Monday, 08.11.08
The Advantage of the First Move
AFP/Getty Images
Putin's Policy of Realpolitik
December 2001
The Accidental Autocrat
March 2005
Paul Starobin describes Vladimir Putin as a combination of Alexander III, Stalin and Dostoyevsky.
The Russian military, having now secured complete control over the autonomous territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, appears increasingly engaged in an assault on Georgia proper. Distinguished commentators and Western governments alike have demanded action and called for transatlantic unity in the face of the Russian assault.
But it's unclear what transatlantic unity implies. Does it mean deployment of NATO troops to Tbilisi? A bold and creative move, perhaps, but unlikely, given western Europe's gun-shy nature. Does anyone seriously want to contemplate a scenario in which the United States and Russia are engaged in combat against each other? Economic sanctions against Russia probably won't happen, given Russia's stranglehold on western Europe through natural-gas deliveries.
The truth is, Russia has called the West's bluff on Georgia and won. It is the advantage of the first move in a situation whose underlying geopolitical realities are starkly different from the diplomatic pretense that often governs media headlines.
The main diplomatic pretense has been that Georgia is a thriving, fledgling democracy that the West, and particularly the United States, supports (in part through U.S. Marines' training Georgian forces at a camp near Tbilisi) in its struggle against Russian intimidation. But the geopolitical reality unravels this description in every aspect. To start with, a nation's political system is defined by the strength of its institutions more than by the name the system gives itself. Georgia is a democracy in Tbilisi and its environs. Everywhere else, it barely functions. Though small compared to Russia, Gerogia is a sprawling, mountainous, and therefore extremely vulnerable mini-empire of nationalities that will take years to forge into a cohesive nation.
That is not in any way to justify a Russian invasion, but merely to state how vulnerable Georgia is in the best of circumstances. Because it is barely a state, it can barely defend itself. And the U.S. military's assistance to its Georgian counterparts -- specifically to train for Georgia's limited duties in Iraq -- hasn't prepare the Georgian armed forces to take on an adversary like Russia.
But the biggest pretense is that Georgia is supported by the West. Last April, at the NATO summit in Bucharest, the alliance pointedly refused to put Georgia on a fast track for NATO membership. This was to a significant degree the doing of Germany, which, even under a conservative government, as this crisis reveals, is becoming more a neutral power than a Western nation, with large strategic implications for the U.S. Dependent on Russian natural-gas deliveries, Germany has been reluctant to impose sanctions on Iran, even as it has wanted no part of a serious defense of Georgia. The decision at the NATO summit was a confirmation of this reality in international affairs, in which many European nations are allies of the U.S. only if it never means putting their troops in harm's way. Indeed, German troops are deployed in a peaceful part of Afghanistan, where they are primarily doing the work of relief workers.
Vladimir Putin saw through all these pretenses. He saw that the United States, bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, and still hoping for Russian support in imposing sanctions on Iran, was all alone and, furthermore, ambivalent in this crisis. He saw that Georgian leader Mikhail Saakashvili, despite his nationalistic bravado, was a weak democratic leader with weak armed forces. And he saw on the map that Georgia was engulfed by Russia, with the West far away. This is not the Balkans, which have the good fortune of bordering Central Europe, and are therefore ultimately prone to robust NATO involvement. This is the Caucasus, whose neighbors are Russia, Iran, the poorest part of Turkey, and the Caspian Sea.
Thus, Putin made his move. He liberated, as it were, South Ossetia, a gangster and smuggling state, from the incipient grip of the Georgian military. He did the same in Abkhazia. In the latest news, Russian forces have seized a Georgian base in the western part of the country, and seem intent on establishing a military grip there, an area where the central government in Tbilisi is weakest. By cutting Georgia in half, the Russians can stand astride the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline, so critical to Western energy strategy, giving the Kremlin implicit say on energy deliveries to the Mediterranean and Europe. The Americans and Europeans will call for negotiations, and eventually Russia may make some concessions, but from a far stronger position than at the start of this crisis. Georgia may never again have such a feisty, independent government as it had before August 8, 2008.
