POLITICS SEPTEMBER 1, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The future of Russia's excursion in Georgia remains to be determined. But some conclusions can already be drawn:
1. Russian power is extraordinarily brutal in the post-Soviet era, as we have already seen in Chechnya. This brutality has been confirmed -- although on a smaller scale -- in the spectacle of the Russian army occupying a sovereign country, moving through it as it pleases, advancing and retreating at will, and casually destroying the military and civilian infrastructures of a young democracy as an astonished world watches. Today it is Georgia. Tomorrow will it be Ukraine? Or, in the name of the same solidarity with the supposedly persecuted Russian-speaking populations, will it be the Baltic countries? Or Poland?
2. The new Russia is indifferent to international protests, admonishments and warnings. The Cold War had its rules, its codes. It was a time when signs were carefully deciphered. There was a kind of half-warrior, half-pacifist hermeneutics in play, during which we spent our time reacting to what philosopher Michel Serres called "the signal fires and foghorns" of the adversary. In this new-look Cold War, there are no more signals. No more codes. Instead, Russia offers a permanently obscene gesture to "messages" we know will have absolutely no effect. Was it not at the same moment Condoleezza Rice was in Tbilisi that Vladimir Putin, with a cynicism and aplomb that would have been unthinkable in yesterday's world, chose to advance his troops as far as 20 miles from the capital?
3. Russia has no shame when it comes to twisting principles and ideals. It brandishes the "precedent" of Kosovo -- as if there could be anything in common between the case of a Serbian province hounded, battered and broken by ethnic purification that lasted for decades, and the situation of Ossetia, victim of a "genocide" that, according to the latest news (a report by Human Rights Watch) consists of 47 deaths. And look how they turn to their profit -- as well as that of the same Russian-speaking minorities they want to bring back into the bosom of the Empire -- the argument of the "duty to intervene" that might justify the exactions, in Gori and elsewhere, of the Russian army and its militias. This is a fine, grand principle dear to the French foreign minister and a few others. How daring! Well, Mr. Putin dared, Mr. Putin thought about it and did it.
4. European -- and in this instance French -- diplomacy is weak. We expect a great democracy to condemn and sanction the aggressor, without nuance. But in effect the opposite was done. The party that was attacked was the one sanctioned. The weak, not the strong, was made to yield. Just as 13 years ago in Dayton, Bosnian leader Alija Izetbegovic was forced to sign, with a heavy heart, the agreement laying out the dismemberment of his country. Mikheil Saakashvili, the Georgian president, was also forced to ratify a document that the Russians speak of as the "Medvedev document." Not a word in it mentions the territorial integrity of the country. Then there are the famous "additional security" clauses acknowledging the Russian army's right to be stationed there and to patrol, as scandalous in principle as they are vague in their modalities of application. Has the world turned upside down? This must be a dream.
5. Western public opinion fell with disconcerting facility for the thesis advanced -- from the very first day -- by the Kremlin's propaganda machine. We know now that the Russian army had been hard at work on its war preparations since before Aug. 8. We know that it massed at the "border" between Georgia and Ossetia a considerable military and paramilitary logistical presence. We know the Russians had methodically repaired the railroad tracks that the troop-transport trains were to take, and we know that at least 150 tanks went through the Roki tunnel separating the two Ossetias the morning of Aug. 8.
In other words, no one can ignore the fact that President Saakashvili only decided to act when he no longer had a choice, and war had already come. In spite of this accumulation of facts that should have been blindingly obvious to all scrupulous, good-faith observers, many in the media rushed as one man toward the thesis of the Georgians as instigators, as irresponsible provocateurs of the war.
We must re-examine all of this. We must analyze in greater depth the mechanisms of a blindness that may, if we are not careful, perpetuate the Western "decline in courage" denounced in his time by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, but which we thought belonged to the past. Reason, if not honor, demands that we go to the rescue of Europe in Tbilisi.
French philosopher and writer Bernard-Henri Lévy is the author, most recently, of American Vertigo: Traveling America in the Footsteps of Tocqueville and Ce Grand Cadavre à la Renverse. Translated from the French by Sara Sugihara.
This article first appeared in The Wall Street Journal.
18 comments
"many in the media rushed as one man toward the thesis of the Georgians as the instigators.as irresponsible provocateurs of the war". What a surprise.
