Obama, McCain and Russia's War on Georgia

While I have lived, worked and frequently visited Georgia since 2002 and have written extensively on Georgian politics, I am not going to address the specifics of the conflict here. Instead, it might be useful to explore some of the questions which the conflict between Georgia and Russia raises for domestic politics in the US. The conflict has, appropriately, led to debate online and elsewhere about the limits, impact and attitudes of American power foreign policy. It has also, again not unsurprisingly, become an issue in the presidential race as Senator McCain has responded with blustery statements stressing Russian aggression and the need to defend Georgia, while Senator Obama has emphasized these points, but also stressed the need for partnership with Europe on this issue.

McCain has attacked Obama for being soft on the Russians and being "bizarrely in synch with Moscow". Red baiting like that is almost quaint, but unfortunately McCain was being serious. The contrast between McCain's bellicosity and Obama's more measured tones is more significant than their view of the war itself. They both seem to agree that Russia is the aggressor here and that the US should support Georgia in whatever way it reasonably can. However, McCain's approach has emphasized the need for the US to be tough with little regard for the need to build alliances and think through the broader issues.

Among the punditry and on the blogosphere, discussions seem to have moved in two directions. On the one hand we have seen combative rhetoric about Russian imperialism, a new Cold War, Russia's irrationality, the need to respond aggressively and Russia's inability to understand anything but force. Others have argued that Russia is doing nothing different than what we have done around the world, Georgia is an American puppet, and this a result of our foreign policy in Iraq, Kosovo and elsewhere over the last decades. While there are elements of truth in both those positions, they are both extreme and will not lead to meaningful solutions or progress in the region. The latter position is clearly a fringe one that is barely even relevant to the events in Georgia, but it shows that the impact of the disastrous US foreign policy of the last eight years has direct bearing on the difficulty that the US now faces in trying to craft an effective policy towards Russia and Georgia regarding this conflict and beyond.

An appropriately nuanced view of the US role and possible options regarding the events unfolding in Georgia now require all Americans regardless of partisan affiliation, view of the Bush administration or preference in the upcoming presidential campaign to simultaneously hold at least the following six ideas in their heads.

1. The US has dramatically overstated the strength of Georgian democracy and the
democratic credentials of Saakashvili personally helping Georgia evolve, in the eyes of many, into a virtual client state of the US.

2. Because of our invasion of Iraq and other unilateralist actions we have lost any moral high ground on this type of an issue. Statements by people like Dick Cheney or George W. Bush that this is "unacceptable" or John McCain commenting that "in the 21st century nations do not invade nations" not only underscore this but demonstrate the extent to which the current leadership of the US is unaware of the damage we have done to ourselves over the last five years.

3. Saakashvili can be aggressive, arrogant and stubborn, but with regards to human rights he is not comparable to Milosevic as suggested by Russia. For this reason the Kosovo example is a very tenuous precedent on which to rest the Russian position. The Russian charges of ethnic cleansing by Georgians in South Ossetia have not been substantiated by human rights groups and are tremendously exaggerated. Russian claims of self-defense should be tempered by the recognition that no Georgian soldier or airplane has crossed an international border, shot a gun on Russian soil, or flown into Russian airspace.

4. Russia is capable of doing bad things. For many in Eastern Europe, this is evident, but for some in the US, our extreme, if understandable, focus on our foreign policy mistakes has obscured this important truth.

5. If Russia believes it has achieved its goals in Georgia without facing any consequences, it will likely continue to assert its new power over various neighbors. An emboldened Russia is not just a threat to some abstract and misguided sense of American superiority and dominance, but it is viewed as a great danger by millions throughout Eastern Europe. If Russia is not held accountable for these actions, their influence will almost automatically increase in the Baltic States, Ukraine, Poland and elsewhere. These countries will be less free and independent as a result of this.

6. South Ossetians and Georgians are both suffering because of this war. There are thousands of Ossetian refugees fleeing northward and thousands of Georgian fleeing Russian troops going to the capital and other safer parts of Georgia. Efforts to provide humanitarian assistance to all the victims of this war are essential.

Our policy towards Georgia has to reflect an understanding of all of this as well. While this may, in fact, be a key moment where it would be detrimental to the US and the world to let Russian aggression go unchecked, what that response looks like and who responds are extremely important questions.

