U.S.: Interstate War is an Acceptable form of Diplomacy

Really disturbing news, courtesy of Duck of Minerva:

MOSCOW: The U.S. ambassador to Russia has told a Russian daily that Washington strongly urged Georgia not to invade its breakaway province of South Ossetia.

John Beyrle also told the Kommersant Friday that Russia “gave a well-grounded response” to a Georgian attack on Russian peacekeepers, but exceeded its authority by invading Georgia proper.

Beyrle was quoted as saying that Russia should respect a cease-fire deal and withdraw its troops from the ex-Soviet neighbor to positions they held before the fighting erupted.

Ambassador: US warned Georgia about invasion – International Herald Tribune.

Of course, it’s not easy to know exactly what is meant by cheap talk, but the implications are troubling.  The US has (verbally, at least) retreated from its post-Cold-War committment to keep the peace.

Some support actions such as this, by claiming (for no good reason, as far as I can tell) that Russia is a Core state.  Hardly: Russian is an central asian dictatorship, a bigger version of Kazakhstan.

Supporters of Russia invasion speak of indirection, a 5GW effort to manipulate Russian actions into serving the Core’s instancese.  Perhaps.  Such a policy is similar to regulating crime on a domestic level, and is analogou to China’s “guanxi” system.  Of course, this teaches the wrong lessons, and encourages more wars, whetheter they are part of a manipulation or not.

If the US Ambassador’s words are to be believed, we have suffered a serious blow to our power.  There is little point in paying someone to provide a security function when the provider has lousy quality-of-service.  We can expect a new birth of regional military alliances, an increase in terrorism secretly supported by states, reduced trust for US promises, a decline in Central Asian security, and so on.

The Price of the Portuguese, this Salazar with a Slavic name

Without emotion, without outrage or trembling, without rage or a sense of justice, I want to consider the following question:

Is ending war as we have known it worth the price of Portugal?

Or, to put it more bluntly, in terms that may make your heart raec and your forehead sweat blood:

Is Portugal falling off the map an acceptable price to pay for world peace.

I assume you have stopped laughing.

But the Portugese are real people, too. There are some serious prices that may have to be paid — on their end

Is the end of wars as we have known them worth the economic dislocation of no longer accepting Portuguese raw materials?
Is the end of wars as we have known them worth visa restrictions on the free movement of overseas Portuguese?
Is the end of wars as we have known them worth a couple of al Qaeda strikes on Lisbon?

In these questions, we see the human cost. We recognize that the Portugue share our basic humanity, we understand how expensive education can be, and we curse this fallen world.

OK, one more:

Is the end of war as we have known it worth a Cold War with Portugal?

I guess you are laughing agian.

This is the dilemma we face in responding to Russia’s invasion of Georgia, it’s resumption of war as a means of diplomacy. Moscow — that gap capital temporarily on par with Lisbon due to high oil prices — must be stopped. Not because it is Russia — though Russia certainly is an inherently destabilizing country –nor because it invaded a Core country — though Georgia but not Russia is in the WTO — but because it uses war as a method of diplomacy.

When people try to scare with you a new “Cold War,” they are stuck in the past. Portugal is not able to engage is in a cold war. Neither is Russia, because Russia is as weak as Portugal.

Rather, Russia’s invasion of Georgia is another case of a Gap state invading a Core one. Core states generate wealth. Gap states take it. Russia is behaving like so many other Gap states.

Fight Russia. Either remove this Salazar with a Slavic name , or leave him in office long enough to finish destroying Russia.