Vladimir Putin currently uses his ideas as justification for Russian moves in the Crimea. Although the situation is not the same, Hitler referenced the same intellect? Whose world shaking words served to justify slicing away chunks of weaker states? Woodrow Wilson.
The end of World War I spelled the end of three multi-national empires, Russia, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire. Each one of these states formed around core ethnic groups, Great Russians, Austrians, and Turks. Each group established a powerful state that absorbed surrounding territories peopled by different ethnic, linguistic, and religious groups. Another tie binding the three lay in their belief that they fulfilled the Roman Imperial tradition. This, they believed, gave them the legitimate right to rule others.
The 20th Century challenged that notion and tore it down. Long standing dynasties and loose ties to the Roman Empire no longer mattered. Legitimacy remained a powerful word, but what made a government and its power legitimate? The Bolsheviks substituted class warfare for czarism and kept their empire going. The other two broke up.
Austria-Hungary challenged the West. About 15 different ethnic groups populated the empire and many wanted free of Austro-Hungarian imperial power. Wilson suggested that the peace treaties ending World War I reorder the world on national self-determination. No one, however, defined what that meant. It has remained a staple of US diplomacy ever since, but not without raising puzzling questions?.
Does it mean that each ethnic group has the right to rule itself? Wilson certainly did not think that extended to black Americans and Indian nations.
Does self-determination require democracy?
Does every group have this right, or only groups large enough to form a viable country?
No one knows for sure and we have made it up as we went along. This mostly resulted in good results.
But it also provides justification for National Socialists, white supremacists, and ethnic cleansing. The logic of national self-determination carried to its logical conclusion leads to messy problems, such as Hitler demanding that Czechoslovakia hand over the Sudetenland because it had Germans there. Of course after World War II, to prevent such a thing from happening again, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and other countries expelled every German from fear of this happening again. Serbs and Croats later feared the influence of minority Bosnians in their countries and drove them out.
Crimea is mostly populated by Russians, but is under Ukrainian control according to international law. Putin is, as many have done, appealing to the Wilsonian ideal of national self-determination. The Russian implemented vote in the Crimea chose Russia (whether or not that was a fair vote is highly debatable.)
Putin has put the West in a bind by turning the ideals of Woodrow Wilson and the imposed treaties ending World War I back against it. When addressing Putin, the West will have to deal with the hundred year old specter of the idea of national self-determination as well. Not that it was a bad idea, but a clear definition is way overdue.
Showing posts with label Russia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Russia. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
What Has Russia Lost So Far In Sochi Debacle?
Russia for centuries has remained obsessed about its image. It demands and craves respect as a modern, powerful nation, but also struggles with images of what it considers to be embarrassing backwardness. The Sochi Olympics should have advanced Vladimir Putin's plan to move Russia back to the forefront. Instead, even before the first event, it is a public relations nightmare.
The first rule of public relations? Put the best foot forward with the media. That also may be the second, third, and fourth rule. This Deadspin assemblage of reports and tweets puts Russia in the worst possible light. The land of the bear does not come off as strong, resilient, and capable. Sochi is "a hilarious adventure," looking less like competence and more like a bad prat fall flick. London's Daily Mail shows even more horrors, as well as a picture of the Russian president.
A reporter from one of the world's most prestigious sports-only publications must climb out his window because the hotel is locked down.
Another gets a terse warning not to use the water "because it contains something very dangerous." Her picture of the water looks like ginger ale or urine.
Whatever happens next will not unring the bell. When the media of the United States, Europe, and Japan were dumped into accommodations with broken doors, urinesque water, no lobbies, and mysterious bodily fluids, they gleefully reported all the issues. Being reporters, they dug and quickly found corruption, waste, and abuse of power mostly connected back to Putin. With 70,000 workers on the ground, Sochi may well be ready for the athletes. But the media sent home jokes and ridicule.
If Russia wants to break free of stereotypes and establish a better image, it should stop reverting to stereotypical images like Potemkin Villages.
For a nation seeking respect, ridicule is the deepest cut.
The obsession with its image in the West dates back to Czar Peter the Great in the late 1600s and early 1700s. He demanded that Russia modernize along Western lines. Being a very tactile intellect, Peter worked to bring visible changes, such as factories, newspapers, and western styles of clothes.
Peter established some westernism, but failed overall. He did not understand that the successes of the West sprang not from copying others, but from a liberty that birthed inquiry and development. Since then, Russia has vacillated between Slavic nationalism and Westernism, but has only rarely thought to embrace freedom to inspire innovation. It often finds itself playing catchup in the most visible ways, while lagging behind in others.
That is not to say that other countries have even patterns of growth and development. Certainly the United States does not. But most Americans do not see the perception of the world as damaging to economic development or national security in the same way as many Russians.
And Russians have reason to be concerned. They must compete with Western Europe's manufacturing economy, the shale gas revolution in the United States, keep a close eye on an increasingly nationalistic China, and figure out how to spur diverse growth and expand its population. Russia has over twice the land of China and one tenth of its population, all the while holding territory that the Chinese still consider their own. It also has innumerable ethnic groups within its borders, many of whom resent Moscow's rule.
Putin's nationalist bluster covers glaring weaknesses and concerns. So far, the Olympics that were supposed to serve as a crowning achievement have undermined the image of Putin and Russia alike.
The first rule of public relations? Put the best foot forward with the media. That also may be the second, third, and fourth rule. This Deadspin assemblage of reports and tweets puts Russia in the worst possible light. The land of the bear does not come off as strong, resilient, and capable. Sochi is "a hilarious adventure," looking less like competence and more like a bad prat fall flick. London's Daily Mail shows even more horrors, as well as a picture of the Russian president.
A reporter from one of the world's most prestigious sports-only publications must climb out his window because the hotel is locked down.
Another gets a terse warning not to use the water "because it contains something very dangerous." Her picture of the water looks like ginger ale or urine.
Whatever happens next will not unring the bell. When the media of the United States, Europe, and Japan were dumped into accommodations with broken doors, urinesque water, no lobbies, and mysterious bodily fluids, they gleefully reported all the issues. Being reporters, they dug and quickly found corruption, waste, and abuse of power mostly connected back to Putin. With 70,000 workers on the ground, Sochi may well be ready for the athletes. But the media sent home jokes and ridicule.
If Russia wants to break free of stereotypes and establish a better image, it should stop reverting to stereotypical images like Potemkin Villages.
For a nation seeking respect, ridicule is the deepest cut.
