The New Cold War?

I agree with this article, but would take it a step further. Why is the U.S. involved in this issue, when it is largely a Europe vs. Russia matter? We should bring all our troops home from around the world over the next 5-10 years, at the same time making an all out push for energy independence. When we no longer need energy from the outside world, we can allow others to solve their own problems, which would actually make us much safer, as the reason for people wanting to kill us is that we are out there interfering in their internal affairs. Would the world be a safer place? No, but it would not necessary be less safe and it should not be our job to be the world's policeman, especially when we are hated for it. And it would force other regions of the world to start dealing with their own regional problems face to face.

Very good, refreshing article.

At this time, the U.S.Republican administration cannot afford to admit the mistake they made by supporting Saakashvili. Otherwise Republicans would lose both the White House and Congress for a long time. They have to blame Russia to stay in power.

Sir, I find your comparison of South Ossetia to Guantanamo Bay a little far stretched. First, GB is a military base, not populated by US civilians wanting to be part of the US but living abroad. Second, The United States assumed territorial control over Guantánamo Bay under the 1903 Cuban-American Treaty, which granted the United States a perpetual lease of the area without the Cuban Government reacting. Please do your homework before you make blunder.

Third, South Ossetia is still legally within the internationally recognized boundaries of Georgia. Russia handed out Russian passport to most of the South Ossetians who wanted one. Clearly, they weren't Russian by birth, but Russian by Russian government issued passports that instantly "naturalized" them in order to comply with Russian constitution to protect its citizens. That's another ex-communist, Soviet ploy. After all, how else would an ex-Soviet KGB prime minister know how to behave than the way he always knew?

Lastly, if Russia's true intent was to protect South Ossetians, it would not have launched a seemingly prepared massive military launch on Georgia proper closing in on its capital. It was a clear invasion beyond the borders of South Ossetia. Obviously, Russia found out it cannot get away with its invasion. True, Georgia is NOT Cech in 1938, but Russia is NOT in a position to behave like the Soviet thugs they still are, and the world is no longer thinking Georgia is a country far away we know nothing about.

I am deeply dissapointed in the lack of preparation for this article. It was, by far, the least informed and accurate piece of journalism I've read so far on this subject.

I would have to say that if we pulled all our troops from across the world that nothing would change. The world we live in requires a show of power, no matter how big or small. The U.S. is doing it in the Middle East and Russia is doing it closer to home. The outcome is all the same: money and power are the driving force. More territory means more power, more power means more money. There is no short term solution to these problems. There is only long term solutions that nobody will consider because it does not benefit their pockets.

I agree with Viking & John Carlos. For the most part, we need to bring our troops home from around the world, as their presence is very costly to U.S. taxpayers, they're easy targets for Islamic extremists that consider us an occupying force, and they're symbolic of an imperialist power (in decline). As is, let the U.S. multinational corporations & shareholders pay Blackwater or the U.S. military to protect their interests abroad.

We should be conserving our capital, paying down our national debt (a substantial amount held by China & other foreign countries affecting our foreign policy) and investing in our own infrastructure, not foreign ones. Conversely, our government leaders & corporate interests are bankrupting this country with military ventures abroad in which a lot of people are making money.

Over the past 15 years, Russia has become a Mafia state with top Communist officials now re-emerged as capitalists somehow holding substantial equity interests in privatized Russian industries. Putin is a major shareholder of Lukoil. With increased oil revenues, Putin & Co. are flexing their military might to regain control of former satellite countries, beginning with Georgia through which a pipeline delivering crude oil & natural gas passes from Azerbijian to Turkey. The other pipeline to Europe runs from Russia directly to Europe, and control of the former would enable Russia to have a strangle hold on critical energy supplies to Europe.

Still, this problem is a European one that the E.U. needs to resolve with Russia, not the U.S., although we should lend our support to these democratic nations to include Georgia, Ukraine, Poland, and the Baltics.

As to the U.S., we need a national program to develop energy independence within 10 years through coal, shale oil, geothermal exchange, solar, biomass, wind power, etc. For example, Finland & Sweden, which have no oil, have reduced their reliance upon fossil fuels by 40 percent in the last 20 years. Only 20 percent of our energy needs come from the Middle East, mainly Saudi Arabia from which 18 of the 19 plane high-jackers of Sept. 11 oriented.

