« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Nuke, Nuke, Nuke, Let's Nuke Russia!! - Or How I stopped worrying and learned to love The Bomb!
As you are probably aware by now, the Grand Chessboard of Oil, Power and Wealth is alive with fire, death and devastating destruction once again. And this time it's not the usual suspects of Bush, Cheney and Halliburton. No, this time Russia has taken a look at our prerequisite laid out in Iraq and decided now is the right time to make a play for greater control of the energy flowing out of the Caspian Basin and west towards Europe and the world through the pipelines flowing across its tiny neighbor (and erstwhile US ally) Georgia. As Josh pointed out on the front page and others have noted, this is NOT about Georgian democracy or the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. This is about The Spice: Oil.
The contrast between the candidates (and the choice facing our country) could not possibly be clearer. This new development frames the issue perfectly. Do we work within the international community or are we above it? Do we see international crises in a long-term framework where priorities are made based on cold realism or do we go for short-sighted idealism?
John McCain has already (at least in his mind) kicked Russia out of the G-8, put Georgia in NATO and is ready to support this fledgling democracy in its great struggle with the mighty Russians by sending in US forces to resist them if necessary.
Obama as far as I can tell has done no such thing. He has condemned the Russian action and called upon both sides to adhere to a cease-fire which is pretty much exactly what the President has done.
The difference is staggering in its implications. McCain's immediate reaction was to in effect (if not in fact) call for the US to declare war on Russia and prepare to fight. Obama called for calm while weighing options.
Which is a better trait in a president?
As I've noted on several other posts, thanks to Bush's foreign policy priorities and choices, we're in a very weak position here vis a vis Russia. We simply don't have the forces to credibly project enough power to the region in order to cause any restraint on the part of a Russia led by a ruthlessly ambitious Putin who has clearly made such a calculation. Make no mistake about it, this is no sporadic act on Russia's part to defend their citizens from attack. This is a well-timed (due to the Olympic distraction) and well-planned (20K+ troops and hundreds of tanks and planes including strategic bombers and ballistic missiles) operation with an objective much broader than South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
This is about the pipelines and who controls them.
This is about the future of the former soviet states on its borders and who they answer to: Moscow or the US.
Bush made a foolhardy (but laudable) gambit to try to increase the US presence in the region and prevent Russia from reasserting itself in this fashion but it never could muster up the necessary resources and geopolitical power to do so because of our Iraqi misadventure. As Obama correctly notes, Iraq is the reason we've been so unsuccessful in our efforts in Afghanistan but it goes much deeper in that it draws our energy, focus and resources from other vital areas across the globe at a time when challenges (a resurgent Russia being one) are growing and coming to a head.
I think more than anything else this is the reason why a new direction in our foreign policy is needed. We have to begin making the hard choices about what our national priorities are going to be and how we are going to achieve them. Secretary Rice recently had a long and thoughtful essay in Foreign Affairs on rethinking the national interest. While I disagree with her on numerous points I do agree that it is now imperative that we rethink our national interest and devise long term and far-sighted methods of securing it. Because more short-sighted approaches to doing so like the one currently being espoused by McCain will lead us to a disastrous end.
Though a crude distillation of the situation I think it can be put simply enough: do YOU want to die over Georgia, South Ossetia or Abkhazia? Are YOU willing to nuke and kill millions to defend them?
John McCain thinks so. Do you agree?
Comments (28)
Military intervention in Georgia would be insane even if the U.S. had the troops and materiel available. Thank God it doesn't, reducing the temptation.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. has been constucting a "cordon sanitaire" around Russia stretching from Finland, down through the Caucasus, and across the "stans" right to Chinese border.
The only break in the country's virtual encirclement is -- guess what? -- its friendly neighbor across the Caspian Sea: Iran.
Which partly explains why Russia isn't buying into American moves to topple the mullahs.
Anyway, Russia could only grumble about the pro-western stances of its former vassals.
It became entirely a different matter when the U.S. pressed the Europeans to admit Georgia to NATO. Especially while Russian peacekeepers were posted on what is de jure Georgian soil.
Russia has now signaled that it wants to talk with NATO directly about Georgia (like, tomorrow!)
Guess what price it will set for a return to the status quo of a week ago and (perhaps) allowing Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili to continue in office?
