Russia/Georgia and the Presidential race

[Balta1701]

With the conflict currently going on between Georgia and Russia, we actually have an interesting opportunity to look at genuine foreign policy differences between the 2 major Presidential candidates. I'll try to keep this as a straight up summary of the positions, and hope that y'all find some interest in debating them, because there's a fairly big difference here. If you want a lot of detail on the local backgrounds, I recommend this NYT piece.

 

The backstory of how this involves the U.S. is that, for various reasons, parties within the U.S. have long been pushing for NATO expansion in to former Soviet territories. Specifically, the Ukraine and Georgia, which have had the most democratic, pro-western governments out of the region. John McCain is firmly within this camp, as are a fair number of others (Cheney, Bolton, etc.)

 

The U.S. policy under President Bush has pushed this path, although perhaps somewhat less than what Senator McCain's camp would have wanted. They've helped build pipeline through Georgia to carry oil around Russia and Iran, a pipeline that weakens Russia strategically compared to where they would be if they controlled all the oil flow out of the Caspian region. The U.S. backed an initiative to fast-track Georgia's membership in to NATO, along with the Ukraine, an initiative that was blocked by France and Germany. This is a key point, because the NATO charter says that an attack on one member state is an attack on all, and Georgian troops never entered Russian territory before the Russians responded.

 

John McCain has come out strongly anti-Russia in this campaign, more strongly than even the White House. His top foreign policy adviser was a registered lobbyist on behalf of the nation of Georgia only a few months ago. He is pushing an anti-Russia UN resolution which Russia is sure to veto, and renewed his call to bring Georgia in to NATO this morning.

 

While he's on vacation, Senator Obama has not spoken nearly as much on the matter as Senator McCain, but he has issued a condemnation of Russia's aggression, spoken to leaders from both sides, and called for a ceasefire.

 

So, here we have an interesting dynamic with Russia. John McCain's camp has made it clear they view Russia as an enemy for all practical purposes and has said so for months, saying that Russia should be removed from the G-8 and making an issue of the NATO memberships. Senator McCain is also equally forceful on the U.S. missile defense system, saying he doesn't care what Putin thinks about it.

 

Senator Obama has said that Russia is neither an enemy nor an ally, and has expressed a willingness to try to work with Russia diplomatically on territorial issues and on dismantling and securing its former nuclear programs.

 

So, here's a policy difference. Which side do you like? Do you think the U.S. should be expanding NATO in to areas like the Ukraine and Georgia? If NATO had done so, would we be on the verge of a shooting war with Russia now, or would NATO's presence in the region have forced Russia to back off of its posture before it moved troops in to those breakaway regions and thus provided a stabilizing force? Does the U.S. want to risk getting caught up in things like this conflict or Russia's long-standing dealings with natural gas regarding the Ukraine, or is this an important strategic area for us? If Russia tries to control those pipelines running through Georgia, should we step in? And how should we view Russia these days, as an enemy or as something else?

[lostfan]

I noticed almost immediately the tone of the 2 responses. They were calcluated and deliberate. To paraphrase them a little:

 

McCain: I condemn this action by Russia, they must stop unconditionally. (Wants to come off as strong, accomplished potential world leader)

Obama: All parties need to exercise restraint and we need to work out a diplomatic solution (Doesn't call out Russia directly, wants to be seen as impartial, and ready to reach out and work with others to find solutions)

[lostfan]

Also, they don't like having former Soviet republics in NATO but there is really nothing they can do about it. At the same time, they're not going to just come out and attack a NATO country unprovoked, that would be craziness.

[Balta1701]

Also, they don't like having former Soviet republics in NATO but there is really nothing they can do about it. At the same time, they're not going to just come out and attack a NATO country unprovoked, that would be craziness.

So...let me fire the counterpoint back at you.

 

Should NATO really be expanding to areas that are far-flung from its base countries, and which are therefore hard to support, and which on top of that fact aren't totally in control of their own territory and the minorities in it? While Russia is certainly playing the aggressor now and they certainly baited Georgia in to acting, let's not forget that it was Georgia itself which launched this campaign in the first place by sending troops in to these restive regions.

 

How much blood and treasure can America afford to spend on issues like this? I'm reminded of the situation before the first world war on this...wide-spread, intertangling alliances, which culminated in having a person of Bosnian nationality kill an Austrian leader in the middle of a Serbian city followed by Germany marching on France and Russia. If it turned out that Russia was willing to risk war with the rest over an issue like the treatment of a minority along its borders...would you be prepared to fight the Russians over the South Ossetians?

[lostfan]

So...let me fire the counterpoint back at you.

 

Should NATO really be expanding to areas that are far-flung from its base countries, and which are therefore hard to support, and which on top of that fact aren't totally in control of their own territory and the minorities in it? While Russia is certainly playing the aggressor now and they certainly baited Georgia in to acting, let's not forget that it was Georgia itself which launched this campaign in the first place by sending troops in to these restive regions.

