-
Klaus and the Lisbon Treaty: No Need to Hurry
October 16, 2009 | 3 comments
-
Avoiding Disaster with NATO
June 19, 2009 | 21 comments
The Spectacle Blog
The eloquent Doug Bandow makes a number of serious miscalculations over NATO in our fledgling conversation (Defending the European Weenies/Avoiding Disaster with NATO/ Where’s the Disaster?).
First off, he plays Moscow’s “blame the victim” game over the August 2008 Russian-Georgian war, as an argument against NATO expansion. It is a brave man who trusts the word of the unelected and unaccountable European Commission, especially over a matter as serious as war and peace. It is hugely convenient for the Commission to lay the blame for the August War at the door of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili; after all, the Russians are in permanent violation of the EU-negotiated ceasefire, which the EU conveniently ignores so long as Russia supplies it with much-needed helicopters for the French colonial (sorry, EU) mission to Chad.
Although it is completely un-testable, it is worth pondering whether Russia would’ve invaded Georgia if Germany and France hadn’t colluded with Moscow to deny Georgia NATO’s Membership Action Plan at the Bucharest Summit in April 2008 (which Britain, America and the Baltics supported).
Who cares about little Georgia? Expand the argument a little further and there are large parts of ‘Europe-proper’ that can be written off. There are two realistic futures for Europe: (1) a Europe of free and self-determining nation-states allied with the United States and anchored to Euro-Atlantic institutions; or (2) a Europe divided among those whom Russia considers in its zone of privileged interests and those who are not, who are ruled under the iron fist of a supranational, incompetent, militarily inept and corrupt European Union.
Mr. Bandow is correct that Kosovo didn’t really “matter” to America and that the U.S. had no overriding strategic interests in stopping the mass killing of Kosovar Muslims in 1999. President Clinton could have easily adopted the tone that President Obama is taking today toward the Iranian protestors being brutalized by the killing merchants of the atomic ayatollahs; more so considering Kosovo’s relative lack of importance to U.S. strategic interests compared to Tehran. However, if America won’t stand for freedom, then who will? It should also be remembered that it was the Europeans who proclaimed, “This is the hour of Europe. It is not the hour of the Americans,” in 1991 when they took control of mediation efforts in Yugoslavia. The rest is history.
It is equally unfathomable to argue that Europe should fight Islamist extremism alone. 9/11, 7/7, 3/11 are all graphic and tragic examples of the West’s generational long struggle against this ideological threat. The United States will need to fight this menace on a bilateral, multilateral and — where necessary — unilateral level. Therein lies NATO’s inherent value, and the purpose of Rep. Turner’s NATO First Act: reinforce NATO as the centerpiece of America’s multi-layered European alliance architecture.
View all comments (43) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Sally McNamara
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/06/19/us-or-them-on-nato
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
doug| 6.19.09 @ 5:23PM
that the U.S. had no overriding strategic interests in stopping the mass killing of Kosovar Muslims in 1999. Are you kidding me ?If you could please back-up this statement with documented facts I would appreciate it.The OSCE statedthat around 2800 bodies were found after the "WAR " in Kosovo which they couldnt substantiate were Serbs,albos,civilians or soldiers ."Mass murder" please stop the hate propaganda against serbia and its citizens.
Joe Smith| 6.19.09 @ 5:29PM
Evidence, evidence, evidence. What makes your claim about Russian manipulations any more plausible than Bandow's? Are you saying that Saakashivili is more trustworthy than the European Commission? Really? I'd probably equate the two given Saakashivili's penchant for jailing his own countrymen and shutting down media outlets that don't agree with him.
As for Article V, you still haven't answered the issue at hand. Are you prepared to drag the U.S. into a nuclear standoff over Russia? If so, then I think you ought to be more explicit about that with your readers and supporters. Goodness knows that might like to know that before they hand some of the money they were saving for their children over to the Heritage Foundation.
As for the killings, just where in the world should the U.S. (or Britain for that matter) not intervene? People are brutalized every single day from Africa to Europe to Asia. Just what kind of army would one need to ensure that one's conscience is kept free of guilt? Again, have you discussed that with your fellow countrymen as they may hold a different opinion based upon historical precedent?
