Crowley writes, "...It's annoying because it's largely about stagecraft and doesn't get at who would make a better president."

Uh, Michael, the NYT is writing about the course of the election campaign.  Election campaigns are all about stagecraft.  Were you complaining about Obama's stagecraft when he was posing in front of the Prussian Victory over Denmark Column in Berlin?

McCain obviously had a big advantage being in the center of things and in a position of making strong statements immediately.

He also had the advantage of knowing what he was saying and what he meant to say.  He didn't correct himself twice in 24 hours with statements of different content and tonality, as Obama did.

In that substantive sense, Obama once more gave pause to anyone paying attention about his knowledge, experience, and qualifications to be CIC.

The bigger story here is, the Russian Bear has come out of hibernation after 19 years.  That changes the world landscape considerably, moves concerns from domestic to international.  And will make people think a lot harder about taking a flyer on a man they hardly know.

As I wrote in another thread . . .

The war in Georgia has potential to damage Obama, but so far it seems to be making little difference to the minds of voters (see latest Rasmussen).  McCain's recent gains seem to come from shoring up his base, not from any fall off of support for Obama.  Obama needs to a) sound tough on Georgia (hence the imminent choice of Biden for VP) while constantly pointing out that our leverage there has been significantly diminished by our actions in Iraq, actions enthusiastically supported by John McCain.

I think Johnny will wish he'd taken a break. Catch these excerpts:

CHARLES BABINGTON AP Aug 14

==

ASPEN, Colo. For months, John McCain's presidential campaign was a near-constant swirl of free-ranging chats with voters, garrulous sessions with reporters and quips from the candidate that often had little to do with the day's planned message. No more.

With a dozen weeks to go, McCain's campaign has notably limited his exposure to national reporters and even voters, devoting more time to private fundraisers, interviews with local journalists and events designed for TV cameras.

This week, for example, McCain conducted only one large "town hall" event and one full news conference, but at least seven fundraisers and a string of interviews with reporters mostly from local newspapers, radio and TV stations.

McCain spokeswoman Nicolle Wallace said the workload is not significantly lighter. "We have a full schedule," she said.

But Graham said aides and friends are trying to pace McCain and the campaign. "What you have to realize is that this is a marathon," he said, "not a sprint."

Polls show a tight race between the McCain and Obama.

Graham said the retooled campaign mode "is kind of a consensus" rather than the work of one or two top advisers. "If someone didn't intervene," he said, "I think John would do a town hall meeting that would last for days."

Graham said his advice has been, "John, don't wear yourself out. Make sure your message resonates visually."

==

Graham's last line means: "Don't appear to be stroked out."

Twelve weeks is a long time and Barack has the funds and stamina to deliver like FedEx. The McCain group has been weak on ideas and they've yet to face a full court press with a hurry up and shoot from Obama. Plus, Team Obama has done the RNC of Rove one better. Not only is there field offices and staff swarming beneath the radar? Barack's whirlwind visits as the race closes will light them up and it's not clear McCain has crowds to rally even if he had the legs to see them. If he had a Roae Garden he'd hang out there...

No, a week of rest in August never cost anyone a win in November. But eight or ten weeks from now it will be too late for Johnny to slip away for some R&R. He'll have to learn The Internets to keep track of Obama's schedule.

Regarding Georgia, Pat Buchanan's column today, "Blowback From Bear-Baiting" states that Saakashvili attacked Russian ethnics in the breakaway provinces, unnecessarily provoking the invasion.

And that the West and the U.S. have missed major opportunities over the last twenty years to make an ally of Russia, while making Russia paranoid by surrounding her, bringing former Republics into NATO, etc.

Given Russia's history of the last 1,000 years, his argument is not 100% persuasive.  But, it would be wise to make sure we fully understand Russia's point of view as we enter a new era of resurgent Russia.

timteeter writes, "...The war in Georgia has potential to damage Obama, but so far it seems to be making little difference to the minds of voters (see latest Rasmussen)."

I think, timteer, it's way to early to tell.  Not everybody is going to absorb the significance of the Russian invasion at the same time.  People are distracted by the Olympics, and many may see this as a regional matter.  Something akin to Chechnya, a war that lasted a long time and was exceedingly brutal.

We'll see how Georgia plays out through the fall and how the events are perceived and interpreted by Americans.  

Any poll taken just days into the Georgian invasion don't tell us much.

From Chan, "The bigger story here is, the Russian Bear has come out of hibernation after 19 years."

And where have Bush-McCain been for the last seven years?  Unlike a bear, Putin didn't wake up last week and even if he was sleeping it was tough to miss a US preoccupied with occupying and a leader with no international influence. The goading of Georgia (by their stooge on the McCain staff?!) and the threat of being bounced from the G-8 got them out of any sleep state and fast. (Wake up Vlad, this McCain guy is bangin' a louder drum)

I agree, "In that substantive sense, Obama once more gave pause to anyone paying attention about his knowledge, experience, and qualifications to be CIC." And he learned to wait until the last minute to make threats which are laughable.

