Sadly, Bush is Still President

I think for the next two months, every time something like Russians moving missles into the Baltic comes up, it’s going to be hard not to get a little worried about what’s going to happen.

Regardless, this is a great example of why we shouldn’t be trying to expand NATO simply to antagonize the Russians. This is the kind of move that, were it done by the US the media would have no problem with. But of course, as it’s the Russians, it will be viewed as an unconscionable act of aggression, further justifying our expansion of NATO. If I have one worry about President-Elect Obama, it’s that I feel he’s too hawkish. Part of that, of course, is the fact that Democrats have to appear “tough” or the media will tear them apart. Sadly, it seems far too often that “tough” should be read “stupid.” Let’s hope that he avoids that trap.

Russian Mirage

I really wanted to stay away, but this is too good.

So, CNN sent a film crew to the only part of Alaska from which Russian territory is visible with the naked eye. It's 500 miles west of Anchorage, in the middle of the Bering Sea, a windswept rock with 150 people, no television, and it is also a place Sarah Palin has NEVER BEEN. In fact, no governor of Alaska has ever visited this remote island.

What did she think she was seeing? It seems clear that she has been warily eying some part of US territory all these years, unless this whole line of argument is just complete BS. I realize the place obviously isn't exactly a haven of votes, but it does have 40% unemployment. You'd think someone would have seen fit to go look into that.

See the excellent video here.

Tanks, But No Tanks

In news more appropriate to the opening scenes of a super-hero film, pirates off the Somalian coast have seized control of a tanker ship hauling 31 Russian made T-72 tanks, the BBC reports.

The ship has subsequently disappeared.

The tanks, along with an assortment of anti-aircraft weapons and RPGs, are not surprisingly worth a fortune according to the Times.

Less sensational, but ultimately more interesting, is that Russia has announced the beginning of anti-piracy naval patrols along the Somali coast. Isn't that precisely the sort of job the US navy should be all over, as part of their effort to keep the world's sea lanes open? Are we ceding a zone of influence in the Indian ocean, along Europe's oil shipping lanes to the Russians? Potentially, that would be far bigger news than what's been going on in Georgia.

Dangerously Unprepared

Oh, where does one even start...

So VP nominee Sarah Palin, after spending weeks under the radar due to what the mediacrats have been suggesting is an appalling lack of knowledge about the world, politics, or what exactly a vice president does all day, has finally emerged into the soft glow of a media night-light in the form of a softball interview with Charlie Gibson.

As has earlier been pointed out by AARON, this interview was so softball, so non-threatening, some have suggested it shouldn't even have been accepted by Gibson on the offered terms. So under her own hand-picked conditions, how badly could the interview possibly go?

Weeeell, let's begin with the part where Palin soothed the tensions between the US, its European allies, and Russia...oh wait no, that isn't at all what happens when you threaten war against the Russians, is it? In fairness to her, America's headline writers appear to have rather lost their heads- she was just applying her probably recently acquired knowledge about the structure and purpose of NATO, but international diplomacy is a subtle game, and her inexperience led her into the kind of mistake that probably moved her a few places up some Russian security hit list, and has diplomats across Europe shaking their heads and stocking up on brown paper breathing aids. Everyone knows force is an option, you don't actually say it, especially in reference to someone with a large, poorly maintained nuclear arsenal. Seriously governor- a land war in Asia?? I mean, that never goes badly for anyone...

Perhaps more unsettling, Gibson's subsequent softball question regarding the Bush Doctrine met with a complete stall, because Palin obviously didn't know what he was talking about.

After all this coaching, she didn't know what he was talking about.

John McCain may have had good political instincts on this one, but seriously - you want to put this woman, who could clearly be outmaneuvered in terms of running the government by a freshman polysci major in their second semester, in the number two slot for the US government?

In ancient Athens, they chose their leaders by lottery for a time. Took like half an hour, cost almost nothing, and you still had a chance to be led by an almost complete neophyte unqualified in most respects to run your state. Probably save us a lot of money.

Fred Hiatt is Concerned About Russia

Fred Hiatt writes a remarkably ignorant column today, discussing Russia’s position in the world today. Russia, of course, is the new threat du jour (radical Islam is so 2006). Hiatt discusses all the ways that the United States has gone out of its way to accommodate Russia on the world stage.

So NATO expansion is an affront only to the kind of Russia that the West would find unacceptable in any case. But, even if America has not sought to encircle or strangle Russia, should it not have been more sensitive to Russia's wounded pride? Might Russia have evolved more democratically if Washington had been more deferential?

Maybe so, but there's not much evidence to support such a theory. The West spent a good part of the past 17 years worrying about Russia's dignity -- expanding the Group of Seven industrial nations to the G-8, for example -- and it's not clear such therapy had any effect.

My, look how accommodating the United States has been! It certainly is strange that Russia would be upset with the US, considering that the US is only trying to install a missile defense shield in one of their close neighbors, weakening their security. And when the US is trying to expand mutual defense treaties to small, antagonistic nations on Russia’s border, that’s just what friends do, right? I’m sure that the US wouldn’t have any problem with Russia attempting to expand its sphere of influence into the Western Hemisphere.

