Why A Conflict With Russia Isn’t Going to Happen
Everywhere I look while reading about the invasion of South Ossetia (and other regions) in Georgia by Russia, the question seems to be, “Where is the U.S. in all this?” Some bloggers have argued for or against a U.S. intervention in the region or embargoes against Russia. Others have said that the U.S. is hardly in a position to complain about an invasion of Ossetia after ones by the U.S. in Kosovo or Iraq.
Yet, I think the reason why the U.S. isn’t even putting a military option on the table is pretty simple really.
The U.S. doesn’t like to go near or into countries that are well within the sphere of influence of its powerful rivals. Consider that all we’ve heard from the U.S. leadership regarding this conflict is essentially tough talk. Well, from some of them.
“Georgia is a sovereign nation and its territorial integrity must be respected,” Bush told reporters in Beijing where he is attending the Olympic Games.
“We have urged an immediate halt to the violence and a standdown by all troops,” he said.
“We call for an end to the Russian bombings and a return by the parties to the status quo of August 6.”
“Russian aggression against Georgia is both a matter of urgent moral and strategic importance to the United States of America. …
“Russian actions, in clear violation of international law, have no place in 21st century Europe. …
“Russian President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin must understand the severe, long-term negative consequences that their government’s actions will have for Russia’s relationship with the U.S. and Europe.”
“I condemn Russia’s aggressive actions and reiterate my call for an immediate cease-fire. Russia must stop its bombing campaign, cease flights of Russian aircraft in Georgian airspace, and withdraw its ground forces from Georgia. … Georgia’s territorial integrity must be respected. …
“Diplomats at the highest levels from the United States, the European Union, and the United Nations must become directly involved in mediating this military conflict and beginning a process to resolve the political disputes over the territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. A genuinely neutral mediator — not the Russian government — must begin a process of negotiations immediately.”
I have to agree with Claudia that among the above three, McCain’s statements are probably the toughest and most direct and to the point. Bush, as the leader of the U.S., can hardly make a statement that could be construed as meaning we’re going to go to war, unless he plans to back that up with action. Obama, meanwhile, is a big ‘ol pacifist at heart, though not foreign to military action.
Yet, in all the statements, no hint of a military option. Why not?
Even invoking a military option would mean heating up already warm, if not hot, tensions with Russia. The U.S. has already criticized the government under Putin in the past, among other things, for human rights violations. Threatening military action would only make things worse.
I believe the U.S. doesn’t even want to go near Russia…not really. However weakened it may be after the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia is undoubtedly still powerful, with many resources at its disposal. The U.S. government just isn’t willing to possibly bring on Cold War II to try and bail out an allu that’s so close in location to one of its biggest rivals.
This wouldn’t be the first time the U.S. has been big on words, but not actions, when faced with a show of military might in a country neighboring a powerful rival. When North Korea supposedly set off a nuclear bomb a couple years ago (among other weapons tests), many tough words were spoken by the U.S. government, but no talk of any military options, even though NK was, at the time, a member of the “Axis of Evil.” North Korea’s big neighbor? China.
If you need any further proof, consider Iraq. It was a country far enough away from the big rivals for the U.S. to feel comfortable enough to invade without repercussions from Russia. You might even look at neighboring Iran, at least if you believe the saber rattling between the two countries could lead to a war (probably unlikely right now).
What’s different about Iraq and Iran? They’re not near a big, powerful rival of the U.S.
Now, I’m not advocating a war in Georgia, North Korea, or Iran. Yet, I think it’s easy to see why war in a country largely outside of Russia or China’s sphere of influence could be easier to see happening than one inside the sphere. The U.S. government is simply unwilling to even contemplate the latter, while the former has already been done in Iraq. Oh, and the fact that it’s three months to a national election in the U.S. provides a very good reason not to start a war, too.
I agree.
Worst of all, to start a war with Russia now, would be the start of another Word War really.
The Serbs and Russians who started World War One, are now beginning to start World War Three, but this time, they know that the West will not do much about it, since they know they wouldn’t risk another war. Russia is not afraid to risk confrontation with NATO.
The fact is, what Russia is doing is totally wrong, and some strict answers and responses are needed. The problem is, it will just not do much good.
Even if Bush says "Withdraw or I’ll attack you", Russia would simply ignore it, call it a bluff. Then Bush will either have to back down, or go to war, and that would just be horrible wouldn’t it?