A CIC may want to make sure he has enough friends willing to go to bat before he starts calling people names. Oh, that bit about 'engaging enemies' that always brings insults to Obama...we can do it across the table or on the ground. Wait, we don't have an extra brigade for the fight we're in? People should be asking 'why'.

Or, "knowledge, experience and qualifications" got us this far...& you want more!?

Chan: I think Buchanan's right about the US taking steps that alienated Russia. Bringing chunks of Eastern Europe into NATO and dumping the ABM Treaty has antagonized Russia. But did the US ever have a chance of winning over Putin and making Russia an American ally? I really doubt that, especially during the on-going Putin era. Buchanan's prescription appears to be that America should have done nothing, forgoing NATO enlargement when the nations involved wanted to become part of that organization and all that membership entails. Easier said than done for politicians eager to show achievements, especially those who view the world in Wilsonian terms i.e. those believing that nations integrated at various levels have peaceful and prosperous relations. Maybe it's best to say that acting as America did produced benefits with associated costs. I'm not convinced that enlarging NATO was not worth the costs.

That said, it seems to me that prudence and watchfulness are called for now. We might be entering a time in which the dangers of over-reach trump the possible benefits of bringing Georgia and Ukraine into NATO. This is the reason I find McCain's proclamations a bit disturbing. I'm not sure the US is in a position to make grandiose statements and the commitments that have to go along with them to give them any meaning. In short, this seems like more of an Eisenhower moment than a Reagan moment, and--I've said this before--Obama seems more in line with Eisenhower's foreign policy sensibilities than McCain does.

Patriot missiles now going to Poland, US military personnel being transferred to Poland from Germany, US gives Poland a guarantee of defense in case of aggression by you-know-who.

Cold War's back. Our community organizer's going to have to go to school on E European security issues. Maybe he'll have to skip some gym sessions; it's a steep learning curve.

Buchanan's an ass. Expanding NATO was a logical, necessary, absolutely right thing to do given Russia's history of aggression-- as Kennan said, R's neighbors are viewed as either vassals or enemies, nothing else-- and pitifully weak state in the post-Soviet era. An hisotric opportunity to give freedom to nearly half of Europe, and we seized it.

Tep,

Poland has had a guarantee of its defense since it joined NATO. See article 5 of the organization's charter. Putin knows this. Try to remain calm.

"Cold War's back. Our community organizer's going to have to go to school on E European security issues. Maybe he'll have to skip some gym sessions; it's a steep learning curve."

Tep, since we have 2 choices for POTUS, do you prefer the community organizer or the old war hero who uses wikipedia to form his response.  McCain has to learn how to use a computer, BHO has to study up on E. European security issues and come up with a rational approach.  Do you not believe that BHO can use wikipedia?

Where is McCain's experience providing a wise response to this issue?

Has everyone forgotten about the Russian cyberwar against Estonia last year?

The Cold War isn't 'back", Tep, no matter how devoutly you and John McCain might want it to be.  Putin's Russia doesn't present the global ideological threat that the Soviet Union posed and doesn't have the military and political reach that the Soviets had through their vast network of client states on several continents.  Russia is back, no doubt, and wants to throw it's weight around in it's traditional sphere of infulence, and presents challenges to us and to Europe and to it's neighbors that need to be addressed by a coherent, thoughtful and multi-faceted foreign, economic and maybe even military policy.  But that isn't something the next president needs to make up on the fly at some town hall meeting all flush with his fond memories of the failed Hungarian and Czechoslokian uprising of his youth.  If people who don't remember the past are doomed to repeat it,  then people who trapped in the past are likely to misunderstand the present and screw up the future. You've heard of "fighting the last war"....confusiing Putin with Stalin and contemporary Russia with the Soviet Union would be doing just that.

And if we really want to undermine the power and neutralize the threat that all the bad guys of the twentyfirst century pose, we could move as quickly as possible to wean ourselves (and hopefully by sharing our technology and breakthroughs, the rest of the world) off of oil completely.  Iran is powerful and threatening because of oil.  Chavez is poweful and threatening because of oil. Saddam was feared to be powerful and considered threatening because of oil.  Islamic jihadism threatens the world becuse the world wants MIddle Eastern oil and seeks political and military presense there.  And Putin's Russia is powerful and threatening because of oil and natural gas.  Without that, Putin runs a third world country with nuclear weapons and an army they can't pay and supply.  (Which is a fairly scary prospect too, but not in the same way that this revaunchist and full of vinegar Russia of today is.)  Once America puts down the crack pipe, then the crack dealer becomes more and more irrelevant and might even have to pawn his big old Escalade with the expensive rims.....Putin without the power of oil is just Yeltsen with nice pecs.

