LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
2010 Webby Award Winner for Best Political Blog
 
February 18, 2012
Log in / Register

 Choose a size
Text Size

Most Read

Truthdigger of the Week: Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis

Déjà Pooh

This Gay Man Represented the President

Apple's China Comes Home to Haunt Us

What's Really at Stake in 2012

Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports
 * NEW! * The .0000063% Election
Comes the Revolution

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture
 * NEW! * Déjà Pooh

Digs
Financial Meltdown 101

Truthdig Bazaar
While America Aged

While America Aged

By Roger Lowenstein
$17.13

more items

 
Reports

Who Is Responsible for U.S. Russia Policy?

Email this item Email    Print this item Print   

Posted on Aug 21, 2008

By William Pfaff

A convincing account of the origin and development of the war between Russia and Georgia has now been provided by The New York Times, clarifying what it charitably describes as the “miscalculation, missed signals, and overreaching” responsible for the war.

The one thing it does not clarify is who is ultimately responsible for an American policy toward Russia that since the collapse of the Soviet Union has been aggressive, militarily overbearing and threatening to the integrity of Russia, to absolutely no useful purpose. The conventional Western comment says the NATO governments have underestimated “Russia’s determination to dominate its traditional sphere of influence.”

This is wrong. Russia has been amazingly tolerant of successful Western efforts to annex its “traditional sphere of influence,” if that term means the Warsaw Pact, which until 1991 was the Communist counterpart to NATO, lending troops to enforce the so-called Brezhnev Doctrine, which held that membership in the Warsaw Pact and in the “Socialist bloc” was irreversible.

Mikhail Gorbachev reversed it. He withdrew troops from Afghanistan.

NATO was redefined by President George H.W. Bush, as he recounts in his memoirs, as “a political instrument of European stability” rather than a force of military confrontation. On those terms Gorbachev agreed to the unification of Germany within NATO. Warsaw Pact states were invited to go their own way, and they did—into NATO.

Advertisement

President Bill Clinton told Boris Yeltsin that the expansion of NATO would stop with the East European states annexed to the Soviet bloc by the Soviet army during and just after the Second World War. Thus Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland, particular victims of the Cold War Moscow, were among the first admitted to NATO.

In 2004 the administration of George W. Bush, including Condoleezza Rice, a Soviet scholar who should have known better, brutally broke those agreement by causing the admission to NATO of Bulgaria, Romania, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia (among others), the latter three integral if unwilling parts of the Soviet Union during the World War II. Neither Clinton nor the first President Bush, who made these promises, protested.

Next came the American-sponsored “color revolutions” in Georgia and Ukraine, installing pro-American governments, followed by the Bush administration’s efforts to get NATO to give them a formal Military Action Plan for membership, an initiative fortunately blocked by Germany and France. And in February of this year, Kosovo, Serbian since the 12th century, was—illegally—declared by the U.S. and the EU to be an independent nation.

This was the turning point for Russia. Now the United States and the EU had not only unilaterally dismembered Serbia but were attempting to make two states historically part of Russia into Western satellites. Georgia and Ukraine had not simply been part of the Soviet Union, but before that of czarist Russia.

Ukraine is at the core of Russian history. Its capital, Kiev, was at the center of the Rus principality in the Middle Ages, from which modern Russia descends, and has always been known as “the mother of Russian cities.”

Georgia has a complex and tormented Caucasian history of conflict with neighboring powers, but in the 18th century its monarch voluntarily became a vassal of the czar in exchange for protection. Georgia has been integrally part of Russian history since. Stalin himself, and his powerful secret police chief, Lavrentiy Beria (who is thought to have murdered Stalin to halt the last great Stalinist purge), were both Georgians, as were other leading Bolsheviks.

One can understand that a hysterical and demagogic Georgian nationalist like Mikheil Saakashvili might think he could wipe out long-standing ethnic dissidence in his country by attacking Russian peacekeepers legally stationed in those enclaves to protect the dissidents. But who in Washington is promoting this strategy of hostile military and political encirclement of Russia? What conceivable interest of the West does this serve?

