Are these areas Russian colonies or migrations over this past century?

I’m reminded of the European Jewish migration in the midst of the Levant in the last century.

Both the Russians and the Georgians have a lot to answer for in this conflict, but the question is why the US insists on getting mixed up in these things.

Georgia is a corrupt little place with a history of human rights abuses. The US has a long history of supporting regimes like that, and when it hits the fan, WE get splattered!

Consider: Backing Batista got us Castro, Backing a corrupt puppet regime in South Vietnam got us military disaster; backing the Afghan Mujaheddin got us Bin Laden, backing the Shah got us present-day Iran, backing dictatorships in Saudi Arabia and Egypt (among other places) got us hated across the mid-east. I could go on and on with countless examples in Africa and Latin America, but the point is that the US is drawn to regimes featuring corruption and human rights abuses like a moth to a flame.

The US also has a long history of encouraging poor, simple-minded peasant movements to challenge large, brutal enemies with predictably disastrous results : the Kurds and “Swamp Arabs” during the Saddam regime; the Cubans in the Bay of Pigs invasion, the Cambodians fighting the Kmer Rouge, and now, apparently the Georgia against the Russian bear.

“Are these areas Russian colonies or migrations over this past century?”

I don’t think it matters. I think there is ENTIRELY too much emphasis on who owned or controlled some piece of territory in the past. China bases their claims on Tibet and Taiwan on historical ownership, Argentina claims the Falklands, Yugoslavia claims all sorts of places, Israel thinks the West Bank was given to them by God thousands of years ago; lots of places claim Kurdish territory, etc. The fact is that EVERY place has had multiple controlling authorities over history. Should we let Silvio Berlusconi rule over the UK now because Rome controlled it in Hadrian’s time?

Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence, said that a government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. In my view the current wishes of the current residents are the only legitimate test of who has a right to govern some territory.

What needs to be re-examined is not the USview of Russia but the US’ view of ourselves. The points made by Robert Kagan: Putin’s aggressive stance and embargoes against an unwanted ‘western’ regime are exactly what the United States feels free to do around the world.

Smoke and mirrors to hide corporate interests.

My husband is a Chief Engineer on ocean-going ships. We were in Poti in late 1991 on a grain carrier delivering U.S. Aid. At that time they were preparing for a big reception for NATO. Follow the money. This is about arms. The west has armed the Georgians to the teeth. WE have provoked this ourselves.

To start a war with Russia
two days before the Games
to spin response as “invasion”
then sit and watch
the U.S. China match
only one man can
O Henry

Thank you very much for helping us understand the implications of this complex and previously under-reported foreign policy issue. The difficulty I’m having is reconciling the two conflicting viewpoints represented by your experts. Is there not some element of truth in both positions? And if there is, isn’t the most important question then how do we move forward from here? I would guess that this is likely the question that most Americans are asking themselves: if both parties are provocateurs, what does the US, NATO, or neighboring European countries do now?

Once again Mr.Bush looked in to Mr.Putin’s eyes and saw Mr. Saakashvili’s head on a silver platter giving testimony in Haag talking both shaken and stirred.

Follow the money. This is about arms. The west has armed the Georgians to the teeth. WE have provoked this ourselves.

Exactly. And as much as I’d love to blame the Bush administration, the fact is that arming these little regimes all over the world has been a bloody hobby of both Republican and Democratic administrations for decades. The US is BY FAR the world’s largest arms exporter and this is one of the reasons why.

do we move forward from here? I would guess that this is likely the question that most Americans are asking themselves: if both parties are provocateurs, what does the US, NATO, or neighboring European countries do now?

The only thing is to try to learn from it.

Right now, all over the world, there are countless web-forum and blog discussions about the present crisis in Georgia and invariably they devolve into critiques of US foreign policy. And when they do the Americans in the discussions get very defensive and ask “Why pick on us? This is between Russia and Georgia! Why does everyone always blame the US?”

The fact is that most Americans have no idea how much America is involved in these places. They have no idea how much money, technical aid, security assistance, and other support the US is providing to regimes in the Caucases and Central Asia (among many other places).

Americans’ ignorance of geography and their own government’s policies may cost them dearly, but it’s their choice to be ignorant.

Whether or not I agree with the Russsian or the Georgian point of view, I find it strange that the conflict is getting a more free flow of information and reporting than our current wars in Afghanistan or Iraq. The positions of both sides is not being censored by the media ,unlike or current conflicts from the region. It feels like the media is free to report on other countries but not our own.

Thanks for an article that squarely states that this ends an era of fantasy in US foreign policy regarding Russia.

In fact, it ends several eras of fantasy:

1) “Democracy Follows the Dollar.” This pretense for globalizing capital flows has now been shown for revealed as a lie. Dollars — and euros and pounds and whatever else you spend — have no message beyond what YOU choose to spend them on. And unless someone works with you on those choices, you can expect them to reflect past priorities.

2) The more countries that join a security pact, the more impact it will have in its region. Wrong. Some nations are meant to be buffers, and putting them into security pacts only excites fear along their borders. Someone on the air mentioned learning from the Swiss. Touche. Same with watching Thailand during WWII. Yeah, they basically capitulated to the Axis, but yes, they spared their people incredible invasions. NATO has suffered incredibly from being expanded too far beyond its original mission. Nicholas Kristof has a column in today’s NY Times calling for more expenditure on “soft power,” and pointing out that SecDef Bob Gates says the same. Gates clearly has learned that this is the one kind of asset that really works in places like this.

