Anthony Riordan
Riordanenergy@gmail.com
rescuamericasvoice.blogspot.com

I would like to think that because its settles my fear – that this is a period more like that between 1938 and 1941, when we should have connected dots, but apparently just didn’t want to. This has seemed true of what has been happening with fanatics in the middle east for decades, but now what has been happening in Russia. Mitch points to analogies. They don’t seem all that weak. Mearsheimer’s old argument about the long peace made similar observations about what led to war. Believing your neighbors are inferior but dangerous is core to Russian beliefs – and core to his argument.

Does anyone know what Schroeder has been saying? This may be off point, but I don’t know. Certainly, it is not a hidden conspiracy. Which is a little more depressing – the whole process of getting his job did not give confidence in, shall we say, his integrity or statesmanship – and is apparently not a cause for which he feels shame – but then, I’m not sure he took oil-for-food dollars and those that did don’t seem all that ashamed, either. So, Here is some old news – Shroeder to Build Putin’s Pipeline”and Putin Promises Split in German Coalition. I haven’t found anything later. But I’m not always adept at googling. Most of you keep up better than I do. And some of this seems designed to make Europe more vulnerable in the near future.

Didn’t we accept aid from a lot of nations? Since when is accepting aid accepting an obligation for mutual defense? I think it was sensible to establish that Russia would not recreate the USSR by extening Nato but is it wise to bring it all the way to Russia’s doorstep?

Boonton, please note that McCain and Obama both support NATO membership for Georgia. That has also been Bush’s policy.

If this is the case then all three should seriously rethink this policy. Would we really go to war with a nuclear power for Georgia’s sake? I don’t think so and we won’t we shouldn’t promise them something we can’t give.

Of the three, McCain is the only one to attempt to present the crisis in terms of America’s national interest.

Boonton, please note that McCain and Obama both support NATO membership for Georgia. That has also been Bush’s policy.

If it’s not in our interest to help Georgia when it’s attacked, what were we thinking when we accepted their troops in Iraq? (IMO it’s plausible that we have airlifted aid.)

Remember when Pakistan had an epiphany – the Taliban, which they founded, trained and supplied, were really not such nice people and henceforth Pakistan stands foursquare with the US? That followed a personal visit from Darth Cheney.

It is the Bush way to let the other guy save face – anyway he chooses – as long as he cooperates. When Bush said he demanded that the Russians withdraw many said that it was not sufficiently strong. Bush chooses his words very carefully. World leaders know that he is a most serious hombre. The real message, as he announced by having a very public heated but inaudible discussion with Putin at the Olympics, is that Russia really crossed the line and he was not going to put up with it.

Bush has a reputation of being an astute poker player. He is more than willing to give the other guy bragging rights. As long as he puts the chips in his own pocket.

How does this affect Iran? The Russians may deliver the message that, no matter what you believe, he’ll smash you like a bug if he has to. Some good may come of this.

1. Russia wouldn’t have attacked, not wanting to risk a war with the US.

2. Russia would have attacked and we now would be asking ourselves should we declar war on a nuclear power or risk seeing the collective security guarantee of NATO diminished.

I don’t think we’re going to like how it turns out this time, either.

Pretty clear that Europe is going to wind up in a situation in which they are utterly dependent on Russia for natural gas, and–absent extraordinary political courage–will dance to that country’s tune. (p)If Europe’s leaders want to avoid this fate, then:

4)They should publicly call for the US to develop its untapped energy resources.

I think a lot of politicians are just like Putin. However, our constitution provides so many checks and balances that they are forced to moderate the tyrant within.

Whipping up fear and hatred against all your neighbours, which is what happened over all past confrontations,

And a common tool of the Soviet Union as well. Let’s also not leave out whipping up fear of Putin and his cronies within the country.

As Jonathan pointed out – as long as you understand that your definition of “Russia” is Putin and his oligarchs. They are restructuring a modern version of Soviet totalitarianism, complete with a new Nomenklatura.

As to him acting in the interests of his country or the people, I agree with Jonathan. Whipping up fear and hatred against all your neighbours, which is what happened over all past confrontations, especially the ones Russia lost (remember the bronze soldier in Estonia?) is hardly a good thing. What exactly will Russia gain from getting bogged down in Georgia and wherever else Putin might decide to go except a rather tenuous feeling of being the big bully on the block?

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/08/war_in_south_ossetia.html

Ha. So Russia ends up winning the Cold War after all, without a shot being fired. Funny how nothing stands still.

“We do ourselves no favors by acquiescing here.”

I don’t see anything we can realistically do that will have any impact. The Georgians are not going to put up a resistance like the Chechens and Afghans, since they are not Muslims, no longer believe in any religion, and are therefore afraid to die. There won’t be any Georgian mujahedin to support. The Russians sell oil and gas to Europe. The Europeans cannot withstand a disruption of their fuel supply. They will make verbal gestures, at most, and hope it blows over quickly and quietly. We have no leverage with Russia. We will make verbal objections, then get on with life.

Helen’s question about what if they go after the Baltics is a good one. The short answer is that an open invasion would provoke a lot more political outrage in the USA, and Putin probably does not want that level of conflict. He will probably use a longterm campaign of harassment and cooption and blackmail and bribery to bring them back under Russian control. Again, Europe will acquiesce rather than suffer any interruption to their energy supplies. And as long as Russia is not too overt about it, the USA will ignore it.

I don’t have to like any of this. I just see the logic of it all. Russia has money now, and is rebuilding its military power, and it is signalling that it is going to demand respect, which it understands as fear and obedience.

If Europe’s leaders want to avoid this fate, then:

1)They should build major LNG import facilities
2)Coal-to-gas and coal-to-liquids technologies should be deployed on a commercial scale
3)Germany should abandon its idiotic plan to phase out nuclear power