Do We Really Want To Live In Kagan’s World?
Scott relates a worrisome, but unfortunately very predictable, remark by Robert Kagan:
The most alarming thing he said in a generally fluid presentation concerned Georgia and the Ukraine. “Would the United States really want to live in a world where Russia held sway over Georgia and the Ukraine?” (I’m not sure the quote is verbatim, but the “really want to live in a world” is.) Kagan said this in the context of discussing potential “flashpoints” with other great powers, Russia and China.
As Scott says, this isn’t a terribly troubling thought for Americans. Obviously, I understand why Ukrainian-speaking Ukrainians and Georgians are not interested in having Russia hold sway over their countries. They want to preserve their national independence, and they view Russia as the historic oppressor or occupier that must never be allowed to regain control. I get it. I can even understand why they, or at least some of them, would actively seek the protection of other great powers to prevent that happening, but what has never been clear to me is why Americans should be willing to harm our relations with the Russians for the sake of countries in which we have no particularly important interests and which Russians consider part of their sphere of influence, if not, in fact, historically theirs. Georgians and Ukrainians may not want to live in the world Kagan paints, but an overwhelming majority of Americans would not be concerned one way or another. To ask the question Kagan asked is to answer it right away in the affirmative.
The idea that places on the very borders of other great powers constitute “flashpoints” is evidence of the sort of reflexive, unthinking hubris that Kagan and others in his circle express all the time. Why are these places “flashpoints”? Because the government has made the independence of countries that border on other great powers our business, when properly speaking none of the disputes in question has anything to do with the United States. Imagine the hysterical reaction if someone close to one of the major officials in the Chinese government said, “Does China want to live in a world in which the United States holds sway over Colombia and Haiti?” The absurdity of the question would be apparent to all. What if one of Medvedev’s advisors said, “Does Russia want to live in a world in which the United States holds sway over Panama?” I suspect he would be laughed out of the room, or the question would be dismissed as irrelevant. Our foreign policy “intellectuals” take for granted that everything outside (and perhaps quite a few things inside) other great powers’ borders are automatically our business, and if these other powers attempt to exert even minimal influence on their immediate neighbours it is evidence of their “imperialism.” Meanwhile, we may launch any number of strikes and wars against states on the other side of the planet in the name of self-defense and bristle at the suggestion that this has anything to do with empire. It’s a dangerous game to treat other great or rising powers in this way, as if their modest goals for wider influence in their region and in the world represent some dire threat that needs to be checked and rolled back. This is the sort of thing that plunged Britain into an arms race and then into conflict with Imperial Germany when the two had no obvious or necessary conflicts of interest. The greatest danger to continued American predominance is almost certainly the boundless ambition and recklessness of the people who are most enthusiastic about preserving hegemony.
Filed under: politics, foreign policy, hegemonism
14 Responses to “Do We Really Want To Live In Kagan’s World?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
McCain’s well known (and jaw-droppingly stupid) antipathy towards Russia is well known. Does anyone know Obama’s views in any detail? I can’t find anything but boilerplate nonsense on the subject on his website…
You are absolutely correct on this one.
I admire the Georgians and their extraordinarily long-lived traditions, but I wouldn’t risk the lives of American soldiers to protect them.
Even if we were inclined to do so, geography makes it impractical.
The promiscuous bellicosity of the neocons never ceases to amaze, especially when they seem absolutely oblivious to the practicalities of geography, economics, numbers of men at arms, etc. Even Lenin and Trotsky recognized the limits of their power; hence Brest-Litovsk.
Obama supports Ukrainian and Georgian membership in NATO. In my book, that makes him every bit as crazy with respect to Russia policy as McCain is.
On to Tblisi and Kiev! G*d help us, one of these men will be the next POTUS.
Would the United States really want to live in a world where the Ukraine held sway over Crimea and Moldova?
Once you start this game it never ends.
But the US has always played this game, right?
It’s what we do…
I do agree that we come up with all kinds of goofy reasons both before and after the fact but don’t act like this is crazy talk totally out of character for us as a country…
I wouldn’t say anything of the kind. This strain has been present for a long time, and it’s been very dangerous for our country. But I would insist that it is crazy talk, whether or not it’s out of character, because the implication of what Kagan is saying is that we ought to do something to stop Ukraine and Georgia from falling under Russia’s sway. That is pretty crazy, considering what it could escalate into in the end.
