Following the recent meeting of the G7 Russia was hoping to get some support from the SCO conference in Dushanbe. It did hot happen. While the Russian media and Russian politicians did try to put the best spin possible on the declaration adopted at the conference, the fact is that while it did speak about the Russian role in the Caucasus it did not endorse or support the Russian military operation or, even less so, the recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Combine with all kinds of outright bellicose statements from the Ukraine, the UK and other European nations and it looks to me like Russia is completely isolated.
Does that really matter?
Actually, I think it does. While I don’t think that NATO is about to initiate an attack on Russian forces in the region, I there is a real risk that the silent acquiescence of the international community will embolden the USA to take most provocative actions. What do I mean? I think that with the current administration in the White House and the rabid anti-Russian rhetoric of McCaine there is a real risk that the US and/or Europe will do two things a) actively re-arm the Georgians and b) send forces into Georgia. I know, this sounds crazy, but do did the occupation of Iraq, the the Israeli attack on Lebanon in 2006 or Saakashvili’s recent attack on South Ossetia. Let’s face it – the unique combination of arrogance, ignorance and imperial hubris which has become the trademark of US foreign policy can, and should, be expected to result in policy decisions which would appear “crazy” to any rational observer.
I am particularly baffled, and disappointed, by China’s rather spineless approach to all this. Don’t the Chinese realize that they are next in line to face the wrath of the Empire?!
Clearly, the Russian diplomats have failed to make their case in Dushanbe.
Recognition of the breakaway nations is too frightening for many of the SCO countries. China has Tibet to worry about and Iran has the Kurds, Balochis, etc.
But maybe its a bit too much to say Russia is isolated. I have not heard too many SCO countries support the U.S. position, either.
Nevertheless, you are right that Russia isn’t going to get much help in ending western influence in Georgia and Ukraine. But most of the world isn’t going to oppose them either. And the Russians don’t need much help for what they need to do anyway.
China is looking out for itself. The more the U.S. is distracted, the better off they are. Let the U.S. and Russia fight. They will stay neutral.
I would add that tough rhetoric, while appealing, doesn’t usually help. Russians should do whatever they need to do, but smile while doing it. It sounds crazy, but it works.
I mostly agree with you, Saker, and I think the biggest reason Russia got so isolated was the decision to recognize the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The Russian military actions in South Ossetia and Georgia was something that the SCO, CSTO, and perhaps even some Western European countries (given time), could accept. But the unilateral acceptance of independence of those regions just goes too far, and I don’t find it strange that China and other SCO countries are not willing to do the same. But none of these countries will complain about Russia’s decision, thus giving some unofficial support. And it seems that Belarus will officially recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia as sovereign states in a few days, and will be the only country apart Russia to do this.
VS,
What the hell is going on here? I read earlier today that Russia will consider any country that re-arms Georgia to be at war with Russia. So, is America seeking direct confrontation with Russia? Who can that turn out well for anyone? If American green berets and marines are stationed there, what next?
Moscow has issued an extraordinary warning to the West that military assistance to Georgia for use against South Ossetia or Abkhazia would be viewed as a “declaration of war” by Russia.
Hi Saker,
A quote – “Let’s face it – the unique combination of arrogance, ignorance and imperial hubris which has become the trademark of US foreign policy can, and should, be expected to result in policy decisions which would appear “crazy” to any rational observer.”
Do not feel offended but to my “political taste” ;) your eloquent expressions about “arrogance, ignorance and imperial hubris” which you use very often they sound too esoteric. All the spin around the war were conjured up for the sake of publicity.
I think prof. Dutkiewicz was right (http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080827/116321765.html) “suppoorting” my opinion (http://p2o2.blogspot.com/2008/08/american-plate-tectonics-policy.html) about US victory.
Now, every country like China, France, Germany, etc play their own games thinking about theor own interests and living prospective accords in limbo or putting aside recent commitments (French-German-Russian cooperation, SCO, etc).
USA is not a rabid fox spitting around infectious saliva but one always tries to be catious dealing with US during presidential elections.
