Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Reason Writers Around Town: Cathy Young on Russia
At The
Weekly Standard, Contributing Editor Cathy Young explains why
the West should not be blamed for Russia's slide into belligerent
authoritarianism under Vladimir Putin.
TallDave|8.26.08 @ 12:20PM|#
Russia doesn't worry me much. Another ten years of strong
economic growth, and they'll be back on a liberalizing trend.
South Ossetia doesn't mean much. Mostly what they're accomplishing
is to push the Ukraine and Poland into the arms of the West.
Elemenope|8.26.08 @ 12:25PM|#
I just gotta know, where are all these ridiculous action shots of Putin coming from?
|8.26.08 @ 12:26PM|#
Reason definitely doesn't pay enough if its writers have to go slumming in The Weekly Standard.
|8.26.08 @ 12:33PM|#
"I just gotta know, where are all these ridiculous action shots
of Putin coming from?"
Vlad's propaganda machine, of course. You know he really want's to
be 007 and not the new Czar.
shecky|8.26.08 @ 12:45PM|#
I have a feeling that many Americans, under the same circumstances, would feel quite humiliated. I'm not sure exactly what it all says. My guess is that it simply reaffirms the notion that many in the West, Americans in particular, are quite willing to rattle sabres for any reason, or none at all, at any perception of being slighted.
|8.26.08 @ 1:06PM|#
I think the West needs to keep in mind that Russia is not some
schlepp country that can be pushed around easily. Dictator Bush
better get off his high horse!
RD
http://www.useurl.us/17n
|8.26.08 @ 1:23PM|#
Me thinks that Ms. Young is not telling the whole story. THe comparison that she makes between how the West treated militarily defeated Nazi Germany and how it treated the USSR's dissolution is inapposite. Nazi Germany had been defeated on the battelfield after having inflicted hundreds of thousands of casualties on Anglo-American forces, whereas the Soviets had not been defeated militarily and had not just inflicted casualties on americans. Quite simply, the US was not in a postion to force kangaroo show trials like Nuremburg. Furthermore, the russians themselves tore down monuments dedicated to the likes of Dzerzhinsky.
Warty|8.26.08 @ 1:52PM|#
I don't believe that is a Mak, Episarch, unless it's some
barrel-extended version that I wasn't aware of. Compare the picture
with the one at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makarov_PM.
God, I wish I was home now so I could consult my 20th century small
arms bible. I must know what that gun is.
Mad Ivan|8.26.08 @ 2:25PM|#
I have seen both Sakharov and Bonner speaking when the
"perestroyka" started. With all due respect for Sakharov's moral
courage, he was absolutely clueless about politics, or anything
that was not connected to theoretical physics. And Bonner even less
so.
Of course we all know that West is never to blame for anything, and
Russians are always evil because they are evil imperial Russians,
but honestly I expected better from Mrs. Young...
|8.26.08 @ 2:30PM|#
I think it is a Stechkin APS. Pretty sure.
http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg22-e.htm
|8.26.08 @ 2:44PM|#
You can't say anything bad about a country that could provide me with a "Stunning Russian Girl" today!!
|8.26.08 @ 2:45PM|#
I'm not one to agree with Ms. Young on most things. But I think
some of you are missing the point of the article.
As she pointed out, Russia wasn't "humiliated" in the way Germany
was and yet Germany got over it. So what's Russia's problem?
They are acting like a bunch of whiny kids. Unfortunately they also
have nukes. Which means everyone has to act like they're
adults.
jtuf|8.26.08 @ 2:46PM|#
Blaming current Russian agression and past German agression on humiliation does not make sense. After WWI, Germany was down, but the Austrian-Hungarian Empire was dismantled. If humiliation alone fueled agression, than Czechoslovakia would have invaded Germany.
