Posts
Is Obama insane?
The democraticaly elected President of Honduras, Zelaya, makes an extra-Constitutional power grab even after the highest Court in Honduras rules it illegal. On the eve of that act, he is replaced during the final six months of his administration. That wasn't a coup. That was defense of democracy and the rule of law. It was ordered by a properly convened Court. It was supported by a democraticaly elected legislature. And now Obama is joining hands with Chavez, Castro and other enemies of the U.S. and of democracy to condemn the actions in Honduras and reinstate the President?
If you ever needed evidence that Obama should never have been let near the oval office, this completes the mosaic we saw begin over a year ago with Georgia, when their democratic regime came under assault from Russia. Obama did not come out in support of democracy then, not until he took a lesson from McCain. The lesson didn't stick. Two weeks ago, as Iranians were being brutalized and murdered in the streets by a regime that had just engaged in massive vote fraud, Obama sat silent and then, despicably, played down the importance of the revolt. Now, when a country acts to preserve its laws and Constitution against an extra-Constitutional assault from a rabid socialist following the Chavez model, Obama supports the one who was seeking to violate the constitution. Obama really does see the U.S. as the problem. He has no understanding of the intrinsic importance of democracy and the rule of law. He has embraced moral equivalence and is unable to discriminate friend from foe.
History is important, and true, the U.S. has been involved in more than one coup in Central and South America. History should inform all of our acts - but it should never hold us hostage. As Hot Air notes, it may be that, in some incredibly naive burst of deeply opaque motivation, Obama is trying to repair America's image by coming out on the side of Chavez, Castro et al. If so, it is inexplicably foolish.
This is bad - and holds the potential to get much, much worse. The last president that even approached this level of dysfunction was James Earl Carter, and he gave the world the Iranian theocracy. I do not know what Obama's legacy will be, but I fully expect it to be far worse.
For Obama's future reference on such matters, Charles Krauthammer provides a rule of thumb:
Showing posts with label Georgia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Georgia. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Obama - 180 Degrees of Wrong
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
One Illegal Immigrant Person, One Vote
DOJ has thrown open the door for activist organizations such as ACORN to register non-citizens to vote in Georgia’s elections, and the state has no ability to verify an applicant’s citizenship status or whether the individual even exists. DOJ completely disregarded Georgia’s obvious and direct interest in preventing non-citizens from voting, instead siding with the ACLU and MALDEF. Clearly, politics took priority over common sense and good public policy. This is a travesty. Once something approaching a majority comes to believe that their vote no longer counts because the system is corrupt, then the only way to effect change comes by the gun. That is something the left should ponder as they pull out all stops to make of our country a banana republic with a rigged electoral system that acts as a rubber stamp for their candidates.
A little over a year ago, a six member majority of the Supreme Court upheld an Indiana state law requiring voters present a photo i.d. when voting. The court reasoned, rightly, that nothing is more central to a democracy than fair elections devoid of fraud. Once the voting system becomes corrupt, we no longer live in a functioning democracy. Yet the left seems hell bent on insuring that the system is corrupted.
The left has, for years, fought against any sort of identification system to protect the validity of our democratic system. We have Obama enlisting ACORN to take part in the 2010 Census which will determine the number of representatives to which each state will be entitled. We have Obama pulling responsibility for the Census Bureau and putting it directly under Obama's Chief of Staff. It was only a few days ago that Obama's DOJ took the unprecedented step of dropping charges of voter intimidation against three New Black Panther thugs who clearly engaged in precisely that - it was on YouTube for crying out loud. And now the latest, giving the finger to the Supreme Court and their decision mentioned above, Obama's DOJ has rejected Georgia's plan to verify that those who cast ballots are American citizens entitled to vote.
Georgia recently passed a law requiring voters to prove, by documentation or social security number, that when they vote, they are in fact entitled to vote. But because Georgia is still under a Court order dating back to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 for a history of systemic racism, feds must approve of any change to the state's election laws. It matters not that Georgia voted heavilly for Obama in the last election, apparently. And now, Obama's civil rights division has rejected this law, reasoning that making a person prove that they are entitled to cast a vote places "erroneous burdens on the right to register to vote" and disproportionately effects blacks and hispanic voters.
This is just amazing. Secretary of State Karen Handel stated the obvious when she opined that the DOJ's decision "opens the floodgates for non-citizens to vote in the state." No kidding. Read the story here.
Redstate adds the entire statement from the Georgia Sec. of State:
Friday, September 26, 2008
Thoughts On The First Debate
. . . back in April, I warned the administration that you had Russian peacekeepers in Georgian territory. That made no sense whatsoever. Does Obama know that Russian peacekeepers were there – and had been there for years - per agreement between Russia and Georgia? He's acting like he just found out some secret information. And what makes Obama believe that “international peacekeepers” would have stopped the Russian invasion?
The first debate is in the record books.
McCain appeared confident. Any questions about his age or his mental agility have been answered. He was aggressive without being overbearing, and he won the debate on foreign policy hands down. The difference in experience and knowledge on foreign policy issues was readily apparent.
That said, it is economic issues at the top of the list today, and Obama did better on the economic issues than McCain. McCain did poorly in response to several of the questions on the economic issues, and I am left wondering whether he was saving the attack on “regulation” and the cause of our current fiscal crisis until after a deal is reached in Congress on the bailout. At any rate, given the importance of economic issues today, it is no surprise that, according to a CBS poll, undecideds gave the night to Obama.
_______________________________________________________
Obama did well on some of the questions, and he won the economic portion of the debate on at least an emotional level. In a Fox News survey of undecided voters, the majority thought Obama won the night because he seemed to understand and connect more with "Main St." I suspect that perception was likely set in the opening statements, before the first question was even asked. Obama's statement was a consise itemization of his priorities to address the fiscal crisis. McCain's statement, was not focused on the economy. First impressions and emotions matter to a large swath of people - and at seems a lot of them are among the undecideds.
In substance, Obama was on the defensive much of the night. He attempted to interrupt McCain on several occasions and seemed on the edge of anger at least once. McCain got under his skin. And while I did not think that Obama repeatedly stating his agreement with McCain’s positions sounded bad during the debate itself, cut and spliced onto a Youtube video even before the end of the debate, it sounds pretty cutting.
The debate format was very good. Jim Lehrer did an excellent job as moderator.
My thoughts on some the specific questions and responses:
McCain did a very poor job of explaining why his economic policies would be better for “main street” than those of Obama.
Obama kept trying to tie McCain to Bush’s economic policies, but McCain fairly well neutralized that. And indeed, later in the debate, McCain tied Obama to Bush.
McCain allowed Obama to pin the current fiscal crisis on “eight years of bad economic policies” without any substantive rebuttal. This is an issue McCain could rebut and explain clearly in ten sentences or less – and it would be a devastating indictment of the socialist policies of the left as well as Sen. Obama’s inaction. That was the low point of the evening, and it occurred within the first minutes of the debate. If McCain repeats that in the next debate, I think he can kiss his presidential aspirations goodbye. People are too upset about the economy, and if he lets them wrongly blame he or Republicans generally, he will lose a close election. Thankfully, McCain will get another bite at that apple in the next debate. I hope that his reticence in making a rebuttal this time around was in respect to the negotiations going on in Congress over the subprime rescue operation.
McCain’s comments on reigning in spending and earmarks were good. They will play to the base. But he has the base with him now. A lot of Middle America will be somewhat swayed by this, but again, McCain needs to do a better job of explaining why it is far more to their advantage than Obama’s plan to increase spending by $800 billion. That is a massive chunk out of our economy that Obama plans to take from the private sector and turn it into public sector spending. That will do nothing to create wealth or grow the size of the pie for all Americans. It will merely result in greater shared misery.
