Georgia Shot First
New reports indicate that Georgia, far from an innocent victim of vile Russian aggression, in fact started the war that’s had such disastrous consequences for both countries back over the summer:
Instead, the accounts suggest that Georgia’s inexperienced military attacked the isolated separatist capital of Tskhinvali on Aug. 7 with indiscriminate artillery and rocket fire, exposing civilians, Russian peacekeepers and unarmed monitors to harm. [...] President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia has characterized the attack as a precise and defensive act. But according to observations of the monitors, documented Aug. 7 and Aug. 8, Georgian artillery rounds and rockets were falling throughout the city at intervals of 15 to 20 seconds between explosions, and within the first hour of the bombardment at least 48 rounds landed in a civilian area. The monitors have also said they were unable to verify that ethnic Georgian villages were under heavy bombardment that evening, calling to question one of Mr. Saakashvili’s main justifications for the attack. [...]
The observations by the monitors, including a Finnish major, a Belorussian airborne captain and a Polish civilian, have been the subject of two confidential briefings to diplomats in Tbilisi, the Georgian capital, one in August and the other in October. Summaries were shared with The New York Times by people in attendance at both.
Now, none of this justifies later Russian bad acts when they pushed retaliation beyond anything justifiable. But it does help put the war in context and call into question the wisdom of trying to read Georgia-Russia territorial disputes as an ideology driven conflict between white hatted democrats and black hatted authoritarians. It remains the case that the correct position for the United States is to be supportive of Georgian independence and autonomy from Russia, but not to uncritically invest ourselves in the Georgian position over Abkhazia and/or South Ossetia and, in particular, to avoid giving Georgian assurances that it will read as an American commitment to defend them from Russian retaliation if Georgia provokes disputes.
And, of course, one hopes President-Elect Obama won’t be too eager to implement his nominal commitment to bringing Georgia into NATO.
74 Responses to “Georgia Shot First”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 7th, 2008 at 10:49 am
And, of course, one hopes President-Elect Obama won’t be too eager to implement his nominal commitment to bringing Georgia into NATO.
Sigh. I guess it is just too much to hope that Matt will ever understand that what Obama supports is a Membership Action Plan for Georgia, not unconditional membership, and how that distinction addresses precisely this issue.
November 7th, 2008 at 10:50 am
What I don’t get is why a country that is involved in such a messy and unresolved territorial dispute, and has also engaged in this sort of provocative behavior, is a remotely good candidate for an “action plan” for NATO membership.
November 7th, 2008 at 10:51 am
As I recall, there never was any doubt that Georgia acted first. This isn’t much of a revelation.
November 7th, 2008 at 10:53 am
DTM,
The problem is that said membership action plan is really, really unlikely to progress. Do you really see those border issues being worked out anytime soon? Not to mention, Russia is really adamant about not adding NATO members that are touching them. So why make a nominal commitment at all? What’s the benefit there? Just stay out of everything Georgia-related.
November 7th, 2008 at 10:54 am
DTM,
When was the last time that a MAP was held ad infinitum? We really need to move beyond 1990s diplomacy where we constantly lied to Europeans to keep them happy for finite Presidential terms.
NATO is not a Cupie doll for good governance and behavior. This is how Democrats (Wilsonians) get kicked out of office…They don’t take security seriously.
November 7th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Maybe this “action plan” can be implemented right after the “action plan” for getting Turkey into the EU….any day now, I promise.
November 7th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Hey, 50+Million Americans just voted to turn the nuclear launch codes over to a 72 year old man and a Vice President with no knowledge of Geography.
Which even scared the shit out of our British allies, based on what I read in comments in the British newspapers. The rest of the world would like for us to be a little precise on longitude and latitude in these matters.
November 7th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Dan Kervick,
Precisely because among other things, the NATO MAP process is specifically designed to require countries as a condition of membership to commit to resolving such territorial disputes peacefully.
I really don’t get what is so hard for people to understand about this. The MAP process was consciously designed as a reform process, and a country has to complete the necessary reforms to the satisfaction of NATO before actually gaining membership.
So pointing out that as of right now a country isn’t suitable for membership doesn’t address the issue of whether it would be beneficial for that country to begin the MAP process. And again that is precisely because the MAP process is all about getting countries to the point that they are suitable for membership.
November 7th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Moreover, it’s high time we started to try (and I emphasize try) to fix NATO rather than make its foundation weaker.
When Pres-Elect Obama speaks to the Europeans, he will inevitably tell them that we need them more than ever in Afghanistan. They will tell him, politely, no. This is a problem that is going to require time to remedy. Pushing for MAPs gets us no closer to addressing NATO’s real problems.
God Lord, I see folks spend more time thinking through Global Warming than they do about NATO on this forum. Honestly, wake up.
November 7th, 2008 at 11:00 am
At the very least, we should make sure in the future that our presidential candidates don’t receive foreign policy advice from folks whose lobbying firms have contracts with a government involved in such a war. *cough*Scheunemann*cough*.