Finally NATO. Yes, some of us do agree that NATO is enormously important. But the question is, just what are individuals like yourself doing to get NATO to live up to that importance? You advocate expanding NATO so long as a nation treats its people the way that a nation should. It reminds me of a Chris Rock skit...the one where he talks about folks that take pride in saying that they don't beat their children...that is what we expect of every nation--and not every nation ought to be in NATO. Moreover, you might want to explain just why it is when a nation joins NATO their funding for the tools necessary to defend themselves (and others) falls. That, it seems to me, might have something to do with the fact that the threshold for having the U.S. go to bat for you is to treat your countrymen like human beings. If I were you, I might think twice about states like Georgia and Ukraine if you really are interested in the concept of collective security.
Getting NATO to work isn't about recycled communiques, or growing it as quickly as the EU. It's about understanding that you don't set yourself up for failure by creating absurd objectives. Unfortunately, with a bit of thanks from certain individuals, we've already crossed that bridge...which might be why we're having this discussion about NATO in the first place.
Joe Smith| 6.19.09 @ 5:36PM
Evidence, evidence, evidence. What makes your claim about Russian manipulations any more plausible than Bandow's? Are you saying that Saakashivili is more trustworthy than the European Commission? Really? I'd probably equate the two given Saakashivili's penchant for jailing his own countrymen and shutting down media outlets that don't agree with him.
As for Article V, you still haven't answered the issue at hand. Are you prepared to drag the U.S. into a nuclear standoff over Russia? If so, then I think you ought to be more explicit about that with your readers and supporters. Goodness knows that your donors might like to know that before they hand some of the hard earned money they were saving for their children over to the Heritage Foundation.
As for the killings, just where in the world should the U.S. (or Britain for that matter) not intervene? People are brutalized every single day from Africa to Europe to Asia. Just what kind of army would one need to ensure that one's conscience is kept free of guilt? Again, have you discussed that with your fellow countrymen as they may hold a different opinion based upon historical precedent?
Finally NATO. Yes, some of us do agree that NATO is enormously important. But the question is, just what are individuals like yourself doing to get NATO to live up to that importance? You advocate expanding NATO so long as a nation treats its people the way that a nation should. It reminds me of a Chris Rock skit...the one where he talks about folks that take pride in saying that they don't beat their children...that is what we expect of every nation--and not every nation ought to be in NATO. Moreover, you might want to explain just why it is when a nation joins NATO their funding for the tools necessary to defend themselves (and others) falls. That, it seems to me, might have something to do with the fact that the threshold for having the U.S. go to bat for you is to treat your countrymen like human beings. If I were you, I might think twice about states like Georgia and Ukraine if you really are interested in the concept of collective security.
Getting NATO to work isn't about recycled communiques, or growing it as quickly as the EU. It's about understanding that you don't set yourself up for failure by creating absurd objectives. Unfortunately, with a bit of thanks from certain individuals, we've already crossed that bridge...which might be why we're having this discussion about NATO in the first place.
Red Phillips | 6.19.09 @ 5:55PM
So conservatives are supposed to side with Georgia who invaded secessionist South Ossetia to keep them under subjugation? Well I guess if I was a Lincoln loving "conservative" I might agree with that, but I'm not so I don't.
Joe Smith| 6.19.09 @ 6:16PM
Red,
The fact is that a conservative wouldn't place the future of his country in the care of a man that thinks it's perfectly fine to ignore the U.S. when they explicitly warn him of the dangers of entering into a fight with the Russians.
I've no love for the Russians, but I'll be damned if someone tells me that I'm the one who's immoral because I decided to stay out of a dispute between two thugs who couldn't care less about the future of my children.
Joe Smith| 6.19.09 @ 6:40PM
One final observation. I didn't realize that the Heritage Foundation was in the business of advocating specific legislative measures. Perhaps I'm mistaken but Heritage is a 501(c)(3) institution and according to the IRS a 501(c)(3) organization, "may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities."
Perhaps this is the only instance of an attempt to influence legislation.
Sean| 6.19.09 @ 6:52PM
Come on Joe Smith we all know that engaging in wars and stuff like that doesn't take legislation anymore. All that is needed is to influence the President.
Red Phillips | 6.19.09 @ 10:36PM
Joe, what is remarkable is the reflexive Russiaphobia of the neocons. Georgia by attacking poor little secessionist South Ossetia was clearly the aggressor and the bad guy here. But the neocons automatically condemned Russia.
