| 03.08.2008 |
|
||||||||
| A few months back, I wrote about the fact that Russia doesn't really play a role in the U.S. presidential election campaign. Nothing much has changed since then. Interestingly enough, despite soaring energy prices, the question of how to frame future relations with the world's largest gas and second largest oil exporter is pretty much absent from the presidential race. Probably Paul J. Saunders and Brooke Leonard regret the omission of Russia as a campaign topic as much as anybody else. Why? Because in an article for The National Interest, a foreign policy publication with a realist bent, they argue that both Barack Obama and John McCain have an overly simplistic and unrealistic perception of Russia. As an example of how Obama is wrong on Russia, Saunders points to the Democratic candidate's take on the tensions between Russia and Georgia. Saunders agrees with Obama that only a political settlement can end the conflicts in the region. But he calls the rest of the Obama campaign's statement on the issue "a confused combination of superficial and misleading analysis with unrealistic goals, framed by tired liberal sloganeering." Saunders especially takes issue with Obama's characterization of Georgia. According to Saunders, Obama in his statement implies that Georgia is a "helpless victim of someone else's war plans. On the contrary, on several occasions it has been precisely Tbilisi that has threatened armed reintegration of the two territories (and likewise intimidated leaders of another renegade province, Adjara, in 2004)." Saunders also criticizes Obama for his repetition of "tired liberal calls for the 'international community” to become 'more active.'" He asks: "But what is the 'international community' and why should it be unduly concerned about events in Georgia?" Saunders answers his own question by saying that aside from Georgia's neighbors and possibly the EU, no other countries have a reason to get involved. Finally Saunders calls Obama's reasoning that Russia can't be a mediator in the conflicts over Abkhazia and South Ossetia because it is part of the problem naive. Saunders points to the Middle East where the U.S. is a mediator and also an ally of one of the parties namely Israel. And by eliminating Russia as a meditator, Saunders asks, "does he think that any settlement could work without Moscow? This weak analysis betrays the senator’s lack of international experience — and poor advice from his foreign-policy team." Saunders advice for Obama: Temper your hope and your calls for change with a big dose of reality. John McCain, the perceived foreign policy expert, doesn't fare any better in his knowledge and analysis of Russia according to Saunders's colleague Brooke Leonard. To prove this point, Leonard looks at some recent statements McCain made about Russia. McCain's most famous remark on Russia is perhaps his threat to throw the country out of the G8. That, writes Leonard, is an idle threat that no other country supports and Russia doesn't take seriously. Leonard also takes issue with the Republican candidate's statement that Russia is blocking action against Iran in the UN Security Council: "Russia’s record on Iran in the UN Security Council is far more complex than McCain suggests. Moscow has blocked some measures against its longtime partner, but has supported others. The Russians clearly do not want to see a nuclear-armed Iran, and have taken a variety of steps to negotiate with the Iranians outside of the Security Council as well." Finally, Leonard thinks McCain gets the leadership situation in Russia wrong by stating that he is confident that former president Vladimir Putin is still in charge. According to Leonard, most Russia experts agree that some sort of powersharing agreement exists between President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin. McCain, however, sounds quite certain that he knows something that even the Russians themselves do not, quipps Leonard. So what's Leonard's overall assessment of John McCain's expertise on Russia? "His overly simplistic answers seem to show, in the words of the Senator himself, 'a fundamental lack of understanding.'" While the Saunders and Leonard bash Obama and McCain for what the authors think are unrealistic perceptions of Russia, unfortunately, they don't tell us, which of the two candidates they view as the lesser evil concerning Russia. I guess, they want to leave that up to the readers and voters. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 4 Comments |
| I totally agree with this article. Both Obama and McCain haven't got a clue about the Caucasus. But then again they should favor Georgia because it is the US that put the Georgian President there. In the last election Mikahail Shakashvili lost terrible because he fails to do something about the poor economics in his country and focusses to much on buying military equipment from the US. But by the magic that is the US Shakashvili is still in office. Georgia plays the international games better then Russia. Russia has always been the bad guy in the west, thanks to US brainwashing. And Georgia keeps that alive by recently shelling their own Georgian villages. And then leading journalist around there claiming that South Ossetia with the help from Russia has shelled those villages. While we all know Russia hasn't lifted a finger yet and even demands South Ossetia to wait with military actions as long as Georgian troops are still outside the South Ossetian border. Lets see what Russia, South Ossetia, Georgia and the US come up with in their meeting tomorrow. I can only hope that Abkhazia and South-Ossetia ar going to be freed from the Georgian fascist regime. |
||
| Seraphiel | Homepage | E-Mail | 06.08.2008, 15:19 | ||
| Russia is a vibrant democracy with some 70% popuolar support for the policies of its prime minister and president, and very high degree of voter and citizenry participation in the nation's affairs. Unfortunately (or fortunately for Russia) it is not a US puppet. Hence it is declared not a democracy or not fully a democracy as that would really matter. For American establishment democracy is a religion (never mind that US is not a democracy) and Washington is this religion's self-declared Vatican and Mecca rolled in one. Were Russia not a democracy (and unlike US it is one) that would not change anything a bit for democracy is not a religion, it is just one of forms of government, and least perfect one (that's why US junta doesn't practice it). Georgia on the other hand is a corrupt militarized regime created by America, the spiritual heir to the Third Reich, to provoke Russia. Eventually I am confident Russia will regain its territory and also squash most obnoxious American puppets on its periphery. Such as the artificial statelet of so-called Georgia. The peace in Europe would only be possible after America is kicked out from the Continent, NATO (American Trojan horse) dissolved and US itself experiences catastrophic military defeat combined with economic collapse. Which I think is going to happen sooner rather than later. | ||
| roobit | Homepage | E-Mail | 04.08.2008, 16:22 | ||
| noone in their right mind can claim that Georgia is "more democratic" than Russia, or vice versa. Both are fragile regimes that suppress the opposition very vigorously, Georgia with active support from the West, and Russia despite Western opposition. As far as flyovers, Georgia continuously violates the peace agreements with their own flyovers of unmanned drones, just as Russia does with their jets. This is a complex situation with centuries long history, that will be reduced to a talking-point style analysis just for US elections. Such is the problem with US-style "democracy", everything has to be dumbed down so that a baby or a senile old man can understand it... |
||
| Richard | Homepage | E-Mail | 04.08.2008, 01:32 | ||
| Well, there are no questions that Georgia's democracy is fragile, however,no one can say that it is undemocratic especially if compared to Russia. When it comes to aggression, Tbilisi reaffirmed its support of peaceful resolution many times,however,they also said they should be able to defend themselves in case of an attack.On the other hand Russia acted very aggresively and recently violated Georgian airspace with 4 fighterjets for 40 minutes. And this is not the first time. The most amazing thing about this accident is that this time they did not even deny. They probably felt confident:"if we got away with things we did before, we can get away with this." http://civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=18748 What does western Europe do ? nothing just being ignorant for the sake of seemingly good relations with emerging Russia. |
||
| David A/ | Homepage | E-Mail | 03.08.2008, 15:40 | ||