Quote:And I think that this is exactly the response that you saw during the US' meddling in Latin America - other countries opposed it, they said things about it (more later then at the time, as everything was not well known at first) - but at the end of the day, what was really done by anyone about it? Nothing. And I predict that is exactly what will happen in this case.
But what would
you have done? If you'd been a third-party government, or an international organisation? You probably wouldnt have gone to war (suicide against the US), but cutting trade agreements, yeah, or other economical or diplomatic sanctions, is that really a difficult question?
Because re Russia, your approach basically seems to be, let them have it - whether it's morally good or bad, it's only logical for them to want to control a zone of influence. Was that (or would that have been, we're young) your response to the US sponsoring coups, invasions, paramilitary groups? If not, whence the sudden acquiescence now it's Russia doing something similar?
It's just I've seen you ardently argue, when making the case that the US shouldnt have invaded Iraq, that there were good non-military alternative means of action. Even when conservatives derided the toothless UN, the paper tiger of resolutions and condemnations, the corrupted sanctions, you argued that well, they may not have been enough to topple Saddam or something, no. But they are useful and necessary, and there were plenty of ways in which we could have ratcheted up the pressure without straight-out invading it. Whereas now you suddenly seem to reason that, if we're not able to send our troops in, there's nothing we can do?
Yes, obviously Russia is not Iraq. But that sword cuts two ways. On the one hand it's much bigger and more powerful, so harder to pressure. But on the other it's much more invested in global relations, whether diplomatic, economical, geostrategical. It
wants that fully-fledged seat at the WTO. It wants those international trade agreements. Etc. Iraq had nothing left to lose, so could flaunt whatever; Russia may be resurgent but cant quite say, f*ck all ya, and still achieve the international status and power it aspires to.
Plus, the US and EU may be overstretched right now, and I agree that this is Bush's fault. But it's not like we're suddenly back to parity with Russia like in the Cold War. There's plenty of ways to ratchet up the pressure in indirect military ways too. Fast-track negotiations for NATO expansion, for example. Russia is en route to a massive display of its military capacity to cow neighbouring countries (see article in next post); well, NATO is on the Black Sea too. It can do the same thing, if nothing else to signal to our allies in the former Soviet Union that hey - we're not just going to surrender you as soon as the Russians start sabre-rattling.
