After a week in which Russia repeatedly violated the sovereignty of a small neighbour, targeted civilian infrastructure, occupied several towns and villages in Georgia proper, ordered their tanks to within 20km of Tbilisi, and topped it all off by threatening a nuclear strike on Poland, the letters by Frank Schnittger and John Gunning attempting to link America to the catastrophe were ludicrous.
He's framed Russia as evil freedom haters and America as heroic freedom defenders, and as such speaking out against America means you are on the side of evil.
The former's insinuations about a supposed role played by the McCain campaign in fomenting unrest in the region, would be laughable if they weren't so serious.
Because you are on the side of evil, your main point can be dismissed without consideration.
For his part, Mr Gunning claims to despise war -- a noble sentiment no doubt, yet one that seems in his case to be surpassed by a virulent anti-Americanism.
America good, Russia bad.
His assertion that we are witnessing, not a Russian invasion of a sovereign state, but an "American war by proxy" exposes a somewhat casual acquaintance with reality.
In reality: America good, Russia bad.
It seems that he is concerned, not with the suffering of the people in the region, or with the brutal contempt shown by the Russians for international law, and the sovereignty of its neighbours, but with using the conflict as a means to spread his anti-American innuendo.
America good, Russia bad - and you're a heartless ideologue on the side of evil.
Mr Schnittger asks 'Cui bono from the invasion of South Ossetia?, to which I would answer that both he and Mr Gunning seem determined to spin the appalling situation in an effort to benefit and further their own anti-American agendas.
Indeed, concern or solidarity for the ordinary civilians caught up in the conflict are conspicuous only by their absence in both letters.
You're a heartless ideologue on the side of evil.
While both men are entitled to their opinions, they have very little to do with being anti-war, and I would ask that they, and others who espouse the same views, would cease masquerading as such.
He set up his frame in the first sentence, then bashed you with it seven times. If you reply using facts as evidence, he will do the same thing again. You have to turn it around and frame him and his cohorts as the folks that are anti-freedom, anti-democratic, and anti-Georgian citizens if you want your reply to work on the public.
you are the media you consume.
Of course there is a larger argument - that the US has provocatively installed military bases and missiles right around Russia (and in over 100 "sovereign" countries world-wide) and used those bases to ensure that the often corrupt and dictatorial Governments in those countries remain in power and cannot act in their own national interest if this is against US strategic and commercial interests.
In this context, it appears reasonable that Putin should grab an opportunity to send a signal to the former Soviet republics that further alignment with Russia's enemies will not be tolerated, and that they will wait in vain if they expect the US to come to their aid.
That is a perfectly valid strategic argument which speaks to a real politic world-view rather than a pro-Russian bias, per se. However it is a much larger argument than can be made in a short letter to the Editor and would distract from the central point that I was making: That McCain has some very dubious advisers and friends indeed, and one of them has just dished up another humiliating defeat for the US.
Vote McCain if you want the US to become embroiled in more embarrassing disasters caused by dubious leaders in places you have never heard of.
Vote McCain for war without gain It's time I got out of this game....
Hmmh, interesting implications for Poland's policy towards Belarus, and for an eventual pro-Russian Ukraine. Not to mention towards Russia itself. And I presume you just agreed that it is unacceptable for Syria or Lebanon to be anti Israeli, or for Serbia to be anti Kosovar or anti-Croat, or... the list can go on, and on.
From a realpolitik perspective Putin's policy makes sense, but if you're going to look at it that way, then accept that Russia's neighbours will act accordingly.
So why would you expect Russia to react differently to its former allies, current neighbours, and now hosts to US military /missile bases?
Obviously I would hope both the US and Russia would respect the sovereignty of those nations. But Russia doesn't have its troops in over 100 Sovereign states - so if you are to criticise it for relatively marginal incursions into Georgiam, you must also criticise the Bush doctrine that the US can attack almost anywhere it pleases, when it pleases, if that county is deemed to be hostile to US interests. Vote McCain for war without gain
Even if you disagree with Marek's description under the moral aspect, it describes likely reality. Gemach, gemach
I don't believe Georgia acted in its own self interest in attack South Ossetia (and Russian peace keepers there) and so I have to look for another explanation - e.g. Saakashvili is a fool or he was misled by his American advisers.
I can understand why Russia seized on this opportunity to reassert its influence in the region and it might even put further pressure on Georgia to get rid of Saakashvili and the US base there.
I can also understand that this wll make all Russia's other neighbours extremely nervous. They have to decide whether they want to develop good neighbourly relations with Russia or risk further antagonising Russia by joining Nato.
Realistically, is Poland/Nato/US going to go to war with Russia if it invades Ukraine, Bylorussia, Georgia, Crimea? If the answer is no, then it is in those countries interest to develop friendly relation with Russia.
