This crisis is clarifying. This is not a normal, advanced, efficient regime; it's a kleptocracy run by overlapping circles of bandits whose decisions, even on those rare occasions when they're undertaken in good faith, aren't executed properly because of the government's inability to govern.  

This is not a normal, advanced, efficient military power; it's a freakish hybrid  of astonishing nuclear firepower and robust arms industries OTOH, and completely corrupt, leaderless, demoralized, chaotic conventional forces OTOH. The shambolic state of the military compounds the problem of reliability described above. A cease-fire with such a military is never really a cease-fire.

This is not a normal, advanced, efficient economy; it's a third-world commodity-based resource economy that boasts not even one advanced technology company of world caliber, not one civilian manufacturing exporter.  As in the political and military spheres, there's no real predictability or security in an economy that has no effective protections for minority investors or rule of law.

This is not a normal, advanced civil society. There are no Tocquevillean civic associations of any consequence in Russia; the only church that operates freely is a corrupt ward of the bandit state; the few unions that exist are for the most part supine or irrelevant; there are no trade associations, pressure groups, professional associations, neighborhood/civic groups of any kind. Putin's thievery and thuggery occur in a social void.

Remember Talleyrand: "Russia is never so strong nor so weak as she appears."

"How the West  Fueled Putin's  Sense of Impunity"   By GARRY KASPAROV

online.wsj.com/.../SB121876037443642795.html

"The conflict also threatens to poison Russia's relationship with Europe and America for years to come. Can such a belligerent state be trusted as the guarantor of Europe's energy supply? Republican presidential candidate John McCain has been derided for his strong stance against Mr. Putin, including a proposal to kick Russia out of the G-8. Will his critics now admit that the man they called an antiquated cold warrior was right all along?"

Will you Mr. Peretz?

Kasparov is one brave dude!

... one brave dude who knows that a chess game isn't decided by the opening gambit. Putin's taken a pawn. With missiles in Poland, we're threatening his queen. Your move, Volodya.

"... one brave dude who knows that a chess game isn't decided by the opening gambit. Putin's taken a pawn."

Yes, but speaking out as he is doing  could cost him his life.

If the Kremlin could threaten Poland with nuclear destruction would they think twice about getting rid of him?

I wouldn't be writing any insurance policies for Kasparov, or for that matter Shaakashvili. But I think tep's right that this is going to turn out to have been a big mistake for Moscow. They instantly caused the collapse of the anti-missile faction in Poland, and loosened German resistance to Ukraine's EU bid. China is furious, which can't be good news for Russia, and everyone else is looking at them with new eyes. When oil prices crash, as they always have and inevitably will again, Russia is going to be in a tough spot.

I think it's urgent to get rid of the Russian "peacekeepers" at the earliest possible opportunity and replace them with a genuinely neutral international force. This looks like the biggest mistake in the current ceasefire, but then it may have been necessary to stop the Russian drive that might have taken Tiblisi and cut the pipeline before anything could be done.

"... this is going to turn out to have been a big mistake for Moscow."

Perhaps, but in the meantime if I were Kasparov I'd watch my back.

As fro Russia being viewed "with suspicion" there is this:

"Georgia: Europe wins a gold medal for defeatism

Sarkozy's ‘peace in our time' deal is a reminder of what could happen if the EU wins more clout"    

by Gerard Baker

www.timesonline.co.uk/.../article4534358.ece

Hey Tep, I had some friends working in Moscow, every time they left their place to go to work they had to bring shakedown money for local police who insisted on looking at their passports, claiming the visa was not correct and "fining" them on the spot. They didn't get shaken down every time but more than enough that the shakedown money was included in their contracts. And this is in Moscow. And if you were like my one friend who is a Chinese-New Zealander (hence standing out) he got shook down constantly. You lived in Russia, right? How often did you get shaken down?

Robert Powell:

"I wouldn't be writing any insurance policies for Kasparov, or for that matter Shaakashvili."

I agree... watch for Kasparov to escape either to the USA or Israel.

"But I think tep's right that this is going to turn out to have been a big mistake for Moscow."

