"Poland, by deploying (the system) is exposing itself to a strike — 100 percent," Nogovitsyn, the deputy chief of staff, was quoted as saying. He added, in clear reference to the agreement, that Russia's military doctrine sanctions the use of nuclear weapons "against the allies of countries having nuclear weapons if they in some way help them." Nogovitsyn that would include elements of strategic deterrence systems, he said, according to Interfax.
You can click on the title of this blog to be taken to the full AP story on General Anatoly Nogovitsyn. The "system" he's referring to is the missile defense system, including Patriot missiles, that Poland has been after us to place in their country for eighteen months. As part of that agreement, the United States and Poland have also agreed that an attack on one will be considered an attack on the other.
"Russia's ambassador to Latvia Monday warned the Baltic states and Poland that they would pay for their criticism of the Kremlin over the conflict in Georgia, the Baltic news agency BNS reported."
Here's the link to that story:
http://www.topix.com/world/latvia/2008/08/russia-warns-baltics-poland-to-pay-for-georgia-stance-report
There are those in this country who think that we are enthusiastically beating the drums as a prelude to WW III, and that the dreaded "military-industrial-complex" is behind all of this. After reading the statements by the General and the Ambassador from Russia, you'd have to question the reading and comprehension capabilities of those who are already convinced that America is to blame.
The paranoia of the Russian state is a matter of history, and that has driven their political calculations for centuries. Even when we offer to allow their scientists and military personnel to participate in the development of the missile defense system, they reject it out of hand and continue on their xenophobic way.
We are at a very dangerous point in history right now. If we fail to stand up for the Eastern European democracies, it will signal the start of a new "Dark Ages" for those countries that once again fall under the Russian yoke. It will also signal to the world, especially Muslim extremists, that we aren't as willing to die for freedom as they are to die for tyranny. That's not the kind of message we should be sending.
Thus far we've employed diplomacy to try and mollify the Russian, and that is absolutely the right course to pursue. Over the next couple of weeks, unless somebody does something really stupid, we should see the situation simmer down a bit. Eventually Georgia will end up giving up some of it's territory in exchange for promises of no more military incursions by Russia. All of the Baltic States, The Czech Republic and Ukraine will be granted NATO admittance if they so desire, and the stage will be set for the next incident.
Vladimir Putin is a very dangerous individual. To deny that is to invite disaster. President Bush may have thought he looked into the man's soul, but I suspect the eyes of the ex-KGB chief are not the road to his soul. The old saw "actions speak louder than words" is quite appropriate in this instance. I, for one, am not ready to trust Putin.
If we can get an international peacekeeping/observation force on the ground in Georgia, hopefully sponsored by the UN (good luck on that one), we can get the parties separated and allow things to cool down.
President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia made a terrible miscalculation when he sent troops into South Ossetia and began bombing the Russian "peacekeepers", a miscalculation that the U.S. had been trying to prevent for the two weeks prior to troop movements. I can understand the justification that some will use: he started the damn thing, now let him finish it. I can understand it, but I don't share that point of view.
This is not about American politics, liberals or conservatives, this is about freedom and the thousands of years it's taken to get this point. If we fail to unite and stand in face of tyranny, then we fail all of those who have given their lives over the centuries to bring freedom to the world. I hope we can achieve this without bloodshed, but that's pretty much in the hands of the Russians at this point.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Nope, can't see any beating of war drums here. Guess I'll go check WorldNetDaily and FreeRepublic.
Oh poppycock.
The drums you hear are only intended to wake you up.
Why do think that just because I suggest we unite with our European allies to stand up to the Russians that I want war? Why would anyone in their right mind want war? The answer is simple - they don't.
Feel free to have fun with "right mind" - I threw you a softball and I expect you to catch it!
With the reactions we're seeing in Europe and around the world to Russia's actions, it would appear that I'm not the only one concerned about what they're doing and what their future intentions might be. There's blame to be assessed on both sides in Georgia, but what about the direct nuclear threat to Poland, and the not so vague threats of retaliation against Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and The Czech Republic?
All I'm suggesting is one of things you fault the President for: acting in conjunction with our allies and not as a "cowboy". If that isn't appropriate, then I await your opinion as to the correct course of action....
