"Hence, while Americans are as anti-terrorist as Russia is when it comes to the al-Qaeda Salafi threat, Russians are still feeding anti-Western forces in the Middle East. Hence there is a difference between Russian discomfort with NATO growth around the CIS and US concerns about Russia's protection of Iranian-Syrian efforts in the region. Moscow is backing a party at war with the US Coalition while Americans aren't assisting parties at War with Russia."

However, by the United States backing Saudi Arabia, and other gulf states, could it not be said the United States is assisting parties at war with Russia? Those Arab states are funding the wars in Chechnya, and with many other states around the world.

Although I disagree with Russia, and how it has handled the whole Georgian crisis, I do have sympathy for them. The American, and European governments have treated the Russians as if they are unintelligent savages who just crawled out of a hole. We supported several conflicts in the Balkans over their objections. It has been well known the Russians would trade “Kosovo for Iran”, or we stop pushing for an independent Kosovo, they would stop helping Iran, and perhaps Syria, but as usual we wanted it all. Now the Russians are using the same arguments against us, and to a great effect I might add.

I will make this simple for anyone who reads this: We have no right to complain about what the Russians do, or don’t do, until we do something about our support for Saudi Arabia, and other gulf states, and until we get out of the Arabian oil trade business. The sick truth is we support the greatest jihadist state on the planet, and if we add Pakistan to that list, we support two of the three worst jihadist states on the planet. We are like an alcoholic who won’t admit they have a problem, refuses to get help, and without hesitation points to another drunk guy (Russia in this case), and screams….”Look at that drunk!”.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at August 14, 2008 4:32 PM

Here's my prediction:

We will get another Cold War and possible hot one with Russia and it will destroy us.

The thing is uniformed lunatics and Conservatives would love another Cold War and massive arms build up. They've been egging the Russians on for years by surrounding them with bases and military personnel.

We have bases in Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Poland.

Hell we have over a thousand troops(a lot are Special Ops) in Georgia doing god knows what to whom ever since 9/11. And more on their way thanks to Bush ordering the use of Naval and Air assets to deliver supposed humanitarian aid.

If the Russians are smart they'll stay in Georgia and make the Europeans sweat and encourage Bush to close down that Spec Ops facility in Georgia.

Posted by: waltc at August 14, 2008 4:54 PM

i have a different take on this, Russia has always been an expanist country, and Putin's had said he felt the breakup of the former Soviet Union was the most important loss, not all the millions killed by Stalin, Hitler, it was the breakup of of the Soviet Union! Billions poured in to help Russia to aid their country to demcoracy, but only to keep poking the WEst by supporting the iranian mullahs, syrian and iraq's dictators. Russian gov't was never a friend of the west. So when the EU sees how Russia can still try to take over smaller countries who were formerly part of the Soviet Union, perhaps they will get closer to the US, and allow countrys like Georgia become NATO allies. Also there are oil pipelines running through Georgia and with their pro WEst, and pro US gov't, Russia will not be able to control them if allowed into NATO.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at August 14, 2008 4:57 PM

Regions should be able to succeed if there is a clear majority and a clear democratic question. Nationalists may disagree, however human beings have self-determination and if part of Georgia wanted to join Russia, they should have been allowed to do so.

Some are saying this is about control of oil. If this is true then it is additional motivation for humanity to find an alternative to oil. It would destroy the Middle East economically and it would make for a cleaner and more peaceful world.

Let's find an alternative to oil.

Posted by: James Martel at August 14, 2008 5:18 PM

I have commented more than once about Russian anger over Kosovo and the bombing of Serbia, and more than once my comments have met disbelief.

Thank you Billy Jeff Clinton.

Posted by: Pelayo at August 14, 2008 5:36 PM

It's the old 'split the camp of the infidels' game.

Infiltrate: then confuse and divide. Tell lies to each side (or sides) about the other. Push hard on existing divisions; create new divisions where none previously existed.

The last thing the Mohammedans want is for ALL the kafir to ally with each other: for Christians to completely abandon antisemitism, say, and support Israel; for Eastern and Western Christians to kiss and make up; for Hindus and Christians in India to recognise that Muslims are a clear and present danger to them both; for the US and India to realize that Islam is a danger to them both, and start co-operating bigtime. Europe, the UK and the USA are - civilisationally, right at bottom - natural allies; at present they have been very neatly divided from one another, I think Bat Yeor describes that in Eurabia.

Bottom line.

Non-Muslims should forget altogether about 'building bridges' with Muslims. We should concentrate on building bridges with each other; settling our disputes; and be very, very wary and suspicious every time a split appears between two groups of kafir that, viewed objectively, provides an opening wedge for the Jihad.

All kafir nations that have any commonsense should be backing out of dead-end relationships with Muslim countries, and building relationships with other non-Muslims, prioritising those that have decent or halfway decent regimes.

I approved heartily of my Prime Minister strengthening Australia's relationships with Singapore and South Korea; I was *disgusted* by talk of 'interfaith dialogue' with Indonesia, I would much rather see us ratcheting DOWN any aid to Indonesia and redirecting same to much more deserving kafir objects in our neighbourhood.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at August 14, 2008 5:59 PM

Instead of consolidating a Western-Russian entente against both Salafists and Khomeinists, Russia and the US are confronting the Wahabis separately and in most cases unsuccessfully while the Russians have befriended the Khomeinists who are harassing the Americans.
-from the article

What makes this guy think Russia will EVER join us against our common enemy? Chechnya didn't make them see the light? All of the stans on their border don't give them pause?
None of the countries on Russia's western border have territorial designs on Russian territory. None of them seek the overthrow of the Russian government. Russia, on the other hand, seeks to regain its lost empire.
The Russians appear to behave exactly as the jihadists: sweetness and light when they are in a bad spot ($10 a barrel oil) but the Russian bear comes out when they feel they have the upper hand.
This looks like 1938 all over again, and Georgia is the Sudetenland and France and Germany are acting out the parts of France and Britain.
Sarkozy was just missing the piece of paper. At least he didn't proclaim "peace in our time".

"The American, and European governments have treated the Russians as if they are unintelligent savages who just crawled out of a hole."

That's ridiculous. The West has catered to Russia's sense of its own grandeur and done everything it could to soothe Russia's bruised ego. It was allowed to join the G-7 when it had no business being there. It still doesn't. The group should be disbanded. At the very least, the US should withdraw. The Russians could help themselves if they didn't act like imperious bullies. We can only help ourselves if the next president doesn't don the rose-colored glasses Bush must have been wearing when he peered into Putin's eyes. He saw something that wasn't there.

Posted by: PMK at August 14, 2008 6:08 PM

The President of Georgia was very much concerned about Kosovo for the reasons stated above.

I'm no fan of Saudi Arabia, they pump such much money into propaganda and mosques that create the swamps from which jihadists become activated.

However, on a government to government level, Iran threatens to nuke other countries and the Saudi's do not.

Our support of Saudi Arabia (while reprehensible) does NOT create the same dangers for Russia that Russian support of Iran creates for both Russia and Iran.

Russian and Chinese support for Iran is based on an irrational desire to just take the US downa peg or two. What neither understands is that without the US, the global markets bringing prosperity to China and Russia would cease to function.

China would have empty factories. Global energy demand would plummet, and the Russian economy would go back to third world levels.

Russia's policies are all about pride and emotion, not reason.

Posted by: JSobieski at August 14, 2008 6:47 PM

I meant danger for Russia and the US not Russia and Iran.

