Thursday, August 21, 2008
A new world order arrives
John Long
Recent columns
From the RoundTable blog
I'll bet when some Americans heard that Russia had sent troops into Georgia, their first response was "Wow! Wonder when they'll get to Atlanta."
OK, bad joke, but it does seem that the recent hostilities between Russia and the former Soviet republic of Georgia slipped under most of our radars. Coverage has been overshadowed by campaign news and the Olympics; analysis has seemed scant in comparison. Yet I wonder if this event doesn't herald a sea change in world affairs -- Russia, recovering from her post-communist hangover, signaling to the world, "We're back!"
I don't pretend to be a great expert on Russia. I've never visited and don't speak the language, but I have studied her history for more than 20 years and have taught the subject on the college level. Watching the Georgian affair unfold, I've thought that Russia has been acting like, well, Russia. I'll attempt a little historical perspective to demonstrate.
As I try to communicate to my students, Russia has always had a sort of insecurity complex. Repeatedly invaded and victimized, without the comfort of natural boundaries, and for most of its history far behind the West in industry and technology, Russia has responded with a desperate, perpetual quest to control her frontiers. Internally, through the Czarist period, this took the form of a stifling autocracy in which pro- and anti-Western factions vied for dominance. Then the Soviet Union, preaching a different faith but acting much the same, continued traditional Russian foreign policy with a Marxist flavor added.
Now Russia has staked a claim as protector of South Ossetia, a small region of Georgia that is not Slavic but is majority Orthodox. Ossetia has never been truly autonomous, but has largely governed itself for the past few years and has claimed independence. Georgia sent troops into the breakaway region earlier this month, prompting a Russian military reaction. Tiny Georgia could hardly resist the onslaught.
Why did Russia act? To protect her Ossetian neighbors in the interest of regional solidarity? I think there's more at play. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Moscow has watched her former Eastern European satellite states turn more and more to the West. Some have joined NATO; the Ukraine and Georgia have been considered for membership. Following traditional Russian suspicion of the West, this must have seemed like an encirclement by old enemies. But precariously struggling to find her place in the post-Soviet period, with her once mighty military in disarray, there was no convenient way for Russia to respond.
Now, Vladimir Putin may be announcing a return to old ways: This is our sphere of influence, and we will ensure our own security on our own borders. After all, except for the last 17 years or so, Russia has always been an empire. It has recovered enough from the collapse of the Soviet Union to act like it again. This is not to excuse the unprovoked Russian aggression, though; nor am I convinced Georgia and the Ossetians are blameless in the mess.
Russia may no longer be an ideologically motivated superpower, but she unavoidably is a regional power. She bears watching and careful consideration. A friend who teaches Russian history told me that he would be surprised if the Ukraine and Byelorussia are still independent in a few decades.
So how should the U.S. respond to this new reality? I have more questions than answers. For instance, I'd be curious to know what U.S. intelligence agencies knew in advance about this episode. Did they miss both the incursion by Georgia, a U.S. ally, and the resulting Russian move?
Georgia is a friend, and we should stand by her. But is protecting a remote corner of it from breaking away enough in our interest to risk war with a resurgent Russia? If that seems a remote possibility today, what if Moscow makes a future move into Ukraine?
Can we continue handing out NATO memberships like free car wash coupons without considering Russia's view?
2008 may go down as a watershed year in which a new international order came to pass. For America, things likely just got more challenging. We're suddenly in an unfamiliar and uncertain balance of power in which our place in the world and international commitments will be even more tested. It's worth considering which presidential candidate seems most qualified to secure America's place in it.
Long, director of the Salem Museum and a history teacher at Roanoke College, is a Roanoke Times columnist.
