Russia asserts itself

As always, Montgomery's comments are informative and equally thought-provoking. Yet as always, he raises as many additional questions as he provides definitive statements.

First, he's right on target criticizing the United States for once again being either asleep at the wheel, or too ignorant to notice anything different. This past week, we've been privvy to articles and commentaries focusing on Russia's "resurgent" attitude, and a "return to the Cold War", as if this came as a complete and unforeseen surprise. Hello? Russia has been issuing clear warnings since 2000 against over-confident Western assertiveness. From Serbia to Iraq to Georgia to NATO, Russia has been very clear and forthcoming in stating what it is against. It's one thing to still plough ahead with our own interests and strategies. It's quite another to disregard Russian warnings as irrelevant or impotennt. From Holbrooke to Rice, from Khalizad to Cheney, we've consistently acted under the assumption that Russia is still controlled by Yelstin the Drunkard, instead of noting the renewed authority of Putin the Chessmaster.

The worst part about this latest fiasco in Georgia is that our own Secretary of State is a supposed "Russian expert" (or so her academic credentials say). If she's this "Russian expert", how is it that we were caught with our pants down when Russian tanks moved into Georgia? And how is it that she could continue to whisper empty promises in Saakashvili's ear that the US would defend Georgia from a defiant Russia? Her "Russian expertise" has been laid bare as either sorely outdated, or incredibly overexaggerated. Also, to give France the driver's seat in shuttle diplomacy, which Rice appears for a few photos with Saakashvili in Tiblisi, then flying home, shows how little the US actually cares about this incident.

Second, I take issue with Montgomery's statements that Russia is chaffing amid the spread of democracy in its former territories. That's not the case at all. There's this strong assumption, particularly among State Department officials, that "democracy" is synonymous with "pro-American". That's the main issue that's bugging Moscow. These "democratic revolutions" in Ukraine and Georgia were less a victory in democracy than they were in bringing anti-Russian/pro-American regimes to power. These governments are no less corrupt and no less power hungry than their former pro-Russian regimes, but the political loyalties have now changed. Saakashvili isn't this lone Vaclav Havel in a sea of Caucasian autoritarianism as Washington loves to portray him has. He's not shielding himself from Russian bayonets with a copy of John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty". He's a self-interested elite who realized he can gain a direct access to American goods and services, plus an advance order of American military equipment if he cozies up to Washington. Winning an election doesn't make one democratic. Shevardnaze should have been our first red flag on that one. And let's be honest. Washington doesn't really care what happens inside Georgia so long as the regime is pro-Washington. Look at Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia if you don't believe me. Rice's trip was less a show of solidarity than it was an activity in damage control. Russia sees through this, and acts accordingly. Therefore, Russian incursions against Georgia is less of Moscow attacking a democratic nation as it is attacking a pro-American satillite.

Third, this is an example of Might Makes Right, as exemplified by Serbia in 1999 and again in 2008, Iraq in 2003, and to a lesser extent Afghanistan in 2001. The US has constantly chaffed at UN resolutions, international law, and having to pass some "global test" (this was something Bush himself openly disregarded as wimpy in the 2004 elections). The whole "we don't take no guff from nobody" approach has now been adopted by Russia in a "if it's good for you, it's good for me" attitude. To watch McCain say that such activities are not in sync in the 21st century is clearly BS since we've set that precedent on numerous occasions within the last 8 years.

Finally, if there is a new "Cold War", we should not count on Europe for unconditional support. Not surprisingly, "Old Europe" was far more objective in its tone over who is to blame in Georgia and did not see Russia as the clear aggressor. With 90% of their oil and natural gas coming from Russia, Europe cannot afford to impose whatever "punishments" the US might conceptually have in mind. In fact, if there is to be renewed rivalrly between Moscow and Washington, both sides will constantly try to coax Europe into their own corner. If Moscow gains the ire of the US, but a more conciliatory tone from Europe, it's a major victory for them.

In short, welcome ladies and gentlemen to the multipolar world many have predicted, and others tried to avoid.

On more then one occasion Mr. Montgomery pointed out that Mr. Putin is a man with views shaped by the Cold War. Just as his are.

"Cold Warriors" June 12th 2007

http://www.b92.net/eng/insight/opinions.php?yyyy=2007&mm=06&nav_id=41759

Presidential candidate of the Republican Party Mr. McCain, seems to share same views, unfortunatelly. This view always comes in black and white and it will wait some time before it reaches level of color TV.
Just like in endless space saga "Star Wars", there is a good guy Anakin Skywalker, fighting never-ending battle with his evil father Dart Wader, who belongs to the dark side of the Force.

Same applies here, where there is Russia on one side "authoritarian power" , that is driffting toward "authoritarianism and aggressiveness." and it's obstructionist "in dealing with other authoritarian regimes around the world." etc.
On the other side are goody-goodies, like "democratically oriented" Mikhail Saakashvili to whom US can have only " policy of engagement and support for democratic change".
But, is he really democratic? One has to wonder, given that in that US has history of support for about dosen wile brutes, generals in bussiness of running military juntas and death squads in Latin America, Saddam Hussein, Obama bin Laden, etc. (feel free to add Balkan characters like Tudjman, Izetbegovic and Ceku). Nice compilation of characters that one wouldn't like to meet even on Halloween Night, when such creatures abound.

But, wasn't Mikhail Saakashvili the same guy who declared state of emergency in Georgia just because opposition was out on peaceful demonstrations just few months ago?

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/world-article.php?yyyy=2007&mm=11&dd=08&nav_id=45199

He used the opportunity. "...all independent television news programs would be stopped during a 15-day state of emergency across Georgia."

"Special forces troops wielding automatic weapons stormed the country's main opposition television channel, Imedi, which was then taken off air."

