Russia is Still a Threat to America and to Europe

Honestly, who is scared of a terrorist?

You have more of a chance dying from a lightning strike than from a terrorist attack.

Terrorist organizations, by their very nature, are militarily weak organizations. The REAL threat has always been other nation-states, as evidenced by the recent war in South Ossetia.

A terrorist organization can do very little damage with the limited amount of technology, soldiers and weaponry that they can amass. The only real threat by terrorists exists from that organization having a state sponsor, such as Russia or Iran, giving them a nuclear weapon to use on their behalf.

Hiroshima killed 200,000...and that is a hell of a lot of people BUT...

World War II killed more than 60 MILLION people!

World War I killed more than 40 MILLION people!

Terrorism pales in comparison to war. The proverbial state vs. state all out war. Already more people are estimated to be dead in South Ossetia than in the 9/11 attacks.

What we have failed to realize and pay attention to is America's relative power compared to other nation-states. This is the reason international relations neorealists like Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer were against the Iraq War from the beginning.

The argument was a war in Iraq would weaken America's power relative to other nations, like Russia and China, and that we couldn't afford that to happen. Russia and China remained formidable threats to our status as the world's hegemon and if we attacked Iraq and occupied it, we would be weakening our alliances, ability to influence, overstretching our military and crushing our economy.

Were they right? I think so.

When the United States was at its most powerful, we could influence other state actors to make certain decisions. However, our relative power is determined by two things, the strength of our economy and the strength of our military. How weak is our economy? How stretched and broken is our military?

Could the United States militarily threaten to go into Georgia in order to stop Russian aggression? If China decided to take back Taiwan could we do anything short of a nuclear attack to stop them?

We need to make sure we are all looking at the big picture.

Maybe this stems from there being less than 100 World War I veterans alive today and about 3 million World War II veterans left to talk about the horrors of these wars.

60 MILLION people...can any of us honestly imagine that?

Terrorists aren't the true threat.

Nations are.

Let's never forget that.

Comments

[elmysterio]

Ah. You Americans amaze me with your arrogance! Who is the biggest threat to world peace right now? It's not Russia... it's not terrorists... it's the United States! You people need to get over yourselves. The world does not need you to play "global policeman". The world would be much better off without the United States.

[Garvagh]

Mikhail Gorbachev has an excellent opinion piece in the Washington Post for Aug. 12th. South Ossetia had autonomy within Georgia while Georgia was part of the USSR. On achieving independence, Georgia cancelled the agreement providing for self-rule by the province, and thereby set off civil war.

Russia supports stability in the Caucasus but is adamant that Georgia not join NATO. Mikheil Saakashvili should have continued to foster the excellent economic growth his reforms had caused,
and avoided provoking Russia. He had much more than half a loaf, and could have looked toward time and economic development as a means of lessening the disaffection of the South Ossetians.

[Michale32086]

Russia doesn't have the right to dictate to a sovereign country as to what organizations they can and cannot join..

It's simply amazing to me how allegedly freedom loving liberals who castigate Bush on a regular basis for real and imagined transgressions are being such great cheerleaders to one of the BIGGEST human rights violators in human history..

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

@don

}}}}}}}}}}}
Remind me, why did we go and kill all those people in Panama? After the civil war that broke out when the Soviet Union disolved, S. Osettia was no more a part of Georgia than the Canal Zone was part of the US at that time.
{{{{{{{{{{

You are quite incorrect...

South Ossetia is a part of Georgia and it was part of Georgia until 90s when separatists supported by Russia took over there. Russians started to give them Russian citizenship and so on...not one single state in the world recognize South Ossetia as an independent state so it means South Ossetia = Georgia as same as Abchazia = Georgia.

{originally posted by JR49}

Michale.....

