Well done Andrei - I kind of hoped my somewhat polemical piece about NATO being a thing of the past would provoke a bit of spirited debate. Thinkaboutit - or at least the bits I’ve been reading - has been a bit safe, conservative, and conventional to date. We need a bit of controversy to liven things up!
I see Eamonn is doing his bit as well. The old Irish pub tradition of starting an argument for the sheer fun of it is alive and well, although I have no doubt about the sincerity of his beliefs! I am, however disappointed to see a nasty anonymous comment on your blog - I didn’t think that was possible on Thinkaboutit. Hopefully it will be removed soon.
Obviously I disagree with almost everything you wrote, but the key thing I wanted to highlight is that views of the same thing - in this case NATO - can be very different in different parts of Europe and that what one side of Europe takes for granted can be anathema to the other side! We need more dialogue like this to make Europeans more aware of the diversity of our historical heritage.
I will restrict myself to just one comment on your piece: Do you really think NATO would have gone to war had Russia not pulled back from Gori? In my view, if you do think that you badly need to brush up on US and European and foreign policy debates. There was absolutely no chance of that happening.
Lots of speeches, yes. Maybe even some veiled threats. The unveiling a long planned plans for US missile bases in Poland etc. But ultimately, a lot of posturing. No one is going to risk a nuclear war because of a little local regional difficulty (as seen from Washington, London, Paris and Berlin). If countries want to go out of their way to annoy Russia (or give it a pretext for action) they are on their own.
Mikheil Saakashvili was a fool who believed some of his more ludicrous Washington chickenhawk advisors like Randy Scheunemann that the US would come to his aid. Those guys can’t even get jobs on Fox News now, and any Eastern European leaders who does not seek to cultivate good relations with Russia is also a fool.
We all have an interest in good political, social, trade and diplomatic relations with each other. That is what the EU is founded on and those that think that the USA, Britain, France and Germany will risk nuclear war with Russia in order to maintain some regional ethnic tension are misunderstanding what the EU and realpolitik is about. Even the limited intervention in Kosovo was painfully slow and largely lead by the US. And it did not involve direct conflict with a nuclear power.
The EU way is to seek openness, economic development and trade. To encourage cultural exchanges and peaceful conflict resolution. It helped to resolve a painfully protracted inter-communal war in Northern Ireland. The creation of more tolerant multi-ethnic societies with human rights for all is what is critical to the future of peace between Russia and the rest of Europe. If you think what happened in South Ossettia is a model for how relations with Russia should be conducted, I think you are very mistaken indeed.
(18 votes, average: 3.17 out of 5)
Loading ...
First, the issue of the anonymous comment. I genuinely believe that in a controlled environment (which TAI is), trollbaiting can be a lot of fun. It is a particular kind of exercise in debate, manipulating your opponent to make a fool of himself, and I’ve found that it actually boosts my credibility in the eyes of impartial readers: if someone is this mad at me, then I must be saying something worthwhile - and if the best criticism they can come up with is a spelling mistake, I must be saying something really worthwhile.
If anything, I am disappointed at the level of competition: I was hoping for a challenge.
Now, do I think NATO would have gone to war over Georgia? No, it wouldn’t have, and that was why Georgia did not get a MAP at the summit a few months before the war. However, it is a fact that Russian troops had complete military superiority. Do you attribute such a dazzling diplomatic talent to monsier Sarkozy that Georgia proper remained independent purely on the basis of his personal charisma?
South Ossetia and Abkhazia were lost to Georgia long before 8/8/8 - in the same way that Transdniester is lost to Moldova. The two rebel provinces have been Russian client states, with no source of income other than the Kremlin’s generocity, and the occasional Georgian attempt at infrastructural bribery. To replace so-called “peacekeeping” forces with regular army units and recognize the territories as states was an achievement that Russia could tout, and Europe could ignore. Many civilians died, but geopolitically, nothing changed. It proved Russia’s intentions, but it was not something that NATO would have been forced to respond to. There were no T-85s in Thbilisi for the same reason that there were no Merkavas in Damascus.
