Russian “Aggression”

No one denies the authoritarianism, but as Kirchick’s statements show the evidence for Russia’s “aggression beyond its borders” is very, very thin. When the one concrete example of “aggression” Kirchick can come up with is the Russian military presence in the separatist republics, we know we shouldn’t take the charge very seriously. Yes, officially these republics are still considered part of Georgia, and in a parallel universe where state sovereignty and territorial integrity are actually respected by major powers this would mean something. Which is more outrageous: a Russian military presence in territories whose inhabitants welcome them and do not want to be part of Georgia, or an American military presence in Iraq where a large percentage of the population does not want us to be there and never has? Hawks usually bristle at the word occupation when it is applied to Iraq or the Palestinian territories, but they throw it around quite freely when discussing a case that is much more ambiguous.

Was Russian recognition of the independence of the separatist republics illegal? Of course. So was the recognition of Kosovo independence by the U.S. and much of Europe. It is pretty widely accepted now that it was recognition of Kosovo independence that led to Russia’s recognition of the separatist republics. Western governments wanted to make Kosovo a “special” case, and Russia was going to make sure that it became a precedent that had unhappy consequences for a U.S. ally. Georgian escalation made it very easy for Moscow to do just that.

The main difference between the conflicts prior to recognition is that the U.S. and NATO launched the attack on Serbia that later led to this partition, while Russia was repelling an attack from Georgia against the statelets that had effectively broken away decades ago. It was the U.S. and NATO that launched an unprovoked war against a traditional Russian ally eleven years ago after assuring Russia that it had no reason to worry about eastward NATO expansion. It was also the U.S. and many of our NATO allies that arbitrarily partitioned that country’s territory two years ago with those recognitions of Kosovo independence. Perhaps it isn’t exactly paranoia to see an expanding NATO as some sort of threat to Russia and its allies.

Then again, maybe Moscow is mistaken to see NATO expansion as a major threat. As NATO has expanded, it has steadily gone from being what some of us used to call the greatest alliance in history to something more like a club for the politically correct. Belonging to it has had far less to do with collective defense against a foreign threat, which has steadily receded for the last twenty years, and more to do with burnishing the credentials of one’s country as a truly Western one. Certainly, many new and aspiring NATO members have contributed to the war in Afghanistan, and many have also inexplicably contributed to the war in Iraq, but for the most part these have been symbolic commitments that underscore just how militarily useless most of the new allies are. To the extent that NATO continues to have any real military function at all, it has been to serve as America’s posse in military campaigns that have nothing to do with the alliance’s reason for existing. What continues to amaze is not the limited support NATO allies are giving to the war in Afghanistan, but that they continue to provide any support when they no longer really have any obligation to do so. Meanwhile, it is exactly those countries where Western security guarantees are truly risky and dangerous that stood no chance of gaining entry, because Ukraine or Georgia in NATO might have eventually required NATO to fulfill its pledge to defend against an attack on any member, and no current member of NATO had any intention of doing that.

Filed under: foreign policy, politics 3 Responses to “Russian “Aggression”” Brett, on July 5th, 2010 at 11:11 am Said:

The main difference between the conflicts prior to recognition is that the U.S. and NATO launched the attack on Serbia that later led to this partition, while Russia was repelling an attack from Georgia against the statelets that had effectively broken away decades ago.

That makes me wonder – why do we recognize Georgia’s claim to them at all? They only ended up as part of Georgia after the Soviet break-up, and that was only for 2-3 years before they rebelled due to mismanagement by Georgia’s then-president.

Belonging to it has had far less to do with collective defense against a foreign threat, which has steadily receded for the last twenty years, and more to do with burnishing the credentials of one’s country as a truly Western one.

More specifically, it’s a way to get in bed with the US. Meaning that for the eastern European nations, it’s a way of increasing their leverage in an increasingly unified Europe. Grumpy Old Man, on July 5th, 2010 at 4:56 pm Said:

Poor little Jamie. Another dubious gift from Marty Peretz to our anemic public discourse. Sean S., on July 5th, 2010 at 10:27 pm Said:

Well, what about Chechnya? A place where evidently the Russians aren’t wanted, and whose territorial control is of dubious legality itself. Are we seriously arguing that Russia’s actions in that territory which it officially has claim over aren’t as awful as Georgia’s in its own separatist republics?

Look, I get that there is hypocrisy on the part of all parties involved, but that doesn’t wipe the slate clean for Russia or get it off the hook. The fact that it breaks the rules a little less, and only because of its relative weakness, doesn’t earn it a gold star for being a reasonable world actor. Thats not to insinuate that Russia is on some sort of ridiculous Cold War footing but like the other international actors involved, Russia’s concerns about legality and territorial integrity are only fig leafs because they suit their purposes now. Just like “independence” and concerns over ethnic division are the constant refrain of the West.

So, just to clarify things: Do you think the author is right or, according to the published comments, Russian aggression is greatly exaggerated? The article is somewhat histerical, but I agree with the general idea of growing russian assertiveness as been a real danger.

