The recent conflict between Russia and Georgia has brought to the surface a latent conflict among conservatives in the West, one which has proven surprisingly bitter and acrimonious, and which often verges on the irrational.I am neither a Russophile nor a Russophobe, so I have tried to stay out of the fight. Anything I say that fails to condemn the rampaging Slavic bear gets me flamed by the Russophobes. Anytime I point out the corrupt and violent behavior of the Russian state, or the risks it poses to Europe, I catch it from the Russophiles.
So I can’t possibly win. Better to avoid the topic altogether.
However, there is another way to view the situation. Russia is a nation with its own history and culture. Like any other nation it is neither uniformly bad nor uniformly good. A Russian leader who truly represents the people of his country will do what is in their interests, which will not necessarily accord with those of the USA or the UN or the EU.
Russian patriotism has the potential to be dangerous outside the country’s borders, depending on the circumstances, but that does not make the country or the regime evil. Prudent statecraft recognizes these facts, and includes them in its strategic planning.With these ideas in mind, consider the contributions made by Russkiy, a new Russian commenter at Gates of Vienna. In a recent thread he summed up the current situation in his country in straightforward and sensible fashion. I can’t find anything to argue with in what he said (edited slightly for clarity):
A lot of criticism has been leveled against the current “regime” in the Russian Federation. Given the topic of this thread I would like to comment that the current regime managed to:- - - - - - - - -
1. Bring Orthodox Christianity into the public discourse (by making it the official religion of the state) after decades of militant atheism, 2. Restore pride in the Russian people (the importance of the ethnic pride factor is constantly discussed on this forum), 3. Increase birth rates by promoting so-called “conception days” and sponsoring families with many children, 4. Attempt to reduce the problem of alcoholism that shortens the life expectancy of many men, 5. Be prepared to act decisively against “restive” minorities; however, sufficient multiculturalism is allowed to various ethnicities in Russia, as long as they don’t try to push anything unsavory from their culture into the mainstream.
As a conclusion I would like to say that I still have hope for my country, if economic growth continues and the right political institutions develop. Some corruption will exist, but it does also in countries like France and Italy, where people are more social then Germanic/Anglo-Saxon people, and more susceptible to corruption.
And later on:
The Russian role in the current “clash of civilizations” is not clear yet. What is definite is that Russians have a deeply seated dislike, bordering on hatred, towards Islam.
This feeling arises from Russia being colonized and subjugated by the Mongols who in later times became Muslim Tatars. Later on Moscow expanded and the Tatars were subjugated; every Russian has in his mind that territories like Kazan are now Russian. Do you know that there are two types of Orthodox Crosses? One is a cross with a second diagonal line underneath the large horizontal line, and the other with crescent under the main cross, which symbolizes the victory of Christianity over Islam.
[…]
I know Russia is assisting Iran. I really hate that, but to be honest Russians know well enough what they are playing with; they don’t really want a strong Iran. They wouldn’t mind America going at it, but it [Iran] is a useful ally when Russia’s own interests are threatened by Western powers.
Russkiy illustrates quite clearly what so many people have said here in recent comment threads: the West and Russia have a natural common interest in containing Islam. Russia has an even more immediate problem in that regard, and — in a rational world — would be a natural ally.
However, the world is not rational. We have a hard job ahead of us undoing the damage done by paranoids, would-be hegemons, misguided idealists, and Cold War nostalgists.
Working with Russia definitely involves making sausages, and the fastidious would need to avert their eyes. Yes, it might be necessary to concede Russia’s paramount interest in the Caucasus, and then look the other way when circumstances require it. But a succession of US administrations managed to do just that with China over Tiananmen Square, and that was in the service of mere commercial deals. Why is it so hard to do the same with Russia when our actual national security is the issue?
In a similar vein, it would be prudent to revisit the Balkans and recognize our policy failures there concerning Serbia, Bosnia, and Kosovo. But don’t hold your breath.
Common sense would tell the West to sit down at the table with the Bear and cut a deal, but common sense is sorely lacking these days.
56 comments:
Baron, thanks for posting this. Readers may be interested in a post I made on my blog regarding the Georgia-Russia conflict. I also posted that same post over at NeoConstant, where it has generated a bit of controversy.
Baron,
Yes, it might be necessary to concede Russia’s paramount interest in the Caucasus, and then look the other way when circumstances require it. But a succession of US administrations managed to do just that with China over Tiananmen Square, and that was in the service of mere commercial deals. Why is it so hard to do the same with Russia when our actual national security is the issue?
There are several wars that America could have started but didn't. How are the wars selected? It's seems to come from domestic reasons, most often how a president needs to pump up his image and distract the focus from something else, etc.
Why didn't America opt for ignoring in this case? Well, it has been suggested that McCain thought that he needed a conflict line opened with Russia to improve his chances in the upcoming election. That is the best theory I have heard (still unproven). The other possible explanation is that Sakaashvili is stark raving mad.
So it's not so much about not being able to look the other way, as it seems to be about the ones holding the power wanting this war to happen.
Why is it so hard to do the same with Russia when our actual national security is the issue?