Some Europeans, like German Chancellor Angela Merkel, were already cool to the idea of admitting Georgia to NATO.
This flare-up should provide the final bit of evidence they need.
August 11, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ahhh, all the TPM pundits forgetting a little bit of history like the Malta conference and all of the 1930's and 1940's.
As Obama said, he isn't against all wars...
Yes, the US is currently hamstrung but NATO is not and yes, Georgia is worth fighting for; the reason is Putin.
Oil may be a huge part of the equation but stopping Putin's muscle flexing is the major factor affecting the world.
As far as control goes, Putin is the new Stalin.
The world is realigning once again and Putin is now forging a new USSR.
Yes, I'm a Democrat and a military veteran. I think too many of TPM'ers have become so jaded by Iraq that they have lost all sense of the global military threats and national alignments that threaten world stability.
Georgia is only step one for Putin. He wants his direct land access to the Iranian border back.
We already know that China will soon become a superpower. Putin is now bidding to return Russia to a reinvented USSR.
At what point does the West cede their seat at the table?
Has the TPM crew become isolationists?
August 11, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
It less about isolationism than it is about cold realism of options. Do we really have the DESIRE as a nation for this fight? If we're even lukewarm (and I would suggest it's probably colder than that) should we undertake it? Say what you want (I sure will) but it's still a democracy and the American people aren't too high on the idea of duking it out with Russia right now. Think Iraq was tough? The Russians don't fight fair either and they've got some toys the insurgents can only dream of. As I noted above, I don't for a second think they can match the quality of our forces in lethality or professionalism. We're the best bar none. No doubt about it. But as a nation, we've got to make some tough choices right now. Decisions have consequences and the consequence of electing Bush to two terms is that our options in various areas are lot worse than many Americans realize. In this particular instance, considering the obvious show of force Russia is making, how high of a price can/would they inflict if we were to intervene militarily? Escalation up to and including nuclear exchange are not nearly as far-fetched as most people's initial instinct would suggest. You're very correct about Putin's intentions. My reply is simply, why did we wait until the bullets started flying and the stakes rose to notice and suggest really confronting him? I've been arguing for years to almost any who would listen that the man was no joke, was thinking very long range about repositioning his country and that he would be utterly ruthless in carrying out his plan. People replied that the Soviet Union was over, the Russia threat was no more and we had established a new reality in the region. I guess they were wrong. Talk is very cheap and when dealing with certain countries it is completely worthless. Nations that have histories like Russia don't really respect talk and ideas, they won't respect you unless you are strong and they can't match that strength. They sense weakness on our part and they are calling our bluff with devastating effect. They're laughing at our 'ultimatums' because they know we don't have the will to stop them. We're not going to send American troops into Georgia to die to prevent them from taking Georgia and they know it. You know just as well as I do. I know some on the right will blame spineless liberals and democrats but the real blame goes to those whose strategic decisions left us without the option of response with real teeth in it. We're too bankrupt to undertake a major encounter with Russia right now while continuing our adventures in Iraq, Afghanistan and maintaining any capacity to do something about Iran. That doesn't even mention the pacific and making sure China continues to play nice. or North Korea. I don't believe in the domino theory but very similar to the way our move in Iraq naturally strengthened Iran because of the history and geography in the region, it's just as natural that Russia and not US would be the dominate power in the Caucasus and Central Asian region. No matter what happens, they'll still be there and their neighbors know it. At some point our priorities will change, our focus will shift and we'll not be as involved. Believe, they know this. That's why we had to install a new regime in Georgia in the first place to even make a play there. Now, Russia will return the favor. Except they're not gonna bring any harvard educated lawyers backed by madison ave pr types and 'color' flags. It'll be the traditional bullets, bayonets and bombs. Why change what works?
Again I ask, what do you suggest we do about it? Either you're for a fighting war with Russia or nothing because talking isn't going to make them stop. At this point, economic embargoes aren't going to be as effective because they're flying high on oil prices and if they control even more supply they know they'll be alright.
It's not that I don't agree with stopping them, it's just that I don't see a cost-effective way of doing so without significantly damaging our already tenuous strategic position. It pisses me off that Bush's dumbass choice has put us in a position to have to continue to sully America's good name since now we're being shown to be a paper tiger and a very fair weather ally. Russia on the other hand is letting it be clearly known that they will ruthlessly protect what they deem to be their interests.
