Georgia Blowback? Russia To Temporarily Cut NATO Cooperation

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Foreign Affairs
Posted on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:06:45 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

NATO sent a sternly worded letter to Russia. Russia responds with stern implied threats of its own:

Doubts surfaced over the future of military cooperation between NATO and Russia on Wednesday after Norway said Moscow had informed it of a decision to freeze all joint work with the alliance in the row over Georgia. However Russia's ambassador to NATO played down any future steps, saying the decisions were "of temporary character, of regional character, not global character."

[More...]

. . . Russian envoy Dmitry Rogozin said curtailing contacts was "in nobody's interest." "Temporary decisions are being taken on current cooperation and not about cooperation in general," he told Reuters in English. . . . However he said no decision had been taken to end cooperation with the alliance's big operation against Islamist militancy in Afghanistan, under which Moscow allows the transit of non-lethal equipment for NATO via its territory. "This is not going to happen. If Afghanistan is the new Vietnam for the Americans then it will be a problem for Russia itself ... We are not interested in the alliance's failure in Afghanistan."

(Emphasis supplied.) The implied threat is there of course. Two can play at this game and NATO's big play right now is in Afghanistan, where Russia has a part to play. The reckless actions of the Georgian government have caused major headaches for the West. Some quietly stern words to Georgia may be in order.

Big Tent Democrat, Speaking for me only

< Denver Achieves $40 Million Fundraising Goal for Convention | An Open Convention For the VP Choice >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Georgia Blowback? Russia To Temporarily Cut NATO Cooperation | 73 comments (73 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

See also (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by andgarden on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:11:03 PM EST

Gorbachev's editorial today.

I don't love where this is going, that's for sure.

It's too bad Gorby (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by gyrfalcon on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:28:52 PM EST

can't find another way to talk/write that doesn't involve belligerent soviet-style rhetoric because what he says in that op-ed ought to be taken very seriously.

As an aside, one of the worst things about this development is that all the stale old "Russia experts" have come crawling out from under their rocks. I heard parts of an agument between Strobe Talbott (yawn) and Stephen Cohen (snore) on NPR this morning.


Strobe Talbott and Stephen Cohen (none / 0) (#21)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:47:41 PM EST

they were probably high fiveing each other in the parking lot at their expanding media possibilities.


fwiw, I really like Cohen (none / 0) (#26)
by Valhalla on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:56:38 PM EST

he may not be an excitement-fest, but 20 (yes, 20) years ago when I was writing my college thesis on Soviet politics, his political analysis was the best, and the least anti-Commie-hardliner-fueled. I don't know how much his expertise extends to relationships with former republics, though.


Actually, I agree with you (none / 0) (#51)
by gyrfalcon on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:54:26 PM EST

but his whiny super-anxious style as a talking head makes me nuts.

But aren't there any experts on the modern Russia around the media could talk to, people whose thinking isn't permanently soaked in the old cold war debates?


: Well, that's a good point (none / 0) (#72)
by Valhalla on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:05:56 PM EST

I suppose it's at least partly the old guard not giving way to the new; it pretty much parallels the development of post-Soviet politics.
Two on the other hands: Much of the problems with Georgia and other former republics is deeply routed in the Soviet era. Stalin uprooted entire ethnic groups and through forced migration plunked them down right in the middle of their enemies, not to mention imposed severely harsh pro-Russian measures upon any non-Russian ethnic/cultural groups.
This was always going to cause big trouble when the USSR collapsed. A few scholars like Cohen were the only ones sounding the alarm bells back in the 90s -- everyone else was too busy whooping it up because of the big win for democracy (which was really never the reason for the fall anyway, but I digress). Maybe Cohen et al are feeling a bit of vindication!
The other otoh: mainstream Cold War Warriors constantly mistook the development of Communism for something entirely alien imposed upon Russia. As a governing system, though, it was as much adapted to Russian cultural and historical traditions and the reverse. Russia was always deeply autocratic and imperialistic, the Soviets didn't change that, they just turned it to their own ends. The fall of the USSR just allowed the pre-Soviet strains to come back to the fore. Cohen and a few others recognized that back when it was the Soviet Union.
But he is rather a snore. Oh well.