In fact, it was just peaceful protest of the opposition, part of it pro-Russian, concerned about detorrioration relationships with Russia. After all, so many Georgians work in Russia and sent money home that this amounts to 20% of Georgian GDP. Even Patriarch Ilia II, head of the Georgian Orthodox Church, condemned the government crackdown as "completely unacceptable."
You can read more about it in this NGO's report

http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=5233

Title says it all.

"Georgia: Sliding towards the autoritariarism?"

Yet, there is no mention of this in Mr. Montgomery's article. Why?

It's even more worrysome that most media forget to even mention that Russia's use of military force was in RESPONSE to Georgian takeover attempt. Should Serbia attempt simmilar takeover of Kosovo by force, would you consider eventual NATO response to be "agressive"? Would you be wondering "How do we contain NATO?" and what should be the "response of the world to such reckless use of force"?
I doubt it. Most likely, you would be the first one to point that NATO had not only right, but an obligation too, to respond by all available means.

So, what should NATO answer to this "challenge" be?

You could exclude Russia from G-8, or block their membership in World Trade Organization. They don't seem to care. As for proposed boycott of the 2014 Olympic Games at Sochi, please, leave politics out of sports. Sport is a positive thing, and should never be tainted by politics. Michael Phelps just won 8 gold medals in Bejing. Congratulations to a great athlete!
Who ever proposed boycott of the Olympic Games is on the wrong track.

Better answer yet is to ask some serious questions about the policies now in place. Why is NATO still here? And why is it expanding? Why Baltic states need to be in NATO to begin with? To be protected from North Korea? Iran?
NATO have lost it's purpose with the end of Soviet Union, and it's struggling to find a new one since. (including "humanitarian wars" like in 1999)

While many Western critics declared the Russian actions of the past week a reversion to Cold War tactics, NATO itself as a Cold War relic.

The fact is, Putin does not have aspirations to turn Russia into a superpower, able to project it's military power on every point of the globe, and to seriously challenge anyone, anywhere.
Here is one example:
Today, Russia has only one aircraft carrier in commission (Admiral Kuznetzov). Russia does not have plans to spend bundles of money to built any new ones. Their milirary spending is aimed on improving their ability to defend Russia itself, or for the use in the region at best (like in Georgia).

If anything here is "more fitting to the 19th century than the 21st. " it's the disrespect of the international laws today.
During the last decade of the past century International Law was violated so many times all over globe, that begining of 21st century looks like ending of 19th. And when there is no rules, might alone determins what is possible, and what's not.

As for NATO, we will soon know what their answer to this challenge will be.

Mood in Western Europe seems te be very different then the one that Senator McCain is in. Should EU side of NATO prevail, we will see only some Georgian-supportive rethoric, that's all.
In the opposite, things may return to the Cold War.

In that case it will really be like "Star Wars". Just when we hope that it's over, and that we can have a break from taking the children to the movies, they come up with another episode of it.
I think the last one was "Episode 3 - Revange of the Sith".
Should Cold War return I propose title of that new episode of it to be "The steaming pile of Sith".

Agree with Mike that being "pro democracy" and "pro american" is not the same thing.

Sick and tired of that nonsense actually.

I worked in Moscow for 3 months recently and I've got to say that Russia looks a hell of a lot more democratic than a "beacon of liberty" like "Kosova" run by gangsters.

I also remember the "hospitality", "democratic" Croatia showed me a while back... a one way ticket to exile South Ossetian style (I really feel for those people, thank God the Russia's overturned this operation storm).

How dare anyone portray Russia as a "dictatorship" whilst endorsing these regimes (and there are so many more examples).

I wish Russia well and hope its neighbours don't allow themselves to be used as pawns in the dispicable proxy war America is leading against Russia.

This is a thawing of a frozen conflict. Perhaps an incident designed by the Georgians or perhaps not...it is one that will take discussion and and no villianization.

Ths U.S. still has 700 bases around the world (including in Bondsteel in Kosovo), is responsible for over 1mil deaths in Iraq since the war started...ahhh and no one is kicking them out of the G8 or WTO for the killings and no bid contracts for oil they invaded for. The hypocracy is beyond cynical. It is a part of politics I suppose and the world we live at this time.

What the author does not seem to see are the obvious parallels between the US-led NATO intervention in the Kosovo conflict and the present problems in Georgia. Except that the Russians have not resorted (yet) to the "humanitarian bombing" of Tbilisi.

"NATO and the EU also need to come up with a list of measures which its members are willing to take to send a strong message to Russia about the consequences of the Georgian action and anything similar."

Montgomery once again shows his pro-imperialist tendencies and bias by ignoring who started this conflict. No mention that the Georgians are to blame anywhere in the article.

My question is what relevance do his articles have on this website, if the site's goals are to reach consensus and engaging in meaningful debate. My impression is that his articles never fail to incur swift condemnation and criticism here, so what is the point?

Therefore who's propaganda is being disseminated here, the east's or the west's? I have yet to read a Montogomery article which is in line with Serbian or Russian national interests.

All I can say is, Mr. Montgomery get rid of your prejudice first and then write an article you won't be ashamed of.

Why is it OK for the US to bypass the UNSC and bomb anyone they wish to under the excuse of "humanitarianism" but Russia cannot protect it's people or allies?

Double standards must not apply.

German first lady endorsed Georgia's NATO bid. Come on, people. Do we really need to go through Cold War again?
Take a look at this.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2229801920080722

It's a respons to Russian newspaper's writing that Russia is considering deployment of bombers in Cuba and possibly Venezuela (probably to protect them from Iran and North Korea). Russian government denied.

This would cross "red line" for the US, according to top US Air Force General Schwartz. To me, it is very understandable reaction, and I wouldn't be thinking - how do we contain American "aggressivnes" on this issue.
The last sentence is the one we should learn some wisdom from.

"In the end, the Soviets agreed to dismantle the missile sites in exchange for a U.S. non-invasion pledge and a secret deal to remove American missiles from Turkey."