Let's set a good example for other countries by doing a better job at home, a well-run democracy in which people participate in government policies, where we enjoy a high standard of living and are prepared to defend our liberties with a strong military.

The U.S in the one who is trying to restart the Cold War. They have pushed Russia into a corner. The U.S is lost without its Cold War enemy. It has gone around the world picking fights but no one is up to it, so they have turned their sights back on Russia. The U.S has for too long acted like a school yard bully. NATO & U.S supported Kosovo's independence, so they set the precedent. We in the West have no right to judge Russia. The West does not have the moral high ground any more.

Dear readers,

Reviewing some articles in the press, I find (if I am not mistaken) that many of you have not lived under Soviet power. These people who have more practical experiences could look trough the curtains on the Russian side's media war.

They prepared all the messages and media schemes beforehand, and what you hear or read now is anti-truth, well prepared. I am sorry, that is true. Be careful and choose the right information. You can't believe Russian lies.

Mold instead of mould. Ruble instead of rouble. Interesting article, amazing to have typos from BW.

[Note from editor approving/posting this comment: These aren't typos, they're legitimate British spellings.]

Praga, point well made. My entire family have lived in Eastern Europe that was under the Soviet Union communist oppression for 5 decades. Although I personally have not experienced it, those who have are STILL traumatized by it, the word "communism and Russia" for them are akin to "hell and satan". The type of propaganda one sees in the current Communist China is still very much alive in Russia as it was when it was USSR. They are highly skilled in political manipulation and intimidation (as in suggesting that US should make a choice between its virtual pet project - Georgia - or a partnership with Russia).

Supatrucki: Get a clue. Obviously, you know very little about Russia and world politics. Sounds too much like you're parroting the same ol' drivel that's been said to death but offers no substance. When it comes down to it, all of those who criticize America are the same ones who cry to us for help when they need it.

FromUSAwithlove: I don't suppose you also believe in that garbage that McCain set up the war in Georgia to get elected? Russia has proven itself to be nothing but the big bully it always was as the USSR, which is why its former satelite countries like Poland and Ukraine are beefing up their security. They know more about what Russia is capable of than YOU do...Given its relic military equipment and incompetent commanders, Russia is only powerful in Russia's own mind.

Of course, the neoconned Bush regime is looking for trouble, just as Putin's criminal gang is looking for trouble. The U.S. backed Georgia's attack on Russian civilians in South Ossetia with U.S. & Israeli advisors on the ground. Why haven't we heard much about these military advisors in our media? Thousands of Russians fled South Ossetia into Russia. Russia responded in a normal way, driving out the Georgian Army from South Ossetia and pushing further into Georgian territory. A show of military force and well-planned in advance.

At that point, the propaganda of both Russian & U.S. media immediately geared up to shape public opinion. Both sides lie about events that have taken place to support their positions. If anything, the Russians are learning from us about extending their hegemony over other countries in this "New World Order." Lastly, we have a right to judge Russian and U.S. government leaders. If we have lost the moral high ground, we need to discuss matters openly and regain it. Otherwise, we should blame ourselves for allowing a nuclear war to take place.

I have to agree with my friend Steve N.

"I would have to say that if we pulled all our troops from across the world that nothing would change. The world we live in requires a show of power, no matter how big or small. The U.S. is doing it in the Middle East and Russia is doing it closer to home. The outcome is all the same: money and power are the driving force. More territory means more power, more power means more money. There is no short term solution to these problems. There is only long term solutions that nobody will consider because it does not benefit their pockets."

Everyone will feel a lot safer when everyone learns their place! Huh. P.S. Bush is in Texas and the sooner the better too.

I agree with the author. There are too many eager Cold War hawks anxious to have the old Cold War return. Truly, if Castro were to attack Guantanamo in the same way Saakashvili attacked Tshkinvali, not only would the US retaliate against Cuba, but it would have invaded it completely and overthrown Fidel's govt to install a new one. Particularly among the Cold War hawks, there are plenty of extra-territorialists like Zbigniew Brzezinski and Maria Korbel ("Madeleine Albright"), who can only look at Russia through jaundiced eyes. Their extra-territorial interests are not US interests.