The obsession with its image in the West dates back to Czar Peter the Great in the late 1600s and early 1700s. He demanded that Russia modernize along Western lines. Being a very tactile intellect, Peter worked to bring visible changes, such as factories, newspapers, and western styles of clothes.
Peter established some westernism, but failed overall. He did not understand that the successes of the West sprang not from copying others, but from a liberty that birthed inquiry and development. Since then, Russia has vacillated between Slavic nationalism and Westernism, but has only rarely thought to embrace freedom to inspire innovation. It often finds itself playing catchup in the most visible ways, while lagging behind in others.
That is not to say that other countries have even patterns of growth and development. Certainly the United States does not. But most Americans do not see the perception of the world as damaging to economic development or national security in the same way as many Russians.
And Russians have reason to be concerned. They must compete with Western Europe's manufacturing economy, the shale gas revolution in the United States, keep a close eye on an increasingly nationalistic China, and figure out how to spur diverse growth and expand its population. Russia has over twice the land of China and one tenth of its population, all the while holding territory that the Chinese still consider their own. It also has innumerable ethnic groups within its borders, many of whom resent Moscow's rule.
Putin's nationalist bluster covers glaring weaknesses and concerns. So far, the Olympics that were supposed to serve as a crowning achievement have undermined the image of Putin and Russia alike.
Monday, January 27, 2014
A Short History of Ukraine
Protests and civil violence have rocked the Eastern European nation of Ukraine for several days now. The Texas sized country of nearly 45 million is physically one of the largest in Europe. Its plains have some of the world's best farming soil outside of North America.
Here is a brief description of its history.
In the early Middle Ages, Slavic tribes resided on the Dnieper River, a stream flowing roughly from north to south and emptying into the Black Sea. By the 800s, the kingdoms and principalities of Scandinavia had grown rich from both plunder and trade. They traded with those too powerful to plunder, like the Byzantine Empire.
A Swedish trading nation called the Varangians began using the river system in what is now Russia and Ukraine to build commercial ties with the rich Byzantine Empire which straddled the Balkans and Middle East. The Byzantines were the remaining rump of the old Roman Empire, much more compact, but still rich and still formidable.
The Varangian trade with the Byzantines drew more Slavs and Varangians to the river banks. Some combination of the two formed a state around the town of Kiev. Originally the state was called the Kievan Rus.
No one can say for certain how much of the original state was Nordic and how much was Slavic. Regardless, Slavs quickly dominated the early state. In the 800s and 900s, Kiev grew into a wealthy trading state, extending their rule along the rivers and to the east. It traded heavily with the Byzantine Empire and established dynastic connections with the impoverished European kingdoms emerging in central and western Europe.
Modern observers would find the early structure of Kievan rule unnecessarily complicated since they did not practice true primogeniture. The Grand Prince ruled at Kiev. Brothers, sons, or cousins could rule under him at other prominent cities. Succession was complicated and sometimes contentious. Hostile groups from the flatlands and Caucasian Mountains to the east often tried to play different princes off against each other.
One of the momentous moments in the history of Kievan Russia came during the reign of Grand Prince St. Vladimir the Great. He ruled from 980-1015, modern calendar. During his rule, he determined that his state ought to be Christian. By this time, however, Christianity was very close to its first major permanent schism. St. Vladimir had to choose between the Pope of what would be the Roman Catholic Church and the Emperor controlled Patriarch in Constantinople. Vladimir may have stacked the deck. He sent emissaries to describe each church to him so that he could decide. Some went to the glittering capital of Constantinople to survey what would become the Eastern Orthodox Church. They saw the mighty St. Sophia Church set in a dynamic metropolis. Others went to examine the Western church in not Rome, but the Holy Roman Empire. Its poverty had not yet produced the fantastic cathedrals that would appear later in the Middle Ages.
St. Vladimir tied the fortunes of his nation to the East, selecting Orthodoxy. This would form one of many barriers between Russia and the West for centuries.
Kiev met its ruin in the 1200s when the Mongols came. Kiev chose to resist and was annihilated much as Carthage in the Third Punic War. A papal nuncio to China who had seen Kiev intact wrote back on seeing the devastation. His letter recounted the leveling of numerous beautiful churches and other buildings. All that remained of the once thriving metropolis was a few mud huts and a few hundred Slavic slaves under the Mongol yoke. To the east of the city, he saw endless fields of bleaches bones and skulls.
The Mongols controlled Eastern Europe until the 1400s. Toward the end of its rule, some Russian cities started to assert themselves. Chief among these was Moscow. One of its successes lay in convincing the Orthodox patriarch to move the office of Metropolitan (analogous to Catholic Archbishop) from Kiev to Moscow. That gave the future Russian capital spiritual predominance in Eastern Europe. When it freed itself of the Mongols, it became the only Christian ruled leadership city in Orthodoxy. That happened because Constantinople finally succumbed to the Muslim Ottoman Empire.
By now, Russian civilization had split into three parts. The country around Kiev now had the name "Little Russia," or Ukraine. To its north sat Belarus or "White Russia." Moscow expanded to the north and east, becoming the center of "Great Russia." But Ukraine was not yet fated to come under the rule of Russia.
As the Middle Ages closed and the modern era commenced, the great power in the East was Poland. This Roman Catholic Slavic state united with the also Catholic Germanic state of Lithuania. Through the 1400s until the 1700s, this state ruled a vast area of plains and swamps. During the early 1600s, it even aspired to conquer Russia itself. Southern Ukraine fell into the hands of the Ottoman Turks who controlled the northern coast of the Black Sea.
From the rule of Peter the Great down to the end of the 18th century, Russia and its czars labored to gradually bring Ukraine under its own imperial rule. Despite the changes in government, Ukraine developed its own culture and language. It remembered the traditions of old Kiev and took pride in its heritage.
World War I ushered in significant changes. First, the Germans steamrolled Russian forces and in 1918 made Ukraine a protectorate under its guidance. This short lived situation dissolved with the German defeat in November, leaving Ukraine to the ravages of the Russian Civil War and eventually Bolshevism.
The Communist Soviet Union exacted a devastating toll from Ukraine. Stalin, who had run press gangs in the city of Tsaritsyn, later Stalingrad, now Volgograd, determined that Ukraine's wealthy and productive peasants must surrender their lands. The peasants, as they had done under the czars, resisted. They burned their homes, slaughtered and ate their livestock, and denied the Soviets the fruit of their labors. Stalin ordered millions rounded up and shipped off to the open plains of Siberia where most froze to death. Resulting famine killed millions more.