The real high points for McCain on the economics issue came when he talked about a spending freeze and specific measures to cut wasteful spending, such as an end to ethanol subsidies. Obama would not name a single program that he would cut or freeze.
On foreign policy, McCain looked far more knowledgeable and confident than Obama. Obama committed no major gaffes, but the gravitas and experience gaps here were very visibly a canyon. McCain was speaking from experience, Obama was speaking from cue cards.
McCain was the aggressor and sounded much wiser on the answers to questions about Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan. He let Obama get away with the tired and false meme that our standing in the world has deteriorated over the past eight years because of Bush policies. McCain should have mentioned that, today, there are more pro-American leaders of foreign nations than there were eight years ago. The only people who do not like us today were the same people in Europe who did not like us 8 years ago or 18 years ago.
There were a few minor gaffes by Obama, only one of which McCain pounced on. Obama claimed his policy to meet without preconditions with the heads of enemy states was supported by Kissinger. McCain told him that was wrong and, subsequent to the debate, Kissinger called the media supporting McCain. The other was Obama’s bizzare assertion on Georgia that McCain was not given an opportunity to respond to:
And what we needed to do was replace them with international peacekeepers and a special envoy to resolve the crisis before it boiled over.
McCain’s response to the 9-11 question was, I thought, very good. I must admit I had forgotten that he was one of the legislators who had taken on the administration to get the 9-11 Commission set up.
My favorite line of the night – McCain comparing the stubbornness of Obama in refusing to acknowledge the success of the surge to the stubbornness of the Bush administration in refusing to acknowledge the need for it. Let's not have another four years of McBama.
Most memorable lines of the night both came from McCain –
“Reform, prosperity, and peace, these are major challenges to the United States of America. I don't think I need any on-the-job training. I'm ready to go at it right now”
and
“I guarantee you, as president of the United States, I know how to heal the wounds of war, I know how to deal with our adversaries, and I know how to deal with our friends.”
Most other blogs had a similar take:
Confederate Yankee
Hot Air
Jules Crittenden
Michelle Malkin
Tiger Hawk
Voldka Pundit
Jennifer Rubin at PJM
CNN had their debate report card.
Much more at Memorandum.
You can find the full transcript of the debate here.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
The NYT Counterattacks On The One's Behalf
[McCain's] critics charge that the emotion of Sept. 11 overwhelmed his former cool-eyed caution about deploying American troops without a clear national interest and a well-defined exit, turning him into a tool of the Bush administration in its push for a war to transform the region. Whoa. Let's pull that apart. One, to claim that there was not a clear national interest in attacking Iraq as seen in 2002 is the penultimate rewrite of history. Two, McCain was out in front of Bush on the call to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein. Three, what is it with the left that we can only send troops into battle with a clear plan for surrender and retreat. Our post modern left just have no contact with reality. Actually, the NYT does in fact quote someone with sense on this last issue - McCain's younger brother, Joe: “To quote Sherman, war is all hell and we need to fight it out and get it over with and that is when the killing stops” I won't go into the rest of the article. Basically, its a litany of everything the NYT can spin in an effort to show that McCain acted decisively while not always acting under the correct information. They do so largely out of the context of the time, and instead evaluate it all in the 20/20 hindsight of today. 
The electoral clock is counting down. The candidate you are actively pushing for the White House is holding a slim to none lead in the polls. You are cheerleading him towards victory.
Suddenly, catastrophe strikes.
There is a foreign policy crisis. Your candidate looks weak, equivocating, unsure of himself. His spine has left his body. His opponent looks strong, knowledgable, prescient. This is bad. What to do?
If your the NY Times, its to write an opinion hit-piece on McCain, ignoring McCain's response to the crisis in Georgia and instead, concentrating on cherry picked facts in an attempt to show that McCain is a war-mongerer too dangerous to be given the reigns of power. And, of course, you run it as front page news.
______________________________________________________
The NYT front page hit piece of the day is "Response to 9-11 Offers Outline of McCain Doctrine." I won't recount the whole piece. You can read it here.
Just a couple of points worth mentioning. One, the NYT spends the first several paragraphs pointing out that McCain was the first person to call for attacks on Iraq, believing it would pay dividends far beyond the borders of that country. What the NYT studiously ignores is that, in fact, that has turned out to be right. Success in Iraq has been bad news for al Qaeda who have watched their stock value tumble in response to defeat in Iraq almost as much as the NYT has seen its own stock value tumble since 9-11, now near the single digits after a high of $52 per share. Instead what we get from the NYT is:
That the NYT is in the tank for Obama is no secret. That the NYT stock prices are plummeting is likewise no secret. Could it have anything to do with regularly running biased and unfair opinion pieces as front page news? Just asking.
How Do You Say "Up Yours" In Ukrainian?
. . . Ukraine said it was ready to give both Europe and America access to its missile warning systems after Russia earlier annulled a 1992 cooperation agreement involving two satellite tracking stations. Previously, the stations were part of Russia's early-warning system for missiles coming from Europe. Read the entire article. I do believe that is the diplomatic equivalent of the one fingered salute that President Yushenko just made in the direction of Moscow.
Pictured above is Ukrainian President Viktor Yushenko. His face is pock marked from dioxin poisoning in 2004, likely a gift that originated in Russia. He is a pro-Western president who, like the other heads of state of the former Soviet satellites, are reacting strongly to Russia's invasion of Georgia.
Several days ago, the Presidents of Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Ukraine and Latvia all visited Georgia to register their solidarity with Georgia and their level of concern with Russian actions. Poland decided to ink a deal with the U.S. for a mutual defence pact and the installation of a missle defense system on its terrirtory. The response from Russia - they would now target nuclear weapons at Poland. Such threats are, at very best, counterproductive.
And today, in a move sure to rattle Putin's cage, President Viktor Yushchenko has offered up a Soviet built satellite facility on Ukrainian soil for integration into the U.S. missle defense system. This from the Telegraph:
"The fact that Ukraine is no longer a party to the 1992 agreement allows it to launch active cooperation with European countries to integrate its information," a statement from the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry said.
It follows a declaration earlier this week from Ukraine's pro-Western president, Viktor Yushchenko, that the Russian naval lease of the Ukrainian Black Sea port of Sebastopol would be scrapped if any vessels joined the conflict in Georgia.
The crisis over Russia's display of military might in Georgia has alarmed ex-Soviet satellites states in a broad arc from the Baltics to Central Asia. Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, all of which harbour bitter memories of Soviet occupation, have expressed solidarity with the Georgian position.
And I have to agree with M. Simon over at Power and Control. This has been a high stakes debacle for Russia. The decision to invade Russia was not one taken with a whole lot of forethought given to all of the consequences.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Heh
This from cartoonist Michael Ramirez projecting a President Obama's response to the 3 A.M. phone call that Georgia has been invaded by Russia.