South Ossetia functions autonomously (none / 0) (#69)
by BernieO on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:50:39 PM EST

ONLY because the Russian's support them. This is not to say that Russian doesn't have ulterior motives, but that is always the case - with us, too.
When the USSR broke up the South Ossetians voted overwhelmingly to be separate from Georgia but the Georgians wanted to include this area in their country for historical reasons. The area is very poor with no resources.
The Georgians unofficial slogan in the 90's was "Georgia for the Georgians" and they ran roughshod over the South Ossetians and other minorities. It is no wonder that they want to be independent. Americans of all people should relate to that.
We championed the right of the Kosovars to be a separate country but not these people, because it is not in OUR geopolitical interests. So much for standing on principle.
Saakashvili foolishly gave the Russians the excuse they needed to flex their muscles. We warned him not to provoke the Russians but he did anyway. Some great ally! It's a mess and there is fault on all sides, except pcssibly the South Ossetians'.


Y,know, you really need to (none / 0) (#70)
by gyrfalcon on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:12:21 PM EST

get over the cold war already. And Russia's not-at-all-free press is entirely immaterial to the question of South Ossetia and Georgia, for crying out loud. This kind of manichean thinking is just a handy way of making complicated situations into Good versus Evil. Sounds like George Bush, frankly.


I said this yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by vicndabx on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:27:32 PM EST

putting things that can blow up your former enemy real close to where they live and not expecting them to make your life difficult is not smart. Particularly an enemy who could, if they so chose to, take similar actions against you and your own interests

Looks like we need some more glasnost, only this time here in the US.

Nyet (none / 0) (#13)
by gyrfalcon on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:31:15 PM EST

We've got plenty of glasnost on this issue, at least. What we need is general perestroika.

(glasnost = openness)
(perestroika = restructuring)


I disagree, (none / 0) (#15)
by vicndabx on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:38:24 PM EST

not when it comes to the media at least. Madeline Albright was just on CNN largely blaming Russia for not pulling back quick enough. Don't know how much restructuring you can have if the folks who help drive the restructuring debate ain't open & honest.


: True enough (none / 0) (#50)
by gyrfalcon on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:51:04 PM EST

Fair point.

Wes Clark comes to mind (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by mogal on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:56:02 PM EST

: yes he does. (none / 0) (#62)
by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:27:31 PM EST

also (none / 0) (#2)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:14:42 PM EST

just saw this:

Russia warns of response to US missile shield
MOSCOW (AP) - Russia says its response to the further development of a U.S. missile shield in Poland will go beyond diplomacy.

looks like it actually might become (none / 0) (#3)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:15:29 PM EST

the most serious thing to happen since the cold war.

And the most profitable thing.... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by kdog on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:16:42 PM EST

for war profiteers since Iraq.


say hello to President McCain (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:17:51 PM EST

among other things


I don't disagree with you (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by CST on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:21:38 PM EST

I just get really frustrated that that's probably true. I mean, in reality, McCain took the wrong tack, but just the fact that something "scary" is going on benefits the republicans. Nevermind that they are escalating the situation and making it worse. ARGH!


It's our own stupidity.... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by kdog on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:40:13 PM EST

and we end up with the leadership we deserve.

Personally I'll never understand what people are so afraid of...the biggest threat to my life and liberty is a helluva lot closer than Russia or Afghhanistan or Iraq...its the local freakin' precint, local govt. offices, the statehouse, and Washington DC. Some terrorist whackjob blowing something up, or the Russians talkin' tough about missile shields doesn't even rate. The gambler in me says the odds are better of me being tased to death by a local cop than dying at the hands of a terrorist or a Russian soldier.

Maybe I'm wrong...