Mad Ivan|8.26.08 @ 2:52PM|#
Pain -- the point, such as it may be, is that Russia was humiliated, unlike Germany, without being defeated. Quite often it was being humiliated for things done by a different country that doesn't even exist anymore. And now it feels that it can get over it and wouldn't be pushed around like before... So the question is, really, what's West's problem with it?
|8.26.08 @ 3:01PM|#
Humiliated without being defeated is exactly right. Nazi Germany was gone before we got around to the Nuremburg trials, because the whole point of Nazism was that Hitler had a way to make Germany strong and dominant; being crushed by democracies ended the rationale for Nazism all by itself. The collapse of the Soviet Union happened without the Soviet Union being decisively beaten, making it more like Germany's defeat in WW1
TallDave|8.26.08 @ 3:02PM|#
So the question is, really, what's West's problem with
it?
Invading a democracy tends to piss off the other democracies.
South Ossetia's situation is probably closer to Texas' than
Czechoslovakia's. I don't think we have to worry much unless they
try to topple the gov't in Tbilisi.
|8.26.08 @ 3:03PM|#
Mad Ivan | August 26, 2008, 2:25pm | #
I have seen both Sakharov and Bonner speaking when the "perestroyka" started. With all due respect for Sakharov's moral courage, he was absolutely clueless about politics, or anything that was not connected to theoretical physics. And Bonner even less so.
Of course we all know that West is never to blame for anything, and Russians are always evil because they are evil imperial Russians, but honestly I expected better from Mrs. Young...
I was wondering when the KGB disinformation branch would put in an
appearance.
Russia has always been whiny - even back to Czarist days. They
can't seem to grasp that the wounds are self-inflicted. As
individuals, the Russians are no different than any other people;
Russian governments, however, cannot seem to break the habit of
authoritarianism.
The current resource boom will run its course, then Russia will be
broke again. Anybody who invests in Russia is a fool, the
kleptocrats in charge will steal anything the investor puts in.
Mad Ivan|8.26.08 @ 3:08PM|#
TallDave -- This might be true, assuming that a) Georgia were
much more of a democracy than Russia is (not quite) and if Russia
actually invaded it. That doesn't seem to have happened
either.
Aresen -- Hmmm, I think I should go look where my KGB paycheck is.
Since you obviously know more about Russia than any Russian, may be
you can tell me where it is?
|8.26.08 @ 3:12PM|#
700 years ago, what we now call Russia was a small state,
roughly encompassing Moscow and its surrounding area (which was
about the size of Pennsylvania). Since then they have expanded like
some science fiction monster, sucking in more than 100 ethnic
groups and occupying half of the Eurasian continent. Aside from the
Mongols, no entity has ever created such a massive empire of
conquered peoples; however, their dominion (unlike that of the
Mongols) continues to this day. Vladimir Putin is simply trying to
pick up the torch.
The history of Russia is a long history of external agression and
internal repression. In particular, they having been launching wars
against the nations of eastern Europe for more than five hundred
years, and they now consider it a "provocation" that those same
nations are simply trying to protect themselves from future
invasions.
Those who weep for the Russians have the same attitude that the
appeasers of the 1930's had: It is only natural that strong
countries should oppress weak countries, and the weak countries
should accept their suppression rather than trouble the world with
their problems. Their beleifs are akin to the twisted logic of
Social Darwinism that treated the "lower" races of the earth as
deserving of conquest because of their technological backwardness.
Or, perhaps, it is simply the worship of power. Whatever it is, it
sucks.
Mad Ivan|8.26.08 @ 3:17PM|#
john brown -- and let's say Poland had never attacked Russia.
Right.
And if you want historical excurses, care to check how many
conquered, occupied, repressed minorities are left in Russia, and
how many Indians in the US? Not that it meant much, of
course...
I wonder how soon will people start jumping from windows screaming
"Russians are coming!"...
|8.26.08 @ 3:26PM|#
I have a Mak, it's not a Makarov.
I also go with the selective fire Stechkin . .
Shoots the same funny 9x 18 ammo as the Mak, though.
|8.26.08 @ 3:40PM|#
I'm gonna third my own motion. Its a stechkin, and come to think
of it, I want one.
http://guns.wikia.com/wiki/Stechkin_APS
TallDave|8.26.08 @ 3:53PM|#
The current resource boom will run its course, then Russia
will be broke again
Actually, for all of the problems Russia has, the non-energy
economy is booming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_russia#Economic_history.2C_1996-present
Putin is probably more of a Pinochet than a Stalin.