I love reading articles about G8 meetings, because in almost every single one, you inevitably get to the line, “the world’s seven largest economies, and Russia.” Hiatt’s condescending and ignorant take should be shocking, but is sadly par for the course. Russia is an autocratic state riding high on oil prices. They are acting in their self interest which – shockingly enough – is not the same as the United States. For Hiatt to imply that the United States has been overly accommodating of Russian fears and ambitions displays either a fairly shocking ignorance, or a willingness to engage in grotesque distortions to support a neocon worldview where the United State’s self interest is redefined as the world’s interest.

Winning Hearts and Minds

So, I found this a bit unsettling. According to the Jerusalem Post, ethnic Georgians are being forced to work cleaning the streets of South Ossetia’s capital, Tskhinvali. The work gangs are being headed by armed Ossetians and Russian officers.

"Labor even turns monkeys into humans," the Russian officer said.

You stay classy, Russia.

I can't think of any puns on Georgia

It seems that the Georgian ceasefire hasn’t quite brought an end to all the hostilities. According to the NY Times, the Russians and the Georgians are accusing each other of breaking the accord. The Russians are securing/attacking (depending on who you ask) the city of Gori, directly south of South Ossetia. Gori sits astride both of the major routes through the country, from the north into Russia, and east/west, splitting the Black Sea coast from the capital of Georgia, Tblisi.

The Guardian reports that the Russians are being followed by a group of irregulars, according to locals comprising Chechens, Cossacks and Ossetians. The Guardian article also has an interesting video clip featuring columns of Russian armor moving across bridges and into towns. It’s worth checking out.

To add to the confusion, the Washington Post has contradictory quotes from both the president of Georgia and the deputy interior minister. Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili said that Russia is trying to “murder” Georgia’s democracy by advancing on Tblisi, while deputy minister Ekaterine Zguladze said the Russians were not moving on the capital. Both the Guardian and the Times reported that Russian tanks were reported heading for the capital, but then turned towards Russian. The Post also reports that a military base built to NATO standards in Gori is under attack, which may be the point of the assault on Gori.

So, that’s the situation in Georgia as best I can tell. It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out in a couple of weeks, as I don’t think either side’s reports can be taken at face value. The particulars from all the reports agree, but no one seems to know what to make of everything, who’s telling the truth and who’s lying (probably a little of both on both sides). The news about the irregulars following the Russians in is certainly worrisome, and may be cause for the Georgians to keep fighting, and an excuse for the Russians to stay. As they say, the situation is developing.

Precedent

Because we here at TPBP have done our level best to bring you the most insightful news and commentary pertaining to the Russia/Georgia conflict, we'd be remiss not to link to this post by Gregory Djerejian. A must read.

Actions and Consequences

What has the war in Georgia taught us? Well, first off, when Russian troops are deployed as peacekeepers in your breakaway provinces, it’s a good idea to not antagonize them. The Georgian government was under the mistaken impression that the US’s support for its NATO candidacy implied far more military aid than has been forthcoming – or perhaps they simply felt like Russia’s response wouldn’t be quite so severe.

As for Russia, it seems increasingly clear that their motivation is not simply to increase their influence in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, but to cripple the Georgian military. Putin and Medvedev have both said that the war is drawing to its “logical conclusion” – that conclusion apparently being to pursue the Georgian military until it’s broken, and until they’ve cut the country in half at Gori.

The NY Times reports:

“Russia says it is acting to protect residents there and to punish Georgia for the assault, which Georgia says was to protect Georgian enclaves in the territory from attack and to push out illegally deployed Russian troops.”

Well, fair enough. Georgia overplayed their hand, and are now caught between Russia and the unwillingness and the inability (whatever William Kristol may have to say) of the West to do something substantive about the situation. There’s only so much the United States and the European Union can do to counter Russia in a situation like this. The benefit of defending the Georgian military is simply not worth the cost of a large scale war with Russia. That may suck for Georgia at the moment, but maybe they should keep it in mind the next time they decide to go waking up bears.

And what with the consequences be for Russia? I can’t see them allowing South Ossetia and Abkhazia to be folded back into Georgia – especially since the provinces themselves clearly don’t want that. Two new states, closely allied with Russia? Or will Russia try to make the relationship a bit more permanent?

Geese, Ganders

One of my favorite bloggers, Matt Yglesias, is back from vacation and is now blogging over at Think Progress, and had a great post discussing the war in Georgia. Yglesias ponders what, exactly, it is that we get out of helping Georgia keep two breakaway provinces:

Indeed, strong pro-Georgian views in the U.S. media and foreign policy community correlate heavily with strong pro-Kosovo views. This highlights the fact that the underlying issue here is simply a disposition to take a dim view of Moscow and to favor aggressive policies to roll back Russian influence rather than some kind of deep and sincerely felt desire to help Georgia.