When Hitler invaded in 1941, many Ukrainians welcomed his Wehrmacht as liberators. Instead, they found the Germans more ruthless than Stalin. Hitler's Einstatzgruppen teams rounded up professionals and other leaders to be massacred, often by burning churches around them. Hitler's defeat brought more suffering. The Soviets demanded from British and American allies the return of all expatriates, many of whom had fled the Communists right after World War I. Shamefully, British and American officials approved the "return" of these people, most of whom suffered torture and death.
Ukraine's own Nikita Khrushchev succeeded Stalin as Soviet leader. His schemes and risky policies, however, led to his being removed from power.
Communist control led to disaster when a series of foolish decisions led to the late 1980s meltdown of the Ukraine located Chernobyl nuclear power plant. Soviet authorities for days refused to order a mass evacuation, exposing hundreds of thousands to contamination. Even today, Ukraine and Belarus still suffers high levels of cancer and birth defects as a result. Chernobyl broke down what was left of loyalty to the Communist system.
In 1991, Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia seceded from the Soviet Union, marking the end of its existence. Ukraine since has wavered between its former Russian masters and would be Western mentors. In the meantime, it has allowed its system to grow increasingly corrupt and authoritarian. The present and future is unclear. The resources and strength of the people, however, mean it still has potential to thrive.
Here is a brief description of its history.
In the early Middle Ages, Slavic tribes resided on the Dnieper River, a stream flowing roughly from north to south and emptying into the Black Sea. By the 800s, the kingdoms and principalities of Scandinavia had grown rich from both plunder and trade. They traded with those too powerful to plunder, like the Byzantine Empire.
A Swedish trading nation called the Varangians began using the river system in what is now Russia and Ukraine to build commercial ties with the rich Byzantine Empire which straddled the Balkans and Middle East. The Byzantines were the remaining rump of the old Roman Empire, much more compact, but still rich and still formidable.
The Varangian trade with the Byzantines drew more Slavs and Varangians to the river banks. Some combination of the two formed a state around the town of Kiev. Originally the state was called the Kievan Rus.
No one can say for certain how much of the original state was Nordic and how much was Slavic. Regardless, Slavs quickly dominated the early state. In the 800s and 900s, Kiev grew into a wealthy trading state, extending their rule along the rivers and to the east. It traded heavily with the Byzantine Empire and established dynastic connections with the impoverished European kingdoms emerging in central and western Europe.
Modern observers would find the early structure of Kievan rule unnecessarily complicated since they did not practice true primogeniture. The Grand Prince ruled at Kiev. Brothers, sons, or cousins could rule under him at other prominent cities. Succession was complicated and sometimes contentious. Hostile groups from the flatlands and Caucasian Mountains to the east often tried to play different princes off against each other.
One of the momentous moments in the history of Kievan Russia came during the reign of Grand Prince St. Vladimir the Great. He ruled from 980-1015, modern calendar. During his rule, he determined that his state ought to be Christian. By this time, however, Christianity was very close to its first major permanent schism. St. Vladimir had to choose between the Pope of what would be the Roman Catholic Church and the Emperor controlled Patriarch in Constantinople. Vladimir may have stacked the deck. He sent emissaries to describe each church to him so that he could decide. Some went to the glittering capital of Constantinople to survey what would become the Eastern Orthodox Church. They saw the mighty St. Sophia Church set in a dynamic metropolis. Others went to examine the Western church in not Rome, but the Holy Roman Empire. Its poverty had not yet produced the fantastic cathedrals that would appear later in the Middle Ages.
St. Vladimir tied the fortunes of his nation to the East, selecting Orthodoxy. This would form one of many barriers between Russia and the West for centuries.
Kiev met its ruin in the 1200s when the Mongols came. Kiev chose to resist and was annihilated much as Carthage in the Third Punic War. A papal nuncio to China who had seen Kiev intact wrote back on seeing the devastation. His letter recounted the leveling of numerous beautiful churches and other buildings. All that remained of the once thriving metropolis was a few mud huts and a few hundred Slavic slaves under the Mongol yoke. To the east of the city, he saw endless fields of bleaches bones and skulls.
The Mongols controlled Eastern Europe until the 1400s. Toward the end of its rule, some Russian cities started to assert themselves. Chief among these was Moscow. One of its successes lay in convincing the Orthodox patriarch to move the office of Metropolitan (analogous to Catholic Archbishop) from Kiev to Moscow. That gave the future Russian capital spiritual predominance in Eastern Europe. When it freed itself of the Mongols, it became the only Christian ruled leadership city in Orthodoxy. That happened because Constantinople finally succumbed to the Muslim Ottoman Empire.
By now, Russian civilization had split into three parts. The country around Kiev now had the name "Little Russia," or Ukraine. To its north sat Belarus or "White Russia." Moscow expanded to the north and east, becoming the center of "Great Russia." But Ukraine was not yet fated to come under the rule of Russia.
As the Middle Ages closed and the modern era commenced, the great power in the East was Poland. This Roman Catholic Slavic state united with the also Catholic Germanic state of Lithuania. Through the 1400s until the 1700s, this state ruled a vast area of plains and swamps. During the early 1600s, it even aspired to conquer Russia itself. Southern Ukraine fell into the hands of the Ottoman Turks who controlled the northern coast of the Black Sea.
From the rule of Peter the Great down to the end of the 18th century, Russia and its czars labored to gradually bring Ukraine under its own imperial rule. Despite the changes in government, Ukraine developed its own culture and language. It remembered the traditions of old Kiev and took pride in its heritage.
World War I ushered in significant changes. First, the Germans steamrolled Russian forces and in 1918 made Ukraine a protectorate under its guidance. This short lived situation dissolved with the German defeat in November, leaving Ukraine to the ravages of the Russian Civil War and eventually Bolshevism.
The Communist Soviet Union exacted a devastating toll from Ukraine. Stalin, who had run press gangs in the city of Tsaritsyn, later Stalingrad, now Volgograd, determined that Ukraine's wealthy and productive peasants must surrender their lands. The peasants, as they had done under the czars, resisted. They burned their homes, slaughtered and ate their livestock, and denied the Soviets the fruit of their labors. Stalin ordered millions rounded up and shipped off to the open plains of Siberia where most froze to death. Resulting famine killed millions more.
