For those of us who still remember World War II (either because we lived through it or because we grew up, as I did, in its immediate aftermath), what's happening today in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia looks strangely ominous. Not long ago I completed a book telling the story of a local Rockaway lady's remarkable survival as a girl of only fifteen in eastern Poland at the onset of World War II (A Raft on the River, Paul Mould Publishing, UK).
When Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia simultaneously invaded her native land to carve up and devour her country between them, little Miriam's family lost everything, including their lives. She, alone, survived to flee into the countryside and fend for herself, living off the land where she had to. Today, both Hitler's Germany and the Soviet Union are gone, of course, but Miriam's story remains to remind us of the horrors of naked nationalism when coupled with aggression.
The Soviet empire of captive and client states along Russia's historic borders, a relic of Stalin's successful alliance with the West after Hitler broke his secret pact with the Soviet dictator, has long since dissolved and individual states have arisen as free republics, replacing the old captive nations of the Soviet Bloc. To the north the small states of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania have reclaimed their freedom while, to Russia's west, Ukraine and Belarus have done the same though Belarus has recently slid backwards, thanks to the machinations of Russian leader Vladimir Putin.
Formerly president of the Russia Federation, succeeding its first president, Boris Yeltsin, Putin recently engineered his own succession, to thwart the term limits built into the modern Russian constitution that barred him from running again, by putting crony Dmitry Medvedev in his old seat while moving over to the premiership – until he can run for the presidency again, of course.
Now Putin has turned his attention to Russia's southern borders where a number of other breakaway states formed. One of the most democratic is the tiny Republic of Georgia, situated in the Caucus Mountains, where American educated reformer Mikheil Saakashvili "swept to power in the peaceful 2003 'Rose' revolution promising market reforms, a commitment to democracy and re-orienting his country . . . towards the European mainstream" according to Reuters.
But with high world oil prices Russia, a major international producer of oil and natural gas, has been on an economic tear. In recent years, Putin's begun to flex long unused Russian muscles once more, beefing up both his military machine and his own public rhetoric. Apparently regretting the passing of the old Soviet Union and its de facto Russian empire, Putin, an ex-KGB operative, has seemingly done all he could to bring it back. From allegedly poisoning the current pro-Western president of the Ukraine, Viktor Yushchenko (leaving him dreadfully disfigured though still alive), to fatally poisoning former KGB operative and outspoken Kremlin critic Alexander Litvinenko in London, Vladimir Putin has been moving relentlessly toward re-establishing Russian hegemony and clout.
He balked the Bush administration on Saddam Hussein in 2003, joining with former anti-American French President Jacques Chirac and former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder to thwart administration efforts to form a U.N. sanctioned front to end the Iraqi dictator's brutal tenure. (Schroeder later took a job with Gazprom, the state-owned Russian oil and gas conglomerate, after retiring from German politics and became a Putin employee in name as well as fact.
Most recently Putin's Russia has stood in the way of Washington's efforts to halt Iran's drive for nuclear weapons while belligerently objecting to America's planned deployment of an anti-missile system in the former Soviet client states of Poland and the Czech Republic to defend Europe against a potential Iranian nuclear missile attack. When he can, the Russian President cum Premier has also exercised the power of the pump by shutting down gas supply pipelines to countries to his west when they displease him. Europe may soon find it has its hands full.
Now we're witness to still another example of Putinesque chutzpah as the Russian Premier's handpicked successor, Medvedev, sends Russian troops storming into Georgia while Putin blandly and brazenly attends the Olympics with President Bush. This abrupt military invasion of the Georgian Republic has the look of a calculated effort to reverse the impact of the 2003 elections there and the residual effects of the old Soviet Union's demise for good measure.
But it's all so far away and we have our own concerns. Why should we care? One has only to look back at Miriam Feuer's story. The wartime destruction and genocide she lived through occurred in Eastern Europe, too, though it's certainly not unique to that part of the world. Nor is the sudden incursion of foreign troops with the goal of overrunning and absorbing a neighboring country, new in history. Hitler and Stalin did it back in the 30's and 40's and the Soviets continued to do it afterwards in Eastern Europe, sending their troops into Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968, while backing martial law by the now defunct Polish communist regime in 1981.