I think this pretty much sums up the US’s stance on Georgia. We are supporting them because it annoys the Russians, not because we have some sort of deep strategic need to preserve Georgia as it exists. This is not to say, of course, that the Russians ought to be free to take away provinces from Georgia (that don’t, in fact, seem to want to be, or are in any meaningful way, a part of Georgia). But it does mean to say: what are we going to do about it? The answer seems to be: not a whole lot.

DP was discussing earlier why provinces wish to breakaway from countries. The conclusion I've come too is, if Kosovo should be allowed to determine its own fate, I can't see a reason why the Georgian provinces should be controlled by a government that, well, already doesn't control them. The fact that it is wrapped up in a larger set of political circumstances doesn't have much to do with that.

Update: And then, of course, Russia seems to invade the rest of Georgia:

The advance appeared to answer the question on which the conflict had been pivoting: Would Russia simply occupy the two separatist territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, or would it push into Georgia, raising the possibility of a full-scale invasion?

The situation is, as they say, fluid. Russia taking over two provinces that already don't want to be part of Georgia is one thing. Russia just taking over Georgia is a different matter entirely.

Knee Bone's Connected to the Renegade Province

The recent (and apparently expanding) conflict between Georgia and Russia has caused me to take a step back and consider the nature of relationships with separatist portions of various countries.

My primary question is, why do countries almost always fight to keep their country intact, when the related costs of annexation seem so high, and when splintering seems to happen quite frequently anyway? Now clearly, allowing a separatist state to become independent isn't always (or probably even often) the answer. However, in some instances, I wonder what the incentive is for union.

Looking at South Ossetia and Abkhazia (the Georgian provinces currently the focal point of the Georgia/Russia conflict), they were nearly autonomous areas over which the Georgian government exerted almost no control. Tibet, Kurdistan, and East Timor (now its own sovereign country) might be somewhat analogous examples. All are also areas that I don't believe have large amounts of diversity in terms of separatist beliefs (almost everyone wants out).

I can only think of two good reasons for disallowing secession. One, they are of some strategic importance. Perhaps they provide a disproportionately high tax base (unlikely in these cases), lie over valuable natural resources (true for Kurdistan), provide your only access to coastal ports, etc. Reasons like this are difficult to quantify, but make sense to me on some levels.

Two, it's bad precedent. If you let one renegade region opt-out, so to speak, then what will you do the next time a group of ten farmers holed up in some corner of your country sign a petition requesting independence? This "slippery slope" argument makes much less sense to me. Or, more pointedly, if you're really concerned that allowing one region to secede will beget other regions requesting the same thing, you probably have nothing approaching a stable government.

To ask the question more pointedly, what pragmatic advantage is China getting out of ruling Tibet? Wouldn't they be better off geo-politically to hand them the metaphorical keys to the car, establish trade relations and an embassy (or not) and wish them luck? Correspondingly, what was Georgia getting out of South Ossetia and Abkhazia -- contentious areas over which they ostensibly had no real control? If they were afraid that such an overt concession to Russia amounted to appeasement, I would counter that keeping these provinces under the Georgian flag didn't exactly do much to advance Georgian autonomy.

Hindsight is 20/20 of course, but I just wonder about the nearly universal propensity for countries to do everything possible to keep every existing acre of their current sphere, even when the maintenance of that space could potentially destabilize the parts of the country that are happy to be in the fold.

A Georgia/Russia Primer

If you're interested in what's going on in the Georgia/Russian conflict that's sprung up this week, there's an excellent piece by James Traub in the New York Times that really explains a lot. It's not short (probably taking about 20-25 minutes to read), but tripled my understanding of the political situation that led to this week's hostilities.

If you really want to understand the conflict, I highly suggest pieces like this, because if you're waiting around for CNN to spend half as much time on this war as they do on the personal life of John Edwards, it's going to be a disillusioning experience.

Big Trouble in Little Former Soviet Union

So, Russian invaded Georgia the other day. I've been trying to pull myself away from the women's 10 meter air rifle competition long enough to find out exactly what in the hell's going on.

So, Georgie tries to reassert control over a province that doesn't want to be part of Georgia (and where many of those living in the province are Russian citizens). The Russians then invade Georgia, sending in ground troops, and conducting air strikes on multiple targets. Both sides are calling it a war. Everyone wants there to not be a war and is calling for a cease fire. The EU says they'll help everyone sort things out.

Now I understand why Russian would invade a sovereign nation and everything, but...oh, wait. I guess I don't understand. In everything I've read about what's going on, it doesn't seem like Russian's really offered up much on the order of an explanation. I understand that they have citizens in Georgia, but invasion? Not to cherry-pick examples, and I'm not calling this analogous, but there are a lot of Mexicans in California, but I'm not sure Mexico has a right to invade SoCal under any circumstances short of ethnic cleansing.

I'll keep an eye out in the coming days, but I think we should all stay tuned in the meantime. Even if it means skipping parts of the synchronized diving competition.