for us! We think it might be better if we were left far more to our own destinies!
“As demonstrated in WW2 when the Americans’ strategy of fighting two wars simultaneously in separate hemispheres failed so spectacularly.”
Well it was the Russkies who did the real bloody heavy lifting in the Western hemisphere part of that war. I also seem to recall the Brits and their Dominions being involved in some way here and there.
Back OT. Who is writing this script? We have one of the most fraught US Presidential elections in decades where “who do you trust to answer the phone at 3am” has emerged as a key meme. Eerily on cue, the US’s old bête noire turns flamboyantly recidivist, daring the potential POTUSI to respond. Right in the middle of the world’s biggest corporate carnival. Not so much conspiracy theory but more some quite global gestalt Jungian shit going down here.
So far both McSame and Obamara have reacted exactly as you’d expect US presidential candidates should. An ill considered and strategically inconsistent flurry of apparently bold statements rapidly and incoherently qualified by their surrogates.
No matter what the US, the EU or NATO do, it’ll continue as another glorious clusterfuck by those wonderful people who brought you Uncle Joe Stalin.
However look on the bright side. I betcha no one is returning Dubya’s calls about what he thinks should be done next.
“McCain’s patriotic bona fides are long since past question; Obama’s are a little shaky, to say the least.”
As the political history of the US (and most other nations who pride themselves on their exceptionalism) makes clear, patriotism alone is no substitute for simple bloody competence in managing an economy, community and global presence.
Mind you, just about everybody, including both Westminster and Whitehall players and the general public, thought Winston Churchill was a completely opportunist jingoist windbag until it came to the crunch.
Perhaps he was! Times maketh the man and all that…
I’ve read quite a few bios of Churchill. Given that such works are apparently at the bedsides of the Bushes and Howards of the world, I’ve wondered what they’ve made of him. Perhaps the lesson they should have drawn was to start drinking before lunch each day?
“Perhaps the lesson they should have drawn was to start drinking before lunch each day?”
And keep changing parties for career reasons.
What are the odds that Putin is plagerising Dubya’s dad. ‘We whipped that Afganistan compex’
… set a good example for Lloyd George and Billy Hughes!
Which forever associates Obama with Goatse.
Read “Five Days In London”
http://www.amazon.com/Five-Days-London-May-1940/dp/0300080301
which convincingly adds to the pile of evidence that Winnie was a last ditch compromise choice as PM.
As Lukuas’ book hints at and other sources make clearer, he got the job in no small part because he had the best back channels to FDR. And also because everyone’s preferred candidate, Halifax, dipped out ‘cos he amongst very few others recognised Winnie had the stamina and passion that the job demanded.
So this old political turncoat blowhard drunk got the gig…and magnificently rose to the occasion.
Which returns me to why his name was mentioned in the first place on this thread. Which is that you never can tell who will blossom when the shit comes down.
Cheers, Nabs, for the suggestion.
What? Some politician was an opportunistic windbag? You’ve shocked me to the core, Sir. My very word, what will my Lord the Archbishop have to say about this, I wonder???
/me is digging Cold War II - it’s like the writing team has gone from George Lucas to Ed Burns and David Simon.