November 7th, 2008 at 11:01 am
DTM,
You’re incorrect. The MAP process was designed to eventually allow a nation to join NATO. The reform is the means to get there. Get it? The ends don’t justify the means…
Also, you’re missing a piece in your equation here. Just what does Russia think about all of this? Does a MAP change the way that they view Georgia? Does a MAP account for the fact that they seem more than willing to attack Georgia even when Georgia enjoys better treatment from NATO than some of its member countries?
November 7th, 2008 at 11:10 am
So that makes Russia Greedo? Or Han? The fog of war, and CGI, strikes again.
November 7th, 2008 at 11:10 am
I think the expansion of NATO was a very bad idea — it confirmed Russian fears about our predatory designs and it undermines our pledges to Western Europe.
No one seriously thinks the US would suffer major damage to protect Eastern Europe — but if we make cavalier promises to them then Germany and UK have to wonder if pledges we made to them were similarly insincere.
Some people here will recall that I have criticized some American Neocons in the past for damaging the US national interest for the sake of Israel.
But some members of the American Polish community are as bad, if not worse, in their advocacy for Poland. IT’s just less obvious. They have fewer high-profile billionaires like Haim Saban but their numbers are much greater.
We really need to crack down in this country on factions having dual loyalty. There are decent cases to be made that both Israel and Poland are friends and allies — that they deserve SOME of our friendship and support.
But NO American has the right to demand that another Ameican sacrifice their child for the sake of a foreign country.
November 7th, 2008 at 11:13 am
I agree with Ed Smithe. Too many liberals whose outlooks were formed in the breezy and triumphal 90’s seem to regard NATO as just some sort of generic western club, membership in which can be given out as a plum in exchange for friendly relations or political reforms. NATO is a security alliance. Decisions on whether or not to allow a new member into that alliance should always be based strictly on whether or not the addition of that member enhances the security of the existing members. I think it is very hard to make a credible case that bringing Georgia into NATO makes the rest of us safer.
And if we can’t make that case now, we shouldn’t be handing out any action plans that, despite the standard disclaimers, are tacit commitments to bring a country into NATO in exchange for jumping through a series of hoops.
November 7th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Adam,
Just by way of background, the MAP conditions don’t require all territorial disputes to be resolved, but rather NATO has to be confident that those disputes will be resolved peacefully. In any event, I think your more serious point is that Russia is seeking a veto over NATO membership. One can reasonably argue over whether that should be allowed, but that is entirely distinct from Matt’s point.
Ed Smithe,
Well, first the MAP process is pretty new. Second, the decision to adopt the MAP process, like everything NATO does, was a collective decision. That said, I agree that if NATO doesn’t want to provide a MAP to Georgia at this point, Obama shouldn’t try to force them into it–and I doubt he would.
November 7th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Everybody who was paying attention knew this all along. What I REALLY want to know is exactly how much encouragement Saakashvili got from BushCo.
November 7th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Ed Smithe,
In response to your 11:01am post, I agree that the underlying question should be whether NATO would want Georgia to be a NATO member assuming it completed the MAP process, meaning it reformed in the required ways (and I don’t think anything I wrote implied otherwise). Personally, I think there are good reasons to believe Georgia would be a valuable member of NATO assuming it completed the MAP process, but I also recognize the argument that perhaps Russia should be allowed to veto membership for Georgia. Again, though, that wasn’t Matt’s point.
Dan Kervick,
What you are calling “jumping through a series of hoops” are actually conditions that were specifically designed to make sure that the country in question would be a security asset to NATO and not a liability. I really think that just waving these conditions away without understanding what they require in detail makes it impossible to have a sensible discussion about whether a MAP is appropriate for Georgia.
November 7th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Russia just gave Obama the finger by putting those missiles near Poland the day after Obama was elected.
After that, I wouldn’t back down anywhere, but I wouldn’t do anything provacative either.
Georgia started the war with Russia which was stupid, but Russia was doing a creeping annexation of the two disputed territories, creating facts on the ground, like what Israel has been doing with the occupied territories.
November 7th, 2008 at 11:29 am
I think the expansion of NATO was a very bad idea… NO American has the right to demand that another Ameican sacrifice their child for the sake of a foreign country.
Don, you seem to be arguing for the complete dissolution of NATO and every other military alliance in the world – is this correct?
November 7th, 2008 at 11:29 am
I really don’t get what is so hard for people to understand about this. The MAP process was consciously designed as a reform process, and a country has to complete the necessary reforms to the satisfaction of NATO before actually gaining membership.
DTM, what the hell does our security have to do with “reform” in Georgia? I thought the purpose of US membership in NATO was to make sure that you and I, and our children and grandchildren, can live our lives in freedom and prosperity without getting nuked, bomb or invaded.