3) We abandoned containment soon. Russia has always had expanionist pretensions, based on a racial realm of Slavic purity (remember their role with Yugoslavia?). Too bad we don’t have a more dispassionate understanding of Hitler and his Germany, because this looks like lebensraum all over again. Let us not be blinded by the small gratitude that we do not see a holocaust (as yet) against an ethnic minority. As an American whose family heritage is mostly German, I feel safe in saying that we must remember (and *never forget*) that Hitler was not some anomoly who rose amidst an unwilling people; he was was elected to office in a divided nation, then consolidated his power with extermination of political enemies. Only later did he go to work on the Jews. And throughout it all, what he said reflected many of his people’s own ideas. Putin, likewise, speaks from what many would call “The Russian Soul.”

“Whether or not I agree with the Russian or the Georgian point of view, I find it strange that the conflict is getting a more free flow of information and reporting than our current wars in Afghanistan or Iraq”

What’s your evidence for this claim?

“Thanks for an article that squarely states that this ends an era of fantasy in US foreign policy regarding Russia.”

What makes you think our era of fantasy is over? I thought I made it clear in my comments, above, that the US is very slow to learn from its mistakes, if, in fact, it learns at all.

“Some nations are meant to be buffers”

This is a fascinating comment. “Meant” by whom or what? There is no outside agency that determines the purpose of some nation. A nation may find that it’s in its interest to remain neutral if it’s wedged between great powers. A rational, calculating foreign ministry may find that it can cut profitable deals with both sides whilst avoiding devastating damage to its infrastructure if it plays its cards right. Georgia did not play its cards right - the Russians called their bluff.

“Russia has always had expansionist pretensions, based on a racial realm of Slavic purity (remember their role with Yugoslavia?).”

They can have their empire. Maintaining an empire, especially of a huge collection of warring, squabbling, nationalistic ethnic groups, is exhausting, financially and militarily. With their Mafiacracy at the top and dozens of restive wannabe nation states at their knees, Russia will be too preoccupied and weighed-down to play a big role on the world stage.

As I told Jane on the air - the discussion panel she had for the show was incompetent at best. There is also a horribly slanted reporting in the US press. One good thing was Marsha Lipman reporting- at least other sides’ views and facts were represented somewhat.

In situations like this there are always two truths- so maybe better to pick something in the middle.

What is pretty evident is that Georgian forces indiscriminately shelled civilians - thousands are dead, infrastructure in ruins. Locals are reporting some pretty horrific scenes. Saakashvili apparently is not satisfied by driving his own people in the ground - he wants to expand his ambitions. I hope his bloody adventure here will not go unpunished.

The Caucasus has always been a hornet’s nest that will make Balkans look like child’s play. It was always up to Russia to keep tensions low and keep small local tribes at bay. At this point Georgia destroyed 16 years of diplomatic work and might have kicked the hornet’s nest.

There are reports of armed volunteers from other Caucasus nations crossing on their own into South Ossetia with the intent to engage Georgian armed forces and exact certain measure of revenge. Russians are having a really hard time keeping them at bay in such sa mall piece of land.

My advice to forum readers- check out the other side of news - US ally Saakashvili looks more like Saddam vs Kurds and less like a poor freedom loving leader. As Russian UN ambassador Churkin pointed out - any leader who plunged his own people in such a mess should have the guts to resign.

I would highly recommend an article in Christian Science Monitor (csmonitor.com) by Charles King - very much on point analysis of the situation.

“My advice to forum readers- check out the other side of news- US ally Saakashvili looks more like Saddam vs Kurds and less like a poor freedom loving leader. ”

I think you’re invoking a straw man - I certainly haven’t seen any big upswelling of support on this forum for Georgia, which I’ve pointed out is chronically corrupt and an abuser of human rights. (not unlike Russia).

Legitimate questions have been raised about Russia’s goals, but I’ve already indicated that a Russia with its hands full of troublesome mini-states in the Caucases or central Asia will be too worn-down and preoccupied to cause trouble elsewhere. That just leaves a descendent US and and an ascendent China as the world’s chief troublemakers.

One thing I’ve noticed is that in other discussion forums on this topic, especially in the UK and Europe, there is a widespread belief that the US actually encouraged Georgia to launch attacks. Despite the fact that I’m on record with rude observations about the mental capacity of many members of the Bush administration, that theory beggars belief as we can see by the balance of forces (source: Sunday Express, 9/10):
Russia……..Georgia
Personnel 641,000…….26,900
MBTs (Tanks) 6,717……….82
APCs 6,388………139
Combat aircraft 1,2067……….7
Heavy artillery 7,550……….95

A more likely explanation is that the US has once again demonstrated its usual flair for choosing madmen for ‘allies’.

I do agree with mr Nelson here on all points. Despite the facts that Russia has its own problems with corruption and human right abuses- there is some traceable structure of internal and external politics- that could be dealt with. Current Georgian leadership- ie Saakashvili is quite unpredictable and volatile. His latest comments that Russians already took Gori and moving on Tbilisi to “topple his government” are ridiculous and dangerous. It seems that he is trying to drag more parties in conflict…

George Bush (former guv of Texas) should consider his (Texas) history . . .

Texas was a renegade province of Mexico with a significant American population. They revolted and declared independence; the European powers tried ineffectually to negotiate a peaceful settlement but the Mexicans would have none of it and sent in their army to regain control of Texas. It became a popular nationalistic cause in the US and thus the US intervened by sending in its army, routing the Mexicans, eventually storming the “halls of Montezuma” and the rest, as they say, is history.

