[Editor's Note] I have been reading Mr. Kulak's work for most of this year and have aleays been quite impressed. He has agreed for me to reprint his latest work on the blog and I hope he will be a regular guest. If you have any questions for him just post in comments.

Ruminations, August 24, 2008
(On vacation last week)

Georgia on my mind
On June 28, 1914, in Sarajevo, capital of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria Hungary was assassinated by Garilvo Princip in the event that touched off World War I. As the 1914 summer ground on, it appeared to the world that the assassination was a localized event and would be resolved in short order. Indeed, it took Austria-Hungary a month to officially respond.

At the time, many thought that European countries were too economically intertwined and that economics alone could prevent any wars. Roger Angell had written a book called The Grand Illusion in 1910 in which he made that exact point. The book, which was widely read in England and translated and read on the continent, went on to say that if any military disputes did arise, the intertwined economics would make the dispute short-lived and minor.

The Archduke’s assassination was the trigger for the war but hostilities were building prior to that moment. Serbia had designs on territories held by Austria-Hungary and Austria-Hungary wanted to secure their borders with Serbia and put the Serbs in their place. Russia had let the Serbs down in previous situations and had to support the Serbs this time around. Germany viewed war with Russia and France as inevitable and the sooner it began, the better the chance for a German victory. Britain wanted to maintain the balance of power in Europe and thought that Germany was getting too aggressive.

Then too, alliances committed countries to war if one of their allies went to war. The Triple Entente consisted of Britain, France and Russia; the Central Powers consisted of Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire. Through the summer of 1914, the alliances began to mobilize as a show of strength.

The conditions in 1914 led to one of the greatest upheavals in history. All that was required for the next step after the assassination was for Austria-Hungary to issue a belligerent ultimatum to Serbia and then the peace collapsed.

Could it happen again?
On August 8, Russia attacked Georgia in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, former Georgian territories that were semi-independent. It seems a localized event and will be resolved in short order – but is it another Sarajevo?

Georgia is an ally of the United States and would like to become a member of The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) – and Russia feels threatened by the NATO alliance. Should they be?

• NATO began as a counter to threats of the Soviet Union in 1949. Its purpose, as was said at the time, was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down."
• As the Soviet and German threats diminished, NATO continued to expand. The expansion served two purposes. It afforded member states the protection of the United States military umbrella and it allowed the United States to influence member states’ foreign policy.
• As NATO expanded, the Soviet successors – the Russians – believed that no former Soviet satellites would be allowed to become members of NATO. Then, former satellites were allowed in as members and the new members seemed to geographically surround Russia.
• NATO membership seemed to be open to any European or, increasingly, European-bordering nations; but not to Russia.

So Russia feels threatened by NATO. Was that a factor motivating them to move against Georgia? The Russians began to feel a need to dissuade potential NATO members from joining NATO by showing Russia’s power. Sending troops into Georgia was relatively low-risk because the only country that could seriously threaten Russia is the United States and United S tates won’t because:

• The U.S. is militarily tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan.
• The closest major political party to pacifism in the U.S., the Democrats, is in ascendency.
  The U.S. economy is sputtering and an increase in military activity would slow it even more.
• The result of all this is that the Russians can show themselves to be relatively strong in the region and the U.S. to be inept at defending its allies.

How does all this parallel Sarajevo?
The alliances are in place. If the Russians don’t move now, then they will be in an increasingly weak position vis-à-vis the United States (as the War in Iraq winds down, the U.S. will be more able to respond militarily and after this falls election, the winner will have more military flexibility). The Russians feels it needs to show strength to their neighbors. The United States needs to show strength to its allies lest NATO become perceived as a hollow shell. Much of Europe is economically dependent on Russian gas and oil. Russia, fearing that a U.S. defensive missile system based in Poland would render Russia impotent, has issued Poland a semi-ultimatum ("By hosting these [missiles], Poland is making itself a target. This is 100 per cent [certain]," said Russian General Anatoly Nogovitsin, deputy head of Russia's armed forces, told the Interfax news agency). According to the London Times, Russia is conside ring mobilizing its Baltic fleet with nuclear warheads.

Contrary to the popular expression, history does not repeat itself. If, however, we are not cognizant of history, we could make the similar mistakes as those that led to world war and Georgia could become the flash-point.

St. Nancy
A criticism has been leveled at Republicans in recent years is that they are too close to the religious right and think that they are the chosen people. President Bush has even been accused of claiming that God told him to attack Iraq.

Political fortunes shift and, it seems, so does that the impression of being the self-anointed chosen people. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) seems to have become the self-appointed leader of the religious left. Her latest mantra has been, "“I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet.” And more recently, she has said that Barack Obama is “a leader that God has blessed us with at this time."

And you wondered who would be filling Pat Robertson’s shoes.

Biden his time
Senator Joe Biden (D, DE) has been selected by presidential candidate Barack Obama as a running mate. A quick overview shows that he brings pluses and minuses to the Democratic ticket.

On the plus side:

• Although Biden has opposed the war in Iraq, his son is scheduled to be deployed there in October.
• Biden brings years of experience to the Obama campaign.
• Biden is a persuasive debater.

On the negative side:

• Biden’s solution to end the war in Iraq was to divide Iraq into three small countries and then leave. None of these three smaller countries would have the military strength to defend itself against belligerents form Iran, Syria, al-Qaeda or others.
• Biden, running in the 1988 presidential primaries got caught on tape debating with a member of the crowd and repeatedly telling that member, “I’m smarter than you are.” It may well be the case that Biden was smarter but it is not good form to say so.
• Biden lifted an extended portion of a speech made by British Labor Member of Parliament Neil Kinnock where Kinnock reminisced about his life; Biden tried to pass it off as his own.
• He has had a tendency to overstate his academic credentials.

All candidates bring positives and negatives to a campaign. Balancing the positives and negatives determines the worth of an individual to a ticket. My sense of it is that Biden will be a plus for the Obama campaign.

Robert J. Kulak

West Hartford, Connecticut