When Hitler invaded in 1941, many Ukrainians welcomed his Wehrmacht as liberators. Instead, they found the Germans more ruthless than Stalin. Hitler's Einstatzgruppen teams rounded up professionals and other leaders to be massacred, often by burning churches around them. Hitler's defeat brought more suffering. The Soviets demanded from British and American allies the return of all expatriates, many of whom had fled the Communists right after World War I. Shamefully, British and American officials approved the "return" of these people, most of whom suffered torture and death.
Ukraine's own Nikita Khrushchev succeeded Stalin as Soviet leader. His schemes and risky policies, however, led to his being removed from power.
Communist control led to disaster when a series of foolish decisions led to the late 1980s meltdown of the Ukraine located Chernobyl nuclear power plant. Soviet authorities for days refused to order a mass evacuation, exposing hundreds of thousands to contamination. Even today, Ukraine and Belarus still suffers high levels of cancer and birth defects as a result. Chernobyl broke down what was left of loyalty to the Communist system.
In 1991, Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia seceded from the Soviet Union, marking the end of its existence. Ukraine since has wavered between its former Russian masters and would be Western mentors. In the meantime, it has allowed its system to grow increasingly corrupt and authoritarian. The present and future is unclear. The resources and strength of the people, however, mean it still has potential to thrive.
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
Two Very Different "Men of the Year" and How They Define Our Times
The US magazine Time and the UK newspaper the Times both selected very different men of the year for 2013. Each reflects ascendant spirits with very different worldviews.
Time magazine chose Pope Francis. The Times selected Russian president Vladimir Putin.
In some ways, this is amazingly Augustinian. St. Augustine wrote of the division between the City of Man and the City of God. Vladimir Putin has emerged as a near czar of an expanding informal Russian Empire. He follows the early 19th century British model of using economics to influence and profit from other nations. But he also follows a very Russian path of controlling border nations to keep the homeland secure. In this way, Third Rome very much resembles the first.
Pope Francis, known as Jorge Mario Bergoglio before March 13, has emerged as a Catholic Father for his times. The Cold War needed, for example, the iron tough, theologically sound, and eternally compassionate Pope John Paul II. No pope since the Middle Ages had the impact of the man Catholics and many other Christians call "John Paul the Great" (a moniker not bestowed on a Pope since the 600s.) His leadership made the Roman Catholic Church a mighty fortress again, regaining credibility and luster after the tragic World War II years.
The 21st Century, however, challenges Christianity in a different way. Many are lost and want to be found. While the Church certainly will not abandon doctrine, Francis has pointedly emphasized love, forgiveness, and compassion for the vulnerable. This may not look like power, but it works effectively in contrast. John Paul II's expression of these sentiments helped the Polish Pope bring down the Eastern Bloc. Francis' message will thrive in places such as Cuba, where Communism lost credibility years ago. Or Africa where Christians face determined Islamic expansionists. The Christian faith at its core remains the simplest and most profound way to make sense of man's place in the world. Pope Francis, agree or disagree with the details of some of his pronouncements, is a powerful ambassador of faith. He senses that the world is changing and seeks to adapt Catholic teaching to it without abandoning fundamental foundations of faith.
Power matters to Putin, too. He has gradually absorbed Belarus, convincing that impoverished republic to cede sovereign right after sovereign right. Before Christmas, he offered a bailout to corrupt and struggling Ukraine. Historically Belarus is "White Russia," Russia proper is "Great Russia," and Ukraine is "Little Russia." Ukraine, however, is where Russia began. Russian nationalism craves respect and seeks to ground its actions in tradition and history. Putin's slow moves westward reflect these old habits.
But how well grounded is that power? Russia has relied heavily on natural gas revenues to fund its return to world prominence. The United States, however, as reported by the Washington Free Beacon, could undermine Putin's plans. As West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Texas sprout gas wells that rely on cheap hydrofracturing techniques, they threaten to undercut Russian dominance of this market in the Eastern Hemisphere. In the same way that late 20th century Middle Eastern oil was cheaper for Americans to buy abroad than produce at home, so US gas undermines Russia and depresses prices in the entire gas market.
Unless Russia can diversify or convince Obama to shut off the tap, the moment in the sun carved out by Putin for Russia could be brief.
Putin's hard nosed domestic approach runs counter to Francis' preaching as well. The Russian president is essentially conservative in the European sense (not, I repeat, not the American. Or the British, for that matter.) European conservatives emphasize order above liberty. They prefer control and predictability in both domestic and international affairs. Russia particularly has feared the advance of uncontrolled social movements regardless of whether they were ruled by the czar or the Politboro.
These two men both qualify as "Man of the Year" for different reasons. And there is no reason to think that their influence and appeal will diminish in the next 12 months. What should be troubling for the United States is that neither figure needs to account for America in any way in terms of his ideals, values, or morality. We are no longer a major part of their conversation. Whether one sees the US as a powerful example of a Judeo-Christian republic or a force for liberty and natural rights, the demise of America under Obama is underscored by the emergence of these men.
Time magazine chose Pope Francis. The Times selected Russian president Vladimir Putin.
In some ways, this is amazingly Augustinian. St. Augustine wrote of the division between the City of Man and the City of God. Vladimir Putin has emerged as a near czar of an expanding informal Russian Empire. He follows the early 19th century British model of using economics to influence and profit from other nations. But he also follows a very Russian path of controlling border nations to keep the homeland secure. In this way, Third Rome very much resembles the first.
Pope Francis, known as Jorge Mario Bergoglio before March 13, has emerged as a Catholic Father for his times. The Cold War needed, for example, the iron tough, theologically sound, and eternally compassionate Pope John Paul II. No pope since the Middle Ages had the impact of the man Catholics and many other Christians call "John Paul the Great" (a moniker not bestowed on a Pope since the 600s.) His leadership made the Roman Catholic Church a mighty fortress again, regaining credibility and luster after the tragic World War II years.
The 21st Century, however, challenges Christianity in a different way. Many are lost and want to be found. While the Church certainly will not abandon doctrine, Francis has pointedly emphasized love, forgiveness, and compassion for the vulnerable. This may not look like power, but it works effectively in contrast. John Paul II's expression of these sentiments helped the Polish Pope bring down the Eastern Bloc. Francis' message will thrive in places such as Cuba, where Communism lost credibility years ago. Or Africa where Christians face determined Islamic expansionists. The Christian faith at its core remains the simplest and most profound way to make sense of man's place in the world. Pope Francis, agree or disagree with the details of some of his pronouncements, is a powerful ambassador of faith. He senses that the world is changing and seeks to adapt Catholic teaching to it without abandoning fundamental foundations of faith.