The parallels with current situation are striking. Besides the outline of events, the emotional issues are similar - just as Russia has had its pride wounded by recent events in the Balkans and earlier losses of the USSR, and sees this as a great blow for Slavic honor, so too did America in the 1840’s suffer an inferiority complex WRT the Europeans in the 19th century age of imperialism and expansion. We had something to prove and so do the Russians.

I’m confident in 3 things.

1) The western powers won’t do much of anything.

2) Russia will annex Georgia.

3) The Ukraine had better start preparing for a Russian invasion. I would suggest this preparation had better be done in a way that does not rely on western support. I would also suggest teaming up with any other country in the region that had not already been taken over by Russia by the time I post this message. =)

As a final note I would point out to people that this incident is EXACTLY why every small country in the world wants to get nukes.

Nobody who knows Georgia and Georgians has contributed to this conversation, either on the radio or on the blog. There are many more knowledgeable people than me, but I have travelled to Georgia 5 times since 1987 and have had cultural and personal exchanges with Georgians in the U.S., Canada, England, and France. So I will try to fill in the vacuum.

First, Georgia has a rich and continuous culture going back to the time of ancient Greece. Medea was a Georgian princess captured by Jason and the Argonauts. Georgia has been a Christian nation since the 4th century. The flowering of the Georgian culture occurred in the 12th century. Literature and sacred art survive from that time. The music and dance of Georgia are living traditions and world treasures. (George Balanchine was Georgian.) The food is great and unique, and Georgian hospitality is famous.

Peter Nelson says that Georgia is “a corrupt little place.” I agree that it’s little. Urban Georgians are generally cultured, but the younger generation is also cosmopolitan and Westward-looking. The current president is from that generation. He studied at Columbia University and he seems to me to have real democratic instincts. All the Georgians I know (I know a lot of them) basically like him, think he is answerable to them, and like the way the government is running.

The U.S. hasn’t “armed Georgia to the teeth”. I bet most of the aid has been for education, public health, infastructure, and business. Georgia is not a U.S. proxy fighting against Russia. For one thing that would be Quixotic. As Robert Kagan pointed out on the program, the U.S. has been critical of Georgia a lot in the last few years.

Traditionally Georgia has been hospitable to ethnic minorities. There’s a synagogue in the old part of Tbilisi. If you look at an ethnic map of Georgia you see a real patchwork.

I believe that the Abkhazians and Ossetians have felt endangered in Georgia, but I also believe the Russians have inflamed those feelings. Abkhazia was 80% Georgian before the Abkhazian independence movement and a lot of the Georgians who lived there had to flee and live as refugees, mainly in Tbilisi. They moved the whole university to Tbilisi.

A word about mixing of populations: the Russians in the Baltics, like the Chinese in Tibet (and you could add the Americans in Native lands) deliberately move their own ethnic population into land occupied by ethnic minorities and that way establish squatters’ rights and dilute the existing culture. The Georgians, by contrast, have been living mingled with the Abkhazians and Ossetians for a long time.

(Masha Lipman mentioned a third breakaway group on the program. She was referring to Ajarians, who speak Georgian, are culturally and — I think — ethnically Georgian, and who don’t have a strong popular independence movement. I’ve met lots of Ajarians at Georgian singing festivals and none of them have told me they didn’t consider themselves Georgian.)

Ossetia had a smaller Georgian population — I have heard 40% — when the Soviet Union broke up, and South Ossetia is connected geographically, culturally, and ethnically to North Ossetia in Russia. So while I blame Russia for inciting and arming the Abkhazian separatists (and sending in Russian soldiers), I believe that the Ossetian independence movement is indigenous.

Still, I believe that since Georgian independence Russia has tried to keep Georgia unstable and dependent, and I think Russia has encouraged the Ossetian separatists to provoke the Georgians. If you look at the Wikipedia article on the Georgian-Ossetian conflict (I don’t know who wrote it or how biased it is) you see a history of little attacks from both sides.

Maybe Sakaashvili attacked Ossetia because he felt internal pressure to make Georgia whole. Then again maybe he was provoked by ever-increasing attacks by Ossetian separatists. The “under cover of the Olympics” theory cuts both ways, and sounds like baloney to me either way.

And, either way, there was no reason for Russia to invade Georgia. Now Georgia has pulled out of Ossetia and wants to talk and Russia keeps bombing Georgia.

Georgia is a beautiful country with a beautiful people and culture and real hope for the future. It will be a real pity and a big step backward if Russia gets away with destroying a lot of Georgia and/or upsetting its government.

I love listening to On Point but was disappointed by today’s panel. We are back to Russia-bad, axis of evil, and other simple superficial speak.

Today’s Diane Rehm show on NPR had the best multi-dimensional and accurate view of the crisis.
http://wamu.org/programs/dr/08/08/11.php#22369

Second place was NPR’S “To the Point” by Warren Olney:
http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/tp#today

President Sakaashvili was wrong in attacking Ossetia (most likely assuming he would be supported by the U.S.). Russia IS a superpower and Should not have attacked with such massive forces.

The Economist and other international news outlets have been warning us for years about Putin’s increasing oil wealth, power and ambition. The U.S. government has continued to turned its blind eye and deaf ears towards the middle East. However, Georgia is not without problems, it is not a full democracy and still has a lot of corruption and human rights issues. The U.S. press’ (and McCain’s) attempt to paint Russia as the axis of evil in this conflict is myopic and childish.

