the next step is to respect it and stop this foolhardy quest for universalist transnationalism aka ’spreading freedom’.

Democrat talking points are really fairly useless here. Last time I checked, America wasn’t all the interested in changing your country. So long as your country isn’t a threat, we’ve really no reason to care.

Of course I personally believe the world would be a better place if others would simply be more like us, but what’s “freedom” worth if it’s forced on others?

Anyone who wants to force freedom on someone else doesn’t understand the meaning of the words.

Better hurry,..the Bear is coming.

a capella on August 19, 2008 at 12:25 PM

Keep your story straight, America has given extra trustworthy security guarantees to Poland. How is the Bear coming if the integrity of Speedbumpland is protected by the strength of America’s moral fibre?

GermanAtheist on August 19, 2008 at 12:05 PM

Too late! The Brussels Brotherhood has decided EU countries don’t need citizen participation a second time to ratify the final version. That will all be done by elites who know what is best. No use trying to deny your relief at being able to have someone else handle the tough parts on this. Get those pesky opponents of ratification away from the decision making process. It’ll be fun watching the EU military capability develop. Better hurry,..the Bear is coming.

It’s nearly inconceivable for me to believe that any thought based on individual rights is liberal. Nothing is more fundamental to our country, though I can understand that the opposite is true of yours.

Esthier on August 19, 2008 at 11:39 AM

I am glad that you can understand this, the next step is to respect it and stop this foolhardy quest for universalist transnationalism aka ‘spreading freedom’. It is killing our nations and our people and we won’t ever fight for this nonsense, because we do not intend to die.

America can mitigate the destructive effects through a modified form of gay recruitment among Mexicans, designating foreigners as Europeans on the other hand is a meaningless exercise that can not preserve our people.

It amazes me that American conservatives try to paint the EU as the great antagonist in a meaningless struggle between political nuances. Its anti-European, anti-nationalist policies are merely a reflection of the agenda set by our big brother across the ocean.

I am referring to the definition of liberalism used in Straussian philosophy, a public order based on the rights of the individual.

Of course you are. Pardon me. For a moment I thought you were being level-headed.

It’s nearly inconceivable for me to believe that any thought based on individual rights is liberal. Nothing is more fundamental to our country, though I can understand that the opposite is true of yours.

As to the second half of your comment, it will never happen in this country, precisely for the reasons I wrote above. Unlike European countries, we’re not trying the latest fad in government. Though we stray from time to time, we’ve stuck to our Constitution, and as true Americans, we’re armed to the teeth to ensure we continue to do so in the future.

Esthier on August 19, 2008 at 9:20 AM

I am referring to the definition of liberalism used in Straussian philosophy, a public order based on the rights of the individual. This can be applied to both personal and economic matters. Economic liberalism in particular is the driving force of transnationalism.

a capella on August 19, 2008 at 10:10 AM

Not to worry. From now on, America will be run by bureacrats in Washington who know what is really best. America will be one big, happy family, marching to the tune of it’s puppeteers. No more pride of folk or cultural differences,..just make sure the elite few are satisfied. It is probably for the best,..now individual states won’t have to make difficult decisions for themselves. Big Brother knows best.

Most people are easily tricked by the salvation ideology of liberalism that the US keeps forcing on previously unwilling peoples once they are in its sphere of influence. No US president legitimately represents the German people and the only change to be expected is in the name of this Napoléon.

GermanAtheist on August 18, 2008 at 7:01 PM

Not to worry. From now on, Germany will be run by EU bureacrats in Belgium who know what is really best. Europe will be one big, happy family, marching to the tune of it’s puppeteers. No more pride of country or cultural differences,..just make sure the elite few are satisfied. It is probably for the best,..now individual countries won’t have to make difficult decisions for themselves. Big Brother knows best.

Most people are easily tricked by the salvation ideology of liberalism that the US keeps forcing on previously unwilling peoples once they are in its sphere of influence.

That’s funny. Over here our liberals keep complaining that we’re not more like the people and governments on your side of the world.

