Hence the question. What can we do? It doesn’t look like Russia is annexing Georgia.
Our pawn has made a bad move and gotten itself taken. Russia, who already has Europe by the balls energy-wise, has won this round. We can scream and bawl ‘not fair,’ we can posture and bluster to no effect, or we can start thinking.
To begin with we can go for energy independence with new technologies. We can also smarten up our diplomacy and see things from the Russian side. NATO is encircling them from their point of view and don’t tell me that is not a deliberate policy. We can stop the ridiculous ‘missile shield’ shit.
But somehow we also have to make it clear that Russian empire-building is over. I don’t know - instead of expanding NATO we find some mutual defence and guarantee structures that all sides can agree on.
The bottom line is Russia sees its ‘near abroad’ in the same way the US views hostile states in its own backyard. Like Cuba. That’s the diplomatic field of play.
And maybe if we don’t want Big Powers invading who the frack they like on jumped up pretenses we should look at the motes in our own eyes.
But what can the EU do? They’re all but disarmed, they don’t need armies anymore. Because war is a thing of the past. At least, so I’ve been assured. The US is occupied in our little horrid disasters, so we can’t help much at all.
That’s the question. It has to be diplomacy backed with the ability to levy sanctions. Diplomacy begins with the recognition that states have different interests. The USA claims the right to dictate how Cuba can act, what military can be deployed there but denies Russia a valid interest in what goes on on its borders.
As i said - maybe we have to recognise the diplomatic reality that Russia will not allow itself to be encircled by a potentially hostile alliance so some other way of guaranteeing the security of former soviet states than NATO membership has to be found.
Diplomacy is give and take. Remember that Kennedy quietly withdrew nukes from Turkey as the quid pro quo for the USSR backing down over Cuba.
The reality is that at this moment Russia is a major energy power and just like the USA cannot do anything about the vile regime in Saudi - which actively proliferates the most extreme views of Islam that are the jihad source of terrorism - because of energy dependency then neither can Europe with Russia.
In both games the black hat guys hold the better cards.
That’s why a big push for alternative energy should be made. If they hold the stronger hand then let’s change the game being played for starters.
for the time being it looks like Russia is not going to annex Georgia. They’ve made their point - they can slap down any government in their sphere that won’t play ball. Just like the USA has behaved in Central America.
We have to start from reality and the reality is that Europe and the USA are not able or willing to start WW3 over Russian activities on its borders and it’s no use chest-thumping neo-con wanabees wailing on about it. We got through the Cold War with diplomacy and we can deal with Russia the same way again.
That requires clever diplomats, not ‘other peoples son’s and daughters’ neo-con ranting.
Sure - it’s not ‘fair’ that Georgia etc might not in practice be able to join NATO. It wasn’t ‘fair’ that South America suffered decades of US installed and supported brutal dictators either. Or that the people of Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan continue to suffer under western backed dictators.
Diplomacy is the art of the possible and sometimes what is possible is not what is ideal.
tagos, “It doesn’t look like Russia is annexing Georgia.”? All but. Representatives of the EU are hand delivering a Georgian signed cease fire agreement to back up what Georgia has already stated several times: “We give.” Yet knowing it is coming Russia pummels away like a group of Chicago cops on some punk who was stupid enough to resist arrest. The only motivation there is to force Georgia into puppethood and to make an example of her: “This is what happens to a country near our borders who doesn’t do what we tell them to.” Control is more important than annexation…
WAIT. Update. Before posting I just went and checked CNN to get an example of continued Russian attack and instead see this.
So, assuming that Russia does stop the beating, how tagos do you propose the EU should proceed from here?
Let me clarify. You are right that from this point the response is “clever diplomats” … this is the weapon of choice. Unified and clear messages from the EU (and America to a lesser extent) are essential. What should be the message and how should it be sent?
Then again, as of now Russia is still bombing away, despite having said that they will stop. Medvedev may have said stop, but until Putin says so, it won’t happen?