Michael asked "Where have Bush/McCain been the last 7 years? "   Who knows what Bush has been doing, but the point is that McCain has been discussing the reemergence of Russia for quite sometime, advocating its expulsion from the G8 especially.  As a senator, he doesn't have the power to do a whole lot on his own.  But at least he has been taking a position that truly anticipated this recent crisis.  The field of foreign affairs is one that Obama has to concede to McCain--public opinion polls overwhelmingly concur that he has better knowledge and experience.  It is fanciful to think Obama is some kind of expert on foreign affairs coming out with such a thin resume with just a few years in a state legislature.  The voters aren't that dumb.

Obama needs to focus on other issues that he can win on.  It comes down to this--if these international issues continue to dominate (Georgia, Pakistan, etc.) come November, McCain wins.  If the economic news continues to spiral downward, and Obama can capitalize on it (he has not done this terribly well so far), then he will come out on top.

Let me be more precise, adn try a little "description," in Wieseltier's terms, before we jump into prescription. As Strobe Talbott put it very well today in TIME www.washingtonpost.com/.../AR2008081403124.html, the essence of our relationship with post-Soviet Russia was a mutual understanding that Russia would become a normal nation that respected the sovereignty of its neighbors, ie that the Soviet model in which Russia's neighbors could only be considered "vassals or enemies", in George Kennan's phrase, was finished.

With Putin's action and more chillingly, Lavrov's sneering admonition to "forget about any discussion of Georgia's territorial integrity." it is obvious that Russia has torn up that understanding and now will seek wherever possible to grab territory and rewrite the map. As our good friend Robert Powell has noted, the principle of international respect for the territorial integrity of law-abiding states-- not Saddam's Iraq, but certainly for Georgia-- is core to the interstate system. By declaring its contempt for this idea as it applies to the states of the former Soviet Union, Putin's Russia is making itself into a rogue state.

Call it whatever you like, Putin is shredding the core assumption of post-1991 Europe. This is why intelligent Europeans across the spectrum, including Bush-hating self-described "lefties" like our own TalkBacker jobeek, strongly support a robust and wide-ranging opposition to this action. This is bigger by far thn Kosovo. If Putin's allowed to restore the Soviet Union, then not just NATO but the European Union-- as bearer of freedom, dignity and independence to the former oppressed peoples of Europe-- becomes a bad joke.

The stakes are enormous. And as for your snide and rather personal attack, this is the last thing that someone with Russian family would wish to happen. My family may actually suffer greatly from Putin's actions. So kindly cease with these smelly little off-target attempts at an insult.

greg - enough with the red herrings. McCain's actually BEEN to Georgia, he called years ago fo expelling Putin's thug regime from the G-8, and he pegged Putin perfectly when they met. As our Bush-ophobic European friend jobeek will attest, McCain understands the stakes here. I've seen no evidence that Obama does.

WHat a spectacle to watch the relief and joy literally roll over the right wing all -war-all-the-time crowd now that their binary mentality can be dusted off and come out of the frightened, confused funk its been forced into since the world became complicated (Pat Buchanan says we pissed of Russia! How deeply meanigful and fascinating!).  

John McCain traipsing around in hysterics yammering about Ronald Reagan looks like a vaudeville act about the good old days.  Talk about the desperate need for grown ups.  He looks 18 years old, max.

Putin has been jailing an killing dissidents since about five minutes after Bush's first meeting with him, after which Bush ignored him until two weeks ago - except to send one minion out (I'll  never forget this) a few years ago to announce to the media "We've already had one cold war with Russia, that's enough for us."

I disagree that McCain is "winning" on this.

Lots of us out here - hawks even - think he looks foolish, left over from another era and utterly the wrong person for these times.

If Putin's allowed to restore the Soviet Union??? Jesus Christ Tep, and how will they go about doing that? Do you really think Ukraine is going to fold? And the Baltics ain't going back anywhere. That leaves Russia what exactly? The only other country Russia borders of the former Soviet Union is Kazakhstan, all of the other countries are outside. Really, you gotta stop hyperventilating about it. Yes, you got family there so you are losing all perspective.

russia's friends are who now? And what vassals do they have? Kazakhstan is just another corrupt state under thrall of a megalomaniac. Belarus is the same. Everyone of their other neighbors are aligned with the west (except China and North Korea). And China ain't no Vassal, nor are they an enemy.

Last year Russia engaged in full scale cyber warfare against Estonia. It gained them nothing. And at that time some of us were paying attention. This is just a continuation of their behavior, nothing is a surprise.

Ukraine is indeed within Putin's gunsights. Putin has intimated the Latvians and Lithuanians over oil transit routes and refineries, and, using massve cyberattacks, the Estonians over war memorials.

