"Dark Rise to Power"

Do you remember the 1999 Russian apartment bombings, bombings that helped to bring Vladimir Puting to power and for which theories of Russian government involvement have abounded for a decade now? Journalist Scott Anderson has a piece in this month's GQ that casts even further suspicion on the Russian government's claim of Islamic terrorist's involvement, but GQ's owner Conde Nast is determined to bury the story, presumably for fear of offending the Russian government and risking retaliation against their publishing operations in Russia. The story isn't even available online, but for their part, Gawker is attempting to translate the story into Russian, and has posted scans of the magazine article. I haven't had a chance to read it yet but I most certainly will make the time.

"Society of Masks"

Listening to Shostakovich's Fifth inspired me to look up the Wikipedia article on the symphony, which I found to be unusually lyrical. A passage, describing the atomosphere that Shostakovich was forced to compose the symphony in:

At the height of the Stalinist Terror, over half a million people were shot and another seven million despatched to the Gulag in just over a year's time. Conservative estimates place the Gulag population at between nine and 15 million. The apparent motives for the Terror were three-fold. The first was to stop independent thought so Stalin could hold onto power. The second was to stock a plentiful slave-labor force. The third was to smash conventional social relations and effectively place everyone in a form of solitary confinement. Next came brainwashing through propaganda, to replace personal feelings with communal ones; this process was interrupted by World War II but resumed after its close, reaching its zenith around 1950. The goal was to produce a population of human robots programmed to love only the state. Nadezhda Mandelstam remembered,

"We were capable of coming to work with a smile on our face after a night in which our home had been searched or a member of the family arrested. It was essential to smile—if you didn't, it meant you were afraid or discontented. This nobody could afford to admit—if you were afraid, then you must have a bad conscience. The mask was taken off only at home; and then not always—even from your children you had to conceal how horror-struck you were; otherwise, God save you, they might let something slip in school."

It was people in this society of masks who filed smiling into Philharmonic Hall in Leningrad to hear Shostakovksh's Fifth Symphony for the first time. It was people in this society of masks who broke down and wept during the largo.

It is impossible for us to imagine the cruel and bitter repression that these people endured, though Shostakovich's symphony powerfully evokes the experience of living in Stalin's police state. That Shostakovich was even able to compose a symphony in such an age, when both his career and life were staked closely to the success of his symphony with Soviet authorities, is a testament to the power of art and the human spirit.

The Conductor

I recommend this fascinating portrait of Valery Gergiev, a Russian musician who definitely fits the mold of the larger-than-life conductor. His story is one of the intersection of politics and music in Russia, where even today classical music thrives largely as a result of the patronage of powerful politicians, a phenomenon which remained unchanged in Russia even through the rise and fall of the Soviet Union.

"Secret Letter"

The NY Times reports that the Obama administration sent a "secret" letter to the Russian President Dmitri Medveded offering to halt deployment of a ballistic missile shield in Poland in exchange for Russia's assistance in cajoling a recalcitrant Iran to give up its nuclear weapons program. Trade a mostly symbolic (and otherwise useless) missile shield for Russia's help on an Iranian program that is proceeding apace? Sounds like a good plan to me.

Human Rights Watch: Both Georgia and Russia to Blame

According to Human Rights Watch, both Georgia and Russia violated international law in the short war that too place in August between them. Georgia was none too careful about its shelling of South Ossetia, and utilized cluster bombs against civilians. Russia also was none too careful in its numerous bombings of Georgian targets, and permitted South Ossetian fighters to conduct a measure of ethnic cleansing against Georgians living in South Ossetia. Rabid supporters of either side in the conflict should be aware of exactly what they're supporting

Russian warships in Venezuela

Hey Hugo, you're playing with fire.

For the past six months, it seems that Medvedev has been working hard to dismantle his liberal image and revive memories of the Cold War, reports CBS News' Alexsei Kuznetsov.

Chavez, basking in the support of a powerful ally and traditional U.S. rival, wants Russian help to build a nuclear reactor, invest in oil and natural gas projects and bolster his leftist opposition to U.S. influence in Latin America.

