I agree with David Stromberg that Russia’s invasion of Georgia was, among other things, caused by fear. Not fear of Georgia – a country with a weak army, small population, etc. – but of U.S. influence in countries that once belonged to the Soviet Union and were, therefore, puppets of ‘Mother Russia.’
Russia considered all the talk about Georgia joining NATO threatening to its interests. After Russia invaded Georgia, and nearly destroyed the democratic country and staunch ally of the West, President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin acted as if the initial Georgian use of force against South Ossetian separatists was to Russia what 9/11/2001 was to the U.S.
This was, of course, a lie. But it does tell us something about the Russians.
What does it tell us? Well, for starters that Russia considered South Ossetia Russian territory. After all, 9/11 was an attack on the US, on American soil.
Medvedev and Putin know, of course, that the comparison is off, but in a way they are right; namely, 9/11 was a scary event for America. It frightened Americans. Russia too was frightened by Georgia and then especially Western influence in Georgia; it was not the attack against South Ossetia that scared the Russians, it was all the talk in the preceding months about Georgia possibly joining NATO and NATO, therefore, coming increasingly closer to Russia’s borders.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