It is a senseless policy, apparently meant to intimidate Russia, but why? For the sake of perpetuating international tension so as to strengthen the forces that with Vice President Dick Cheney and President Bush have been promoting constitutionally unaccountable executive rule in the United States?

This is a very serious matter, being treated in the American press as if the United States has not been playing with dynamite. Russia is a powerful and nuclear-armed nation with legitimate national interests. Russia is no longer the messianic and ideological state with world ambitions the Soviet Union was. Those adjectives describe the United States today, as well as the policy toward Russia conducted under both Bush and Clinton administrations.

The most sensible advice I have seen has come from Europeans, directed toward other Europeans. It is to break away from this American policy of senseless and aggressive confrontation with Russia, and follow the successful mediation of Nicolas Sarkozy in Georgia with an effort to establish European terms for resolving this crisis, ignoring the United States.

Saakashvili is not likely to prove an obstacle. His people may soon rid themselves of the author of this fiasco, which humiliated his own country, NATO and the United States as well.  Bush and Rice too will soon be off the stage—although who knows what will follow.

The European initiative makes sense. Forget Washington and approach Russia with a proposal for a new and constructive relationship with Europe, with arbitration and resolution of its problems with Poland, Ukraine and Georgia in the same way that similar issues have been handled inside Europe. It would take a very brave Europe to do this, but the U.S. on its present course may leave it with little choice.

Visit William Pfaff’s Web site at www.williampfaff.com.

© 2008 Tribune Media Services Inc.


Comments

Are you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.

By cyrena, August 25, 2008 at 9:30 pm Link to this comment

Samosamo,

Thanks for the link. Somehow, I wasn’t surprised at the discrepancies in the numbers. This is a repeat of the Serbian/Bosnian conflict in the former Yugoslavia. Very difficult to determine the fact from the created fiction.

That isn’t to say that a measure of genocide was NOT occurring, but upon closer investigation, the numbers were grossly exaggerated, and the real details did not emerge (at least here in the West) until long after the fact.

GA Anderson..yep. Condi’s ‘specialty’ is Cold War Russia, and I’ve never seen how her scholarship on that was ever at all impressive or the least bit informed. She never even bothered to learn Russian.

Report this
G.Anderson's avatar

By G.Anderson, August 25, 2008 at 5:57 pm Link to this comment

Condi Rice… Isn’t she the one who pushed for a policy of containment of Russia, even though they were supposed to be our friend?

Isn’t Russia her specialty?

Report this

By samosamo, August 25, 2008 at 9:19 am Link to this comment

Since this deals with our ineffective MSM, I am putting this here as I don’t see any other relevant post to put it:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26385413/

This is the type of information that always surprises me when I read it on any of the major ‘disinformation’ sites. Of course, msnbc may be the only one reporting this but it just about shows me that someone slipped this through or someone slipped in letting it get through.
And if Daniel Estulin is correct in his ‘The Bilderberg Group’ book, I can’t even imagine how the masses could ever be enlightened as to the true events going on in this world and why the effects these numb nuts feel are so arcane and uncanny. The handlers have truly done an impressive job of ‘Orwellian’ control.

Report this

By dihey, August 23, 2008 at 4:07 am Link to this comment

According to our constitution it should be the Congress that tells the administration what our policy versus Russia should be and not the other way around. Since our Congress has long ago become a slovenly sissy, we now have a “proprietary” presidency. Most pundits call it an “imperial” presidency but that is wrong. Our current presidency is a retreat to what Pennsylvania once was, namely the property granted by the King of England to the Penn family. The fundamental difference is that our presidents, such as Bush Jr., either think that the “property of the USA” was granted them by God or they invoke a “unitary presidency” as the anonymous giver. As long as we have a “proprietary presidency” nothing will change, regardless of who the next inhabitant of the White House will be. Why? Because the “proprietary presidency” favors the powerful. “We the people” have been totally marginalized.

Report this

By Fahrenheit 451, August 23, 2008 at 2:40 am Link to this comment

@ linguist, August 22 at 5:57 am

Thank you for that link.  Very interesting; unfortunately we’re the bad guys in this one.

