| Submit your comments on this article |
| Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia |
| Let's not start World War III |
| 2008-08-18 |
| By Mike Jackson When the Cold War ended, there was a great sense of euphoria in the West and in the non-Russian republics of the Soviet Union. The nuclear sword of Damocles had been lifted, democracy had prevailed, peace dividends could be taken. The non-Russian republics of the erstwhile union seized the opportunity to obtain their independence from Russia: the political map of eastern Europe, the Baltic, central Asia and - particularly - the Caucasus changed radically. The end of the Cold War exposed the futility and pretence of the ideology which had underpinned the Soviet Empire - and also the falsity and pretence of the allegedly unified political construct that was the Soviet Union. In the West, there was an element of triumphalism, which could only have caused resentment in Russia. Inevitably, the euphoria in the West was not shared by Russia itself, which then went through a difficult and uncertain transition from Communist authoritarianism to a fledgling democracy and market economy - against a background of a sense of humiliation, loss and having been worsted. Was the West as generous towards its former opponent as it might have been? I believe more could have been done to welcome the new Russia into the international fold, to reassure Russia that it still maintained its very important standing as a permanent member of the Security Council and as a major actor on the world stage. The break-up of the Soviet Union was anything but a simple matter - not least because large numbers of Russian nationals had made their homes and livelihoods in the old constituent republics of the Union. When their boundaries became the borders of new sovereign states, the Russian nationals overnight found themselves minorities in a foreign country - a situation to which Moscow is extremely sensitive. These Russian minorities are but one dimension of the Russian perception that what it calls the "Near Abroad" - the countries bordering Russia - are strategically vital to its security. Moscow does not forget the searing experiences of being invaded over centuries through the Near Abroad. The outcome is grave Russian concern that many of these Near Abroad countries have become, or wish to become, members of Nato and the EU. Rightly or wrongly, Russia sees this as a zero-sum game: Putin has criticised Western leaders for being still locked into a Cold War mentality, but the reverse also seems to be true - at least in part. The post-Cold War history of the Balkans and the break-up of Yugoslavia have a lot to do with these perceptions and attitudes. Nato took military action, over Kosovo for example, against Slobodan Milosevic's Serbian regime without the authority of a UN Security Council resolution, in Russian eyes riding roughshod over Russian concerns for its Slav and Orthodox links with the Serbs. Nato relied for its justification on the emerging doctrine in international law that the prevention of humanitarian disaster - of ethnic cleansing - being perpetrated by a government on its own people can be more important than sovereignty itself. Whether we like it or not, this is precisely the justification advanced by Moscow for its intervention in Georgia. The unscripted arrival of a relatively small Russian force at Pristina airport just before KFOR's advance into Kosovo in June 1999 was fundamentally a political act rather than a military one. In my judgment it was not an act designed to threaten KFOR, but rather to provide a political signal to the West that Russia should not be ignored, but be taken fully into account as a major power. This was the essence of my disagreement with General Wesley Clark, then Nato's supreme allied commander. He seemed to see the drama in Cold War terms, which was not my perspective. In the event, we were rapidly able to defuse the situation on the ground by treating the Russian contingent as part of KFOR - which was always the original intention. The politics of it seemed to me to be particularly important when it is remembered that only a few days before it had been Viktor Chernomyrdin, the former prime minister of Russia and Moscow's special envoy to Belgrade, who - together with president of Finland Martti Ahtisaari - made it clear to Milosevic that the game was up. Georgia is a sovereign democratic state that, like many others, gained its independence in the aftermath of the Soviet Union's collapse. Strongly supported by the West, it aspires to Nato and EU membership. It also has to contend with two regions - Abkhazia and South Ossetia, both with Russian minorities - that did not, and do not, wish to be part of Georgia. South Ossetia, in particular, has an independence movement