| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia | |
| Cross us and we will crush you, warns Medvedev | |
| 2008-08-18 | |
| President Dimitry Medvedev delivered his most hawkish statement yet in the current Georgian crisis today when he warned that any further aggression against Russian citizens would prompt a "crushing response". This includes, one guesses, the ethnic Russians who have been recently issued Russian passports - in Ukraine and the Baltic republics. Expect Sudeten-like riots in the near future in the "near abroad". Those passports are weapons.
His statement came as Russia appeared to be dragging its heels in withdrawing its troops from Georgia amid growing international demands that it implements a ceasefire deal signed last week. "If anyone thinks that they can kill our citizens and escape unpunished, we will never allow this. If anyone tries this again, we will come out with a crushing response," Mr Medvedev said, according to Reuters. "We have all the necessary resources, political, economic and military. If anyone had any illusions about this, they have to abandon them." Ok, liberalhawk - this is the use of hard power. Tony Halpin, a Times correspondent, said that Russian troops were still manning checkpoints on the road from Tbilisi to the strategic town of Gori near the border with the disputed enclave of South Ossetia, where the conflict erupted 10 days ago. I wonder if that agreement includes the Chechen mercs and the S.O. paramilitaries? The Russkies appear to be on the same departure schedule as the Soviets' when the Sovs evacuated northern Persia after WWII. Mr Medvedev's statement will be seen as a warning not just to Georgia against any further military action in South Ossetia or breakaway Abkhazia but other former Soviet republics including the Baltic states, which have large and restive Russian minorities. Mr Medvedev, facing his first international crisis since taking over the Kremlin's top job in May from Vladimir Putin, said that Russia did not want to spoil relations with anyone but demanded respect. "We do not want a deterioration of international relations, we want to be respected. We want our people, our values to be respected," he said. "We have always been a peace-loving state. Practically there is not a single occasion in the history of the Russian or Soviet state when we first started military actions. We have not attacked anyone, we only secured the rights and dignity of people as peacekeepers." Oh boy. "Russian or Soviet"? And he's supposed to be the "nice guy". | |
| Posted by:mrp |
| #11 There are two other factors here that I haven't heard mentioned. 1) Love him or hate him, W is a lame duck and will be out of office soon. I wouldn't doubt that they are hoping for Obama, who will be very easy for a former KGB guy to push around. 2) The Russians believe, and may be accurate on this point to an extent, that they have the EU by the balls wrt energy policy. They provide a substantial portion of their supply, and don't think they won't threaten to use it. You bet your sweet bippy that they think we'll back off if/when they put the screws to Europe (especially if this winter is a cold one). I remember one statement from my Soviet Military History course....the greatest general the Russians ever had was General Winter. The winter stalled Napoleon, it stalled Hitler, and if the Euros are freezing their asses off, they'll do whatever they have to in order to keep the heat on. Pray for a relatively warm winter in Europe, everybody. I'm dead serious. |
| Posted by: Swamp Blondie in the Cornfields 2008-08-18 23:57 |
| #10 First too broad - willingness to use it, from the perspective of a rational power wielder, is NOT based on his own "morale" - it is based on his weighing of the costs and benefits, the means and ends. History is replete with stories of very bad, highly-motivated, politically-adept men doing terrible things to their neighbors. Without morale - the utter self-confidence in one's own judgment and motives, a leader dissipates the power he holds. Napoleon is alleged to have said "When you set out on taking Vienna, take Vienna!". Ditherers and bean-counters make poor warlords. National leaders on the international stage must compete with the adversaries they have, not with the adversaries they want. Keegan's book The Mask of Command is required reading on this subject. as for there being hard power options in Georgia, well sure, we also have hard power options in Burma, say, to overthrow the regime by force of arms, or to threaten to nuke china unless they do. Options that are so unbalanced in costs and benefits arent worth discussion, and thats what I meant by 'no hard power options" No realistic hard power options. Nice dodge. First, Georgia is a friend of the United States; it has sent troops to Iraq at the request of the United States; most of its army has been trained and equipped by us. Georgia borders Russia and Turkey (a NATO ally). A portion of a US-backed pipeline that extends from the Caspian Sea to the coast of Turkey runs through Georgia. And Georgia has a port on the Black Sea. None of that pertains to Burma. Or to China. We also have more than 120 US military advisers in Georgia. The number of US military advisers in Burma? Zero. Any number of military options are available to the US, including overflights of Georgian territory by US tactical aircraft, and US naval forces deployed to Georgian territorial waters. |