Where NATO membership is concerned, I don’t care whether Georgia becomes the next Democracyland or remains a Byzantine backwater of corruption. I only care about whether bringing it in makes the people I most care about safer.
November 7th, 2008 at 11:31 am
1) Here is the Polish American Congress boasting of how it’s lobbying got Poland into NATO:
http://www.polamcon.org/history/history-nato.htm
2) In my opinion, PAC should take “American” out of its name.
3) Most Americans didn’t even know what was happening — much less weigh in on whether this was an obligation we should be taking on. The Whore Clinton simply looked at the stack of letters and caved. After all, his ass never has –and never will — be on an active battlefield. Nor will Chelsea’s.
November 7th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Dan Kervick,
In response to your 11:29am post, I would direct you to my 11:23am post. To summarize, I agree those reforms are not an end in themselves, and first NATO must believe that if Georgia completed the MAP process its membership in NATO would be beneficial to the existing NATO members. However, you seem to be ignoring the fact that the MAP reforms are specifically designed for that purpose (meaning they are designed to require that the candidate country be a security asset and not a lability). Again, in general I think it is impossible to have a meaningful discussion about the MAP process without at least understanding what that process seeks to achieve.
November 7th, 2008 at 11:40 am
In all seriousness, is this news? Has the media discussion of this really failed to take into account Georgia’s initial assault on Tskinvali? As I recall it, this was well reported in the first 24 hours of the conflict. Further, the Georgian government presented this, in the first instance, as an attempt to retake territorial control of a renegade province–Russia being not rightfully involved, as they saw it. That they then got a drubbing from a much larger country quite willing to engage in substantial excesses in the process doesn’t much change the initial nature of the conflict.
November 7th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Re ajay’s comment “Don, you seem to be arguing for the complete dissolution of NATO and every other military alliance in the world – is this correct? ”
———-
That’s utter bullshit. What I say is that we should follow George Washington’s advice and try to avoid entangling alliances with a part of the world that’s been slaughtering its citizens for 3000 years. And if we DO make such alliances, they should be STRICTLY when they are in OUR national interest. To protect THIS country.
We fought the Nazis — and formed NATO to fight the Soviet Union — because if any one power ever controlled the Eurasian continent, it would have far more assets –of every kind — than we have and would be in a position to ultimately destroy us. Even today, the EU is the only political unit on this planet with a GDP– and corresponding military potential — equal to our own.
But the power of Europe –both economic and military — is concentrated in the West — in Britain, France, Germany , Italy. Plus Britain is a massive offshore fortress that has always been our stepping stone for forced entry into Europe.
But Eastern Europe gives us NOTHING. Plus it has been hopelessly fucked over for millenia — because of its geography. NO natural barriers to invasion whatsoever.
Only fucking morons — or traitors — would have dragged us into an obligation to defend that god-forsaken place. And that’s not a curse — it’s an accurate summary of it’s history over the past 3000 years.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union, we should have REDUCED our NATO obligations — NOT expanded them.
November 7th, 2008 at 11:45 am
DTM,
I agree that it wasn’t Matt’s point, I was responding to the issue that you raised about a MAP being used as a vehicle for reform. As you obviously know, NATO is not the European Union, it is a security alliance…and reform is but one variable in the process that, according to past practice, grants one membership. I think you raise a fair point that MAPs have not been at work for too long…so why would we want to create a precedent that essentially tells countries like Macedonia that maybe doing all of this will get you into NATO, maybe not?…Again, the Richard Holbrooke 90s diplomacy isn’t going to work anymore…especially when we need these countries on a whole range of other issues (like Intel).
What I think we’re all dancing around here is the Partnership for Peace Program (PforP). PforP is an excellent means by which to achieve cooperation with nations without making any promises to them that they’ll get into NATO. Moreover, it benefits nations to join PforP because of the training, logistics and limited in tel sharing that they receive. Georgia and Ukraine have been excellent members of PforP. That’s where they ought to stay.
I’m glad to see so many people concerned about NATO…and the excellent debate. It would appear as though realism, though hurt, is rising once again.
November 7th, 2008 at 11:50 am
If you actually read the article, while it says that Saakashvili was certainly lying about most of his claims of Ossetian aggression, it does not state that “Georgia shot first”.
It clearly states that Ossetians were shelling Georgian villages in the days preceding the events. It does not rule out the shelling of two villages on the day in question. In one of those villages (unlike the others Saakashvili said were being shelled), the locals do claim that they were being shelled after the cease fire, but before the Georgian attack. The monitors also state that the villages that Saakashvili said were being shelled were under small arms fire.
The Georgian attack was stupid, recklessly (and probably intentionally) endangered civilians and Russian observers and was planned regardless of Ossetian response to the announced cease fire. However, it was not unprovoked, and saying “Georgia Shot First” is meaningless.
November 7th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Don,
Don’t forget the Dutch…They’d go nuts if you left them out!
