Clumsy. Stupid. Counter-productive. Russian policy in Georgia has moved into a new phase. As I suggested yesterday, the Russians now seem determined to answer a Georgian miscalculation with one of their own. Yes, Russia is projecting "strength" by moving into indisputably Georgian territory, but at what cost? It may be that the Russians don't give a fig about what the West thinks, but in the longer run it seems that toppling Sakaashvili is an unnecessary over-reaction. Once the Georgians had offered their ceasefire (or been driven out of South Ossetia) a more prudent Russian response might have been to accept this. There's much to be said for quitting while you're ahead.
Anyway, I agree with everything the estimable Mr Poulos writes here. The Russians seem determined upon seeing Saakashvili's blunder with one of their own. But that does not mean that the immediate, even visceral anti-Moscow tilt favoured by some is or was the correct or sensible response. At the very least, one might hope there'd be some sense of priorities: what price Georgia when set beside, say, Russian help with Iran?
Equally, I agree with Mr Larison here. Russia's subsequent over-reaction does not excuse Georgia's initial provocation, nor indubitably cast it in a heroic, let's-admire-the-scrappy-wee-guy bronze.
My friend James Forsyth says the west should now fast-track Georgia's NATO membership. In one sense he may be right to argue that this might show Russia's other "near abroad" neighbours that the West will "stand by" them, but do we really think that NATO would invoke Article Five to protect Georgia in the future? In such circumstances the choice would lie between emasculating NATO (by not invoking Article Five) or potentially committing the Alliance into a disastrous war that would be in no-one's interests, let alone have any chance of being supported by public opinion anywhere outside the more rabid ranches of the American right. In other words, be careful what you wish for.
But no, for the lunatic right* this is another opportunity for preening and "moral clarity". (Yes, I supported the Iraq war more vociferously than it is comfortable to recall. Unlike some people however, I'd like to think I've adjusted my thinking since.) Hence this absurdity from NRO's Andy McCarthy:
"I suppose if we are thinking about turning our country over to the second Carter term — or the first McGovern — it shouldn't surprise anyone to see Russia go into its Afghanistan mode ... or Czechoslovakia ... or Hungary ... or... Georgia."
Or this post from Roger Kimball:
“The crisis in Georgia, 9/11, and the lessons of gratitude,”
Seriously! As I said before, if you wanted to make life more difficult for yourself with regard to problems you might consider more important than Georgia - Iran, most obviously - and if you wanted to restart a Cold War with a country with whom, like it or not, you will need to deal, this might be exactly the way you would go about doing it.
But isn't this "appeasement" the war dogs ask? Well, up to a point. There are times when appeasement is the better part of valour, times when "appeasement" is actually the product of a sober assessment of the national interest. (And yes, I would actually suggest that Munich was an excellent, prudent example of that calculation. Perhaps that's a post for another time.)
Knowing when to fold is also a valuable, non-trivial skill. Sometimes prudence even demands that you fold a hand that might have actually proved a winning set of cards. That is not necessarily a recipe for humiliation, unless you really think international relations actually are a massive pissing contest...
Meanwhile, there is something comic about Washington lecturing Moscow about the illegitimacy of calls for "regime change". Again, seriously! Remember too, how the United States considered that it had the right to launch an entirely unprovoked invasion of Grenada and how it resisted any suggestion that this was a wholly disreputable affair. (And recall too that Grenada's Head of State is also the Head of State of the US's closest ally).
Now, yes, great powers apply different standards to what we do and what they do. But that doesn't mean pundits and commentators and bloggers have to act in exactly the same fashion. (Of course, the most wearisome aspect of contemporary American political discourse is each side's partisans reflex condemenation of the other's actions no matter what those actions may be and total exoneration of their own side's behaviour, regardless of circumstance or common sense. That too, is a post for another day...)
Anyway, bottom line: Russian stupidity (in our terms of course, though not necessarily when viewed from Moscow's perhaps narrower point of view) doesn't exonerate Georgian and Western foolishness.
*Commenter Anthony makes some excellent points that I recommend. He also reminds me that I should make it clear that James Forsyth is a long way from being a member of the "lunatic right". If I accidentally suggested otherwise then I apologise to him.
Funnily enough, immediately before coming here I read the Forsyth piece at the Coffee House and left a response (not up at the time of writing) making a similar point to yours regarding Article 5.
I'd also note, while my dander is up, that back when Georgian NATO membership was on the table, some of us noted that the unresolved state of the separatist provinces represented a state of serious geopolitical uncertainty and that, furthermore, the way we were going effectively endorsed Georgia's position, in spite of the fact that morally it was a grey area, at best. Those who did point this out (by no means all of whom were John Laughland clones - I supported Polish and Czech NATO membership) were accused of appeasement and kow-towing to the Russians.
James Forsyth is now claiming that internationally-observed independence referenda for the Georgian separatists is a moral necessity. I would just point out that while this particular chain of events was unexpected, the Georgians have made clear for months that they viewed Western military support as a mandate to maintain full and unconditional control Abkhazia and S. Ossetia and nobody within the Coffee House section of British conservatism has, to my knowledge, expressed any disquiet with this or in any way suggested that it was either legally or morally unjustified. Furthermore, at the time of the NATO membership negotiations, those of us who suggested that it might be a grey area and that empowering the Georgians on this particular issue might not be a clear-cut Good Thing were, by and large, damned as perfidious, cowardly Chamberlainites. If James Forsyth believes that self-determination is a moral imperative (as opposed to a bit of strategic shimmying born of necessity) for all parts of Georgia, why wasn't he saying this months ago when as a matter of policy it could have made a difference?
Posted by: Anthony | August 11, 2008 at 12:16 AM
Of course, it goes without saying that James Forsyth does not deserve to be bracketed in the same league as Andy McCarthy.
Posted by: Anthony | August 11, 2008 at 12:17 AM