Militärhistorikern Victor Davis Hanson gör i dagens National Review en sedvanlig icke PK intressant analys av Rysslands ”lyckade” krig med Georgien. En analys som aldrig skulle kunna förekomma i svensk massmedia med något enstaka undantag. Vilket tyvärr säger en hel del om vår undermåliga omvärldsbevakning i svenska massmedia.
Så till våra intälägänta politiker i försvarsberedningen:
”-Vad vill egentligen Ryssland? Vi skulle behöva borra djupare i det som händer och följa utvecklingen noga. Det kanske är försvarsberedningens uppgift, men vi får se vad regeringen kommer fram till, säger Else-Marie Lindgren (kd) ledamot i försvarsberedningen som analyserar och bedömer Sveriges säkerhetspolitiska läge.”
”Ordföranden i försvarsberedningen, Karin Enström (m), är förvånad över Rysslands agerande.
– Man visar en väldig aggressivitet, jag hade inte trott att det skulle gå så här långt. Ryssland har inte nått så långt i den demokratiska utvecklingen som vi hade hoppats, säger hon.”
Det var dessa eminenta politiker, som skall vara vårt ”yttersta värn” i orostider, som i en enig försvarsberedning fastslog att klimatförändringarna är det största hotet mot Sverige. Och som är ansvariga för att Sverige inte har något försvar av sitt territorium i dag.
Samtidigt som regeringen beslutat om en TOTAL massavlysning av det svenska folket (FRA lagen) med hänvisning till ett ospecificerat ”yttre hot”. Samma regering (och tidigare) har alltså samtidigt sett till att vi inte kan försvara oss just mot ett REELLT yttre hot.
Det är dessa charlataner som tillåts leka med Sveriges säkerhet och svenska folkets frihet.
Som jag sagt så många gånger tidigare – vi har värdiga representanter i Sveriges riksdag och regering.
Se även mina tidigare inlägg om försvaret: Vi har en Försvarsmakt i fullständigt fritt fall – 2, ”Vi har en Försvarsmakt i fullständigt fritt fall”, Försvaret – vilken total INKOMPETENS!, Vårt dyra lilla kastrerade försvar!, Vårt dyra lilla försvar – 2 och Vårt dyra lilla försvar
Se även vad Bo Pellnäs har skrivit: Bo Pellnäs: Svagt Sverige ger inte trygghet. Frågorna kring försvaret är fler än svaren, Säkerhetspolitiken alliansens död, Bildt hukar om säkerheten, Gotland ska ha ett försvar , Sverige gör sig till åtlöje i EU och Tchad, Förstår Borg säkerhetspolitik?, ”Vi lever i dårarnas paradis”, Tänk om, försvarsministern
Analysen finns här:
August 12, 2008, 4:00 a.m.
Moscow’s Sinister Brilliance
Who wants to die for Tbilisi?
By Victor Davis Hanson
Lost amid all the controversies surrounding the Georgian tragedy is the sheer diabolic brilliance of the long-planned Russia invasion. Let us count the ways in which it is a win/win situation for Russia.
The Home Front
The long-suffering Russian people resent the loss of global influence and empire, but not necessarily the Soviet Union and its gulags that once ensured such stature. The invasion restores a sense of Russian nationalism and power to its populace without the stink of Stalinism, and is indeed cloaked as a sort of humanitarian intervention on behalf of beleaguered Ossetians.
There will be no Russian demonstrations about an ”illegal war,” much less nonsense about ”blood for oil,” but instead rejoicing at the payback of an uppity former province that felt its Western credentials somehow trumped Russian tanks. How ironic that the Western heartthrob, the old Marxist Mikhail Gorbachev, is now both lamenting Western encouragement of Georgian ”aggression,” while simultaneously gloating over the return of Russian military daring.
Russia’s only worry is the United States, which currently has a lame-duck president with low approval ratings, and is exhausted after Afghanistan and Iraq. But more importantly, America’s attention is preoccupied with a presidential race, in which ”world citizen” Barack Obama has mesmerized Europe as the presumptive new president and soon-to-be disciple of European soft power.
Better yet for Russia, instead of speaking with one voice, America is all over the map with three reactions from Bush, McCain, and Obama – all of them mutually contradictory, at least initially. Meanwhile, the world’s televisions are turned toward the Olympics in Beijing. The autocratic Chinese, busy jailing reporters and dissidents, are not about to say an unkind word about Russian intervention. If anything, the pageantry at their grandiose stadiums provides welcome distractions for those embarrassed over the ease with which Russia smothered Georgia.
