Yesterday, Russian President Dimitri Medvedev recognized the separatist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia as independent regions. Medvedev warned the West that Russia is ready for a long term conflict over Eastern Europe, stating, “We are not afraid of anything, including the prospect of a Cold War.” He warned the United States to back down on the anti-ballistic missile shield it is constructing over most of Europe, threatening once again to use military action in Poland if the deal progresses.

Reactions from the European nations and America were predictably terse. The international community immediately condemned the recognition of these regions and cautioned Moscow over escalating the tensions in Eastern Europe.

These statements coincided with reports from the Georgian government that Russian forces were staging a military build-up in Abkhazia in direct violation of the cease-fire reached earlier this month. Georgia reported that its forces had withdrawn after encountering Russian military units within their own territory to avoid additional conflict.

As the international community tries to respond with humanitarian aid to the hundreds of thousand of displaced Georgians, Russia continues to threaten the peace and stability of the region and encourage the rebellious provinces to continue to resist the legitimate Georgian government. Two United States warships loaded with relief aid cargo docked at the Georgian port of Batumi within the past few days. The USS McFaul (DDG-74) was reportedly diverted from the port of Poti on Sunday after report from the Georgian government indicated that Russia may have mined the sea lanes surrounding the port. The McFaul docked in Batumi later that day and began delivering 55 tons of relief cargo to help the Georgian refugees. She was joined to that by the USCGC Dallas (WHEC 716) carrying another 34 tons of blankets, food, water and general care supplies. The two relief ship are scheduled to be joined shortly by the USS Mount Whitney (LCC/JCC 20) one of the United States Navy’s most sophisticated Command, Control, Communications, Computer, and Intelligence (C4I) loaded with additional supplies. I guess that the mighty Russian Black Sea Fleet is terribly intimidated by one Arleigh Burke class destroyer, a Coast Guard cutter and a command ship.

Russia’s response to the relief effort has been ludicrous but strong. Accusing the United States of employing ‘battleship diplomacy’ they are claiming that humanitarian aid is not delivered by battleships and that the ships are smuggling weapons to the Georgians. In response, Russia sent the Slava class guided missile cruiser and two smaller missile boats to the Abkhazian capital port of Sukhumi to counter and control the NATO military ‘build up’ in the Black Sea and warned the United States that its military has no business delivering humanitarian aid. I guess the Russians do not pay close attention to history. Our military has delivered more humanitarian aid to victims of war, poverty and natural disaster than any other force on this planet.

By the way, none of the US ship carrying the aid are battleships. As a matter of fact, all three ships combined have a total displacement of 30,850 tons. Far less than the 45,000 tons than the United States last Iowa class battleship displaced. Not to mention that the Mount Whitney is only armed with defensive weapons. The largest weapons on the entire ship are two 25mm Bushmaster guns. Not much of a threat against a real warship.

As tensions rise on the diplomatic front, a stand off between Russian and American naval vessels hearkens back to the days of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. Many people have already started to compare the two situations directly hinting that the United States is attempting the very same thing that Russia did then. Some critics are suggesting that Russia should use the same tactics that the United States did back then and blockade the Black Sea until we agree to withdraw our missile bases in Easter Europe. There is one critical difference that cannot be ignored or explained away no matter how much the left wants to do so.

In 1962, the Soviet Union attempted to stage SS-4 Medium Range Ballistic Missiles (MRBMs) in Cuba. These are purely offensive weapons with a range of 1,300 mi (2,080 km) and carrying a nuclear payload of 2.3 megatons. Basing these missiles in Cuba would have given Moscow a first strike capability to strike most of the continental United States with little or now warning. It would only have taken about five minutes for the missiles to leave Cuba and strike their targets within the US.

The missiles we are deploying in Europe are purely defensive in nature with absolutely no offensive capabilities whatsoever. The Anti-Ballistic Missile (AMB) shield will be most likely composed of a variant on the RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 that was used to knock USA 193 out of low orbit on February 14th, 2008 and MIM-104 Patriot PAC3 missile systems. These platforms are interceptors only. They are incapable of direct offensive actions against Russian territory and carry a conventional, non-nuclear warhead. The MIM-104F missile carries a 200 lb conventional M248 Composition B high explosive warhead while the RIM-161s use a purely kinetic Lightweight Exo-Atmospheric Projectile (LEAP) warhead.