Any analysis of Russian policies that fails to admit the pride/emotion factor is missing the boat.

Posted by: JSobieski at August 14, 2008 6:49 PM

This article is excellent. It makes some very important points that I have considered in light of Russia's actions.

We definitely do not need a war with Russia right now at this point. We need to focus on defeating Islamic Jihad. To do that, it would be best if all non-Muslims could ally together to ensure success.

greatcometof1577, your comment is great... I definitely agree with what you said. One thing I hadn't considered is Russia's support for Iran. I never realised that they were supporting Iran in retaliation for our support to Kosovo. If that is indeed true, it just makes our support for Kosovo that much more stupid and shortsighted.

Posted by: Natalie at August 14, 2008 6:50 PM

"Russia's policies are all about pride and emotion, not reason. " -from JSobieski's comment.

That's one problem I have with Vladimir Putin: he seems to make his decisions based too much on emotion. I've found that leaders who make their decisions based solely or mostly on emotion often don't make the best decisions.

Posted by: Natalie at August 14, 2008 6:54 PM

Don't worry we'll get that hot war with Russia the way things are going.

Conservatives already having group orgasms over this fracas.

Notice how the news media never did a back story on Ossetia and the political dynamics involved there?

Its the build up to Iraq war all over again. They are going pump the American people for another war.

Then there are the threats from Gates to take military action against Russia. They are implied but they are there.

We already have a spec ops Army base with a airfield in Georgia so it wouldn't be hard for us to say move the 82nd Airborne in there in short order followed later by a Division of Marines.

A mass call up of the inactive reserves shouldn't be far behind at that point. Grab 300-500,000 men who just got out and put them back in uniform.

Bush could do it all with a exec order and have a half million men reporting for duty in 24 hours. Congress doesn't matter in this so they are irrelevant. War making resides totally in the hands of the president.

Posted by: waltc at August 14, 2008 7:00 PM

PMK

Wow! The Great 8, or 7 or 7 1/2 or 4+4..

I view that like I view the UN, and all the rest of those kind of organizations….as useless country clubs. So what!

In the mean time here is what we have done to irk Russia…

(1) We supported the expansion of NATO (another useless organization) to surround their borders with the direct goal to weaken them.

How would the USA feel if Russia was mucking around with Canada and Mexico, forming a coalition against the USA, with the goal to weaken us?

(2) We supported Kosovo independence; we supported anything that would weaken Serbia.

How would the USA feel if we watched Russia supporting an Islamic takeover of Great Britain. Russia has a natural affection for their fellow Slavs in the same way we have affection for our fellow English speaking peoples.

(3) We support Islamic nations that support Chechnya. Where do you think the guys who pulled off the Beslan massacre got their money, and training from? An American ally called Saudi Arabia (and other “pro-American” gulf states).

How would we feel, if Russia supported and continued to support, a nation that was involved in giving money, and support to those who did 9-11.

In conclusion…PMK….

Of course I wish the Russians would stop acting like bullies, but so do we! We bullied the Serbs did we not, forced them to give up their lands to Muslims, so why are you complaining about the Russians playing geo-political games. The point is every action has consequences. If we had not supported Kosovo, if we had not put pressure on Russia to go easy on Chechnya (pre 9-11), if we had put real pressure on Saudi Arabia, and other Islamic nations to stop supporting Islamic separatist movements in Russia, maybe we could have worked out a deal with Russia on Iran, and on other issues. I don’t think the Russians are victims, and they have acted stupidly, but I get sick in tired of listening to some of my fellow Americans (and Europeans) get themselves all worked up over Russia, with this self righteous attitude that Russia is always wrong, and we Americans are always right. That only we Americans have the right break up countries, or unite them, and that only we Americans can have a “Monroe Doctrine”…

The Russians are calling us out as hypocrites, and you know they might be right.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at August 14, 2008 7:06 PM

Natalie

I have heard about the Kosovo-Iran deal talked about for several years now. It poped back up again in this article (That is why I remebered it):

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/world/europe/10diplo.html?ref=asia

(Yes I know it is the "New Duranty Times")

It stated: "One United Nations diplomat joked on Saturday that “if someone went to the Russians and said, ‘OK, Kosovo for Iran,’ we’d have a deal."

I really don't know (like the unnamed UN diplomat) if that is the exact reason why Russia supports Iran, but I am sure the Russians would take this deal in heartbeat (as the rumors suggest). Remember the Russians throughout their history have not had good relations with Iran/Persia, so this act of semi-support with Iran, is only because they want something from us.

Sometimes you stroke their ego...to get what you want. My guess is Georgia will now become a pawn in this game as well. I am not saying Russia is right, or always correct either (esp. with Georgia), but you could see this coming.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at August 14, 2008 7:30 PM

Thanks for that article, greatcometof1577. Talk about mismanaging relations with Russia. We really ought to have closer relations with them. Sure, Russia isn't always right, but they are an important country that we ought to ally with.

Part of the problem is we never really had good relations with Russia since the Cold War. As you said, there are quite a bit of Americans who go around all sanctimoniously as if America can do no wrong and Russia can do no right. Of course I love America, but we've done some really wrong things: just look at the Balkan wars of the 1990s.

waltc, I don't think conservatives are necessarily pushing for a war with Russia. Loads of Americans are angry at Russia, but I don't think conservatives as a whole want a war with them.

Posted by: Natalie at August 14, 2008 8:02 PM

JSobieski

You won't hold that opinion when some Sunni Muslims set off a nuclear weapon in some harbor in the USA or Europe, using a nuclear weapon that will no doubt be from Pakistan (not officially of course), and will be financed by some Arabian prince (with his wealth obtained from oil money), who thinks he is the second coming of Khalid bin Walid.

Anyway, the greatest danger to the USA is the demographic take over of those countries by Muslims in Europe (including Russia). Saudi Arabia (and other gulf states) are the main source of $ for that demographic take over.

The point is this: make a deal with Russia over Kosovo, and NATO expansion, in return for Iran, Syria, (and a few other places). That is what is in the best interest of the USA. It is not in the best interest to go out of our way to poke the Bear, unless the Bear is eating in the wrong trash can…I prefer to keep their eyes pointed south and southeast…not west if you get my drift.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at August 14, 2008 8:23 PM

An article put up more than two years ago, on the question of "Who Lost Russia?":

The loss of Russia, or rather the recapture of Russia by bolshevisant and naturally despotic rulers, was not inevitable. The United States is often blamed for things for which it does not deserve the blame. But successive American governments did fail, from Clinton on, to properly deal with Russia, to take into account what 70 years of Bolshevism had done.

Self-promoters and world-conquerors such as Jeffery Sachs showed up in Russia to fix everything, push their way into Russia and, without any knowledge of Russian history or of the mental makeup of those who had lived in the Soviet system, proceed to inflict all kinds of ill-thought-out instantaneous "reforms." In Sachs's case, and those who think like him, the great thing in the world, the only thing, is economics. Man is homo economicus, and only that. And free-market fundamentalism, the supposed need for being thrust at once into the cold bath of capitalism, showed a complete miscomprehension of Russia. Sachs's experience with Poland, a very different country with a much more limited experience of Communism, showed that he and those of his ilk could not stop to be bothered with little things like detailed and specific knowledge of Russia and the former Soviet republics. He had no idea that, for example, it was inevitable that former managers of state enterprises would know exactly what things were worth, and know how to take advantage of the new situation to privatize most of the country's former state-owned assets into their own portfolio. Nor did all those bright Americans think much about those Russians on fixed incomes -- those teachers, those professors, many of them too old to be transformed into biznesmeny and biznesmenky, and besides, why should they? The damage to Russian education and culture, a result of the sudden collapse of the economic wellbeing of so many in this vast group, may be irreparable.