The MSM On The Candidates' Responses To The Russian Invasion Of Georgia
For the last several days, Senator Barack Obama has seemed to fade from the scene while on his secluded vacation here, as his opponent, Senator John McCain, has seized nearly every opportunity to display his foreign policy credentials on the dominant issue of the week: the conflict between Russia and Georgia. Read the entire article. The Washington Post goes the more traditional route of the MSM over the past week, attacking John McCain for sounding decisive in response to the Russian crisis. And, like the AP's insane hit piece of the other day, WaPo notes that McCain has a former lobbyist for Georgia on the payroll while neglecting to mention that he also employs former lobbyists for Russia. And you have to love how they equate criticism of Obama for coopting the symbols of the Presidency with their criticism of McCain now for acting decisively in response to a foreign crisis: Standing behind a lectern in Michigan this week, with two trusted senators ready to do his bidding, John McCain seemed to forget for a moment that he was only running for president. Read the entire article. Fortunately, TNOY has the true story of what is going on. Obama is in hull defilade in Hawaii merely gathering his mystical strength to solve the Georgia Russia problem in a matter of days upon his return.
While Obama kicks back on his vacation in Hawaii, Georgia is burning and the MSM is evaluating the very different responses thereto by Obama and McCain.
Surprisingly, the NYT criticizes Obama for his aloofness in comparison to John McCain who, the paper notes, is further burnishing his foreign policy credentials.
WaPo goes for what has become the typical line over the past week for the MSM and the Obama camp, glossing over Obama's feckless initial response to the crisis and his relative non-engagement since while attacking McCain for acting decisively. Indeed, WaPo goes so far as to equate criticism of McCain "acting Presidential" in regards to the Georgia crisis with criticism of Obama for "acting Presidential" in the preceeding weeks. The distinction that Obama merely coopted the symbolism of the Presidency while McCain is appearing Presidential based on his thorough knowledge of a situation involved in a foreign crisis is apparently lost on WaPo.
____________________________________________________________
You know Obama's position is weak when the NYT is given over to criticizing The One in comparison to McCain. This from the NYT:
Only once, at the beginning of the week, did Mr. Obama discuss the fighting in public, when he emerged from his beachfront rental home to condemn Russia’s escalation, in a way that seemed timed for the evening television news. He took no questions whose answers might demonstrate command of the issue.
Mr. McCain and his surrogates, however, have discussed the situation nearly every day on the campaign trail, often taking a hard line against Russia to the point of his declaring the other day, “We are all Georgians.”
It is as if the candidates’ images have been reversed within a matter of a few weeks. When Mr. Obama was overseas last month, Mr. McCain’s foreign policy bona fides seemed diminished, if only because he could not attract the news media attention received by Mr. Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. Now, Mr. Obama’s voice seems muted at a time when much of the world has been worriedly watching the conflict.
. . . For his part, Mr. McCain has fielded questions daily, batting back criticism that his tough stance is reminiscent of the language of the cold war. On the other hand, the fluency with which Mr. McCain, the presumed Republican presidential nominee, discusses Georgia, citing the history of the region and the number of times he has visited, lends an aura of commander in chief. And as if he already had a cabinet, Mr. McCain said he was dispatching his allies Senators Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, and Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, to the region.
To conservatives, particularly the neoconservative set, Mr. McCain’s forceful responses have been welcomed. Conservatives have pointed out that Mr. Obama looks a bit out of touch this time. “I didn’t think that Obama had to do much during his week’s vacation — everyone deserves a break,” wrote Jim Geraghty of National Review Online. “But this week is starting to really turn into a week where you don’t want to be seen golfing.”
Mr. McCain, pressed by reporters, has resisted opportunities to criticize how Mr. Obama has addressed the situation in Georgia.
Mr. Obama’s week has been low-key, a sharp contrast to his high-voltage campaign events. On Thursday, he toured a nature preserve and went body surfing. Beyond that, Mr. Obama has played golf, taken walks on the beach with his daughters, eaten dinner at a few Honolulu restaurants with his wife and friends, and visited almost daily with his grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, whom Mr. Obama calls “tutu,” a Hawaiian term. . . .
Asked about his tough rhetoric on the ongoing conflict in Georgia, McCain began: "If I may be so bold, there was another president . . ."
He caught himself and started again: "At one time, there was a president named Ronald Reagan who spoke very strongly about America's advocacy for democracy and freedom."
With his Democratic opponent on vacation in Hawaii, the senator from Arizona has been doing all he can in recent days to look like President McCain, particularly when it comes to the ongoing international crisis in Georgia.
Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili says he talks to McCain, a personal friend, several times a day. McCain's top foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, was until recently a paid lobbyist for Georgia's government. McCain also announced this week that two of his closest allies, Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), would travel to Georgia's capital of Tbilisi on his behalf, after a similar journey by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
The extent of McCain's involvement in the military conflict in Georgia appears remarkable among presidential candidates, who traditionally have kept some distance from unfolding crises out of deference to whoever is occupying the White House. The episode also follows months of sustained GOP criticism of Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, who was accused of acting too presidential for, among other things, briefly adopting a campaign seal and taking a trip abroad that included a huge rally in Berlin.
"We talk about how there's only one president at a time, so the idea that you would send your own emissaries and really interfere with the process is remarkable," said Lawrence Korb, a Reagan Defense Department official who now acts as an informal adviser to the Obama campaign. "It's very risky and can send mixed messages to foreign governments. . . . They accused Obama of being presumptuous, but he didn't do anything close to this."
But McCain and his aides say his tough rhetoric on the Georgia crisis, along with his personal familiarity with the region, underscores the foreign policy expertise he would bring to the White House.
His focus on the dispute has also allowed McCain to distance himself somewhat from President Bush, who has been sharply criticized by many conservatives for moving too slowly to respond to Russia's military incursion into Georgia and South Ossetia, the breakaway province at the heart of the dispute. McCain's first statement on the conflict last Friday came before the White House itself had responded.
In often-lengthy remarks about Georgia this week on the campaign trail, McCain repeatedly talked of how many times he had been to the region, let it be known that he had talked daily with Saakashvili since the crisis began and made it clear that there had been times he thought Bush's response could have been stronger.
He provided a primer for why Americans should care about the "tiny little democracy" and tried to tie the foreign crisis with a domestic one: oil. Georgia is "part of a strategic energy corridor affecting individual lives far beyond" the region, he said.
"His statements have been very presidential," said John R. Bolton, a former U.N. ambassador under Bush who has since become one of the sharpest critics of the administration's recent foreign policy. "These are the kinds of things that the president should have been saying from the beginning."
. . . McCain's ties to Saakashvili go back to the 1990s, when the future leader of the "Rose Revolution" was a student at George Washington University. In an interview this week on CNN, Saakashvili said he was "talking to Senator McCain several times a day."
"You know, I think he spends less time on his presidential campaign these days and lots of time on Georgia," Saakashvili said. "And I really appreciate that, because Senator McCain has been fighting for freedom of Georgia for many, many years."
. . . The Obama campaign has been generally cautious in its remarks about the Georgia conflict, and the campaign yesterday declined to comment on the appropriateness of McCain's role. But earlier this week, Obama adviser Susan Rice said McCain "may have complicated the situation" with his early tough rhetoric on the dispute.
"John McCain shot from the hip," Rice said on MSNBC, calling his initial statement "very aggressive, very belligerent."
Lieberman, one of McCain's most ardent and vocal supporters, responded by criticizing Obama's more cautious first statement on the Georgia situation an example of "moral neutrality" that showed his "inexperience."
