Georgia Versus Ukraine
I’ve seen a certain sentiment that if Russia “gets away” with kicking Georgia around, then who knows where they’ll stop; after all, “Russia’s imperial ambitions are unlikely to stop at the Georgian border”. And it’s true that ambitions doubtless do spread beyond Georgia. But what about capabilities? In an op-ed yesterday, Ronald Asmus and Richard Holbrooke noted that Russia seeks “a sphere of hegemony over its neighbors.” I might add that the United States has traditionally sought the same in our hemisphere. And yet despite the Monroe Doctrine’s claim of hemisphere-wide applicability, in practice it’s a lot easier to boss Guatemala around than, say, Brazil.
For example, since Georgia and Ukraine are linked as countries that are seeking NATO membership over strong Russian objections, I’ve heard some sentiment that it may be “today Georgia, tomorrow Ukraine” in terms of Moscow reasserting control over its near abroad:
It’s useful in this regard, though, to compare Georgia to Ukraine. Georgia contains 4.6 million people in a land area of 27,000 square miles. Ukraine is 46 million people in a land area of 233,000 square miles. Georgia’s PPP adjusted GDP is $20.5 billion, Ukraine’s is $400,000 billion. Georgia is vulnerable to Russian coercion not primarily because anyone has conceded a point of principle to them, but simply because Georgia is tiny and poor. Ukraine is about ten times as big and twice as rich on average, giving it a massive edge in terms of ability to resist pressure. What’s more, due to the geography of the situation it’s much easier for the West to give practical assistance to Ukraine than to Georgia.
This sort of consideration is why things like this John Barry article that breaks out the usually “appeasement” cant in order to argue for direct US military intervention in Georgia is so daft. The appeasement frame rests on the idea that it’s some kind of slippery slope from Russian bombers hitting Tblisi to attacks on Talinn, Kiev, Warsaw and who knows where else. But that’s to view international politics as some kind of purely abstract, logical affair where if Russia gets away with one thing there’s nothing to stop them from marching as far west as they please. In practice, the issue is whether there’s a slipper slope of capabilities and there clearly isn’t.
Photo by Flickr user ezioman used under a Creative Commons license
54 Responses to “Georgia Versus Ukraine”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
August 12th, 2008 at 8:42 am
I think you’re rather foolishly neglecting the fact that, by swallowing Georgia, Russia has just considerably boosted the resource base that’s fueling it’s new expansion. Tomorrow’s Russia will have more money to fuel it’s military machine than today’s Russia.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Ukraine’s is $400,000 billion
?
i think you meant $400B.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:43 am
Ukraine’s GDP is $400 trillion! that’s a lot of big macs!
Actually, I’ve been thinkin’ ’bout Monroe Doctrine and Russia/Putin myself.
As to slopes and capabilities, I think the Georgians learned that in practical terms the US faces an insurmountable capabilities slope when it comes to bailing out some “allies”
August 12th, 2008 at 8:43 am
Wouldn’t that be $400 billion for Ukraine’s GDP? Because your figure is $400 trillion, and I think the US GDP is only $10 trillion.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:44 am
“Ukraine’s is $400,000 billion.”
Impressive.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:49 am
Ukraine’s GDP is $400,000 billion? Four hundred *trillion* dollars!?! That’s a per capita GDP of about $9 million each? Wow.
Well, I, for one, welcome our new Ukrainian overlords, and will hope to find work as a domestic servant in one of those fancy Ukrainian-owned dachas in Manhattan or Malibu, if only to discover the precious secret of their amazing productivity.
But even if the figures are only $400 billion GDP/$9K per capita, your point is still well taken. Ukraine is neither particularly poor nor far-flung.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:50 am
The previous posters are clearly unaware that Ukraine’s GDP is conventionally expressed in Z$ (ZWD).
August 12th, 2008 at 8:57 am
Russia did not “swallow” Georgia, Brett.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:00 am
I dunno, Matt. I guess I’ll play devil’s advocate here, and point out that Russia is probably capable of (re)absorbing the Ukraine, albeit only with great effort and perhaps intolerable expense, but it’s certainly conceivable, and it’s not hard to guess that Putin might have the *desire*.
So, here’s the question. At what point is the U.S. (or Germany, Britain, and France) prepared to go to war? At what point are each of us individually prepared to go to war?
