The problems are that Russia is clearly operating with a Soviet mindset - that they can do whatever they like in areas adjacent to them, without fear of reprisal. To some extent this may always be true, but as Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice says, "It's not 1968," meaning this action will not be without response.
But what response? And by whom? And what if this had happened under an Obama or McCain presidency?
From his responses (which deal only in generalities rather than specifics of what should be done), Obama clearly would look to the UN for relief. But what can the United Nations do? Russia is a voting member of the Security Council. Which means that in order for the UN to place sanctions on Russia, Russia themselves would have to support it. I don't think Obama is stupid, but he seems to have no idea how the UN works. Not good for a presidential hopeful.
McCain, on the other hand, offered a quick and direct response: Use international pressure, but economic; throw Russia out of the World Trade Organization, and push them from the G8 talks. Isolate them economically. That can definitely work; Reagan brought down the Soviet Union using such tactics.
There is a military component, however, which is far more imposing. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was formed in 1949 specifically to counter Soviet aggression. This is from the preable in the NATO treaty:
The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.
They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.
When the USSR collapsed, NATO looked to revise its mission, but stayed together as something of a military arm to act in concert with the UN, and also to respond to acts of aggression against its 26 member nations.
Fearing exactly what has happened by the Russians, Georgia wants to be in NATO, and the Ukraine, also a former Soviet satellite, had been making noise that it, too, wants to become a NATO member. Russia will not tolerate this. Ukraine is the breadbasket for the region, but even more important to Russia, the bulk of the old Soviet missiles are located in the Ukraine. Should Ukraine manage to be inducted into NATO, expect a punitive and conquering operation there from Russia. However, if Russia attacks a NATO member, it will elicit a military response from all NATO members. Messy, yes. And huge. And if you recall the start of World War 1, Russia's antics and the alliances on the other side have the potential to initiate the same sort of deal.
Further, Russia has a history of testing new international leaders. Kennedy was confronted with the installation of Soviet missiles 90 miles from our coast, simply because the Soviet leader, Khrushchev, deemed Kennedy to be weak. Well Obama is no Kennedy, and no one would argue that international affairs is Obama's strong suit. Advantage, Russia
The US is a NATO member, which pulls us into any fight directly, and requires us to have a leader who is very much on the ball in international affairs right from the get-go. So if it's Obama's phone ringing at 3AM, with NATO on the other end, expect Russia to have pulled something militarily that requires us to respond. And then we're in a shooting war with one of the largest countries in the world, with a Commander-in-Chief who has not served even a single full term as Senator.
McCain looks like a better bet to get that phone call if we want a peaceful outcome. If for no other reason, he's a better deterrent to Russian aggression; they know he'll fight. But more importantly, McCain has a clear understanding of the history of the Soviets. And if choosing between the two candidates, McCain is the better choice to reinstate a policy of containment, used against the Soviets right after World war 2. Therefore, right wing though he may be, McCain is actually the better candidate for peace, to keep us out of a shooting altercation. Memory of history is a powerful thing.
If we end up fighting, it will probably be because Obama will stumble his way stupidly into it, much as Clinton did with his various military forays. But with McCain as Commander-in-Chief, at least I think we'll win.
FOXNews.com - Russia Invasion of Georgia Sparks New Cold War Rhetoric - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum
No comments:
Post a Comment