According to Sarkisyanz, Nicholas II did not have much of a messianic view of foreign policy (was he that smart, anyway?), but political circles were widening during his era, and therefore, foreign policy motivations began to be needed and sought. As I understand this essay, so many of the 19th century advisors came in from Western Europe that it was not the Russian messianic vision of Nicholas I that took hold, but the revolutionary versus monarchic ones from Germany and France, with, as we all know, revolution winning out in 1917 over monarchy.

Sarkiyanz concludes that the Russian people, having no education in revolution, were beginning to embrace the universalizing religious and Russification mission, when they were so rudely interrupted by the Bolsheviks. I posit that because they attained no further philosophical education beyond the propaganda they were fed during the Soviet years, it is this suspended passion which has reemerged in the recent conflict.

Sarkisyanz makes a point I cannot in any way evaluate, which is that the turning point in Russia’s drive toward Europe, came under Peter the Great (okay, we know that) who chose to fight the French and Germans rather than the Swedes in order to expand his empire. Okay, we know that, too. But what I CANNOT evaluate is Sakisyanz’s assertion that Peter, because he chose the larger of the two enemies, was forced into paranoia as his efforts failed to take hold.

So I am suggesting that the Georgians have run into a foreign policy buzzsaw which combines military gigantism and economic power in service to a paranoid cultural God.

Ouch.

Russia is number 3 after China and Japan, so they’re right up there. It’s an interesting question whether this is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing. There’s not much they can do, and they have a vested interest in getting paid back, so I’m not sure this gives them much leverage. Futhermore, anything they did that effectively lowered the value of the dollar would result in them getting paid back in cheaper dollars.

So I don’t think they have a lot of direct leverage over the US – instead they have lots of leverage over Europe – effectively checkmating Europe, as I said bbove, because Europe depends on them for gas and oil.

But one of the reasons why I think the US should back off from all this is because it’s a major distraction. Russia, for all its wealth and power is of the past. They have an economy based on extractive industries, rampant corruption, a poor educational system, huge public health, crime, and drug problems – they are not going to take over the world in any sense of the word. Furthermore, Europe itself also has major economic and demographic problems, and their best years are behind them.

The future is with Asia, and economically, technologically, geopolitically, and militarily, we need to pay attention to China and other countries and cultures in that region and not allow our attention and resources to be drawn away to Old Europe.

Would you be willing to take that chance? Under the terms of the NATO treaty NATO members would have been obligated to come to their aid, so you’d have a war between Russia and NATO. Several major European wars have been started that way, by interlocking sets of alliances and obligations.

“And, how, Peter have you arrived at your very definite negative opinions about Georgia – have you travelled there as have several commenters? Another thought.”

My sources are Human Rights Watch, Transparency International (a corruption-monitoring organization), The Economist magazine, and the US State Department itself! I think these are all pretty reliable sources. And note that the posters here who DID travel to Georgia extolled how warm and wonderful the people were (which I’m sure is true) – they did not deny that Georgia has corruption problems and has clamped down hard on political dissent.

Apples and oranges. The USSR’s incursion into Afghanistan was nothing more than a continuation of the “the Great Game” of the 19th century – they had no major vested interest, no major cultural or historical ties there, and it had no great economic significance to them, so they weren’t willing to pay a high price to stay.

Georgia is totally different – they have a long historical involvement with them, far closer historical and cultural ties with Georgia, and Georgia is building an oil pipeline to compete with Russia. So the Russians will not be so easily dissuaded as they were in Afghanistan.

I would also like to remind you that our aid to Afghanistan was a complete disaster for the US since it ultimately brought into power the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden – 9/11 would probably have never occurred if it were not for that little adventure by the US.

“And if putting a few non nuclear missiles in Poland are to be considered a “provocation” then what should America think of the BILLIONS of dollars worth of weapons being sent to Venezuela as we speak?”

Venezuela doesn’t border us, so why should we care as much about them as Russia does about Poland or the Ukraine?