I agree with you for the most part on post-Soviet Union expansion…but I think that Poland was one country that was difficult to turn down. Be interested to see why you think that isn’t the case.
November 7th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Well, yes. The narrative that was allowed to stand was John McCain’s: “NATO should address Russian aggression.”
And as others have stated, NATO is not a trade pact or path-to-democracy club. This “let them join NATO” meme is pretty frightening.
November 7th, 2008 at 11:54 am
What you are calling “jumping through a series of hoops” are actually conditions that were specifically designed to make sure that the country in question would be a security asset to NATO and not a liability. I really think that just waving these conditions away without understanding what they require in detail makes it impossible to have a sensible discussion about whether a MAP is appropriate for Georgia.
Well, then, does that mean we should just give every country in the world an membership action plan? After all, if they met all the conditions in the action plan, on this account, that would suffice to make sure they are a security asset to NATO.
But of course we shouldn’t. There is no series of steps a country can go through which will automatically turn that country into a security asset for NATO. There are fundamental matters of geography and history and strategic position that can’t be reformed away through some plan. Some countries just shouldn’t get such a plan to begin with, and unless someone can present a really compelling case for how Georgia and/or Ukraine are more likely to be security assets than liabilities, we shouldn’t even go down that road. We can’t let liberal pangs of guilt or neoconservative urges to dominate, or some opportunistic combination of the two, get in the way of the rational assessment of our security needs. We don’t have an indefinitely extendable and omnipotent security umbrella that we can just spread over the whole world.
November 7th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Ed Smithe,
I agree that if NATO doesn’t believe it is likely Georgia would complete the MAP process, Georgia shouldn’t be granted a MAP until that assessment changes. I actually don’t have a personal opinion on that subject, basically because I lack the necessary expertise with respect to conditions in Georgia to make such an assessment myself. In the end, to be clear I believe that reasonable people can think a MAP for Georgia is inappropriate at this time, either because they think Russia should get a veto, or that Georgia is unlikely to complete the process at this time, or so on. Again, I am just frustrated that Matt keeps posting on this issue with no apparent awareness of Obama’s actual position and what it involves.
By the way, I’d actually draw a bit of the opposite conclusion about Georgia’s participation in the Partnership for Peace program: as I understand it that relationship has basically gone well, and Georgia has gradually increased its role in supporting NATO. So that is one of the reasons I think if Georgia could complete the MAP process, it would likely be an asset to NATO.
Finally, I might note that MAP or not, NATO has already told Georgia that it expects Georgia will eventually be admitted to NATO. That happened in the Bucharest Summit Declaration, found here:
http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2008/p08-049e.html
In relevant part, it states:
Now we will see in December how that is going, but I think the degree to which a MAP would significantly change what NATO has said about Georgian membership has been overstated. And I might note too that what Obama has said on this subject is basically nothing more than what NATO has already said.
November 7th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
With the collapse of the Soviet Union, we should have REDUCED our NATO obligations — NOT expanded them.
The Poles may have been unavoidable given their lobby and the fact that the West really had been fighting for Polish freedom for almost exactly 50 years. And let’s not forget how many Catholics there are here – and who was Pope.
Now, the Balts, that was pure, unadulterated stupidity.
It’s one thing to let in former Warsaw Pact countries that were, after all, client states.
But the Balts have been provinces of Imperial Russia since Peter.
And let’s not get started on the country that’s like 15-30% Russian.
November 7th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Not quite
The correct stance for the US to take on Georgia is that it’s absolutely none of our business. This is the correct stance for approximately 99% of all disputes between foreign countries, and about 99.9% of disputes within foreign countries. The problem is that the tools we have for intervention involve either violence or the threat thereof, which tends to just make things worse, no matter how bad they are already.
We have a State Dept to help us identify the rare exceptions. We instead went in to Georgia intervention first, without having anyone actually knowledgable about any foreign country do any sort of investigation into whether the Georgia/Abkhazia question was one of those rare instances of a situation that might actually benefit from US military intervention. Of course the result was the opposite of that intended.
The real problem in foreign policy is not to figure out which intervention out of the array of interventions possible, is the correct choice for any given situation. The real problem for us is knowing enough about any situation to know whether we should even be thinking about any intervention.
Grant the whole rest of the world the same careful approach we take to internal politics in this country. Even after decades of close observation of the US political scene, I have no idea which US politicians we should kill to make politics better in this country. The violent elimiation of even obvious candidates for improving the country via deletion, like certain Republicans one could name, would not at all likely make our politics run better. Instead, other fools would take their place at the helm of their foolish, fear-based movement, only now they would actually have realistic fears to fear-monger upon, instead of the fantasies they have to make do with now. They would make martyrs of their slain leaders, and retaliate worse than they had received at the hands of our intervention. Whatever damage they had done to this country that provoked our intervention would prove trivial compared to the civil war that would result.