Believe it or not, I'm with Pat Buchanan. "Reveling in his status as an intimate of George Bush, Dick Cheney and John McCain, and America's lone democratic ally in the Caucasus, Saakashvili thought he could get away with a lighting coup and present the world with a fait accompli." This was a minor border skirmish that is none of our business. Even though we are sort of encouraging Saakashvilli.
Here's another thing I agree with Pat Buchanan: "Americans have many fine qualities. A capacity to see ourselves as other see us is not high among them."
Man, is that ever true.
“There are those in this country who think that we are enthusiastically beating the drums as a prelude to WW III, and that the dreaded "military-industrial-complex" is behind all of this.”
“The dreaded "military-industrial-complex" boogeyman makes an appearance. Don't you guys ever come up with a new playbook?”
You deny the existence and influence of the Military Industrial Comp;ex?
I put you in the 5th pillar, Watson.
There you go again, making me look stuff up so I know if you're busting them on me or not.
Since the 5th pillar of Islam is the Haj and I'm Roman Catholic, I'm going to guess that was not your intended meaning.
The four pillars of democracy:
1.)Executive
2.)Legislative
3.)Judicial
4.)Press
5.)We the people - we are the heart of the democracy, seeking to eliminate corruption and political shenanigans
For those of you as uninformed as I, the 5th Pillar is a movement in India with the goals noted above.
Now that's all I could find regarding a "5th pillar", so I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong.
PCS I realize that President Eisenhower warned the nation about the M-I-C back in the 50's, thus letting the boogeyman out of the bag. Are there individuals within that "complex" whose only desire is for more wars? Statistically I would say there would have to be a few, but a vast conspiracy to keep us at war as much as possible - I don't believe it.
So I'm naive and you're paranoid, or put more kindly, I see the glass half full and you see it half empty. I do think that having people who are concerned about the M-I-C, such as yourself, is a good thing because you never know what some people are capable of. I just don't see it as a threat that warrants a lot of attention.
I'd love to see the day when the US, France, England, Germany, Russia and Israel are not supplying the rest of the world with the weaponry to wipe each other out, but sadly you and I won't be around when that day, or if that day ever comes around.
Ahah!
If you read my blog you'd know what I am talking about.
http://foilhatsunite.blogspot.com/
Fellow readers I was wrong in my interpretation of "5th Pillar", as least as it was ascribed to me by my friend PCS. I have also been wrong, and for this I humbly apologize, in never having visited PCS's blog before - an error which I have already remedied and will continue to do so. Here's PCS's blog address:
http://foilhatsunite.blogspot.com/
We may harangue and occasionally demonize each other, but for both of us, it is done with respect and friendship. I suspect that if we ever have the opportunity to meet, no pressing matters of national interest will be resolved, but between the beers and the bullshit we'd have a pretty good time.
Thanks for caring my friend - just because your wrong most of the time doesn't mean you're not a great American! (He-he-he)
Lord I am such a moron. For the second time in the last few days I've referred to North Country Liberal as PCS - I beg the pardon of both. The blog site noted above is NCL's. PCS - if you'll send me your blog site I'll list that in "My Blogs" as well. People who stop by can then get a look at both sides of whatever the hell it is we're arguing about on any given day. That is, of course, if my apparent senility does not progress more rapidly.
I'm in an odd position: a progressive who takes Georgia's side in this dispute.
Being on the same side (only nominally!) as the militarists who got us into Iraq is pretty uncomfortable. But it's for different reasons, I promise!
The trouble is the rather obvious fact that the Bush administration has no moral credibility. Even on those rare occasions when they're right on a moral question, no one takes them seriously... mostly out of habit.
When BushCo whines that launching an unprovoked aggression against a foreign country under the fake pretexts of protecting security and human rights with the real objectives of seizing the country's resources and imposing regime change on a defiant government has no place in the 21st century, they're absolutely right.
But they have as much credibility on this issue as Putin, annihilator of Chechnya, does when he complains about the Georgians being a bunch of meanies in a secessionist region of their country.
Bush: Russian aggression against sovereign Georgia, bad. American aggression against sovereign Iraq, good.
Putin: Chechen and Kosovar secessionism, bad. South Ossetian and Abkhazian secessionism, good.