What I found when discussing a conquering of the Persian Gulf oil fields here in the forum, is that acting truly in your self-interest is considered to be evil by the Westerners (including the majority of the Westerners here). Doing phony things that lead nowhere is considered hounorable (remember it's the warp of inversion of values!).
Arguments relating to economy (i.e. in the interest of big corporation that is less and less attached to our nations) or to prestige/respect (i.e. flaunting vanity) are understood. But doing something that is truly in our self-interest is considered "highly immoral" etc. So that's another aspect of why America/EU do not react as with Tiananmen Square. Since it would be in our interest to do it, it's in their nature to do exactly the opposite.
I find this post misguided. The problem is not that the Russian state pursues her interests. The problem is what she perceives her interests to be.
For whatever reason, Russia believes and seemingly has long believed that she perpetually needs to control a 'buffer zone' of the states around her, or else... (something? not clear). Thus her neverending talk of a fear of being 'encircled' regardless of the innocuous or at least within-their-rights nature of what she's being 'encircled' by. Taken to the logical endpoint this leads to a twisted land of Orwellian gobbledygook in which we are forced to hear and pretend to respect complaints that defensive missiles are 'pointed at' Russia and mutual-defense alliances are 'threats to' Russia.
At best this pattern of Russia's leads to quasi-corrupt meddling in other nations' elections and backing whoever is 'for Russia' as if this is par for the course, as if France does the same vis a vis Germany and vice versa. At worst it leads to full-on invasions and annexations that trail ethnic cleansing in their wake.
I fail to see how or why realpolitik or wise statecraft requires tolerating this behavior with no clear boundary attached.
There is a fundamentally irreconcilable worldview at the root of the West's conflict with Russia that makes it different than a garden-variety 'competing-interests' model in which all that is ever required is Grand Bargain-style deal-cutting. Russia seemingly perceives her 'interests' to include controlling an empire or at least quasi-empire, including in the traditional old-fashioned sense of extracting natural resources from other lands (which of course too inevitably brings with it the incentive of market-cornering and -protecting, as we are seeing here). As historical parallels too obvious to name clearly illustrate, we cannot indefinitely accommodate such a desire without limits, let alone ought we expect Russia's neighbors to.
CS --
You've hit the truth here, but only part of it.
One more truth: If Russia were still Communist, we wouldn't be baiting it as much. Why? Because there's still a deep reservoir of sympathy (conscious or otherwise) for the Socialist Ideal.
That's part of the reason why China gets a break. Even though nothing much is left of Marxism in China, there's a residual feeling among the runny-brie-and-dry-chablis set in the West that China is still a beacon of Progressive thought. It's a Mecca, if you will, for die-hard Socialists. The convergence of that subcurrent with major business interests allows China to get by with anything, whether the Democrats or the Republicans are running the show.
The Republicans' best friends make big money off China, as do many friends of the Democrats, but in addition the Democrats still idealize the place, just as they do Cuba.
If Raul falls, and a free-market tough guy like Pinochet takes over in Cuba, expect an Obama administration to send in the Marines to "fix" whatever the MSM decides is wrong on the island under the new heartless right-wing regime. On TV there will be heart-rending videos of suffering women and children and dissenters being beaten with rifle butts -- all the things you never saw when Castro was in charge -- that will ratchet up the pressure on Congress and the Executive to "do something".
Actually, that will happen no matter what doofus is in the White House. Democrat, Republican -- it will be the same result when the media writes the script.
rwcg,
For whatever reason, Russia believes and seemingly has long believed that she perpetually needs to control a 'buffer zone' of the states around her, or else... (something? not clear).
America used hold onto such misconceptions too rather recently. Do you remember the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962? But today America is cured from this, is much wiser and has left this "twisted land of Orwellian gobbledygook" (as you put it), and is cool with being invaded by tens million of illegal aliens from Mexico. Hallelujah!
Wow Baron,
Sometimes your thoughts are even darker than mine. I'm taking it in. Absorbing...
The supposed equivalence between offensive nuclear missiles and defensive anti-ballistic missiles is part and parcel of the Orwellian gobbledygook I'm talking about.
As for illegals from Mexico, the Russian-equivalent solution would entail that we invade Mexico and install a puppet. But of course, I'm pretty sure that you and I agree, all we'd really like is for our government to protect our own borders. This is NOT the sort of solution (protecting their own borders) that Russia settles for - and that is the problem.
rwcg,
The supposed equivalence between offensive nuclear missiles and defensive anti-ballistic missiles is part and parcel of the Orwellian gobbledygook I'm talking about.
Well, missile interceptors is a way of disarming Russia. But I guess in your ideal vision Russia is just as disarmed as Sweden. Anyway, if this issue is gobbledygook to you, let's leave it, because your angel here detracts from the issue.
What you have to be cool with, to make it comparable, are armed Russians ships in Lake Michigan. A pro-Russian regime in Mexico negotiating a military alliance with Russia, and a lot of Russian military advisors and other personnel in place. Of course there are also anti-ballistic missile defence put up on Cuba which effectively cancel America out as a nuclear power.
If you have a problem with anything of this it shows how America "perpetually needs to control a 'buffer zone' of the states around her, or else... (something? not clear)".
