Russia has made some brash moves in the past couple weeks. They chucked out two Canadian diplomats, broke the ceasefire agreement in Georgia by advancing their troops to the borders of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and even had one Duma member, albeit an outsider, suggest that Russia hold large scale war games with Venezuela and Cuba in the Caribbean. The Russians say this is in response to the NATO exercises in Georgia, and cast the blame on those plucky Baltic countries for having gotten a couple of spies fired – Dmitry Rogozin is asking us to believe that their is a diabolical anti-Russian campaign underway in the Euro-Atlantic alliance.
However you wouldn’t know that there was anything wrong with relationsjudging by the words coming out of Washington. President Barack Obamawas exhuberant, describing the chances of improved relations as “excellent.“ Sec. of State Hillary Clinton was more willing to acknowledge theregrettable nastiness happening this week. Amusingly, she painted herdisagreements with Minister of Defense Sergei Lavrov as a sibling rivalry: “people in families disagree” she explained with a smile.
On the one hand, Eastern Europe must hear these kind of comments andfear for their futures. Washington has basically watched Russia testsome new boundaries of what’s permissable in its treatment ofneighbors, and the new administration seemed only to shrug. ApparentlyMoscow has just been granted this additional influence and “respect” ithas been demanding for some years now. But on the other hand, there isa small detail which makes the Hillary-Obama approach seem smarter thatit was on first glance: the NATO exercises went forward anyways,completely ignoring the protests of Russia. They may not be braggingabout it, but the Americans continued forward with their plans, andreally only seemed to be paying attention to the management ofdisapproval of its actions, rather any substantive change of itspriorities.
Subscribe by Email
13 Comments
Couple thoughts:1. Is it possible that the Russophobic community (I am not necessarily lumping you guys in with the true Russophobes) has gone so far “over-the-top” with their scare tactics and fabrications regarding Russia, that the “adults” in Washington have begun to discount most statements from that community. I think it’s called crying “волк” too many times.2. Your assertion regarding Eastern Europe “fear(ing) for their future” is pretty baseless. Russia is NOT expansionist. Russia has no plans for territorial expansion. Please explain to me how it is that you feel Russia expansionist yet, Russia did not “take-over” Georgia when it could have easily done so last August.3. Your choice of the word “permissable”(sic) (3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence) is illustrative of the patronizing approach that many in the West take towards Russia. Permissible, as in a parent defining what’s permissible for it children? What gives Washington the authority to define what is permissible for other nations?
Couple of answers to your thoughts:1. I don’t see too many “fabrications” (care to mention one, if possible with supporting evidence other than “but Russia says so”?) in the article. As for “crying волк” too many times, I can’t see one time in which it was believed… the situation is more reminiscent of Trojan Cassandra.2. If Russia is NOT expansionist, why all the talk about “spheres of influence”? Why the suggestion in the Duma about annexing Abkhazia and Southern Ossetia?(Note that Russia has not fulfilled the promise of removing her troops “back to the positions they occupied” before the war in Georgia; on the contrary, they have sent more troops into Abkhazia and South Ossetia and are now patrolling the borders…) If Russia is not so concerned with “spheres of influence”, why fear the NATO exercises in Georgia? Why the suggestion mentioned in the article by one Duma MP for similar exercises with Venezuela and Cuba in the Caribian? None of these things sound like the acts of a NOT expansionist country.3. I think you are misreading the word “permissable” (sic). My reading of it is that certain acts are morally permissible between neighboring countries, others (e.g. attacks, undue influence, propaganda wars, etc.) are not. This is not patronizing towards Russia — it’s simply a statement that ALL civilized countries should follow when dealing with their neighbors. The US have not always been nice in their treatment of neighbors either by the way; it deserves some criticism in this area. But Russia thus far has been deserving much more criticism in this respect. “Patronizing” is actually a good word for the way Russia characterizes its relationship with its neighbors (see the use of “близкое зарубежие” or “Near Abroad”, apparently a neutral phrase but used in a patronizing/paternalistic way, suggesting spheres of influence, in the Russian media).
