Mikhail Gorbachev Sets the Record Straight
In the op-ed section of today's New York Times, Mikhail Gorbachev, in an article entitled "Russia Never Wanted a War," lays out the underlying reasons for the recent events in Georgia and the chill they have caused in U.S.-Russian relations.
Gorbachev writes:
"Russia has long been told to simply accept the facts. Here's the independence of Kosovo for you. Here's the abrogation of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, and the American decision to place missile defenses in neighboring countries. Here's the unending expansion of NATO. All of these moves have been set against the backdrop of sweet talk about partnership. Why would anyone put up with such a charade?"
Since taking power in 2001, George W. Bush and the neo-cons who run his foreign policy have treated the Russian Federation like a banana republic. They never made any attempt to recognize Russia's legitimate interests, especially along its frontiers. Today, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gleefully announced Poland's acceptance of a U.S. anti-ballistic missile system. She claims it is "defensive" in nature. But no one in the world believes her, nor should they. Rice's credibility is in the negative integers. The sooner we are rid of her the better. She even made the ludicrous claim that the Polish system is not aimed at thwarting Moscow's influence in Eastern Europe. The only "accomplishment" of this move will be to make Poland a prime target for the Russian military.
Compounding the many other foreign policy failures of George W. Bush is the United States' current state of brain-dead bluff and bluster against Russia. When John McCain talks about Russia he sounds like he thinks the Berlin Air Lift happened last Tuesday. He appears to be more stuck in the dangerous, outmoded Cold War paradigm than anyone else in the Establishment. And we might elect this guy president.
But McCain is not alone. There is a "consensus" emerging among American foreign policy elites, which posits that everything Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili and his government have done in South Ossetia and Abkhazia is nearly divine in its perfection and everything the Russians have done in response is close to unalloyed evil. Everyone I've read lately, from Samantha Power and Zbigniew Brzezinski to Strobe Talbott and Thomas Pickering have willfully chosen to ignore the American invasion and occupation of Iraq and what that has done to America's ability to exercise its so-called soft power to counter Russian behavior. This kind of Manichean thinking brought us bloodbath after bloodbath in the 20th century. The Cold War was always cast in the light of "good" versus "evil" with disastrous results in Vietnam, Central America, Indonesia, and the Middle East.
Gorbachev also points out that the news coverage of recent events "has been far from fair and balanced, especially during the first days of the crisis." The bloody assault by Georgian forces on the South Ossetian city of Tskhinvali beginning on August 7th went all but unnoticed by the corporate media. The "planners of this campaign," Gorbachev writes, "clearly wanted to make sure that, whatever the outcome, Russia would be blamed for worsening the situation. The West then mounted a propaganda attack against Russia, with the American news media leading the way."
Mikhail Gorbachev was formerly the Rightwing's favorite Russian because he presided over the final dissolution of the hated Soviet state. Now we are sure to hear full-throated denunciations of Gorbachev for being naive or worse. It's amazing how uniform American elite opinion and media commentary have become regarding the recent Russian incursion into South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The Iraq war is all but forgotten; airbrushed out of our recent history. Part of "diplomacy" is supposed to include the attempt to see the world through the eyes of others, especially one's adversaries. The neo-cons running Bush's foreign policy apparatus, especially Condi Rice, have never made any attempt to do that with Russia.
Back in 1967, the great Cornell historian Walter LaFeber published, America, Russia and the Cold War, and he has updated the book with new editions ever since. It has become part of the canon in college courses on 20th century foreign policy. But when the book first came out right-wingers of all stripes were incensed that LaFeber acknowledged Russia's perspective of the world and did not gloss over American actions that contributed to creating the Cold War. The conservatives denounced him as a "revisionist," which always gets a laugh from professional historians because it is a meaningless label since we are constantly "revising" our historiography. But hearing the recent commentary among foreign policy elites and the corporate media tells me that we have learned nothing from the history of the Cold War (other than Ronald Reagan single-handedly "won" it for the USA). People should read LaFeber's book before pontificating about "isolating" Russia.
Also, we should keep in mind that we would need a military draft in this country, and soon, if we were to act on any of these aggressive postures we've been hearing from foreign policy elites lately.