By Wednesday, however, both McCain and Obama had come together to praise the Bush administration's announcement of humanitarian aid and the secretary of state's diplomatic journey. McCain also told reporters that "this isn't the time for partisanship, sniping between campaigns," and declined to comment on Rice's or Lieberman's remarks.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Moonbats Flying Over Georgia
McCain condemns Russia, supports Iraq invasion Wow. How far in the post modern tank do you have to be to exhibit this degree of moral relativism? Leaving all else aside, if McCafferty actually needs someone to spell out the differences between the invasion of Iraq taken in response to a belief that Iraq was a rogue nation with WMD and Georgia, a pro-Western democracy that is under attack from an imperialist Russian oligarchy (or mafia, take your pick), he is utterly clueless. And one wonders why Cafferty is picking out McCain when Cafferty's chosen One is parroting McCain now? He's despatching Lindsey and Joe as emissaries to the country immediately. He's on the phone with Sakashvilli daily. He's giving press conferences. He's warning of a new Tsarist empire. You can tell what sends him into high-energy zones: a clear enemy abroad. He knows black and white; and he knows war. It gives him clarity and strength. Up next: Iran and China. Oh, the conflicts we can have ... That's right Andrew, Obama's feckless initial response to Russia's invasion is just what we want in a President. God forbid we have someone in the White House who understands what is happening on the foreign stage and is willing to defend democracy. Sullivan seems to be so smitten with Obama that his columns these days amount to political pornography. 
John McCain, who has a long history of concern over Russian designs on its former satellites, and especially Georgia, has been on top of the crisis posed by the Russian invasion of Georgia since day one. He issued another statement today in the WSJ outlining the steps the world should be taking to respond to Russia's invasion. Obama's initial response to the Russian invasion was, to put it kindly, feckless. And now both the Obama camp and the far left have just gone into the moonbat stratosphere trying to spin all of this.
____________________________________________________________
The left's reaction to Russia's invasion of Georgia is an exercise in appeasement and moral relativism on an insane level. We start with Jack Cafferty, who displays a degree of insipid moral relativism that is rarely seen outside of a Kos Diary:
FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty:
“In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations.”
So says John McCain, as part of his tough talk about Russia’s attacks on Georgia. In calling for Russia to get out, McCain says he doesn’t think we’ll reignite the Cold War, but that you can’t justify the “extent and degree” of Russia’s intervention in Georgia. The presumptive Republican nominee insists that we need to make sure that in the 21st century, we all have respect for the sovereignty and independence of nations.
Say what? The United States invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq more than 5 years ago. And you, Senator McCain, were all for the idea. You voted for the war, remember? At the time, McCain insisted that the U.S. needed to act before Saddam Hussein could develop more advanced weapons. And since then, McCain has remained steadfast in his support of arguably the biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of this country. At one point, McCain said U-S troops could remain in Iraq, a sovereign nation, for 100 years.
When it comes to punishing Russia for its actions, the Arizona Senator says its potential membership in the World Trade Organization should be reviewed along with its membership in the G-8. He believes an international peacekeeping mission should be sent to Georgia and that NATO should re-consider adding Georgia and Ukraine to the alliance.
Here’s my question to you: Is John McCain hypocritical to condemn Russia for invading Georgia when he voted to invade Iraq?
Then there is Andrew Sullivan, who obscenely attempts to tries to paint the fact that McCain knows foreign policy and is acting with decisiveness as a negative:
If this is the dynamic you want to see in the next president, McCain is your man.
These are only a part of what's going on as the left ascends into the moonbat stratosphere. Hot Air has the story of Susan Collins claiming that McCain's "beligerance" has made the situation worse, while Obama's measured approach is the appropriate one.
The AP's Peter Yost ran an insane story accusing McCain of crafting his pro-Georgia policy based on the advice of one of his campaign staff, a person who worked for a firm that has lobbied for Georgia. The fact that Georgia is a pro-Western democracy apparently does not enter into the equation. Likewise, Mr. Yost fails to note that McCain's positions have been consistent for over a decade and that McCain's staff also has sevral people who have, in the past, lobbied for Russia. Even the NYT, who argue for appeasement and who equate McCain's long distrust of Russia with the "neocon" position, doesn't take jump off into the deep end with Mr. Yost on that one.
Big Lizards has a must read on this. He takes on the AP article as well as the many others on the moonbat left who are attacking McCain for, as he puts it, "democracy mongering."
Krauthammer, Kagan and the Situation in Georgia
The Russia-Georgia cease-fire brokered by France’s president is less than meets the eye. Its terms keep moving as the Russian army keeps moving. Russia has since occupied Gori (appropriately, Stalin’s birthplace), effectively cutting Georgia in two. The road to the capital, Tbilisi, is open, but apparently Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has temporarily chosen to seek his objectives through military pressure and Western acquiescence rather than by naked occupation. Read the entire article. Fred Kagan, writing at the Institute For The Study Of War, has been providing regular updates on the situation in Georgia. Tuesday, he posted a thorough analysis of the situation and the ramifications of the cease fire agreement signed by Russia and Georgia: . . . The military situation is NOT a return to the status quo ante: 
Map above is reproduced from the Institute For The Study of War
Ruissia has gone far beyond the borders of South Ossetia and the breakaway province of Abkhazia, occupying Gori, splitting Georgia in two and stopping not far short of the Geogian capital of Tiblisi while Russia's navy blockades Georgia's ports. Russia's goals appear to be rid Georgia of its democratic government, gain control of the country as a satellite, send a message to all other former Soviet satellites, embarress NATO and gain control of the vitally important oil pipeline running through Georgia. Krauthammer has weighed in with his assessment of possible responses. Fred Kagan has thoroughly analyzed the situation and the ramifications of the cease fire signed by Georgia.
________________________________________________________
The latest information from CNN is that Russian troops still occupy Gori and have now occupied the Black Sea port of Goti. Russia has added an aditional 5,000 troops, bringing their forces inside Georgia to 15,000.
This from Charles Krauthammer on potential responses to the Russian action. Interestingly, he does not mention NATO:
His objectives are clear. They go beyond detaching South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgia and absorbing them into Russia. They go beyond destroying the Georgian army, leaving the country at Russia’s mercy.
The real objective is the Finlandization of Georgia through the removal of President Mikheil Saakashvili and his replacement by a Russian puppet.
. . . The Finlandization of Georgia would give Russia control of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, which is the only significant European-bound route for Caspian Sea oil and gas that does not go through Russia. Pipelines are the economic lifelines of such former Soviet republics as Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan that live off energy exports. Moscow would become master of the Caspian basin.
Subduing Georgia has an additional effect. It warns Russia’s former Baltic and East European satellites what happens if you get too close to the West. It is the first step to re-establishing Russian hegemony in the region.
What is to be done? Let’s be real. There’s nothing to be done militarily. What we can do is alter Putin’s cost-benefit calculations.
We are not without resources. There are a range of measures to be deployed if Russia does not live up to its cease-fire commitments:
1. Suspend the NATO-Russia Council established in 2002 to help bring Russia closer to the West. Make clear that dissolution will follow suspension. The council gives Russia a seat at the NATO table. Message: Invading neighboring democracies forfeits the seat.
2. Bar Russian entry to the World Trade Organization.
3. Dissolve the G-8. Putin’s dictatorial presence long made it a farce but no one wanted to upset the bear by expelling it. No need to. The seven democracies simply withdraw. Then immediately announce the reconstitution of the original G-7.
4. Announce a U.S.-European boycott of the 2014 Winter Olympics at Sochi. To do otherwise would be obscene. Sochi is 15 miles from Abkhazia, the other Georgian province just invaded by Russia. The Games will become a riveting contest between the Russian, Belarusian and Jamaican bobsled teams.
