I was reading various articles today when I stumbled across what I can only describe as Britain's Pat Buchanan. I found an article by former British ambassador Christopher Meyer, and I swear it was a flashback to every recent Pat Buchanan article I have read. Except for Pat's bizarre apologies for the Nazis, it hit every one of his favorite themes. There was the excuse making for Russian imperialism, the use of "realism" to justify simply bizarre decisions, a kowtowing to nationalism as not only inevitable but something totally irresistible, the denigration of all who disagree as unrealistic idealists, and a desire to repeat all the worst mistakes of the past.

In this case, rather than Buchanan's favorite theme of how our support of Israel brings about Islamic aggression, the author is postulating that NATO's willingness to accept the new eastern European democracies is unduly provocative.And from this thesis, he argues that rather than allowing those democracies to plot their own course, joining alliances as they wish, we should instead revive the ill-starred Congress of Vienna (1815) and assign to each major power a "sphere of influence", an area in which other nations will not meddle.

This is simply bizarre. Basically it would amount tot he west telling the nations close to Russia "Sorry, if Russia wants to invade, well, that's too bad for you." For all the denunciations of American "imperialism" and "meddling in the affairs of nations", including those every sentiments being expressed in the comments to this article, this is by far even more dismissive of the rights of sovereign nations. America may have invaded nations who were harboring terrorists or who violated ceasefire agreements, but we are not so arrogant that we would tell a who set of other nations that they cannot defend themselves as they are in a nation's "sphere". This is complete arrogance and were America to propose something even remotely similar we would be excoriated by the Europeans.

However, in the comments, this man is lauded by the "intelligentsia". Just as Buchanan is lionized by a certain type of "realistic" conservative, who thinks agreeing with Buchanan's "pragmatism" makes him a sound thinker, these Europeans, looking for an excuse to limit NATO, are happy to praise the "realpolitik" of surrender. While the truth is that much of Europe has lost its taste for self-defense, and thus is terrified at the thought of conflict with Russia, they want to pretend that somehow abandoning a third of Europe to Russia in a new Potsdam agreement is not surrender, but the realistic and bold position.

I was a bit pleased to see there were dissenters, and not just American commenters. At least one Finn and one Ukrainian, unwilling to embrace suicide in the name of a peaceful Europe voiced some rather intelligent sentiments, mainly asking what gave this Brit the right to decide the fate of millions? And, more tot he point, why should Georgia or the Ukraine be denied the right to apply for NATO membership? Are they cut off simply because Putin and his puppets have designs upon their land? Another pointed out, as I did, that this is a more sweeping arrogance than anything the US has done that has put Europeans up in arms. And several pointed out that the Congress, rather than creating stability, actually heightened conflicts, such as the stress of the pan-slavic movement*, which led to both world wars.

What disturbs me about this is how easily those on the left, and from his essay I assume that is where the author lies**, are willing to dismiss others. Not only are they arrogant with regard to those in their own nation, but are perfectly willing to dismiss those overseas. For all the talk on the left of the need to be loved by the world, to take world opinion into account and to abide by world standards, the left is remarkably dismissive of foreigners. Just as the left was not impressed that we saved 25 million from bondage in Iraq, dismissing the entire war by arguing that those poor, benighted Arabs "aren't ready for democracy", they are also willing to simply consign struggling new democracies to Russian invasion so as not to disturb their daily routine. In a sort of anti-Churchill moment they announce they are ready to surrender at home and overseas lest they be disturbed.

Now I am not advocating that we need to involve ourselves in every foreign struggle, that we need to play policeman of the world, but there are times when our national interest is served by alliance or even by foreign conflict. Our fights in Iraq and Afghanistan have made us immeasurably safer. And even when we are not directly attacked, or even explicitly threatened, sometimes we still should get involved. Again, we were benefited greatly by Hitler's defeat. And even had we involved ourselves prior to Pearl Harbor, it would not have been a mistake. Defeating an expansionist tyrant benefits the whole world, not just his present victims.

Finally, it is beneficial to us for free nations to exist in the world. Free nations, with consistent laws, free trade and free citizens make the world wealthier and, because trade is the antithesis of war, make the world more peaceful. Were the entire world made up of nothing but laissez faire states with minimal governments and true individual freedom, it would be hard to think of a cause for warfare. I doubt we will ever see it, but every step in that direction helps us all.

