A wake up call: the Republicans *did not want* this Russian invasion of Georgia.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

It's happening in despite of their wishes, not because of them, and the allegations that they somehow deliberately engineered it for some reason would be laughable if so many people weren't apparently taking them seriously.

The Republicans believe in American military power, they support American economic interests, they regard increased Russian influence as a bad thing, and they don't want to see a return to the Cold War. For all those reasons, this is the last thing they want.

Don't assume that everything bad is Bush's fault.

[The Traveler]

1. But it is Bush's fault

It begins with his insistence that we base ABM systems in Poland. WTF? Why?

I mean, if I were one of Putin's strategic analysts I would really, really want to know why. And the hogwash about defending Paris from Iran just won't cut it.

With Nato crowding in and deploying advanced weapons that close to my borders, I would definitely want to think of some way of pushing back.

Putin is an evil mofo ... but you don't need to accept that to understand why Russia has invested heavily in military reform over the past several years, nor why they would feel the need to push back against what they obviously regard as an encroachment.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

3. You're reaching.

Your post looks very much as though you've started out by thinking "how can I justify this being Bush's fault?", and filled in a chain of consequences to support the conclusion you want to reach.

That's very seldom a good way to think.

[Hannah Bell]

16. hardly. he's quite right. who upset the balance of power?

the us, every step of the way.

[The Traveler]

20. Not really

See post 19.

My point is this has been brewing for a long time, and very little has been done to prevent it. Less has been done to prepare for it, if it could not be prevented.

We are on the verge a new era of political and military struggle between two well heeled nuclear powers ... I would hope we can find a way to head that off.

But, the fake cowboys in power probably won't be able to pull that off.

[Bandit]

32. Just why did Georgia bomb and raize a civilian city with no military targets?

Why did they bomb the hospitals? Why were American troops there on training missions just weeks before this military assault? This was a war crime and America seems behind it especially morale wise.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

34. There are two possible answers to that; I don't know which it is yet.

1) To try and reestablish control of South Ossettia, and because the Georgian government doesn't care much about human rights.

2) Some, most or all of the claims of Georgian atrocities are lies or exaggerations for propaganda purposes.

It's too soon to say which of those is true, or where between them the truth lies. I suspect there's a large element of the second, and at least some of the first.

[yardwork]

44. ok, then explain what Karl Rove was doing in Georgia earlier this summer.

Rove is not an elected official and he's not supposed to be part of Bush's White House staff anymore. Yet he was somehow representing the U.S. to a foreign nation? And U.S. troops just happened to be training Georgian troops at about the same time?

I doubt that Bush wanted Russia to invade Georgia. I would not be surprised if Bush and his gang that can't shoot straight screwed this up somehow. If we had a real secretary of state instead of a shill for the oil companies this might have been averted.

[Igel]

4. The outcry over the state of the Russian military began before Bush II.

It was there in the early '90s. Along with extreme humiliation and anger that places like Georgia didn't properly respect all the Russian narod had done for them and left them.

"Traitors." "Treachery." "Backstabbing."

Not all Russians think this, by far. Those that immigrate are less likely to think this way; but only "less likely", albeit quite a bit less likely.

A hard core of nationalists do think this way, for all the worst kinds of reasons--"lesser peoples" and that kind of rot. They deny facts, if necessary. Katyn' never happened (I use the Russian form, sorry); many deny the Molotov-von-Ribbentrop pact ever happened. Some believe Stalin was imposed by evil American-European internationalist Jews to punish the Russians and torment them; others believe that the West had a pact with Hitler to punish the Russians, and that's why "we" let Hitler kill Russians, and only interfered once it became clear that the Russian juggernaut had to be stopped.

Some believe it because they dislike "instability", with democracy and uncontrolled liberties being "chaos" (they see eye to eye with the Sa'udis on this point) and in need of being "shepherded"--since they obviously can't run the show themselves. They need a "strong hand" to run things, vol'nost'--one of the Russian words for 'freedom', only sometimes has a positive connotation, often has a wild connotation. "Svoboda"--another word for "freedom"--can be managed. Not only are the Poles and Georgians wild and ungoverned, but they "infect" good Russian areas like some contagion.