[Household43]

Hmmm....Looks like History wants to repeat it self. (Phd. Historian) Going back to the Ottoman and Persian empire days seems like I had an epiphany on what is speculated to happen. Never let your guard down. PIPELINES ??? MONEY???? INVESTMENT?????= Russia is broke and calculating on how to provoke and confuse the world. Bush and Putin at the OLYMPICS....WOW.
Those idiots are up to know good. Greed is what is going to kill mankind....Wars are thought through and planned. Even Napolean who was greedy got jacked up in the end.

WHAT NEXT????

[rwt1138]

The argument that South Ossetia is part of Georgia until the 90's seems to gloss over the fact that Georgia was part of Russia for hundreds of years--also until the 90's. The fact of the matter is that Russia had troops--"p­eacekeeper­s"--statio­ned in South Ossetia and has been itching for an excuse to attack Georgia. Georgia attacked Russian troops, giving Russia an excuse. In the real world, that is called a stupid move by Georgia.

Now, you can make a pretty good case that Georgia was well within its rights, that it was operating within its own internationally recognized borders, and that's all really good in theory.

In practice, if you attack a country's troops, wherever they are, you'd better come large or not at all. And if you can't come larger than the other guy, you should probably hold off on attacking him.

This isn't about justifying Russia's actions, it's about a stupid blunder that allowed Russia to gain a significant upper hand in the region.

Saakashveli has been reduced to begging for outside assistance. The best he can hope for is a UN peacekeeping force, whose primary function will be to stand by and watch if Russia ever does this again.

Georgia misplayed its hand, and we probably just lost the entire region as a result.

[Michale32086]

As long as we are agreed that Russia is in the wrong here, I really don't have a problem with anything you have posted..

Yes, it was a bonehead move on Georgia's part.. But making a bonehead move doesn't justify Russia's invasion of Georgia...

The real test will come if Russia actually leaves the FEBA and stands down to pre-combat positions...

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

@joanndarc

}}}}}}}}}
Osetians are not ethnic Georgians.
}}}}}}}}}}

Doesn't matter....

South Ossetia is part of Georgia..

That renders the afore argument moot...

}}}}}}}}
Russia has never been a nationalistic state
}}}}}}}}

Yer kidding, right???

I find it a constant source of amazement that those who castigate the Bush Administration for alleged violations of liberties and freedoms would stand and become a cheerleader for the BIGGEST human rights violator in the history of the world...

Ya know what that says to me?? It says to me that people like that really don't care about liberty or freedom. It says that they simply care about their own egos and their own hatreds and bigotries..

I really pity people like that.

Michale....

[joanndarc]

Talking with idiots who don't know history and have never lived in the region is pointless. I suppose you are not aware of bbc.com and bought yor degree in Walmart.

American propaganda is the best propaganda in the World.

[Michale32086]

You mean history like when the Soviet Union invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968?? The USSR did it then for nearly the exact same reasons that Russia is doing now. Snuff out a fledging democracy and replace it with a dictatorship...

I get it. Your Russian.. You are full of nationalistic pride that finally your country has been able to kick some ass after being dumped on for so long... I get it..

But you can bet that Russia will not be allowed to remain in Georgia...

Michale.....

[Lon]

Obviously states are more serious players because they can do things like hold territory. On the other hand they're more vulnerable because they do things like hold territory and so have things to lose.

The division between the two is not particularly useful. The problem with the invasion of Iraq wasn't that we went after terrorism. Iraq is a state that had a negligiable part in world terrorism. We went after Iraq because it's easier to attack a state than to deal with terrorism, and as Michale aptly put it, we wanted to send a message to countries in the region that "we can take you anytime we want to."

It's doubtful that our invasion of Iraq had any effect on Russia's decision to invade Georgia. It's possible that our not acting as stupidly as McCain wants in response is a result of the Bush administration being humbled by Iraq. But Russia invaded Georgia because it has its own version of the Monroe Doctrine and wants to have a say in who leads its former republics. Control of the pipelines was likely relevant. So might be our push to get missiles into former Warsaw pact states, and the resolution of Kosovo. These are both issues that concernRussians than does Iraq.