1. Last week’s “mutiny or coup” of a tank battalion in Georgia is one example of a fabrication against Russia. It seems (of course only a few people actually know for sure) that what happened was that Saak ordered the tank battalion commander to forcibly intervene to break-up/prevent the protestors’ threat to blockage road(s). the tank battalion commander went on record to say that his battalion preferred to not get involved in politics and would remain in its barracks. Saak took this response by the commander to be mutinous and thus, made the statement that there was a mutiny/coup against him and his government. Saakashvili also, for good measure and theatrical affect, stated that Russia was probably behind this mutiny/coup.It turns out that no evidence has been produced to show that Russia had any hand in this situation. What’s interesting is that the Western media reported on Saak’s initial allegations and his interpretation of the situation but never did any follow-up a day or two later when facts on the ground could easily lead observers to a different conclusion about what really happened.2. Russia views the situation as fluid and perceives that there is a probability that Saakashvili may again attempt to bring S.O. and Abkhazia back under Tblisi’s control through military force as it did last August. Therefore, Russia feels that unless the international community takes steps to encourage the source of the threat to S.O. and Abkhazia, namely Saak, to step-down and leave office then it has a moral prerogative to remain in S.O. and Abkhazia to discourage Saak from doing anything “stupid” again. It is for this very reason that Russia objected so strenuously to NATO’s planned exercises in Georgia this month.Russia, I believe rightly, feels that by going ahead with the planned NATO exercises, NATO is implicitly giving Saak political support. For, if NATO (i.e. Western governemnts) felt that Saak was a threat to Georgian political stability then it should not encourage him or provide him with political “cover.”Many people feel that Saakashvili’s actions towards S.O. and Abkhazia are analogous to a wife-beating husband’s constant abuse of his wife. Therefore, Russia feels that it needs to intervene on behalf of the battered wife and make it clear to the wife-beater (Saak) that if he attempts to harm his wife again there will be serious repercussions.The NATO exercises are the same as if one were to sign-up and pay for a wife-beater to take boxing lessons. Plainly a dumb idea if not morally reprehensible.The West says it wants to reset relations with Russia but then proceeds to take actions, with these NATO exercises, which speak louder than its words.3. All countries have spheres of interest with those countries with whom they shares borders. This is simply logical. Russia does not presume to be entitled to unilaterally influence events within those countries with whom it shares a border but it does claim that it has an interest in what happens there.Russia is NOT the Soviet Union. During the Cold War there was a explicit ideological battle for the hearts and minds of countries throughout the world. Both the United States and the Soviet Union felt it had the prerogative to actively influence internal affairs within countries around the world. Russia is no longer claiming that it has such a prerogative.Perhaps the United States is “projecting” its own approach to foreign affairs upon Russia. The United States, under Bush and Cheney, make the monumental mistake of continuing this Cold War approach, albeit completely unchecked by a countervailing force, upon countries around the world (e.g. Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Serbia, Venezuela, etc.).It may simply be hard for some of the neo-cons in Washington to believe that Russia has given up its Soviet-times imperial ambitions while America has not.With respect to Russia, it has had problems with two countries, Ukraine and Georgia, with whom its shares borders. With respect to Georgia, one would have to be a hardcore Russophobe to still claim that Russia was in the wrong last August. With respect to Ukraine, Russia is playing hardball but not breaking any rules/laws.I sometimes find it funny that the capitalists in the West complain when the Russians play the capitalist game better than do they.Russia is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t. Were Russia to capitulate to Ukraine’s demand for more heavily subsidized gas prices, the Russophobes in the West would accuse Russia of unduly trying to influence internal Ukrainian politics. If it demands market prices for gas it is still accused of trying to manipulate Ukrainian politics.4. The reality is that Russia is truly ready for a new chapter in Russian-Western relations but the ideological baggage in the heads of Westerners makes that prospect much more difficult.The key mental construct which must be discarded is that relations between Russia and the West are a zero-sum game. While the relationship between the Soviet Union and the West may have, in fact, been a zero-sum game, we must constantly remind ourselves that the Cold War is over and has been for a very long time.
Timopothy, your efforts to educate here are commendable.