The Cold War is long gone. The real war is here.

All this Georgian story is meant to push Russia into a conflict which it cannot withstand. US has a terrific moment with almost unanimous support to crush Russia. Even if they obey and withdraw completely, a ship can be sacrificed and blame it on the Russians to start the conflict. Russia is doomed anyway.

Progress in history has only been made through war and conquest. There is nothing wrong in furthering the American cause and keeping Russia under the foot. Either you are the conqueror or be prepared to be conquered and dominated. Read history first, else you will make the mistakes of the past.

I think that the comparison with Guantanomo Bay is good and pretty on target. No doubt what the U.S. would have done to Cuba.

Questions:

Why would Georgia launch an offensive as claimed? It goes against logic to fight a losing war the minute it started when Georgia's army is substantially outnumbered (not 1 to 2 type but substantially more in favour of Russia), technically behind, and substantially short in armed equipment. Just compare the warships and warplanes Georgia has compared to Russia.

Even if the pretext was to recover the two regions, one would have expected Georgia to seek the necessary backing from bigger powers for its quest. Isn't that what most small groups will do when confronted with bigger groups? You see that even in many elections.

Georgia also has many non-combative civilians. If war really breaks out, wouldn't all the civilian Geogians risk being wiped out? Considering that a European country's President would have been in constant communication with his or her counterparts in other European nations, isn't it reasonable to expect that even though Georgia cannot see the folly of attacking a larger army, others would have?

There will also be other intelligent advisers within Georgia, like its defense ministry, interior ministry, army generals, strategists, and others. An army cannot attack at its own initiative without co-ordination and sanction. It is not possible that the whole lot of them can't see this, when so many common readers could see that Georgia would definitely lose in a one-to-one war with Russia.

If Georgia knows how to seek training with the U.S. military, then it shows that they have the intelligence to pick the best military in the world to train under.

Hence why this folly? On Georgia's expectation of subsequent backup--why such an expectation, given that U.S. won't likely attack Russia militarily when its armies are committed to Iraq and Afganistan, coupled with unsettled North Korea and Iran issues.

On U.S. involvement, does the U.S. have a choice given its present stature as the military lead in many NATO operations? What will other NATO members think of the U.S. if it remains unperturbed? The U.S. also has enough problems, both economically and militarily, of its own to handle, so why one more now? Besides looking at the location, for many layman is it easier to communicate with someone nearer or further away?

Hopefully we can see some reasonable analysis.

Just one more question:

With U.S. presidential election around the corner, how sure is one what the outcome will be? Consequently how can one expect a U.S. response with certainty?

It is a rare to see an article written so poorly and with clear bias for Russia. You are absolutely wrong, and much worse you are simply lying.

First: Since 1990 (1990 is the only true fact in this article) so-called "Soviet peacekeeping" forces have enabled the Ossetian army and paramilitaries to launch daily and nightly attacks with mortar and artillery into Georgian territory. It is known fact (obviously not to the writer) that the border was under constant "peace fire." The last heavy attacks occurred nightly from August 1 to August 5, damaging Georgian infrastructure, villages, and military bases.

Two: The amount of Soviet tanks and soldiers counter-attacking (several thousand) clearly indicated that Putin was considering an invasion in Georgia, and the Georgians simply went into a trap set up by this KGB "hero" of the writer.

Three: Yes, a comparison to Hitler or Stalin is absolutely correct. If you remember (or maybe not--Americans and Europeans have very short memories) the same excuse was used to invade Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland, among others -- protecting German citizens. Putin is "protecting" Russian citizens to whom, under the gun, they first handed Russian passports. My father, who was born in todays Lithuania, "voluntarily" became a Soviet citizen in 1939.

To all the left nuts commenting that this is not our problem: It is never your problem. You hate the USA so much that China, Cuba, Russia, and Venezuela are the "dream team." The USA, on the other hand, is this "crazy, stupid devil" killing innocent lives and causing only grief and destruction. Congratulations. It is time for you to move on and ask for a Russian passport.