not averse to the use of illegal violence; it is worth bearing in mind that by agreement with Georgia, Russia had deployed so-called peace-keeping forces in south Ossetia long before the current crisis. Did Russia encourage the South Ossetian rebels to provoke the recent Georgian military action, thereby providing Russia with a casus belli? Did Georgian forces use excessive force in South Ossetia? Did Georgia wrongly calculate that in the face of Western support for Georgia, Russia would not react? I do not know the answers, but I am clear that the problems arising from minority enclaves in such circumstances are fundamentally political, rather than purely military. I write not to excuse the Russian actions and behaviour, but rather to explain them. For the West, the challenge is to find the right answer to Lenin's question: "What is to be done?" Putin is determined to rebuild Russia's stature, and he is being much helped in this by the surge in energy prices. There is also evidence that after a decade and more of decline, the Russian armed forces are starting to rebuild and modernise. For me, the right course for the West - without compromising its own position and values - is to show a greater understanding of why Russia behaves as it does, to accept more willingly Russia's concerns for its Near Abroad. While there are actions that we cannot condone, Russian perceptions exist and will take time to change. This is the challenge for politicians and diplomats: strategic military hostility and confrontation must remain a thing of the past. Sir Mike Jackson served as Chief of the General Staff |
| Posted by:john frum |
| #25 How sweet! And smart too. Managed to post DNS info all by himself. How proud your family must be! |
| Posted by: badanov 2008-08-18 23:50 |
| #24 as in "g man" what a waste of flesh and blood. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2008-08-18 23:46 |
| #23 #21 Mmmm... serving Saudis! Saud to taste? Posted by: Darrell yuuuuck. You ever tried to clean one? /old cannibal joke |
| Posted by: Frank G 2008-08-18 22:15 |
| #22 World War 3 will be... A perfect argument against posting-under-the-influence. |
| Posted by: Mothers Against Drunk Commenters 2008-08-18 21:48 |
| #21 Mmmm... serving Saudis! Saud to taste? |
| Posted by: Darrell 2008-08-18 21:38 |
| #20 World War 3 will be Saudi Arabia + the Bush Crime Family Versus USA Wasting the people's money on worthless wars. Serving the saudis in the white house |
| Posted by: Clorong Untervehr8872 2008-08-18 21:36 |
| #19 Again, IMO Russia may covertly be using their conflict wid Georgia as PDeniable cover to contain/isolate NUCLEARIZING IRAN = RADICAL ISLAM [States + Militants-Terror Groups] IN ITS CENTER, + AMBITIOUS OVERPOPULATED NUKE-ARMED CHINA ON ITS FAR EAST. BOTH THE MUSLIM WORLD + CHINA HAVE HIGH BIRTH = POPUL GROWTH RATES, WHILE RUSSIA IS DEMOGRAPHICALLY DYING = GETTING OLDER. * KOMMERSANT/OTHER > IIRC by 2020, FOR EVERY 1000 RUSSIANS OVER 800-plus OF THESE WILL BE POST-MIDDLE-AGED IFF NOT QUALIFIED SENIOR CITIZENS, + NON-WORKING RETIRED OR ABOUT TO RETIRE. Russia > Population forecasted to shrink down to 135Milyuhn, + be a mostly GERIATRIC SOCIETY IN HIGH DEMAND FOR GOVT-BASED PUBLIC/ELDER ASSISTANCE. IOW, RUSSIA > A NUKE-ARMED, GIANT "FLORIDA" = RETIREMENT COMUNITY-HOME, surrounded by YOUNG, ALSO NUKE-ARMED, MUSLIM/CHINESE-ASIAN HIPPIE YIPPIES OR "BOYZ IN THE HOOD", ETC.??? It would not be the first time TSARIST RUSSIA nor post-IMPERIAL/ROMANOV COMMIE USSR USED MIL AGGRESSION AS A COVER FOR LT OR PERCEIEVD STRATEGIC WEAKNESS. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2008-08-18 20:42 |
| #18 AlanC, you're right, i missed that last sentence. My point stands but you are right in saying he seeks appeasement. It does sound that way to some extant. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-08-18 19:22 |
| #17 If the West is serious about containing Russia, what they need to do is cut back on imports of Russian natural gas. |
| Posted by: Woozle Unusosing8053 2008-08-18 19:01 |
| #16 Since, by most reckoning, we're currently in the middle of WWIV, he seems a bit behind the times. |
| Posted by: Elmamble Darling of the Veal Cutlets5711 2008-08-18 18:00 |
| #15 Gosh, I feel so bad for poor, poor put-upon Russia. Honest. There could even be tears... |
| Posted by: mojo 2008-08-18 15:56 |
| #14 I think he's saying that Mexico should not invade Southern California until all diplomatic efforts have failed. Telegraphing that concept is not a good idea as Foreign Secretary Arthur Zimmermann once found out in the end. One way to get America involved in a World War by a dying empire. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-08-18 15:45 |