The invasion of Georgia officially ends the era of a relatively benign and weakened Russia, following the collapse of the Berlin Wall. Russia is back as a grand adversary. And unlike in the Cold War, the U.S. no longer has the benefit of a militarily engaged and uncompromised Europe to share its burdens. Greater transatlantic unity will help, but not to the point where we can roll back Russia's gains.
In a Europe inhospitable to sanctions, the threat of military force is more important than ever as a tool of diplomacy. But in the aftermath of Iraq -- a war I supported -- military force is discredited to an extent rare in American history. President George W. Bush and his successor now have no other choice but to play a weak hand well.
Call for actionThe President of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili, calls on the West to defend its values in the Caucasus region. |
Moral imperativeAccording to the The Guardian's David Clark, the EU must act decisively to stop Russian aggression. |
A complex historyDer Spiegel outlines the political and strategic factors that put South Ossetia in the crosshairs of global tensions. |
Shared blameThe Christian Science Monitor argues that President Saakashvili pursued a reckless policy in the separatist regions and deserves his share of blame for the outbreak of hostilities. |
Avoid 1914William Rees-Mogg warns of troubling parallels between the Serbian crisis that triggered WWI and the current violence. |
(20)
"Economic sanctions against Russia probably won't happen, given Russia's stranglehold on western Europe through natural-gas deliveries."
I see this argument repeated in many articles. This is simply false. Russian natural gas represents only 6% of European total energy sources. Moreover, of the major European military powers, only Germany is connected to the russian pipelines.
More importantly, Russia has a huge trade surplus with Europe; it is their primary source of revenues and investment. A russian-european trade crisis would be troublesome for the EU, but it would catastrophic for Moscow. And logically, Russia has never ever threatened to stop supplying gas - which it is required to do by treaty. Its only beef is with Ukraine, for economical as much as political reasons.
Saying that Russia controls Europe foreign policy thanks to the almighty natural gas makes about as much sense as saying that Saudi Arabia controls everything the US does through oil. Except that Europe is less dependant on gas than the US on oil.
Valwayne's pea-brained comment is why i sometimes wish voting was a privilege given to the educated amongst us. How you try and use this situation as a reason to vote for McCain is beyond me. One can make the argument that McCain and the Republicans in the Congress and Senate rubber-stamped every misadventure Bush has sent us in, thus weakening our hand and making us unable to have any leverage. As things stand if Russia was to attack our NATO members they very well could overrun them before we'll be able to go in to help them. Our military is stretched to its highest limits because McCain, Republicans and a few spineless democrats thought it'd be a good idea to attack the wrong country. Our status as a superpower will have about 25 years left if we keep on electing Republicans into office. On all counts they fail, and yet we allow them to use race and other wedge issues to win elections and drive the nail further deeper into our collective coffins.
The very idea, that you discuss calmy any possibility that the U.S. would aid Georgia with ethnic cleansing of South Ossetians, is an outrage.
The U.S. should have immediately condemned Georgia for its actions, and should join the Russian/Ossetian peacekeeping contingent to keep the ethnic cleansing from occurring.
When new political forces took over Zimbabwe, formerly Rhodesia, the white farmers, faced threats, loss of life, loss of livelihood and property, but, after all they were the interlopers.
This is the ancient homeland of the Ossetian people, when new forces took over in Georgia, they aimed to advance their racist, ethnic Georgian agenda by forcing out teh Ossetians from their homeland.
We shouldn't support that in any way.
Russia has withstood whithering criticism, that shows a lot more about where your head is at: still in the Cold War, than any facts on the ground.
valwayne: how can you blame congress and a future potential president for this mess? George W. Bush is our president now and he's not doing ANYTHING. What is Barack Obama supposed to do?
As the news turns to the conflict between Russia and Georgia, we should probably not lose sight of the potential for conflict between the United States and Iran. Could Russia help finance Iran to keep the United States at bay while driving additional hostilities towards an Iran nuclear power? So far, Russia has supported an Iranian nuclear power. So, Democrats, shall we pull out from Iraq now in order to allow Russia to gather a greater military power in the region?
If what "why oh why" says is true, it makes me wonder if using Russian military in the region has the purpose of motivating change of political and military policy in the United States with Iraq through Iran. I cannot help but wonder what the underlying issues are for Russian military action against Georgia during a time of rising military concerns here in the United States. Why would Russia provide military action upon a country that is closer to the conflict between the United States and Iraq with rising potential for conflict with Iran? Is the Russian Federation trying to take military sides in the United States conflict?