Here I suspect this is wishful thinking.  Europe is increasingly addicted to Russian gas for heating and the Western European ("Old" Europe) elite & leadership is so steeped in a post-modernist nihilism that they are incapable of fighting or resisting.  They will find a fig leaf or two that will allow them to capitulate and call it soft power.  Think back to England under Chamberlain, after Germany invaded Poland, during the "phony war".  The British intellectuals & the societal elite that supported Chamberlain all advocated negotiating a deal with Hitler, a position they continued to advocate during the balance of the un-phony war (this was the context that prompted George Orwell to observe that there are some ideas so stupid that only intellectuals will believe them; but that is another story).

Unfortunately it appears that "interesting times" is descending on much of the world.  We've had them here is Israel for a while.

Hershel Ginsburg

Efrata / Jerusalem

"...and completely corrupt, leaderless, demoralized, chaotic conventional forces OTOH." - tep writing of the Russian forces.

Those guys moved two divisions over the caucauses in what, 24hours? That wasn't chaotic. it would take some very good military cohesion and leadership to pull that off. Let's not sell them short.

"Russia is never so strong nor so weak as she appears" is very apt.

And, jack, what exactly, aside from political posturing and blowing hot air,  would McCain do? Throw them off the G-8? Yeah, that'll show them. Perhaps he should stop his campaign gimmickry of sending the wrong signal to Georgia. It was the sort of bad signal that made Georgia think they could take the Russian bait and fire the first shot without consequences. Now the genie is out of the bottle, and McCain is still blowing dangerous hot air just for politics.

If obama was presumptuous as McCain has been all week, tep would be leading the anti-Obama gang on a full-throated derision of him.

."And, jack, what exactly, aside from political posturing and blowing hot air,  would McCain do?"

The Russian invasion is another occasion for snide electioneering for scrubbyoak.

On the one hand, this all does show, as if we needed any more proof, the complete moral bankruptcy of the "Stop Oppression & Imperialism!!!" placard-waving types. Europe can turn out a zillion people to joyously "resist" the American removal of a genocidal lunatic... but for Putin's bullying of Democratic Georgia, zilch. Boring. It would be so NEOCON to raise a stink.

On the other hand, speaking of the Neocons, is it really wise, or necessary, that NATO's security perimeter extend throughout the old Russian Empire? Why - because they claim to want us there? That's not really a reason. Because of energy resources? Whoever's in charge has to sell it to us, whatever their bluster: a lesson we probably should have learned from our wasteful decades long game of RISK in the Middle East.

Putin is not Hitler. The Russian military was humiliated in tiny Chechnya, and if there was a jihadist movement in Georgia willing to wear down a Russian occupying force there, I doubt they'd do much better. It cheapens the lessons of history to compare this to Poland or Czechoslovakia. Germany in the 1930s still had the greatest industrial potential of any European country, and a genocidal, world-conquest ideology. The Kremlin is run by kleptocrat thugs who are milking a land in steep decline.

Plus, no one seems to be denying - or mentioning - that Georgia started the shooting here. Yes, sure, you can say that Russia had this planned all along, but again, not the point. Would USA really have behaved differently in a similar situation?

“McCain showed best how to react to Russian force”

By Jim Wooten  

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

“In the initial U.S. response to the invasion, the clearly decisive leader was McCain, not Obama or President Bush. Obama’s initial reaction was to urge both the rapist and the victim to show restraint, while McCain spoke forcefully to denounce the invasion and to call for specific actions, including withdrawal from “sovereign Georgian territory,” an emergency session of the U.N. Security Council, action by other official bodies and the creation of “a truly independent and neutral peacekeeping force.”

Ten days later, McCain’s first response appears to have been the right one. Obama reflected uncertainty in part because of inexperience and in part, too, because he was responding as events unfolded. He is far more comfortable, as indeed the administration’s critics are, in letting President Bush act and then declaring that he or they would have been smarter, wiser and righter had they been making the decision.”

President Bush’s strongest response was to reach agreement with Poland last Thursday to base 10 interceptor missiles to protect Europe from those fired by Iran or North Korea.

In the days prior to the Russian invasion of Georgia, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin was quoted as saying that “we should restore our position in Cuba and other countries.” He made comments in response to a report on a delegation’s visit with Cuban leaders to discuss cooperation in “energy, mining, agriculture transportation, health care and communications.” Military ties were specifically not mentioned, publicly at least.