I have hereby demonstrated that your talk is nothing but the language of the bully. The aggressor speaking from a safe position, taunting the basic and legitimate needs of the guy who does not belong to the in-crowd.
This is the sort of arrogance that will bring America down.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn, in his last interview, said:
When I returned to Russia in 1994, the Western world and its states were practically being worshipped. Admittedly, this was caused not so much by real knowledge or a conscious choice, but by the natural disgust with the Bolshevik regime and its anti-Western propaganda.
This mood started changing with the cruel NATO bombings of Serbia. It’s fair to say that all layers of Russian society were deeply and indelibly shocked by those bombings. The situation then became worse when NATO started to spread its influence and draw the ex-Soviet republics into its structure. This was especially painful in the case of Ukraine, a country whose closeness to Russia is defined by literally millions of family ties among our peoples, relatives living on different sides of the national border. At one fell stroke, these families could be torn apart by a new dividing line, the border of a military bloc.
So, the perception of the West as mostly a "knight of democracy" has been replaced with the disappointed belief that pragmatism, often cynical and selfish, lies at the core of Western policies. For many Russians it was a grave disillusion, a crushing of ideals.
What is interesting to me about the coverage of the Georgian conflict in the major English language news sources (CNN, BBC, Fox) is their lack of interest in the importance of Kosovo. Whether it be the timing of Putin's rise to power immediately following the humiliation of Serbia and Russia in 1999 or the timing of the current conflict just a few months after Kosovo recognition after being mostly dormant for a decade and a half the Anglo media just aren't that interested (or simply uninformed?) about all things Serbia related. Instead we're being fed the US government/George Soros view of things. Perhaps because most Americans especially never think about the Balkans (unlike Israel) they have trouble understanding why the crushing of Serbia by the PC globalists rankles so much with many of us from Europe who have no family connections to Serbia.
Conservative Swede,
[on the apparently perplexing distinction b/t offense and defense]
Well, missile interceptors is a way of disarming Russia.
Which is the same as...attacking?
What you have to be cool with, to make it comparable, are armed Russians ships in Lake Michigan. A pro-Russian regime in Mexico negotiating a military alliance with Russia, [...]
I might not 'be cool with' all of that but this is a far cry from supporting invasion and conquest as a response.
The aggressor speaking from a safe position, taunting the basic and legitimate needs of the guy who does not belong to the in-crowd.
The 'basic and legitimate needs' of Russia required that they invade, ethnically-cleanse, and annex two neighboring territories.
Fascinating.
(continued)
Revenge of the Balkans by Gordon Bardos is a good introduction to this subject.
Avery Bullard raises a good point re: Serbia. I agree that the role of Serbia/Kosovo is ignored/ill-understood in the West.
So I can definitely see why 'the crushing of Serbia by the PC globalists rankles so much with many of us from Europe'. Presumably it equally follows, of course, that the crushing of Georgia by Russia ranks equally as much with many of you from Europe.
Or....not?
rwcg,
You apparently do not understand the meaning and/or significance of any of the following concepts:
* What it would mean to America or Russia to be effectively disarmed as a nuclear power.
* Ethnic cleansing
* Russians ships in Lake Michigan
* A pro-Russian regime in Mexico
* Peace agreements in Caucasus
You also imply that the mere installation of nuclear missiles is the same as attacking. Your level of confusion is staggering.
Anyway, your whole premise here is that Russia has ethnically cleansed South Ossetia and Abkhazia and then annexed them into Russia, and then every answer you give centers around your moral outrage over this (never mind that it never happened), and whatever factual and logical issue becomes impossible to discuss with you, since everything brought up is connected by you to this your stipulated axiom that you introduced.
Therefore a generalized discussion about the need for a country for its basic and legitimate protection becomes impossible with you, among other things.
Unfortunately the level of understanding among the ones currently leading America, and the ones in line to take over, does not seem to be much higher.
You apparently do not understand the meaning and/or significance of any of the following concepts: [..]
Surely you will explain them to me coherently...
You also imply that the mere installation of nuclear missiles is the same as attacking.
Let's stop right there. I'm glad we agree that installation of nuclear missiles is not attacking. How much more true it must be, therefore, that installation of defensive anti-ballistic non-nuclear weapons is not attacking.
Someone tell Russia.
Anyway, your whole premise here is that Russia has ethnically cleansed South Ossetia and Abkhazia and then annexed them into Russia, and then every answer you give centers around your moral outrage over this (never mind that it never happened)
Oh, it never happened. I forgot about that. (Someone tell Michael Totten.)
Yes, I gather what happened is that Russia necessarily intervened out of genuine concern for the (whoevers) that live there, and the Georgians that lived there kinda just didn't want to live there anymore, so they moved away.
And of course it's also true that the annexation 'never happened' because as of now it's only a de facto annexation, which will come later over time.
Good points.
Anyhow, this conversation - whatever side one falls on - does illustrate one point I tried to make: the irreconcilability of the worldviews/premises underlying the positions of the two nations. I believe that conversation and 'deals' become pretty difficult when the counterparty practically speaks a different language (defensive missiles = 'threats' that are 'pointed at' us), and I'm sure that CS has similar complaints about me.
rwcg,
What do you know about Caucasus?
