Russia sez: Choose: us or them.

[pmcn]

The traditional history of the russian people is that they accept/need direction from above. They are not overall individualist thinkers. This leads to dictatorships. This is the direct opposite of Americans and to some degeree the British Empite.

Again, this is my opion. The elite (ruling class) does not want a politically active majority. They therefor resort to totalitarianism to suppress it. After centuries of this, the common Russian accepts it also, they know nothing different.

I have great hope for the Russians as to uniting with the "Western Civilization". I also know that the odds of this occuring are slim.

Paul

[Dan1]

Paul - Herzen said otherwise. What about the traditions of the mir and the volost?

Robert - The flip side is that if you went and lived in Moscow or St Petersburg you'd no doubt find that many of your expectations of Russia and Russians would also be challenged. You'd also get a different experience if you went and spent time in the provinces, much as if a Russian went and lived in New York would get a different experience of the US than if they went and lived in a small town in the Mid-West. The same goes for any country and any set of people hence the dangers of treating any group of people as homogeneous mass.

[rdamurphy]

Interesting fact to interject here, Paul. Did you know the literacy rate in Russia is higher than in the US?

Robert

[rdamurphy]

Paul - Herzen said otherwise. What about the traditions of the mir and the volost?

Robert - The flip side is that if you went and lived in Moscow or St Petersburg you'd no doubt find that many of your expectations of Russia and Russians would also be challenged. You'd also get a different experience if you went and spent time in the provinces, much as if a Russian went and lived in New York would get a different experience of the US than if they went and lived in a small town in the Mid-West. The same goes for any country and any set of people hence the dangers of treating any group of people as homogeneous mass.

Exactly right. My daughter's life in the suburbs is much different than my life in an urban setting, although she's growing up less than 20 miles from where I did. Different schools, different "street" rules, different neighborhoods, different values, opportunities, and quite frankly, standard of living. My wife grew up in Ohio, and I grew up in Colorado, and quite often we give each other those "Oh, Really!" looks when it comes to attitudes towards certain things, or even pronunciation and definitions of certain words.

For instance, I get a crick in my back, she would cross one and get her feet wet. I would take the quickest route to work, she would look for one under a tree.

Robert

[3Directions]

Robert - The flip side is that if you went and lived in Moscow or St Petersburg you'd no doubt find that many of your expectations of Russia and Russians would also be challenged. You'd also get a different experience if you went and spent time in the provinces, much as if a Russian went and lived in New York would get a different experience of the US than if they went and lived in a small town in the Mid-West. The same goes for any country and any set of people hence the dangers of treating any group of people as homogeneous mass.

One of the better posts

And having been born and raised in Russia , and lived and worked in the US ( and now Australia ) I can attest to the truth of your words .

Alexi

[zzmikezz]

3Directions,

I don't quite see why you found Dan1's post to be "one of the better ones". I'm not Russian (though I used to speak the language) yet I too can see big differences between, say, NYC (where I grew up) and Denver/Springs (where we've lived for the past 30 years).

In fact, it is precisely because of the availability of such differences that we moved, and I think the real issue is mobility and opportunities for mobility. In this country, if you don't like what's happening locally, you move. Something like 20% of Americans move 50+ miles away each year.

Were you around when the American Express slogan for their card was "Don't leave home without it"? If so then you'll also remember Yakov Smirnoff's parody, giving us ...

American Express ... Don't leave home without it.

Russian Express ... Don't leave home.

[muskokaandtahoe]

Your definitions of realism and neoconservatism in foreign policy seem a little off. Morality has little to do with foreign policy of any particular kind realist or otherwise.

You're wrong. It has little to do with the Realist school of foreign policy and is a part of the Neocon school.

For example you state that the US has been supporting self determination so. Strictly speaking the South Ossetians, Abkahzi should be entitled to self determination from Georgia if they so wish? Afterall, the recognition of Kosovo from Serbia (Serbia like Georgia a democracy) set the precedent.

And is your solution forceful integration into Russia? I have no real problem with those people become a free and independant state. Or remaining part of Georgia, as they were. I have a problem with "Imperial" Russia annexing territory in the near abroad by force. You know as well as I do that South Ossetia and/or Abkahzi will never be independant nations so long as the Russians occupy them. It is a farce of the first order, no different than the farce of the Soviet "Republics" who had seats in the U.N.

You forget that the Baku Pipeline runs through Georgia and is the only exit for oil out of Central Asia that does not flow through Russia. So there is a considerable economic imperative in ensuring that the Georgian regime does not fall. Similarly for the Russians there is an economic incentive to seeing Georgia come back under its sphere of influence.

You presume. I know those facts. I simply did not mention them in my post.

I'll finish w/ one of my favorite John McCain quotes: "I have looked into Putin's eyes and what I saw were the letters K, G, and B". He could have easilly added "and his pals remind me of the mafia".

[rdamurphy]

What is a "Neocon?"

Robert

[Dan1]

You're wrong. It has little to do with the Realist school of foreign policy and is a part of the Neocon school.

No it isn't and I suggest you re-read your IR theory.

And is your solution forceful integration into Russia? I have no real problem with those people become a free and independant state. Or remaining part of Georgia, as they were. I have a problem with "Imperial" Russia annexing territory in the near abroad by force. You know as well as I do that South Ossetia and/or Abkahzi will never be independant nations so long as the Russians occupy them. It is a farce of the first order, no different than the farce of the Soviet "Republics" who had seats in the U.N.

No. The point is that you can not apply a double standard. If the South Ossetians wish to unite with North Ossetia as part of the Russian Federal republic then how is this not self-determination? Likewise, if the Albanians of Kosovo or Macedonia wish to unite with Albania I assume you would have no problem with that either, I also assume you would have no problem with the Serbs of Republika Serbska from uniting with Serbia. Use of force - well just as the rational behind the NATO bombing of Kosovo was human rights, so the same argument are being used by the Russians. They are as has been pointed out using the Kosovo principle as the rational and legal justification for their actions.