I wonder if your biggest threat (none / 0) (#20)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:47:38 PM EST

being the local cops, etc., isn't due to our leaders being whackjobs about missile shields and stuff...


Perhaps.... (none / 0) (#27)
by kdog on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:56:49 PM EST

like I said I could be wrong. I have no answers, only questions:)

I see the big oceans to my left and right as the best defense I could ever ask for though...now I just need an ocean between me and the precint:)


: Big oceans to us, (none / 0) (#32)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:06:56 PM EST

maybe not so big to some whackjob leaders and their armaments and plans...

You're not wrong (none / 0) (#22)
by CST on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:49:43 PM EST

I especially loved the fact that in 2004, most of the "national security moms" who were so afraid of a terrorist attack and voted accordingly lived in places like North Dakota. While New York City and Washington D.C. - the two places actually affected by terrorism went blue. It boggles the mind.


this whole thing (none / 0) (#23)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:50:56 PM EST

is such a gift from god for McCain


Or a gift from (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:37:32 PM EST

Condi et al.

Madeline Allbright has said that this has been brewing for months and Bush and Company have pretty much ignored it.


So much so (none / 0) (#25)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:56:24 PM EST

that it kinda raises my conspiracy hackles.

Nahhhh, couldn't be.


I am as conspiracy inclined as anyone (none / 0) (#28)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:59:55 PM EST

but I cant work it out.


Maybe a little (none / 0) (#34)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:08:09 PM EST

Bushian encouragement to Georgia?


I heard Bush said something like (none / 0) (#36)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:14:19 PM EST

"if we let them have Georgia, Mississippi and Alabama will surely be next!"


: LOL! (none / 0) (#39)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:17:15 PM EST

Fear and National Security was going to be (none / 0) (#37)
by bridget on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:15:56 PM EST

the GOP campaign strategy for fall

but who knew that Russia would be put on the enemy list so quickly? Over Georgia?

But conspiracy or not. Playing around w. the start of another cold war is Pretty Scary.

McCain himself is pretty scary but he will benefit from all this. No doubt.


that's not really a fair comparison (none / 0) (#29)
by Valhalla on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:59:56 PM EST

since NY and DC were already very blue and N. Dakota red.


: True (none / 0) (#31)
by CST on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:05:58 PM EST

But there was a huge gap on that specific polling question. And North Dakota was perhaps a bad choice, it happened in Ohio too though, and Indiana, and all those other purple states in the middle of the country who live in places that terrorists don't even know exist.
Although it was especially funny how the budget for Homeland security seemed to indicate that there were large terrorist threats all over those purple/red states, but not so much in places like NY.

Because (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:29:19 PM EST

Democrats repeatedly ignore the admonishments of party elders like Bill Clinton who says that voters will chose "strong and wrong" over "weak and right" all the time.


yep (none / 0) (#7)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:22:21 PM EST

its 3am (none / 0) (#30)
by AlSmith on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:05:00 PM EST

The creative classes though the 3am thing was a big joke. Apparently not.

I am cynical enough now that I assume they wont learn anything from this....


at 3am (5.00 / 2) (#33)
by CST on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:07:52 PM EST

I don't want John McCain within a mile of the big red button.
I think the republicans over-played their hand big time here with Russia and now it's coming back to bite them. Although I'm sure it won't be spun that way.


Too bad our nominee can't spin it (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by Dadler on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:12:36 PM EST

Guess he's afraid of McCain, too, like the press is.


Here is a good article (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by CST on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:17:04 PM EST

That gets to the point well. Epecially this part:

"McCain encouraged Georgians to believe America would back them up in a crisis. That expectation was naive, and it was wrong to encourage it. It was especially wrong to give a volatile leader such as Saakashvili what he evidently imagined was an American blank check."

Followed by:
"American leaders shouldn't make threats the country can't deliver or promises it isn't prepared to keep. The rhetoric of confrontation may make us feel good, but other people end up getting killed."