1. Fair enough — Saakashvili may very well have done what you say (considering his personality, this is not hard to believe), though, as you say, only a few people know for sure. But my point is that there are no such fabrications in the article here. As far as I can see, this post on the Clinton-Lavrov rivalry is free from suchI should say this “fabrication” was not made in the West — if it is a fabrication, it is not the fault of the Western media, but of Saakashvili.2. I don’t see any efforts being made by Russia to get the international community involved — it’s Russian troops doing the patrolling, without any effort having been made to bring international observers. (As I recall, other organisms — EU? UN? — tried to become involved but were not allowed, allegedly because the South Ossetian and/or Abkhazian governments had objections). I again note the suggestion, already made in the Duma, to annex Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which does sound actually quite explicitly expansionist. If the idea was simply to prevent Saakashvili from “trying” anything in the break-away regions, Russia should be inviting all kinds of international organizations to observe and report on the situation–not doing all the work herself (cf. the criticism on the US during the Granada operation). By acting as the “local policeman”, Russia does suggest a lot more than simple humanitarian interest in the situation of South Ossetians and Abkhazians (note that the same consideration is not given to the local demands of other Circassians in the Russian North Caucasian republics).Considering that most of the population in Georgia is now against Saakashvili, yet still quite in favor of NATO membership, it seems to me the right conclusion is that the NATO exercises are a sign of support to Georgia, not specifically to Saakashvili. The exercises are not opposed by the opposition parties in Georgia — the same parties that now want Saakashvili to resign. One should indeed distinguish the two ideas: support for Georgia and support for Saakashvili. (To use your example of a wife-beating husband: an institution that wants to support marriage does not necessarily want to support wife-beating. Likewise, support for Georgia is not immediately support for Saakashvili.)And let’s not forget that not everybody thinks Saakashvili is such a bad guy (a ‘wife-beater’ as you put it). (I personally don’t like his personality, but there’s a lot that is not clear in the beginning of the Georgian war. Honest people can still disagree about who exactly is to blame.)(Note, by the way, that Russia does not seem to show the same level of concern she shows for South Ossetians and Abkahzians when the people being ‘wife-beaten’ are indigenous communities within the Russian federation, such as the Evenks, the Nenets, the Komi-Permjaks… whose problems with companies that destroy their environments have been consistently ignored by the government. Why should Russia care so much about wife-beating in Abkhazia rather than in the Arctic? It is difficult not to conclude that geopolitics is playing a more important role than humanitarian concerns.)Furthermore, the rhetoric one sees in statements by Russian government officials (including president Medvedev) as well as in the Russian-language media and on the internet, is not really about the exercises giving support to Saakashvili; rather, they are described as a “provocation” against Russia (see e.g. the suggestion to “retaliate” with similar exercises in the Caribbean, with Venezuela and Cuba).For the above reasons, I really find it difficult to agree with you that Russia is simply concerned with support to Saakashvili. It seems rather that Russia is concerned with something that undermines her claims to a Caucasian sphere of influence–a typically imperialistic position.3. Russia SHOULD NOT presume to be entitled to unilateraly influence events within neighboring countries — I certainly agree with that. It is much less clear to me that she IS NOT trying to do that, more often than not. In fact, it seems that pretty much EVERY single country in the European border of Russia has had problems with it — the Baltic states, Ukraine, Georgia, and most of the ex-Warsaw Pact members (the exceptions, Belarus and Moldova, have special problems, authoritarian/non-democratic leaders, etc.), and these countries are all complaining about undue influence and an “angry mood” towards them from Russia — to be seen both in the media (I am sure you have seen some of the terrible words used in the Russian media to describe these nations) and in declarations by Russian government officials.If you compare that to, say, China — a country with its own serious internal problems (Tibet, etc.) — none of the neighbors have complaints, and China is indeed keeping out of her neighbor’s internal