Taking a page from China: Russia teaches a "lesson"

When the US and the Czech Republic agreed July 8 to establish an anti missile program, Russia's Putin warned he would push back.

Now we have what is in some ways a quickly over "proxy war" between the US and a resurgent Russia. More fundamentally Russia's invasion of Georgia is a familiar great power tactic to ensure predominance in "its region" and send its rivals a message.

The expansion of American power into Russia's backyard after the end of Cold War made some kind of Russian reaction almost inevitable -- once its neighbors began to gravitate toward NATO and NATO pushed a dynamic move east to undermine Moscow's influence in the traditional sphere of Russian power.

A resurgent Russia under Putin decided when the time was ripe.

So now we have a Russian "punitive expedition."

Putin sent his message to Washington by invading this tiny American ally on Russia's border. Every nation bordering Russia must take notice.

The lesson is clear: don't mess with Russia, don't taunt a Putin, don't "Bait the Bear."

Beware of fooling around with the Americans. They cannot protect you. Especially when they are deeply involved with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ironically the weakened Russians have taken a page out of China's book. In February 1979, in a much more violent 29 day war covered by this writer, Deng Xiaoping invaded Vietnam to "teach a lesson" to that country that it could not depend on Soviet support for protection. A resurgent China sought to teach the Soviet "hegemon" a lesson.

Washington had pressured the Georgian leader Mikheil Saaskashvili (above) not to invade breakaway regions now aligned with Russia.

He did it anyway.

Giving Putin what he may have wanted: a "casus belli" to teach Georgia and the "West" a lesson. (See an article "Georgia, Russia took a path of belligerence and bluster" in the Los Angles Times on the origins of the war.)

Mikheil Saaskashvili, democratically elected. A brilliant, emotional, "in your face" man educated in America, the "darling" of several American politicians. Contemptuous of Putin. His army is American trained, parts of it assigned to Iraq.

Apparently confident his bond with the US would protect him, he launched his attack.

**************

Punitive expeditions are a well established great power tactic in dealing with defiant neighbors or troublesome governments in strategic locations. Especially if one's power is predominant in a region -- or not deterred by the power of another.

Smaller powers sometimes carry out punitive strikes, but it is the mark of a large or great power to claim the right and have the power to do this.

The trick of a successful punitive expedition is to make the point, inflict enough damage to deter future provocations -- but keep one's costs limited.

In the last few decades this has been a great challenge for both Russian and American policy makers: how to punish, intimidate -- without getting bogged down in maintaining a costly empire or military occupation. Or get involved in the costly enterprise of "nation building."

America is a frequent master of the punitive strike: from Panama to oust Manuel Noriega (1989); to Iraq to liberate Kuwait (1991); to Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban (2001); again to Iraq to ousts Saddam Hussein (2003). All were aimed at leaders or governments who dared to thumb their nose at the United States.

You don't mess with the Uncle Sam.

Look at some other examples:

Soviet expeditions to Hungary to oust Imre Nagy (1956); to Czechoslovaka to oust Alexander Dubcek (1968) -- then into Afghanistan to contain Islamic extremism (1979).

The Soviet expeditions went hand in hand with the costly enterprise of maintaining an empire.

The Russians haven't had a successful punitive expedition since 1968, although in the 1990's they did "win" two wars against rebellious Chechyna. Their ten year Afghan adventure ended in defeat in 1989.

China used a punitive invasion to teach Vietnam a lesson in 1979, with mixed but potent results. In 1962 China had launched another lesson against India when Indian armies marched north into region of Ladakh.

China's 1950 intervention in Korea as American forces moved toward its borders established there would be a steep price to pay when Americans played in Beijing's backyard. It was a lesson Americans listened to -- creating US caution in the war for Vietnam.

*******************

Punitive attacks often, but not always, lead to "regime change."

Regime change also is a well established great power tactic in dealing with defiant neighbors or troublesome governments in strategic locations. Especially if one's power is predominant in a region -- or not restrained by the power of another.

When Americans do regime change they justify it by accusations of corruption, human rights violation, irresponsible aggressive behavior. When Soviets did it they charged counterrevolution.

Now we have the interesting phenomenon of Putin using "Western" justifications in highly personal attacks on Georgian leader Mikheil Saaskashvili: that Georgia is carrying out genocide against its minorities, attacking peacekeepers, etc. Much the same arguments that Presudent Bush used to justify the invasion of Iraq and overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

Russians have called for trying Saashkashvili on genocide and war crimes charges.

We now have the irony of Washington, so often using regime change against its own enemies, castigating the Russians for possibly attempting this in Georgia.

Aside from Saddam, the US did regime change against Manuel Noriega in Panama; sought to do it against Fidel Castro in Cuba; did it numerous times during the Cold War, for example against Jacobo Arbenz Guzman in Guatemala (1954); and against Mohammad Mosaddeq in Iran, 1953.

A controversial American regime change was its support of the coup which killed South Vietnam's Ngo Dinh Diem in 1963.