Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) is fine with Russia invading Georgia.
Nadler says:
We have not been willing to put our priorities properly. We have not been willing to say … “Hey Russia, we won’t expand NATO into the Ukraine and Georgia, right next to your borders, if you cooperate with us on Iran.” …
I think Iran and Israel are a hell of a lot more important than expanding NATO to Russia’s borders. Why should we? What do we need it for?
Someone in the crowd says: “Because they invaded Georgia.”
Nadler retorts: “So let ’em invade Georgia. It’s right next to them. Would we tolerate a foreign–a Russian army in Mexico? Which is more important to us Georgia or Israel, frankly?”
Nadler is the Democratic chariman of the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties subcommittee. Thankfully, I’m unaware of him having any particular influence in foreign policy.
What Nadler apparently fails to remember is that Russia is our former enemy, that would very much like to challenge us again. Nadler’s moral equivalence notwithstanding, extending NATO is a key element in the West’s strategy to consolidate its gains.
An argument that might be defensible would be one of realpolitik: not that Georgia and Ukraine are of no significance to us, but that we should regretfully cut them loose in exchange for Russia’s assistance with a more serious threat. To do so would incur a significant realpolitik cost, by showing the world that we are unreliable ally, but one might argue (I suppose) that it would be worth it. But at the very least, we should require some concrete action in exchange, rather than vague diplomatic platitudes. But that is clearly not what Nadler is contemplating. Rather, he is suggesting that cutting Georgia and Ukraine loose are our diplomatic opening to Russia!
ASIDE: As a historical note, we need not speculate about our reaction to a foreign army in Mexico.
Internet Scofflaw 