But an influential former top defense official, Leonid Ivashov, was quoted in a separate report as saying: “It is not a secret that the West is creating a ‘buffer zone’ around Russia involving countries in central Europe, the Caucasus, the Baltic states and Ukraine. In response, we may expand our military presence abroad, including Cuba.”

The invasion of Georgia was clearly intended as a message to the West and to the newly independent states on Russia’s borders. If, in the process, it is possible to replace Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili with a puppet, so much the better. Russia has a compelling interest now in having the entire world see Georgia suffer. It has to be painful. It has to be humiliating and brutal.

The world either agrees now that Russia can declare a sphere of interest that includes surrounding itself with compliant states. Or it exerts every noncombat effort to protect the sovereignty of Georgia and to recognize its territorial integrity. That involves some risk. Medical and humanitarian resupply, for example, would be in proximity of Russian forces.

The invasion makes the world less safe. We enter a period where Putin and other Russian leaders should have no doubts about our intentions and our resolve. We have to take some risks in undoing the aggression, but there can be no false signals. In a time of testing, America needs a seasoned leader.”

Read the whole article:

www.ajc.com/.../mccain_showed_best_how_to_reac.html

Silly oak: "24 hours." LOL.

This thing has been in the works for months, if not years. It's been talked about in Moscow since at least THIS SPRING.

The US putting missiles in Poland is a huge strategic setback for Russia. Hence their generals' hysterical threats. I suspect some of the thieves/siloviki and Putin are having ssome harsh words for each other right now. Knowing Putin's general cultural level and particular speaking style, probably with lots of obscenities and references to "nose-pickers", nose-picking, nasal acts etc.

Yeah, tep, LOL all you want, still the Russians moved all those men and equipment over the caucausus in HOURS, not months or days. The invasion, no doubt, must have been in the works for months, which then begs the question: Why would the Georgians take the bait? Their main lobbyist is a McCain top aide, so did McCain have an inkling, and if so, did he give a wink and a nod in hopes of a fp crisis that'll play to his supposed strenght?

The way he's been seemingly making fp for George Bush this last week is very intriguing. Hell, he beat the US president to the podium, calling out Russia and making empty but dangerous threats. For that you sang his praises, tep. If Obama had done the same thing, you'd find reasons to bash him.

Ginzy: I agree with you totally.  If it's a hard winter this year in Germany, it'll be a uniquely hard winter, with Gazprom lines "not working" or "under construction".  I wonder if France will be building another dozen reactors across the Rhine and pay the Russians to stop gas exports on and off ...

Tep: I gotta say, I can picture your post after Obama made a "we're all Georgians now" statement before the US President had spoken.  Let me see: "BS artist", "preening and pandering", "arrogant and presumptuous".  Admittedly, McCain knows more about Georgia - I mean, if your campaign manager is a lobbyist for the country, you BETTER know more than your opponent.  Still, I think Scrubby's observation about your double standards is right.

"Admittedly, McCain knows more about Georgia - I mean, if your campaign manager is a lobbyist for the country, you BETTER know more than your opponent."

What crap.

As if Obama didn't have didn't have lobbyists as advisors; Obama has the same access to experts on Georgia that McCain has and he still got it wrong.

Each reacted from the gut and Obama’s impulse was to blame both the perpetrators and the victims equally; McCain gut reaction was to attack the aggressor.

Nuf said.

Jackson: when Israel pushes into the Gaza or the West Bank, who is the aggressor?  When Israel went into Lebanon, who was the "aggressor"?  My suspicion is that you would say, not Israel.  And, nine times out of ten, including in the case of Lebanon, I'd agree with you.  The reason is that the use of force by Israel should be put in its proper context.  As for proportionality of response, I think you would agree with the proposition that proportionality is not related to the actual mortars lobbed but rather 1) to the general threat, and 2) the means necessary to stop the mortars, and this might well mean, and justify, a full-scale attack such as in the case of Lebanon.  This is because you seek, and rightly insist, on putting the whole question of "aggression" into perspective and because you rightly reject the knee-jerkism of certain elements in the media and elsewhere that anytime Israeli tanks move, it is the mark of Israeli aggression.

