August 20, 2008
Russia and Georgia: The Real Story (Dick Morris)
By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
Meet Igor Sechin, nominally the deputy prime minister of Russia. In fact, he is the dominant power in the Kremlin. In Russia, the speculation is over whether Putin is his puppet! According to top Kremlinologists, Sechin was calling the shots when Russia invaded Georgia.
Take a minute to look at Sechin’s photo. It explains all you need to know about him!
Bob Amsterdam, an international lawyer who knows all about the inner workings in Moscow, calls the invasion “an effort to sidetrack Dmitry Medvedev,” the newly elected Russian president who has focused on bringing to Russia the rule of law. Determined to show real power and to trivialize the legalisms of Medvedev, Sechin and Putin ignored the Russian president in invading their neighbor.
But Amsterdam makes a larger and more important point: Russia, entirely dependent on oil and gas revenues for its economic viability, has an essential stake in promoting global instability. A stable world encourages a drop in oil prices. It is no coincidence that Russia is at the core of the two major threats to world stability: Iran and the invasion of Georgia. Worried by a major drop in oil prices, creating severe economic problems for Russia, the Kremlin has a cosmic interest in promoting turbulence whenever and wherever it can.
Georgia represents the last pro-Western bridge to bring oil and gas from the central Asian former Soviet states to the West. Three times as much oil flows over rail tracks on the bridge near Gori, which Russian aircraft destroyed, as through pipelines from Russia.
Bush’s response to the Georgia attack has been prompt and skillful. Introducing American troops into Georgia on a humanitarian mission makes it clear to Russia and to the Georgian people that the United States will not abandon its ally, but it does so in a way that deters further Russian moves.
But the key answer came not from the U.S. but from Poland, which approved having a missile defense shield on its territory. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, elected on a platform of opposing deployment in Poland, quickly reversed field and saw the light when Russian troops began rolling into Georgia. Urgent Western attention to the application of Ukraine for NATO membership will further underscore to Russia how short-sighted its invasion of Georgia really was. The backlash in Europe, particularly in Eastern Europe, will prove to be far more devastating to Russia than Putin — and Sechin — may have anticipated.
(For more information, go to www.robertamsterdam.com.)
Permalink TrackBack
Email This Post
Share this post
What's This 6 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
It is indeed correct that Russia has an interest in raising the price of oil and has an interest in monopolizing the supply and otherwise raising the price. I would consider it one of the top motivators for the Georgian conflict, and have stated as much in the past, but it's hard to believe it was the only one.
For several years now Putin has talked about Russia being in favor of a "multipolar world". For close to two years now he has been increasingly strident about attacking the hegemony of the United States. In a speech over a year ago he as much as warned that Russia does not need to be encouraged to start doing major things in the world, that that has been its history, and it will not hesitate to assert its influence.
The rules of Russia are the rules of the street: only the strongest and the toughest survive. A Russian leader cannot appear weak, especially while imposing order on the country. A Russian leader cannot appear to take blows on Iraq and Kosovo and not do SOMETHING. At least they cannot see any other way to behave. Also, the westward expansion of NATO and American influence has made Russia feel surrounded. People tend to imagine others' motives to be at least as nefarious as their own, therefore the US expansion gets an exaggerated look and feel of a stranglehold in the Russian eyes. To keep their self-esteem the Russian have to strike back at the West. You can tell how much they enjoyed the quick retreat of the Georgian army and how delighted they were in pointing out that the Americans trained them to retreat well.
Specifcally also, Putin had indicated that Russia being dis'ed on the issue of Kosovo cannot go unpunished, so this is the "punishment".
Separately, as an article I posted here indicated, Russia has an interest in conglomerating ethnic Russian citizens living in the "near abroad" as it's facing a demographic collapse. Spreading it's influence, giving out it's passports, integrating the republics that contain a lot of ethnic Russians, Russian-speakers, or Slavs in general is a matter of ethnic survival for Russia.
