Russia’s Resentment of the West Began With a Broken Promise
Posted on Oct 21, 2008
By William Pfaff
It did not take the clash between Russia and Georgia to reveal that relations between Russia and the West have taken a bad turn. They have been deteriorating since the mid-1990s, when the decision was taken to expand NATO to include the former Warsaw Pact states. At the time of that decision, George F. Kennan, the most eminent American diplomat of his time, said this could be the most disastrous mistake made in American foreign policy in decades. He erred only in underestimating the comparative scale of the blunders that would follow, in the George W. Bush administration.
In a recent column I quoted the final U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union, Jack Matlock, on the promise made personally by President George H.W. Bush and Secretary of State James Baker to Mikhail Gorbachev, that if East Germany was allowed to unite with West Germany, and the USSR placed no obstacle to a unified Germany’s continuing as a NATO member, the Western alliance would not attempt to expand any further into what had been Warsaw Pact Europe. The president and the secretary of state agreed, with Baker saying, according to Matlock, “not one inch.” In September 1990, German unification took place.
Unfortunately, the agreement seems never to have been written down. Chairman Gorbachev undoubtedly looked deeply into Bush’s and Baker’s eyes, as Bush Jr., 11 years later, was to look deeply into the eyes of Vladimir Putin. Gorbachev saw the souls of American gentlemen. The young Bush saw in Putin the soul of a democrat. There were mistakes made all around.
Bill Clinton arrived in the White House and electoral advantage called. The U.S. lobbies of the East European countries demanded that they be included in NATO. The most influential was the Polish lobby in Chicago, which could swing the city and perhaps the state. In 1994, the so-called Partnership for Peace was created, a kind of cadet-membership in NATO. Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic joined, and in 1999 became full members of NATO. By this time, Republicans and Democrats were bidding for the election votes of American supporters of the rest of the ex-Warsaw Pact states, and those of the Baltic nations as well, which during the Second World War had been incorporated into the Soviet Union. They all joined NATO in 2004. Next came the candidacies of Ukraine and Georgia, both of which had been integral parts of the czarist Russian empire from the 19th century onward.
In his final book, “At a Century’s Ending,” in 1996, Kennan said of the new post-Communist Russia something that no American government seems ever to have taken seriously. He wrote: “That Russia will ever achieve ‘democracy,’ in the sense of political, social and economic institutions similar to our own, is not to be expected. And even if Russian forms of self-government should differ significantly from our own, it is not to be postulated that this would be entirely a bad thing.”
Nations are what history has made of them, which includes their bad experiences as well as their good. Putin has proven extremely popular in Russia and extremely unpopular in the American government and media for exactly the same reasons. He is a Russian nationalist, has given Russia an independent and uncompromising stance that suits Russian pride, after two decades of the humiliation, disorder and social breakdown that many Russians now associate with American and Western influences on their country. In Georgia, he put a brisk and efficient end to what universally is seen in Russia as a deliberate provocation staged by the United States.
Putin has demonstrated that the United States and NATO are effectively powerless in the Caucasus, and in no position to interfere with Russia elsewhere in its own historical zone of interest. Indeed, Russia now has been handed what amounts to a controlling interest in NATO’s war in Afghanistan. As a result of American blundering in the Middle East, and of increasing trouble in Pakistan, the U.S. has been forced to ask Russia to permit the major supply route for the Afghanistan war to pass by way of Russia.
The irony in this is not only that while abusing Russia for its policies elsewhere, the U.S. depends on Russia in order to wage the Afghanistan war. It is that Russia now controls how long that war will go on. It might be just as long as it took the Afghans to destroy the Russian army trying to control their country during the last years of the Soviet Union, while demoralizing the Russian nation. Just long enough, and no more.
Visit William Pfaff’s Web site at www.williampfaff.com.
© 2008 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.
.
Previous item: No Child Left Behind Fails Us All
Next item: The Battle for Obama's Economic Soul
Comments
Are you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.