I imagine time will answer a great many of these questions. But these question do make a person wonder in relation to the current political debates here in the United States. After all, the rules and, no doubt, positions are likely to change quickly! I feel some flip-flopping changes are about to take place among the Democrats.
I totally agree with valwayne's position. After Hitler entered the Rhineland in 1936, he admitted that the Nazi Army would have ran home with their tail between their legs if the French had opposed them. Three years later World War II started. Valwayne is no peabrain but correctly sees what is starting to happen. I guess I should call NoWH4OldMen a peanut brain since he obviously thinks Jimmy Carter's foreign policy was brilliant. His demeaning attitude towards anyone not agreeing with his opinion is pure proof of the leftwing elitists who wouldn't defend their country if they could.
Though I don't want Bush to say it, military options are completely off the table. NOW is the time to bring forth an international coalition of interested parties. Surely, the European powers are a bit nervous over Sovie...I mean Russian aggression. Bring on carrots and sticks...put away the guns. I put my thoughts at: http://pragmaticallypolitical.blogivists.com/
McCain as president would be the worst choice, we are already stretched and having to deal with Iran as well, we cannot possibly hope to win a fight with Russia at this moment, yet he is trying to play warmonger with Putin. I'm sorry, but facts are facts, we don't have the power to prevent Russian expansion at the moment, our only choice is to begin a pullout of Iraq, solidify Afghanistan, and work towards repairing our international ties so we can have a stronger hand against Russia and Iran. Obama is the one who can do that, not McCain.
Russia set this whole thing up. The European nations have to make a choice - they can either work with the USA to counterbalance hostile non-democracies or they can hide out and hope that they don't get hurt too badly when Putin tries reconstituting the Soviet Union and allowing Iran to have nukes. Frankly, I suspect they'll hide out and hope that the USA will somehow fix it without them having to get involved. That way they take little risk and will still be able to criticize the USA for not having done it right somehow. Germany's decision about Georgia and not allowing its troops to fight in Afghanistan helped greenlight this invasion. Either NATO is an alliance for mutual benefit or it won't last much longer.
I don't pretend to be up to speed on all the irredentist grievances of the Caucasus but I'd be wary of looking for heroes anywhere in that neck of the woods. Villains are a much more plentiful commodity. Little Father Putin, perhaps the ablest leader of any great power, is signalling to NATO that it's era of eastward creep (always a dubious enterprise) is over. I feel sorry for Georgia but if you sleep next to the bear you'd better not get too snippy when he hogs the covers. How should the West respond? Sanctions aren't likely to be effectual but they would at least signal some degree of unity and resolve.
Welcome to the Nineteenth Century.
Valwayne's comments, and those who endorse them, would be hilarious if they were not so dangerous and naive.
The current President of the United States, after meeting with Vladimir Putin early on in his presidency, in 2001, famously said, "I looked the man in the eye. I was able to get a sense of his soul. I knew that President Putin was a man with whom I could work." Bush later went on to emphasize his trust in Putin, frequently referring to him his "good friend." Why would the Kremlin need to look to a possible Obama presidency - which is FAR from a sure thing and becoming less certain with each passing week - for encouragement, when the current President has gone out of his way to declare his affection and admiration for a man who was a loyal member of the loathsome KGB?
No one should be surprised that the Russians have invaded Georgia on Bush's watch.
Obama and co. could hardly turn out to be better pals to President Medvedev, Prime Minister Putin and their henchmen then the incompetents who currently are in charge of American foreign policy.
It apparently does not occur to Valwayne that given Bush's record of steadfast support of Mr. Putin (who remains extremely powerful, obviously) , that perhaps the Russians thought they'd try to invade Georgia before a possible McCain presidency? But then again, perhaps Valwayne, like our President, has looked into the Russian leaders' souls and knows exactly what their thoughts and intentions are. In any event, Obama's presidency has most certainly NOT started: IF it starts, it's still months away, and, unlike some of those posting here, President Medvedev is, as Mr. Bush himself recently said after meeting with him, very smart and very confident: he is certainly smart enough to know that no one, not even someone as brilliant as Valwayne, can predict what the American political landscape will be like after the November elections.
