Is Russia determined to be an empire again?

[mswas]

@Measure for Measure

mswas: This is difficult to express. Your rhetoric is, I’m sorry to say, a little masturbatory. The tricky part for me is that you make a lot of good (and helpful and interesting) points along the way, but IMnotsoHO your assessment is off.

Ok

To make it easy for myself, I’ll shoot down a straw man. Russia isn’t going to take over Georgia, then Lithuania, then Poland, the Netherlands and France. Now I know you’re not saying that this is Munich, 1938. But methinks the aggression of the 19th century won’t occur either.

Yes, well many of those nations have expressed the fear that I have expounded upon here, so I hardly think me sharing such an opinion is unfounded.

And calling a proposed currency union evidence of an expansionary Russia is a bit of a joke.

Asserting dominance over nations you wish to control is in fact evidence of expansion. The fact that this was brought up during the invasion of Georgia should be evidence worth observing. Fixating on one example of Russia asserting their authority as opposed to all the other examples that I and others have provided, is kind of silly.

Why the heck would Russia turn fascist now? They’re rolling in oil and natural gas wealth. Plausibly things could get unpleasant in say 10 years, after the resource curse leads to internal rot and the benefits of conservation and alternative fuel research push the oil price downwards. Then Russia might turn paranoid, blaming foreigners for their own errors. But that’s down the road.

Well, I don’t want to get into another silly argument about the definition of fascism, but the reality is that Democracy in Russia is a joke, and the nation is run by a Plutocracy of billionaire oligarchs headed by Vladmir Putin and the current President, former head of Gazprom, Medvedev. There is a rising Russian Nationalism with violence against ethnic minorities occurring on the streets of Russian cities. So you can call it fascism or not. That’s up to you.

Put it another way. India has been a local hegemon for years vis a vis Sri Lanka, Nepal, etc. But this power simply doesn’t amount to much. *

Yes, and India did not lose influence over those nations in the past 20 years. Russia on the other hand did, and they are not reasserting their influence in order to ensure their role as a regional hegemon.

As I see it, Putin and the other guy have accomplished their missions: they’ve blocked Nato encirclement, sent the message that Kosovo succession and American unilateralism have a cost, and thumbed their noses at W besides. I doubt whether a military campaign is in the cards though: holding down hostile populations is just too costly. And absent that, why is this event of overwhelming significance?

I agree that they have accomplished their objective in this round. If you think this is the final round of all this, I’m going to have to consider that naive. We’ll both watch with baited breath to find out who is correct. South Ossetia and Abkhazia from what I have been reading would not be hostile to Russia, while they would be hostile to Georgia. Russia doesn’t need to control Georgia, they just need an ousted Saakashvili and a more friendly government.

(Hm. Thinking it over, it does seem noteworthy that Russia has ended its period of relative decline. But I have serious doubts about their current capacity for resurgence: it’s politically very hard to manage a resource windfall well even in the best of circumstances, and Russian institutions are corrupt and weak.)

Well look I am not seeing this in terms of the ‘only the top Empire matters’, view of history. I don’t see a Soviet Union recurring. I see a powerful Russia with an incredible amount of influence over Europe and China as being in the works. Thus weakening the position of the USA and strengthening their own. You may be right about Russian institutions, that’s one of the more compelling arguments regarding the issue, but it remains to be seen.

Frankly, this is pretty good evidence that my perceptions are skewed in some way (mswas take note!). It seems to me that a lot of these diplomats are suffering from Cold War Fixation Syndrome, but they certainly have a deeper understanding of these matters than I do.

Yes, I agree, this isn’t a new cold war, it’s different, but it’s still a part of history, and history happened for a long time before the Cold War, and Russia has been a major power within that paradigm for a long time. As for your bias, I could care less about speculation as to PBS bias, whether it’s left or right wing. My experience is that leftist think it has a right wing bias and right wingers say it has a left wing bias.

I hope that talk of admitting Georgia into NATO at this juncture is simply that: talk. There’s no reason why we shouldn’t maintain that bargaining chip. But if it’s serious, either I’m misunderstanding something pretty fundamental or it’s a really really bad idea.

I think it’s a really bad idea.

[Oy]

WRT Georgia being admitted to NATO, I began by feeling it was a great idea, and have spent the week finding out more and more about the situation and ending up being absolutely dead certain that I don’t have a clue.

[Eva_Luna]

@Oy!

It’s so amazing to have a source like you available. Thank you so much!

You’re quite welcome, and I’m just glad to know all those student loans were good for something.

[Oy]

@Eva Luna

You’re quite welcome, and I’m just glad to know all those student loans were good for something.

Even if it was just entertaining the masses on a message board!

