Don Paskini has a useful summary of how the right views events in Georgia at the moment.
The neo-cons are not short of confidence in putting their points across despite the fact that their foreign policy approach has been pretty lamentable and, in Iraq's case, an outright diaster.
There are differences on the right as to how to approach the issue (which is understandable; broad church and all that) but from the left the response generally appears to be a mixture of confusion and caution. Having read and enjoyed Shock Doctrine I'm waiting to see Naomi Klein's take on the issue.
Again, the right-wing commentators appear to have the confidence to put forward ideas and possible solutions however barking mad. (I liked Don's point about some Taxpayers Alliance spokesman who has suddenly found enthusiasm for state funding - as long as its to finance wars.)
So is my preamble a way of getting out of stating my own position on the battle between Russia and Georgia? I think Iain Dale got it right (and more importantly was honest) when he wrote initially:
Why haven't I blogged about the Russian invasion of Ossetia? Because unlike some I wanted to read up on it before formulating a view. It's a place I have frankly never heard of,
and then concludes
This has been an unusually long post for me and I am sorry it is going to conclude with a question which I have asked several times so far, but failed to come up with answer.
What. Do. We. Do?
I think this is about security of energy supply and about Russian pride and about buffers (Russia likes to have some distance between Moscow and any potential enemies) and about the assertiveness of small states and the chess games played by the West on Russia's borders.
If economic policies cripple a country then they are going to seek out other places to gain currency and security. Georgia is feeling the effects of Russian vulnerability. I think it's a bit rich for some in the West to have recommended the medicine and then condemn the side effects.
But Iain cuts the nub of it. In the short term; a UN-brokered ceasfire and a return to borders. In the long term I think a stable and engaged Russia is better than a wounded bear. That's not appeasement; it's treating countries how we expect to be treated ourselves.
PS: Still the confusion on the left is nothing to that in the Sky newsroom. As Journalism.co.uk points out; it's easy to mix up a former Russian republic and a southern US state. But then, Bush can't even hold his flag up the right way.
Comments