Thoughts on Russia-Georgia Conflict

Since I know very little about the former Soviet states like Georgia, I have been devoting my spare time since the conflict broke out to reading up and educating myself. Several themes jump out about the conflict, the discussion as to what the US should do about it and the '08 campaign:

1) The two parties in the US tend to define the issue differently. The Right tends to define it as Russian aggression that will inevitably lead to invasion of Ukraine and other former Soviet satellites in an effort to reconstitute its former empire unless the US takes forceful (probably military) action to stop it. Matthew Yglesias of Think Progress quotes Noah Millman's description of this camp's take and also points out that not all situations like this resemble Europe in 1938. George Will of The Washington Post and Rich Lowry of The National Review give their versions of the conservative view. A confrontational approach like that advocated by John McCain seems to be the end result of this analysis, including McCain's support for kicking the Russians out of G-8 and admitting Georgia into NATO. Critics point out that top McCain foreign policy advisor Randy Scheunemann has served as a lobbyist for Georgia, creating a potential conflict of interest.

2) The Democrats define the issue more broadly and consequently arrive at different solutions. This view is summarized well by The New York Times editorial that cites contributions to the crisis from recent actions by Russia but also by Georgia and the Bush administration. This view critiques the confrontational approach due to its simplistic definition of the problem (e.g. Russia's aggression is indefensible and must be addressed but there is more to it than that.) Fred Kaplan of Slate questions the ability of the US to act forcefully due to an almost complete lack of leverage over Russia. He argues that part of the cost of Bush foreign policy is the limitation it has placed on the US military that General Barry McCaffrey recently described in McClatchy as "rapidly unraveling" due to the strain it has suffered fighting simultaneous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Bush administration's culpability is due to its "egging on" Georgia to resist Moscow and ramp up its military, partially to enable it to serve as a member of the "coalition of the willing" in Iraq. It is also difficult for the US to make a credible case against Russia unilaterally invading a sovereign nation given its having done just that in Iraq.

3) The Democrats (and Barack Obama) tend to favor a multinational diplomatic solution including a ceasefire agreement and the introduction of an international peacekeeping force along with more direct and vigorous diplomatic engagement between the US and Russia. A ceasefire has been announced but there are differing opinions about what this will mean. These opinions are summarized by Kevin Drum of The Washington Monthly.

So far, I side with Obama and the Democrats. Everyone agrees that the Russian military action has been brutal and excessive. Though a quick and "tough" response might be emotionally satisfying to some, our experience with the Bush administration has revealed the costs of acting recklessly based on a simplistic ideological definition of foreign policy issues. Obama's thoughtful, measured style and belief in competent diplomacy seems better suited to avoiding further harm as well as possibly contributing to a more peaceful solution.

UPDATE: The Washington Post reports today on McCain foreign policy advisor Scheunemann's lobbying for Georgia earlier this year.

Sen. John McCain's top foreign policy adviser prepped his boss for an April 17 phone call with the president of Georgia and then helped the presumptive Republican presidential nominee prepare a strong statement of support for the fledgling republic.

The day of the call, a lobbying firm partly owned by the adviser, Randy Scheunemann, signed a $200,000 contract to continue providing strategic advice to the Georgian government in Washington.

Giving a US Presidential candidate foreign policy advice while in the employ of a government that will be affected by US policy as a lobbyist is ethically questionable at the very least.

--Ballard Burgher