[RTFirefly]

Since one of the early-on themes in this thread was ‘today Georgia, tomorrow Ukraine,’ I should note that Josh Marshall of TPM has posted some polling numbers from Ukraine:

from the International Herald Tribune back in June …

According to polls conducted recently by the independent Democratic Initiatives Foundation in Kiev, 59 percent of Ukrainians would vote against joining NATO, up from 53 percent last December, while 22 percent would vote in favor, down from 32 percent.

Other polls have shown similar levels of support.

And:

I’ve now gotten hold of some more private polling data, based on a survey of a thousand people around the country last June. The interviews were conducted face to face in both Russian and Ukrainian. Let me run down some key numbers.

Do you support Ukraine joining the NATO alliance?

Yes 22%
No 66%
Don’t Know 11%
<snip>
Other questions about whether it is important for Ukraine to integrate with Russia or the West either politically and economically, show majorities for integration with Russia, about a third supporting integrating with both and only very small minorities for integrating with the West.

So maybe let’s not be in a big hurry to welcome Ukraine to NATO either.

[Oy]

I imagine they’re scared, RTF (I would be), although it could be that they just don’t want to associate with Bush and friends.

[Measure_for_Measure]

The TPM link noted that western Ukraine tends to lean westwards while eastern Ukraine tends to be more Russo-philic. So figures like that might persist even in an Obama administration.

Thanks for the remarks mswas: I’m finding less and less that I can disagree with.

@mswas

I agree that they have accomplished their objective in this round. If you think this is the final round of all this, I’m going to have to consider that naive. We’ll both watch with baited breath to find out who is correct. South Ossetia and Abkhazia from what I have been reading would not be hostile to Russia, while they would be hostile to Georgia. Russia doesn’t need to control Georgia, they just need an ousted Saakashvili and a more friendly government.

@Eva Luna

His take on the current situation: Russia will not occupy Georgia proper for any extended period of time, but will take South Ossetia and Abkhazia. He believes the Russian military is in the process of “neutering” the Georgian military (his words): blowing stuff up, sinking ships, taking equipment back to Russia, etc.

Let me tell you one thing about Caucasian males - they don’t take kindly to being neutered. And one thing about Caucasian politics - this ain’t gonna end here.

Ok, say Russia withdraws to Ossetia and Abkhazia, while the US sends in troops bearing food, shelter and other humanitarian artifacts. Georgia’s NATO application is discussed but not acted upon.

What happens next? More Georgian military adventures? Somehow I don’t think the West would be too keen on that. Russian provocations? They already have secured most of their goals, though a more compliant Georgian government might give them a convenient pipeline route. More border skirmishes? Probably, though that would certainly play in to the hands of Russia. Mutual resentment, followed by another incident in 5 years? Maybe. (A sudden attack of adulthood? Too much to hope for.)

[Eva_Luna]

@Measure for Measure

What happens next? More Georgian military adventures? Somehow I don’t think the West would be too keen on that. Russian provocations? They already have secured most of their goals, though a more compliant Georgian government might give them a convenient pipeline route. More border skirmishes? Probably, though that would certainly play in to the hands of Russia. Mutual resentment, followed by another incident in 5 years? Maybe. (A sudden attack of adulthood? Too much to hope for.)

My guess would be several of the above, though the first and last are least likely. Russian angling for Georgian regime change is also likely, though I don’t know what form that will take.

[Eva_Luna]

Oh, and one more possibility which appears to already be happening: ethnic cleansing of Georgians living in South Ossetia by South Ossetians, and vice versa.

[mswas]

Eva Luna Do you know anything about the purges of the Russian ruling party over the past couple of months? I heard about this and would like to know more.

[marshmallow]

This is remarkable. A nation that is not the United States has used its military to violate the borders of another state for…some reason. Why has Russia done this? A variety of goals have been offered in this thread. They want to set up a puppet government. They want to control fossil fuel resources. They want to cement their sphere of influence. They want to show the United States that this is their backyard. They want to intimidate other former Soviet states from siding with the Western powers.

These are all rational and pretty likely reasons. When others act, it’s reflexive to ask why and it’s not that difficult to peel back the curtains.

But if you say anything like this about the United States and its goals? Well, those are pretty clearly wild conspiracy theories. We’re talking moon-landing hoax level craziness. So I must say, to be fair of course, you guys have very overactive imaginations with regards to Russia. How could Russia possibly control fossil fuel resources by taking charge of a foreign country with its military? I mean, that’s an insane idea, right? We have to be consistent. Here’s one of many examples from this thread…

@Sam Stone

It is very much in the U.S.'s interest to prevent Russia from gaining a stranglehold on Europe’s oil supply. With Russia in control of European oil, and Iran building nukes which may threaten middle eastern supplies, we could be in a world of difficulty.

Sam! You should know better. In fact, I’m pretty sure you’ve said what I’m about to say in several threads. Oil is sold on the world market. It doesn’t matter who “controls” it.