When thinking about our own country, we acknowledge that violence is so counter-productive that we don’t even allow ourselves to think in terms of interventions that we take for granted are appropriate to apply to countries that we are much, much less well-equipped to understand thoroughly enough to apply responsibly.
November 7th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Dan Kervick,
I think you are now slipping into some straw men attacks.
First, of course not every country in the world can be a member of NATO. Among other things, one of the basic requirements today is that new members must be European. Generally, the existing members must unanimously conclude the country’s membership would enhance their collective security.
Second, we haven’t really been addressing yet the threshhold question of whether Georgia could fulfill that second requirement assuming it completed the MAP process. But the fact we haven’t discussed that issue in detail yet doesn’t mean the case doesn’t exist. To summarize, the basic elements of that case are that Georgia is in fact strategically located, and also that Georgia has apparently been a valuable asset to NATO through the Partnership for Peace program.
Now I understand there are counterarguments to this case, most notably the notion that Russia should be allowed to veto Georgian membership. But again, it doesn’t help advance this discussion to implicitly suggest that NATO has not already thought through the positive case for Georgian membership.
November 7th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
DTM,
Remember though, the purpose of a MAP is to clear the way for eventual membership. Trust me on this one…Georgia is a net liability (especially in light of what happened this summer) not a net contributor. Most importantly though, why would I want to allow a country that the U.S. and NATO told explicitly NOT TO PROVOKE RUSSIA? Those self-centered nuts started a fight with Russia when they didn’t have an Article V commitment–what will happen when they do have one? For the sake of my 2 year old, I don’t want to leave that question to a worthless human being like Misha Saakashvili (pardon the spelling, but because he doesn’t care enough about the security of my country I don’t care about him enough to get his name right).
I understand what NATO has said…and it is enormously unfortunate, but we’re going to have to quietly tell the Georgians to go F themselves.
I think that what you saw out of our Pres-Elect in the immediate aftermath of this debacle was what he actually believes. The Pres-Elect is a smart guy, I’ve got a lot of faith that he’ll switch course on this one (in one way or another).
November 7th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Georgia needs a real dipolmate in the American embassy. We need to stop out sourcing our foreign relations to the lobbyist and start working with our allies to solve problems.
November 7th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Also, you’re missing a piece in your equation here. Just what does Russia think about all of this?
I think this was sort of the point. Calling for a MAP in the face of Russian aggression (whatever the trigger for the conflict, Russia clearly went overboard) was a diplomatic shot across the bow. It signals that we’re not going to stand for unchecked Russian aggression, but at the same time avoids committing us to anything concrete and/or escalating the conflict. It was a measured, proportional response. At the end of the day, it’s probably a bad idea to admit Georgia to NATO, at least in the current climate, but that doesn’t make the statement a bad idea.
November 7th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
As we’ve discussed before, Georgia is the only access the US has to the Caspian Sea oil deposits –which may be the third largest in the world. The big oil pipeline from Azerbaijan to Turkey/Israel winds through a narrow Georgian corridor between Russia and Iran — and that corridor got MUCH smaller with Russian occupation of Ossetia.
Chevron has invested over $1 Billion in the Caspian Sea. Chevron also named one of their oil tankers after our current Secretary of State for her past services.
Any questions?
November 7th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Ed Smithe,
With all due respect, “trust me on this one” is not an argument I tend to take seriously. That said, I agree this is a point on which reasonably people can disagree.
By the way, your nightmare scenario in which Georgia actually joins NATO then starts a war with Russia would have to work like this: Georgia’s MAP would require Georgia to satisfy NATO that it had committed to resolving its territorial disputes with Russia peacefully. Now suppose NATO is so satisfied, and Georgia joins NATO. Now suppose the day after joining, Georgia says, “Haha, suckers, we never meant it!”, attacks Russian forces in the disputed territories, and further says, “OK, NATO, now you have to shield us from reprisal–you signed the treaty and have no choice!”
What do you think would really happen in such a case? Of course NATO would in fact refuse to apply Article 5 to Georgia. And NATO would have every right to–Georgia’s lies to NATO about its intentions during the MAP process would eliminate any obligation NATO would have to defend Georgia from the consequences of those actions. Moreover, Georgia’s actions in such a case would have violated Article 1 of the NATO treaty, which says in relevant part: “The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered.”
So, in short, Georgia can’t trick NATO into doing anything stupid. Again there may be other good reasons to want to delay or eliminate the possibility of Georgian NATO membership, but that isn’t one of them.
November 7th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Re Ed Smithe’s question “but I think that Poland was one country that was difficult to turn down [for NATO]. Be interested to see why you think that isn’t the case. ”
———–
Because 3000 years of history shows Poland being fucked by every empire that’s come down the pike. Huns. Mongols. Nazis. Soviets. Etc. etc. It’s the borderland between whoever is running Europe at the time and Russia. So –like Israel — it’s always being screwed by foreign invaders. That’s its geo-destiny.