August 11, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I agree with some of your views, I take issue with your perception of Russia as a brute geopolitical player and Putin a power-hungry, ruthless aggressor. Surely there's a middle ground between a new Stalin and Mother Theresa. I find it troubling that Russia is only "good" for America when it is decimated and no longer a "threat", as if it were a zero sum game. The whole art of detente is to acknowledge mutual interests and work out a solution to accommodate both sides, you don't need to be friends but if you want nothing less than Russia on its knees, surely that would court trouble. Respect for boundaries and for the rule of law is the only way forward, with Russia, Georgia, Israel or any other state.
August 12, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you about this not being a zero sum game. At least to a degree. Bush and his foreign policy team have made it clear that they viewed the cementing of US influence in the post-soviet states and its former sphere of influence as a major point of national interest. Their efforts in doing so have been documented elsewhere and i'm sure you're aware of them but they were very aggressive and they have in fact treated it as a zero-sum game similar to the cold war except this time with us supposedly having the advantage because Russia was an economic basketcase and too weak to resist. I thought they were wrong and still do. My characterization of Putin in this respect is because as a fierce nationalist in the traditional sense it clearly upset him greatly that a) the US felt strong enough to even TRY something like that and b) that Russia couldn't immediately and decisively make it clear that it wouldn't succeed. That's why I portray him as ruthlessly ambitious in reestablishing Russian preeminence in the region and I think he has been. But don't mistake my position, I admire that trait greatly because the ruthless pursuit of one's national interests is what the foreign policy game is all about. HOW you go about that pursuit doesn't have to be ruthless in its execution since the best interest of one's nation may be to cooperate with a historical adversary or make friends with someone who has principles and morals different than your own but the ultimate point is to pursue your own interest with vigor. If it means helping along someone else in the process then so be it. Win-win situations do exist quite often and the long term development of American interests certainly would include positive, stable, peaceful and profitable relations (for both sides!) with the other great powers of the world. That's the whole principle and spirit behind the multinational organizations like the G-8, etc. Putin has certainly achieved the goal of strengthening Russia's position on the world stage considering their dark days after the fall of the Soviet Union.
I think Obama gets this on a vastly higher level of understanding than Bush and certainly McCain. That's why his statement while condemning the violence and calling for a ceasefire, peacekeepers etc was much more about the positive aspects of the US-Russia relationship and tangible steps to actively continue improving that relationship to benefit both sides. I can't agree more that that is the ONLY solution. This holds true for our relationships with all of the other major world powers. It simply isn't in our best interest to have a negative and possibly violently unstable relationship with them. Its risky AND unprofitable. What's the point of risk if you don't gain from it?
August 12, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Putin is a shrewd politician, a great tactician and a bold, ruthless player. I don't agree with some of his hard-line approaches but I have to admit he really did a lot for Russia in putting a halt to the robber barons who were patrons to his predecessors, the same robber barons who sold Russia's finest assets to the G7 and who are now granted asylum in London, New York and other posh cities.
A lot of us forgot that Putin did offer his condolences and help with the pursuit of Al Qaeda after 9/11. That was at the zenith of his relationship with Bush.
It went downhill as it dawned on him that the NeoCons were serious about the Project for a New American Century and the imbecile Bush is a joke of a front, no doubt he made copious notes in the margins of the chapter on Russia as the "colored revolutions" made it out of the playbook. The Americans even tried to prop up Kasparov the Celebrity as his challenger.
I don't know how Americans would react if Russia does that to them, i.e. groom a puppet and bankroll his political campaign to get him elected as America's president, but well, the least I'd expect from Putin is cynicism.
After this, all the talk about staring into Putin's soul and seeing "KGB" is frankly, pretty debased chutzpah.
I still don't know if Putin is "good" or "bad" but I do believe he will act according to what you deal out to him, he is a jujitsu expert after all.
August 12, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I certainly agree with that characterization. I've stated many times and in many circles that we were misplaying our hand when it came to dealing with Putin. I think we've underestimated the man from the beginning and he has successfully used that to his advantage and I don't begrudge him for it at all since I would do so as well if I were in his position. I say it often but it's a shame Bush was the one we had representing us because with a more serious and capable president we could have taken US-Russia relations to an entirely different realm.