Only Mikhail Gorbachev's principled refusal to do it again all across Eastern Europe, as rebellion and disaffection spread from Poland to East Germany, south to Romania, finally presaged the end of the old Soviet system in 1989. But, while various American pundits proclaimed "the end of history" in reaction to the remarkable implosion of the Soviet empire that followed, history has persistently refused to cooperate. The invasion of Georgia by Putin this past week, on the pretext of protecting ethnic Russians, looks a lot like Hitler's invasions more than half a century ago.
As Americans on the left continue to call for our retreat from global engagement, beginning with Iraq, and Democratic politicians like New York's own senior Senator, Chuck Schumer, excoriate the Bush administration for denying Russia its natural right to dominate its neighbors, we're at last confronted with the fruits of such thinking. As we saw repeatedly in the twentieth century, and as Republican presidential candidate John McCain recently reminded us, great conflicts often begin with small events, just as they did in the two world wars of the past century.
In 2003, American politicians who opposed the current administration on domestic matters made a calculated decision to oppose it on just about everything, including its prosecution of the war against the terrorists who brought us 9/11 and the forced removal of Saddam Hussein. Successful beyond their wildest dreams, this strategy has finally positioned Democrats to retake the White House in 2008 while leaving the Bush administration seriously, perhaps even fatally, weakened in its final six months, unable to respond in a strong and effective way to the geopolitical ambitions of our enemies, whether religious fanatics in Teheran or KGB apparatchiks like Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin.
Although Bush, to his credit, has hung in there despite record low poll numbers, Putin and company have shown with remarkable clarity just how free they feel to act on their own worst impulses. No doubt they even feel an imperative to do so now, while a lame duck administration whose hands are effectively tied remains in control in Washington and before a new, potentially less fettered, president can take charge. At last Democrats can smell the heady aroma of Camelot restored, even if the peoples of Eastern Europe, who once languished miserably behind an Iron Curtain, find themselves once more consigned to the tender mercies of the reborn Russian bear.
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Hits: 1079
Trackback(0)
TrackBack URI for this entryComments (26)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Andrew Roman , August 12, 2008
This is a very well-written and thoughtful piece.
You wrote: "As we saw repeatedly in the twentieth century, and as Republican presidential candidate John McCain recently reminded us, great conflicts often begin with small events, just as they did in the two world wars of the past century."
Indeed.
I read this piece twice and I commend you for the time and effort you expended to be able to share it here.
With the United States otherwise preoccupied and "taxed" elsewhere across the globe, why should we invest concern about this seemingly irrelevant, far-off, blurb-worthy military action all the way across the world perpetrated by our "friend" with the soullful eyes, Vladimir Putin?
An excellent job, if I may say.
Andrew Roman
Brooklyn, NY
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Jay Golub , August 13, 2008
Unfortunately in a piece like this you can never explore the full scope of an issue. Publication requirements (not to mention modern attention spans) impose word count restrictions. Of course, what is unsaid above is the fact that there is no easy solution to any of this. Neither the Bush administration nor any successor is likely to have a range of easy choices before them. We certainly don't want another military engagement, given the ongoing issues in Iraq and Afghanistan, nor would we want a war with Russia in any case, let alone a revival of the Cold War or a replay of the global hot one we fought before that.
The problem is that, as we saw with Hitler, if you don't stand up to aggressors sooner, you eventually have to do it later, generally at much greater cost -- or else you are condemned to roll over for them. This is made even more complicated by the fact that, if you do stand up to them before they have showed their full hand, then YOU are tagged the aggressor and troublemaking states are given a moral pass. Sometimes they get a moral pass even after they've shown their hand and you beat them when the inevitable revisionists set about re-writing history (see recent claims that the West didn't have to fight Hitler, that we pushed him and Japan in to war, etc.).
