McCain versus Putin: Bring it on

If presumptive Republican presidential candidate John McCain becomes the next president of the United States, then, judging by his take on Georgia and his approach to matters military, we might well end up longing for the “peaceful” days of George W Bush.

McCain — along with Vladimir Putin, the Russian Prime Minister — can be relied upon not so much to push the envelope as to crumple it up and throw it at his opponents.

As we are witnessing in the exchanges surrounding Georgia and South Ossetia, both are at their fiery best when championing a cause on behalf of their homelands.

“McCain’s core belief — after many years of partying, philandering and generally goofing around — is that Americans are at their best when committed to a higher noble cause. And no cause is nobler than projecting American power everywhere on God’s Earth to deter evil, reward good and save the victims of bullies. I am not aware of any war in recent times that he hasn’t at some point supported. Peacetime makes him nervous, listless.

“He favoured the first Gulf War and the second Iraq war. He wanted to intervene early in the Balkans in the 1990s, favoured the Afghanistan war and wanted more military pressure against North Korea. He also wants to keep the military option against Iraq (Iran surely) prominently on the table. His problem with the Iraq war was that the United States did not send enough troops and his support for the ‘surge’ was, to his credit, a defining moment in his recent career.” — Andrew Sullivan, Times of London

If that is Sullivan’s take on a somewhat bellicose McCain, then Joffee’s on Putin is pretty much in the same vein:

“In the greater scheme of things, though, Georgia’s geopolitical crimes pale against a simple historical truth: 8/8 is payback for 12/25, when the Soviet Empire expired.

“That, as Mr Putin has told us, was the ‘greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century’, and ever since he was anointed neo-czar in 2000, he has been working hard, and as time went by ever more ham-handedly, to reverse the verdict of the Cold War — to regain what Russia had lost.

“So, forget about Mr Saakashvili’s bluster and bumbling; think ‘revisionism’ and ‘expansionism’, terms beloved by diplomatic historians trying to explain the behaviour of rock-the-boat states. A revisionist power wants back what it once had; an expansionist power wants more for itself and less for the rest. The R&E Syndrome is a handy way to explain all of Mr Putin’s strategy in the past eight years. Draw an arc from the Baltic to the Caspian and then start counting.

“Moscow has unleashed a cyberwar against tiny Estonia, formerly a Soviet republic. It has threatened the Czech Republic and Poland with nuclear targeting if they host US antimissile hardware on their soil that could not possibly threaten Russia’s retaliatory potential. It has exploited small price disputes (normally resolved by lawyers screaming at each other) to stop gas deliveries and thus show Ukraine, Belarus and former Warsaw Pact members who runs the ‘Common House of Europe’, to recall Mikhail Gorbachev’s famous phrase.” — Josef Joffee, Wall Street Journal Europe

In the greater scheme of things we have to factor in the following:

In 1991 the Soviet Union broke up into 15 republics, three of which, together with six former Warsaw Pact countries, now form part of Nato. Ukraine and Georgia are making overtures towards EU and Nato membership, which would bring Nato right on to Russia’s doorstep. In addition, the missile shield purportedly being installed in respect of Iran will be erected in Poland and the Czech Republic despite Russia’s willingness to be part of the same.

In terms of the vital Caspian Basin Reserves (second only to the Middle East), the West has already annoyed Russia by circumventing it and building a pipeline through Georgia — this despite 40% of the total EU requirements for energy coming from this region.

Accordingly, when Georgia attacked the breakaway region of South Ossetia, Russia seized its chance not only to re-establish its dominance in the area, but to send out warnings to the West. Included in these warnings has been the threat to arm its Baltic Fleet with nuclear warheads. This would signal the resumption of a nuclear build-up, which last time out occasioned the mutually assured destruction theory — that regardless of which side started, both would be obliterated.

In return, the EU and US have been warning Russia on their dilatory approach to vacating Georgia after signing President Nicolas Sarkozy’s six-point peace plan. Nato in turn has warned Russia that there will be no business as usual until it vacates Georgia.

Factor in as well that there are six regional powers in the world today: the US, the EU, Russia, China, Japan and India, with the US considered the world’s single hyper-power.

On a crisp day in April 2009, President McCain of the US announces that the Ukraine has now joined Nato, which means not only that will Georgia, birthplace of Stalin, be in pro-Western hands but also that Yalta, where the czars spent their holidays, will be a Nato port and Sevastopol, traditional home of Russia’s Baltic Fleet, will house the US sixth fleet.

Moreover, Ukraine just happens to be the transit route for 80% of Russia’s gas exports to Europe. During 2006 the dispute between Russia and Ukraine nearly gave the EU a heart attack with cutbacks being imposed until a deal was signed.

With the oil pipeline through Georgia circumventing Russia on the one side and Russia’s primary transit route in Nato hands on the other, coupled with the strategic loss of Sevastopol, the missile shield in the Czech Republic and Poland, six Warsaw Pact countries and three former Soviet Republics now part of Nato, what do you think Russia under Putin would do? Medvedev (read Putin) has just warned the region and global players that the next act of aggression will be dealt with severely. As if Georgia, which is two-thirds occupied at present, was a gentle warning.

Across the way in the US is McCain, whose only complaint about Iraq has been the fact that they didn’t go with the surge earlier and who will support Israel (according to Sullivan) if it attacks Iran. Unlike Bush, he will not be a lame-duck president and certainly seems to favour all-out offence as the best form of defence.

No question that Nato is far stronger and more technically advanced than Russia in the case of a conventional war. That said, and as we have seen with Georgia, the West is playing in Russia’s backyard, which gives the latter the logistical advantage. But with all the encroachment by Nato, this would not be as debilitating to an attack as it once was.

China, having dispensed with the problem of having to appease everyone ahead of the Olympic Games, becomes the unknown. It may see this continued encroachment as endangering it personally, or it may welcome Russia being further weakened. If China goes with the latter, then the question of Russia’s ability to put its nuclear deterrent together in time comes into play. Factor in as well the defence shield, which might weaken that option as well at a later date.

McCain doesn’t strike me as a shrinking violet, and Putin backs down to nobody. It will be like playing chicken with two robots programmed to collide.

While traditionally US presidents have avoided going to war with Russia, this time we may well have found the exception. In Putin we have seen a preview of Russia’s response in his reaction to the Georgia invasion of South Ossetia, including the sabre-rattling, post ceasefire and peace treaty. It doesn’t look pretty.

The winners would effectively control not only the Caspian Basin, but without Russia’s support, the Middle East as well. The biggest prizes in world “sport”?

What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?