Oh, oh, oh, what a lovely war!

One of the few good things to have come out of the Russian-Georgian slap-down is that it provided a mini-test for the two presidential candidates.  I regret, and am surprised, to say that Obama came out best!  McCain rushed in where only fools would dare to tread and tied himself hook, line and sinker to President Saakhasvili, a man whose dexterity in a tight position has been found wanting.  Obama, on the other hand, obviously hadn't got a clue, and who could blame him, so he kept his mouth shut, by which I mean, he mumbled platitudes - very wise!

Gregory Djeredjian  (and don't ask me how you pronounce it!), an American international financier based in London, has run a very thoughtful and intelligent blog for many years but earlier this year there was a very long interregnum because of pressure of business.  I had failed to spot that he was back 'on the air'.  His latest post deals with McCain's 'cowboy' response - sorry, that is a cheap shot aimed at an American politician of the sort usually favoured by the Trot-lot, but I can think of no other - and he stands it in direct contrast with the words of the late George Kennan, a man who knew a thing or three about the Russians:

"(E)xpanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold war era. Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking."

He reinforces the message with the words of another shrewd operator, Henry Kissinger:

"Confrontational rhetoric notwithstanding, Russia's leaders are conscious of their strategic limitations. Indeed, I would characterize Russian policy under Putin as driven in a quest for a reliable strategic partner, with America being the preferred choice...But the movement of the Western security system from the Elbe River to the approaches to Moscow brings home Russia's decline in a way bound to generate a Russian emotion that will inhibit the solution of all other issues. It should be kept on the table without forcing the issue to determine the possibilities of making progress on other issues."

What we have to face in the immediate and medium term future, apart from virulent Islamism, is the rise and rise of two great rival powers, China and Russia.  It is essential that we divide them, not drive them into each other's arms as McCain and, I regret to say, my e-pal Oliver Kamm would do, here, and here.

In the meantime, please bookmark Gregory's site, always a very worthwhile read.

Comments

[Tatyana]

So you, along with your favorite writer (btw, his name is very easy to pronounce) are recommending appeasement.

As if history taught you nothing.

[Tatyana]

...and are you also in concert with Newsweek, as described here?

[David Duff]

So, Tatyana, exactly what do you suggest we do?

[Tatyana]

The opposite of what your "sensible" advisers suggest. You can read NeoNeo's post, for ideas. Or go to Thomas.

[David Duff]

Well then, are you advocating that we go to war with Russia over Georgia?

[Tatyana]

no, I am not. There are other, tried and prooved methods - see "Ronald Reagan" and "Cold War".

[Sister Wolf]

Don't get her mad, Mr. Duff. She will ridicule your hospital experience and then even insult dog!

Just looking out for you.

[Tatyana]

David, look - the barking idiot, "little willy" twin has descended on your lawn now.

Spray the antiseptic, quick!

[Sister Wolf]

Hahaha, you have no power here!

(from the Wizard of Oz)

[H]

China may well be a rising great power. Russia, on the other hand, would appear to be a basket case, temporarily flush with oil funds. Kissinger no doubt had it right in referring to her strategic limitations.

[David Duff]

Ladies! Ladies! Decorum, always decorum!

Tatyana, I take the point you are making but the situation now is *very* different to the confrontation between the old Soviet Union and the West. Then, Europe was frozen into its two constituent halves by the fear of the Bomb, and so proxy wars were fought all over the globe but never in Europe. Today, Europe is in a state of extreme flux but the Bomb still hangs over everything. I have been warning for some time that the gangsters who run Russia are likely to cause trouble but in dealing with them I think you need to be very subtle. Whilst as an Englishman I fear Russia rather more than China, were I an American it would be the reverse. The very first priority of any western foreign policy, in my opinion, must be to try and do everything to keep the two of them apart - or better still at each other's throats.

'Sister Wolf', welcome to Duff & Nonsense, your reputation goes before you so I will handle you (in the nicest way, of course) with kid gloves!

'H', you are equally welcome. There is an old military/political adage to the effect that Russia is never as strong as she looks, nor as weak as she looks! The problem is that history indicates that being weak is no inhibition to foolish military adventures - think, Japanese high command, circa 1940, who with considered deliberation went across the Pacific and poked a sleeping giant in the eye! I might add, that in those days, the sleeping giant, through an oversight, rather provoked them in the first place; so that re-inforces my contention that today we need to tread carefully and 'box clever'.

[Tim Newman]

Whilst as an Englishman I fear Russia rather more than China, were I an American it would be the reverse. The very first priority of any western foreign policy, in my opinion, must be to try and do everything to keep the two of them apart - or better still at each other's throats.

I think America and China, mainly due to their enormous trading and China's enormous, largely unmentioned, domestic challenges, will settle their differences behind closed doors and dance around each other for the sake of appearances, knowing not to cross the line.

Russia will think its main threat is the USA, and wake up one morning to find that actually it's not, China is. By then it might be too late, and the US stands by and does nothing. Either that, or the Russians know full well the US is no threat and all the Russian bravado of late is really in preparation for confronting China at some point.

In the grand scheme of things, the US is in the best position of all three by far. Russia is in the worst.

[Tim Newman]

Incidentally, does anyone other than me find Russia's bleating about Nato, missile shields, etc. a bit pathetic?

Russia is being subjected to the same foreign policy treatment as pretty much any other major power, yet whines as if it were on the verge of being eliminated from the face of the earth. It's as if Nato membership of Georgia and the Baltics and an anti-missile system in Poland was Barbarossa all over again. Talk about a thin skin.

Oh, and don't get me started on Russia's "unique" history of being surrounded and invaded. Last time I looked, Russia was invaded by the Mongols in the 15th century, along with half of Eurasia; again in 1812, as was most of Europe; and again in 1942 along with most of Europe, the Russians on this occasion having signed a deal with the invaders to help them in their previous conquests.

By this criteria, Russia has had it no worse than anyone else. True, Britain hasn't been invaded since 1066, but Napolean and Hitler were both pretty keen on the idea and we don't start squealing about unique histories whenever the Frogs launch a new carrier. And we were invaded on a weekly basis up until 1066, often by hairy-arsed Danes carrying ruddy great axes.

And take France, or Belgium even. Invaded time and again by all comers, yet we don't hear them blubbering about it. They might cry about most everything else, but they don't try to invoke some unique historical status to defend national paranoia.

Russia wants to play the victim and at the same time be the Daddy. Choose one or the other, but not both.

[David Duff]

Tim, you make some good points. I do think that with skilful diplomacy America could encourage differences between Russia and China. The problem is that that entails 'supporting' (in some way, to some degree) one against the other. I agree that a mutuality (of a sort) already exists between China and the USA, not least because the Chinese are sitting on shed-loads of US dollars. However, to keep that going will entail an easing of the Taiwan situation to China's benefit. However, other Asian nations (Japan, India, South Korea) might become nervous if the US gets too soft with China.

Equally, I think the West could and should allow Russia a certain latitude on its borders. What has happened in Georgia is the worst possible outcome for us. Putin and his gangsters have pulled off a carefully planned stroke and we in the West look feeble and divided. The Germans have their own national interests in the East and are unlikely to support any sort of strong line against Russia. It will be interesting to see if Putin, puffed with success, will try something else - the Ukraine had better watch out!

Finally, as I have mentioned several times on this blog, from the very *little* knowledge I have of China, I think they suffer with constant centrifugal forces and it will be interesting to see how the Party copes over the next few years.

And it was a Chinaman, wasn't it, who said that it was a curse to live in interesting times!