problems. In comparison to China, Russia spends too much time talking about what her neighbors are doing, and too little time talking about similar or worse problems inside her own borders, or in more distant areas of the world (as I recall, Russian even vetoed UN sanctions against Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe — a man who has done far worse than Saakashvili).4. It’s not a question of capitalism versus communism — China is even still officially a “communist” country. It’s not a question of “projection” of tendencies (I’m not American, and I am at least as critical of American foreign policy as I am of Russian foreign policy).It’s a simple question of looking at the Russian media and at official statements from the Russian government, and being astonished at what one sees. This is NOT what I would expect a normal capitalist country to be doing. This is NOT what I would expect a democratic country with a pluralistic open society representing all viewpoints to be doing.Russia IS certainly post-communist; I have no doubt about that. I don’t expect any regression to communism there. But what I think is that, because of the isolation during communism, Russia actually never underwent the evolution in political mentality that Europe went through during and after World War II. Like Yugoslavia, Russia is reminiscent of an old, pre-WWII situation: spheres of influence, fear of the rest of the world, bilateral contacts (e.g. with Germany and France rather than with the EU as a whole), centralisation and authoritarianism (the ‘power vertical’), etc.Russia is NOT damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t. It is only damned if it insists in seeing the world through pre-WWII lenses, and if it keeps putting feeling angry about what happens in the old Soviet empire (the “Near Abroad”). One cannot fail to think that Russia, despite clearly not being the Soviet Union, still identifies with it (the attempts at ignoring, denying or downplaying Soviet war crimes under the pretext of fighting “fascist revivalism” does suggest that Russia still identifies with the Soviet Union to a large extent — if it didn’t, why should Russia care about the crimes committed by the Soviet Union?)5. A SUMMARYI am married to a Russian from Ukraine; Russian is one of the mother tongues of my 6-year-old daughter. I speak Russian fluently, and I am a great admirer of Russian literature and Russian culture. I know how good the Russian people can be; I have a great impression of how good Russia as a country can become.What I am dismayed at is the lack of interest in the Russian elite of actually actualizing the potentials that lie dormant in the Russian people. My greatest hope is that Russia will wake up, shake the unnecessary remnants of its past from its mentality, and join the world. China managed to do it to a large extent (though I have my own criticism of China’s mentality). So can Russia–after she abandons the ghost dreams of Soviet greatness and the Soviet empire that still haunt this great country.
Georgia and Ukraine want NATO as a response to obvious Russian aggressiveness and for security in general (yes, it is possible that other security threats exist and/or may exist in the future that makes the alliance attractive).Russia makes these military moves and threatening policies as a response to NATO, which they feel is encircling them.It’s a vicious cycle, with both sides constantly taking more measures which provoke the similar responses.Russia has the wrong strategy to convince Georgia and Ukraine that they don’t need NATO. Georgia and Ukraine have the wrong strategy to keep Moscow in check and guarantee respect for their sovereignty.
James, I actually have the same opinion as you. As long as the idea is “we need protection from Russia — let NATO come!” vs. “NATO is encircling us — let’s do something”, this game will not end well.I would rather have Russia try to join NATO and the European Union — that would remove any ‘threat’ from Georgia and/or Ukraine also becoming members. Also, more conciliatory language towards the countries in the ex-Sovietic sphere of influence (including e.g. a sincere acknowledgement and condemnation of old Soviet and communist war crimes) would go a long way towards making the ‘need’ to ‘protect themselves’ from Russia much weaker for the Baltic countries, Georgia and Ukraine. This is indeed an area in which mere words could make a huge difference.From the ex-Soviet satellites, I would on the other hand expect sincere attempts at collaboration (no more ‘gas wars’ please!), including a clear attempt by the local media to treat Russia fairly and show its good sides. Old stereotypes about Russians don’t help anyone.
Anyone else notice which finger Lavrov is using to push the reset button? Is that just by accident, or is that why he has such a big grin?
