TNR BLOGS

July 05, 2009 | 12:13 PM
July 04, 2009 | 11:18 PM
July 04, 2009 | 6:29 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 05, 2009 | 12:02 PM
July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
13.08.2008
When Russia Attacked Georgia, Was It Also Striking at the West?

As Russia agreed it to a ceasefire on Tuesday, saying its invasion of Georgia has "punished" the country enough, TNR's Seyward Darby spoke with Charles Fairbanks, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and former deputy assistant secretary in the Department of State (and father of our own Eve Fairbanks), who spends six months of the year teaching at Ilia Chavchavadze State University in Georgia. Fairbanks describes the war as "deeply, deeply depressing," with far-reaching implications that will influence policy in the last months of President George W. Bush's administration and all future relations between Russia and the West.

The New Republic: This conflict seems as much an attack by Russia on the West as it does an assault on Georgia. What do you believe Russia's main motivations to invade were, and whom, ultimately, was it targeting?

Charles Fairbanks: There is incredible resentment [in Russia toward the West] because of the terrible, wrenching changes that occurred in what was once the Soviet Union. We sponsored these "reforms" that helped powerful people steal most of the public property, took away the empire and shattered the Soviet Union, as they see it. This is like some kind of bubble at the bottom of a stagnant pond: It suddenly burst up now to the surface, and that's the cause of the war.

Everyone in Russia and everyone in Georgia, minus half a dozen people I could name, regards this as a proxy war, like the Korean War. They all thought Russia and Georgia were waging war, but we were the hand behind the glove of Georgia. So absolutely, without any question [Russia was targeting the West]. The more recent annoyances were that, while the United States constantly talked about friendship with Russia, and Bush talked about Putin as a real friend and a Christian, from the Russian point of view, every specific aspect of American foreign policy was hostile to Russian pride and to Russian interests. The leading items are NATO expansion--which achieved many good things, but it had an inevitable price, which no one was saving up to pay--and Caspian strategy, which, from the Russian point of view, amounts to filching away pieces of what is, in principle, the Russian empire.

Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili has pointed to the West as the source of blame for the conflict. Is he correct?

He's absolutely wrong there, and he ought to be contradicted in public by President Bush or other public officials. The United States at every level, ranging from the Georgia desk officer to President Bush speaking to Saakashvili, warned Georgia repeatedly against invading South Ossetia or getting involved in any Russian provocation.

Click here for the full interview.

--The Editors

Posted: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 4:18 PM with 16 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

teplukhin2you said:

"We sponsored these "reforms" that helped powerful people steal most of the public property, took away the empire and shattered the Soviet Union, as [ordinary Russians] see it."

Bingo. Which is why it makes so much sense, as Joe Biden is now arguing, to force greater disclosure from the Russian thieves' western financial intermediaries and start going after PutinMobutu's ill-gotten loot that's stashed in Swiss and other numbered accounts, as the Swiss prosecutor did some years back against Yeltsin's _semya_.

This is a way of bashing Putin and Russian banditry without bashing Russia or the Russian _narod_. In fact, it puts us on the same side as the Russian people, offering them a glimpse of a future in which they and their children can make a living honestly in a society ruled by law rather than thuggery.

August 13, 2008 5:04 PM

blackton said:

Another example of Bush Foreign policy triumph. I wonder how long until McCain blames Obama for it. I have a few questions, how widespread is the sentiment for independence in South Ossetia and Abkhasia? Are there other areas in Georgia that possess such sentiments? If the sentiments are confined to these two areas and are overwhelming, then I believe there should be a Kosovo style referendum there, and if they choose to leave, then an offer to Georgia for NATO membership. I can't see offering membership to a country where large segments of the country are under defacto control by Russia, let Russia have them if that is what the people there truly want. Then we have real reason to allow Georgia into NATO.

