Of course the neo-cons weren't going to advocate sending the US army in to confront Russia, and if they had would you have given them credit for 'consistency' if they had? If they had urged an all-out conflagration with NATO surely we would call them insane.
Was Georgia really so niave as to rely on WSJ editorials and conservative foreign policy think tanks in making its moves? I doubt it, they gambled and lost and their stupidity does not excuse Russian aggression.
Who cares what the neo-cons were saying, the question is. What's Europe going to do about this?
The head neocon cheerleader is still trying to save Georgia's naïve ass, and he's using a very big forum to make his case:
Op-Ed Columnist - Will Russia Get Away With It? - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com
Will the United States put real pressure on Russia to stop? In a news analysis on Sunday, the New York Times reporter Helene Cooper accurately captured what I gather is the prevailing view in our State Department: "While America considers Georgia its strongest ally in the bloc of former Soviet countries, Washington needs Russia too much on big issues like Iran to risk it all to defend Georgia." But Georgia, a nation of about 4.6 million, has had the third-largest military presence -- about 2,000 troops -- fighting along with U.S. soldiers and marines in Iraq. For this reason alone, we owe Georgia a serious effort to defend its sovereignty. Surely we cannot simply stand by as an autocratic aggressor gobbles up part of -- and perhaps destabilizes all of -- a friendly democratic nation that we were sponsoring for NATO membership a few months ago. For that matter, consider the implications of our turning away from Georgia for other aspiring pro-Western governments in the neighborhood, like Ukraine's. Shouldn't we therefore now insist that normal relations with Russia are impossible as long as the aggression continues, strongly reiterate our commitment to the territorial integrity of Georgia and Ukraine, and offer emergency military aid to Georgia?
Will the United States put real pressure on Russia to stop? In a news analysis on Sunday, the New York Times reporter Helene Cooper accurately captured what I gather is the prevailing view in our State Department: "While America considers Georgia its strongest ally in the bloc of former Soviet countries, Washington needs Russia too much on big issues like Iran to risk it all to defend Georgia."
But Georgia, a nation of about 4.6 million, has had the third-largest military presence -- about 2,000 troops -- fighting along with U.S. soldiers and marines in Iraq. For this reason alone, we owe Georgia a serious effort to defend its sovereignty. Surely we cannot simply stand by as an autocratic aggressor gobbles up part of -- and perhaps destabilizes all of -- a friendly democratic nation that we were sponsoring for NATO membership a few months ago.
For that matter, consider the implications of our turning away from Georgia for other aspiring pro-Western governments in the neighborhood, like Ukraine's. Shouldn't we therefore now insist that normal relations with Russia are impossible as long as the aggression continues, strongly reiterate our commitment to the territorial integrity of Georgia and Ukraine, and offer emergency military aid to Georgia?
Have their been an LTE's written on this topic that could be recycled to respond to this column? Cynicism is intellectual treason.
When the "civilized world" expostulated with Russia about Georgia in 1924, the Soviet regime was still weak. In Germany, Hitler was in jail. Only 16 years later, Britain stood virtually alone against a Nazi-Soviet axis. Is it not true today, as it was in the 1920s and '30s, that delay and irresolution on the part of the democracies simply invite future threats and graver dangers?
They will apply this worn-out drek to any situation, any time, to justify warmongering.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
I want to comment on this.
Is Kristol aware, that the Nazis and the Soviets were enemies, not allies? Is he aware, that the Soviet Union had ~ 300 times as many losses in WW II than the US?
And to his appeasement indications. What would have happened, if GB would have declared war on Germany, instead of appeasing? Isn't it possible, that the fascists and the democratic countries would have fought war until complete exhaustion, and then the Soviets take over all of Europe? We don't know, but isn't it possible, that Chamberlain rescued the free world, by letting the biests attack each other instead of fighting them both?
Maybe some historic more educated people can comment on that. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
Anyone? Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
They aren't arguing. They are advertising. And advertisement works by repetition, endless repetition. One small screwup - even a major screwup like this one - is as unimportant as a faulty transmission of a soap ad. There are thousands of other repetitions to fall back on.
Historical insight (or basic intelligence, for that matter) isn't necessary to spew talking points, and they have better uses for the educated, intelligent cadre, so the idiots get to go on TV.
Between Fall Weiss (Poland - fall 1939) and Operation Barbarossa (USSR - summer 1941), the USSR and Nazi Germany were indeed the next best thing to allied. Of course, just three years earlier, the USSR had been allied to France... And indeed the USSR ended up fighting and defeating Nazi Germany (the British and American effort in the European theatre was... underwhelming, and France had been effectively knocked out in the fall of 1940).
So Kristol is technically correct when he says that there was a Soviet-German alliance in 1940. But incredibly disingenuous at the same time.