“(1) The western powers won’t do much of anything.

2) Russia will annex Georgia.”

1. You sound disappointed that “the western powers won’t do much of anything”. Risking war with a major, nuclear-armed power over a small corrupt state that attacked an ethnic enclave would make no sense. If Georgia was rational they would invite their break-away provinces to leave and not let the screen door hit them where the Good Lord split them. What benefit do they derive from trying to control those two provinces in the first place?

2. It’s possible that Russia will annex Georgia, but I think its unlikely. Russia has more to gain by having weak, compliant buffer states on its border, and historically that’s what they have preferred. The one thing that would make Russia annexing Georgia almost a certainty is if the US continues to arm Georgia and advocate for its inclusion in NATO.

BTW, the latter possibility illustrates why so many people in the world regard Bush as one of the most dangerous threats to world peace. He’s been advocating NATO membership for Georgia for some time now. Imagine what would have happened if he had succeeded - Russia attacking a NATO member would have required military intervention by the other NATO countries and you’d have a major European war between nuclear-armed adversaries. Insanity.

Has the fantasy ended? Peter asks.

I was referring strictly to the voices of the analysts I was hearing and have been hearing over the last few years. More to the point, I referred to the advisors to the politicians. It is important to remember that when the fantasy ends, it is replaced by a sense of confusion and nothingness. That is why we quit trying to figure out what would happen as Russia gorged itself on petrodollars. Now that challenge is back.

My late grandfather, John Shelton Curtiss, was a scholar of the Russian military under the last tsars. That is the Russia on which I was raised: the pogroms, the kleptocratic aristocracy, and through it all the spiritually pervasive Russian Orthodox faith, with its mystical services and omnipresent priests. When I look at the new Russia, it looks like more of the same. And of course, underlying it all, the same downtrodden majority, numbing the pain of underpaid overwork with vodka.

This sounds like a negative picture, but in fact, there is also family love, great cultural accomplishments, and the hopefulness of youth for more than there used to be. And I might add that there is significantly more attention to statecraft and military excellence than was the case under the tsars, whose top ranks seemed to be filled through social connections rather than merit.

David Gillman writes:
“And, either way, there was no reason for Russia to invade Georgia. Now Georgia has pulled out of Ossetia and wants to talk and Russia keeps bombing Georgia.

Georgia is a beautiful country with a beautiful people and culture and real hope for the future. It will be a real pity and a big step backward if Russia gets away with destroying a lot of Georgia and/or upsetting its government.
”

Many places - probably most places - have “beautiful people and culture and real hope for the future”. That doesn’t mean that they aren’t corrupt and that they don’t violate human rights. China comes to mind as an example. So does Iran. Is “beautiful people and culture” a good reason for geopolitical alliances?

Since you’ve travelled to Georgia you must have some familiarity with the history of the Caucases and of Russia, so you know that Russia has always feared foreign powers on its borders and has felt most comfortable with weak, compliant buffer states there.

The US has been advocating NATO membership for Georgia and according to CNN, Georgia had, until a few days ago, the largest contingent of combat forces in Iraq after the US and UK! Our military and technical relationships have been growing ever closer. There is no way to frame all those facts except as a deliberate provocation of Russia, a nation possessing great military power and wounded pride - an explosive combination.

Elz Curtiss says:

“Has the fantasy ended? Peter asks.

I was referring strictly to the voices of the analysts I was hearing and have been hearing over the last few years.

We might be referring to different fantasies. I was referring to the decades-old US fantasy that allying ourselves with weak, morally-suspect, human-rights-abusing regimes was a good way to advance our geopolitical interests.

I agree that US policy toward Russia has been characterized by fantasy, too. Soon after the breakup of the USSR we saw Francis Fukuyama’s “End of History” and Jeffery Sachs and his Ivy League squad’s naive attempts to liberalize Russian economic culture through free markets.

Around that time I had dinner with a friend of mine who owned a US company that made bookbinding equipment and had been doing business in the USSR for years. He understood Russian culture and confidently predicted that Sach’s efforts to introduce free market capitalism to Russia would result in a “capitalism” that reflected Communism’s caricature of capitalism - exactly the sort of tycoon gangsterism that we see today in Russia. So not everyone had fantasies - just the people making the big decisions.

I wrote that my friend “confidently predicted that Sach’s efforts to introduce free market capitalism to Russia would result in a “capitalism” that reflected Communism’s caricature of capitalism - exactly the sort of tycoon gangsterism that we see today in Russia.”

I’m sorry for hogging the conversation but this is such a fascinating topic I wish more people would join in.

To me it is most fascinating that the Soviet-era propaganda about capitalism portrayed a sort of tycoon thuggery that is exactly the way it has turned out in Russia! My bookbinding friend suggested that this was because the Soviet propaganda was not merely the product of Kremlin demands about how the west was to be portrayed. Instead, he said, it reflected the way Russian culture actually conceived of free-market entrepreneurism - they couldn’t imagine it any other way.

Peter - great comments.

I was kind of afraid of another 1938 Munich style deal where the West will give up Georgia just to keep Russia quiet. I think Russia can legitimately operate in S. Osetia and I don’t have a problem with that. For all I care both S. Osetia and Abhazia should go free and do whatever they want. However, I do not believe Russia should be able to push into the Georgian territory with impunity. (I actually saw some headlines a few min ago that Medvedev has ordered to stop the military action there, which is good).

