Georgia on my mind

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would the US defend Georgia when we (foolishly) have so much on our plates?

Russia invaded Georgia which was, I believe, set to be the next nation to enter NATO. I think NATO members are obligated to defend each other, according to the terms of the treaty. Georgia has been a strong ally of the U.S., and committed more troops to Iraq than any country other than the U.S. and Britain. There is an obvious obligation here and, like other posters, I think the U.S. handled this very poorly.

[Anonymous]

What, other than economic pressure, can we do?

[Anonymous]

19:02 here. I really don't know what we can do. I do think, however, that the president and secretary of state should have made an effort to at least appear engaged in this. Joe Biden had some interesting ideas in his recent op-ed and of course there are a lot of other people who know a great deal more about this than I do. But even I realize that our president could have done more than wave flags and have his photograph taken with scantily clad beach volleyball players. I'm sure his actions failed to inspire confidence in our ally.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:What, other than economic pressure, can we do?

The real problem is a whole series of actions over the years that both provoked Russia and created unrealistic expectations on behalf of the Georgians. Such actions include expanding NATO to Russia's doorstep, invading Serbia in order to secure Kosovo's independence, supporting NATO membership for Georgia, providing military training and equipment to Georgia, and supporting the creation of an oil pipeline through Georgia which was built primarily to avoid Russia.

It was obvious that conflict between Georgia and Russia was on the horizon. I had promised Maria that our family would visit Georgia this Summer and we would have been there now. However, months ago I convinced her that the likelihood of conflict (among other reasons) was high enough that we should change our plans. I'm just a simple computer geek without access to spy satellites and intelligence agencies. If I could predict this, US policy-makers should have been able to as well. So, there is a real question as to why they were caught so flat-footed.

Obviously, the US is not is a position to provide military assistance. Therefore, the most appropriate action would have been the use of diplomacy to bring the fighting to an end as soon as possible. Instead, our leaders (Democrats and Republicans) have offered nothing but foot stomping and empty words. Threats that cannot and will not be backed up simply make things worse. The hostile statements antagonize Russia more, without providing anything of substance for Georgia. Indeed, yesterday McCain proclaimed that we are all Georgians and today Saakashvili replied that while that was nice, it was time to move from words to action. The action -- McCain is sending Senators Lieberman and Graham to Georgia (where presumably they will simply offer more words). This is not only telling everyone that we are a paper tiger -- its highlighting it in red and putting an exclamation point on it.

I also want to say how disappointed I am in Senator Obama. One of his best-known foreign policy positions is his willingness to talk to our enemies. Yet, not once have I heard him suggest that America should be actively talking to both sides in this conflict in order to bring it to an end. Rather, his statements were simply watered-down versions of McCain's over the top rhetoric.

Now, all we can do is provide humanitarian aid and come to terms with our newly-lowered global stature.

[Anonymous]

Sorry about how personal this is for you. But in the past, Russia's distrust of outsiders has been the cause of conflict. The US has done too much over the years to make a slightly paranoid country more defensive.

[Anonymous]

Jeff, I'm curious about your views on the NATO intervention in Kosovo. From your comments here, it seems you think it was a mistake. Have you come to this opinion recently, especially in light of the Georgia situation? In other words, you view it as the first step in a series of unnecessary affronts to Russia? Or did you support NATO intervention at the time, especially as it followed shortly upon the genocide in Bosnia? I realize these aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

Just trying to pick your brain since you've obviously been following all this closely for a long time.

Historically, I think we look back at genocides and realize we did too little, too late. i.e. Cambodia, Uganda, Rwanda, and Bosnia. In the context of the Serbs' depravity toward Bosnia's Muslims, wasn't the Kosovars' fear (and hence movement toward independence) reasonable and our intervention appropriate?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:The situation in Georgia is getting worse by the minute. Russia has now invaded Georgia proper, capturing Gori (Stalin's home town) and Senaki. This has severed the Eastern and Western parts of Georgia. So far, the best that both Democrats and Republicans can come up with is disapproving foot stomping. I don't think there is much the US can do in this situation, but the foot stomping simply highlights our weakness. The Georgians -- especially Saakashvili -- that put their hopes in America are having a rude awakening. Add to the list of Bush's "accomplishments", destroying America's credibility as an ally. If the Russians make a play for the BTC oil pipeline, I imagine Bush will suddenly decide he needs to focus on something beyond the backsides of female volleyball players.

I just discussed this topic with DH tonight. Georgia and other countries will see how useless it is to ally with the US that it will further confirm America's impotence. It also illustrates the continuing political and economic decline.

Is this the beginning of WW3? Countries will continue to be pulled in first diplomatically and if that doesn't work, militarily.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, I'm curious about your views on the NATO intervention in Kosovo.

As is often the case, I have fairly unorthodox views on this topic and don't expect many will agree with me. However, I felt the the whole breakup of Yugoslavia was anti-historic and something that should have been discouraged. As such, I trace the beginning of the problem to Slovenia's independence and its quick recognition by Germany.

After World War II, and especially after the establishment of the UN, the inviolability of national borders was generally recognized. This despite the fact that decolonization in Africa an Asia led to the creation of many artificial countries. When ethno-nationalist movements did managed to succeed from a larger state, it was often a very bloody affair. Think India-Pakistan, Pakistan-Bangladesh, etc. Failed efforts were often bloodier (e.g. Biafra). So, we had many decades of adherence to the principle of maintaining national borders and several examples of why violating that principle was generally a path to death and destruction.

At the same time, there was a very strong trend toward regional integration, represented most prominently by the European Union. But, in the wake of all this, Slovenia was encouraged and supported in achieving independence. Once that ball started rolling, it couldn't be stopped. While Slovenia went quietly, Croatia and Bosnia were a different matter. In contrast to Slovenia, those countries had significant Serbian minorities. With the release of the genie of ethnic-based nationalism, the worst tendencies of societies were enflamed.

I tend to take a long term view of situations and its difficult to pull something out of context and say what should have happened in that instance. Rather than answer what we should have done in Kosovo, I'd rather that Kosovo hadn't become an issue because Bosnia had never become an issue and so on. If European countries had told Slovenia that it should remain part of Yugoslavia, maybe that would have been the case. Nevertheless, at the time, I strongly opposed our intervention in Kosovo. Africans have been forced to live together whether they wanted to not. Nobody supports an independent Kurdistan. Why did Europeans get treated differently?

There is no doubt that the recognition of Kosovo's independence led directly to the Russian response in Georgia. The Russians clearly warned as much. I would guess that the Russians are far from finished. Events have conspired to strengthen Russia and weaken the US and there is little to stop the Russians from attempting to correct what they must obviously see as an unnatural balance of power. I wish that the US and European countries would have concentrated on economic integration rather than defense alliances. The one thing that can often cause people to put aside their differences and work together is the opportunity to make money.

[Anonymous]

Jeff, thank you for this discussion.
This site shows some photos of what was/is going on - http://www.support-georgia.ge.