Russia is far worse a neighbor than western Europe and the US portrays.It meddles in the political, national, and international affairs of sovereign nations. It invades some without any conceivable justification. The Russian Government has little understanding of markets and uses its resources or resources under its control as a tool of Government foreign policy. In Russia, journalists are murdered or maimed with impunity, television is under control of the Kremlin, independent media are rare and increasingly assailed by all sorts of despotic rules and laws, opposition is silenced and persecuted, the economic system is collapsing whilst the ruling gang divide the remnants, the judiciary belongs to the Kremlin or the highest bidder. Its population is in decline. It may count on its one hand the number of allies it possesses in the world, all of them blind and dull despots.What nation would want any part of this international menace and basket case?Gary Marshall
@Asehpe You wrote,”I would rather have Russia try to join NATO and the European Union — that would remove any ‘threat’ from Georgia and/or Ukraine also becoming members….”Actually, Putin did try to initiate discussions about Russia joining NATO 8 years ago and his overtures were met by deafening silence.I think it is important to keep in mind that NATO is as much of a “commercial” organization as it is a “military” one. Do not forget the huge financial implications of each new country joining NATO. Each new country must make its weapons systems directly compatible with existing NATO countries. The primary means of doing this is for the new countries to purchase new Western weapon systems from Western manufacturers.Therefore, the expansion of NATO has a lot to do with expanding “market share” for the weapon systems manufacturers. Much of what we have witnessed over the past 8 years is a concerted PR effort on the part of the Western military-industrial complex to paint Russia as the enemy and therefore, justify the expansion of NATO.The ultimate solution is for NATO, itself, to invite Russia to join the alliance and to be an equal partner. The first step in this process would be to use radar stations within Russia, proper, as part of the missile Shield project.Asehpe, I would reword your sentence from “Russia trying to join” NATO to NATO inviting Russia to join. The onus is on NATO.Such an invitation would truly “reset” the relationship between Russia and the West.Finally, the way each of us perceives the words and actions of Russia really depends a great deal on how we interpret its motivations. It reminds me of Malcolm Gladwell’s book “Blink” where he focuses on a young man who, depending on one’s initial impression, is either arrogant or refreshingly self-confidant. One’s subsequent interactions with this young man are impacted by one’s interpretation of this young man.The same holds for Russia.PS: The catchpa is still not working properly. Perhaps it’s only me but the problem may be preventing other comments from making it onto the blog as it’s tempting to say “forget it” after typing in and having the catchpa reject one’s comment 7 or 12 times in a row. Something to look into to.
@ Timothy:Well, it would have helped if Russia had accepted NATO’s offer to participate in the exercises in Georgia, but she declined. A pity: it would be a way to publicly mark support for Georgia but not for Saakashvili regime — this could have been explicitly emphasized, Russia’s will to cooperate with her “Western strategic partners” could have been asserted… but instead we had that little comedy with spies and Canadian diplomats being sent back and forth. Also, considering the very negative attitude of Russian media towards NATO in the Russian media (one just needs to sarch for “НАТО” at Яндекс — http://www.yandex.ru — to find things like “Акции: СТОП НАТО!”, “НАТО не для всех”, or “Госдума узаконила ввод войск НАТО в нашу страну” in the first few pages), it is not that hard to understand the absence of invitations. Considering that NATO is not inviting even Ukraine and Georgia, whose governments have made it clear over and over again that they are eager to join (and despite a lot of pressure from Bush’s clique to let them in), I don’t find NATO’s failure to invite Russia so surprising. (They should have done it during the late Gorbachev-early Yeltsin years. But maybe they were too confused by what was happening in Russia then).I understand, and agree, with the argument that NATO expansion also has a lot to do with expanding markets. But if markets were the most important aspect, Bush wouldn’t have failed to convince the other NATO members to take Georgia and Ukraine. There is much more at stake than simply securing markets for NATO-style weapon systems.I have, by the way, also read Gladwell’s book “Blink”, and I see the point you’re trying to make. But let us also admit that not everything is in the eye of the beholder, and that it is possible to judge an individual by his/her words and actions to a certain extent — of course (as the postmodernists would immediately remind us) the “living thread of signifiers” means that we have a lot of room to project our own feelings about the person into the judgment, but that doesn’t mean it is