by Patrick J. Buchanan
In August, the Georgian navy seized a Turkish tanker carrying fuel to Abkhazia, Georgia’s former province whose declaration of independence a year ago is recognized by Russia but not the West.
The Turkish captain was sentenced to 24 years. When Ankara protested, he was released. Abkhazia has now threatened to sink any Georgian ship interfering in its “territorial waters,” but it has no navy.
Russia, however, has a Black Sea Fleet and a treaty of friendship with Abkhazia, and has notified Tbilisi that the Russian coast guard will assure, peacefully, the sea commerce of Abkhazia.
Not backing down, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili – who launched and lost a war for South Ossetia in 48 hours in August 2008 – has declared the blockade of Abkhazia, which he claims as Georgian national territory, will remain in force. And he has just appointed as defense minister a 29-year-old ex-penitentiary boss with a questionable record on human rights who wants to tighten ties to NATO.
We have here the makings of a naval clash that Georgia, given Russian air, naval and land forces in the eastern Black Sea, will lose.
What is Saakashvili up to? He seems intent on provoking a new crisis to force NATO to stand with him and bring the United States in on his side – against Russia. Ultimate goal: Return the issue of his lost provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia back onto the world’s front burner.
While such a crisis may be in the interests of Saakashvili and his Russophobic U.S neoconservative retainers, it is the furthest thing from U.S. national interests. President Obama should have Joe Biden, Saakashvili’s pal, phone him up and instruct him thus:
“Mikheil, if you interfere with the sea commerce of Abkhazia, and provoke Russia into a Black Sea war, you fight it yourself. The Sixth Fleet is not going to steam into the Black Sea and pull your chestnuts out of the fire, old buddy. It will be your war, not ours.”
Nor is the Abkhazian crisis the only one brewing in the Black Sea.
Last month, Russian naval troops blocked Ukrainian bailiffs from seizing navigational equipment from a lighthouse outside Sevastopol, the Crimean base of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet for two centuries.
The Sevastopol lease, however, runs out in 2017. And Kiev has informed Moscow there will be no renewal. Russia’s fleet will have to vacate Sevastopol and the Crimea, which belonged to Russia before Nikita Khrushchev ceded the entire peninsula to Ukraine in 1954 in a “brotherly gesture” while Ukraine was still part of the Soviet Union.
Russia also bears a deep animus toward Ukrainian President Victor Yushchenko, for trying to bring his country into NATO. Yushchenko, whose approval rating is in single digits, has been seen, ever since the U.S.-backed Orange Revolution of 2004 that brought him to power, as America’s man in Kiev.
Moreover, as religious, cultural, ethnic and historic ties between Kiev and Moscow go back centuries, Russians remain unreconciled to the loss of what they regard as the cradle of their country.
What is America’s vital interest in all these quarrels? Zero.
The idea, mentioned in hawkish quarters, of having the Sixth Fleet take over the vacated naval base at Sevastopol would be as rash and provocative an act as having Chinese warships move into Guantanamo, were Havana to expel the United States.
But that is unlikely to happen. For Obama appears to be rolling back the George W. Bush policy of expanding NATO into former republics of the Soviet Union.
Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia are already members, and Bush and John McCain were anxious to bring in Ukraine and Georgia. But, as Bush’s inaction during the Russia-Georgia war revealed, America is not going to fight Russia over who controls Abkhazia, North or South Ossetia, Dagestan, Ingushetia, Chechnya or Georgia. All are beyond any vital interest or legitimate sphere of influence of the United States.
With his cancellation of the U.S. missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic – a shield designed to defend against a nonexistent Iranian ICBM – Obama sent two message to Moscow.
First, Obama believes entente with Russia is a surer guarantee of the peace and security of Eastern Europe than any U.S. weapons system. Second, Obama puts Washington-Moscow ties before any U.S. military ties to NATO allies in Eastern Europe.
Which means NATO is approaching an existential crisis.
Almost all NATO troops, except U.S., are gone from Iraq, and the alliance’s minimal commitment to Afghanistan is ending with no victory in sight. NATO’s expansion eastward has come to a halt. Ukraine and Georgia are not coming in. And the United States is not going to place troops, warships or missiles any closer than they are now to Russia’s frontiers.
“NATO must go out of area, or go out of business,” said Sen. Richard Lugar at the Cold War’s end. NATO went out of area, and is coming back with its tail between its legs. The alternative arises.
Related posts:
- Bush’s Black Listby Patrick J. Buchanan The American Conservative Magazine On reading George W. Bush’s discourse to...