Most importantly, Putin and Medvedev have called the West’s bluff. We are sort of stuck in a time-warp of the 1990s, seemingly eons ago in which a once-earnest weak post-Soviet Russia sought Western economic help and political mentoring. But those days are long gone, and diplomacy hasn’t caught up with the new realities. Russia is flush with billions. It serves as a rallying point and arms supplier to thugs the world over that want leverage in their anti-Western agendas. For the last five years, its foreign policy can be reduced to ”Whatever the United States is for, we are against.”
The geopolitical message is clear to both the West and the former Soviet Republics: don’t consider NATO membership (i.e., do the Georgians really think that, should they have been NATO members, any succor would have been forthcoming?).
Together with the dismal NATO performance in Afghanistan, the Georgian incursion reveals the weakness of the Atlantic Alliance. The tragic irony is unmistakable. NATO was given a gift in not having made Georgia a member, since otherwise an empty ritual of evoking Article V’s promise of mutual assistance in time of war would have effectively destroyed the Potemkin alliance.
The new reality is that a nuclear, cash-rich, and energy-blessed Russia doesn’t really worry too much whether its long-term future is bleak, given problems with Muslim minorities, poor life-expectancy rates, and a declining population. Instead, in the here and now, it has a window of opportunity to reclaim prestige and weaken its adversaries. So why hesitate?
Indeed, tired of European lectures, the Russians are now telling the world that soft power is, well, soft. Moscow doesn’t give a damn about the United Nations, the European Union, the World Court at the Hague, or any finger-pointing moralist from Geneva or London. Did anyone in Paris miss any sleep over the rubble of Grozny?
Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om http://bloggar.se/om/F%F6rsvar” rel=”tag”>Försvar</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>
More likely, Putin & Co. figure that any popular rhetoric about justice will be trumped by European governments’ concern for energy. With just a few tanks and bombs, in one fell swoop, Russia has cowered its former republics, made them think twice about joining the West, and stopped NATO and maybe EU expansion in their tracks. After all, who wants to die for Tbilisi?
Russia does not need a global force-projection capacity; it has sufficient power to muscle its neighbors and thereby humiliate not merely its enemies, but their entire moral pretensions as well.
Apologists in the West
The Russians have sized up the moral bankruptcy of the Western Left. They know that half-a-million Europeans would turn out to damn their patron the United States for removing a dictator and fostering democracy, but not more than a half-dozen would do the same to criticize their long-time enemy from bombing a constitutional state.
The Russians rightly expect Westerners to turn on themselves, rather than Moscow – and they won’t be disappointed. Imagine the morally equivalent fodder for liberal lament: We were unilateral in Iraq, so we can’t say Russia can’t do the same to Georgia. (As if removing a genocidal dictator is the same as attacking a democracy). We accepted Kosovo’s independence, so why not Ossetia’s? (As if the recent history of Serbia is analogous to Georgia’s.) We are still captive to neo-con fantasies about democracy, and so encouraged Georgia’s efforts that provoked the otherwise reasonable Russians (As if the problem in Ossetia is our principled support for democracy rather than appeasement of Russian dictatorship).
From what the Russians learned of the Western reaction to Iraq, they expect their best apologists will be American politicians, pundits, professors, and essayists – and once more they will not be disappointed. We are a culture, after all, that after damning Iraqi democracy as too violent, broke, and disorganized, is now damning Iraqi democracy as too conniving, rich, and self-interested – the only common denominator being whatever we do, and whomever we help, cannot be good.
We talk endlessly about ”soft” and ”hard” power as if humanitarian jawboning, energized by economic incentives or sanctions, is the antithesis to mindless military power. In truth, there is soft power, hard power, and power-power – the latter being the enormous advantages held by energy rich, oil-exporting states. Take away oil and Saudi Arabia would be the world’s rogue state, with its medieval practice of gender apartheid. Take away oil and Ahmadinejad is analogous to a run-of-the-mill central African thug. Take away oil, and Chavez is one of Ronald Reagan’s proverbial tinhorn dictators.
Russia understands that Europe needs its natural gas, that the U.S. not only must be aware of its own oil dependency, but, more importantly, the ripples of its military on the fragility of world oil supplies, especially the effects upon China, Europe, India, and Japan. When one factors in Russian oil and gas reserves, a pipeline through Georgia, the oil dependency of potential critics of Putin, and the cash garnered by oil exports, then we understand once again that power-power is beginning to trump both its hard and soft alternatives.
Military intervention is out of the question. Economic sanctions, given Russia’s oil and Europe’s need for it, are a pipe dream. Diplomatic ostracism and moral stricture won’t even save face.
Instead, Europe – both western and eastern – along with the United States and the concerned former Soviet Republics need to sit down, conference, and plot exactly how these new democracies are to maintain their independence and autonomy in the next decade. Hopefully, they will reach the Franklinesque conclusion that ”We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.”
– NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.