All of these steps (except dissolution of the G-8, which should be irreversible) would be subject to reconsideration depending upon Russian action — most importantly and minimally, its withdrawal of troops from Georgia proper to South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
The most crucial and unconditional measure, however, is this: Reaffirm support for the Saakashvili government and declare that its removal by the Russians would lead to recognition of a government-in-exile. This would instantly be understood as providing us the legal basis for supplying and supporting a Georgian resistance to any Russian-installed regime.
. . . Bush is dispatching Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to France and Georgia. Not a moment too soon. Her task must be to present these sanctions, get European agreement on as many as possible and begin imposing them, calibrated to Russian behavior. And most important of all, to prevent any Euro-wobbliness on the survival of Georgia’s democratically elected government.
We have cards. We should play them. Much is at stake.
- Russian air attacks and ground fighting have severely degraded the Georgian military, so that it is not in any way comparable to the force Georgia had before the fighting began; Russian losses have been trivial in comparison with Russia’s military power
- The agreement does not appear to contain provisions for the presence of Georgian peacekeepers in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, even though the 1992 agreement by which Russian forces are there stipulated a tripartite peacekeeping force. . . .
The political/diplomatic situation is also not a return to the status quo ante:
- Although the agreement requires both sides to enter negotiations about the future status of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the Russian leadership has repeatedly declared that it will not negotiate with Saakashvili, that Saakashvili is no longer a “partner,” and so on, so the terms of the negotiation will be very different from those that existed before this conflict.
- The Russian Attorney General has declared that Russia can charge Saakashvili or any other Georgian official with crimes under Russian law, and an investigative commission has been set up in Vladikavkaz to make the case.
- The Russian leadership has repeatedly declared that it cannot see any circumstance in which Abkhazia and South Ossetia would “return” to Georgian state control.
- The international agreement on the non-use of force the Russians just compelled Saakashvili to sign now also has the imprimatur of the European Union, since it was presented by Sarkozy in his capacity as EU president—previously it had been a document under negotiation between Georgia and Russia without external participation.
- In sum, there has been no compromise. Russia has imposed its demands upon Georgia by force, under coercion, and in the midst of partial military occupation, under the auspices of the European Union.
The Russians have also established several principles and precedents:
- That Russia has the right to respond to conflicts in South Ossetia and Abkhazia by strategic attack against Georgia
- That Russia has the right to use its military force to bomb and invade the undisputed sovereign territory of a neighbor for the purpose of defending the “dignity and lives of Russian citizens,” which was the basis that Medvedev has repeatedly advanced for the operation
- That Russian Federation law extends to cover all Russian citizens, wherever they might be located.
- That Russian Federation law can be used to bring charges against non-Russian citizens who are not resident in Russia for crimes not committed on Russian territory, if their actions are “against the interests of the Russian Federation.”
- That Russian military forces can take pre-emptive action, including ground occupation, to protect themselves from the possibility of danger posed by foreign forces on foreign soil.
- This is a little tricky, but it is important. Russian troops may or may not have occupied Gori, although they certainly bombed it. But the Russian Ministry of Defense officially announced that the Russian command in Abkhazia had issued an ultimatum to Georgian forces in Zugdidi, in Georgian territory outside of the Abkhazian border, and then attacked and occupied Zugdidi, all under the pretext of establishing a “security zone” to prevent any possible “repetition” in Abkhazia of what had happened in South Ossetia. The Georgians have made no hostile move in Abkhazia throughout this crisis—on the contrary, the Abkhazians, with Russian support, launched an unprovoked offensive against Georgian peacekeepers in Abkhazia and drove them out. The Russians clearly courted an opportunity to establish the principle that they can occupy Georgian territory preemptively, even when the Georgians have made no hostile move in the area.
Read the entire post.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Smoke Over Georgia
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice said: "I wanted to make very clear that the United States stands for the territorial integrity of Georgia, for the sovereignty of Georgia; that we support its democratically elected government and people, and are reviewing options for humanitarian and reconstruction assistance to Georgia. But the most important thing right now is that these military operations need to stop." It sounds as if something went wrong in the Russian calculations, but it will likely be weeks before the smoke clears on this one. I doubt that any of the above were of direct consequence, but again, who knows what is going on beneath the surface. U.S. plans above would have put U.S. warships in direct proximity to Russian ships now conducting a blockage of Georgia, thus upping the ante. The news is that Russia has ceased its military action. Or has announced that she has done so, though there are still reports of fighting. It is not quite clear what that means, since before doing so, its forces penetrated far into Georgian territory. What will they demand in return for taking them out and, indeed, will they take them out? Read the entire post.
Russia has ostensibly ordered a halt to further military operations in Georgia, though it is not clear what they are demanding and what the long term repercussions of this action will be.
____________________________________________________________
CNN is reporting that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has ordered a halt to the Russian advance into Georgia and has supposedly agreed to remove its military from Georgia. It is unclear why they have made this decision, but in addition, they are apparently no longer demanding the resignation of the Georgian government. The CNN article also states:
U.S. officials also told CNN it was considering flying aid from bases in Germany to Georgia. There was also consideration being given to sending U.S. Navy ships into the Black Sea to conduct humanitarian relief missions.
Fox is reporting that, depite the cease fire, there are still some attacks ongoing.
Dr Helen Szamuely at EU Referendum is a Russian speaker whose area of expertise extends to the former Soviet bloc nations. She has several posts at EU Referendum and the BrugesGroup blog on this situation. Her most post on the topic is given to trying to work through why the cease fire now and how this situation will play out in the coming weeks:
The whole subject of South Ossetian independence has disappeared into a memory hole. Yesterday I took part in a discussion on the BBC Russian Service, together with Ariel Cohen of the Heritage Foundation and a Russian political analyst and former member of the Duma (whose name I managed not to catch, which is really annoying but had something to do with me having to adjust my earphones).
The latter very calmly informed us all that there was no question of going back to status quo ante because only Russian troops (I don’t think he bothered with the words peacekeepers or peacemakers) could guarantee the two break-away republics’ security and they were staying. Under no circumstances would international peacekeepers be allowed in.
Nor did he argue when I made the point that this was not about South Ossetian independence. Of course, not. Only those who are wilfully blind can say so.
Indeed, the gentleman in question remained very calm and full of certainty throughout the discussion, losing his temper only when I started enumerating the various ways in which the West can respond without any military intervention. “And who are you going to buy gas from,” he asked me angrily. “Lots of people,” replied I airily. “Who are you going to sell it to if we don’t buy it? There are no pipelines to China.” This did not make him very happy.
While we are on the subject of what the West can do to prevent attacks on other countries (the idea that Russia will do no such thing now that it has taught Georgia a lesson can be believed only by people who also think that stars are God’s daisy chains), here is a posting on a blog that has recently come my way, which makes me look like a real ninny.
What we could not find out was Russia’s endgame. What is it they want? We still don’t know, though according to the BBC Russian Service website [it’s in Russian but I think there is a way of having the article translated] some experts are saying that Russia has achieved her aims. Others are more cautious and suggesting we should wait and see.
On the whole, waiting and seeing sounds like an excellent idea. Not least we should hear what it is Mr Putin or his teddy bear, Mr Medvedev are going to demand. Simply asserting that they have punished the aggressor and reasserted the security of the civilian population (something that Mr Putin cares about desperately) as well as of the peacemakers is not the end. There will be more demands.
Meanwhile President Saakashvili has announced to around 50,000 people in Tbilisi that Georgia is leaving the Commonwealth of Independent States, Russia’s post-Soviet attempt to control the break-away republics.
While the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline appears not to have been damaged (apart from the fire caused by an explosion in Turkey a few days before the hostilities in Georgia began) BP has prudently closed it down for the duration. When they will reopen it might well depend on the separate battle that is being waged for the control of the joint Anglo-Russian consortium TNK-BP.