What people live in South Ossetia. Whom do you claim that the Russians have ethnically cleansed there?
What people live in Abkhazia. Whom do you claim that the Russians have ethnically cleansed there?
Let's stop right there. I'm glad we agree that installation of nuclear missiles is not attacking. How much more true it must be, therefore, that installation of defensive anti-ballistic non-nuclear weapons is not attacking.
???
Is this a parody or what?
What will be your next point? That buying food does not equal eating it?
Who are you arguing with really?
the irreconcilability of the worldviews/premises underlying the positions of the two nations.
There is also the distancing impartial perspective, that goes beyond jingoistic emotionalism.
And Michael Totten has already been debunked in this thread.
Who are you arguing with really?
Well, various Russian spokesmen and their internet apologists as the shoe fits, of course. Anyone who refers to defensive anti-ballistic missiles which detonate in the upper atmosphere as being 'pointed at Russia' (?) for example.
There is also the distancing impartial perspective, that goes beyond jingoistic emotionalism.
Ah yes, and that's where you come in, I suppose. It just so happens that from that 'impartial' perspective, which you deign to endow upon the rest of us, Russia was right to invade Georgia, and folks in the West such as myself who are 'jingoistic' (by the way, do you know what country I am from?) are wrong to object.
And what of the Georgians themselves? Well, they're hardly impartial, I admit. Ok nevermind then.
Thanks for the perspective,
And Michael Totten has already been debunked in this thread.
I think the reader can judge whether the comment you left under that thread qualifies as 'debunking'.
So I can definitely see why 'the crushing of Serbia by the PC globalists rankles so much with many of us from Europe'. Presumably it equally follows, of course, that the crushing of Georgia by Russia ranks equally as much with many of you from Europe.
Or....not?
Will the independence of Kosovo be revoked? If not then what you are saying is the Russians must accept a double standard: international law and norms being torn up is acceptable when the US decide to do so but not when the Russians say so. If Kosovo's unilateral amputation from Serbia is not reversed then the rules have been permanently changed. Russia warned the Americans but they chose to ignore those warnings. So now what?
Who are you arguing with really?
Well, various Russian spokesmen and their internet apologists as the shoe fits, of course. Anyone who refers to defensive anti-ballistic missiles which detonate in the upper atmosphere as being 'pointed at Russia' (?) for example.
And since it does not equate "attacking" you consider yourself having won that argument. Very creative...
It just so happens that from that 'impartial' perspective, which you deign to endow upon the rest of us, Russia was right to invade Georgia
An impartial outlook would start with not taking every single propaganda piece fitting your emotional jingoism and run with it. It would then continue with looking at things through generalized concepts, comparative examples, through the perspective of reversed roles, etc. I tried this with you, but your mind was hermetically closed to it.
and folks in the West such as myself who are 'jingoistic' (by the way, do you know what country I am from?) are wrong to object.
You are a Western jingoist, quite as my countryman Carl Bildt. It doesn't matter what country you come from.
rwcg,
I also noticed that you avoided the questions about what people that live in South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
At least take your time to look it up and come back here and answer. Actually knowing something about a conflict, makes such a refreshing change from just repeating simplified ideologized formulas.
rwcg,
And what of the Georgians themselves?
If I know your type correctly you haven't cared to listen to any other Georgian but the George Soros installed Saakashvili.
Take your time and listen to (or read) the interview with Eduard Shevardnadze:
http://www.russiatoday.com/guests/video/1457
http://www.russiatoday.com/guests/detail/1457
The point is, if you have weapons that completely nullify Russia's nuclear weapons, it does not JUST allow you to defend yourself effectively against Russia.
It also allows you to ATTACK Russia and escape any REPRISALS ie it makes Russia incapable of SELF DEFENSE.
You're driving me crazy not seeing this OBVIOUS FACT.
DEPLOYING MISSLE DEFENSE WEAPONS IS AN AGGRESSIVE ACT BECAUSE IT MAKES AGGRESSION POSSIBLE BY GIVING AMERICA THE EDGE IN THE OBJECTIVE CORRELATION OF FORCES.
Now, given a missle shield can do two things, either defend against an attack, or defend against a self-defense reprisal after we attack Russia, your next question should be, what is the more likely case?
Given we've bombed Serbia, invaded afghanistan and Iraq and threatened to invade Iran, all largely based on lies, who do you think is the more aggressive country? Who do you think really poses the threat?
Should Russia just take us on faith or are they allowed to at least Worry about what we might do with a missle shield and act accordingly, for their own self-preservation, the duty of any nation?????
who do you think is the more aggressive country? Who do you think really poses the threat?
Um...I suppose the answer is, the United States? is the more aggressive country than Russia? the United States intends to attack...Russia?
This is not the Gates of Vienna I remember.
*backing away slowly*
P.S. A reprise just to summarize what I've learned here,
-objecting to Russia invading Georgia makes me a 'bully'.
-it also makes me 'jingoistic'. Amazingly, this diagnosis is possible absent knowledge of what country I'm from (for example, I could be from Russia?!)
and of course, my favorite,
"DEPLOYING MISSLE DEFENSE WEAPONS IS AN AGGRESSIVE ACT"
Oh, but I already mentioned Orwellian gobbledygook in my original comment.