I think that comparison is complete nonsense. For one thing, Israel’s invasion of Lebanon was a complete failure – their troops were poorly equipped, the strategy fragmented, the communication gear incompatible, etc. If there was any planning on the part of their usually very professional army, it didn’t show. Russia, on the other hand, did exactly what they set out to do.

Furthermore, there was no doubt about Israel being attacked – there was no “he said, she said” about it, unlike the Georgian situation where descriptions of Georgia’s actions vary widely with the source. Israel was obviously being attacked from Lebanon.

Furthermore, Israel didn’t go in under the guise of protecting anyone but themselves – they weren’t taking sides in some Lebanese dispute.

So, I’m sorry but there are no parellels there. The US-Mexican war is a good parallel, for reasons I aready indicated.

What happens if some of these countries, such as Russia start calling in the notes?

Geographically it’s on the border of Europe and Asia.
The Ural mountains in Russia, then it’s the Ural river until the Caspian Sea. Through the Caspian Sea and roughly along the border between Russia and Azerbaijan/ Georgia.

As with all borders it’s never black and white but more shades of gray.

The American role as I have come to understanding it is backing Georgia, and sending mixed messages to Sakaashvili. Which he then acted on.

As for Poland ask yourself this question: Why are Poland, Ukraine, etc. taking steps to increase their defensive capabilities? It’s not because they fear an AMERICAN invasion! And if putting a few non nuclear missiles in Poland are to be considered a “provocation” then what should America think of the BILLIONS of dollars worth of weapons being sent to Venezuela as we speak? I hope that you are on another post condemning those actions as well.

You’ll have to explain that one – I don’t see the similarity.

It’s not a perfect match, but considering that the war in Lebanon was only two years ago, consider the following similarities:

Both Lebanon and Georgia have some claim to be democracies. Neither country had full control of it’s territory because of recent civil wars.

The territorial integrity of each country was violated.

Both invading countries claimed to be reacting to provocations, but were widely suspected of having planned their invasions in advance.

The similarities are strong enough, I think, to throw into relief just how hypocritical our discourse has become. How many people brought up the concept of territorial integrity two years ago? Who asserted that “in the twenty first century” countries don’t invade other countries?

The BBC’s Sarah Rainsford has reported: “Many Ossetians I met both in Tskhinvali and in the main refugee camp in Russia are furious about what has happened to their city.

Human Rights Watch concluded after an on-the-ground inspection: “Witness accounts and the timing of the damage would point to Georgian fire accounting for much of the damage described [in Tskhinvali].”

Let’s pick our battles and our “allies” better so we can actually advance our security interests instead of frantically struggling to keep bad situations from becoming worse, as we’ve done in so many conflicts in the last 50 years.

I’m trying to think of even one single thing that has not gotten dramatically worse under Bush – foreign or domestic. New Orleans is a shell of its former self, so we lost a major US city on his watch. We went from budget surplus to deficit under Bush, yesterday we were told that we have the highest inflation in 17 years. We’ve had a collapse of the housing and credit markets; Iraq has been a huge disaster; Afghanistan is actually getting worse during the last few years of US/NATO occupation – the one “bright” spot there is that their heroin output now exceeds the pre-Taliban levels. And now we’re seeing Bush’s failure to manage the Russian situation effectively, giving us yet another major international crisis to worry about. (and Condi was a Russian scholar!!)

I think many of us here recognize that and have been trying to make that point.

The question is really what the US role was in that game of chicken. Throughout most of this year the US has been bolstering Georgia – sending them arms, offering them moral support, and proposing NATO membership for Georgia.

Georgia is yet ANOTHER in a long list of places – Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan/Pakistan/India, etc, where some diplomats, generals, or other outsiders drew some lines on a map to suit their own geopolitical purposes, without the slightest regard to the situation on the ground. And now we are expected to regard those lines as SACRED.

What is the benefit to Georgia to try to control South Ossetia? The people there don’t think of themselves as Georgian – they want to join North Ossetia. This whole problem could be solved peacefully if we just redrew the map.