We’ve just proven that even Bush isn’t willing to risk anything for Georgia, and rightly so. Personally, I don’t think anyone is willing to go much farther for the Ukraine; I’m sure not going to sign up, or risk nuclear war, to protect Kiev. I think Poland and Hungary are where the red line is likely to be drawn — as we have signaled by allowing them NATO membership. NATO isn’t just about us (as the non-admission of Georgia shows); France, Britain and Germany will fight for Poland, but not for the Ukraine, at the end of the day.
Bottom line: I don’t think an expansionist Russia is purely a neocon fantasy; I just think they care too much. I doubt that Russia would try to re-absorb the Ukraine but, seriously, if they do, are we *really* going to do anything about it, beyond a little nagging? Why should we?
Final point: an expansionist Russia is empowered and emboldened by the high price of oil. Yet another reason to set ambitious targets for a post-oil economy (and no, offshore drilling won’t materially help!).
August 12th, 2008 at 9:00 am
Sure, Ukraine would be a lot more significant conquest than Georgia, but that doesn’t exactly prove Russia is incapable of doing it. In that sense, comparing Ukraine to Georgia is a bit besides the point. More relevant would be comparing Ukraine to Russia, and of course it is worth noting that until relatively recently, Ukraine was part of a Russian empire.
Which doesn’t mean I think we should be sending the Marines to Georgia. But if Russia decides to try to reconquer its empire, I’m not sure where they can and should be stopped (although I guess in Europe we would draw the line at NATO countries).
August 12th, 2008 at 9:05 am
I think the point here is that our foreign policy for the past seven years is a freakin shambles. Our preznit is playing with volleyball players while this is going on. Just like wishing McSame happy birthday while Katrina hit. The only thing he has left undone is fiddle while Rome burns …
August 12th, 2008 at 9:12 am
I’m not sure Putin would welcome the expense of bringing about a regime change in Ukraine. Isn’t he more focused on lining his own pockets than with invading massive neighbors with a long history of anti-Russian sentiment? In Georgia, Putin had a couple of major advantages that don’t exist in Ukraine: two break-away provinces with strong pro-Russian sentiments inside a fairly small nation. I don’t know what kind of military capability Ukraine has, but I have to think that it could bloody Russia’s nose and practice defense in depth in a way that Georgia simply can’t.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:21 am
I don’t see how having creating such a large country with no natural frontiers can go anything but badly.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:36 am
France, Britain and Germany will fight for Poland, but not for the Ukraine, at the end of the day.
Not to mention that with post-Soviet Russia doing the conquering it wouldn’t exactly be a case of populations being dragged off to the Gulag. More like this, mutatis mutandis:
Sergeant: Imagine your loved ones conquered by Napoleon and forced to live under French rule. Do you want them to eat that rich food and those heavy sauces?
Soldiers: No…!
Sergeant: Do you want them to have soufflé every meal and croissant?
August 12th, 2008 at 9:50 am
One problem with this analysis is that it does not take into account that a huge portion of eastern Ukraine was actually a part of Russia until 1956 when Kruschev transfered it to Ukraine. Therefore the majority in this area, including the Crimean pennisula, is Russian.
While I doubt you will see a war like the one just seen in Georgia, you could see eastern Ukraine decide to rejoin Russia. There is a lot of sentiment in eastern Ukraine for this, and a lot of animosity between east and west Ukraine?
August 12th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Yeah, and there are Khazakstani goat-herders who would love to bomb America. Please leave your civil liberties at the door, slave.
Sure, just like it was “real men go to Tehran.” How did that work out?
But I guess it all looks the same on a Risk board….
.
August 12th, 2008 at 10:14 am
What Richard Rolsen says. Modern Ukraine is an artificial state. Odessa and Crimea have no historic ties to anything “Ukrainian” and were Russian Imperial acquisitions. The bigger question is – why would Russia not be justified in taking back land that has been Russian since the 17th century, or in some cases longer? Why should Russians and Russians living in Ukraine acquiesce to a non-democratic unilateral decision in 1991 to carve up their country? Why does America get to decide what Russia’s borders should be?
August 12th, 2008 at 10:14 am
While I doubt you will see a war like the one just seen in Georgia, you could see eastern Ukraine decide to rejoin Russia. There is a lot of sentiment in eastern Ukraine for this, and a lot of animosity between east and west Ukraine?
Maybe I’m missing something, but isn’t this more or less precisely the situation with Georgia, where the whole situation is driven by ethnic separatism ala Kosovo? The only difference I see is that there isn’t (yet) a separatist government in the Ukraine — well, and also the practical consideration that defeating the Ukraine is a tougher job than defeating Georgia.
August 12th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Doing nothing is not an option. It’s one thing to mock the Neo-Cons for their boundless belligerence, but, in our mockery, we shouldn’t paint ourselves into a corner and leave ourselves only passivity as a response.
