Russia, Georgia and NATO
In explaining the roots of Russia’s assault on Georgia, New York Times columnist Tom Friedman yesterday returned to one of his favorite themes from the mid-90s: that the Clinton administration decided to “cram NATO expansion down the Russians’ throats,” thus taking advantage of a weak Russia, and sowing the seeds of the present conflict. And his friend Michael Mandelbaum added that it was clear that NATO expansion was directed against Russia because “the Russians were told they could not join.”
Having written a book on NATO enlargement explaining in great detail why both of them were (and still are) wrong, I’m not going to give a long, boring recitation of the facts once again. Clinton didn’t cram anything down the Russians’ throats, and in fact, tried to convince Boris Yeltsin that if Russia developed in a democratic direction, perhaps Russia could one day become a member. (It was a skeptical Yeltsin who once responded to Al Gore, “But Russia is very, very big, and NATO is very, very small.)
What we’ve seen in the last week is a NATO that has very little leverage in responding to the Russian military assault against its small neighbor. And that is precisely the point: NATO is not a threat to Russia, as Western officials have been saying for nearly two decades. But as we are now reminded, Russia does remain a threat to its neighbors.
Comments
Why do most people solely blame Russia for this? georgia has plenty innocent blood on their hands
Posted by: BillCinSD | August 21, 2008 05:01 PM
JG: you’re talking about a different period, before the US essentially abandoned (in all but name) the PfP.
I think both you and the critics here conflate the process of NATO expansion at the time with the effects NATO expansion would have on Russian politics.
The fact is that many, many Russians are now very angry about NATO expansion; the significance of NATO expansion changed enormously after 1996 and then again during the Bush administration.
Posted by: Daniel Nexon | August 21, 2008 06:55 PM
Professor Goldgeier,
Another great post—keep them coming! However, I have to question your final point that NATO is not a threat to Russia. Currently, I think you are correct. Certainly NATO has done little with regards to countering Russian activity in Georgia—and it is therefore hard to argue that NATO poses much of a threat to Russian interests. But, if NATO expands to include the Ukraine or Georgia, it seems pretty clear that the idea that NATO is not a threat to Russia will be a thing of the past. It seems Russia is trying to prevent NATO expansion into any country on its strategic borders precisely because this kind of expansion would in fact be a direct threat to Russia, as it would limit their ability to press for their interests in those countries. So what should NATO do? Expand and protect the Ukraine and Georgia, while risking threatening Russia? Or, leave the Ukraine and Georgia to their own devices, thereby placating Russia, but potentially ceding these countries to the Russian sphere of influence…..
Posted by: Vlad Surkov | August 21, 2008 10:57 PM
I’m glad the professor has convinced himself, but I’m not convinced.
Tell me what the purpose of NATO is other than as a bulwark against Russia.
Let’s play an alternative scenario out here: Imagine the US had the type of dislocation and break up the Russians had from 1991 on, and the Soviets had not collapsed from within. Imagine further that the Soviets invited Mexico, Cuba and most of Central America into the Warsaw Pact, or started a new Western Hemisphere pact. Would you (or could you?) imagine the US not feeling a bit cornered?
And would the US feel any better if Russia said, “Well, of course, US, if you want to join our Pact, then by all means, join?”
I agree with the first commenter, which is that Russia certainly acted imperially and brutally against Georgia, but Georgia’s leadership was out of its collective mind to try and steamroll the South Ossetians. And the Georgian leadership was foolish to listen to the empty gestures of the Bush-Cheney administration and the equally empty tantrums of a senile idiot, McCain.
Posted by: Mitchell Freedman | August 22, 2008 12:26 AM
BUT: It is indisputable that most Russians’ believe NATO expansion is directed against and feel threatened by it; and also that they have made this clear to the US and Europe repeatedly. So I feel there is something to these points, as the US has ignored the Russians’ concerns.
Posted by: alex | August 22, 2008 03:17 AM
NATO’s expansion gets its members closer to the traditional Middle East and Central Asia, which … drum roll … are the world’s major sources of energy reserves. NATO was reluctant to join in George W’s Iraq venture but eventually got into Afghanistan, located conveniently between the traditional Middle East and Central Asia. NATO needs to be well oiled (and gassed).
Posted by: Shag from Brookline | August 22, 2008 08:02 AM