No 'Soviet Republic' (SSR) had a seat at the UN.

You presume. I know those facts. I simply did not mention them in my post.

Then you were playing fast and loose with the facts. You claimed that Russia's oil resources were a reason for maintaining a realist position and omitted to mention the crucial role of Georgia in terms of oil resources. Oil is also a reason for continuing western involvement in Georgia. I am pretty sure that if it were Moldova the silence from the west would be deafening.

Ultimately Saakashvili over played his hand in launching the attack on South Ossetia - whether or not that was the right course of action is another debate. The Russian response (ie the Chechnya solution) is not a surprise either. The conflict is a hang over from the failure to resolve the borders of the former USSR in 1992 and the conflict is one of many such disputes. The west can not intervene militarily simply because it does not have enough resources with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Furthermore, the placing of western troops on the border of Russia would be incredibly provocative and would re-enforce all of the arguments of the Hawks within the Russian government who argue that Georgia is a western 'Trojan Horse' in the region.

The best that the west can hope for is that the Russians withdraw back to South Ossetia, that Saakaskvili survives and is not overthrown in the aftermath of the conflict and that there is sufficient willpower and money for the rebuilding of Georgia.

It doesn't matter what ideological persuasion you have, practicality dictates that the response of the west on behalf of Georgia will be very very limited.

[Andy J]

Very interesting posts.

Let me ask a question.

Does Russia, have anymore "territorial ambitions"? If so, won't "the West's" lack of action only encourage more of the same??

I keep remembering history, like what Nazi Germany did to the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia? We basically gave that nation to Hitler, in hopes that "he would take it and go away, and leave us alone"

That was a critical error on our part. Germany SHOULD have been attacked, when they occupied the Sudetenland.

Also I must add, I have been thinking about a post on this situation for several days, but I did not get around too it. I have been shocked by just how ruthless the Russians have been, I have seen photos, of the devastation that look all the world like a color version of old WWII BW Photos of people, laying dead in the street, and old women, and children crying in the wreckage of their homes.

I cannot believe that the Russian military, has found it necessary to use unguided munitions on apartment blocks and towns.

Not to mention, the Rocket attack on the BBC, and an Georgian reporter, being hit by rifle fire on live TV...

This is a REAL war folks...A real BRUTAL war.

[Dan1]

You can not draw a comparison between the 1930's and now. Russia may be many things but it is not Nazi Germany. Little was said or done when the Russians were busy administering the same kind of treatment in Chechnya.

It is not about territorial ambitions but more about political control of resources and in their eyes ensuring that there are no 'hostile' states on their borders.

[Andy J]

You can not draw a comparison between the 1930's and now. Russia may be many things but it is not Nazi Germany. Little was said or done when the Russians were busy administering the same kind of treatment in Chechnya.

It is not about territorial ambitions but more about political control of resources and in their eyes ensuring that there are no 'hostile' states on their borders.

I was not calling Russia Nazi Germany, I was just making a comparison to the land grabbing.

The problem is, that Russia is paranoid, much like the Soviet Union before it, the hostility is sees, is largely of its own making.

But to be fair, Russia, has a long history, of wanna be conquerers, trying to take it over.

[Dan1]

That sounds like a lot of cliches again.

It is nothing to do with paranoia and everything to do with the failure to define the borders of the former Soviet Union after 1992.

Look at it this way - if the Chinese or Russians announced that they were setting up a missile defense shield and were setting up bases in Mexico, Canada and Cuba, to safeguard against rogue states, do you think the US government would welcome that? Would you believe that it was for rogue states or would you think it was to be used against the US? Would you be being 'paranoid' for thinking that? Were the Americans just being paranoid during the Cuban missile crisis?

[Andy J]

Interesting read on this very subject...

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htwin/articles/20080815.aspx

[maiatcat]

Word seems to be the Russian have told the west to choose: Take Russia, as is, as a partner. Or Georgia. Not both.

I dunno if this is fact or rumor.

At any rate, this serves as a useful example to show the difference between a Neocon and a Realist. The Realist will choose Russia as they're big, have lots of oil and gas, have nukes on ICBM's, and have been somewhat helpful WRT North Korea. The Realist distains any form of morality in foreign policy.

The Neocon will choose Georgia. They are a democracy and the victim of aggression. The Neocon includes morality in foreign policy and will, on occasion, put some serious weight behind it.

All that said, what makes this particular issue straightforward for the US is this: Russian policy remains the same as it has been for a very, very long time: They are an Imperialist state. US policy is, and has been since 1918, in complete opposition to Imperialism; we advocated in 1918 and after WWII built an international order based on self detrmination, national interaction based on legal principles, and free and fair trade. Afterall, the conflict between the Imperialist states is the entire history of 20th century.

IOW to choose Russia tells the world we are willing to turn away from everything the US fought for and built as victors in the 20th century. It tells China they don't have to play nice as they grow. It tells Russia go for broke. Ditto for all sorts of wanna-be big men tin pot dictators.

IMO, that should not be allowed to happen.

The question will be how hard a line will the US take. There is probably not a lot we can do to save Georgia from being taken whole into Russia. My guess is this is the beginning of a chilly war. One that can turn cold rather quickly. I do not expect it to become a hot war.

FWIW, I'm also of the opinion that it raises the stakes considerable WRT Iran and the bomb. If the US snubs Russia, they can then freely play buddy-buddy with the Iranian Mullahs (another Imperialist State).

Anybody still think Obama is ready for prime time?

In a word, Yes. Remember Bill clinton's comments about on the job experience.