Lonely Night in GeorgiaThe Bush administration's feckless response to the Russian invasion.
Posted Monday, Aug. 11, 2008, at 5:47 PM ET
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponRegardless of which side started this conflict, and quite apart from its tangled roots (read this and this, for starters), the crisis holds a few clear lessons for the next American president.
First, security commitments are serious things; don't make them unless you have the support, desire, and means to follow through.
Second, Russia is ruled by some nasty people these days, but they are not Hitler or Stalin, and they can't be expected to tolerate direct challenges from their border any more than an American president could from, say, Cuba. (This is not to draw any moral equations, only to point out basic facts.)
Third, the sad truth is that—in part because the Cold War is over, in part because skyrocketing oil prices have engorged the Russians' coffers—we have very little leverage over what the Russians do, at least in what they see as their own security sphere. And our top officials only announce this fact loud and clear when they issue ultimatums that go ignored without consequences.
In the short term, if an independent Georgia is worth saving, the Russians need some assurances—for instance, a pledge that Georgia won't be admitted into NATO or the European Union—in exchange for keeping the country and its elected government intact. (Those who consider this "appeasement" are invited to submit other ideas that don't lead either to Georgia's utter dismantlement or to a major war.)
If a newly expansive Russia is worth worrying about (and maybe it is), then it's time to bring back Washington-Moscow summitry. Relations have soured so intensely in recent years and over such peripheral issues (such as basing a useless missile-defense system in the Czech Republic) that a new president—not just his secretary of state, but the president himself—could do worse than sit down with Medvedev and/or Putin, if just to lay out issues of agreement and disagreement and then go from there. It's staggering that no such talks have taken place so far this century.
In the long term, the best way to take Russia down a notch (along with Iran, Venezuela, and other hostile powers overflowing with oil money) is to pursue policies and fund technologies that slash the demand for oil. The Georgia crisis should make clear, if it isn't already, that this is a matter of hard-headed national security.
The Tiger-Obama Cover Golf Digest Wishes It Could Unprint
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's Trial Will Be Fair Enough
AOL's Plan To Flood the Web With Idiotic Celebrity Content
Amazing Photos of Obama's Secret Service Agents at Work
If You Want To Fix Darfur, Fix Chad First
A Close Reading of the Victoria's Secret Christmas Catalog
Remarks from the Fray:
While I agree that all the tough talk coming from the administration has done nothing other than psych up Georgia into an overconfident pose, the situation is too serious to throw your hands in the air and give up.
On the one hand, [Kaplan] is right that lots of conservatives will cry appeasement, and offer no good plans of their own. Much like when talking about Iran, conservatives are likely to say that this or that is "unallowable" and "must not go unanswered"and leave it to the listener to ponder whether or not that means war.
What we should actually do is cut a short term behind-the-scenes deal to give Ossetia and Abhekazia independence (i.e. Russian control), and give an ultimatum that the government of Georgia must remain intact. As soon as the ceasefire is in effect, we should put peacekeepers and a moderate contingent of US forces into Georgia temporarily, while rebuilding and rearming Georgia. This is something that we can, in fact, get Europe to agree to and help foot the bill.
Forget the insignificant little provinces. Georgia matters, so focus on keeping that beachhead intact.
--jwschmidt
(To reply, click here.)
I have some suggestions: recall of our ambassador to Russia (for "consultations"), ramming through a mutual defense treaty with the Ukrainians ASAP, expulsion of Russia from the G-8, and/or the deployment of several hundred Marines to Tblisi to "secure the embassy," to name just a few things off the top of my head. Oh, and the administration should issue a heartfelt "Fuck you" to the Russians when they complain. Slap them down and slap them down hard--it should have been done as soon as Putin started his antics, but too many people in this country have been laboring under the delusion that Russia is a "partner."
(Actually, I suppose Russia could be considered a partner: the kind of partner who sleeps with your wife, embezzles all the company's money, and then flies off to Rio laughing all the way, but a partner nonetheless.)
Of course, I don't really expect the Bush Administration to do anything of a particularly forceful nature, as it has already shown a willingness to screw over in the name of "pragmatism" or "realism" those who were stupid enough to believe all the promotion of democracy talk. No, they'll just make the proper disapproving noises, put on their Darfur/Tibet/Burma frowny face, and six months from now it'll be business as usual.
--fenngibbon
(To reply, click here.)
I would think that the Russian move actually increases the chances of NATO expansion in the near abroad areas. Moldavia and the Ukraine in particular will become very interested in looking at the security umbrella NATO provides.
Second, the Russian move will further cement American and European relations with China, giving tactic encouragement to China's economic incursion into Siberia. Coupled with this will be the foreign policy moves made by the multinational corporations. The recent difficulties that Exxon and BP have had with Russian oil development will make them wary of future involvements in Russian energy projects, and we can expect that this will not only hasten the development of alternative energy sources but to drop barriers on things like Brazilian ethanol and liquefied petroleum gases.
Also, if ever there was an argument for withdrawing from Iraq and healing our damaged military resources, this is a wake up call. The neocons should be leading the charge to accelerate withdrawal from Iraq so that we can focus our military forces on other parts of the world. […]
Tough talk against the Russians might make us feel good temporarily, but it's important that the United States take a longer term, more realistic perspective towards Russia than what the Bush administration has done.
--old new lefty
(To reply, click here.)
The West's job now is not to get caught up in the waves of hysterical indignation and nationalist theatrics, or worse, to allow itself to be drawn into a geo-political melodrama that could easily spin out of control, with President Saakashvili playing the role of a latter day, and very faux, Archduke Ferdinand. The Russians will withdraw once they have secured their interests and those of their protégés in the two "breakaway" republics.
And if the West wants to "save" Georgia, it would do well to support a "regime change" in that country that would lead to real democracy, real transparency, real freedom and prosperity, that is, to deny itself the superficial and fatal -- to innocent bystanders -- satisfaction of allowing a dubious marionette to hold power in Tbilisi for the sole purpose of bloody-mindedly antagonizing Moscow.
--MarkEHaag
(To reply, click here.)
(8/16)