Russia Capitalizes on New World Disorder

[DogPoundPup]

By Gerhard Spörl

The war in the Caucasus is a truly global crisis. Russia's action against the western-looking Georgia testifies to an extreme craving for recognition and is reminiscent of the Cold War. It reveals the reality of the chaotic new world order -- a result of the failures of President Bush's foreign policy.

<snip> ...

A Lopsided Multipolarity

The world ceased to be a unipolar place when the Iraq war began. When the neocons used the word unipolarity, they were referring to the idea that the world's sole superpower, thanks to its military superiority, could assume that it was entitled to the role of global cop, and that the world must bend to its will, whether it wanted to or not.

Now a new technical term has come into circulation: multipolarity. It means that a number of powers can do as they please, without punishment, and no one can do much about it. China can do as it pleases with Tibet, the Uyghurs and its dissidents, and it can buy its energy where it pleases. India can sign a nuclear treaty with the United States, and can then vacillate between choosing to ditch the agreement and keep it in place. Iran can decide to become a nuclear power and then wait to see what happens, to see whether Israel and the United States, for example, will issue empty threats of air strikes while Russia and China obstruct the superpower in the UN Security Council whenever it calls for effective resolutions.

But the new multipolarity is lopsided. America is still the power without which nothing works -- whether it be sensible or senseless. China is moving in its own orbit and is unlikely to move forward as quickly as it had hoped until recently. It's easier to win gold medals than establish a stable world power by combining capitalism with communism. India is drifting along behind China, struggling with its own domestic problems and unable to decide whether it should throw in its lot with China or the United States.

And Russia? It has a tremendous craving for recognition and a ludicrous amount of money. That money could be put to great use, to develop a nation, for example. That would be a goal that made sense. In the long run, Putin will have to stop playing the bare-chested macho man, the great loner who couldn't care less about alliances and world opinion.

To read the entire article ... http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,572059,00.html

[Jester Messiah]

1. We're in the midst of a correction, as the economists would say.

We, America, are realizing that we can't be the world's policeman anymore. It's not feasible, and it's not desirable. As our power wanes, there is a vacuum that regional powers will begin to fill. The neighbors of those powers will have to either step up for their own defense, or come to some arrangement with those powers. Europe in particular will have to come to grips with needing their own military might again. America, too, will have to figure out its relationship with those powers. It's hard to see where this will go, but it's fascinating to observe!

[DogPoundPup]

2. Fascinating? Since you are interested...perhaps you'd like to read this

The Long War: How Many Iraqs and Afghanistans Lie Ahead?

By Andrew Bacevich, Tomdispatch.com. Posted August 14, 2008.

The Pentagonization of the United States shows no sign of slowing down.

<The Long War has also made it front and center in the new "national defense strategy," which is essentially a call to prepare for a future of two, three, many Afghanistans. ("For the foreseeable future, winning the Long War against violent extremist movements will be the central objective of the U.S.") If you thought for a moment that in the next presidency some portion of those many billions of dollars now being sucked into the black holes of Iraq and Afghanistan was about to go into rebuilding American infrastructure or some other frivolous task, think again. Just read between the lines of that new national defense strategy document where funding for future conventional wars against "rising powers" is to be maintained, while funding for "irregular warfare" is to rise. The Pentagonization of the U.S., in other words, shows no sign of slowing down.>
http://www.alternet.org/audits/94983/the_long_war:_how_many_iraqs_and_afghanistans_lie_ahead_/

[Jester Messiah]

4. My hope is that President Obama...

and his filibuster-proof Democratic majority (in both houses) will put a huge damper on those "Long War" aspirations. We've got so much that needs doing here at home, the rest of the world is going to have to look after itself for a bit. That's my hope, anyway. Your cited article doesn't seem to agree, but opinions are three for a quarter, as the old saying goes.

[DogPoundPup]

5. I share your hope ... thanks for the comments n/t

[bemildred]

3. The war in the Caucausus is a truly local crisis.

Otherwise the word has lost all its meaning. The notion that the world cannot get along without a single grand muckety-muck to boss everyone around is incorrect. It has got along that way for virtually all of human history. It is true that it would be nice to have some sort of global authority, but we have the UN already. Maybe we should pay more attention to supporting the UN.

[DogPoundPup]

6. George and company hate the U.N and deadly, catastrophic muckity-muck has been their

agenda since the Reagan daze.

[bemildred]

7. Yeah, they don't like having competition for high muckety-muck.

Tough shit for them at this point, I think.