TallDave|8.26.08 @ 3:56PM|#
TallDave -- This might be true, assuming that a) Georgia
were much more of a democracy than Russia is (not quite)
Their relative democratic qualities aren't important; we
can't invade Canada just because we're both democracies.
Other Matt|8.26.08 @ 4:08PM|#
I'm gonna third my own motion. Its a stechkin, and come to
think of it, I want one.
I'll fourth both of those statements.
|8.26.08 @ 4:08PM|#
WTF? Russia was humiliated? Did they have to kiss the rings of
the crowned heads of Europe? Were they required to publicly declare
their own culpability in the deaths of tens of millions?
The important thing to recognize is that Russia is full of damned
Russians. They will ALWAYS have a chip on their
shoulder.
|8.26.08 @ 4:34PM|#
I don't think we have to worry much unless they try to
topple the gov't in Tbilisi.
The continued Russian quasi-occupation has that exact goal in mind
- discredit the current government, disrupt the country, and ensure
that whatever comes next is under its thumb.
This might be true, assuming that a) Georgia were much more of
a democracy than Russia is (not quite) and if Russia actually
invaded it. That doesn't seem to have happened either.
Wow. Is Mad Ivan juanita trying out a new nom de troll? I don't
think anyone is claiming that Russia didn't invade Georgia; they're
just arguing about whether it was justified.
Probably not. Its looking like the whole thing
was a set up by the Russians and their Ossetian cats-paws.
Mad Ivan|8.26.08 @ 4:36PM|#
TallDave -- then I am not getting what you are getting. US can't
invade Canada _because_ both are democracies? I think there are
somewhat different reasons there...
J sub -- if you are being serious, then yes, from inside Russia
that's pretty much how it looked...
|8.26.08 @ 5:00PM|#
They are acting like a bunch of whiny kids. Unfortunately they also
have nukes. Which means everyone has to act like they're
adults.
Lies. What IS going on is that the US and NATO have been provoking
the sleeping giant with really stupid alliances with her bordering
neighbors, placing missiles in Poland under an absurd pretext,
giving comfort to an authoritarian prick that decided to invade a
separatist province first. The Russians may have a pragmatic son of
a bitch as a prime minister, but that does not excuse the really
dumb policies the US and NATO are following, especially that
missile deal with Poland.
|8.26.08 @ 5:09PM|#
Mad Ivan,
I think you , and others, are conflating motive with
justification.
Maybe Russia is humiliated. That does not give them the right to
invade another (albeit corrupt) democracy to make them feel
better.
That would be like if some big guy shoved you and you fell in a
puddle and everyone laughed at you. Then you went home and went
over to your neighbors house and wrecked up the place to make
yourself feel better. One may explain the other but it doesn't
justify it.
Regardless of how Russia felt they were treated after the Cold War
does not give them an out to bully their neighbors whenever they
feel mopey.
|8.26.08 @ 5:27PM|#
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiNfiDkVDTA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k50k8C8TFJc
Never thought I'd need to wear a condom while sitting at my desk at
work....
|8.26.08 @ 5:38PM|#
bigbigslacker, Warty
Sweeet . .. I want one with the shoulder stock/holster. --Looks
like the browning Hi-power with it's wooden holster/stock.
|8.26.08 @ 5:39PM|#
bigbigslacker
. . . and you have to love the 70's porn music/ slo mo video on the
second youtube clip.
Too funny.
|8.26.08 @ 5:40PM|#
I mostly agree with TallDave on this.
I doubt Russia wants to have some kind of second cold war. They
have no ideological reason (not even an ostensible ideological
reason) to oppose the type of system in place in the US and the
west. They are not in a position to form an anti-western bloc with
anything near the strength of the old communist bloc. And they can
almost certainly obtain more wealth/prestige/etc by cooperating
with the west and the international community.
The Ossetia conflict does not provide a rationale for further
general warfare. The status of Ossetia has been in dispute since
before Georgia even became independent. Even if Georgia loses its
breakaway provinces, it would not give Russia the ability to
undermine Georgia's sovereignty over undisputed Georgian territory.
And it's a big step from this type of thing to Russia unilaterally
annexing former Soviet republics - or anything remotely similar
DannyK|8.26.08 @ 5:42PM|#
Is the U.S. really going to go to war over small countries in
Central Asia that are on Russia's border?
