Dispatches from the Culture Wars

It's getting harder and harder to remember there was ever a time when I had a shred of respect for McCain.

Posted by: WScott | August 15, 2008 10:07 AM

Well, to be fair to McCain, the USA did invade Iraq in the late 20th Century, you know, previously, so maybe he just got the dates wrong.

I know sometimes I think that something happened on a Friday, and then it turns out it was really on a Thursday, see, so I can totally understand why he might have forgotten that the USA has invaded two countries (so far) in the 21st Century.

But they were little invasions, hardly worth mentioning, really.

I mean, sure, there were troops and tanks and stuff, so superficially it may have LOOKED similar, but it's like, totally different. And other than the continuing occupations, they are both so totally over anyway.

/snark/

Posted by: threetorches | August 15, 2008 10:26 AM

Well of course we haven't *invaded* any countries in the 21st century; we merely *liberated* a couple of them. It's all about intentions, after all. If Russia's intention had been to liberate South Ossetia rather than invade it, the world would even now be applauding their generosity. Putin just needs a better PR man.

-TTm

Posted by: Ticktockman | August 15, 2008 10:43 AM

I am forever reminded of Tom Lehrer's comment about satire being obsolete when people come out with this sort of nonsense.

Posted by: Matthew | August 15, 2008 11:37 AM

No, McCain did not add "in Europe".

Our ambassador to the UN, when asked a similar question, was the one who added the "in Europe".

Posted by: Ahcuah | August 15, 2008 11:51 AM

I think the key word used by the administration et. al. is "neighbors." In the 21st century Countries don't invade their _neighbors_."

...countries on the other side of the world, of course, are perfectly fair game.

Posted by: Rice | August 15, 2008 12:38 PM

This whole Georgia invasion is disturbing to say the least. Many of us think the Cold War is over, but I think this is proof that it is not. Putin is an old USSR kind of guy, once the head of the KGB. Who's to say that he would think any different today than he did then? This invasion looks to me like an attempt on Russia's part to reassert its place in the world - and they know we can't do anything about it. All Bush can do is condemn it. He even deferred to France for negotiations for cease fire! It's not like the French are going to aggressively grind the Russians into submission. I read a great article by J. R. Nyquist in which he says that this invasion is being used by Russia to demonstrate the inherent weakness of America and NATO because neither can do anything about the invasion, even though efforts have been underway for some time to admit Georgia to NATO. Could this lead to an unraveling of NATO? A few years ago Bush made the absurd comment that he looked into Putin's eyes and saw an honest man. Either he was smoking something or he was just saying that for political reasons, but Putin is not our friend. Russia is not our friend. Russia has consistently been on the side of overt enemies like Iran and less overt enemies like China. The geopolitical winds are changing folks. Will our next president have the character and strength to recognize and confront it?

Posted by: mroberts | August 15, 2008 3:10 PM

mroberts -

I have been having those concerns since the Ukrainian election debacle a few years ago. Back in the day it was the brave new world of communism that sparked the Russian imperialism. Now they have come straight across the spectrum into fascism and seem to be moving headlong into a new wave of imperialism.

I have long said that it just seems Russians are rather keen (in general, certainly not every individual) on some totalitarian tendancies in their governance. In the same way, I think that Russians are rather keen on imperialism as well. I.e., not only do they want to be told what to do, they want people's and cultures around them in the same boat, under the same rule.

Posted by: DuWayne | August 15, 2008 6:02 PM

Tyler D -

I realize quite well that it's not black and white, I know that Georgia is far from blameless in this situation. It is the overall pattern of behvior from Russia - pretty much since the fall of communism, that lends me to my views.

It is telling to me that the Ukraine has been averse to Russian actions in this crisis/war.

Posted by: DuWayne | August 15, 2008 6:17 PM

I actually wrote a post about Russian saber rattling and their quest for relevance in the world community a while back. I made the point then that the U.S. is doing much the same thing as we are slowly, but inexorably moving out of the limelight ourselves.

I yearn for the day when international relevance isn't equated with military might/actions.

Posted by: DuWayne | August 15, 2008 6:45 PM

Tyler D: I've heard this argument around a lot and I just don't like it. To begin with, Georgia is a recognized country, and presumably, anti-American groups in Mexico would not be countries in and of themselves. Secondly, the argument is typically an indictment of U.S. involvement in the Georgian conflict (though you aren't using it as such here *thumbs up*). How does it make sense to ok Russia committing such acts in Georgia by condemning the possibility of similar acts by the U.S.? It seems like something of a contradiction to me, and a way to avoid talking about the facts of this specific conflict to me. I'm just getting that off my chest though, seeing as you aren't using it that way.