In the present case, though, it looks like Bush woefully misread Putin and his Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, an old Russia hand, cannot, as his main advisor, be let off scot free on this one. Granted the administration has been forced to play a weak hand in the president's second term because of the slow progress in Iraq and the relentless pressure of its political enemies and the media (who often seem to be practically the same), but Bush has been an especially poor communicator, losing the public war of words for the hearts and minds of Americans, while being a less than stellar manager of his own administration which has been torn by infighting and bickering among the inner (and outer inner) circles and by constant leaks from the bureaucracies who are nominally under the charge of the executive but now seem to feel that they should be running the show instead of the nation's elected leaders. Bush hasn't yet figured out how to bash the requisite heads or that it's even necessary.
Given this and given his lame duck status and miserable poll numbers, he has no credibility to rally the country. No doubt Putin has this figured out and is using the waning Bush administration's remaining time in power to make his moves. How Bush responds and if he even has policy choices left to him that will make a difference remains to be seen. But it certainly looks like a sea change in our attitude to Putin's Russia is now in order. As we move away from the concept of a uni-polar world to one of many competing hegemonies, we run the risk of reviving the old great power (and medium power) rivalries which gave us the world wars of the last century.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by alice Lemos , August 13, 2008
KGB agent and little dictator. You won't hear a word from the "anti war groups" on the side of the terrorists about this war. We are all Georgians now - all of us who are decent people who love freedom. That excludes the Stalinist left.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Stu Mirsky , August 14, 2008
You're quite right. Not a peep from the left seems to be forthcoming.
All the usual administration critics seem to be rather restrained, too. For the media, it's news of course, but there isn't a lot of anger of condemnation of Putin as there was when Bush acted in Iraq. One of the problems, of course, is that by acting pre-emptively, the administration muddied the waters. The first to strike in a conflict is often blamed for causing the ruckus, rather than the one who may have deserved to be struck. The anti-war left made tremendous hay over Bush's pre-emptive action, treating Saddam as the victim in the matter. But let Putin attack a democratically elected reformist leader and it's " oh well, what can we do?"
To a certain extent we are at a loss for a way to respond. But at least the left and the media should be making the clear case that Putin is in the wrong. Instead, we get all sorts of explanations, justifications, etc. These will continue until a hot war is ultimately sparked by this kind of behavior and then the revisionists will first demand to know why we didn't see it coming and act pre-emptively and then why we forced Putin to do it in the first place!
Ours is a culture of criticism qua blame and we just seem unable to think beyond this sort of thing!
SWM
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by alice Lemos , August 14, 2008
the Hard Left will not send in "human shields" to help the Georgians. They suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome and hatred of Western culture and civilization. My heart goes out to the Georgians whose country is being raped by Russia.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Stuart W. Mirsky , August 15, 2008
It's not just BDS anymore!
It's Republican Derangement Syndrome. It's Conservative Derangement Syndrome. Bush was only a convenient whipping boy, but their disaffection goes much deeper. It goes to their belief in the purity of their ideas vs. any ideas opposed to theirs.
They are unable to contemplate the possibility of being wrong or that others may be right on this or that. As far as the left is concerned, conservatives of any sort are simply illegitimate participants in the body politic, fit to be tolerated only so long as they are a toothless, out-of-power minority. But let Republicans gain political office and the left gets rabid. It goes ballistic.
For nearly eight years they have disguised this as a relentless attack on everything related to Bush and he certainly hasn't done a great job of fighting back. But when he's gone, it's unlikely that their attitude will abruptly change.
If Obama should somehow be beat by McCain, get ready for the bitterness and recriminations to go off the charts. There iwll be charges of racism, of "dirty tricks", "voter fraud", of taking the "low road", etc. McCain, who spent years courting, even pandering to, the liberal media, is about to learn what it's all worth when he's up against a liberal idol rather than someone they despise like George W. Bush.
