Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

"...any half-wit small-country leader gets to audition for the role of Archduke Ferdinand."

Well, actually, for the role of Gavrilo Princip.

Best line of the decade: "Now, any half-wit small-country leader gets to audition for the role of Archduke Ferdinand."

"I am convinced, Captian, the purpose of diplomacy is to prolong the engagement." - Mr. Spock

So, will diplomacy actually work against Russia, now occupying Georgia and robbing Georgian banks and natural resources?

C-Span currently is broadcasting UN Security Council diplomatic "discussion" while Russian troops do as they please using brute force. The Georgian pipe line is being repaired by Russians, for Russians.

Just last week both the Russian and Georgian presidents signed a "peace" or "cease fire" agreement. Peace-in-our-time, as it were. Talk, talk, talk.

"Peace through strength" - Ronald Reagan

Why would the world want a far east NATO type organization, as Dr. Barnett wants, if the existing NATO is so impotent (think Afghanistan)?

Where are the US human shields on camera in Georgia or the No-Blood-for-Oil demonstrations by the world's peace-niks?

Luttwak's comments may or may not be valid but isn't the real issue whether soft or hard power or permutation or combination thereof be used to stop warfighting? And who has the skills and machinery of government or international organization to achieve that end. The real lesson of warfighting and armed aggression is that "all" involved lose, just sometimes the reckoning is slower for the invaders. My guess is that domestically with a terrible demographic crisis occurring, environmental pollution, and declining public health and social services, the Putin choice to reinvigorate the Russian military will be voted against with their feet by the Russian people. Now the critical issue becomes for Putin "the freedom to travel" rights of the Russian people and the perception that Russian international relations is characterized by armed force and criminality. Not to be overlooked is violation of international norms by the Georgians, not well documented and overlooked in the WEST. If protection of ethnic Russians is the key Russian diplomatic policy, think where this leads for other nations such as China.

I take you point, Lex, but it's one of those finer distinctions that takes too long to explain.

Plus, to me, Saakashvili was riding with the top down . . . ;

VoteWithTroops:

Umm.. what exactly are you advocating that the US do with regards to Georgia?

Ominously, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the man who was released from the gulags on the day Stalin died passed away 5 days before Russia invaded Stalin's birthplace indicating I believe that Russia is returning to the days of Soviet-Stalin expansionism. In reality we are in a new Cold War with Moscow, and this perilous period will last until we collapse Putin's Russia like Reagan did its Soviet predecessor. This is the world that Putin wants and he is getting it as necons are getting World War IV.

It is interesting to note that the Russian prophet was laid to rest on August 6th the 63rd anniversary of Hiroshima and the 3rd anniversary of Ahmaninejad taking power.

Luttwak's thinking is antiquated if and only if Putin's world view isn't trapped in the past of Russian imperialism which happens to dominate Russian popular culture. Is Putin more enlightened than his countrymen? Is he at heart a post-imperialist leader? For the sake of world peace I hope so. If not then the neo-cons will get their World War IV.

The European countries stupid reaction to the Archduke's assassination was just the flash-point that triggered an explosive condition that had been building for decades due to foreign policy techniques that seemed sophisticated, wise and clever at the time.

For instance, the English nurtured relations with a developing national German state to try to keep French governments acting more rationally even though its citizens had frequent 'democratic' hot points which their governments tried to divert to border or colonial concerns. The new German state could also help England contain the modernizing and prideful Russian Czar establishments which threatened English global interests. The buzz phrases of the time were 'balance of power' and "England has no permanent allies, just permanent interests.'

Bismarck understood the conditions and prudently exploited them. Unfortunately the subsequent Kaiser establishments just got the 'POWER' and pride insights and moved imprudently, seeing each concession or partnership situation as confirmation that they should & would be top dawg. Not surprisingly, Russia and France responded by military partnerships like Mediterranean fleet ops. Emerging small nation states used the situation to seek leverage by playing big dawgs against each other.

It does not matter how intellectually correct strategies or policies seem if we ignore unintended negative consequences to our actions and words.

Using hot button words like 'libs' and 'neocons' increases chances of such unintended domestic consequences. Also, the TV and radio either/or shouting match sound-bight approach to political, economic and social issues can do more to make the public emotionally misinformed rather than intelligently aware of important matters.

