Dr. Barnett on American Grand Strategy and Russia
In this case, Georgia, which has a relationship with the United States is being consumed by Russia, and ultimately will be regardless of what the United States does. This represents a loss of influence for the United States and Europe, a gain of influence for the Russians. BUT this also represents a long term complimentary action to the strategic goals of everyone in the core. Why? Because successful military intervention by a core nation into the gap shrinks the gap.Apply the same theory to Iraq. The US military intervention there represented a loss of influence by Russia and Europe, and a gain of influence by the United States. The result is an action that is complimentary to the strategic goals of other core nations (think China and energy here), and the effects of this intervention are broad. Consider what we see in the UAE, Bahrain, and Kuwait and we have movement towards more shrinking of the gap. There is no reason to believe that Russian intervention in Georgia couldn’t have a similar effect on regional nations, including Ukraine
The new states of the “near abroad” like Georgia are vulnerable to Russian meddling not because they are militarily weak but because their populations are disunited and their governments operate with dubious legitimacy, excess opacity and a systemic mafiya corruption that saps their national vitality. To stand strong, they need to clean up their acts in their own best interests so the help we extend can be effectively used.
Page 2 of 2 | Previous page
Dan tdaxp:
August 22nd, 2008 at 1:58 pm
I’m not sure what Galrahn’s definition of Core and Gap are. Certainly it must be different from the definitions offered since 2001 or so.
On 8/8, a large central asian state invaded a New Core state. To cmpare this to Iraq is as weird as comparing the Ethiopian-Eritrea was with World W ar II.
More broadly, you seem to overestimate the strength of a low-population-density version of Portugal.
[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/08/22/the-price-of-the-portuguese-this-salazar-with-a-slavic-name.html
zen:
August 22nd, 2008 at 3:10 pm
hi Dan,
.
you wrote: "On 8/8, a large central asian state invaded a New Core state…"
.
Setting aside Russia as a Gap state as you imply, how does Georgia qualify as new Core in your view ?
vanderleun:
August 22nd, 2008 at 3:53 pm
"a New Core state…"It could also be thought of as a New Core Theme Park.
Dan tdaxp:
August 22nd, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Mark,
Thanks for the reply.
To answer your question
Setting aside Russia as a Gap state as you imply, how does Georgia qualify as new Core in your view ?
WTO members, NATO accession status, EU accession status, life expectancy.non-natural-resource based economy, &c.
In other words, mass import of western rulesets, not being a petro-state, caring for its citizens.
Those claiming Russia is new core puzzle me, as the only arguments they are making apply to Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Iran, and so on — and no one recognizes those states are Core.
Dan tdaxp:
August 22nd, 2008 at 4:05 pm
vanderleun’s comment is typical of the knee-jerk lack of thought that typifies much of online discussion.
"omg lol georgia b small" seems to be his point.
Ozy:
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:23 pm
"Those claiming Russia is new core puzzle me, as the only arguments they are making apply to Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Iran, and so on — and no one recognizes those states are Core."
Yep, also something that bother me about this "core".Is Saudi Arabia any less integrated in the global economic system than Russia?And their demographics are probably in better shape too….
tdaxp » Blog Archive » U.S.: Interstate War is an Acceptable form of Diplomacy:
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:35 pm
[…] 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 […]
Joshua Foust:
August 23rd, 2008 at 12:03 am
Moreover, the claim that Georgia is weak because its population is, "disunited and their governments operate with dubious legitimacy, excess opacity and a systemic mafiya corruption that saps their national vitality" is pretty false as well. Georgia is really only disunited as much as Abkhazia and South Ossetia count as disunity; while the various factions squabble over who should be in charge, they are united in their friendliness toward the US and Europe and their hostility to Russia. Similarly, by defining Georgia in this way, Russia can be properly labeled weak and non-core — its population is by no means united if we are to examine Ingushetia and Chechnya (or hell, the last gasps of free media left in the country), just as most of the government below Putin/Medvedev operates in a capricious and unpopular fashion. Corruption is rampant, ministries are routinely documented as opaque and non-transparent, and their entire political and business environment is dominated by mafia groups.
How again is Georgia any worse than Russia on any of these fronts? Russia has a military 25x larger than Georgia’s. Case closed when it comes to a fight.
zen:
August 23rd, 2008 at 3:21 am
Hi guys,
.
Hmmm. If you subtract FDI and government spending ( how much of the budget is foreign aid/loans I’m not certain but I’m guessing it isn’t insignificant) I have to ask what percent of the GDP of Georgia is a result of native Georgian enterprises? Before the war about a third of Georgians were unemployed with per capita in the lower 4 digits. I see a Third World economy with a lot of native Georgians in the agricultural sector or resource extraction while higher-added value companies are foreign owned or partnered. Russia is not nearly so badly off and it’s undeniable corruption does not prevent the Russian state from achieving it’s primary objectives.
.
Now in terms of military power, it’s not what you have but what you can bring to bear. Small states do not need to be able to defeat a great power but be reliably known to be able to impose punishing costs. It’s why Nazi Germany never occupied Switzerland, why Stalin did not press to make Finland an East bloc satellite. Georgia was unable to impose those costs ( perhaps what the Georgians really need most right now are .50 caliber sniper rifles).
Another brillant metaphor by Tom Barnett, helping us to more clearly see our changing world « Fabius Maximus:
August 23rd, 2008 at 5:02 am
[…] “Dr. Barnett on American Grand Strategy and Russia“, Zenpundit, 22 August 2008 — Excerpt: […]
Joshua Foust:
August 24th, 2008 at 1:57 am
So again, you’re saying that Georgia’s military wasn’t sufficient. A military is more than equipment, it is also logistics and doctrine. Which you already know. A small state cannot win against a far larger state in an offensive war; it can, however, at least in theory, reliably defend itself. But Georgia wasn’t defending itself.
zen:
August 24th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
" But Georgia wasn’t defending itself."
A serious strategic misjudgment on their part. Coupled with a lack of defensive strategy or even tactics to deal with one of the likeliest threats to their security
Barnabus:
August 25th, 2008 at 1:55 am
Putin has stated something to the effect that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest catastrophe ever. It’s not all about us; i.e. the plans that he/they have developed are centered on putting Russia back at the center of the world stage. If Putin wants a cold war II it seems he can get one…the alternative being?
Dan tdaxp:
August 25th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
You are correct that Georgia was not able to inflict punishing costs on Russia.
With the US exporting security since the end of the Gulf War, many many states cut back on military spending, as they expect that the services they buy from the US (in the form of public debt) will be of sufficient quality to protect themselves.
Our general inaction so far indicates states have been overpaying for security from us.