The next war could well be over the Black Sea port that is crucial to both the Russian fleet and Ukraine's hopes of independence. You're not paying attention, blackie.

"McCain's actually BEEN to Georgia". Yeah, and Bush has been to New Orleans, that didn't mean he had any idea what to do when Katrina hit. I won't deny this FP crisis helps McCain, but that is more to do with the stupidity of the average voter (Republicans mean security) than anything else.

Anyone who thinks kicking Russia out of the G8 means anything except a propaganda coup for Putin is crazy. Empty gestures. You want to really cut their nuts out make a co-ordinated plan to deny visas to Russia to the EU as long as Russia is in violation of Georgian sov. Keep the plutocrats from their French villas and out of London.

McCain is the wrong person to win over Europe. Everyone in the world will view him as a placeholder until 2012, or worse, as an old man in a hurry to make history (which is far worse). He will rant, and cast his spittle upon the ground, and Europe will say a pox on both houses.

I wouldn't trust a 72 year old Surgeon, or Pilot, or even Bus driver with my life, we are now seriously considering doing the same with McFossil?

Thanks tep for the thoughtful response.

Tep, I think you are going over the edge. I have been paying attention. This is why I knew about the Russian cyber war last year in Estonia and the unprecedented steps the US engaged in to counter it.

To be honest, I think if Russia wants McCain to win, then they are far more likely to continue this behavior to bolster McCain's creds. Long term I think Russia overplayed their hand. I think NATO is now more likely to be given to the Ukraine than before. And what does this intimidation mean anyhow? They are not going to reabsorb these countries into Russia. Freakin power politics won't mean anything if it doesn't his American pocketbooks.

But I just think you associate with too many intelligent people, most average Americans won't care about this. Oil transit routes? Oh my god, lets vote for the 100 year old man because Russia is pressuring Lithuania over oil transit routes.

You are way too close to the situation. You overestimate how little people will really give a shit. The governments, yeah, but the people, nah.

michael writes, "...And where have Bush-McCain been for the last seven years?  Unlike a bear, Putin didn't wake up last week..."

I don't think Bush's naive "looked into his eyes" policy was very smart, either.  We would have been much better off with a Reagan "trust but verify" skepticism and wariness about the Russians.  They have given plenty of signs before Georgia that there were things to worry about.

That said, even when we had beaucoup forces in the 50s and 60s, the Russians did not hesitate to invade Hungary or  Chezkslovakia where they new there was no chance we would send troops to oppose them.

Even without Iraq and Afghanistan, we would certainly be chary of sending lots of armed troops into a situation where shooting could easily take place between U.S. and Russian military.

That said, we did send both military aircraft and our Secretary of State into the capital of Georgia.  Both will pretty likely keep the Russians from getting too close to the capital.

If we were so inclined, we have the airpower to destroy every Russian tank as we did Iraqi tanks.  The Georgians have shot down a lot of Russian aircraft using Russian anti aircraft missiles.  So the Russians don't even have good countermeasures against their own weapons.

This isn't a matter of us being tied donw in the M.E. and thus can't do anything.  This is the historical kind of reluctance of a large power to directly confront another large power.  The usual deal is to use surrogates.  

The essential argument now will be, has Bush been too nice, or too provocative?  Buchanan maintains the latter.  The long trend of Russian history says, they are in their natural state an expansionist power.

Have you noticed how large Russia is, even without the Soviet Republics?

Unfortunately, it is not just that Obama happened to be on vacation, speaking in casual clothes from a remote location. It is that his statements were inappropriate and unpersuasive. First he called on both sides to calm down, sounding for all the world like he was voting "present" on a controversial issue. Then he shifted his position twice, winding up pretty close to where McCain had started. All in all, Obama seemed to show the level of knowledge and understanding of the region that would be typical for a state legislator from Illinois who had been running hard for higher office for the past three years.

tep, you are like right that Russia wants to suck Ukraine back into their hegemony, or even into a new union.

But, Ukraine is a large country with 55 million.  They are not without the means to resist.

If Switzerland could resist all of Europe (with the help of their geography, of course) Ukraine ought to be able to do something.  With armament from us if not NATO.

blackie - all due respect, but you need to calm down a bit. I'm not attacking you. Maybe I'm wrong on this, we're in the early stages, who knows, anything can happen etc. I think we can agree that

1) this is a very big crisis,a dn it's escalating-- nb the chief of the Russian general staff just threatened Poland with a nuclear strike www.timesonline.co.uk/.../article4541613.ece

2) this crisis will have a major effect on the election.

Now it may evolve that it will help Obama instead of McCain, that it will, as I hope, backfire badly against Putin, but one thing is sure: it's going to have a huge impact. People will care. This is a watershed event, a turning point in European history.

vanwurs writes, "...The Cold War isn't 'back", ...Putin's Russia doesn't present the global ideological threat that the Soviet Union posed and doesn't have the military and political reach that the Soviets had..."