Is it in the EU's interest to to foment a return to the Cold War? If not, then it is in the EU's interest to promote friendly relations with Russia and distance itself from a Neo-con led US.
(Politics 101 for small nations. If your neighbouring state is much more powerful militarily than you are, it is best to develop economic and political relationships which reduce the risk of militarism becoming the dominant MO between your countries.) Vote McCain for war without gain
There seem quite some influential people in the US, who would be willing to order the defense of Georgia and Ukraine, if they could get them into NATO. As I interprete Marek's comments, Poland would act as well, because they would see an agression of Russia against Georgia or Ukraine as a possible prelude to an attack of Poland.
As for your last paragraph, with US backing, eastern Europeans are not THAT small, that they would have to go along with everything Russia does. Gemach, gemach
As for EU interests. Ummh, last I checked Poland and the Baltics were part of the EU, something you seem to be forgetting. If you mean the Western EU countries - that depends. To the extent that they adopt the kind of policy you and others here are suggesting, they can forget about any sort of EU-Russia cooperation that requires unanimity, they can also forget about any sort of treaties strengthening the EU. They also have to depend on the US deciding it will not agree to take up Poland and the Baltics on their request for closer military cooperation and US bases, and a more hostile policy towards Russia. Or to put it differently, if the US is as recklessly imperialist as you think it is, then your policy has a very good chance of leading to a European war. Also keep in mind that Russian can't supply the rest of Europe with energy if it doesn't supply Poland, unless the Europeans agree to compensate Poland for that situation with energy supplies at a similar price - all those pipelines, existing or proposed, run through or right next to Poland.
As for your politics 101 - the more accurate version would be, if you're in a region claimed by one power as its sphere of interest, and without another great power able and willing to back you up enough so you can make it too painful to ever attack, then you're better advised to do as you say. Think Cuba, Nicaragua, Chile, Lebanon, Syria, Vietnam, Korea, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, etc. Georgia made the wrong calculation.
The Ukrainian population isn't interested in joining NATO - if it were, then the risks for Russia would be far higher. Ukraine is a far bigger and more powerful country in it's own right, and it is much easier to help geographically. Russia would face a problem that makes the American task in Iraq look like a, ummh cakewalk (pardon the expression). But again, the Ukrainians aren't into the idea of paying a major price to be firmly in the US camp, so the issue is moot.
The Belarussians are being tolerated by the Poles, Balts, and Americans.
It is in no country's interest to have a major war - that's true of Russia over a Ukraine in NATO and the US or Poland over a Russian dominated Ukraine.
No, but certainly some people would profit from increased tensions - just as they've profited from Iraq, while the rest of the US has bled itself white, and just as they profited from WWII.
It goes without saying that there are people in the US who stand to profit hugely from Cold War II.
So far, this isn't so true of Russia. There's a lot of face saving and penis waving happening at the moment, but naked profit doesn't seem to be quite such a motivation.
- Jake Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam
I thus win the argument even with people who accept his framing.
No you don't. They're not agreeing with you.
It comes down to whether or not you are fine with "just" being correct on a factual basis or if you want to influence the public. Sadly they are not the same thing.
Again:
You absolutely lost with the folks who accept his framing. As long as the public accepts his framing, the terms of winning an argument run through his worldview.
As you and MillMan already pointed out, Dunphy skips facts and argues emotionally, by asking readers to view your letter through the America=Good prism.
This will always work, simply because people in Western Europe do have a lingering "America is better than Russia" attitude, and putting a few facts down cannot change that. In many people's minds, 1. America, 2. Russia.
I'm unconvinced that you win the argument by trying to ignore this point, because it speaks to people's fundamental self-interest, whereas you're ("merely") speaking to people's sense of fairness in argument.
In the end, America has been and still is the formal guarantor of European security. No amount of direct arguing is going to bring people to the alternative idea 1. America, 1.Russia, ie that America and Russia should be measured with equal weights, or god forbid 1.Russia 2.America.
However, you can (IMHO) win by appealing to people's self-interest. The only thing that trumps America's 1. position is Ireland's (or possibly Europe's if you like) 0. position:
0. Ireland. 1. America. 2. Russia.
To apply this approach, you'd have to counter accusations of anti-Americanism not by denying them, but by showing their logical equivalence to pro-Irelandism. Most readers of Irish newspapers will not put America before Ireland, they can only do so if America's actions are seen as good for Ireland, or if Ireland is not mentioned in the debate. By keeping the debate with Dunphy on the America/Russia plane, you're not using this.
Dunphy's underlying argument is "don't attack America, because America is good for us". If you reply "X is good for Ireland, America is not doing X", you can be (more, IMHO) persuasive. Moreover, if it so happens that X implies a more even handed America/Russia point of view, that can't be helped, IYKWIM. -- $E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