We can but speculate why Russia has decided to end hostilities for the time being, while there is still fighting in Abkhazia. It may be that they do feel that they have taught Georgia a lesson and, in any case, they are in a good position to resume the teaching of that lesson if the Georgians refuse to kiss the rod.
It may be that the Georgian forces fought back with greater vigour than the Russians had expected and there was a sudden worry (which we have speculated on before) of another quagmire like Chechnya. It may be that the angry conversation between President Bush and former President, now Prime Minister, Putin included certain very specific threats possibly to do with ships in the Mediterranean.
As opposed to that last point Russia may well have reassured herself that the West will do nothing if she proceeds to reconquer the old Soviet colonies as Putin has always threatened to do and there is no need to do anything else for the moment. . . .
Monday, August 11, 2008
A Letter From Georgia's President Saakashvili
As I write, Russia is waging war on my country. Read the entire article. As I wrote in the post below, there is a tremendous amount at stake. This is a 3 A.M. moment and soft power alone is not going to stop Russia. They have already made the calculation that the West will not act to stop them and are pushing forces into Georgia proper. We - and Georgia - need strong action.
Georgian President Michael Saaskashvili writes in the WSJ today, explaining the origins of the situation in his country today and the aims of Putin's Russia in their attack on his country.
__________________________________________________________
This from President Saakashvili
On Friday, hundreds of Russian tanks crossed into Georgian territory, and Russian air force jets bombed Georgian airports, bases, ports and public markets. Many are dead, many more wounded. This invasion, which echoes Afghanistan in 1979 and the Prague Spring of 1968, threatens to undermine the stability of the international security system.
. . . The Kremlin designed this war. Earlier this year, Russia tried to provoke Georgia by effectively annexing another of our separatist territories, Abkhazia. When we responded with restraint, Moscow brought the fight to South Ossetia.
Ostensibly, this war is about an unresolved separatist conflict. Yet in reality, it is a war about the independence and the future of Georgia. And above all, it is a war over the kind of Europe our children will live in. Let us be frank: This conflict is about the future of freedom in Europe.
No country of the former Soviet Union has made more progress toward consolidating democracy, eradicating corruption and building an independent foreign policy than Georgia. This is precisely what Russia seeks to crush.
This conflict is therefore about our common trans-Atlantic values of liberty and democracy. It is about the right of small nations to live freely and determine their own future. It is about the great power struggles for influence of the 20th century, versus the path of integration and unity defined by the European Union of the 21st. Georgia has made its choice.
When my government was swept into power by a peaceful revolution in 2004, we inherited a dysfunctional state plagued by two unresolved conflicts dating to the early 1990s. I pledged to reunify my country -- not by the force of arms, but by making Georgia a pole of attraction. I wanted the people living in the conflict zones to share in the prosperous, democratic country that Georgia could -- and has -- become.
In a similar spirit, we sought friendly relations with Russia, which is and always will be Georgia's neighbor. We sought deep ties built on mutual respect for each other's independence and interests. While we heeded Russia's interests, we also made it clear that our independence and sovereignty were not negotiable. As such, we felt we could freely pursue the sovereign choice of the Georgian nation -- to seek deeper integration into European economic and security institutions.
We have worked hard to peacefully bring Abkhazia and South Ossetia back into the Georgian fold, on terms that would fully protect the rights and interests of the residents of these territories. For years, we have offered direct talks with the leaders of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, so that we could discuss our plan to grant them the broadest possible autonomy within the internationally recognized borders of Georgia.
But Russia, which effectively controls the separatists, responded to our efforts with a policy of outright annexation. While we appealed to residents of Abkhazia and South Ossetia with our vision of a common future, Moscow increasingly took control of the separatist regimes. The Kremlin even appointed Russian security officers to arm and administer the self-styled separatist governments.
Under any circumstances, Russia's meddling in our domestic affairs would have constituted a gross violation of international norms. But its actions were made more egregious by the fact that Russia, since the 1990s, has been entrusted with the responsibility of peacekeeping and mediating in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Rather than serve as honest broker, Russia became a direct party to the conflicts, and now an open aggressor.
As Europe expanded its security institutions to the Black Sea, my government appealed to the Western community of nations -- particularly European governments and institutions -- to play a leading role in resolving our separatist conflicts. The key to any resolution was to replace the outdated peacekeeping and negotiating structures created almost two decades ago, and dominated by Russia, with a genuine international effort.
But Europe kept its distance and, predictably, Russia escalated its provocations. Our friends in Europe counseled restraint, arguing that diplomacy would take its course. We followed their advice and took it one step further, by constantly proposing new ideas to resolve the conflicts. Just this past spring, we offered the separatist leaders sweeping autonomy, international guarantees and broad representation in our government.
Our offers of peace were rejected. Moscow sought war. In April, Russia began treating the Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as Russian provinces. Again, our friends in the West asked us to show restraint, and we did. But under the guise of peacekeeping, Russia sent paratroopers and heavy artillery into Abkhazia. Repeated provocations were designed to bring Georgia to the brink of war.
When this failed, the Kremlin turned its attention to South Ossetia, ordering its proxies there to escalate attacks on Georgian positions. My government answered with a unilateral cease-fire; the separatists began attacking civilians and Russian tanks pierced the Georgian border. We had no choice but to protect our civilians and restore our constitutional order. Moscow then used this as pretext for a full-scale military invasion of Georgia.
Over the past days, Russia has waged an all-out attack on Georgia. Its tanks have been pouring into South Ossetia. Its jets have bombed not only Georgian military bases, but also civilian and economic infrastructure, including demolishing the port of Poti on the Black Sea coast. Its Black Sea fleet is now massing on our shores and an attack is under way in Abkhazia.
What is at stake in this war?
Most obviously, the future of my country is at stake. The people of Georgia have spoken with a loud and clear voice: They see their future in Europe. Georgia is an ancient European nation, tied to Europe by culture, civilization and values. In January, three in four Georgians voted in a referendum to support membership in NATO. These aims are not negotiable; now, we are paying the price for our democratic ambitions.
Second, Russia's future is at stake. Can a Russia that wages aggressive war on its neighbors be a partner for Europe? It is clear that Russia's current leadership is bent on restoring a neocolonial form of control over the entire space once governed by Moscow.
If Georgia falls, this will also mean the fall of the West in the entire former Soviet Union and beyond. Leaders in neighboring states -- whether in Ukraine, in other Caucasian states or in Central Asia -- will have to consider whether the price of freedom and independence is indeed too high.
A 3 A.M. Phone Call From Georgia
Russia has now captured Gori and is within 35 miles of Georgia’s capital, Tiblisi. The 3 a.m. phone is ringing.
This is John McCain forecasting Russian aggression against Georgia. This video is from 1999.
John McCain, who has visited both Georgia and South Ossetia in the past, has been, as David Broder says, "prescient"
As Powerline points out, there is a tremendous amount at stake in Georgia. Georgia is a pro-Western democracy and it is home to an oil pipeline that allows former Soviet Republics surrounding the Caspian Sea to pump oil outside of Russian control. If we allow Georgia to fall, this will of necessity effect all of the other former Soviet nations, moving them out of sheer survival instinct back into the Moscow sphere. It will be a message that the West cannot be counted upon as an ally. And control of the oil pipeline from the Caspian sea would give Russia ever more total control over the West’s lifeline. To reiterate, this is a 3 true A.M. event.