Power matters to Putin, too. He has gradually absorbed Belarus, convincing that impoverished republic to cede sovereign right after sovereign right. Before Christmas, he offered a bailout to corrupt and struggling Ukraine. Historically Belarus is "White Russia," Russia proper is "Great Russia," and Ukraine is "Little Russia." Ukraine, however, is where Russia began. Russian nationalism craves respect and seeks to ground its actions in tradition and history. Putin's slow moves westward reflect these old habits.
But how well grounded is that power? Russia has relied heavily on natural gas revenues to fund its return to world prominence. The United States, however, as reported by the Washington Free Beacon, could undermine Putin's plans. As West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Texas sprout gas wells that rely on cheap hydrofracturing techniques, they threaten to undercut Russian dominance of this market in the Eastern Hemisphere. In the same way that late 20th century Middle Eastern oil was cheaper for Americans to buy abroad than produce at home, so US gas undermines Russia and depresses prices in the entire gas market.
Unless Russia can diversify or convince Obama to shut off the tap, the moment in the sun carved out by Putin for Russia could be brief.
Putin's hard nosed domestic approach runs counter to Francis' preaching as well. The Russian president is essentially conservative in the European sense (not, I repeat, not the American. Or the British, for that matter.) European conservatives emphasize order above liberty. They prefer control and predictability in both domestic and international affairs. Russia particularly has feared the advance of uncontrolled social movements regardless of whether they were ruled by the czar or the Politboro.
These two men both qualify as "Man of the Year" for different reasons. And there is no reason to think that their influence and appeal will diminish in the next 12 months. What should be troubling for the United States is that neither figure needs to account for America in any way in terms of his ideals, values, or morality. We are no longer a major part of their conversation. Whether one sees the US as a powerful example of a Judeo-Christian republic or a force for liberty and natural rights, the demise of America under Obama is underscored by the emergence of these men.
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Ukraine Continues Tilt Toward Russia
In the Middle Ages, Kiev served as the capital of Russia. Now it serves independent Ukraine in that capacity. Over time, Russia and Ukraine separated culturally, linguistically, and nationally. Now Kiev once again looks to Russia for leadership and support.
Ukraine in terms of size is about the size of Texas or France. Next to the North American Great Plains, its soil potentially can produce more than any region on Earth. Its 45 million people live in a state of chronic underdevelopment. The nation suffers from severe corruption and holds the fifth lowest international credit rating.
Twenty years of independence from the old Soviet Union brought disastrously bad government to a nation with energy reserves, a seaport, and food production capacity that could easily provide for a continent.
Ukraine naturally shied away from Russia at first. Russia dominated the old Soviet Union which in turn terrorized Ukraine. Stalin ripped away from the land tens of millions of innocent farmers and others. Over the USSR's entire history, Ukrainian language and culture were stifled.
Ties to Europe and the United States grew. Ukraine wanted to participate in institutions such as the European Union and NATO. Economic instability in the past several years has made help from the EU come with conditions. These include applying to the IMF and signing a free trade agreement.
Full free trade with Europe would help Ukraine develop itself. It can cheaply produce enough food to sell to all of Europe. France, Germany, and other countries, however, continue to cling to agricultural subsidies. For Ukraine to get ahead, it needs to be able to exploit its competitive advantages in land and cheap labor. A free trade pact would merely open the door to European manufactures without helping Ukraine develop its agricultural sector. Some in the United States have floated the idea of a bailout, but with the US and the EU experiencing their own debt crises, this will not happen.
Enter Vladimir Putin and Russia.
Putin seems to have figured out what Britain learned after the American Revolution. Gain influence over an independent nation's economy and get the benefits of colonialism without the costs of administration. Britain, the United States, Japan, and others have all adopted that lesson at some point after hard lessons learned about war, conquest, and colonialism.
Russia has extended its hand to Ukraine, offering a trade deal and other forms of assistance. This will tie Ukraine more strongly to the nation that served as its overlord during Czarist and Soviet times.
Many in Ukraine see this as too risky. Thousands have rioted in protest against rising Russian influence. Russian ties to Belarus have resulted in the near merger of the two states. This will likely not change Ukraine's official position.
Putin will continue to channel efforts into building an informal empire dependent on Moscow. This is a less risky strategy than China's new belligerence in the Far East, but it is no less important.
As for Ukraine, its potential remains untapped. But a country the size of France with oil, gas, and food capability is not a forgettable part of the world's balance of influence.
Ukraine in terms of size is about the size of Texas or France. Next to the North American Great Plains, its soil potentially can produce more than any region on Earth. Its 45 million people live in a state of chronic underdevelopment. The nation suffers from severe corruption and holds the fifth lowest international credit rating.
Twenty years of independence from the old Soviet Union brought disastrously bad government to a nation with energy reserves, a seaport, and food production capacity that could easily provide for a continent.
Ukraine naturally shied away from Russia at first. Russia dominated the old Soviet Union which in turn terrorized Ukraine. Stalin ripped away from the land tens of millions of innocent farmers and others. Over the USSR's entire history, Ukrainian language and culture were stifled.
Ties to Europe and the United States grew. Ukraine wanted to participate in institutions such as the European Union and NATO. Economic instability in the past several years has made help from the EU come with conditions. These include applying to the IMF and signing a free trade agreement.
Full free trade with Europe would help Ukraine develop itself. It can cheaply produce enough food to sell to all of Europe. France, Germany, and other countries, however, continue to cling to agricultural subsidies. For Ukraine to get ahead, it needs to be able to exploit its competitive advantages in land and cheap labor. A free trade pact would merely open the door to European manufactures without helping Ukraine develop its agricultural sector. Some in the United States have floated the idea of a bailout, but with the US and the EU experiencing their own debt crises, this will not happen.
Enter Vladimir Putin and Russia.
Putin seems to have figured out what Britain learned after the American Revolution. Gain influence over an independent nation's economy and get the benefits of colonialism without the costs of administration. Britain, the United States, Japan, and others have all adopted that lesson at some point after hard lessons learned about war, conquest, and colonialism.
Russia has extended its hand to Ukraine, offering a trade deal and other forms of assistance. This will tie Ukraine more strongly to the nation that served as its overlord during Czarist and Soviet times.
Many in Ukraine see this as too risky. Thousands have rioted in protest against rising Russian influence. Russian ties to Belarus have resulted in the near merger of the two states. This will likely not change Ukraine's official position.
Putin will continue to channel efforts into building an informal empire dependent on Moscow. This is a less risky strategy than China's new belligerence in the Far East, but it is no less important.