Chavez also wants weapons - he has bought more than $4 billion in Russian arms, including Sukhoi fighter jets, helicopters and 100,000 Kalashnikov rifles, and more deals for Russian tanks or other weaponry may be discussed after Medvedev arrives Wednesday.

Now, I know we've screwed around in other people's countries a bit too much already, but seriously I think we should dust off the Monroe Doctrine here.

NATO-Georgian Radars Linked

I don't quite know what to make of this, but it's interesting nonetheless:

Nato's early-warning surveillance system has been plugged into Georgia's air-defence network in the first evidence that the US-led alliance is shoring up the country's shattered military.

Alliance officials said that the arrangement enabled Nato radar specialists to be linked up to the Georgian radar systems. “It means Nato can now see what the Georgians are seeing through their radars, effectively allowing the alliance to monitor what is going on over Georgian airspace without having military assets in place,” one official said.

After the war in Georgia last month and the continuing occupation of parts of the country by Russian troops, the move underlined the intention by Nato to provide assistance to the Georgian military.

A Nato official said that the combined air surveillance arrangement had been negotiated before the crisis in Georgia. The technical switch-on, linking radars in Georgia to Nato, happened this week however.

“The joint system was negotiated under the Partnership for Peace scheme Nato has with Georgia, but clearly we have a new context now,” the official said.

Alliance sources said that proposals were currently under discussion to fly Nato Awacs over the region, although they emphasised that no decision had yet been taken on such a development, which would be viewed as provocative by Moscow.

I'm sure. Linked radars are one thing, but AWACs are military aircraft and having them in or around Georgia would certainly give the Russians the impression that NATO is stepping up a military presence. But linked radar systems alone? Russia can't be happy about that, but radar is purely a defensive and reactive military system, and NATO could only see what Georgian forces are themselves capable of seeing. At least, so it seems from this article.

Russia Update

While tensions between Russia and the West over the invasion of Georgia can hardly be said to have eased, they at least haven't ratcheted up any in the last week or so. Nonetheless, it cannot be that pleasing to the Russians that we are now sending $1 billion in aid to Georgia to help them recover from the disastrous war with Russia. In addition, Vice President Cheney flew to Georgia to condemn the Russian attack, signalling our commitment to Georgia. Russia in the meanwhile is busy reverting to the type of heavy-handed, brutal and clumsy repression of political dissent and free speech that we are accustomed to seeing in more inept dictatorships. Handy little wars that rile up the population only make this easier. 

Tensions Escalate

It's been three weeks since Georgian forces invaded South Ossetia, prompting a swift counter-response by Russian forces, and Russia still does not appear interested in either withdrawing their forces from Georgia or helping to de-escalate the war of rhetoric between Russia and the West. On Tuesday Russia recognized the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, over the protests of the United States. Humanitarian aid being delivered to Georgia on NATO warships has prompted an assertive Russian response, which has responded by ordering more of their own warships to the Black Sea (though U.S. ships have declined to dock at the Russian-controlled Georgian port city of Poti.) Mysterious explosions on a Georgian railway have heightened suspicions that Russia is demonstrating it's ability to hamper energy supplies to Europe, and Russia's occupation in general has permanently damaged plans to turn Georgia into an alternative energy corridor that would circumvent Russian control of energy resources (a fact that the Russians were almost certainly considering when they invaded Georgia.) Russia's stubborness has prompted calls for sanctions by members of the European Union, a move that seems more likely now that Russia's Asian allies have failed to offer diplomatic support for Russia's actions.

Georgia to NATO

Despite reports that the Bush administration has softened its stance on Georgia's NATO membership, other NATO members are apparently still willing to admit the country into the alliance, at least according to British Foreign Secretary David Milband. For its part, NATO has agreed to suspend diplmatic talks with Russia, which continues to maintain troops in Georgia despite their promise to withdraw.