While the fighting may well end soon, the fallout from this conflict will not go away. The questions of administering the contested regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, guaranteeing Georgian sovereignty, confronting Russia, and the broader role for the US and Europe in the region will be only some of the questions which this war will force the next president to face. The US can best stand up for our allies and against Russian aggression if we are able to build an consensus with our European allies, because without European support, threats to push Russia out of the G8, bar their entrance into the WTO, boycott the Olympics in Sochi, will be seen by the Russians as just talk.

Russia hawks, and friends of Georgia, would be wise to consider this when making a choice in November. We can be comforted by McCain's words which Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili described as "cheering", or we can reach our goals through Obama's more serious and pragmatic, but equally tough, approach.

Comments

[Beamreach]

"We're all Georgians now? Whadya mean we, paleface"

[randyjet]

Since we have some folks who think that it is the business of NATO to back up the neighbors of Russia no matter what. I would suggest that rather than believing in pipedreams that NATO has enough military power, that these people should at least advocate a rational course which is to restore the US Army and those of Western Europe to that of the Cold War era. This will mean that the military DRAFT in the US will have to come back, military spending will have to nearly double, and taxes will have to go up to at least make partial payment on the massive debt that we will accrue.

Also it would be nice if such people would also volunteer to join the military as I did during Vietnam. Even better would be that those who are outraged so much, that they be the FIRST to sign up, either themselves or their kids. Let them bear the fight they are so eager to make others fight.

[serena1313]

As I understand it NATO does not get involved in territorial disputes.

[IneptitudePrideB4Fall]

As I understand it, NATO stands for NORTH ATLANTIC T.O.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[retarius]

Randy,

Great point....how would McCain's bluster be received if he had to tell the American public that the draft was coming back?

[luvienne]

If Mccain is doing so great on this, why isn't he advising Bush? Bush is the president. He's making the decisions, not Obama. What is he doing? Is what Bush is saying or doing meet with Mccains approval? Mccain's and his staffs complicity should be investigated. As usually whatever he says the media eats it up.

[Michale32086]

@RandyJet

}}}}}}}}}}
Please tell us what risk to NATO since ALL of eastern Europe was under total control of the Soviets since 1948-1991? NATO did just fine in that time.
}}}}}}}}}

Yer kidding, right???

During those times, there weren't dozens of pipelines traveling thru the satellite states of the Soviet Union feeding oil and natural gas to Europe...

}}}}}}}}}}}
It was the US which was the aggressor during that time as well. Remember Patton demanding to keep on going into Russia to cite one example?
}}}}}}}}}}}

Let me get this straight?? The US was the "aggressor" in WWII???

}}}}}}}}}
NATO was formed to attack the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact came later in response.
}}}}}}}}}

I can see the ANTI-US sentiment that is coloring your view of history. NATO was formed to DEFEND against the USSR, not to attack it...

}}}}}}}}}}}}}
Also it is a lie at this point that Russia controls Georgia. Why not try telling the facts instead of empty rhetoric.
}}}}}}}}}}}}

Russia controls many more parts of Georgia than Georgia controls.. In violation of their own truce agreement, I might add..

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

I stand corrected....

Russia controls a third of Georgia....

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080814/D92IAAJ84.html

Still in violation of the truce and cease fire that Russia agreed to....

Michale.....

[sloLes]

You've dominated this discussion, but you sound like a Georgian apologist/ And you remind me of the many Slavic Americans who were all justifying their relatives ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia.

The simple reality is that wherever different ethnic and racial or religious groups are intermixed, some will be minorities and there will be problems without the extraordinary efforts of all. And redrawing boundaries just turns one group into a new minority and another into a new majority. It changes the problem, but without solving anything.

All involved are partially to blame. And no one goes out looking good.

Bushco has once again proven to be totally impotent. No one knew anything in advance, and no one will be blamed. And no one will learn anything from their experience.

The Georgians were fools to rely upon the US. They should have taken Russia more seriously and negotiated with more intent to settle peacefully.

Putin is the most likely to gain from all this. He has proven to be potent and well-aimed. After the fighting stops and the dust settles, he's likely to negotiate for a real compromise and real the credit for being generous in a winning position.

Former Soviet satellites would do well to re-think their interest in a missile shield. They'd do a lot better by developing better relations with the bear. Hostility in Eastern Europe needs the calming effect of less weaponry, not new missiles.