No, I don't think we should do everything we can to help free states, that would be suicidal, but if we can help them without harming ourselves unduly, if we help them because it is in our national interest to do so, then we should. And I simply cannot see how letting NATO admit Georgia or the Ukraine will be harmful. Yes, it might provoke Russia, but if Russia is at the point where they will go to war for their expansionist aims, is it not better to fight them in Georgia and the Ukraine than in Dresden and Athens? If they have decided on violent expansion, then it is better to fight them as soon as possible. As in World War II, every delay simply makes their position stronger and deprives us of another ally. And if they will not go to war over Georgia and the Ukraine, then better to know that as well. If it is all bluster, then it is harmless to admit the former satellites to NATO, and if it is not bluster, then it is better to know that too.

So, no, there really is no sense in this piece. I am sure it will appeal to a certain type on the left, and their counterpart on the nominal right, but, in truth, even were it possible, a return tot he 19th century realpolitik as as sensible as reviving the Holy Roman Empire or trying to return the Balkans to a revived Ottoman Empire. There are solutions tot he problems we face, but we are not going to find them here.

-----------------------------------------------

* Actually, no one I saw explicitly mentioned the pan-slavic movement, but as they mentioned how the spheres of influence led to the world wars, it seemed that some must have at least had something along those lines in mind.

** Though he is nominally on the right, I always considered Buchanan a de facto leftist. In his policies, he is all but indistinguishable from Obama in his most left wing moments. He supports unions, opposes foreign trade, supports high tariffs and import quotas, wants to withdraw our troops, opposes support for Israel, supports distancing ourselves from NATO and wants to avoid conflict with Russia. And, as Obama makes a show of his Christian belief, event here he does not differ from Pat much. In reality, Buchanan, despite his right wing credentials, and his occasional, though even more infrequent, actual conservative thought, is in general much more a creature of the authoritarian, protectionist left than anything on the modern right. (He even more closely resembles the soft-money, protectionist, isolationist, anti-immigrant Republicans of the late 19th century.)

------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

For those who don't bother to read the article, here is a selection of some of the best comments:

To talk of a 'sphere of influence' in the 21st century is wrong. The same people who chastise the USA for their actions in Grenada, Cuba etc are the same people who want us to let Russia control Georgia and Ukraine.

Patrick, Poland got vital British support eventually - but little from America.

Ben, York,

" They perhaps forget that what was agreed at Vienna held at bay for almost a century a general European war. "

There were numerous wars in the 19th century. Also, such general European wars were very uncommon anyway.

Neil Murphy, cromer,

There is no attempt to "encircle" Russia. It is Russia's own responsibility for the hatred most of her neighbors view her with. Nobody wants to be Russia's neighbor, and for good reason. It is for their own protection that they turn to the west, and not the xenophobic fantasies spouted by Putin&Co

Corey, Chicago, USA

I totally disagree with this article. These days Europe is democratic – even the Eastern part – and so no one should fall under anyone´s influence in some quasi-imperialism. The Eastern countries are CHOOSING to align with the west and Russia does not like it. This is not the West´s problem.

matty, frankfurt, germany

Meyer wants to divide Europe once again, and leave us Ukrainians to the mercy of Russians. What do we do with our freedom and democracy? Let the Russian eat it on breakfast? In this case Meyer and likeminded must not have any objection for Ukraine to restore her nuclear status!

Valentin, Kharkov, Ukraine

Poland all but disappeared into Russia after the Congress. Surely, Christopher Meyer does not want that to happen again.

Russia is behaving towards the breakaway regions of Georgia in the same way as Germany did towards the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia. The West should not appease her.

Rosa Pammer, Brussels, Belgium

Fallacy No. 1 - The Congress of Venna did not keep Europe at peace for nearly 100 years.

Fallacy No. 2 - The impression given that it is the desire and long term aim of original NATO Members to expand eastwards.

The countries who "experimented" with Russian rule after WWII seek protection

Bill, Stavanger, Norway

Yes, let's allow the kleptocrats in charge to decide on how to carve Europe up into spheres of interest. Enough of this nonsense about pretending to care what the people in those spheres want. And Ambassador Meyer was a representative of British democracy?

Tam Earl-Aine, Cheltenham,

It was pleasing to see how many of these voices of sanity were European. Even more heartening was that, though many were British, not all were. I often expect the only sensible voices in Europe to come from the United Kingdom, maybe a handful form the new eastern European nations, but I was truly happy to see sensible responses from all over the map on this one.

It gives me some hope to see my stereotype proved wrong in this instance.

Though, it also hurts a bit. To see many parts of Europe slowly moving in the direction of lower taxes, greater economic freedom and even greater personal freedom, while we head in the opposite direction is truly depressing. Then again, Europe has been destroying freedom much longer than we have, so we still have some time before they catch up with us.

Hopefully before that point we will reverse our course.