I think the issue here - the Georgia-Russia question - was for me one of the need to avoid knee-jerkism, even if, dealing with Putin's Russia, nine times out of ten it would be appropriate to consider it the aggressor.  The initial reports out of South Ossetia were confused: Georgians had moved in, but this was in response to mortar and artillery shells from SO.  Russia then moved into SO, claiming protection of the Russian minority but apparently following months of preparation ... in the midst of a confusing set of facts and situations, a knee jerk approach to international diplomacy is not helpful, and pointing fingers at the presumed aggressor when you are not in a position to do anything about it is hardly politic.  

As well, the impulse to immediately create an us versus them situation is not always helpful or fruitful.

In any event, it seems to me that the "victims" here are the South Ossetian civilians, caught between two advancing armies and bled and extorted by the thugs who govern the area.  I don't know if the 120,000 displaced people are Russian or Georgian or Martian; they go back to destroyed homes (shelled by both sides) and that is were, now that there seems to be a cease fire, our thoughts out to be.

Very well said, ick.

srub - you're right. Cherchez le Georgien. Did you know that Bert Lance is on the McCain payroll?

Young Obama's facing a steep learning curve. I think that millions of Dems will conclude that it makes far more sense for his E European realpolitik schooling to take place in the Senate rather than the WH over the next four years.

tep,

Bert Lance? Very funny, and disingenuously very unlike you except when it comes to Obama, of course. You only feign ignorance when it involves McCain's aide.

You are one of  the smartest and well informed people on this site, and yet can't or won't see your prejudiced take on Obama. Maybe with him you've got a terrible combination of personal prejudice and blinders. Who knows, even you don't know because your reasons keep evolving. He could spend the next twenty years in the Senate immersed in realpolitik studies and you'd still find one of your evolving reasons to disqualify him for the white house.

“I think the issue here - the Georgia-Russia question - was for me one of the need to avoid knee-jerkism, even if, dealing with Putin's Russia, nine times out of ten it would be appropriate to consider it the aggressor.” icarusr

Excuse me, but the knee jerkism as you call it, was by those like the Europeans who wanted not to see Russia as the aggressor. Seeing both sides of this conflict has become short hand for ‘don’t get Russia mad.’

But getting back to your faulty analogy with Israel (faulty because Israel has no designs on either Gazan or Lebanese territory from which it withdrew some time ago, Russia does wants to bring Georgia again under the Russian sphere of influence; in any case, the analogy was faulty but the conclusion you drew, that we should look at the wider context was correct.

Unfortunately, the context you set up for the Russo-Georgia war wasn’t wide enough. The immediate pretext used (by both sides) isn’t as important as the real reason why Russia decided to use force against its smaller neighbor: the Russian desire to intimidate all its former Republics as well as Europe especially Poland. This is the wider context we should be talking about.

It’s not a question, btw, of artificially setting up an us ‘against-them.’ That is already in place and it will continue to be there as long as the world is divided between imperfect democracies and equally imperfect autocracies. The refusal to see that is more dangerous than the actual aggression perpetrated by Russia.

While they are both imperfect candidates, McCain understands that, Obama does not.

This is all we need to know about the conflict and the candidate’s reaction to it.

Teplukhin, I woudn't waste my time with scrubbyoak.

He is a pro Obama zealot without much understanding of the wider world.

This crisis, and Obama's inept and naive response to it, crystallize perfectly all my reasons for thinking Obama is not ready to be president. I'm pretty sure that millions of fence-sitters will agree with me as this crisis intensifies in coming weeks. Crimea's the next flash point. There will be others. The USSR had a long border.

Jackson: "Seeing both sides of this conflict has become short hand for ‘don’t get Russia mad.’"

Perhaps.  Though, if I lived in Germany and lived through the Winter of 2006-2007, not knowing whether I will have enough gas to warm up my house in the midst of one of the worst cold snaps in recent memory, I might well have had the same reaction.  

Looking at the "wider context", I suspect European policy-makers understand what Russia is up to, and also know that the short term - until, that is, there are new pipelines and there is a change in Germany's nuclear policy and France build more reactors and oil prices remain high enough that the Russia state has money to pay for external adventures - there is little Europeans can do to stop Russia asserting control over what it considers its sphere of influence.