As for me it is not the USA which may have been embolded but Europe which caught a wind in the sails supported by the USA stand. It is not a bigger dog which starts barking when mongrels make uproar, just contrary, it is a leader who encourage others.
What we have is confrontational language of those who DO NOT want to go to war. I think about Europe. But they must to signal their support of USA. Germany wants to get rid of USA from Europe. In her interest is to bark louder now.
If there are to be a small war it will cover area far from Europe, maybe Caucasus, maybe Black Sea, maybe Middle East. I think that even “crazies” as you dubbed them are conscious that thay cannot send NATO forces into Ukraine even if Mr Yushchenko have sent them invitation. I believe in the “proverbial” red line which Mr Putin drew before Mr Bush during their meeting in Sochi.
Or US is implementing old communist doctrine of foreign enemy during very deep internal economic crisis and wants to start another war to change attention of own society from domestic economic plight.
Saker, I may be wrong, but please read my latest posts with my comments following my way of reasoning and I’ll be more than happy if you’d like to write a few words.
Regards
Saker, I’m not sure where you’ve read the SCO declaration, but in this one: http://infoshos.ru/?id=39 it is said Государства-члены ШОС приветствуют одобрение 12 августа 2008 года в Москве шести принципов урегулирования конфликта в Южной Осетии и поддерживают активную роль России в содействии миру и сотрудничеству в данном регионе.
The last part of sentence saying …and support active role of the Russia in helping peace and cooperation in this region…
It may sound too cautious, but it is indeed the support for “Russia active role” and everyone have seen that the most important actions of Russia to enforce and support the peace was its swift military action on the aggressor.
So I think you are too pessimistic about the SCO statement.
Regarding recognition of the independence of the 2 new republics – I think that would be way too much to expect from all the SCO countries.
It is good enough Belorusia’s recognition is coming tomorrow.
@P202: I don’t know. I spent quite a few years hanging around the US elites in Washington DC, admittedly in the late 80s and early 90s, and I was decidedly unimpressed. Sure, there are plenty of absolutely brilliant minds in the mid and low levels, but the top of the top is constituted of extremely mediocre, if well connected, people. Then there is the seemingly endless list of US foreign policy screwups. I am not inclined by nature to see conspiracies everywhere or the execution of some grand master plan. Most of what I see is that stupidity is a phenomenally powerful force in history whose determining power is often dismissed by intelligent people because it makes no sense to them. Maybe I am not that smart, as I do believe that raw stupidity is one main factors explaining what appears to be bizarre or nonsensical decisions. If I had the time I would love to write a book called “The Role of Stupidity in World History” :-)
@Andrey: I did see this sentence, but notice that there is no reference at all the the right of self-defense as provided by article 7 of the UN charter. Then, there is no reference to the right of self-determination. Then, there is no reference to war crimes and crimes against humanity. Nor is there anything said about the biggest crime of all: the crime of aggression. All in all, the SCO countries are like Pilate, they wash their hands and remain “neutral”. As we know, this kind of neutrality gets the innocent killed.
But you are right, I am decidedly pessimistic. Hopefully, I will be proven wrong as nothing would make me more happy.
Russia Today paints a similar view as Andrey. Even “galrahn” gives the Russians some grudging acceptance of the 2 breakaway republics. But he (and I) think talk about other areas is unwise.
http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2008/08/signs-of-expanding-russian-ambitions.html
The Black Sea is rapidly becoming a hot spot. The question in my mind is do the neocons want this to divert Russia’s attention away from Iran if Israel attacks? As crazy as it sounds the US is almost involved in 2 more conflicts.
@anomyous (I wish you guys signed with some handle, just so I can tell you part): Frankly, Russian Today is decent, but very much an expression of the Russian government’s point of view, as for Galrahn, let’s just say that I am not too impressed by anything he would say unless it is *purely* technical (and even then….).
Also, the USA is already involved in at the least THREE wars: Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia. And they are loosing all three, I would add.
Starting a shooting war in the Black Sea would be absolutely crazy as the terrain is very much against the US Navy (no air cover for one thing). The Black Sea fleet is nothing like the big Russian fleets (Northern and Pacific), but Russia can, if needed, bring a lot of other resources while the forward deployed UN Navy would be highly vulnerable.