| Posted by: mrp 2008-08-18 19:19 |
| #9 the Kremlin duumvirate *sigh* The Times reporters write like the New York Times staff think they do. I believe it was Britain that kept the Soviets out of Persia. Then they divided their Near East into new countries and put new kings in charge of them. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-08-18 19:03 |
| #8 If I were Bush, I'd be sending some naval assets to the Baltic. If I were Putin and knew those assets were already committed elsewhere, I'd take advantage of the situation. If I were Dinnerjacket, I'd try to act and sound like one of the big boys. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-08-18 18:20 |
| #7 Soft power without hard power is flaccid. Hard power without soft power is thuggery. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2008-08-18 17:15 |
| #6 I alluded to the Soviet withdrawal from Iran in 1946. It wasn't the military power of Persia that persuaded Stalin to evacuate that country's oil fields. We failed to remove them from Poland, and arguably at the time eastern europe wasnt much less important economically than persia. The difference was strategic and logistical acccess. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2008-08-18 17:00 |
| #5 So what is Russia's perception of the current state of NATO and the willingness of its members to enforce the charter's objectives? Will that evaluation also include the current defense spending (as a percentage of GDP) of each member? Will it include the inevitable conflict of interests between EU, NATO, and national objectives? Personally, I find the terms "hard power" and "soft power" as discrete components useless. Effective national diplomacy is based on security interests and the use of power (the perceived aggregate of economic/military assets, and morale) needed to protect them. I think you are being both too narrow, and too broad. First too broad - willingness to use it, from the perspective of a rational power wielder, is NOT based on his own "morale" - it is based on his weighing of the costs and benefits, the means and ends. Whether in a democratic polity the objections of the electorate to the cost-benefit calculation of a given policy maker should be considered a weakness, or a disagreement, is complex. I will accept however that broadly the morale of the populace is AN element of power. I would suggest as well that there are elements of power in addition to the tangibles of military and economic. There is the relative willingness of other powers to marshal their own tangible power in support of or in opposition to your wishes, above and beyond their own immediate goals. EG UKs willingness to support the US in doing things the UK otherwise doesnt particularly like, out of a desire to maintain the long term relationship. I would call this diplomatic power. It also operates at a couple of removes - Ghana, say, might participate in sanctions on Iran, cause it not only wants to stay on the good side of the US, but on the good side of states like the UK that want to stay on the good side of the US. And this power is perishable - either from being too weak, or being too aggressive, but mainly being too arbitrary, reckless and unpredictable. I will do as you want for a reward (short term or long term), or out of fear of punishment, but not if your punishments are given out without regard to my behavior. And there is the element of sympathy from the populace of other countries, whether its support for tangible measure by their govts, or support for intangible measures, etc in support of or opposition to mine. I would call that hearts and minds. Two weeks ago a bare majority of Poles opposed the missile defense system, and that constrained the govt to some degree. I think its clear that has changed today. I realize that international relations are distinct from counterinsurgency, but I think the mix of uses of power is still illustrative. I would also suggest that international relations cannot be seperated from the events in Iraq - both in the nature of Iran as a negative player needing to be blocked, and the Sunni neighbors as potential helpers needing to be enticed back into involvement by better treatment of Sunnis, which in turn led to greater Sunni confidence, in a potentiall virtuous cycle. as for there being hard power options in Georgia, well sure, we also have hard power options in Burma, say, to overthrow the regime by force of arms, or to threaten to nuke china unless they do. Options that are so unbalanced in costs and benefits arent worth discussion, and thats what I meant by 'no hard power options" No realistic hard power options. I dont personally think that if our morale was better we'd be sending ground troops to Georgia. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2008-08-18 16:58 |