- fseidle
September 1, 2008 at 6:08am
Who are we talking about here? I'm not sure but it sounds like the Bushies Iraq invasion. To the points: 1)"spectacle of the ...army occupying a sovereign country, moving through it as it pleases, advancing and retreating at will, and casually destroying the military and civilian infrastructures... as an astonished world watches." 2)"is indifferent to international protests, admonishments and warnings." 3)
- lesserliz
September 1, 2008 at 8:17am
3) of a "genocide" that, according to the latest news (a report by Human Rights Watch)consists of 47 deaths"-what that's a typical Bush wedding party bombing! 4)"additional security" clauses acknowledging the army's right to be stationed there and to patrol"-sounds like the Iraq No Fly Zone. 5)"Western public opinion fell with disconcerting facility for the thesis advanced"..what else can I say?
- lesserliz
September 1, 2008 at 8:21am
Are you kidding or blind? After expelling the Georgians, Riding around on the back of tanks and destroying the American made equipment that bespoke of just who instigated the conflict was a moderate response to the night attack on South Ossetia. At least it was moderate in contrast to the continued occupation of Iraq that the writer's country rightly refused to support. And young democracy, my foot....
- James Mulick
September 1, 2008 at 10:04am
'By Jingo! Hear, hear. . .' --”The ‘Dogs of War’ are loose and the rugged Russian Bear, All bent on blood and robbery has crawled out of his lair...It seems a thrashing now and then, will never help to tame... That brute, and so he's out upon the ‘same old game’... The Lion [substitute ‘Eagle’] did his best... to find him some excuse... To crawl back to his den again. All efforts were nouse... He hunger'd for his victim. He's pleased when blood is shed... But let us hope his crimes may all recoil on his own head...” --Chorus-- “We don't want to fight but by jingo if we do... We've got the ships, we've got the men, and got the money too! We've fought [substitute ‘beaten’] the Bear before... and while we Britons [substitute ‘ ’mercans’] shall be true, The Russians never shall have Constantinople..." [substitute ‘Kiev’].
- p.
September 1, 2008 at 10:08am
--, 1890s
- p.
September 1, 2008 at 10:12am
Exactly. Only one thing is missing: someone needs to take to task the folly of the leaders of these tiny separationist movements in the Balkans and the Caucasus and other areas. Russia is spoiling for a fight with the West. Europe and the US should make clear that they will support the integrity of existing states, but if you pick a fight to break up those borders to make your own little 100,000 person enclave, you're on your own. The instability that comes from self-determination at the micro-level simply is not worth the risk it poses to international order.
- Steve Demuth
September 1, 2008 at 10:16am
What a relief! When I first read Levy's comment of one country's "occupying a sovereign country, moving through it as it pleases, advancing and retreating at will, and casually destroying the military and civilian infrastructures of a young democracy as an astonished world watches" I thought he might be thinking of the U.S.. But, of course, the U.S. would never do such a thing. On first fast reading, I missed the word "democracy." That seems to be the key distinction; not the soooo-twentieth-century idea of national "sovereignty." In the 21st century, one country does not invade and occupy another "demcoracy". Every other sovereign nation is fair game, though. I'm learning fast. Which leads to an interesting question: what if Russia invaded some Central Asian country that is not a "democracy" and not to Russia's liking and therefore, in Russia's mind, warrants regime change --say, Uzbekistan? Would that be alright? Or is the idea here that only bona fide "democracies", as we or Levy define them, may invade and occupy another sovereign country?
- Uwe Reinhardt
September 1, 2008 at 10:52am
Why is it that this man is the only one with enough balls to tell the truth: Today's Russia is not that different from the USSR? In Fact,it is worse. The West will have to be extraordinarily-cunning and courageous to reverse the tide of Russian imperialism in the face of the renewed and emboldened military, and the economic weight of its natural resources. They lost the Cold War, they certainly don't want to lose two in a row. Their pride and foolishness won't permit it. Did I believe in a god or gods, I would say, "Heaven help us".
- Patrick Milroy
September 1, 2008 at 11:03am
Russia is not the new Soviet Union. But it is a major power in accord with the West in general (anti-Islamism, capitalism, etc) but not a follower and very much in need of its own vital strategic space. Show some respect, lay off with the NATO bull and move on to tackle real not imagined enemies.
- youssef ibrahim
September 1, 2008 at 11:49am
Don't give me this "democracy" mumbo jumbo with the state of freedom of speech in France and Germany.