Cuban Crisis in 1962 started with nuclear missles deployment in Turkey - right on Soviet border.
Most American citizens were not told at that time, but crisis was defused not because of some tough stand on Soviets, but rather , with diplomacy and negotiation.
Russians quit on Cuba, in exchange for missles removal from Turkey (secret deal).

I think that we need more of this. It really don't make any sense to go into each other's "backyard".
General Schwartz is right. It is "crossing the red line" and making the other one nervous. And we don't need nervous nuclear powers.

Mr. Montgomery, Respectfully, we both know very well that a rarely sober Boris Yeltsin was America's cynical opportunity after the Cold War to move aggressively to expand NATO to Russia's borders and further work to weaken Russia to the point of making it a poodle of Western Policy, blind to its own national interests but obedient to Washington. This type of attempted subordination is a supreme insult to a legitimately great power as Russia. The West never wanted it to be a proportionate member of the international community, it wanted it in the role of a stepchild among the "royal family" of the West. It is entirely predictable that Russia would not tolerate this humiliation, and once it got on its feet with Putin, it would remember being spit on. America's and NATO's aggressiveness expanding to its borders is unacceptable. Remember it is the US that established the Monroe Doctrine in the Western Hemisphere with a straight face, much less ethnic cleansing via "Manifest Destiny". Russia will and has a right to establish its sphere of influence. If we want to saber-rattle in their neighborhood, aggression will be responded to. The US would scream to the heavens and move militarily if the Chinese established military bases in Mexico!! So, Mr. Mongomery, let's get real and cut the self-righteous propaganda!!! Give Russia the dignity of a great power with a rich and deep history, or else the cowboys in Washington will begin another Cold (or Hot) War.

This "short dirty war" in Georgia as Guardian puts it, I presume is a cooperation between Washington and Moscow, on the eve of Bush's bombing of Iran's nuclear bases. Russia will not object to it apart from raising voice in the media, and what is even more important not even Moscow would like to see Obama in White House. He and his team are totally deconstructive to have them as political parters in shaping the bilateral Moscow-Washington world order. Of course, Europe will remain disillusioned, Obama looked like a real Hollywood star in Berlin, a Sharon Stone version in a male suit, Europe likes that vision of a president, that in practical terms is a total fata morgana.

Blowback from Bear Baiting
By Patrick Buchanan

Mikheil Saakashvili’s decision to use the opening of the Olympic Games to cover Georgia’s invasion of its breakaway province of South Ossetia must rank in stupidity with Gamal Abdel-Nasser’s decision to close the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships.

Nasser’s blunder cost him the Sinai in the Six-Day War. Saakashvili’s blunder probably means permanent loss of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

After shelling and attacking what he claims is his own country, killing scores of his own Ossetian citizens and sending tens of thousands fleeing into Russia, Saakashvili’s army was whipped back into Georgia in 48 hours.

Vladimir Putin took the opportunity to kick the Georgian army out of Abkhazia, as well, to bomb Tbilisi and to seize Gori, birthplace of Stalin.

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 lightning coup and present the world with a fait accompli.

Mikheil did not reckon on the rage or resolve of the Bear.

American charges of Russian aggression ring hollow. Georgia started this fight — Russia finished it. People who start wars don’t get to decide how and when they end.

Russia’s response was “disproportionate” and “brutal,” wailed Bush.

True. But did we not authorize Israel to bomb Lebanon for 35 days in response to a border skirmish where several Israel soldiers were killed and two captured? Was that not many times more “disproportionate”?

Russia has invaded a sovereign country, railed Bush. But did not the United States bomb Serbia for 78 days and invade to force it to surrender a province, Kosovo, to which Serbia had a far greater historic claim than Georgia had to Abkhazia or South Ossetia, both of which prefer Moscow to Tbilisi?

Is not Western hypocrisy astonishing?

"As always, Montgomery's comments are informative and equally thought-provoking. " ,writes Mike.

Mike, are you kidding?

I still ask myself what´s it about, what is behind this repeatedly published agitation on B92.

does B92 have to publish it? are there some figures in the background who are dictating what has to be published here?

just like some other commentator is asking above, is B92 obeying to write exclusively articles which are in contrast to serbian national interest?

up to this day, I still ask myself who is deciding on this matter, and why B92 coninuously publishes the flawed views of an obviously biased american...

jesus, wasn´t there some smart analyst talking about "the one and only global superpower"?

where are those rambo-phrases now?

business as usual on B92.
thanks for the entertainment.

Once they asked the medieval Russian ruler Aleksander Nevski, who faught both the Catholic Teutonic Knights and the Moslem Tatars, which of his enemies he consideres as LESS dangerous, he replied: The Tatars. all they want is our body. The Teuton knights want our souls!"

Soon afterwords the Tatars overrun Russia. But it remained Orthodox. The Teutonic Knights and their "Latin Heresy" never sprread beyond the Bltic lands.
Was that a victory or a defeat for Russia? Depends on the point of view.

Modern Russia desperetly needs to "join" the West. Siberia, where most of its natural riches lie is deep in Asia. Its indegenious population is Asian. Many legal and illigal Chinese immigrants have settled there. Worste, it is separated from European Russia by a Moslem wedge, cutting from Chechnya, throgh Dagestam, Kaslmikia all the way to Tatarstan. That, not the fact that NATO is now 60 miles from St. Petersburg is the real danger.
But Russia finds it impossible to join the West. It requires from her a particula way of behaving, not only internationaly, but internally. It wants to change its soul.
Russia never4 had an attractive (to others) way of life. So if it could not have any influence in the open spaces of the West, it wants its own sphere of influence. Confronting the West it risks loosing its East! But who knows what Putin and Medvedev consider to be better?