 

How much blood and treasure can America afford to spend on issues like this? I'm reminded of the situation before the first world war on this...wide-spread, intertangling alliances, which culminated in having a person of Bosnian nationality kill an Austrian leader in the middle of a Serbian city followed by Germany marching on France and Russia. If it turned out that Russia was willing to risk war with the rest over an issue like the treatment of a minority along its borders...would you be prepared to fight the Russians over the South Ossetians?

And this is why Russia doesn't like it. I see where you're going with this.

 

I actually don't get why we feel the need to do things that burn Russia's ass and we act like however they feel about it is no big deal. I read Russian news translations (as I do a lot of things) and they seemed content with the status quo for a while, which was "the US can't do anything to us, and we can't do anything to them either, so we're good, nobody's attacking anybody and no reason to escalate it." But for some reason we insist on the ABM shield in former Eastern bloc countries. Ok, all well and good, the U.S. isn't really that concerned with Russia as a national security threat, but they basically see it as a direct threat to their national security (to them, we are still the biggest threat, that never changed except we're just friendlier now) and a reason to escalate the arms race all over. Except that now, they can actually do it again. I wonder how they'd act if we scrapped the whole thing (which would probably happen if any Democrat gets elected and it's no guarantee to keep going with a Republican in office either). I'd imagine a lot of their anxiety over our intentions would go away.

[Balta1701]

And this is why Russia doesn't like it. I see where you're going with this.

 

I actually don't get why we feel the need to do things that burn Russia's ass and we act like however they feel about it is no big deal. I read Russian news translations (as I do a lot of things) and they seemed content with the status quo for a while, which was "the US can't do anything to us, and we can't do anything to them either, so we're good, nobody's attacking anybody and no reason to escalate it." But for some reason we insist on the ABM shield in former Eastern bloc countries. Ok, all well and good, the U.S. isn't really that concerned with Russia as a national security threat, but they basically see it as a direct threat to their national security (to them, we are still the biggest threat, that never changed except we're just friendlier now) and a reason to escalate the arms race all over. Except that now, they can actually do it again. I wonder how they'd act if we scrapped the whole thing (which would probably happen if any Democrat gets elected and it's no guarantee to keep going with a Republican in office either). I'd imagine a lot of their anxiety over our intentions would go away.

Here's another interesting way of looking at this situation. We've made it very clear that there's interest on both sides in having Georgia and the Ukraine join NATO. Russia completely opposes that move because they want both countries within their sphere of influence. Russia has other interests there, specifically energy interests, and having that happen would dramatically weaken their power as it would undercut their ability to use oil and gas as a weapon as they have done repeatedly in recent years.

 

Now that they've made this conflict happen and smashed a good chunk of Georgia...what are the odds of Georgia actually being allowed in to NATO? I'd say they've dropped considerably over the last few days. Which at least suggests to me that Russia may well have made this strong of a move as a means of preventing countries within its sphere from joining NATO.

[mr_genius]

they're not going to just come out and attack a NATO country unprovoked, that would be craziness.

 

They just did. It's a full on invasion.

[lostfan]

They just did. It's a full on invasion.

Since when is Georgia a NATO country?

 

The dynamics of an invasion like that are completely different when you invade a country that has a defensive pact with multiple other countries. So if you attack a NATO country you get retaliation from the US, UK, France, Germany, etc (assuming they're not half-assing it like they're doing in Afghanistan).

[mr_genius]

Since when is Georgia a NATO country?

 

They already voted to be members and would have been a full member in 2009. The have already signed treaties with NATO and were alligned allies since 2005.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_and_NATO

Edited August 12, 2008 by mr_genius

[mr_genius]

The dynamics of an invasion like that are completely different when you invade a country that has a defensive pact with multiple other countries. So if you attack a NATO country you get retaliation from the US, UK, France, Germany, etc (assuming they're not half-assing it like they're doing in Afghanistan).

 

they have one with NATO. But I guess since they aren't full members yet we don't have an obligation to defend them.

Edited August 12, 2008 by mr_genius

[lostfan]

They already voted to be members and would have been a full member in 2009. The have already signed treaties with NATO and were alligned allies since 2005.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_and_NATO

It was being fast tracked by the Bush administration but it still hasn't happened yet, like you just said they don't have full membership. It's not the same as Russia attacking Germany or France. That would mean full-blown retaliation and a big mess.

[lostfan]

they have one with NATO. But I guess since they aren't full members yet we don't have an obligation to defend them.

That's what I was trying to get at.

[mr_genius]

It was being fast tracked by the Bush administration but it still hasn't happened yet, like you just said they don't have full membership. It's not the same as Russia attacking Germany or France. That would mean full-blown retaliation and a big mess.