This is a pyrhic victory for Russia, they only maintain control of what they already have and have only caused a major reassessment of pretty much all of Europe and Asia as to how trustworthy Russia is. Way to win friends and influence people Vlad. You have managed to piss off both China and the United States at the same time, as well as drive all of your neighbors closer to either China or the US.

August 13, 2008 5:16 PM

teplukhin2you said:

"This is a huge event. It really alters the international landscape, and the backgrounders that came out of the State Department talk as though it's just another little outbreak of instability in the third world. There's no realization that this is an event like the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979."

Absolutely. It raises plenty of hard questions:  

Given its almost total dependence on Russia of its natural gas, and lack of any nuclear energy alternative, is Germany going to remain a vassal of Russia (or at best, a neutral state) in the conflict between Russia and the US-Poland-Balts-Ukraine?

Will Russia seek to cause more mischief, Iran-style, in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Should we be trying to play a China card against Russia, and if so, what would US-Chinese cooperation look like?

If McCain's people were looking for an overriding "theme" or message for his campaign, I'd guess they've found one. Back to the future. Reagan vs Carter.

August 13, 2008 5:19 PM

Robert Powell said:

Blackie, NATO membership for Georgia is not going to be on the table again for a long, long time. In terms of "sentiment for independence", please note that the experience of living under a centralized totalitarian system has just about everywhere resulted in the comprehensive fragmentation of societies to their smallest identifiable components as soon as Big Brother goes away--see Central Asia, Iraq, Yugoslavia, etc, etc. Actual "Osetes" are few in number. As in Abkazia, the real operating principle was that when the Soviet Union collapsed, enterprising Army/KGB officers recognized their opportunity to carve out a little kingdom using local ethnicity (and lots of transplanted Russians) as a rationale. The idea that there are large numbers of people nostalgic for the good ol' days of The Greater Abkazian Empire is a crock--the place was grabbed because it had lots of hotels and casinos, and was an instant money-spinner. In Ossetia, it was smuggling. These places have authentic nationalism in the same way Las Vegas is a vestige of the Old West.

Anyway, good interview here.

August 13, 2008 6:22 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Is Charles Fairbanks related to the great sinologist and diplomatic historian John King Fairbanks?

August 13, 2008 7:19 PM

ChanRobt said:

The question in the headline is naive in the extreme.  Of course, they are attacking the West.

For a very definitive, but concise, overview of this, see today's WSJ (13 August 2008)

online.wsj.com/.../SB121858681748935101.html

Welcome Back

To the Great Game

By MELIK KAYLAN

August 13, 2008; Page A17

August 13, 2008 7:20 PM

ChanRobt said:

By the way, one reason for the timing of the Russian invasion of Georgia:

Russia pays attention to the money men.  The money men think Obama is going to win.  Obama is obviously a weak sister.  And he always sees the good in the bad guys.

The Russians know they can roll Obama.  So what better to do then make their move now.  

Bush only has three months to push them back.  Then, they know Bush is gone and they can present Obama with a fait accompli in Georgia and a precedent for other hegemony moves, or worse, in Ukraine and the Baltics.  The Russians are already rolling Obama.

Already the folly of the Obama potential presidency is beginning to show.

It's the Reagan Iran hostage thing-- in reverse.

August 13, 2008 8:34 PM

JEFF FREY said:

Chan, that makes no sense at all. First of all, we are saddled with Bush for 5 more months (until Obama's inauguration next January :), not 3. Second of all, if they are so convinced they can roll Obama and that he will be elected, why not wait until he is actually President?

I don't think the US Presidential elections had any impact at all on their timing.

August 13, 2008 10:55 PM

Gavriel Meir-Levi said:

Guys, sorry to politicize but shouldn't Obama cut his vacation short and come back and deal with this?  Shouldn't Nanci offer to reconvene the House in order to discuss this crisis?  Why are we just sitting back and watching form the sidelines?

