Response to James Schneider II

Dear James,

You are out of date and articulating a position similar to the French and German attitudes to Russia at the Bucharest Summit in December 2007 in your reply to my recent Henry Jackson Society policy proposal . Anatol Lieven, in an interview in July explained to me that France’s new NATO stance was based on “one enormous condition: which is that Russia does not once again become an enemy.” He explained that was why the “French approach calls for selective co-operation with the US, supporting the mission in Afghanistan but opposing US calls for NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia.” Berlin and Paris were backing exactly the proposals you outline. That we do not offer Georgia and the Ukraine MAPs to the Western Alliance as it would constitute an aggressive and bellicose act towards Russia and risked igniting a phase of ‘acute competition,’ what you could call a ‘new Cold War.’ The French and the Germans publicly opposed US plans for a missile shield in Eastern Europe, I hope you remember Jacques Chirac’s attitude to the project and I also hope you have taken on board Gerhard Schroeder’s attempts to co-operate, open-dialogue and derive mutually enriching wealth from his post inside Gazprom. This was a fair and sound policy until the Russian invasion of Georgia.

You argue, just as the previous French and German positions were, that there are alternatives and a passive, non-reactive policy towards Moscow is necessary. You talk a lot about ‘co-option’ and ‘mutual-beneficent’ strategies we could have with Russia. However we are not dealing with the Russian people, but a criminal-gang at the helm of the state. The Putin-Medvedev tandem has already shown it is not interested in your policy, that of Sarkozy and Merkel before the war. If it had been interested in a deliberate act of Western respect for a zone of neutrality it would not have prepared to invade Georgia since December 2007. This is how Moscow responded to that path James, let’s not make the same mistake twice.

In my response I decided to address your fears of things spiralling out of control, by calling for a summit where Moscow could be offered either a neutral Georgia with internationalised South Ossetia and Abkhazia, where once refugees had returned their homes we could hold free and fair referendums on their futures. The alternative is to accept partition, recognise these breakaways and make Moscow aware that because it forcibly changed borders by force we are now going to guarantee Georgia independence and right to join any international organisation it meets the criteria for. You suggest the US can guarantee Georgian independence, as it does of the State of Israel. I posit that comes down to the same thing as NATO membership, just with the EU free-loading off America’s defences, as usual. If you believe that one of the goals of European foreign policy is to solidify and strengthen democracy abroad, why are you suggesting the US enter into a pact with Tbilisi, and the UK just smile and wave?

You didn’t address the fact that in creating ‘neutral-ground’ in the Caucasus and over Russia the proposals I outlined, this matches with both Moscow’s stated agenda and as far as I judge – our own. You chose to divert attention away from this and focus on what I suggest we do if Russia refuses to accept such a deal, thereby fully owning up to its desires not protect itself from encroachment – but to build a sphere of exclusive political influence, one over which it wields a veto on who rules. A post-modern Empire if you like to rival America’s. I personally do not believe that any of the parties are ready for such a bold attempt to tie up the loose ends of the Cold War.

The European liberal-left are continuing to believe that the Franco-German strategy of halting NATO expansion and congratulating Medvedev on his ‘election victory,’ will show results. It’s failed. The European ‘tough-men’ are shouting and doing nothing when they should be silent and doing everything. The US is in election-mode and lead by those who have shown themselves rather un-adept at foreign policy. Georgia itself would probably without (the highly unlikely) massive Western push to accept new borders in exchange for a guarantee they will never alter again is sinking into national-narratives of betrayal, incapacity and failure. And the Russians are aiming at building a new sphere, thinking on a different wave-length to Brussels about the use of force, empire and nation. So we are headed for the worst of all worlds. Georgia is a paralysed country under Russian-veto, Ukraine is heading for a similar dock, the US and a few European countries are incompetently trying to live out Reagan fantasies whilst others turn a blind eye to Moscow. This is not a new Cold War. It’s something far dirtier, messier and it’s already begun. Faded ‘90s proposals won’t work anymore – we need to offer Russia a deal that updates Reykjavik or be ready for more thrusts as an unstable criminal group of spies try and keep their people drugged to ‘glory.’

These are the harsh realities of the 21^st century and this is why if you believe the Russians are not willing to update Reykjavik and accept a neutral Georgia, it is our duty to work for a total pull out of Russian forces, accept partition and fast-track Tbilisi onto the MAP into the Western Alliance. Accepting Georgia as in the Russian sphere legitimizes the Putin Doctrine, of 'Once Russian, Always Russian.'

The fact you are willing to repeat the mistakes Europe just made, I hope you are ready for deeper consequences, demonstrates that liberals are stuck in yesterday’s tomorrow. You need a time machine James, but then again so does the world.

Yours truly,

Ben

P.S You made a lot of factual errors. I presume because you were tired. For instance I did not suggest a NATO Georgia would be neutral, I suggested it as the only alternative to a Russian rejection of neutrality. And there were others, mostly minor.