Report this
basho's avatar

By basho, August 22, 2008 at 11:29 pm Link to this comment

this may be the ‘october surprise’ in the making.
some commentators are saying the russians found more than isreali and u.s. weapons in georgia, they found (dead) isreali and u.s. combatants. not good.

syria is being re-armed by russia, chavez welcomes a russian naval force (with missile ships). the u.s. is in the black sea. germany is calling for a reproachmant with russia after nato lost the georgia war. russia has secured the georgian military airbase. europe won’t be in this one. except for poland, of course. if cheney gets his war, the u.s. is in for very hard times. i sincerely doubt if there is going to be a coalition in this one.

the u.s. has awoken the russian bear and neither obama or johnnie mac will be able to do anything about it. what a bunch of a**holes. and where are the american people?

Report this

By msgmi, August 22, 2008 at 3:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It’s another international caper remindful of the Iran-Contra chicanery. Again the neoCON machine has placed its fingers into pandoras box. And again in the aftermath, we will hear the usual rebuttals, ‘I don’t remember, it could be, it’s probable but not possible’, etc. NeoCON policy-makers playing chess with checkers.

Report this

By ApprxAm, August 22, 2008 at 10:34 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It’s obviously not Dick Cheney, The White House or the State Department. Maybe Shaakashvili and a American Colonel manned the Russia watch desk?

Chechnia is the key here.  Bush/NeoClown USA on their Soulful Eyes Tour in Moscow gave the green light to Russia, with Bolton holding back NATO and the U.N., allowing Putin to implementing the Causcuas segment of the war on terror.  This gave license to America and its’ Axis of evil tour as well as the more legitimate Afghanistan II debacle. Who had the time to worry if Vladimir would make a power play in Georgia?

If Cheney’s office isn’t on it, it ain’t gonna happen.

Report this

By Folktruther, August 22, 2008 at 9:11 am Link to this comment

Good comment, Fedel, except that Rice could easily have been an old man as an old maiden, which she probably isn’t.  And she could have been an outstanding scholar and still serve as a black face on a White imperialist policy.  And you are quite right that the ‘flower’ revolutions were really counter revolutions.

What I liked most was your appreciation of the dialectical relations of history occurring between peoples and power structures. Very few Americans have this understanding.

It is a conincidence, Guacomaya, that you should argue that Europe should go its own way, separted from US policy.  There is a new, very big, book by Parag Knanna, a young scholar, that states that Europe is historically beginning to do just that.  The book is called THE SECOND WORLD and posits a tripolar world power arrangement among US, Europe and China.  He does not say, of course, that this is a temporary arrangement aqnd the China will be the leading power system in a few decades.

You are quite right, Diamand, that burecratic inertia of intelligence agencies, military, and diplomatic institutions play a largely role in making policy than is generally acknowledged.  The tendency for all of power is to fight the last war.

Report this

By linguist, August 22, 2008 at 5:57 am Link to this comment

Nice article by Russian FM Sergey Lavrov “America Must Choose Between Georgia and Russia”:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121919150258855111.html

Report this

By Fahrenheit 451, August 22, 2008 at 4:02 am Link to this comment

Being informed is being smart:  For you information mavens; here’s some more stuff….

Link from International herald Tribune:
Here’s a teaser from the article;
“Yet Washington’s menu of options pales by comparison with Moscow’s. Masha Lipman, an analyst at the Carnegie Moscow Center, said, “There’s a lot more” that the United States needs from Russia than the other way around, citing efforts to secure old Soviet nuclear arms, support the war effort in Afghanistan and force Iran and North Korea to give up nuclear programs. “Hence Russia has all the leverage,” she said.”
U.S. sees much to fear in a hostile Russia
By Peter Baker
Published: August 21, 2008
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/21/europe/policy.php

Report this

By guacamaya, August 22, 2008 at 2:13 am Link to this comment

As a European I am in complete agreement with William Pfaff and I would like to see EU countries deal direct with Russia and leave the US out of it. We are all Europeans and it is in our mutual interest. The US is using divide and rule tactics in Georgia and Poland and it is high time that Europeans leaders should take a firm stand to look after our interests. Countries like Poland who prefer to deal with the US should not be allowed to remain EU members or there should be a 2 tier EU with the newer corrupt and/or irresponsible countries given fewer voting rights until they proved themselves more responsible.