- Richard
September 1, 2008 at 2:38pm
When a French author insists that "we" must come to the rescue of Georgia and Europe, I assume he means the United States, not Europe, must risk her soldiers, spend hundreds of billions of dollars, and invoke the wrath of lefty peaceniks the world over.
- Frank Lee
September 1, 2008 at 3:43pm
Mr. Levy, you are either contradicting yourself or you are engaging in a game of wishful thinking. Having established that the Russians ignore any signal from the West and that they play by their own rules, you scorn France for crafting an agreement that capitulated to Russian demands? Medvedev had all of the leverage going into the negotiations and -- as you say better than anyone -- a mind to reject anything he didn't like. The French agreement was deeply flawed, of course. But anything less and Medvedev would have walked away from the table.
- rozenson
September 1, 2008 at 4:13pm
this is such a hawkish, pro-war propaganda rag i'm ashamed i was once a subscriber
- jerkaboy
September 1, 2008 at 5:25pm
This man has always been a complete joke. He still is.
- Andrew Arato
September 1, 2008 at 6:25pm
Levy is completely off his rocker. Period. Does he really imagine that we are going to go to war with a nuclear-armed Russia over South Ossetia and Abkhazia? Lunacy. As to the specifics, there is no particular reason to consider Georgia's borders to have been settled. Georgia declared itself independent of Russia; the Ossetians and Abkhazians didn't want to go. It is a curiosity indeed that the borders of an existing state should not be considered sacrosanct, but the internal borders of a province or other political sub-unit becomes sacrosanct the moment that it secedes. Does Levy further imagine that if Russia were making alliances with Venezuela and other countries near our borders and posting missiles there we would do nothing about it? Come to think of it, the last time that happened, we did, right to the brink as I recall. Like all of the self-righteous right, he imagines that war is to be undertaken in the name of religion, his ideological religion in this case, and not out of prudent self-regard for the safety and security of one's own nation. Even if the US had the means, which it does not, to defend Georgia against Russia, it is not our obligation or even our right to send young Americans to die unless it is in our own national interest. We are not, indeed, the world police. It is inconceivable that going to war against Russia in Georgia is in our own national interest. Finally, given the scale of the casualties in Georgia and the scale of the casualties in Iraq, together with the complete lack of justification for our invasion of Iraq as a matter of extant international law, the term "brutal" might better be applied to the US than to Russia at this particular moment in history. Are we so certain that the Iraqis we killed were asking to give up their lives for "regime change," even from the regime of Saddam Hussein? By what moral authority exactly did we decide that they ought to die for that cause? Levy is nuts, and a pompous, puffed-up, jingoistic nuts at that. The sort of nuts that gets millions killed when it is given free rein.
- roidubouloi
September 1, 2008 at 11:06pm
It seems that Russia is attempting to counter the imperialism of the Western democracies, which is being implemented by awarding NATO membership to willing, former Russian colonies. Why would Russia be so concerned, as the NATO membership has no military teeth and does not represent any formidable military threat? Indeed why does Russia itself not become a member of NATO and then attempt to dominate it in Europe? Perhaps that would be too cleverly diabolical. It would require Putin’s Russia to feign interest in becoming a democracy. But Russia, as Mr. Levy has made clear, is far too brutish for such an effort. It is no democracy; it remains an oligarchy just as it was in the days of the Soviet Union. Frontal and brutish engagements to intimidate its neighbors will be the modus operandi. The initial strategy is to bring most of its former colonies under its “sphere of influence”, to which Western Europe will likely learn to acquiesce. After all, this is an old European tradition. To do otherwise would require the Western Europeans to remilitarize in a serious way; to prepare for the possibility of war in a possible future confrontation with Russia. As we can see in the odd rules of engagement of those Western European countries that have forces in Afghanistan, avoidance of conflict will be the guideline. Self delusion about Russian intentions will likely dominate the intellectual chatter and the limited military capability and presence of the United States will not be present to give them the required backbone; nor will such limited presence cause Russia to be discouraged as Russian. Russian will start with its southern border and then switch to Eastern Europe, if Western Europe responds as I suggest. Mr. Levy has pointed out in another forum that the sickness of Western Europe is its extreme fear of war that is a consequence of the 20th century’s wars that occurred in Western Europe. This will not change. During the 1980’s the United States had to compel Western Europe to accept its Pershing missiles to check the placement of medium range nuclear missiles in Eastern Europe by the Soviet Union. The United States had the ability and, under Reagan, the will to accomplish this feat. Not so today. The United States has even failed to build a major missile defense system, let alone a major military presence – one that is not even large enough to counter a relatively pathetic Russian military capability. The Russian people are not permitted to share this fear with their brethren in Western Europe simply because they do not have a say. There is no longer a viable opposition to Putin’s authoritarian regime. Putin has a free hand to do as he pleases, so long as he is supported by the former Soviet apparatchik. What can and should be done to counter the Russian strategy? What is within the realm of possibility given the realities? First, Europe must copy France and launch a major energy program that will reduce the leverage of Russia’s sole economic strength - exporting petroleum to Europe. Without this dominate economic strength, Russia’s ability to build a stronger military will be greatly diminished. Copying France’s reliance on nuclear energy would be the most realistic step at this stage, as well as developing other non-petroleum energy sources. Second, Europe must increase its military spending to at least be able to collectively offer a threat to a Russian air and ground attack. This is particularly the case in Eastern Europe. The risk to Russia of launching military incursions during the next few years must be raised significantly. Russia is likely to refrain from an embarrassing military incursion, especially if the forces of say the Ukraine were supported by U.S. air support. This would be a purely defensive counter intimidation strategy. It is workable because of Russia’s dependence on petroleum exports as a source of revenue and its poorly performing and undisciplined military.