But ultimately this is one of an endless case of large powers acting badly. There is no reason to think it will blow up into anything bigger unless we act stupid and keep yelling "Munich".

[cardineau]

The biggest threat to the US (America is two continents ... North and South) is the criminals in charge of the US government and their Defense(Aggression) industries.

[joanndarc]

"The only real threat by terrorists exists from that organization having a state sponsor, such as Russia or Iran giving them a nuclear weapon to use on their behalf"

Where did a theocratic state, the State of Israel aquiered it's nuclear weapons? What country used a nuclear weapon against another country? What country invaides another for oil or other goods it's corporations can extract?

[Snowball]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Georgia precipitate this crises by invading South Ossetia? I'm no fan of the Russian government, but they have as much right to protect South Ossetia and their own borders from aggression from a hostile western influenced power as we do from any other influence in our hemisphere.

Hmm, maybe we don't really have that right at all.

I imagine that Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Uruguay and Bolivia feel as threatened by US power as the Georgians feel by Russian power.

In so saying, we need to clean up our own act before we can credibly criticize the Russians. Why are our belligerent nationalists any better than theirs? If we crave hegemony, as the neo-realists like Waltz and Mearsheimer do, how can we credibly deny it to Russia and China in front of the rest of the world?

[Michale32086]

}}}}}}}}}}
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Georgia precipitate this crises by invading South Ossetia?
}}}}}}}}}}

Consider yourself corrected..

Georgia could no more "invade" South Ossetia than the US could "invade" Texas or Puerto Rico...

Michale.....

[joanndarc]

Osetians are not ethnic Georgians. US-backed Georgian junta commited war crimes against Osetians. Georgian borders were arbitrary made up on a map as borders of other Soviet Republics. Russia has never been a nationalistic state unlike Georgia.

[don]

Remind me, why did we go and kill all those people in Panama? After the civil war that broke out when the Soviet Union disolved, S. Osettia was no more a part of Georgia than the Canal Zone was part of the US at that time.

[elmysterio]

The US DID invade Puerto Rico... that's how it became a US protectorate. The use of military force to prevent self-determination by a VAST majority of the citizenry is, in my opinion, wrong.

[Cautious]

I just think this title- "Russia is Still a Threat to America and to Europe" is sort of a given. To say that "Russia is Still a Threat to America and to Europe" is like saying "the sky is blue".

"Russia is Still a Threat to America and to Europe". Ya think?

[joanndarc]

America is Still a Threat to Russia, to Europe and to the World.

[WorkingClass]

Yes. But not for long. The American economy is crumbling and will soon collapse.

[LeRob]

No, the real threat to America is foreign dependence. It's the idea that when there's insufficient supply for oil/water, we go and take someone else's rather than more efficient ways of utilizing our supply. Because of our system--ca­pitalism--­we must do it as cheap or cheaper than we are doing it. Voila, impoverishing and ticking off entire nations. Voila, wars to preserve the interest of the country, which could be averted if the people who heavily invested in oil also heavily invested in renewable resources.

America looks outside of its own borders, when by its own admission, it is the last, best hope on earth.

Europe is more complicated because most of the territories are too small. There will always be conflict because of space issues, but a large part of the issue is supporting the US in foreign engagements in exchange for foreign aid. It's too simplistic to suggest that pursuing a foreign policy of 'Keep the status quo in exchange for protection against agressors' would completely solve the situation, but if we stopped discriminating against oil-rich nations so as to install sympathetic governments, there would be two fewer major conflicts in the past ten years.

We seem to be willing to sacrifice a little to make ourselves safer. If, instead of paying for 'Safety' with civil liberties, we all took a bus to work for a month, quite a bit of war savings could be invested in tax breaks for those developing renewable resources...

[S1m0n]

"The only real threat by terrorists exists from that organization having a state sponsor, such as Russia or Iran, giving them a nuclear weapon to use on their behalf."