There are many motivations for Putin to strike and so he did. America seemed awfully unprepared. While Russia will pay a heavy price, so will America. Russia will not stop until Tbilisi falls one way or another. If you read the Russian press and look at the voices that have proven predictive of future events, they are clearly advocating for this to happen. What they say is that while annexation of the breakaway territories is a given, the war itself was like raising Russia's hand to strike at Georgia, but it hasn't really struck. If they don't impose their complete will on Georgia, they'll be taken for fools by the West, and I don't think they want that.
Comment by Igor R. — August 20, 2008 @ 4:55 pm
Our foreign policy under this administration has been an absolute disaster and it only gets worse as the days go by. Our so-called expert on Russia, Condi Rice, is about as clueless as her boss in the ways of the world and every chance she gets to shine–she fails miserably. W's grand idea to repeat the Cuban missile crisis in Poland is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard of besides every other idea the man has ever had. Russia is no cupcake, what makes him (W) believe that his missile defense baloney is acceptable to Russia is beyond me. Does anybody remember the value of the concept of a thing know as "Peace"?
Comment by scottyurb — August 20, 2008 @ 10:18 pm
Oh boy, Dick Morris and "The Real Story", of all things Russia, no doubt.
I think I'll discuss this with my 7th grade grandaughter. She surely knows as much, if not more, than Dick "Toe Licking" Morris. This post is insulting to my intelligence.
Go back to bashing Hillary (your bread and butter) on Faux Noise. Who in the hell would pay you for such a non-sensical, elementary post? Both of you should be fired.
Comment by Lester — August 20, 2008 @ 10:48 pm
I cannot seriously believe that anyone who values a dollar would pay it to a complete cipher like Dick Morris for whatever addle-brained baloney he feels compelled to spew on a moment's notice and after absolutely no reflection whatsoever.
Today, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin stands as the most popular, respected political leader in Russia. (Hence the birdbrained American neocons' fear and loathing of him.) If he continues his astute and forceful leadership in domestic economic and foreign policy matters, he will no doubt one day have "the Great" added to his name in the history books of his country.
Making this intelligent and effective Russian patriot an enemy instead of a friend and partner has to rank among the more stupid of all the stupid blunders ever committed by the Dick Cheney Shogunate Regency. But with a list of bungled catastrophes THAT long, it may take years for the interested observer to decide on the worst.
When Deputy Dubya Bush looked in Vladimir Putin's eyes he said he saw a kindred soul. What Vladimir Putin saw in the Shrub's crossed-eyed gaze, if anything, he hasn't said. But in English idiom it would probably translate as "The lights were on, but nobody was at home" — American "foreign policy" in a Bush/McBomb nutshell.
Comment by Michael Murry — August 21, 2008 @ 2:02 am
For a clueless "blame America first, always, and often" Michael Murry, have you ever considered that in April of 2005 Putin has described the collapse of the Soviet Union as "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe" of the 20th century.
Note, this is greater than WWII, WWI, the Russian Revolution, the deaths of tens of millions in China, etc. When a man of action holds this view, Michael Murry, what do you expect him to do?
Comment by Igor R. — August 21, 2008 @ 2:32 pm
Putin's invasion of Georgia sets a nasty precedent for Russia. It justified the invasion on two grounds: (1) A majority of South Ossetians voted for independence in a referendum (after Russia helped drive the Georgian majority out); and (2) The South Ossetians need protection from the nation in which they live, Georgia. China is rapidly occupying east Russia, which is losing its russian majority by an out migration of russians and by population decline. A referendum for independence, contrived by China and controlled by a chinese majority, would justify a Chinese invasion of east Russia if Russia attempted to protect its sovereign border with China. The population of east Russia is comparable to the population of Georgia (approx. 4 million). The population of China immediately adjoining east Russia is comparable to the population of Russia (approx. 150 million). The ramifications of Putin's invasion of Georgia were obviously not well thought out. Barry Marcus
Comment by Barry Marcus — August 24, 2008 @ 10:04 pm