Who Started Cold War II?
The American people should be eternally grateful to Old Europe for having spiked the Bush-McCain plan to bring Georgia into NATO.
Had Georgia been in NATO when Mikheil Saakashvili invaded South Ossetia, we would be eyeball to eyeball with Russia, facing war in the Caucasus, where Moscow's superiority is as great as U.S. superiority in the Caribbean during the Cuban missile crisis.
If the Russia-Georgia war proves nothing else, it is the insanity of giving erratic hotheads in volatile nations the power to drag the United States into war.
From Harry Truman to Ronald Reagan, as Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, U.S. presidents have sought to avoid shooting wars with Russia, even when the Bear was at its most beastly.
Truman refused to use force to break Stalin's Berlin blockade. Ike refused to intervene when the Butcher of Budapest drowned the Hungarian Revolution in blood. LBJ sat impotent as Leonid Brezhnev's tanks crushed the Prague Spring. Jimmy Carter's response to Brezhnev's invasion of Afghanistan was to boycott the Moscow Olympics. When Brezhnev ordered his Warsaw satraps to crush Solidarity and shot down a South Korean airliner killing scores of U.S. citizens, including a congressman, Reagan did—nothing.
These presidents were not cowards. They simply would not go to war when no vital U.S. interest was at risk to justify a war. Yet, had George W. Bush prevailed and were Georgia in NATO, U.S. Marines could be fighting Russian troops over whose flag should fly over a province of 70,000 South Ossetians who prefer Russians to Georgians.
The arrogant folly of the architects of U.S. post-Cold War policy is today on display. By bringing three ex-Soviet republics into NATO, we have moved the U.S. red line for war from the Elbe almost to within artillery range of the old Leningrad.
Should America admit Ukraine into NATO, Yalta, vacation resort of the czars, will be a NATO port and Sevastopol, traditional home of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, will become a naval base for the U.S. Sixth Fleet. This is altogether a bridge too far.
And can we not understand how a Russian patriot like Vladimir Putin would be incensed by this U.S. encirclement after Russia shed its empire and sought our friendship? How would Andy Jackson have reacted to such crowding by the British Empire?
As of 1991, the oil of Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan belonged to Moscow. Can we not understand why Putin would smolder as avaricious Yankees built pipelines to siphon the oil and gas of the Caspian Basin through breakaway Georgia to the West?
For a dozen years, Putin & Co. watched as U.S. agents helped to dump over regimes in Ukraine and Georgia that were friendly to Moscow.
If Cold War II is coming, who started it, if not us?
The swift and decisive action of Putin's army in running the Georgian forces out of South Ossetia in 24 hours after Saakashvili began his barrage and invasion suggests Putin knew exactly what Saakashvili was up to and dropped the hammer on him.
What did we know? Did we know Georgia was about to walk into Putin's trap? Did we not see the Russians lying in wait north of the border? Did we give Saakashvili a green light?
Joe Biden ought to be conducting public hearings on who caused this U.S. humiliation.
The war in Georgia has exposed the dangerous overextension of U.S. power. There is no way America can fight a war with Russia in the Caucasus with our army tied down in Afghanistan and Iraq. Nor should we. Hence, it is demented to be offering, as John McCain and Barack Obama are, NATO membership to Tbilisi.
The United States must decide whether it wants a partner in a flawed Russia or a second Cold War. For if we want another Cold War, we are, by cutting Russia out of the oil of the Caspian and pushing NATO into her face, going about it exactly the right way.
Vladimir Putin is no Stalin. He is a nationalist determined, as ruler of a proud and powerful country, to assert his nation's primacy in its own sphere, just as U.S. presidents from James Monroe to Bush have done on our side of the Atlantic.
A resurgent Russia is no threat to any vital interests of the United States. It is a threat to an American Empire that presumes some God-given right to plant U.S. military power in the backyard or on the front porch of Mother Russia.