Just days into this conflict liberal/democratic defeatist begin to demand surrender. But then again isn't this the perfect time for Hate America crowd to show us what it is all abut?
Kaplan's reasoning is correct. These so called "states" that were in their earlier incarnations little more than tribal regions, re-emerged after the economic collapse of the USSR as weak and poorly defined political entities. Without the support of the USSR's central authority, they have little or no staying power in the short run. Western interest is largely in preventing the reassertion of Russia as a global power, but the logistical and tactical barriers to bolstering these political entities on a sustainable long-term basis are insurmountable.
Russia herself remains a bad actor in our fantasy "democracy/free-market" world scenario. She has embraced only the ruthlessness and criminality of unbridled free markets, and eschewed our high-minded delusions about democracy, which she rightly views as antithetical to free-market motivations. It's all about power, and as conditions permit, she will move to bring her weaker neighbors under her sphere of influence. Is this any different that what we do in the Western hemisphere?
While our machinations remain thinly cloaked in our rhetoric about freedom loving peoples, Russia has been stripped of her high-minded communist ideals. All that remains is the naked beast.
We would have done better long ago if we had had better theory. We could have used long-term thinking in order to gently and relentlessly co-opted the USSR into a sphere of common prosperity, rather than crushing her in a mega-arms race. This was possible.
What we have now vis-�-vis Russia, is a scenario not unlike Germany after WWII, though far more complex because in today�s world, Russia will act opportunistically in the face of Western impotence. She rises from the ashes of the Cold War on the basis of raw market-driven power, stripped of any idealistic pretenses. She is �us� without the make-up.
What I like about Kaplan is that he sees facts on the ground in a historical perspective. There is a global fractionalization going on that is driven by the facts of global economics. Technology and labor markets know no borders. Information flows. Weapons proliferate. Ancient tribal and nationalistic interests assert themselves. It has become a global wide west that will increasingly become besieged by small border wars, ethnic cleansings, religious Jihads, tribal struggles for political dominance, and other opportunistic acts to which we are unable to effectively respond, even if we had a moral basis for distinguishing right from wrong. And Iraq does much to prove that that we do not have such a basis.
Kaplan is a "realist" and as such he sees that we have played no small role in creating a hopeless mess. There is another way, but the facts on the ground have made other paths increasingly inaccessible. History does not give us a level playing field on which to experiment with alternatives, no matter how promising. We have become trapped by the facts on the ground that we have created.
There is a lot of hypocrisy here.
Cuba is a small country on our border which was once under our political influence, but chose to align itself with our rivals.
We have chosen to continue asserting military control over a portion of Cuban territory (Guantanamo) for 50 years, against the will of the Cuban government and with no real support among the Cuban people.
If Cuba launched a large military strike on our soldiers there, no one in the US media (outside of fringe nutcases like The Nation) would begrudge the US a two day, harsh counter attack on the Cuban military. You can also rest assured the US would not content itself with merely resecuring Guantanamo's perimeter. All the Russian protests (and there would be many) would not make us stop either.
That said, Russia is not back as a super power. Beating up on a pathetic military like Georgia's and benefitting from oil prices (which have actually fallen 20% in the last month) does not change the fact that next to the US and China, Russia is still a basket case.
This article is ridiculous.
Georgia certainly isn't supported by the West, and it isn't clear why this should be otherwise. The extension of NATO membership to Georgia for no apparent reason other than it is (a) a (shaky) democracy, and (b) doing so further boxes Russia in, is terrible policy. Georgia is unstable, divided, and geopolitically and culturally antagonistic to Moscow--a terrible recipe for an ally we should commit ourselves to defend. Further, Saakashvili's escalation was reckless, and it has demonstrated why the western allies were right to be cautious. You don't bait a much larger, more powerful neighbour and enemy, and then expect unmitigated support to defend from it. Henry Kissinger said it best: 'Great powers don't commit suicide for their allies.' Indeed.
Still, Mr. Kaplan suggests that 'putting [our] troops in harm's way' in this situation would be the right thing to do. What utter nonsense. You pick your fights when they matter. That was the lesson of the First World War, where the foolish mistakes of others cost the lives of so many. For Germany or France to commit troops--to go to war, nuclear war--over the mistakes of a non-ally is sheer folly.