Added emphasis.
If only the Obama camp would go there.


mayabe Teresa was right (none / 0) (#40)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:19:21 PM EST

scary


Although (none / 0) (#43)
by CST on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:21:10 PM EST

Maybe there is something in this

I still think he needs to hit way harder on this. A "campaign memo" is not gonna cut it.


: This (none / 0) (#45)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:32:34 PM EST

is what happens when you position yourself as the "boutique anti war candidate" in the primaries. It plays well to a limited group and may get you the win in the primary but ignoring national security is always a loser and it's something that Dems need to seriously work on.

he cant (none / 0) (#41)
by AlSmith on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:20:19 PM EST

he cant really spin it since he isnt up to speed on the issues (or probably the players).

The annoying part is the pundits who responded to the 3am by sneering "what she answers her own phone!" "what? there is no one else at the White house to pick up before the 8th ring?".

Instead, they should have been worried about their candidate answering and saying "Russia's invaded
Georgia! I have 4 field offices down there!"


not to worry (none / 0) (#47)
by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:38:11 PM EST

his ambien will keep him from responding.


I find the Ambien (none / 0) (#53)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:06:07 PM EST

obsession of the anti McCain folks fascinating.


so you aren't an anti-Mccain folk? (2.00 / 1) (#56)
by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:11:43 PM EST

I found interesting (in light of the 3am ad) this response by a doctor:

Dr. Emmanuel Mignot, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Stanford University School of Medicine, agreed that McCain's use of Ambien would likely pose little concern.
"It is perfectly legitimate to use Ambien when traveling," he said. "I would say that overall I would prefer to have a commander-in-chief well rested when he is traveling after taking Ambien rather than someone who is sleep-deprived because of jet lag.
"The only potential issue is if there is an emergency in the middle of the night, but honestly, I am not sure it is worse than being sleep-deprived there too. Of course, Ambien can have side effects, for example on memory sleep deprivation too. Life is a trade off."

A President wouldn't have any emergencies late at night, now would he?


not really (none / 0) (#58)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:18:47 PM EST

no.
I am old enough to remember the person McCain has campaigned as for the last 20 years and and am not so worried about the one he has campaigned as for the last 20 months.
frankly I find him only marginally more scary than Obama.
I dont really feel I have a dog in that particular fight.
unless he chooses Hillary I am voting for Nader.
and I might anyway. just to be ornery.


: what about the way he pandered to his party (none / 0) (#60)
by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:24:43 PM EST

for the past 8 (especially the past 2-3 years).
I am old enough too, believe me. I voted for him in the GOP primary in Ohio in 2000. It was the first time I ever voted for a Republican. I also read his (Time? Newsweek?) article about torture when all the Abu Gahraib stuff came out. His first two paragraphs were so obsequious to the administration it disgusted me. Now he wants to drill more (against his own knowledge of the science of GW).
He was taken down and brought up right by the GOP after 2000, as if he were an 18 year old goof-off in military training.
You may care about different things than I do, however. It seems that many Americans do. I can't change that.

: PS (none / 0) (#63)
by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:34:02 PM EST

I guess if you care about wrists then Nader's your man...at least for his left one.

Actually, (none / 0) (#59)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:22:58 PM EST

you can laugh at me, but I find it oddly reassuring that if we have McCain as Prez that he is on Ambien. After all, he'll spend so much time sleeping that he won't do much damage.


: that's what I said. (none / 0) (#61)
by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:25:44 PM EST

but better to have someone who won't resort to the red button as a first option.

And so has every Democrat whom I (none / 0) (#66)
by seeker on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:12:28 PM EST

have heard comment on the subject.


I do not like the world (5.00 / 4) (#9)
by Dr Molly on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:25:06 PM EST

btw (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:32:58 PM EST

thanks for defending me when I was out to lunch.


damn newbies..../s (none / 0) (#18)
by vicndabx on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:42:05 PM EST

: If it was me the captain (none / 0) (#48)
by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:42:12 PM EST

was talking about, I am hardly a newby. Check my UID number.

what she said... (none / 0) (#12)
by kredwyn on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:29:49 PM EST

Any chance we could be saying hello to (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Anne on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:40:01 PM EST

Vice President - and Resident Russia Expert - Condoleezza Rice?