Toward Russia and many other countries U.S. policy has been little more than ham-handed attempts at bullying and intimidation. It's depressing to find "liberal" foreign policy gurus like Power, Brzezinski, and Talbott on the same page as neo-conservative crazies like Dick Cheney, William Kristol, and John Bolton. The mindset of these "experts" is stuck in the outmoded Cold War paradigm. They seem to have learned nothing from the two world wars that destroyed most of Europe in the 20th century, or the Cold War itself, which nearly bankrupted the United States and wired up the world for Armageddon with nuclear missiles. They also fail to see how the United States' invasion and occupation of Iraq has profoundly shifted the international dynamic. The United States has killed far more innocent people in Iraq than Russia has killed in Georgia.
But foreign policy "experts" from both Democratic and Republican administrations are expending a lot of energy right now denouncing the Russians. They claim that the missile defense systems in Eastern Europe are necessary to counter Iran's non-existent missiles; they say that nations have a right to join any multilateral organization they wish (like NATO); and they claim that borders must be respected and military action should not be employed to secure geopolitical objectives. Their battle cries might even influence the outcome of the November elections.
George W. Bush recently said: "Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century." It would have been nice if he had sincerely recognized this truth about eight years ago. The human costs of the First and Second World Wars show that "bullying and intimidation" didn't work out so well in the 20th century either. We fought on the same side as the Russians in the two biggest wars of the last century. Did the fog of the Cold War erase this fact from our collective memory? Russia is not our enemy. And a shooting war with the Russians is unthinkable. So let's take a deep breath and not allow the Republicans to use this latest increase in East-West hostilities to their domestic political advantage like they did for decades during the Cold War.
Landing on aircraft carriers wearing a flight suit and declaring "Mission Accomplished" doesn't send out a warm and fuzzy message to the world. And what is "Shock and Awe" but bullying and intimidation? Beginning in September 2002, the "Bush Doctrine" reserves for the United States the right to attack any nation in the world as part of the "War on Terror." We must not overlook the international ramifications of the U.S. invasion and ongoing occupation of Iraq. It undermines everything the U.S. government has said about Russia's much smaller scale military action in its border state of Georgia. The United States no longer has the credibility in the eyes of the world to play its former leadership role. This state of impotence could be Bush's most lasting "legacy."
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
See Joseph A. Palermo's Profile
GrainOSand, thanks for the link to the Counterpunch piece and the Ellison quote. If McCain is elected as Commader in Chief he's going to want to use this huge military somewhere, someplace -- I can't picture him sitting it out for 4 years -- we'll see. I might have added that Russia should also be an ally of the United States in the long-term rivalry with China -- but these old Soviet haters can't get over it.
Mr. Palermo,
Thank you for all that you do to bring the truth to bear. As for this "situation”, I say my view is simplistic and child like. I long for a world where nations throw their weapons of mass and individual destruction away and they all join at the table of unity to concentrate on the afflictions that threaten us all (disease, poverty, hunger, ecological issues, etc..). This view is idealistic, unrealistic, and again, simplistic. I will never abandon it though, for it is the correct view. The experts weigh in and talk about the history of the conflict, and the options available to the players. I find such discussions boring because they miss the crucial analysis which is we cannot afford to hate, to have conflict, because science and technology have risen to a level where we can destroy the entire world in far less time than it took to create it. I have seen too much suffering to ever side with any position of war over peace. Evil exists in the world and I know nations need to have strong militaries to defend against such evil. Again, in my childlike mind I continue to dream of a day where we have evil contained to the degree that military budgets of nations are drastically reduced. Some would say I am a weak in holding this position. I would not demur. Water and air are weak. Never forget, New Orleans was forever changed by water and wind.
Awesome article!
I knew the missile defense system was trouble, but I didn't make the connection with the Georgia conflict cuz I'm not that well educated. And I like Z.Brezinsk
One thing I have learned, is that you can trust George Bush just like you can trust Mr. Opposite.
Thanks!
Joseph, those foreign policy wingnuts on telly did not fool me...For me this is exactly how Iraq began..bas
well whaddaya know?
another know it all pommie condescending americans
surprise surprise
didn't england go hand in hand with the us into iraq?
Tony Blair's government went into Iraq with Bush. The British people were overwhelmingly opposed to Blair's adventure.
Good to have another perspective on this issue.