Report this

By cyrena, August 22, 2008 at 2:05 am Link to this comment

By Fadel Abdallah, August 21 at 10:40 pm

“Kiss my ass with Condoleeza’s scholarship on Russia! This old maiden is just a scholar in name. In fact, she has the mentality of a submissive slave to her white master in the White House, and all what’s she been doing is to implement his evil schemes…”

~~~~~~~

Why Fadel! I’m SHOCKED! Shocked…I say!! I think you’ve been hanging around with too many dissidents (like me) on this site. smile

Ah, but it’s SUCH a delight! So, let’s just throw Condi and her Russian scholarship into the Potomac. (she keeps threatening to return to California, and there sure isn’t room enough here for the both of us) wink

Report this

By diamond, August 22, 2008 at 12:55 am Link to this comment

The CIA is a sheltered workshop. Without the big bad bogey bear how would these misfits have a job? They’ve had their fun with Al Qaeda and blowing up skyscrapers and now they want to get back to the lie they know best. The demonic Russians. If they plunge the whole world into a war well, that’s not so bad. Think how much money Dick Cheney’s company will make as you draw your last breath. Hand me that gas mask. Only in America could a senile warmonger be ahead in the polls because he’s old and white and his opponent is youngish and black. If he is ahead. Polling is a strange business but if he is actually ahead it’s most likely a bounce in the polls caused by Georgia’s invasion of South Ossetia. Which is why they did it, of course. If the election is close the Republinazis can steal it again anyway. So if enough people stay home out of sheer despair and don’t vote…

Report this

By cyrena, August 21, 2008 at 11:47 pm Link to this comment

By Fahrenheit 451, August 21 at 9:15 pm

•  “Could this be the infamous “crisis” spoken of that will be the excuse to stop the next election?  This is serious and could IMO escalate to shooting, beyond Georgia.  I can hardly believe our stupidity!  Below is a link to clip by Pepe Escobar on “The Real News”.”

Fahrenheit

Thanks for the link to the Pepe Escobar piece, since it filled in some blanks for me. This is obviously where part of Blue Eagle’s information came from. And yes, this is serious and cause for alarm on more than one level. Could it be the ‘crisis’ to stop the next election? I wouldn’t have thought that anything could, until I realized that it could actually be the goal of not ‘just’ the current gangster regime, but wittingly or unwittingly, the goal of many others dedicated to the undermining of the Obama candidacy.

In short, I’m far more concerned now, about the move from the Clinton to the Obama camps, of people like Albright and Holbrook. (BZig was already there, and I didn’t have any particular issues with him, aside from his errors of the past, to which he has admitted as being unconscionable blunders of realism). If my own dots of observation/comprehension are lining up right, (and I still want to read some other stuff more carefully) it has been the move of these people from the Clinton camp to the Obama camp, that has created recent troubles for him, because regardless of whether or not they ARE speaking for Obama, (Albright, Holbrook, ZBig) they are certainly being interpreted as speaking for his position, and that is a very, very, very bad thing. Albright and Holbrook were bad news under Willy Clinton, and there’s no reason to believe that they wouldn’t have been bad news under a Hillary Clinton either. (which was another reason for informed people to reject her candidacy – she’s been anxious to pop Russia herself, and that was revealed while she was still planning to be the nominee.) So, how did they become so quickly foisted on the Obama campaign, and just in time for this unexpected (for most of us at least) re-ignition of the Cold War? 

A week or so ago, Purple Girl mentioned that she thought this was an instance of Obama “keeping his friends close, but his enemies closer.” There might be a level of political pragmatism to that, (in the case of Albright an Holbrook) but that’s only in assuming that they haven’t been moles all along. Based on all of this recent activity, there’s no reason to reject the thought that this operation was set up long ago, (for the thugs to use Georgia to instigate war with Russia) and that The Clintons and McCain weren’t always in on the deal. (I NEVER saw *any* space of light between Clinton and McCain anyway).