| #4 Let's be specific... "Soft Power" and "Hard Power" as tools of a nation-state's foreign policy. Not as means used in a counter-insurgency campaign within a nation-state (i.e., Iraq). You state: Soft power is a complement and supplement to hard power, NOT a substitute for it. "Power" on an international scale is not only a compilation of tangible assets, it is also dependent on the morale of the actors - their willingness to execute policy to the extent necessary to achieve their objectives. If we accept that "War is merely a continuation of politics", as Clausewitz puts it, we must also address the matter of perception. The Russians, if nothing else, are cold-blooded realists. They know to the last dollar, euro, yuan, and yen how much their adversaries are spending on their national defenses. They carefully study the character of each country's leadership, its security interests, and its ability and willingness to defend those interests. So what is Russia's perception of the current state of NATO and the willingness of its members to enforce the charter's objectives? Will that evaluation also include the current defense spending (as a percentage of GDP) of each member? Will it include the inevitable conflict of interests between EU, NATO, and national objectives? Personally, I find the terms "hard power" and "soft power" as discrete components useless. Effective national diplomacy is based on security interests and the use of power (the perceived aggregate of economic/military assets, and morale) needed to protect them. Clearly in Georgia where we lack hard power, and the only real hard power that could be used against Russia is a guerilla war that the Georgians seem reluctant to launch as along as theres a chance the Russians will leave soon, soft power is weakened, due to the inability to leverage hard power. I disagree. The US has the ability to project overwhelming military power anywhere on the globe, including Georgia. Whether we do so or not depends on our national security interest(s) in the area and the price in blood and treasure we are willing to spend to defend them. I alluded to the Soviet withdrawal from Iran in 1946. It wasn't the military power of Persia that persuaded Stalin to evacuate that country's oil fields. |
| Posted by: mrp 2008-08-18 13:15 |
| #3 I stand with liberalhawk. He may be a damn liberal, but hawk he is! If every liberal was as half a hawk, we'd have nothing to worry about. |
| Posted by: Spike Uniter 2008-08-18 12:22 |
| #2 "We have all the necessary resources, political, economic and military. If anyone had any illusions about this, they have to abandon them." Ok, liberalhawk - this is the use of hard power. anyone who has followed my participation here over the years knows I recognize that hard power can be quite useful. Soft power is a complement and supplement to hard power, NOT a substitute for it. Also you seem to include political and economic as hard power. If you mean hard power is purely military, than I guess you think Moscow hasnt been pressuring the Ukrainians and Baltics till now, since they havent sent tanks in. Ultimately the power to coerce is based on tangible physical realities, either military or economic (the relation of military and economic is complex, as you need economic strength to support a military, but you can sometimes seize economic resources using the military) Diplomatic and hearts/minds strategies work by IMPACTING the economic and military situation, either locally or in related or even unrelated areas. For ex, in the last '70s the USSRS behavior in SE asia and elsewhere pissed off China - which led to Chinese support for guerilla wars against the USSR and its allies - wars that were ineffective in SE asia itself, but proved more important in Afghanistan. Look at someplace where we are winning - Iraq. Things are going much better because of a deft interweaving of hard and soft power, with each one reinforcing the other. Clearly in Georgia where we lack hard power, and the only real hard power that could be used against Russia is a guerilla war that the Georgians seem reluctant to launch as along as theres a chance the Russians will leave soon, soft power is weakened, due to the inability to leverage hard power. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2008-08-18 12:08 |
| #1 Nice guy? He's Putin's disposable thug. If he over-reaches and things go badly, Putin can have him air-brushed out of the picture. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2008-08-18 11:52 |