[randyjet]

The world stood by and did nothing about US aggression in FAR more cases in Latin America, Kosovo, Iraq, Vietnam, Lebanon, etc.. The world is still here and functioning. The FACT is that by doing nothing, it will force the countries to do some rational thinking about what they do to their BIG neighbor. That is NOT bad. It is down right stupid to think that we have either the right or the need to dictate to Russia what it may or may not do for its own security, especially along ITS OWN BORDERS! It is an invitation to disaster if Russia's neighbors feel as they do now, that they can do anything and the US will back them up.

Does Russia have the right to demand or threaten to attack the US when the US sponsors a coup in Venezuela? How about when the US attacks Panama, Haiti, Nicaragua, and all the other places the US has attacked? The Russians have not demanded regime change, but they do want their legitimate interests in citizens that they have there to be respected. Most can recall that the US always used the threat to American citizens to justify US attacks. I can hardly see why the Russians are worse especially since those Russians were living in their own homes and were not visitors or recent immigrants, or even Students as in the case of Grenada.

[wornsmooth]

RandyJet,
While it appears as though the situation in Georgia is more complicated than a "4 legs good, 2 legs bad" type of outlook, I come from a family with a long history of being affected by Russian imperialism. The author of this blog is quite correct in stating that Russia is capable of "bad things". It reminds me of what I was told when Russia threw off it's totalitarian Party in 91 and allowed democratic elections. "When you shave the stripes off a tiger, they still remain on it's skin, no matter what cloak you cover him in".
Comparing America's recent(and overall short) history with that of Russia's is,well, not comparable.

[politicswithagrin]

McCain's anti-Russia rhetoric has been going on for quite some time. He specific response to the current crisis, however -- in terms of what he is actually advocating -- is not in opposition to Obama.

[Michale32086]

Yep..

That is why I simply cannot understand why we have such exuberant cheerleaders for Russia here.

The ONLY explanation that makes sense is that they have an Anti-Bush and/or Anti-USA agenda...

Because, practically everyone in the government is on the same page with regards to condemning Russia for their gross violation of international law...

Michale......

[mnkors]

Russia has the UN mandate for peacekeeping in the South Ossetia.
The joint Georgian-American military exercised had been held three just weeks before the conflict.
On July 17, Russia had presented a draft resolution to the UN Security Council calling for a deal on the non-use of force in South Ossetia on Abkhazia. The UK and USA blocked the resolution.
On August 8, on the eve of the Olympian Games, Georgia bombarded capital of S. Ossetia, killing more than 1000 people (some sources say 2000), including a dozen of Russian (UN) peacekeepers
From S. Ossetia, thousands of refugees fled to Russia.
Georgia – a staunch supporter of Bush administration – is invoking 2000 troops from Iraq to re-inforce Georgian army

[Michale32086]

}}}}}}}}}}
Russia has the UN mandate for peacekeeping in the South Ossetia.
{{{{{{{{{

You are quite incorrect...

There is only a "CIS Mandate" for South Ossetia, known as The Moscow Treaty, which Georgia has wihtdrawn from...
http://pda.moscowtimes.ru/article.php?aid=186936

There is no definitive UN Mandate that authorizes Russian Peacekeepers in South Ossetia.

Michale.....

Michale

[valleygent]

What it boils down to is that America is not the super power it once was, or even perceived that it was.
George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, and John McCain could not even shine Reagan's shoes, and they don't even deserve mention together with his name. The only truly powerful Republican Presidents in the last 50 years were Eisenhower and Reagan. Eisenhower was a brilliant military officer.
The only truly great President for the Democrats was FDR. Kennedy died before he could be proven. Clinton was weakened by congressional foes. Russian leaders know that we are not strong, the last 8 years has done nothing but weaken America, materially and psychologically. But, that is what happens when an apathetic public places an intellectual midget in the White House. One of the reasons Obama makes any sense to me, is that he has the potential to become something great as of yet...but he must make some dynamic moves to get to the White House, he may not be up to it. Greatness is melded, not granted. I watch and hope with a skeptical eye, because I believe in critical thought, not marching in lock step.

[naluca]

Obama was slow and weak, and - nearly unbelievably - stayed on vacation. It just looks horrible, and it was an opportunity. Obama's fine as long as there is no conflict, and there are severaql thousand people cheering for him. But if there is conflict or even disagreement, his lack of experience shows badly.

