But whether the U.S. openly urged Saakashvili to invade, acquiesced to it, or was somewhat surprised by it, the point is that the proxy confrontation between Russia and the U.S. was on, and the two sides began their move toward a dangerous renewal of the Cold War. Without even acknowledging Georgia's brutal invasion of Ossetia and Abkhazia, American leaders - out of knee-jerk anti-Russianism - started bashing the Russian bear for its harsh occupation in Georgia, including CheneyBush, John McCain, and Barack Obama/Joe Biden.
We'll probably never know for sure who "started" this current phase of the long-simmering conflict between Georgia and Russia. This situation there, and in the Caucasus in general, is infinitely complex, steeped in nationalistic, tribal and ideological rivalries that are barely understandable, and dangerous for Americans to get sucked into. But that didn't stop McCain, a neo-con warmonger of the first order, from immediately making ill-advised, threatening anti-Russia comments. (Not incidentally, McCain's foreign-policy advisor, Randy Scheunemann, up until a few months ago was a lobbyist for the Georgian government and his firm continues in that role.) Even the initially-cautious CheneyBush Administration jumped into the name-calling and threatening, joined in a bit later, with only slightly more sense of nuance, by the Democratic nominee Obama. (Biden, in his acceptance speech, was even more outspoken in his angry denunciation of Russia.)
Neo-con Dick Cheney is being dispatched to Georgia as a hard-line message to Putin that the U.S. is not backing off its support of Georgia's anti-Russian stance. The U.S. is moving toward isolating Russia, starting by kicking it out of the G-8, blocking its ascension to the WTO, cutting back on investments, etc. Even the conservative British journal The Economist believes there are dangers in these kinds of moves that need to be measured against possible consequences:
"Suspending business as usual should not be pushed to the point that drives Russia into the sort of sulk that will make its behaviour worse. Finding the line between disapproval, pressure and continued engagement will be hard.... But there is vital work to be done - on nuclear proliferation and arms reduction, for example - in which the need for cooperation with Russia simply outweighs the need to punish it."
That intelligent prescription requires highly nuanced diplomatic smarts - and some understanding of Russia's perception of its "sphere of influence" - neither of which is much in evidence in the nation's capital these days.
Election-Year Posturing
Because of the high stakes involved, our working alliance with Russia is crucially important. We don't need to approve of their leadership, their ambitions in their region, or how democracy is being compromised inside Russia. But the U.S. does need their help in negotiations with Iran, for example. Additionally, given the fact that the Russians still possess thousands of nuclear missiles, one would have hoped for cooler U.S. heads to prevail, that at least a move toward high-level diplomacy would have been made before the harsh threats were issued.
But, no. It's an election season. The big verbal guns were hastily moved into place and firing began, with Medyedev responding by recognizing the "independence" of the two breakaway regions in Georgia and telling the Americans they're not afraid of a new Cold War. Russia says it will be deploying its missiles at a wide variety of locations, and aiming them at Western European capitals. The other day, it test-fired a new ICBM, designed to defeat an anti-missile system, as a metaphorical warning shot across the bow of American policy.
In short, the two countries are not playing patty-cake here. The evolving relationship with Russia is loaded with potentially explosive dangers, and great care needs to be exercised to keep that relationship on an even keel for the good of both countries, for Europe, and for stability in the world. So far, good sense seems in short supply and thus the two fading empires slide closer to confrontation and potential war.
Are you reading much about this in your local newspaper? Hear any serious discussions about this on national TV? I thought not. The politicians and mass-media are focusing on who's wearing a flag-pin, Paris Hilton and what candidate is ahead by two points in the daily poll. And thus we drift toward disaster.
-------
Bernard Weiner, Ph.D,, has taught government and international relations at universities in California and Washington, worked for two decades as a writer/editor with The San Francisco Chronicle, and currently serves as co-editor of The Crisis Papers (www.crisispapers.org).
First published by The Crisis Papers and Democratic Underground 9/2/08.