Bull. People don't become terrorists out of a sheer excess of evil*; they do so because they have a cause they think worth fighting for, but are massively outgunned; in fact, they have no capacity to do real damage to a real (that is, militarily significant) target.

So they're stuck with no better options than terrorism.

Any cause with a nuclear weapon is (pretty much by definition) no longer powerless, and has suddenly acquired a WAY better option for pursuing its cause than any act of terror could ever provide.

If the Taliban got a nuke, for instance, they'd hole up in northern Pakistan and southern Afghanistan, and announce that they were now an independent government and the rest of the world should eff off and leave them alone.

And we would.

*The "they hate us for our ________" theory consists of nothing but willful blindness and narcissim. It's never hate, and its not about you to start with. Just like any other cause or nation that goes to war, there's always a purpose that any terrorist group with a membership that runs to more than single digits is fighting for.

[Michale32086]

}}}}}}}}
Bull. People don't become terrorists out of a sheer excess of evil*; they do so because they have a cause they think worth fighting for, but are massively outgunned; in fact, they have no capacity to do real damage to a real (that is, militarily significant) target.
{{{{{{{{{

You really don't know much about terrorism and terrorists, do you??

Michale.....

[elmysterio]

I would argue that you know less. Terrorism comes from a state of hopelessness... when you're up against a superior force that usually is oppressing you, what other course of action do you have? Lay down and take it? Hell no! You stand up and fight!

[Michale32086]

To further expand on this, you seem to have bought into the biggest line of BS of all the lines of BS there ever was..

That line being, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

That is the biggest line of BS ever created..

A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist..

There is NOTHING good or noble or freedom-loving about being a terrorist..

There is NOTHING but a psychotic desire to control, to subjugate and to cause as much pain and misery as possible..

A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist..

It's THAT simple...

Michale.....

[WorkingClass]

Michaelebu­nchanumber­s says: A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist. Hahahahahahahaha!

[retarius]

I disagree. The basic problem is that the US threw its weight around too much. 9/11 changed many things, and the world accepted America invading a sovereign nation and the consequent loss of innocent civilian life. The rot set in with Guantanamo and the torture there. The invasion of Iraq changed America's position in the world, and the now overwhelming majority of the world's people (not governments) have a truly negative view of US imperialism, and do not buy all this 'democracy' hypocrisy.
What I find truly interesting in this conflict is that the media are on a hard sell to persuade the population that Russia was the aggressor...people just aren't buying it...they recognized that Georgia attacked first, and that Georgia must pay the price for that reckless act.

[larry278]

This blog makes sense. Putin saw his opportunity & he took his opportunity. It is too bad that W couldn't see this in Mr Putin when he got to 'know' Putin.

[paixa3]

Please take a few moments to read the 2 postes directly above yours. The USA has no qualms about invading soverign nations and enticing the CIA to overthrow sovereign nations elected officials for the sake of $$$$$. There are ALWAYS 2 sides to each story. Start to understand that what goes around, comes around. That is a universal truth.

[Michale32086]

Using your reasoning, we shouldn't condemn the likes of Charles Manson or Jeffery Dahlmer because "there are two sides to every story"..

You are right.. There ARE two sides to every story..

But that doesn't mean that BOTH sides are morally, legally or ethically right...

But I can tell you Russia's "side of the story" right now.

1. Russia wants to control ALL of the oil and natural gas pipelines feeding Europe. With Russia's invasion of Georgia, this is accomplished.

2. Russia wanted to send a message to it's former satellite states. "We can take you anytime we want to."

THERE... Now you know the other side of the story..

It's a constant source of amazement that the hysterical Left would castigate it's own government for alleged violations of rights and liberties and then sit and be cheerleaders for one of the BIGGEST human rights violators in the history of the world...

You know what that tells me?? That tells me that the Hysterical Left doesn't really care about rights or freedoms. They simply support ANYTHING or ANYONE who is Anti-Bush..

It's really pathetic...

Michale.....