Jan. I wasn't really questioning the right of the nations to join NATO. Those are sovereign, independent nations, and they can enter whatever alliances, military or other, they like.
Also, in comment No. 9 I'm not questioning right of Cuba (or possibly Venezuela) to, again, enter any alliances with Russians, Chinese or whomever they want. Again, they are independent, and decision is theirs.
What I'm questioning is the wisdom of it.
First, from the view of those countries.
Second, I can't really see how any posible deployment of, let's say Russian military hardware or troops in Latin America adds to its national security. To the contrary.
Or how will such American deployment in Latvia increase national security of the US?
But, too many things seem to be moving by inertia alone.
For example, take a look at Korea. Chinese are long gone from the north, and there are still tens of thousands US soldiers stationed in the south. Maintaning such force and equipment requires enormus amouns of money. It would make a lot of sense (economically and otherwise) to at least, reduce the size of the force there. After all, in case of need, it wouldn't be hard to beef it up.
But, inertia seems to be the case. Or, perhaps, such move would be opposed by so many bureauacrats who make a nice living, with things the way they are? (such move would save a lot of US taxpayer's money, but would break few thousands rise bowls, that's for sure).
Anyway. I'm not questioning anybody's right here. But, is it a smartest thing to use those rights? Now in 21 century? I would like to think that there will be the other way.

The big question that any US newspaper or diplomats seeks to avoid is: did Bush know about the Georgian attack? And even more pressing: was the US army or were US military contractors involved in the preparations of the attacks?

NATO membership for Georgia cannot be discussed without mentioning that according to Russia most foreign support for the Chechen rebellions can over the Georgian border.

A third factor is that only a few months Russia was severely criticized by the US and some of its allies for strengthening its troops in Abchazia and shooting down a unmanned plane. Yet to me these seemed a very reasonable reaction to thwart an imminenent Georgian attack. But condemning these Russian actions the US told Russia that it doesn't matter how subtle their foreign policy is - when they get in the way of US foreign policy they will get criticized.

Finally it is worth mentioning the speculations on the internet about the many US ships sailing to the Persian Gulf. According to this theory the Georgian attack is US led and serves as a distraction for Russia when the US takes on Iran.

http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=461

Who Started Cold War II?
by Patrick J. Buchanan

The American people should be eternally grateful to Old Europe for having spiked the Bush-McCain plan to bring Georgia into NATO.

Had Georgia been in NATO when Mikheil Saakashvili invaded South Ossetia, we would be eyeball to eyeball with Russia, facing war in the Caucasus, where Moscow’s superiority is as great as U.S. superiority in the Caribbean during the Cuban missile crisis.

If the Russia-Georgia war proves nothing else, it is the insanity of giving erratic hotheads in volatile nations the power to drag the United States into war.

From Harry Truman to Ronald Reagan, as Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, U.S. presidents have sought to avoid shooting wars with Russia, even when the Bear was at its most beastly.

Mike++

Sreten+ (only one plus, I was with you until the keep-politics-out-of-sports and when you questioned the right for nations to join NATO)

--

..the thing is that no one likes hypocrisy..the problem for US administration is that people are not goldfishes with three second memory, especially now with internet and databases and approach to information worldwide..

..the bigger problem for US administration is possibility that Russia can now become the champion of the sane part of the world, with ability to put the finger on the king and say ‘’the king is naked..’’

..the biggest problem is that king does not know that he is naked..nore his servants are courageous and willing to glance at him and let him know about the unpleasant situation..

..if I was American, I would be worried..McCain broke 7 points lead over Obama..great.. the next king is going to be naked to..

..there was a survey in Russia, with results that shocked many.. a strong majority of Russians would prefer to see McCain as new US president..and the reason is that Russians knows this kind of dudes..and they are prepared for them..as oppose Obama..the guy seem sane and informed about developments, had no baseball injuries, had no war traumas that changed his judgment and made him hate other people for life, a problem for them..

..And the bigger of the biggest problem for the US is that majority of Americans has notion that they are the biggest and the most dominant country in the world and that they can confront the whole world, with support of UK and few other puppet regimes..

..Japanese were telling me that they would never forget Enola Gay, and I believe them..China is still soared for receiving few cruise missiles in their Belgrade embassy, and Tibet thing and human rights bulling and so on..Hindus are disappointed due to US support for Musharaf.. Russians..don’t let me started..South American leaders are uniting to compete with Washington..I think that for majority of people across the world US looks like wild boar on the cocaine fuelled rampage party, no one knows who is going to be next..

..I am not the fan of Russia..But, every sense of justice embedded in me is supporting them in each confrontation with US..

Granted, the current US administration has been stupidly provocative towards Russia, but really - where should Russia be looking, long term, for its future enemies? Certainly not west - the EU has been perfectly willing to cooperate economically with Russia, and the US would like its diplomatic assistance on a range of problems. Picking a fight with Nato doesn't seem to make any sense.

But as a country with a shrinking population and too much territory to defend against a rising China - which is running out of arable land, drinkable water, and breathable air - and massive Islamic populations to the south that are expected to be propelled north by global climate change, the Russian military must be feeling vulnerable. And needing to expand and, more importantly, modernize Russia's armed forces.

Putin has invested money in refurbishing equipment taken out of mothballs, but in order to spend the enormous sums required for converting the Russian army into a 21st-century force he has to convince the Russian people that they are surrounded and endangered. Why else the Public Hate Days against last year's foreign enemy no. 1 (Estonia!)? Is this incursion into Georgia really anything more than a move to convince Russian public opinion that their glorious armed forces need and deserve to become the focus of a multiyear, multibillion dollar expansion? Russia can expect to face challenges in coming years, but not the ones they are presenting to their public today.

But they may have overplayed their hand in this case - the only governments to offer heartfelt congratulations were Cuba and Venezuela, with even Belorussia being unexpectedly restrained and Serbia genuinely confused how to spin it. And this is being noted in their press (which is where I found the information, except about Serbia - at gazeta.ru).

The West need not respond militarily, but it should be made clear that Russia will be unable to use similar moves in the future to build its propaganda case at home.

