The prime minister needs to hear that using Ossetia as a pretext for imperialism [bold mine-DL] will have consequences for Russia’s relationship with the West. ~The Wall Street Journal

Goodness knows the WSJ is against pretexts for imperialism.  Ahem.  I find this use of “imperialism” quite annoying, even if it is typical for their editors.  When Russia supports separatist movements that weaken a bordering state that has strong historical and cultural ties to their country and whose government Moscow wants to keep out of the West’s orbit, that is imperialism, but when the U.S. launches wars on the other side of the world, backs separatists in countries thousands of miles away and arms small nations on the doorstep of other major powers that is supposed to be something else.  I suppose they call it global leadership.  Global leadership is all right, you see, but imperialism–which is what other people do–certainly isn’t.  Arguably, Russia is and always has been pursuing regional hegemony in the Caucasus, and since the distinction between hegemony and imperialism is wafer-thin I suppose it is not entirely inappropriate to describe Russian policy in the north Caucasus as somewhat imperialistic.  However, if we are going to lower the bar on what constitutes imperialism so far down to accuse the Russians of engaging in it, we would need to have an entirely new word to describe what it is our government does on a regular basis.  Maybe hyper-imperialism?

Setting aside this issue of double standards, so long as Russia does not threaten to end Georgian independence I see no good reason why this should have to damage U.S.-Russian relations.  That doesn’t mean it won’t damage them, since this administration has been expert in wrecking the relationship with Moscow, but there is no good reason why it should.  Taking the long view, the Russians have done us a favor by reminding us how crazy it was to contemplate including Georgia in NATO, and this conflict is a reminder of the limits of U.S. influence and the dangers of tying the U.S. to reckless proxies.  We cannot and should not be everywhere at equal strength at all times, and we are not and will not be prepared to back up many of the implicit guarantees our government has made to various states around the world.  The influence of other major powers over their immediate neighbors is unavoidable, and if our government insists on treating every instance of an exercise of this influence as proof of imperialism that must be stopped or reversed we will begin to see the costs of overstretch.   

Filed under: foreign policy, politics