Right?

For those who have forgotten, Holbrooke and Asmus were two of the highest foreign policy officials in the Clinton Administration. Holbrooke was Ambassador to the UN, and Asmus was Deputy Secretary of State. Not your typical neo-cons.

No, not at all. They’re Democratic apparatchiks instead. They prefer to adjudicate other country’s internal politics as they see fit by dropping bombs from 30,000 feet or by indirect means such as crushing sanctions or selling massive quantities of weapons to evil puppet leaderships which are then used to slaughter villages and stack up the bodies by the trainload. Much more civilized than those nasty Republicans, you see. Assuming we ignore anything that happened before Bill Clinton was sworn in, anyway, and then the Dems will win on the body count by a lot.

As for the rest of this thread…I had fun replacing “Russia” with “United States” and noticing the break down of logic. I also received much mirth from those predicting WWIII. Why are so many people eager to predict minor global events causing another world war? I sometimes can’t tell if it’s genuine fear, as if they are startled by common things in real life, or a morose glee at the thought of millions of people dying and seeing the world be a little more exciting. Not that I cast judgment on that, of course, since I’m often in the same boat. But it’d be revealing if someone were to make a list of things since 9/11 that have caused these WWIII scares.

@RTFirefly

If we pulled out of Iraq tomorrow, but everything else was still the same, no. Throwing our military from one exhausting, debilitating mission to another isn’t the way to further our interests in the long run.

If we’d never gone into Iraq in the first place, and I were the guy who had to make the decision, I’d be leaning toward it: I think DSeid’s arguments are pretty good ones. But committing troops overseas isn’t the sort of thing a President or a Congress should do lightly (or let themselves get buffaloed into). If I were the President, I’d obviously have access to advisors who could fill me in on the risks of action and inaction in a lot greater detail than we’re getting in this thread.

But on the basis of what we know here, yes, I think I might pull that trigger.

And if we decided to garrison 20,000 combat troops outside Tbilisi, with air cover to keep Russian bombers away, how would they stop us?

Wow, really? I thought you were the non-interventionist camp. I mean, it really sucks that Georgia is getting curb stomped and all, but that’s what happens when big states decide what’s best for little states.

Reminds me of the Dems who cry over Iraq – and I’ve seen this logic in this thread, as you touched upon – because we could’ve used our military in other places, don’t you see, so it’s an unacceptable opportunity cost. So without Iraq we could get our war on a lot more. But for the noblest of reasons, of course! Like Darfur! Or Burma! Or Pakistan! Or to protect the poor Georgians! Or something. :smack:

[Eva_Luna]

@mswas

Eva Luna Do you know anything about the purges of the Russian ruling party over the past couple of months? I heard about this and would like to know more.

I generally don’t follow Russian party politics - it alternately bores me to tears and makes me want to lock them all in a room with each other until only one comes out alive.

[Sam_Stone]

@marshmallow

Sam! You should know better. In fact, I’m pretty sure you’ve said what I’m about to say in several threads. Oil is sold on the world market. It doesn’t matter who “controls” it.

Right?

There are two different issues here - one is the price of oil, which is a global price and cannot be manipulated other than actually cutting production and preventing the oil from being added to global supplies in the first place.

The other issue is access. If a country gets 50% of its oil from a pipeline under Russia’s control, Russia has the ability to screw with that country’s oil supply and hurt them badly. Sure, it won’t change world oil prices much, but for the country who relies on that delivery mechanism, Russia has them by the short ones.

This is not theoretical. Russia already did this last January. The Druzhba pipeline alone provides 25% of Germany’s oil and 96% of Poland’s oil. And much of the oil for the Ukraine and the Czech Republic, as well. Last year, Belarus decided to impose a tax on all that petroleum, because the pipeline passes through that country. In retaliation, Putin temporarily shut down the pipeline, dropping the EU’s total oil supply by a third.

The EU’s energy security requires alternate modes of delivery, but that’s pretty hard to do for a lot of countries. Delivery by pipeline is much cheaper than delivering it by boat to another country then shipping it overland by rail. And the infrastructure may not even exist to deliver oil in the quantities required by other methods. If your country is in that situation, as Poland’s is, Russia can turn the lights out on you and there’s not much you can do about it.

[Magiver]

@Sam Stone

There are two different issues here - one is the price of oil, which is a global price and cannot be manipulated other than actually cutting production and preventing the oil from being added to global supplies in the first place.

The other issue is access. If a country gets 50% of its oil from a pipeline under Russia’s control, Russia has the ability to screw with that country’s oil supply and hurt them badly. Sure, it won’t change world oil prices much, but for the country who relies on that delivery mechanism, Russia has them by the short ones.