Patriots in Poland?  A trip-wire if indeed Russia had conventional missile attack plans for Poland, but it means nothing in energy terms, which are the only terms that matter right now for the Europeans and as winter approaches.

Tep: " I'm pretty sure that millions of fence-sitters will agree with me as this crisis intensifies in coming weeks." Tep, I thought you said Russia had miscalculated; what intensification, which crisis?  I saw President Bush's sombre speech.  "Honour the cease-fire ... and of course [mumble mumble] withdraw its troops."   This is the Great Leader with Seven Years of Executive Experience in the White House.  And you criticize Obama for his reaction?

Thanks, jack. From experience I've learned that you only hurl insults when losing an argument.

As for your cheap shot of understanding of the wider world or lack thereof, you ever noticed how your boy, McCain, failed to distinguish between the Sunni and Shia? TWICE. And that's with THIRTY years of foreign policy experience. Oh, he was just having a senior moment. My bad, no, make that silly me like tep wrote earlier. What do I know -- a naive ignoramus pointing out inconsistencies and double standard in what tep says, and yours as well.

Again, thanks, your elitist self. Sorry, I forgot, that word is reserved for Obama and his cultists.

BTW, neither you nor tep answered my much earlier question: Why would Georgia take the Russian bait? Given that McCain's top aide is their main lobbyist, why were they not discouraged? Very intriguing.

icarusr said: “ if I lived in Germany and lived through the Winter of 2006-2007, not knowing whether I will have enough gas to warm up my house in the midst of one of the worst cold snaps in recent memory, I might well have had the same reaction.”

And I thought that Europeans and Germans in particular were more afraid of global warming than of bitter winter frost.

Seriously, nations that let themselves be intimidated and bullied for fear of being discomforted aren’t worth bothering about.  I suspect thought that even the “new” Europe hasn’t sunk that low yet.

“Looking at the "wider context", I suspect European policy-makers understand what Russia is up to, and also know that the short term - until, that is, there are new pipelines and there is a change in Germany's nuclear policy and France build more reactors and oil prices remain high enough that the Russia state has money to pay for external adventures - there is little Europeans can do to stop Russia asserting control over what it considers its sphere of influence.””

I suspect that there is much they can do. All it takes is some tougher leaders with backbone and a willingness to partner with the US.

“Patriots in Poland?  A trip-wire if indeed Russia had conventional missile attack plans for Poland, but it means nothing in energy terms, which are the only terms that matter right now for the Europeans and as winter approaches.”

You keep talking about energy as if that were the only consideration. It’s a good thing that you are not the head of any country there.

In any case, you yourself have shown that your previous assertion that there is no

“us versus them situation” is false. You went on to say that seeing the world in such terms “is not always helpful or fruitful.” Would that one could choose the terms with which one should look at the world. This is indeed what Obama is trying to do in his confused and fumbling way.

Incidentally, just read that the Germans are pushing for Georgia's NATO membership.  Now the last time Germany took the European lead in a Foreign Policy matter was ... oh, yeah, I remember: the brilliant move to recognise, and push the EC countries to recognise, Croatia.  Three years of war, 200,000 dead and 400,000 displaced followed directly from that single stupid move - and don't listen to me, but to Genscher, the FM at the time (LOTS OF EXPERIENCE) and the architect of the recognition.  In his memoires he apologised to the dead for his mistake.

It is a truism, and if it is not it ought to be: since "dropping the Pilot" in 1890, the Germans have had all of two foreign policy successes: the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact (easy to give away other countries) and the Bradt Detente (easy to give away other countries, even if it is half of your own).  I run to the hills when Germans propose solutions - and with their Georgian gambit, I will start building a nuclear shelter.

"You keep talking about energy as if that were the only consideration."

But surely Georgia is important only because the energy angle?  If it were not for the gas pipeline to Central Asia and Russia's control of it, would we care as much as all that about South Ossetia or Abkhazia?  Russia pounded Chechnya for months and caused thousands of deaths, and there was hardly a ripple anywhere.

Gas and electricity imports by Germany are not just a question of "comfort" but of its economic well-being.  When the Germans voted to shut down their reactors, it was brought to their attention that this would mean becoming dependent for energy - that is, for their industry to continue to function - on imports from France and Russia.  But those were gentler times.  