- Illegal Immigration Sparks ‘Race War’ in Cities, Prisons; Hispanic, Black Gangs Battle Amid Shifting Demographics A war between Hispanic and black prison gangs set off a series of riots...
- Bitter Fruits of Mideast WarsBy Patrick J. Buchanan Impending today are two of the most critical decisions Barack Obama...
- No More Undeclared WarsBy Patrick J. Buchanan – October 23, 2001 FDR “lied us into war because he...
- Who’s Behind the Proxy WarsBy Patrick J. Buchanan Iran is conducting a proxy war against the United States in...
- Are US Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan Well-Intended Mistakes?What we now know from the evidence… by Carl Herman — Examiner.com Some Americans justify...
- Who Started Cold War II?by Patrick J. Buchanan The American people should be eternally grateful to Old Europe for...
Vote Average: 4.56 Stars!
Loading ...
Since Polish based BMD came up…
hinking About Future Naval Ballistic Missile Defense
http://blog.usni.org/?p=4381
There is fresh new thinking about Naval BMD, a better, cheaper idea than Polish land based. Naval BMD is easily made stealthy, can deploy decoys and can be moved as threat areas change with history. The great news: We don't have to pay foreign aid bribes or make guarantees to commit our treasure within the Monroesky Doctrinesky lands. Not to mention avoiding the cost of importing polish bar girl brides, treatment for cervical cancers contracted in their entrepreneurial days and SSI for their mamma sans and extended families.
Mr. Buchanan,
A masterful analysis where you are in your element.. But I don't really know where you stand after reading it. If you believe that Obama is essentially correct on this, is it so hard to say so? Take the plunge and perhaps it'll lead you to a less wrong headed analysis of domestic policy over time. Even my hard headed birther/teaparty relatives are starting to understand how they are being had by folks who have only their own interests at heart. Change some more of your tunes. It won't hurt that much.
God forbid that a military organization shuts down 20 years after its enemy disappeared.
Saakashvili reminds me a lot of a certain Rod Blagojevich.
Two people the United States needs no official ties.
I remember seeing a cartoon in the 60's of an animated globe in a bed with Nixon and Kruschev unfastening their pants. Is it possible that the U.S. super power is now ready to collaborate with Russia and China to share the world pie?
Good article Pat………………….And, it's all about the oil and how nations wthout oil wish to control oil flow. It has been a sad, sad, period over the past 8 years as the Bush Administration and it's Globalist friends have tried to sell the "Information Restricted" citizens on the idea that Poland needs anti-balistic missles to protect themselves from Iran's overnight nuclear threat against Poland?…..Enter Putin still LOL!…….And then, for three weeks our zionist media supports a falseflag opperation of reporting that Russia attacked Georgia for grins and giggles, when Georgia actually attacked South Osatia with U.S. and Israeli military advisors…….Enter Putin again LOL!…………WE OWE THE POLES NOTHING!……They created WWII with their concept of having a "Big Brother"…….Here's a good read on how the oil flows in the future?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va...
The cold war is over, and Russia could be our greatest aly, if we would get out of bed with the Chi-Coms and Zionists!
Roho get your facts straight! Missile shield was not suppose to defend Poland from anybody. It was said, that it was to defend USA and its NATO allies rom Iran or whoever Bush administration really had in mind. More realisticly it was probably geared towards Russia. If you don't know the facts than you should not say anything. You only make a fool out of yourself in the eyes of those that actually know the facts. This "Defensive MIssile Shield" idea was created under previous US administration with acceptance of American pupets in Warsaw. Present Polish goverment was reluctant with signing any treaty in regards to the missile shield since they knew that US was unreliable and majority of Poles were against it. But because of US administration's pressure, Jewish controled media in Poland pressure and promises of MIM-104 Patriot missles, Polish goverment caved in.
There's a saying, there's a calm before the storm. It could be Obama is cooling tensions with Russia as a prelude to aiding Israel in an attack on Iran. US needs Russian support in order for the US-Israel alliance against Iran to succeed in destroying the nuclear program.
Look at Obama's donors and sponsors. They may not be conservative but when it comes to the Middle East, they are no less pro-Zionist than Neocons.
Calm down, Pat.. There will be no Naval clash that you're apparently cheerleading for, in the Black sea.
As even you are an endless supporter and born fan of the former General Lee, so will good, energetic, free-wheeling folks of Georgia and the likes have their collective supporters.
Is every leader a legit and righteous king of the free-lands? No.
But let's try to be a little consistent for once? Try to lay off the hypocrisy button, brother.