SWM
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , August 15, 2008
Are we repeating a bad portion of history?....
http://www.nypost.com/seven/08152008/news/nationalnews/
missile_shield_for_poles_124561.htm
WW II, arguably, started because of the Anglo-Polish Military Alliance...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Polish-British_Common_Defence_Pact
With Russia's intent unclear related to the Attack against Georgia, America's promise to defend Poland against attack and in giving Poland defensive weapons could create a diplomatic dilemma for the United States.
It's clear today, that the United States will not go to war with Russia over thier use of force against Georgia. So would we really go to war with Russia if they invaded Poland in a similar manner?
I personally see little difference in the situations and fear that the US may be making a promise it effectively can't keep.
The only constructive part of coming to such an agreement while Russia and Putin are creating international turmoil is that America will look like the "good guy" for a change. The War in Iraq and, potentially, President Bush's inability to garner international support for our efforts have limited persuing a pro-active defense of America. Russia is reminding the world why they we the world's pariah for generations.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Stuart W. Mirsky , August 15, 2008
Placing the system in Poland, contrary to Russian desires, hardly constitutes an explicit commitment to defend Poland though it does suggest an implicit one. Is this good or bad? It's true that Britain had to go to war against Germany when that nation invaded Poland because of its alliance and prior commitment to do so. However, it had a similar commitment to do so with Czechoslovakia and failed to fulfill it when the need came along. It is arguable that its failure to defend Czechoslovakia when it should have (and its collaboration in carving out the Sudenteland, etc., to satisfy Hitler) was the precipitate indicator to Hitler that he could go after Poland with impugnity. True enough, Britain was then in a position where it had to go to war or admit its complete pusillanimty in international matters. But it wasn't the commitment itself that caused the war but Britain's realization that its prior efforts to compromise to avoid war had only egged Hitler on.
By proceeding with the placement of a small missile defense system in Poland now, the U.S. sends a message to Putin that there are consequences to his reckless policies which Britain failed to do when Hitler carved up Czechoslovakia. Of course, there is the risk Putin will be unmoved and invade Poland next. But the odds are long against that one whereas the message of solidarity with the former Soviet republics and satellite nations combined with the clear indication that the U.S. still has a backbone may do more to slow down the Russian bear than laying back and hoping it'll all go away if we think happy thoughts and go back to gazing into Vladimir Putin's eyes.
SWM
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , August 16, 2008
here goes the cold war again....
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/
russia-us-missiles-in-poland-cannot-go-unpunished/83993/
I wonder if the deterence factor outweighs the real possibility of having to militarily respond to a rogue Russia General?
In many ways, the Russians know we are stretched to our limits militarily and if they continue to flaunt their military might like they have in Georgia, the US may end up in a difficult situation...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Robert Hornak , August 16, 2008
Russia doesn't have the ability to wage an expensive war with the West - even a cold one. They are counting on the US not having the stones to stand up to them.
Should Obama get elected, which I doubt, we would surely roll over for every posturing big mouth around the globe. At least McCain will not be pushed around.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by alice Lemos , August 16, 2008
a Buchananite in his refusal to see evil where it it exists. The Russians planed this for months. They also tried to bomb the pipelines. Russia, Iran and Venezuela, all rogue nations, control huge quantities of oil and they will use it to blackmail us. We must become energy independent and support our allies. We can punish Russia by expelling them from the G8 and by giving NATO membership to Georgia and the Ukraine.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , August 18, 2008
another call to sign more treaties...
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/
georgia-conflict-demands-a-new-warsaw-pact/84087/
I can't see this being helpful, as America doesn't need to expose itself to being dragged into a conflict over Russian aggression and we certainly shouldn't sign any treaty as a form of deterrence that we have little intention of backing up.
This section of the piece...
"During the Soviet era, the West did not seriously confront the Soviet Union when it violated the Olympic spirit: Hungary was invaded on the eve of the 1956 Melbourne Olympics. The Mexico City Games in October 1968 were somewhat overshadowed by Soviet tanks rolling into Prague that August; Afghanistan was overrun even as Moscow was preparing to host its own Olympics in 1980. The Soviet Union was settling scores inside its sphere of influence, and for the West that was that."