- klfoster
September 2, 2008 at 2:57am
Comments on Levy’s Russia Article (9-2-08) It seems that Russia is attempting to counter the imperialism of the Western democracies, which is being implemented by awarding NATO membership to willing, former Russian colonies. Why would Russia be so concerned, as the NATO membership has no military teeth and does not represent any formidable military threat? Indeed why does Russia itself not become a member of NATO and then attempt to dominate it in Europe? Perhaps that would be too cleverly diabolical. It would require Putin’s Russia to feign interest in becoming a democracy. But Russia, as Mr. Levy has made clear, is far too brutish for such an effort. It is no democracy; it remains an oligarchy just as it was in the days of the Soviet Union. Frontal and brutish engagements to intimidate its neighbors will be the modus operandi. The initial strategy is to bring most of its former colonies under its “sphere of influence”, to which Western Europe will likely learn to acquiesce. After all, this is an old European tradition. To do otherwise would require the Western Europeans to remilitarize in a serious way; to prepare for the possibility of war in a possible future confrontation with Russia. As we can see in the odd rules of engagement of those Western European countries that have forces in Afghanistan, avoidance of conflict will be the guideline. Self delusion about Russian intentions will likely dominate the intellectual chatter and the limited military capability and presence of the United States will not be present to give them the required backbone; nor will such limited presence cause Russia to be discouraged as Russian. Russian will start with its southern border and then switch to Eastern Europe, if Western Europe responds as I suggest. Mr. Levy has pointed out in another forum that the sickness of Western Europe is its extreme fear of war that is a consequence of the 20th century’s wars that occurred in Western Europe. This will not change. During the 1980’s the United States had to compel Western Europe to accept its Pershing missiles to check the placement of medium range nuclear missiles in Eastern Europe by the Soviet Union. The United States had the ability and, under Reagan, the will to accomplish this feat. Not so today. The United States has even failed to build a major missile defense system, let alone a major military presence – one that is not even large enough to counter a relatively pathetic Russian military capability. The Russian people are not permitted to share this fear with their brethren in Western Europe simply because they do not have a say. There is no longer a viable opposition to Putin’s authoritarian regime. Putin has a free hand to do as he pleases, so long as he is supported by the former Soviet apparatchik. What can and should be done to counter the Russian strategy? What is within the realm of possibility given the realties? First, Europe must copy France and launch a major energy program that will reduce the leverage of Russia’s sole economic strength - exporting petroleum to Europe. Without this dominate economic strength, Russia’s ability to build a stronger military will be greatly diminished. Copying France’s reliance on nuclear energy would be the most realistic step at this stage, as well as developing other non-petroleum energy sources. Second, Europe must increase its military spending to at least be able to collectively offer a threat to a Russian air and ground attack. This is particularly the case in Eastern Europe. The risk to Russia of launching military incursions during the next few years must be raised significantly. Russia is likely to refrain from an embarrassing military incursion, especially if the forces of say the Ukraine were supported by U.S. air support. This would be a purely defensive counter intimidation strategy. It is workable because of Russia’s dependence on petroleum exports as a source of revenue and its poorly performing and undisciplined military.
- klfoster
September 2, 2008 at 11:39am