It was a poverty-stricken backwater until the local king invited the Jews in for some gentrification. So how did that work out for the Jews?
The dumbest inmate in our federal prisons will tell you that it’s stupid to form an alliance with a bitch. Because you have to constantly risk your life defending the bitch — and the bitch can not/will not protect your back in return.
Poland bought nothing to the table –neither military power nor economic value. She has some population but if we needed cannon fodder we already had the Spanish.
Letting Poland into NATO only makes sense if the USA is planning to conquer Russia. The Russians aren’t stupid –they know that. As a result, we are risking a ruinous Second Cold War while an emerging China giggles on the sidelines.
And for what? We have the means to turn Russia into a pile of ashes if she threatens us –what more do we need? Trying to occupy Russia would bankrupt us.
November 7th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
PS — Re Georgia, note that both Russia and Iran have large borders on the Caspian. They think that oil being pumped through Georgia belongs to them.
In fact, Russia was exporting Caspian Oil — until some ..er.. “sinister force ” talked the stupid shit Chechyans into blowing up the Russian pipeline.
November 7th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Now I understand there are counterarguments to this case, most notably the notion that Russia should be allowed to veto Georgian membership.
Talk about straw men, DTM. Has someone in this thread argued for a Russian “veto” of any kind? Obviously estimates of potential Russian reactions to US or other NATO moves, are always a factor in the analysis of the security consequences of those moves. That’s just a basic fact of statecraft. But that doesn’t amount to capitulating to an actual veto.
It comes down to this, doesn’t it? Would the inclusion of Georgia in NATO be more likely to help prevent a future war with Russia or other non-NATO states, or be more likely to drag us into a war with Russia or other non-NATO states? And would it be more likely to help or hinder long-term progress toward broader security cooperation with Russia itself?
It appears to me that we are moving into an era in which we have to reach some tacit understandings with the other major military powers about the official and unofficial boundaries delineating the security responsibilities of these powers in the new post-Cold War, post-Bush and post-Iraq world. There is going to be a period of strategic competition of various kinds among those powers, but with diligence we can keep it at the level of a managed and non-violent competition as we build global confidence and move over time to a more integrated system of global governance and security cooperation.
My own intuitions about these new boundaries suggest to me that the former Warsaw Pact countries can move into the Atlantic system – as the spoils of the Cold War and a responsible check on resurgent Russian militarism – but that the states that were formally part of the Soviet Union itself should be recognized as remaining within the Russian sphere of influence. I personally did not object to the missile defense system for Poland, even though Russia has squawked and retaliated. I’m certainly open to alternative views on the issue, the vigor of the Russian response has actually helped convince me that the Russian leadership, at least, is convinced the technology works. But moving our security system right up to the very border of Russia – in Georgia and Ukraine – seems to me like a totally unnecessary and needlessly provocative step, sort of like the Russians putting missiles in Cuba.
November 7th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
So, in short, Georgia can’t trick NATO into doing anything stupid. Again there may be other good reasons to want to delay or eliminate the possibility of Georgian NATO membership, but that isn’t one of them.
Sure it can. But more than that, the worry is not whether Georgia “tricks” NATO into doing something stupid, but whether we are smart or stupid to insert ourselves into any conflicts, present or future, predictable or unpredictable, between Georgia and the dominant power in its region, and right on its border.
A commitment is a commitment. It is not reassuring to say that we can make a security commitment, but then choose not to live up to that commitment if we don’t like the circumstances that give rise to the security crisis that puts that commitment on the line. What will be the value of US and NATO commitments if we defect on one? Better not to make the uncertain commitment at all.
November 7th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Ha! I knew it as soon as McCain claimed this was like the greatest Russian crime of all time.
November 7th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
DTM,
“Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”
Rarely are conflicts clear cut, especially in the case that Matthew has raised today. It’s now been 2 + months and much of the ignorant world (and our country) believes that the Russians “started” this. By refusing to aid Georgia in the case of an attack on their sovereign territory, you’ve just undermined the foundation of NATO. I’m going to guess that given the pathological tendencies of Russia, that will probably not bode well for stability.
As for trusting me, I’m sorry, but I don’t have time to dig up the statistics that demonstrate that what’s left of Georgia’s pathetic military might in fact represent a net plus to NATO.
As for Led…Please see my posts above. I don’t believe in Holbrookian/Wilsonian diplomacy…I suppose I could call myself an Ethical Realist.
November 7th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Has anyone read Michael J. Totten’s reporting from Georgia? http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2008/08/the-truth-about-1.php
It sounds as if Russia bears a lot more of the blame for this incident than generally thought.
Virtually everyone believes Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili foolishly provoked a Russian invasion on August 7, 2008, when he sent troops into the breakaway district of South Ossetia. “The warfare began Aug. 7 when Georgia launched a barrage targeting South Ossetia,” the Associated Press reported over the weekend in typical fashion.
