West must understand Russian fears: former British military chief

[bemildred]

Source: AFP

LONDON, (AFP) - The West should make more effort to understand Moscow 's concerns in responding to Russia 's actions in Georgia, a former head of the British armed forces said Sunday.

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is concerned about states surrounding Russia joining NATO and the European Union, General Sir Mike Jackson wrote in The Sunday Telegraph newspaper.

---

In Kosovo, "NATO relied for its justification on the emerging doctrine in international law that the prevention of humanitarian disaster -- of ethnic cleansing -- being perpetrated by a government on its own people can be more important than sovereignty itself.

"Whether we like it or not, this is precisely the justification advanced by Moscow for its intervention in Georgia," said Jackson, who headed Britain's armed forces from 2003 to 2006.

Read more: http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/4919166/west-understand-russian-fears-british-military-chief

[Demeter]

1. Not To Mention US Tendencies

Oh, to have a country that doesn't suck as bad as this one does in foreign or domestic policy....

[daleo]

2. Bush also used this as one of his excuses in Iraq

The need to save the Kurds was one of his many shifting justifications for that invasion.

The neo-cons sewed the wind with all their unilateral war excuses, and now the world is reaping the whirlwind. All of us marchers in 2003 said this would be one of the outcomes of that folly. Two wrongs may not make a right, but nobody pays attention to hypocrites.

[DeSwiss]

4. Yup.

on edit: K&R!

[jwirr]

9. Wonder if putin actually had the guts to say that to his face. I hope so. nt

[tabatha]

3. Does anyone remember Jackson from this:

The guy who almost started World War III?

From The Guardian, Tuesday August 3, 1999:

"I'm not going to start the third world war for you," General Sir Mike Jackson, commander of the international K-For peacekeeping force, is reported to have told Gen Clark when he refused to accept an order to send assault troops to prevent Russian troops from taking over the airfield of Kosovo's provincial capital. - Robertson's plum job in a warring Nato


I guess I also did not like Clark's response to the Georgia conflict.

[Ghost Dog]

5. Absolutely. Unforgettable. n/t

[Ghost Dog]

6. I knew it had to be Mike Jackson.

A real soldier and straight-talking 'diplomat', sometimes uncomfortable for the Govt.. Widely respected in the UK.

"For me, the right course for the West -- without compromising its own position and values -- is to show a greater understanding of why Russia behaves as it does, to accept more willingly Russia 's concerns for its Near Abroad.

"While there are actions that we cannot condone, Russian perceptions exist and will take time to change.

"This is the challenge for politicians and diplomats: strategic military hostility and confrontation must remain a thing of the past."

Edit: Link to Telegraph OP by Jackson: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/08/17/do1701.xml

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

7. I would agree that the West needs to do a much better job...

...of trying to understand Russia, and try to avoid actions (like the missile shield in Poland, and pushing hard for Georgian membership in NATO) that do nothing but provoke existing tensions.

That said, Russia also needs to realize that the former Eastern Bloc countries have free will, and some of them will choose to join the EU, or NATO, and that they are partially responsible for forcing those countries into the arms of the West due to their own actions towards their former puppet states.

[bulloney]

8. How would Washington react if a rogue nation set up missiles in a neighboring country?

Hell, remember how bent out of shape we got just from hearing the story that China was drilling for oil off our shores? There are still some people spreading that story around even though it was debunked.

[jaybeat]

10. Read some loon asserting it as known fact just the other day

Anything to believe that our free ride on fossil fuels will never have to come to an end...

[cliffordu]

14. maybe not - cull the population to 2 billion or so and there's Oil for everyone!!!

[jaybeat]

15. Ah, but what to do with the other 4.5+ billion? Any volunteers? (nt)

[cliffordu]

18. Oh, I think Washington and Moscow have that all figured out.

[Dr.Phool]

11. We've already seen it. Cuban Missle Crisis.

We're still seeing it with the Cuban embargo.

[Preening Fop]

12. Obviously, there is Big Money to be made, setting up missile sites along the Russian borders.

Yep,
our 'high moral values' imperial capitalist empire
must be prepared to terminate those anti-Christ Commies

[Joe Chi Minh]

13. There he goes again, trying to prevent WWIII, in the Caucuses this time.

He deserves a medal like that Russian officer who disobeyed orders and refused to launch a nuclear attack on the US, because he rightly suspected that the warning of a pre-emptive, US, nuclear strike on Russia on his computer, was a software error. Got sacked of course, as he would in any country.

[Barack_America]

16. Russian foreign policy in a nutshell: maintain a buffer zone against Western invasion.

It's really as simple as that.

We must remember that over 20 million Russians died in WWII. It's not hard to understand why they want a country or two between themselves and the West. They might not always go about establishing their buffer zone in an acceptable manner, but we should remember that the overall strategy is one of self-defense, not aggression.