Zbigniew Mazurak | 6.20.09 @ 1:16AM
1) Bandow's comment that Eastern European states were previously parts of the USSR and the Russian Empire is irrelevant. True, these countries were parts of those 2 empires, but become so forcibly, not freewillingly. The Baltic Republics were annexed by the USSR in 1940 (and the US never recognized that annexation as legal) and, before WW1, were parts of Russia, as a result of Russian conquests of the 18th century. By that same ridiculous logic, one could claim that France should give Alsace and Lorraine back to Germany because Germany annexed them a few times in the past.
2) "Are you prepared to drag the U.S. into a nuclear standoff over Russia?"
Gibberish. As long as America maintains a strong military, including a sizable nuclear arsenal, Russia will never dare to begin a nuclear standoff, let alone attack the US and its allies. NATO's members have NEVER been attacked by any foreign country.
3) Georgia was not the aggressor and not the bad guy. South Ossetia and Abkhazia were, prior to 2008, internationally recognized integral parts of Georgia. The Georgian government had the right to restore these provinces as parts of Georgia. And it's, of course, none of Russia's business.
4) Georgia actually matters very much to American and European security, as explained by me on AT. It hosts the only pipelines leading to Europe that aren't controlled by the Kremlin, and if Russia seizes those pipelines, Europe will have no alternative routes of supplies. It will be then at the mercy of Gazprom (i.e. the Kremlin), and America will lose all of her allies. That's a real recipe for disaster. Doug Bandow is an ignorant and incompetent man, so he doesn't know that sometimes the fate of an entire continent is decided in small countries.
Bateman| 6.20.09 @ 8:12AM
Where to start?
"As long as America maintains a strong military, including a sizable nuclear arsenal, Russia will never dare to begin a nuclear standoff, let alone attack the US and its allies."
What would you have called to Cold War then? Cuban Missile Crisis? I'm pretty certain that was a nuclear stand-off. Why would the Russians "not dare" to do the same thing?
"Georgia was not the aggressor and not the bad guy. South Ossetia and Abkhazia were, prior to 2008, internationally recognized integral parts of Georgia. The Georgian government had the right to restore these provinces as parts of Georgia. And it's, of course, none of Russia's business."
Cripes - but you just stated that Russia would never "attack" one of America's allies. What would you have called Georgia then? Furthermore, do remind me what Kosovo was part of before we decided to launch an illegal war against Serb civilians with cluster bombs in 99? I think you'll find it was part of Yugoslavia. Didn't stop us, did it?
"Georgia actually matters very much to American and European security, as explained by me on AT. It hosts the only pipelines leading to Europe that aren't controlled by the Kremlin, and if Russia seizes those pipelines, Europe will have no alternative routes of supplies. It will be then at the mercy of Gazprom (i.e. the Kremlin), and America will lose all of her allies. That's a real recipe for disaster."
Sure, but where will Russia receive revenues if it has no customers for its oil?
"Doug Bandow is an ignorant and incompetent man, so he doesn't know that sometimes the fate of an entire continent is decided in small countries."
Dude, way to play the man and not the ball.
Finally, regarding the article - by what Ms McNamara is saying, Article 5 can ONLY function if you have a robust American military presence on Continental Europe. Thus, NATO is far more broken than we think. Ms McNamara has stated that America needs a military presence in Europe to deter Russia. I thought that's what Article 5 did?
Does this mean that we should abandon this moribund agreement and agree to perpetual US presence on Continental Europe? After all, by what you're saying, that's what deters the Russians?
Good luck getting that by US taxpayers.
Bateman| 6.20.09 @ 8:13AM
Where to start?
"As long as America maintains a strong military, including a sizable nuclear arsenal, Russia will never dare to begin a nuclear standoff, let alone attack the US and its allies."
What would you have called to Cold War then? Cuban Missile Crisis? I'm pretty certain that was a nuclear stand-off. Why would the Russians "not dare" to do the same thing?
"Georgia was not the aggressor and not the bad guy. South Ossetia and Abkhazia were, prior to 2008, internationally recognized integral parts of Georgia. The Georgian government had the right to restore these provinces as parts of Georgia. And it's, of course, none of Russia's business."
Cripes - but you just stated that Russia would never "attack" one of America's allies. What would you have called Georgia then? Furthermore, do remind me what Kosovo was part of before we decided to launch an illegal war against Serb civilians with cluster bombs in 99? I think you'll find it was part of Yugoslavia. Didn't stop us, did it?