Seriously: given the security costs, the administrative headaches, the difficulty of attracting investment to disputed territories, the difficulty in collecting taxes or controlling crime in places with an angry, restive population, why does any country want to control a region, province, island, etc, where the people want OUT? I think it’s because the leaders of countries like that are thinking with their testicles rather than their brains. If I was the leader of any country with a region or province like that I’d say “fine – you’re on your own, good riddance, we’re trying to build a successful nation here, if you guys don’t want that then we don’t need you!”

The Russian’s already used this as a threat in 2006, when it cut off supplies to Ukraine.

Quite so. This point should be made in the other thread here on OP about energy independence.

Energy-independence is not just an economic issue – it’s also a national security issue. I wish that had been brought up more more forcefully with that oil-company shill OnPoint had as their guest on that show. Russia can totally checkmate Europe any time they need to by just turning a few valves.

The US is dangerously exposed in this area also because a huge portion of our imported oil and gas comes from volatile or potentially unstable nations. Our gamble is that they won’t ALL fall apart at the same time.

What I said was that giving Georgia anything less than weapons capable of changing the balance of forces was pointless – it would not deter the Russians. There would be absolutely no point in giving them tanks and anti-air weapons because there would be no way we could give them enough capability at that level to make any difference – it would only serve reinforce the Russians’ feeling of being threatened and to give the Russians more trophies of burnt-out US gear after they responded to that threat.

As for your kind and peaceful Russians I will leave you with an AP quote of a Russian general yesterday: ” A top Russian general said Friday that Poland’s agreement to accept a U.S. missile defense battery exposes ex-communist nation to attack, possibly by nuclear weapons.”

YES – that’s exactly my point! Arming Poland only serves as a dangerous provocation.

Please quote where I suggested the Russians were peaceful. The Russians are dangerously volatile and armed with nukes.

The purpose of US foreign policy should ONLY be to enhance our security, not to prove that we have bigger b***s than the Russians.

The Georgians did invade a Russian enclave and underestimated the Russian response.

In painting the Russians as the aggressors here is not correct and it seems that is what the US is doing and a lot of the responses here are doing as well.

I’m not saying the Russians are right, but this conflict is not so black and white.

Sakaashvili has put his people in harms way and even today he has been making statements that are inflaming the crisis.

The Russian’s already used this as a threat in 2006, when it cut off supplies to Ukraine.

They hold an ace up there sleeves and the Europeans know this.

As for your kind and peaceful Russians I will leave you with an AP quote of a Russian general yesterday: ” A top Russian general said Friday that Poland’s agreement to accept a U.S. missile defense battery exposes ex-communist nation to attack, possibly by nuclear weapons.”

Ya, clearly the Russians are the good guys! You might want to reconsider your defense of Russian expansionism.

You’ll have to explain that one – I don’t see the similarity.

I said earlier that US-Mexican war provides a good analogue. And a few postings ago Elz Curtiss mentioned Manifest Destiny, which, of course, was a major driver in the outcome of the US-Mexican war.

Indeed, and let’s not forget what “Manifest Destiny” was.

“Manifest Destiny” was the belief that the US was destined to expand from the Atlantic Coast to the Pacific coast. (The term was used by the Jackson Democrats in the 1840’s. )

In other words “Manifest Destiny” had nothing to do with conquering the world – it really meant that we expected to become the regional power, and we intended to make this clear to other world powers. Most historians see Manifest Destiny as closeley related to, and in some ways a re-emphasis of, the Monroe Doctine.

This is also what Russia wants – they feel that the caucases and eastern Europe is their “back yard” and feel threatened by a growingly aggressive United States that is encircling them with NATO. NATO itself has expanded its operations into the Balkans, and now, Afghanistan! In my view the US seems to be maintaining a deliberate policy of provoking Russia and upping the ante in every way possible, as we did today by signing a new defense pact with Poland, and as we did earlier this year when Bush proposed to accelerate Georgia’s membership in NATO.

Frankly, if I were a Russian voter or politician, given recent US and NATO actions, I would be pushing as hard as possible for a rapid increase in defense spending. I continue to find the US policy of not missing any opportunity to appear to threaten, encircle and provoke Russia quite puzzling.