Rwcg, the point is not who is the more aggressive country. If one superpower can effectively nullify the nuclear deterrent of another nation, than that nation is basically the thrall of that superpower.
Conservative Swede gave a very apt example. If Mexico and Canada signed a defensive pact with Russia which effectively nullified America's nuclear deterrent what would the leadership of this country have to say??? We already know what happened with the Cuban missile crisis. How does this not apply to Russia? The hypocrisy is appalling.
Why would a nation not want neighbors friendly to it? NATO has clearly been trying to isolate Russia by taking all of these former Soviet block nations into the fold. Everybody here knows the reason for Nato's existence. Why is Russia an enemy, because it hasn't opened up its domestic markets as some large corporations would like?
Baron,
Thanks for bringing attention to my post.
I have been following the islamisation issue for a few years now, I have not come across a good discussion of the subject in relation to Russia.
I used to read sites like Frontpagemag,Jihad Watch and Faith Freedom, however I only read Jihad Watch now. In my opinion Faith Freedom is only dealing with commenting on Islam from liberal censibilities. Frontpagemag is so blatantly pro israel (not that I mind pro israely views)that there is no chance of geting anything resembling objectivity from that source.
I stil like Jihad Watch, because to a large extent I think it is neutral at least in relation to issues concerning Russia.
So far Gates of Vienna is the only site that in my opinion digs down deep enough to expose the real issue at hand, and that is that some gone really wrong in the whole social fabric of the western world.
When one points finger at Russia and says you are not liberal or democratic enough, a year ago I would have thought that thats a fair criticism, however, considering the diagnosis that people like Fjordman and El give to the condition of the west, it makes me think that Russia may actually end up a Crusader against Eurabia to recover Christian lands.
Russkiy you are absolutely correct. Which other country has adopted Christianity as its official state religion? The Vatican? Orthodox Christianity has been one of Russia's cultural pillars for the past 5 centuries. Western countries seem to want to forget their past as if it was some kind of dark page in their history.
Western democracy as people envision it is unachievable. It is too open to abuse and corruption. Private interests control the policies and direction of America more than the people do. I wish there would be a day when we could achieve true democracy. That day is very far it seems.
Russia today seems to me to be the voice of reason compared to the extremely liberal policies of Western countries. We of common mind should do all we can to support this nation. It might be the West's savior in the future.
My response to Russiky is that on the contrary, Russia's deep, and abiding interests as a Nation are directly opposite the West, and to aid Islam in attacking the West.
Leaving aside the matter of Georgia, Putin has assisted Iran going nuclear, protected it, and helped as much as he can to get Iran the bomb.
After Beslan, Putin addressed the Russian nation. He said they were weak, and the weak get beaten. Which was true. He made "deals" with AQ and Iran to stop assistance with the Chechens, crushed them by proxy with no response from the OIC (which previously had screamed bloody murder) and made himself very very useful to Iran and AQ.
This bought him time, and his aim is to have AQ/Iran nuke American cities. So as to cripple America, create a demand for response (likely, internal US politics will create a craven, appeasement-driven response, creating another nuking of a US city) to "solve" the problem by wiping one or all nuclear Islamic nations. Including Iran, probably Pakistan, and perhaps by that time Turkey.
For Putin and any Russian leader, this is the desired outcome: Islam wiped out on it's Southern Borders, and the US cripped and grievously wounded.
Putin maintains power only by shooting people with thugs. Who cost money. He has to have large amounts of cash coming in all the time to pay off his thugs. So he can't do internal reform, growth through investment, nor can any leader among these thugs (unless the thugs are crushed, which would take a popular uprising not in the offing). This is Stalin's legacy and there is no getting around it.
ANY Russian leader would therefore be our enemy, and we should not pretend otherwise. There is simply no getting around it. I like and respect and am grateful to the Russian people for their awful sacrifices in WWII. But this is reality.
China, on the other hand, is America's natural ally on Islam -- they need cheap oil (Putin and Russians and Muslims all need it sky high), and face Muslim separatists of their own.
I may be one of the 'russophobes' here, because I think Putin's Russia is a thuggocracy on its way towards (real) fascism. Currently, the era of robber barons is over and state is gradually taking control of the economy and driving foreign investors out.
Putin's Russia will not become a global player that the USSR managed to be with an enormous cost to their economy. However, it can still effectively bully its neighbors like it did in Georgia , and also in Estonia during the Bronze statue riots.
The reason why NATO is expanding is not US imperialism like some commenters seem to imply but the desire of the former Soviet colonies and satellite states to seek security. Soviet imperialism had devastating consequences in Eastern Europe and people in Poland and the Baltic republics will never forget their experience.
In Putin's Russia Soviet military achievements are celebrated and the fact that Soviet "liberation" durin WW II caused as much suffering and death as Nazi invasion is not recognized.
Not giving Russia benefit of the doubt does not, however, mean that Western policy in former Yugoslavia was great and a success story.
Whiskey,
I liked your Yojimbo analogy regarding Russia. But in all fairness, what is Russia doing vis-a vis Iran, that America is not doing vis-a-vis Saudi Arabia? America helps Saudi Arabia building a nuclear program.