Fearful GOP May Hope for a Brokered Convention
Email
Print
Share
Digg
Facebook
TwitThis
StumbleUpon
Reddit
YahooBuzz
Email
BlinkList
del.icio.us
Fark
Furl
Google
LinkedIn
Mixx
MyShare
NewsVine
Propeller
SphereIt
Technorati
YahooMyWeb
Newsletter 
Become a Fan
Follow Us
Subscribe
By G. Rymniksky, October 27, 2008 at 9:05 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
neighbour by geography
“Russia isn’t able to clarify it’s past.”
I don’t understand this sentence. Perhaps you should clarify what you mean.
“As long as everything is based on lies and nationalism Russia can’t be trusted.”
What lies? What nationalism? You listen too much to your Media and simply repeat what they say. That is the difference between many Russians and many Westerners, Russians read between the lines and don’t believe in propaganda, Westerners easily believe propaganda as long as it fits into their stereotypical views.
What you call “Nationalism” Russians call Sovereignty, having control of one’s nation. Under Yeltsin Russia was controlled by “Advisors” and Oligarchs who did not care about Russia’s sovereignty and simply destroyed everything Russians took pride in. Under Yeltsin Russians were insulted and Russian’s point of view ignored. How do you think this would make you feel? How do you think Russians felt when Yeltsin ordered Tanks to fire into crowds of protesters and the Parliament because people were against his rule? How do you think Russians felt when Western Media called 70 year pensioners “hardliners” and supported Yeltsin and his bloody repression?
Would you like this? I doubt it.
“common sense and trustworthiness uncommon things”
Funny thing, many Russians have the same kind of view of Westerners.
Report thisBy G. Rymniksky, October 27, 2008 at 9:03 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
bc41
“Originally NATO was formed to create a unified command of the allies during WWII.”
First time I hear this.
“Then it continued when the Russians grabbed E. Germany in the last days of the war. That angered Western allies considerable (war almost continued) and allies aligned with the US chose to keep NATO as a force against the new expansionist communists.”
What??? That is quite some “interesting” pseudo-history.
How exactly did we(my relatives in the Soviet Army) “grab” “East” Germany? Do you understand that there was a War between the USSR and Nazi Germany? You can’t “grab” a country that invaded you. You can retaliate against it and its leadership, and this means capturing their capital city, which was Berlin. Which we did. The Soviet Army destroyed 85% of the Wehrmacht during the War, so we made our contribution.
The Allied Nations(this included the USSR) met in Yalta(city in former USSR on the Black Sea) in February 1945 and agreed to divide the territory of Germany between Occupation zones. USSR received most of the Eastern regions of Germany(in its Zone), today Eastern(and Northern) parts of Poland, Lithuania, and Russia. Nobody “grabbed” anything, your history knowledge is flawed. The Soviet Army had been battling towards Eastern Germany since Summer 1944 when Soviet troops crossed into Poland during Operation Bagration.
NATO was not formed until 1949 after Western leaders chose to create hostilities with the USSR(it benefited only the Industrialists in the West).
“Russians have claimed a long history of european invaders attacking Russia, their culture for a long time was in isolation under the Czars.”
There is nothing to claim. 13th-15th centuries - Mongols from the East and Germans(Teutons and Livonians) from the West. 17th century - constant invasions by Poland and Lithuania. 18th century - Wars with Prussians and Swedes. 19th century - Napoleon’s invasion of Russia.
“WWII Germans spent much effort to take Russia, they inflicting heavy casualties, Leningrad was leveled by the Nazis yet couldn’t be taken.”
Only 80% of their Ground Forces and 65% of their Air Force.
German casualties were not light.(dead, wounded, and captured were counted in the Millions) They also brought along the: Italians, Hungarians, Austrians, Romanians, Finns, Croatians and other friends.
Leningrad was not leveled, it was simply encircled and blockaded with Germans, Spaniards, and Baltic “volunteers” from the south and Finns and Germans from the north. But the city did not surrender, and the blockade was broken by the Soviet Army.
“Resistance groups and the cold of a Russian winter drove them back miraculously and that is part of their heritage.”