Who rules Abkhazia and South Ossetia is none of our business. And after this madcap adventure of Saakashvili, why not let the people of these provinces decide their own future in plebiscites conducted by the United Nations or the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe?
As for Saakashvili, he's probably toast in Tbilisi after this stunt. Let the neocons find him an endowed chair at the American Enterprise Institute.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
Entries(RSS)
Why is it so terribly difficult for "conservatives" to grasp this reality? Putin is no Stalin.
Buchanan's columns should be required reading for US voters. My thanks for continually standing athwart mania with a lithium pill.
Pat writes: "The arrogant folly of the architects of U.S. post-Cold War policy is today on display."
Comment: But assume that his is no folly. The neocons are liars, but they are certainly not fools. On the contrary, it can be proven that the neocons are highly intelligent people. Therefore, the provocation of Russia must be according to some hidden plan.
What is this plan? Do the neocons want a third world war? Is the provocation of Russia a preparation for a nuclear war with Russia?
America blew it's opportunity to have Patrick Buchanan in the Whitehouse..........And his writings will haunt us for centuries. The Neocon agenda is to demonize everyone eventually, until their "One World Order" is complete, and their "Corporatocracy" ruled by International Bankers is in place. It is truely embarassing how our State Dept and Presidents have treated the Russians under the advice of Neocon Think Tanks...............Even their espionage trials go unoticed as if it's not news worthy?
Even a lottery system would now present better Presidential options in a nation of 300 million citizens!
"...it can be proven that neocons are highly intelligent people." Fine. I'll stipulate your premise, Andy.
"Therefore, the provocation of Russia must be according to some hidden plan." Whoa! Stop right there. Your conclusion does not, I repeat, does not follow from your premise. Let's shave this argument using Occam's finest razor and just go with the notion that the Bush administration screwed up.
It can't be easy keeping an eye on everything in the globe-straddling American empire.
While I agree that the expansion of Nato to the Ukraine and Georgia is madness and a clear provocation to the Russians there is a little more than that involved here. Georgia is a sovereign nation, not a territory on probation with its former masters. Saakashvili has been voted in twice to his office in elections that were democratic and fair.
So what is Pat so riled about other than the NATO gaffe? Should we and our allies have applauded the Russian invasion, the loss of life, the blatant looting? Should we have said, "Yup, those darn Georgians sure got their come-uppance, har, har."
As for Putin, McCain got it right, the guy is KGB all the way and gets his rocks off by crushing all opposition whether at home or abroad.
As for our response to the resurgent Russian bear I think it has been measured and appropriate and expresses the indignation felt by all civilised nations at the Russian power grab.
"Georgia is a sovereign nation, not a territory on probation with its former masters. "
Replace Georgia with Iraq and where is the difference. I catch the strong stench of hypocracy. The Russians are at least justified by reacting to events within their own sphere, not all over the globe like the empire of bs. As Pat points out, the Russians have economic concerns. The reason for the invasion of Iraq is still a matter of conjecture.With the neocons at the helm it would seem the roles of the two nations have reversed.
In the home of ancient Greece, the home of "democracy", many things were decided by majority vote, but not the selection of the leader. He was chosen by lot (because otherwise the rich guy always won) from among the contenders and was audited when he left. Thus Saakashvili could have been elected twice but not "democratically" elected. And, yes, I agree, we would be much further ahead if the US President was democratically elected by drawing lots.
Two little points. I have the dubious privilege of knowing or having met many neoconservatives. I don't know John Podhoretz but he is obviously as stupid as he is disgusting. Kristol senior I have only met, but he seems shrewd, though poorly educated. Kristol junior is a clever dealer so long as someone else makes the cards, marks them, and cuts the deck. In general I have found most neocons, Jewish and Catholic alike, shallow and not at all well read. The exception that proves the rule is neocon hero, the late Edward Shils, but then, he loathed these people with undisguised contempt. He would dismiss his admirer Daniel Bell with a wave of the hand, and of the senior Podhoretz he used the word "unspeakable." His good friend Joseph Epstein, although he publishes in Commentary, is also intelligent as well as being a clever writer, but, then he is not really one of them. What neconservatives have is an exclusive focus on their own wealth and power. The narrow pursuit of self-interest does not often require a great deal of intelligence but rather a lack of scruples and a willingness to exclude from your vision anything not directly related to self-promotion. Such people often make fatally stupid mistakes. Whether this is one of them, I do not know.