"Georgia actually matters very much to American and European security, as explained by me on AT. It hosts the only pipelines leading to Europe that aren't controlled by the Kremlin, and if Russia seizes those pipelines, Europe will have no alternative routes of supplies. It will be then at the mercy of Gazprom (i.e. the Kremlin), and America will lose all of her allies. That's a real recipe for disaster."
Sure, but where will Russia receive revenues if it has no customers for its oil?
"Doug Bandow is an ignorant and incompetent man, so he doesn't know that sometimes the fate of an entire continent is decided in small countries."
Dude, way to play the man and not the ball.
Finally, regarding the article - by what Ms McNamara is saying, Article 5 can ONLY function if you have a robust American military presence on Continental Europe. Thus, NATO is far more broken than we think. Ms McNamara has stated that America needs a military presence in Europe to deter Russia. I thought that's what Article 5 did?
Does this mean that we should abandon this moribund agreement and agree to perpetual US presence on Continental Europe? After all, by what you're saying, that's what deters the Russians?
Good luck getting that by US taxpayers.
Zbigniew Mazurak| 6.20.09 @ 3:34PM
1) Bateman, your claims about the Cold War and the Cuban missile "crisis" are ludicrous. The Cold War and the Cuban missile "crisis" (the latter had its distinct features that are beyond the scope of this post) actually PROVED that a) deterrence works; b) Russia would NEVER dare to attack a strong America. How do you think, why did the USSR never dare to attack the West directly during the Cold War? Why didn't Khrushchev dare to launch his missiles during the Cold War? Answer: because any attack, whether launched from Cuba or another place, would've invited a huge Western retaliation (JFK promised that). The USSR never dared to attack because Soviet dictators were rational guys and never wanted to get nuked by the US military. Any claims that the world ever was at the brink of a nuclear war are ridiculous. The world never was at the brink of nuclear war because Soviet nuclear weapons were controlled by cold-headed, rational, pragmatic Soviet policymakers whose first interest was the survival of the USSR, not getting Moscow turned into a radioactive crater.
2) Georgia was attacked because the entire West made it clear to Putin that it did not consider Georgia to be an ally at all - or at least not one worth admitting to NATO. Putin interpreted that signal as a licence to invade Georgia. If you don't deter, aggressors WILL attack.
3) Russia can always sell oil to China, India, Japan and other countries that need much oil and much NG.
4) I do not support keeping permanently 100,000 American soldiers in Europe, nor is that necessary to deter the Russians. These soldiers can be brought back to the US, but can be deployed to Europe again - quickly, by planes and ships - if need be. Besides, Britain, France and America have nuclear weapons. If any aggressors ever attack NATO, the US will retaliate with nukes, so aggressors must refrain from aggressions.
Basil Plumley| 6.20.09 @ 7:50PM
@ Zbigniew Mazurak
Your 2 posts are exceptional and on point. Internet high five to you.
I would also point out that most military experts were skeptical of Russia's ability to move any troops and materials within that short period of time without the Russian action being pre-meditated. The Russian military is not in ready shape and the Russians have been relying on economic warfare to fight Europe. Germany imports a great amount of its energy. I have read estimates of 90%.
It should also be mentioned that Russian oil is not of the highest grade. I believe it sells at a price 25-30% below market price for Brent and West Texas. The Russians also have not put much money into their gas and oil infrastructure.
As other countries in the region move to surpass the Russians in production and delivery, how will the Russian bear react?
Desperation leads to horrible/tragic consequences. How many innocents perish as a result of said desperation?
Armchair generals like Red and Bateman do not want the responsibility of protecting innocent life, yet, they hide under the cloak of constitutionality and self-righteousness. They consider themselves "paleo" but in reality they are Pelagian.
Once again, Zbigniew Mazurak, good job.
Zbigniew Mazurak | 6.21.09 @ 5:53AM
Thank you very much, Basil. However, I don't think the Russian military is weak. Look at how quickly it overran Georgia. Vlad Putin has already done significant progress on rebuilding the Russian military. Although Russia still has much obsolete Soviet-era equipment that needs to be replaced, and many technological problems with its weapons (e.g. missiles that veer off course), it has already made huge progress, and that progress is continuing.
Bateman| 6.21.09 @ 6:09AM
Zbigniew -
But you didn't say "attack" you said...
"As long as America maintains a strong military, including a sizable nuclear arsenal, Russia will never dare to begin a nuclear standoff, let alone attack the US and its allies."
