Comments on: Do These People Even Know What Soviet Means?

By: Daniel Larison

Daniel Larison — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 21:59:39 +0000

I agree, Chris, that they should not have to stop at an arbitrary place if going beyond it were necessary to achieve their objectives. But that’s just the thing–continuing the war is now unnecessary. I wouldn’t compare Russia’s tactics (or ours) to indiscriminate violence in African civil wars, but I think indiscriminate shelling in civilian areas is particularly troubling. Most of the deaths have been non-combatants caught up in the fighting, and to the extent that this can be avoided it should be. This use of shelling is something that the Georgians were also doing, but that does not make it any better. I don’t think Russia’s effort is so far much like what was done in Lebanon, but the bombing of the Beirut airport early on, along with attacks on the rest of the country’s infrastructure, hinted at what was to come and I think the same may be true here.

By: taxman10m

taxman10m — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 21:26:04 +0000

It seems clear to me that the right is willing to jump on anything as evidence of some existential struggle because they really really really want an existential struggle.

By: Roach

Roach — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 21:25:41 +0000

Tactical considerations do not always accord with lines drawn on a map. It is no more some great evil if Russia bombs Tblisii or sets foot outside Ossetia than it was an invasion of the Northern United States for Lee to seek advantage in Gettysburg. I always throught the first requirement of military force was not to commit war crimes. Then it was, after obtaining strategic advantage, not to extend beyond self-defense (or the defense of some legitimate interest) into amoral conquest. I don’t see anything Russia has done here that has crossed that line, and its use of force so far is reasonable given the technical and other limitations it faces.

I do think this is many ways a sad unfortunate and unnecessary war. That said, I don’t think you can compare Russia’s tactics (or US ones for that matter) for the kind of indiscriminate violence that takes place in places like Sierra Leone or any war more than 30 years ago.

By: Daniel Larison

Daniel Larison — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 19:30:27 +0000

I will grant that this story leads me to think that the Russians are trying to break the Georgian military. We shall see whether that will satisfy Moscow or not. I still think annexation is not the goal. That would cause too many problems there and internationally and it would cost the Russians too much.

By: Daniel Larison

Daniel Larison — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 19:18:00 +0000

Why are they bombing Kodori Gorge? I assume it is to support the Abkhaz entry into the war. We cannot be sure what their larger objectives are. Of course, that assumes that they have a plan and obtainable objectives. Obviously it isn’t a peacekeeping mission, just as the “peacekeepers” who were stationed in the statelets weren’t really peacekeeping, either, but were exploiting a regional conflict to expand Russian influence. I have never pretended otherwise. Yes, the official propaganda out of Moscow is that it is simply fulfilling its nominal peacekeeping role, which is what governments and their supporters will say at these times. I don’t buy that, but I also don’t buy that they’re bent on conquering Georgia and making it part of Russia. That would be a bridge too far, and I think the Russians understand this. KFOR isn’t a mere peacekeeping force, either, but that doesn’t stop our government from framing its mission that way. If you want peacekeepers who don’t have another agenda, talk to the Bangladeshis.

When Putin laments the end of the Soviet Union, he is lamenting the decline of Russia as a world power. To the extent that he is trying to make Russia into a credible world power again, he is attempting to undo that damage, but there’s no question of reassembling the Soviet empire. It’s gone, and even most Russian nationalists know that. Russia will wield influence and occasionally project power within the CIS from time to time, but there is simply no comparison to the Soviet empire and there is no chance of anyone reassembling it or trying to reassemble it.

Indeed, I think we misrepresent how bad the Soviet empire was by making frequent comparisons between the current government and the old one. In the old days, the tanks would have rolled in when the local government *said* something Moscow found threatening. Whatever the flaws of the current regime, it is so much better than how it used to be that it’s strange that we’re even having this conversation.

By: Balloon Juice

Balloon Juice — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 14:24:29 +0000

[...] And finally, Daniel Larison notes the irony in the coverage: [...]

By: petefrance

petefrance — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 10:10:35 +0000

Come to think of it. It really doesn’t make any sense to require that soviets be a part of any imputed Soviet empire, as the Congress of Soviets didn’t even exist for most of the Soviet Union – and yet, the name remained.

By: petefrance

petefrance — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 09:24:16 +0000

I would think that Russia bombing Kodori gorge would at least give the lie to the idea that Russia is interested in preserving the status quo ante. Only the Russian press can repeat that this is a ‘peacekeeping’ move without blinking an eye.

Also, I don’t think that saying that Russia is interested in reviving the Soviet empire – hyperbolic though it may be – is necessarily nonsensical. The Soviet empire, as an idea, does not – at least to the Russian mind – necessarily entail workers councils or Communism. For the same reason, Putin can lament the end of the Soviet Union, without shedding a tear for the passing of the old regime.

By: James_Nostack

James_Nostack — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 09:10:18 +0000

All of this was anticipated 10 years ago on “The Simpsons,” when Homer’s theft of a nuclear submarine causes Zombie Lenin to rise from his tomb, growling, “Must crush capitalism!” as the Russians run up the old Soviet flag.

My conclusion on all of this stuff is that the sorts of people who get tapped for “expert commentary” on real-time events are little more than clockwork automatons: the reason they can give “up-to-the-minute analysis” is because they only know how to say one thing, and thus can say it repeatedly without ever pausing to think. The market for TV pundits rewards those who can fill dead air, not those who call prior assumptions into question. Maybe we’re so well-informed it’s literally stupefying.

By: Daniel Larison

Daniel Larison — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 03:32:40 +0000

I became suspicious of Kimball’s foreign policy views ever since he strongly recommended Max Boot’s book on small wars. Everything I have seen since from him has confirmed my concerns.

By: nathancontramundi

nathancontramundi — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 03:27:54 +0000

It’s unfortunate that Kimball, who, I humbly submit, does a great deed with The New Criterion, to wit, providing a conservative challenge to the New York/Boston/London Review’s control of the high-brow crit. genre, is such a foolish, neo-connish dupe and idiot when it comes to more blatantly political matters.

Oil is everything. Oil is nothing. Funny how that works out.