As always, Montgomery's comments are informative and equally thought-provoking. Yet as always, he raises as many additional questions as he provides definitive statements.

First, he's right on target criticizing the United States for once again being either asleep at the wheel, or too ignorant to notice anything different. This past week, we've been privvy to articles and commentaries focusing on Russia's "resurgent" attitude, and a "return to the Cold War", as if this came as a complete and unforeseen surprise. Hello? Russia has been issuing clear warnings since 2000 against over-confident Western assertiveness. From Serbia to Iraq to Georgia to NATO, Russia has been very clear and forthcoming in stating what it is against. It's one thing to still plough ahead with our own interests and strategies. It's quite another to disregard Russian warnings as irrelevant or impotennt. From Holbrooke to Rice, from Khalizad to Cheney, we've consistently acted under the assumption that Russia is still controlled by Yelstin the Drunkard, instead of noting the renewed authority of Putin the Chessmaster.

The worst part about this latest fiasco in Georgia is that our own Secretary of State is a supposed "Russian expert" (or so her academic credentials say). If she's this "Russian expert", how is it that we were caught with our pants down when Russian tanks moved into Georgia? And how is it that she could continue to whisper empty promises in Saakashvili's ear that the US would defend Georgia from a defiant Russia? Her "Russian expertise" has been laid bare as either sorely outdated, or incredibly overexaggerated. Also, to give France the driver's seat in shuttle diplomacy, which Rice appears for a few photos with Saakashvili in Tiblisi, then flying home, shows how little the US actually cares about this incident.

Second, I take issue with Montgomery's statements that Russia is chaffing amid the spread of democracy in its former territories. That's not the case at all. There's this strong assumption, particularly among State Department officials, that "democracy" is synonymous with "pro-American". That's the main issue that's bugging Moscow. These "democratic revolutions" in Ukraine and Georgia were less a victory in democracy than they were in bringing anti-Russian/pro-American regimes to power. These governments are no less corrupt and no less power hungry than their former pro-Russian regimes, but the political loyalties have now changed. Saakashvili isn't this lone Vaclav Havel in a sea of Caucasian autoritarianism as Washington loves to portray him has. He's not shielding himself from Russian bayonets with a copy of John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty". He's a self-interested elite who realized he can gain a direct access to American goods and services, plus an advance order of American military equipment if he cozies up to Washington. Winning an election doesn't make one democratic. Shevardnaze should have been our first red flag on that one. And let's be honest. Washington doesn't really care what happens inside Georgia so long as the regime is pro-Washington. Look at Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia if you don't believe me. Rice's trip was less a show of solidarity than it was an activity in damage control. Russia sees through this, and acts accordingly. Therefore, Russian incursions against Georgia is less of Moscow attacking a democratic nation as it is attacking a pro-American satillite.

Third, this is an example of Might Makes Right, as exemplified by Serbia in 1999 and again in 2008, Iraq in 2003, and to a lesser extent Afghanistan in 2001. The US has constantly chaffed at UN resolutions, international law, and having to pass some "global test" (this was something Bush himself openly disregarded as wimpy in the 2004 elections). The whole "we don't take no guff from nobody" approach has now been adopted by Russia in a "if it's good for you, it's good for me" attitude. To watch McCain say that such activities are not in sync in the 21st century is clearly BS since we've set that precedent on numerous occasions within the last 8 years.

Finally, if there is a new "Cold War", we should not count on Europe for unconditional support. Not surprisingly, "Old Europe" was far more objective in its tone over who is to blame in Georgia and did not see Russia as the clear aggressor. With 90% of their oil and natural gas coming from Russia, Europe cannot afford to impose whatever "punishments" the US might conceptually have in mind. In fact, if there is to be renewed rivalrly between Moscow and Washington, both sides will constantly try to coax Europe into their own corner. If Moscow gains the ire of the US, but a more conciliatory tone from Europe, it's a major victory for them.

In short, welcome ladies and gentlemen to the multipolar world many have predicted, and others tried to avoid.

On more then one occasion Mr. Montgomery pointed out that Mr. Putin is a man with views shaped by the Cold War. Just as his are.

"Cold Warriors" June 12th 2007

http://www.b92.net/eng/insight/opinions.php?yyyy=2007&mm=06&nav_id=41759

Presidential candidate of the Republican Party Mr. McCain, seems to share same views, unfortunatelly. This view always comes in black and white and it will wait some time before it reaches level of color TV.
Just like in endless space saga "Star Wars", there is a good guy Anakin Skywalker, fighting never-ending battle with his evil father Dart Wader, who belongs to the dark side of the Force.

Same applies here, where there is Russia on one side "authoritarian power" , that is driffting toward "authoritarianism and aggressiveness." and it's obstructionist "in dealing with other authoritarian regimes around the world." etc.
On the other side are goody-goodies, like "democratically oriented" Mikhail Saakashvili to whom US can have only " policy of engagement and support for democratic change".
But, is he really democratic? One has to wonder, given that in that US has history of support for about dosen wile brutes, generals in bussiness of running military juntas and death squads in Latin America, Saddam Hussein, Obama bin Laden, etc. (feel free to add Balkan characters like Tudjman, Izetbegovic and Ceku). Nice compilation of characters that one wouldn't like to meet even on Halloween Night, when such creatures abound.

But, wasn't Mikhail Saakashvili the same guy who declared state of emergency in Georgia just because opposition was out on peaceful demonstrations just few months ago?

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/world-article.php?yyyy=2007&mm=11&dd=08&nav_id=45199

He used the opportunity. "...all independent television news programs would be stopped during a 15-day state of emergency across Georgia."

"Special forces troops wielding automatic weapons stormed the country's main opposition television channel, Imedi, which was then taken off air."

