A Major War: Not Just Rumors
The crisis in relations between the United States and Russia over Georgia heralds a particularly dangerous period in world affairs: the era of asymmetrical multipolarity. A major war between two or more major powers is more likely in this configuration than in any other model of global balance known to history.
The most stable system is bipolarity based on the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), which was prevalent from the 1950s until the end of the Cold War. The awareness of both superpowers that they would inflict severe and unavoidable reciprocal damage on each other or their allies in a nuclear war was coupled with the acceptance that each had a sphere of dominance or vital interest that should not be infringed upon.
With Brest-Litovsk and the Barbarossa in mind, Stalin “intended to turn the countries conquered by Soviet armies into buffer zones to protect Russia” (Kissinger). The Western equivalent, also essentially defensive, was defined by the Truman Doctrine (1947) Proxy wars were fought in the grey zone all over the Third World, most notably in the Middle East, but they were kept localized even when a superpower was directly involved (Vietnam, Afghanistan). This model was the product of unique circumstances without an adequate historical precedent, however, which are unlikely to be repeated in the foreseeable future.
The most stable model of international relations that is both historically recurrent and structurally repeatable in the future is the balance of power system in which no single great power is either physically able or politically willing to seek hegemony. This model was prevalent from the Peace of Westphalia (1648) until Napoleon, from Waterloo until around 1900, and from Versailles until 1933. It demands a relative equilibrium between the key powers (usually five to seven) that hold each other in check and function within a recognized set of rules that has come to be known as “international law.” Wars between great powers do occur (Solferino, Crimea, Sadowa...), but they are limited in scope and intensity because the warring parties tacitly accept the fundamental legitimacy and continued existence of their opponent(s).
If one of the powers becomes markedly stronger than others and if its decision-making elite internalizes an ideology that demands or at least justifies hegemony, the inherently unstable system of asymmetrical multipolarity will develop. In all three known instances—Napoleonic France after 1799, the Kaiserreich from around 1900, and the Third Reich after 1933—the challenge could not be resolved without a major war.
The government of the United States is now acting in a manner structurally reminiscent of those three powers. Having proclaimed itself the leader of an imaginary “international community,” it goes further than any previous would-be hegemon in treating the entire world as the American sphere of interest. As I pointed out two weeks ago, the formal codification came in the National Security Strategy of September 2002, which presented the specter of open-ended political, military, and economic domination of the world by the United States acting unilaterally against “rogue states” and “potentially hostile powers” and in pursuit of an end to “destructive national rivalries.” To that end, the administration pledged “to keep military strength beyond challenge, thereby making the destabilizing arms races of other eras pointless, and limiting rivalries to trade and other pursuits of peace.”
Any attempt by a single power to keep its military strength beyond challenge is inherently destabilizing, and results—sooner or later—in the emergence of an effective counter-coalition. Napoleon finally faced one at the Völkerschlacht at Leipzig in 1813. “There is no balance of power in Europe but me and my twenty-four army corps,” the Kaiser famously boasted in 1901. Within years he was also building a high seas fleet, setting off alarm bells in London. By 1907, Wilhelmine Germany engendered a counter-coalition that prompted even traditional rivals like Britain and Russia to join forces (the latter to be replaced by the United States in 1917). And as for the most recent Griff nach der Weltmacht, by the second week of December 1941 Germany was irrevocably doomed to another defeat.
An early yet certain symptom of destabilizing asymmetry in action is the would-be hegemon's tendency to claim an ever-widening sphere of influence or interference at the expense of his rivals. In the run-up to 1914 this was heralded by the Kruger Telegram (1896) and exemplified by the German bid to build the railway from Berlin to Baghdad (1903) and by the First Moroccan Crisis (1905). Neither Napoleon nor Hitler knew any «natural» limits, but their ambition was essentially confined to Europe. With the United States today the novelty is that this ambition is extended—literally—to the whole world. Not only the Western Hemisphere, not just the «Old Europe,» Japan, or Israel, but also Taiwan, Korea, and such unlikely places as Georgia, Estonia, Kosovo, or Bosnia, are considered vitally important. The globe itself is now effectively claimed as America's sphere of influence, Russia's Caucasian, European and Central Asian back yards most emphatically included.