There is an incredible difference between the situation and anyone who pretends not to understand that is either a moron or a leftist shill making excuses for Russia’s aggression.

So was it all grandstanding? With the recent military actions in Georgia, threats of strikes on Poland, hints of a nuclear exchange, warnings to other former states such as the Ukraine and statements of severing connections between Russia and NATO, it has appeared for the last few days that Russia and the West were headed towards an inevitable conflict. The world has held its collective breath as things developed over the past few days, ranging from bad to worse to bizarre. Now things seem to have taken another twist.

Today Georgian officials are reporting the Russian forces appear to be leaving Gori, a critical crossroads town dividing the east and west regions of Georgia, just days after saying that they would not leave despite the cease-fire agreement. As the pull out deadline past a few days ago, Russian troops were instead digging in positions and preparing for a stay. It now appears that they are withdrawing over most of the uncontested regions of Georgia and heading back into Southern Ossestia. The question now will be to see if Russia will actually honor the cease-fire and pull back to their positions prior to August 7th, 2008. This will mean removing all Russian forces from within the sovereign borders of Georgia, something just days ago Moscow was unwilling to do.

It also appears that Russia is playing off the statements made by its Foreign Ministry regarding Russia severing all diplomatic ties to NATO. Shortly after the statements were made, NATO officials requested confirmation from the Russian government and attempted to contact the Russian ambassador to NATO. It seems that Russia is pretending that the statement was never made and the ambassador has not been available for comment over the past two days. At one point he was not even taking the calls coming form NATO. The statement about ending diplomatic relations has not been confirmed or denied by the Russian government, leaving them plenty of room to maneuver politically. They can confirm the message at anytime which would change things dramatically or they can claim that the statement was in error or made by an unauthorized source allowing them to defuse the situation somewhat without loosing face.

So what has all this been? Was this nothing more that Russia trying to re-establish its status as a major military power in Europe? Was it a strong arm effort by Russia to exert their influence and military power over its neighbors? Or was this a carefully calculated attempt to measure the NATO response to military actions against its former states and a warning of things to come?

Earlier today Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice completed an agreement with her Polish counterpart to stage an anti-ballistic missile system in Poland. The ten interceptor missiles will be part of the larger missile shield over central Europe designed to protect Europe from missile threats from rouge states such as Iran. Earlier this year, the Czech Republic, Poland’s neighbor to the southwest and another former satellite state of the Soviet Union, agreed to place the main radar control system for this system in their country. Both agreements have been met with strong opposition from the Russian government, but not as strong as what was delivered by the Russian foreign ministry after the announcement of the Polish-American agreement this morning.

The Russian government has already threatened strong action over the basing of the radar system in the Czech Republic, but today they elevated the threat to the possibility of a nuclear strike against Poland. General Anatoly Nogovitsyn was quoted as saying that, “Poland, by deploying [the system] is exposing itself to a strike – 100%.” As if this threat was not enough, he continued by noting that Russian military doctrine permitted the use of nuclear weapons against the allies of countries having nuclear weapons if they in some way help them. This has been seen as a clear and direct threat to Poland and to the United States of America.

Condoleezza Rice warned Russia of statement such as these and cautioned them on the path that they are taking. “When you threaten Poland, you perhaps forget that it is not 1988,” Rice said. “It’s 2008 and the United States has a … firm treaty guarantee to defend Poland’s territory as if it was the territory of the United States. So it’s probably not wise to throw these threats around.”

Relations with Russia are already strained over the Georgian conflict, an issue that prompted the United States to agree to base additional short range defensive systems in Poland in the form of MIM-104 Pac 3 Patriot missile systems. This final item, something that Poland has been holding out for, became a clear necessity with the conflict in Georgia and the U.S. agreed to the additional defensive measures earlier this week.

At the same time as this was developing in Poland, Russia halted its withdrawal out of Georgia claiming that Russian forces would remain to establish 18 long-term checkpoints inside Georgian territory, eight of which are outside of the contested areas entirely. This is a blatant and direct violation of the cease-fire agreement reached by France last week. Nogovitsyn stated, “The president ordered us to stop where we were. We are not pulling out and pulling back troops behind this administrative border into the territory of South Ossetia.”