And calling it a Nazi-Soviet Axis is the next best thing to an outright lie. The Axis in Europe was the vertical line between Rome and Berlin (AFAIK, Mussolini was the first to use the term Rome-Berlin Axis publicly in a speech in (IIRC) 1937 - the idea was that all of Europe would "revolve around the Axis" between Berlin and Rome). Precisely how Japan got into the Axis is unclear to me, but it's probably a combination of the fact that they were in the Anti-Comintern Pact and the fact that they were "not in the Allies."
But of course, people like Kristol would probably really rather forget the Italian fascists, considering how much the Americans cooperated with them in the postwar years...
Perhaps, then, we might understand how it came about that Georgia was not naive, yet gambled and lost out of stupidity.
As to what Europe, meaning the EU and its constituent nations, should do. Sanctions? A committment to alternative energy? (which I take from Jerome)using the built-in European majority to remove Russia from G8. Putting pressure on Georgia to allow self-determination to its people, while urging Russia to do the same with its regions?
As to Georgia's stupidity. It wasn't stupid to calculate that Russia's response would be limited - that might have been right on the balance of probabilities, the stupidity was in not appreciating the consequences if their calculations were wrong. But I still don't think they expected NATO to come swinging into the region, whatever Kristol was telling them. They were stupid, but not THAT stupid.
Perhaps, yes, in a parallel universe.
In this one, however, when Russia tells you up front, ahead of time, before you start mowing down S. Ossetian villages, that if you start mowing down S. Ossetian villages, they will retaliate, when Russia makes it as clear as humanly possible to you that it has a previous agreement with S. Ossetia in which they will defend S. Ossetia should you start mowing down S. Ossetian villages, then, in this universe, the balance of probabilities is that Russia will retaliate and do everything in their power to defend S. Ossetia.
C'mon. Anyone who's ever taken History 101 knows that when Russia says it will fight back, it does, and they usually do not err on the side of restraint. I can understand some of the greatest megalomaniacs in history underestimating Russia's will, but Saakashvili? That has to fall into the category of "THAT stupid." Or "delusional." Or "assuming the US and NATO would go to war with Russia on behalf of Georgia." "Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
With due respect to poemless' anti-war diary, we should all realize that part of the Russian response is revenge for the civilians and soldiers killed in the Georgian offensive in S. Ossetia. (And part of that is sheer political calculation: 1) the residents of S. Ossetia are now fully convinced that Russia is their only friend in the world; and 2) Georgia, Ukraine, Estonia, etc. are now fully apprised of consequences.) As soon as the message is acknowledged and all of the Georgian troops are out of Abkhazia and Ossetia, military action will cease. paul spencer
MOSCOW -- The past week's events in South Ossetia are bound to shock and pain anyone. Already, thousands of people have died, tens of thousands have been turned into refugees, and towns and villages lie in ruins. Nothing can justify this loss of life and destruction. It is a warning to all. The roots of this tragedy lie in the decision of Georgia's separatist leaders in 1991 to abolish South Ossetian autonomy. This turned out to be a time bomb for Georgia's territorial integrity. Each time successive Georgian leaders tried to impose their will by force -- both in South Ossetia and in Abkhazia, where the issues of autonomy are similar -- it only made the situation worse. New wounds aggravated old injuries. Nevertheless, it was still possible to find a political solution. For some time, relative calm was maintained in South Ossetia. The peacekeeping force composed of Russians, Georgians and Ossetians fulfilled its mission, and ordinary Ossetians and Georgians, who live close to each other, found at least some common ground. Through all these years, Russia has continued to recognize Georgia's territorial integrity. Clearly, the only way to solve the South Ossetian problem on that basis is through peaceful means. Indeed, in a civilized world, there is no other way. The Georgian leadership flouted this key principle. What happened on the night of Aug. 7 is beyond comprehension. The Georgian military attacked the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali with multiple rocket launchers designed to devastate large areas. Russia had to respond. To accuse it of aggression against "small, defenseless Georgia" is not just hypocritical but shows a lack of humanity.
The roots of this tragedy lie in the decision of Georgia's separatist leaders in 1991 to abolish South Ossetian autonomy. This turned out to be a time bomb for Georgia's territorial integrity. Each time successive Georgian leaders tried to impose their will by force -- both in South Ossetia and in Abkhazia, where the issues of autonomy are similar -- it only made the situation worse. New wounds aggravated old injuries.
Nevertheless, it was still possible to find a political solution. For some time, relative calm was maintained in South Ossetia. The peacekeeping force composed of Russians, Georgians and Ossetians fulfilled its mission, and ordinary Ossetians and Georgians, who live close to each other, found at least some common ground.
Through all these years, Russia has continued to recognize Georgia's territorial integrity. Clearly, the only way to solve the South Ossetian problem on that basis is through peaceful means. Indeed, in a civilized world, there is no other way.
The Georgian leadership flouted this key principle.