You say that the aim of Russia is to get America nuked by Islamists. You are guessing. So does the USA then want the Saudis to nuke Russia? I don't think so. I think the USA suck up to the Saudis to get oil. And this is probably what motivates Russia vis-a-vis Iran too.
China and Russia act the same way. Straight-forwardly at home in cracking down on Muslim separatists, while acting underhandedly at the international stage (but not so much more underhandedly than the USA herself).
the US cripped and grievously wounded
This is in all our interests, including the Americans themselves.
Vasarahammer,
The reason why NATO is expanding is not US imperialism like some commenters seem to imply but the desire of the former Soviet colonies and satellite states to seek security.
Well, that was a credible way of describing it as long as it was about Poland, Baltic states etc. But now that Americans are acting aggressively in Ukraine and Georgia, this description of yours is way out of proportion. If you do not understand the difference between Czech Republic and Ukraine in the NATO, you shouldn't even be commenting upon the issue.
George Soros has instigated the so-called Orange and Rose revolutions. Soros and his money are operating at all levels of the society in that part of the world. Americans and NATO are pushing Russia very aggressively reaching for their balls, pushing for a new world war. The combination of arrogance, aggressiveness and cluelessness is flammable. And if McCain gets elected it will mean throwing a match on the whole situation (but candidates are Soros men of course).
(both candidates are Soros men of course)
And Michael Totten has already been debunked.
Ehm? Sure, people disagree with him. But was anything he wrote in his article proven incorrect? I may have missed it, but I saw nothing.
Sure, Totten isn't everything. But he does show, unless solidly contested, that the Russians where the part initiating the conflict. As I've said before, that is significant.
But to follow the Neocon strategy of encircling and provoking Russia at every opportunity? No bloody way. That will also lead to one really bad thing: Discrediting the concept of 'democracy' inside Russia proper.
If we behave in a more peaceful manner, care for our own business instead of provoking the Russians, things could go a lot easier. We could even - in concert with the Russians - deploy an anti-Iranian missile defense system in Azerbaidjan. Now, wouldn't that make sense?
Henrik,
Sure, Totten isn't everything. But he does show, unless solidly contested, that the Russians where the part initiating the conflict.
Totten's article is just propaganda lies taken directly from Saakashvili and the people who back him. I fail to see how you could swallow that hook, line and sinker. As so often with lies it's full of inner contradictions. And this one doesn't hold together good enough even to be a lie. And that's why CNN, Fox, etc. do not recycle it. It's does not even hold together as a propaganda lie. That's why it's only Totten who repeat it.
Supposedly Georgian troops entered South Ossetia to stop alleged Russian tanks coming through the Roki tunnel. And supposedly they just passed Tskhinvali on the way, bombing it to ruins, killing some 2,000 people, and forcing many more thousands to flee. Proudly declaring how their goal was to finish a "criminal regime", then proudly declaring how they captured several South Ossetian villages and surrounded the capital.
If you do not recognize a lie when you see one, there's nothing I can do. Have a look at a map. Totten and Saakashvili makes it sound as if there is no other way to get to the Roki tunnel but through Tskhinvali. This is as far from true as it can be. Going through Tskhinvali is perfectly the opposite of what Totten/Saakashvili claimed to be their objective, to get as fast to the Roki tunnel as possible to stop alleged Russian troops.
And it took two weeks before Saakashvili even came up with the idea of blaming the reason for his invasion on Russian troops coming through the Roki tunnel. During the invasion it was all talk about finishing a "criminal regime", and proudly declaring how they captured several South Ossetian villages and surrounded the capital, etc.
Obviously the objective of Saakashvili was not at all to stop any Russian tanks coming through the Roki tunnel. And since it's only brought up as part of this blatant propaganda lie (as a rationalization quite some time after the fact) it's reasonable to believe that there never were any Russians coming through the Roki tunnel in the first place.
PS. I have already written about it here with references.
CS wrote:
"But now that Americans are acting aggressively in Ukraine and Georgia, this description of yours is way out of proportion. If you do not understand the difference between Czech Republic and Ukraine in the NATO, you shouldn't even be commenting upon the issue."
While I acknowledge the differences between the Czech Republic and Ukraine, you are playing down the malevolence of Russia to a certain extent and exaggerating the sinister conspiracies initiated by George Soros. You know they tried to assassinate Yutschenko with dioxin and they run a rigged election to get Yanukovich elected.
There is another example neighboring both the Ukraine and the Baltic Republics called Belarus. This country is run a relic from the Communist past and is an example of a client state Russia would like to surround itself with: loyal, dependent and compliant.
If the Ukrainians and Georgians don't want that kind of future for themselves, I don't blame them.
And I don't think Russia has a legitimate reason to fear Orange revolution in Russia proper. Putin has things well under control and the oil and gas money just give him more confidence.
Vasarahammer,
You know they tried to assassinate Yutschenko with dioxin and they run a rigged election to get Yanukovich elected.
Yes, at that point Soros/NATO had the political theater going their way and they looked good. But now they have blown it and shown themselves for whom they really are.