Would NATO have launched a liberation of Georgia by military means? No; it could just about squeeze by without it. But Europe would have screamed for containment, and politicians would have found it very difficult to satisfy their voters with anything less than a buffer of conventional forces stationed along the EU’s eastern flank. Certainly if Angela Merkel had dared mention Nord Stream again, her own back-benchers would tear her to pieces.
The annexation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia left NATO, and particularly the EU, with options. The conquest of Georgia would have left it with none. Russia could then be seen as nothing less than an agressor waiting in the wings, and Europe would be forced to prepare to defend itself.
But Georgia is not part of NATO. What if Russia were to attack a country that was? The NATO countries would have to respond under Article 5. To do otherwise would destroy the credibility of common security as a concept. If NATO will not protect Estonia or Norway, why should anyone believe it will protect France?
What is the last resort - Picadilly?
A couple more quick points. One, the nuclear capacity: that would never come close to being an issue in a conflict such as Georgia. That war will not end with the unconditional capitulation of either Moscow, Washington or Brussels, and that is the only prospect worth the horror of MAD.
Two, these common interests between Russia and Europe that you keep talking about. What are they, specifically? Peace? Prosperity? Democracy? The current Russian administration has shown that the welfare of its population is of absolutely no concern to it; the treasure accumulated from half a decade of ridiculous oil and gas prices has been squandered aimlessly at populistic projects aimed at propping up the approval ratings of mandarins, or more often, stolen by cliques to spend on single malt, hookers and Premier League clubs. Elections are a choice between the dominant party that doesn’t even make the token effort of having a manifesto, other than “we support whatever Putin says”, and the most jaw-droppingly literal loyal opposition - that is, where elections are still held (the president personally appoints governors and one of the parliamentary chambers).
Russia has nothing to offer Europe except oil and gas at prices higher than China. These people are not your friends.
Unfortunately the advent of tactical nuclear weapons opens up the prospect of a nuclear war without the risk of Mutually Assured Destruction. Cheney actively pursued a nuclear strike against Iran.
Israel will use nuclear weapons against Iran if it thinks Iran may be developing its own nuclear weapons capability - or even if it thinks it can persuade “the West” to believe that is the reason when it really just wants to reinforce its regional military supremacy. The proliferation of smaller and smaller nuclear devices means that unfortunately, sooner or later, one will be used.
The EU is founded on the notion that even mortal enemies can learn to live together if sufficient economic and social links and common interests can be built. The challenge for the next generation is to do the same between Russia and the rest of Europe - simply because war is unthinkable.
Anyone who wants to pursue a polarising policy with Russia will receive a very cold welcome in western Europe. They are attacking the foundation stone of the EU. I am as critical of the quality of Russian democracy and human rights as anyone. That just means we face a more challenging task.
“Israel will use nuclear weapons against Iran if it thinks Iran may be developing its own nuclear weapons capability”
Um, no - Israel will use high-tech conventional weapons if it thinks Iran is developing nuclear capability. It will use nuclear weapons against Iran if Iran is on the verge of overrunning Israel.
Tactical nukes are indeed outside the scope of MAD, but I don’t think they’re that vital. From what I understand their primary usefulness is as bunker-busters, on open ground the same effect can be achieved - more cheaply and with no risk of fallout - using air-fuel combustion munitions, what was known in the Soviet arsenal as a “vacuum bomb”. I believe these were used in a propelled artillery configuration as far back as Afghanistan.
We shouldn’t polarise Russia, certainly - hey, I’m the one who’d be threatened by that a lot more than you would - but we must not be under a misconception of what Russia is. As a state, a political entity, it is not our partner or our ally, it is at best our son of a bitch.
It is precisely in the role of bunker busting bombs (for hardened installations deep underground) that both Cheney and Israel have considered the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iran. There is a limit to what conventional weapons can achieve in this sphere.
I am deeply politically opposed to the kind of politics and economics that Russia pursues internally, and sometimes externally, and I can understand why Eastern European and Baltic states are deeply paranoid about Russia’s intentions.
That is typical of small states attitudes to a big state neighbour. Ireland has had such a relationship with Britain for a millennium - a conflict only finally resolved with the the Anglo Irish agreement of 1998.