Others believe in Russian hegemony and imperialism because of economics--the US's invasion of Guatemala, redux (and defended by "progressives" critically thinking with no facts to base thought upon). It's a kind of Monroe Doctrine, one that "we" can accept because ... I'm not sure why.

Pragmatics seldom enters the equation. Usually people try to find a principle, and I'm not sure there is one that isn't mercenary and tedious.

In any event, Poland's behavior can be seen as motivated by the treatment Russia gave it in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. The tsar's treated it as a their province, with things run in Russian in Warsaw; Lenin had a huge problem with Poland's desire to stop being Russian, and countenanced Budyonnyi's rampage there. The loss of the provinces was a sore point, but they were powerless to do much about it in some cases. When you've lost Siberia and Central Asia and the Ukraine and need to take them back, you focus on core priorities. Poland wasn't "core". And when the USSR *could* do something about it, it was too weak to deal with the Baltics and E. Europe. They had to settle for the Caucasus, the tsar's' old stomping grounds. The Baltics and Poland were *too* free. Then again, they were occupied before Hitler opened the E. front, in 1940. Something usually overlooked--they were occupied to "protect" their populations and make them more "stable", first by having military bases, then an outright occupation.

Stalin lusted after Poland, and had no problem stabbing it in the back in the name of Slavic filial solidarity (as though Stalin were Slavic, right?), then making the country stand up and move West after the war a hundred miles or so to get revenge on Germany. Of course, the ground Poland got had been stripped of everything useful by the Russians, and the Poles were to leave things behind for the Russians. But it was for the Poles' own good. Really. (Ahem.) Khrushchev wasn't nice to Poland in '56, neither was Brezhnev. Putin's buddy, Lukashenka, treats ethnic Poles in Belorus' like a 5th column in the lands they've lived on for centuries.

And they're supposed to *like* Russia? Poland's dislike for Russia is a new thing, existing only after 2001? Russia's behavior--long term, and accompanied by seething on the part of many in the 1990s (note: pre-Bush II) and calls for revanchement--is due to *?

I want to believe, really. I want to. Maybe if you club me over the head with a big stick a few dozen times it'll help.

[Hannah Bell]

17. britain gave the us bad treatment in the 18th-19th centuries. nothing

to do with relations now.

us influence in poland has as much to do with us buying off elites (going back to solidarity) than any deep-seated mass animus toward russia.

[The Traveler]

19. No clubbing required!

The injection of the historical references into this discussion is quite beneficial. The point of my thrust, not well made, is that much could have been done diplomatically to relieve pressures induced by the movement of former Warsaw Pact countries into NATO.

Again, I ask you to consider these facts from the viewpoint of a military planner in the Russian Federation.

1) In the late 1980s, America forms relations with Iraq and provides advice and lethal material.

2) In the early 1990s, America unwinds its "Air/Land Battle" doctrine and hardware upon that same nation. (BTW I am quite proud of the small role I played in the development of said doctrine and hardware.)

3) In 2003, America concots a rationale for invading that same country. Subsequently that same rationale is demonstrated to be hollow and false, and it is shown semi-convincingly that the world and American people were deliberately deceived. It does appear that it was largely about oil and strategic positioning.

4) From this, we can conclude America has no problem zapping a former partner if circumstances are deemed advantageous for doing so.

5) Simultaneously, military and political alliances are formed on my border. High tech weaponry including missile defense and precision munitions (shown to be effective in item 2 above) are being moved in.

Given the volatility of American intentions, a response to oppose these trends would appear to be necessary. Or, at least, if I were a military planner for Russia, that would be my feeling. The action in Georgia provides a means to check tactical readiness, wring out some kinks, probe the adversary (the US, really) and observe reactions and resolve.

Now, I am not particularly fond of Putin's regime. Frankly, I think they have been harboring some dark ambitions for quite a while now. My point is, that a well intentioned and relatively unagressive government might be given pause by the pattern outlined above. A aggressive and ambitious government might seek to exploit that pattern in a bid for a more dominant position in world affairs.

From a military planner's viewpoint, now is a good time for such action. American diplomatic leverage is at an all time low, and recent comments from Bush and McCain about international law etc. may play well here but produce laughter abroad and further weakens that leverage. The American military is obviously quite busy right now, and this does add a little bit of load to the back, a little salt to the wound. And all of this, of course, does cause our military planners to scratch options of the list as reserves of force capacity must be budgeted against a potential emerging Russian threat.