In fact, it was just peaceful protest of the opposition, part of it pro-Russian, concerned about detorrioration relationships with Russia. After all, so many Georgians work in Russia and sent money home that this amounts to 20% of Georgian GDP. Even Patriarch Ilia II, head of the Georgian Orthodox Church, condemned the government crackdown as "completely unacceptable."
You can read more about it in this NGO's report

http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=5233

Title says it all.

"Georgia: Sliding towards the autoritariarism?"

Yet, there is no mention of this in Mr. Montgomery's article. Why?

It's even more worrysome that most media forget to even mention that Russia's use of military force was in RESPONSE to Georgian takeover attempt. Should Serbia attempt simmilar takeover of Kosovo by force, would you consider eventual NATO response to be "agressive"? Would you be wondering "How do we contain NATO?" and what should be the "response of the world to such reckless use of force"?
I doubt it. Most likely, you would be the first one to point that NATO had not only right, but an obligation too, to respond by all available means.

So, what should NATO answer to this "challenge" be?

You could exclude Russia from G-8, or block their membership in World Trade Organization. They don't seem to care. As for proposed boycott of the 2014 Olympic Games at Sochi, please, leave politics out of sports. Sport is a positive thing, and should never be tainted by politics. Michael Phelps just won 8 gold medals in Bejing. Congratulations to a great athlete!
Who ever proposed boycott of the Olympic Games is on the wrong track.

Better answer yet is to ask some serious questions about the policies now in place. Why is NATO still here? And why is it expanding? Why Baltic states need to be in NATO to begin with? To be protected from North Korea? Iran?
NATO have lost it's purpose with the end of Soviet Union, and it's struggling to find a new one since. (including "humanitarian wars" like in 1999)

While many Western critics declared the Russian actions of the past week a reversion to Cold War tactics, NATO itself as a Cold War relic.

The fact is, Putin does not have aspirations to turn Russia into a superpower, able to project it's military power on every point of the globe, and to seriously challenge anyone, anywhere.
Here is one example:
Today, Russia has only one aircraft carrier in commission (Admiral Kuznetzov). Russia does not have plans to spend bundles of money to built any new ones. Their milirary spending is aimed on improving their ability to defend Russia itself, or for the use in the region at best (like in Georgia).

If anything here is "more fitting to the 19th century than the 21st. " it's the disrespect of the international laws today.
During the last decade of the past century International Law was violated so many times all over globe, that begining of 21st century looks like ending of 19th. And when there is no rules, might alone determins what is possible, and what's not.

As for NATO, we will soon know what their answer to this challenge will be.

Mood in Western Europe seems te be very different then the one that Senator McCain is in. Should EU side of NATO prevail, we will see only some Georgian-supportive rethoric, that's all.
In the opposite, things may return to the Cold War.

In that case it will really be like "Star Wars". Just when we hope that it's over, and that we can have a break from taking the children to the movies, they come up with another episode of it.
I think the last one was "Episode 3 - Revange of the Sith".
Should Cold War return I propose title of that new episode of it to be "The steaming pile of Sith".

What the author does not seem to see are the obvious parallels between the US-led NATO intervention in the Kosovo conflict and the present problems in Georgia. Except that the Russians have not resorted (yet) to the "humanitarian bombing" of Tbilisi.

This is a thawing of a frozen conflict. Perhaps an incident designed by the Georgians or perhaps not...it is one that will take discussion and and no villianization.

Ths U.S. still has 700 bases around the world (including in Bondsteel in Kosovo), is responsible for over 1mil deaths in Iraq since the war started...ahhh and no one is kicking them out of the G8 or WTO for the killings and no bid contracts for oil they invaded for. The hypocracy is beyond cynical. It is a part of politics I suppose and the world we live at this time.

All I can say is, Mr. Montgomery get rid of your prejudice first and then write an article you won't be ashamed of.

Why is it OK for the US to bypass the UNSC and bomb anyone they wish to under the excuse of "humanitarianism" but Russia cannot protect it's people or allies?

Double standards must not apply.

This "short dirty war" in Georgia as Guardian puts it, I presume is a cooperation between Washington and Moscow, on the eve of Bush's bombing of Iran's nuclear bases. Russia will not object to it apart from raising voice in the media, and what is even more important not even Moscow would like to see Obama in White House. He and his team are totally deconstructive to have them as political parters in shaping the bilateral Moscow-Washington world order. Of course, Europe will remain disillusioned, Obama looked like a real Hollywood star in Berlin, a Sharon Stone version in a male suit, Europe likes that vision of a president, that in practical terms is a total fata morgana.

"NATO and the EU also need to come up with a list of measures which its members are willing to take to send a strong message to Russia about the consequences of the Georgian action and anything similar."

Montgomery once again shows his pro-imperialist tendencies and bias by ignoring who started this conflict. No mention that the Georgians are to blame anywhere in the article.

My question is what relevance do his articles have on this website, if the site's goals are to reach consensus and engaging in meaningful debate. My impression is that his articles never fail to incur swift condemnation and criticism here, so what is the point?

Therefore who's propaganda is being disseminated here, the east's or the west's? I have yet to read a Montogomery article which is in line with Serbian or Russian national interests.

Agree with Mike that being "pro democracy" and "pro american" is not the same thing.

Sick and tired of that nonsense actually.

I worked in Moscow for 3 months recently and I've got to say that Russia looks a hell of a lot more democratic than a "beacon of liberty" like "Kosova" run by gangsters.

I also remember the "hospitality", "democratic" Croatia showed me a while back... a one way ticket to exile South Ossetian style (I really feel for those people, thank God the Russia's overturned this operation storm).

How dare anyone portray Russia as a "dictatorship" whilst endorsing these regimes (and there are so many more examples).

I wish Russia well and hope its neighbours don't allow themselves to be used as pawns in the dispicable proxy war America is leading against Russia.

German first lady endorsed Georgia's NATO bid. Come on, people. Do we really need to go through Cold War again?
Take a look at this.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2229801920080722

It's a respons to Russian newspaper's writing that Russia is considering deployment of bombers in Cuba and possibly Venezuela (probably to protect them from Iran and North Korea). Russian government denied.