I’d certainly agree with the first half of your statement. People, no matter their country, tend to fall for that tripe, specifically those with nothing to lose for trying.

What is to be done? Let’s be real. There’s nothing to be done militarily. What we can do is alter Putin’s cost-benefit calculations.

And this key observation:

The most crucial and unconditional measure, however, is this: Reaffirm support for the Saakashvili government and declare that its removal by the Russians would lead to recognition of a government-in-exile. This would instantly be understood as providing us the legal basis for supplying and supporting a Georgian resistance to any Russian-installed regime.

Russia wants to Finlandize its neighbors. Removing the Saakashvili government would greatly increase the chances of them succeeding. Again.

We need, as Krauthammer shows, to prevent this even if it means recognizing them in exile.

Simply put, right now, we have no military options in Georgia.

The two paths are not mutually exclusive.

We can and should embark on a measured economic warfare against the Putin regime.

We can and should establish a solid footprint on the ground…a deterent force in Georgia and Ukraine, Poland, the Baltics, Kazakhstan.

I am trying to find the study from a few years back, where shutting down imports and exports from Russian for 90 days can cripple their cash flow. Render their economy on par with Chad.

In essence, there is more than one way to beard the lion.

coldwarrior on August 18, 2008 at 9:27 PM

I totally agree with you that there are different paths to this crisis. In the long run, economic warfare is a winner. Russia does not develop the skills of it’s population, has staggering demographic problems, and doesn’t get innovation–> development –> marketing cycles. 90% of Russia’s export worth is in extractive materials.

Economic warfare is long run. Many people can be killed in the mean time. I think of what we can do now, because to start yanking economic levers dooms Georgia and possibly Ukraine.

Conventional scenarios in Georgia are becoming more and more improbable, anyway. I hope the Eurcom ops staffs are updating some con plans. I doubt anything clever will come out of the State Dept. We have been outmaneuvered, this time.

That feeling is mutual…we are playing at the adult table now, and the idiots demand to put a kid out thre.

One generation that can barely read or write, but they sure can rally around a slogan, oh, yes, they can.

Meanwhile, idiots a swooning over the absolute zero Obama. Pelosi is crowing about him when what Obama really needs is to have his ears pinned back and his clock cleaned.

I want responsible adults at the helm, not some vacuum who needs training wheels.

Seems that Brutus line from Julius Caesar Act 4, scene 3,

“There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.”

Is most appropriate today.

But, anyway, to add some fresh meat to the economic warfare idea, to get back to economic warfare…seems Putin’s Russia is well engaged in exactly that vis-a-vis Europe. (This article from a year ago.)

A very interesting article from the Wilson Center, here.

Another on the subject…what we can do. Looking at the most basic theoretical level how we could craft a policy that would cut to the heart of Putin’s strength.

And this short piece about Putin’s weaknesses, weaknesses that are out of his control.

In essence, there is more than one way to beard the lion.

SteveMG on August 18, 2008 at 8:33 PM

You do have a point that current will in the West means we can do little as defined by the Russians. So down all of Georgia goes. Raped by the Russians. Treated as the test case on US not supporting the allies.

I am going to respectfully disagree that the Ukraine is where we should draw the line if Georgia is unsuitable.

The main advantages Georgia has over Ukraine:

Resupply lines can be interdicted.
Narrow front based on Russian advances.
Population focused and entirely anti-Russian.
Next to a long-time NATO ally.
Better sooner than later.

Russia is already acting to split the loyalties of Ukraine. Both the Eastern Ukraine and the Crimea are heavily pro-Russian.
No interdiction of supply lines.
Many axis of attack to defend.

I may sound a bit bellicose, but time may not be our friend.
Russian troop quality is improving as they stop relying on conscripts.
Every year there is more money and experience in the Russian arms industry.
President Obama.

Poland is where to draw the line. IMHO

We cannot logistically support Georgia. But we sure as hell can support eastern Europe.

Hear, hear.

My point much, much better argued.

It’s us two against 10,000 now. We’ve got a chance.