Also regardless of the dirty power games from both sides, it's about the interest of the ordinary people of Ukraine, Georgia, etc. Western democracy is tyrannical and dangerous in the West, it's not different when exported to Ukraine and Georgia. It's not in the the interest of these people having McCain start another world war where their countries will be the battlefields.
Yes regardless of the dirty power games from both sides, it's about the interest of the ordinary people. Russians, Ukrainians, Georgians, Ossetians etc. should not be forever punished for the poisoning of Yutschenko. Like Western Europe has been forever punished and destroyed for the crimes of Adolf Hitler. Why have ordinary people pay for the crimes of the power game?
You look at the world through the über-ideological prism of the Soros theater, and fail to see the historical relations between Russia and Ukraine/Georgia. And then you will never be able to see the interests of the ordinary people (I'll refer again to the interview of Shevardnadze for some insights here).
Of course, there is no evidence that Yanukovich was behind the poisoning of Yutschenko. And in fact a former political ally of Yushchenko has come out witnessing how the whole thing was a fake -- there was no dioxin poisoning.
But by all means, build your whole world view based on that! That seems very sober and reasonable.
Zhvania: results of expertises on case of Yushchenko’s poisoning were falsified
“It was a mere food poisoning. The diagnose was determined yet on the first day, and every third person in the world often suffers from such poisonings. It is pancreatitis. On the day when he turned to doctors, all of them made this conclusion. I was present there. Later they decided that he must fly to Austria. I was opposed to that, as I was responsible for decisions, and I was one of the closest [to Yushchenko]. Because the proposed clinic had nothing in common with pancreatitis or anything similar. It was a cardiology center”
...
“Namely the version of Yushchenko’s poisoning appeared not in his head, but was thought out by his HQ members. And they made that statement. The statement was issued by Mr. Zinchenko, who was commissioned by the headquarters. At first, they said that it was a biological weapon, a chemical one. Does not matter – it was an emotional action”, D.Zhavia said.
...
Asked about analyses of the poisoning, he said that all the analyses were absolutely counterfeited.
Warhammer there is no differentiation in the power plays that either Russia or America plays. Sakashvili rose to power via his own revolution funded mostly by Western NGOs and foreign cash. He is a dictator by any definition of the word. He closes media outlets that have any hint of criticism of his govt. Protests of his election were brutally suppressed in this past election. An election which even Western observers questioned the validity of.
As Conservative Swede has pointed out Russia has very historic ties with Georgia and Ukraine. Stalin (a person many Russians wish to forget) was from Georgia. Ukraine speaks a very similar Slavic language to Russian. Ukraine has a very large ethnic Russian population. Ukraine's Kiev is the birthplace of the Russian Orthodox Church. How do you think Russia would feel if a superpower (one that's basically labeled it an enemy) tried to make a power play in these countries (Ukraine, Georgia) and turned them against it. The language coming out of Ukraine and Georgia are extremely anti Russian these days. Language like this is used just to appease their Western backers.
My point is that neither countries (Ameria, Russia) are altruistic in their motives. It boils down to national interest.
The Iranian scenario is not a logical outcome. A nuclear first strike by any country would mean self annihilation for the attacker. Russia is in most likelihood is using Iran as leverage with the West towards other issues. AQ Khan is Pakistani. Pakistan has been America's close ally in this region for 50 years. Pakistan is an extreme anti-Russian country one of the reason being India which was a Russian ally.
"There is another example neighboring both the Ukraine and the Baltic Republics called Belarus. This country is run a relic from the Communist past and is an example of a client state Russia would like to surround itself with: loyal, dependent and compliant."
As in Colombia, Guatemala, Panama and Nicaragua in the Americas? We already see the language used against Venezuela. A country which has had the audacity to decide that the American economic system is not for them.
D,
As Conservative Swede has pointed out Russia has very historic ties with Georgia and Ukraine.
And vice versa!
The Soviet Union fell apart according to unnatural border drawn by Lenin. Westerners are very impressed by borders drawn on a map. This is why they think there is a special people called the Palestinians (that coloured area on the map is evidence of that isn't it?). And look at how Iraq is treated as a natural entity that must be preserved. So Westerners think that any coloured area on a map is part of a natural order and correspond to a demos that should be funded by Soros.
Ukraine's Kiev is the birthplace of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Yes, there is definitely a parallel to Kosovo, if Ukraine is torn away from Russia.
My point is that neither countries (Ameria, Russia) are altruistic in their motives. It boils down to national interest.
No, America definitely is altruistic, and that is exactly the problem! And it's a militant, cynical, arrogant and corrupted altruism; but definitely altruism. There's no interest at all in it for the American people.
Acting in self-interest is the only way to act morally for a nation. Westerners have understood this principle when it comes to economy, that a system of private property is the only moral one. But have failed completely to understand that the same principle applies to states.
Thank you Baron!
Before reading the comments, my only regret is not had discovered this sooner.
But Baron, re-write what you wrote. According to your words, hem, better to say, your words make you a Russophile in the eyes of the Russophobes and a Russophile in the eyes of Russophiles.
Alas, a Russophile - excepting me who wants to believe that Russia can really save the West - is someone who looks at the trends reasonable.