I think why many are alarmed about a new round of Russian expansionism is because Georgia isn't the only country in which Russia is supporting separatist or pan-slavic extremist groups. Moldova and Estonia, for instance, have significant problems with such organizations. Now, if these organizations limited themselves to political activism then I doubt people would be alarmed, however, they also tend to be a focus point for criminality (much like neo-nazi or white supremacy groups in the U.S.). This is bad enough in itself, but what makes it even mroe troubling is that when these border countries (Moldova, exceptionally, is on the other side of Ukraine from Russia) act against these organizations, Russia makes claims similar to those it has made in relation to South Ossetia, that these are "ethnic Russians" or "Russian citizens".

Now, if they are ethnic Russians, then Russia, as the local super-power, should only really be concerned if they are being actively persecuted; forced to leave their homes, randomly murdered without Government reprisal, or forced into second-class citizen status, none of which are documented by organizations like Human Rights Watch. If they are Russian citizens, then the question becomes why Russian nationals are in bordering nations advocating the overthrow of their governments.

I would agree that talk of a new "Cold War" is premature, but people with an extensive historical knowledge of the region, particularly Russia's past periods of expansion, recognize in this Georgian conflict many of the tactics, claims, and untruths used in earlier periods. Add to this Putin's nurturing of ultra-nationalists at home, his intense bellicosity over the last 5 years, his growing authoritarianism (going so far as to have journalists jailed and murdered) and the immutable geopolitical reality of Russia (open to invasion on all sides, resources scattered to the periphery, bookended by two large, more fractured, but more dynamic cultures), and I think its understandable that people would see this as perhaps a test of the West's resolve, or a trial run for future attempts to assert regional military supremacy.

Indeed, given Russia's continued refusals to abandon claims to the Crimea (already the flash point of a particularly bloody war in the 1800's), and that they have already begun violating their agreements in regards to the Georgian cease-fire, that's how I interpret it.

Posted by: Julian | August 15, 2008 10:25 PM

Julian is dead on target.

This situation has really had me on the ropes because I actually have been paying attention to Russia the last few years, especially since the news of their non-nuke, high yield bomb program came out last year. I was talking with a close friend who is a Russian ex-patriot about this two days ago and her response was simple; "it's just what we Russians do."

Posted by: DuWayne | August 15, 2008 11:18 PM

I was going to posit a few things worth noting about Putin, and this whole mess.

First, Putin is not an absolute dictator, much as he might like it otherwise. There are several competing interests within the Russian government. I wonder if Putin was in a position where he couldn't not do anything to the Georgians without weakening his position at home. The sense I get is that he sold his soul to the ultranationalists.

Second, this isn't without consequences for Russia. Say goodbye to foreign investment, which much as they might rail about it they still need. Oil does you no good if it stays in the ground.

Third, while the Russians love thumbing their noses at us, their ability to project power doesn't seem to be much better than say , China's right now. They can menace those on their borders, but AFAIK there is no such thing as a Russian aircraft carrier anymore.

Fourth, the Georgians poked the bear. Julian is right that the US would never accept that kind of behavior on our own borders, as we demonstrated in Latin America for the last 100 years -- democracy wasn't acceptable to us. We gave up whatever moral authority we had five years ago. Welcome to the consequences.

Posted by: Jesse | August 16, 2008 5:08 AM

Julian,

As far as my analogy to Mexico goes, "anti-American groups" should be "anti-American regimes". The context here is that the U.S. has been funding a series of dodgy regimes in former Soviet satellite states with the only requirement seemingly being that they're anti-Russian. We've heard over and over again how Georgia is supposedly a "rare beacon of democracy and freedom" in the region, what we haven't heard about is his habit of rounding up his political opposition and charging them with espionage. U.S. attempts to frame this as a crusade for freedom and democracy and all things holy, continuing as it is in this conflict, rings hollow to me.

Your analysis of the situation in South Ossetia seems to be missing one important detail: SO has had de facto independence since 1991, it just has never been fully recognized by the West (I wonder why?). What prompted the uprising was apparently the fact that Georgia banned regional parties from participating in their elections (talk about "active persecution"). Georgia was attempting to take it back, much like Serbia did to Kosovo in the mid-late 90's. And speaking of that, we supported the ethnic separatists in that conflict. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that Serbia was being run by a pro-Russian tool at the time.

My only point here is to point that we can't analyze Russian expansionism without taking to account American actions in the region. Russia obviously isn't so bold as to try to "take over" Georgia at this point, but they are certainly attempting to weaken them through supporting pro-Russian separatists and taking their American supported (and provided) military down a notch. That seems consistent with the idea that they're reacting to American attempts to isolate them militarily, and in this instance to weaken a potential NATO inductee or make it less likely that the West will wish to induct into NATO in the first place. Whether they would still do it without us engaging in such activity is an interesting hypothetical discussion for another time. I personally have no doubt that they would be seeking to expand in such a situation, but that would be a different situation with different circumstances to take into account.