In chess, this would be called a forcing move. Our current leadership plays checkers. I am not hopeful that the administration response will be well strategically well crafted. So far, it seems my pessimism is well founded.

[RainDog]

36. so Israel should invade Poland for its anti-semitism?

I do know that Poland's king had a Jewish mistress who allowed Jews to immigrate to Poland during the Inquisition-ish era, but ever since then, and before then, Poles have consistently worked to isolate and murder Jews.

that calls for an invasion!

[AntiFascist]

2. There are The Republicans...

and there are the 'deep state' neoconservatives.

[Karenina]

5. BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Junkdrawer]

6. Yeah...Cold Wars are TERRIBLE for Military Industrial Complexes....

They have an awful time finding places to stash all the money thrown their way...

[Occam Bandage]

7. The first rule of DU:

If something happens in the world, it happens because American right-wing politicians and/or capitalists made it happen.

The second rule of DU:
Invocation of The Shock Doctrine is always adequate justification for application of the first rule of DU.

[MiniMe]

8. I think it is still not clear about who attacked who

[MrSlayer]

9. Of course they want to return to the cold war.

The terrorism thing is too vague for most people and it's much harder to hide the profiteering. With a return of the Cold War the people have a concrete enemy to fear and nukes to fear. No one believes the "terrorists" can actually destroy the world but everyone knows the Russians can. They'd love to return.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. I think you're making the mistake of thinking the Republicans are cartoon villains.

They're not, and they're not even remotely like them; they're real people who genuinely want to make the world a better place, it's just that they have rather odd ideas about what constitutes a better place and/or how to achieve it.

Always remember that people who are motivated by self-interest rather than ideology have much better ways of acting on it than going into politics.

[mudesi]

11. ??????

?????

[Uncle Joe]

12. Yes they act by buying the ones in politics and then pull their strings accordingly.

I agree with you that many Republicans; although misguided, want to make the world a better place but the corrupt leadership in power now want profit for the military industrial complex and their oil patrons above all.

I suspect this will have a destabilizing effect on the price of oil.

I believe Bush is just playing both sides against the middle, knowing what his soul mate Putin would do.

[bemildred]

18. I think you are making the mistake of thinking they are not. nt

[baby_mouse]

26. Well that depends on the flavour of self-interest.

If its simple, "honest", well-understood self interest that goes hand in hand with self-knowledge most people would get involved in finance, but some kinds of self-interest relate to complicated, messy messianic superiority complexes and lead people to a kind of self-validation through power over other people rather than power over ones own destiny.

Donald, it's Sunday and you're making me think! I need coffee.

[Junkdrawer]

28. They're not cartoon villains...but the majority SPEAK and VOTE that way...

consistantly....at every turn.

But I'm sure they go home and act as normal as the next guy. Hell, I hear Limbaugh is a sweet pussycat to his neighbors...

[seemslikeadream]

35. they're real people who genuinely want to make the world

INTO ONE FASCIST STATE

[RainDog]

37. wow, that's one of the most ignorant, gullible remarks I've ever read here

yes, there is a large contingent of "all is planned" thinkers who try to put every incident into a box that fits them.

however, the Republicans or neo-cons in charge now think that making the world "a better place" means permanent war.. or revolution, if you go for Ledeen the fascist's view - and yes, he is a fascist. Look up his history.

if you look at the philosophical basis for govt. that has given the neo-cons their pov, they think it's good to lie to everyday ppl because everyday ppl are too stupid to know the truth... because everyday ppl will not have their "grand scheme" in mind (permanent war). They also think it's VERY important to emphasize and promote religious belief BUT it is not important for them to believe these things as well - the purpose of religion, according to the neo-con's guru, is to keep people in their places and to promote nationalism via religion.

I'm not making up this crap - why don't you go watch "The Power of Nightmares" - it talks about "unintended consequences" but it also tells the truth that these ppl are DANGEROUS to democracy.

Their idea of making the world a better place would seem to include genocide since part of their manifesto promotes bio-weapons that can be targeted to particular genomes for certain populations. ALL OF THIS is in their self-interest because they are making shitloads of money. The ideology is the cover.

