From the New York Times, “Will Russia Get Away With It?” by Bill Kristol From the Washington Post, “Putin Makes His Move” by Robert Kagan If I worked for the Atlantic or The American Prospect, I would be forced to write about stuff that I have little or no familiarity with. Fortunately, I’m under no such pressure here at the Weekly Standard and thus feel no pressure to erect a phony façade of omniscience regarding the events in Georgia. Instead, I can freely confess to having known little about South Ossetia until this Friday. In addition to acknowledging my own prior ignorance, I can point you to two columns by people who do know what they’re talking about. Kagan finds a pointed historical parallel:
The details of who did what to precipitate Russia’s war against Georgia are not very important. Do you recall the precise details of the Sudeten Crisis that led to Nazi Germany’s invasion of Czechoslovakia? Of course not, because that morally ambiguous dispute is rightly remembered as a minor part of a much bigger drama. The events of the past week will be remembered that way, too. This war did not begin because of a miscalculation by Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili. It is a war that Moscow has been attempting to provoke for some time. The man who once called the collapse of the Soviet Union “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [20th] century” has reestablished a virtual czarist rule in Russia and is trying to restore the country to its once-dominant role in Eurasia and the world. Armed with wealth from oil and gas; holding a near-monopoly over the energy supply to Europe; with a million soldiers, thousands of nuclear warheads and the world’s third-largest military budget, Vladimir Putin believes that now is the time to make his move… Historians will come to view Aug. 8, 2008, as a turning point no less significant than Nov. 9, 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell. Russia’s attack on sovereign Georgian territory marked the official return of history, indeed to an almost 19th-century style of great-power competition, complete with virulent nationalisms, battles for resources, struggles over spheres of influence and territory, and even — though it shocks our 21st-century sensibilities — the use of military power to obtain geopolitical objectives. Yes, we will continue to have globalization, economic interdependence, the European Union and other efforts to build a more perfect international order. But these will compete with and at times be overwhelmed by the harsh realities of international life that have endured since time immemorial. The next president had better be ready.
Kristol helps us make sense of the collection of global malefactors that we’re confronted with:
It’s striking that dictatorial and aggressive and fanatical regimes – whatever their differences – seem happy to work together to weaken the influence of the United States and its democratic allies. So Russia helps Iran. Iran and North Korea help Syria. Russia and China block Security Council sanctions against Zimbabwe. China props up the regimes in Burma and North Korea. The United States, of course, is not without resources and allies to deal with these problems and threats. But at times we seem oddly timid and uncertain. When the “civilized world” expostulated with Russia about Georgia in 1924, the Soviet regime was still weak. In Germany, Hitler was in jail. Only 16 years later, Britain stood virtually alone against a Nazi-Soviet axis. Is it not true today, as it was in the 1920s and ’30s, that delay and irresolution on the part of the democracies simply invite future threats and graver dangers?
My only regret is that Barack Obama is on vacation and therefore unable to soothe my jangled nerves with a muscular call for tough, principled diplomacy.
