Michael Pillsbury participated in President Reagan’s decision in 1986 to order the CIA to arm the Afghan resistance with Stinger missiles. According to the UN Undersecretary General who negotiated the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, “Initially, the Stinger campaign was spearheaded by Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Fred Ikle and his aggressive Coordinator for Afghan Affairs, Michael Pillsbury… The Stinger proponents won their victory in the face of overwhelming bureaucratic resistance that persisted until the very end of the struggle.” Mann wrote, “For Michael Pillsbury, the covert operations in Afghanistan represented the fulfillment of the decade-old dream of American military cooperation with China… To help him win the argument, Pillsbury made use of his China connections.” George Crile stated in Charlie Wilson’s War that, “Ironically, neither [Gust] Avrakotos nor [Charlie] Wilson was directly involved in the decision and claims any credit.”

I am afraid you underestimate the importance of these territories to the Georgians. Without these provinces Georgia would not want to join NATO at all. I mean, that was one of the main reasons for them to try so hard. I am afraid that given the choice and facing such a shocking betrayal of the West, Georgia would prefer to abandon its pro-Western course, if it means maintaining it’s territorial integrity. Moreover, Georgia would also probably hand over to Russians the control of all of its oil and gas pipelines. You do not seriously think that Georgians should have some concerns about Europe’s energy supplies after they were simply thrown to the wolves? Russia will get complete control of all Caspian energy supply roots outside Iran. You can imagine how it will embolden Russia and what a massive blow it will make to US reputation. After that the US can wait until second coming for Russia’s help with Iran or anything else for that matter.

So, yeah, good plan.

If you have a problem with ANYTHING I’ve written, you aren’t a leftist and you don’t support the Anointed One for Messiah of the United States of America.

Would you be willing to sacrifice your son or daughter to defend . . . Georgia?

That’s really what it comes down to. Because if you’re willing to sacrifice other Americans’ children you should be prepared to sacrifice your own (even hypothetically speaking). It’s very easy to go along with military “solutions” when you yourself (Boot is still of military age by the Bush administration’s new standards) or no one close to you will be put at risk.

And if we’re having the kinds of problems we are dealing with some tribal militias in Afghanistan and Iraq, I think opening up a third front against an NBC power is probably not the wisest foreign policy move. Call me crazy . . .

You’re a pathetic lying warmongerer. Please enlist yourself and go fight instead of preaching death from the safety of your computer desk.

I totally agree with Alexey who posted a few pages above. Had Russia really been an agressor, it would not have stopped at reversing Georgia’s gains in South Ossetia; instead, it would have deposed the current Georgian leadership, which by the way, is chiefly responsible for the escalation. It is an irrefutable fact that the escalation started after Georgia shelled the capital of South Ossetia, while the world’s attention was turned to the Olympics. Georgia apparently thought that it could easily overtake South Ossetia, and then turn to an even bigger territory, Abkhazia. This was in total violation of the Peace Agreement of 1992. Moreover, it appears that hundreds of innocent Ossetins died under Georgian bombs. All Russia did was to help restore the status quo ante. Yes, it required some targeted bombing of Georgian infrastructure in areas neighoboring South Ossetia. Yes, it’s possible that Russia went a bit too far, and some Georgian civilians suffered needleesly. However, it is the height of hypocrisy to pretend that Russia is somehow an aggressor here.

And the one-sidedness of coverage of the conflict in the American press, especially on the TV, is breathtaking.

I agree, we should arm the Georgians, but why use pathetic and useless weapons like the stinger or viper…we should arm them with f16s, 117s, and B1 bombers.
Yeah, now were talking, but wait, why limit ourselves to that?
They have ports, so lets load them up with Aegis missile cruisers, and LA class attack subs…yeah, OOooooo, and B2 bombers!
WOoooohooooo!
Yeah because you know what?
IF WE’RE GOING TO FREAKING START A PISSING MATCH WITH RUSSIA WE MIGHT AS WELL GO ALL THE WAY, BECAUSE THE RUSSIANS WILL GO HIGH-ORDER ON US ASAP, AND WILL NOT WAIT FOR US TO RAMP IT UP!
We have a “Bush” league President and Vice President whose shoes are still stuck in the Iraqi sand box, and you, you want to start a proxy war with Russia?