Four weeks ago the game itself became alarmingly asymmetrical. For America it is still ideological, but for Russia it has become existential. Russia is now acting as a conservative, pre-1914 European power in seeking to protect its "near abroad." America is acting like a global revolutionary power, whose "near abroad" is literally everywhere.
It is therefore futile for Russia to try to “manage” the crisis in a pre-1914 manner and hope for some elusive softening on the other side, because the calculus in Washington is not rational. The counter-strategy of unpredictability, exemplified by Medvedev’s recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, is an eminently rational response, however. It may yet force the remnant of sanity inside the Beltway -- and especially at the Pentagon -- to try and exercise some adult supervision over the bipartisan “foreign policy community” of smokers in the arsenal.
Entries(RSS)
The Serbian Front in the War Over the Caucasus
Having failed to occupy South Ossetia - the region which has never belonged to Georgia and is predominantly populated by Russian citizens – with the hands of Saakashvili's fascist-style commando, the US and the EU have decided to change their tactic. Washington and Brussels have realized that today’s' Russia is profoundly different from the country it used to be 15 years ago. It is clear that now it is ready to use its military might to protect its national interests and, moreover, can swiftly rout an army modeled on those of NATO, armed by weapons supplied by various countries from Germany to Albany, and generously funded from by the West (which has poured several billion dollars into the Georgian army).
Please read:
http://en.fondsk.ru/article.php?id=1593
To Boba,
South Ossetia was an ancient Georgian Principality where the Ossetians (Alans) settled from the north as they were escaping the attacks of the Mongols. The Georgians were the natives; indeed, along with the Basques, Georgians are the most ancient peoples of Europe. Georgians were still about 30% of the population of South Ossetia prior to this war. Ossetians, like Albanians in Kosovo, are the numeric majority but are not natives, and like Kosovo for Serbs, South Ossetia is ancient Georgian territory. Also like Kosovo from Serbia, South Ossetia was seperated from Georgia by the Communists. Stalin was half Ossetian (and Tito was half Croat).
As for the rout, Georgian troops were trained for Iraq-style police actions, not heavy combat - and the trained ones were in Iraq, not Georgia.
Well now it's official. Russia Today reports Mr Yevgeny Satanovsky says we (the USA) have a 50-50 chance of bombing Iran. Apart from the fact that his surname seems reamrkably creepy, he is the boss od the Russian Jewish Federarion, he seemed to gloat over dropping names like Neocon Cheney, and "neocons in Washington." Paleos are getting noticed in the fromer Redland, but the prophet is without honor in his own country.
RT is an offshoot of Novosti. The website streams the stories.
http://www.russiatoday.com/en
http://news.serbianunity.net/2008/09/08/9149/
In anticipation of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev’s recognition of the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, President Bush said “Georgia’s territorial integrity and borders must command the same respect as every other nation’s.”
Critics of Russia’s action include Sens. Barack Obama, Joseph Biden and Joseph Lieberman; Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; former United Nations Ambassador Richard Holbrooke; and many others in the bipartisan establishment.
Among the specific criticisms are Russia’s violation of the sovereign territory of Georgia, a fledgling democracy and a member of the United Nations; a disproportionate response to Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili’s attempt to settle South Ossetia’s status by force, including Russian military operations well outside of South Ossetia; and Moscow’s tardiness in withdrawing its forces under a deal brokered by French President Nicolas Sarkozy.
Evidently irony is not much appreciated in Washington. It seems critics have forgotten President Bush’s recognition of the independence of Kosovo, a province of democratic, U.N. member Serbia. President Bush’s reference to “every other nation” whose “territorial integrity and borders must command the same respect” apparently has at least this one exception. If he can violate the United Nations Charter and the Helsinki Final Act, which guarantee sovereign borders, what right does he have to accuse others of doing the same?