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | August 16, 2008 12:30 PM

Now that Putin has had some success with pushing the Georgians around he has made the comment that Poland's missiles are troublesome and might cause them to be attacked. That poking with a stick thing cuts both ways. The Germans and the French are not anxious for a war, but I suspect that they are also not anxious for a new round of russian hegemony in easter europe. IF we had stayed the fuck out of Iraq, Putin would be much less cavalier about this situation. Bushco's pretty much shot their wad and he knows it. NATO, I'm not so sure about.

Posted by: democommie | August 16, 2008 1:50 PM

Yuschenko was pro-Russian??? The basic problem in the Orange revolution was that Russia supported his opponents and were blamed for the (alleged) assassination attempt on the former's head. Maybe my knowledge of the circumstances is limited, but that doesn't sound right to me.

"What we are saying is that Russia is more than happy to step in and use this as a semi-legitimate excuse for a new wave of imperialism."

If that is the only argument, then I agree. However, my next question to the the Westerner's fanning anti-Russian sentiment over the situation how the shoe feels on the other foot. My sense is that many are seeing the unipolar era go down the tubes.

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | August 16, 2008 7:29 PM

bernie: So we 'invaded' Germany and Japan - to liberal idiots that means we are as bad as the Russians.

Well, I must not know any idiot liberals since I don't know anyone who thinks "we" are as bad as the Russians because "we" invaded Germany and Japan.

Do all conservatives have trouble reading for comprehension, or just the ones with access to the internet?

Posted by: Chiroptera | August 24, 2008 3:29 PM

bernie: Chiroptera, substitute Afghanistan and Iraq for Japan and Germany; did I misread the comments above that our going to Iraq encouraged Putin to go into Georgia?

You mispoke in stating that liberals think that the U.S. invasion of Germany in WWII and the occupation of Japan after WWII makes the U.S. as bad as the Russians in invading Georgia. If this was a typo and you typed "Japan and Germany" instead of "Afghanistan and Iraq", then just say so. Personally I find it an odd mistake to make, though. I think that you really did think that liberals think that the occupation of Germany and Japan after WWII are the same thing as the Russian invasion of Georgia, and you're backing away from it now that someone has pointed out how silly that is.

-

But since we are now on the topic:

McCain's statement that nations don't invade other nations is no different than if FDR had said the same thing to Germany while we were invading Germany without there being a contradiction.

I agree. FDR saying that nations in the 20th century don't invade other nations even as the U.S. was invading Germany is no different than McCain's statement: it would have been very silly and would have seemed hypocritical to anyone who wasn't blinded by ideology or hero-worship. Now it could be that McCain didn't explain his meaning very clearly, but that doesn't meant that the statement as made isn't silly.

-

Afghanistan was invaded by both the Soviet Union and America. One was done to spread an ideology and the other was to prevent further attacks.

Just to remind you, the OP is about the Russian invasion of Georgia.

-

You surely must know liberals who do not see a moral distinction between the two "invasions."

Actually, I don't. I know some liberals who were (and remain) against the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, but they all do see a moral distinction between the two invasions.

I'm not saying that such liberals don't exist; I just don't know any of them personally, nor have I read anything by such.

-

Speaking of reading comprehension problems:

When McCain said nations do not invade other nations, it should have been understood he meant "invade" as in the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and not the "invade" as in the 1944 invasion of Germany.

We're talking about the the 2008 Russian invasion of Georgia. And the more apt comparison is the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, another invasion whose reasons neither held up under the evidence at the time or afterwards, and was made on the basis of self-interested geopolitical and economic reasons.

Posted by: Chiroptera | August 24, 2008 5:58 PM

bernie:

inspections. That he had WMD's was not the reason we went into Iraq but that he refused to allow us to inspect for them.

Except that there were inspections going on. Unfortunately, the inspectors found no evidence of an on-going WMD program, which I guess translates in Bush apologetics as no inspections. In fact, no one who was in the country either before or after the invasion ever found more than old, unusable equipment from the Reagan approved WMD program in the 80s and 90s.

-

But this isn't what attracted me to your comment to begin with. It is nonsense like this:

I picked the invasion of Germany as an example because there were in fact people like you during WWII that saw an apt comparison between the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia and the US invasion of Germany.

No, this is not what you did. What you said was:

So we 'invaded' Germany and Japan - to liberal idiots that means we are as bad as the Russians.

You clearly made a blatant (and incorrect) statement about what those durn liberals think. I called you on it. Now you keep changing the subject around, and you keep interjecting comments about what "liberals" think and say.

Personally, I think that this is because this is all that you have. You don't have anything like facts (or, in your case, the ability to reason clearly) to bolster your argument, so you have to throw vitriol, hoping that in the flame-war no one will notice that you really didn't have anything to contribute.

Posted by: Chiroptera | August 25, 2008 6:23 PM