More thoughts on Georgia-Russia

From reader Pavel.S:

I don’t agree with Mr.Cheney as well as you, but could you tell what really western leaders should do with Russia? Or maybe you think, Russia has a right for its sphere of influence and all post-soviet countries should reconcile itself that they are in this sphere?

The answers to these questions, I think, are worth fleshing out into a longer post. Pavel, I’ll try and answer your second question first. I think it’s inevitable that in any regional system, one country (or a handful of them) will end up setting the terms of the political conversation. In Europe, it’s France, Germany and the U.K. In Asia, it might be China and Japan. And in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus, it’s Russia.

But while stronger countries can and will have some leverage over weaker states, the line should must be drawn at violations of political sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as any other form of coercion. In so far as responding to the Russian invasion, I think the Vice President and others were right to criticize the Kremlin, but Cheney in particular did so in such a way as to seem inflammatory. That’s hardly constructive in this situation.

So what should Western leaders do instead? I read a piece in Time or Newsweek (regrettably, I don’t remember which and can’t seem to find it again online) that I think hit the nail on the head. Far from isolating it with tough talk, Western leaders need to take an un-politicized approach to dealing with Russia. Work to include it in G8 talks. Help it transition from being a security threat to a security provider by encouraging it to join NATO. Increase direct foreign investment in order to better link our economies. Along the way, consistently (but respectfully) remind President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin that both sides have much to gain by reintegrating Russia into the international system. Once they and other prominent Russian leaders realize how beneficial being invested in (and receiving investment from) international institutions can be, their behavior will begin to come into line with other developed nations.

As for an immediate course of action vis-a-vis Russia on the Georgian issue, I think it would be better to refrain from supporting one side or the other and simply lay the blame down on both. Pledging all this support for Georgia simply because it boasts a government that looks mildly similar to America’s serves only to polarize the various factions involved—a risky move, at best. While I wouldn’t withdraw U.S. military support in the interests of rebuilding the Georgian army to deter another Russian attack, I would make it clear to Mr. Saakashvili that any future combat action he initiates will be done on his own, and the consequences are his to bear. Failing to foresee that was his mistake the first time around.

Prodding Putin

Wow, Cheney’s really going at it, isn’t he? Let’s look at the Vice President’s week in the spotlight:

1. First he calls out Russia for trying to reclaim Soviet land.
2. Then he strongly reaffirms U.S. support for Georgia, unilaterally committing the entire American people to subsidizing Georgia’s economic and military recovery and giving the Georgians more (false?) hope for eventually joining NATO.
3. Then he makes more promises to Ukraine.
4. Now he’s accusing the Kremlin of “reverting to old tactics of intimidation and using ‘brute force.’ “

What’s next? Is he going to take off his shoe and start banging it on the table? Is he trying to deliberately provoke Russia? Maybe he’s the one living in 1989. I don’t excuse Russia’s behavior towards Georgia, but this counteraggression from the veep is probably crossing some sort of line. Keep it up, and he might just get the Russians angr—wait a minute….

Georgia deserves half the blame

Vice President Dick Cheney today became the latest American official to condemn Russia’s invasion of Georgia, calling the move an “illegitimate, unilateral attempt” to bully a smaller, democratic nation into submission and reclaim old Soviet territory. Cheney joins a host of other top leaders from around the globe who have denounced Russia’s aggressive response to Georgia’s own military actions against domestic secessionists.

With all the outcry over Russia’s wrongdoing, have people forgotten who started it all? The Georgians were the first to precipitate conflict, assuming from the start that they would receive heavy U.S. backing. If Tblisi was actually under threat, a pre-emptive strike against S. Ossetia and Abkhazia might have been justified. As it turned out, however, Saakashvili’s bid to regain control of the breakaway provinces was itself a premeditated act of unnecessary aggression. If anything, the U.S. should be scolding Georgia for taking American support for granted and starting a war that didn’t have to happen.