American intervention will only make matters worse in international dispute
Blake Gilson
No matter how the conflict is framed – either Russian aggression against Georgia or Georgian aggression against South Ossetia – responsibility for the violence is shared among all parties. The conflict gave the opportunity for both presidential candidates to talk tough, as they echo the Western media’s love of Russia bashing, while playing down Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili’s aggression against South Ossetia.
It would be better for the U.S. to do nothing than to pick a side, intervene and set the world up for another global war. This doesn’t seem likely as the U.S. has already made close friends with Saakashvili, an ally of the war in Iraq, and the U.S. has set the norm by ignoring Georgian government violence against provinces seeking self-determination.
The "rule-the-world" mentality of the U.S. has helped set up this bloodshed in two ways.
First, Saakashvili came to power with a platform of uniting Georgia, which has remained politically fractured. This goal has been achieved through bloodshed with open aggression against Abkhazia and now South Ossetia. Knowing that it had support from the biggest kid on the playground, Georgia felt it could pick a fight – and fight it did.
Secondly, U.S. support for expansion of NATO membership to Georgia worries Russia. NATO membership for Georgia would increase the risk of a miscalculation, plunging half the world into war.
An attempt made by the U.S. to secure Georgia made it more likely that Russia would lash out.
Humanitarian assistance might seem like a natural response, but government-backed aid risks making the situation worse. Aid from the U.S. government is a signal of a political relationship, something that is not overlooked by military planners on both sides.
Russia was quick to lash out, claiming that NATO was using humanitarian aid as a cover for a build-up of forces. As Russian Col. General Anatoli Nagovitsyn said, "I don’t think that this will help stabilize the situation in the region."
The U.S. should take a step back before they make the situation worse.
Gilson, a business sophomore, can be reached via [email protected]
Georgian president miscalculated American ally in conflict with Russia
Abdul Khan
I really have trouble believing that America is responding to this at all. Response infers that an event happened without one’s active participation. It’s probable that America had a good deal to do with the whole outbreak.
Not too long ago, we were making progress toward a missile defense system. We wanted to base it in Poland, and the reason is obvious – to protect our allies from Iran. Also, this is in line with the expansion of NATO to former Soviet Bloc nations. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin was very clear on this appearing to be the beginning of a new arms race.
"What are we supposed to do? We cannot just observe all this. In our opinion, it is nothing different from ‘diktat,’ nothing different from imperialism," Putin told reporters in May 2007.
The response was in line with the administration’s pattern. The United States, and President George W. Bush in particular, was wrong about his view of Russia.
"Russia is not an enemy. There needs to be no military response because we’re not at war with Russia. … Russia is not a threat. Nor is the missile defense we’re proposing a threat to Russia," he said in June 2007.
This is a dead wrong assessment.
All of our actions in the former Soviet nations appear to be an infringement or an expansion. Do you recall the arrogant and cocky remarks Georgian President Mikheil Saakishvili made at the beginning of the crisis? He was standing there speaking about how Russia would finally get what’s coming to it. America was transporting the Georgian Army from Iraq back home. It seemed that Saakashvili really was relying on support. It does not add up that Georgia would take arms against Russia, while deployed in Iraq, and make statements of such confidence.
Saakashvili seemed certain that we would hold the ports for him and come through with air support. People have often made overestimations about their strength and their allies’ loyalty.
We seem to be willing to tell small nations we have their back, but it is all words because truthfully, America cannot fight Russia, and we know it. Most likely, we suggested that Georgia would have full support, then we let Russia go in and beat Georgia. This way we could speak of disproportionate response and aggressive war without it being one of ours. Wag that dog.
Khan, a political science and history junior, can be reached via [email protected]