I think the biggest point I'd want to make is that the best way forward for the US here is to truly embrace a post-cold war outlook and to try to get beyond the zero-sum framing of our relationship with Russia that you noted earlier in the post. It's similar in that respect to our relationship with China, it's evolved beyond what it once was and it is much, much more complex than it ever was. As a result we need a foreign policy approach that is much more nuanced and much more patient in its view of our national interest and how to pursue it. The primary issue from a strategic perspective here isn't Georgia but safe transit of Caspian energy resources through Georgia and the region in general. It's of less concern whether Russia or the US is the final arbiter of that safe transit (because the cost of the US being the arbiter is one it won't/can't pay) but rather getting our relationship with Russia to the point where we're not concerned if they are the arbiter of that safe transit. That means a different level of responsibility as a global stakeholder on Russia's part than what they're used to (i.e. they can't use it as a political and economic bludgeon to further their own interests) but also a different level of cooperation and trust on our part with a former adversary (i.e. we can't use it as a political or economic lever to undermine their interests to further our own). Getting to that point isn't going to occur overnight. It'll probably take a lot longer as a result of these developments and the actions which lead to this point are lamentable because they make such a developing relationship all the more difficult. I know many claim that such a view is naive but I reply that the opposite view hasn't worked very well since the problem still exists but is even more complicated than it ever was previously.
Doing the same thing and expecting a different result...I've heard that somewhere before...
August 12, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are a little too generous to Putin. His sonsolidation of power has been anti-democratic. His turning on and off the spigot of natural gas to his neighbors is reprehensible. His ploy to retain power probably violative of the spirit of his country's Constitution. As PM, Medvedev had said that Putin would only be involved in domestic affairs.
As far as the way he dealt with the oligarchs, they deserved to suffer some divestment of their huge assets but, as in the case of the former Lukoil tycoon (I think his name was Khodorovsky) should not have been imprisoned. While Putin is no Stalin, he is far from what we should expect from any large "democracy" in the 21st century. That being said, he is very strategic-minded and for that I give him some kudos as our current leadership has not been at all.
August 12, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I don't dispute your points about democracy and Putin's domestic actions, i'm more concerned about the larger strategic issues and their relation to our national interest. The country's political development is a process and it won't always go the way we want, but I don't think it wise at all to let that determine our strategic relationship. The use of the energy spigot for their own political purposes is something different and that is what i'm talking about changing as part of engaging Russia on a level where they view their stake in the overall global order differently. It's a credibility and respect thing. If other countries don't think you're credible enough to be trusted with control of such energy and to not use it to bully your neighbors then they're going to be less likely to respect your interests in doing so and that leads to the antagonistic positions we see today. The goal is to get it where they view their reputation and credibility on such issues as being of more longterm value to them than the short term goals they can achieve by such action. How to get to this point is a difficult (some say impossible) proposition but I think it's the proper goal because it can add stability and be a win-win for us, Russia and their neighbors not to mention the larger European and global communities.
Not to discount the democratic development but I think when we compare it to the historic perspective of what it could be like in Russia, we'll take it. All the while trying to continue improving it.
August 12, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent retort to my comment. I do think our insistence on a missile defense "umbrella" in Czech or Poland is insane. Besides the fact that it is a ridiculously expensive way to buy an uncertain smidgeon of additional defense, it is unnecessarily provocative to Russia. How would we feel if Russia or China entered into some similar arrangement with Canada or Mexico? By making that move, we encourage Putin to be provocative on his doorstep.
The natural gas spigot is a big problem: it affects alot of people in Ukraine and elsewhere and the international community and European Union need to address it more forcefully.
August 12, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, the missile shield idea wasn't a good one. I felt bad for Sec. Rice watching her have to defend it since being a Soviet expert she had to know how dumb it was. It's our version of the Cuban Missile Crisis without nukes. Not a perfect analogy because it isn't nuclear but from Russia's perspective it's nothing short of a blatant affront. When added to our support of 'color revolutions' and arming countries like Georgia, it's no surprise at all that Russia would be on edge and feeling betrayed from the spirit of cooperation we earlier espoused. That's a mistake on our part, in order to really move forward it has to be cooperation with Russia and not simply Russian capitulation on our terms. I think that nuance was lost on the Bush foreign policy team because they overestimated our strength and didn't accurately factor in the weakening effect of our Iraqi misadventure.