As for Ukraine, its potential remains untapped. But a country the size of France with oil, gas, and food capability is not a forgettable part of the world's balance of influence.
Monday, October 7, 2013
Naturally Changing the World Balance of Power
America's "gas revolution," combined with stepped up domestic oil production could undermine a US foreign rival.
After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia relied heavily on its natural gas production to rebuild its economy. By the ascension of Vladimir Putin to the presidency, Russian dominance in gas production helped to steady its economy while Europe, Japan, and the United States experienced uncertainty.
Gas revenues helped Russia to rebuild its state and military over the past decade, but the country's inability to diversify its economy could lead to disaster.
Europe for decades relied heavily on gas exports from first the USSR, then Russia, to help satisfy its energy needs. Now, as Washington Free Beacon reports, a sudden upwelling of gas exports from the United States has forced prices to drop worldwide. Russia feels the pinch as their gas revenues decline.
The IMf, according to the story, revised down its estimates for Russian economic growth in 2014. Though three percent still qualifies as fairly robust, it pales in comparison to the expected seven.
All this comes as the federal government considers dropping many of the remaining gas export restrictions. This could help to open the markets in South Central Asia as well as Europe, hurting Iranian exports as well as Russia.
A hundred years ago, President William Howard Taft pioneered "dollar diplomacy." He tried to use US economic power instead of force in pushing other states to act more in line with American interests. The US has been stung many times by energy diplomacy from Russia and the Middle East. Increasing output, raising exports, and becoming self-sufficient is the right call for US jobs and national security
After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia relied heavily on its natural gas production to rebuild its economy. By the ascension of Vladimir Putin to the presidency, Russian dominance in gas production helped to steady its economy while Europe, Japan, and the United States experienced uncertainty.
Gas revenues helped Russia to rebuild its state and military over the past decade, but the country's inability to diversify its economy could lead to disaster.
Europe for decades relied heavily on gas exports from first the USSR, then Russia, to help satisfy its energy needs. Now, as Washington Free Beacon reports, a sudden upwelling of gas exports from the United States has forced prices to drop worldwide. Russia feels the pinch as their gas revenues decline.
The IMf, according to the story, revised down its estimates for Russian economic growth in 2014. Though three percent still qualifies as fairly robust, it pales in comparison to the expected seven.
All this comes as the federal government considers dropping many of the remaining gas export restrictions. This could help to open the markets in South Central Asia as well as Europe, hurting Iranian exports as well as Russia.
A hundred years ago, President William Howard Taft pioneered "dollar diplomacy." He tried to use US economic power instead of force in pushing other states to act more in line with American interests. The US has been stung many times by energy diplomacy from Russia and the Middle East. Increasing output, raising exports, and becoming self-sufficient is the right call for US jobs and national security
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
What About Russian Relations? Obama's Lost Credibility
The Kremlin influenced news outlet Russia Today this week compared Obama's foreign policy stature to Vladimir Putin's using a sports metaphor from European soccer (Barcelona versus Wigan Athletic.) It was somewhat kinder that one published earlier here, which compared Putin to the Harlem Globetrotters and Obama to the perpetually fated square losers, the Washington Generals. The Globetrotters simile is more apt. They dominate with panache and style while their ill matched competitors always seem confused and, well, square.
Putin, like the Globetrotters, plays a different game that Obama and those around him cannot comprehend. This is understandable. Putin once worked in the KGB, responsible for some of the most successful psychological operations ever seen. His worldview developed in the context of a global conflict of perceptions with the United States.
Obama's vision has never really transcended Chicago. His politics are Chicago. He surrounds himself with bit machine politicians. Secretary of State, for Obama, is a box to keep one quiet or a reward for prior support. Imagine if Harry Truman appointed Sam Rayburn as secretary of state and only listened to the advice of Tom Pendergast. How many rings would Stalin have run around the Man from Missouri?
Democrats love to accuse Republicans of knee jerking back to Cold War archetypes. And Obama has gotten sucked into the old mano y mano competitions that Nikita Khrushchev employed successfully at times against John Kennedy and unsuccessfully against Vice President Richard Nixon.
That does not mean, however, that Russia aspires to global revolution. Putin, instead, conducts himself internally and externally much in the same way as the old czars of the imperial age.
Russia, since Peter the Great in the early 1700s, has swung back and forth like a pendulum. Peter the Great imposed Westernization onto Russia in the same way that an abusive parent would force a child to eat broccoli. Westernization was good for Russia, but it never fully developed a taste for strong relations with the West. Out of necessity, or the affinity of the leadership, Russia does "swing" towards the West occasionally. Catherine the Great established intellectual contacts with Voltaire and Jefferson. Boris Yeltsin worked closely with Bill Clinton and Western experts to construct a free market Russia among the shambles of the dead Communist Soviet Union.
On the other hand, Nicholas I cut off all contact with the West and Joseph Stalin initiated the Cold War.
The anti-Western turn is a combination of a reaction against the West and a reaffirmation of traditional Russian identity. Russia suffers from an inferiority complex that has led it in the past to assert that most of the world's great inventions, such as radio and telephones, actually came from there. With inferiority comes a craving for respect. And Russia perceives that Western respect only comes from a show of power and force.
Russia also craves security. And why not, after all, it experienced devastating invasions by Charles XII of Sweden, Napoleon, and Hitler. They prefer to have their enemies far afield and rarely trust professed friends. Russia puts its trust in territory. Keep unfriendly states and alliances as far away as possible while dominating one's neighbors. The Republic of Georgia a few years ago skirmished with Russia. Now they have developed ever closer ties. Belarus seceded from the Soviet Union to escape Great Russia dominance. Now it has devolved into a near protectorate.
Security also comes from international stabilization. The czars despised the idea of any revolution or upheaval against established governments. For example, they warmly supported the United States government in its struggle against the Confederate States, even to the point of deploying warships for a visit to New York harbor. They "helped" Austria in the 1800s by sending in troops to quell a revolt, without that country's invitation. Russia's Syria position reflects this old commitment to what it has always seen as "legitimacy."
Russian foreign relations operate almost entirely on the basis of self-interest. What enhances the prestige and the security of Russia will be pursued. It serves Putin's goals that the United States be raised to the position of antagonist, regardless of what America does or does not do.
Of course the US sometimes plays into anti-Westerners' hands. Criticizing the Chechen War in the 1990s was a terrible misstep. Scolding Russia for its internal developments, negative as they may be, does not advance the US position. Putin's consolidation of power does not threaten the United States, it is not entirely unpopular, and there is little that America can do about it.
