In the midst of all the vague hubbub about Russian-American relations going sour over Georgia, I hope somebody is noticing the fact that Russia has gotten exactly what it wanted. (Also, anyone with relativistic tendencies should look at this as yet another example of the way America behaves differently from other large powers, and no, Iraq is not analogous to Georgia.)
It seems to me that the conversation has gone something like this:
U.S.: Maybe it’s time to let Georgia into NATO.
“Russia conducted airstrikes on Georgian targets on Friday evening, escalating the conflict in a separatist area of Georgia that is shaping into a test of the power and military reach of an emboldened Kremlin. Earlier in the day, Russian troops and armored vehicles had rolled into South Ossetia, supporting the breakaway region in its bitter conflict with Georgia.”
(read:) Russia: NO.
“Despite fierce opposition from Moscow, the United States and Poland signed a long-stalled agreement on Wednesday to place an American missile defense base on Polish territory.”
(read:) U.S.: Well, okay Russia, but we haven’t forgotten the Cold War. If you’re going to start behaving like your old overbearing self, we’re going to defend the most valuable former Soviet satellite state. You can’t have it.
“Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Monday that the United States would not push for Georgia to be allowed into NATO at an emergency meeting on Tuesday, a tacit admission that America and its European allies lack the stomach for a military fight with Russia.”
(read:) U.S.: But…you can keep Georgia. Not officially, of course, but you know.
“Russia’s forces are digging in and seizing ribbons of Georgian land that abut two breakaway enclaves allied with Moscow, effectively extending its zone of influence.”
(read:) Russia: Excellent.
Ah, the joys of a multipolar world.
(All quotes from various New York Times articles. Also, to be clear, I do know that the cause of this war is much more complex than I describe above - see comments for more discussion if curious.)
April made a post!
Though I have to take issue with some of it. You recall that the Russian attack was in response to Georgia invading the de-facto independent Republic of South Ossetia (which was under Russian protection). The appropriate status of South Ossetia is an interesting question, but one shouldn’t pretend that Russia’s attack on Georgia was provoked by nothing more than the possibility of Georgia entering NATO.
I agree that Georgia and Iraq aren’t comparable. Russia had far more justification for attacking Georgia than the US did in Iraq. Its attack also did far less damage than America’s did. I’m certainly not convinced that it was justified, but it’s more complicated than you give it credit for.
“Also, anyone with relativistic tendencies should look at this as yet another example of the way America behaves differently from other large powers, and no, Iraq is not analogous to Georgia.)”
Is El Salvador analogous? Kosovo? Panama?
Also, your timeline seems a little off. See here.
You both make a fair point that as usual, the situation is complicated, and that Russia had some proximate provocation. I didn’t mean that Georgia’s possible entry into NATO was the sole cause of the conflict, though; rather, I was trying to draw the contrast between what the U.S. was saying before and their current policy, which seems to me rather like appeasement. I don’t even necessarily think the U.S. should have acted otherwise - in fact, I think the missile deal with Poland was a smart response - I just think it’s worth noting that Russia has had some success in reasserting its power in the region, in part because the U.S. doesn’t have a good response available.
I agree that U.S. entry into Iraq was more damaging than Russia’s on Georgia, due to the roles Iraq and America play in the international realm. I disagree about justification, at least with regard to our leaders - I think our government actually believed Iraq had WMD, at which point entry into Iraq is not such an unreasonable proposition.
Much of Latin America would have been analogous earlier in U.S. history, but not recently.
Is my timeline off? That’s possible, but a quick scan of the Wikipedia page didn’t reveal my error to me - could you point it out, please?
I remain confused as to how possible possession of WMDs (and even if they really believed it, it was never more than a probability, particularly given the reports the weapons inspectors were making) justifies an invasion - given how many countries have them. But even if we assume it does, perhaps on the basis that violating a UN Security Council resolution creates justification (although, with that logic, an invasion of Israel would be justified), I fail to see how it could possibly be greater justification than the provocation Georgia offered Russia.
Not only is South Ossetia de facto independent, but 90% of South Ossetians have Russian passports. Imagine a de facto independent territory 90% of whose citizens carried American passports being invaded by the neighbor country from whom it has declared independence. Do you doubt that the US would intervene? How does this episode demonstrate that the US behaves better than countries like Russia.
To be clear (this is partly responding to your comment on Will’s blog), in a lot of areas the US does behave better than Russia - democracy domestically, for instance, despite all the flaws in our process, remains far better in the US than in Russia - and it’s important to recognize that fact. But a far more common problem than liberals acting like the US behaves worse than other major powers (incidentally, how many people in this country do you actually think would say that US behavior on average is more problematic than Russia’s?) is the ease with which plenty of Americans - like, say, the President and the Secretary of State - dish out criticism of Russian military intervention while apparently not even noticing the irony.