Anyone have a map with where the pipelines currently run? I thought I read that they’re currently going through SO. What about re-joining NO and SO (handing it over to russia) and building a new infrastructure/pipeline that bypasses russian controlled territory?
Long term. Remove our dependence on their energy. I don’t see what short term moves we have. Russia poisons people with radioactive shit in London hotels without any shame. They to all intents and purposes force our energy companies to relinquish joint holdings, they close our diplomatic missions.
We basically have to re-engage diplomatically and probably lead by example.
The first thing to do is stake the moral high ground. We storm around the world invading who we like, snip off bits of other countries and call them ‘independent’, destabilising who we like, installing bases where we like - as in the Ukraine and getting cozy with murderous dictators when it is convenient.
We can hardly complain when Russia also takes a robust real-politick approach to its ‘sphere of influence’ and compared to what we did in Iraq this is chicken-shit stuff. If Russia set up military bases in Cuba, Canada and Mexico and then invaded the Ukraine the USA would be kicking up a firestorm. What is sauce for the goose etc.
We might also reconsider whether we want shit pseudo-democracies who think shelling cities and villages is a fine way to resolve problems.
Russia doesn’t need our capital and it doesn’t need our raw materials. It’s hard to see what to do but that’s why we have diplomats.
For staying in Beijing. Isn’t that kinda trivial compared to giving the Georgians reason to believe we’d stand shoulder to shoulder with them? That’s like chewing out a felon for getting a parking ticket. BFD.
Well, good of you to finally recognize, in the eighth and final year of the Bush Administration, what a bunch of fuckups you’ve been supporting all these years. (Note to Magiver: that’s the point. And I can’t think of a better time for making it.)
As I’ve been pointing out since 2003, Iraq is a diversion of resources on multiple levels, but I’ll admit that the limitations on what spy satellites can track catches me by surprise. But it’s the same basic principle: there’s a huge opportunity cost to the Iraq war. Resources committed there mean resources unavailable elsewhere. The longer we were fighting a major war in Iraq, the more likely that somewhere, sometime, we were really, really going to need those military resources elsewhere.
Yes, kiddies, we’re there yet.
Until recently, though, we had one substitute for those resources. However, we fucked it up:
Guess it must’ve been mighty important to us to put those missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic. I keep hearing that they’re not that useful in practical terms - that their value is more symbolic than useful. If so, our Administration apparently decided to trade the practical for the symbolic, and wound up flying blind with respect to Russia.
Guess Bush saw all sorts of good things in Putin’s eyes.
Not to mention, it’s time for the “it’s always Munich 1938” crew to admit that the Neville Chamberlain of our time is none other than George W. Bush:
I know they run through Georgia, but what part of Georgia? SO? And I’m pretty sure the EU and NATO would pony up to secure their own energy delivery - given Russia’s penchant for using pipelines as a means for extortion.
Georgia. The clue is in the name. An the EU is dependent on Russian gas more than oil. The latter we hope to get from all the other little dictatorships we are cosying up to.
OK, but NATO had better be ready to commit enough troops to Georgia to hold off any further Russian incursion for long enough to bring in reinforcements, and the reinforcements had better be sufficient to hold off however many troops and however much conventional firepower the Russians are capable of bringing.
Because they’re almost surely willing to raise the stakes pretty damned high. If we’re not serious about matching them, then we’d better not play pretend games. Georgia’s just gotten its ass fried because they believed we’d be there for them.
Right now, I don’t see that we have the chips to stay in this game. Maybe in 2010, after President Obama has gotten us out of Iraq, we might.
I expect it’s too late to get Russia to rejoin the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, but maybe we ought to try that first. How many times do we want to get caught with our pants down?
If there’s clearly no way to undo that trade, then, sure, do the missile defense systems, since we’ve already paid the price for them.
Assuming they’re not also putting in overtime in Iraq and Afghanistan.