All the best,
Stan from Atlanta

Those who ask for a withdrawal of US troops abroad reflect the lack of understanding of why our troops are there in the first place. It also raises the issue of whether the US as a superpower
should abandon its allies. We live in a globized world and with today's instant communication having troops overseas is a way for the US to respond to acts of aggression on our friends...If we have the guts to respond...which we seem to be losing as judged by some
comments...

It is good to analyse, it is equally good to draw conclusions. That's healthy conversation and discussion from which we can all learn. Having said that may I suggest getting back to basics?

My country has a long and strong history with the US. We may not always agree with the policies of the encumbent Government but we always agree with what I will term the 'Heart' of the American people; they give, they sacrifice and when the chips are really down, they are there.

There is always room for criticism, there is always room for dissent at a level but not at the 'Heart'.

For those who would criticize the US, and I certainly admit that I have done so in the past:

1. Be thankful that you are allowed to do so
2. Ask yourself where we would be and the world would be, without them
3. When we have considered those things let's start being constructive about where the US and everyone else can go from here

The questions may well be basic but I respectfully submit that they're appropriate.

No one in their right mind likes or wants to see violence between peoples and countries. I suspect that what we are seeing here is the shadow of a far bigger picture from a far bigger game that will extend well past the next election.

For anyone who doubted that Georgia as an aggressor was supported by the US there was the US veto against a Russian security Council resolution because it asked both parties to renounce violence.

@John Carlos: the problem with separatist new states is that they tend to be stingy in giving citizenships to people who are not of their ethnic group (Google "Slovenia and erased" for an example).

Russia solved this by promising anyone in the former Soviet Union who couldn't get another passport a Russian passport. Georgia can thank itself partially for this mess because they were quite stingy with passports too.

@Biztru: I see two reasons. Saakashvili is a very temperamental man who doesn't always think things through. And many American assurances convinced the Georgians that it was feasible - and maybe also of American support. I think that the gamble was that Georgia could conquer some territory in a blitzkrieg using the element of surprise and that then Western diplomatic pressure could be used to press Russia into an armistice where the Georgians had a better position.

I think the Russians had many reasons to push through:

- Many ethnic Russians and people with a Russian passport live in other former Soviet republics. Russia cannot afford to stand passive when they are massacred. Neither could any other democracy in a similar position.

- A few months before Russia solved a planned Georgian invasion in Abkhazia in a very subtle way: they only increased their number of troops and shot an unmanned spy plane. Yet instead of praise the Western diplomatic reaction was devastatingly critical. It must have convinced the Georgians that they could get away with anything and convinced the Russians that anything else than military force would be conceived by the US as a sign of weakness. If they had just pushed the Georgians back to the previous positions they would have been confronted with a new attack within a year.

As an engineer and past CEO of multinational companies, I have to start with the facts, as they are, and not as we would wish them to be. The Businessweek article spells these out accurately. Namely, a minority people favouring independence with Russian guaranteed protection, was attacked with firepower by the Georgian majority killing civillians and Russian monitors. An immediate military response from Russia was inevitable; so what was the purpose of this act? Stupidity? Or a cynical expression of extreme Georgian nationalism attempting to involve the US and Europe in a new confrontation with Russia?

A more intelligent and useful role for the President of Georgia would have been to find ways of integrating minorities, as in Switzerland, Spain, the UK, Belgium and elsewhere, and then act as an intermediary between Russia, as a good neighbour, with the West and USA. The Russian people have never known democracy, and history proves that leaders cannot go too far ahead of the people, as happened recently in Russia itself, so leading to near collapse of the economy and much suffering of the people.

Democracy needs enough independent, honest-minded citizens for a fully democratic system to work. This means changing mindsets through education and enlightenment.

My country, Scotland, is one of the oldest nations in Europe. It fought fiercely to retain its independence until the last rebellion in 1745. Then the English armies swept through the country in what is known as the "highland clearences," burning homes and replacing the people with sheep. Recently, the UK parliament, recognising that nowadays the will and happiness of the people is more importatnt in a united Europe than land tenure, have allowed the Scots to once again choose their own government. So today the Scottish National Party is ruling the country--all without the slightest idea of bloodshed or even animosity of any kind. On the contrary, the Prime Minister of the UK is a Scot as are many other leaders in England.