...not only explains how the US and the West have a tradition of ignoring Russia military action, but it shows the Russians have a tradition of making noise during the Olympics. they seem to enjoy demonstrating their military might and their willingness to use it while the world is focused on "the world."
America should not sign any more treaties. America should insist that the UN and NATO use diplomatic measures to end this most recent form of Soviet - oops, I mean Russian - aggression against it's neighbors.
Essentially, if the world chooses to ignore Russia, then we have little choice but to sit by and watch. Certainly unilateral action or action like that if we signed a new "warsaw-pact," which would basically be "unilateral," is too risky to US interests to initiate.
One reason for Europeans to balk in the face of Russian aggression was put clearly in a column by Peter Brookes in yesterday's NY Post...
http://www.nypost.com/seven/08172008/
postopinion/opedcolumnists/bad_news_bear_124839.htm
"Europe is heavily dependent on Russian energy supplies, getting as much as 40% of its natural gas and 25% of its oil from Russian fields. The continent's reliance on Russian energy has served to significantly dampen criticism of Russian actions around the world."
The above facts are probably the single most important problem related to controlling Russian aggression. Funny, that Europeans have been so critical of US action in the Middle East and Iraq especially, yet when "thier oil interests" are involved, they seem to be willing to let Russia act without complaint.
All the more reason NOT to sign any new treaties that the Europeans will not stand by our side to enforce...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by alice Lemos , August 18, 2008
Are you joking? Yes, Jay: and we shall have "peace in our time". We should insist that Georgia an the Ukraine be allowed entry into NATO - and guess what: The Russian Bear is helping Iran. They are circling us and using oil as a weapon to boot. They have also sent in Chechens - rapists and thugs - into Geoergia to do what they do best: destroy. They must be stopped. As Chamberlain put it "Who has heard of the Sudentenland? . . . who cares about a little country called Czechoslovakia?" Of course, if you are a pacifist, you would not do anything.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Stuart W. Mirsky , August 19, 2008
Incredibly, I just found this little gem over on a college based listserv I sometimes frequent:
"I've seen the Russians rolling into Georgia. I wish they had continued rolling right into Tblisi. Once there I would have wanted to see them round up Saakashvili and a few thousand of his supporters and caused them dissappear from the face of the earth forever. That's the only way to deal with rabble rousing troublemakers who try to play you against powerful enemies. I'd like to see the Russians roll into the Ukraine and maybe drop a few nukes just for good measure. . . ."
Find the full text and a whole lot more here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation/message/21659
I am absolutely flabbergasted. I don't know where this guy is coming from but I have never encountered this kind of perspective, even spending time with the leftwing academics who mainly frequent that list! (I suspect this guy must be a kind of embittered hard left holdover, still mourning the passing of the old Soviet Union -- but I'm not sure.)
SWM
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by alice Lemos , August 20, 2008
what is being expressed by "academics", Move On types, Kos Kids, etc.: they are stalinists and once again they are showing thei true colors. Sakashvili is a true patriot. I noticed that Pat Puke-Cannon had the nerve to call the little KGB guy, Putin, a "Russian patriot" - but to Pat, Hitler was a "German patriot"!!! The Isolationists and the Far Left have much in common. It appears that our friend, Jay, does not realize what could happen if Russia makes moves on Poland, Latvia and the other Baltic states. Yes, Putin dreams of a Russian empire. I pray for Sakashviili and freedom loving Georgians. I also forgot to mention the Ukraine - as you know, the Russkies tried to poison their president.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Stuart W. Mirsky , August 20, 2008
Well here's a bit more from that Brooklyn College based list and poster. I am still astonished to see these kinds of things being written on a left leaning blog. Your point about the closeness of the far left and the far right seems to have hit the nail on the head. I can barely discern what side of the spectrum this guy is coming from. The only thing that's clear at this point is that he is unabashedly hostile to America and its interests and that he doesn't believe in democracy but, apparently, some kind of "modern" form of government that has the look of a dictatorial strongman.