Regardless of how stupid US politicians are, I don’t think the US brass would agree to such a crazy idea. But might they be drawn into something they don’t want by hanging around this area for too long…?
I assumed I had to choose anonymous in order to comment, excuse my ignorance.
The only reason I referenced “galrahn” is because I felt his opinion reflected an experienced US military position. I try to get opposing viewpoints during such a time of intense geopolitical events involving Russia and the US. It would be refreshing to get the same blog from a retired Russian admiral.
During these times I tend to largely ignore MSM reports, including the BBC and go to blogs of well qualified observers such as yours to get some balance. I have found that, just like during Kosovo, a few honest articles come out of British newspapers, Stratfor, Antiwar.com, and a select few blogs. And I see serious attempts to educate Americans at russiablog.org.
It is tragic to me that we may have lost this golden opportunity to solidify friendship with Russia because I know Russia (unlike the Soviet Union) has no imperial wishes. I was just as upset as many Russians when we bombed Serbia. I said so on Free Republic no less (under the name kulak) with little argument. Unfortunately Free Republic got “neoconned” and I left them long ago. So did Michael Rivero who started whatreallyhappened.com (which is how I found your website).
“I don’t think the US brass would agree to such a crazy idea”
This is why I follow galrahn to see if he is “up for the fight” like the general in Dr. Strangelove.
The Guardian comes out with the best editoral I have seen in a while:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/29/russia.georgia
and BBC are actually reporting from the Ossetian side:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7558619.stm
Georgia reminds me of Iraq. Iraq was given the okey doke to invade Kuwait and then got smashed. In this instance the Neo-Cons gave the a-okay to Georgia and then Georgia got smashed. Stupidity? I do not think so. I suspect there was some thought, not much, given to Russian over-reaction, because after all Cheney et al love war, and the thought was if Russia does invade Georgia then they are in hot water.
America needs war for many reasons, including her economic collapse. I do think the hope is for a limited proxy conflict with Russia. In some ways this is even more satisfactory than war with Iran. A new Cold War to demonize Russia and generate massive military spending and justify US bases or NATO forward engagement is just the thing for Republicans and people like Biden..
That’s really interesting how far the West would go to humiliate themselves until they would get the Russian message.
I’ll try to point at the few ones:
1 When Russia sent troops into S. Ossetia Bush and Cheney said Russia must get out and fast. What did the Russians do? They moved further and entered Georgia.
2 When Russia called the operation off Bush and Condi felt somehow encouraged and told the Russians to speed up and leave. What did they do? They went back into Gori, and further into Poti
3 When Bush and Gates declared a humanitarian help and stressed that it would be delivered by Navy into Poti and Bush demanded the Russians keep the port clear. What did they do? They dug in in Poti.
4 When Condi said that the Russians would be punished and that they would face difficulties with they mutual relationship with NATO. What did the Russians do? They frozen their Russia – NATO relationship the very relationship which they were threaten to see suffer.
5 When Bush said that Russia MUST NOT accept independency of the brake away republics Medvedev signed up it next day
6 When Condi said that the Russians would face problems joining WTO. The Russians said that they cancelled all obligations they had taken in regards to join WTO.
7 When Condi said that Russia would face economical sanctions the Russians banned American poultry exporters from Russian market /some 19% of American export/
I wander what it would take for the West to get the message.
The Russians say very clearly – their national interests are at stake. It’s not negotiable. Not at all. They will go to the end, and they ask the West – will you?
Russian behaviour is very well calculated. They know exactly what the West can do and what it can’t. Russians are not looking for friends. They are on their own. And this is their advantage. They do not have to adjust their interests with anyone else. The situation is too serious to look for friends. Friends always would sell you.
To p2o2
(Prof. Piotr Dutkiewicz for RIA Novosti) – Some critics have pointed to the conflict in Georgia as another example of botched Bush administration foreign policy, but in fact America’s real strategy was brilliantly executed and it achieved exactly the intended outcome.