Over 15 Million Soldiers, Sailors, Pilots of the Soviet Military not “resistance groups” drove them back, you have been watching too many Hollywood movies. Nothing “miraculous” about it, 12 year old girls working 16 hour shifts in Factories in Central and Eastern Russia building thousands of Tanks, millions of Rifles and Machineguns, thousands of Artillery Guns, thousands of Fighter Aircraft and Bombers, and Billions of Rounds of Ammunition. Millions of workers lived on 500 grams of bread per day but worked 2 shifts a day, “Everything for the Front, Everything for Victory”. That is what won the War not your “Winter” stereotype.
The German War Machine was wiped out, their Tanks and Infantry were destroyed, their Luftwaffe was shot down, their Ships were torpedoed by Soviet Submarines, and their U-Boats sank in Soviet Minefields.
The weather had little do with it. Germans had Winter uniforms, but with their Field Armies surrounded by Soviet Anti-Aircraft Guns and Soviet Tank Divisions it was not easy to try to transport them to the German troops in the field.
Russians see NATO as a new Axis Powers organization, continuously moving towards Russia and taking over its neighboring territories and undermining Russia’s interests and historical ties.
Report thisBy Anarcissie, October 25, 2008 at 5:27 am Link to this comment
You could say that about a lot of countries, including the United States, which may be one of the worst cases.
Report thisBy Eso, October 24, 2008 at 9:35 pm Link to this comment
I am influenced by Anatoly Fomenko’s take on Russian history and recommend that the readers here take a look at his series of volumes “History: Fiction or Science” or at least take a look at YouTube ads for same. If only a half of Fomenko’s take is true, it goes a long way of explaining not only the history of Russia and Europe, but puts into a better perspective events happening today.
‘Neighbor by geography’ confuses Russia with the Soviet Union. Russia of today is trying to pick up the pieces where the last regime of the tsar left off, but the West and NATO countries are more or less filling the ideological function of the Cold War, that is to say, acting as if capitalism and its relentless “growth” and production of surplus can go on for ever. The current financial and coming economic collapse is a parallel event in the West in 2008 to what happened in the Soviet Union about 1989. And, incidentally, the West has its own zamizdat literature that the public has not yet taken a serious look at. I mean, take a look at some of the literature coming from the former Left in Europe and even in America.
I wonder if these days before the election in America is not a particularly dangerous time, because McCann is clearly a loser, Obama is anathema to the neocons, and there is chaos on the financial/economic front. Will Bush and company rise again? A moment when the unexpected may happen.
Report thisBy neighbour by geography, October 24, 2008 at 3:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Russia isn’t able to clarify it’s past. As long as everything is based on lies and nationalism Russia can’t be trusted. Life has always been cheap in there, common sense and trustworthiness uncommon things. why to be gullible. price to pay will be great. few things to remind…
Report thisBy bc41, October 23, 2008 at 7:40 pm Link to this comment
Originally NATO was formed to create a unified command of the allies during WWII. Then it continued when the Russians grabbed E. Germany in the last days of the war. That angered Western allies considerable (war almost continued) and allies aligned with the US chose to keep NATO as a force against the new expansionist communists. Russians have claimed a long history of european invaders attacking Russia, their culture for a long time was in isolation under the Czars. WWII Germans spent much effort to take Russia, they inflicting heavy casualties, Leningrad was leveled by the Nazis yet couldn’t be taken. Resistance groups and the cold of a Russian winter drove them back miraculously and that is part of their heritage.
Report thisRussians didn’t like the NATO operation in Kosovo, I can’t speak for that, but I think what they say may be true of those two breakaway republics today, they were “roused.” What shocked the west I think is that Russian forces acted quickly (dynamically). Dynamism was what we gave Bush in the special powers but which became a NEOCON facilitator. Our own rescue missions bring to mind Kuwait, it was months there that reports of rape and pillage went to no avail (desert shield). Next Bosnia called out, we waited months while 10,000 ethnic Albanians died of ethnic cleansing before the bombing was ordered. After 911, Afghanistan, laid waiting as our barges with armor got delayed, contracts for occupation negotiated. What can you actually do with NATO that is a practical strategy? And a legal one.