Russia’s got some fuses lit on some really troublesome internal bombs, and one day they’ll go off.

Their population is aging and shrinking rather fast.
Over half of their adult population has an alcohol problem.
Lethal mobs are running the economy.
The average Russian woman has had half a dozen abortions.
Islamic countries are getting more dangerous on their southern flank.

Pretty soon, it won’t be very fun to live in Russia.

Pretty soon, it won’t be very fun to live in Russia.

It's already not fun to live in Russia. Visit? Sure thing. Live? NO WAY.

Do you think the author is right or, according to the published comments, Russian aggression is greatly exaggerated? The article is somewhat histerical,

That's what sells. Journalists write alarmist stuff all the time.

Abkhazia and South Ossetia parted their ways with Georgia long time ago, as the article (or comments) say. It must be noted that Georgia, in its USSR borders, was a multinational state. Nations that were living there were all very different, each with their own culture and language. They fought each other many times. Georgia lost those lands years ago, when Georgian presidents got mired in Georgian civil war, and of course Abkhazia and Ossetia wanted none of that - it wasn't their war. That not always worked, and they got pulled into the war a few times, occupied by Georgian soldiers, bombed and shelled recently, etc. There is absolutely zero love lost between Georgia and those two nations. Georgia did its best to lose them, first politically and only a year ago militarily. The latter was just the final nail.

With regard to Chechnya, it is important to remember that it was free and independent under Yeltsin. However it couldn't handle independence, for one reason or another (that's a different story.) It devolved into a lawless cesspool, a safe haven for bandits of all kind, and finally it launched a [stupid] military aggression against a neighboring republic (Dagestan specifically.)

The Invasion of Dagestan,[3] also known as the War in Dagestan[4] and Dagestan War,[5] began, when the Chechnya-based Islamic International Brigade (IIB), Islamist militia led by warlords Shamil Basayev and Ibn al-Khattab invaded the neighbouring Russian republic of Dagestan, on August 7, 1999, in support of the Shura of Dagestan separatist rebels. The war ended with a major Russian victory and the retreat of the IIB. The Invasion of Dagestan was one of the major causes of, and served as the casus belli for the Second Chechen War.

I personally would be highly reluctant to lend any support whatsoever to anyone who calls themselves an "Islamic International Brigade" :-) They asked for trouble, and they got it - they lost control of Chechnya. It had to be cleansed just as Afghanistan, another lawless cesspool of Islamic terrorism, had to be cleansed. Otherwise Osama would have one of his palaces there today.

Outside of that, I can't think of anything that would qualify as an aggression. Please wake me up when Russia annexes Baltic states, for example, or Ukraine, or Japan :-) Even a new invasion of Hungary would do. Until then I just don't see much of aggression.

but I agree with the general idea of growing russian assertiveness as been a real danger.

I don't think the USA can be the lone world policeman and pay for it. This planet is large, and the US budget is not infinite (unless you listen to Obama :-) It might be actually desirable to have large, mostly responsible countries like the USA, China, Russia to maintain law and order in their regions. As you know, law and order doesn't grow on trees, it occasionally requires boots on the ground, like when some tinpot dictator in britches of wrong size starts doing something stupid. We don't need to go more than a few weeks back to find an example. And just wait until Uzbekistan implodes, that would be a sight to see. It is only sad that there are no sufficiently strong countries on the African continent; if there were any, I'd ask them to go and clean up Somalia right now. There is work to be done, and nobody in sight to do it.

But with regard to "assertiveness" ... that's what countries do. Big surprise. What did you expect? Of course as a country's power increases its assertiveness and influence also increase. Just look at Iran, its assertiveness is pegging the meter, and they don't even have anything to show for it.

“...It might be actually desirable to have large, mostly responsible countries like the USA, China, Russia...”
Stopped reading right there.
That is a single most characteristic trait of a liberal: assuming general populations’ (nations in this case) deficiency and assigning them a supreme ruler (Russia) deemed omnipotent and faultless.
This is very essence of russian propaganda, in which you seem to be well versed.
Disgusting.

The main difference between the conflicts prior to recognition is that the U.S. and NATO launched the attack on Serbia that later led to this partition, while Russia was repelling an attack from Georgia against the statelets that had effectively broken away decades ago.

Russia attacked Georgia unprovoked in the early 1990's which led to Russia's partition, occupation and annexation of Georgian territories, accomplished through the genocide and ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of innocent ethnic Georgian civilians. Georgia has never attacked Russia, they fight only in self-defense and against revanchist neo-Soviet Russian imperialism.

Baloney.

Georgia did not attack Russia in the 1992 or in 2008. Russia intervened in a Georgian civil war on the side of genocidal ethnic separatists. Russian soldiers (mostly Chechens and other Russian muslims) occupying Abkhazia and South Ossetia are invaders and it is the duty of every Georgian to fight and destroy them. Russians must leave Georgia or die!