Sad to say but Georgia cannot rely on anyone except the UN and maybe NATO. It can definitely at least rely on Turkey to provide some aid for refugees and weapons for the Georgian military.
Adding color to Jonathan Wilson’s comment, Ambassador Holbrooke on The Charlie Rose Show argued that "PM" Putin knew he had a window of opportunity in President Bush’s waning days to dispose of Georgia. I think Putin is shrewdly disposing of Georgia’s leadership, annexing Abkhazia and Ossetia, and possibly securing his rights for the Black Sea fleet from a humbled Ukraine, all to give himself another few years of popularity to rule. It’s Grozny redux. Maybe Putin isn’t all that clever after all, just a one-trick pony.
Georgia is not an aggressor. Georgians - is only weapons in the hands of the aggressor. The aggressor - is the United States. They did not stop nor than before. For them expensive barrel of oil barrels human blood. They are fighting for resources. But even the American people these wars do not help. US have crisis. So American and Georgian peoples and other policies are held hostage to inadequate military Cardinals in US. This is a policy of genocide the world.
Oleg has an interesting perspective on the war.
Many around the world will see this as the Americans trying to protect oil resources.
Was the Bush Administrations embracing of the Georgian nation simply to ensure the free flow of oil thru the BTC pipeline and on to the west?
If Georgia is of interest only because of a pipeline then this is even more reason for the USA to drill for more oil. If she is interested in Georgia because of a sincere desire to promote freedom and democracy then I fear she is not doing a good job of educating the people of Russia, Georgia and the world of her true nature.
As I understand it the Georgia pipeline is key for Europe, not the US. And in that vein its been interesting to the hear the low key if not non-existent European response. Or did I miss it?
Oil is fungible, thus any negative impact on oil supplies is a problem for everyone around the globe, not just the users of that specific oil pipeline, because it increases prices globally.
The European response has been exactly the same as the U.S. response — strong words tempered by the knowledge that it is not possible to escalate to military confrontation in this situation.
I must agree with Jason on this one.
But the only nation that would benefit from destroying the Georgian pipelines is Russia.
I do not agree that even Russia would benefit from damaging oil transportation through Georgia. While it would increase the profitability of Russia’s own oil sales, this effect would be more than counterbalanced by the increased threat that the United States would feel compelled to intervene directly. Remember, Russia’s intervention in Georgia is only net-beneficial if they keep the conflict at a level where they can defeat Georgia, but prevent outside intervention. A threat to an important oil supply would definitely necessitate U.S. and E.U. responses that exceed what Russia wants to see.
This is precisely why Georgia’s president constantly mentions a threat to the pipeline and Russia denies it. Russia might like an implicit threat to the pipeline — putting the west "on notice", as it were — but Russia will not directly threaten the pipeline.
Clueless, under that argument, should we not be marching on Georgia?
After all, that’s what the left keeps saying about why we invaded Iraq.
Well I guess there is one positive outcome of this war. It debunks the whole "We went into Iraq for oil" theory.
The Russian tried to bomb the BCZ pipeline according to the BP person who inspected the site. So the theory that Russia does not eant to damage the pipeline is false. Russia and Gazprom has been gobbling up all they can of the worlds oil in contract. An independent source to Europe is a threat to Russian dominance of Europe’ gas and oil. Plus they were about to piped a natural gas pipeline next to the oil pipeline. The oil pipeline was just becoming operational. Russia miscalculated Bush’s reponse. He is now upping the stake under the "humanitarian relief " ploy. We are already flying in C17’s and airface and a US naval ship to the Black Sea. Bush expects Russian will not prevent any acccess to Georgian ports. That is a message that if they do try , to expect to be fired upon.
1) Pipelines full of oil and natural gas are pretty easy to blow up if you’re really trying. The fact that the pipeline is still running is pretty much proof that Russia (with its huge air force and available special forces) does not want it shut down.
2) The c17s flying to Georgia are cargo aircraft carrying 2,000 Georgian troops home from Iraq. There is no way that a military intervention would be done with unarmed cargo planes anyway.
3) I have seen no evidence at all of a U.S. naval intervention nor is there any likelihood that such an intervention (especially by ONE warship) would have any meaningful impact anyway, since the combat lines are well inland.
4) If anyone is sending "expect to be fired upon" messages to the Russians at that time and place, they are a moron.