[Sorry - couldn't help but wonder how her so-called expertise would fit into this]


that would sure play into the (none / 0) (#19)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:43:37 PM EST

Bushes third term thing.


I bet my hubby $5 (none / 0) (#49)
by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:42:45 PM EST

she would be the big surprise.


I will take that bet (none / 0) (#52)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:04:04 PM EST

at 5 to 1


heh. You wish. (none / 0) (#54)
by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:07:03 PM EST

I am not that confident.


you misunderstand (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:10:05 PM EST

again
if you lose 5 bucks
if I lose 25 bucks.


: no. I got it. (none / 0) (#57)
by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:14:06 PM EST

I don't have $10 bucks to lose.
(that is: $5 to you and $5 to my S.O.)

Talking Head (none / 0) (#8)
by waldenpond on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:24:13 PM EST

this morning suggesting the US stop what it's doing or Russia will just ramp up relations (military) with Venezuela, N Korea and Iran.

: Duh (none / 0) (#64)
by Wile ECoyote on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:53:48 PM EST

Chavez has made several trips to russia the past couple years to buy high end military hardware. It would be harder to ramp it up more.

If Russia wants to align itself with the Taliban.. (none / 0) (#42)
by pmj6 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:20:20 PM EST

...it would be free to do so, but the consequences of that action would be far-reaching. Because Georgia is not an enemy of Russia. Supporting Georgia does no harm to Russia. The Taliban and Al Qaeda, on the other hand... For Russia to make the NATO position in Afghanistan more tenuous, to put US and European troops in increased danger, now that's serious business. That would be equivalent of the US providing arms to the Chechens. The wisdom of the Russian government undertaking such an action is highly dubious. Even Barack Obama would have to come out very strongly against Russia on this. And, of course, he would. He's made focusing on Afghanistan the centerpiece of his national security policy, and I'm sure he'd not be amused to see Russia undercutting him like that. Besides, McCain would immediately seize on the emerging Russia-Al Qaeda axis.

As to Georgia, it looks like its NATO prospects have, if anything, improved thanks to the Russian foolishness. Now we are going to have a NATO-Georgia Commission where one has not existed before.

So, the longer Russia continues to act stupid, the worse it will get. For Russia, of course.

: Genius at work (5.00 / 1) (#67)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:47:44 PM EST

: Supporting the Taliban (none / 0) (#65)
by Wile ECoyote on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:54:46 PM EST

would put arms in the hands of the Chechens.

Pat Buchanan comments on "Russia Today" (none / 0) (#73)
by both0sides0now on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 02:18:46 PM EST

I would have never thought I would agree with Pat Buchanan (he sounded like a protectionist and anti-free trader when he ran for pres. back in 1996 I believe). However, he really surprised me with his foresight and acumen on the Georgia-Russia issue. I had to agree with everything he said- is he moving away from Republicans or just restating the true "Conservative" movement as opposed to the Neo-Concs? I know he was always a Reformer. If you want to see the whole interview: Pat Buchanan interview with Russia Today

: Pat Buchanan already spoke about this issue (none / 0) (#74)
by both0sides0now on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:15:45 PM EST

back on April 1, 2008. Should We Fight for South Ossetia? So he is more up-to-date than most people, who never heard of South Ossetia before Aug. 8... He is right on with this issue, the whole way, and I wonder why Bush does not use his wisdom to direct his foreign policy? Maybe Buchanan is not of the hawkish variety, and is not fixing for a fight like Bush, or McCain for that matter!!

: Pat Buchanan is very perceptive (none / 0) (#75)
by both0sides0now on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 06:51:04 PM EST

in this article about the motives and rationale for Russia's response to Saakashvili's irrational adventurism. Also a great site for political analysis : Bear Baiting