Tep - you mentioned Reagan vs Carter, but I am more reminded of Reagan vs Bush in the 1980 Primary with Reagan braving the snow in the dead of Ohio winter to shake hands with construction workers while Bush jogged in sunny southern Texas.

Senator Obama where are you?  The world needs a major speech regarding Russian expansionism as well as to have you lead the vanguard of your party on this issue from the Nation's Capital, not your Chicago Ivory Tower and certainly not from Hawaii.  

The 3am phone is ringing... please come answer it and show those American's that want to vote for you but worry about your Foreign Policy experience that they have nothing to fear and everything to gain!

August 14, 2008 12:27 AM

Crock1701 said:

Gavriel, huh?  As The Daily Show nicely pointed out, the man currently answering the 3 a.m. phone call is  still in the White House.  Neither McCain, for all he wants to bluster, nor Obama, can do much of anything, especially in the realm of foreign policy, which has mainly been the province of the Executive. All Obama or McCain could do, in concert with the Congressional leadership, is pass resolutions or question administration officials.  Either candidate can do alot with it once they take the oath, but not much now.  The last thing our policy on this issue needs is partisan political bluster.  

Chan, as for the traditional right wing idea that Iran let the hostages go because of the fear of Reagan is absolute balderdash.  Working as a lameduck, Warren Christopher and Carter worked excruciatingly hard to secure the Algiers Accords finally agreed to on January 19, and to spite Carter they released them a few minutes after he left office.  To say that they were afraid of 'tough Ronald Reagan' is balderdash.

August 14, 2008 2:20 AM

nat_echols said:

"Obama is obviously a weak sister.  And he always sees the good in the bad guys."

Pop quiz: which politician said the following of Putin?

"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue. . . I was able to get a sense of his soul. "

I couldn't find any pithy quotes about Musharraf.

Even in my relatively short lifetime, there is an endless parade of Republican politicians tripping over themselves in their eagerness to praise murderers and tyrants throughout the third world.  Savimbi, Mobutu, Botha, Hussein. . . hey, didn't one of McCain's top campaign staffers lobby for several of these guys?   And no, I don't care that we were in the Cold War.  You're just as dead if a right-wing death squad torches your village as you are if the local commissars finger you as a counter-revolutionary.

August 14, 2008 9:26 AM

ChanRobt said:

nat_echols, although we did business with a lot of bad guys during the Cold War and since, they were bad guys who were enemies of our enemies.  Or willing to be.  Including, prominently, Saddam Hussein who kept Iran tied down for 8 years in trench warfare.

And, of course, we did business with one of the very worst tyrants who ever lived-- Stalin, during WW2.

The Left is different in that they're always seeing the good in the bad guys who are our enemies.

And, as far as Bush's "looked into Putin's eyes" quote, it was a dumb thing to say.  

August 14, 2008 10:50 AM

teplukhin2you said:

Gabriel - McCain is playing the role of Reagan. Obama and Bush are sharing the role of Carter. McCain has to be considered the favorite to win now.

August 14, 2008 10:55 AM

roidubouloi said:

Actually, tep, McCain doesn't ahve to be considered the favorite to win now, which is why no one but you considers him so.

You are straight out of the pccostello book.  He, or she, was loudly declaring that NOW Hillary REALLY has Obama on the run right until it was over.  Every fresh disaster for Hillary was but more evidence of how Obama was done.  Only you and William Kristol even imagine the McCain has managed to make himself look good through all this.

August 14, 2008 2:12 PM

teplukhin2you said:

True, Obama would greatly help his chances if he'd put Biden on the ticket. At the top of it.

August 14, 2008 4:11 PM

Robert Powell said:

Fugetaboutit tep. Biden is a lovely man who may yet live up to his potential. But he's never going to be the President, and probably not vice-president either. Look up "gaffe-o-matic" in the dictionary, and there's a picture of Biden next to the definition.

August 14, 2008 6:53 PM