By samosamo, October 23, 2008 at 6:10 pm Link to this comment
We are experts on making promises and breaking them. So is russia. I would think all of civilizations would be guilty of the same thing and I would have thought that with the onward march of time and more ‘modern and sophisticated’ societies and civilizations that a certain amount of respect would come forth to allow countries to at least tolerate one another.
Report thisBut I am not oblivious to those 7 charateristics of humans(maybe all life) known as the 7 deadly sins:
pride-anger-greed-gluttony-envy-lust-sloth. This is the ingredient that will prevent trust from ever becoming total.
Now mix in the current political, economic, religious systems ‘acting’ as if each are really busting balls to help keep everything in line and with a 2 party system that has one side(republican) vastly infected with deviant, criminal and evil types that sat down, at least by the nixon presidency maybe even as far back as the wilson presidency, in their think tanks to come up with a vast ‘surperior’ plan to take control of this country and then the world. If any of you were born 40s or 50s you have watched this happen even if we did not recognize it in actuality. And we are now, hopefully, in the end game of this master plan which has not worked, anywhere. I has just enriched the few and impoverished and killed the many. And this master plan is a “made in the USA” product.
Ever since the USSR gave it up, noblely or not so noblely, they have basicially stayed at home and tended to their own affairs. But would the US leave them alone? NO! The USA’s little milton friedmann’s ‘unfettered free market system’ was used to attack russia just as it had attacked the majority of the other countries on this planet and to what end? Valid proof that this free market shit only enriched the few and depressed and repressed the masses, IT DID NOT WORK!
Did we stop there? NO! After ‘the wall came down’ as this post states, russia was told that nothing like a missile defense station would be set up in the former soviet satelites but what is happening now? That promise, that trust is now broken with our government having arranged to have several missile defense stations set up in this former soviet satelites to ‘supposedly’ prevent massive attacks from Iran and other ‘terrorist’ countries in the middle east.
Should the russians be concerned with all this bullshit rhetoric about ‘having’ to build these missile defense stations which will be capable of launching a missile attack on them by the US? I say yes and thus I find myself siding with russia on this. I don’t trust US. I don’t trust anyone anymore. I would like to think that china with as ancient civilization as any country would be trusted, but can they be trusted? Will the same disease of greed and imperialism infect them as is did the USA and how aggressive will they be?
I do know in my mind and I don’t think I will live long enough to see this, but the inability of humans to recognize the liability of the population of humans to itself and the environment that life exists in wil eventually lead to a massive correction especially as climate change continues to beome more volatile and frequent over the next several decades and even centuries.
By libertarian, October 23, 2008 at 12:09 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Re: my just-posted comments on Russian attempts to meet our tech challenges, see the link below for a few illustrations. The F-22 and F-35A are the two newest US production fighters. The SU-37 (computerized image) is the top-line Russian fighter. The forward-sweep S47 Berkut is the Russian experimental fighter—too costly for them to put into production at this time.
Those rear-facing pointy pods on three of the planes are backlooking radars which permits pilots to fire on planes attacking from the rear.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/31689951@N05/
Report thisBy libertarian, October 23, 2008 at 11:35 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The Bush policy in recent years, that of refusing to honor parts-supply contracts signed with foreign purchasers of (mainly) F-16 fighter aircraft for domestic air defense,
Report thishas led these countries in Asia, Africa and SA, notably Venezuela, to use their oil income to procure far more capable Russian aircraft, such as the SU-30 and SU-37, both mfg’d by Sukhoi. The Sukhoi 30, refitted with its new more powerful engines, is a match for anything the US has in production, the one exception our F-22 which is equipped with a larger phased-array radar than the SU30. The Russian’s SU-37, despite articles I’ve read lately, is king of the skies. It is vastly more maneuverable than anything we have and can sustain high-altitude supersonic flight for extended periods, enabling a standoff defense (using missiles) of close to 100 miles. The stealth capabilities of our slower F22 is overcome by staggered-fire..one AIM air-to-air followed immediately by the release of one or more anti-radiation missiles which home-in on the jamming signals meant to stop the first missile. We can do this stuff also but the point is the Russians are easily as capable as we. The more we pressure them geographically, the better their technology becomes. China has even bought these Flanker-Class fighters from the Russians (minus the amazing thrust-vectoring the Russians keep for their own S37’s). If, one sunny day, China calls-in its US debt and forms a defense pact with Russia and its allies, we will cease utterly to be competitive in the international arena.The highly-paid economic and defense analysts who have leaned-over for Bush-Cheney are about to place us in peril of complete economic chaos.