Or are we going to recognize that, like the U.S. and China, Russia
has a sphere of influence that they take seriously?
I realize that the neocons are still looking for the perfect enemy
to justify their permanent state of war (the Chinese hold too many
debts, and the Arabs aren't fun any more), but I don't see why
normal Americans should play along.
Mad Ivan|8.26.08 @ 6:17PM|#
RC -- same old... when notjhing else works, drag out the
personalities (and I am _not_ Juanita in any case).
Pain -- Russia's motives are like those of any other power here --
protecting their neigbourhoods from hostiles. From an "everybody's
doing it" standpoint Russia has at leats as many justifications
here as US, if not more. In this particular case, Georgia gave them
justifications for much more than what Russia did.
|8.26.08 @ 6:19PM|#
Lies. What IS going on is that the US and NATO have been
provoking the sleeping giant with really stupid alliances with her
bordering neighbors,
I don't see what reason Russia has to categorically object to that.
NATO is not engaging, and does not intend to engage, in aggressive
acts against Russia.
placing missiles in Poland under an absurd pretext,
What is so absurd about setting up a missile defense system to
prevent Iran from having the ability to launch a nuclear strike
against any European cities, in the event that they get nuclear
weapons? The defense system would only take out a small percentage
of Russia's nukes if they launched an all out first strike - but
there is virtually no chance of that happening anyway because of
deterrence. (However, if the religious leadership of Iran is
sufficiently crazy and inclined towards martyrdom, they might be
plausible candidates to launch a half a dozen nukes or so.)
giving comfort to an authoritarian prick that decided to invade
a separatist province first.
I'll grant that Saakshivili is probably an authoritarian prick who
escalated the situation in Ossetia. But US support is not so much
for *him* as it is for the cause of human rights and the rule of
law in Georgia. In those respects, the country has shown some
progress. And the rule of law will be helped if there is a peaceful
transfer of power from him to the next person, rather than some
kind of coup.
Mad Ivan|8.26.08 @ 6:52PM|#
BG -- from Russian point of view, NATO had already shown that it
is a) an aggressive organization (viz. Kosovo) and that it is aimed
against Russia (viz. admittance of Baltic states etc.).
Placing interceptors in Poland for a (very) theoretical launch from
Iran isn't exactly optimal, and Iran has far less beef with Europe
than it has with the US in any case. It _is_ a nice location for
intercepting Russian missiles though, and where there are 10
interceptors, there can be a hundred... To be honest I do not think
mullahs are anywhere near that suicidal...
While US support _might_ be for rule of law etc. in Georgia
(although based on precedent I have my doubts that being friendly
to the US is not an overriding reason), but Saakishvili is an
authoritarian nationalistic prick (and not too bright, at that),
and all of his speeches since this whole mess started shows that at
leadst he was counting on US backing. So there must have been at
least some signs that he (mis)interpreted as such...
B|8.26.08 @ 9:37PM|#
"Russia doesn't worry me much. Another ten years of strong
economic growth, and they'll be back on a liberalizing
trend."
Indeed, just like what has happened in China. As we all know, China
is a full-fledged liberal democracy now.
B|8.26.08 @ 9:39PM|#
"TallDave -- This might be true, assuming that a) Georgia were
much more of a democracy than Russia is (not quite) and if Russia
actually invaded it. That doesn't seem to have happened
either."
Russia didn't invade Georgia? I guess all those tanks and troops
that were filmed on Georgian soil were actually filmed in a TV
studio, just like the moon landing.
B|8.26.08 @ 9:42PM|#
"I realize that the neocons are still looking for the perfect
enemy to justify their permanent state of war..."
Do people on this site just make up shit as they go along about the
neocons? It sure as hell seems that way.
|8.26.08 @ 10:02PM|#
Mad Ivan
BG -- from Russian point of view, NATO had already shown that
it is a) an aggressive organization (viz. Kosovo) and that it is
aimed against Russia (viz. admittance of Baltic states
etc.).
