Ian has a post everyone should read. Also, as a reminder, give this show Ian and I did with noted Russia specialist Anatol Lieven, where we discuss at length Russia and the Ukraine and NATO a listen.
Everything which transpired over the last week has been about one issue, and one issue only: the Ukraine. Russia will never let the Ukraine join NATO. Not now, especially as they have the power and the means and quite clearly the will to thwart its accession.
Why is Ukraine important? Other than the key points Ian makes there is one other key point that must be made. Had Charles XII, or Napoleon or Hitler had a Western friendly country with borders less than a few hundred kilometers from Moscow their invasions would have ended in a drastically different fashion. It's called 'strategic depth' and the Russians will never give up the Ukraine for that reason. If you think nations change, well they do, but not nearly as fast as you think. And for the Russians the Mongols, the Swedes, the French and the Germans are still very, very real in their collective memory.
We are at a very dangerous point right now. The US is over-extended and to some extent paralyzed by the election that is upcoming. The next 12 months are the perfect time frame, as Ian notes, for Russia to make it very clear that it will not tolerate a Ukraine in NATO.
It won't happen, and if the West persists, Europe will have some damn cold winters ahead and maybe even a fighting war on its hands.
Stay out of the Ukraine. America has its red-lines; the Israelis have theirs, and so do the Russians. We'd be wise to remember that in all our flag waving jingoistic glory.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 52
There is no question the Communists committed horrible atrocities in the Ukraine, atrocities that pale in comparison to those committed by Hitler. But that still doesn't change the basic power equation and that is what is at stake here. This isn't about the niceties of international law, or historical guilt or whatever 'Western' gloss we want to put on it any longer. This is about raw, unadulterated power and vital national interests and Russia will fight for its VITAL interests just as we would ours.
We fought two world wars and a cold war to prevent a single power from dominating the Eurasian landmass. That is called a vital national interest. Because such a power could marshall the resources of the Old World and attack us in the New. Russia will fight for its strategic depth. It's essential to Russian security. Period. Wave all the flags you want, talk about our freedoms being held hostage by the Kremlin and those dirty neo-pinko-commies. The Russians don't care. They will fight just as we would if Russia or anyone else were messing around in Mexico or Canada.
It also isn't about Russian hegemony. Russia doesn't have any hegemony. Only the US does. What Russia has is the power to enforce its will in its sphere of influence. There is a huge difference: hegemony allows the US to act globally and project its power literally thousands of miles away. Russia only has the power to be a spoiler globally, but in its neighborhood? Well, it's the boss. The US needs to accept that US power has its limits. And this is one of them.
If we don't learn this and continue to act as the neo-cons would have us act it will lead to national ruin. I guarantee it. Americans need to accept that there are real limits in the world.
There is a huge difference Bruce between the US invading Iraq and Russia invading a smaller next-door neighbor. If you can't see that, I can't help you. Russia is not the USSR and pretending that they are is useless and prevents any serious debate as to what our real strategy should be.
Yeah, Russia is huge. But have you ever been there? Have you ever endured the difficulty of getting to a place like Ukhta? Or the Russian Far East? Much less anything in the Putoreana plateau? It's empty space.
We don't know all that is going on over there, just what Russia has done to other countries in the past: Poland and Chechnya aside from those previously mentioned, come to mind first. They have killed, tortured, enslaved millions. Now the hungry beast wants Georgia, and the Ukraine. When Georgia and the Ukraine don't satisfy their appetite, will it be on to other countries.?
How long will they be allowed to do this, and who's to stop them? China? The U.S.? If I read you correctly, and I apologize if I did not, but you seem to be of the persuasion to let Russia take what they want.
It doesn't appear to be ALL about oil, or the transportation of it, but also about control. Total control of the entire region. As long as they can take, with no interference ...... well, it's scary.
More scary...are the alternative options, with our limited knowledge of the entire situation at this time.
In times like these, we can only trust the leaders of our nations to negotiate and compromise, without an all out conflict.
The world is not like a Monopoly board, and one cannot approach such complex matters as regional/global hegemony, as if clear and calculable cost /risk investments on such a game board. It is possible to make the case that any number of "places" are the KEY to any number of historic struggles . . . The Mideast is a fine example, and once dialed into the pseudo myopic view of it being the center of one's geo-eco-ploitical big "game", the pieces will all fall into place, just as we "asked" our memory banks to provide for us. So too Asia, Europe, the Americas, even Africa, if one generates the appropriate pieces to the puzzle one is assembling.