This is the most tragic legacy* of Iraq. Even when the American government takes the right position, no one believes for a second that it's doing so for the right reasons.
(*-that's assuming you ignore, as most Americans do, the hundreds of thousands of dead, millions of refugees, massive destruction and unimaginable humanitarian catastrophe)
Frankly, that's why Europe has lead the charge on this... which is why France's president is the international envoy. The EU still have a little credibility and won't be laughed out of the room when they say “bullying and intimidation" has "no place in the 21st century."
Though frankly, pieces like make it difficult for me to get those on the left to view this issue in a more objective way consistent with progressive values. It should be easy to convince liberal-minded people that all imperialism is bad. But some people have an instinctive revulsion when every bad guy du jour is reflexively compared to Hitler and his regime the most dangerous since the Nazis and that thank God Reagan invaded Grenada or else we'd be speaking Grenadan right now!!! It's hard to engage people when they think you're guilty by association with such silliness.
Thanks for chipping in Brian. I didn't mention Hitler anywhere in the piece - Brian was responding to a smart alec comment I left on PCS's site.
I won't go into the detail again; we'll just have to agree to disagree regarding our image, or more specifically, the President's image around the world. Let's just say I don't see him in the same light that you do, along with millions of other Americans.
I don't believe that supporting a strong military makes me a militarist. I would guess that your definition is akin to the third definition shown at Dictionary.com: "the tendency to regard military efficiency as the supreme ideal of the state and to subordinate all other interests to those of the military." Trust me, my heritage is Irish so I'm more likely to subordinate my military interests to whiskey.
I think the kind of announcement that comes out of the NATO foreign ministers meeting will indicate just how much "moral credibility" and influence this administration has.
Honestly, I haven't read enough of your writings to know if you're a militarist or not. (And the definition you cite more or less works for me)
I don't believe supporting a strong military is akin to militarism. But I also don't believe that just because you have a strong military means you have to use it all the time whenever someone says you're momma wears combat boots.
I know CPR but I hope to God I never have to use it. I wouldn't hestitate to do so in an emergency but I'm not going to start pounding on the chest of anyone who has a tummyache.
I believe military action, risking the lives of young Americans, should always be a last resort when all other options have been exhausted and only when the territorial integrity of the United States is threatened. Not the vague 'national interests' which has always meant US corporate interests abroad... even back to the early days of the republic.
The president, vice-president and many of their supporters believe that military action can be done only after the other options have been given a token try and when diplomacy consists of, "Do what we want now... OR ELSE!"
I think the military should be made stronger by a far more judicious use of it, instead of the willy nilly policy of recent years.
I'm sorry, I think the imperial foreign policy of the last 60 years (no, it didn't start with Bush) has done more than anything else to create all the enemies that we now have. We have a military presence in over half the countries in the world. Its stated objective (stated, at least) was to make us safer. Has it? I think not.
Make the military stronger by returning it to its original purpose of defending American territory. Let multinationals pay for their own militias.
Incidentally, I do support Georgia in this conflict. I've written at least three essays on my own blog explaining why.
I checked out your blog Brian and I agree with almost everything you have to say.
When you suggest that our "imperial foreign policy" started 60 years ago, I cringe. 60 years ago was WWII and if there was anything "imperial" about that war please be sure to point it out to me. What were our imperialistic aims in Korea, Vietnam or any other military action we've been involved in.
Imperialism:
1. the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.
2. advocacy of imperial interests.
3. an imperial system of government.
4. imperial government.
5. British. the policy of so uniting the separate parts of an empire with separate governments as to secure for certain purposes a single state.
Just exactly what countries have conquered and kept within the last 60 years? Every nation on earth will seek to promote their own best interests and protect them as best they can. It's interesting that Newsweek, in their cover story on what Bush got right, cites the fact that diplomatic efforts in the current situation with Russia indicate that he has learned from his mistakes.
I guess my main point is that I don't ascribe imperialistic motives to any of the Presidents over the last 60 years, while recognizing that we most certainly did have those motives prior to that, especially in the 19th Century.
I will be making a habit of checking out your website - we probably won't agree on a lot of things - but that should never be an impediment to respectful discourse.
Post a Comment