I think it is important for the US and its allies to demonstrate that they are capable of quick reaction diplomatically and economically (not militarily). If they fail to do so it may lead to a disaster down the road. And if taking certain actions involves a “double standard,” so be it. Yeah the US did pretty bad things and its moral authority right now may be weak. But we should not allow ourselves to be bogged down in these kinds of arguments. Bush and Cheney and Kissinger and others should be held responsible for their actions on their own terms. However, with Russia you have to be firm from the get go. I have two new babies and I don’t want this to escalate into another world conflict just because Russia cries double standard and invokes Kosovo as precedent.

Peter: I most certainly am disappointed that the WORLD powers won’t do much and I do not think we should go to war with Russia. But some well placed military support to Georgia, Ukraine and any other bordering Russian country that asks for help would be a necessary first step! Russia’s romp into Georgia clearly smacks of German’s “liberation” of the Sudetenland. I thought Russia’s actions sounded familiar but couldn’t quite put my finger on it until I came across this article from Dick Morris:

“On October 3, 1938, Adolf Hitler’s armies marched into Sudetenland, a part of Czechoslovakia. Germany said it was responding to separatist demands from the large German population that lived there and that she was merely honoring their desire for reunion with Germany. Hitler’s tanks took over a vital part of an independent country that had largely rejected his overtures and allied itself with the West. Neither Britain nor France nor the United States did a thing to stop him.

On August 7, 2008, Vladimir Putin’s armies marched into South Ossetia, a part of Georgia. Russia said it was responding to separatist demands from the large Russian population that lived there and that she was merely honoring their desire for reunion with Russia. Putin’s tanks took over a vital part of an independent country that had largely rejected his overtures and allied itself with the West. Neither Britain nor France nor the United States did a thing to stop him.

Encouraged by his occupation of Sudetenland, Hitler continued his designs on Czechoslovakia itself and invaded the rest of the nation a few months later.

Will history continue to repeat itself?”

Sense Russia has decided NOT to stop with just portions of Georgia…. I’m guessing the answer will be yes. =)

One huge difference is everyone has nukes.
The last thing Putin wants is a war with Europe and US.

Also Russia has the energy card. I think they are after areas that were part of the former Soviet Union, this seems to me to more of what is going on here.

Michael,

Putin is not Hitler. No matter how many U.S. media outlets push this propaganda by evoking the occupation of Sudetenland. Neither was Saddam Hussein nor is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Hitler.

Adolf Hilter was a monster unequal in history. By comparing every dictator to Hitler, you and others cheapen such unholy evil and his crimes against ALL of humanity as well as current survivors. Such a name should be rarely used nor abused for political gain.

American media outlets currently have very few (if any) foreign correspondants in Russia and the former Soviet nations. They lack the facts on the ground and a true understanding of the current situation. They only media outlets that can be trusted to provide objective information right now is the BBC. Blindly supporting Georgia as pointed out by others is continuing the failed policy of the enemy-of-my-enemy must be a good ruler.

“Placing [WORLD] military support” right now would be as intelligent as Sakaashvili’s idiotic attack. The best solution is what France’s president did- get on a plane to the region and start working on a peace aggreement.

Human beings are not animals, we should have evolved enough to know that settling disputes with guns only leaves a planet filled with graves.

Dear Tom and Jane,

At the fall of the Soviet Union Abkhazia was 80% ethnic Georgians and South Ossetia was 40% ethnic Georgians. The separatists and the Russians have forced most of the Georgians out of their homes in those regions. There are 400,000 Georgian refugees from these regions in the rest of Georgia.

So, of course the Russians can claim now that if a referendum were held in these regions the current residents would vote to be part of Russia. There’s nobody left there but Russians, Abkhazians, and Ossetians.

In addition, Russia was mounting forces on the border of Georgia and encouraging the Ossetian separatists to provoke Georgia for weeks before this conflict.

Every talk show I’ve heard has a Russian “journalist” who is really a mouthpiece for the Russian government. Russia is getting its story out. We need to hear the Georgian side.

Thanks for your show.

Best regards,

David Gillman

And…. I was right: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/13/georgia.russia7

How about everyone would just put down their guns. Everyone. Every side. Every soldier, civilian, separatist movement, etc. And stop. Stop where they are.
And gather the two/three/four (however many) sides there are (cause everyone seems to be ‘involved’ - France/US/Russia/Georgia/etc) in a room and let them resolve whatever conflict arose peacefully.

I vote for a peaceful resolution of this and any conflict.

Now if only there was a power in the world who can arrange for this to happen…

Your readers seem to have nailed this one on the head. We started our propaganda machines rolling before the first tank rolled across the border. It is strange that everyone forgot that 11 Russian peacekeepers already in Gerogia were shot and killed by Georgians sparking the whole conflict. Starting it, maybe not, but the last time I knew it wasn’t legal to commit murder anywhere in the world? That the Russians handled this poorly I think everyone would agree. But how about us flying Georgian troops home from Iraq so they could join in the fray? If we Americans are to talk about such things perhaps we should consider our actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kosovo? Didn’t we side with the terrorists there to stop Serbians from attacking theri people? Didn’t we create the Taliban with our guns, money and instruction? How can we talk when we torture people invade countries at will, and control the world through our arms? We need to take a good hard look in the mirror first before we speak!

Like David Gillman, who has posted here twice, I have spent a bit of time in Georgia, as I lived and worked in neighboring Azerbaijan for a year. I am terribly saddened by many of the comments I have read here, and it just goes to show that most people make up their minds about all sorts of matters without adequately understanding what is really going on.