Responding to my question about why he considers the leaders of Georgia and Ukraine dangerous criminals he said:
"Saakashvili and Yuschenko won elections orchestrated and funded abroad. That makes them illegitimate. Even if they did it wouldn't matter that much to me. I'm not a democratist."
Responding to my question about why he blames the U.S. for Saddam's annexation of Kuwait:
"They held hearings and the ambassador confirmed that she had told the Iraqis that the United States was not going to inviolve itself in its dispute with Kuwait. She also confirmed that this was the standing policy. . . The point is, someone set America on Iraq in 1991 and again in 2003. All I want is to see those who did it punished so severely that the world not forget for at least 1000 years."
Responding to my question about why he felt Saddam's making war on Iran was justified:
"In 1980 the Iranians were in revolutionary mode. They were making noises about exporting the revolutiion. The pre-emptive measures Hussein took were essential for the survival of his country. I only mentuion US support in passuing. It wouldn't really matter to me if the US supported it or not!"
Responding to my question about Saddam's history with WMD:
"The use of chemical weapons in the south and against the Kurds in the north was extremely limited and asysematic. Furthermore, because the Iraqis did not specifuically label their chemical shells, much of the chemical attacks could have been accidental. The very idea that Hussein somehow ordered it or even knew of it in advance is idotic."
Responding to my question about why he felt Saddam Hussein was a good leader for Iraq:
"Huissein was in fact the ideal leader for iraq. I think that five years of occupation have shown that. He was able to keep the country from flying apart along ethnic lines and maintained the structures associated with a modern government. His only problem was that he got on the wromng side of the regional bully Israel. That's when everything else including regional stability stopped mattering."
"Iraq has been buried under a mounytain of lies propping up other lies. Not only would I defend Hussein on virtually excvery issue but I would dare to call him the most consequential man of the second half of the 20th century."
As noted, I can't figure if he is on the left or the right though his sympathy for other leftish positions leads me to put him on the left. At the least, it shows that there is little dividing the hard left from the hard right but a near pathological hatred of America and a preference for dictators over democrats.
See full text here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation/message/21667
SWM
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by alice Lemos , August 20, 2008
have been written by Buchanan or by the Krazy Kos Kids. They are all a bunch of sickies. And, they are dangerous. PB has a book out called "The Unnecessary War" in which he blasts Churchhill. That's right - the "good war" was the UNNECESSARY WAR per Buchanan. And the media, including Sean Hannity, fawns over him. He is not a "conservative" - he is a reactionary lunatic. The Left is also isolationist and has no use for democracies. The fact that this guy would slam the pro western Ukranian president is very revealing. Praising Saddam Hussein and denying the use of wmds against he Kurds or making light of it? Good grief!
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by alice Lemos , August 20, 2008
a sane person oppose Yuschenko of Sakashvilii, who are brave men who have stood up to the USSR - oops, I mean Russia - is beyond me!
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , August 21, 2008
Alibaba, first, i understand what can happen IF Russian moves into Poland. As i said before, and i'll paste it in so you might read what i wrote...
"America's promise to defend Poland against attack and in giving Poland defensive weapons could create a diplomatic dilemma for the United States.
It's clear today, that the United States will not go to war with Russia over thier use of force against Georgia. So would we really go to war with Russia if they invaded Poland in a similar manner? "
I'm not defending Russia's actions, nor am i saying the world SHOULD just sit back and watch. What i am saying is that we can't do anything without the world's assistance and the US shouldn't sign any treaties they have no intention in really backing up.
As far as the UN goes, i agree that the UN is useless. that is why i explictly stated we shouldn't sign any more treaties. Your insistance, Alibaba, that these former Russian satilites join NATO is as foolish as expanding the UN or signing this treaty with Poland.
People like yourself who seem to say "fight the Russians" are not living in the real world. the US will not attack Russia alone and, as i pointed out, Europe will not support military action in either georgia or poland. Your policy recomendations are not only poorly thought out, but, if followed, put America at risk.