I think its a stretch to argue that Kosovo makes NATO "an
aggressive organization - given the humanitarian issues involved
and the limited natire of their operation. And why does admission
of the Baltic States make the alliance "aimed against Russia". Do
they fear that they will be victims of Latvian Imperialism or
something?
togolosh|8.26.08 @ 10:31PM|#
One thing that rarely comes up in these discussions is the fact
that Russia has genuine fear of being invaded. It's happened a
bunch of times over the course of history. There's sort of a
default assumption that the Russians just instinctively know that
the US/NATO won't start a preemptive war to grab Russian resources
and subjugate the Russian people. That assumption is wrong.
Look at what the US is doing w.r.t. missile defense. Pretty much
the kind of thing you'd do in order to neutralize a Russian second
strike after a surprise attack, isn't it? We're playing directly
into their paranoia.
Internationale|8.26.08 @ 10:34PM|#
Hey, wow. This is much more fun than the BBC "HYS" page. Less Moonbats and more guns. Thanks for the links bigbigslacker, there goes my afternoon.
|8.26.08 @ 11:30PM|#
"They have no ideological reason (not even an ostensible
ideological reason) to oppose the type of system in place in the US
and the west."
Most of Putin's power structure is comprised of former KGB members
and their ideological descendants. They believe that the USSR would
never have fallen if only Andropov had lived long enough to fully
implement the KGB's vision of reform.
There were many versions of Soviet "reform" during the 1980's and
Gorbachev's path of increased openness was literally the absolute
last thing to be attempted. I think Young hit on something worth
considering with regards to Germany and its varying humiliations--
there is a very interesting parallel to be drawn between post-WWI
Germany and post-Cold War Russia. Both countries emerged from
authoritarian rule and conflict into periods of weak liberalism and
economic instability. Both countries had segments of their
population who believed ardently that they hadn't really lost so
much as they had been betrayed.
Putin's ideology is one of state control and Russian power.
Everything since Gorbachev is viewed through the prism of national
disaster. He continues to exert direct control on the central
government, I don't think anyone has any doubts remaining regarding
that. Equally importantly, his former KGB brethren control a
staggering breadth of the Russian landscape- the FSB, the military,
the media, critical elements of the economy (the uncooperative
oligarchs were crushed, but the economic structures themselves were
not dismantled, merely "restaffed" so to speak), the police,
regional governments, etc.
Putin is no fool and it is by no accident that he is carefully
maneuvering his country back to the path he feels it strayed from
some 24 years ago.
Nevertheless every unfortunate thing Russia does must be America's
fault, because we failed to fully consider Russia's
feelings. Pardon me if I'm disinclined to send any dirt
and water to Putin's pity party.
Marian Kechlibar|8.27.08 @ 4:55AM|#
A comment on this from an (already safe) Central Europe.
Somehow, the Russian people seem not to understand that their past
or present military actions were not appreciated by the nations on
the receiving end.
For example, I have heard on more than one occassion (and it always
involved some vodka, so I believe in sincerety of that comment)
reasoning like this: "You Czechs are ungrateful bastard bitches.
Not only we saved you from the Nazis (true), but we also HELPED you
in 1968 to smash the bandits*, and all you do now is to flee to the
American side."
The fact that the 1968's "bandits" was a reformist commit
leadership that introduced pluralism, and that the whole nation
viewed the invasion as rape of the country, does not come to their
minds.
I heard the same kind of "ungratefulness" hostility on the address
of the Baltic nations: "we Russians saved them from fascism, we
built houses for the poor, and they hate us, ungrateful bitches.
They need some good smacking for that." The Stalin's genocide which
reduced the native populations by 20-25% in just 10 years, is, of
course, never mentioned, or pronounced 'a dirty lie'.
Maybe this is a product of extremely biased media and books in
Russia. Guilt for past sins, so frequent in the West, is taboo in
Russia. Denial rules. In Russian imagination, Russia has no sins on
its hands. It was always betrayed, attacked, spat on. Somehow,
during this process, they acquired several million square
kilometers of territory and vasal states, somehow...
Contrast to the Germans is striking. The Germans do not have any
illusions about their former violent rule of the eastern lands, and
no one there would call the Poles or the Czechs 'ungrateful' for
fighting against the Reich.