Wouldn't dare to begin a nuclear standoff, let along attack the US and its allied? As I pointed out, there was already a nuclear standoff during the Cold War. Also, read your Graham Allison - not all orders from the Soviet leadership were from cool headed men (as an example see who gave the orders to shoot down the spy plane over Cuba). Just because someone is "cool headed" doesn't mean that we will avoid war... Just look at some of the people surrounding Kennedy (LeMay et al) during the crisis. Look at WWI for goodness sake.
Furthermore, the United States never declared that Georgia was not an ally - when did that happen? In fact, American troops were training on Georgian soil when Russian "invaded"... hmmm... sounds a little shady, doesn't it? Almost as if someone was taking advantage of the situation?
"Georgia was attacked because the entire West made it clear to Putin that it did not consider Georgia to be an ally at all - or at least not one worth admitting to NATO. Putin interpreted that signal as a licence to invade Georgia. If you don't deter, aggressors WILL attack."
I think I've already referred to this point above, but I can't see how you can group the United States into this equation?
"Russia can always sell oil to China, India, Japan and other countries that need much oil and much NG."
Come on, be serious. Just so they can watch Western Europe crumble? Then why build the pipelines? Just so they can pull the rug out? I'd hardly think the Chinese would be too happy aobut this either - if Europe collapses economically, where will China, India, Japan et al export their goods?
"I do not support keeping permanently 100,000 American soldiers in Europe, nor is that necessary to deter the Russians. These soldiers can be brought back to the US, but can be deployed to Europe again - quickly, by planes and ships - if need be. Besides, Britain, France and America have nuclear weapons. If any aggressors ever attack NATO, the US will retaliate with nukes, so aggressors must refrain from aggressions."
Nukes n' NATO failed to deter NATO did it? Same can be said about the Falklands - that prompted a really robust response from NATO didn it? Nevertheless, my point was in reference to the article, not anything you had said.
However, you have failed to respond to my point about the legal status of Kosovo when we invaded it. Does that not make your point about South Ossetia and Abkhazia nul and void?
Basil Plumley| 6.21.09 @ 10:22AM
@ Zbigniew Mazurak
I dissent about the Russian military. It is in shambles. The mechanized army that rolled into Georgia was put together with all vehicles that could run. This meant taking parts off other vehicles to get the units rolling.
I have read that the Russian navy is basically a painted over rust bucket.
As for the Russian Air Force; the pride and joy of Putin, dropped 57 bombs on the pipeline in Georgia and very few of them(4?) came even close to the target. No direct hits.
Russia military also has a demographic problem as well as a drinking problem. The Russians in the military are prone to the drink. The demographics show that a growing number of the Russian military are Moslems. In 15-20 years, they will be projected to be over 50%.
Nothing to worry about, eh General Red?
doug| 6.21.09 @ 11:10AM
the russian military might have a drinking pro blem but the US has a larger problem,they have been HOMOsized.The biggest problem the west has is that it is turning its back on God and atheism is the new in-thing.Our society is being poisoned from the inside out gay marriages,gay parades,atheism,communism,degraded education,consumerism,credit,pornographyand so on.The fact that the west allowed these muslim animals to destroy Serbian orthodox churches,some that were over 600 yrs old is grotesque,you can view the destruction on youtube.
Red Phillips | 6.21.09 @ 3:54PM
"South Ossetia and Abkhazia were, prior to 2008, internationally recognized integral parts of Georgia. The Georgian government had the right to restore these provinces as parts of Georgia."
ZM, North Ossetia is part of Russia. That South Ossetia became part of Georgia when the USSR devolved is largely a matter of geographic accident. The people of South Ossetia TWICE voted overwhelmingly for independence. Again I say, if I were a Lincoln loving "conservative" I might agree with you because I would prefer forced nationalism, unnatural scale and centralization to smaller and more natural voluntary polities. But I'm not so I don't.
Ossetia is a distinct people, with a distinct culture, history and language. And they are Christians. To have Christians in Georgia bombing Christians in Ossetia to keep them in a recent and entirely artificial political union is obscene. Free South Ossetia!
Richard Baker | 6.21.09 @ 5:50PM
It's way too late now but President Washington was correct in warning us to "avoid foreign entanglements". The problem is that now Pandora's Box is open and we have to band together against evil, though with some of our friends, who needs enemies?