You sound exceptionally naive.

[seemslikeadream]

13. OK

Some republicans did want Georgia to invade South Ossetia

[Hannah Bell]

14. I find it hard to believe georgia would have moved against russian

interests without some kind of wink behind the scenes.

they're not suicidal.

[Better Believe It]

15. Why Did 1,000 Marines Participate In A Georgia Military Excercise In July?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

24. Possibly because Russian invasion of Georgia didn't look unlikely?

Russian invasion of Georgia has been on the cards for a long time.

[defendandprotect]

21. " . .. and they don't want to see a return to the Cold War" --- ????

It seems rather obvious that everything Cheney and Rumsfeld committed themselves to over

the past decades has been to renew the Cold War --- !!!

[bdamomma]

40. to renew the cold war, for their own selfish greedy needs

part of the neo cons agenda.

[MarjorieG]

22. Until proven otherwise, I think McCain started this with one of his daily calls to Georgia.

Why then do we provoke with NATO, military build-up, the Shield also next to Russia. We're taunting.

[daleo]

23. Yes, the Bushites hate war

War just seems to love them, though.

[Greyhound]

25. You are an authority on what republiks want?

Interesting...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

27. By DU standards, it seems so - in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

I'm amazed by how many DUers seem to think the Republicans are cardboard-cutout cartoon supervillains.

I think it's a tribe warfare thing - Republicans are The Enemy, and taking any viewpoint other than that least favourable to them (even if that's completely implausible) is regarded as treason. Obviously, that approach makes it pretty certain that anyone who takes it won't have a clue about how Republicans actually think.

I'm a long way from an expert by any other standard, though.

[moondust]

29. You're only kidding yourself.

Georgia's invasion was a neocon project through-and-through for the benefit of the neocons, timed for maximum impact while McBombs is at his peak on the world stage. Among other things it was designed to steer media coverage and discussion away from the tanking U.S. economy and the Republicans' many failures and keep it on national security/war issues which happen to be the only thing McBombs is perceived (wrongly) to have an advantage on. The neocons thought the project would be mutually beneficial to: 1) Themselves, and 2) their buddy Saak with his low approval rating.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

31. Sadly, I can't say the same to you.

There are a lot of DUers who agree with you, despite the fact that what you're saying is clearly wrong.

You try to claim simultaneously that this was planned by "the neocon" 1) to lead to a big war to help win the American election and 2) to help Saakashvili.

Both of those claims are probably wrong, but together they're just absurd - there is no way a big war could have helped Saakashvili.

[mmonk]

30. Sorry but neoconservative adventurism and hubris has led to this.

Russia has decided to draw a line in the sand IMO.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our third quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

38. Well, I guess that depends.

Are we talking about normal Republicans here, or these batshit crazy neoconservative Republicans? The fact of the matter is that the US has been poking Russia with a stick quite a lot since the end of the Cold War, and especially since Bush came to power - abrogating the nonproliferation treaty, negotiating with Poland for placement of their idiot "missile defense" shield, pushing hard for NATO membership for former Warsaw Pact countries within Russia's existing sphere of influence, even over Europe's objections.

I would agree that they see increased Russian influence as a bad thing. And you are half correct in asserting that they "don't want to see a return to the Cold War." What they actually want to see is a Russia with zero influence outside of its borders. However, those of us living in the real world understand that this isn't going to happen, and the actions that they have taken have had the *effect* of moving us closer to something resembling the Cold War, even if that wasn't the intention.

I do however agree that they probably did not want this war. I don't think even the neocons are dumb enough to believe that Georgia could defeat Russia in any serious military conflict. I'm sure they're also none too happy about seeing their multibillion dollar military and political investment being methodically dismantled in the most humiliating way possible.

We know at least some of what the neocons wanted: They wanted Georgia and Ukraine to be part of NATO. The (entirely predictable) upshot of this conflict is that Europe will never, ever agree to let Georgia or Ukraine into NATO. So from that perspective it's a huge net loss for them.

The only explanations I've seen for why the Republicans would have wanted this war are:

1) They're a bunch of warmongering assholes.

2) To help John McCain.