Now, in regards to WWII. Imagine this situation: It is 2050. Los Angeles is 90% Mexican as is most of California and Texas. Mexican government says: " it is our land! It used to belong to us. People leaving in those lands are overwhelmingly Mexican. Give it back to us or else! As a nation, does US have the right to defend this land if Mexico was to invade USA?
I love Pat Buchanan. I love him because he speaks the truth, I love him because he defends his beliefs, I love him because he is Catholic like me. But Pat is wrong when it comes to WWII. His perspective is understandable because he is American. He cannot undrestand otherwise. To understand Poles you have to be Polish, to understand Germans you have to be German. Pat is not, therefore his understanding of WWII is wrong. But he is so intelligent and knowledgeable that I forgive him for balming Poland for WWII. You Roho on the other hand, you think you know something but you don't. Keep reading Pat's articles though, it'll take you above national average.
The way NATO has behaved until recently has made it a threat to international peace rather than a guarantor of peace. When the Soviet Union collapsed and eastern Europe became free of Soviet control, Jim Baker promised Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not expand into former Warsaw Pact territory. Since then former Warsaw Pact members Poland, Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Bulgaria, Romania and Slovenia have all become NATO members.
When NATO was created it was done so to defend itself against the Soviet Union and these former Warsaw Pact members. Since absorbing the former Warsaw Pact members into NATO the USA has ignored the concerns and interests of western Europe and become buddy buddy with eastern Europe because these countries have some fear of Russia and playing up those concerns works well for American neo-cons who want to expand American power in Europe (and elsewhere in the world).
If you take the missile defense shield to be placed in the Czech Republic and Poland for instance, it did nothing but create acrimony and concern. The shield was to protect Europe from Iranian nuclear bombs that don't exist and Iran says it has no desire to develop. Iran doesn't have a missile that can reach Europe either. In addition, why would Iran want to attack an entire continent where NATO would come to Europe's defense automatically and Iran would be bombed into oblivion?
The reason given for the creation of the missile defense system was false. It was not to defend against a non-existent Iranian threat but to expand American power in Europe and the system was to be used against Russia.
When the discussion started about dropping the shield, its true intentions became clear. While the USA was assuring Russia the missile shield was not directed at them, now that its off the table the press is reporting how the Czech Republic and Poland have some concerns the USA is abandoning them and they feel vulnerable to Russian power. But I thought the missile shield wasn't directed against Russia? I'm not sure how concerned the Poles and Czechs actually are. A majority of Czechs polled at one time opposed placing the missile defense shield in their country and a large percentage of Poles opposed the shield too.
When the USA announced it would build the missile defense shield, Russia announced soon afterwards it would place missiles in its Kaliningrad region (formerly East Prussia) that borders Poland. While all this is going on, talk about Czechs, Poles and Americans cooperating on this no one bothered to ask the rest of western Europe what they thought. Former German Chancellor Schroder and some others made their feelings known – they said "we have to stop this" thing from being built. While the Polish part of the shield was to be placed on land that was formerly German, the Czech component of the shield was to be placed on land formerly Austrian and the Russian missiles would be placed on land that was formerly East Prussia (Germany), Germany and Austria were not consulted about building a defense shield that now meant Russian missiles would be pointed not only at Poland and the Czech Republic, but Germany and the rest of Europe too. If a war developed between Russia and Poland or the Czech Republic, all of Europe becomes automatically involved in the war because its part of NATO and under the treaty obligated to defend fellow members under attack. Also of note, Poland's President or Prime Minister Kaczy?ski (these are twins that held the positions at the same time) said that the missile defense system could be used against Germany. I forgot which one of these twins said this, but this comment could be added to his other verbal attacks on Germany.
The problem in NATO today is the USA and a large part of Europe don't agree on its purpose. Germany is on pretty good terms with Russia and German industry has strongly expanded in eastern Europe and to some degree in Russia. German business development in Russia is going to expand in the future and this will benefit Russia which needs a lot of work. The infrastructure is poor in much of the country and this will be improved as well as western technology being brought there. While the USA continues to uphold the Jackson-Vanik amendment from the 1970's prohibiting exporting high tech to Russia, Germans want to develop even closer relations with its former enemy and export its know how there. France feels similar (to a slightly lesser degree) and I think many eastern Europeans think similarly about developing closer relations with Russia.
kwinto………………………..Your "sandwitched" attack on the thinking of PJB is obvious that you are actually not a Buchanan fan, and most likely missing in action over at Little Green Footballs?….As for your verbage, "Are people leaving in those lands or living in those lands"?………I would like to see the Mexicans leaving California myself.