I must admit – when a read that I got really impressed. And frustrated. I went back to look at G. W. Bush’s face and found specs of brilliancy in what I used to call rather a funny face. Frustration I felt because he fooled me. G.W. Bush did. He turned out to be a BRILLIANT /I really love the word/ chess player.
So I kept reading this article looking for the clues, as to what was the BRILLIANT strategy and how MAGNIFICENTLY it was executed.
The professor knew not many folks were as bright as he was so he politely explained us what it all was about. No need in quoting it here, you can read it first hand.
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080827/116321765.html
I just want to admit the fact that if I thought that I knew anything at all about chess play I was completely delusional.
Take that – “This was a carefully developed and magnificently executed strategy. But it fails to recognize how important it is to have Russia inside the community of nations rather than cast a pariah state.
Russia has more neighbours than any other country in the world, and many of those neighbours are countries that we need to engage. The world is not a safer place without Russian involvement in the containment of nuclear proliferation. In fact, Russia plays a critically important role in maintaining a dialogue with countries like Iran that have nuclear ambitions.
Likewise Russia’s help is essential in the global war on terror. The U.S. simply cannot go it alone and hope to have any meaningful success over the long term”
And on and on. I have to admit – I used to think that BRILLIANT strategy is a strategy which leads to ultimate victory. And I used to think that MAGNIFICENT execution of a BRILLIANT strategy is something more than getting a baseball bat and bashing a little kid on a head… But sure I was wrong. And now I know why. It appears to be that a strategy with completely wrong and miscalculated objective is BRILLIANT /I just can’t get enough of the word/ … Well I guess if strategists like that are gonna be ruling the USA for a while Russia can sleep safe.
@roger: I am decidedly under-impressed by Galrahn and his blog. Under a layer of technical discussions, there is a constant seeping out of an arrogant sense of self-superiority there (witness the little “Mental Midgets Need Not Apply” pic and the “New visitors should expect other contributors in the comments to be smarter than you” blurb). The blog also has a clear ideological slant (just look at the treatment lysander got here: http://www.haloscan.com/comments/galrahn/785834530354902245/). Basically, this is a flag-waving “red, white n blue” blog literally reeking with US imperial arrogance and political correctness. I don’t believe that Galrahn is an admiral either (I think his “armchair admiral” blurb is a joke not to be taken seriously). It is, as you said, a good place to get a sense of the worldview of the folks working in the Empire’s military machine.
As for posting anonymously, I am all for it actually. All I ask is that at the end of the post you guys sign with some invented name. I think that anonymous blogging and posting is absolutely crucial and this is why I even encourage anonymous posts, its just that its a little annoying for me to answer to anonymous1 anonymous2 etc. and if, God forbid, there are two or more anonymous posters in one thread, I don’t know who posted what. So while I do not ask anyone to actually sign up with blogspot to have an ‘official’ pseudonym or identity, I do encourage posters to ‘sign’ even with just two letters. their posts so I know who is who.
Kind regards,
VS
Russia remains a Black Sea power
By M K Bhadrakumar
“If the struggle in the Caucasus was ever over oil and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO’s) agenda towards Central Asia, the United States suffered a colossal setback this week. Kazakhstan, the Caspian energy powerhouse and a key Central Asian player, has decided to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Russia over the conflict with Georgia, and Russia’s de facto control over two major Black Sea ports has been consolidated.
At a meeting in the Tajik capital Dushanbe on Thursday on the sidelines of the summit meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), Kazakh President Nurusultan Nazarbayev told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that Moscow could count on Astana’s support in the present crisis.
In his press conference in Dushanbe, Medvedev underlined that
his SCO counterparts, including China, showed understanding of the Russian position. Moscow appears satisfied that the SCO summit also issued a statement on the Caucasus developments, which, inter alia, said, “The leaders of the SCO member states welcome the signing in Moscow of the six principles for regulating the South Ossetia conflict, and support Russia’s active role in assisting peace and cooperation in the region.” The SCO comprises China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan…..”