But then, there’s a monkey wrench in the plan, because Obama wins the Democratic primary. That was never supposed to happen.  But it did. Next thing we know, we’ve got the likes of Albright and Holbrook ensconced in the Obama camp, and now acting like they’re making all of the policy decisions for –him- in a scheme long ago set up by the Dick Cheney thugs. Was he blindsided? Are they Trojan horses? Why is Albright even speaking on this? She’s not an office holder? She’s nothing more than a former Clinton campaign adviser. I don’t like this.

This is all just more of the same Bush-Clinton-Bush-planned to be Clinton again scheme, in case McCain didn’t come through. See, I always SAID this. Clinton was the planned backup in case the GOP lost with McCain. Now they’ve highjacked Obama, or it’s appearing that way. I’ve gotta find out what he’s saying on this. There’s lots of activity on the international forum at his site, so maybe I can find something there, to explain this.

Report this

By P. T., August 21, 2008 at 11:12 pm Link to this comment

The so-called Cold War was an excuse for U.S. imperialism, as critics pointed out at the time.  That imperialism continues, Cold War or no Cold War.

Report this
basho's avatar

By basho, August 21, 2008 at 11:06 pm Link to this comment

‘Who is responsible for U.S: Russia foreign policy?’

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.

Report this

By Fadel Abdallah, August 21, 2008 at 10:40 pm Link to this comment

“Condoleezza Rice, a Soviet scholar who should have known better, brutally broke those agreement…”
===============
Kiss my ass with Condoleeza’s scholarship on Russia! This old maiden is just a scholar in name. In fact, she has the mentality of a submissive slave to her white master in the White House, and all what’s she been doing is to implement his evil schemes.

“Next came the American-sponsored “color revolutions” in Georgia and Ukraine, installing pro-American governments…”
======================
Georgia and Ukrane’s so-called “color revolutions” are better described as counter-revolution and counter-progressive arrangements, sponsored by the CIA and the Mossad, to create puppet states. Saakashvili is an evil little warmonger; you only need to look him in the eyes to see that he is evil through and through!

Then you have to think about our own evil warmonger,  aspirant to the presidency, who praised Saakashvili for “being one of the first modern leaders to declare Georgia a Christian nation.” Think about it! Planting a Christian nation among mostly secular region is the same recipe for disaster and wars like the one Israel, as a Jewish nation, has been in a region of mostly secular Arab states, which have been increasingly Islamically-radicalized since the artificial creation of Israel, as a colonialist Western post, in the heart of the Arab world! For every action there will be always a reaction, similar to it in force and opposite to it in direction. This is a law of physics that also applies to human nature! But how would you expect from our imposed ignorant and evil rulers to understand normal human nature at the universal level?!

Report this

By Thomas P. Higgins, August 21, 2008 at 9:20 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“It is a senseless policy, apparently meant to intimidate Russia, but why?”

Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and TRW; that’s why.

Report this

By Folktruther, August 21, 2008 at 9:18 pm Link to this comment

US policy toward Russia may simply be bureaucratic inertia.  At one time both PNAC and Brzinziski wanted the US to control the “Stans” to get oil from the Caspian sea in piplines, and for bases there.

China and Russia led the Shanghi Cooperation Organization to capture the Stans, pipelines and Casipian oil and gas, and kick out all bases but one. But the US is still following its old policy in the same way that toenails still grow on a coprse.

Pfaff’s suggestion should be expanded to the US population and its reps.  The population’s position might be that the US polity has been taken over in The Coup by neocons and are against the interests of the American population.  Democratic governments should no longer follow US policy which is formulated and implement by corrupt and incompetant homicidal maniacs. 

Should such a anti-neocon movement show signs of life in the US population, it might serve to constrain the neocons in power.  God knows elections don’t.

Report this

By Fahrenheit 451, August 21, 2008 at 9:15 pm Link to this comment

Could this be the infamous “crisis” spoken of that will be the excuse to stop the next election?  This is serious and could IMO escalate to shooting, beyond Georgia.  I can hardly believe our stupidity!  Below is a link to clip by Pepe Escobar on “The Real News”.