Virtually everyone is wrong. Georgia didn’t start it on August 7, nor on any other date. The South Ossetian militia started it on August 6 when its fighters fired on Georgian peacekeepers and Georgian villages with weapons banned by the agreement hammered out between the two sides in 1994. At the same time, the Russian military sent its invasion force bearing down on Georgia from the north side of the Caucasus Mountains on the Russian side of the border through the Roki tunnel and into Georgia. This happened before Saakashvili sent additional troops to South Ossetia and allegedly started the war.
November 7th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Dan Kervick,
We are now off on a tangent, so I will just briefly note that I think the great powers paradigm is increasingly inapplicable to the global security situation in general, and to Russia in particular. I also think behing frank about the Russian issue is a good idea: if Russia can block membership for Georgia just because it says it will be upset if Georgia joins, then that is giving Russia a veto. And reasonably people can think that makes sense, but I don’t think we should sugarcoat what is going on.
Ed Smithe,
You say of my hypothetical: By refusing to aid Georgia in the case of an attack on their sovereign territory, you’ve just undermined the foundation of NATO.
No, actually, and again the basic reason is that the hypothetical included Georgia lying about its intentions to NATO and then attacking Russia in contravention to Article 1. There is just nothing about “the foundation of NATO” that requires it to apply Article 5 to such a situation. Indeed, if a current NATO country did something similar I expect NATO would also cite Article 1 and refuse to invoke Article 5. In short, despite how it has sometimes been portrayed, Article 5 is not in fact an unconditional guarantee.
That said, I would agree if there was a serious danger of that happening, then NATO shouldn’t let Georgia join NATO. Of course, that requirement is already built into the MAP conditions.
November 7th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Dan Kervick,
Oh, and I don’t think there is really a lot of uncertainty here, but again that would be part of the MAP process: NATO would make it clear to Georgia what NATO would considerable acceptable with respect to the disputed territories. If Georgia agreed to those limits, joined NATO, then violated that agreement, it would be a pretty straightforward case for NATO to refuse to apply Article 5.
November 7th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Re TW Andrews’ comment “Has anyone read Michael J. Totten’s reporting from Georgia? ”
————–
ha ha ha ha ha ..choke cough gasp.. ha ha ha ha ha
Michael J Totten ASPIRES to be the next Judith Miller. He’s even developed this ridiculous POSE: http://www.michaeltotten.com/
Let’s get serious. Has anyone read Gilligan’s reporting from Georgia?
November 7th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Ed Smithe: You’re viewing things only from the POV of US interests. Of course we don’t want a war with Russia, if we can avoid it. And we also don’t want Russia imposing its will on its neighbors in located in strategically important places, if we can avoid it. But Russia also does not want a war with the US. It probably doesn’t want a war with the US more than we don’t want a war with Russia. So suggesting the potential for an alliance that increases the threat of war gives them some incentives to chill out. This is not pie in the sky Wilsonianism. It’s great power realism. Sometimes a show of strength IS a way to preserve security. Not as much as the crazy neo-con green lanternists think, but nevertheless if Russia doesn’t have ANY reason to fear war with US it will do lots of things we don’t like. Now we should also engage in diplomacy to try to offer them things in their interest in return for them agreeing not to do things we don’t like. But you need both carrots and sticks. Calling for a MAP for Georgia was a measured way to remind Russia that we have sticks.
November 7th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
So here is one thing I don’t get: why should the people of South Ossetia be denied the right of self determination? What did they do that was so bad?
November 7th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
if Russia can block membership for Georgia just because it says it will be upset if Georgia joins, then that is giving Russia a veto. And reasonably people can think that makes sense, but I don’t think we should sugarcoat what is going on.
I don’t here many people saying that we shouldn’t let Georgia in NATO “just because” Russia will be “upset” about it, DTM. Russia is likely to be “upset” about all manner of important US actions, some of which we will need to go ahead and do anyway. That’s just a fact of life. When you are looking after your own interests, others are not always happy about the ways in which you have decided to look after them.
But I take it that all reasonable people think that we need to weigh important strategic decisions in light of our best estimates of the likely consequences of those decisions. Russian responses to our decisions are just one important component of that consequentialist mix. We also need to weigh into the mix of potential hazards other Russian factors that are not necessarily reactions to US decisions, namely the unpredictable future vicissitudes of Russian, Georgian and Ukrainian relations. These will become our business if we decide to hand out security commitments to Georgia and the Ukraine. Calling the consideration of these potential consequences a “veto” or “permission slip”, or any of the other black-and-white terms that are thrown around here, is tendentious. In a world in which none of us is omnipotent, it is rational to take the power of others, and the constraints those powers take on the exercise of our own power, into account.
Until we have more vigorous and effective institutions for global governance and for truly broad-based security co-operation, global in scale, then I think the great power paradigm and balance of power considerations will remain relevant. I would truly love to see Obama move on a vigorously internationalist agenda designed to create such institutions. But building those institutions requires preserving an environment of peace, confidence and security in the interim. And that requires prudent power-balancing.