How this frivolous little bed-wetter gets published is an absolute mystery.

Before you go Sending stingers to everyone just pause and look at the map. You make the assumption that what we send would be used against the Russians. But Stingers are one of the things that certain gentlemen a little to the south are desperate to get hold of and would pay a Georgian a lot of money for. Country name ends in stan. Yes I know that it would be nice to tweak the Russians, but that is all it would do. I guarentee that if sent in to teh field in Georgia at least some of those weapons would disapear, and in the end you just armed the Taliban, and Al Quaida with weapons that would be used against our troops and in all likelyhood against our civil airliners. As you noted we already taught them how to use Stingers….

Georgia attacked first, it started shelling South Osetia and Peacekeepers based there, and yes, Russia responded forcefully, but c’mon, who’s US to even open its mouth on “disproportionate responce” to anything ? Should i remind you Iraq ? And did Iraq ever attack anything on US soil ? How many civillians are killed there by US troops ? Should i remind you the never ending ‘Afghan Wedding Syndrome’ – countless times US was taking out groups of people on the ground only to discover later it was a weding or funeral procession ?

Who the hell are you to warmonger ? And lie ?

People like you drove US to criminal war in Iraq, and you never shed a tear about foreighn babies bombed into bloody mess under false pretences…

I repeat again – your piece is a lie, it is dicconnected from reality, and you are a dumb dumb warmongering fool for not knowing what happend, or for pretending you didn’t know, and for opening your mouth about something you have no brains and heart to understand.

And you’re not alone, you, fake “foreign policy experts”, talking heads… shame on you, real shame..

It would really be rotten to Ukraine to “threaten” Russia with Ukraine’s inclusion in NATO, and then not do it, if Russia backed off in Georgia. That would be a positively French colonial level of cynicism. I couldn’t advocate America ever acting that way.

I also don’t think it would work. Russia knows the West European members of NATO don’t want to admit Ukraine anyway: they said that in so many words at the NATO summit this year. Medvedev and Putin would gamble that Russia has more to gain from holding on to Georgia than she has to lose from the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO. They basically would think there’s a better than 50% chance that Ukraine will NOT be invited into NATO — and they’d be right.

So I don’t agree with the Morris proposal, as a way to get leverage with Russia over Georgia. On the other hand, I do see NATO at the crossroads here. This is the big one for NATO: bigger than Afghanistan, and bigger than the break-up of Yugoslavia. If NATO doesn’t see the threat gathering on her perimeter, and realize that NATO is the only body that has any power to act, I am very much concerned that we will be watching the late 1930s replay in slow motion. Admitting Ukraine to NATO would be embarrassingly late and way more than a sawbuck short, but it needs to be taken up immediately –and seriously, not for show — at a meeting of the Atlantic Council, along with a slate of political and military responses.

it’s not too late to learn a trade guys, and girls. well, for some maybe it is.

I’d recomend a little non keynesian economics like Mises “human action” or even “the politically incorrect guide to capitalism” if you prefer bigger print

nice

The bottom line is clear to me at least: Russia stood to gain far more if it had really joined the West in pursuing a unified policy of economic growth and security, and supported open trade with its neighbors based on laws and mutual respect of real concerns (as opposed to bogus security issues). If it had done so it would not need to prove its mettle by acting in mindless opposition to US and western policy imperatives like its arming of IRan, and worrying about “slavic” unity. It could have prospered and my guess is that the nato expansion would have been less of an issue for the newly liberated satellites since Russia would not appear to be a threat. it is equally easy to see that there would have been no need for an anti missile defense in Poland if Iran were not to become a nuclear nation with long range missiles thanks to Russia. WHile i would strongly prefer a democratic RUssia I can’t get to worked up about its autocratic nature except as that seems to lead inexorably to aggressive external behavior. but once Russia fell into the control of an elite that has stated that the fall of the soviet union was a horrible “international” disasster since ti opened the world to the awful hegemony of the US, well who can be surpised that events have taken the turn it has. For that matter if RUssia had abandoned Iraq and sided with the there might never have been a war to begin with. through this prism a large part of the problem is with Russia’s choice to pick the wrong fights — defending saddam, the mullahs and the serbs in the exercise of raw 19th century global power games.

it ain’t over yet. let’s see if the west has the wisdom to stick together on this one.