NATO has now suspended its normal ties with Russia with Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer stating, “There can be no business as usual with Russia under present circumstances.” Meanwhile, the former states of the Soviet Union are banding together to resist this new resurgence of Russian control and begging the rest of NATO and the European Union to do the same. Russia is acting like a school yard bully who has just been told to behave by the lunch lady and shrugging off all demands and threats of action from the West. Their indignation and threats are escalating this situation into something that can absolutely not be ignored. It is one thing to threaten a small nation with military force. It is another thing entirely to threaten a NATO ally with a direct nuclear strike.

Russia followed up this afternoon by announcing that they were severing diplomatic ties with NATO. This is a serious step as it is often seen as a precursor to military action if not all out war.

Unfortunately, the moron on the left are showing their ignorance of the implications of this and championing Russia’s admittance into NATO. That is right folks, this is some how our fault. The fact that Russia has decided to flex its muscles and overrun its neighbors is our fault because we did not talk to them, just like some bullshit excuse for an unruly child who needs his butt spanked. In an ignorant LA Times article, Andrew Meier, former Moscow correspondent for Time magazine and published author, came to the infantile conclusion that the answer it to allow Russia into NATO. Somehow this moron comes to the conclusion that because Russia is a strong economic we should engage them more and I assume allow this bullshit to go unchallenged.

No! Have we learned absolutely nothing from our history? You do not talk to a bully. You stand up to him and knock him on his ass, making it supremely clear that you will not tolerate any more of his shit. Solidarity and determined resistance to this new foreign policy that Russia has decided to shove down the throat of Europe is what is required. As Meier pointed out in his article, Let Russia join NATO, Russia supplies Europe with a great deal of its petroleum products. It has made Russia fairly wealthy, especially when compared to its former status. If Russia is smart, it will not be willing to risk this lucrative market because of military conflict with Europe. If they are not smart, then there is nothing Europe will be able to do to prevent the oncoming fight. Sometimes you have to stare the bully down. It may cause a fight, but if you continue to do nothing, the bully will continue to control your life.

Welcome to the new Cold War. Let’s pray it stays cold.

The recent conflict between Russia and Georgia has introduced an interesting twist into the 2008 election process in this country. The two presumptive nominees for President of the United States of America, John McCain and Barack Obama have responded on the issue in what many see as diametrically opposed positions. This issue may galvanize the importance of strong national security and foreign policy experience in the upcoming election, a move that would be very damaging for the Obama campaign.

Even with a fragile cease-fire in place, Russia seems in no hurry to withdraw its troops from the embattled areas inside Georgia despite their agreement to do so and strong international demands for them to withdraw. On this very morning, Russia moved SS-21 Scarab missiles into Georgian territory while she is supposed to be withdrawing her troops. These surface to surface missiles have a range of between 45 and 75 miles and carry 4,400 lb conventional warheads. From where Russia has positioned the missiles, they have the capability of striking the Georgian capital city of Tiblisi, practically holding a gun to the head of the Georgian government. This comes on the heels of Russian forces capturing 15 Georgian soldiers and seizing several containers of American military equipment recently used in a joint American-Georgian exercise from a key Georgian port on the Black Sea.

The responses from the two key U.S. presidential candidates to this Russian aggression have been as different as the claims from Russia and Georgia about the invasion. Senator John McCain took a stern approach to the Russian invasion of the sovereign territory of its democratic neighbor, condemning their actions, demanding a stern response and warning of seriously damaged relations between the United States and Russia if she stayed this course. McCain has demanded that Russia withdraw its immediately and return control of Southern Ossestia to the Georgian government.

Obama on the other hand, until his comments today that warned Russia of the consequences, has presented a tepid response and displayed a complete lack of experience in foreign policy. Obama turned immediately to blaming the current administration for Russia’s aggressive actions and condemned McCain for his position on the matter. This just continues to illustrate Obama’s weakness and inability to lead when it comes to matters relating to foreign policy.

McCain demands there be consequences for Russian aggression against a much smaller democracy incapable of defending agianst the onslaught. Obama blames America first and then naively wants to sit down and negotiate with Russia and try to convince them that their interests in the ‘World Community’ are in being placed in jeopardy by their actions.

What would you rather see in a President? A man who shows strength in the face of aggression in (in the image of Reagan and Churchill) or weakness and a desire to talk to agressors in a vain attempt to stave off the tide (in the image of Chamberlain)?