David Miliband must stop playing with fire

It takes two to start a cold war and Russia has so far been provoked
pointlessly into confrontation

Robert Skidelsky
The Times
August 28, 2008

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4622004.ece
http://tinyurl.com/6lrkv5

Russia, according to President Medvedev, is ready for a “new Cold War”. If
politicians, including our own, want a new Cold War, they will get one. But
the fault will be lie as much with us as Russia. 

Every move in Russia's foreign policy is greeted by the West with alarm and
suspicion. But its policy has been perfectly consistent for years. Russia's
aim has been to rebuild itself as a great power, and use that power to
regain a dominant position in the old Soviet space it surrendered in the
1990s. In Russia's perception, the United States wants to take over the
space vacated by Russia as fruit of its victory in the Cold War, using Nato
as a dagger, and Britain to supply moralistic veneer. 

Russia has made it clear for years how deeply it resents the expansion of
Nato to its borders. One of Stalin's aims was to create “buffers” between
the Soviet Union and Germany to stop a repetition of the two invasions that
cost millions of Russian lives: the “buffer” reflex explains the militarily
useless decision to keep a few Russian troops a few miles beyond the South
Ossetian border. 

Russia was rightly pushed out of its satellites in 1989-90 by popular
uprisings but it created the Commonwealth of Independent States in the
expectation that it would provide a buffer against Western expansion. What
did the West do? It expanded not just its political but also its military
penetration into the CIS area whenever an opportunity presented itself.
Most recently, the Anglo-American consortium made it clear that it wanted
Georgia and Ukraine inside Nato, though Germany and France succeeded in
blocking the move temporarily. 

What did Britain and America think they were doing? Pushing Nato deep into
the old Soviet Union and setting up a missile defence system in Poland and
the Czech Republic on the patently false pretence that it was to counter
the (non-existent) threat from Iran was bound to add to Russia's already
considerable paranoia, without achieving anything worth having.
Significantly, every shade of Russian opinion, from liberal to xenophobic,
regards Western policy as crass. Does the British Government realise with
what fire it is playing? Have they no memory of how a “local” quarrel in
1914 escalated into a world war? 

About a year ago I was at a lunch with the Georgian Ambassador, a delightful
man but full of small-country big talk. I pointed out politely that small
countries on the edge of big countries had to be careful not to provoke
their larger neighbour; but that it is also perfectly possible for them to
coexist peacefully if the smaller nation understands its place in the
scheme of things. 

The conditions for such peaceful coexistence need not be especially onerous.
Finland is a classic postwar example of a state that conducted itself so as
to retain its independence and liberty even under Stalin's baleful eye. It
was not a heroic or romantic stance, but a mature one. 

President Saakashvili is a hothead. He invaded South Ossetia aiming to
translate theoretical sovereignty into practical sovereignty and lost
Georgia's theoretical sovereignty as a result. He ought to be removed by
his people, not for war crimes but for gross incompetence. 

The West takes its stand on the rule of law. But international law has no
enforcement mechanism. So its maintenance depends on the co-operation of
the great powers; and this depends not only on the great powers being
sensitive to each others' concerns, but small powers recognising that,
whatever the UN charter says about equal sovereignty, some states are more
sovereign than others. Russia will no more accept international law as
binding if it goes against its interests than the US does, as it has shown
in Kosovo, Iraq and elsewhere. Kosovo taught Russia an important
post-communist lesson: if the West can invade a sovereign state without
Security Council sanction, why not Russia? 

The last thing Georgia needs is to join Nato. Membership will do nothing to
protect its theoretical sovereignty; trying to get in will intensify its
bullying by Russia and, will dangerously sour international relations.
Russia and China are not natural allies, but Western moralism and
geopolitical ambition will drive them together to resist what they see as
encroachments on their space. 

If that happens, the world would be divided into democratic and
authoritarian blocs - with a new arms race, economics turned into politics
and globalisation stalled. Is this what David Miliband wants? If not, can
he explain his foreign policy? 

The solution to the present crisis is obvious enough, but only the Georgians
can bring it about. They should replace their hot-headed President with a
cooler head. The new president should set about mending Georgia's fences
with its giant neighbour. A helpful move would be to suspend its
application to join Nato. Russia will cool down and we will all be able to
breathe more easily. Mr Miliband might even be reduced to talking sense. 