"It's depressing to find "liberal" foreign policy gurus like Power, Brzezinski, and Talbott on the same page as neo-conservative crazies like Dick Cheney, William Kristol, and John Bolton. "
Very true. One problem with a government of Old Men ( I am 61) is that they do not take into account that the policies they make will left for the next generations to deal with. The Cold War was avoidable and so is this one. I went to college in 1973 and the LeFeber book shaped my world view.
All Foreign Policy needs to have an awareness of National Security interests of all parties at its core,
It is a new world and old policy models need to be revised to account for the new realities. The largest of those realities is that the US is not a single Superpower and never really was. We are at best just one among several Powers. If the US contines the path they are on they will not even be one of several.
The idea of the US putting new missles in Poland, or anywhere else in Europe is a very bad idea.
It is getting difficult to know who to trust. I am providing this link for the second time today because it coincides with your comment.
http://www
These chess players know they are playing with real lives, but their arrogance makes them think that they "know" what is best. Unfortunately we may all come to know, they did not know Jack Sh*t!
The fog on this conflict is so thick it is hard to discern what the truth is. Is Russia guilty, is Georgia, is America, all three? I have no idea. If ICBs launch, we may all get an idea of just how stupid humans can be in playing their idiotic games of chess with real human life.
ICBM's
After all, one great article!
This is a very good article, well said.
People who choose to open their eyes and see things/issues from other perspectives are often more inclined to offer "positive criticism". By this, I mean criticism that seeks to enlighten by employing fair and balanced critical analyses as opposed to "negative criticism", which seeks to spread propaganda by feeding on narrow-mindedness, stupidity, ignorance and hatred.
The U.S.A's sole goal after the they "won" the cold war was to consolidate and expand their power. History shows this and, unfortunately, these recent developments may prove to show that the cold war never really ended...it
Poor Georgia...
Neocon foreign policy is, of course, based in large part upon the goal of controlling the Middle East in order to maintain a hold on the world's oil supply, in an attempt to clip the wings of China and India, whose eventual world dominance will of course threaten the post-Cold War "New World Order" of America being the world's only superpower. The planned expansion of NATO into Georgia is perhaps indicative of this desire to control or at least trade military aid and protection for expanded proxy control of the world's oil supply. Russia obviously views this as a challenge to their own influence in the region. They have been very uneasy about Saakavhili and his cosy ties to the West and Putin has been spoiling for a fight.
I don't feel warm and fuzzy about the current administration handling this situation with panache; nor do I feel confortable about the hot-headed cold-warrior McCain taking over the reins. Regardless of who takes over, this is a serious mess we are in, especially since we had already wrecklessly stirred up the whole beehive in the Middle East. Whereas before Iraq served as a bulwark to Iran, albeit a relatively moderate Iran, now we have a hostile Iran and a hostile Russia, and an unstable Iraq. Furthermore, things have deteriorated in Afghanistan (regardless of how "swimmingly" Anne Coulter thinks things are there) with the resurgence of the Taliban and our military is stretched beyond the limit.
John McCain close to Barack Obama in the polls
Russia riled due to American hypocrisy and misguided doctrines of hegemony.
Musharaf no longer in power
Iraq rages on
Afghanistan heating up
Iran ominously silent
Venezuela
Cuba
Immigration
Troubled economy
Divided nation
A growing permanent under class
A shrinking and threatened middle class
An insulated an indifferent privileged class
It is a delicious convergence of comeuppance that may be about to happen to a nation guilty on many counts and missing where it counts. I will vote for Obama but I am not emotionally invested in whether he wins. America wants experience and so they shall have it. Bush is experienced. Cheney is experienced. Rumsfeld is experienced. Mukasey is experienced. Abramoff is experienced. They are all experienced at taking this nation to the gates of hell where John tells us we might find Bin Laden.
You cannot be worried or troubled. You cannot allow fear to rob you of the humor in all of this -- or the inherent, and implied justice. Hold on tight, it may get ugly and deadly. Part of me hopes McCain does win, for it will serve idiots who vote him right, when there children are sent off to die, when there is no food to eat, when father’s are unable to stop the tears of mothers who cry. This is not to say that Obama is the answer, this is more to say McCain is surely a prescription for a great and deserved spanking.
True.
This is the twilight of the Bush administration. Everything must go!