The fundamental issue here is, to me, almost black and white. Georgia is a European country. Few people actually believe this until they get there, and if you only see interviews with folks in the countryside, you might think that this country is just another large, backwards village in the mountains. In fact, Georgia is the last European country, because after that you’ve got Azerbaijan, which cannot really be said to be European.

If you understand this, and when you understand how amazing this country and its culture are, it is impossible to reconcile some of the neither-here-nor-there comments I have read here. What is going on is simple: Georgia, as a free and sovereign emerging democracy, is trying to join Europe, where it belongs. It has no wish whatsoever to be under Russian influence, and in my view, no obligation to be. Like the entire region, there are minority groups living in Georgia, but they have lived together forever. Russia is trying to split this small nation apart and steal its land. It is doing this to punish Georgia for saddling up to the West, and it doesn’t want Western influence in its backyard. I personally don’t care if Russia wants Georgia to join Europe because it is not Russia’s decision to make.

As David has pointed out, before all the ethnic cleansing sponsored by Russia, Abkhazia and S. Ossetia had huge numbers of Georgians living there (probably because these regions lie within Georgia according to every country except Russia). It’s the same old trick–kick out the people living there and then claim that only Abkhaz and Ossetians live there. I assure you that this conflict has nothing to do with self-determination, but rather it has everything to do with breaking apart a small, vulnerable country.

I love Georgia, as does everyone who visits. This ordeal is heart-wrenching to watch. In March I was sitting on the main square in Gori with my girlfriend having a pizza and a beer. Now I watch the news and I’m seeing dead bodies and Russian tanks. I feel sick to my stomach that nothing is being done and that we are being perceived as letting down our ally.

Please, don’t post petty comments about things the US has done wrong, or about us being hypocritical, or about how you don’t like the Bush administration, or about how Georgian forces killed 11 Russian “peacekeepers”. This is not a time to show off little tidbits of knowledge you may have picked up, and try to extrapolate them into some sort of position on the matter. This is a time for the West to come together and unite behind our best friend in that part of the world.

Condoleezza Rice made a statement that Russia had invaded a sovereign state and that doing so was against international law. I paraphrasing what I heard on the radio here, however it seems to me that our invasion of Iraq was the same thing.

My point here being that our credibility in issues like this are pretty much in the dumps.

I condone this action by Russia which does hearken back to some notion of empire.

Mr.Everett’s statements are to be noted, how fast people are to draw conclusion based on half truths and out right lies.

To Nathan -

well, I grew up in the Soviet Union (now a US citizen)and had a chance to visit Georgia. Most of the people I knew loved Georgians and Abhazs, as they had a reputation for being very hospitable, kind and brave people with great sense of humor. Their movies put out by the Gruziafilm studio were widely popular. I still watch them from time to time. However, when the USSR disintigrated it was very disappointing to see these hospitable people fighting over bits and pieces of land with Abhazs and Osetins and among themselves. Georgia had a great potential in the early 90s, but instead they blew it miserably by their inability to find compromises in land disputes and internal political squabbles. So I feel no particular sympathy to Georgia anymore.

I agree with your other point. Russia has to be stopped immediately. In fact I consider it a much more important issue than all our real or imaginary problems with Iraq, Iran and N. Korea. Something tells me we have waisted a lot of energy and resources in the wrong parts of the world over the last eight years. Time to wake up.

Nathan, please don’t tell people what to post.
It’s just so off you know what I mean.

While I am not an expert on any of this you can’t help but ask how the war in Iraq, which is in Russia’s backyard.

It’s hard for the US to point a finer at them when we did the same thing they are doing now. We invaded a country period. It is the first time in modern history that we have done this without provocation. This does effect the political arena, it’s the elephant in the diplomatic room.

I do agree that West should do more.

The Russians hold most of the cards though, they have oil and natural gas that Europe depends on.
The mere threat of the Russians cutting it off scares the hell out of the EC.

Correction:
The War in Iraq is in Russia’s backyard it is affecting there viewpoint on their standing in the world.

“Peter: I most certainly am disappointed that the WORLD powers won’t do much and I do not think we should go to war with Russia. But some well placed military support to Georgia, Ukraine and any other bordering Russian country that asks for help would be a necessary first step!”

You can’t have your cake and eat it, too. Placing military forces in those areas without a credible willingness to go to war would be a meaningless gesture. How much are you willing to gamble that Russia wouldn’t attack those places anyway, or might even be more likely to attack, given that provocation?

Keep in mind that a key difference between the 1930’s and now is that a war invol;ving the US and Russia now could mean the end of civilization? Are you willing to gamble with that?

Thanks to everyone for an excellent discussion.

Remembering my late, beloved grandfather, whose book on Russia’s Army in the Crimean War was the standard in his day, did some googling about how much of the 19th century issues looked like the ones we face now.

For the Russians, the fundamental issue seems to have been not the safety of religious or cultural or ethnic or whatever you call it groups in the countries around the Black Sea, but the disinterest of the majority of these tiny nations to become Russia’s port in this outlet that promoted water access to Europe.

A cursory glance at the history shows that the Russians were busy implanting their folks or claiming the kindred with folks there before the Crimean War, just as in this one. Also, as the Ottoman Empire fell apart, more stable European countries got sucked into the vacuum of these tiny nations’ Europeanness. The Crimean War ultimate involved France, England and Turkey.

So far it all looks familiar.