"Seriously, nations that let themselves be intimidated and bullied for fear of being discomforted aren’t worth bothering about."

Fine words, but ... we in North America are being intimated and bullied in a different way by those who own the energy to which we seek access.  When was the last time there was a serious criticism of Saudi domestic or foreign policy by the Bush administration?  Why do you think that is?  Is it a coincidence that the Saudis are the US's best friends in the region, even though there is exactly zero cultural or political commonality between the two?  Why would Bush go to Saudi Arabia to prostrate himself before the Sultan of Hijaz - to no effect by the way - but for precious energy, and to avoid "discomfort" in the US?

A cold-eyed assessment of interest and of relative power is not always bad.  Had we had that in the last seven years, I suspect the US military, economy, treasury and foreign policy apparatus would be in considerably better shape.

icarusr you comments about German foreign policy don't prove anything.

Germany wasn't responsible for Georgia nor was it responsible for the Balkan mess.

The truth is that Europe loves to play the masochist and when they are not doing that they blame the US for all the world's ills, a country on which they still rely for their safety and security.

Obama would be their perfect partner since he too loves to play such mea culpa games.

scrubbyoak said:  "Thanks, jack. From experience I've learned that you only hurl insults when losing an argument."

What argument did you make? I saw no argument.

I called you an Obama zealot and you took that as an insult.

Doesn't say much for your support of Obama, does it?

I should add that my dad's oldest brother is half Georgian - and his father was killed by the Soviets in the late 20s (not a bad thing for me, for otherwise, my grandmother would have remained married to him and I would not be here).  So I know where my emotional ties are.  Still ...

No, jack, you did more than call me an Obama zealot. But you are very selective with your memory just like the rest of the anti-Obama crowd. You guys only see and hear what you want, and many times even make up stuff.

Anyway, peace.

icarusr writes:

-- It is a truism, and if it is not it ought to be: since "dropping the Pilot" in 1890, the Germans have had all of two foreign policy successes: the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact (easy to give away other countries) and the Bradt Detente (easy to give away other countries, even if it is half of your own).  I run to the hills when Germans propose solutions - and with their Georgian gambit, I will start building a nuclear shelter.

Truly idiotic.

Germany has, with France, been the driving force behind the European Union. This has been one of the most important foreign policy successes of any nation at any time in history.

"Truly idiotic."

Great analytical observation.  But "European [as in, EU] affairs" is not considered "foreign policy" in EU countries.  Within the EU, or the EC as it used to be for much of its life, the deal between France and Germany was that the Germans ran the economy and paid for the EC, and the French ran with the foreign relations of the EC, paid for by the Germans, because of their bigger international presence.  And the UK would handle the transatlantic relations after 73.  Between 1945 and 2000, aside from the EC/EU (which was initially a security matter and then an economic issue, and finally a domestic constitutional question), Germany had all of two foreign policy initiatives: detente and Croatia.  Detente worked well enough - Croatia, as Genscher himself has acknowledged ("truly idiotic"? I would agree), not so well.

icarusr writes:

-- But "European [as in, EU] affairs" is not considered "foreign policy" in EU countries.

I think by "not considered" you mean "no longer," although a close reading of the British papers might belie even that "no longer."

"Tep, I thought you said Russia had miscalculated; what intensification, which crisis?  "

The worst crises result from miscalculations: cf Egypt 1967, Kuwait 1991, Russian invasion of Georiga 2008...

The huge miscalculations on Putin's part are assuming that Germany would remain a de facto Russian ally, or that its invasion would result in a passive US. Worst of all for Putin's designs, he's greatly increased the likelihood of a McCain presidency.

ick - I agree that Bush and Obama are occupying the exact same political space on this, the corner of the clueless. Obama = Bush = Jimmy Carter. They're making McCain look Reaganesque.

icarusr, I am glad to know of your Georgian relatives as of all the others.  

I fail to see though its relevance ot the meaning of the Russian invasion of Georgia.

"They're making McCain look Reaganesque."

They are making him look Chuchillian.

ndmackenzie said: "Germany has, with France, been the driving force behind the European Union. This has been one of the most important foreign policy successes of any nation at any time in history."