Maybe not, vanwurs.  But Russia is a large state with a good sized military and most importantly, lots of nukes.

The worry now would be an unwanted confrontation and an accident that could unleash ICBMs in both directions.  History has seen such accidents before.

tep, I think we were right to secure as much of Europe and the old Soviet states as possible, too.

But, it would be healthy at this juncture, and with a crisis in Georgia, for the entire nation to review our strategy and understand what we are doing and why.

During the Cold War, everyone basically understood our Containment strategy.  What we are doing now is more subtle, much less discussed, and not at all widely understood.

You should push back a little more gently, I think.

"If Switzerland could resist all of Europe (with the help of their geography, of course) Ukraine ought to be able to do something."

Oh dear God - now we are making strategic decisions or offering strategic advice based on a myth that even the Swiss don't believe?  

FYI: Switzerland resisted exactly nothing.  Switzerland, like Sweden, made a convenient pack with the Devil and survived the War.  As for the vaunted Swiss geography - well, it's easy to "defend" your country if your strategic position is to abandon all major cities, withdraw your army into a mountenous cul de sac the size of Rhode Island that could feed a dozen cows and Heidi's family, and threaten to blow up all your infrastructure at the approach of the enemy.  Now let me see: Ukraine ... no natural defences, large pockets of Russians, the Russian Navy parked in its doorsteps ... the analogy to Swiss "resistance" in WWII is perfect.

Sorry, Chan, I hear what you're saying, I just find Buchanan's neo-isolationism really annoying. He's taken to attacking Churchill and FDR, for goodness' sake

McCain doesn't understand sh*t. He's a walking Colbert parody, taking his visceral hatred of this or that country and *feeling* his way around foreign policy -- with his gut. He inflates 'the stakes', then proposes policies that will only exacerbate the problems he cites (League of Democracies, anyone?).

It's Bush's fun n' gun militarism transplanted to an undisciplined, doddering old relic. Frankly, McCain's shallowness of thought is breathtaking.

It's really unclear that McCain's actually learned much of anything from his quarter-century of Senate experience. As for the consequential domestic issues, his wholesale disinterest is palpable.

icarusr, 50 million people determined not to succumb to a larger enmey and armed by the West, would certainly be in a position to make the cost too dear for Russia.  

If Truman saved Greece, we can save Ukraine.

Everyone, I just made cookies. Tep, would you be so kind as to get the milk out of the fridge? Blackie, you don't mind sharing the piano bench with Channy, now, do you?

Oh, it's so nice to see you all together like this!

[wipes hands on apron]

Not to be Mrs. Buttinski or anything but I just want to say that I'm pretty sure whatever decision the voters make in November will be the wrong one, followed by a steady worsening of the various situations--economic, military, environmental, and what not--followed by an increasingly swift decline of all of Western Civilization into anarchy, privation, tribal warfare, and pandemic disease. Plus we will run out of coffee, so everyone will have a headache.

Oh, look, here's Teppy with the milk. Greg, how about a chocolate chip? Wandrey, you're oatmeal raisin, right? Michael has dibs on the last peanut butter cookie. Tim, would you pass out these napkins, please? Joe, Eos--scoot over will you; give Cal80 and Vanwurs some room. Icarusr, I saved you a snickerdoodle.

[looks out window]

You know, the weatherman was wrong again. He said showers, but it's a bright, clear day!

[inhales deeply through nose, then suddenly coughs violently before spitting loudly into handkerchief]

tep, setting Buchanan and his controversial views aside, America's post Cold War strategy has largely evolved under the national radar.

At some point, someone is going to have to articulate what our strategy is so that these issues can be discussed intelligently on a national scale, and from a common ground of knowledge.

Essentially we have been treating Russia as state with many common interests that also needed to be contained and if not a wall, a net built around Russia to secure its neighbors, most former satellites and subject Republics.

Buchanan is not wrong to say that we now have many new allies to whom we have made guarantees overt or implied.  This is something akin to the kinds of alliances made in the balance of power days that lated for centuries, and precipitated both WW1 and WW2.

A citizenry entrusted and tasked with the choosing of presidents and legislature, needs to understand what the world now is.

Tiger, I didn't mean to leave you out.

[wipes hands on sleeve]

Here's a nice ginger snap, still warm from the oven!

thetraytiger writes, "...McCain doesn't understand sh*t."

I could be persuaded that McCain is no Kissinger.  But, Obama's three conflicting statements on this matter and 24 hours would, in a president, be a lot worse.

I was going to stay out of this, since I'm not exactly up to snuff on international affairs, but this

"First he called on both sides to calm down, sounding for all the world like he was voting "present" on a controversial issue."

is by far the stupidest thing I've heard all month. To call the analysis "specious" is to insult specious analyses everywhere.