It is a bit risky to make generalizations about ancient Greece. What Lee is probably referring to is Athens in the Fifth Century after the "reforms" of Cleisthenes and the revolution staged by Ephialtes and Pericles. While it is true that archons were chosen by lot, it is equally true that they became politically less significant. The strategoi--military commanders--who were elected had a much better shot at being powerful, as the career of Pericles illustrates. While wealth obviously played an important part in Athenian elections, family connections were also important. A reputation for probity (Aristides) or ability (Themistocles) could also propel a man into office. One big difference between Athens and the USA is that in Athens, though fairly large, most people interested in politics knew the politicians and knew a lot about their families. Their gossip and rumors may have been distorted but were far closer to the truth than what we learn from the media.
#2 - The fact that at least some neo-cons are highly intelligent does not mean that they can't also be fools. Highly intelligent fools are capable of greater folly.
"Is the provocation of Russia a preparation for a nuclear war with Russia?"
It's not outside the realm of possibility. In the March/April 2006 issue of Foreign Affairs, house organ of the influential Council on Foreign Relations, an article was published which asserted that the US could completely destroy Russia's nuclear arsenal in a first strike and Russia would be unable to make the least retaliation. This position was critiqued in more recent issues of FA. So the idea is out there; it's being considered and refined.
Of course, the neo-cons are not the only element of the US ruling establishment, nor even the most influential element any more. We may thank God for that. But as long as hubristic militarists like Bush (or McCain) occupy the white house, we are not entirely out of danger.
Why do the best people never make it to positions of power where they could do some good?
I have never agreed on everything that Pat has said. That aside, I would put the lives my family in his hands before those of anyone presently in power today.
i left this note on the blog after Trifkovic's article but think it also pertains to Pat B's excellent view.
Yeah, he is a truly national resource--and i'm not in the habit of writing mash notes. "A Republic Not an Empire" was one of the most compact, accessible history lessons I ever encountered.....
I hope Pat's readers will isten to the Bacevich interview w Bill Moyers that aired on PBS 8-15. The MP3 podcast file is available for download there.....
having read the lively blog ripostes to Trifkovic’s article, I wld like to propose a decidedly lateral approach to some of these view–pls download the podcast/MP3 file of Bill Moyer’s 8-15 interview with Andrew Bacevich, a man with a disinct and distinguished military background (Vietnam), whose soldier son was killed in Iraq, and whose latest book “The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism” offers an excellent antidote to what purports to be in the best interests of the USA (in media, government, military circles), whether by the least-principled Realpolitik or supposed “ethical” cooperation in a “global” community.
I think anyone who hears his views will see how directly they relate to our imperial ambitions, our disaster economic outlook and the puling posturing of our presidential candidates and Congress, almost to a man/woman.
It’s an oblique suggestion, I warrant, but it pays the time spent well.
@5rjrafferty
It was Georgia who under a ceasefire agreement term blitzed South Ossetia and killed numerous Russian peacekeepers then Russia responded.
Georgia is the aggressor here not Russia.
The fact that Russia was on alert on high alert that there has been a massive military build up in Georgia for the past months and Georgia might try something doesn't mean Putin pre-planned to invade Georgia.
“crushing all opposition whether at home or abroad”
It’s been noted that it’s easier to run as an independent in Russia than the US.
There is no clear opposition in Russia because the main liberal parties supported the economic reforms of the 90’s that brought the oligarchs to power and plunged the economy into the sewers.