If Moscow stepped over the line in its crushing military response to Mr. Saakashvili’s offensive, what do we call 78 straight days of NATO’s bombing throughout Serbia, destroying most of that country’s civilian infrastructure? If Russia is to be faulted for imperfect implementation of the Sarkozy agreement, what can be said about Washington’s violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1244, which ended the 1999 Kosovo war and reaffirms Serbian sovereignty in the province?
[...]
@105Walter Hallstein
What about Israel’s bombing of Lebanon that was way more disproportionate whole regions of Lebanon were completely levelled and towards the end of the war when hostilities were over Israel dropped cluster bomb pellets as they were leaving.
There are still 1 million unexploded cluster bomb pellets in Lebanon.
The above mentioned critics and mass media fully supported Israel’s incursion into Lebanon.
@104Etienne Gervaise
I’m curious how Jews in Iran feel about Israeli or pro-Israeli groups and individuals pushing for war with Iran.
Are they planning a mass exodus as soon as hostilities start?
Re: #103
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bdffd9a6-7b71-11dd-b839-000077b07658.html
..."..The contractors – MPRI and American Systems, both based in Virginia – recruited a 15-man team of former special forces soldiers to train the Georgians at the Vashlijvari special forces base on the outskirts of Tbilisi, part of a programme run by the US defence department.
MPRI was hired by the Pentagon in 1995 to train the Croatian military prior to their invasion of the ethnically-Serbian Krajina region, which led to the displacement of 200,000 refugees and was one of the worst incidents of ethnic cleansing in the Balkan wars. MPRI denies any wrongdoing.
US training of the Georgian army is a big flashpoint between Washington and Moscow. Mr Putin said on CNN on August 29: “It is not just that the American side could not restrain the Georgian leadership from this criminal act [of intervening in South Ossetia]. The American side in effect armed and trained the Georgian army.”
The first phase of the special forces training was held between January and April this year, concentrating on “basic special forces skills” said an American Systems employee interviewed by phone from the US army’s Fort Bragg. ..."
@109Boba
Good comment I did not know the US trained Croatian troops prior to Krajina I thought they just gave Croat forces logistical info.
If that is true then the US is complicite inwar crimes.
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/b92080406.htm
@111Etienne Gervaise
The guy who owned the world trade centre is an Isreali named Silverstein
Only link I could find on the topic.
http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=238
I also heard there was a remarkably low death toll for jews working in WTC.
I heard the same thing that there was an instant messaging system operated by an Israeli company that sent messages to employees prior to the attacks.
I know about 2 years ago Israel encouraged Iranian jews to immigrate to Israel but most declinned the offer.
@43James1:
"Even in the US after the revolutionary war British influence and involvement in there internal affairs did not dissipate although they did not have NGO’s back then.
I heard the before the non-Russian Bolshevik revolution in Russia relations between Russia and the US were very good. I know Czar Alexander helped finance Lincoln during the civil war and an advisor to one of the US presidents help set up the academy of science in the Russia during Peter the Greats reign."
Czar Alexander may have emancipated the serfs, but he did not choose wisely by befriending America's original tyrant. The British magazine Punch stated it well in 1863:
Abe: "Imperial Son of Nicholas the Great. We [air] in the same fix, I calculate. You with the Poles, with the Southern rebels I, Who spurn my rule and my revenge defy."
Alex: "Vengeance is mine, old man; see where it falls, Behold yon hearths laid waste, and ruined walls, Yon gibbets, where the struggling patriot hangs, While my brave myrmidons enjoy his pangs."
Western media at its finest.
http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/09-09-2008/106329-CNN_Georgia_South_Ossetia-0
Not suprising as CNN brought in Psych-ops interms to cover the 99 Kosovo war at it's headquarters in Atlanta.
Also note that all the US media barons are members of CFR.
Paul Bergeron:
"an advisor to one of the US presidents help set up the academy of science in Russia during Peter the Great's reign"
-- not likely, unless the advisor in question had a time machine: Peter died in 1725
@Paul Bergeron
Is Czar Alexander the one who abdicated his throne?