UPDATE: And now the Russians admit they have no intention of withdrawing from Georgia at all (via Kevin Drum):

A ranking Russian military official today said Moscow plans to establish 18 long-term checkpoints inside Georgian territory, including at least eight within undisputed Georgian territory outside the pro-Russian enclave of South Ossetia.

The checkpoints will be staffed by hundreds of Russian troops, with those in Georgia proper needing supplies that would be ferried to them from South Ossetia.

If implemented, the plan would effectively put under Russian control the border between Georgia and its South Ossetia region, which is seeking independence with Moscow's backing, as well as a small chunk of Georgia proper.

"This is the essence of it," Col. Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy chief of the army general staff, told reporters at a briefing. He showed maps detailing the proposed Russian positions, one just outside the key city of Gori.

"The president ordered us to stop where we were," he said. "We are not pulling out and pulling back troops behind this administrative border into the territory of South Ossetia."

I imagine the resposne from NATO and the Bush administration will be somewhat less than receptive.

Russia Squeezes Georgia

Despite a (second) cease-fire agreed to by both Russia and Georgia, Russian troops appear intent on wringing as much life out of Georgia as they possibly can before they withdraw (though who can say at this point when that will be?) Although Russian authorities insist that a withdrawal is underway, Russian troops continue to occupy the Georgian town of Gori, are destroying key parts of the Georgian infrastructure, are blockading Georgia's key east-west highway cutting off parts of Georgia from the capital of Tblisi, and have detained Georgian soldiers in the port city of Poti, which they also have occupied since the outset of the war. Russia is also stationing short-range ballistic missiles in South Ossetia that can hit any critical part of Georgia. It seems that Russia is intent on extracting as much flesh from Georgia as possible, and undermining the nation's ability to govern itself and it's territories, before it will withdraw. Secretary of State Rice is meeting with NATO officials in an emergency session today to formulate some sort of response to the continued Russian occupation of Georgia, though options remain limited. The Bush administration has already abandoned efforts it's long pushed to convince NATO allies to fast-track Georgia for membership, a necessary concession to a new reality. For their part Russia does not appear interested in compromise and has only further been angered by the United States' recent agreement with Poland to station a (completely useless) missile defense system in the country. Though Russia resumed bomber patrols off of Alaska in August 2007, Rice chose yesterday to remind the Russians that such a move was a "dangerous game" and not "cost free" a sign that the Bush administration is also interested in escalating the rhetoric. What effect such comments will have is unknown.

Being a Hawk Does Not Mean You're "Experienced"

I really have no patience for the "analysis" of Obama and McCain's statements on the situation in Georgia. I don't really understand why, as a foreign affairs event is breaking that could significantly effect our future foreign policy, pundits in the media immediately being to parse statements made by both candidates...NOT to determine what either of them might actually do once in office, but merely as yet another means to judge horserace between the candidates and make ridiculous and ill-informed comments about whose statement will benefit or hurt them at the polls (honestly, do they really think that what McCain and Obama say about a conflict that 25% of Americans care about in a country that probably only 10% of Americans could find on a map, is really going to have an impact on the outcome of the election?)

Of course, it's not as if the candidates aren't eager to play this game (though they have a better excuse, since their job right now is to get themselves elected.) But unlike idiot pundits whose commentary is worse than useless, we can actually learn something from what the candidates or their proxies say about their own reactions. Here for example, is some of what McCain has had to say about the situation in Georgia:

In often-lengthy remarks about Georgia this week on the campaign trail, McCain repeatedly talked of how many times he had been to the region, let it be known that he had talked daily with Saakashvili since the crisis began and made it clear that there had been times he thought Bush's response could have been stronger.

He provided a primer for why Americans should care about the "tiny little democracy" and tried to tie the foreign crisis with a domestic one: oil. Georgia is "part of a strategic energy corridor affecting individual lives far beyond" the region, he said.


"We want to avoid any armed conflict, and we will not have armed conflict," McCain said at a fundraiser yesterday in Edwards, Colo. "That's not the solution to this problem. But we have to stand up for freedom and democracy as we did in the darkest days."