In the wake of Russia’s naked aggression into Georgia proper with the intent of forcing the ouster of the democratic government, John McCain issued the following statement, setting out a plan to respond to Russia’s aggression:
. . . Russian aggression against Georgia is both a matter of urgent moral and strategic importance to the United States of America.
"Georgia is an ancient country, at the crossroads of Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and one of the world's first nations to adopt Christianity as an official religion. After a brief period of independence following the Russian revolution, the Red Army forced Georgia to join the Soviet Union in 1922. As the Soviet Union crumbled at the end of the Cold War, Georgia regained its independence in 1991, but its early years were marked by instability, corruption, and economic crises.
"Following fraudulent parliamentary elections in 2003, a peaceful, democratic revolution took place, led by the U.S.-educated lawyer Mikheil Saakashvili. The Rose Revolution changed things dramatically and, following his election, President Saakashvili embarked on a series of wide-ranging and successful reforms. I've met with President Saakashvili many times, including during several trips to Georgia.
"What the people of Georgia have accomplished in terms of democratic governance, a Western orientation, and domestic reform is nothing short of remarkable. That makes Russia's recent actions against the Georgians all the more alarming. In the face of Russian aggression, the very existence of independent Georgia and the survival of its democratically-elected government are at stake.
"In recent days Moscow has sent its tanks and troops across the internationally recognized border into the Georgian region of South Ossetia. Statements by Moscow that it was merely aiding the Ossetians are belied by reports of Russian troops in the region of Abkhazia, repeated Russian bombing raids across Georgia, and reports of a de facto Russian naval blockade of the Georgian coast. Whatever tensions and hostilities might have existed between Georgians and Ossetians, they in no way justify Moscow's path of violent aggression. Russian actions, in clear violation of international law, have no place in 21st century Europe.
"The implications of Russian actions go beyond their threat to the territorial integrity and independence of a democratic Georgia. Russia is using violence against Georgia, in part, to intimidate other neighbors such as Ukraine for choosing to associate with the West and adhering to Western political and economic values. As such, the fate of Georgia should be of grave concern to Americans and all people who welcomed the end of a divided of Europe, and the independence of former Soviet republics. The international response to this crisis will determine how Russia manages its relationships with other neighbors. We have other important strategic interests at stake in Georgia, especially the continued flow of oil through the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline, which Russia attempted to bomb in recent days; the operation of a critical communication and trade route from Georgia through Azerbaijan and Central Asia; and the integrity an d influence of NATO, whose members reaffirmed last April the territorial integrity, independence, and sovereignty of Georgia.
"Yesterday Georgia withdrew its troops from South Ossetia and offered a ceasefire. The Russians responded by bombing the civilian airport in Georgia's capital, Tblisi, and by stepping up its offensive in Abkhazia. This pattern of attack appears aimed not at restoring any status quo ante in South Ossetia, but rather at toppling the democratically elected government of Georgia. This should be unacceptable to all the democratic countries of the world, and should draw us together in universal condemnation of Russian aggression.
"Russian President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin must understand the severe, long-term negative consequences that their government's actions will have for Russia's relationship with the U.S. and Europe. It is time we moved forward with a number of steps.
"The United States and our allies should continue efforts to bring a resolution before the UN Security Council condemning Russian aggression, noting the withdrawal of Georgian troops from South Ossetia, and calling for an immediate ceasefire and the withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgian territory. We should move ahead with the resolution despite Russian veto threats, and submit Russia to the court of world public opinion.
"NATO's North Atlantic Council should convene in emergency session to demand a ceasefire and begin discussions on both the deployment of an international peacekeeping force to South Ossetia and the implications for NATO's future relationship with Russia, a Partnership for Peace nation. NATO's decision to withhold a Membership Action Plan for Georgia might have been viewed as a green light by Russia for its attacks on Georgia, and I urge the NATO allies to revisit the decision.
"The Secretary of State should begin high-level diplomacy, including visiting Europe, to establish a common Euro-Atlantic position aimed at ending the war and supporting the independence of Georgia. With the same aim, the U.S. should coordinate with our partners in Germany, France, and Britain, to seek an emergency meeting of the G-7 foreign ministers to discuss the current crisis. The visit of French President Sarkozy to Moscow this week is a welcome expression of transatlantic activism.
"Working with allied partners, the U.S. should immediately consult with the Ukrainian government and other concerned countries on steps to secure their continued independence. This is particularly important as a number of Russian Black Sea fleet vessels currently in Georgian territorial waters are stationed at Russia's base in the Ukrainian Crimea.
"The U.S. should work with Azerbaijan and Turkey, and other interested friends, to develop plans to strengthen the security of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline.
"The U.S. should send immediate economic and humanitarian assistance to help mitigate the impact the invasion has had on the people of Georgia.
"Our united purpose should be to persuade the Russian government to cease its attacks, withdraw its troops, and enter into negotiations with Georgia. We must remind Russia's leaders that the benefits they enjoy from being part of the civilized world require their respect for the values, stability and peace of that world. World history is often made in remote, obscure countries. It is being made in Georgia today. It is the responsibility of the leading nations of the world to ensure that history continues to be a record of humanity's progress toward respecting the values and security of free people
In contrast, Mr. Obama's initial reaction showed that he clearly lacked any sort of basic grasp into what was occurring and its ramificaitons. He issued a call for both the invaded country, and the invader, to "show restraint." This was his statement on August 8, answering the 3 A.M. phone call:
"I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict. Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full scale war. Georgia's territorial integrity must be respected. All sides should enter into direct talks on behalf of stability in Georgia, and the United States, the United Nations Security Council, and the international community should fully support a peaceful resolution to this crisis."
And here is George Will, comparing the reactions of both Obama and McCain:
Russia’s aggression is an indictment of soft power politics in a world where brute force is always an option. There is little doubt in my mind that the EU nation’s refusal to allow Georgia entry into NATO acted as a green light for Moscow’s aggression, not much different than the message by Sec. of State Dean Acheson’s remarks on our unwillingness to defend Korea over 60 years ago was the precursor to the Korean War. For those bent on domination, soft power standing alone - without both the will and ability to respond with force - is meaningless. As Stalin asked in 1935, "how many divisions does the Pope have?"
Powerline, commenting on the statement of John McCain quoted above, notes the need for a Western response to be backed up by threat of force:
All such measures--not to mention the usual diplomatic steps--are useful only to the extent that they involve the actual or potential use of force or meaningful economic sanction. Russia will not be deterred from trying to reassert control over the lost provinces of its empire by condemnations and resolutions. Frankly, I'd feel more confident that such measures would be undertaken or credibly threatened if McCain were President. President Bush once had the fortitude to deal with this sort of crisis, but seems to have lost it. As for Barack Obama, the less said the better.
For my money, we should have planes flying over Tiblisi at this moment. They would have to be U.S. planes. NATO is utterly useless at this point and needs either to be reformed or concluded to be replaced by individual agreements between the U.S. and those European nations still willing to fight for their survival. Only a handful come to mind.
Russian Intentions Clarify
Russia, emboldened by windfall profits from oil exports, is showing a resolve to reassert its dominance in a region it has always considered its “near abroad.” CNN is reporting that U.S. Ambasador to the UN Khalilzad "told the Security Council that Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had told U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili 'must go.'" . . . Russia's brutal demonstration of power in South Ossetia, a breakaway region of its southern neighbour Georgia, marks the latest – and most alarming – sign of the Kremlin's determination to reclaim control over former Soviet states.