That will sure bring you some criticism. I just hope that it will not cut off your readers (especially those Cold War nostalgist Americans or ex-Eastern European freedom fighters).
Thanks.
Swede
Thank you, I enjoyed reading
"Acting in self-interest is the only way to act morally for a nation. Westerners have understood this principle when it comes to economy, that a system of private property is the only moral one."
Even if it is wrong, it is a Principle and it needs to be discussed. Not many can formulate principles.
Thank you very much Avery Bullard for the words of that recntly gone Russian hero.
Words full of wisdom and truth.
----------------------
rwcg, that Totten guy is a stupid propagandist without vallues. Now, if you want to see Real People speaking, try this, former Georgian President
Get real! I am yet to read one objection from you that makes any sense.
Rcwg,
"This is not the Gates of Vienna I remember."
Perhaps, and more notoriously, this is not THE WORLD you remember...
*going at it fast*
------
--------------------
----------------------------------
I also liked Whiskey's conspiracy theory. I like conspiracy theories very, very much. However, I prefer "Loose Change":
Claiming that Russia wants to be surrounded by nuclear islamic states and is helping "AQ" to bomb American cities? Come on... give me a ...
"China, on the other hand, is America's natural ally on Islam"
Yeah right... this only proves my point that mass immigration, even if by the best immigrants on earth, like the East Asians is bad. I bet you're a Californian or such and this is a side efect of the Asian recent colonisation of the American Pacific Cost. They are good immigrants but (if America was to be a Nation, they would be) foreign non the least.
Henrik, mate:
You cannot say that "Russia started". This war officially started with the reaction of Russia to the Georgian attack on Russia's peacekeepers and citizens in South Ossetia. Period. No discussion aloud here.
But, if you really want to "dig in" who started I have to tell you that in the Caucasus, there are no good guys (well, the European-Christians) and the region is very tribal. We can argue back to the birth of Christ that Slavic tribes did that to proto-Georgian and so on. But, after the (last) Georgian independence, we can speak of Gimniakurdia, a pseudo-Nationalist Imperialst leader, like Saakashvili, who helped and founded the Chechens to ethnic cleans Chechnya from Slavic peoples. That guy, whose name I cannot written properly started it all. That's why we stick up to the "official" start of the war, and that's Georgian fault, Saakashvili's fault to be more precise.
Also, thank you Conservative Swede for those insights over the Ukrainian "not-poisoned" president. I always suspected it had poisoned him self but I did not had any proofs.
D, "Venezuela. A country which has had the audacity to decide that the American economic system is not for them." I want to believe that you do not know of what you are indeed talking about.
"No, America definitely is altruistic, and that is exactly the problem! And it's a militant, cynical, arrogant and corrupted altruism; but definitely altruism. There's no interest at all in it for the American people."
Brilliant, Swede! I am almost ashamed to say that this is truth, if only I was not in the West... I would not understand this.
"If the Ukrainians and Georgians don't want that kind of future for themselves, I don't blame them. "
In an important sense, it's hard to speak about "Ukrainians" as an entity. Ukraine is a deeply divided country. If Russia invades Ukraine tomorrow, the east Ukrainians will cheer it.
I guess I am a Russophile.
The imperialist thugs in the KGB government in Moscow must laugh at how pathetic we are. This site is supposed to be among the hard-edge of western patriots trying to make a stand for our civilization. Yet the prevailing voice in this thread is that of those who willingly "puppetize" themselves for the KGB-Regime, for a man [Putin] who considers 1989-1991 to be "The Worst Catastrophe of the 20th Century".
How many wars has Russia been in since the fall of the Soviet Union? How many has America been in the same time? If an alien from Mars was watching, which country do you think he would call imperialistic? I don't think we need to take these analogies any further.
Protestant,
I know, it sounds awfull.
However, you must understand what Putin meant by it. And believe me, it has nothing to do with Communism. Just as Solzhenitsyn noted:
"(...) the USSR broke up (... that's a ctastrophe because ...).
The real trouble, and a tangle for a long time to come, is that the breakup occurred along false Leninist borders, usurping from us entire Russian provinces. In several days, we lost 25 million ethnic Russians – 18 percent of our entire nation – and the government could not scrape up the courage even to take note of this dreadful event, a colossal historic defeat for Russia, and to declare its political disagreement with it."
Think about it.
Unlike Soviet Russia, the restored republics on her borders gave their Russian populations the right of free movement and the choice to return to Mother Russia. Very few availed themselves of this "opportunity" because frankly, the economic situation in the coerced provinces was better even at the height of Soviet power and remained so when they regained independence because of the native peoples' western orientation and excellent work ethic.
Those large populations of economic Russian migrants stayed for their own gain and are now an excuse for any invasion of a neighboring state that Putin wants to stage.
That's the practical reality behind the romanticized version of the Russian psyche being put forward here. It is a psyche that supported massive crimes against humanity over decades and interpreted those as part of Russian "greatness". That non-Russians who purport to be conservative want to join in this praise for the unforgivable is a shocker. Several even sigh for a "strong man like Putin". With such a strong man you also have a society like his. One can only shake one's head.
Post a Comment