If your talking about Litvinenko poison.
http://www.russiablog.org/2008/04/litvinenko_story_revisited.php
and the Ukraine Yushchenko poison farce.
http://www.antiwar.com/article.php?articleid=13192
When Putin was in the KGB his job was economic data analysis and intelligence gathering on West German economy.
Western intelligence and there former Jewish oligarchy who were booted out of Russia with the aid of Rothschild front man George Soros help finance and create these “coloured revolutions” and the media as in the case of Georgia and Ukraine are bought up by the former oligarch’s to attack Putin. Despite the “Orange Revolution” the same Israeli citizen oligarchy still control the media.
@6MAP
The people who pushed for the Iraq war had one very important thing in common, as well as the media. It’s not hard to realise who this benefits. I suggest you goggle “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”.
Russia could be our most valuable ally in any future containment of China. It is reckless, to say the least, to continue this policy towards Russia which is nothing but a remnant of the Cold War and the fact that our policy development, with respect to Russia, reached a stage of complete thought but was never completely implemented. All kinds of organizational pressures within the State Department and the Department of Defense are steering us towards another quite unnecessary conflict with Russia. Most of these policy experts were raised, educated and trained to fear the Russians and they seem to be unable to change their focus to a new threat but chose to do what they think they know best, which is to contain Russia. If there is a major challenge to our foreign policy looming it is the growth of China and it's likely attempt to establish regional hegemony in East and South-East Asia. If our reckless policy antagonizes Russia to the pint of pushing it into the arms of the China any future containment of China will be much more difficult, and many countries are likely to bandwagon with the two of them rather than balance against, for fear of their power...Countries which would otherwise balance against the China. We will still, probably be able to get Japan and India on board, but I am afraid that Korea and Vietnam could go the other way.
james.........Your a wise man, and yes the Rothschilds are always involved.
"War is a Racket" by two time Congressional Medal Of Honor recipiant Major General Smedley D. Butler. USMC retired reveals our present through our past.
http://www.barefootsworld.net/warisaracket.html
Mr. Buchanan's discussion is accurate, but is purely academic in the long term. Russia is imploding with a seriously shrinking population. We are seeing the decline of Europe with the influx of muslim immigrants and the consequent accomodations being made to avoid offending this new demographic. Freedoms like free speech and press are retreating in face of this reality. Canada is facing the same situation. In England even the Episcopal Church leaders are talking about ways to accomodate sharia law into British society.
In short, the western world doesn't really believe in its heritage enough to defend it. I recommend Mark Steyn's "America Alone" as an introduction to this new reality.
I wondered how long it would take for some media moron to suggest the US should start arming and training Chechen Jihadis to de-stabilize Russia.
Maybe someone else already suggested it, but I just heard that obnoxious talk radio windbag Mark Levin say it.
The funny thing is that even the people who Democrats/liberals call "right wing crazies" refuse to identify Islam as a threat [except Savage], but they have no problem making blanket bigoted comments about the "innately evil" "bloodthirsty" Russkies.
@17Akira
The US and western intelligence have been backing Chechen "rebels" since 92 in Bosnia.
More to the point: Who started the Cold war II?
The communists did - indirectly.
Prior to their brainless involvement we had the colonial system where world maps were drawn in London, Madrid, Lisbon and other colonial powers. During the Crimean wars Great Britain allied itself with the Turks and in the name of "defending the Turks" entered the Black Sea and attacked Russia. Obviously this was done more to protect the trade routes of the Imperial merchant Navy, and it had to do nothing with the Turks. Ukraine and that part of Crimea remain unresolved issues. By opposing the Imperial Empires the Communists overcompensated and drew their own maps with equal frivolity. Dzugashvilli (Stalin) of Georgian birth freely expanded the map of Georgia and had it enforced by his NKVD Chief, Lavrenti Beria who was later credited with the beauty, calm, and orderly work of the Gulags. I would be very mindful of what the British do - just look at the hodge-podge of countries in Africa and Middle east - no regard for ethnicity, race, religion - hence inner conflicts.