Marian Kechlibar|8.27.08 @ 4:57AM|#
BTW some people even here buy Russian line hook-and-sinker. My
coworker, a theoretical physicist, a very intelligent person, is so
biased that he takes the Russian side almost reflexively in any
situation.
The reason probably is that he is strongly impressed by violent
capable thugs who do not follow conventions - from Al Capone thru
Fidel to Putin - no matter how many dead people lay in their track
- so no wonder that he sounds like the British Stalinist
intelligentsia of 1935.
I think that the impression which someone as brazen and as cold as
Putin makes on some people should not be discounted. The
everlasting worship of the 'fuehrer'.
|8.27.08 @ 8:29AM|#
Most of Putin's power structure is comprised of former KGB
members and their ideological descendants. They believe that the
USSR would never have fallen if only Andropov had lived long enough
to fully implement the KGB's vision of reform.
There were many versions of Soviet "reform" during the 1980's
and Gorbachev's path of increased openness was literally the
absolute last thing to be attempted. I think Young hit on something
worth considering with regards to Germany and its varying
humiliations-- there is a very interesting parallel to be drawn
between post-WWI Germany and post-Cold War Russia. Both countries
emerged from authoritarian rule and conflict into periods of weak
liberalism and economic instability. Both countries had segments of
their population who believed ardently that they hadn't really lost
so much as they had been betrayed.
Weren't most Russian also celebrating when the USSR collapsed? The
country even considered a bid for NATO entry at one point.
And during the cold war, the government of the Soviet Union - and
its allied states' governments - had been fighting to advance a
totalitarian ideology. The majority of Russians (as I understand)
liked having their newly-obtained freedom after this ideology
"lost". World War I, by contrast, was more like an accidental
conflict where countries were drawn in because alliances - which
also took on the characteristic of being a war influence and
control over colonies.
And there was no "Treaty of Versailles" imposed on Russia by
victorious outside powers. The breakup of the communist bloc
occurred mostly due to forces from within.
Overzealous nationalism and maintaining ties with pro-Russian
enclaves nearby is one thing. Restarting the Cold War is something
else
|8.27.08 @ 8:50AM|#
And it's a big step from this type of thing to Russia
unilaterally annexing former Soviet republics - or anything
remotely similar
The same thing will happen in the Ukraine where most people oppose
further NATO involvement despite the interest of the government in
same. Russia will "defend its passport holders" there - Ukraine
will be partitioned with half going to Russia.
---
Marian's comments are very perceptive.
|8.27.08 @ 9:47AM|#
BG,
I think its a stretch to argue that Kosovo makes NATO "an
aggressive organization - given the humanitarian issues involved
and the limited natire of their operation.
Maybe, but the unilateral recognition of Kosovo's independence was
certainly a bad move. Bush should have worked out some double-speak
to keep their legal status unclear while they enjoyed de-facto self
rule, like Taiwan. That was just a gratuitous poke in the eye.
|8.27.08 @ 10:58AM|#
Maybe, but the unilateral recognition of Kosovo's
independence was certainly a bad move. Bush should have worked out
some double-speak to keep their legal status unclear while they
enjoyed de-facto self rule, like Taiwan. That was just a gratuitous
poke in the eye.
You have a point, although I don't know if I'd call the Kosovo
recognition "unilateral" since other countries recognized it
besides the US.
On an earlier thread I floated the idea of partitioning Kosovo -
with the Northern, mostly Serb part being allowed to remain part of
Serbia. Perhaps that could be accomplished by some kind of
district-by-district set of referendums. That would allow the
borders to be drawn in a way that is (relatively) reflective of
what people in those areas want.
Georgia may have to give up South Ossetia, or at least part of it.
Same with the other breakaway province (which I won't try to spell
right now). Maybe some kind of district-voting system should be
proposed there.
Mad Ivan|8.27.08 @ 11:29AM|#
B -- So... they came in, dcefeated the invaders, and got out,
with some security buffers. Not quite an invasion, with troops
marching on Tbilisi and dragging Saakishvili from a spider
hole...