And the Americans never thought about how their actions elsewhere would play into the conspiracy theories, about diabolical Americans wishing to weaken Rus', to not merely destroy Communism, but to humiliate Mother Russia. Of course it was all nonsense. It was Yeltsin, in a drunken stupor, who gave away much of the Soviet Union when there was no need to do so. Those "diabolical Americans" had nothing to do with it. Nor was there, as even many educated Russians seem to think, all kinds of celebrating in Washington over the weakening of Russia and the breakup of the Soviet Union. Not at all. It was something worse: ignorance and indifference.

Clinton liked to reward his friends, those he had met at Yale or at Oxford, as we all know. Robert Reich never did much to stand up to the globalization mania of Rubin and others in the Administration, but he did parlay his time as Secretary of Labor into a later career as instant pundit (gravely worried about that same "globalization") and professor and extraordinarily well-paid lecturer as the Man Who Feels the Pain of the Poor and the Middle Class. Before moving from Cambridge to Berkeley, he sold his house off Brattle Street for $12.5 million. “Clinton has been very good to me.”

And then there is Strobe Talbott, former Time journalist who, because he knew some Russian -- likely about as much as Condoleeza Rice (why, he even wrote his senior thesis at Yale on Tiutchev), was presented as an "expert" on Russia. Not Igor Birman, not Anders Aslund, not all kinds of economists. Not the Russians who knew what would or could happen, given the history of Russia and the way people had learned to behave – such people as Garry Kasparov and Yelena Bonner, or for that matter Kasianov the politician (or his brother the physicist), and others who are now part of the opposition to Putin.

But a great part of the problem was the American bombing of the Serbs. In Russia, the effect then, and even more since, has been terrible. It was seen as an attack on a historic ally of Russia, and the whole thing becomes mixed up with memories of the Bulgarian Wars in 1876-1878, and South Slavs, and seeming American indifference to Russian desires, Russian needs. America was taking the side of Muslims against Slavs. Of course it wasn’t, and of course Clinton and Albright and others had no conception of how this might affect Russian popular attitudes, attitudes of suspicion about American motives and desires. And to reply that there was no other way of dealing with Milosevic – is that true? Was there no other way? And should not the Americans, had they realized how this would naturally be used by those already inclined, in Russia, to conspiracy theories about American attentions, have insisted that other powers – England, France, anybody – do whatever bombing was deemed minimally necessary?

Condoleeza Rice’s meeting with a Muslim with known terrorist sympathies in Washington, helping perhaps to prepare the ground for a further loss of territory by Serbs, is wrong and stupid. But it is even more unusually stupid and wrong when one considers the effect on Russia.

In its foreign policy, what is it Americans wish from the Russian government? We would wish that it would be adamant in demanding that the Islamic Republic of Iran stop its nuclear project, and that it would do so because it finally realizes that it is not Chechnya alone that is at stake, but all of the Caucasus, and indeed all of Russia (when one considers the relative growth of the Muslim and non-Muslim populations). If we are to appeal to this, to urge Russia to worry about Islam, and hence about Iran or any other Muslim state acquiring such weaponry, it does not make sense to appear to support, in any way, Muslims who wish to take away territory dear to the Serbs -- long after it has become clear that all over Bosnia there are Arabs promoting Jihad and a much more fanatical brand of Islam than the one that had, since Ottoman power receded, been forced to develop as a way of adjusting to now-powerful Christians or, under Tito, to non-Muslim Communist rule.

And what would the American government like most in Russia today? Certainly it would prefer to see the liberals, those who met recently, as best they could, to protest the Putin regime, gain power. But part of the problem is that the conspiracy theories about the United States prevent the Americans from offering, and those liberals from accepting, support. Any meeting of Rice with a Muslim from Kosovo, with the kind of background that this man has, will be used to inflame Russian sentiment.

Does any of this matter? Are there people in the State Department who will explain the connection between American inattention to Serbian needs, and the widespread and still growing hostility towards, and suspicion of, the United States, even among otherwise sensible Russians?

Why should the Americans give any sign whatsoever of favoring the enlargement of Muslim-controlled territory in Europe? This is crazy. This makes no sense – or rather, it makes sense if those making policy still do not understand that the Jihad is a permanent duty, and not merely some recent, anomalous expression of a supposed sense of “humiliation” felt by Muslims.

The “humiliation” is manufactured and phony; Muslims may claim they feel “humiliated” whenever they are asked to simply stop waging war against non-Muslims. No doubt the Muslims in Indonesia, attacking Christians and destroying thousands of churches over the last few years, feel “humiliated” by the fact that Christians dare live and practice Christianity openly, and no doubt the Muslims in Sudan for two decades felt “humiliated” by the refusal of the non-Muslims in the south to submit, and no doubt the Muslims in Denmark feel “humiliated” that the Danes continued imperturbably to practice, and not merely regard as a theoretical possibility, their right of free speech, and no doubt the Buddhist monks and schoolteachers murdered in southern Thailand owe their deaths to some “humiliation” that the local Muslims feel in not having their demands met, and the same “humiliation” (not being given an independent territory) explains the behavior of Muslims in the southern Philippines. And so on. “Humiliation.”

We should be proving to the Russian public that we are on the side of the Serbs, not the Muslims. We should ask them to do the same with Iran – prove that they are on the side of the Infidels, and not the Muslims.

This, perhaps, is beyond this Administration, as it was beyond that of Clinton.

No one talks about “Who Lost Russia?” the way they once talked about “Who Lost China?” Of course, those who lamented the loss of China then proceeded, idiotically, to blame Owen Lattimore when it was Chiang Kai-shek, and the whole history of modern China, that helped to “lose China.” In the case of Russia, the American inability to figure out how not to supply ammunition to the conspiracy theorists in Russia, continues to astonish.

[Posted by Hugh at July 15, 2006]

Posted by: Hugh at August 14, 2008 8:39 PM

The Homo Sociopathus specie that have stealthily taken over the governments and elites of the United States and EUrabia have a severe schizophrenical condition: they are pathologically cowardly toward Iran/Hezbollah and equally pathologically bellicose toward Serbia, Russia and, to a lesser degree, China. The impression is, they court a confrontation with Russia so that they have an excuse for not acting against Iran. Why else would they install the radar and missle-interceptors in Czech and Poland, after Russia gave full freedom to those countries and retreated so far, far East? The Czechs and the Poles are as staunchly pro-Western as ever, but even they see through the crude Bush and Rice lies that those installations are "against Iran": to defend from Iran, you don't stick a missle against Russia's rib; you go at Iran and take it out. This, Kosovo, now South Ossetia. Instead of using Georgia to provoke Russia and then set it up as a beat-up dummy, couldn't they let Israel use it to launch an air-strike on Iran? Because the Big American Coward won't.

Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.

Posted by: Enragedsince1999 at August 14, 2008 8:55 PM

The Muslim population of Russia has gone up 40% since 1989. Meanwhile the Russian population of Russia has gone down. There are now 25 million Muslims in Russia. And the Central and East European Affairs editor of The Economist has suggested in print that by 2015, 40% of the Russian army may be Muslim.