[Lord Skidelsky is a columnist for the Russian newspaper Vedomosti and
Emeritus Professor of Political Economy at the University of Warwick]
-- 
Facts are sacred ... but comment is free

On 28 Aug, 08:57, Robin T Cox  wrote:
> David Miliband must stop playing with fire
>
> It takes two to start a cold war and Russia has so far been provoked
> pointlessly into confrontation
>
> Robert Skidelsky
> The Times
> August 28, 2008
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributor...http://tinyurl.com/6lrkv5
>
> Russia, according to President Medvedev, is ready for a “new Cold War”. If
> politicians, including our own, want a new Cold War, they will get one. But
> the fault will be lie as much with us as Russia.
>
> Every move in Russia's foreign policy is greeted by the West with alarm and
> suspicion. But its policy has been perfectly consistent for years. Russia's
> aim has been to rebuild itself as a great power, and use that power to
> regain a dominant position in the old Soviet space it surrendered in the
> 1990s. In Russia's perception, the United States wants to take over the
> space vacated by Russia as fruit of its victory in the Cold War, using Nato
> as a dagger, and Britain to supply moralistic veneer.
>
> Russia has made it clear for years how deeply it resents the expansion of
> Nato to its borders. One of Stalin's aims was to create “buffers” between
> the Soviet Union and Germany to stop a repetition of the two invasions that
> cost millions of Russian lives: the “buffer” reflex explains the militarily
> useless decision to keep a few Russian troops a few miles beyond the South
> Ossetian border.
>
> Russia was rightly pushed out of its satellites in 1989-90 by popular
> uprisings but it created the Commonwealth of Independent States in the
> expectation that it would provide a buffer against Western expansion. What
> did the West do? It expanded not just its political but also its military
> penetration into the CIS area whenever an opportunity presented itself.
> Most recently, the Anglo-American consortium made it clear that it wanted
> Georgia and Ukraine inside Nato, though Germany and France succeeded in
> blocking the move temporarily.
>
> What did Britain and America think they were doing? Pushing Nato deep into
> the old Soviet Union and setting up a missile defence system in Poland and
> the Czech Republic on the patently false pretence that it was to counter
> the (non-existent) threat from Iran was bound to add to Russia's already
> considerable paranoia, without achieving anything worth having.
> Significantly, every shade of Russian opinion, from liberal to xenophobic> regards Western policy as crass. Does the British Government realise with
> what fire it is playing? Have they no memory of how a “local” quarrel in
> 1914 escalated into a world war?
>
> About a year ago I was at a lunch with the Georgian Ambassador, a delightful
> man but full of small-country big talk. I pointed out politely that small
> countries on the edge of big countries had to be careful not to provoke
> their larger neighbour; but that it is also perfectly possible for them to
> coexist peacefully if the smaller nation understands its place in the
> scheme of things.
>
> The conditions for such peaceful coexistence need not be especially onerous.
> Finland is a classic postwar example of a state that conducted itself so as
> to retain its independence and liberty even under Stalin's baleful eye. It
> was not a heroic or romantic stance, but a mature one.
>
> President Saakashvili is a hothead. He invaded South Ossetia aiming to
> translate theoretical sovereignty into practical sovereignty and lost
> Georgia's theoretical sovereignty as a result. He ought to be removed by
> his people, not for war crimes but for gross incompetence.
>
> The West takes its stand on the rule of law. But international law has no
> enforcement mechanism. So its maintenance depends on the co-operation of
> the great powers; and this depends not only on the great powers being
> sensitive to each others' concerns, but small powers recognising that,
> whatever the UN charter says about equal sovereignty, some states are more
> sovereign than others. Russia will no more accept international law as
> binding if it goes against its interests than the US does, as it has shown
> in Kosovo, Iraq and elsewhere. Kosovo taught Russia an important
> post-communist lesson: if the West can invade a sovereign state without
> Security Council sanction, why not Russia?
>
> The last thing Georgia needs is to join Nato. Membership will do nothing to
> protect its theoretical sovereignty; trying to get in will intensify its
> bullying by Russia and, will dangerously sour international relations.
> Russia and China are not natural allies, but Western moralism and
> geopolitical ambition will drive them together to resist what they see as
> encroachments on their space.
>
> If that happens, the world would be divided into democratic and
> authoritarian blocs - with a new arms race, economics turned into politics
> and globalisation stalled. Is this what David Miliband wants? If not, can
> he explain his foreign policy?
>
> The solution to the present crisis is obvious enough, but only the Georgians
> can bring it about. They should replace their hot-headed President with a
> cooler head. The new president should set about mending Georgia's fences
> with its giant neighbour. A helpful move would be to suspend its
> application to join Nato. Russia will cool down and we will all be able to
> breathe more easily. Mr Miliband might even be reduced to talking sense.
>
> [Lord Skidelsky is a columnist for the Russian newspaper Vedomosti and
> Emeritus Professor of Political Economy at the University of Warwick]
> --
> Facts are sacred ... but comment is free

If Russia were still the communist soviets then Milliband would be
cheering them on. Now it's the EU who
are the latest incarnation of the soviet union, so Milliband - a
pathetic little marxist europhile - tries to engineer a conflict
against nationalist Russia. The US/EU global elite have tried all
sorts of sweeteners in trying to get Russia on board the
globalist project but Russia want no part of the scam. So now they are
using threats instead. Milliband and the UK government,
the US Governement, the EU old boys club, Israel, can try to bully and
threaten Russia all they like but they will be slaped down like
the bitches they are.