What Biden in Ukraine and Georgia Shows: Making Up (With Russia) Is Hard to Do
In a two-day swoop, Vice President Joe Biden has single-handedly signaled something about the reset button: While the idea of rapprochement with Russia that he ostentatiously suggested five months ago is romantic, getting back together usually isn't a good idea for divorced couples. They tend to go back to the same old aggravating habits.
In this case, Biden first went to Ukraine, which he assured that Washington isn't recognizing Russia's claimed entitlement to influence over its neighbors. He said that if Ukraine decides to join NATO, the U.S. is behind it. (Thanks to RealClearPolitics for posting the transcript.)
Then today, Biden flew south to Georgia, where he said the same thing: "We understand that Georgia aspires to join NATO. We fully support that aspiration," Biden said.
Almost nothing is guaranteed to raise the hackles of Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin more than the suggestion that Georgia should be permitted to join NATO; a close second would be the same formulation for Ukraine. Russia regards both nations as its own. Indeed, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin responded by saying that Georgia is "remilitarizing" after being pummeled by Russia in a five-day war last August, and saying that Moscow might move to stop it.
So why did the Obama administration choose to put irritating language into Biden's mouth? The answer is realpolitik. Washington truly does want calmer, more constructive relations with Russia. It knows that neither Ukraine nor Georgia are capable of meeting NATO requirements; it also knows that the two aren't welcome as members by much of Europe, which -- there is no delicate way of putting it -- allows Russia to call the shots on issues including further NATO enlargement and the direction of new natural gas pipelines.
Yet, putting aside for now the question of whether NATO in fact should expand further, for reasons of politics and appearances, Washington cannot be seen to be acceding to Russia's wishes. So you have speeches like Biden's in Ukraine and Georgia.
It's true that Biden tried to soften the sting by also suggesting that both Ukraine and Georgia could improve their political systems. Biden also refrained from agreeing to Saakashvili's request for a replenishment of armored weapons, which Georgia all-but exhausted in the August war.
Some of the blogosphere is alight with accusations that Washington threw "another ally under the bus," as Pamela Geller over at Atlas Shrugs put it. Others, such as Robert Antonio Hussain, go the other way. "Why must VP Joe Biden stir up the pot all over again about Georgia, Russia, NATO and Georgian Pres. Saakashvili?" wrote Hussain.
The answer to Geller: No he didn't.
The answer to Hussain: Because he must.
In this case, Biden first went to Ukraine, which he assured that Washington isn't recognizing Russia's claimed entitlement to influence over its neighbors. He said that if Ukraine decides to join NATO, the U.S. is behind it. (Thanks to RealClearPolitics for posting the transcript.)
Then today, Biden flew south to Georgia, where he said the same thing: "We understand that Georgia aspires to join NATO. We fully support that aspiration," Biden said.
Almost nothing is guaranteed to raise the hackles of Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin more than the suggestion that Georgia should be permitted to join NATO; a close second would be the same formulation for Ukraine. Russia regards both nations as its own. Indeed, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin responded by saying that Georgia is "remilitarizing" after being pummeled by Russia in a five-day war last August, and saying that Moscow might move to stop it.
So why did the Obama administration choose to put irritating language into Biden's mouth? The answer is realpolitik. Washington truly does want calmer, more constructive relations with Russia. It knows that neither Ukraine nor Georgia are capable of meeting NATO requirements; it also knows that the two aren't welcome as members by much of Europe, which -- there is no delicate way of putting it -- allows Russia to call the shots on issues including further NATO enlargement and the direction of new natural gas pipelines.
Yet, putting aside for now the question of whether NATO in fact should expand further, for reasons of politics and appearances, Washington cannot be seen to be acceding to Russia's wishes. So you have speeches like Biden's in Ukraine and Georgia.
It's true that Biden tried to soften the sting by also suggesting that both Ukraine and Georgia could improve their political systems. Biden also refrained from agreeing to Saakashvili's request for a replenishment of armored weapons, which Georgia all-but exhausted in the August war.
Some of the blogosphere is alight with accusations that Washington threw "another ally under the bus," as Pamela Geller over at Atlas Shrugs put it. Others, such as Robert Antonio Hussain, go the other way. "Why must VP Joe Biden stir up the pot all over again about Georgia, Russia, NATO and Georgian Pres. Saakashvili?" wrote Hussain.
The answer to Geller: No he didn't.
The answer to Hussain: Because he must.
Labels: biden, georgia, nato expansion, Putin, Russia, saakashvili, Ukraine
2 Comments:
Steve:
You wrote, "Because he (Biden) must (appease)." Who must he appease?
I would argue that Biden's trip has more to do with appeasing the domestic US audience than do does in sending a signal to Russia.
None of this posturing by Biden nor his trips to Ukraine and Georgia have anything to do with ideals or ideology. Rather, what we're talking about here in business or more specifically market share.
NATO views Ukraine and Georgia, not as little lovely republics of principle, but as potential customers.
NATO is essentially a lobbying organization for a group of North American and European manufacturers looking to increase their installed base of customers.
So that's how I'd answer your question of, ".... why did the Obama administration choose to put irritating language into Biden's mouth?"
Hi Tim,
Who said appease? I'm not sure how that idea even creeped in.
I see you have been reading Eisenhower. In any case, NATO for sure is still in a transition stage post-Cold War. However, I don't view it at all with the skepticism that you suggest. Tell Poland, the Czech Republic and Lithuania that they are members of a cynically based business lobbying group looking for cash.
For argument's sake, let's say that your scenario is correct -- that NATO is business dressed up as geopolitics. If NATO is purely business at its core, why then are Putin et al so categorically opposed to its expansion? Russia has a record of competitiveness in this sphere.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home