And here's what the Republican's favorite Democratic, Joe Lieberman, has to say about McCain's comments:

Lieberman, one of McCain's most ardent and vocal supporters, responded by criticizing Obama's more cautious first statement on the Georgia situation an example of "moral neutrality" that showed his "inexperience."

That of course is just stupid. Lieberman, among others, would like you to believe as they do that the more "experienced" you are in foreign policy and military affairs, the more hawkish, resolute and confrontational you will be (or vice versa...it doesn't really matter for their purposes.) But as you'll note, decades of experience do not translate into hawkishness. As only one example, there's Zbigniew Brzezinski, who-unlike McCain or Liberman-believes that the Iraq war was folly. Brzezinski has long experience in the real of foreign policy, and is by no means considered a dove of any kind. In fact he's considered a "realist", someone who believes that states do (and largely should) act out of concern for their own national interests (which may include the propping up of distasteful dictators and intereference with other nation's democratically elected governments.)

Neoconservatism is something of a foreign policy philosophy, though in truth the term serves merely to dress up the idea that America should serve as the beacon of liberty and democracy in the world and that we should reserve the right to arrange world affairs in the manner that suits that notion or our own national interests (whichever one seems paramount at the moment, at least as far as can serve as the necessary justification for action.) As we've seen, neoconservatives are less likely to question our nation's motives (or their own), are more likely to call for confrontation with nations that defy our interests, more likely to pursue military solutions to all sorts of foreign policy questions, view the world in starker terms than realists do, and believe to one extent or another that foreign policy is the only truly interesting realm of human affairs since it permits all sorts of crusades for light, goodness, liberty, democracy, freedom etc., etc., and allows them to plant themselves firmly at the center of the drama that is human history. They are less likely to be concerned with (or even understand) the limits of the usefulness of military action, are less concerned with the damage to our nation's "reputation", are sneering and dismissive of international institutions that exist to foster cooperation among states, and in general believe that no power either foreign or domestic should operate to restrain our military activity overseas. In other words, they are children. They are simple-minded, uncomfortable with nuance or complexity, they like to tell others what to do, and they don't like to be told what to do by others, and they think they are always right. They are the kind of people who-in other settings-want to be the team captain even though they are obviously least qualified, want to pick fights with people because they think it makes them look "tough" (when it actually makes them look insecure), and are dismissive of people who try to get along with others. They're the kind who, when you're sitting around the table gaming, always want to attack the bad guy even if it's likely to get their character killed, because they have no patience for any other approach. In fact, the neocon hawk is exactly like that. They always want to attack the bad guy because they don't really have anything personally to lose; it's always somebody else getting killed for their vision of the shining (and powerful and always right) city on the hill. And if the war they agitated for is lost, then it's always somebody else's fault.

This is what Lieberman, and others, tout as "experience." After decades of foreign policy awareness and activity, after personally fighting in the most disastrous war in American history, after living as a POW for years in North Vietnam, after witnessing the failure that was the invasion of Iraq that he personally called for, the conclusion that McCain has arrived at is that we need to use MORE military force in the world, that we should confront countries head-on with inflammatory language even when we don't actually have the power to make them change their behavior, and that every foreign policy crisis should be viewed through the lens of "freedom" and "liberty" even when none of the actual participants view it that way. Does this sound like someone who has learned anything from their decades of "experience"? Does this sound like the way an adult should think, or does this sound like the thinking of a child?

Georgia-Russia Cease-Fire Tenuous

Although Russia and Georgia agreed to a cease-fire only yesterday (on terms highly favorable to Russia) rumors have swirled regarding Russia's intentions towards Georgia, especially given that Russian troops have yet to withdraw from cities within Georgia's borders and have engaged in provocative maneuvers that appear to be aimed at Tblisi, the capital of Georgia. The Bush administration has responded by ordering American military personnel into the region, though only to support humanitarian efforts, and reissuing demands that Russia cease it's military activities within Georgia. In addition, reports have filtered out of attacks on ethnic Georgians in South Ossetia by separatists allied with Russia, as well as scattered reports of attacks on Georgians in areas around the Georgian town of Gori, which is presently under Russian control. Although there is presently no fighting between Georgian and Russian forces, neither does Russia appear to be that eager to end it's incursion into Georgia, at least not until they feel they have taught the Georgians and the rest of the world a stern enough lesson about the limit's of Russian patience along its borders.

