Are we heading towards the point of no return?

Max Kaye

Peter, It takes two to tango.

Like wayward children, for the past 20 years we in the West have been prodding this 'mangy old bear' with sharp sticks (encirclement by NATO; Kosovo; etc) in the belief that the bear had been de-clawed and was locked tightly in his cage.

Then, when truly provoked the bear lashes out and we find that the cage is insecure and that we are totally defenseless against him - we cry "aggression!".

Eating humble pie - and one's hat - is indeed 'unpalatable', but it's the only dish on offer. (Unless you think Merkel and Sarkozy are going to offer to lay down the lives of their troops to enforce Georgian 'territorial integrity').

Hugh Bicheno

Placate = appease. Do you never learn? In return for Kosovo, Russia has done a tit-for-tat in the Caucasus. There is no need to do anything at all, least of all the usual preemptive cringe.

Al Wood

Whatever positive reasons there may be for Georgia and Ukraine to be join NATO, their membership would always be totally unacceptable to Russia. And would NATO, as one, truly extend the security guarantee to these countries? Probably not. Essentially, then, Russia has called the West's bluff over the South Ossetia and Abkhazia affair.

The energy issue alone makes an appropriate response awkward, to say nothing of the risks of escalation, etc. There is little or nought the West can do at this point in time that would have a credible effect.

Round One to Russia in the new COld War.

Arthur

This is about the Russian sphere. I would advise those interested to read Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations. Not for the apocalyptic implications but because culture, civilization and regional power are and were always realities in the international system. It is only the recent history of cold war bi-polarity and the more recent fallacy of a sole megapower world that obscured this fact. We had better get used to it and learn how to balance the regional interests of half a dozen centres of power.

Rhys

I had thought that the US and UK could not possibly invent a more dangerous, stupid and counter-productive foreign policy than the invasion and occupation of Iraq, but sadly I was wrong. Not content with alienating large chunks of world opinion, destroying any moral capital the West may once have had, and legitimising unilateral military action against sovereign states (for Iraq read Georgia), our glorious leaders have found a new way of shooting ourselves in the foot. What is our legitimate strategic interest in flirting with Georgia and placing a missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic? Was it sensible to recognise Kosovo – as much a part of Serbia as Scotland is of the UK - as an independent state? One does not have to be very sophisticated to work out that these actions will not only antagonise Russia but are calculated to do so. Whose interests does this serve? Do we not have enough enemies in the world that it is thought necessary to create a new, powerful one? I can see that all this geo-political trickery may make sense to some crazed neocon in his Washington bunker, and to the credulous journalists who peddle the neocon line, but it is manifestly not in the UK’s interests to go along with this. Why is that only the clear-thinking pragmatists of the Right – such as Mr Redwood whom you quote – can see where our national interests lie. I would have thought that the events of the last 6 years or so would have taught us that uncritical acceptance and slavish support of US foreign policy is dangerous to our health as a nation. An intelligent foreign policy is more than silly posturing designed to impress the red-top editors and their headline writers - but unfortunately the present generation of political leaders seem to have forgotten this.

Frank Pulley

George Friedman on the Stratfor website explicates another forensic analysis of the latest instalment of East-West game:

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/georgia_and_kosovo_single_intertwined_crisis

Order a coffee before you read it, a superficial skip will be insufficient and it is so structured that an extract wouldn't do it justice. Read it all.

Ian C

Any 'foreign policy' held by this country is not worth a dime without it taking full account of what the USA is doing and thinking. Just look at the sort of people who have been our foreign secretaries in the past 15 or so years to know that it is no longer a major office of state, more a department of No 10. That does not necessarily mean that we are their poodles or slavish.

Having said this it is unnecessary to provoke Russia needlessly. But equally it is vital not to be seen, by them, to be in the appeasement game.

It seems to me that Georgia were very stupid for some reasons of over-confidence presumbaly connected with what the USA had led them to believe about NATO membership. Russia has taken advantage and put down a marker. We should note this but then get back to ensuring that Russia does not continue with its self-destructive path to renewed corrupt authoritarianism.

It is as if Putin is voting for McCain.

Augustus

I tend to have a lot of sympathy with Rhys's post. Foreign policy in the West does seem bankrupt of goals, and lacking in modernity and intelligence. It seems that, after the political fiascos of Iraq and Afghanistan, a sort of Cold War revival instinct has emerged, and as an excuse for a justifiable foreign policy. Surely a very undiplomatic, as well as costly exercise?

David Lindsay

Oh, enough! For God's sake, enough!

Roll on President Obama, and then Speccie writers might ever be able to admit that the American Administration of the day is wrong about anything.

When, with full Russian backing, Nagorno-Karabakh declares independence from "Western" (Anglo-American-Israeli) backed, Islamist Azerbaijan, what will you say?

When with full "Western" (Anglo-American-Israeli) backing, Islamist Chechnya declares independence from Russia, what will you say?

And so one could go on.

Speccie readers, on the other hand, are clearly still proper conservatives, thank the Lord.

rhys

Frank Pulley - many thanks for the Stratfor link. It is a fascinating article which rings all too true. The Kosovo action opened Pandora's box in a number of ways. Not least the fact that it set a precedent for unilateral military action without UN sanction and without a self-defence justification. Unfortunately NATO "got away with it" in the sense that opponents like Russia were too weak to respond - even when war crimes such as the targeting of the Belgrade TV station were committed. This encouraged Blair, to name but one, to ignore the norms of international law and launch subsequent wars of aggression such as Iraq. Bombing became the first, rather than the last, resort. Russia's decision to adopt a military solution in Georgia, and ignore Georgia's sovereignty, is not an unfortunate accident of history - it is a directly foreseeable result of NATO/US/UK's progressive undermining and
dismantling of the UN Charter. However, what is sauce for the goose......

CG

John Redwood's article is excellent. I wish he was PM.

Verity

CG - Yes, John Redwood would be an effective PM. Far, far more effective than flyweight Cameron.

Verity

CG - Yes, John Redwood would be an effective PM. Far, far more effective than flyweight Cameron.

Herbert Thornton

I agree - the John Redwood article is excellent. So is the George Friedman article, especially his comments on the Dayton Accords -

"...the Clinton administration helped negotiate the Dayton Accords, which were intended to end the Balkan wars and indeed managed to go quite far in achieving this. The Dayton Accords were built around the principle that there could be no adjustment in the borders of the former Yugoslav republics. Ethnic Serbs would live under Bosnian rule. The principle that existing borders were sacrosanct was embedded in the Dayton Accords."

The Dayton Accords seem, to me, to be a kind of papering over the cracks rather than a real solution - similar to application of the principle, devised centuries ago, of cuius regio eijus religio.

Something that nobody seems to have mentioned is the similarity between Russia's interest in what happens in states bordering on Russia and America's interest in what happens in its neighbours in the Americas. Is not what we are seeing merely the Russians asserting their own equivalent of the Monroe Doctrine?

I think that Georgia is none of our business and that the west should stay out of it.