| #13 An excellent demonstration of why Britain is struggling to be a second rate power. Jackson may not be representative of the average Brit, but he is representative of the British establishment. And he can do a mean moonwalk. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-08-18 15:31 |
| #12 Everyone is worried about upsetting Russia and starting WWIII. There are 3 nuclear weapons states in NATO, in addition, Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey all host nuclear weapons on their territory. I say contain russia. If they don't like it, tough squat. They are a broken empire that is rapidly slipping into oblivion despite their newfound petro dollars witch have a minimally distributive effect on its economy. |
| Posted by: Crolurong Turkeyneck5459 2008-08-18 14:49 |
| #11 "the problems arising from minority enclaves in such circumstances are fundamentally political, rather than purely military." I think he's saying that Mexico should not invade Southern California until all diplomatic efforts have failed. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2008-08-18 14:39 |
| #10 "For me, the right course for the West ... is to show a greater understanding of why Russia behaves as it does, to accept more willingly Russia's concerns for its Really, Neville? Color me not surprised. >:-( |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2008-08-18 14:16 |
| #9 Several of you are missing the last half of that sentence. "...to accept more willingly Russia's concerns for its Near Abroad." I'm all for understanding even though I think that it is over-rated. It's the willing acceptance that's indicates the appeaser mind set. There really isn't all that much to understand in foreign relations like this anyway. It is trivial to identify who did what to whom and when. All you need to understand is the desire for power; greed by another name. While understaning may help with tactics it doesn't do much for strategy cause when all is said and done it is the actions that must be dealt with not the psychology of the performers. What they want is important; why they want it? Not so much. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2008-08-18 13:48 |
| #8 We don't need to start the next world war. Plenty of others are chaffing at the bit. |
| Posted by: Richard of Oregon 2008-08-18 12:53 |
| #7 I think it was the Instapundit that said this: the best way to refute the Russian apologists is to let them have their say. Their arguments are self-refuting. |
| Posted by: Mike 2008-08-18 12:24 |
| #6 His point was that in the past we may have prevented the present (certainly almost always true to one degree or another). I dont see how by going even softer than we have, we could have prevented this. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2008-08-18 12:14 |
| #5 AKA appease them. What is it with the Brits that their first response is appeasement? Is this something they teach over there? No the Brits are pissed as hell at Russia, more than anyone else in old Europe. Its just a selection bias in the columns being posted here. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2008-08-18 12:13 |
| #4 AlanC, if you understand why a player does things you then have foreknowledge of when they may do things in the future. It does not always mean appeasement. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-08-18 12:09 |
| #3 His point was that in the past we may have prevented the present (certainly almost always true to one degree or another). And understanding one's opponent is a surer path to victory than force of arms alone. Without a doubt Russia's current actions can not be condoned, and our actions must make that fact clear. However, without understanding our old adversary we are doomed to an escalation without a winner. I grew up during the Cold War, I remember the "Duck and Cover" drills when they were "live" in the public schools, and I have have no desire to return to that mentality. Azerbaijan(sp?) boarders Iran. And the way Iran is heading we wll be at war with them very soon (as in between 2 Nov 08 and 21 Jan 09). Russia already leans far towards supporting Iran, I consider their actions in Georgia possibly as clearing a path to support Iran. So where does that leave us? |
| Posted by: DLR 2008-08-18 12:08 |
| #2 Even wife batterers have friends. |
| Posted by: Perfesser 2008-08-18 11:22 |
| #1 "... is to show a greater understanding of why Russia behaves as it does, to accept more willingly Russia's concerns for its Near Abroad." AKA appease them. What is it with the Brits that their first response is appeasement? Is this something they teach over there? Understanding is fine but ultimately pointless. It is actions that have to be dealt with. Okay poor old Russia has these mental problems so we have to understand why they invaded the Ukraine again. But what do we do about it? |
| Posted by: AlanC 2008-08-18 10:51 |