Scolding Russia over gay rights and voicing threats about the Olympics does not hurt Putin. It actually reinforces his anti-American message about international meddling. What would really hurt the master of a nation strongly dependent on natural gas revenues is to lift all export controls and turn on as many drills as possible in the US. When the international price of natural gas drops, Russia will be hit. They will also understand that the US can hurt a country without bombing it.
That builds respect. That increases credibility.
Also, make no more mention of anti-gay laws in Russia. Instead, let the gay athletes who will represent the United States compete with class. Jesse Owens and America's Jewish athletes struck a blow against National Socialist doctrines on race and religion by winning events and conducting themselves with honor in Berlin in 1936. They can do the same in Sochi.
No more "resets" can happen under Obama. He has no respect or credibility in the Kremlin. The next president needs to bring people aboard who understand Russia. Then the US can craft a position vis a vis that country that is productive without being subservient.
Putin, like the Globetrotters, plays a different game that Obama and those around him cannot comprehend. This is understandable. Putin once worked in the KGB, responsible for some of the most successful psychological operations ever seen. His worldview developed in the context of a global conflict of perceptions with the United States.
Obama's vision has never really transcended Chicago. His politics are Chicago. He surrounds himself with bit machine politicians. Secretary of State, for Obama, is a box to keep one quiet or a reward for prior support. Imagine if Harry Truman appointed Sam Rayburn as secretary of state and only listened to the advice of Tom Pendergast. How many rings would Stalin have run around the Man from Missouri?
Democrats love to accuse Republicans of knee jerking back to Cold War archetypes. And Obama has gotten sucked into the old mano y mano competitions that Nikita Khrushchev employed successfully at times against John Kennedy and unsuccessfully against Vice President Richard Nixon.
That does not mean, however, that Russia aspires to global revolution. Putin, instead, conducts himself internally and externally much in the same way as the old czars of the imperial age.
Russia, since Peter the Great in the early 1700s, has swung back and forth like a pendulum. Peter the Great imposed Westernization onto Russia in the same way that an abusive parent would force a child to eat broccoli. Westernization was good for Russia, but it never fully developed a taste for strong relations with the West. Out of necessity, or the affinity of the leadership, Russia does "swing" towards the West occasionally. Catherine the Great established intellectual contacts with Voltaire and Jefferson. Boris Yeltsin worked closely with Bill Clinton and Western experts to construct a free market Russia among the shambles of the dead Communist Soviet Union.
On the other hand, Nicholas I cut off all contact with the West and Joseph Stalin initiated the Cold War.
The anti-Western turn is a combination of a reaction against the West and a reaffirmation of traditional Russian identity. Russia suffers from an inferiority complex that has led it in the past to assert that most of the world's great inventions, such as radio and telephones, actually came from there. With inferiority comes a craving for respect. And Russia perceives that Western respect only comes from a show of power and force.
Russia also craves security. And why not, after all, it experienced devastating invasions by Charles XII of Sweden, Napoleon, and Hitler. They prefer to have their enemies far afield and rarely trust professed friends. Russia puts its trust in territory. Keep unfriendly states and alliances as far away as possible while dominating one's neighbors. The Republic of Georgia a few years ago skirmished with Russia. Now they have developed ever closer ties. Belarus seceded from the Soviet Union to escape Great Russia dominance. Now it has devolved into a near protectorate.
Security also comes from international stabilization. The czars despised the idea of any revolution or upheaval against established governments. For example, they warmly supported the United States government in its struggle against the Confederate States, even to the point of deploying warships for a visit to New York harbor. They "helped" Austria in the 1800s by sending in troops to quell a revolt, without that country's invitation. Russia's Syria position reflects this old commitment to what it has always seen as "legitimacy."
Russian foreign relations operate almost entirely on the basis of self-interest. What enhances the prestige and the security of Russia will be pursued. It serves Putin's goals that the United States be raised to the position of antagonist, regardless of what America does or does not do.
Of course the US sometimes plays into anti-Westerners' hands. Criticizing the Chechen War in the 1990s was a terrible misstep. Scolding Russia for its internal developments, negative as they may be, does not advance the US position. Putin's consolidation of power does not threaten the United States, it is not entirely unpopular, and there is little that America can do about it.
Scolding Russia over gay rights and voicing threats about the Olympics does not hurt Putin. It actually reinforces his anti-American message about international meddling. What would really hurt the master of a nation strongly dependent on natural gas revenues is to lift all export controls and turn on as many drills as possible in the US. When the international price of natural gas drops, Russia will be hit. They will also understand that the US can hurt a country without bombing it.
That builds respect. That increases credibility.
Also, make no more mention of anti-gay laws in Russia. Instead, let the gay athletes who will represent the United States compete with class. Jesse Owens and America's Jewish athletes struck a blow against National Socialist doctrines on race and religion by winning events and conducting themselves with honor in Berlin in 1936. They can do the same in Sochi.
No more "resets" can happen under Obama. He has no respect or credibility in the Kremlin. The next president needs to bring people aboard who understand Russia. Then the US can craft a position vis a vis that country that is productive without being subservient.
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
Far East Dangers Rising On the Horizon
With all the news of China's blue water navy development in the past few years, another country's response fell under the radar. Yesterday, however, the unveiling of Japan's newest "destroyer" raised questions.
The "destroyer" surpasses the size of any Japanese ship built since World War II. To the uneducated (or, perhaps cynical) eye, the Izumo looks suspiciously like an aircraft carrier. Its flat top deck, allegedly meant for helicopters, is four fifths as long as an American Nimitz class deck. It also outstrips by about 200 feet the length of the Royal Navy's Illustrious class carriers
Izumo pointedly responds to China's purchase and reconstruction of a Soviet era carrier from Ukraine.
The bigger issue lies in the deteriorating relations between China and her neighbors, specifically Japan, Vietnam, and the Philippines.
Territorial disputes between these nations lay dormant for years. Recently, technological advances in identifying and extracting sea floor resources have raised the stakes in who owns what stretch of ocean bottom. Vast natural gas and oil resources interest nations, such as China and Japan, that have little of either.
Interestingly, this issue has also separated Cold War partners Japan and the Nationalist Chinese government based in Taiwan.
Throughout the Cold War, the United States played referee to the region. Although domestically debated later, the willingness to fight in Korea and Vietnam gave friends assurance and enemies pause. Few doubted America's willingness to fight for Japan, South Korea, Nationalist China, or other friends. Moreover, few believed that the US had any goals in the Far East beyond maintaining the status quo.