By Big B, October 22, 2008 at 7:05 pm Link to this comment
Boy has capitalism taken an ass-whooping lately! All it is guilty of is reaching it’s full potential. For the last 150 years the world has been driven by the free market. It has been driven to climate change from unchecked pollution. It has been driven to overpopulation by the need for cheap third world labor. It has been driven to fiscal and moral bankruptcy by a system that rewards unbridled greed, all the while ignoring the responsibility of citizenship. It has created a world with a few kings and billions of serfs.
In truth we have not come very far from the middle ages. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Welcome back to 1583!
Why is it that the human animal can only induce needed systematic change through some massive violent upheaval? Millions must die and heads must roll! The streets must run red with the blood of the rich and poor alike.
Why do we always have to do it the hard way?
Report thisBy Anarcissie, October 22, 2008 at 11:54 am Link to this comment
The expansion of NATO, and the thrust into Central Asia, were certainly important in turning Russia against the United States, but so was the looting of Russia in extremity by Americans. You can get an overview of the story out of The Shock Doctrine and many other books, but some interesting details are entertainingly described in the article “How Harvard Lost Russia”, by investigative reporter David McClintick, which appeared in Institutional Investor, a subscription-only trade journal. A copy of the article exists at the moment at the following URL:
http://jboy.chaosnet.org/misc/docs/articles/shleifer.pdf
It is a long article, almost like a little Russian novel with numerous shady characters and intertwined relationships, and well worth reading. Basically, Americans went into Russia to teach the Russians about capitalism and taught them all too well: they stole the Russians blind (with plenty of help from Russian accomplices, of course). I recall that after a few years of American “help” Boris Kagarlitsky begged the U.S. Congress to stop lending Russia money because it was all winding up in Switzerland on Russia’s tab.
One should note that we are not talking about George W. Bush here for the most part. Most of these aggressions against Russia took place under the regime of Clinton and reflect the ongoing conquer-the-world policy of Washington (D.C., not George, who knew better) as well as the take-it-if-it’s-not-nailed-down policy of all too many capitalists.
Report thisBy samosamo, October 22, 2008 at 9:59 am Link to this comment
I wonder how much russia has to do with the US backing off an invasion or attack on Iran. Even China’s part in it.
Report thisBy WildCard08, October 22, 2008 at 9:23 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I cannot help wondering how different the world would be if the first President Bush had done the following:
1) made an effort to deter Saddam Hussein from invading Kuwait;
2) used force only as a last resort to remove Saddam from Kuwait, building a worldwide consensus (and setting an example) for non-military pressure—while of course defending Saudi Arabia; and ...
3) having decided to remove Saddam from Kuwait, obtained a worldwide mandate to remove him from power ... at that time.
Report thisBy Purple Girl, October 22, 2008 at 7:36 am Link to this comment
What has failed to enlighten the masses, Helped misrepresent the facts and Reality. What has helped Spread Lies, hate and suspecion..the Media.
Report thisBut take heart media types you are just a link in a long line of ‘Town Crier’ Betrayals to humanity.
Let’s be honest if americans could converse Directly with the ciitizens of Iran, ya think we’d find we have something in common, beyond Dumbass dangerous ‘leaders’. Of course it is not just these leaders who stoke the fires of deception, it is their ability to reach the masses and distort reality to achieve a Consensus.
