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
- Gary Nuetzel on THE OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE STARTS ITS 32ND SEASON. (COMMENT).
- Francesca on EATING PEAS WITH A KNIFE.
- avon wilsmore on CHEATING IN CHAMPIONSHIP BRIDGE.
- Anonymous on THE LANGUAGE WEIRDNESS INDEX.
- James Friscia on THE SECOND OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE.
- Ken Babcock on THE SECOND OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE.
- Lickity Splitfingers on THE SECOND OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE.
- Ken Babcock on THE OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE STARTS ITS 32ND SEASON. (COMMENT).
- David Quemere on THE OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE STARTS ITS 32ND SEASON. (COMMENT).
- Nicholas Schaefer on THE SECOND OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE.
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?