It will interesting in the next few days to watch how the spin machines use this event to promote their candidates and agendas.

J.E. Dyer-

I think Washington’s response was very telling. Moscow’s graphically illustrated message to the leaders of Georgia, Ukraine, and the rest of Russia’s near abroad was simple and succinct:
Do not depend on the West to come to your aid. When you decide to stand, you’ll stand alone!

“The art of any propagandist and agitator consists in his ability to find the best means of influencing any given audience, by presenting a definite truth, in such a way as to make it most convincing, most easy to digest, most graphic, and most strongly impressive.”
-Lenin

I rest my case.

As for Stingers and Javelins, Russian knock-offs may be sent to Iraq just as easily. Neither US nor Russia will benefit from this.

You quote Dick Morris as suggesting:
That we approach the Russians with this message; if you overrun Georgia you will place the US in the position of drawing the conclusion that Russia cannot be trusted regarding territorial ambitions. The US will then immediately impress upon NATO the absolute necessity for immediate inclusion of the Ukraine into NATO. If Russia stops and allows Georgia its independence we will not press for the Ukraine to become a NATO member. Morris makes the case that the Ukraine joining NATO is the very last thing they want…

This is possibly the worst foreign policy suggestion I’ve ever read. First of all why would NATO want to provoke Russia with such an empty threat? But, OK, let’s say they did, and Russia did not stop its aggression, NATO would then do what? Attack Russia? I don’t think so!
And what about the government and people of the Ukraine? I’m sure they’ll be thrilled to know that all it would take for NATO and the US to sell them out, is for Russia to grind its tanks to a halt in Georgia!
Putin and company may be many things, but they are not stupid! They know the US is not prepared to fight them in their own back yard. They also know that there is no consensus among the NATO countries to do anything but wait for their foray into Georgia to come to an end.
The irony of the situation is: the Russian Military is not ready for prolonged battle. It is not cohesive, lacks command and control communication, and their tanks, armored carriers, and transport vehicles lack modernization. These are not the troops of the former Soviet Union, these are troops and commanders in training being used in a well thought out, superbly played bluff! Unfortunately, we are spread too thin in areas we probably shouldn’t be in, to do anything about it.

In the hours since I have last posted I have been educating myself in much more depth about the situation. I also reread your prior posts and agree that Georgia is where you suggested drawing the line. I also admit that my prior belief that Russia was not interested in annexing Georgia appears at the least doubtful and may well be erroneous.

For anyone desiring to gain a greater insight I recommend:

Putin Makes His Move by the always excellent Robert Kagan http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/10/AR2008081001871.html and

Ideology’s Rude Return also by Kagan; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/01/AR2008050102899.html

and finally,
The War in Georgia Is a War for the West by the Georgia’s President; http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121841306186328421.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

After reading these very informative articles I find myself much more convinced of the need to contain Putin’s autocratic ambitions. Thus both your and jfeder’s opinion I find much more convincing than I previously did.

Tonight I heard Dick Morris (politically astute) of all people offer an interesting suggestion.

That we approach the Russians with this message; if you overrun Georgia you will place the US in the position of drawing the conclusion that Russia cannot be trusted regarding territorial ambitions. The US will then immediately impress upon NATO the absolute necessity for immediate inclusion of the Ukraine into NATO. If Russia stops and allows Georgia its independence we will not press for the Ukraine to become a NATO member. Morris makes the case that the Ukraine joining NATO is the very last thing they want…

What’s your view?

But Russia, as Russia, has had a perennial idea of herself as the great hegemon of the Eastern Hemisphere. That’s where Russia’s focus is now. And it will matter as much to American security that Russia wants hemispheric dominance as it mattered that Hitler and Japan each had a concept of continental dominance. Russia is not a threat only when she is is in thrall to a universalist, economic religious-eschatalogical idea: she is a threat when she wants to supplant our leadership with our allies in Europe and the Far East, to gain control of a huge portion of the world’s oil and natural gas reserves, and to control the tradeways that run between the Strait of Gibraltar and the Arabian Sea.