Why does the media always fail to point out the Iranian President weilds no real Unilateral power? Why does the media fail to remind US neither does the US President?
Why does the Media repeatedly discuss the Non Connection between Ayers & Obama, Yet fail to discuss real possible connection between McCain and AQ, Saddam or the economic meltdown. They will spend Hours discussing an Untruth, thus validatinging it’s importance on the subject at hand. Start with a Falsehood and vindicate it while denouncing it. Very much the Point Olbermann made last night.
Any one who has sought to find answers KNOWS the Georgian squirmish was Started by the Georgian President- oppressing & attacking his Own people. We also KNOW McCains staffer (Black?) was a Lobbist for Georgia, much like Timmons was for Saddam.
So when the Media condemns the Bushies for their Illegal Actions, they had better take a look Down at their OWN HANDS. Media is the one which applies the ‘Lipstick’,as they have always done for the controlling class. Media Chose it’s side when it accepted ‘gold’ from the Monarch or the ‘Church’.But what they have failed to grasp is the Fact that ‘coinage’ orginated from the Mases to begin with! the Church is Nothing, Gov’t is Nothing, Industry is Nothing and Media is Nothing Without Us, the masses,and Our Consensus. All We need to do is REJECT you, and the Four will be nothing more than an Exiled’Bachelor’ band participating in their Own isolated ‘Circle jerk’.
The masses are not just your ‘Butter’ We are Your Bread!Gov’t & Industries Fail, Religions go in and out of Vogue…But the Masses are Eternal. Which do you Serve, Media? Hows those Circualtion numbers ,those Ratings? What new ‘Town Crier’ has knocked You off your soapboxes….the internet.
It’s not due to the ease, it’s due to the never ending Quest of Humanity for answers, to question YOU Choose to Ignore. The Chance to hear a Voice you, Obediently, silence or discredit.
It’s not the technology you are competing with - it is mans innate eternal desire and demand for information.We do not need a ‘translator’ We have been Translating information since the Dawn of our Reign as the top species…Long before Print, TV or the internet.
Information is our means of Controlling the other Tools of the collective.
If a craftsmen tries atool and it fails to complete the Job, he finds a better tool.
So Media are you a tool which a craftsmen cherishes or disgards? Or are you just an Attachment for another Tool which has also Failed to do it’s ‘Job’.
Beware WE not only created you, we provide your sustence,but only If You are Useful.
By Alan, October 22, 2008 at 4:44 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I suppose like most things political things are moving too fast for the politicians to keep up. They created a series of financial bubbles which threaten to bring down the worlds financial systems. Yet they’re still pushing the US Empire route. It reminds me of the saying ‘everyone’s talking but no one is listening! The brutal fact that the US cannot recognize, is that as each day passes their influence is waning. As Russia saw the country destroyed by oligarchs and the fool Yeltsin they were helpless. It has taken a strong leader like Putin to put it back on track. Russia neither wants or needs another war. It is still the largest country on the planet and has mineral resources to help the country grow. The Nato fears are groundless as the Russians have recently demonstrated. They see the mess they’ve created in Afghanistan and their reluctance to pour resources into that sad land. All Russia has to do is sit it out as do the Chinese. To keep their heads while all around the others are losing theirs. They must laugh when they read the protestations of Gates as the Iraqis tell him go take your boys and their toys and leave our country. Democracy at work and one that like with all things the US never counted on.
Report thisBy Jim Yell, October 22, 2008 at 4:27 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The military industrial complex needs a boogey man in order to justify the waste of billions of dollars. They have control of much of the electorate as long as when challenged on their fraudulant programs they can shout “your being un-patriotic” and we must be prepared to fight the enemy. Of course most of the time the enemy is one they created to help their bottom line.
Reagan never intended to destroy communism and proof of that is he had no program in place to help Russia to transition and head himself practically bankrupted this country to finance his war expendatures.