I think the economic carrot is the best way to deal with the spigot issue, we've got to get Russia more intertwined into the global economy to a point where something so counterproductive as energy bullying via the spigot can be made to be VERY painful for them and hence not an option. Contrary to some of the more hawkish folks up here, we can't make them pay a military cost because of the nuclear concerns. But to get them worried about an economic concern is more realistic. Their not there yet because the oil economy has strengthened the country but it's not viable longterm. It's similar to how we deal with China, while we can't 'make' them do anything we can 'influence' their thought process about certain actions in a negative way and hence achieve a desired outcome. Having antagonistic relationships with neighboring countries was much more costly to the Chinese economy than having profitable and positive ones and as a result one can see that China has significantly improved it's relations with its neighbors. Not perfect (the US relationship with Canada and Mexico isn't perfect!) but they have solved many border disputes and work in a much more cooperative spirit with them than before (perfect example being vietnam). It can work, but it takes time and patience. It also takes a desire on the part of the other world powers to integrate them into the system further to the point where they feel like they have a stake in its maintenance.
this is the wrong approach:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080812/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_russia_georgia
This is going to serve to further isolate Russia and make events like this MORE likely in the future because if they are outside the international system then they are that much more likely to resent and resist it. In its simplest terms it's a variation on the old 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em' theme where you switch it up and 'if you can't beat 'em, have them join you' so that you don't have to fight them and they don't want to fight you.
It might seem weak but Bush's foreign policy has left us with weak choices. We don't have the power to force certain things and this is one.
August 12, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I obviously agree Bush's policies hurt us with Russia. I also agree we need to pursue a framework internationally that prohibits countries that provide "essential" energy sources to its neighbors or their adjacent countries from withholding these sources absent some logistical reason why the source cannot be supplied. The question is how do we get there and how should the measures be framed.
August 12, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Russia has nukes. Lots and lots and lots of them. Not mythical, but actual end the world weapons of mass destruction. We cannot intervene because the consequences are too grave. We can't just win a war with Russia.
It sucks, but our only choice here is some kind of carrot. Their sticks are just as big as ours.
August 12, 2008 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
We did exactly the right thing in WWII. We waited untill there was an attack on US soil to go to war. That is the standard we should always use.
August 12, 2008 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
You sound just like McCain and the NeoCons. Russia's announcement that it's withdrawing from Georgia must be such a bummer, maybe it's not such a scary, resurgent Evil Empire hell bent on conquering the world after all, you know, Putin's just like Saddam Hussein. But wait...I bet you'd say it's just an act.
August 12, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The comment was directed to Florida Democrat of course. Had a vociferous exchange with him at the beginning of the conflict on Desidero 'What shall we do about Russia???" thread.
August 12, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even if we didn't have our troops bottled up in Iraq, I don't think it would have been worth it for us to intervene in this conflict. In three or four days, Russia was able to devastate Georgia and go far beyond what it needed to do to shift its bargaining hand so as to achieve its goals: (1) bring S. Ossetia and Abkhazia back under its authority; (2) stifle any ideas that Georgia may have of acting in contravention to any Russian interest; and (3) make itself a player in control of the oil pipelines going through Georgia. Assume we decided to intervene militarily. It would have taken at least 24 hours, if not 48 or 72, to get sufficient forces in place to responsibly counter Russia's invasion. Who knows what the conseqences would be? We do know that by the time of our intervention, they would have already done enough damage to achieve most of its objectives. If they saw us mounting our troops, they could have asked for a cease fire right before our engagement and gotten most of what it wanted.
Recently I've been reading Theodore Rex, a bio of Teddy ("Speak softly and Carry a Big Stick") Roosevelt. His rhetoric, in response to a projected invasion of Venezuela in 1902 by Germany, was to praise Germany while it sent troops down to the area. He stopped them by a show of force and paying diplomatic respect to Germany. He used the opposite of the bellicose language of McCain. His approach seemed to the general public more pacific than Obama's approach, yet he was successful. Bush has been the opposite. His statement about Putin's soul was the green light Putin needed to, in a long-term strategic way, consolidate power by having the right to dismiss provincial governors, control the natural gas to former soviet republics, rebuild the economy from oil profits and install himself as PM while subjugating other political powers or parties.