This would cross "red line" for the US, according to top US Air Force General Schwartz. To me, it is very understandable reaction, and I wouldn't be thinking - how do we contain American "aggressivnes" on this issue.
The last sentence is the one we should learn some wisdom from.

"In the end, the Soviets agreed to dismantle the missile sites in exchange for a U.S. non-invasion pledge and a secret deal to remove American missiles from Turkey."

Cuban Crisis in 1962 started with nuclear missles deployment in Turkey - right on Soviet border.
Most American citizens were not told at that time, but crisis was defused not because of some tough stand on Soviets, but rather , with diplomacy and negotiation.
Russians quit on Cuba, in exchange for missles removal from Turkey (secret deal).

I think that we need more of this. It really don't make any sense to go into each other's "backyard".
General Schwartz is right. It is "crossing the red line" and making the other one nervous. And we don't need nervous nuclear powers.

Once they asked the medieval Russian ruler Aleksander Nevski, who faught both the Catholic Teutonic Knights and the Moslem Tatars, which of his enemies he consideres as LESS dangerous, he replied: The Tatars. all they want is our body. The Teuton knights want our souls!"

Soon afterwords the Tatars overrun Russia. But it remained Orthodox. The Teutonic Knights and their "Latin Heresy" never sprread beyond the Bltic lands.
Was that a victory or a defeat for Russia? Depends on the point of view.

Modern Russia desperetly needs to "join" the West. Siberia, where most of its natural riches lie is deep in Asia. Its indegenious population is Asian. Many legal and illigal Chinese immigrants have settled there. Worste, it is separated from European Russia by a Moslem wedge, cutting from Chechnya, throgh Dagestam, Kaslmikia all the way to Tatarstan. That, not the fact that NATO is now 60 miles from St. Petersburg is the real danger.
But Russia finds it impossible to join the West. It requires from her a particula way of behaving, not only internationaly, but internally. It wants to change its soul.
Russia never4 had an attractive (to others) way of life. So if it could not have any influence in the open spaces of the West, it wants its own sphere of influence. Confronting the West it risks loosing its East! But who knows what Putin and Medvedev consider to be better?

Mike++

Sreten+ (only one plus, I was with you until the keep-politics-out-of-sports and when you questioned the right for nations to join NATO)

--

Mr. Montgomery, Respectfully, we both know very well that a rarely sober Boris Yeltsin was America's cynical opportunity after the Cold War to move aggressively to expand NATO to Russia's borders and further work to weaken Russia to the point of making it a poodle of Western Policy, blind to its own national interests but obedient to Washington. This type of attempted subordination is a supreme insult to a legitimately great power as Russia. The West never wanted it to be a proportionate member of the international community, it wanted it in the role of a stepchild among the "royal family" of the West. It is entirely predictable that Russia would not tolerate this humiliation, and once it got on its feet with Putin, it would remember being spit on. America's and NATO's aggressiveness expanding to its borders is unacceptable. Remember it is the US that established the Monroe Doctrine in the Western Hemisphere with a straight face, much less ethnic cleansing via "Manifest Destiny". Russia will and has a right to establish its sphere of influence. If we want to saber-rattle in their neighborhood, aggression will be responded to. The US would scream to the heavens and move militarily if the Chinese established military bases in Mexico!! So, Mr. Mongomery, let's get real and cut the self-righteous propaganda!!! Give Russia the dignity of a great power with a rich and deep history, or else the cowboys in Washington will begin another Cold (or Hot) War.

Jan. I wasn't really questioning the right of the nations to join NATO. Those are sovereign, independent nations, and they can enter whatever alliances, military or other, they like.
Also, in comment No. 9 I'm not questioning right of Cuba (or possibly Venezuela) to, again, enter any alliances with Russians, Chinese or whomever they want. Again, they are independent, and decision is theirs.
What I'm questioning is the wisdom of it.
First, from the view of those countries.
Second, I can't really see how any posible deployment of, let's say Russian military hardware or troops in Latin America adds to its national security. To the contrary.
Or how will such American deployment in Latvia increase national security of the US?
But, too many things seem to be moving by inertia alone.
For example, take a look at Korea. Chinese are long gone from the north, and there are still tens of thousands US soldiers stationed in the south. Maintaning such force and equipment requires enormus amouns of money. It would make a lot of sense (economically and otherwise) to at least, reduce the size of the force there. After all, in case of need, it wouldn't be hard to beef it up.
But, inertia seems to be the case. Or, perhaps, such move would be opposed by so many bureauacrats who make a nice living, with things the way they are? (such move would save a lot of US taxpayer's money, but would break few thousands rise bowls, that's for sure).
Anyway. I'm not questioning anybody's right here. But, is it a smartest thing to use those rights? Now in 21 century? I would like to think that there will be the other way.

The big question that any US newspaper or diplomats seeks to avoid is: did Bush know about the Georgian attack? And even more pressing: was the US army or were US military contractors involved in the preparations of the attacks?

NATO membership for Georgia cannot be discussed without mentioning that according to Russia most foreign support for the Chechen rebellions can over the Georgian border.

A third factor is that only a few months Russia was severely criticized by the US and some of its allies for strengthening its troops in Abchazia and shooting down a unmanned plane. Yet to me these seemed a very reasonable reaction to thwart an imminenent Georgian attack. But condemning these Russian actions the US told Russia that it doesn't matter how subtle their foreign policy is - when they get in the way of US foreign policy they will get criticized.

Finally it is worth mentioning the speculations on the internet about the many US ships sailing to the Persian Gulf. According to this theory the Georgian attack is US led and serves as a distraction for Russia when the US takes on Iran.

http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=461

Who Started Cold War II?
by Patrick J. Buchanan

The American people should be eternally grateful to Old Europe for having spiked the Bush-McCain plan to bring Georgia into NATO.