Basil Plumley| 6.21.09 @ 10:41PM
@ Red
Sorry, but the folks in South Ossetia who wanted to be part of Russia were Russian expatriates. Putin had been giving visas like crazy to a bunch of folks who then claimed to be South Ossetians.
In some ways it is akin to Lincoln declaring West Virginia part of the Union in 1863. Not much of a difference.
Hmm, let's see, you think Lincoln is a bad guy but Putin is somehow a good guy when he does basically the same thing. Putin instigated the war and made Georgia the instigator.
Free South Ossetia! ....... indeed.
Basil Plumley| 6.21.09 @ 10:44PM
Doug--
What you state is the least of our problems. The current administration will destroy the military. Trillions for social programs and nothing for defense. This will not end well.
Perhaps, Ranger RINO Bob can ride to the rescue; when he stops apologizing for this administration.
Red Phillips| 6.21.09 @ 11:03PM
Basil, I did not say Putin is a "good guy," and I was careful not to defend Russia. Reread what I wrote. Russia was meddling as well. But Georgia invaded South Ossetia first. That is a fact. And it was an act of naked aggression against the aspirations for independence of the distinct people of South Ossetia.
Red Phillips | 6.21.09 @ 11:04PM
Basil, I did not say Putin is a "good guy," and I was careful not to defend Russia. Reread what I wrote. Russia was meddling as well. But Georgia invaded South Ossetia first. That is a fact. And it was an act of naked aggression against the aspirations for independence of the distinct people of South Ossetia.
Basil Plumley| 6.22.09 @ 12:07AM
Red
You then did not address the issue I made:
Sorry, but the folks in South Ossetia who wanted to be part of Russia were Russian expatriates. Putin had been giving visas like crazy to a bunch of folks who then claimed to be South Ossetians.
That is meddling prior to any Georgian incursion. I actually reread your post before I responded the first time. You did not address Putin's actual chicanery.
Of course I also read these posts, too.
Red Phillips| 6.19.09 @ 5:55PM
So conservatives are supposed to side with Georgia who invaded secessionist South Ossetia to keep them under subjugation? Well I guess if I was a Lincoln loving "conservative" I might agree with that, but I'm not so I don't.
Red Phillips| 6.19.09 @ 10:36PM
Joe, what is remarkable is the reflexive Russiaphobia of the neocons. Georgia by attacking poor little secessionist South Ossetia was clearly the aggressor and the bad guy here. But the neocons automatically condemned Russia.
Sorry Red, I still don't see where you blamed Putin.
Zbigniew Mazurak | 6.22.09 @ 3:36AM
Good grief, where to start?
1) The Cuban Missile "Crisis" was NOT a nuclear standoff, unless by a standoff you mean using nukes as bargaining cards to obtain political concessions, 'cos that's what Khruschchev intended and did. He never meant to attack America (he knew that Moscow would be nuked if he did), he only wanted to obtain significant concessions from Kennedy and used those missiles in Cuba as bargaining cards. The concessions JFK made were: 1) promising not to topple Castro 2) withdrawing American missiles from Italy and Turkey. That's all Nikita Sergeyevich wanted. He later wrote about the CMC thus:
"We ended up getting everything that we wanted - security for Fidel Castro's regime and removal of American missiles from Italy and Turkey".
Graham Allison is wrong - Khruschchev was a pragmatic policymaker and so was his Defense Minister, Rodion Yakovlevich Malinovsky, who didn't even think that Khrushchev should've started the CMC in the first place. As for LeMay, he only wanted the US military to bomb Cuba - which would not trigger a nuclear war because Moscow had NO reason to involve itself in a nuclear war over a tiny poor island. Unlike you, I'm not a naive guy and I don't believe in the hype produced by the scaremongering media. There never was any real risk of a nuclear war.
2) I am not a Russophobe. I am, however, an opponent of Putin's imperialist, aggresive, anti-Western policy.
3) Russia doesn't need Western Europe to earn money on exports (there are customers for NG and oil all around the world), and if WE crumbles, Russia won't suffer significantly.