What do the Russians intend to do about this? Anything? Nothing?

And what do the Americans intend to do in their conversations with the Russians -- not mention this, not try to emphasize that common ground should be found against a common threat, and that whatever the Russian government does to deal with a potential Muslim threat will get no quarrel from us, because we are much more fearful of a Russian military under Muslim control -- by 2040, 2050? -- than one under the Russians themselves, who are rational actors , though far too given to conspiracy theories about the West and especially about America (which has hardly been paying the kind of attention to "encircling Russia" that many Russians apparently are convinced it has), actors.

Posted by: Hugh at August 14, 2008 9:17 PM

Critical observations on Putin and the current attacks on the wrong target, by a noted Russian political analyst, which is posted here for what is undoubtedly a small, but still important, group of visitors:

"Совершенно прав был главный редактор "Эха Москвы" Алексей Венедиктов, когда сказал, что моральное право осуждать Михаила Саакашвили за штурм Цхинвали имеют только те, кто осуждал российское руководство за его методы "восстановления конституционного порядка" в Чечне, за штурм Грозного, превративший его в Дрезден 1945 года.

В 1999 году, да и в последующие годы всеобщему восторгу по поводу "возрождения российской армии в Чечне" противостояли (так же, как после вторжения в Чехословакию в 1968-м) буквально единицы, естественно, немедленно названные предателями. Г-на Венедиктова, кстати, среди них не помню.

Значительный публицист такого интеллектуального и нравственного масштаба, обладавший к тому же серьезным информационным ресурсом, смог бы, наверное, возвысив свой голос, оказать гораздо большее воздействие на умы оболваненных доренками, леонтьевыми, сванидзе соотечественников, чем та незначительная женщина, чья смерть "принесла нам больше вреда, чем вся ее жизнь".

Но то, что он сегодня искренне полагает, что выступал тогда против развязанной властями в качестве инструмента избирательной кампании бойни, говорит о нем очень хорошо. У человека абсолютно верные нравственные ориентиры.Нельзя было убивать мирных жителей в Чечне. Нельзя было грузинам убивать мирных жителей в Цхинвали. Нельзя нам убивать их сегодня в Гори и Поти.

"Боевые самолеты, вызвавшие все эти разрушения, выбрали своей целью военные казармы, построенные на окраинах Гори. Они промахнулись. В базу попала только одна бомба. По меньшей мере две другие упали на дома, от пяти из которых моментально остались лишь одни черные каркасы. Третья бомба попала в небольшое здание школы, превратившееся в груду камней и скрученных балок. Из-под завалов зданий начали выбираться выжившие, некоторые хромали, другие истекали кровью от ранений, полученных шрапнелью и осколками стекла. Люди были покрыты сажей и пылью. Затем они стали вытаскивать раненых. Напротив ряда гаражей на земле лежал труп, укрытый прозрачной пленкой. Седая женщина, стоя на коленях у тела своего сына Яно, строителя средних лет, проклинает русских, а потом Бога. Затем она просит у него прощения и снова проклинает русских. "Вы отняли у меня сына, вы свиньи, преступники, — говорит она низким голосом, потом поворачивает лицо к своему мертвому сыну и нежно гладит его волосы" (GZT.RU, 10.08.2008).

Почти дословное воспроизведение XVII главы повести русского артиллерийского офицера 1850-х годов, участника этой вечной кавказской войны. Бесчисленное количество подобных историй успела рассказать о последней чеченской войне обреченная на смерть и знавшая об этом Незначительная.

Как справедливо заметил наш Национальный Лидер, "Россия веками играла в этом регионе мира, на Кавказе в целом, весьма позитивную, стабилизирующую роль, была гарантом безопасности, сотрудничества и прогресса в этом регионе".

Чего же добиваемся мы сегодня, отказываясь от прекращения огня и продолжая авиаудары по территории Грузии? Мы знаем, что обязательно будут жертвы среди мирных жителей. Это и есть то самое Возмездие, о котором так громко говорили наши лидеры? Мы что, собираемся ужаснуть грузин этими смертями, чтобы они отказались от человека, отдавшего приказ штурмовать Цхинвали? Мы что, исповедуем гитлеровский принцип коллективной ответственности?

Да - ответят ведомые своими пастырями телевизионные миллионы. Да - почти открыто отвечают наши дипломаты. Но если это так, то чем мы все - от нашего Верховного Главнокомандующего до нашего Верховного Правозащитника - лучше того человека, которого мы так дружно требуем предать суду международного трибунала?

А во имя каких чаяний братского абхазского народа мы собираемся бросать десантников на штурм высот в Кодорском ущелье? Там нет никаких абхазов. Там сваны веками живут. Кто эти маленькие жуковы, которым накануне окончания маленькой победоносной войны понадобились свои маленькие Зееловские высоты?

Наш Национальный Лидер сегодня снова в великолепной форме. Нет и следа той некоторой растерянности и грусти, которые явно чувствовались во время инаугурации "наследника" и некоторое время после нее. В стихии войны он чувствует себя как рыба в воде. Он формулирует азартно, ярко, с оттяжечкой, привычно поигрывая фирменными желвачками. В том, что он говорит - о гибели мирных жителей в Цхинвали, о двойных стандартах Запада, о том, что после того, что произошло, примирение грузин и осетин скорее всего невозможно, - много справедливого, и он убедителен. Эту правду ему говорить легко и приятно. А о другом его не спрашивают и нескоро спросят. (Например, правда ли, что Саакашвили заманили в ловушку Цхинвали так же, как в свое время Басаева в Дагестан?)

В эти дни как-то сама собой и без чьих либо видимых усилий под залпы "Градов" и взрывы авиабомб органично разрешилась наконец мучавшая его и всю "политическую элиту" проблема третьего, то есть пожизненного срока. У Собирателя Земель Русских, какой бы формальный пост он ни занимал, долгая, вымощенная лучшими намерениями благородная миссия. Никому и в голову не придет ограничивать ее какими-то искусственными псевдоконституционными временными рамками. В этом и заключается самый главный внутриполитический итог его Второй Маленькой Победоносной.

12.08.2008 11:23

Андрей Пионтковский

Posted by: Hugh at August 14, 2008 9:34 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9hMdjnNBVQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7uDoBfzhLM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoRjh-pf5C0&feature=related

Posted by: Hugh at August 14, 2008 9:46 PM

The article is very off base and short sighted when it comes to the actions of Russia and makes the very common mistake of viewing every single event that happens as being reactionary to American foreign policy.

The facts are that Russia was in bed with Iran long before any American civ had ever even heard the name Kosovo. This is complete and total propaganda.

Don't forget Russia's own role in its Chechen problem. The Chechen Jihadists are Russia's own al Qaeda, its own Taliban. For decades now the majority of the low rank and file of the Russian military have been young Muslim males, whom were marginalized in civvy life. The Chechens, those that fight for the Russians are absolutely infamous throughout the Caucuses. They are the Russian bully boys. The Chechens are simply biting the hands of their erstwhile masters, who gave them the power to do so in the first place, not the Saudis. There were issues with Chechen secularist rebels, fighting over conflicts on ethnic levels and over the disproportionate distribution of revenues from Chechen oil, in Russian cities as opposed to ethnic Chechens. It is also not as if the Chechens are alone in hating their Russian masters. This includes many non-Muslims.

