Matt Yglesias

13 Responses to “Dobbs on Georgia”

1. Dan Kervick Says:
   August 17th, 2008 at 4:11 pm

   I do tend to think that these events are fairly significant, and should get a paragraph or two in the history books. They are introducing some much needed clarity and order into the post-Cold war international situation, and helping to re-define the lines of natural spheres of influence. The 90’s-era enthusiastic binge of perpetual revolutionary democratic enlargement and a US-NATO sphere of influence that extends virtually everywhere is now effectively over. It was a temporary mania dependent on the existence of a crushed, impoverished and demoralized Russia.

   Russia is back, and outlandish pretentions of a US-NATO security umbrella including the Ukraine, Georgia and the other republics of the former Soviet Union has been revealed as a sham, another relic of the “unipolar moment” made mostly of brave talk and hot air, and neoconservative and neoliberal propaganda.

   The deal with Poland might look provocative at the moment, but coming as it does in the middle of this crisis, perhaps in retrospect it will be seen as signaling a sensible strategic retreat to a more defensible perimeter. The Eastern European countries of the former Warsaw Pact are one thing. The former republics of the Soviet Union are another.

2. Captain Noble Says:
   August 17th, 2008 at 4:24 pm

   My first thought when I saw the title of the post was, “Oh, great, Lou frickin’ Dobbs is blaming the Mexicans for the Russia/Georgia conflict.” I’m glad the rest of the post did not bear this out.

3. Monty Says:
   August 17th, 2008 at 4:24 pm

   Medvedev/Putin are apparently trying to re-assert (recapture) Russia’s Soviet-era sphere of influence. The old Bear, fueled by the ‘new’ petropolitics, emerges from its cave with a hunger and belligerence, intent, focused on recapturing former Russian glory.

   Dobbs’ concluding paragraphs:

   The bottom line is that the United States is overextended militarily, diplomatically and economically. Even hawks such as Vice President Cheney, who have been vociferously denouncing Putin’s actions in Georgia, have no stomach for a military conflict with Moscow. The United States is bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan and needs Russian support in the coming trial of strength with Iran over its nuclear ambitions.

   Instead of speaking softly and wielding a big stick, as Teddy Roosevelt recommended, the American policeman has been loudly lecturing the rest of the world while waving an increasingly unimpressive baton. The events of the past few days serve as a reminder that our ideological ambitions have greatly exceeded our military reach, particularly in areas such as the Caucasus, which is of only peripheral importance to the United States but of vital interest to Russia.

   You (magically forgetting/ignoring the fundamentals of neocon ideology), find the wherewithal to toss off the entire affair, a la “people outside the region will swiftly forget this whole thing ever happened, contrary to the many indications from conservatives over the past week and a half that we were watching history-making events. Then at some point in the future there will, no doubt, be a new flare-up of some kind in the neighborhood.”

4. Ed Marshall Says:
   August 17th, 2008 at 4:30 pm

   “Oh, great, Lou frickin’ Dobbs is blaming the Mexicans for the Russia/Georgia conflict.”

   That’s almost verbatim what I thought.

5. JonF Says:
   August 17th, 2008 at 5:01 pm

   Re: Russia is back

   Yes, Russia is back., but the old Soviet Union is still very, very dead. Russia’s behavior has more in common with the foreign policy of the tsars than with Stalin’s. There’s no ideological element in this, no pretense that Russia is crusading for the workers of the world or some such claptrap. It’s just plain old great power naked imperialism.

6. joe from Lowell Says:
   August 17th, 2008 at 5:03 pm

   There’s no way Loud Obbs would have said anything like the quote provided.

   Complicated? Oppressors become oppressed?

   So not Lou Dobbs.

7. Dan Kervick Says:
   August 17th, 2008 at 5:28 pm

   I agree with you, Jon F. There is no longer a Russia-lead ideological system with satellites in South America, Africa, Eastern Europe and the Far East. It’s just a big state trying to protect its interests, look after its security, project some power and influence events in its neighborhood, and make some money in in the process.