Yet a long time ago, when England was top dog, the country went to war with Spain at the demand of the people in response to the cutting off of an ear of one English citizen. It was known as the "the war of Jenkin's ear"!

In the First World War 9 million died, and in the last war 56 million more died, about half of them from the USSR. With current technology, any war involving the major powers would incur hundreds of millions dead and totally dislocate the world economy.

Russia has the leaders the people now want and respect. We must help and encourage them to develop democracy at the fastest pace possible under their own circumstances, not ours.

For a long time before the last war there was a "Pax Britanica" and the Brish Army was kept busy around the globe. Nowadays, it is "Pax Americana" much to the disgust of the American people.

One question I would like to ask is this: What would have been the reaction of most of the American people had the President turned round to them after 9/11 and said, "Never mind, fellow
Americans. We must turn the other cheek to our enemies, who are attacking our embassies, ships etc. around the globe and now New York and Washington. Never mind if Saddam takes over the neighbouring oil states and so, along with Gaddafi controls the bulk of the world's oil supplies."

Thank God, Americans did not think this way when democratic Europe was threatened by German takeover bids.

Many Americans paid with their lives to maintain freedom around the globe. The President of the USA is, like it or not, the leader of the free world and has to overcome all the problems that this entails. Russia and China must be brought into and kept in the democratic world, allowing for the fact they are on a different time scale but likely to develop faster than we did because of the faster rate of education and the effects of the media and globalisation.

Sadly, the media, BusinessWeek excepted in this case, need to stimulate and excite to sell. And creating confrontation and fear is more effective.

The printed article is balanced and perceptive. Having made the aquaintance of an Osetian family before the breakup of the Soviet Union, I was made aware of their precarious minority position. Is it true that the boundaries of Georgia were arbitrarily established for administrative purposes when Georgia was made a part of the Soviet Union following the Bolshevik revolution?

Oh John Carlos, I guess you know a lot about global politics, right?

If you do, you should know that the Russian approach to international relations has been the same since Tsars' age (realism) and that Kosovo WAS a precedent to recognition of the two breakaway provinces according to international law. (And the Russian passport delivery was actually a very smart move, to be just.)

Obviously you can't exactly compare GB with Georgia, but the author's point was to show that somehow Russia's reaction was justified and why the West can't take any legal action according to it.

I do agree that many people behind the former Iron Curtain dislike Russia (and they are right), but in this case people in both regions were actually very happy to leave Georgia, even if it meant "selling their soul" to the devil.

Again, Kosovo was a precedent and Georgia was not in control of the territory, unlike US with GB. (Even you, who surely know a lot about international politics, understand that the issue was not because Cuba actually wanted to give away part of its territory. Just imagine how the US would react if Cuba signed an anti-missile shield pact with Russia, just like the US did with Poland!)

And again, making reference to your expertise in international politics, I have to ask you who actually cries for US help? I know Georgians were doing it when Russia was bombing their territory...
If you actually ask someone who knows about international politics, you'll know that US "help" is never help...but hey, you are the expert.

I do agree with the author's main thesis: The Cold War thesis is Western-related, and the Western press has demonized Russia. I'm not saying they are the good guys at all, but they are not the bad ones for sure.

What Russia did is nothing new. The US knows to play the media game and somehow rally people behind it and shout so loud that dissenting voices are never heard. Poor Russia doesn't know to play the same game.

This article proves that some people have good sense. History documents that good sense seldom prevails in these situations. With thousands of thermonuclear warheads at innumerable launch sites, we no longer have the luxury of continuing to be controlled by irrational passions. Reason is now an indispensable virtue.

First and last time at this web site. Cannot support the liberal rendering of good and evil. They just don't believe evil exist and that you can negotiate with the devil to make him good. When will this country be returned to people who love truth above all else? Above reason, logic, and all this noncense here. TRUTH is highest above little man's small brain, where reason is his god. You are Communists here who make excuses for Russia. They need to hurt bad as well as Iran!