THE “POWER GUYS” EXTEND THEIR RULE. I think that the Russian invasion of Georgia is one of the most significant events of the last twenty years. I find that my reaction is pretty much covered by previous posts. I pointed out here that the KGB’s assassination of a political opponent on British soil was deliberately conspicuous and provocative. Using a radioactive weapon left dangerous records of the murder all over London. Along with the denials, there was the message that “we can and will do anything we want.” The invasion of Georgia follows the same pattern of sending a message (of course, along with denials): excessive force and obvious evidence of planning.
Categories
Archives
Recent Comments
- ARE PEOPLE LESS VIOLENT? (COMMENT). (2)
- Dick Weisfelder: My prior comment was just in the context of sports. Whether or not from Pinker, I have seen the...
- erik: It seems doubtful that human nature has changed. The most likely explanation would be that modern culture gives...
- HOW BANKS PREPARED FOR A U.S. DEFAULT. (2)
- GREECE’S ADVANTAGE IN THE CHICKEN GAME. (2)
- Nick: That makes sense. It reminds me of the stories Pater Familias would tell me about how in Boston the person with...
- Dick Weisfelder: Greece seems to me to be playing a game that Karl Deutsch called “underdog.” While one...
- FOOTBALL PLAYERS DELIBERATELY CAUSING CONCUSSIONS? (3)
- Nick: It was my understanding that boxing gloves were to protect the puncher’s hands and not the...
- Dick Weisfelder: Remember the Roman arenas? Bare knuckled boxing? Such injuries were taken as natural and accepted in...
- Mary Jane Schaefer: This isn’t about football. Or even sportsmanship. Well, it is about sportsmanship. But what...
- A 25 % CHANCE OF A EURO DEFAULT? (1)
- Nick: The fact that this has gone on for so long is pretty perplexing. The Economist is referring back to articles it...
- DECIDING WHAT KIND OF PATIENT YOU ARE. (1)
- Dick Weisfelder: One can be very open to new technology, but also risk averse. The recent debates about how to...
- THE EUROZONE—A CHICKEN GAME WHERE EVERY MEMBER CAN BLOW IT UP? (1)
- Mary Jane Schaefer: This is not a matter of chicken. These are all turkeys.
- ARE PEOPLE LESS VIOLENT? (COMMENT). (2)
Meta
Did you read the interesting column by Tom Friedman, contending that the real mistake was pushing NATO eastward into former Soviet Republics and allies? Expanding the EU, he argues, was fine, but given Russia’s history, having NATO on their borders and missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic had to be seen as hostile acts perpetrated by an expansive enemy.
I was talking with a friend yesterday who made similar arguments. He contended that we should have invited Russia to join NATO. Is there any implicit guarantee by the EU of the borders of a member? Is membership in the EU for former satellites a provocation? Is there a commitment to these countries that cannot be backed up?
Your questions suggest that NATO expansion was indeed aimed at a Russian threat. That is exactly what Putin argues, namely that the missile shield is an unfriendly act aimed at Russia, not at Iran as the US claims.
I think the real issue is whether economic interdependence between EU state and Russia isn’t a better guarantee of peace than the old Cold War thinking of military alliances. Russia doesn’t seem very alarmed about its former Baltic Republics being in the EU. NATO is a different matter.
Expansion of NATO to the Ukraine would be particularly threatening to Russia, given Ukraine’s large Russian minority and the historical and strategic sensitivity of the Crimea and Donetz Basin. And you are quite correct. Could, would or should NATO be able to defend Ukraine should it become a NATO member and the Russians intervene to protect what they consider legitimate strategic interests?
Putin is constantly portrayed in our media as an out of control autocrat. While his behavior certainly isn’t benign, don’t his arguments make a lot of sense, if we take historic Russian interests and experiences into account?