What happened on the night of Aug. 7 is beyond comprehension. The Georgian military attacked the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali with multiple rocket launchers designed to devastate large areas. Russia had to respond. To accuse it of aggression against "small, defenseless Georgia" is not just hypocritical but shows a lack of humanity.
Emphasis mine.
Could not have said it better myself. "Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
As to what Europe, meaning the EU and its constituent nations, should do. Sanctions? ... using the built-in European majority to remove Russia from G8.
Further, why would Europe want to take a confrontational approach to Russia? How would it be in our interest to further alienate them? What possible purpose would that serve?
If we want to live in a world of international law we better start building it. That mean treaties, and long term building of trust. Asymmetrical treatment of display of force by Great Powers amount to little more than taking sides in a petty game of Power. There is precious little to convince me that the United States should be afforded more benefit of the doubt in its wrongdoings than Russia. Thus, with very recent precedents in such matters, I don't see how Europe could take any kind of punitive action against Russia. We could perhaps muster a sternly worded letter, condemning both sides for blah, blah, blah.
For future stability in Europe it may help to quit NATO, kick out American troupes, and assume a position of neutrality with respect to World Military Powers. Other than that, continued trade and economic interdependence with our neighbours, and treating them with respect might be a good idea.
If "Europe" means "the EU" then I don't see a whole heck of a lot we can do. We have precious little leverage with Russia, and even less trust. We have zero leverage with Georgia - they're an American client state, why should they listen to the Union?
Realistically, what we have at our immediate disposal is monetary aid and humanitarian aid for the carrot and trade sanctions for the stick.
Russia doesn't need monetary gifts. They may or may not need humanitarian aid, but I'm not sure why they should trust us enough to allow us to dispense it on any useful scale anyway. And there is no reason to employ trade sanctions against Russia - it is not clear that they are the aggressor in this crisis. (And it's not clear that we even have the capability to deploy meaningful trade sanctions against Russia.)
Georgia might need monetary gifts - but I really don't think Europe should make a policy of throwing money at American client states. There are plenty of more deserving recipients. Georgia very probably needs humanitarian aid by now - or shortly will if things continue at the present pace. That should, of course, be granted, regardless of what we might think or not think of the Georgian government. Deploying trade sanctions against Georgia is pretty pointless - they're losing the war badly enough as it is, if they need any more stick in order to reach a negotiated settlement, then trade sanctions are unlikely to be it.
So humanitarian aid to Georgia to attempt to repair some of the civilian wreckage of the war. Same to Russia and South Ossetia, if they think they need it and want to accept it. That would be my recommendation, at least until we have sufficiently hard facts on the ground to start issuing arrest orders for the relevant war criminals.
The European Commission has released €1 million in fast-track aid to help cover the urgent humanitarian needs of thousands of civilians affected by the fighting in the region of South Ossetia and beyond in Georgia. Experts from the Commission's Humanitarian Aid department (ECHO) are in the region and are closely following the humanitarian situation. Louis Michel, European Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid, said: "The European Commission is extremely concerned about the fighting and deplores the loss of lives and the human suffering it causes. We call for an immediate end of hostilities. Thousands of civilians, women and children are caught up in the fighting in and around South Ossetia. Our fast-track funding of 1 M€ is a very first contribution to meet their basic humanitarian needs. Further funds could be released as soon as the assessment of the needs will be finalized on the ground. However, emergency relief teams are only able to operate if all conflict parties respect international humanitarian law. Humanitarian access and safe passage for uprooted civilians and aid workers is crucial."
Louis Michel, European Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid, said: "The European Commission is extremely concerned about the fighting and deplores the loss of lives and the human suffering it causes. We call for an immediate end of hostilities. Thousands of civilians, women and children are caught up in the fighting in and around South Ossetia. Our fast-track funding of 1 M€ is a very first contribution to meet their basic humanitarian needs. Further funds could be released as soon as the assessment of the needs will be finalized on the ground. However, emergency relief teams are only able to operate if all conflict parties respect international humanitarian law. Humanitarian access and safe passage for uprooted civilians and aid workers is crucial."
Nothing very much - in the sense that US foreign policy analysts normally think about this. The notion that "Europe" should intervene - presumably militarily - when two neighbours fight over territory is in itself a product of an imperialist/militarist mindset (and not just a neo-con mindset).
I am not knowledgeable enough on the local situation to adjudicate on the rights and wrongs of the respect positions of Russia, South Ossetia and Georgia. Some outside diplomatic mediation to arrive at a negotiated solution is the best we can probably hope for. Sarkozy may not be everyone's idea of a skilled honest broker, but at least he appears to be trying to dampen down the tensions.
What we have now is a relatively limited regional dispute. Why raise the stakes and turn this into an issue of nationalist principle of Russia against the World. That would be playing to the militaristic agenda on all sides "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