We were simply outmaneuvered here. We committed ourselves to an alliance with Georgia we could not enforce, and one we do not have immediate access to, but Russia does. Putin picked his target carefully, and conducted a classic Sudetenland approach, and did so under ours and Georgia’s notice. South Ossetia is about 2/3rds ethnically Russian, and they want to break away to join North Ossetia (although not Russia – the Ossetians want their own splinter republic). Georgia since the fall of the Soviet Union has considered South Ossetia and Abkhazia part of itself, but in fact both areas are functionally independent. However, as they are also the only central asian Soviet breakway to put themselves into order and go for democracy, we backed their efforts. Recently that included a visit from Bush, and a fair bit of military aid and training – they then eagerly volunteered troops to serve in Iraq. What better place to get Georgian soldiers true combat experience and cement themselves in the affections of the US?

As they grew more powerful militarily though, the South Ossetians and Abkhazians have become increasingly restive; both fear that a more powerful Georgia would seek to reassert control over them, and the Georgians have made their intent clear in those regards. The Georgians cannot simply allow South Ossetia and Abkhazia to secede, because it would shatter their country and sense of identity, while the South Ossetians and Abkhazians have been functionally separate for a decade, and have no desire to submit again.

It was a perfect setup: Putin makes sure Russian passports and ID become common as grass in both regions, and provide weapons to South Ossetian guerrillas. Russia further encourages the South Ossentians to more boldness – and they’ve been striking targets outside of their borders for some time now. The Georgians can’t afford this, nor tolerate it, and retaliate. Russia manages to strong-arm the UN into allowing them, as a “neutral third party” to deploy peacekeepers into South Ossetia. Now we come to a few weeks ago, where the Georgians decide they’d had enough provocation, and belief they’re strong enough to seize South Ossetia and pacify it for good (the Georgians are democratic and allies – but don’t let us be deluded into thinking they take the same view of “pacify” as we do). They probably are right, but they bank on their US support to keep the Bear at bay.

They’re wrong. Putin understands that we literally cannot intervene directly, so he takes fullest advantage. At the first attack on South Ossetia, Russia’s government goes up in arms over civilian casualties (as though they gave a flying shat when they leveled Grozny), many of whom are technically Russian citizens, according to their passports. What’s more, Russian peacekeepers are killed. By this time, Putin has already had a pair of mechanized brigades on the border just waiting for this – on cue, both roll into South Ossetia to “restore peace against Georgian aggression”. The Georgians, overconfident in their capabilities, attempt to hold their gains, and get plastered. Their artillery however is firing from outside the Ossetian border – so Russia says to the international community, “terribly sorry, but looks like we’ll have to secure a ‘buffer’ to preserve peace.” Cue the continued advance.

In one ten-year maneuver, Russia has reconquered part of a former satellite, made the US eat crow, and given his country a short, victorious war… which he’ll need to ensure support for his next military adventure.

And the US can’t do anything about Georgia. Logistically we can’t deploy troops there remotely as quickly as Russia can, and we can’t provide our insurmountable airpower so long as the surrounding nations decide they don’t want us staging from them. They live a lot closer to the Bear than we do. Also, don’t underestimate what the Russian military is capable of: I see people here bringing up Iraq as an example. Don’t. The Iraqis in both wars fought with Arab tactics, not Russian doctrine (an Arab tactics involve a lot more ululating and a lot more spray-and-pray, and a lot less skill), and were fielding outdated Soviet export models (which have nothing on the T-72′s and T-80′s Russia can field, just as export M1′s have nothing on US operated Abrams’).

I suspect Bush is already looking to the next round: eastern Europe. Russia has already built a pipeline directly to Germany, bypassing Poland via the North Sea (which enables them to destroy Poland’s economy without antagonizing the rest of Europe, if need be). The Ukraine is on the list, but it’s large, and the Western part is decidedly anti-Russian… they also have a considerable leftover nuclear arsenal, and the Ruskies know it. So Bush is pushing ahead with the missile defense shield (useless against a full Russian salvo, but enough to poke a thumb in their eye).

We cannot logistically support Georgia. But we sure as hell can support eastern Europe.