Buffer Zones

Alexandr Zudin,
St. Petersburg, Russia
__________________

Both presidential candidates are advocating for a Georgia and Ukraine NATO membership, but what does this bode for the U.S.?

As Fareed Zakaria writes, "We cannot deploy missile interceptors along Russia's borders, draw Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, and still expect Russian cooperation on Iran's nuclear program. . . . We cannot keep preaching about democracy and capitalism with our own house so wildly out of order."

Russia has an extreme national need for security from invasion, created by buffer states on their borders. Now NATO -- meaning the U.S. and Germany -- are pushing the forces of freedom right up to the Russian borders. (the same U.S. policy pursued with Iran.) So the buffer zones between Western Europe and Russian Europe are being eliminated via NATO expansion. One can't help but wonder if the Germans see this push as unfinished business.

It is an unwise move, as it benefits both Eastern and Western Europe to have these buffers separating the potential adversaries. As well, the buffers states enjoy neutrality. The Russians are surely aware that a two-pronged NATO airstrike/missile strike from Georgia or the Ukraine would be devastating.

Would the U.S. allow such activity? Remember the Cuban Missile Crisis? Why do U.S. policy planners deny to Russia the same considerations? Will NATO really fight a major war for Georgia or the Ukraine? If "yes," then history has taught us nothing about the dangers of entangling alliances.

U.S. banks are now nationalizing, but where is the bailout that is needed in our bankrupt foreign policy arena? U.S. policies are ignorant and not even self-serving. Self-serving is understandable, but self-destruction is national insanity.

Ukraine and Georgia NATO membership is a failed strategy, before it even becomes policy.