Yes, it is apparent that Obama does not have 50 years of experience in foreign relations, and apparently he did not see "The Bear" until it made itself clear; but his statement was perfectly in line with the information available at the time it was generated, and he has readily (and appropriately) shifted his stance as the level of detail increased until now he is standing near McCain.

So, while McCain gets points for spotting The Bear hiding in the trees, there is simply no basis for a comparison between a reasonable response and voting "present" on a controversial issue.

Does Ukraine want to be "saved"? Note this question asked of Ukrainians via TPM:

Do you support Ukraine joining the NATO alliance?

Yes 22%

No 66%

Don't Know 11%

Marshall, no doubt a communist (he was a graduate student at Brown after all), notes that Ukraine is divided regionally and admits that the poll has a small sample  size, but it warrants notice, eh? All this talk of WW5 seems a bit hyperventilated at this point--like that stupid-ass Russian general talking about nuking Poland. I'm sure that's just around the corner.

Channy: "armed by the West".  Right.  And you are prepared to trade LA for Kyiv?  Because if "the West" (and I gather you mean the US, because Luxemburg and Iceland are not likely to join in) gets involved, then I think the Russians will not hesitate to involve us directly.

"If Truman saved Greece, we can save Ukraine."

Now this is groan-inducing.  Different time, different imperatives.  And Ike did not safe Hungary.  Instead of empty historical slogans and inapt and manifestly incorrect historical analogies, let's look at facts on the ground.  Russia does not HAVE TO invade Ukraine or Poland; its menacing presence is enough; and if that does not work, fomenting unrest is the next thing; and if that does not work, a few missiles aimed at the heart of Kyiv plus the takeover of Crimea should end any war the 50 million would want to wage.  And "the West" will be involved exactly as it is involved right now -with McCain declaming "We are all Ukrainians now" and Bush having a yelling match with Putin.  

Any way, how are you going to deliver the arms to Ukraine, through the Bosphorus?  Via Romania?  Though Poland?  May be Estonia could declare war on Russia?  

Jeez, you guys are high sniffing your own high octane.

propositionjoe, there's a big difference between a Ukranian wanting to join NATO and wanting to be a province of Russia once again.

Many Ukraines no doubt realize that joining NATO would be a provocation to Russia and are fearful of throwing rocks at the Bear.

Libeals during the 80s didn't want to be part of the Soviet Union.  But they were always tremulous and afraid of taking any defensive actions or counter actions, like placing medium range missiles in Europe to counter the Soviet missiles moved in.

If much of the Democratic Party was afraid to stand up to the Russians in the 80s, you can't be surprised that Ukraines, living on Russia's flanks, would be fearful as well.

Actually I doubt we can save Ukraine - the issue is the base on the Crimean peninsula, which is to Russians more or less as Miami is to us. No way on earth that Russia will consent to Ukraine controlling that base.

Funny, I just remembered that 1980s era novel, semi-satirical, ab(theout anti-soviet freedom fighters (the "Lupine Hordes"!)  defending a free-market, democratic breakaway republic on the island of Crimea against the Red Army. I think it was "The Burn," by Aksyonov. IIRC it ended very badly for the freedom forces.

Chan - good points, I hear you. We definitely need a "national conversation", all right-- on national security. During that conversation I think Obama should be in the audience, taking notes.

ick is right, Crimea's a lost cause. Poland's another story. Balts, I don't know.

icarusr "and you are prepared to trade trade LA for Kyiv?"

In every decade since 1945, we've been faced with choices about where to stand our ground, where to create and support allies, where to employ surrogates, etc.  Whether against Soviet Russia, China, or now, Russia looking much like the Russia of the past millennium.

Berlin in 1948 was hardly a tenable or defensible piece of territory, either.  

I would warrant that few of us here is in a good position to decide today which sand we draw lines in, where we would commit troops, where weapons, etc.  

But the past 60 years have shown that there are many paths and strategies that lie between WW3 and abject retreat.

Probably a strategy of neo-containment will become necessary if Georgia is a sign of things to come.  (Which it likely is.)

We, few of us, have been focused on these questions, not before 9/11, and certainly not since.

The nation is going to have to start thinking hard about it now.  We have been warned.

Oh, and icarusr, if you scoff at the example of Switzerland, perhaps you'll find Finland's example less risible.  They drove out Russia twice in the last 100+ years.  And kept them at bay throughout the Cold War.

Chan:

Fair point about Ukranian expectations. I'm just saying that we need to be careful about maximalist rhetoric. I don't doubt that the whole of Ukraine doesn't want to become a province of Russia again, but I doubt the efficacy of pretending that this is the 1930s and suggesting that we are "all Ukrainians" when the country has mixed feelings about westernization. The US needs to be very careful here, take note of the limits of its power, and convey that understanding to the parties involved. This is not a time for grandiose rhetoric and bellicosity. I'm not saying that America should be pusillanimous, but we can't shout out empty threats either.

