Russia’s Perspective
PoliGazette takes a look at the Russia / U.S. crisis from a Russian perspective.
It has become clear in recent weeks that Russia is longing for a new Cold War. Not because the country’s leaders suddenly planned to revamp the days of the Soviet Union but because they felt that the United States was crawling to its borders, and by doing so hurting Russia’s interests.
Especially U.S. support for Georgia joining NATO caused political chaos in Russia. Suddenly, Russia realized that NATO would not become smaller in the era after the Cold War but bigger. Not only the Western countries would form part of it now, no, even former Soviet Republic would join the alliance meant to contain Russia.
And so, from a Russian perspective, it could very well be argued that the West did indeed “provoke” the recent war over South Ossetia. Russia’s President Medvedev is lied, of course, when he said recently that the U.S. provoked Georgia into starting a war in South Ossetia - it is Russia that started the war, not Georgia - but he is, from a Russian perspective, right to blame the U.S. and the West as a whole for the current crisis; if the West would not have had the audacity to spread their influence to former Soviet Republics, democratize, capitalize and even permit them to join NATO (or at least talk about permitting them), Russia would not have attacked.
Medvedev and Putin realized that Russia lost influence in the region in recent years and that, on the other hand, the United States increased their power and influence significantly. From their perspective, this was unacceptable. Not because of anything to do with right or wrong, but purely because of their country’s interests.
Imagine that the organization meant to counter NATO would spread to the American continent. Imagine that Mexico and Canada were becoming increasingly communist, and willing to join this organization. This is exactly what has happened to Russia, and it explains why its leaders suddenly anti-American rhetoric every couple of minutes.
Russia feels threatened. Its war against Georgia was, from its own perspective, not one of aggression, but a defensive one, that had to be fought to protect its interests in the region.
Russia’s President Medvedev is lied, of course, when he said recently that the U.S. provoked Georgia into starting a war in South Ossetia - it is Russia that started the war, not Georgia- Do you have any proof of that? As far as I am aware even American administration is agreeing that the war was started by Georgia
Russia would have nothing to fear if it was a democracy. Canada and Mexico have no divisions on their borders to stop an American invasion. France, Germany, Belgium and a whole host of other countries in Europe also have no military forces on their borders for the same reason. The fact is that Russia is a KGB run oligarchy that has suppressed political dissent, virtually controls all of the media, and has used the energy weapon against European nations that don’t follow the Kremlin line. Putin fooled a very naive Bush into thinking Russia would be a partner with the west, now we see what Russia is truly all about.
Quite a few people seem to have the idea that former Soviet or Eastern Bloc countries should not be welcomed into the western democratic family of nations because Russia might be offended. This notion seems to completely disregard the fact that these nations are now independent sovereign states that have the right to do as they please. Nobody would dream of consulting Spain before signing a treaty with Mexico, because everyone recognises that Mexico is now independent. The “let’s not offend Russia” crew basically do not think that former Russian satellites have a right to their own independence.
You keep calling the Russian intervention an aggression, but that was just a response to the aggression by the Georgian army against S.O., wich killed several Russian peacekeepers in that attack and hundreds of civilians. An aggression was the US attack in Iraq for no reason or Serbia in 1999 for fabricated reasons. While the US bombs countries thousands of miles away from its borders, everything is fine? But for Russia (or any other country) to respond to an aggression on their border is somehow wrong in your opinion? Interesting morals.
Dan and Denis; here you go. Stop pretending Georgia caused this war. It did not. Russia provoked it, Russia declared it, and Russia finished it. It was all Russia, all the time.
Russia was not responding to aggression “on their border”. South Ossetia is part of Georgia, not Russia. At the time of the “aggression” even Russia didn’t recognise the place. Now it is the only country in the world to do so.
Well, S.O. is on their border and it was "part of Georgia" as Kosovo was part of Serbia. Georgia, Armenia and the other countries in that region applied for Russian help to save them from Iran and Turkey several centuries ago, but now some of them seem to think that they can get more out of the US .
S.O. and Abkhazia were never part of Georgia as an independent state but were given to Georgia by Stalin (like Kosovo never was an independent state and their autonomy was given by Tito, not to mention that almost half of the population inKosovo came after WWII from Albania). Western countries now seem to admire the decisions made by Stalin and Tito.
Anyway, IMO the Russian intervention is "clean" compared to US and NATO interventions in Vietnam, Laos, Grenada, Serbia, Iraq etc.
If peace is desired, some states need to refrain from military interventions, instigation of separatist movements (Yugoslavia, Chechenya, Kosovo, Tibet etc.), regime changes/color revolutions (Ukraine, Georgia etc.) to promote their interests. PR campaigns using lies, half truths and emotional manipulation should not bury the facts.
Taking into account the interests of each country and reaching a compromise produces better long-term results than pushing one’s own interest with force and double standards. But some countries obviously can/will not change their colonial mindset.
“Taking into account the interests of each country and reaching a compromise produces better long-term results than pushing one’s own interest with force and double standards. But some countries obviously can/will not change their colonial mindset.”
Dan do you really believe what you write?
How did Russia take account of what Georgia wanted by invading it? How did it reach a “compromise” by doing so? How did it forbear from pushing its own interests by force by the armed invasion and destruction of a much smaller neighbour?
It is the Russians who were the colonial power in Eastern Europe and Central Asia and it is the Russians who are unable to let go of their former colonies.
Either Georgia and Ukraine are independent or they are not. If they are independent Russia is not entitled to tell them what to do or who to be allied with.
Making excuses for naked Russian imperialism is beneath contempt.
Do I need to answer this? How are they supposed to reach a compromise after the Georgian army attacked S.O. and killed their soldiers, stationed there as peacekeepers since 1992 under a internationaly recognized treaty? Georgia should have tried to reach a compromose with S.O. and Abkhazia before the attack.
And in this case it’s Georgia who should take into account the interests of Russia, since they are the ones who want to join a military alliance and bring NATO to the south of the RF. Would the US be pleased if a hostile military alliance were to come to Mexico or Canada?
GB, France etc. had and still have some colonies far from their borders, but you can hardly call the E. European and C. Asian countries colonies, in this case you’d have to give the same name to the W. European countries in regard to the US. The East/West divide was a result of WWII, colonies are a different beast.
Contempt deserves the one who defends and justifies all the US wars and meddlings after WWII, as there is not a single one, except maybe for the first Iraq war, who can be justified, but sees a reaction to a military assault on its own soldiers and civilians as "naked imperialism", as this term "naked imperialism" fits much better to a country already mentioned and its NATO allies.