To James Kielland .... at a minimum, do our best to disconnect Russia until they restore Georgia's internationally recognized borders, natural resources and stolen assets to include paying reparations (for Russian aggression) regarding civilian lives lost, homes burned and Georgian military assests too. Also - no direct foreign investment from the US to Russia, no flights or ships in or out, no tourism or trade. In short, do our best to enforce international law if we can only muster "soft power". Let us not totally destroy our credibility by proving our promises of unity mean nothing, when our allies are invaded, killed and occupied. Block Russian membership to the WTO and remake it the G7, without Russia.

William R. Cumming makes a good point ...
"If protection of ethnic Russians is the key Russian diplomatic policy, think where this leads for other nations such as China."

And, think where this leads Russia in other nearby, former Soviet block satellite nations.

To put it another way ... use "soft power" at a minimum to enforce (against Russia) Barnett's globalization "Rules Set".

Do we enforce the rules or don't we?

It appears that Luttwak primary sin is terminology. I suspect the intent is to counter those postmodernists who believe everything can be solved with limp ("soft") power. Limp power has again been blown away.

He gives the counterexample - Poland's use of soft, not limp power, in the missile deal.

Military might still counts, as does perception of the will to use it. Without it's nukes, and its habit of using force, Russia is just another dysfunctional oil producer. Without its apparent irrationality, Iran is much less of a threat.

Bruce Sterling (above) is correct.

Disconnectedness defines danger.

VoteWithTroops,

Many troops are voting with Obama.

John Moore,

Bruce Sterling (above) is incorrect.

If our troops did not support McCain 2 to 1 (per David Bellivia of Vets For Freedom, on C-Span just yesterday) it would be plastered in headlines all over our main stream media. The media's near perfect silence on this issue tells the story.

Abe Lincoln was also "riding with the top down" but he was not wrong about using force to stop our Confederate States.

Don't enforce the rules, then.

Actually, the best line of all time is still this one:
"Why dost thou behold the mote in thy neighbor's eye, but consider not the beam in thine own eye?"
We're always worrying about "ultra nationalists", "ideological extremists", "religious fanatics" in Russia, China, Iran, everyplace else you can think of, but never talk about the ones in the United States. When they are sitting atop the most powerful state in the world, they are the most dangerous.

New article cites yours:

Looking for a Saviour in Russia versus the Neocons

Okay, okay … pressed for time, the US Civil War analogy was a poor one, as in “who started this?” with the use of force. The Confederacy fired on a US fort first and Georgia started the use of force on South Ossetian ethnic Russians.

Barnett’s point is correct, Georgia over played its hand, based upon what it thought was its ace in the hole, namely, solidarity with world Democratic nations, primarily the US.

Don’t confuse Barnett’s mantra of “Disconnectedness Defines Danger” with non-traditional societies whose women are already liberated.

Russian society can handle the content of being connected. Radical “traditional” societies, who throw a blanket over their women and throw them in a closet, or worse, and call it moral, will kill us to keep Western secularization (i.e. liberation of their women) out of their societies.

The 9/11 attackers were not poverty stricken and were connected just fine. It was their ideology that was disconnected. When I advocated that we disconnect the Russians to enforce Barnett’s globalization “Rules Set”, I meant hit them were it hurts, in their wallets.

If we don't enforce the rules, who will? If we don't enforce the rules, forget about having any allies, and think mob rule.

Vote,

It seems you're the one confused, friend. Mainstream media reported last week that military donations favor Obama by total number of donors and by aggregate amount. In fact, Ron Paul received 45k to McCain's 10k from soldiers stationed overseas: how does Ron Paul's Iraq policy differ from John McCain's, by the way?

How shall we go about hitting them in their wallets? India just placed a two billion dollar missile order with General Putin. (Google BrahMos.) You think we can talk China into sanctioning the Rus?

New Core --> New Rules

Destroy sentimentality; destroy innocence; destroy complacency.

VWT: lots of times we don't enforce the rules. it's not the point. many of the New Rules that the New Core make transform economics. you got on board or go the way of the dodo, but it's not a bust heads kind of thing.