And in anticipation of your next comment, YES Russian invading these countries puts America at risk. The point is that America can and will NOT do anything about it alone...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , August 21, 2008
Stu, Yuschenko's election WAS funded from overseas and his campaign WAS run by an American - as far as i know.
Putin's dismay over the westward movement of the countries that used to be controled by Russia is understandable from there perspective.
Certainly America should be concerned, but again there are limits to how far we can and/or should go.
The central benefit of the Russian bear awakening is that it may in a short period of time make America look like the "good guy" to the world again - enabling America to get back the reputation we seem to have lost over the last two decades...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Stuart W. Mirsky , August 21, 2008
Jay wrote: "The central benefit of the Russian bear awakening is that it may in a short period of time make America look like the "good guy" to the world again"
I couldn't agree more though, of course, it would be better if Russia followed a more reasonable and civil track. On the other hand, it's been clear for some time they are not so this event is like a wake up call.
What astonishes me is what it wakes up along the way, including nut cases like this guy writing on the left wing listserv run by a retired Brooklyn College professor (whom I studied with in the early seventies). I am still literally open mouthed to have read this guy's "arguments" FOR the attack on Georgia and his dismissal of the electoral results in Georgia and Ukraine, not to mention his glorification and apologia for Saddam Hussein.
Yes, Jay, I know full well that overseas sources sent funding to various candidates in countries like Georgia and Ukraine. I'm not sure why that should be construed as a bad thing (we do want to foster democracy, no?). Apparently, though, it is viewed as bad by people who object to the outcomes that resulted even as they openly trash democracy itself.
This writer makes clear that he has no respect for democracy and yet he is an Obama supporter. What does he imagine? That Obama, once elected, will install a regime that will foreclose any possibility of those with different opinions from him and his supporters ever winning some future elections? Shades of Hugo Chavez!
If this is the tenor of Obama supporters then I fear an Obama win. Up until now I have thought that Obama is at least highly intelligent and judicious (besides being a greater communicator than any of the previous great communicators we've had!). Thus I believed that even if he wins he could turn out to be a good president. He could charm and galvanize the nation while refining his policies away from the sphere of the far left. But when I read the kind of things this supporter of his and many others have written, I get very, very nervous.
John McCain has not wowed me but can we afford to let this crowd that seems to come with Obama back into the White House? If Obama is sincere, then he thinks a lot like his supporters and some of the worst of them literally hate this country, favor our antagonists in every encounter, disdain democracy, and want to see America neutered in every way.
I wish McCain were a better candidate, a better communicator, more visionary. But he's what we've got and he seems competent enough. On the other hand, the left has this prophet like figure, Obama, and he seems to be bringing them all along in his wake. Can we risk it?
SWM
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by alice Lemos , August 21, 2008
the Russians - Soviets - awakening. They are helping the Iranians, the Syrians, the Venzuelans, etc. This is not about "p.r." - this is about doing the right thing.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , August 22, 2008
my point stu, regarding outside funding of former Russian satellite countries, is that the Russians see it as dangerous and see our funds, and the funds of Europeans, being injected into the politics of these regions as "too close to home."
I wonder how Americans would, or will, see Russian money coming in to affect Mexican/Canadian/Cuban/Central American politics? I'm sure we wouldn't look kindly on such things.
Yet, i'm sure that we wouldn't invade the countries as a response, which is what will make us look good, and Russia look bad, on the international political scene.
This is why I think this "invasion," although devastating to those in Georgia, is a net positive for American foreign policy...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , August 22, 2008
http://www.iht.com/articles/20...kraine.php
Is Ukraine next?...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Stuart W. Mirsky , August 22, 2008
Yes, I saw your point Jay. It's true the Russians don't like it when we fund and support those who want autonomy or separation from them. And it's true we wouldn't like it if Russia sent money over here to fund, say, Obama's presidential campaign. But as you note we wouldn't take military action over it. Publicizing it alone would have an impact on the voting, whether for good or ill (depending on where you stand, I suppose). Nor would I argue that there aren't spheres of influence (of course there are) or that realpolitik doesn't require that at times we lie down with strange bedfellows, etc.