But, in reality-land, there are real people, making decisions involving specific objectives and interests, based on extremely complex interwoven personal/political/economic/military/history/etc,etc, realities and projected realities which cannot be reduced to Monopoly board style summations. I believe what Sean is telling us, is that Russia is a complex conglomeration of many things and people, which altogether will not simply sit still while it is strategically hemmed in. The folks calling the shots, cannot just accept such a thing, no more than our leaders could in our backyard.
In other words; Our guys are just posturing. And if they're not careful, they will posture us into a very bloody nose.
I am not of the position to let Russia take what it wants. I am of the opinion that the US should stay out of the Ukraine and Georgia. We have NO INTERESTS THERE. Just as the Russians have no interests in Canada or Mexico. How would we feel if the Russians started sending weapons to the Mexicans? We have our neighborhood and they have theirs. We should stay out of theirs and they should stay out of ours. Am I clear?
Yes, you clarified somewhat and I thank you.
I only mentioned the past atrocities of Russia to keep clear in our minds what they are capable of. That is the frightening thing....Man's inhumanity to man.
Now, I understand you feel to let Russia take those countries, against those countries will, and nobody gets hurt. It's only enslavement.
Not aiming to argue with you or disagree about that approach, it is the path of least resistance. I'm just coming to terms with it, in my own mind.
I do appreciate the benefit of your knowledge of the area and the situation.
Again, I don't like it and would love for everyone to know the freedom we Americans and Western Europeans have. But the world is as it is, not as I would have it.
You catch my drift?
I do get your drift.
I sense you have struggled with it also.
I can't say, at this point, that your approach may not be the way to go.
I do think; however, that Russia , also, has to consider the points you mention about nuclear, risks, lives, potential loss of so many things. Would they really risk all that for a couple of countries if someone offered some viable resistance?
Are we just postphoning an intervention with them? Will they keep taking countries until they're in our back yard and we have to fight. How many countries would they take until they're satisfied they have enough? Remembering ... no one has put up any resistance yet.
It's a risky game to play to see who will back off first, and the horror of it all if neither does.
Those are the questions the Russians need to ask themselves. And I think they have. I think by their invasion of Georgia they have made it clear, crystal clear, as a matter of fact, that they are willing to fight to prevent NATO expansion into these two countries. They are very important strategically to the Russians and their sense of security. That's why I am adamant about the fact that we should butt out. The Russians have a lot of levers to use here, not just violence. And I think if we persist we'll see some of those levers being used before it gets to an extreme case. But, make no mistake: Georgia was a shot across NATO's bow. It was the Russians way of saying, "enough and no more."
It's a risky game, but the Russians have a better hand than we do right now and we should be wise to that. Our armies are in Afghanistan and Iraq and unable to fight a land war in Europe. We just cannot do it.
It does make sense.
I do have one more consideration, about if we are just postphoning an encounter with them because we have appeared weak.
Hypothetically, Russia has taken all the countries in their wake, without encountering any resistance. Now they are knocking on our door, saying, "Now, we've come for you." They have all the countries now who will be forced to be in their armies. Now, the U.S. will be fighting not only Russia, but all the countries they have overwhelmed.
In essence, is it just a matter of time? Would it be wiser for us to deal with them now, if they are intent on what you say they are?
As for your question about would it be wise for us to deal with them now or later: It's a good question. Machiavelli said," you only postpone a war to your own disadvatage." Except in this case, we have already dealt with Russia. We've made it clear that the red line is the Baltics, Poland, etc. . . Let them have the Ukraine, Belarus and Georgia. We don't need them.
The Russians haven't annexed anyone...until now. Why?
Is it because the U.S. has, in the past, presented a posture of strength. And a posture that we would lend assistance to any country where they attempted a takeover?
Now, if we present a weak posture, wouldn't the Russians recognize that and move on any territory they wanted.
You are correct, unfortunately, about U.S. strength being watered down at this point with so many of our troops being deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Do you believe they will stop if they take Ukraine, Belarus and Georgia? Or will those just serve as an appetizer for the beast?
As I have said, they aren't going to take Georgia, or Belarus or the Ukraine. What they are trying to prevent is from any of those becoming a part of NATO. There is a large difference. The Russians are perfectly content to allow Ukraine and Belarus and Georgia to be independent as long as they stay in line. Just as we are perfectly content to allow Mexico to be independent as long as they stay in line. Look at our past interventions there for a prime example of sphere of influence power politics. Same goes for Haiti, Dominica, etc. . . They are independent, there are just lines that we draw when it comes to foreign powers meddling in their affairs. Remember the Cuban Missile Crisis? That was all about OUR sphere of influence and our vital strategic interests and we were ready to go to war over it.
