Top Story
Fareed Zakaria: Wanted—A New Global Strategy
My Journey to the Top
 
 
Latest News
AP IMPACT: Some bailout holdings down $9 billion
 
 
expand
WORLD VIEW | Fareed Zakaria

This Isn’t the Return of History

The Georgia attack will go down not as the dawn of a new era of Russian power but as a major strategic blunder.

By Fareed Zakaria | NEWSWEEK
Published Aug 30, 2008
From the magazine issue dated Sep 8, 2008

« Return to Article

 
Discuss
 
Member Comments
  • Posted By: Georgegeorgian @ 09/14/2008 6:29:05 PM

    Comment: I have read with great interest this article and smiled on furious comments by some Pro-Russian readers - apparently from Russia Today propaganda machine.
    I absolutely agree that high oil prices made Russian "desperately-want-to-be-Empire-again" so incredible bold (and foolish, I would say) - they demonstrate these oil and gas muscles now as more powerful weapons than any bombs ever has been in the history - and a threat to Europe cut the gas in winter and freeze (or even only decrease on some degrees the indoor temperature) makes EU politicians very much foundering indeed. So, if not Iraq invasion - and high prices on oil; if not constant talks about invasion in Iran - and even higher price on oil - and if not a real treason of EU leaders when each EU country "sells" its neighbors' interests to achieve a secular deal for themselves only and greater dependence on Mr. Putin's oil, like on cocaine, and if not once politician Gerhard Schroeder - a recent shame on German history, a political whore, bought by Mr. Putin - Russians would not commit that stupid action. Their card-house will fall apart soon - as soon as oil drops below 60$ and when Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, Yakutia, Dagestan, Kabardo, Ingushetia, and North Ossetia as well! - will also demand the similar independence as now Russia granted to South Ossetia.

    And all talks about Russia caring about those people in South Ossetia and Abkhazia is huge boolshit. Mr. Zhirinovsky has already publicly announced that Russia only needs territorieas - Ossetians and Abkhazians will have role of servants there, if at all. Also, the state which terminated humerous thousands of Chechens for their strive to independence, has no moral right to defend "independence of others abroad, issuing to them its passports like Hitler did.

    My request to EU leaders would be to remember those words, said once by "prominent" European politician:
    "How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing. It seems still more impossible that a quarrel which has already been settled in principle should be the subject of war."

    remember what has happened a little bit after that "appeasement"?...

    George

    • Posted By: schizhang @ 10/01/2008 9:28:14 PM

      Comment: "Pro-Russian readers - apparently from Russia Today propaganda machine", are you sure you are not living under some sort of propaganda? Propaganda labeled as "Freedom of reporting" is more harmful than propaganda labeled "propaganda".

  • Posted By: lioron2710 @ 09/13/2008 1:17:08 PM

    Comment: It is quite amazing how Fareed Zakaria manages to be on the employ of such a renowned magazine. I have been reading his articles for quite some time now and have never ceased to be surprised by his pro-US instance , come hell or high water. The fact remains that people like Mr Zakaria are part of the media-elite whose sole purpose is to pontificate on all things sundry without ever pointing the finger at themselves. He writes good English, though, although most of it is wasted in penning such pointless articles without ever understanding geoplitical realities and changed world circumstances. Frankly, when the U.S. pot calls the Russian kettle black, one cannot suppress a chuckle.

  • Posted By: coocao @ 09/13/2008 10:17:32 AM

    Comment: A truth is not to blame Russia but to stop USA from its aggressive geopolitics. A situation around Russia-Georgia conflict completely mimics USA policy with a war in Iraq. A "truth loving" media has organized a media attack on Russia skillfully manipulating and hiding the real truth about conflict. Does it sound very familiar? The fact is everyone can hear overblown information about victims in Georgia, but not a word about how many people have been suffered from a massive attack of the Georgian army on the South-Osetia. Besides the same media skillfully hides down shocking information on CIA involvement in preparing and guiding the Georgia's attack and generous financing so called 'pink revolution' in Georgia. How come USA government cannot find money to provide a basic health care for its citizens but immediately offers a huge financial aid to Georgia? Doesn't it directly prove USA involvement? Besides Mr. Cheney???s visit to Georgia and Azerbaijan smells like an oil business. How many big USA oil companies are involved in the use of the oil wealth of Azerbaijan? Whose interests have to be protected now?
    The truth is simple the media is far away from the truth when it suits ???a big hairy hand??? generously covering its expenses.

  • Posted By: oea65 @ 09/12/2008 11:20:42 PM

    Comment: Zakaria is full of s...This is his worse, stupidest article ever, it seems written by a baboon.

  • Posted By: AKD23 @ 09/12/2008 5:42:09 AM

    Comment: Taking Mr. Zakaria's the point about building closer ties with Russia, I would like to not that it is Russia who has been keen on integration with the West from early 90's up until very recently. The integrations has not happened predominanty because of the failure on the part of the US to realise that it will be beneficial for them in the first instance. Making friends is always better than making foes and will definitely pay out in the middle to long term. Thus, the only appropriate response to Russia should be an increased involvement of the West with Russia, not breaking up the remaining ties. The effort lead by Sarkozy is a good example of what should be done, although it lacks one thing - a wholy-hearted support from the US. Hopefully, Barack Obama as the next president of the US will take a sensible approach and will appreciate that the language of ultimatums proposed by Mr. Zakaria ("The single best strategy for bringing Russia in line with the civilized world would be to dramatically lower oil prices, which would force the country to integrate or stagnate.") will not work with Russia for many political and economical reason. Therefore, the only alternative is expanding the dialogue and engaging Russia further into global affairs as one of the most significant centres of power in the new world. I should also note that it fully complies with the proposition made by Mr. Zakaria in his recent book "The Rise of the Rest". Everybody doing business this days knows that the focus is rapidly shifting to emerging countries with Russia at the forefront. It is an economic reality and if one tries to change it by political or even worse so military means, there will be a major crisis most likely with no winners.

  • Posted By: AKD23 @ 09/12/2008 5:28:19 AM

    Comment: I do have a great respect for the author of this article, Fareed Zakaria, but the following sounds utterly cynical: "And what did Russia get for all this? Seventy thousand South Ossetians." It should be realised that Russia had no choice. If we were to draw analogies, it might be compared with a situation where several hundred Americans have been killed by the Mexican army, although as all analogies it is far from being perfect. The one with US strikes on Taliban in Afghanistan may be closer to the point I want to make. A responsible state has no chance, but to protect its citizens by all means available and appropriate in any particular situation. In the event of war, it is a military response. Hopefully, there will be less provocations in the future.

    • Posted By: Georgegeorgian @ 09/14/2008 6:38:07 PM

      Comment: You had a choice in Chechnya! 100,000 terminated people - did they have right for independece? You have lied about 2,000 people daid in first 2 hours of Georgain artillery shelling - in fact 133 persons died in Tskhinvali from South Ossetian side - reported by Western journalists. But the state who explodes its own sleeping citizens in blockhouses for settling a war, sinks its own sailors in Kursk rejecting foreign help, and kills its own children in Beslan justifying counterterrorist attacks, will do ANYTHING and will try to justify ANYTHING by the same cynical "proves" and "grounds", as in Katine (Poland), as in Finland, as in Budapest, as in Prague, as in Kabul...

  • Posted By: SeraphIXI @ 09/06/2008 3:01:47 PM

    Comment: Georgia attacked South Ossetia and killed 1,600 people FIRST! Are you blind? Russia had every right to defend it's people there. How dare you help propagate US-Russia tensions. You should be ashamed of yourselves for falling for this tripe.

  • Posted By: dorian30686 @ 09/06/2008 6:24:20 AM

    Comment: the russian federation has ended her function.there will be not more the sovjetic united,the war in georgia showed the world that the russia is such abig country in surface and armed forces but small in politic and lidership.

  • Posted By: Mohammed Kahin @ 09/06/2008 4:17:23 AM

    Comment: The Russians had planned the invasion of Georgia much earlier than the actual attack, while uncle Sam and company were busy enough with the tag of wars in the Middleast. It has been encourged as a result of unsolicited new invasions of the west in search of dominance of the global wealth . I will not be surprised if very similar invasions or so are carried out by China to it's neighbours .We are back to the law of the jungle.

  • Posted By: lws @ 09/06/2008 12:47:57 AM

    Comment: You are dead wrong on China's role vis-a-vis Russia~China solidly supports Russia's position on this saga, albeit quietly & without much fanfare, true to our Sun Tse's doctrine of not raffling up feathers when it is timely inappropriate. Don't you read some of these subtle points : China steadfastly supports Russia's right to host the 2014 Sochi Winter Games, dispatches so-called humanitarian aids shipments to the S. Ossetians in pointed response to US's aids shipments via military warships to Georgia, expresses understanding on Russian actions in restoring peace to the S Ossetian regions, refrains from denouncing
    Russian actions as opposed to hysterical vehement cries of foul from the West etc etc.......

    If you care to read all the Chinese posts on China's portals, the almost landslide support for Russia is so overwhelming obvious.

  • Posted By: Pikachu @ 09/04/2008 1:00:59 PM

    Comment: I am of the view that Putin has jumped the gun too quickly in the hope of regaining Russia's prestige on the worldstage. Russia's invasion of Georgia has unnecessary raised the suspicion of much developed countries to her disadvantage. We can expect counter tactical and strategic reactions to Russia. The big oil card Russia is wielding today is unlikely to last. It would be wiser for Putin to build up Russia's domestic front including economy if she aspires not only to regain her former glory but maintain it.

  • Posted By: Nueva Politica @ 09/04/2008 11:25:15 AM

    Comment: Your commentary is well balance and I agree that we need to have leverage with Russia. However, Russia has to feel the pressure from the outside and needs to let go Georgia as Britain and France did. 5o Years ago and before during the Ottoman empire we did not have internet and too many sophisticated technology so it was no way to send it to newspaper as fast as now. As you said globalization are creating new powers in the whole planet and is the only way to be interrelated among nations. In regard to the Oil it will difficult because the scarsity in the modern world, but at the end of 2 to 10 years Russia will be intergrated with the rest of nations. Oil prices will diminish and the pressure from western nations as well new leverage on Russia will make this possible. Finally, it won't matter if McCain or Obama become president because politics from the United States are consistent from a long period of times and since Ronald Reagan's time to today.

  • Posted By: victtodd @ 09/04/2008 3:56:00 AM

    Comment: Drastically lowering oil price? Alas, how are you going to do that?

  • Posted By: nawawimohamad @ 09/04/2008 3:34:45 AM

    Comment: "Many in Washington have described Russia's attack on Georgia as a turning point in international affairs" Why is the US so stubborn to admit that it is Georgia backed by the US who attacked the Russian region. It is the US who started all these conflicts.

    • Posted By: Georgegeorgian @ 09/15/2008 1:55:21 AM

      Comment: to nawawimohamad: South Ossetia never has been "Russian territory"!! One simply needs to look at the Caucasus map - there is 15000 feet high Caucasian Mountain Chain between South Ossetia and Russia.
      The term "South Ossetia" was invented by Stalin and other Bolsheviks in 20s when they annexed Georgia. Ossetians living in Samachablo (that is historical name of South Ossetia) have supported Russian Red Army in invasion against independent Georgia, and that was sort of "reimbursement". When South Ossetian Autonomous Region was created inside Georgia Soviet Republic, Tskhinvali, its "capital" had only 200 inhabitants of Ossetian origin. Ossetians mainly have been coming for seasonal work from Real Ossetia (Alania) which is North Ossetia in Russia. Interesting fact is that Russia doesn't grant "independence" to millions of Tatars and Bashkirs, and Chechens, and Ingushs, and only has tears to cry about 40,000 South Ossetians. Why? Because unlike those peoples mentioned above - South Ossetia is a mechanishm to control and panish other state - Georgia.

  • Posted By: Glenno @ 09/03/2008 11:28:02 PM

    Comment: Maybe Zakaria could also mention Americas "neutral" role in this conflict? Since US entered Georgia after the revolution/coup, US contribution has made Georgias military budget gone up 50 folds!!! And despite the president clear speaches of his goal to re-take South Ossetia, this came as a surprise to US??
    btw, the reason 90% have russian passports is that 90% are russian ethnic.

  • Posted By: Glenno @ 09/03/2008 11:07:14 PM

    Comment: Democracy and international law is the last victims of America.
    Russia remains not integrated in the world order?? What world order is that? Where every security concern of Russia is ignored while the West (aka international community) breaks international law and builds up a aggressive NATO on their borders? How should we assist Ukraine? 2/3 of the country does not want to join NATO, pouring money in to represent 1/3 of the population will make democracy prevail? Only way to avoid conflict is for Europe to step away from the US campaign to "contain Russia"
    http://www.russiatoday.com/employee/27

  • Posted By: Vasugopal @ 09/03/2008 3:24:31 AM

    Comment: Russia can not be silent spectator and witness being surrounded by hostile small nations supported and encouraged by U.S. and E.U. nations. Post cold war Russia was weak but now not so and sooner the Western nations take these factor into account in there geopoltical calculations, it is better. In this may herald the end of unilaterlism being witnessed and may lead to amore balance world.

  • Posted By: Vasugopal @ 09/03/2008 3:18:25 AM

    Comment: United States has entered a phase where post cold war unipolar policies shall not succeed and Russia has every right to have its own area of influence in its bordering countries. The Western nations are in no position to do to anything to stop a resurgent Russia. It may be good for world polity to have balancing forces against unilaterlism.

  • Posted By: kumarswamy @ 09/02/2008 11:14:27 PM

    Comment: You got it all wrong. Russians have suffered immensely for a very long time (from Russian revolution to present day). They made a mistake of moving into democracy too quickly before having economic/financial institutions in order (unlike China). The west applauded 'perestroika' of an idiot president and saw to it Soviet Union broke up - leaving Russia in poverty and watched its patheic situation with glee and further encouraged break away republics and neighbours to be hostile it.. Over the last few years, Russia has stabilized politically and economically, and they will no longer allow themselves to be surrounded by several 'Cubas'. They have enough fire power to face the west.

  • Posted By: Glenno @ 09/02/2008 10:58:22 PM

    Comment: "the real challenge we face in dealing with Moscow is that we have too few such ties"... Really, why is that?
    Because when Russia is a friend to the US, America encircle them with NATO, build army bases along their borders, interfere in their neighbours elections and turn their friends ageinst them, build Missile Defence Systems on their borders, step over Russian objections over every issue such as Kosovo, then arm Georgia to commit genocide against Russian citizens... The sad truth is that there is no punishment against Russia because the worst possible thing US could do is their standard policies against Russia!

  • Posted By: Glenno @ 09/02/2008 10:48:15 PM

    Comment: Well, I would like to see how US would respond if Russia placed nukes on Cuba...
    What Fareed has not understood is that in this world order Russia has more to gain from being feared than as a subordinated "friend". Russia has been ignored in all its major concerns, but if they are feared they can get bargaining chips. By America playing a global dictator, Russia can not get justice or security.

    Now things have changed. If the US illegally gives recognition to Kosovo, so can Russia do. If US encircles Russia with NATO and US army bases then Russia will do what they can to break this encirclement -which shouldnt be hard as 2/3 of ukraine does not want to be in a anti-Russian NATO. If US can buy the Ukrainian government in the "election" (the so called funding of democratic process) then Russia should encourage the Ukrainians to resist their US puppet government. And if US place missile defence in Poland, then Russia should do the same in Cuba or Venezuela.

  • Posted By: BIGSRBIN @ 09/02/2008 6:47:40 PM

    Comment: UNITED STATES HAS ENCROACHED ON RUSSIAN DOOR STEPS. MISSLE DEFENCE SHIELD IS A SHAM. IT IS DESIGNED FOR A PREEMPTIVE STRIKE AGAINST RUSSIA NOT AGAINST SOME ROGUE STATES. USA HAS TO COME UP WITH A BETTER REASON FOR PLACING MISSLE DEFENSE SHIELD IN THE FORMER RUSSIAN STATES. THE MOTHER PRIZE OF ALL , IS MOTHER RUSSIA. ASK TARTARS, MONGOLS, NAPOLEON, KAIZER, HITLER AND OTHERS WHO HAVE TRIED TO GET IT. ALL HAVE GONE DOWN IN FLAMES. IS THE WEST THAT STUPID TO TRY IT AGAIN?

    • Posted By: basedrum777 @ 09/02/2008 6:55:54 PM

      Comment: How about thinking about your yelling before you post something so uninformed? When the Soviet Union was crumbling, if it had wanted, wouldn't the US have done something then if it had wanted? The missle defense shield is aimed significantly more at Iran and possibly Pakistan than at Russia. Last time I checked Poland was an independent country, not a colony of Russia. Russians get way too bent out of shape thinking everything is about them. Look at it this way... if the US was going to attack Russia it wouldn't have wasted time setting up missle defense systems. The US just would've attacked Russia. So just to sum up: the missle defense system has nothing to do with Russia and outside of them providing arms to breakaway provinces in soviergn nations (ahem...S. Ossetia) the US could care less what the Russians do.

      • Posted By: wertheworld @ 09/12/2008 8:23:18 PM

        Comment: Just before Germany invaded Poland, they signed a piece agreement with pland and installed an artillary in the name of the defense. Shortly after the Germans invaded Poland. The only reason any country would want to install any milatery arms in Ukraine and Poland, as in the past, is a stepping stone to attack Russia.

        Just think, what would you say if Russia had military installations in Canada.

  • Posted By: bagocolts @ 09/02/2008 5:00:45 PM

    Comment: We wouldn't do a thing.... The current administration invaded Iraq thinking it would be a two-week, cable-tv war because they played fast and loose with intelligence. Anyone with any "intelligence" knows Iran is full-speed ahead toward a nuclear weapon and even telling us where it will be targeted. How come the bombs aren't falling on Tehran right now?? US = Paper Tiger

  • Posted By: basedrum777 @ 09/02/2008 4:46:25 PM

    Comment: I'm not much for the US flexing its might but Russia will see a true Tiger if it thinks it is going to bomb weapons the US puts into Poland to defend against middle east agressors. Russia thinks very highly of itself if it thinks that the US is positioning its missle defense system to defend against it. The US hasn't worried about Russian military might since the first Bush was in office.

    • Posted By: wertheworld @ 09/12/2008 10:08:05 PM

      Comment: Same old, same old. Pre WWII Germany established military installations, military schools, etc. in Poland after the leaders made a piece treaty and the civilians suffered from inhuman torture by the Germans. Nopoleon made a piece treaty also with Poland, even courted a princess. The Polish civilians also suffered. Most powerful nations used Poland and Ukraine as a stepping stone to conquer or downsize Russia and the Russians know it.

      Is the history repeating itself, of course.

  • Posted By: bagocolts @ 09/02/2008 4:43:12 PM

    Comment: NATO = Paper Tiger
    EU = Paper Tiger
    UN = Corrupt Paper Tiger
    Russia takes Georgia. Ukraine kept out of NATO to keep European lights on. Game, set, match.


  • Posted By: basedrum777 @ 09/02/2008 3:59:10 PM

    Comment: Why do the people on here think Russia went into Georgia? To help to create a free S. Ossetia? Many reports have Russia arming anti-Georgia separatists in the region including reports that they stood by while these forces pillaged areas that they took control of from Georgia after the conflict started. What exactly would Russia do if a portion of its current land mass decided to seceed from the country? Stand by while another country armed those people and allow it to go willingly. It is idiocy to have people on this board who are obviously pro-Russia argue that they were just trying to defend their peace-keepers in the region. The same people suppling weapons cannot possibly be peace-keepers by definition. Lets get off the woe is me Russia kick. They should be chastised for these activities and the 1000's displaced by their agression.

  • Posted By: musicmaster @ 09/02/2008 3:50:14 PM

    Comment: A few months ago Georgia amassed troops at the Abkhazian border for an attack. Russia thwarted this attempt by increasing its number of peacekeepers there. But instead of being praised by the West fo rits subtle reaction it was lambasted by Western diplomats.
    But Russia kept trying to play according the Western rules. When Georgia amassed troops for an invasion in Abkhazia it called Washington asking it to pressure Georgia not to go. Washington promissed to do so but one has to doubt what it actually told the Georgians. Yet when Georgia attacked Russia tried still to play according to international rules and when to the Security Council with a resolution asking all parties to renounce violence. It was vetoed by the US, the UK and France. If at that point Russia had only driven georgia back to its previous positions it would still have been lambasted by Western diplomats. And in addition it would have a nexr Georgian attack within a year.
    Similarly it had to recognnize the provincesin order to prevent the advent of Western "peacekeepers" who Russia since Kosovo cannot longer trust to be neutral.

    The article is also wrong about the Ukrain. The Ukrainian president asked for NATO membership before the war. The majority of the population did and does not like it. The Ukrainian population is quite neutral on the Georgian conflict.and the numebr of people that supports Georgia is about the same that supports Russia.

  • Posted By: azadrafat @ 09/02/2008 3:27:59 PM

    Comment: How do youintend to lower oil prices dramatically? May be have two countries, with lots of oil, fight each other. Then let them flood the market with oil, of course, no one should interfere in their fight. This way oil prices will definitely fall dramatically. Some how this seems like dejavu. Oh yes, the Iraq and Iran war.

  • Posted By: refugecove @ 09/02/2008 3:16:35 PM

    Comment: You have to be Kidding. Russia did what it had to do after being attacked by Georgia. Let's at least try to stay with the facts of the matter. Revisonist history and the fires aren't even out yet.
    The EU is not going to do anything to Russia, no matter how hard Rice stamps her feet. All Russia has to do is turn of the Gas to Europe and who will have the last laugh. Let's be serious Russia had nothing to lose and everything to gain. It did what any nation would have done to protect it's citizens. And remeber shells were flying into Russia from Georgian forces. I personally have no stake in either side, but I certainly can't stand by and read obvious lies. Get real.
    Now that Georgia has been stopped after being encouraged to invade by our Bush government what has been the fall out? A new Missle deal for Iran and Syria for long range Russian nuclear capible systems. Is this what you can a blunder on Russia's part? So now Israel has a new threat at its door step with a new Russian Naval Base slated for Syria as well. Great planning there Bush, really showed the Russians up huh?
    Also let's remember also that Poland has now been put on notice that Russia will use Tactical Nuclear weapons if they do indeed place American missles on Polish soil. Great. Just perfect Bush. Thanks again.....

  • Posted By: RedHeaded StepChild @ 09/02/2008 3:08:52 PM

    Comment: Wow, this is one ignorant article. Where is the mention of S. Ossetia? Where is the mention of NATO, an organization formed as an alliance against Russia and the Soviet Union, getting ever closer to Russia? Do you really think THIS made Poland sign the missile agreement? What about all the help Russia have to the US over its war with Afghanistan, only to be completely thankless for it? Instead of writing another "Russian-bad, America-good" article, do some research.

  • Posted By: ant123 @ 09/02/2008 3:05:39 PM

    Comment: At the end of this we still have only two options- appeasement or war. If we had more intergration with Russia we would not have more leverage they would. We would be afraid of what we might lose. They could care less because they have there energy needs met. Someone will be willing to sell them everything else.

    • Posted By: orodionov @ 09/02/2008 3:17:43 PM

      Comment: Third option is diplomacy! Serious, in-your-face diplomacy where two sides weigh in their national interests and come to compromise.

      • Posted By: ant123 @ 09/02/2008 3:32:29 PM

        Comment: In order for diplomacy to work both sides have to have something tangible to gain and something tangible to lose. Russia has nothing to lose short of war. And it will take war for the US just to get back to where it was tangibley.

        • Posted By: orodionov @ 09/02/2008 3:44:04 PM

          Comment: I disagree. Russia has much to loose. Its market economy is much more integrated with the west then ever before. Russian government is betting on foreign investments to diversify its economy. Its major cities are filled with signs of major US tech and industrial giants. That, in combination with senseless missile defense system can provide very juicy carrot and the stick for negotiation.

          • Posted By: ant123 @ 09/02/2008 4:00:21 PM

            Comment: That, missile defense system is not senseless. It is effective at what it is designed to do. What you mention about Russia's market economy was somewhat true with crude oil/ natural gas at $40 a barrael. It is not true at $100+ a barrel. They think they have the west over a barrel because they are pretty sure we will not go to war over Georgia (which by the west's weak response we proved them right) which is the only way they would leave in any circumstance that even could be good for the west..

            • Posted By: orodionov @ 09/02/2008 4:25:10 PM

              Comment: Effective at what? I agree missile defense system is effective at shifting strategic balance of nuclear standoff with Russia in US favor. Ever so slightly for now, but increasing in its potency as technology inevitably improves. It is senseless in its stated reason of deployment: protect against non-existent Iranian missiles. If it was actual goal, US could have worked with Russia and former soviet republics to counter threat more effectively, just like US and Russia work together to counter terrorism threats and supply of NATA troops in Afghanistan. In fact such offer was floated by Russian government a few years back. Again, Russia is very much interested in diversification of its oil-based economy despite high oil prices. They understand very well that current oil prices would not last. As such US has much carrot and stick to bring to negotiation table

              • Posted By: ant123 @ 09/02/2008 4:51:56 PM

                Comment: The missle defense system has no effect on the strategic balance of power between the US and Russia. It is far to small to do that. It would be effective against Iranian Shahab-4 missiles which can travel over 1800 miles. Or any even longer range missile they are working to develop. As for the oil prices they will remain high untill there is a significant drop in demand which does not look likely to happen any time soon.

  • Posted By: ant123 @ 09/02/2008 3:04:27 PM

    Comment: At the end of this we still have only two options- appeasement or war. If we had more intergration with Russia we would not have more leverage they would. We would be afraid of what we might lose. They could care less because they have there energy needs met. Someone will be willing to sell them everything else.

  • Posted By: tomlib @ 09/02/2008 3:01:53 PM

    Comment: I think it's important to ask ourselves what Russia's other choices were after Georgia launched a premediated attack on Russian allies on the opening day of the Olympics. How should Russia have responded I ask you Mr. Zakaria? And why didn't Secretary of State Rice, in Georgia the week before, suggest to the Georgians that attacking Russian allies might be a slight error in judgment? I mean, as long as were passing around blame.

  • Posted By: Tundra/Desert @ 09/02/2008 3:00:49 PM

    Comment: One thing "the West" (if there is such thing) has to understand, things aren't always simple. The surest way to screw things up is to make decisions and judgments based on incomplete information; far worse is to base them on ideology, no matter what kind of ideology. An example in hand---"Russia has become more dysfunctional, corrupt, dictatorial and assertive". More dictatorial and more assertive, yes. But less corrupt, and far less dysfunctional. Why so? no such analysis in this article, only an attempt to fit facts into a narrowly defined ideology.

  • Posted By: orodionov @ 09/02/2008 2:59:06 PM

    Comment: Astro_eng: (US != bad) && (RUSSIA != good). Instead national interests exist and governments that suppose to protect them . US government didn't see or understand its real national interests and committed foreign policy blunders of historic proportions. Russia sees its interests clearly and capitalized on historic blunders of US foreign policy

  • Posted By: orodionov @ 09/02/2008 2:49:55 PM

    Comment: tbourlon: Russia DIDN'T give passports. Russian passport is not the same as US tax rebate check that government gives! South Ossetian people INDIVIDUALLY asked for Russian citizenship and Russian government naturalized petitioners and issued passports. The fact that 90% of population ASKED for Russian citizenship is telling fact in itself! I would imagine this fact screams that South Ossetians DIDN'T want to be part of Georgia.

    • Posted By: MySpinOnThings @ 09/02/2008 3:15:56 PM

      Comment: Then the naturalized russian citizens should have left for their adopted country of Russia. Instead they took what they could from an internationally recognized sovereign nation since they have the region bully (Russia) on their side.

      • Posted By: orodionov @ 09/02/2008 5:27:29 PM

        Comment: Yep, sometimes it helps to have region bully on your side. Instead of getting wiped out by Georgia, they actually got what they wanted. Now they are just as happy as Kosovars who got another region bully: NATO to wrestle them away from Serbian republic. Did EU just invited poor Kosovars into Western Europe. Ohh no, they let them have their own banana republic

  • Posted By: Astro_eng @ 09/02/2008 2:44:36 PM

    Comment: I get it US = bad Russia = good The Hate America crowd representing in full force. I'm sure its all George Bush's fault and HIS Highness Obama will make everything better.

  • Posted By: tbourlon @ 09/02/2008 2:35:23 PM

    Comment: Can we please quit pretending that Russia was "coming to the rescue" of the South Ossetians? Do you honestly think Russia was bombing Georgia to support a "free, independent state of South Ossetia?" Why do you suppose they gave RUSSIAN passports to the South Ossetians? Because Russia wants to swallow that region up! Also, they lied and said they would pull back their troops, yet Russian troops are STILL in Georgia - AND Russia is trying to tell the US to quit supporting the Georgian government. CLEARLY they want to take back the country. I think the blunder was on Georgia's part, not Russia's, and GW Bush for looking into Putin's eyes and missing that ambition.

    • Posted By: lovo del norte @ 09/02/2008 2:56:19 PM

      Comment: And, what are you going to do about it? moron! bush could not even hold to look into Putin's eyes... He is a Homo!

  • Posted By: Omnius @ 09/02/2008 2:18:02 PM

    Comment: Fareed Zakaria is just a tool of the conservative lunatic fringe and his clueless analysis of the Russia-Georgia crisis is so far off base as to be laughable. He has to work at CNN because no real major news network would bother with him except Fox. Incompetent Rice has brought about the new Cold War and Russia is going to profit from it while the USA suffers. Putin was correct in stating that one American presidential candidate, McCain, is trying to benefit from this so called crisis.

  • Posted By: Omnius @ 09/02/2008 2:16:56 PM

    Comment: Fareed Zakaria is just a tool of the conservative lunatic fringe and his clueless analysis of the Russia-Georgia crisis is so far off base as to be laughable. He has to work at CNN because no real major news network would bother with him except Fox. Incompetent Rice has brought about the new Cold War and Russia is going to profit from it while the USA suffers. Putin was correct in stating that one American presidential candidate, McCain, is trying to benefit from this so called crisis.

  • Posted By: MarcusAurelius2008 @ 09/02/2008 2:06:27 PM

    Comment: This is hilariously wrong... Georgia attacked Russian peacekeepers in S. Ossetia in the middle of the night, clearly throwing the first punch. They used inaccurate rockets and mortars on universities and hospitals. This is a blunder, but for neocon planners who encouraged the unstable Sakaashvili to grab those territories. Now Russia de-facto controls the Black Sea coast, which is of considerable strategic importance. Also, the US and Western Europe are at odds over this in a big way. If anything, we've just shown ourselves to be the paper tigers in the region that people have suspected us to be for so long.

  • Posted By: daplane @ 09/02/2008 1:51:05 PM

    Comment: Georgia started first by shelling sleeping Tshinvali and causing hundreds of civilian casualties and thousands of refugees. Russia lost a precious day trying to get this to stop through diplomatic channels, without any success. It is only after that they started a major military operation, pushed the aggressors back into Georgia and confiscated the weapons (mostly provided/sponsored by the US, I might add) from Georgian military. As far as I'm concerned, this is a great accomplishment, not a "blunder".

    And Fareed Zakaria has finally exposed himself as a tendentious shill that he is.

    • Posted By: MySpinOnThings @ 09/02/2008 3:28:57 PM

      Comment: Here we go again....Someone who can't distinguish Russian equipment from American. The only T-64s, T-72, T- 80, BTRs (70 -80), AKS & AKM, BMP-3, & BM-21s I know of in the US arsenal are at military museums or OPFOR traning areas. These ARE Russian (or former East Boc) equipment. The only US equipment (I know of) siezed was two HUMVEES awaiting to be shipped back due to a training exercise with Georgian troops.

      Get real!!

  • Posted By: bonz696 @ 09/02/2008 1:37:48 PM

    Comment: Wait... Didn't Georgia Start this....? Or does that little fact mean anything to you Fareed Zakaria

  • Posted By: MichaelMN @ 09/02/2008 1:30:21 PM

    Comment: The missed argument in all this, the one that has been passed over by all news agencies and commentators is whether South Ossetia should be a free and independant state. They have been acting as such, de facto if not de jure, nearly since the breakup of the Soviet Union. They have voted twice on the subject, and each came out for independence.
    The question that has not been asked, and requires asking if there is to be any resolution (and before blame is assigned) is if South Ossetia's breakaway from Georgia is valid. It seem as if no one has discussed this, and I have no idea of what is involved in this situation. Was Russsia setting all this up in order to make a land grab, or is there a valid need to recognize the independence of South Ossetia as an independant state, in which the west, through its lack of initiative have had a major hand in creating the crisis.
    Bottom line: Tell me honestly and truthfully about South Ossetia so that I can make a rational judgement. So far the press has failed dismally in this simple and necessary task.

  • Posted By: LudwigVanBeet @ 09/02/2008 12:44:38 PM

    Comment: Where in the he-- does the Media come up with all of you short ,big-headed midgets like Fareem, Costas, Stephenopouis God do all of you have a short man's complex. Fareem , please go home.

  • Posted By: Kirko @ 09/02/2008 12:40:41 PM

    Comment: I can't believe a Newsweek writer did not thoroughly research his or her subject. Georgia was the one who attacked South Ossetia unprovoked and killed South Ossetians and Russian advisers before the Russians responded with an attack. This wasn't an unprovoked attack by the Russians. The U.S. would never allow its soldiers to be attacked and killed in an unprovoked manner without responding in the same manner. Bad reporting by Newsweek.

  • Posted By: frenchpatou @ 09/02/2008 12:40:02 PM

    Comment: Some of You commenters out there, really need to go back to "high school" to be re-introduced to proper spelling, before you can "comment " on anything at all !

  • Posted By: orodionov @ 09/02/2008 12:33:57 PM

    Comment: I think this is another dishonest portrayal of the events that really ignored the facts on the ground( or just have no clue) How can you possibly say: ??????Russia has become more dysfunctional, corrupt, dictatorial and assertive..???. Russia WAS dysfunctional, corrupt, and dictatorial, in the 90???s. In fact, it was a failed state with crushed economy, criminal anarchy, complete luck of law and order and luck of functional institutions that we associate with democracy. And of course there was NO free media in the 90s. It was wholly owned and operated by the few oil rich oligarchs who pulled all the strings in the country. Putin changed it all. It made him admired by 70 +% of the population for over 8 years. Russian transformation under Putin begun before oil price rise( 1999-2004) and it is remarkable. While Russia continues to have well documented problems,t those problems are being tackled head on. Situation on the ground improves year after year. Just talk to people on the Russian streets if you have any doubts.

    Of course this war was not ??????major strategic blunder?????? by any means. Seeing Georgia???s army being pumped full of money and weapons by US, Russia was fully prepared for eventuality: When someone has so many guns he will use them, especially under lunatic Georgian leadership. Georgian army started the war by indiscriminately and massively bombing South Ossetian capital. Russian response was quick and brilliantly executed. 5 days it was all over. US neocons in ???heritage foundation??? called it ???classic combined arms operation???. Disproportional response?? Russians just successfully applied ( Colin) Powell Doctrine, something US did in the first Iraq war.

    There is one important fact this article got right: ??????In fact, the real challenge we face in dealing with Moscow is that we have too few such ties and, as a result, too little leverage?????? Do you know that Russia was trying to get admitted in the NATO in early 2000s?? It got denied admission and instead created NATO-Russian council. Do you know that Russia tried to get into WTO for 13 years?? Do you know that US still didn???t repel soviet era laws against Russia?? Russia tried to get into closer cooperation with the west but was repeatedly denied admission, instead it got US cancellation of the missile treaty and missile systems on its borders. From all that Russia made very logical conclusion that west still interested in Russian isolation and confrontation, not cooperation.

    Fareed, I really liked your analysis of middle east politics, but please read up on Russia before posting this shollow analysis of Russo Georgian war. I would strongly recommend www.stratfor.com US maintained and in-depth geopolitical analysis.

  • Posted By: topcat2001 @ 09/02/2008 12:25:10 PM

    Comment: Asking people to shut up is not going to do anything. The fact is that over 8 years Bush and the Republican congress staunchly opposed any measure to reduce our country's oil dependance and instead increased it more and more.
    Now speculation and demand are rising and screwing us. Atleast because of the recession we can expect prices to moderate for a couple of years. Unless we get a President who can get us out of this we are screwed. But instead we have 40% of the country brainwashed into voting for the mayor of a town of 500 people.

    • Posted By: Astro_eng @ 09/02/2008 2:39:39 PM

      Comment: As opposed to voting for someone who was a mayor of ohhh that's right his highness has never been in charge of ANYTHING!!!

  • Posted By: thom77 @ 09/02/2008 12:14:47 PM

    Comment: I think this is a vast oversimplification; you???re big mistake here is the assumption that Putin actually wants to act in the interest of greater Russia, when in actuality he just wants absolute power. Putin has gained far more than "70,000 South Ossetians" with this gambit. He has postured himself as a force to be reckoned with; the undisputed leader of his region and one in which the US and EU are powerless to stop. He doesn't care about sanctions or world opinion; he has no reason to. At the end of the day, he'll still sell his oil. Everything else is secondary.

    The thing is, the Russian people eat this stuff up. They LOVE that they have a tough-guy leader who thumbs his nose at the world and shoots tigers and builds new missiles and takes his shirt off and has military parades in Red Square. Especially after nearly two decades of post-cold war humiliation as a third-rate power, they are hungry for these demonstrations, and intolerant (at best) towards those who seek to point out the underlying problems in the society he created (as indicated by the murder of journalists and opposition leaders, demonization of the west, etc.)

    Is it short-sighted? Maybe it is. Oil prices won???t stay this high forever, and if things get too scary, foreign business and investment will move away. Not to mention that few tyrants meet with happy fates in the end. But at the moment, Putin is riding very high within his own borders, which seems to be all he really needs (he???s already enriching himself personally by the billions). The US isn???t going to stop him (or even contain him) anytime soon, especially under an Obama administration. Nor is Europe or China. I would reckon that he could probably send a few tanks into Berlin right now and face only slightly more than a slap on the wrist from the international community, while a monument to his honor would be erected in Moscow.

    And this is what really matters to the man. He???s an old-style Soviet, but one who realized that communism isn???t the best way to absolute power, capitalist authoritarianism is. And to that end, he seems to be very effective.

    • Posted By: tbourlon @ 09/02/2008 2:28:20 PM

      Comment: Yes, I can see why the people of Russia would love a "tough guy" leader who "shoots from the hip." After all, WE did back in 2000! Russian people should take a closer look at the US, and ask if they really want to be where we are right now.

      • Posted By: sergiykovalchuk @ 09/03/2008 3:46:50 PM

        Comment: The important difference is that the tough guy from the West bankrupt his country, while Putin put it back on its feet. For the last 15 years Russia was treated by the "West" as a 3'rd world country and Russian people had enough. And Yes, they love a leader who can bitch-slap NATO when it gets out of line. NATO lied to Russia and it constantly pushing East, US unilaterally pulled out from unrealistic treaty (star war program) and now it wants to park its tanks on Russia's back yard. That's ENOUGH!!! You don't want to be friends, you don't listen to our concerns/interests, and the only language you understand is money and force. I'm Canadian and I support Russia.

      • Posted By: sergiykovalchuk @ 09/03/2008 3:44:51 PM

        Comment: The important difference is that the tough guy from the West bankrupt his country, while Putin put it back on its feet. For the last 15 years Russia was treated by the "West" as a 3'rd world country and Russian people had enough. And Yes, they love a leader who can bitch-slap NATO when it gets out of line. NATO lied to Russia and it constantly pushing East, US unilaterally pulled out from unrealistic treaty (star war program) and now it wants to park its tanks on Russia's back yard. That's ENOUGH!!! You don't want to be friends, you don't listen to our concerns/interests, and the only language you understand is money and force. I'm Canadian and I support Russia.

        • Posted By: dorian30686 @ 09/06/2008 6:29:32 AM

          Comment: Russians are a 3'rd world counrty.they think of fighting while they people are dying of hungry in siberia.What is your opinoin about that?I'm Albanian and I support Georgia

          • Posted By: wertheworld @ 09/12/2008 9:05:22 PM

            Comment: Speaking of third world country, what are we doing in Iraq, Afganastan and border of Iran, etc, etc.

  • Posted By: thom77 @ 09/02/2008 12:14:34 PM

    Comment: I think this is a vast oversimplification; you???re big mistake here is the assumption that Putin actually wants to act in the interest of greater Russia, when in actuality he just wants absolute power. Putin has gained far more than "70,000 South Ossetians" with this gambit. He has postured himself as a force to be reckoned with; the undisputed leader of his region and one in which the US and EU are powerless to stop. He doesn't care about sanctions or world opinion; he has no reason to. At the end of the day, he'll still sell his oil. Everything else is secondary.

    The thing is, the Russian people eat this stuff up. They LOVE that they have a tough-guy leader who thumbs his nose at the world and shoots tigers and builds new missiles and takes his shirt off and has military parades in Red Square. Especially after nearly two decades of post-cold war humiliation as a third-rate power, they are hungry for these demonstrations, and intolerant (at best) towards those who seek to point out the underlying problems in the society he created (as indicated by the murder of journalists and opposition leaders, demonization of the west, etc.)

    Is it short-sighted? Maybe it is. Oil prices won???t stay this high forever, and if things get too scary, foreign business and investment will move away. Not to mention that few tyrants meet with happy fates in the end. But at the moment, Putin is riding very high within his own borders, which seems to be all he really needs (he???s already enriching himself personally by the billions). The US isn???t going to stop him (or even contain him) anytime soon, especially under an Obama administration. Nor is Europe or China. I would reckon that he could probably send a few tanks into Berlin right now and face only slightly more than a slap on the wrist from the international community, while a monument to his honor would be erected in Moscow.

    And this is what really matters to the man. He???s an old-style Soviet, but one who realized that communism isn???t the best way to absolute power, capitalist authoritarianism is. And to that end, he seems to be very effective.

  • Posted By: amendment2man @ 09/02/2008 12:09:09 PM

    Comment: we must indicate our displeasure with their actions with economic power. they are indeed drunk on oil profits yet are now irreversibly mired in the worlds economic engine. they are no longer isolated and alone as in the past.

    their stock market and personal walth are far more important to them now.

  • Posted By: curryjm @ 09/02/2008 11:44:52 AM

    Comment: Am I missing something here? Didn't Georgia first invade South Ossetia? Was not this the precipitating event for Russia's invasion of Georgia?

    • Posted By: mlbuie @ 09/02/2008 12:40:10 PM

      Comment: If Michigan tried to secede from the US, would you be ok with Canada coming in to attack us if we tried to take it back? Just, wow!

    • Posted By: Naver @ 09/02/2008 12:02:26 PM

      Comment: Yes after South Ossetia was firing on Georgian troops with Russian weapons and HEY! what luck Russia just happen to have 15000 troops parked near by at a high level of readiness. What a coincidence......

      • Posted By: vic-0801 @ 09/02/2008 1:10:45 PM

        Comment: It looks like not so near-by if Georgian shelling continued for 14 hours and 12 Russian peacekeepers had been killed before Russia got into action...

      • Posted By: vic-0801 @ 09/02/2008 12:58:02 PM

        Comment: I guess not so near-by if 12 Russians peacekeepers were killed and shelling by Georgians continued for 14 hours...

        • Posted By: Naver @ 09/02/2008 5:41:13 PM

          Comment: What 12 peace keepers? Oh the peacekeepers that Russia claimed died but will provide no proof or names. Very shoddy. Skirmishes between "sepratists" and Georgian forces had been going on for weeks. Georgian forces were responding to shelling from "sepratists", Russia responded the minute Georgian forces started attacking the sepratist again. And if it was not premeditated by Russia, I guess it was just another coincidence the Russia was able to launch a coordinated large scale cyber attack against Georgia as well.

  • Posted By: toneybrooks @ 09/02/2008 11:44:32 AM

    Comment: Well, you got the oil part mostly correct. It is worth noting, however, that the BTC pipeline through Georgia, which will give the West access to Caspian oil by circumventing and further isolating both Russia and Iran, may have far greater geopolitical consequences for the Free World. Foreign Policy under Bush is deplorable and seems driven entirely by oil.

    • Posted By: amendment2man @ 09/02/2008 12:19:02 PM

      Comment: shut up already. Bush has NOthing to do with the worlds dependence on oil. It is all you idiots in great big vehicles riding by yourselves and sending all your wealty to these formerly emasculated countries.

      It is one BILLION Chinses who mostly used to ride bikes, they ALL want a car. It is GLOBAL DEMAND not Bush you idiot!!!!

      • Posted By: ex_republican @ 09/02/2008 12:44:53 PM

        Comment: The Bush administration has much to do with the price of oil. You are right that increased demand plays a major part. However, virtually every action the current administration has taken increases the price of oil. Invading Iraq took a sizable amount of oil off the market. Sabre rattling about Iran does the same thing. One thing the oil market really doesn't like is uncertainty, and the Bush-Cheney administration has created plenty of that. They definitely cause some of the price increases. My personal view is that is probably somewhere about 50/50 between increased demand and political impact.

  • Posted By: magiclady @ 09/02/2008 11:42:28 AM

    Comment: There is enough documentation of Georgia instigating, with the fingerprints of the United States and Israel all over it, this attack on Ossetia which the Russians countered to protect the people, This article is a far cry from the truth.

    • Posted By: Naver @ 09/02/2008 12:10:57 PM

      Comment: Russia instigated the whole thing. It armed both "sepratist" groups. There was a attack on Georgian troops that resulted in Georgia going into South Ossetia to stop that. And Russia just happened to have all those troops near by and already ready to move. Come on thats not a coincidence. Everyone and their mother knows Russia caused this. Funny how the other "sepratist" region did not start acting up until Russian troops entered the region. Let me guess another coincidence. Putin is a power mad loon. And he is going to send Russia back to how Russia was a decade ago. "Hey my name is Putin! Come with me T.V. crew while I go stage a hunt for an indangered species." Please.

  • Posted By: fzimm @ 09/02/2008 11:40:13 AM

    Comment: If your article is true, that Globalization is the counter balance to Russian militarism, then John McCain's militaristic threats to Russia is equally off base.

  • Posted By: fzimm @ 09/02/2008 11:39:34 AM

    Comment: If your article is true, that Globalization is the counter balance to Russian militarism, then John McCain's response of militaristic threats to Russia is equally off base.

  • Posted By: Tom Dick and Harry @ 09/02/2008 11:19:11 AM

    Comment: Russia not only has Oil, it also has natural gas which most of the European goverments depend on. When the thing are the way they are, what kind of leverage are you expecting to have agains Russia?

  • Posted By: Mr.T @ 09/02/2008 11:14:44 AM

    Comment: I think you elaborated interligently on this issue very well. But what you fail to relise is that the united states will not allow russia to build a missile defence by her boader and so will russia. When the soviet union collapse they were promise that all these weapon that are being built at their door steps will not happened. But what happen we fail to adhere to our promise and went ahead arming georgia and influenceing georgia to attach innocent people while they were sleeping. Will you sit down for somebody to kill your childredn in the middle of the night.

    i think russia did the right thing. And I am glad they are shifting their oil supply to china instead of europe because if the balance of power does change in this world we will soon end up in nuclear war caused by the the shallow mind of the united states and europe.
    Russia did not attack any body they were attach and they defended themselves period, get use to it

    • Posted By: Naver @ 09/02/2008 5:29:03 PM

      Comment: You are funny. So Russia gives people from a foreign country Russian passports so it can claim them as Russian citizens. Arms those "citizens", encourages them to antagonize that countries government , so they Have an excuse to send in the troops they have ready and waiting right at the border.......and it is some how Europe and the U.S.'s fault.......Wow that is a really interesting chain of logic you have going there.
      Perhaps you should lay off the drugs...or maybe just stop spouting nonsense.

      • Posted By: Yelyena @ 09/03/2008 9:04:19 AM

        Comment: Dear Naver, i would gladly hear your interpretation on what was goin on rigth after USSA fall - i mean war between S.Osset and Abkhaz and Gorg, and about what was the status of that regions and about all referendums they had. And about whether it is possible for me to become USA citizen if USA agree and i long for it? I ever ready to give you my e-mail just because i would asking you further after you answer my these quest. If you would answer of cause. And if would answer further.

  • Posted By: Newsweekisracist @ 09/02/2008 11:09:16 AM

    Comment: terrible article.

 
 
Reply
Cancel
 
 
Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse

Cancel
 
The Peek
 
 
STRATEGIES
Daniel Lyons

Isn't it ironic: Xerox is hoping it can profit by teaching companies how to reduce their printing.

Sponsored by