At least he would have know what to do about the Russian invasion of Georgia.
Much to the chagrin of a lot of the idealists and neocons out there, it would have involved a bus, some Georgians, and something similar to throwing them under it. Not exactly a “1000 points of light” moment, but something clearly, and ruthlessly in the US interest. Which , at least when it came to foreign policy, Nixon had a clear vision of.
The Russian invasion of Georgia is not a good thing. There are no easy answers to the problem, and it is clear that this situation was not created overnight. Plenty of blame to go around, and sadly some of it lays squarely at the foot of the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
The outcome of the struggle will determine the course of Russia’s relations with its neighbors, will shape Dmitri Medvedev’s presidency, could alter the relationship between the Kremlin and the West and crucially could decide the fate of Caspian basin energy supplies.
Which is why all of the bloggers who are talking about why the US needs to be sticking up for our Georgian “allies” should be viewed as a being under the influence of drug induced fantasy. Support for Georgia-directly and militarily- is the furthest thing from being in the national interest.
The US needs Russia more than the other way around and Nixon would have recognized that in a New York minute. Furthermore, he would never have let things get this lousy. Richard Nixon would never have invaded Iraq either, a fact that highlights the difference between him and the George W. Bush.
America, guided by Bush’s wrongheaded vision in particular, has been guilty of pouring gasoline on this particular fire. At the NATO summit in Bucharest this year it pressed for Georgia and Ukraine’s membership in the alliance. The move was blocked by the Europeans but NATO did give a commitment to offer the two countries membership later. That move was seen in Moscow as a challenge to its dominance in what it calls the “near abroad”, the former Soviet republics.
Since then Russia has made clear in word and deed that it will do anything to prevent NATO’s expansion on its western and southern flanks. From a Russian perspective that makes a lot of sense
It really makes no sense from a NATO standpoint either, and in fact kind of dilutes the reason for NATO’s existence-at least what is put out for public consumption these days about how NATO is not seeking to encircle Russia and how Russia is no longer the principle threat to NATO. It was one thing when the NATO borders were brought to the Eastern frontier of Poland-that was simply restoring the pre-World War II status quo. But when it jumped off into the murky world of offering membership to former parts of the Soviet Union proper it was diving head first into dangerous waters. Expanding NATO past the Eastern border of Poland was never a good idea.
Lets start by looking at the geography, it is in Russia’s favor. Particularly at a time when Turkey is worried about its own internal stability. Any military intervention would require Turkish cooperation and that’s not likely to come soon. Neither would be the necessary numbers of NATO troops required due to the unfortunate fact that 200,000 troops are tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan and in supporting roles in the Persian Gulf.
There is always the Ukraine.
Yes there is, but the geography again works not to anyone’s advantage-Russia still lies between it and Georgia. Furthermore, Ukraine has economic ties going in both directions and so far has indicated it wants to remain neutral. If Europe (e.g. the real Europe west of the Polish Border) does not want to risk losing its fuel supply neither will Ukraine. Plus Ukraine will be wondering if they are next and looking out for themselves. Thus the public approach of neutrality ( They are probably arming the Georgians though). Besides most Ukrainians are (57% at last poll) against the Ukraine joining NATO, so playing an active role in any conflict will exacerbate long term efforts to get the Ukraine under the NATO umbrella.
Putin and Medeyev know all this. So too would have Richard Nixon. Which is why, unlike the 43rd President he would have taken the long view. And recognized that the Georgians, for all their virtues and steps towards democracy went a bridge too far in tweaking the 1000 pound bear in the room.
And again, our ability to respond to this event is constrained by our ill-advised invasion of Iraq AND the repeated refusal of the administration to resource the Armed Forces for the so called long war.
The conservative Milblogs are calling for an armed US military response. Nixon would have looked at the board and said it was the wrong move. He ( and I) would rather let the law of unintended consequences kick in.
First, Russia will pay a price economically and in other areas that are equally important to Vladimir Putin. That’s why I firmly believe this will be over by next week. He knows he is in a box just as the US is in a box in how to respond.
There are ways to make the sides of that box cave in without having them buckle though. There US can act on the peripheries to show pressure-with NATO in military exercises on the borders of Russia that will keep them wondering what we are doing. The US can publicly pick up John McCain’s call to kick them out of the G8, most importantly we can browbeat Iraq and others into flooding the market with oil-if for only the reason of offsetting the rise of oil prices coming tomorrow. We can also apply indirect help to Georgia-“How did those M-16’s and Stingers get there?”. It will give the illusion of due diligence, while letting this Slavic intramural scrimmage burn itself out.
Nixon would have realized that the Russians are too smart to take all of Georgia-but he also would have understood that there is a need to keep any conflict between the two nations inside the CIS box. And lets not forget Russia still has nuclear weapons. Do you really want to trad Atlanta for Tblisi? I don’t and think most Americans don’t either. Game, set, and match. But matches get played again and over time we can keep our eye fixed on the important players-of which whether you like it or not: Russia is and Georgia is not. The difference is we don’t have Nixon around to understand how the “great game” really worked.
Patience and biding our time is the way to go here. Welcome to the multi-polar world.