impossible to assess another person’s actions.When I look at Russia’s proposed law “О мерах Российской Федерации по противодействию реабилитации нацизма, нацистских преступников и их пособников в новых независимых государствах – бывших республиках Союза ССР” — I find it difficult to see this as really dependent on a person’s previous interpretations of Russia’s intentions. The law, despite is claimed first motivation — the NTV program on the battles of Rzhev — clearly mentions regions outside the Russian Federation and makes it very difficult in its rather vague wording to criticize Soviet strategy and/or goals in WWII without being accused of “реабилитация нацизма”. Also, why does it seem to be the case in the Russian mainstream media that any attempt at claiming Soviet — not Russian (though the Russian media apparently sees little difference) — war crimes (e.g. Katryn) and/or strategic mistakes (Rzhev) is equated with support of Fashism? This would be like saying that any criticism of America’s Vietnam war would immediately imply support of Communism — which is of course a non-sequitur.I don’t want to misinterpret anybody, and I’m willing to understand the enormously important role that the “official” Soviet version of WWII has for the Russian people — the “Великая Отечественная Война”, the extreme heroism of the Soviet peoples, the mind-boggling sacrifice, etc. Still: to pass a law that would criminalize people in other countries if they express dissenting opinions not about the role of the USSR in defeating Hitler — about which no sane person would doubt — but about the consequences of the following Soviet rule in the Baltic countries and Ukraine and the Soviet sphere of influence on Eastern Europe… To criminalize the (to my mind quite understandable) idea that the Soviet armies were not simply “liberating” the Baltics, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, but bringing a new ruler; to simplify the question of the Latvian and Estonian SS divisions as mere “fascism” (when those divisions were more about fighting against the Soviet Union than in favor of fascim); the very use in the Russian media of terms like “fascism” to describe the situation in the Baltic states, thereby dramatically changing the meaning of this word…Timothy, I don’t want to be unfair to anyone. My daughter will grow up to be (also) a Russian. But I frankly can’t see any of the above as simply “misunderstandings of Russia’s good intentions”. All I can see there is a quite unhealthy identification of “Russia” with the old “Soviet Union” and with the version of Soviet history produced during a dictatorial period of Russia’s history, and an attempt at preventing people from disagreeing. As if Russia’s honor desperately depended on how well the Soviet army command fought the battle of Rzhev. Or on what Stalin did in Eastern Europe.P.S.: I agree entirely with you, Timothy, on the catchpa phrase below. I hope the admins here will do something about it soon. Or we could perhaps continue talking on your own blog?
Timothy Post,You suggest that it is NATO that should pursue and persuade Russia to join the organization.Unfortunately, such an effort would be a great error. Russia clearly does not share the goals of NATO or any of its democratic governments. It does not support markets, and uses them as a blunt tool of the Government. It does not advance human rights, but rather curtails them by brutish means. It has no respect for the borders of its neighbors, nor of its neighbors citizens. It does not adhere to legal agreements, practices, and judgments of the European Court. It suffocates and impedes with the most peculiar and outrageous means political opposition. It perpetrates, abets or ignores the repeated attacks upon and murders of journalists within Russia. It threatens nations contiguous and distant should they decide to pursue a sovereign course militarily. It interferes in their elections. Its judiciary decides issues without any consistency or adherence to the laws. The Government to the detriment of all appears lawless.Russia, until it learns to conduct itself as a nation should in the modern era, does not merit membership in NATO. It will continue to be a pariah as long as it places the interests of its leaders and Government ahead of those of its citizens.Gary Marshall
Mr. Post,One additional comment.You naively implore NATO to approach and soothe the baselessly arrogant and hostile Russia.But you do not implore Russia to follow a similar program with all of its justifiably hostile neighbors such as Georgia or the Ukraine or Poland.No, diplomacy in your mind is a very one sided affair where Russia is concerned. You demand tolerance for this malefactor, but you make no such demand upon Russia in its troubled relations with others.Well, NATO, the US, and Europe, always tardily and fallibly it appears, hold to a principle and an adage. Do not reward or encourage nefarious influence and conduct.Nice to see you live in Krasnodar, benefiting heavily from Government expenditures for the approaching Olympic games in Sochi. Too bad the common and suffering Russian people are unable to share in such bounty. It may also explain your sharply partial opinions and your mercenary nature.Gary Marshall