Excerpts from Charlie Gibson’s interview with Sarah Palin were released on ABCNews.com, and in a telling moment, Sarah Palin said that war with Russia would “perhaps” be necessary if Georgia or Ukraine were admitted to NATO and Russia invaded either nation.
GIBSON: Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?
PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia.
GIBSON: Because Putin has said he would not tolerate NATO incursion into the Caucasus.
PALIN: Well, you know, the Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution, those actions have showed us that those democratic nations, I believe, deserve to be in NATO.
Putin thinks otherwise. Obviously, he thinks otherwise, but…
GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?
PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help.
But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to — especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.
We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.
GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.
PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.
And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.
It doesn’t have to lead to war and it doesn’t have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.
His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that’s a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.
Palin is advocating, as McCain and the hawks in the administration have for some time, that Ukraine and Georgia should both be admitted to NATO, a position that is at odds with the one held by our NATO allies. Most NATO countries were wary of admitting Georgia specifically because of issues of territorial integrity, i.e. the problems in the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and because of Russian influence in those areas. Palin thinks that both countries should be admitted to NATO, and if Russia were to attack, the US would “perhaps” have to go to war with Russia, since NATO takes the view that if one country in the alliance is attacked, then all countries in the alliance must come to its defense. She’s right that the NATO treaty calls for all countries to defend an ally in the alliance if it’s attacked, but the larger problem here is that she’s willing to roll the dice on Georgia and Ukraine despite obvious Russian resistance to the plan, and if Russia attacks, well then, we’ll probably have to go to war. It’s the fact that her attitude, one that mirrors McCain’s, is to shoot first and ask questions later. The situation in that region is already serious, but McCain and Palin think that we should ratchet things up a few notches more and if the end result is war, then so be it. It’s this flippancy with respect to foreign policy that has gotten us bogged down in Iraq, and Palin and McCain seem not to have learned anything in the last 6 years in Iraq.
Here’s another example of Palin’s aggresive defense of Georgia, from earlier in the interview:
GIBSON: Let’s start, because we are near Russia, let’s start with Russia and Georgia.
The administration has said we’ve got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?
PALIN: First off, we’re going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain’s running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we’ve got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep…
GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.
PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there.
Russian undoubtedly was overly aggressive and used a disproportional amount of force when it invaded Georgia and pushed into Georgia proper, destroying its military installations and naval vessels. And, it’s pretty clear that Russia was basically waiting for Georgia to try to retake either region by force so that it had a reason to invade. There’s no way that Russia put together an attack like that in 24-48 hours. It was planned out, Saakashvili obliged, and Russia responded. But, unprovoked? Did she forget that the US had specifically warned Saakashvili not to take any aggressive military actions against either breakaway region because Russia would respond? Russian claims of genocide were clearly overblown, but a Russian military response was hardly out of the question given that Russian troops were stationed in South Ossetia and thousands of people in each region are Russian citizens. In the larger context, Russia was obviously drawing a line in the sand with respect to what it viewed as NATO interference in its backyard, and it moved to protect what it views as its legitimate interests in the region. So, should we keep pushing for Georgia and Ukraine to be admitted to NATO? F. Stephen Larrabee of the CFR thinks that this a time for caution, not further escalating tensions.
The issue here is not simply Georgia. Georgia is a sideshow. What the Russians are really concerned about is Ukraine. Georgia’s entry into NATO wouldn’t have major strategic consequences for Russia. Ukraine on the other hand, is a very different matter. That would have much greater strategic consequences and destroy any possibility of trying to develop a Slavic Union composed of Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine. It would also have an effect on the Russian defense industry because they don’t want to break those ties between the defense industries of Russia and Ukraine. So the strategic consequences of Ukraine joining NATO far exceed those of Georgia. In short, this is much more about Ukraine.
The real question for the United States in the aftermath of what happened in Georgia is whether this is the right time to accelerate efforts to bring Ukraine into NATO? I would think this would be a time when we want to be cautious and careful.
Also, what about Palin’s experience with Russia?
GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?
PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.
Super! So, she’s apparently learned all she needs to know about Russia by being that country’s neighbor and because you can apparently see Russian land from Alaska. That’s very comforting.
TAGS:
attack,
georgia,
HBO,
Interview,
Iraq,
John McCain,
mccain,
NATO,
NPR,
Politics,
putin,
russia,
Sarah Palin,
war
RELATED POSTS:
TAGS: audio, Barack Obama, Campaign, city college of san diego, concourse center, election, Interview, lincoln park, President, prospective voters
SUBSCRIBE TO RSS