[Parmenion]

17. Self Defense for "Buffer" Countries Too

And we must remember that it is self defense for countries like Georgia, Ukraine, and Poland to avoid becoming a buffer. So many people on DU malign these countries for allying with the U.S. against Russia and demonize them; but they are merely pursuing a policy of trying to defend against Russia. If the pre-eminent world power of the world today was China, or Australia, or any-other country, then I think it would behoove these Eastern European countries to align with them.

Between World War I and II all the countries of this region made military alliances with the UK and France. It didn't get them anywhere, but it is a basic strategy that has been repeated through history.

It angers me when people on these boards decry the Polish leadership for accepting the missile shield and defending the comments of Russian leaders for threatening Poland; when these same posters would freak out if Bush threatened some Latin American country for accepting a military base from Russia, China, or some other power.

Weak sovereign countries have a legitimate right to select military aid. Fact is: both the U.S. and Russia pursue imperialist foreign policies, but the United States has not occupied Poland for 240 years and does not threaten to turn it into a buffer zone, so Poland seeks out the help of the United States. Likewise, Russia has never occupied Latin American countries, so it would behoove these countries to seek out the help of Russia.

[Barack_America]

19. Absolutely. It is a delicate dance, indeed.

And a very complicated problem.

:thumbsup: to your post.

[AlphaCentauri]

25. We know what happened to latin american countries when they don't please us

no matter who is on the white house the way to keep latin america under submission is to keep them in poverty.

[whistle]

20. I think the two world wars of the 20th century pretty much convinced Russian people

...that they had to protect themselves against Western racism and imperial ambitions as the loses suffered by the Russian people were astronomical. Also, immediately following the Bolshevik revolution and the end of WWI Russia was surrounded and isolated economically and culturally by the Western powers for the two decades between WWI and WWII.

Russia lost 1.7 million in WWI while the othercountries involved lost some 9.3 million. During WWII Russia suffered the lose of nearly 25.6 million while all other countries lost 34.4 million.

[Igel]

21. That's one way to understand it.

However the invasions happened before WWI, as well, and went both ways. Poland was divvied up in the 1700s, the Caucasus before Napoleon. The latter--the Caucasus--wasn't an anti-Ottoman concern, but had other reasons behind it.

Then there was the expansion east, through Siberia and Central Asia.

Now, it's one thing to maintain a buffer. It's another to maintain a colony. Even Lenin didn't like giving up territories, and he struck a separate peace with the Germans.

The Baltics were gobbled up by Russian before WWII broke out, while the treaty with Hitler held. The treaty, of course, involving divvying up Poland for the USSR's occupation. Then, as part of the "buffer"--Belorus' not being enough, remember--they shifted Poland west. To give Russia territorial gains through conquest; of course, it was USSR, so Belorus' inherited the territory. Russia got Kaliningrad--and if not for keeping the Prussian territory as spoils of war, Poland wouldn't have a Russian border to worry about. Neither would ... is it Latvia?

One can understand their perceptions. One doesn't have to agree that the perceptions are valid. This general seems to confuse understanding with placating, and placating with convincing of the error of one's ways.

He also plays the imperial power game--he's old enough to remember it, I think--which says that minor and lesser races, well, don't stand a chance. And, in some ways, he doesn't see a problem with it. Russia? Georgia? One's important, and if the one were to be destroyed (and I'm not saying it will be), well, let's figure out if our principles outweigh our pragmatics. Lest Russia be overly convinced that the Georgians will seize Moscow (or is it the Turks? The Iranians? Granted, the Ottomans fought Russia, and Iran attacked Russia in the early 1800s, but surely Moscow's gotten over his?).

Or we can read what the top politicians actual right. "Strategic interests", not always military ones. "Restored respect", not always just safety. One aide was aghast that Saakashvili spoke to Putin with insufficient respect; when you visit the tsar', you must show due regard or get your ass slapped, it seems. I understand this; I don't approve it, and don't much feel like placating it, personally, if I have a choice. (It's why I'd probably also personally refuse to go before a Senate committee at a hearing, since abuse seems to be de rigueur from the opposition--regardless of which side the "opposition" is. Gratuituous ass-kissing annoys me.)

I still have to wonder about Ukraine and Trans-Dniestria. If I were Ukraine, I'd also be wondering.

[JVS]

23. Lenin didn't give a shit about giving up the buffer, because he assumed that Germany...

was about to have its own Communist revolution and that they'd all form a huge Soviet Union anyway

[AlphaCentauri]

26. where would Hitler be, without the russians on our side?

[Psyop Samurai]

22. The "West" understands Russia's fears perfectly well...

A rabid predator pays no heed to the concerns of others.

[AlphaCentauri]

24. Finally a voice of reason