James:
"The US and western intelligence have been backing Chechen “rebels” since 92 in Bosnia."
I know that, but that was pre-9/11, which shouldn't be an excuse, but has widely become one. Also, it was Carter and Clinton who first backed al-Qaeda and the Bosnian Jihad. The Republicans can say that they "inherited" the Afghan and Bosnian screw-ups. [Although, as far as I remember, it was Bush Sr who was first belligerent towards Yugoslavia/Serbs. But it was Clinton, Blair etc. who actually ordered attacks / "humanitarian intervention", no?]
Anyway, for a hard-core Bushie in 2008 to openly talk about "we should be supporting, arming, supplying and training the Muslim Chechens to show Russia we can also cause trouble" shows an arrogance, hypocrisy, ignorance and evil beyond comprehension.
Iliya,
I don't think the USSR redrawing borders in the former Romanov Empire is a cause of The Cold War.
The Cold War really refers to Soviet-Western war via proxy and propaganda, in Central Europe, Korea, etc.
Also, it's easy to criticize people in the past, but facts are more persistent than ideology.
The British and french etc drew borders where they had sovereignty. I wouldn't be too sympathetic towards African tribes, who were always at war anyway, and trading slaves or towards Arabs, who also were always at war, and didn't really believe in states anyway, except the ones they stole in toto [Egypt, Syria].
They also generally sided with the Turks against Orthodox Christians, which is a sin.
The Balkans and Caucasus are different from Arabia and Africa because the nations there were long-established ethnically, theologically, culturally and territorially defined nations: Armenians, Serbs, Romanians, etc.
The borders can shift, but the national cores were consistent.
What Lenin and Stalin and Krushchov did was to purposely redraw borders in order to cripple all nations [including Russia, cf. Crimea] within the USSR.
It must be a rare case for a state to purposely weaken it's own peoples for the sake of ideology.
Tito did the smae, on a smaller scale, but he had the USSR as a model.
It's interesting to see how European states are dealing with borders as if they are just fictions with the EU. If/when the EU collapses, they may find themselves fighting over borders they once thought meaningless.
Akira,
USSR was barely born when Dzugaschvilli was a head of the Georgian politbureau - he did it first and swallowed both Osetia and Abkhazia knowing full well that the Eastern Orthodox Russians were predominant there - Lavrenti Beria was the local chief of police immediatelly under Dzugashvili, so when Staln inheritted Lenin's throne he did nothing to reverse his prior Georgian appetites and access to the Black Sea.
The USSR under Lenin was far too busy getting the Tzar's wealth looted, the labor camps organised and building the Trans-Siberian railroad.
Lenin was "an ideological leader" and his doings are few and far apart. Stalin was the real "doer" - he outHitlered the Fuehrer by far. I can't use the same nomenclature (USSR) to adress the rule of Brezhnev, Khrustchev, Andropov, Lenin or Stalin even though nominally they were all heads of USSR. Stalin inherited Lenin which was a heady job for a small time peasant without much political savvy - hence - bloodbaths, Lubyanka, Gulags, while the war with Germany (including Molotov's bad advice) reconfirmed Stalin's paranoia. That USSR was vastly different from the prior and the subsequent ones.
There was a tremendous difference with regards to restrictions, external policies, imprisonment and the level of wartime "readiness" - especially during the times of Khrustchev and Brezhnev - but Khruschev does deserve some modicum of credit for disolving the Stalin mythology. That was a gutsy move. Just think of how many Aeroflot flights served foreign destinations during the 1950s, 60s, 70s and you'll be convinced. It's really simple once you know the M.O. and the need for deep indoctrination which includes tremendous subordination to the Center.