And in my mind #1 is much more plausible than #2, but still not very plausible due to it being so blatantly obvious that Georgia was going to get its ass kicked.

[RainDog]

39. The neo-cons were also wrong about Russia in the 1970s and 1980s

The Power of Nightmares (part 2) has some great footage on this - Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz pulling "facts" out of their asses to say that Russia was so strong that the U.S. needed great big weapons contracts for the neocon M-I-C because they were just "this close" to firing missiles at the U.S.

When, in fact, the Soviet Union was failing under the weight of their own internal inconsistencies - by the failure of their system, basically.

Even Osama bin Left-on-Ice knows about the writer of "After the Fall" - or rather, Todd's second big international best seller, After the Empire.

Todd is a demographer and he predicted the fall of the Soviet Union in the 1970s based upon a look at its birthrate and the rate of education for females - apparently it is harder to have a dictatorial system when females are empowered - this is true across nations, fwiw.

At that same time, Rummy, etc. was telling the U.S. to be afraid, be very afraid. Todd said that the system was failing. Reagan took credit. Americans, with little outside information about ANYTHING, believed him, of course, because it fit their narrative of the U.S. as the "winner" of the cold war.

When, in fact, cold warrior policies, and permanent revolution are a large part of the huge financial problems we face today. I guess we'd be okay if everyone in the nation worked for a military-industrial contractor and made things to use to kill others, but that's not quite the case.

edit to add link http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2004/feb/08/society.politics

The Power of Nightmares - http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

41. Great documentary.

And I see a lot of similarities between their behavior towards Russia and their behavior in the leadup to the Iraq war. But there *is* a difference between arming a country like Georgia and encouraging it to wage war on its (much larger and better armed) neighbor. There isn't any possible scenario in which Georgia would come out on top in this conflict, and I don't think even the neocons could come up with one - especially given their pathological need to puff up the military might of their opponents.

[RainDog]

42. It's the outcome of their view of the world

their view of America as the new Roman Empire. While, yes and obviously Russia and its former satellites have uneasy relations - for a variety of reasons - one being that Poland, for instance, was much more willing to allow the U.S. to have a site where it could torture people, for instance. And Poland and other nations have a bad history with Russia and have made it a point to align with the U.S. for protection... but did anyone think through what that protection might entail?

The former east-bloc nations have been useful for the neocons b/c, when they were lying about the war in Iraq, for instance, they could use the idea of Polish troops included in the invasion to pretend whole-hearted support for their lies. The truth was more complicated, of course, and western europe saw it as another "France in Algeria" moment. They've all had them, and they could possibly profit from the situation, but they don't want to piss off Russia, a great source of energy for Europe.

Since the neo-cons spent considerable time from 2002-2005 trying to alienate western europe, those nations would be wise to continue this friendship with Russia b/c the U.S. is unreliable. Look what happened to U.S. citizens in New Orleans. Does the U.S. really have the money and power it says it does if its own citizens are left to drown and float as bloated bodies into Lake Ponchatrain?

what I'm saying is that, overall, the neo-cons have destablized the world and have alienated long-term allies and have sought out new allies in the border nations of Russia which, understandably, makes the Russians a bit leery of U.S. intentions.

Since the neo-cons were so far removed from reality with the invasion of Iraq, they do not inspire confidence in this person that they can handle any situation in a way that promotes a better world.

[Overseas]

43. Oh my darling, can you ever forgive me for my sin of thinking badly of Republicans?

Here I was thinking that humble John Sidney McCain III's campaign staffer, paid lobbyist for Georgia, might have had something to do with it. But that was all a coincidence.

Georgia attacked separatists in South Ossetia and then Russia invaded to stop that but now you have told me

the Republicans didn't want it to happen !!

Oh golly, how on earth could I ever have doubted them. Can you ever forgive me?

I am so glad we have really smart people like you to set me straight and let me know that everything bad is not Bush's fault.

But it is tough for me to get there. You're going to have to give me time.

He and Cheney and their gang took over my country with a stealthy coup d'etat and then pushed an invasion of a country on false premises that resulted in the death of 4,000+ american soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians but that is just A FEW BAD THINGS.

There are some bad things they did not create-- like the Tori and Dean show on E! television. Or sauteed chicken liver.