Iraq, Not Georgia, Is What Doomed U.S.-Russia Relations

Ok, so the Bush administration has botched its relations with Russia and its former satellites. No big news flash there. But let's not forget why: the war in Iraq.

Let me explain. I'm not buying the Obama line that Iraq has distracted us from our other foreign policy commitments. Nobody would say that South Ossetia is a strategic priority -- I don't care how much oil gurgles beneath its mountains.

Nor did Iraq anger Moscow that much (although it showed the hypocrisy of our lecturing them about invading sovereign states).

No, the trouble is that Iraq has made Washington indebted to many countries that supplied troops and other support there -- namely Poland and Georgia.

Let's call a spade a spade. The quid pro quo for these states was simple: We'll supply you will some soldiers -- and the veneer of a "coalition of the willing"--while you supply us with goodies like a missile shield, NATO membership, backing for "revolutions" named after flowers and colors, etc. Heck, even Mongolia gave our former defense secretary a horse to sweeten the offer.

The problem is all of the goodies above are directed at one (and only one) country: Russia. The idea that the missile shield is aimed at Iran is nonsense (The Ayatollah is not exactly handing out fatwa's against Czechs and Poles). It's simply a trump card-like security blanket that the Poles, tired of being invaded by its neighbors for centuries, can wrap themselves in when Russia does what Russia does best: bully its neighbors.

Moreover, the idea that NATO is not aimed at Russia is equally ludicrous. Do you think that Ukraine and Georgia are clamoring to join so they can dispatch troops to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan? No. They want one thing: the collective security guarantee of Article 5. Once they are under the NATO umbrella, they will take delight in flipping their middle finger at Moscow, all the while smirking. Angela Merkel and others were right to deny Tbilisi and Kiev their wish to join the alliance (though her remark about blocking aspirants with territorial and separatist disputes does not hold water -- Turkey, a NATO member, still has disputes over Cyprus). After all, NATO should be a defense organization, not a protector against Russian aggrandizement.

I do not believe a missile shield in Central Europe should be our top priority, not with NATO soldiers getting killed by the dozens in Afghanistan and the Caucasus waiting to explode. Poles, up until recently, were not even really for the shield in the first place (Russia's invasion of Georgia helped change their minds). A better strategy would have been to grant more Polish companies reconstruction bids in Iraq or to loosen visa requirements for Poles seeking to travel to the United States.

On our policy with Georgia, there was nothing wrong with training their military and making sure oil pipelines there run horizontal and not vertical (to skirt Russia and Iran). But handing Tbilisi a blank check to invade its own disputed territory -- while holding out the halfhearted promise of NATO membership -- is dumb policy.

I fear that the war in Iraq has cornered Washington: we owe too many favors to too many of our allies (NATO membership for Mongolia anyone?) without fully thinking out what these favors mean for our relations vis-à-vis others (read: Russia).

This is not to say that Russia and Georgia would not have gone at each others' throats regardless of what we did or say -- they well might have. But our friendship with Ukraine, Poland and Georgia should not come at the expense of our friendship (or at least, working relationship) with Russia.

Comments

[Pat15]

"The disaster in Georgia was the result of an over-inflated ego on the part of the Georgian president, and his grievous miscalculation"...Correctly pointed ...The georgian President learned the wrong lesson from Bush ...Solve any problem with military action ..just look at Iraq ..The biggest blunder any leader could have made and how terribly it hurt US at home and abroad...
A wise leader would not have done what georgian President did ... He suffered the same fate what the Decider suffered. He lost part of his country, his military broken and his people suffered terribly. He should have recognized that Bush has no standing in the world any more and Bush word has zero credibility. He must have been a big fool to follow Bush ...I guess he believed in shock & awe just like the Bush and got his head handed to him...
May be other leaders would learn from it & try to resolve problems thru dialogue ...Amen

[UltraClassic]

Interesting take, so senseable. You have a perspective on this Lionel.

[MagisterLudi]

The article is well informed on most points. However, the contention that Iraq is the main reason Russia turned inward is largely erroneous. Yes, it is one of the reasons. In fact in the beginning of Putin administration he even proposed that Russian could join NATO. The West largely ignored that proposal. What an opportunity lost!!
But I think then Russian government made a sober and correct assessment that the policy of American and some Western European governments towards Russia is one of containment and gradual military isolation which actually puts Russians at grave security risk.
Hence arming and financing of virulently Anti-Russian regimes through out Eastern Europe. I submit that Kosovo and missile stations on its borders was the final straw that turned Russia towards more muscular response to above mentioned series of Western political, economic and military policies toward Russia.

[checkmoot]

Everyone forgets Serbia. When we bombed Belgrade and invaded Serbia to create an independent nation from the Serbian state of Kosovo, that was the end of any chance of U.S. Russian accord. We may have forgotten, but the Russians remember, that the Serbs were our crucial allies in WW-ll. The U.S. had no business using our military in the Caucasus.

[Fein]

The 'missile shield' will negate any Russian response to a nuclear first strike.

They'd loose their ability to retaliate effectively, which is the whole game.

There's absolutely no way Russia will allow it to be completed, (nor would we) if they can help it. And it seems to me, they can.