August 12, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you kidding? NATO is willing and able to fight for Georgia?
Please cite one European leader who has even hinted at that.
As for Putin's muscle flexing, isn't that his job when he perceives his country being encircled by an alliance of militarily hostile states?
The U.S. and Europe have, within the past year:
a) recognized Kosovo's independence from Russian ally Serbia, over Putin's objections;
b) begun installing anti-missile systems in Poland and the Czech (and no, despite the name, they are not defensive weapons; they are designed to give one side a first-strike capability);
c) promised NATO membership to Georgia and Ukraine (where the Russian Black Sea fleet continues to be based):
d) poured a billion dollars worth of U.S. and Israeli training and weapons into Georgia;
e) held joint exercises involving Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan on Russia's doorstep.
Who can blame Putin for pouncing when Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili foolishly bombarded South Ossetia's capital -- where Russian peacekeepers were stationed under international agreement.
I hope the Russians accept a ceasefire, and that there are no more civilian deaths on either side.
But if you think military intervention by any Western power is going to help achieve that, you are deluded.
August 11, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
couldn't agree more. the saddest part is anybody could see this slow moving train wreck coming from a mile away and yet no one intervened to prevent it.
August 12, 2008 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the overview.
Looks like Russia is likely feeling threatened and has a need for security and safety. So shouts to the world "back off".
It might help diffuse matters if the US agreed to remove the anti-missle systems from Poland and the the Czech Republic. Off course any retreating will be seen as a sign of weakness.
August 12, 2008 4:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Highly Rec'd. I hadn't read it until I wrote a similar post. Your exploration of the issues is much broader and deeper than mine. We reach the same conclusion. McCain's way lies madness.
August 12, 2008 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks! I'm glad someone appreciates discussions of issues bigger than Edwards' love child or Paris Hilton. There are some important developments in the world and a lot of folks have no clue its happening.
August 12, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a recent post by another TPMer who has an excellent note by former Gen. Gardiner that underscores the escalation danger involved:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/08/if-us-attacks-russia-russia-wi.php
Make no mistake about it, we're simply not in a position to fight them over this. And if we were, as the above points out, we wouldn't want to. It's not called M.A.D. for nothing!
August 12, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
What the fuck is our national interest in all of this? I don't get it.
August 12, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
American hegemony. That train has left the station and the Neocons are the drivers. It is funny, in order to cemment American dominance, the cons feel we always need to be on a war footing, always have an enemy to fight. They love this and they don't want peace. The "shock doctrine" in action. The difference between now and the cold war is that the Russians have become more media savy and learned how to play the game of public perception. This military action was clearly not off the cuff, and even as they say they have ceased hostilities, bombs are still dropping. The Russian spin doctors are now using all of the same rhetoric that the US uses, briliantly deflating any critisism that the US has. Our only option I think is to shore up our alliances in Latin America, meaning to completly revise and overhaul our policies in that region. I say this because we are the only superpower who could have real influence in that region by way of our proximity. Also, it is a gaurantee that the "leftist" leaders rising in latin america are watching what is happening now and are wondering if they can do the same.
August 12, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
For a slightly different perspective, here is Gorbachev's take on the situation:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/11/AR2008081101372.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Can't say I disagree with much here. I know that makes me a commie in some eyes but I try to ignore such silliness when I can.
August 12, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
My take is that the U.S. military is not in fact an exhausted stretched to thin force but a highly experienced battle hardened bunch of highly motivated professional soldiers that would kick Russian ass if they were given the chance(this from a Canadian).Putin is a little tinpot dictator with small man syndrome who needs to learn the hard lesson that sorry old Russia is not a superpower anymore.They have some oil money and Moscow is full of corrupt billionaires but the rest of the country is in shambles.I see no problem in taking this up a notch,looks as though the new czars of Russia will simply continue to see how far they can push things till we stand up to them.I'd certainly fight to protect Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic where Russia is making all sorts of threatening moves.I'm sick of the bunch of criminals.Putin reputedly has over 40 Billion dollars hidden away.Our politicians can be corrupt but nowhere near that level.
August 14, 2008 1:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
hopefully you're aware of the Russian nuclear stockpile. It may not be what it once was with the Soviet Union but what's left is a more than credible deterrent to any precipitous actions such as sending an American army to the Russian border.
August 14, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment