Washington foreign policy shift

RCW posted an excellent stratfor analysis of the Obama administration's foreign policy shifts, with regards to Iran and Russia.

Read the whole thing. Here are some highlights:

• Clinton announced that the US would like to invite Iran to a March 31 conference on Afghanistan. This is a clear break from past Bush admin policy.
• Washington voted to restore NATO ties to Russia.
• Washington told Georgia it "needs some space" in its relationship. Georgia membership into NATO is highly unlikely, now.

Regarding that last point, quoting:

By disappointing the Georgians at this summit, the United States just moved the line of Russian influence in the former Soviet periphery several hundred miles to the west. The United States essentially told a recently war-ravaged country on the border of Russia — whose only real protection derives from its alliance with Washington — that the need for the United States to work out a deal with Russians is a bigger priority right now than providing for Georgia’s security. That message is likely to be met with horror throughout much of central and eastern Europe and with delight in Moscow.

That said, the diplomatic stage is still being set, and there is much more to be worked out in the United States’ distrust-filled relationships with both Tehran and Moscow. We will be watching for Russia’s reaction to the U.S. gestures on Friday, when Clinton meets with her Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, and for the level of actual progress in negotiations in the month before Obama and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev meet.

Regardless, Thursday’s events provided very clear indicators that Washington has — for the time being — chosen a new foreign policy path that will win some and lose some. Now is the prime moment for the major global powers to reposition themselves.

The perils of recognizing South Ossetia

FP's current Seven Questions post is about Russia's war with Georgia, interviewing ex-CIA regional expert Paul Goble. The interview is a good one, in particular answering a question that I had:

FP: But if the South Ossetians and the Abkhazians don’t want to be part of Georgia, why should the West support President Saakashvili’s position? Why is it a good idea to support Georgia’s “territorial integrity”?

Since 1932 — since the Stimson Doctrine was articulated when the Japanese seized Manchuria and transformed it into “Manchukuo” as a client state — it has been (largely) consistent American policy that the United States does not recognize territorial change achieved by an act of aggression. So, the issue is not, as the Russians have put it, between simple territory integrity or the right of nations to self-determination. It is whether the United States and Western governments will accept border changes brought about by the use of force.

Western and US officials produced many soundbites on upholding Georgian territorial integrity, but little or nothing on why this principle must be upheld. It seemed to run counter to "facts on the ground" demonstrating that Abkhazia and South Ossetia had little interest in being part of Georgia.

Abkhazia is largely independent anyway. South Ossetia is really a shell; independent yes, but mainly a smuggling route into Russia, and under implicit Russian control anyway. Neither wanted to be part of Georgia before the war, and now, really do not wish to be part of Georgia.

Thus, self-determination (freedom) runs up against another sound, logical principle: do not encourage aggressive states to redraw boundaries by force of arms. In any case, unlimited self-determination is a bad idea anyway. Fragmenting an existing nation-state has the potential to destabilize entire regions.

Redrawing nation-state boundaries as the West did with Kosovo did indeed open a new can of worms. As the Seven Questions post indicates, redrawing boundaries for breakaway regions is a double-edged sword. That is true for Kosovo and the West as it is for Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Russia.

This wikipedia article provides a surprising amount of depth on worldwide reaction to Kosovo recognition, and various regions striving for independence. (WARNING: read the wikipedia article with two grains of salt, rather than the usual one)

Losing Abkhazia and S. Ossetia

People are reacting to the Russian president stating, in no uncertain terms, and Georgia will lose South Ossetia.

Even with my reliably pro-American bias, I could see that both Abkhazia and South Ossetia were very unlikely to return to the status quo (Georgian territory, de facto independences).

The Georgian attacks on Ossetia pushed those citizens farther into the Russian camp. Months of Russian provocations are irrelevant [to S. Ossetians]. I think there is little question that the people in the disputed territories would vote against being a part of Georgia.

Thus, the problem:

• One should defend the principle of territorial integrity, especially when that principle is violated by armed aggression.
• However, in this case, defending that principle implies forcing a people somewhere they do not wish to be.

The Russians did not and do not care a whit about the Ossetians. But defense of Georgian territorial integrity implies the US does not, either.

Catch 22.

A "technical" war?

Russia advances from South Ossetia and Abkhazia to bombing targets in core, undisputed Georgia. Putin has been widely quoted as saying the conflict will be taken to its "logical conclusion."

That leaves us to speculate about what that means. Let me offer one guess, something I have thought about in the context of a US attack of Iran: a military assault by one country upon another, with the main goal of eliminating the entire military capability of another country. Although some key civilian infrastructure may be destroyed — particularly items such as bridges with dual civilian and military roles — the civilian apparatus in general is largely left untouched. (something smarter bombs enable, in modern warfare) Occupation of the country is never considered even as a possibility.

Given the relative military strengths, Russia is clearly pursuing a war of punishment at this point. The biggest open question, I think, is not occupation but whether Russia will actively seek to depose Saakashvili and other Georgian politicians.

Diplomats hard at work

Quoting today's NYT update on the Georgian conflict,

Secretary Rice worked through the night Saturday [...] on a Security Council resolution. American diplomats said that they did not want an actual Security Council vote on the resolution until Tuesday or so, the better to draw out the debate and publicly shame the Russian government. While the resolution will carry no punitive weight, and is almost sure to be vetoed by Russia, a permanent Council member, the hope is that it could create more pressure for a cease-fire, officials said.

I cannot help but recall the 1939 image of Britain and France ruminating over their treaty obligations to Poland, as the German blitzkreig rained down for hours, then days. Diplomats scrambled and negotiated "through the night" to produce a result that would not shape the conflict in any way.

(to clarify, I am not drawing an analogy between the two situations, merely noting a stark image that flashed through my mind)

Are you part of the Pipeline War?

Wired Magazine notes that Georgia is under online attack, with most official government websites unavailable for days.

Due to the nature of distributed computing, the sheer numbers of compromised PCs and the cloaked nature of modern botnets, it is difficult to determine how much of the online attack is by a government, by outside groups whom the government tacitly encourages, or by those wholly outside the realm of government involvement and knowledge.

This reveals an unsettling facet of this war: you might be an unknowing participant.

If a virus (or trojan etc.) infects your computer, then your computer may be among the many thousands of other computers around the world sending Internet traffic to Georgia websites. This is called a distributed denial-of-service attack, or DDoS.

As always, make sure your computer has up-to-date software. Update Windows, update your anti-virus software, and manually run a scan if you so inclined. It can't hurt. Pay attention and notice if your Internet connection or computer seems unusually slow.

Russia/Georgia reactions

CNN reports on international reaction to Russia's escalation of the fighting (attacking targets outside South Ossetia).

The official said European allies have told the United States that Russia has "crossed a line of unacceptable behavior" and should "expect international condemnation." "I do sense an emerging unified view among our key allies," he said.

The return of history, indeed. What sort of diplomacy will we see, I wonder? Will we see Europe and America unified, guaranteeing Georgian territory (excluding Ossetia)? Or will we tell Georgia "I told you so" and stay out of it?

Inevitably Western diplomats will be going to sleep tonight, having nightmares about the return of the cold war. This is energy "politics" at its worst, and the forseeable result of Russia's recent willingness to wield resource control as an economic weapon, a method of control.

Updates roll in at Foreign Policy and elsewhere, as well as on major news wires.

New York Times has a good background piece, Taunting the Bear.