Again, the Russians have no plans on annexing anyone--unless sufficiently provoked to do so.
Let's rephrase that: If the Americans feel there are no consequences to invading Iraq pretty soon they will invade Iran and Syria and other countries in the region.
Same game. Different players.
Have you ever been to Russia? Seriously? Ever been there? Do you know how seriously distressed and crumbling the infrastructure of the country is? Instead of provoking people, ask intelligent questions.
is that Putin's source of power is the popular support that comes
giving back Russians their sense of pride of being a superpower.
This is almost correct. It's not about being a superpower, it's about not being supine in the face of Western demands. There is a difference. Russia is not the Soviet Union. The fact that you have never been there is proof you don't know what you are talking about. If you have seen it first hand you would know. Seeing the rotting carcasses of planes in the St. Pete airport, old worn out Russian war machines in many places, potholes the size of small ponds in the middle of Moscow. Some Soviet Union.
Silly me, I almost forgot the Black Sea and the Caspian, and of course Chechnya.
Here is what InfoPlease says about the recent history in the region.
"On August 7, 2008, the day after Georgia and a breakaway region, South Ossetia, signed a cease-fire, violence erupted in South Ossetia. At least 15 civilians and 10 Russian peacekeepers died in the fighting. On Aug. 8, Russia sent 150 tanks into South Ossetia to support the region. On Aug. 9, Russia intensified its involvement, moving troops into Abkhazia, another breakaway region, and launching airstrikes at Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia. Thousands of people were killed, hundreds were wounded, and thousands more fled their homes in South Ossetia. Speculation ensued that Russia's aggressive tactics were taken to gain control of Georgia's oil and gas export routes. On Aug. 12, President Medvedev ordered an end to military action in Georgia, although sporadic fighting continued. On Aug. 13, Russian tanks occupied Gori, a strategic town 40 miles from Tbilisi, and hundreds of Russian soldiers crossed the border into South Ossetia. Leaders of EU nations, the United States, and NATO have warned Russia to end the conflict in Georgia."
First, I believe the U.S. would be a bit perturbed
IF Canada were to join a Defensive Military Alliance with
the Russians (similar to Ukraine joining NATO yes?).
Second, funny how Shrub, or any Iraq War Supporters
can complain about Russia 'invading' Georgia (not that I am happy with this situation),
when it is apparently ok (to Shrub and Iraq War Supporters) for the U.S. to illegaly invade a sovereign nation at will.
Let Condi bitch all she wants, at this point I don't believe we can do much about the situation. Maybe at some point those who were in favor of invading Iraq will learn a lesson about diplomacy and playing nice with others.
It is well within historical justification that Russia should protect and enhance its sphere of influence. That does not mean a return to "East vs West." It means a realistic understanding of Russia security concerns and their role as a great power. My prediction is continued Russian pre-emption of NATO leaning border state OR a quiet abandoning of the "missile" sheilds in eastern Europe and some sort of security arrangement between Russia and Ukraine, whether Ukraine wants it or not. And it will make page 10 of the paper when it happens.
During the Cuban missile crisis the famous metaphor was, "eyeball to eyeball and Russia blinked." Now we and say, "eyeball to eyeball, Bush and Putin, and Bush blinked."
I, personally, am hesitant to believe this was not foreseen by Mr. Bush and his "thinkers". It appears that our "friends" in Georgia, were acting in some sort of "distraction" maneuver, since all knew pretty much what would happen. I suspect there is an ulterior motive, involving placement of . . . assets, and the setting of a sort of "climate", in regard to other matters further south. And awakening the old "bear" in the minds of our populous, brings with it, a fear factor, which this Administration knows works wonders for getting people to accept aggressive actions . . .
Gather Broadcasting: Have it your way
This takes you in the back door. If you’ve already been, don’t click again.
Joe Klein makes some interesting observations in this week's Time magazine.
2. Yes, this is about pure power politics. Russia will fight to keep the Ukraine as it is today out of NATO. The missing fact is that nearly half of the Ukrainian population are Russophiles, who prefer pan-Slavism to Atlanticism.
On the basis of the Ukraine is not highly supportive of NATO membership, NATO membership should not be extended. Should the vast majority of Ukrainians want membership, then NATO and the EU need to take up the challenge of the power politics with military overtones or risk losing it (currently severely damaged) soft power of moral authority.
Lastly, Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor has made it concrete now: Germany will oppose extending a MAP--basically the first step into NATO--to both Georgia and the Ukraine. As NATO is a consensus driven organization that effectively kills their entry into NATO. It's not going to happen. And that's a good thing.