And, as if on cue from Mr. Buchanan's piece, the US establishment stirs from its hangover:
Friction With Russia May Spell Trouble for U.S.
"Washington fears that a newly emboldened but estranged Moscow could use its influence and its arms industry to undermine American interests around the world."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/world/europe/22policy.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Being that the question was "Who Started Cold War II?", my answer:
The communists did - still stands.
I think of the British Imperial maneuvering as purely communist without having the true communist structure. Russian born communism only deepened the rift, swallowed cultures, nations same as Tito did to Serbia. That pattern has been successfully repeated, since the Romans (divide et impera). The British Empire and the Communist Russia camouflaged it best but in truth their methods were equally communistic.
For the first time in weeks I hear the voice of reason in USA. As an immigrant for Russia and a US citizen I was simply blown away by the lies and disinfirmation fed to us by the media and by the politicians.
If we, the USA, were so concerned that people the right of the people of Kosovo to determine whether they should be independent, why do we think that the people od Abkhasia and South Ossetia do not deserve the same right?
Didn't this administration wrecked enough relationships with foreign countries already? Why do they keep pushing Russia away? I am speechless.
A nuclear exchange would be a worldwide disaster.
Practically all nations with nuclear weapons have leaders
who know that and will work to avoid it---with one exception.
Jihadists love death and have said so. Their main
tactic against the infidels IS suicide. The only reason
that a jihadist would not use a nuclear weapon is if
it were perceived as not being helpful to jihad.
But it's very likely that islamic leaders will never directly
confront the rest of the world with a military force. They don't
have to. They are growing in numbers and influence daily.
They have a foothold in every corner of the globe. Their
greatest obstacle is a belief contrary to their own, but belief in the west is dying. Look at cathedrals in Europe, which have become museums for artifacts of a dying culture.
In the United States we have so far failed to recognize who is the enemy to our way of life. More than that, in the U. S., a
Christian will be condemned quicker than the member of any other religious group. And not for murder or any other illegal activity, but just for expressing a belief.
Multiculturalism and political correctness is the manure that
caused a flourishing of islam in the west. That's all that
jihad needs. It won't be sudden like a war, but one day our descendants (anywhere in the world) will be living with an islamic
majority calling the shots.
Re "Multiculturalism and political correctness is the manure that
caused a flourishing of islam in the west":
Islam has spread more into the "Christian world" (sounds so quaint) in the past 2 decades than it has since the conquest of the Balkans.
And has spread in Western Europe more than since the conquest of Spain.
500 years of vigilance overthrown in a generation.
Georgia is a very close military ally of the United States, and yet, it launched a surprise military attack that caused the deaths of at least 1600 Russian civilians. Tiny Georgia could never attack Russia on her own. The United States certainly knew in advance about the impending Georgian attack. If it is so, where is the Act of the US Congress or the indictments on charges of causing the war to suit a personal political purpose. If the US did NOT know of the impending arrack, where is the discussion of this horrible intelligence failure (since we have advisers attached to every Georgian army unit and the Prime Minister of Georgia is a British citizen, President's wife is a Dutch citizen, and the Minister of Defense is a US citizen (of course)). If there WAS this intellegence failure, where is the letter from the State Department that says, "Dear Misha, The next time you try to start WWIII please let me know in advance. Much love, Condi"
To me, it had immediately been clear (and I said so on the air on Aug 9) that the war was initiated by those in the US who want to bolster Sen. McCain against Sen. Obama. McCain describes the world as a dangerous place, inherently hostile to the US interests. Obama champions the world where nations can live in peace and agree on common goals. To win, McCain needs Russia to be hostile and terrorists active and dangerous.
It took five days for the press to admit what was instantly known by everybody: Georgia attacked first. This is nothing but a well-prepared deception operation and a shooting war with a nuclear-armed power to suit one’s electoral convenience. Well, we have been through this before: the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, if not 9/11 as well. If we do not stop Bush now, we are in for an October surprise.