War in Georgia

As you may or may not have heard by now, Russia and the former Soviet republic of Georgia are in a state of de facto war. The conflict is the result of what now appears to be a tremendously fool-hardy decision on the part of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili to re-assert control militarily over the breakaway province of South Ossetia, a region that has enjoyed a measure of autonomy after a war with Georgia that followed the break-up of the Soviet Union (though to be fair, this decision appears to have been provoked in part by artillery attacks by South Ossetian rebels.) The offensive into South Ossetia was suspiciously timed to begin on they day of opening ceremonies for the Olympics, but the Georgians were hoping to catch Russia (or anybody else) unawares they have been proven to be sorely mistaken. Russia has long been on unfriendly terms with Georgia, and especially with its President Saakashvili, who has made overtures to the West and whose nation has been courted by the West as a future member of NATO. Russia-which has maintained "peace-keepers" in South Ossetia since the end of the conflict with Georgia-responded initially with "support" of the South Ossetian rebels, but that quickly blossomed into military activity by Russian armed forces, who moved into South Ossetia to drive Georgian forces out, and whose air forces have wreaked havoc on Georgian cities. And in the last two days, Russian forces have driven into Georgia itself, seizing Georgian towns and giving Georgians reason to fear that a general invasion may be under way that would cost them their independence. The Bush administration and its European allies have called for Russia to cease the escalation of the conflict (and the U.S. military has gone so far as to fly 2,000 Georgian troops home to Georgia from Iraq to boost Georgian combat forces) but Russia continues to resist all calls for a cease-fire, and refuses to indicate at what point they will cease their drive into Georgia. At this point there is simply not telling where this conflict is headed, or what will remain of Georgia when it ends.

And frankly, none of that spurred me to write a post on this topic, though I've been following it as closely as I've been able to for the past several days. What spurred me appears to be the reaction by some commentators who aren't quite sure how this mess came about, but are pretty sure that it's the Bush administration's fault. John Cole links to a whole host of them, and concludes in general that Russia is only following the Bush administration's modus operandi when it comes to dealing with smaller countries that we aren't fond of (Cole even links to Putin trying to use our invasion of Iraq to justify his invasion of Georgia, which really is just a silly piece of propaganda even by Putin's standards.) Even Fred Kaplan succumbs to this to some degree, when he writes:

Bush pressed the other NATO powers to place Georgia's application for membership on the fast track. The Europeans rejected the idea, understanding the geo-strategic implications of pushing NATO's boundaries right up to Russia's border. If the Europeans had let Bush have his way, we would now be obligated by treaty to send troops in Georgia's defense. That is to say, we would now be in a shooting war with the Russians. Those who might oppose entering such a war would be accused of "weakening our credibility" and "destroying the unity of the Western alliance."

I can promise you that there are about no circumstances under which we would be at war with Russia over Georgia, or South Ossetia, or any other former Soviet state. Were Georgia already a member of NATO, Russia would not be so quick to invade Georgia for fear of triggering conflict with Georgia's NATO allies. But were Georgia in NATO, Saakashvili probably would also have been less eager to deal with South Ossetia by force, as his NATO allies would never tolerate an offensive that could risk putting them in conflict with Russian forces. The push to get Georgia into NATO might have provoked Russia into dealing with Georgia, but it was Georgia's foolish attack on South Ossetia that sparked the general war they and Russia are facing now.