Don't forget the role of Iranian Communists in the Revolution that saw installment of their Mullahcracy. Like so many other political demagogues, they sought the jihadists as allies, but could not control the beast they had let off of its leash.

Don't forget that Hamas, and many other of the more organized Jihadist entities are that way because of Russia, long before Kosovo. Prior to becoming "Islamist" groups, or that is transferring their leadership and recruiting base to 'salafists', they were largely all Islam-flavored Communistic Pan-Arabist movements (not too dissimilar from Ba'ath), propped up by the USSR.

Russia doesn't see a true threat from these groups in the way the Western world does, because should the time come that their own pitbull Iran, bites the hand that feeds it, it can easily become another Chechnya, or any other -stan under Soviet control. Bombed into the stone age, ethnically cleansed, occupied and religiously/ideologically oppressed. Something no Western nation would ever do, for right or wrong.

As another poster pointed out, the Russian power elite never saw the error of their ways, in the gulags, in the ethnic cleansing of other Slavic groups in Georgia, in Ukraine, etc. In the same way that the Arab/Islamic world never saw error with slavery and had its daylight, broader application ended at the point of bayonet, Russia too only ended their most egregious abuses of their fellow humans when the power to abuse slipped between their fingers. They still follow an ideology, such as the 'class struggle theory' of Communism forwards, that you can kill enough people that disagree with you that eventually no one will be left alive to further disagree, no matter how objectively wrong you are.

Finally, the entire issue isn't Communism anymore. There isn't a unified, underlying ideology guiding Russia that is codified. In truth, their actions are extremely pragmatic and in line with Putin's plan for years now. Russia and the majority of Middle Eastern powers are natural allies. Russia is simply posturing to be OPEC 2, and they are fostering relationships with those other thugs sitting on loads of oil.

This has nothing to do with Kosovo, and nothing to do with the Russian's "love" of Serbs. Just see their love for the Ukrainians. The people of Georgia, Ukraine, and all those other Slavic people that Russia 'loves' still remember the forced immigration of ethnic Russians into non-Russian lands, the starvation and other atrocities laid at the Soviet's feet that were enacted in order to make Ukraine less Ukrainian and more Russian, therefor more appealing. The same goes for other non-Russian ethnic territory.

As far as Cold War 2 goes, the first one never ended. We have done endless damage by lowering our guard to not only Russia, but the horrible, lasting effects of KGB psy-ops around the world, in Korea (in case you have never been there, Koreans essentially uniformly hate Americans and the American government), in Europe (where is that poll showing something like 45% of Scandinavian college students have never even heard of 'gulag' and think that Communism was overall a positive influence on the world? How many Europeans have YOU met that say they aren't sure that things wouldn't be better if America had lost in WW2 and now either Nazi Germany or Communist Russia were the world's sole superpowers? A lot for me), and most importantly the many Marxists, whose ideology demands moral relativism, as culture and religion are not even second fiddle there, still alive and well in America and Europe wreaking havoc on us all.

Don't give Russia any slack for its action. Fact of the matter is, that Russia is, and was never going to 'trade' Kosovo for Iran. This was never going to happen. They play the same game as they have always played. They would continue to deal, out in the open with anything Iran wants, and simply deny that they were doing it. A big part of diplomacy is mutual trust, and you can't trust this "ex-KGB" run Russian State. Time and again, giving in to Russia's grandiose posturing for the sake of diplomacy has proven as futile as giving into the demands of the Jihadists. Once an offer is made good on by any Western power, it cannot realistically be reneged upon regardless if the other side upholds its end of the bargain or not.

Iran is an oil producing nation, and friendly to Russia, hostile to the US-Europe. Even European 'allies' are hostile to US-Europe. Once Russia consolidates control over European oil supplies, you have either Russian friendly or Western hostile entities controlling virtually all exports worldwide. Russia sacrificing its ability to engage in energy extortion, sacrificing its ability to turn off the lights, and turn off the heat to Europe and its unruly 'Eastern Bloc' neighbors with ease. Iran was never on the table to be offered up for slaughter. Not to mention the simple fact that Iran generates revenue for Russia as its client and Kosovo cost money to its supporters because it really has nothing to offer except street cred with Muslims. The motives, and the benefits of the two relationships are completely different and not to be compared.

Posted by: Scion9 at August 14, 2008 9:56 PM

Andrei is, typically Slavic, too emotional. Good thing about Putin is that he is very pragmatic. He knows how to play the Game by the rules and he is a very good player. Fact is that the USA set precendent which Russia is now using and western leaders can only issue strong statements, but can't do anyhing else. Now it is completely legitimate to engage in "humanitarian war" against someone inferior, to protect minorities against "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing", to give these minorities "special protection" and aat the end "independent" state. These rules are set by the USA and EU in Kosovo.

I have no doubt that Putin will deal with jihadi threat in Russia better than western leaders in their countries. But then we will see reactions from the west...

Posted by: LazarOfSerbia at August 14, 2008 10:08 PM

"Russia and the majority of Middle Eastern powers are natural allies."
-- from a posting above

No, they are not, even if short-sighted Russian leaders may think they are. Any country that relies on oil for its main source of wealth has a stake in disruption of oil supplies elsewhere. Russia should not wish Iran or Saudi Arabia well. Not as an economic competitor, supplying the same goods (oil and natural gas in the case of Iran, oil in the case of Saudi Arabia).

Furthermore, the Russians should be worried far more than they seem to be about demographic changes, and the possiblity of Muslims taking over parts of the military in a decade or two or three. They appear as heedless of this problem as the American government has appeared heedless of the texts and tenets of Islam, and remains convinced that the "best way" to deal with the situation is to pour money and men and materiel into Iraq or, for some (choose your poison), into Afghanistan, when the desired results will never come, because the nature of Islam, and the threat of Islam, has not been understood.

Many Russians, so consumed with conspiracy theories about America (and the maladroit American presentation of those policies, and seeming inability to explain them in a way that Russians would find palatable, or even to explain that Russia and America share the same potential threats and need to collaborate, rather than cling to or reassert hostile attitudes), assume that Muslims in Russia will continue to be "Muslims-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslims just like those their parents grew up with. They somehow think that "our" (nashi) Muslmis are "different." (The same complacent thought is often uttered by Americans: Muslims in America are "quite different" -- better educated, more prosperous -- we are constantly told, and therefore "not a threat" as are Muslims in Western Europe. Whistling in the dark.

The Russians are not factoring in the renewed appeal me of Islam for some Muslims in Russia, especially in the Caucasus but also in Moscow itself, and the effect of audi-financed mosques and propaganda all over the place. The effects of the anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union, and the crushing of the revolt by Central Asian Muslims opposed to this policy in the 1930s, are held by some Russians to represent a permanent end to the internal Muslim threat. They are wrong. And they are betting a lot, too much, on that notion.

Posted by: Hugh at August 14, 2008 10:12 PM

Oil isn't strictly about revenue. Russia could make more money with less export coming from other nations, but they want the kind of political power that OPEC has.

OPEC is willing to take a hit to their pocketbook in order to quell their clients into submission.

If it was all about oil revenue, it would still be all BP in Russia, not Gazprom.

Just as the OIC and Russia are 'allies' in the UN when it comes to all of those 'Human Rights' issues despite ideological differences, Gazprom and OPEC will be 'allies' when it comes to extorting Western nations, even when it costs them a buck or two.

As far as their military being subsumed by Muslims, this is exactly where the Chechen problem came from. Their backyard Jihadists are Russian trained, many still wearing their army jackets along with a stylish kafiyah.

