Skip to main content

Ignoring the mood of the Russian Bear

Alistair Horne, writing in The Guardian in "We mistake the mood in Russia at our peril", reflects on how the West may have been more than a little responsible for the mood in which we now find Russia. Bottom line, rubbing people's noses in the grind isn't a smart thing to do.

"Civilisation is right to be appalled by the brutish excess of the Russian attack on Georgia. It was clearly well-planned in advance; a cunning trap laid not just for a rash Saakashvili, but for George W Bush in his expiring presidency. America's share of the blame goes back, however, to the Clinton administration – and his ill-named Secretary of State, Mrs Albright.

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989, Reagan and Thatcher displayed Churchillian magnanimity towards Gorbachev's broken nation. Relations were never better. There was no triumphalism. Then came Madeleine Albright, with all the inbuilt prejudices against Russia of her native Mittel Europa. Moscow's nose was rubbed in the dirt. With a little more understanding of Russia's pan-Slavic pride, the war in Kosovo might have been contained.

Under the present US administration, the humbling of Russia continued by ringing her former territories with ABM radar sites, and advancing NATO to her very frontiers. Just across the Russian border in North Ossetia, in 1990 I was struck by an imposing monument which marks the high tide of Hitler's invasion, on the way to Stalingrad; you don't need to be a Russian of my generation to resent the possibility of German NATO forces installed a few miles away.

Has Dick Cheney forgotten US reactions to Soviet missiles 90 miles across the way from Florida in 1962? Pushing NATO eastwards into Poland might have been just alright; but into Slovakia and Romania, a bridge too far; to Georgia and Ukraine, far too far. Russia's historic fears of "encirclement" were being thrust at her."

Continue reading here.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...