The Great European Powers were perpetually at war. The genius of the EU is that it has replaced such military processes with political, economic and diplomatic ones. We do not want to go back to the earlier paradigm. That is why the Balkans are such a threat and a challenge.
Any durable and stable peace in our region has to include Russia - however much we may dislike many of its processes. They are an improvement on the Cold War which preceded it and we must encourage the continuation of the process of improvement.
And it is not only Russia which needs to enhance its democracy, civil rights, and economy. The way we treat ethnic Russians within EU member states is also an important indicator of our progress as a civilised political union. Perhaps you might do a post on how ethnic Russians are treated in Baltic States. My understanding is that there is room for improvement…
Frank, that last paragraph in your comment was a cheap shot.
I’d be very interested in you pointing out specific areas of policy requiring improvement, possibly with proposals on how to effectuate such improvement.
I’m certain Andrei would be interested in reading your thoughts on it as well, with him being a representative of the nominally Russian minority you so gracefully brought up.
Hi Taavet,
It wasn’t intended as a cheap shot. I have an ethnic Russian Latvian friend in Ireland who has left Latvia because he didn’t feel he had a fair chance in Latvia. Perhaps he is being unfair, or perhaps his case is not representative. It is precisely because I am not an expert on the topic that I invited Andrei to do a post on the topic.
None of our countries are perfect (least of all Ireland). However there has been a tendency in Ireland (now thankfully almost gone) of blaming all our problems on Britain. Of course in a colonial situation, many of our problems were caused by Britain, but it is part of the classic neo-colonial condition that ex-colonies continue a psychological (and other) dependency on their former imperial masters long after they have have gained their independence. I was wondering whether there was a similar tendency in the Baltic states to blame many problems on Russia and ethnic Russians.
Obviously Russia DID cause a lot of problems in the past - but the onus is now on Baltic states (as it was on Ireland) as independent states to resolve those problems and blaming everything on Russia and Russian isn’t necessarily the best way of doing this.
In any case - this is all conjecture on my part. I am interested in learning more about it and will read up on it. If I come up with enough information I will write a post on it, not because I have an axe to grind on behalf of Russians, but because I have an interest in inter-ethnic conflicts and how they can be transformed for the better.
I feel I must apologize for my somewhat snide remarks. It’s just that as an Estonian, I too often get accused of, well, fascism pretty much, and too often by Europeans who haven’t felt the need to investigate the issues before making their mind up.
If one repeats a lie often enough and loudly enough, people will start to believe it. Kreml will always have a louder voice than us.
There’s no use in blaming local Russians. They, just like Estonians, were the victims of a horribly immoral state. Many of them were transferred here in sincere belief of having to build up Communism in some godawful backwater. The resentment wasn’t as much ethnic as cultural, with them suddenly finding themselves confronted with a tiny, relatively successful European nation with attitude to match.
Majority of immigrants don’t seem to have had much trouble adjusting to the post-Soviet world. It’s just a small minority suffering from a strange form of Stockholm syndrome - yearning for the old times when the locals didn’t talk back - and actively working against any attempts of integration.
But then, it’s not the first time in Estonia when erstwhile herrenvolk has suddenly found themselves to be an ethnic minority. We managed to integrate Baltic Germans into our society, we’ll manage to do the same with our russophone countrymen.
Might just take a tad longer. Germans we had less of.
Hi Taavet,
Apology accepted, and I can see from your remarks that you have thought long and hard on the issues. Where did you get your excellent English?
Where does anyone learn English? Books, telly, computer games. EU has 20-something ‘official’ languagues by now, and thanks to open borders and ever intensifying intermingling it’d be hard not to pick up a smattering of at least the three main ones if one keeps his eyes, ears and mind sufficiently open.
Sit down a group of European youth from various corners of the continent, and after a modest amount of alcohol has been consumed you’ll notice that the common tongue is Franglisch, and everyone’s interested in learning at least the profanities of smaller languagues present
[...] Since I take it upon myself to represent Estonia, it is inevitable that I periodically find myself in the position of defending its policies. In fact no less than two th!nkers have challenged me on the subject of my country’s treatment of its sizeable minority: Joeri Oudshoorn back in Brussels, and Frank Schnittger on the site. [...]