Even if America weren't tied down in Iraq or Afghanistan--even if this had occurred on 10 September 2001--it's ludicrous to assume the US response would be entirely different. I hardly believe the US would threaten all-out war with (non-Soviet) Russia over a stupid mistake, at least not for the mistake of a non-NATO ally. Therein lies a disjuncture: we are to recognise that NATO was 'foolish' enough not to extend Article 5 protection to Georgia, but then turn around to rue the fact that NATO troops aren't already on the ground.
There is no shame in admitting we lost this one, Mr. Kaplan. No, not if 'winning' would have meant engaging with a dangerous enemy over a hazy issue with shady origins. This isn't Russia smashing through West German borders, Mr. Kaplan, and don't pretend as if it is. There aren't 'prime' western interests being irrevocably undone by Russia. That is a category error of the first order. It is precisely that kind of specious and deluded logic that has bogged down our troops in Iraq to begin with...
Valwayne,
You really think that the Russians' strategic calculus involved both an American presidential election and our current Senate leadership? Reid and Pelosi have been running Congress for years, so how do you explain the fact that Russia is just now invading Georgia?
Your entire argument dissolves into vapor when touched by the slightest bit of logic. Do you think it's possible that Russia looked not at the U.S. Congress or political horserace but rather at the fact that we don't have any spare combat brigades after invading Iraq & Afghanistan? Do you think that maybe, just maybe, the fact that the main ground forces of the world's best army were already committed had just ever so slightly more to do with Russia's decision than hearing that Obama is willing to engage diplomatically, or that Reid & Pelosi are now in their second full year of running Congress?
Idiot. I can't believe how unbelievably stupid your comment was. Frankly, I thought intelligent people read The Atlantic, but I guess you're the exception that proves the rule.
Dan.
I believe that the fact that Russia is major nuclear power meant infinitely more in USA calculations about possible sending of army in Georgia to fight Russians than whether they have committed their army or not. They could easily moved army from Iraq, through Turkey if required - it is probably much closer than Germany and army is probably more mobile, at the least more battle hardened. Without Iraq USA army would be probably smaller and weaker.
Likewise, Russian fighting in Chechnya probably helped, not prevented intervention in Georgia.
I know everyone always talks about the oil pipeline in Georgia, but I looked at a map of the region and I think that Russia may just be looking for the next place to park their ships? Won't they need a warm water port in the Black Sea after Ukraine eventually kicks them out of the Crimea?
Amazingly, Dr. Kaplan, you are suggesting that NATO placing troops in Tiblisi is "bold and creative"? What balderdash. It's more akin to attacking a Roman garrison in Spain in hopes of starting a wider war (and how did that work for Hannibal?). Maybe in your conversations with the Majors and Captains who sit on the ramparts of your beloved American Empire, you could ask one of them the chances of an expeditionary force surviving that Russian assault?
You even posit German fecklessness as a hindrance to stopping the Russians (oh, I wish you could utter that phrase in a nice coffeehouse in St. Petersburg and see how it would be greeted), yet you assume, apparently, that a NATO expeditionary force would be supplied and supported by the same feckless Germans?
In the end, you apparently think the US is too weak to allow the Russians to control the same territory they have controlled since the 17th century? You, the master of Realpolitik, suddenly and incomprehensibly, does not understand a "sphere of influence". Have the dolts at AEI so bought and paid for you, sir?
In the end, what troubles me is your increasingly militaristic tone. If, for instance, the Kaplan who wrote any of his early works met the Kipling/Kagan/Kaplan of today, he would have laughed him off a macho poser.
And so it starts. The Kremlin sees Harry Reid running the Senate, Nancy Pelosi running the House, and Obama ahead in the polls. They know that Obama wants to chat and understand the terrorists rather than fight them. Well Obama....how do you chat with a Russian Tank running over you? The Russians know they are about to get Jimmy Obama II, Pelosi, and Reid who would rather blame the U.S. than confront our enemies. Americans had better take a hard look at what our enemies and competitors have in mind for Obama's Presidency. Its already started!
Posted by valwayne | August 12, 2008 10:26 AM