Russia has gone too far and needs to be sanctioned. We will pay a price for sanctioning Russia, but the benefit, i.e., preserving the international order, is worth paying a cost. Putin’s gangsterism needs to be reigned in.
August 12th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Russia’s Black Sea naval fleet has its base in Ukraine. Moving the base to Russian territory would be very expensive and complicated. As a result, Russia is unlikely to do anything to antagonize Ukraine, lest it be forced to move the base.
August 12th, 2008 at 11:21 am
here are some other theories that will be thrown out there, discuss as you like.
1. The US is too busy with Iraq and Afghanistan, and Russia knows that no one else has the backbone to confront them, so they do what they want in Georgia.
2. Russia knows that the liberals are ascendant in US politics, and they will not, under any circumstances, defend anyone from any aggression anywhere without UN approval (which Russia can conveniently veto in this case)
3. Russia decided to call our bluff on protecting Georgia, because it costs them virtually nothing to do so. If we back down, they get Georgia. If we don’t back down, they gracefully agree to terms that gives them significant gains (because diplomacy essentially involves giving the powerful aggressors half of what they want), at minimal military cost. Plus, as an added bonus, Putin and his poodle are proclaimed as bold leaders and statesmen, and become heroes of Europe and the progressives in the US.
You are right, of course, that the Ukraine has 10x the people, and 20x the GDP, and would be much more difficult to conquer. But of course, as we all know, one doesn’t have to conquer the Ukraine to gain tremendous influence over them. Just invade another country (say, Georgia) and scare the Ukrainians into submitting to Russian ‘guidance’. Again – diplomacy – Russian can go to the Ukraine and say ‘give us control over your legislature, or we attack.’ Diplomats rush in, and give Russia control over, say, half of the Ukraine’s legislature, and the diplomats and Russia walk away happy again.
Because, as you keep saying, Matt, diplomacy involves both sides giving up some of what they want. I mean, if Russia says ‘I want all Ukrainians dead’, and the Ukraine says ‘I want no Ukrainians dead’, then the diplomatic solution is to find some acceptable percentage of Ukrainians to kill off, no?
That is what you’ve been preaching for the last 5 years. You may not have thought of it in such terms, but you have always been consistently on message about compromise as the heart of diplomacy.
August 12th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Russia has gone too far and needs to be sanctioned. We will pay a price for sanctioning Russia, but the benefit, i.e., preserving the international order, is worth paying a cost. Putin’s gangsterism needs to be reigned in.
Part of me agrees with this. And part of me also says that what Russia is doing now is vaguely comparable — although important in many critical details — to American behavior in Iraq. We violated international law; we upset the international order; we behaved as gangsters. We even did it, like Russia, partially as a desire to defend the legitimate rights of ethnic minorities (the Kurds, in our case), even if that wasn’t our primary objective.
That doesn’t mean that Russia shouldn’t be condemned, but I’m sure not convinced that we are in a position of moral superiority here.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Please stop casually using the term “near abroad” to describe the post-soviet states outside the Russian Federation. It’s an ugly and revanchist term, with racist connotations, and not everyone in Russia uses it.
And by the way, Estonia is much smaller than Georgia and much more geographically vulnerable to direct attack from Moscow. The reason Estonia, with which Russia has similarly poor relations–and arguably a bigger beef, with its 30% Russian minority–has not been brutally occupied is because it is safely in NATO. It’s that simple. The same wise men cautioning against helping Georgia today were cautioning against helping Estonia in the 90s. NATO still means something. Getting Georgia and Ukraine into NATO asap would put a quick end to the nonsense coming from Moscow–which is why they’re so keen to stop it before it’s too late.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
This is just silly. At least come up with some plausible example of appeasement, such as auctioning off a large chunk of Ukrainian territory. Will the Russians perhaps also demand the head of Viktor Yushchenko on a pike, Middle Ages-style, and will the diplomats perhaps work out a compromise in which his scalp will suffice?
But of course, more fundamentally, you’re ignoring the fact that Georgia gave the Russians an excuse to attack by entering South Ossetia in force. There is not, currently, the potential for a similar situation in the Ukraine, because Ukraine does not have separatist enclaves. Quite beyond Russia’s capabilities, this is the weakest form of slippery slope argument, depending as it does on an elision of all distinctions between the political situations of the nations on Russia’s borders.
August 12th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
I’m pretty sure that if Estonia started pounding the Russian section of its population with cannon fire, Russia would intervene, NATO or not.