Tep, you know I agree with a lot of your prescriptions, I just find your description that this is a watershed event a bit much. The way you have been writing this is 9/11, Pearl Harbor, and the sinking of the Lusitania combined, while this is more like Chechnya abroad without all of the carnage. If the Russians march on Tbilisi and take out Mikheil, then it will be time to seriously crack down on Russia. Not sure if the attendant spike in oil prices and sinking of the financial markets will help McCain that much though. In the end, people will vote pocketbooks when their pocketbooks are directly affected. McCain has to address this issue. If he runs around screaming "remember Gori." he will lose.

Tep, the Baltic states you don't know? Relax, Russia was already in control of Abkhasia and South Ossetia, they simply made very clear to everyone that they will forever (at least to them) remain in control of these provinces. If they invade the Baltic states, goodbye world. Surely you know that.

"Berlin in 1948 was hardly a tenable or defensible piece of territory, either."

No, but we had the nukes and they did not; we were at their doorstep; and Russia had bled nearly 50 million souls over the preceding twenty years, and the US had not.  

I don't "scoff" at the "example" of Switzerland; I pointed out that the analogy was inapt because 1) it was a myth that the Swiss don't even believe in; and 2) Switzerland and Ukraine has different, um, geographies.

As for Finland: I think the Finnish tundra is slightly less hospitable than the plains of Ukraine.  As well, Finland "kept them at bay throughout the Cold War" not because of their military might but for the exact opposite reason: by getting rid of any military threat they might pose and by serving as Soviet enablers throughout the Cold War, much as Switzerland and Sweden had done in the 40s.  Let's not forget that when the Soviet Union collapsed, the Finnish economy shrank by 30% because of the extreme dependence of Finland on the Soviet market.  Again, the analogy *might* work re 1939-40, but not since.

Incidentally, the UK and France decided against helping Finland in 1940, lest they antagnoise the Soviets even more; Finland capitulated shortly thereafter.

Any way, all this blather about plucky little countries holding back the onslaught of Big Bad Russia - I seem to recall that it was the Red Army that finally defeated the Wehrmacht.

All in all, I have no idea what your point is.  But if you are trying to say that we should stoke Ukranian nationalism and then arm them so that they could, like Georgia, get the idea that they could count on our support in a confrontation against Russia, well, I think that's just crazy.

propositionjoe: Well put.

Mouth-watering ginger snap, Yard!

About the matter at hand, I'll take Obama's evolving response any day over McCain's wrong-headed, and ultimately empty, saber-rattling threats. Diplomatic isolation only works if you and your allies are willing to live with the consequences. It doesn't appear Europe will support anything beyond tepid measures. This is understandable enough, given Russia's stranglehold on their energy supply. With military options off the table, both strategically and logistically, and oil still over $100/barrel, Putin can afford to laugh in our face.

In light of that, this whole debate about Russian aggression has had the effect of reminding me how much I hate the 'No Blood For Oil' charlatans, those bold truth-tellers who drive hundreds of oil-sodden miles to convene at orgasmic rallies to caress their panged conscience.

Or: the bus conversation that turns on "well, I actually kinda, like, think Iraq was all about oil," a self-evident statement if there ever was one, which carries its implicit assumption that the buying and selling of oil serves only to line the pockets of that ubiquitous bogeyman, Big Oil.

Oil (that is, energy) is essentially the reason Russia gets away with this. Oil is the biggest reason why China is obstructionist about everything from Sudan to Iran.

Sure, we should be investing in alternative energy research. Make a bumper sticker out of it, if you like. But oil is extremely valuable both innately and macroeconomically. As such, access to oil underpins every geostrategic chess game, as Mr. Putin has so eloquently demonstrated this week.

We had best tread carefully, and I prefer Obama's instincts here. You would think that, after 7 1/2 years, we would have learned the difference between incisive moral clarity and foolish Us vs. Them pugnacity.

icarusr writes, "...Any way, all this blather about plucky little countries holding back the onslaught of Big Bad Russia - I seem to recall that it was the Red Army that finally defeated the Wehrmacht."

Well, yeah, after first making an alliance with Hitler and being double crossed.  Backs to the wall-- and with a lot of material help from us, a lot of Russian cannon fodder, shooting losing generals, etc, Russia rolled over a Germany surrounded, materially cut off, and with a much smaller population.

I believe there are ways to arm states without making them your allies, without making them hair-trigger's that would bring you into war, and with them being disabused with the idea that they were meant to "take on" Russia.

Small states keep big states out of their honey jars by making the cost of an invasion far higher than it would be worth.

You seem pretty absolutist.  Any help we might give states bordering on Russia to defend themselves in your description would be an intolerable provocation to Russia that would cost us Los Angeles and suck us into World War.