This is indeed a "truly idiotic" comment.

First France and Germany are not "any nation." They are two nations. Nor is the EU a nation, nor will it ever be one single country.

As for the foreign policy of the EU, do they have one?

They seem to have as many policies as countries and no one speaks with authority for all.

It it weren't for NATO they wouldn't have accomplished a darn thing and it's the US which has been and continues to be the moving force behind NATO.

"I think by "not considered" you mean "no longer," although a close reading of the British papers might belie even that "no longer.""

ND: When the European Coal and Steel Community was formed, it was considered part of France's Security and Defence Policy; the Common Market - the initial sex and now up to twenty-seven - was never a "foreign policy" objective for either France or Germany, or the Benelux for that matter.  We are having a terminological confusion here, and it is detracting from the main point: outside of the EC project, where Germany has had some successes, German foreign policy since 1890 (except possibly for the brief period between 1919 and 1923, under Rathenau) has been marked by bluster and a serious misjudgement of both long-term interests and German strength.  And since 1948, Germany has taken exactly two initiatives (outside of the EC context), one of which meant giving up the East and the other, according to Genscher, resulted in the Balkan wars.

And now we have a third: nATO membership for Georgia.  I would attach a single condition to this if it ever comes to pass: before a single NATO soldier or NATO missile is spent defending Georgia, German soldiers have to be on the ground, and German planes should be flying over Moscow.  If Germans are willing to put their blood where their mouth is, then we can start having a discussion about Georgia joining NATO, and not before.

Jackson: I merely pointed out my own emotional and personal biases, which are firmly on the side of Georgia.  I've also lived in a country bordering Soviet Union, part of which was occupied by the Soviets (liberated only when Truman threatened the use of nuclear weapons), so am quite sensitive to Russian expansionism.  Does not mean, however, that I am willing to start arming the Ukranainians tomorrow.

Tep: "The worst crises result from miscalculations: cf Egypt 1967, Kuwait 1991".  I think there are some significant differences between 1967, 1991 and 2008.  We'll see if this is on the same scale as the other two.  I don't consider 67 or 91 as that bid of a deal, in any event: both ended in major victories for the good guys, and the incumbent party in power lost the next set of elections ;-).

"Does not mean, however, that I am willing to start arming the Ukranainians tomorrow."

No, but is should mean that the Russian would be put on notice that if they march on Kiev, NATO will react.

Here is the latest:

"Ukraine offers satellite defence co-operation with Europe and US

Ukraine inflamed mounting East-West tensions yesterday by offering up a Soviet-built satellite facility as part of the European missile defence system. "

By Damien McElroy in Tbilisi

www.telegraph.co.uk/.../Ukraine-offers-satellite-defence-co-operation-with-Europe-and-US.html

"No, but is should mean that the Russian would be put on notice that if they march on Kiev, NATO will react."

Really?  Would you trade Jerusalem, or NYC, or Kansas City for that matter, for Kyiv?  What about for Sebastopol?  I don't think it would come to that; the Russians will have what they want, in good time, through quieter means.  Still, when did Ukraine join NATO and when did NATO agree to extend guarantees, willy nilly, to non-Members?  

Kennedy had "The Guns of August" on the bedside throughout the Cuban Missile Crisis, to remind him how countries "inexorably' get dragged into fully preventable wars.  I think that facing a bully requires a proper strategy, and there is none in place right now; and bluster and bravado are not aspects of strategic thinking ...

icarusr writes:

-- And since 1948, Germany has taken exactly two initiatives (outside of the EC context), one of which meant giving up the East and the other, according to Genscher, resulted in the Balkan wars.

And what about reunification? It did not have to happen- but happen it did with enormous cost to the West German taxpayer.

"Really?  Would you trade Jerusalem, or NYC, or Kansas City for that matter, for Kyiv?  What about for Sebastopol?  I don't think it would come to that; the Russians will have what they want, in good time, through quieter means."

Would the Russians trade Moscow and St.Petersburg for Kiev?

No, it won't come to that because if NATO reacts strongly then the Russians will back down. If it doesn't then they will go from Kiev to Warsaw to....

As I remember, Icarus, Kennedy didn't back down the Soviets did.