Had Georgia been in NATO when Mikheil Saakashvili invaded South Ossetia, we would be eyeball to eyeball with Russia, facing war in the Caucasus, where Moscow’s superiority is as great as U.S. superiority in the Caribbean during the Cuban missile crisis.

If the Russia-Georgia war proves nothing else, it is the insanity of giving erratic hotheads in volatile nations the power to drag the United States into war.

From Harry Truman to Ronald Reagan, as Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, U.S. presidents have sought to avoid shooting wars with Russia, even when the Bear was at its most beastly.

Blowback from Bear Baiting
By Patrick Buchanan

Mikheil Saakashvili’s decision to use the opening of the Olympic Games to cover Georgia’s invasion of its breakaway province of South Ossetia must rank in stupidity with Gamal Abdel-Nasser’s decision to close the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships.

Nasser’s blunder cost him the Sinai in the Six-Day War. Saakashvili’s blunder probably means permanent loss of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

After shelling and attacking what he claims is his own country, killing scores of his own Ossetian citizens and sending tens of thousands fleeing into Russia, Saakashvili’s army was whipped back into Georgia in 48 hours.

Vladimir Putin took the opportunity to kick the Georgian army out of Abkhazia, as well, to bomb Tbilisi and to seize Gori, birthplace of Stalin.

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 lightning coup and present the world with a fait accompli.

Mikheil did not reckon on the rage or resolve of the Bear.

American charges of Russian aggression ring hollow. Georgia started this fight — Russia finished it. People who start wars don’t get to decide how and when they end.

Russia’s response was “disproportionate” and “brutal,” wailed Bush.

True. But did we not authorize Israel to bomb Lebanon for 35 days in response to a border skirmish where several Israel soldiers were killed and two captured? Was that not many times more “disproportionate”?

Russia has invaded a sovereign country, railed Bush. But did not the United States bomb Serbia for 78 days and invade to force it to surrender a province, Kosovo, to which Serbia had a far greater historic claim than Georgia had to Abkhazia or South Ossetia, both of which prefer Moscow to Tbilisi?

Is not Western hypocrisy astonishing?

Granted, the current US administration has been stupidly provocative towards Russia, but really - where should Russia be looking, long term, for its future enemies? Certainly not west - the EU has been perfectly willing to cooperate economically with Russia, and the US would like its diplomatic assistance on a range of problems. Picking a fight with Nato doesn't seem to make any sense.

But as a country with a shrinking population and too much territory to defend against a rising China - which is running out of arable land, drinkable water, and breathable air - and massive Islamic populations to the south that are expected to be propelled north by global climate change, the Russian military must be feeling vulnerable. And needing to expand and, more importantly, modernize Russia's armed forces.

Putin has invested money in refurbishing equipment taken out of mothballs, but in order to spend the enormous sums required for converting the Russian army into a 21st-century force he has to convince the Russian people that they are surrounded and endangered. Why else the Public Hate Days against last year's foreign enemy no. 1 (Estonia!)? Is this incursion into Georgia really anything more than a move to convince Russian public opinion that their glorious armed forces need and deserve to become the focus of a multiyear, multibillion dollar expansion? Russia can expect to face challenges in coming years, but not the ones they are presenting to their public today.

But they may have overplayed their hand in this case - the only governments to offer heartfelt congratulations were Cuba and Venezuela, with even Belorussia being unexpectedly restrained and Serbia genuinely confused how to spin it. And this is being noted in their press (which is where I found the information, except about Serbia - at gazeta.ru).

The West need not respond militarily, but it should be made clear that Russia will be unable to use similar moves in the future to build its propaganda case at home.

"As always, Montgomery's comments are informative and equally thought-provoking. " ,writes Mike.

Mike, are you kidding?

I still ask myself what´s it about, what is behind this repeatedly published agitation on B92.

does B92 have to publish it? are there some figures in the background who are dictating what has to be published here?

just like some other commentator is asking above, is B92 obeying to write exclusively articles which are in contrast to serbian national interest?

up to this day, I still ask myself who is deciding on this matter, and why B92 coninuously publishes the flawed views of an obviously biased american...

jesus, wasn´t there some smart analyst talking about "the one and only global superpower"?

where are those rambo-phrases now?

business as usual on B92.
thanks for the entertainment.

..the thing is that no one likes hypocrisy..the problem for US administration is that people are not goldfishes with three second memory, especially now with internet and databases and approach to information worldwide..

..the bigger problem for US administration is possibility that Russia can now become the champion of the sane part of the world, with ability to put the finger on the king and say ‘’the king is naked..’’

..the biggest problem is that king does not know that he is naked..nore his servants are courageous and willing to glance at him and let him know about the unpleasant situation..

..if I was American, I would be worried..McCain broke 7 points lead over Obama..great.. the next king is going to be naked to..

..there was a survey in Russia, with results that shocked many.. a strong majority of Russians would prefer to see McCain as new US president..and the reason is that Russians knows this kind of dudes..and they are prepared for them..as oppose Obama..the guy seem sane and informed about developments, had no baseball injuries, had no war traumas that changed his judgment and made him hate other people for life, a problem for them..

..And the bigger of the biggest problem for the US is that majority of Americans has notion that they are the biggest and the most dominant country in the world and that they can confront the whole world, with support of UK and few other puppet regimes..

..Japanese were telling me that they would never forget Enola Gay, and I believe them..China is still soared for receiving few cruise missiles in their Belgrade embassy, and Tibet thing and human rights bulling and so on..Hindus are disappointed due to US support for Musharaf.. Russians..don’t let me started..South American leaders are uniting to compete with Washington..I think that for majority of people across the world US looks like wild boar on the cocaine fuelled rampage party, no one knows who is going to be next..

..I am not the fan of Russia..But, every sense of justice embedded in me is supporting them in each confrontation with US..