The fact that Lincoln introduced the green back and was killed by John Wilkes Booth who some believe was working on behalf of international bankers because of this I can see why Alexander abdicated.
@Trifkovic
Actually Paul Bergeron was referencing what I said in an earlier comment so I’m at fault here although I did hear that advisor to one of the US presidents help set up the academy of science in Russia under one of the Czars. I assumed it was Peter as he is the one who reformed Russia.
New Nuremberg Awaiting War Criminals:
a Photographic Report
http://en.fondsk.ru/article.php?id=1606
It was an advisor under Lincoln or policies initiated under Lincoln that carried on after his death who helped develop Russia’s rail road network.
Not sure about the academy of science though.
@116Boba Borojevic
Good weblink its the first actual pictures I’ve seen of South Ossetia.
It would be interesting to see the evidence presented specifically the use of foreign mercenaries used although the western mass media won’t cover it like the Milosevic trail which was a huge embarrassment for the West.
116Boba Borojevic:
The propagation of falsehoods continues...
The web site you refer to has, near the bottom, a claim to the effect that the crimes committed by Georgia (in the recent skirmish) are possibly only exceeded by those of the Nazis in WWII.
Whenever I read such a statement, and these occur often even in books or literature where the subject matter at hand is totally unrelated to questionable occurrences of WWII, I discount the entire work/opinion piece.
Someone who comments on current affairs had better learn history from more reliable sources than the MSM, Hollywood, a favourite comic book, or Soviet propaganda.
The author of the opinion piece clearly shows his bias, which I suppose is a good thing under the circumstances; but intellectual integrity would demand that the author list the excesses of Mao in China and Lenin in the USSR, which exceeded those of which the Germans are only accused but not convicted, by an order of magnitude.
Now then, someone please mention the Nuernberg Trials which have been completely discounted by several of USA Supreme Court Justices.
H.F. Wolff
@118H.F. Wolff
I think he was referring to aggression against Russia.
Even George Soros human Rights Watch had to admit that Georgian forces used cluster bombs.
There have been many alligations leveled against Russia which have either proven to be false .
Footage of South Ossetian ruined by Georgian forces and images of Georgian forces shelling South Ossetia were shown with western vioce over as Russian aggression.Now thats western mass media propaganda.
@111 james
I read that there used to be 80,000 Jews in Iran, but that number has declined to around 30 thou. There are 10 times that many Christians. I guess Iran is a big country, but we are spoon-fed two minutes hate about some ayatollah or Mr Ahmedinejad thus totally ignoring the minorities. Azeris seem to get the stinging end of the lash most of all.
When the Great Adversary has armies on both sides, who can blame Iran for wanting nukes? We did not go after North Korea for that reason, who wants to instigate a holocaust?
Maybe McCain.
@116 Boba
That website will infect your computer with a malicious trojan. DON'T GO THERE!
@118H.F. Wolff
Who ran soviet propaganda during WW2?
He wasn't Russian you could probably guess what ethnicity he was.
His statements and Nurenmburg trail testamonies are used as evidence of the Holocaust.
Are you willing to dispute thee Holocaust?
@120Etienne Gervaise
During the 50's Mossad agents would conduct terrorist operations against Jews in Arab countries to encourage them to immigrate to Israel.
Actually it is said the term Jew is a bad biblical translation which should really be Judean meaning one who resided in the Judea one of the two states of ancient Isreal.
So Jesus was actually a Judean as he resided in Judea so not all ancient Isrealites were Judeans or Jews.
I didn't have a problem with the website but I am running AVG which is supposed to filter these problems.
122james1
"Are you willing to dispute thee Holocaust?"
Moi?
Surely thou jest?
I merely have 1/2 dozen or so questions which either get edited out from my post, or cause ad hominim attacks.
Of course never ONE verifiable scientific or forensic substantiation is offered in argument.
H.F. Wolff