This is not theoretical. Russia already did this last January. The Druzhba pipeline alone provides 25% of Germany’s oil and 96% of Poland’s oil. And much of the oil for the Ukraine and the Czech Republic, as well. Last year, Belarus decided to impose a tax on all that petroleum, because the pipeline passes through that country. In retaliation, Putin temporarily shut down the pipeline, dropping the EU’s total oil supply by a third.

The EU’s energy security requires alternate modes of delivery, but that’s pretty hard to do for a lot of countries. Delivery by pipeline is much cheaper than delivering it by boat to another country then shipping it overland by rail. And the infrastructure may not even exist to deliver oil in the quantities required by other methods. If your country is in that situation, as Poland’s is, Russia can turn the lights out on you and there’s not much you can do about it.

Are you talking about oil or natural gas? Russia exerted political power back in 2006 by cutting supplies of natural gas. This is something that cannot be regulated easily by market forces because entire countries are tied to a pipeline. The only other way around that is to ship it in as a liquid which I’m guessing is going to be painful if not impossible if the country is land-locked.

[Sam_Stone]

Sorry, I should have said natural gas. But the same is true for oil and refined gasoline - there are two separate issues - one is the price, which floats on a global market, and another is physical access.

[RTFirefly]

@marshmallow

Wow, really? I thought you were the non-interventionist camp.

No, it depends on what the intervention is. In the Balkans, for instance, I thought we should have bombed some roads and bridges to knock the legs out from under Serbia’s attack on Vuckovar (Croatia) in the fall of 1991. Might have saved a lot of trouble later, IMHO.

I mean, it really sucks that Georgia is getting curb stomped and all, but that’s what happens when big states decide what’s best for little states.

I’d prefer that big states not decide what’s best for little states, unless there’s large-scale murder going on to the point where, even if we fuck things up royally, it would be hard for us to make it worse.

In Iraq, I thought there was plenty of room for us to make it worse, and said so rather loudly at the time.

Reminds me of the Dems who cry over Iraq – and I’ve seen this logic in this thread, as you touched upon – because we could’ve used our military in other places, don’t you see, so it’s an unacceptable opportunity cost. So without Iraq we could get our war on a lot more. But for the noblest of reasons, of course! Like Darfur! Or Burma! Or Pakistan! Or to protect the poor Georgians! Or something. :smack:

And what would have been wrong with sending our troops into Darfur? Seems the problem there is basically the government in Khartoum; preventing them from acting in Darfur would essentially solve the problem. I also don’t see what that has to do with ‘getting our war on.’ I find that conflation to be infantile.

As for the rest, I don’t see that there was big support for sending troops into Burma or Pakistan in any major way.

[mswas]

@Eva Luna

I generally don’t follow Russian party politics - it alternately bores me to tears and makes me want to lock them all in a room with each other until only one comes out alive.

Even then I think it would still be Putin.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Measure for Measure

What happens next? More Georgian military adventures? Somehow I don’t think the West would be too keen on that. Russian provocations? They already have secured most of their goals, though a more compliant Georgian government might give them a convenient pipeline route. …

How about an indefinite occupation of parts of Georgia proper? WAPO says the Russians are digging into the Georgian city of Gori, which is outside of South Ossetia.

@Washington Post

Russian soldiers dug fortified positions for tanks along highways east and west of Gori and trucked in television and radio equipment to begin broadcasting in their own language.

“We have stopped firing – be glad about that,” a young Russian captain said when asked whether troops would soon withdraw.

Those wondering about that truce signed earlier are directed to the language regarding, “extra security measures”. So here’s my prediction: we’re going to see a lot of extra security measures moving forward.

Hat tip: Kevin Drum.

[tagos]

@Measure for Measure

How about an indefinite occupation of parts of Georgia proper? WAPO says the Russians are digging into the Georgian city of Gori, which is outside of South Ossetia. Those wondering about that truce signed earlier are directed to the language regarding, “extra security measures”. So here’s my prediction: we’re going to see a lot of extra security measures moving forward.

Hat tip: Kevin Drum.

The interim peace deal allowed Russian ‘peace-keepers’ to operate in an undefined ‘security zone’ outside of South Ossetia, pending a resolution on international peace-keepers. And Russia, being the ‘winning, what the fuck can you do about it’ side are interpreting it very broadly. As they have with what they consider South Ossetia - going with the ‘big’ version when it was part of the USSR.

Victors ‘justice’.

[Magiver]

@Measure for Measure

How about an indefinite occupation of parts of Georgia proper? WAPO says the Russians are digging into the Georgian city of Gori, which is outside of South Ossetia. Those wondering about that truce signed earlier are directed to the language regarding, “extra security measures”. So here’s my prediction: we’re going to see a lot of extra security measures moving forward.

Hat tip: Kevin Drum.

The Ruskies have moved missile launchers into South Ossetia. I guess that counts as extra security measures. Nothing left but to build a wall to keep people in.