The demographic issue, as it is in Europe, is too painful to face. That is the elephant in the room. The fact that soon, their people might be like the Jews, with only a 'handful' to speak of.

I'm not disagreeing that Russia is on the wrong path in regards to facing the threat of Jihad, as is the West, but fact of the matter is that Russia is a lot more likely to wind up as allies with nations like Iran than they are any Western power and it has a lot more to do with their desire for power than it does with conspiracy theories and paranoia.

Iran will not balk over any power and land grabs Russia takes, while everyone in the EU, etc will. Iran will likely never take action against Russia for anything, on any front, with sanctions, or economic policy, etc. We will not turn a blind eye to a resurrected Imperial Russia, or any neo-colonial activities as we have with China for the sake of their status as a 'devoloping nation'.

What Russia and apparently many Russians want, the West cannot offer it, while the OIC et al, can.

Posted by: Scion9 at August 14, 2008 10:33 PM

I would love for Russian assistance in the war against Jihad, but I don't think Russia is going to join any team that the US on it

NATO expansion is NOT a threat to Russia. Does anyone think Poland or Georgia is going to make territory demands on Russia? As it is NATO is really just a mutual protection pact with the US. Is NATO capable of even defending itself? Sadly, no. The idea that Russia is afraid of NATO is laughable. More like Russia knows NATO is a means by which Russia is prevented from dominated its neighbors.

Making Russia and the US into false moral equivalents over Kosovo/Georgia is not going to persuade any sound mind. Saying we should jetison freedom loving people to the Russian Bear in appeasement for imaginary cooperation against Jihad is short sighted. Letting purposely Western-seeking people like Georgia dangle in the wind is not in the long term interests of the West.

Not saying we need to make Russia an enemy, but I have argued repeatedly on this site that Russia is no friend and is not situated to be a friend. Russia should be made into a rival we can deal with (a la China).

I am 1st generation American, and I have lots of friends who are immigrants or first generation Americans from places like Russia, Ukraine, Poland, etc. Even the Russians who I otherwise like and trust very much often cannot come to terms with a simple fact of history:

Russia was the most consistently beligerent nation state of the past 100 years. Siding with the bear now is just going to makethe bear hungry.

Lets keep the bear contained, and get back to trying to stop global jihad.

Putin bemoans the demise of the USSR. Think about that. Showing deference to someone who wants to bring back the USSR if he could is no more sensible that showing deference to Fatah because its not HAMAS.

Focus on the core principle: protection and hopefully growth of Western civilization.

I fear the next big question in global history will be whether or not the Russians are willing to shoot themselves in the foot just to spite the US. I think its a 50/50 proposition.

Posted by: JSobieski at August 14, 2008 10:48 PM

greatcometof1577:

Russians are eating out of the wrong garbage can--Georgians treasure Western civilization in a way that puts a lot of Americans to shame.

Russia and China are going to play countries like Iran against us no matter how much we cozy up to them. We need to understand that and act accordingly. We don't need to pick fights, but the only we can satisfy China or Russia is to become an autocratic state that will no longer be an example of a better way of life. Of course, were that to happen, a US with Russian expansionist atitudes would be a dark dark time for the history of civilization.

Anyway, I agree that sunnis are just as deadly as Shiites. However, the government of Saudi Arabia is playing the slow Jihad game, and the government of Iran is playin the fast Jihad game. Both are dangerous, but Iran will come to a head first.

The Iranian mullahs are true believers. In contrast, the Saudi's want to live and enjoy their blond haired blue eyed concubines.

Iran is currently the critical front in the Jihad war from a nation-state perspective. Iran needs to be dealt with before it becomes impossible to do so.

Posted by: JSobieski at August 14, 2008 10:58 PM

JSobieski

The point I hope I was making (Hugh did a better job making the point above, I should have differentiated between the people and the government of Russia) is that by alienating the Russian people we are playing into the hands of people like Putin. He can go to the Russian people, and say that the west hates you, because they side with Muslims in places like Kosovo, and Bosnia, they side with Arab Muslims, who send their jihadist into Russia to kill our people, and they expand NATO to weaken, and fence in Russia both economically and militarily. Just look at how they treat you…as barbarians, a Slavic peoples crawling out of the gutter.

I want to make nice with Russia for several reasons.

(1) The Russian People: I still have hope for the average Russian. I don’t view them as an enemy, and I view them as a civilized people. I want to project an America that is at worst neutral to Russia and at best helpful. This may give Putin (and people like him) a short term victory, but with American culture being what it is, with the internet as it is, with communications as they are, the average Russian I feel will overtime push for more reforms within Russia. We need to take Russia slowly, by cultural conquest, not by driving the people of Russia into the enemy camp. We need to take away issues that could be used against us, avoid frontal confrontations unless it is absolutely necessary. (same with the Chinese BTW)

(2) Russian-Chinese Relationship: People act like only Russia, and China can play people against each other, yet we cannot. By being friendly with Russia, China will get nervous, and thus want a better relationship with us, and so on, and back and forth. People have to remember the USA is on the other side of the earth, but China and Russia are right next to each other. They have some “serious issues” to workout if they are ever to be close. Issues like oil, land disputes, ethnic issues, and just the general nature of both countries means they will not be really close anytime soon, no matter how many half-baked joint military exercises they have with each other. If they could not be close when they were both communist, why do people think they will be allies now? The U.S. is still in the cat bird seat if it plays its cards right, and at the same time continue a cultural invasion of both countries.

(3) Islam and the Cold War: The best part is Jihadist are attacking both countries. We have something common to talk about. We have an avenue to strengthen ties. With that said, Islam right now is the greatest threat to world peace. Islam is also the greatest threat to the West right now. If we don’t get our act together, it won’t matter what Russia, or China does, because Europe will fall to Islamic demographic conquest. It is possible Russia might fall as well. That would be a disaster for the USA. We cannot afford another cold war right now with Russia, or China. We cannot let the Islamic world use this conflict like they used the last cold war...which is why we are in the mess we are in today.

With all this said, if we got out of the Arabian oil trade (I don’t care how), it would free us to do whatever we liked. It is critical for the USA to become energy independent. If you want to be the superpower who leads the world into the future, you cannot have your energy supplies depending on the whims of someone else.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at August 15, 2008 12:32 AM

Bush could do it all with a exec order and have a half million men reporting for duty in 24 hours. Congress doesn't matter in this so they are irrelevant. War making resides totally in the hands of the president.

Posted by: waltc

The President is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, but war making is not totally in his hands. But more important, paying for war IS totally in the hands of Congress: a simple vote to stop funding the war means the end of the war. Remember what Congress did to South Viet Nam in 1974-75. The U.S. had withdrawn virtually all its forces, but the Ford administration wanted massive aid to SVM to support its fight with the North. Ford was practically pleading with Congress, but Congress refused to vote one cent. Shortly thereafter came the infamous scene of Navy helicopters lifting the last embassy personnel from the roof of the American embassy in Saigon, as the NVM army poured into the city. This was followed by the deaths of several hundred thousand Vietnamese in prison camps, and the flight of a million more to other countries, and then the murder of over a million people in the "killing fields" of Cambodia. Congress can stop the President in his tracks. IF it wants to.

Posted by: ebonystone at August 15, 2008 12:46 AM

Scion9

Here is perhaps the simplest way to put this:

We can either fight a cold war with Russia, or we can fight a cold war with Islam. We cannot do both at the same time. So people need to make their choice, because we only have one lifetime.

