According to the
IHT, Russia isn't abiding by the terms of the French agreement.
As the Russian Army withdrew most of its forces from Georgia, it was becoming ever more clear on Friday that Moscow had no intention of restoring what once was — either on the ground or diplomatically.
What a shock. Meanwhile, Saakashvili proves again that he is either an idiot or crazy.
Despite all Georgia's setbacks in the last two weeks, Saakashvili vowed anew to restore Georgia's territorial integrity — restating an ambition that had helped propel Georgia into a clash with its much more powerful neighbor to the north.
So, what do we have? We have a leader of a democratic nation acting like an idiot or crazy, and Russia trying to extend its sphere of influence.
Who is right? Neither. What should the US do militarily? Jack shit. What does this mean for Eastern Europe? Become a member of the EU pronto. Russia would be idiotic to attack an EU member, and I don't think NATO should be the solution.
On a related note, Alan has
a 3,100 word post over at The Occasional Dissident, which correctly points out that Georgia started the conflict (Let's not forget that the Russians
shot down a drone over Abkhazia in April, so it's not like Russia innocently responded to provocation.) and then dubiously compares the Russian intervention in Georgia to the West's intervention in former Yugoslavia. He addressed the Eastern European issue, specifically Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, thusly:
No one has shown that Russia is prepared or willing to invade those states, nor has anyone credibly alleged that Russia has actual plans to do so now or ever.
Alan words are correct, but they are carefully circumscribed. Invasion is not the only way if influencing or even attacking another nation.
Strategy Page:Georgia is not just being invaded by Russian troops, it is also being hammered on the Internet, with the same Cyber War techniques Russia used against Estonia last year. Russia was accused of causing great financial harm to Estonia via Cyber War attacks.
Russia did not physically invade Estonia, but a cyberattack on a country as reliant on technology as Estonia is a serious threat to their security. Russia is pursuing a policy of influence in its near abroad. Some say that the Monroe Doctrine is much the same thing in the Western Hemisphere, and that this either justifies the Russian's policy or makes the US hypocritical. Those people are naive morons. First, it is different from the Monroe Doctrine in a fundamental way -- Russia lacks the wherewithal to prevent the continuation of the Monroe Doctrine, whereas we can stop Russia. Second, the pursuit of national interest will result in hypocritical actions sometimes. Demanding that a country always acts the way it demands of others, while admirable, is foolish.
This is not to say that countries can constantly act hypocritically. There is a limit beyond which people begin to rebel or stop listening. This is actually the fatal flaw of the neoconservatism. After the fall of the USSR, the United States became the sole superpower. Realist international relations theory says that the others should have risen to counter the US to balance power. They didn't immediately for largely two reasons. First, it's costly. Second, the US was a generally benign superpower. As long as the US played by the rules and don't go off half-cocked everybody was happy to let the American taxpayer pay for keeping the global political and economic system safe. A formula for the decision goes something like this:
(probability that the US will negatively impact my security) X (how much it will impact my security) = cost to expend towards balancing the US
From 1992 until somewhere between 2001 and 2003, the cost of balancing was much higher than the probability and scale of impact by the US. Iraq changed things.
Iraq showed that the US was not going to always play by the global rules, and more importantly wasn't completely predictable. Strategically speaking, the Iraq invasion came out of nowhere.
Was the US right to invade Iraq? At the time, I was convinced it was. I truly believed Saddam had WMDs, and I knew he was a bastard. I also knew that Iraq did not pose a threat to the US proper, but was a long-term threat to US national interests in the region. Again, for the US perspective this was reasonable thing to do. I still think it was the right thing to do. The issue was the process of starting it.
The Bush Administration was so gung-ho to get it done that they screwed the diplomatic lead-up to the war. The root cause was the neoconservative idea that the US was the most powerful nation on Earth and must use all of that power to promote democracy and freedom at all times. They, quite frankly, pushed too hard, too fast. Were the French a bunch of paid off whores blocking the issue? Absolutely. But that is part of the diplomatic process. You deal with that shit before you just up and invade. Yes, it's annoying and distracts from the main issue, but that is the price of keeping people from trying to balance your power.
So, the grand strategy of the US going forward should be a mixture neoconservatism and realism. In practice, this means keeping neoconservative principles always in mind, i.e. democracy and freedom promotion, while balancing the national security interest specifics of each particular case. We must recognize that military action, while appealing because of the illusion of its simplicity, is not the way to promote democracy. Neoconservatives far too often presume that because the US can do something to promote democracy or freedom that it therefore must. Furthermore, we cannot ignore the international process even if it constrains us sometimes. We can ignore it, but we have to realize we can only ignore so much. Even the world's superpower only has so much leeway.
Georgia, while a democracy, is not strategically important to the US beyond oil pipelines and the general promote democracy goal. However, the Caucasus is a rough neighborhood and the risks are way too high for straight democracy promotion. Lastly, Russian belligerence in its near abroad is the result of Russia thinking in Cold War terms, not the US.
, just devices.
Posts