If Russia had to make up a name for what she is pursuing today, she might call it a “Greater European-Central Asian-Middle Eastern-North African Co-Prosperity Sphere.” Russia is avoiding early detection by not defining her aspirations clearly, instead taking multiple separate actions aimed at weakening the relative posture and status of the US.

One is selling nuclear materials and technology to Iran. One was Medvedev’s recent overture to Raul Castro suggesting a resumption of Russian military basing in Cuba. Another was Medvedev’s proposal in July, to the Atlantic Council (NATO’s senior political body), of a supra-NATO organization, one that would supersede NATO, OSCE, and a host of other US-led multilateral bodies.

The invasion of South Ossetia — and as of today, of undisputed Georgian territory — is the biggest challenge so far in this effort. You’re quite right that Russia doesn’t have a Soviet-style, universalist organizing idea for what she’s doing now. Russia is acting like Russia, seeking to control her near abroad, to exclude outside influence from its periphery, and to acquire dominance over the hemisphere’s moneymakers: resources and tradeways.

This strategy of cynical self-interest and old-fashioned power acquisition isn’t messianic like predatory international Marxism, but it will be as much of a threat, if not more, to US interests. In short order it will collide directly with our security perimeter in Europe and East Asia, and with the oldest and most consistently held of our security principles: free seaways, free trade, and “open doors” in regions and hemispheres.

Note for Geoffrey Britain: I haven’t made a case for drawing the line at South Ossetia, but at Georgia’s undisputed borders. We can only hope they will still be there a week from now; those who were insisting two days ago that Russia had no interest in invading Georgia have been proven wrong. It’s possible that at this point, we will have to step back to Plan B and shore up Ukraine, as Charles Krauthammer said today. I hope it’s not already too late for Georgia. I applaud Sarkozy for planning to visit Saakashvili there this week — maybe NATO would show more spine than we think, if we’d go ahead and ask it of them.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2008/08/11/2331805.htm

Now, Felgenhauer said, Russia has made a choice that will drag it into a prolonged and difficult war because mountains form a barrier between the region and Russia, leaving only a one-road pass, closed off in the winter.

“It’s a logistical nightmare to try to take South Ossetia back from Georgia’s quite good military,” Felgenhauer said. “Massive Russian intervention may turn out to be costly, not only in terms of human costs … it could be politically devastating for Russia’s standing and economy.”

Felgenhauer said the Georgian move on South Ossetia gave Russia a pretext to back up its oft-stated policy rhetoric with concrete action, though it was far from clear this action would ultimately prove successful.

“There is only one road, several metres wide, between Russia and South Ossetia. It’s a question of logistics.”

The error was perhaps generated by the fact
that Russia has recently extended its citizenship to
the people of these provinces. That act was not based on ethnicity.

On the subject of truly oppressed provinces who would like a chance to vote independence shouldn’t we advocate the same for Chechnya if we are in the business or trading away South Ossetia to Russia.

As several have stated we would have to be foolish to push so far that Russia, right or wrong is pressed to do stupid things like form a defense pact with Iran. BUt we also have to be careful that we do not paralyze ourselves and refrain from taking any meaningful action because Russia might get upset. Both sides should have an interest in not escalating, not just the West.

Excluding Russia from the G7/8, pressing forward on the anti missile defense system and organizing a very strong unified repsonse to the invasion all seem appropriate. If Russia would really trade IRan for S Ossetia and the missile defense, we would be fools to not take the trade. but does anyone seriously believe that Russia would ever do that?

The Russia of today is a an autocratic fascist state designed to enrich its elite and to assert its suppossedly “natural right” to be a world power and dominate its neighbors. Its actions in Georgia are spookily reminiscent of nazi and stalinist propoganda based expansionism. Left unchecked it will continue in this vein until it steps too far. The West reacted in kosovo to a new serbian genocide, and in no way gained any economic or political advantage from its essentially humanitarian efforts. How this compares with a clearly Russian imperialist effort to dominate the oil generation and distribution to the western world is beyond me. If Russia felt aggrieved by kosovo it is just too bad. The West cannot coddle clearly its misguided and frankly racist need for “slavic unity.”