Hopefully, the Obama adminstration will roll back this sort of folly.
Sure, we will have paid a few billion in borrowed chinese funds
to Big Missiles/Defense, but that's all good as far as the economy
is concerned. Otherwise, it's obviously a fairly stupid idea to
implement such weapons systems, but what else would you expect?
On the other hand, there's nothing intrinsically 'wrong' with defensive
weapons systems, other than that they cost big bucks and make 'the
enemy' feel somehow 'inoffensive'. It would be utterly foolish of Russia
to build up its offensive weapons in response, since that will cost big
bucks (rubles?) & be a waste also, when we obviously mean no harm.
Maybe when we do back down, some time in the next year or so, we can
trade our anti-missile facilities for some more loans/investment. What
say you, Mr Putin?
See Joseph A. Palermo's Profile
I suppose I should call Brzezinski a "Democrat" since he served as Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser, and I hear he endorsed Obama. He and Power have short articles in the current issue of Time magazine -- both choose to ignore the Iraq War completely.
Excellent perspective.
PS: Reagan didn't "tear down that wall", Gorbachev listened to the people and stood aside and let history take its course.
He is one of the unsung heroes of the 20th Century.
Hear, hear!
I remember reading Mr. Gorbachev's book at the time, I thought it was a real eye-opener. All this noise about Reagan "defeating" the Soviet Union and trying to take credit for the wall coming down is just bizarre. He did nothing of the kind.
Mr. Gorbachev, thanks for raising your voice about the lunacy of this administration's policies, and the real danger of a McCain presidency.
Iran has a burning urge to drop its non-existent missiles on Poland.
Sure.
Lately, many newspapers describe Condi Rice as a pragmatist. I always considered her an ideologue and a hawk, although maybe not as ideological as many around Bush. Her unbending ideology steered her to trump up the case about Iraq's weapons capabilities, including making make believe threats about "mushroom clouds."
The conflict in South Ossetia is very complicated. It seems the Russians want to undermine the Georgian government, but the Georgian leader seemed to provoke a Russian response by several of his actions. He may have misunderstood the intentions of the U.S., that we would support him militariliy in any dispute with Russia.
Bush has never respected Russia, but given them a series of our intentions to accept, like the anti-ballistic missiles in their backyard. Russia should never have been treated like some third world country we could just roll over. Russia should have been respected and negotiated with.
The fact that Bush scolds Russia that foreign policy should not be based on "bullying and intimidation" is typical of his lack of self-awareness. The fact they our administration does not take our Iraqi invasion into account is typical of the conservative's idea of American exceptionalism that anything America does is done for noble purposes and is not necessarily an action that other countries can take. Karen Hughes, Rice, and Bush has always thought that people in other cultures want to be "little Americans" and they set out to remake the world in our image and failed.
Great article wonder how many people will read it and recognise the truth in your analysis.
The world can ill-afford to isolate Russia and not expect Russia to react. The neo-conservatives continue to act in such a manner that will destabilize the world. Russia feels threaten at this moment and regardless of the type of political system it has it will retaliate to protect what it considers it's interests.
If the shoe was on the other foot similarlly the U.S would react remember Grenada.
However the truth of the matter is that the invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation has weaken the U.S moral position and authority and make no bones about it, the threat issued by Russia because of the signing of the Missile Defense Treaty by Poland is not to be taken as bluster.
Unfortunately, all too few will read this great article... and fewer still will see its truths.
Those who do not, are like a 4 year old to their mommy... Mommy (the U.S.) can do no wrong in the 4 year olds eyes.
Mommy would NEVER lie.
Mommy would NEVER cheat.
Mommy would NEVER consider such things.
Four year olds are as naive as those who think the US had no part in provoking Russia's attack. They believe ALL of Mommy's bold faced lies. They think everything Mommy touches turns to golden flowers that ever bloom.
Four year olds think Mommy is always right and will always protect them and do right by them.
It's only those of us who have come to learn that Mommy can and will do some very, very nasty things, who can see the truth in this article.
I hope those 4 year old mentalities grow up soon, or Mommy is going to get her comeuppance, and they will wrongly fault everyone else BUT Mommy, for it.
They can tell the lie so well that it becomes the truth.
--From Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison
Many have grown up sucking on the pacifier of America can do no wrong.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
