georgia and mccain

The Georgia mess (now with a cease-fire?) has allowed John McCain to show his true colors. The colors of a flame-breathing hawk, ready to threaten force as a first resort regardless of whether the use of force is likely to succeed, and whether or not it is being used in defense of vital US interests.

McCain said this is the "3:00 AM" moment that proves he is ready to be President, and Obama isn't. Au contraire, Alphonse. Part of the (stupid) 3:00 AM concept is responding rationally. Going over the top about Georgia and Russia is not rational.

Yes, Russia's response to Georgia's provocation has been over the top and brutally effective. No, it should not be surprising - remember Russia's reaction to Kosovo independence. We shoved that one down their throat, as we've been forcing Russia to accept other provocations - NATO membership and military guarantees for the former Soviet republics of Estonia, Latvaa, and Lithuania, for example, as well as for Poland and other ex-Soviet bloc countries. Not to mention the de facto Bush Administration's efforts to get NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia.

How would we respond if Russia or China for example gave military guarantees to the Dominican Republic, the Bahamas, and Honduras? Very dimly, since we see that as our backyard. Well, Georgia is Russia's.

That's not to say we give Russia a free hand. Criticizing them is fine. But equating this to 1938 or the crushing of Hungary in 1956 is also unrealistic, as is any implication that this Russian action touches on vital US interests. It does not.

And I don't know that McCain understands that. A Russian invasion of Poland? That's a problem for us all. A Russian invasion of Georgia? A problem mostly for Georgia, unfortunately, and one that we realistically cannot do anything about militarily, assuming we don't think South Ossetia is worth risking a mushroom cloud over Chicago.

georgia on my mind

A few thoughts about the disturbing situation in Georgia (on the not-very-bright side, this helps our geographical knowledge, since now Americans know there is a Georgia that Sherman didn't march through and the Braves don't play ball in).

First, what the hell was Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili thinking? As Richard Cohen notes, small countries do not provoke big countries. Could Saakashvili have remotely thought that Putin's Russia would stand idly by, while Georgia defeated Russia's South Ossetian friends militarily? Could he have thought for even 30 seconds that the US or anybody else would do anything to help Georgia, beyond calling for a ceasefire and decrying Russia's invasion of non-Ossetian parts of Georgia?

Second - anybody want to reconsider the wisdom of letting the Baltic States and other former Soviet republics into NATO? It is one thing to guarantee Poland and Rumania. But to guarantee countries that were part of the USSR - and that were part of RUSSIA, too - and that have large Russian minorities is pretty provocative. Georgia was trying for NATO status. I think we can safely assume that won't be happening any time soon, since NOBODY in NATO has any appetite for war with Russia over the Russian Near Abroad.

Third - what is the likely outcome? Personally, I'd be surprised if Putin stops while Saakashvili is still in office. My bet: either Russian troops will directly oust him, or perhaps more likely they'll make the situation for Georgia suitably untenable - the nice way of saying they'll shell the living shit out of Tbilisi - that Georgians themselves will get rid of Saakashvili. You don't think Putin wouldn't do that? The pre-Putin Russians weren't shy about destroying Grozny - and that was one of THEIR cities.

And finally - I wonder what de facto President Bush saw in Putin's eyes as they met in Beijing? Putin's soul is thoroughly Russian. And the Russians are very comfortable with using force to keep their neighbors from crossing certain lines. It smacks of blaming the victim, but Georgia foolishly crossed that line. I don't think they deserve their likely fate - but who will do what to prevent it?

Nobody will do nothing that could provoke a military escalation.

turkey, the armenians, and congress

The timing of the proposed resolution condemning Turkey for the 1915 atrocities the Ottoman Empire committed against the Armenians is pretty bad and hard to explain. I think Richard Cohen does a good job here on this - 1915 was awful, but it wasn't genocide. The resolution isn't helpful. And Turkey, which has much to admire, needs to allow discussion of the 1915 slaughter of the Armenians.

putin ain't entirely wrong

Russian President Vladimir Putin let the US have it at an international conference in Germany. Specifically, he criticized the US for being unilateralist and for insisting on having its way all the time.

Much negative reaction, from punditry and US politicians. But you know, Putin isn't wrong. The US is unilateralist -- just watch our upcoming unilateral attack on Iran, part of a pattern of unilateralism that dates back to the pre-9/11 days of the de facto Bush presidency, when Bush renounced the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia and quit the Kyoto climate change agreement (which admittedly, we hadn't ratified).

And our national security strategy is explicitly designed to allow the US to remain unilateralist. We want to maintain complete military superiority. In the days of empire, the British Navy wanted to be equal to the second and third biggest navies in the world. The US military's position is that it should be more powerful than every other military on the planet. And we are, and we pay for it -- we spend more on defense than every other military on earth.

Putin was wrong on one count, though. He said Bush "is a decent man."