The End of the West
Europe’s response to Russia’s invasion of Georgia was very moderate. The U.S. called for political isolation, Nicholas Sarkozy went to Moscow as head of a European delegation. The U.S. wanted Russia to withdraw immediately, while Europe was satisfied with one or even two months later.
The different approaches to the Russian aggression from the U.S. and EU were caused by a variety of reasons all indicating that no matter who becomes America’s next president, the relationship between the U.S. and Western Europe is likely to deteriorate.
Europe first responded calmly because it wanted to find out what truly happened. The U.S. did not care about the details of the conflict while Europe considered those details to be decisive. This was due to Europe’s worldview: right and wrong do not exist as much as action and reaction. Instead of condemning the reaction, then, Europe found it more important to find out why the reaction came, and in response to what exactly.
Secondly, Europe was and is dependent on Russia for oil and gas. If Moscow would decide to stop delivering those fossil fuels, Europe would have a major problem. The U.S. is not dependent on Russia in any significant way, however, which paves the way for a more aggressive attitude.
Thirdly there is the issue of geography. Europe and Russia are located near each other. Although the EU as a whole is stornger and more populous than Russia, individual members are not. This means that Europeans fear Russia. The two are located so closely to each other than an aggressive Russia could threaten the security of European countries. The U.S. does not have this fear knowing that when push comes to shove it not only beats Russia economically and militarily, but also that it will be virtually impossible for Russia to truly hurt America’s mainland.
The above means that the different reaction to Russia when it attacked Georgia was not an isolated incident. We will see more clashes between the West and its allies on the one hand and Russia and its allies on the other in the coming years. Russia’s threatening of former Soviet Republics and Soviet puppet states and Russia’s decision to ally itself with enemies of the U.S. in the Americas mean that the U.S. will be forced to act against Russia to protect its interests.
At the same time Europe will continue to do what it did this year: it will want to talk to Medvedev and Putin and it will offer to give Russia something if it promises to stop playing the aggressor. The U.S., on the other hand, will likely implement a policy of containment, in which Russia is aggressively prevented from spreading its influence and in which the two countries wage war with each other through proxies.
This means that the U.S. and Euro9pe will both have to design their own policies in the years ahead. They will have to coordinate their efforts even less than they do now: both have to protect their own interests. These interests often overlapped in the past, but will do so increasingly less in the coming years.
It is, I think, time to stop speaking of ‘the West.’ It was always an artificial term, but now more so than ever.
“that it will be virtually impossible for Russia to truly hurt America’s mainland.” - what a stupid statement!
Um: the only way for Russia to do is by using nuclear weapons - otherwise, the US will fight back militarily - Russian forces can’t even approach U.S. mainland - they’ll be stopped beforehand. Then there are nuclear weapons but they cannot be used against the U.S. since the U.S. will simply strike back with nuclear weapons.
Even the USSR couldn’t threaten the US mainland, but proxies are a different story. If South America continues to move Left or far Left, these proxies are a threat in the US backyard. Imagine Venezuela and Peru with Mig fighters and tanks…
Whoopde do What’s the real tangible threat Rudi. Since Peru has Mig’s, Tanks and Venezuela has F16’s, Mirages, etc and Tanks.
Where have you people been? It is now very well know Russia did not attack S Ossetia but responded to a Georgian attack of sleeping civilians in Ossettia.Grow up and find some one else to "hate" or make your enemy. Russia has done nothing but try to make this situation better —you people do not listen.
there was no russian agression.
there was Georgian agression.
the author does ignore such basic fact.
09/15/2008 12:00 AM
DID SAAKASHVILI LIE?
The West Begins to Doubt Georgian Leader
According to western intelligence quote :
From der spiegel
” At 10:35 p.m. on Aug. 7, less than an hour before Russian tanks entered the Roki Tunnel, according to Saakashvili, Georgian forces began their artillery assault on Tskhinvali. The Georgians used 27 rocket launchers, including 152-millimeter guns, as well as cluster bombs. Three brigades began the nighttime assault.
”
The intelligence agencies were monitoring the Russian calls for help on the airwaves. The 58th Army, part of which was stationed in North Ossetia, was apparently not ready for combat, at least not during that first night.”.
The intelligence agencies conclude that the Russian army did not begin firing until 7:30 a.m. on Aug. 8, when it launched an SS-21 short-range ballistic missile on the city of Borzhomi, southwest of Gori.”.
end of quote
09/15/2008 12:00 AM
DID SAAKASHVILI LIE?
The West Begins to Doubt Georgian Leader
I do not understand people keep talking about russian agression.
If you check reuters wires, ( something I did ) , in the first hours of war there is no mention of russian attacks.
I think americans have a fobia of russia.
They inherit it from the cold war.
That is very sad ,indeed.
"Europe’s response to Russia’s invasion of Georgia was very moderate" - well, Europe’s response to Georgia’s attack on Ossetia was even more moderate, excuse my understatement."an aggressive Russia could threaten the security of European countries" - oh, poor little Europe, those pesky eastern meanies don’t want to fall down before the great white men of the democracy… Uh oh.