Russia, throughout much of its history, has been a powerful state with glaring weaknesses, a penchant for tyranny, with an inferiority complex aggravated by paranoia.  

When a nation like that starts waving rockets and making scary noises, other powers have to do something to keep such national neurosies under control.

Some of what you do may be recognizing Russia's legitimate fears and grievances.  And tempering our own behavior accordingly.

But, all that has to be done without sacrificing independent states, big or small, standing by as they are dragged back to the ogre's cave.

Channy, I agree with you. I grew up with a guy by the name of Vresk, his family drilled in him that he was Ukranian, this in the days of the Soviet Union. They aren't going to be rolled.

The Ukrainians are of two minds about Russia, and I don't think this is likely be settled with panzer battles on the steppes. Don't forget, the "other Viktor", the pro-Russian Yanukovych, got damned near as many votes as Yushchenko, who won after narrowly surviving a poisoning. There are a number of significant factions in Ukrainian politics, usually referred to as clans, who fight like cats and dogs, sometimes with Russian puppet masters and sometimes not. It's a classic environment for intrigue, and the Russians know very well how to play that game.

I'm expecting good ol' fashioned salami tactics. After Georgia is subverted, Crimea will be sliced off from Ukraine. Whether this is accompanied by some kind of coup in Kiev or not, time will tell. But we're not likely to see overt aggression as in Georgia, which was also hit by a major cyberwar offensive, by the way.

RP: I agree with you.  I just can't understand when people like Channy speak as if Ukrainians are just waiting for "the West" to provide them with arms, so that they could fight the Big Bad Bear, or that somehowwe in "the West" - meaning you in the US - can channel arms to and "support" Ukraine without any repercussions.

icarusr writes, "...I just can't understand when people like Channy speak as if Ukrainians are just waiting for "the West" to provide them with arms, so that they could fight the Big Bad Bear..."

I have no idea what the majority of people in Ukraine want.  But, this could be found out easily enough at some juncture with a legitimate vote on federation with Russia.

The EU just did the very thing in several different nations.

Chan, the Ukraine was perhaps the worst victim of the last century. From the massacres and famines of the Revolution, through Stalin's genocidal persecutions and the Nazi occupation, they've seen The State at its worst. About the only respite they had until recently was during the later stages of Soviet decline, and many would be perfectly content to see that kind of corrupt-but-peaceful situation again. The parts of Ukraine that were traditionally Polish are pretty anti-Russian, but the rest of the country is at least ambivalent, if not essentially Russian itself. The one thing absolutely no one wants is a return to war and revolution. Ukraine figures to be a cockpit of intrigue for decades to come, but I don't see overt confrontation with Russia as being in the cards.

Chan: this is not a binary issue, "federation with Russia" or Western-fueled war; and it would be a mistake for us in the West to make it appear like that, or to promise Ukraine support that we could not possibly sustain so as to goad the government there to make ill-advised choices.  Happily, the Ukrainian government, ignorant of our discussion on this thread, appears to have a sound measure of its own interests.  And if the Georgians had had the same sagesse and had not taken the bait, this crisis might have been handled differently in the long run.

Gentlemen, I understand that most of the nations and former Republics surrounding Russia have complex, oppressive, and ambiguous histories.  And that their relationships with russia are rarely black and white.

The world is starting to look "normal" again.  the anomaly of the past 19 years is now past.

The next president is faced with something akin to what Eisenhower faced.  A nuclear monopoly quickly disappearing.  An adversary we were not in a position to face down directly.  

We are also seeing a world emerging that is somewhat reminiscent of the late 19th century with several roughly equal Great Powers.  And a Great Game being played.

We were lucky in eisenhower in that he had supreme warrior credentials, as one of the two greatest generals of WW2, and the one with a moderate temperament.

How he dealt with the challenges of Soviet Russia and emerging China are probably a better model than JFK's, who by giving the appearance of youth, inexperience, and weakness, emboldened Khrushchev, and brought us to the brink in 1962.

So, yeah, I get it.  Eisenhower resolve overall.  Eisenhower caution where necessary.

"Strong and Wrong" is not as effective today, after 5 years in Iraq, as it might have been in the 90's.  Americans are engaged in hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq, and neither of these are seen at home as brilliant successes.  There is no appetite for war with Russia and most Americans care little whether Russia gobbles up all of Georgia.  

We have a long tradition of letting the Russians / Soviets drive their tanks into places like Hungary and the former Czechoslovakia.  McCain may have sounded "strong", but under the present circumstances most Americans probably heard the "wrong" much more clearly.  Bush blew it in Iraq and nobody is going to vote for more of the same.  Let McCain bluster and blow - it only makes him sound more and more reckless and less and less electable.  

Neil

Let's be honest--with the possible exception of that Saddleback forum (on which I hold the minority