http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=2091&updaterx=2008-08-21+18:59:59

Report this

By jackpine savage, August 21, 2008 at 7:41 pm Link to this comment

It takes until Aug. 21, 2008 to ask this question?

Too late.  Americans may not remember the experiment in neo-liberal economic fundamentalism foisted on Russia…but the Russians do.  Americans never did care that Yeltsin was anything but a democrat and not much more than a crook. 

Once upon a time, America was beloved in Russia in ways that most Americans would find hard to believe.  At this point, America has managed to prove the better part of Soviet propaganda correct…at least to Russian eyes.

But the answer to Pfaff’s question is this: since the inauguration of W.J. Clinton, all the wrong people have been responsible for US-Russia policy.

Report this

By 123456, August 21, 2008 at 6:42 pm Link to this comment

There is one thing that is almost concistently ignored or over-looked whenever Western policies vis-a-vis Eastern Europe and in particular Russia, is concerned, and that is the centuries Western European old Slavophobia.

Ever since the Middle Ages, Western Europe had a deep fear and an aggressive stance towards the Slaves. From the 13th century Crusades against Russia, to the 18th century Swedish invasion of Russia, to the 19th century French (Napoleon) invasion, on to the Nazi one (all tne above beaten), and on to the Cold War, the West has consistently taken an extremely hostile view to Russia (often called “half-Asiatics”).

The great Fyodor Dostoevsky recognized this and urged Russia to ignore it and look more to the East which Russia may very well begin doing now.

America’s hostility towards Russia is just a continuation of this 800 year old Slavophobic legacy.

Report this

By Frank Cajon, August 21, 2008 at 5:30 pm Link to this comment

What we have here is a paranoid fascist who realizes his dream of a Neocon dynasty will crumble unless he produces a rallying point for a jingoist sentiment that his lap dog successor can ride into office upon now that a 2008 war with Iran looks like the impossible dream combined with a KGB-trained shark who rules with an actual populist base. At least Putin is not clinically insane; he has pushed back only when pushed and has avoided involving his country in a trillion dollar morass while sitting on the petroleum reserves triple those of the US and an improving economic picture (probably more liberal and decentralized than he would like).
The one thing that can cause a catastrophe is the idiot card, John McCain. He probably can’t find most of the Soviet Republics on a map but is willing to fight WW III to back them in border disputes with Putin, even ones they start. He is a few months and one more ridiculous American election (remember 2004?) away from the nuclear launch codes. Think about this, when you see that kindly looking gentleman who can’t remember who is who in Iraq…

Report this

By Fahrenheit 451, August 21, 2008 at 5:11 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The genuine insanity of these gunslingers is; what happens when nobody backs down?  Short of a nuclear exchange it is Europe that stands to lose the most.  Russia has stated that it will go nuclear if they have to go against our superior, precision guided, weapons.  They are prepared not to “lose”.  We dodged the “bullet” during the cold war; but I don’t think we will dodge this one if the posturing continues.  Clearly, the U.S. is bent on marginalizing Russia.  I think it’s a bad bet that Putin will blink.  From his POV, his back is to the wall.  I fear the draft dodgers in charge are far out classed by the Russian Pro; they utterly fail to understand the game they are playing.  Since we can’t seem to control our rabid leaders (Bush/Cheney), we may well be making the biggest mistake since Korea.  I would say, be afraid, be very afraid; the draft dodgers don’t want to lose the White House.

Report this

Add Your Comment

Posts by unregistered readers are moderated. Posts by members
are published immediately. Why wait? Register today!






                        Number of characters remaining: 4000

Are you a human? Retype the word you see here.

     

Please read and abide by our comment policy.
By submitting this comment, you agree to this site's terms and conditions.

Newsletter

Get Truthdig in your inbox


 
 
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2012 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.