But if we turn the analytical table and count the ways that Russia has seriously and purposely”incited” US antagonism, we need look no furhter than its Iranian adventure in nuclear empowerment or its oppostion to the Iraq war or to its express policy of opposing almost everything that the US advocates solely to have a multipolar world not dominated by the US. If that means that Iran goes nuclear, Iraq flouts UN resolutions, kosovars and bosnians are butchered, so be it. If that means murdering its own citizens in Western countries, flouting its contracts with Westerm companies in acts of outright theft on a grand scale, well we should somehow all understand. Those who advocate some form of resolute but reasonable response to this growing menace are not looking to create a new cold war, we are reacting to the wilful creation of a hostile environment by Russia in many areas of critical importance to the West.

Thank you for your post #34, you make some fine points based on our history with the Soviet Union. But, History in itself, can be a blessing, or a curse. The Soviet Union no longer exists, and I don’t believe the Russians are trying to resurrect it. It was bloated, unwieldy, and too expensive to maintain. Today’s Russia is leaner, has saved billions in weapons research and development dollars through tech transfer, and is rich in oil, and oil money. Considering their current action in Georgia, I would say they also have a plan, and the leadership in place to carry out that plan. The leadership we have in place today, pales in comparison to the American leadership you mention in your post. You have to admit, that, not one of them would still be sitting the stands in Beijing if this were happening on their watch.

“There will always be a contingent of Americans who think we can disengage from everywhere else in the world and retire to a fairytale kingdom where no one will bother us. ”

I certainly cannot disagree with you, but I can assure you, I am not one of them!

You make a compelling case for drawing the line at Georgia but an ultimately unconvincing case for South Ossetia. If a cease fire was declared tomorrow and a plebiscite held Saturday on joining the Russian federation or remaining with Georgia, how would the vote go?

I’m all for drawing a line but where do you draw it? Get in Russia’s face too much and they will escalate in some other fashion, simply because no one likes being pushed around.

We need to draw a line in such a place that Russia does not lose too much ‘face’. Otherwise, you start down a path that will lead to increasing tensions.

At best, adding a renewal of the cold war with the WoT is a risky proposition. How risky? Escalate enough and consider: Do we really want to see the signing of a peace treaty between Iran and Russia with mutual self-defense provisions? We’ve done it with the NATO countries, why can’t Russia do it too?

If it came to that, you have the groundwork being laid for the kind of alliances that made WWI inevitable once a relatively obscure VIP was assassinated. In a world of WMD, the cost for that scenario is beyond calculation.

The conduct in which the Russians are presently engaged, however, is just as bad. The Russians have turned a localized conflict into a war of expansion. Advancing on Georgia’s capital while attacking (even bombing) its territory and civilian centers is entirely unwarranted. At this point, the Russians are the clear aggressors.

that was before they owned 100 billion dollars of our debt. if we cross putin they pull better than half of that out of fannie and freddie and bye bye US economy

Because they always have. Russian expansionism has always stopped where WE drew the line. (And before us, Great Britain, and to a lesser extent France and Germany.) Where Russian expansionism did not stop, it was always because we waffled on the line — not because Russia or her proxies ever defeated us.

Russia’s attempts to undermine national sovereignty in Greece and Iran after WWII, which prompted the Truman Doctrine, went underground and were ultimately stymied by our persistence in asserting our interest in those areas. Neither ended up in Moscow’s orbit during the Cold War (although the Ayatollah was happy to be courted by the USSR before its collapse. His Iran could never have been said to represent an expanded field of Russian political influence, however. Russia lucked out on that one: Jimmy Carter was in the Oval Office, and we gave up on an ally Russia had long ago decided not to confront us over).

We had to fight on land to restore the status quo ante in Korea, but once we did, Russia respected — and respects to this day — our armed alliance with South Korea.