BG -- Humanitarian. Right. And Russia hit Georgia for humanitarian
reasons, too. NATO did attack Serbia, which was not threatening any
alliance member. Looks pretty aggressive to me...
|8.27.08 @ 12:11PM|#
The same thing will happen in the Ukraine where most people
oppose further NATO involvement despite the interest of the
government in same. Russia will "defend its passport holders" there
- Ukraine will be partitioned with half going to Russia.
Is there any province in Ukraine that has been trying to secede
since the country got independence? Even in Crimea, which has
unusually strong pro-Russian sentiment, most people voted for
Ukrainian independence in the early 1990s.
|8.27.08 @ 12:23PM|#
BG -- Humanitarian. Right. And Russia hit Georgia for
humanitarian reasons, too. NATO did attack Serbia, which was not
threatening any alliance member. Looks pretty aggressive to
me...
Is it your contention that there were no humanitarian issues
involved? Or tht NATO would have acted the same even if there
hadn't been any?
Mad Ivan|8.27.08 @ 12:41PM|#
BG -- AFAIK, Eastern portions of Ukraine and Crimea haven't
tried to secede yet, but it might become a possibility. People
there have far more in common with Russia than with Western
Ukrainians.
My contention is that there were _some_ humanitarian issues but far
fewer than in any number of other places at the same time, and they
were nowhere near as black and white as they were made out to
be.
Without going into the whole "Serbs did that, and Albanians did
this" I believe that may be NATO would not have started bombing
without being able to present a justification, as tenous as it has
been, but manufacturing htem has never been much of an issue. So
yes, NATO probably would have done that regardless of there being
any real humanitarian crizis or not. One would have simply been
made...
|8.27.08 @ 5:03PM|#
"""Invading a democracy tends to piss off the other
democracies."""
Only if the other democracies like the one being invaded.
Otherwise, they don't really care.
"""But US support is not so much for *him* as it is for the cause
of human rights and the rule of law in Georgia"""
Really? When was the last time we really supported those? The
right-wing has framed human rights a something the liberals would
cry about, and neither side has much respect for the rule of law in
this country. Hell, the Bush admin has argued against both.
|8.27.08 @ 5:11PM|#
Before we talk about what NATO can do, look back at the history of what it has tried to do. Failed peace keeping missions. Failing in Afghanstan. Clinton talked the major NATO players in providing aircraft for Yugoslovia. But we did most of the work. NATO can't accomplish crap without a major nation leading the way. We use to laugh at the NATO blue helmets.
DannyK|8.27.08 @ 7:44PM|#
As I mentioned on another thread, folks seem to assume that the
rest of NATO will fall in behind the U.S. in confronting Russia. As
TrickyVic points out, our gallant NATO allies have shown very
little enthusiasm for all of those out-of-area missions we've got
them into.
Are the Germans really going to jump at the chance to fight the
Russians for the 3rd time in a hundred years? The last time the
Germans tried to secure Baku, it didn't go so well. Are they going
to jeopardize their energy supplies? And all for countries that
aren't even on a path to join Nato.
It's not going to happen, my friends. NATO will deliberate and
muddle and mediate until President Bush/McCain bypasses them and
jury-rigs another "coalition of the willing".
Marian Kechlibar|8.28.08 @ 5:18AM|#
Danny, NATO is too big to act as "one man, one voice".
Players like Germany and Britain feel like having their own
policies too.
That said, Germans realize their own military weakness very well,
and I would not dare to predict how their attitude will turn
out.
The German Left is pro-Russian, and this attitude has been
augmented by former GDR communists from PDS. Former GDR had a very
strict communist regime, and the share of "true believers" was
significant. But Western German leftists are often also
pro-Russian, because pro-Russian equals anti-American, and this
card plays well with some parts of the electorate.
The German (democratic, I am not talking about totalitarian
fringes) Right is pretty much commited to the transatlantic
alliances. It also seems to be aware of the fact that they cannot
throw Slavic Central Europe to the Russian bear without suffering
significant trouble themselves. The existence of big buffer zone
between Russia and Germany is advantageous for both of them.
German electorate is, in last 10 years, almost perfectly split
between left and right. Minuscule differences determine election
results (as low as 0,5%), and therefore also foreign policy of
Germany. So, I would refrain from prophesies.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245