From: Arch Getty <getty@ucla.edu>
Subject: re Washington Post editorial
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008
Washington Post wrote:
"Any retreat by the new administration on these issues will be taken by the Kremlin as a victory for its neo-imperialist project and as a sign of Mr. Obama's weakness. The "signals" Mr. Putin receives from the new president need not be provocative or antagonistic, but when it comes to defending the independence of Russia's democratic neighbors, Mr. Obama's message must be firm."
This is a bit perverse: Who has the neo-imperialist project here? Is it the country that insists on protecting its borders or is it the one who organizes hostile military alliances far from its shores and pushes them up to the border of another state? Is it really necessary to point out that Russia/USSR has dissolved its alliances and shrunk dramatically in the past couple of decades, while the US is involved in - dare we say it - imperial wars in the Middle East and in expanding alliances? Reading things like the Post editorial makes one feel as if one fell down the rabbit hole, where up is down and nothing makes any sense. As for the U.S. obligation to defend the independence of tie-eating wackos and countries that can't make up their mind if they want to be countries at all, well, I guess I was absent the day we took on that responsibility. It's not that one is afraid of Putin or doesn't want to offend him. It's more a matter of soberly defining our national interests. We don't have a dog in every fight, nor should we.