If we are going to fight the Russians in another cold war, expect to see us cozy up the Islamic world even more, and expect the Russians to do the same.

If you want to fight the cold war against the Islamic world, we will have to try to be friends with the Russians, and they will have to find a way to get along with the USA.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at August 15, 2008 1:24 AM

Russia would have been belligerent to America even if Kosovo had never come up. Putin within months of coming to power in 2000 was making deals with Iran, making excuses for North Korea and talking down to the Baltic states, Poland and others. I will repeat here what I've posted elsewhere and that is that George Kennan (one of the chief authors of the containment doctrine) was correct back in the 1940s when he asserted that Russia has always looked upon its neighbors as either vassals or enemies.

Yes, Kosovo gave Putin a better excuse to act like a turd, but he would have found plenty more in any case. The Russians are retarded where freedom is concerned and act like all of life is one gigantic con game. If you conciliate the Russians they look upon that as weakness and are aggressive. If you oppose the Russians they look upon that as a threat to Holy Mother Russia and are aggressive. The problem lies deep within the Russian soul, which can be very tedious at times.

Meanwhile, many Eastern European peoples yearn for freedom and the greatest ally they could ever have, America. I for one would oblige them and if Russia doesn't like it (and it won't), too damn bad. That's why I found it wonderful to read today that Poland has concluded a deal with the US to install inceptor missiles in its country. Kudos to Poland. Take that, Russia. Learn about freedom or forever be the clumsy, paranoid, xenophobic giant you've always been.

Posted by: Wellington at August 15, 2008 2:46 AM

GreatComet:

We don't disagree on Kosovo/Serbia and I agree with Hugh's persuasive analysis as well.

My point however is still fundamentally the premise of Western civilization: You don't throw freedom under the bus to further the goal of freedom.

I am for not antagonizing Russia as much as anyone. However, if the price for that is non-support of a Western-looking nation of people who were very recently subjugateed people, well then, our paths diverge.

Freedom requires nurturing. Georgia has been a remarkable place over the past 15 years. Any analysis of this situation which treats Georgia as a mere pawn, is not an analysis I will subscribe to.

Whatever our errors in Iraq, Kosovo, Serbia, Saudi Arabia, et al--the Georgians deserve our support.

If you agree with that statement, I agree that we shouldn't "antagonize" Russia. However, much like the Muslim world, Russia is easily insulted.

One factor not addressed in Hugh's piece is that Russia's historical empire has left it feeling insulted by non-dhimmified behavior in its former subjects.

Just as we cannot appease Jihadists, we cannot appease Putin.

Posted by: JSobieski at August 15, 2008 3:07 AM

By the way, who said anything about fighting Russia or starting a new Cold War?

At worse, Russia is a rival. If left unchecked, Russia could become an enemy, but it is not an enemy now and is unlikely to become one so long as we don't allow their appetite to increase.

Our "friendship" with Russia was always exagerated and the events in Georgia are leading to hyperbole in the opposite direction. This current dispute, while quite serious is hardly a restart of the Cold War.

Russia has a big part to play in war on Jihad, although whether that role is for good or fore ill is not clear.

Russia is clearly helping Iran to a degree that appears unwise. Whether it is based solely on creating a big headache for us (something a friend would never do on purpose, unless they were French) or whether its just being unable to say to a chance to make a couple of billion dollars, its hard to say,

By all means, lets try to build a bridge with the Russian people. However, there are limits to the intellectual cartwheels we should make.

If I said that we should make nice with some "moderate" Muslims despite their refusal to disavow Sharia law as a public policy goal, you would chastise me. Well, what if the average Russian can't see the difference between the freedoms of the West and Russia's autocratic government. They buy into the same crap that leftists here buy into--that the US is a fascist state, or at best, is no better that Russia.

Well, that is a lie an untruth upon which no amount of pretend can get past. We can no more reach out to that person in any meaningful long-term way than we can reach out to someone who won't renounce Sharia law.

Posted by: JSobieski at August 15, 2008 3:18 AM

By the way, who said anything about fighting Russia or starting a new Cold War?

At worse, Russia is a rival. If left unchecked, Russia could become an enemy, but it is not an enemy now and is unlikely to become one so long as we don't allow their appetite to increase.

Our "friendship" with Russia was always exagerated and the events in Georgia are leading to hyperbole in the opposite direction. This current dispute, while quite serious is hardly a restart of the Cold War.

Russia has a big part to play in war on Jihad, although whether that role is for good or fore ill is not clear.

Russia is clearly helping Iran to a degree that appears unwise. Whether it is based solely on creating a big headache for us (something a friend would never do on purpose, unless they were French) or whether its just being unable to say to a chance to make a couple of billion dollars, its hard to say,

By all means, lets try to build a bridge with the Russian people. However, there are limits to the intellectual cartwheels we should make.

If I said that we should make nice with some "moderate" Muslims despite their refusal to disavow Sharia law as a public policy goal, you would chastise me. Well, what if the average Russian can't see the difference between the freedoms of the West and Russia's autocratic government. They buy into the same crap that leftists here buy into--that the US is a fascist state, or at best, is no better that Russia.

Well, that is a lie an untruth upon which no amount of pretend can get past. We can no more reach out to that person in any meaningful long-term way than we can reach out to someone who won't renounce Sharia law.

Posted by: JSobieski at August 15, 2008 3:18 AM

One correction:

Please remove the word "not" before "addressed" with respect to the "humiliation" of Russia.

Hugh's comments SPECIFICALLY made the comparison between "humiliated" Muslims and "humiliated" Russians--I promise to do a better job editing my comments in the future

Hugh, my specific and direct apologies.

Posted by: JSobieski at August 15, 2008 3:22 AM

The 40% increase in Russia's Mohammedan population ought to be put in perspective. The country's total population is 150m, of which 25m are Mohammedans. A 40% increase means the population was previously 17m. While the increases are cause for concern, it does not imply that Russia will go Islamic anytime soon. Besides, there is a conscious effort on the part of Russian Christians do improve on population, and such moves generally work only too well.

I agree with Greatcomet for much of this thread - that Russian (people's) support ought to be earned, regardless of what we may think of the regime in the Kremlin. That said, I agree with Jan Sobieski and Wellington that Georgia doesn't deserve to be abandoned by us, and does deserve our support, unlike Kosovo and Bosnia that haven't, and are unlikely to be our allies despite what we did for them.

However, one major disagreement I have with both is the argument that we can't sacrifice our support for freedom in the name of defending it. I'll grant you that point in both Georgia and Ukraine (which scion9 uses to make a good case that Russia doesn't care much for other Slavs, although I think an argument can be made that Russia doesn't see Serbia as a parasite that contains Russian citizens in its historic terretory, the way Ukraine does in Crimea and Kharkov). However, Western governments have also used that argument in opposing other dictatorships, like the one in Uzbekistan.

Just as it was idiotic of Dhimmi Carter to withdraw support to the Pahlevis in Iran, it's just as assinine of the US not to support the regime in Tashkent, since it's very likely that if democracy comes to this country that reveres the 14th century Jihadi Tamerlane the way Mongols revere Chengiz Khan or Russians revere Tsar Peter the Great, it's more likely than not to 'elect' the Islamic Party of Turkestan to power, and then create a situation where a new Jihadi empire from the Caspian Sea to Xinxiang will be created. The positive - it could destabilize China by inspiring the Uighurs. The negative - it could inspire the Uighurs.