In truth the aspirations of the Russians are exactly as they were during Imperial Russian times, to control the countries bordering theirs and if possible to gain more warm water ports. The problems aren’t a bit different and we have tromped about on their borders and then affected outrage when we know how we would act to the same situation is exactly how they would act. Cuba, Mexico at time of French incursion and on and on.
Report thisBy Paul_GA, October 22, 2008 at 4:25 am Link to this comment
Solzhenitsyn told the truth 30 years ago when he said that the West, with its love of the Status Quo, was showing signs of having reached the end of its development, Eso. The people in charge of the Western states (including the USA) are frantically fighting to keep the economic Status Quo alive, while apparently trying to revive the Cold-War Status Quo (possibly because the Global-War-on-Terror Status Quo is unsatisfactory, i.e., the twin guerrilla quagmires of Iraq and Afghanistan).
The Status Quo is a poisonous thing. The only constant is change, whether the West’s Elites like it or not, and no matter how much the Elites love permanency, the best they can do is delay change—they can’t stop it. But I suspect that the longer they fight a delaying action against change, the more earth-shaking that change will be when it takes over.
Report thisBy Eso, October 21, 2008 at 11:55 pm Link to this comment
Most of us raised in a consumer society—where some two billion have managed to infect our psyches with rot—may believe that the way forward is more of the same. Alas, the five billion who live on $2 a day (sometimes a little more, sometimes a little less) and no chance to ever see themselves or their children emerge from rural and urban slums, have no objections to the way things are now going for the 2 billion haves. In my part of eastern Europe, NATO jets roared through the skies yesterday and “demonstrated” that we had nothing to fear from Russia. It reminded me of WW2, which I am old enough to have witnessed. The more things change, the more they stay the same, huh?
Report thisBy Petr Frish, October 21, 2008 at 10:55 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Interesting how same sequence of events seen from different vantage point (from Central Europe) creates totally different impression. For example:
1)“Putin has demonstrated that the United States and NATO are effectively powerless in the Caucasus,..”
~1) US confirmed that MAD equilibrium of the Cold War still holds. Only infantile extremes (Sarah Palin) called for use of force. All the rest did was “scream like a maniac and carry a toothpick”.
2)“Russia now has been handed what amounts to a controlling interest in NATO’s war in Afghanistan…”
~2) This is truly weird. It was Russian war to start with.
During Carter years, Brezhinsky wrestled it away from Russians and now it is American war. Except, they both would Europe to fight it for them.
And those wimps (Europeans) are not enthusiastic.
Speaking of pitchforks ..) Neither candidate was able to say to the villagers: There is no problem in Georgia (Gruzia).
Report thisRussians protected civilian population of Osetia from unprovoked attack by Shakashivili. Osetians have now right to choose. I can see why Obama did not say that. The trap set up for him would work - he would be painted as an apeaser,
Sarah would scream “Obama blinked!!”. What I do not see is,
why they need a a commander in chief who never blinks.
Even when US clearly at fault in the Gruzian conflict.
Either because they armed an uncontrollable maniac, or because they encouraged and did lead on an gullible idiot.
By Paul_GA, October 21, 2008 at 8:13 pm Link to this comment
Russia will be wanting payback—and paybacks are hell, as the old saying goes.
Report thisBy Paolo, October 21, 2008 at 8:05 pm Link to this comment
As a libertarian, I am amazed at how easy it would be to toss our fears of Russia onto Reagan’s “ashheap” of history, and build long-term, friendly relations.
The Russian people want to have Western style wealth and prosperity. All we have to do is build friendly relations with the Russians. What is the problem here?
The same goes, parenthetically, with Iran. Most Iranians want Western-style prosperity. The only thing holding them back is the pigheadedness of America’s leaders (and perhaps, to a smaller degree, of their own leaders). All we have to do is sit down and talk. Is this really so difficult a step to take for our monomaniacal, world-dominating nutcase rulers?
Evidently, it is.
Torches and pitchforks, folks—It’s the only way to get through to our megalomaniac rulers.
Report this