"And what about reunification? It did not have to happen- but happen it did with enormous cost to the West German taxpayer."

Not exactly "foreign" policy; and it is not at all clear that the terms of reunification - the exchange of the Mark at par, the guarantees of similar social programs and the like - were sound.  There are many Osties and Westies who doubt not the wisdom, but the manner, of reunification.  Kohl went into it blind; not a success of foreign policy one way or another.

"As I remember, Icarus, Kennedy didn't back down the Soviets did."

Jackson: game of chicken with the future of the planet as the prize.  The Soviets backed down because Cuba was in the US's back yard: Soviet missiles in Cuba threatened directly the existence of the US without an appreciable increase in Soviet security.  It was a stupid move to try to move them there, and it was a sound decision to backdown.  Now, Ukraine in the Russians' backyard; whether Ukraine, with its large Russian population, rejoins Russia (by force or otherwise) does not appreciably change the balance of power in the region or globally and does not in any way affect the immediate security interests of the US; Ukraine joining NATO will have an immediate impact on Russia.  There is your equation - and it is why I doubt very much that there would be a secuity guarantee to Ukraine, or indeed to Georgia, any time soon.  

Agreed that Germany must come off the fence, or rather cease bending over for Putin. If Germany is content to be a Russian vassal state, and accept cushy posts for its ex-pols (cf Schroeder) with massively corrupt Russian quasi-state owned slush funds (cf Gazprom), then the EU as a moral beacon to the eastern nations is finished, and the EU becomes a trading group merely.

I think the Germans realize this, and painfully. Now their moralism carries with it a significant price (for Schroeder, a personal financial price). Let's see what they're made of.

"Jackson: game of chicken with the future of the planet as the prize. "

Icarus, you brought up Kennedy.

I am not talking about  any "game of chicken."

I am saying that if Moscow knows that what is at stake is Moscow they will be a little more cautious in their relations with their neighbors. If they think they can get with bullying countries into submission then they will continue to do just that.

In a way though isn't all diplomacy a game of (not chicken) poker?

Another view of what confrontation with the Kremlin may mean:

blogs.law.harvard.edu/.../russia_and_the_middle_east

"Some have said that the Kremlin is unpredictable. I always found the Soviet (Russian) leadership more predictable than the White House."

Here is the concluding paragraph:

"Putin’s war in Georgia may presage a new wave of Russian expansionism. But it may also trigger a new wave of ethnic conflict in the Caucasus that threatens to unravel the Russian Federation. Instead of Russia expanding into the Middle East, parts of Russia may become part of the Middle East."

Laqueur's quite the pessimist, but I'm not convinced. It's too early to tell whether the Germans will develop some moral clarity and backbone here. They're not children of illusion. Their own high rhetoric  does matter to the German elite. They know that their relentless whoring for a thuggish, bandit regime is not compatible with the ideals of Europe that the Germans elsewhere espouse.

The Germans raped Ukraine once (and Poland many times). Will they allow them to be raped again by Putin and his bandits? Schroeder has no moral compass, but what of Merkel?

Or do the Germans say to their conscience, as Pushkin said to his ex-lover, "Ya vas liubil. Liubov' eshe, v moei dushei, ugasla ne sovsem'...."

"Or do the Germans say to their conscience, as Pushkin said to his ex-lover, "Ya vas liubil. Liubov' eshe, v moei dushei, ugasla ne sovsem'....""

I love Pushkin, but can read him only in translation.

Hence a translation of the above phrase would be helpful.

Tep: Germans speak Russian to their Conscience?  Is it any wonder, then, about WWII?  (OK, OK, cheap shot ;-).)

I loved you*, once...

It may chance that love's not yet

Reduced to ashes in my soul...

* [formal "vy" not familiar "ty"]

Thanks for the translation, Tep.

Are the lines from Eugene Onegin?

Are you  familiar with Nabokov's translation, btw?

no and no

too bad

Well, when I get some time, I'll read it.

when you do, you may find this interesting too:

"Nabokov as translator: How do you convince Anglophones that Pushkin is the greatest poet since Shakespeare?"

www.auckland.ac.nz/.../convince.cfm

More on the controversy here:

www.google.com/search