Throughout the Vietnam conflict, Russia respected every actual line we drew. She armed North Vietnam, but avoided coming to blows with us when Nixon cut Hanoi off from both Russia and the NVA in South Vietnam. Russia accepted the Paris Accords in 1972, understanding from Nixon’s strategy and actions that it was the best deal her client North Vietnam could get. Saigon’s fall in 1975 was the result of our loss of will, not a lack of Russian respect for the line we had drawn.

In Cuba in 1962, Russia pulled her missiles out, because that was the line we drew. We could probably have drawn a better one (not had to give away so much to get the missile pull-out), if Nixon and not Kennedy had been in office.

In Berlin in August of 1961, the USSR built a wall to keep in the East Berliners — because Mosow knew that overrunning West Berlin, in spite of its vulnerable tactical situation, would be crossing the line we had consistently drawn since 1945.

In the 1973 war, Russia’s alerted airborne forces were NOT deployed because Nixon put the US at DEFCON 2, and made it clear that we were drawing the line against Moscow’s interference on behalf of the Arab coalition.

Where the West did lose — as with Eastern Europe in 1944-45, Nasser and the Suez Canal in ‘56, Southeast Asia in the 1970s, parts of Africa and Latin America in the 1960s and ’70s — it was always because we waffled on drawing a line and defending it.

Russia doesn’t want to have to fight a US-armed and trained force in Georgia, or confront the US directly over Georgia’s status at all. Russia wants to knock off Saakashvili in a typical Russian underhanded way, and present us with a fait accompli. The best thing we could do is make Russia’s invasion of South Ossetia backfire on her: not confront Russia militarily in South Ossetia, but show Russia that in the extent of US presence in the Black Sea — across the board, economic, political, and military — she ain’t seen nothing yet.

There will always be a contingent of Americans who think we can disengage from everywhere else in the world and retire to a fairytale kingdom where no one will bother us. They thought we didn’t need a secure and friendly Europe in 1939 — and they were wrong. They thought we could leave Asia to its own devices then too, and they were wrong. They think Georgia and South Ossetia are too small, distant, and close to Russia to matter to our security. And they are wrong about that too. If we don’t enforce a secure order, we will be forced to restore it, at enormous cost.

The point we should take away from this is that Iran is worried and scurrying all over the region to try and shore up its alliances as a result. This represents an opportunity for us to make them worry even more. Making a deal with Russia at this point would likely send them over the edge. What could possibly be wrong with that?

Max Boot has a good idea of how to react to the Russian invasion of Georgia. Technorati tags: Georgia, war, stingers, javelins, military aid…

An additional thought. It’s not a good idea, when war is concerned, to start what you can’t finish. Such things have a way of getting out of control. Arming Georgia with Stinger missiles would be an audacious step, and a challenge to Russia in her own backyard.

When the effort fails, as it will, what then?

Dennis is the only poster here to remind us that we drew a line in the sand with our recognition of Kosovo independence. I think we could have tried a little harder to get along back then. Now it’s too late. Did we expect Putin to just sit back and take this affront to his dignity? Or did we expect him to bide his time and assert Russia’s historical sphere of influence, which is what he’s doing now?

There’s no way Russia will give up its southern flank without a fight. Remember that Georgia was the first country the newly-minted USSR invaded in 1920-21, when Stalin was Commisar for Nationalities. This was Stalin’s first real geopolitical action.

I disagree with Dennis as to the reasons that we’re opposed to Russia. No one is “anti Orthodox” that I know of. No one even understands what the difference is between Orthodox and Roman Catholic and even if they did they wouldn’t care. I’m sure that this applies to Bush, Merkel, Sarkozy and so forth. The reasons are much simpler: Russia needs to protect its historic sphere of influence. We have been encroaching on it while they were too weak to protect it. Power politics offers better tools for analysis here than any talk about religious wars fought centuries ago or any talk about human rights and democracy.

Now things are different. Russia is resurgent. There’s not much we can do about it either. What we have to do is to try and limit our losses and that way we’ll end up with a net gain with respect to the situation pre 1991. This could include Georgia as an ally and as a NATO member if we play our cards right. But we’re going to have to trade something off to get something else. I read some pundit or other say that we should give them Kosovo and we’d get Iran out of it. That sounds about right to me.