4) The entire NATO did declare - in no uncertain terms - that Georgia was NOT an ally of the West by refusing to give Georgia and Ukraine even MAPs, let alone the right to access NATO, during the April 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest. As Sally McNamara rightly wrote, had Georgia been a NATO member at the time of the Russian aggression, the aggression might've not occurred, although this cannot be proven or disproven. Besides, for his ENTIRE presidency, Traitor Bush conducted a policy of appeasement towards Russia - before, during, and after the Russo-Georgian war - so it's no surprise that Putin attacked Georgia. By appeasing Putin for 7 years, Bush prepared the way for Russian aggression against Georgia. Similarly, by unconditionally talking to Khrushchev and apologizing to him for everything in Vienna, JFK caused the CMC, because Khrushchev concluded that JFK was a coward. As the NYT correctly wrote, "Kennedy talked, Khrushchev triumphed" during the 1961 Vienna summit, which preceded the construction of the BW and the CMC. Hell, JFK himself admitted that Khrushchev defeated him in Vienna and was embarrassed by this. Not even the strongest military in the world will deter aggressors IF they believe that this military's commander in chief is a coward.
4) If Western Europe collapses economically, China, India and Japan will trade amongst each other (they have a combined populace of almost 3 billion people), and they will also export stuff to Russia, the Middile East (there are many oil sheiks willing to buy that stuff), and, most importantly, America, who is their #1 economic partner. China exports more to America than to all other countries combined. Western Europe is increasingly irrelevant as an export market.
5) "Nukes n' NATO failed to deter NATO did it" - deter whom? when? Why should NATO try to deter NATO? As for the Falklands - thank you for proving my point! Galtieri believed that the UK would not fight over the Falklands just like it didn't react when the Argies captured South Georgia and a few other Antarctic islands, so the Argies invaded the Falklands. And then, they got their asses kicked by PM Thatcher in a timespan of about 2 months. Enough said.
Basil Plumley - Sadly, I do not agree with you on the Russian military. It is, of course, suffering many problems ranging from inadequate investments in new equipment to demographics to alcoholism to fat generals. But much progress has already been made since 2000 and the Russian MOD is now implementing new reforms. And even now, the Russian military is not as impotent as you think it is - it overran Georgia quickly. Its Flankers are superior to F-15s and F-16s, and its now developing an F-22-like 5th gen. fighterplane type, together with India - the PAK FA.
6) South Ossetia has always been, since 1992, and still is, an internationally recognized part of Georgia, and Tbilisi was free to do anything with it - none of Russia's business.
7) As for Kosovo - neither Kosovo nor Serbia ever had a strong military or nuclear weapons, so no wonder why Serbia couldn't deter or defeat NATO in the 1990s. Having said that, I don't think NATO should've intervened in Kosovo at all, and I don't think Kosovo's independence should've been recognized by anyone.
Basil Plumley| 6.22.09 @ 8:18AM
@ Zbigniew Mazurak
We can disagree to disagree about the Russian military. I do take issue with your view of Russians "overrunning" Georgia.
The Russian military stopped itself about 15 miles from the capital. They were not stopped by the Georgians but rather by the Russian soldiers desire to rip toilets out of bathrooms and ship the toilets back to Russia. To date, they still have not taken Georgia.
It is undeniable that Russia, as a country, is dying. Between the low birth rate and high alcoholism, how long before Russia is incapable of defending the Eastern portion of Russia.
It would not surprise me if China had their eyes on retaking Eastern Russia. Retaking?
Yes, Czar Alexander took Eastern Russia from the Chinese in the 1860's and China would love to retake that land. The Chinese are currently flooding the area with workers who are marrying Russian women. The Chinese are hard workers, give the paychecks to their wives, and refrain from the bottle.
Even if China does not retake Eastern Russia, the demographic trends show that ethnic Russians will have minority status in their country in the next 30 years.
Putin has his hands full. I do not feel sorry for Putin, he has his $Billions socked away outside of Russia (estimates are between 20-30 Billion dollars). That is living very well.
sandy| 12.5.09 @ 10:03PM
Sports shoes play an important Chris Paul Shoes in our life. Adidas shoes brand is a professional Gilbert Shoes.
Pig | 12.6.09 @ 9:16AM
Steve Nash Shoes approaches. Duncan Shoes
ghd hair straighter | 1.16.10 @ 10:22AM
3, go to hair salons to professional care. ghd black styler
Professional equipment trade show, professional products, professional salon hair damaged they should be quiet. ghd iv styling set
golf | 1.17.10 @ 9:24PM
Callaway golf drivers irons fairway woods wedge hybrid
Taylormade golf drivers irons fairway woods wedge hybrid putter