A blessing in disguise?

Serge Trifkovic sums up the Georgia situation:

The events in the Caucasus clearly indicate to small and weak countries that it is self-defeating to trust a distant mentor in Washington whose verbal commitments greatly exceede available resources. The outcome is a blessing in disguise for those of us who believe that America should not be “engaged” in each nook and cranny around the world, and who advocate a sane, give-and-take relationship with Moscow based on the acceptance that Russia has legitimate interests in her near-abroad.

- end of initial entry -

Derek C. writes:

One of things people don’t understand is why Russia doesn’t want NATO along a large part of its western frontier. If we have a disagreement with Russia about anything, it would be much easier for us to arm dissident groups and send them into Russia to raise hell. Afterwards, they could retreat to a NATO-protected country. We, of course, would deny involvement, issue condemnations, but warn Russia against crossing the border. In a last resort, after ginning up enough atrocity stories, NATO could be able to launch the same sort of air strikes it deployed against Serbia. Russia would then be faced with the choice of threatening nuclear retaliation or knuckling under. So every gripe we have with the Russians, about nationalizing foreign assets (from Republicans) or their treatment of ethnic minorities and gays (from Democrats and John McCain, or do I repeat myself), could potentially lead to one nuclear face-off after another.

The thought of it is a nightmare. It’s why soberer leaders from the center-right in Europe, like Merkel, Sarkozy and Berlusconi, are not jumping on the Bush bandwagon. They’re not keen on getting involved in a war with a Russia that has something like 12,000 nuclear warheads because a Moscow mayor canceled some silly Gay Pride March (and this was a controversy a while back). If this sounds like fantastical satire, you’re right, but is there a position too satirical for a liberal at some point in time to advocate?

LA replies:

I respectfully protest the common description of Merkel and Sarkozy as “center-right.” Both these leaders seek the liquifying of Europe under a consolidated and expanded EU that will include the Muslim world. If such leaders are part of any kind of “right,” then truly the word means nothing.

August 17

Dimitri K. writes:

Trifkovic perfectly summed political results of the Georgian war. I would like to offer an ideological result.

Liberalism thought it was winning all over the world (“The end of history”). However, it is now obvious that liberalism rode on the back of America, the same way that Communism rode on the back of Russia. When America failed at one point, because America’s recourses are not infinite, and because its interests are not there, liberalism failed. For liberals this small failure is painful because it clearly reminds them that they are simply riders on the other’s back, but not triumphal conquerors. In some sense, this war for liberals is like Afghan war for Communists.

LA replies:

Fascinating point. To put it another way, liberalism, or, in this case, neoconservative universalism, which is a form of liberalism, notwithstanding its universalist pretensions, depends for its own ascendancy on the strength and spirit of a particular country. But liberal universalism steadily undermines the strength and spirit of that particular country, ultimately resulting in liberalism’s impotence and defeat.

As I’ve said before in a slightly different context, neoconservatism is like a monster portrayed in the Beatles movie “Yellow Submarine,” which has a giant vacuum cleaner for a mouth. It sucks up every object in the vicinity, then it sucks up the background, leaving itself standing in a void, then it sucks itself up and disappears.

Max Leeds writes:

From what I’ve read, Georgia’s the one who attacked South Ossetia first with massive artillery bombardments followed by a ground invasion, where Russia has peacekeeping troops stationed. The tricky thing is, Russia had built up militarily along the border in preparation for the attack, using Georgia’s aggression as its reason for strong retaliation—they had apparently known about Georgia’s plans ahead of time, and were prepared for it. Georgia attacked because they assumed they could get away with retaking the separatist province given the assurances the West had provided them ahead of time.

Russia cries hypocrisy against the West in this case, and I tend to agree with them. South Ossetia is ethnically Russian, with Russian passports and Russian speakers. If Kosovo has the right to secede from Serbia based on their ethnicity and Serbian aggression, why doesn’t South Ossetia—which has suffered a lot of Georgian aggression throughout the ages—have the right to secede as well? The answer, in my opinion, is that the West doesn’t care about the right of an ethnic group to secede from anywhere—they only care about the secessions that further their own ends.

On a broader scale, there are only two truly independent countries in the world—Russia and China. They are independent because they have the ability to withstand the onslaught of the Western press, NGOs, U.N., military, etc on their own. The way the West works to expand its power internationally is generally this:

(1) Turn a country into a democracy through foreign-funded NGOs (in the Eastern European countries such as the Orange Revolution, their work was the deciding factor), the international media, bribes and, if need be, threats. (2) Once the country is democratic, the process quickly steps up. Because in a democratic society those who shape public opinion have the power, and in a fledging democracy the media is generally international in nature with close tie-ins to domestic based but foreign-funded NGOs, the population is inundated with pro-Western propaganda. (3) The country begins receiving massive foreign aid, international loans, military training and protection, and foreign investments. Soon, they are dependent on these goodies given by the West (Israel is more than anyone). Now they must dance to the West’s tune, or these goodies can be pulled if they act out. (4) Depending on the location of the democracy, if it’s anywhere near Europe the goal is eventually to accept the country into the E.U., and turn over its territorial integrity to the rulers in Brussels. (5) The eventual goal is the recreation of the tower of Babel, with this process spread worldwide.

Is it any surprise Barack Obama wants to triple foreign aid?

Anyway, the problem I have with the West isn’t its tactics, which is just a much, much better version of what other countries do, but its unsustainable and ultimately suicidal nature—namely, immigration into the West, vastly increased internal violence, and an utterly horrendous foreign policy with relation to its non-independent enemies (basically most Islamic countries, North Korea, Syria).

Going back to Russia. I like Russia because they’re resisting Western imperialism, which is suicidal and self-destructive, in a generally sane and positive way. Russia has about a thousand different ethnicities, and the West’s prescription for it—democracy—well, you saw what happened to it in the 90s. Democracy in Russia would destroy and disband the country and it would be absorbed eventually into the ever-expanding E.U., with its sovereignty given to Brussels. I don’t want that, and neither do the sane people in Russia.

So Russia sees the West creeping eastward, its former countries joining NATO and providing missile shields (Poland would have agreed to it eventually anyway) and seceding (Kosovo) and even attacking what’s basically Russian territory (South Ossetia), and it’s worried. Really worried. They’re thinking in terms of the Cold War dynamic, West vs. East, so that’s probably the main reason they’re supplying arms to Syria and Iran, to counteract the Western pull in the Middle East. That perspective is unfortunately wrong, dead wrong, as Iran doesn’t care about mutually assured destruction—which is, of course, the core tenant of the Cold War. This will lead eventually to a huge and possibly nuclear war. And it doesn’t have to happen! If the West was smart, it would sign an agreement with Russia to back off in Eastern Europe in return for Russia backing off in the Middle East. That would be a sane and very, very important move, and it’s not even on the table.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 16, 2008 05:20 PM | Send