To read more go to:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/JH30Ag02.html
Mr Cheney goes to Georgia
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/JH30Ag01.html
@alibi
1) Time will show who has lost or won
2) you play with me a sort of word game; depending to results wich were set before putting this or that strategy in motion, one can say it was executed brilliantly, the other could say something opposing; prof. Dutkiewicz used the expressions as he used – strategy, brilliant, etc but he could also select better equivalents, less dramatic. I always try to guess or read out what one wanted to say not what was written.
Regards
@roger,VS,anonymous, et al
” Garlahn (…) blog literally reeking with US imperial arrogance and political correctness”
Saker, you wrote for me and better. :) Thanks. :)
Now I’d like to draw your attention to what Mr Garlahn really said about his deal with Russia. I read the same undertones in one of WSJ articles recently.
Some Americans are not able to understand what they are saying as they are totaly brainwashed. I will then translate Mr Garlahn’s words for you to prove how much they relish in typical American-neocon hubris and HUCPA (this Jewish word was put here purposely).
Let’s first quote Mr Garlahn’s sentence: “I would trade recognition of Russia’s military actions as legitimate and recognize two new independent democracies to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. That is a diplomatic deal, a strategic choice, worth making.”
Translation:
Hey, you, Russians! We are trully generous. We will give YOU part of YOUR sphere of influence in return for Iran, YOUR trading partner.
If I read – “OK, let’s make a deal with Russia. We (USA) will allow Russia to build part of Russian BDM on Venezuelan or Cuban soil in return for the help in pressing Iran about her nukes” – I would know the USA wants to make a fair deal. Otherwise it is another American HUCPA.
As far as I remember the WSJ article was about “selling” Russians Ukraine. Using exactly the same scenario – selling Russians what “belongs” to them (read “belongs” in terms of Russian national interest).
BTW. Pay attention to Mr Garlahn’s “democracies”. He decidedly ment “American democracies” what one can infer from all his text.
Regards
Of course, Mr Galrahn, not Garlahn. My apologies.
There is some plausibility to the “brilliant strategy”. There has been gradual demonization of Russia (ie Putin as Time Magazine’s “bad guy” of the year). My best guess is they didn’t plan this but are using this war to accelerate the demonization.
For the record, here’s my view of galrahn.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueuauKKjPZI&NR=1
To p2o2
I’m a bit confused to be honest. English isn’t may first language as you might have noticed so I went back and read the article again… then again. Still confused. If you could help me out here it would be much appreciated /I’m not being sarcastic here/ Let’s go step by step. The headline is:
“How Russia Clobbered Georgia and Lost the War”
Here goes a quote:
“Some critics have pointed to the conflict in Georgia as another example of botched Bush administration foreign policy, but in fact America’s real STRATEGY was brilliantly executed and it ACHIEVED exactly the intended outcome”
I take it that there was a strategy and it’s goal was achieved.
Now we need to find out what was the goal.
Here goes the quote:
“Simply put, this was about the U.S. depositioning the only nuclear power in the world that consistently challenges it on foreign policy issues, such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan. It was a fully SUCSESFULL BUT WRONG- HEADED attempt to undermine Russia’s global status by setting a trap that Russia had to fall into. And it was about creating a villain for U.S. domestic political reasons”
I’m not sure I got it right: “Sucsesfull but wrong-headed” what does that mean?
Another quote:
“The result of Russia’s counter-strike has been EXACTLY what the U.S. wanted. Russia’s political influence in the world is now diminished. With the international community almost unanimous in its condemnation of Russia, it no longer has the credibility to criticize the U.S. for its military adventures. And the powerhouse Russian economy also sustained serious damage. Foreign investors are now delaying or cancelling projects and the Russian stock market is paying the price. Meanwhile, the U.S. and its tiny partner get to express their moral outrage while painting the Russian bear as irascible and expansionist.
