My Post-Mortem is Better than Your Post-Mortem

Now that there is a truce, we get to fight about what it means.

This morning's Washington Post carries the following (which I excerpt):

"The Bush administration suggested yesterday that an apparent cease-fire in Georgia came about because Moscow feared it would be banished from Western-dominated international economic and political institutions if it did not stop its "aggression" in the former Soviet republic. "Russia has one foot into the international community . . . and one foot that is not," a senior administration official said. Membership in institutions such as the World Trade Organization and the Group of Eight major industrialized nations "is what is at stake when Russia engages in behavior that looks like it came from another time."

It's worth noting that the French, who actually negotiated the cease-fire (their historic thumb-in-the-eye approach to US relations gives them an odd sort of ability to do this) have not made such statements. It's possible this is correct, but it seems more likely that Russia is not as interested in the WTO and the G8 as we would like to believe.

I strongly suspect the Russians stopped because they accomplished their goals of humiliating Georgia and forcing the Georgians (further) out of Abkhazia and S. Ossetia. I doubt the Russians were afraid of being kicked out of international oganizations. That's actually something we should be scared about, since we OUGHT to want engagement with Russia, not isolation.

The Washington Post reports the following also, in connection with Russia's (routine) denial of the US theory:

"The United States "is as much interested in the relations with Russia as Russia is in the relations with the United States," said Vitali Churkin, Russia's ambassador to the United Nations."

Now, I think Ambassador Churkin was spot on, if you understand both his meanings. Russia also suggests it will be as little interested in good relations with the US as we are with them. It is important for the next president to realize that relations with Russia and China are as much a matter of choice for us as for them. We can have good relations or not. They are not desperate for our approval or companionship. Engagement or isolation are two differnet paths.

McCain totally does not understand this. He still has the immediate-post-Cold War mentality that the US is the sole superpower in the world, the navel of the universe. He often says that meeting with the US president is some kind of prize that should be carefully doled out. That's why he slammed Obama for suggesting he meet with Iran's president, saying it would legitimize his regime, discourage reformers and encourage Ahmadinejad's supporters. Bush says the same thing, that meeting with foreign leaders is like a gift to them. That's why he says we can't meet with Cuba's leaders, Iran's leders, etc. Actually, most don't see it that way. They don't see us as their legitimizers. The bigger countries are even more dangerous: they will only be as interested in us as we are in them.

That's why the phrase "constructive engagement" must apply to Russia and Iran as well as China. It is a mistake to think of our friendship as a carrot and isolation as a stick. If isolation is a stick, the whole world gets a poke in the eye. If Russia were expelled from the WTO, would this encourage them to shape up and fly right? Didn't we all make the opposite argument vis-a-vis China? Other than the fact that Russia actually poses LESS of a long-term threat than China, given its smaller population and diminished industrial and economic capacity, what is the difference?

We can disagree on this blog as to how bad Russia is, but I think that (most) of us agree that our response must be to draw Russia into the world community, not try to push it out.. certainly not on the theory that they will be desperate to get back into our good graces.