You are right on Georgia, but please don't adapt the Sharansky principle with countries that have Mohammedan majorities: we'll all regret it.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at August 15, 2008 3:48 AM

One small side note - Phares should stop putting the blame on just 'Salafists' - it's a lot more than that which threatens Russia.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at August 15, 2008 3:53 AM

Since when did does the word "freedom" mean "democracy"? In particular, how did the grand word "freedom" imply to you the worst kind of shallow "democracy" in a place such as Pakistan? These are sad days. If even the word "freedom" has become debased, we truly are unworthy of our ancestors.

How about I use the phrase "Western Rule of Law" with all that that entails? To me, that is what freedom is, rule of law in the Western sense (e.g. minority rights, judicial process, separation of powers, and hopefully some federalism)

I am no fan of getting a bunch of thugs to vote, or for government whereby people are limited to voting for thugs (Iran and Russia fall into this category--vote, but for whom? Villain A or Villain B).

The whole "Democracy Project" was doomed even by its name.

Hong Kong was very free while under British rule. It was not a democracy until the very end of British Rule, and of course, Hong Kong went back to China which is another story.

Hong Kong under British Rule was free, and it is by that context that I use the word freedom. Even under China, Hong Kong is far freer than Pakistan, even though Pakstanis vote in national elections.

Freedom is not about democracy, it is about rule of law and limited government. With the exception of slavery (which is a big Exception), Americans were more free in 1820 before non-property owners could vote, then they are now.

Posted by: JSobieski at August 15, 2008 6:16 AM

When thinking about Russia, Vladmir Putin, and a re-emerging Russia, think back to the famous "Lord Of The Rings" books and movie's antagonist charactor named Golan, the one who wanted the ring so badly. Put this charactor and Vladmir Putin side-by-side and Golan together. For Vladmir, a KGB operative, he wants the "ring" of a new Russian empire.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at August 15, 2008 9:36 AM

There can be no doubt that our actions, pushing NATO eastward - how can Russians view this as anything other than being directed against them - belittling Russia's legitmate concerns with its own jihadists, and, above all, Clinton's disgraceful and criminal war with Serbia, are a major factor in the current crisis. However, Russia's actions must be responded to. (They have now invaded a "brother" Orthodox nation; this is similar to the internecine warfare between the Christians in the Balkans which paved the way for the Ottoman invasion of Europe.) I suggest that our response be clever; we cannot engage Russia in war. We should up the ante by using the present furor over Georgia as cover and do what we have been threatening to do for a while. Now is the time to take out Iran's nuclear capability, industrial base and infrastructure. And we should do so, a la Clinton, solely through the use of our superior air power. This will up the ante and present Putin with new "facts on the ground". We should, however, follow up with an olive branch and offer to reform our misguided policies toward Russia and Serbia. This is a game of global chess and we have to play it cleverly.

Posted by: RBLA at August 15, 2008 9:40 AM

Walid Phares is a good scholar and a genius analyzer of events. He can read stories in multiple layers of angles i.e. when most of us read a story we get the most obvious message behind the story. The same story read by Walid Phares reveals other angles, intended and unintended consequences, short and long term implications, hidden agenda, hidden propaganda as well as biases and spins designed to influence the reader.

Posted by: American at August 15, 2008 10:07 AM

JSobieski, Wellington

Here is all I am saying, we cannot afford to fight around with Russia over every last border squabble they have, if we plan to defeat Islam. More important we must live in the real world, as it is, not as we would wish it.

Two examples:

(1) I don’t mind spending billions of dollars to modernize the Polish military. I don’t mind strengthening military ties, but do we really need a missile shield in Poland? What other purpose (and please don’t use the Iranian example, the Iranians will be really lucky if they can hit Israel) is there for having one in Poland, except as a shield against Russian missiles (nukes)? Yet still, if we must put a missile shield there, at least be honest about why we are doing it. The Polish just wanted to upgrade their military, but we pushed that they allow us to put our missile shield in Poland as part of the deal. Poland would still be protected with U.S. military forces stationed there, and their military being upgraded. If Russia gets upset over that, ok Russia is over doing the drama queen act, but at least find out first by not putting the missile sheild in, and just the upgrades etc.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/15/poland.us.shield/?iref=mpstoryview

(2) We should not give promises that we cannot back up. The Georgian situation was caused because we inflated Georgian self-confidence in their military abilities, and what we would do to protect them. We acted like we would protect their territorial integrity (or at least they figured we would). Both sides have been sniping at each other for years. Let us not forget in all the love feast for Georgian Democracy, that they have only been truly democratic for a couple of years now (and that is questionable). They were ruled by Russia (or the Soviet Union) for the most part, for the last 200 plus years (a few small breaks here and there). We only became really involved with Georgia, when we found out that they had a hord of Jihadist in their country (Chechens) who were using Georgia (mostly in the Pankisi area) as a base to hide from the Russians. The Russians asked to be allowed to bomb that area, but the Georgians refused, because they did not want to anger the Chechens, and they feared the Russians, and the USA backed them up, because we feared Russia would improve their influence in the area.

From 2002

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2253792.stm

From 2004

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3655412.stm

From 2005

http://www.stratfor.com/georgia_pankisi_gorge_militant_haven

I am not saying Russia is right, but it would be foolish to completely trust the Georgians either. Remember they are just like the Russians in many ways, and that Josef Stalin was a Georgian, born and bread in Gori. They are just as responsible for the Soviet Union, and its worst days as anyone. Do we really want to get into a conflict with Russia over Georgia? Is this the place to make a stand, and can we make a stand there even if we wanted to based on the current situation? Getting all misty eyed over their new found love of freedom, and questionable democracy is not going to get it done. Is it really a democracy these people are fighting over, or is pure nationalism that guides Georgian actions?

I find it amazing how people are calling the Russians an “emotional people” prone to “conspiracy theories”, yet so are the Georgians, and appears so are we. Look at what some people are saying about Russia. Look how emotional we Americans get when some nation claims to be a democracy, and how quick we are to get involved, ignoring all other factors as if only the word democracy is enough to send us into a wild froth? Some of it is true, but god help me some of it is off the wall insanity. Some of us want the Russians to play the bad guy. Some of us really do hate the Russians.

My feelings are no different than a former U.S. President on this…

“Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?...It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense, but in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them…..Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.” George Washington, 1796

In other words, make alliances if critical to the USA, and for real emergencies, don’t make promises you can’t keep, or won’t keep, and most important of all know your limitations.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at August 15, 2008 11:38 AM

greatcometof1577: Just a couple of comments. I believe we're putting something like ten interceptor missiles in Poland. Russia has thousands of nukes and so it's not credible to maintain that this installation functions as a threat to Russia. The missiles are there as a warning to rouge states who might develop more sophisticated delivery systems in the future. Also, Russia is still thinking in terms of "spheres of influence," a Cold War relic by demanding what Poland can and cannot do. It has no interest in treating the Poles as equals. I would call Russia's bluff here were I President Bush and say that should Canada or Mexico want a dozen Russian inceptor missiles or so, then fine. How would that be a threat to America? Russia's just being paranoid yet again.

George Washington's Farewell Address was made at a time when America was a fledgling state and not a world power. The last hundred years of mankind's history has changed a lot of things, including America's status worldwide. I don't think Washington was thinking in terms of world wars, cold wars, WMDs and such, though I agree with you that we shoul