November 7th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Led,
Isn’t that the point? I’m an American, I’m trying to make sure that I protect my vital national interests.
I’m not going to debate you on what Russia is willing or not willing to do. I would just remind you that Russia was apparently willing to ignore all of the “power” that NATO and the U.S. bring to bear when it obliterated the Georgian military.
So we push for a MAP…And what does that do for us, or Georgia for that matter? They’re not members of NATO, so now you’ve essentially said to the Russians…”Stop or I’ll say stop again.” That makes us look WEAK.
So you say…well, let’s go ahead and put Georgia in NATO, ignoring the fact that they have a two-bit thug running their country, a military that was obliterated, and no interest of paying attention to what we tell them not to do. And then the Georgians decide that they’re going to ignore us again and they conduct an operation that the Russians respond to with force…WHAT DO YOU DO?
If, as DTM is suggesting, we claim Article I and say, well…there are some limits to Article V, then everyone in NATO says that the U.S. isn’t serious about protecting us and NATO suddenly becomes a paper tiger. That doesn’t bode well with respect to the Baltics, the Crimea, the Arctic, or the Central Asia.
Or, we could “show strength” and assume as you said, ‘that Russia wants a war with the U.S. less that we do.’ Well, what if you’re WRONG? I would argue that it’s not a question of who wants war less…it’s a question of whether or not a particular action goes so far beyond what you consider to be a red-line that there is nothing for you to do but risk conflict.
Were the Soviets going to launch missiles from Cuba at the United States during the 1960s?…Probably not, but that doesn’t mean that the United States is willing to take a chance like that. That nearly led to a nuclear war…
So I’m sorry, but you’re wrong. Our strength, and the willingness to back that strength is finite. What you are advocating is not realistic by any stretch of the imagination…especially given our commitments around the world. I’m sorry, but I’ve got a two-year old daughter…I don’t roll the dice and simply assume that despite history and what happened over the summer that Russia is going to act rationally when we mess around in their sphere of influence.
November 7th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
“Virtually everyone is wrong. Georgia didn’t start it on August 7, nor on any other date. The South Ossetian militia started it on August 6 when its fighters fired on Georgian peacekeepers and Georgian villages with weapons banned by the agreement hammered out between the two sides in 1994.”
I’d say Russia started it in 1801, but that isn’t very useful. Neither is saying “who started it” now. Neither side has any shortage of reasons for why they are justified in using violence.
November 7th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
You might want to do a little research on how the Tsars and Soviets used the Ossetians against the other peoples of the Caucusus. Georgians believe every ethnic Georgian living in S. Ossetia will be expropriated, and either killed or expelled the minute S. Ossetia is given sovereignty. It may not be an accurate belief, but it is a perfectly rational one to have.
November 7th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
The initial news reports from local stringers on the first day in August all were clear that Georgia had invaded South Ossetia. Then the pundits and the bigfoot reporters got their hands on the story and “reinterpreted” it into one of Russian aggression.
This is exactly the same as in Kosovo in 1998 when NATO started bombing the Serbs and then about two hours later the Serbs started a mass ethnic cleansing of Albanians in response. If you were watching CNN at the time, the sequence of events was completely clear. But, within a week, history had been rewritten in the media so that everybody believed that the mass ethnic cleansing that we were watching came first and the NATO bombing was in retaliation for that.
In other words, trust the local stringers. Don’t trust the big names.
November 7th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Georgia shot first? I guess we are all Georgians.
November 7th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
I wouldn’t take exactly Don Williams’s tone in 48, but he’s right on the Totten issue. See this Registan post.
November 7th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
In my opinion, He’s a partisan hack for the Israel Lobby, posing as a “journalist”. And a drama queen to boot.
See,e.g, http://humanprovince.wordpress.com/2007/04/07/tottens-trip-to-upper-galilee/
November 17th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
All that glitters is not gold
November 19th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Reason why is great to be a gay
Nobody secretly wonders whether you swallow. Its joke
November 21st, 2008 at 9:23 am
Three kids come down to the kitchen and sit around the breakfast table. The mother asks the oldest boy what he’d like to eat. “I’ll have some fuckin’ French toast,” he says. The mother is outraged at his language, hits him, and sends him upstairs. She asks the middle child what he wants. “Well, I guess that leaves more fuckin’ French toast for me,” he says. She is livid, smacks him, and sends him away. Finally she asks the youngest son what he wants for breakfast. “I don’t know,” he says meekly, “but I definitely don’t want the fuckin’ French toast.”
March 12th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 17th, 2009 at 2:33 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:25 am
tramadol
Great site. Good info
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:33 am
Incredible site!
buy cheap viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 7:09 am
I rarely comment on blogs but yours I had to stop and say Great Blog!! viagra