This is what I meant when I said these little nations were “meant” for this invasion. Only a celebration of diverse population and local loyalties will allow small places like this to thrive.

I know this because I live in Vermont. Our separateness from Canada is extremely vague. We have family on both sides of the border, freely travel back and forth, and our businesses thrive on the interflow of our two kinds of dollars. When President Bush tried to tighten up our border, he was met with howls of outrage not only from those of us who celebrate two Thanksgivings, but most especially from the merchants who thrive on our regional sense of community. But when I, at my counter at Macy’s, get someone who is not from neighboring Quebec, but the Maritimes or Ontario, it’s an event not only for the week but for the month. In other words, a region is a region is a region.

It is always risky to claim that Hitler was anything other than a unique and terrible aberration in the human species, but in fact, the “Protocols of Zion,” which played for him and still play for others such a big role in genocide against Jews –those “Protocols,” far from being “ancient documents” were fabrications that appeared somewhere in the Russian aristocracy late in the 19th century.

Racial purity and religious unity play a role in Russian identity that cannot be downplayed. While I, as a German American, in no way disclaim the horror of the Holocaust, I believe its perpetration by once-decent people is all the more reason to believe it was not by definition unique.

There are danger signs to look for, and in the neo-pan-Slavic rhetoric of Putin’s foreign policy, they are rife. And they revisit historic defeats which the Russians are anxious to avenge — or, as they would put it, — rectify.

“The fundamental issue here is, to me, almost black and white. Georgia is a European country. ”

Framing it in those terms is racist. What difference does it make that they are European? Should we apply different standards than if they were Middle-Eastern or Asian or African?

The basic geopolitical facts are that a tiny country with a spotty corruption and human-rights record, bordering on an easily-provoked powerful nuclear-armed nation, has provoked its powerful neighbor in a way that could have extremely dangerous consequences for the whole world. What is your proposition - that what the Georgians lack in geopolitical common sense they make up for in old-world charm?

Finally, I looked briefly at the high points of the Treaty of Paris, 1856, which ended the War in the Crimea. It called for neutralization of the Black Sea and no war ships in it. This did not last long, and it ended in ways with which I am no familiar.

But what I am learning from this wonderful conversation is that The Black Sea is a lake of intermingled cultural sources and global interests, much like the Mediterranean. It looks to me like we need to study the Treaty of Paris,1856, and see why it fell apart.

And as for the dimwit idea of sharing military exercises with the Russians, well, thank God we are done with that self-sabatoging farce. Talk about flashing a big roll on a dark street in the late, deserted night!

And please don’t call this a renewal of the Cold War. History did not begin after World War II, and it didn’t end when the Iron Curtain came down. We are dealing with the same foreign policy Russia has been pursuing for centuries, with the same quest for major ports that drives every landlocked nation, large or small.

I wasn’t ten when my grandfather taught me all this, and the facts bear him out from his grave.

“My point here being that our credibility in issues like this are pretty much in the dumps. ”

Oh, good - something we agree on. Yes, when people are adding up the immense costs of the Iraq war - the hundreds of billions of dollars; the thousands of US lives and 10’s or 100’s of thousands of Iraqi lives, the recruiting poster it provides for terrorists, the sapping of personnel and material strength of our military, etc, our credibility as a nation also needs to be counted as a major casualty.

In some ways moral credibility is more important to the US than other countries because the US is one of the few nations based on an abstract concept, as embodied in our foundation documents. Other nations are founded on race, ethnicity, historical continuity, language, etc. China is China whether ruled by emperors or a communist politburo. France is France whether ruled by kings or Napoleans or a Republic. But the US is based only on concepts. Take away the Constitution or the principles embedded in it and it ceases to be the United States of America. Our moral authority has been the inspiration for countless nations around the world.

By undermining our credibility and moral authority the Bush administration has committed greater treason and damaged US interests and our ability to act in the world worse than by anything else they have done.

“History did not begin after World War II, and it didn’t end when the Iron Curtain came down.”
Francis Fukuyama wrote a best seller (”The End of History and the Last Man”) in 1992 disputing this, but I think he’s the only prominent person to take that position, and I believe even he has climbed down from it.

‘We are dealing with the same foreign policy Russia has been pursuing for centuries, with the same quest for major ports that drives every landlocked nation, large or small.

I wasn’t ten when my grandfather taught me all this, and the facts bear him out from his grave.”

Likewise I don’t think any of this is in dispute. So I’m again wondering what your point is. What should we do now? What should we be willing to risk?

Russia’s geopolitical goals and the basic character of their society are the same as in the Crimean War, but a few things ARE different:

1. Russia has nuclear weapons.
2. Russia controls Europe’s energy supply, which limits Europe’s willingness to stand up to them
3. Russia is flush with (oil and gas) money
4. The US has global interests so we are affected by this (unlike the 1850’s).

Peter- I don’t recall ever mentioning sending troops. I would only send equipment and material. The whole reason for sending the equipment now is so that we won’t have to send our troops later.

“Peter- I don’t recall ever mentioning sending troops. I would only send equipment and material. The whole reason for sending the equipment now is so that we won’t have to send our troops later.”

Modern weapon systems require support personnel and training - “advisors” in the usual parlance. Any weapon systems sophisticated enough to tip the balance of power in a region would only serve as a provocation - witness the Cuban missile crisis, or more apropos: today’s agreement in Warsaw - do you that the defense pact signed today by Polish Deputy Foreign Minister Andrzej Kremer and US chief negotiator John Rood think will raise or lower the chance of conflict?