American power, relatively speaking, has receded in the region as China spent more on expanding and modernizing its warmaking ability. It also has launched cyberattacks against its opponents' government and business concerns.
Unfortunately for the United States, the Chinese urge to revise the Far East balance of power echoes the shadows of a century ago.
In 1913, the British Empire managed the world power dynamic through a powerful navy and economic productive might. The German Empire under Kaiser William II aspired to "a place in the sun." This meant military might, colonial expansion, and international respect on par with the British.
They made an unwise alliance with unstable Austria-Hungary, which was locked in perpetual disputes with Russia over control of southeastern Europe. When Russia's client state of Serbia served as the base of a devastating terror attack on Austria-Hungary, the clumsy attempt to settle the score touched off World War I.
Similar dynamics are emerging now. China is setting itself against Japan, the Philippines, and Vietnam in its territorial disputes. It has an unstable client in North Korea whose unpredictability could touch off a war with Japan or South Korea. It is trying, like Germany in the early 1900s, to build a fleet that can regionally challenge the first rank power.
In other words, a pattern is emerging that could unravel decades of generally peaceful relations among states that despise and fear each other.
China's bold actions mirror those of other states that fear internal discord and try to rally the people around external successes. It built a middle class, but never allowed it political participation. That has been the downfall of many authoritarian regimes. Questions about its debt and actual production numbers lend uncertainty to the perception that it is an economic power fated to outstrip the United States.
This also comes at a time when the Middle East's foundations of stability are collapsing, leftist regimes have come to power in Latin America, and Europe continues to live on the precipice of debt disaster.
Events have pushed the world's nations and people towards a time where only the brilliance of a Prince Otto von Bismarck could restore the balance. It would be in America's interest to produce such a figure because a war in the Far East would inevitably draw us in. And like Germany in the late 1800s and early 1900s, very few possible scenarios, even in victory, leave the US better off.
The "destroyer" surpasses the size of any Japanese ship built since World War II. To the uneducated (or, perhaps cynical) eye, the Izumo looks suspiciously like an aircraft carrier. Its flat top deck, allegedly meant for helicopters, is four fifths as long as an American Nimitz class deck. It also outstrips by about 200 feet the length of the Royal Navy's Illustrious class carriers
Izumo pointedly responds to China's purchase and reconstruction of a Soviet era carrier from Ukraine.
The bigger issue lies in the deteriorating relations between China and her neighbors, specifically Japan, Vietnam, and the Philippines.
Territorial disputes between these nations lay dormant for years. Recently, technological advances in identifying and extracting sea floor resources have raised the stakes in who owns what stretch of ocean bottom. Vast natural gas and oil resources interest nations, such as China and Japan, that have little of either.
Interestingly, this issue has also separated Cold War partners Japan and the Nationalist Chinese government based in Taiwan.
Throughout the Cold War, the United States played referee to the region. Although domestically debated later, the willingness to fight in Korea and Vietnam gave friends assurance and enemies pause. Few doubted America's willingness to fight for Japan, South Korea, Nationalist China, or other friends. Moreover, few believed that the US had any goals in the Far East beyond maintaining the status quo.
American power, relatively speaking, has receded in the region as China spent more on expanding and modernizing its warmaking ability. It also has launched cyberattacks against its opponents' government and business concerns.
Unfortunately for the United States, the Chinese urge to revise the Far East balance of power echoes the shadows of a century ago.
In 1913, the British Empire managed the world power dynamic through a powerful navy and economic productive might. The German Empire under Kaiser William II aspired to "a place in the sun." This meant military might, colonial expansion, and international respect on par with the British.
They made an unwise alliance with unstable Austria-Hungary, which was locked in perpetual disputes with Russia over control of southeastern Europe. When Russia's client state of Serbia served as the base of a devastating terror attack on Austria-Hungary, the clumsy attempt to settle the score touched off World War I.
Similar dynamics are emerging now. China is setting itself against Japan, the Philippines, and Vietnam in its territorial disputes. It has an unstable client in North Korea whose unpredictability could touch off a war with Japan or South Korea. It is trying, like Germany in the early 1900s, to build a fleet that can regionally challenge the first rank power.
In other words, a pattern is emerging that could unravel decades of generally peaceful relations among states that despise and fear each other.
China's bold actions mirror those of other states that fear internal discord and try to rally the people around external successes. It built a middle class, but never allowed it political participation. That has been the downfall of many authoritarian regimes. Questions about its debt and actual production numbers lend uncertainty to the perception that it is an economic power fated to outstrip the United States.
This also comes at a time when the Middle East's foundations of stability are collapsing, leftist regimes have come to power in Latin America, and Europe continues to live on the precipice of debt disaster.
Events have pushed the world's nations and people towards a time where only the brilliance of a Prince Otto von Bismarck could restore the balance. It would be in America's interest to produce such a figure because a war in the Far East would inevitably draw us in. And like Germany in the late 1800s and early 1900s, very few possible scenarios, even in victory, leave the US better off.
Monday, August 18, 2008
No Time For Newbies
Russia's move into the Caucasian Republic of Georgia demonstrates that a new challenge has started shaping up to American interests around the world.
Russia has restarted its traditional drive to the south, a historical expansion dating back to the 1400s. That country sees the belt of smaller nations to its south as its own national playground, a historical reality that should make Iran, Pakistan, and other nations very nervous. Certainly at one time nations did claim "spheres of influence" and asserted the right to total predominance in those regions and the US was no different. However it is 2008, not 1908. Times have changed.
Some commentators linked the drive against Georgia to the war in Chechnya that Putin prosecuted to success in the beginning of his presidency. The two situations could not be more different. Chechnya is a part of Russian territory inhabited by a separatist ethnic group. The Chechen War was fought to maintain the integrity of Russian territory and to prevent like minded Muslim minorities in Russia from also fighting to leave. Georgia is a sovereign nation invaded by Russia.
Russia through this invasion intends to reassert itself as a Great Power who can project its strength at times of its choosing. The drive by the US to incorporate Georgia into the NATO alliance certainly played a role in Russia's decision to flex its muscles at this point. Now that Russia has been well-fed by oil revenues and is led by a prime minister who desires to bring back Russia's imperial glory, the United States must have experienced leadership to deal with this new challenge.
Now is no time for a neophyte president from a party that sees foreign affairs as issues that distract from social engineering and tax hikes. Russia has issued the world a challenge. Nothing would make them happier than to see a newbie elected to the American presidency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)