This was a carefully developed and magnificently executed strategy”
Here is where I get lost. All the above states that there was a goal and the USA scored. But what about the next quote:
But it FAILS TO RECOGNISE how IMPORTANT it is to have Russia inside the community of nations RATHER THAN CAST A PARIAH STATE”
Please help me out here – that’s what I make out of it: The USA plotted a trap the whole idea of which was to ISOLATE Russia. And they succeeded. Correct me here if I’m wrong. But they failed to recognise that the whole idea/read – STRATEGY/ was wrong because:
Here goes the quote:
Russia has more neighbours than any other country in the world, and many of those neighbours are countries that we need to engage. The world is not a safer place without Russian involvement in the containment of nuclear proliferation. In fact, Russia plays a critically important role in maintaining a dialogue with countries like Iran that have nuclear ambitions.
Likewise Russia’s help is essential in the global war on terror. The U.S. simply cannot go it alone and hope to have any meaningful success over the long term. But now Washington says Russian Navy ships are no longer welcome to take part in the Active Endeavour counterterrorism and nonproliferation operation in the Mediterranean. That helps no one.
The world needs a cooperative and productive relationship between Russia and the U.S. – a relationship built on reciprocity. Rather than undermining and vilifying Russia, a more productive strategy for the U.S. would be to engage with Russia as much as possible as a partner on the world stage. Both Russia and the United States have legitimate national and international interests. Both can realize their interests. It is not a zero sum game. Russia does not need to be made to lose in order for the U.S. to win.
I’m really lost. One more time: The strategy was carefully developed and magnificently executed but there is a little problem, nothing really important – it’s just the strategy was WRONG. And the very same professor who was so impressed by the brilliancy of the strategy explained why it was a WRONG strategy.
I really need your help here. I always thought that it’s either brilliant or wrong.
Regards.
Alibi
@Vineyard:
I agree with you that SCO could say much more, but I see declaration is in itself isn’t very detailed and I still think World is in the shock after sudden Russia rise. The hints to that are Belorusia’s, the closest ally of Russia, foreign office was so slow in behaving correctly. Looks like they missed the moment of Russia rising altogether.
So I think members of the SCO are no different, they still can’t believe in what has just happened.
Regarding Russia. In the last days I’ve seen 2 notes of Russia’s rising, which may be not least important then Russia swift and righteous reaction on Georgian invasion:
1. The ‘state reserve of managers’ is created. (резерв управленцев).
2. Government pointed to mass media that it should counter-propagate consumer way of life and to shift to the propagating the healthy and educational way of life.
Those are the hints to me that Russian state finally adopted the alternative concept (links to which can be found in my questionable article, which I still would like to be commented :)
P.S. There are also a 3rd hint, or chronologically 1st, but I won’t mention it as you will count it as a bad sign, although I think that is a very good sign on par with other 2.
@alibi
I’m a little tired at the end of the day, really, the good news is that my favorite candidate for US president, Mrs Sarah Palin, was nominated for vice-president. :)
Anyway I will try to shed some light what I had on my mind quoting prof. Dutkiewicz text.
It seems to me you make two wrong assumptions:
1) prof. Dutkiewicz was dead serious without a tinge of sarcasm. If you try to look at his text not paying attention to every detail it doesn’t seem so bad.
2) His text was placed on my blog to support my conclusions. I wrote about second and even third bottoms in the whole picture of the war events and I supposed that it was American plan which was well executed and gave US upper hand in the end.
From what I dubbed US “Policy of Plate Tectonics” you could draw a conclusion that US goals were to make the southern Russian border a mess as much as possible. For such inference the article was very supportive. But I didn’t bother with details, first part of the text fit to my picture so I made use of it.
And of course I could be wrong with my assumptions. Prof. Dutkiewicz as well. More, his text might be uncoherent or even totaly wrong from YOUR point of view of the events.
And a little less serious. Imagine such scenario. You are invalid moving around on a wheelchair. And there is an aunty you loathe from your heart who takes care of you. You conjured up a genial plan to get rid of her. You did it and the police were unable to find a culprit. Your plan was executed BRILLIANTLY. But you were so blinded by your feelings that you found yourself in a position that the only person close to you and who you could rely on was gone. You were “SUCSESFULL BUT WRONG- HEADED”. ;)
Cheers
p2o2
My congratulations on your VP. I really hope McCane will make it to the White House.
Regards.
Aibi
@alibi
Thanks. ;) Nice of you. :)
Cheers
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sorry I meant McCain of course