Even a cursory knowledge of 20th century history tells us that little countries spark world wars. Thus, we had Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia in World War I and Czechoslovakia in World War II. But that’s not quite right. Trouble in a little country must be combined with foreign policy blunders by great powers. Thus, if Britain had made its intentions more clearly known to the Kaiser in 1914; if Britain and France had marched on Hitler the moment he remilitarized the Rhineland (German generals issued orders to retreat if the Allies acted; some hoped it would give them cause to topple the Fuhrer).
Let’s not take the analogies too far with the fast-moving events involving Georgia and Russia. But it was chilling in the U.N. Sunday when the Russian ambassador responded to U.S. complaints that Moscow was seeking "regime change" in pro-Western Georgia. "Regime change," he said, "is purely an American invention."
The consequences of eight years of disastrous Bush policies are growing. There’s no nice, non-partisan way to put it. This is the bunch that has been in charge — commandingly so. As the Soviet, er, Russian ambassador made clear, the American departure from our nation’s historic policies into the preemptive war and "regime change" beloved of neo-cons is the nightmarish gift that keeps on giving. Pots are calling kettles black.
Neither George W. Bush nor Bill Clinton knew what to do with post-Soviet Russia (here we long for the steadier hands of Bush I, Baker and Scowcroft), but the American response became more dangerously clueless after Vladimir Putin became de-facto Czar and W. became president. George W. Bush "was able to get a sense of his soul" but somehow missed the authoritarian inside. He missed the resurgent Russian nationalism, resentment over its fallen status, and, rich in oil and gas, its new power in a Peak Oil world. History is something wussie elitists study.
Our great power response? Bush pushed NATO to Russia’s doorstep, his Secretary of State — who made her career as a Soviet expert — apparently oblivious about Russia’s historic fears and paranoia. For good measure, we promised to build a part of our missile shield in the Czech Republic despite Russian protests that this was unacceptable. Bush pushed NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia — derailed by the EU — despite Moscow’s warning that it saw this as a strategic threat. All through these events, the White House seemed to be acting yet sleep-walking. An emboldened Georgia acted to take back a rebellious province. America was caught napping, distracted and weakened. And the Russian’s can throw our own words back at us to justify taking out a pro-American nation.
I know, this sounds like I’m being a "San Francisco Democrat," in the words of Jeane Kirkpatrick, always "blaming America first." No, the Russians are the aggressors. But we have been playing with fire and somebody will get burned.
This won’t be 1914 or 1939. It may be more like 1956, when Hungary rebelled and was crushed by the Red Army. But this should be a warning to America about its ignorance of history, and its distracted years since 2001. The corporate media will spend the day talking about a politician’s affair, but they may make time to say the Russian action somehow plays to McCain’s strengths (doesn’t everything, in their telling?).
The real thinking should be about the weakening of America in the face of a rapidly changing world.
China will soon overtake us as the world’s largest manufacturer, and it is building hundreds of universities. We have an army tied down in central Asia, near Russia’s sphere of interest, and an economy increasingly based on building and selling "homes," and cooking up financial plays. Our education performance is flagging. Not for nothing are the CEOs of the largest "American" companies spending time in Beijing at the Olympics. We torture. We watch the gap widen between rich and poor. We’re dependent on a 1965 transportation system. Americans are proudly ignorant of the world that will shape their fate, and the American media oblige by cutting back foreign coverage.
The Cold War isn’t restarting. But the consequences of Russia’s actions will be far-reaching, and its power under an authoritarian-capitalist regime rich with hydrocarbons is different, and more substantial, than during the 1948-1989 years of confrontation. Meanwhile, we forget that what made us strong in the Cold War wasn’t merely our military, but our economy, our expanding and educated middle class, our free society and civil liberties. And we were, thank God, largely led by wise statesmen.
Addendum: Read Mikhail Gorbachev’s take here and Zbig Brzezinski here. And the plea from Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili here.
From your post:
I know, this sounds like I’m being a “San Francisco Democrat,” in the words of Jeane Kirkpatrick, always “blaming America first.”
…endquote.
I don’t think that’s perceived by the public-at-large as perjorative anymore, regardless of the inertia of corporate media. Karl Rove is played out, and he’s taking the right-wing tropes down with him. The “San Francisco Democrat/Liberal” label is probably worth a net-plus of votes these days.
Russia at least has the excuse that South Ossetia is on its border; that the citizens of South Ossetia won de facto independence from Georgia in a war against Georgia that ended in 1992; that since running its own affairs for the last 16 years, South Ossetia has established strong ties with Russia; that these same citizens had already expressed their desire to be reuinited with North Ossetia by being absorbed into Russia; that Russia intervened only after Georgia launched a major offensive last Friday to retake the breakaway South Ossetian state; and that the Russians regard a cease-fire as pointless so long as Georgian troops continue their offensive in South Ossetia.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/10/georgia-in-state-of-war-over-south-ossetia-1-2/
Nevertheless, the pot/kettle analogy is particularly apropos. Sometimes I am stunned by the sheer audacity of Bush Administration hypocrisy.
Recently I read an Associated Press item in which the U.S. scolded the Russians for bombing civilians with strategic air assets, ignoring a cease-fire offer from Georgia, and rejecting the notion of international mediation.
In March 2003 Hans Blix, chief weapons inspector of the United Nations, reported that “no evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found” and stated that inspections, while progressing, would take “not years, nor weeks, but months” to resolve the key remaining questions regarding Iraq’s disarmament.
https://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.blix/index.html
The United States responded by announcing that “democracy had failed” and advised weapons inspectors to leave Iraq immediately, before launching an invasion less than two weeks later.
As for appeal to international mediation, then U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan stated that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was an illegal act which contravened the U.N. charter, adding that the decision should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.
https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm
Now, does anyone believe that, had Saddam Hussein immediately requested a ceasefire and appealed to international authorities for mediation, that the U.S. would have stopped the attack, deferring to the judgment of the United Nations in resolving the matter?
According to one moderate, academic estimate, Iraqi noncombatant casualties from the initial phase of the invasion alone (through the end of April, 2003) totaled roughly 3,750. Note that this is before internecine fighting began in Iraq and that therefore these civilian casualties can be associated directly with the U.S. invasion.
https://www.comw.org/pda/0310rm8.html#3.%20Iraqi%20noncombatant%20fatalities%20in%20the%202003
There’s still a lot of Wilsonian idealism in our foreign policy and it tends to diminish our capacity to distinguish between good battles and losing ones. Mix that up with a bit of Neocon Manichaeanism and the stage is set for a lot of screaming matches where the Munich analogy is applied like stucco to any and all foreign crises.
Russia is both a major power and a regional one. Its interests are rational even when they’re thuggish. That it’s also resurgent can seem alarming, particularly when you look at the former Soviet repubics, many of which have large Russian enclaves.
Fortunately for us, deploying a missle defense shield in Georgia or, as John McCain put it, “Czechoslovakia” has gotten a bit slimmer. Pushing this advantage seemed cool when Russia was climbing out of collapse. Now, it’s mostly folly. We’re not going to punish China for occupying Tibet, nor should we punish Russia for exerting a right of empire: its sphere of influence.
Realism in foreign policy doesn’t have to be seen as weakness (an Oedipal projecton of Bush 43 about Bush 41). It’s our best hope for living in a world of flawed nations and human beings. Everytime we pretend we’re better than that, troubles arise.