I think it will increase tensions and do nothing to enhance our security as Americans.

Peter, my point is that we need to be thinking in terms of some horrible wars from the past. The real cost of gratuitously invading Iraq is precisely that it has left us tied down with no hope of responding to Russia’s actions. And you are absolutely right that this is water under the bridge now, along with gallons of other dangerous stuff.

All I am trying to do is to make people aware that this is the real thing, the kind of move that led to previous world wars. No wonder Poland has just asked us for weapons on their soil: they have served as sacrificial lambs the way Georgians are now forced to be. I am afraid of the Neville Chamberlain’s out there, looking for “peace at any price,” and willing, in the end, to squander the rights of strangers.

What we feared on 9/11 is actually happening now. Western Europe’s natural gas supply is hostage to a power set on achieving its historic destiny. And with at least four humiliations to avenge — 1856, 1905, 1917 and 1991 — it doesn’t look to be pretty.

But yes, THEY would probably call it their “manifest destiny..”

Michael . . . Just a couple more data points on this latter topic . . .

At the time they were overrun by the North, South Vietnam had been armed to the teeth by the US, including (at least on paper) the 3rd largest air force in the world. But it was also understood that the US was no longer willing to commit troops.

But on the other hand, even though Taiwan is heavily armed with weapons from diverse sources, it is widely understood that the reason why China has not reconquered them is that they would first have to get past the Seventh Fleet.

Some statesman once said that “nations do not have friends, only interests” (BTW, I’ve seen this quote multiply attributed to Washington, Bismark, DeGaulle, and Kissinger - does anyone know who really said it?), and I agree. The only legitimate role of US foreign policy is to enhance the security and well-being of Americans, and every action must be judged by that standard. It is not clear to me how provoking Russia makes me more secure.

“But yes, THEY would probably call it their ‘manifest destiny..’”

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.

People have compared the situation to the US invasion of Iraq, but I think an even better comparison is to the Israeli-Lebanon war in 2006.
Compare, for example, McCain’s current statements with his attitude to the war in Lebanon just two years ago. He sounds pretty hypocritical, but I don’t think he’s alone.

“People have compared the situation to the US invasion of Iraq, but I think an even better comparison is to the Israeli-Lebanon war in 2006.”

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.

Peter- Your analogy of Cuba is hardly appropriate. There is clearly a difference between giving nations anti tank and anti air weapons, as I propose, to giving them NUCLEAR missiles! I am dumbfounded that you would even compare the two.

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.

We have to remember the Elephant in the room.
Europe, and Ukraine in particular are dependent on Russia for natural gas.

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.

I was just listening to the Diane Rehm show which gave a interesting take on this. It seems that President Sakaashvili played chicken with the Russians and lost.

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.

Peter- Your analogy of Cuba is hardly appropriate. There is clearly a difference between giving nations anti tank and anti air weapons, as I propose, to giving them NUCLEAR missiles! I am dumbfounded that you would even compare the two.

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.

We have to remember the Elephant in the room.
Europe, and Ukraine in particular are dependent on Russia for natural gas.

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.

It seems that President Sakaashvili played chicken with the Russians and lost.

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!”

From the BBC today:

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!!)

“People have compared the situation to the US invasion of Iraq, but I think an even better comparison is to the Israeli-Lebanon war in 2006.”

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?

Peter- Your reasoning contradicts the evidence. Hand held anti tank and anti air weapons were more then enough to get the Soviets out of Afghanistan and there is nothing to think it would not help here. As I pointed out earlier I don’t believe that Georgia could “beat” the Russians and the purpose of arming the Georgians, and other threatened border nations, is simply to increase the costs of Russian aggression. After all Russia did not attack Georgia because they thought it would be a fair fight. They did so because they knew they could beat them with little effort.

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.

“The fundamental issue here is, to me, almost black and white. Georgia is a European country. ”

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.

Another issue is our national debt.
Russia after China and some countries in the Middle East own huge amounts of our debt. That means they are now funding our Government and lifestyles.

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

Goodness, I REALLY am not knowledgable enough to enter this conversation about these events that have such far-reaching consequences for all of us. BUT, Peter, have you considered whether Russia would have attacked if Georgia had in fact been a NATO member already - just a thought! And, how, Peter have you arrived at your very definite negative opinions about Georgia - have you travelled there as have several commenters? Another thought.
PJS

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

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.

“Peter- Your reasoning contradicts the evidence. Hand held anti tank and anti air weapons were more then enough to get the Soviets out of Afghanistan”

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?

“Peter, have you considered whether Russia would have attacked if Georgia had in fact been a NATO member already - just a thought!”

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.

“Another issue is our national debt.
Russia after China and some countries in the Middle East own huge amounts of our debt. That means they are now funding our Government and lifestyles”

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.

Really interesting to read a quick synopsis of the generations of ideology in Russian imperialism. Emanuel Sarkisyanz contributed an essay called “Russian Imperialism Reconsidered” to “Russian Imperialism: From Ivan the Great to the Revolution,” edited by Taras Hunczak and published in 1974 by Rutgers Unitersity Press. Sarkisyanz points out that Russian foreign policy under the tsars was conducted on a completely autocratic basis. There was no political democacy and no middle class, the two groups who need an ideology to support a war. Therefore ideology did not enter into it until Nicholas I (mid 1800s), who embraced a religious mission. He also originated the Russification policies in conquered lands. When one considers what we were doing to the native Americans in those same years, this cannot be considered an atypical barbarity, though barbarity it was.

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.