So, along with the moves that Max Boot recommends, I’d include that one. Our overriding interest today is focused on Iran and Iraq. Today Russia is supporting Iran and they could flood the country with weapons any time they choose. But they can and will turn of the spigot as soon as they get a good reason to do so. We simply must play the game of power politics if we want to win it.

“Absolutely!

But to pull if off you need a foreign policy that reflects that globalization involves more than American interest, and leaders who are strong, resolute, and forward thinking.”

I agree. IF by THAT you mean a Russia and China that have adopted truly western style democracies. In fact, if not in name. Bush is right that democracies do not war upon each other…

Once they have done so, the rest will be easy. Each member of a triumvirate balances the other and if one gets too far out of line, the other two unite in opposition…

I am not in favor of just dividing up the world into non-aligned, Islamic, European, Chinese, Russian and American sphere’s of influence, which is presently the de facto course the world is engaged upon.

Diyogee, good points, but I fail to see how this all happens directly from flawed US policy. Its too simplistic and fails to address the complexity of Russia’s current Imperialistic moves.

Furthermore, the West’s own precipitous recognition of the breakaway Serbian province of Kosovo, provides exactly the justification Russia needs for its claims to South Ossetia. If ethnic Albanians in the heartland of Serbia are justified in declarign independence and having it recogniazed by the West, then why are the Russians in South Ossetia not allowed to declare their independence from Georgian rule. I’m afraid the West’s handling of all these matters looks to be motivated by little more than anti-Orthodoxy and anti-Russianism.

“At present, carefully opposing Russia is something I am actually in favor of, however South Ossetia is NOT an appropriate expenditure for our International ‘capital’ If Russia were to attempt to physically annex Georgia, that would be another matter. I just don’t think this aggression has ‘legs’, Internationally and historically, I suspect its a tempest in a teapot.”

“We need to work toward creating a situation Internationally wherein Russia, China and the US form a unified triumvirate, a very difficult, decades long task.”

Absolutely!

But to pull if off you need a foreign policy that reflects that globalization involves more than American interest, and leaders who are strong, resolute, and forward thinking.

I agree with the majority of your post #21. I have points of contention, but, most are minor, and need not be addressed now. however, there is one thing you said that I would ask you to expand on:

“We should do more than send Stingers and Javelins to Georgia: we should make it a project for a full spectrum of US patronage, to enable Georgia to defend her sovereignty.”

It seems to me that this would be a return to the strategies of old. Why would the Russians accept the US arming and providing the Georgians with a full spectrum of military aid?

Thanks for the compliment. No I do not think the US wants Imperial control in the ME. In fact, the day we achieve energy independence (and we will) is the day we tell Islam to go pound sand. We are there solely because our oil dependent economy demands it.

Russia is another matter. They do favor Imperial control over their sphere of influence. They always have and quite probably always will. But they are not an expansionist society. A great world power is what they have been and wish to be with commensurate influence, nothing more and nothing less.

We need to work toward creating a situation Internationally wherein Russia, China and the US form a unified triumvirate, a very difficult, decades long task. We need to show Russia a way where they can enjoy the status and prestige they feel entitled to but without the opposition to US interests that to date have characterized their actions. Ditto with China.

At present, carefully opposing Russia is something I am actually in favor of, however South Ossetia is NOT an appropriate expenditure for our International ‘capital’ If Russia were to attempt to physically annex Georgia, that would be another matter. I just don’t think this aggression has ‘legs’, Internationally and historically, I suspect its a tempest in a teapot.

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘a wild card’ but that IS what I think we would create if we escalate tensions over Georgia into heightened tensions between Russia and the US.

Jonas-

Not my point at all! My point is: the US will not intervene militarily in Georgia, because WE, alone, cannot help them! Look carefully at President Bush’s statement. He’s hedging! It will take WORLD condemnation, the full resolve of the US, the EU, the UN, and NATO working together to prevent the Russians from doing whatever it is they’ve decided to do in Georgia. Frankly, I’m surprised it has taken as long as it has for the Russians to respond, considering the US was training troops in a country that sits right on their border. We, (the US), underestimated them. Saakashvili gambled, and so far, he has lost! The Russians will justify their actions at the UN, achieve their goal in Georgia, and wait for the next opportunity. Their actions are a direct result of a flawed US foreign policy.