The problem here is Russian behavior which, of course, is part of a larger shift in international power relations. Closer to home, however, I continue to be concerned about those who see the Russian move (and anything like it) sympathetically. Here are excerpts from a response I recently received from the leftwing gentleman I have been exchanging comments with on that college list maintained by my former college professor (now retired). My comments are in brackets. Perhaps these excerpts best indicate what we're up against:
It's common knowledge that the U.S. has been funding and directing these movements heavily. Most of them are based on the old Aquino people power model. They are headed by a US friendly opposition leader who normally comes from old money back home. They are wrapped up in the pop-culture derived rhetoric of the liberal left, Variants of this canned and customized revolution have been exported to Haiti Ukraine Georgia and some parts in South America. Of course sometimes it doesn't work when other forces in the country decide to give the opposition leader the bhutto
) [Incredibly here he seems to not only be demeaning efforts at popular democratic movements, he's endorsing assassinations. Of course, elsewhere he has written that he favored the elimination of Georgian leader Saakashvili and his supporters and also Ukrainian leader Yuschenko!]
But grenerally they do work and the results are usually similar. A US friendly government is installed and suopported with generous financial incentives. Now you might say that makes me anti-American. I'm not. I just hate internationalism and I don't care if it's socilaist or market driven.
[It's hard to credit his claim that he is not anti-American. He is, apparently, a professor or adjunct at CUNY.]
. . . The Russian actions in Georgia are perfectly justified and perhaps too measured. If I was Medvedev I would have already used those backfires to their full capability against Georgia. And if necessary I would keep rolling into Ukraine, Poland, The Baltics and all the way to the German border.
[Have I mentioned he's an an Obama supporter?]
. . . I guess you could say I prefer an unexportable sort of socialism based on cultural and economic nationalism exclusively.
What the state dept said about the ambassador's remarks to the Iraqis is inconsequential. The Iraqis were given the diplomatic go-ahead by the United States. Whichever way you look at it they were baited and betrayed.
[Before he claimed that our ambassador to Iraq, April Glass, under the first Bush administration, had given Saddam the go-ahead to invade. When I challenged that with other information he replied with the above. So it doesn't matter what the facts are!]
If you want a big picture of what happened to Iraq, find a scumbag by the name of Douglas feith and ask him.
[Reversioin to ad hominem. Remember he's a CUNY faculty member!]
I accept the idea that larger blocs should coalesce around a common cultuiral identity whether it's in Arabia or in the Slavic world. The Iraqi anexation of Kuwait was ultimately in accordance with this view.
[He's explicitly endorsing aggression by Saddam against Kuwait!]
. . . Lets see. Hussein comes to power in 76 or 78 maybe. He gets into a war with Iran. He vrealizes that he can't possibly have another war like the ione he's having wuith the Iranians. Iraq develops a need for better weapons including nuclear ones. So He starts building a reactor in which the Israelis attack in 82. That makes him more deermined than ever to build up his country so that the next time the Israelis try to pull something like what they did in 82, the Iraqis can whip their asses. Ditto for the Iranians. He also begins funding the Palestinian opposition. He gets baited into Invading Kuwait. The Americans attack Iraq and setup bases in Saudi Arabia. Sheik Bin Laden is very upset by this and steps up attacks on the US. The US tries to kill Bin Laden and he retaliates by taking the twin towers. the United States attacks the hapless Taliban and invades Iraq. . . . The Russians get tired of American arrogance and intransigence and eventually decide to confront it with some arrorgance of heir own . . .
Here's the URL link to the full text on the site:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation/message/21682
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by alice Lemos , August 22, 2008
Hugo Chavez's "elections" (and we know it is a fake) and funding his enterprises? I hear silence about Venezuela's adventurism in OUR HEMISPHERE. We helped Yuvshenko as we helped Solidarity iin Poland - to bring forth democratic governments. And hopefully, we are doing the same in Iran.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