Dangerous how? It certainly hasn’t stopped us from dominating the world…
What could opposition escalate too? Russia is weak…
I am in general agreement with you but I support those opposed to Russia and think their power is greatly over-hyped around here…
As an example, Syria has all the latest Russian military anti-aircraft tech and Israel flew in and bombed the heck out of them without setting off so much as one alarm bell…
Look, my only point is that the title of the article should have been “We don’t want to live in Kagan’s world anymore.”
I agree that it’s crazy talk to put the point so bluntly, but let’s be honest, this kind of talk springs from a very real source - the Cold War, and our desire not to see the world fall into that kind of division again. The problem is, this is the kind of thinking that got us into the Cold War to begin with, and that’s a very real problem.
On the one hand, it’s good for us to develop stronger and stronger relationships with as many countries as possible. Hence, allowing Ukraine and Georgia into NATO isn’t a bad idea on the face of it. If it helps those countries retain a healthy independence from Russia, that’s good. But if it helps foster a growing rivalry and arms race and increasing diplomatic tension with Russia, it’s not good. The best solution is at some point to invite Russia herself into NATO, thus making the whole alliance a mutural security pact, within which Ukraine, Georgia, and Russia can work out there differences in piece, within a self-respecting mutual alliance. This isn’t all that far-fetched. It would mean that Russia would have to compromise its ambitions to some degree in exchange for security assurances. Not a bad deal, really. And it would also help Russia concentrate on its eastern borders, particularly China.
If Russia were incorporated into NATO, I would agree that bringing in Georgia and Ukraine would be much less provocative and dangerous, and I could see that as the foundation of a stronger relationship with Russia. Yet it seems clear that those who are most eager to bring in the latter two are doing it to thwart and annoy the Russians. There is also the matter that an already irrelevant NATO including Russia would lack any purpose whatever, since it would no longer be defending against anyone, unless we expect the Chinese armoured corps to come pouring out of the Taklamakan to conquer all of Asia or something equally improbable. Even so, I would rather have a useless NATO including Russia than an anti-Russian NATO with renewed purpose.
Daniel,
You’re right that those proposing Ukrainian and Georgian inclusion in NATO want a renered conflict with Russia. They thrive on division and polarization. I’m just suggesting that a way to defuse and reverse this is to work towards Russian inclusion in NATO as well. If this renders NATO essentially useless, so much the better. On the other hand, NATO can also become a friendlier forum for managing these neighborly relations than the UN, when it comes to security issues. If these nations were all part of NATO, they could actually cooperate more fully without fearing that some loss of sovereignty or domination by Russia would ensue. Getting everyone on the same team is a good way to end conflicts.
If it helps those countries retain a healthy independence from Russia, that’s good.
Why is Ukrainian independence from Russia an unalloyed good? Culturally and linguistically Ukraine has extremely close ties with Russia. To this day the majority of the Ukrainian population speaks Russian better than Ukrainian, most books and popular media anywhere East of Lviv are in Russian. Russian and Ukraine have economic ties built up over centuries. Lots of Scots want to break away from the UK, lots of Quebecois want nothing to do with Canada. Is a policy of fostering healthy independence for Scotland and Quebec also good? Why don’t we pursue that as well then.
Just to remind some facts:
1. Marcel Deat, author of famous article, “To Die for Danzig?” (1939), culminating his campaign of appeasement - ended in a Vichy government, after 1945 was hiding in Italy where he died in Monastery in 1955. His ideas did not work out.
2. Neville Chamberlain: radio broadcast on 27 September 1938: “How horrible, fantastic it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing. I am myself a man of peace from the depths of my soul.”
Which logically lead him to:
“My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time.”
many other examples can be found I think; the bottom line is that these appeasement ideas don’t work, bad guys don’t stop. Adolph never did, with every concession and compromise he was growing stronger and stronger and was demanding more and more. Finally he was stopped but with high price, including young American men and women dying in Europe, geographically far from USA.
I just wander, why Mr. Larison is so sure that Russia will stop? Or, maybe he thinks that since the NAME - Communist Party of Soviet Union is abolished West is dealing with different set up now?
I would like to remind that USSR Politburo had a meeting BEFORE USSR invading Afghanistan and the corresponding resolution was documented. Russian Parliament met August 22, 14 days AFTER the Russian-Georgian war started and granted president Medvedev the go-ahead for a war which was already over (according to same Russian president Medvedev).
Would be glad to hear what’s Mr. Larison’s take on my doubts.
Thanks,
George Japaridze