Any pretense that Russia was only defending the break away region of South Ossetia is now gone. Russia has bombed the Georgian capital and ground troops have crossed the border with Georgia and are now pushing towards the central Georgian city of Gori. This has vast implications far beyond the borders of Georgia.
The NYT is reporting that Russia has expanded the war beyond the borders of South Ossetia despite a Georgian withdraw from the region and diplomatic overtures to end their offensive:
The military action, which has involved air, naval and missile attacks, is the largest engagement by Russian forces outside its borders since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Russia escalated its assault on Sunday despite strong diplomatic warnings from Mr. Bush and European leaders, underscoring the limits of Western influence over Russia at a time when the rest of Europe depends heavily on Russia for natural gas and the United States needs Moscow’s cooperation if it hopes to curtail what it believes is a nuclear weapons threat from Iran. . . .
Russia's motives and the import to the West of its actions are analyzed by Chatham's House James Sherr in the Telegraph:
Read the entire article. (H/T BrugesGoup Blog)
These former satellites have now been left in no doubt that Russia must be regarded as "glavniy", or number one, if they wish to avoid the fate of Georgia. Central to Vladimir Putin's nationalistic policy is a conviction that the power of the West – seemingly unassailable at the end of the Cold War – is on the wane. The current crisis demonstrates that the Cold War has not been replaced by common values between East and West, but by the revival of hard Realpolitik.
. . . The aim of Russia's policy, succinctly expressed in 1992, is to "be leader of stability and security on the entire territory of the former USSR". What has changed in recent years is not the aim – endlessly reiterated in 16 years of presidential declarations, "foreign policy concepts" and military doctrines – but the "correlation of forces". As Yeltsin declared to Russia's intelligence services in 1994, "global ideological confrontation has been replaced by a struggle for spheres of interest in geopolitics". Back then, Russia had little to struggle with. Today, that is no longer the case.
If Western interests are not to be irreparably damaged, we will need to understand that they are being tested on three overlapping levels: local, regional and global. Georgia is not just a square on a chessboard, but a country that is extremely important in its own right. For two reasons, the West cannot be indifferent to what happens there. First, despite the uncultivated instincts of its president, Georgia's political culture is fundamentally democratic, its people (80 per cent of whom support Nato membership) profoundly pro-Western, and its sense of national identity almost indestructible. Georgia can be defeated by Russia, but it can no longer submit to it, and therefore war between Georgia and Russia would be a frightening prospect even if no wider interests existed. Second, the only energy pipeline in the former USSR independent of Russian control passes through Georgia. There will be no meaningful energy security, let alone diversification of energy supplies, if these pipelines become vulnerable to sabotage, like those in Iraq, or to takeover by shadow businesses fronting for Russian interests.
But Georgia is equally important to Russia. Russia has only controlled the nationalities of the north Caucasus when it has dominated the south Caucasus. Despite the so-called "normalisation" in Chechnya, the north Caucasus remains, to Russia's leaders, the Achilles heel of the Russian Federation and, after the slaughter of schoolchildren in Beslan in 2004, a subject of nightmares for Russia's people. Russia's determination to hold sway in South Ossetia and Abkhazia must be seen in this light. But it also serves another purpose: as a means to deny Georgia admission to Nato. In their own right, these territories mean far less to Russia than they do to Georgia. So long as this is the case, Georgia risks finding itself hostage to Russian intentions, and so for that matter do the OSCE and Nato. And so Russia would like everyone to think.
"Everyone" includes Ukraine, whose government, like Georgia's, aspires to Nato membership. Unlike Georgia, Ukraine has no territorial conflicts, but it has a potential territorial dispute, Crimea. What is more, Russia's Black Sea Fleet – and along with it, its intelligence services – is authorised to remain there until 2017. In 1997, Ukraine's sovereignty over Crimea was recognised by a treaty signed by Presidents Yeltsin and Kuchma. Yet after Nato's summit in Bucharest last April, President Putin let it be known that Crimea and other questions long regarded as settled could be reopened if Ukraine ceased to be a "friendly" (ie, non-Nato) state. After the events of last week, Ukraine is even more concerned about Russia's wish to destabilise it.
Russia's regional objectives are therefore straightforward. It aims to show its neighbours, by means of the Georgian example, that Russia is "glavniy": that its contentment is the key to "stability and security", and that if Russia expresses its discontent, Nato will be unwilling and unable to help. It aims to show Nato that its newest aspirant members are divided, divisible and, in the case of Georgia, reckless. It aims to show both sets of actors that Russia has (in Putin's words) "earned a right to be self-interested" and that in its own "zone", it will defend these interests irrespective of what others think about them. For Russia, the broader implications are also becoming straightforward. To its political establishment, to the heads of Gazprom and Rosneft, to its armed forces and security services and to their advisors and "ideologists", the key point is that the era of Western dominance is over.
Far from rejecting "globalisation", as Westerners might suppose, their view, in Foreign Minister Lavrov's words, is that the West is "losing its monopoly over the globalisation process". The Beijing Olympics are reminder enough that the cresting of what Russians call Western "democratic messianism" and the rise of "sovereign democracies" is not purely a Russia-driven process. But the West needs to know that Russia is determined to play a significant part in that process and that it is now able to do so.
The West will not have adequate responses to these events until it draws adequate conclusions. The first is that the era of democratic "coloured revolutions" is over. A few years ago, the Kremlin rightly feared that Georgia's Rose Revolution and Ukraine's Orange Revolution might destabilise the political elite in Russia itself. Today, the issue is whether these countries will be able to achieve their minimal objectives. Given today's harsh "correlation of forces", the issue for Tblisi is not whether it is right to use force against separatists but whether it is wise. The issue for Kiev is not whether its prime minister threatens its president but whether their divisions threaten the independence of the country. The issue for Nato and the EU is whether their "currency of influence" buys "stability and security" in this region and, if not, whether it is time to change it.
The second conclusion is that Nato must revisit the assumptions upon which its enlargement policy has been based. Contrary to the view that Nato remains a Cold War institution, the fact is that it has evolved too much. It moved east on the new-age assumption that Russia would adjust and gradually join us in addressing "common" (and distinctly soft) security problems rather than decide to pose a distinct set of hard and soft security problems itself. We now find ourselves confronting a zone of Realpolitik in partner countries, and some unnerving active measures in new member states Рand virtually no one is prepared for it. Until recently, Nato was proud that it had no policy, let alone vision, for resolving the region's territorial conflicts beyond clich̩: "autonomy", "respect for territorial integrity", "negotiation" "non-use of force". Until there is a policy, there cannot be a favourable outcome.
The third conclusion is that Russia is exasperated with the West and also contemptuous of it. In the Georgian conflict, as in the more subtle variants of energy diplomacy, Russians have shown a harshly utilitarian asperity in connecting means and ends. In exchange, we appear to present an unfocused commitment to values and process. Our democracy agenda has earned the resentment not only of Russia's elite but of the ordinary people who are delighted to see Georgia being taught a lesson. Our divisions arouse derision. Russians have no worries about the emergence of a unified EU energy policy, and they are losing their worries about a unified commitment to Nato enlargement. The war in South Ossetia, and the movement of conflict beyond it, should be a reminder that contempt has consequences.
The final conclusion is the need to focus on what is at stake. Is our relationship with Russia the most important issue? If so, what happens to that relationship if we demonstrate that brutality works and that "zones of interest" can be formed against the interests of the countries that reside in them? What happens to our wider scheme of interests in Central and Eastern Europe and the Black Sea and Caspian regions? Today, those questions are now being asked. But it is late to be asking them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