It looks to me that a lot of people died simply to please the vanity of Georgia’s president. After the smoke clears, Georgia will no longer possess South Ossetia – over which it had no control – and Abkhazia – over which it had no control. This is a small loss, but there it is. Whether this means Russia will move on to attack Turkey, Romania, and Hungary in the next week remains, of course, to be seen.
However, it does make me question our own government. If the U.S. isn’t willing to drop small nuclear devices so that a minority of Abkhazians can proudly vote for the pro-American Georgian party that has put its opponents where they should be, in jail, then I think America is morally bankrupt, and we might as well surrender to Newfoundland.
August 12th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
The reason Estonia, with which Russia has similarly poor relations–and arguably a bigger beef, with its 30% Russian minority–has not been brutally occupied is because it is safely in NATO. It’s that simple.
No, NATO wouldn’t lift a finger to defend Estonia, and everyone in Russia knows that. Russia simply has no reason to invade Estonia. There are no oil pipelines there for one thing, and the plight of the Russian minority in Estonia is a boon for Russian nationalist politicians. Just as anti-abortion politicians would be at a loss if abortion actually were outlawed, Russian nationalists have no real desire to see the Russian minority in Estonia treated well.
But incorporating Ukraine into NATO is just stupid beyond words, it would be tantamount to a direct declaration of war on Russia. Over 50% of Ukraine is traditionally Russian, and the Russians would be well within their rights to take it back, and should do, if only to shut up the nattering pseudo moralist Americans preaching “democracy” while denying millions of people the right to choose what country they live in.
August 12th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
August 12th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
While I doubt you will see a war like the one just seen in Georgia, you could see eastern Ukraine decide to rejoin Russia.
Exactly: the demographic split in Ukraine is enough that Russia can be confident to some degree that it has a sympathetic political force either in charge of the government, or serving as a weighty opposition. The western (and western-leaning) Ukrainian pols can’t govern in a way that ignores the Russ-krainians in the east.
In general terms, the attempt by the US to remake NATO over the past eight years really is going to occupy historians for a long time.
August 12th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
It would be a bit bloody embarassing if, after Ukraine was admitted to the EU and NATO, Viktor Yanukovych, say, won a future election in Ukraine on a platform of withdrawal from the EU and NATO and alliance with Russia. Would the EU and US ignore the election results or forment another revolution? Yes, of course they would!
August 16th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
First off the Russian Army is not strong enough to invade Ukriane. 1.1 million strong Army. Second the comment on eastern Ukraine for Russia is a sad mistake really. I live here and find though of Russian decent they will not back Russia if Russia decides to invade Ukraine. They are Ukrainian first. Especially the younger generation that wants not much to do with Russia.
Third Ukraine has the gas and oil pipelines that go to Europe. No gas no oil no rubles. I do not think Putin is that crazy. Some here said Germany and France would go to war for Poland but not Ukriane. Well Poland might go to war for Ukraine and then what do you do.
August 16th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Adding to before. Viktor Yanukovych and the Party of Regions enjoys somewhere about 23% support in the country. It is falling every year. Soon to be under 20%. Why young people are walking away and the middle generation is getting informed. The older generation is dying out and support for their platform is dying with them. By the way I live in Kharkiv Ukriane
August 17th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Its terrible , the Ukraine is currently a lackey state of genocidal American neo-Cons.
For the last 1100 years or so , Moscow and the Ukraine were one country ( less a bit of POlish invasion).
I’m part Russian FROM KIEV – the original capital of Russia.
There’s only one solution and thats for the Ukraine to renuify with Muscovy and the other Russian states.
Look how those American puppets are stirring up hatred with nonsense like banning Russian on TV – in the country Russian was invented!!
August 27th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Russia has not “swallowed” Georgia and its – negligible resources…last time I checked, Georgia was still an independent state
Even if it did, does anyone really believe this would provide Russia with “resources” that would actually make it stronger? Do a check on Georgia, it has no resources of any importance
Ukraine, of course, is another matter..especially the Eastern part which happens to be the most Russian-populated one
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:21 am
laptop battery
laptop batteries
March 1st, 2009 at 6:28 am
viagra
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:55 am
levitraIncredible site!
March 11th, 2009 at 5:10 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 13th, 2009 at 12:05 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 17th, 2009 at 2:35 am
Great site. Good info
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:32 am
tramadol
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:39 am
buy viagra online
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:44 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:27 am
Incredible site!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 8:07 am
It is the coolest site,keep so! viagra
April 14th, 2009 at 9:38 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
viagra