[lisakaz2]

He's not president and he got called presumptous, among other things, for his European trip. So, if he tried to interfere, the msm would be all over him. Gimme a break.

[oldwiseone]

I'm curious where Obama would go? What advantage would he gain by going anywhere, given the Internet and spilt second communcation with any part of the world. Besides, he is not the one in charge or responsible for anything right now. Indeed, if you left his vacation spot he would be accused of grandstanding.

[Michale32086]

I agree that Obama really didn't need to relocate on account of this....

My only beef is that his initial statement was too "koom-bye-ya" and I think did not reflect the seriousness of the situation.

To his credit, he did come back with the proper mindset, but he lost the point to McCain, because he (Obama) appeared to play catch-up...

Michale.....

[Patrick McCabe]

Bush was in China with his family. Obama was in another part of the United States with his family.

After the Olymypic trip Bush planned to go to Crawford, Texas for vacation. Obama did the same as Bush who followed the advice of the experts about the conflict as it was changing.

Obama did not use 'bullying' rhetoric to ratchet up the conflict, instead he used statesmanship. America has no other ammunition our military is in the "proverbial ditch". Tzar Putin knows it and will use it to Russia's advantage.

We have to use (logic) diplomacy not saber rattling.

[ManyColored]

Well, we (the United States) can't claim to be morally outraged or say that we will take the moral high ground on this issue. What have we done that is different from what Russia is doing now compared to what we have done for the last eight years? They may have a different agenda, but certainly not a different approach. And all we have done has been done with the blessing of the U.S. Administration, the congress, and the public at large. He who sows the wind reaps the whirlwind. This is just more chickens coming home to roost, and there's a lot more on the way.

[viper234]

Great points made here, but I'm wondering why the US has not faced any threats from Europe to kick the US out of the G8 or bar the US from the WTO for the US government's invasion of Iraq. After all, we all know that the government's war was unnecessary, had nothing to do with 9/11, and was urgently promoted to US citizens and to the UN based on false intelligence. European troops died in Iraq along with over 4,000 US soldiers, with thousands more seriously wounded. Additionally thousands of Iraqi civilians have died as a result of our brutal aggression.

And I don't want to hear anything about how we talked to our European allies and made our case to the UN. Conversely we lied to our European allies and made a false case for the use of force to the UN. So while the US and Europe are "putting Russia on notice," it would be very fitting for Europe to pull the US aside and "put the US on notice" as well.

[Michale32086]

As much as I am an enthusiastic Obama supporter, in all objectivity, this point goes to McCain..

McCain called it right initially, then Obama followed suit and finally Bush brought up the rear...

I would also take exception with your comparison of the Georgia/Russia issue with the UN/Iraq issue.

The ONLY thing these two issues have in common is that a sovereign nation was invaded... Besides that, these two issues are night and day...

Michale.....

[lisakaz2]

You are not an O supporter. Gimme a break. Anyone who's posted here for a while knows that.

[Michale32086]

Really??

And you know this... how???

I realize that you HAVE to say BS things like that... Because, otherwise your arguments have no meaning..

However, the fact is, I AM an enthusiastic Obama supporter... It's just that I am not a mindless party lemming who can't think for himself...

Unlike others....

Michale.....

[styleturn]

Kind of fun to watch a few folks that have consistently attacked Obama, Democrats and liberals in general pretend to be reluctant converts to McCain. I assume this is part of the stealth innertubes McCain point system.

Keep up the good work!

[RMS7777]

Obama's first act was to call for the UN to condemn the act. Great, except for the little fact that Russia is a permanent member of the security council. Good move, Barry.

You can call it "measured tones." Intelligent people should call it incompetence.

[arglebargle]

And there are four other permanent members, and two rotating ones. And their votes count too.

Your point was?

[rjmiller]

Sorry, their votes don't count. All members of the UN Security Council have veto power, so as long as Russia wants nothing to happen through the UN, then nothing will happen.

A possible course of action would be for the EU to bring about some sort of economic sanctions against Russia, although that would likely backfire due to the amount of oil that Russia supplies to Europe. Also, due to the current setup of the EU, any kind of sanction would probably take 10 years to go through, if ever.

[Michale32086]

The point was (I believe) is that anything thru the UN goes absolutely no-where because Russia has VETO power...

That is why McCain (rightly) called for things to be handled thru NATO..

Because NATO faces the biggest risk if Russia retains control of Georgia..

Michale.....