 

Germany and France aren't getting invaded. Really, if we don't defend Georgia in some way with NATO might as well be blown up as it is meaningless. Georgia was an ally who already was living up to their end of the bargain by helping with military actions. They already had signed treaties with NATO. They were going to be a member, Russia just invaded them before it was technically complete.

 

[lostfan]

Germany and France aren't getting invaded. Really, if we don't defend Georgia in some way with NATO might as well be blown up as it is meaningless. Georgia was an ally who already was living up to their end of the bargain by helping with military actions. They already had signed treaties with NATO. They were going to be a member, Russia just invaded them before it was technically complete.

This just further goes to highlight what a sound strategic decision by Russia this was. All we can really do is hope it backfires on them somehow like it did to us.

[Rex Kickass]

When you stretch yourself out in campaign after campaign that is really unnecessary you leave opportunities for smaller regional powers to flex their muscle without any real power to make change.

 

A lot of people are comparing this to the Sudetenland invasion of 1938 and I think its really apt here. Putin makes me uneasy. With oil at the price it is, he's able to do these things without too much worry, because there isn't the kind of western investment need as there was for them five years ago.

[Balta1701]

Germany and France aren't getting invaded. Really, if we don't defend Georgia in some way with NATO might as well be blown up as it is meaningless. Georgia was an ally who already was living up to their end of the bargain by helping with military actions. They already had signed treaties with NATO. They were going to be a member, Russia just invaded them before it was technically complete.

So...are you saying we should be using military force against Russia right now, yes or no?

[mr_genius]

So...are you saying we should be using military force against Russia right now, yes or no?

 

i don't think we are in a position to do anything with the military. we are already in 2 wars in the middle east.

 

this is what the generals were telling GW when they say the military is 'stretched thin'.

[Balta1701]

i don't think we are in a position to do anything with the military. we are already in 2 wars in the middle east.

 

this is what the generals were telling GW when they say the military is 'stretched thin'.

I agree with you on that. But here's the problem...if you're saying Georgia should be defended as a member of NATO even though it hasn't fully reached membership status, what other options do we have? Basically, your argument is that NATO is useless if it doesn't defend Georgia. It's not defending Georgia now. So what is NATO's use?

[mr_genius]

I agree with you on that. But here's the problem...if you're saying Georgia should be defended as a member of NATO even though it hasn't fully reached membership status, what other options do we have? Basically, your argument is that NATO is useless if it doesn't defend Georgia. It's not defending Georgia now. So what is NATO's use?

 

I have no idea what NATO is useful for now. I guess we'll see how the NATO allies react to this and find out.

[southsideirish71]

We should avoid shooting wars with countries with GPS guided thermonuclear weapons. A 10 megaton airburst over our city would put a crimp in my plans on living a long healthy life.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

So...are you saying we should be using military force against Russia right now, yes or no?

 

Going by Obama's words earlier on Kosovo, he seems to think so.

 

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/pos...DVmMzAxODBjZTc=

 

OBAMA: Well, I think that we work with the international community that has also recognized Kosovo, and state that that's unacceptable. But, fortunately, we have a strong international structure anchored in NATO to deal with this issue.

 

We don't have to work in isolation. And this is an area where I think that the Clinton administration deserves a lot of credit, is, you know, the way in which they put together a coalition that has functioned.

 

OBAMA: It has not been perfect, but it saved lives. And we created a situation in which not only Kosovo, but other parts of the former Yugoslavia at least have the potential to over time build democracies and enter into the broader European community.

 

But, you know, be very clear: We have recognized the country of Kosovo as an independent, sovereign nation, as has Great Britain and many other countries in the region. And I think that that carries with it, then, certain obligations to ensure that they are not invaded.

 

 

We are talking about an incoming NATO member who is trying to move into the Eurpoean community, and who has been recognized by the entire planet as a sovergien nation.

 

[kapkomet]

Going by Obama's words earlier on Kosovo, he seems to think so.

 

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/pos...DVmMzAxODBjZTc=

 

 

 

 

We are talking about an incoming NATO member who is trying to move into the Eurpoean community, and who has been recognized by the entire planet as a sovergien nation.

I'm sure that somehow this is "different" for Obama. He still has to walk on water and turn water into wine later this month.

 

[EvilMonkey]

I'm sure that somehow this is "different" for Obama. He still has to walk on water and turn water into wine later this month.

If he is walking on the wine, I'm not drinking it.

[lostfan]

Going by Obama's words earlier on Kosovo, he seems to think so.

 

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/pos...DVmMzAxODBjZTc=

 

 

 

 

We are talking about an incoming NATO member who is trying to move into the Eurpoean community, and who has been recognized by the entire planet as a sovergien nation.

You would have to assume that by "certain obligations" he specifically meant military action otherwise it's a stretch to draw that conclusion.

[KipWellsFan]

If he is walking on the wine, I'm not drinking it.

 

Lets not kid ourselves, NATO member or not, we would not risk nuclear war to save Gori.