[Doofus]

Can't argue your points much, but it does seem that if
Osettia, Georgia, Ukraine, Estonia, Finland, Poland did
anything wrong, it was to be situated too near Russia.

Sort of like US and Cuba, Haiti, El Salvador, Panama, et al.

Oddly, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with *defensive*
weapons, as long as they're effective, inexpensive, and
can't be circumvented by MORE offensive weapons.

[OneTop]

Russian-US relations deteriorated long before the illegal invasion and military occupation of Iraq.
It started with Clinton and carried on with the current Administration. George H.W. Bush made agreement(s) with the USSR (former) not to expand NATO into what was once the USSR and both Clinton and the current Bush have openly ignored that / those agreements.
Perhaps assuming that a broke Russia no longer mattered in the scheme of things.
Russia is no longer broke and one can only imagine their disdain at having the U.S. set up client states such as Georgia on their doorstep.
The Administration in Washington had to have given the okay for the Invasion by Georgia"s president, Mikheil Saakashvili (U.S. educated and backed) of South Ossetia. Figuring that while the Olympics was in full swing no one would notice, especially the Russians.
His Georgian army is/was trained, equipped and funded by the U.S. with some help from the Israelis.
The only thing that went wrong was that Russia did notice and very quickly reacted.
Almost immediately the hypocrisy and rhetoric started and Rice rushed off to sign up Poland for the Missile Defence club, just to kick some more dirt in the face of Russia.

How foolish and dangerous this type of action by the U.S. and the new and wannabe NATO countries remains to be seen.

The current state of US/Russian relations happened the old fashioned way ..... it was earned.

[earthandfire]

(this is the second part)
This must be changed to "freedom that ensures others' freedom." Neocon's imposed freedom has been former (at least severely confused with former). This really is a moral issue in a world scale. In my view Obama presidency will be historic is not because he is black, but it can be a great transitional administration from the former definition of freedom to the latter.

[earthandfire]

I have frustration because of lack of vocabularies that can convince you (beside of my English itself). But I have to say something here. In other post someone indicated America's lost moral authority status as a core problem here to persuade just any countries to join the effort to solve this Georgia-Russia crisis.
My preferred word is "moral base" since "moral authority" sounds putting the nation above others. But anyway this is the key and is lacking in this discussion.
Someone says about enlightenment of democracy and freedom, which the US still the leader with no doubt. My doubt is not about how other countries' reality is in terms of competition, which the US still be the best. (Current administration is not good obviously, but still it can be changed and it will likely happen very soon.) My doubt is coming solely from the reality of the world today that necessity of redefinition of the freedom itself is imminent. This is not about competition, but NECESSITY of change. Not just for America, but it has to happen in global scale. The freedom we are taking for granted today is "freedom that doesn't need to care about other's freedom" (freedom-that-money-can-buy kind of freedom) . (continue to below)

[long333]

"The idea that the missile shield is aimed at Iran is nonsense"

The idea that the missle defense could contain Russia is the author's fallacy. I guess though if the Russians say they are threatened by it and you have extreme paranoia about the US then you just don't look at the facts of trying to intercept a shower of missles from Russia and treat it like the Iraqi SCUDs which we were able to contain. Are you going to count on getting the missle defense deal in place the day they can reach Europe or the US? Little late to be a deterrant.

[JessWonderin]

What a fallacy of thought . . . you assume that Iran would take unilateral suicide missile attack on the most powerful concentration of economic and military might . . . . yea right, a country that for hundreds of years has NOT invaded ANY country would suddenly launch a dozen missiles at Europe expecting to achieve such a decisive victory that would collapse all response and resistance. I do call BULLSHIT!

Would not the smarter effort been made to further work WITH Russia to continue the JOINT defense system. To wit: "Vladimir Putin said their two countries could use a radar system in Azerbaijan to develop a shield covering all of Europe, during talks at the G8 summit. " BBC News 7 June 2007 . . hmmm, working WITH Russia????

But re-starting the COLD WAR helps ease the contactors profits to a NEW level with a longer potential return . . . . and the sheeple bleated "save us from the bear" give up more wool.

[OmnesOmnibus]

First the expansion of Nato and then the Shield. That's what lost Russia.

[BottomLine2008]

No, it was NATO expansion that did it.

[scooperss]

Poles, up until recently, were not even really for the shield in the first place (Russia's invasion of Georgia helped change their minds).

[mlaiuppa]

You forgot one key point.

Our war in Iraq makes us ideologically impotent against Russia's invasion of Georgia. As they pointed out, who are we to call the kettle black?

[Daly]

chicken hawks

[Garvagh]

Turkey was a member of NATO when Cyprus was still a colony of Great Britain. The Cyprus problem
(Turkish support for North Cyprus, a "country" recognized only by Turkey) arose long afterwards, and it is a significant problem related to any Turkish accession to the EU.

Georgia can serve as a host for any number of oil and gas pipelines from Azerbaijan and other Caspian Basin countries, without objection from Russia. The disaster in Georgia was the result of an over-inflated ego on the part of the Georgian president, and his grievous miscalculation that a surprise attack on Russian soldiers in South Ossetia would not result in a very stern rebuke.