   I’ve been a bit frustrated in recent weeks by the tendency of so many pundits to interpret state behavior in ideological terms. We frequently hear that Russian antagonism toward Georgia and the Ukraine are motivated by a hostility to “democracy”. But as I see it, Russia’s beef isn’t with the democratic character of the governments created by the color revolutions. It’s problem is with governments that seek to detach themselves from Russian influence and connect themselves with an America-lead security system and business alliance that projects American military and economic competition with Russia into Russia’s own back yard.

8. ndm Says:
   August 17th, 2008 at 7:37 pm

   The best commentary I’ve seen has been that of Neal Ascherson in The Observer who writes:

   And Georgia, that miraculous little nation which contains some of the world’s most talented people, and some of its worst politicians, must change. It is not Georgia which has been defeated, but a particular Georgian policy which has again and again played into Russian hands.

   We know now that Russia’s revival as a big power is under way. Outside competition for influence over the ex-Soviet nations is going to be fiercely resisted. After Georgia comes Ukraine, where attempts to join Nato could end by splitting the nation and, with the Russian fleet still based in Crimea, bring about a terrifying confrontation.

   Nato, with the Americans, can protect its own members against blackmail by standing firm. But the brutal truth is that if Nato is to survive, it must not sign up nations for which at heart it is not prepared to fight. The best way to prevent war is not windy condemnation, but clear, credible rules of engagement. Bluffing can be fatal

9. godoggo Says:
   August 17th, 2008 at 8:59 pm

   Jimi Hendrix was a Georgian.
   Jesus Christ and Grandma, too.
   Jackson Pollock was a Georgian.
   Georgian, Georgian, Georgian, Georgian,
   Georgian, Georgian, Georgian.

10. Kellie Strøm Says:
    August 17th, 2008 at 9:41 pm

    Dan, the Russian government’s hostility to democracy doesn’t have to imply an ideological objection, rather it fits completely with viewing their actions in terms of a self-interested strategy to retain power within Russia, and increase their power in neighboring states. Democracy is a problem for this strategy because successful democratic neighbors are harder to control, and they set an unfortunate example to Russia’s own citizenry. Not ideology, pure self interest by the Russian governing elite.

11. Richard Steven Hack Says:
    August 17th, 2008 at 11:23 pm

    These articles cover the situation nicely:

    The bear is back
    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/JH16Ag01.html

    The end of the post-Cold War era (referenced in the piece above)
    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/JH13Ag02.html

    Georgia On My Mind
    http://www.counterpunch.org/hallinan08162008.html

12. DNS Says:
    August 18th, 2008 at 1:37 am

    When commentators immediately reach for a historical analogy, it always means that they don’t know how to make sense of the current (new) situation without first borrowing from what they already supposedly know about the some event in the apst. It’s basically an admission of ignorance, an admission that they can’t make sense of the new situation on its own terms. And, conversely, any commentator that tries to make sense of the new situation WITHOUT referring to previous events automatically deserves to be taken more seriously, because he or she is clearly trying to grapple with the facts if this particular situation rather than clumsily applying older ‘lessons’ to what’s happening.

    Stop and think about it. Why should anyone immediately suspect, assume, or believe that what happens in Georgia today can best be understood by analogy to what happened in Czechoslovakia in 1938 — or indeed any other place at any other time? After all, what was the helpful pre-1938 template for what Hitler did in the Sudetenland?

13. steve duncan Says:
    August 18th, 2008 at 7:42 am

    Come October I will be curious to see if Obama calls McCain on his seeming assertion this flare up represents the tip of the iceberg in terms of greater looming danger to the U.S. than “Islamofascism”. Bush perceives the value of heightened international tensions to McCain’s campaign and therefore may keep this pot just shy of full boil for a couple months. And if the Russians back down in a very public manner so much the better. Republicans will loudly claim it was due to a fear continued hostilities meant dealing with McCain down the road. And of course the talking point follow on to that is it’s exactly the reason McCain needs elected.