This is Not Your Father's Soviet Union

Suddenly, it's the good ol days. All Russia, all the time. Where is Thatcher and Reagan when we need them? While it's good that the mainstream media is now focused on the pending implications of a new Russian dominance; it is also important that a modicum of understanding be applied to the subject. Yes, Russia did invade the break-away region of South Ossetia, Georgia. Yes, Russia has shown little interest in listening to the US's opinions. Yes, Russia is showing strong body language over its distaste for the Polish-US missile agreement. However, this is not your father's form of Soviet Communism, and that is important to note. The Russian actions over the past few weeks are nothing that contradict their actions over the past few years. What we are seeing out of Russia is a consistent posturing that is in accord with their new form of government: Neo-Communism. The problem is that fear can manifest itself into action. This is something that the US leadership must refrain from doing. One example of this would be Ukraine. This past weekend, reports began to surface of a growing concern about Russia's interest of next going into Ukraine. The fears within this once-Soviet-bloc nation are high. Aides to the President of Ukraine are accusing the Prime Minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, of supporting Russia's moves into Georgia and is a Russian sympathizer. Even the NY Times has jumped on the theme (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/world/europe/17ukraine.html?th&emc=th). However, it is GeoPolitical Thinking's belief that a more thorough examination of the situation is warranted before we start building our modern-day nuke bunkers and rewrite Paul McCarthy's "Back in the U.S.S.R.". While GeoPolitical Thinking is not supporting Russia's invasion into South Ossetia, it was not an action in a vacuum. Russo-Georgian relationships have been strained for years, lest we forget that Georgia is one of the few former Soviet nations to deploy troops to Iraq in support of the US administration's actions. (Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili was lead to believe by the US administration that supporting the US in the Middle East would ensure support for him, if need be, against Russia. A quid pro quo that Saakashvili is finding out will only go so far.) This year, before the images of tanks rolling into South Ossetia popped up on television sets, Russia and Georgia were in tense talks over Abkhazia, a different region of Georgia that broke away before South Ossetia did.) The point is, to say that Russia invaded a defenseless nation is an overstatement and a blatant decision to ignore the broader picture. It is GeoPolitical Thinking's perspective that the new brand of Russian rule, Neo-Communism, is not interested in country-invading. That would lead Russia down the same path it knows won't work. Instead, Putin (and his surrogate, Medvedev) sees the former satellite nations as a buffer zone. By keeping these nations from being full-blown democratic, US-EU-mini-me's; strategically, Russia keeps any nation from having an easy path into Russian home soils. While the thought of a country invading Russia is silly; it is, nonetheless, a strategic mandate Russia must embrace for itself to ensure a strong national defense. Just as we would do the same if Mexico were an avenue for invasion (should those untrusting nations of Panama or Belize become hostile!), Russia must always protect its boarders as a part of a bigger strategy. (Even if this is done poorly by keeping some former satellites in disarray.) It is also important to realize that a strategy of conflicts over democracy in satellite nations doesn't necessarily mean Russia loses. It is an indirect way of maintaining regional dominance. While we must closely watch actions and comments from the Kremlin, if we begin to behave like we are fighting the U.S.S.R. and it's 1984, we are weakening our defensive posture. The US military cannot afford to do that.