Also, I pretty much am not that sympathetic to claims we act on behalf of the "poor" Georgians who were under the mistaken impression that we would swoop in to rescue them from their decision to subvert the diplomatic process and subdue South Ossetia by force because we were willing to give them some weapons, train their troops, and speak very nicely of Saakashvili and Georgia in general (see the Cole link above.) For one, if the Georgians thought our support and efforts to incorporate them into NATO meant we'd have their back when they attacked South Ossetia, then that's pretty much their mistake, not ours. And second, why on Earth would they believe we'd come to their aid if push came to shove against Russia? Did Saakashvili and his countrymen honestly believe that NATO troops would take the field against Russian troops, at least prior to Georgia's inclusion in the alliance? Are they really that stupid, as Cole and some of the commentators he links to seem to believe?

But of course, neither can I possibly be on Russia's side in this dispute. Although Georgia foolishly gave Russia the pretext for military action, it's clear that Russia's response is wildly out of proportion Georgia's initial offensive, and has more to do with Russia's desire to deal with an unruly and ideologically dissimilar neighbor who is a favorite among Western powers. Russia has obviously decided to put Georgia in its place, and Medveded (and more importantly Putin) might seriously be considering the viability of replacing Saakashvili's democratic government with a friendlier set of rulers. It is a long-favored theory that first the Soviet Union, and now Russia, deals with border states and former republics in a manner that suits a nation that lives in a permanent state of paranoid insecurity, but there's some truth to that view. But such a state of mind, however justified by history, does not itself justify overt meddling in the affairs of nascent democracies along the borders.

Of course, the hawks in our country are apparently salivating at the thought of resuming the Cold War (apparently they lack purpose in their lives when we're not overthrowing dictators and living in constant fear of nuclear annihilation.) Robert Kagan seems to believe Russia's actions have ushered in the return to an era of great-power politics, which is just silly as the circumstances surrounding this conflict are uniquely Russian.

I'm not entirely sure what the Neo-cons would have us do with Russia, other than issue thinly-veiled threats of military action that cannot possibly be followed through on. We should neither angle for nor anticipate future military conflict with Russia (in fact, I cannot imagine a course of action that could possibly be more stupid, as Russia simply poses little real threat to us outside of what remains of their nuclear arsenal.) That being said, the present situation is intolerable, and every single source of diplomatic pressure must be brought to bear upon Russia, as Russia cannot be permitted to think that they can obtain with military force what they cannot with diplomacy and economic coercion (on this matter, the left and the right should certainly agree.) Russia is almost certainly gauging the reaction of Western nations at this moment, as they weigh exactly how much they can get away with in Georgia. They should come to understand that not only is further intervention unacceptable, but that what intervention has already occurred must be undone.

UPDATE: Russian President Dmitri Medvedev has announced that Russia will cease attacks into Georgia, but Georgia reported additional air attacks after Medvedev's announcement. Medvedev has not indicated that Russian troops will withdraw from their positions in South Ossetia and Georgia.

Russian Textbooks Praise Russia

Cross-posted at The Agonist.

This is a little annoying. What the hell is the matter with those Russians? Don't try to blame this all on Putin. He wouldn't be nearly as popular as he is without the support of many Russians who agree with his authoritarian and nationalistic policies. I'm sure there are many, many ordinary Russians who have no problem with their textbooks reflecting a nationalist and xenophobic outlook. One would think that people of a nation would learn a lesson from seventy years of deprivation, repeated self-inflicted injuries, ruinous wars and tens of millions killed by the government or as a result of government policy, but nationalist Russians seem to think it was a fair trade-off for something approaching world domination (though the domination was in fact a sham.) Humiliation is never a positive driving force in foreign policy. And the article reports this:

The social studies guide is marked by intense hostility to the United States.

Both books reflect the themes dominating official political discourse here: that Putin restored Russian strength and built what the Kremlin calls a "sovereign democracy" despite American efforts to isolate the country.

Oh really? Well, let's get something straight here. We're fighting two wars that aren't going so hot for us, and we are still the most powerful nation in the world, whatever nationalist Russians may think. Using us as a convenient bogeyman for their xenophobic fears won't change that, or the fact that whatever they desire, it will be many, many long years before Russia can dictate anything to us. If they want to retreat to authoritarian government as some sort of salve to their humiliation we can't stop them, but it won't change any of that.