First, Russia has not been a help with Iran. Russia is not our ally in the project of keeping Iran un-nuked. There are absolutely no concessions we can make to Russia that will induce Moscow to act honestly in this role. Moscow wants the US out of South Asia as much as Iran does. All the Russians will do with our commitment to a Russia-enabled process with Iran is exploit it to keep us from changing course, and acting more decisively.

Second, Russia has, since November of 2007, presented Georgia with every provocation in South Ossetia except a slap in the face with a glove. Russian forces have actually occupied South Ossetia for some time now, even though it is disputed territory whose disposition is supposed to be determined by peaceful negotiation. Georgia has excellent historical reasons, going back three hundred years, to fear Russia’s intentions toward Georgia — and to fear the strategic position Russia would have as the occupier of South Ossetia, to menace Georgian independence.

Third, anyone who doesn’t think Russia would like to menace Georgian independence should refer to Russia’s post-Cold War history with Georgia, and to Russia’s attempt to fix the 2004 election in Ukraine, which almost certainly included poisoning the nationalist independence candidate.

Fourth, South Ossetia itself has a large majority of ethnic Russians, and if it came to a vote, would choose to rejoin Russia. America’s interest here is not in forcing South Ossetia to remain part of Georgia, but in ensuring that South Ossetia’s fate is decided peacefully, and without compromising Georgia’s security.

This last is the place to start. We should do more than send Stingers and Javelins to Georgia: we should make it a project for a full spectrum of US patronage, to enable Georgia to defend her sovereignty. We had US military trainers in Georgia until the day before Russia invaded, training the Georgians to participate in Iraq. The precedent and infrastructure are there to immediately step up our military cooperation with Georgia, and publicly outline our interest there.

Instead of a series of incoherent responses to Russian actions, we should get out in front of this problem by defining it on our terms: a sovereign Georgia, a South Ossetia whose future is decided by negotiation and not force, a Black Sea whose security and accessibility for all is not held hostage by Moscow (critical to Ukraine, Romania, and Turkey), and a resources regime (e.g., oil) that enriches Moscow as much as anyone else, but does not put the region’s resources under Moscow’s exclusive domination.

(Consider, for example, that we in the US do not require all the natural resources of even North America, much less the rest of the Western Hemisphere, to be under our domination. We even let China drill off our coast, without so much as a public political discussion of doing otherrwise, so entrenched and longstanding is our commitment to national sovereignty and UN protocols for the world’s resources. You may not think it’s important to get Russia and China to operate on the same principle — and they don’t, BTW — but you can’t argue that the US doesn’t at least practice what we preach, in this regard.)

We should not attempt, nor do we need, to force Russia out of South Ossetia militarily. If we have to, we can even accept the outcome of South Ossetia being subsumed by Russia through this invasion, although we should make Russia pay for that inch by inch. Our increased commitment to Georgia should be non-negotiable, and we should also promptly increase non-negotiable cooperation with, and military sales to, Ukraine and Romania. But we could also conduct Black Sea naval patrols, with US Air Force cover from Turkey, and make a UN-monitored referendum in South Ossetia the price Russia pays for our forces standing down from that operation. Russia’s capacity to confront such an operation outright is limited, and she doesn’t want to provoke a larger confrontation with us anyway.

We should do nothing without a clear concept of what it is we are trying to achieve. If we have learned nothing else from Vietnam, we should have learned that merely flinging arms at a problem, without a definable objective, is worse than useless. It creates new vulnerabilities without accomplishing anything positive. If we are going to demonstrate resolve to Russia, we will have to make it clear to Russia what she is not to do: try to subvert Georgian sovereignty, or the sovereignty of the other Black Sea nations, by either arms or political subterfuge. What Russia should see is every other nation on the Black Sea strengthening before her eyes — and her gambit in South Ossetia backfiring.