Regarding: ...Russia And Georgia...John Edwards...The Rising Stock Of Biden-Types....

REGARDING RUSSIA'S INCURSION INTO GEORGIA....

The timing of Russia's incursion into neighboring Georgia, ostensibly in response to a Georgian crackdown in the often pro-Russian area of South Ossetia, is telling--it began on the same day as the opening ceremonies of the Olympics, which suggests that the timing is ham-handed but not haphazard. In other words, though it was clearly somewhat of a mis-calculation in the sense that it was at one level meant to occur while "everyone is somewhat distracted" by the Olympic festivities (with major heads of state occupied with viewing their Olympians circle the track in Beijing, waving to the crowds), it was nonetheless a calculated maneuver, which suggests that Russia was waiting and watching the goings-on in Georgia in order to move aggressively against at least part of that country at some point. That point has arrived.

Georgia has had aspirations of joining NATO for quite some time now. This combined with the cultural and political influence of the U.S. and other Western nations increasingly taking hold in former Soviet republics that border Russia (and planned U.S. missile defense systems ready to be put up in European countries who were once members of the "Soviet Bloc"), as well as the fact that the U.S. is involved in major military operations and/or "tough talk" regarding Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan (all relatively close to Russia's southern border), has an economically-emerging Russia feeling a bit caged-in by its old adversaries. (Let's also not forget the fact that the political situation in nearby Pakistan is presently tenuous at best, and probably worsening by the week, adding to this sense of regional instability.)

Russia is indeed witnessing its economic fortunes improve, and much (though not all) of this is due to its emerging status as an oil power; in recent years, Western European oil companies have been kicked-out of what Russia views as its territory in unceremonious manners, and Russia has expanded the reach of its petro-influence further into Western Europe in both subtle as well as often jarringly overt--and sometimes quite belligerent--manners. With this increasing ability to flex its strengthening oil muscles, the Russian government feels as though it can assert itself more openly and thoroughly in geopolitical manners, and it has therefore lately begun to challenge the United States and Western Europe with an aggressive, if sometimes clunky, set of maneuvers, ranging from turning off the oil pipeline to such places as neighboring Ukraine due to political disagreements (this worried much of Europe to a great extent) to flying a few of its very old spy planes over U.K. territorial waters (which was a bit of a joke, given the antique nature of the planes, but might yet prove a harbinger of gloomy, more geopolitically dangerous things to come).

So we come full-circle to the present situation in Georgia. I find it very difficult to believe that Russia's aggressive stance regarding its former satellite is due solely to a crackdown on separatist violence in a section of that presently pro-Western country. It is more likely the case that Russia is using this scenario in order to send a message, if one that is a bit muddled in manner; it seems to be suggesting that the issue is an "internal Russian" one (which is a bit odd, given that Russia no longer controls Georgia, even if it does help financially with South Ossetia), while at the same time it is sending another, more intuitive message that suggests that Russia will not stand by while the West further erodes its influence in the region, particularly now that petro-money is raising the monetary fortunes of the Russian government. Russia is an old country, but its post-Soviet geopolitical outlook is a very young one in the sense that it is still largely being developed (as is its overall cultural paradigm), which means that, when combined with new money, it is a potentially impetuous and volatile geopolitical outlook, as well.

The rest of the world would do well to study closely how Russia deals with this complex and violent scenario in Georgia; it may give us a few hints regarding how it will handle bigger, trickier affairs that are bound to arise in its region in the future.

REGARDING THE PROBLEM(S) WITH JOHN EDWARDS....

I don't particularly care about the extramarital affair to which former-Senator John Edwards has recently admitted, though I will say that while I consider such activities tacky, I find this particularly so given that his wife has undergone such a difficult time of late due to cancer-related health issues. Still, given the public nature of his work, what I most object to isn't this affair so much as it is the smarmy, put-together political character that Mr. Edwards is.

I have long-since come to the conclusion that Mr. Edwards exudes a complete lack of personal or political authenticity. His speeches are simpering and pandering in nature, which is no surprise whatsoever from a politician, but what is surprising is how obviously empty they are; most politicians are quite good at hiding the vapid nature of what they say inside some semblance of a personal viewpoint, but Mr. Edwards' speeches are nothing more than junior-high-level appeals to the most base emotions of his listeners. (When he talks, he sounds like a would-be precocious sixth grader who is all too aware of the fact that he has the best hair of anyone in the classroom.) What alarms me the most about this scenario is not the fact that a lot of people seem to like what he says (that is no bad thing at all), but rather the fact that many of them like how he says it (which does not particularly suggest that our national political maturity level has gotten anywhere near its high-water mark of late).

This is really too bad, because one could make a rather strong case suggesting that the sort of Hubert Humphrey-esque character niche that Mr. Edwards has tried to carve for himself (and largely failed at achieving, as far as I'm concerned) does need to be filled by someone at the national level, though I would suggest that it needs to be filled by someone with more political gravitas and less personal smarminess than John Edwards. (And Dennis Kucinich is most likely not the answer, either.)

REGARDING DEMOCRATIC BIDEN-TYPES....

With the political situation in Pakistan deteriorating (at least this week), and with Russia and Georgia coming to blows that are both political and military in nature, it was a good week for one group of upwardly-mobile people: high-profile Democratic foreign-policy experts with years of international experience who might look like a good fit to be the Vice Presidential running mate (or a strong potential Secretary of State) for Senator Obama, whose judgment is sound but whose foreign policy resume' is thin. Misters Biden, Nunn, and Richardson...as well as a few other highly-qualified folks...are you listening? I'll bet that you are....