View Full Version : Heavy Fighting in South Ossetia
Adrian II
08-15-2008, 14:34
Sort of: http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/2008-124-6.cfm
China holds more, since year 2000.I see. Well, how 'alarming' is this? I have no knowledge or expertise whatsoever when it comes to these things.
ICantSpellDawg
08-15-2008, 14:54
Let's just cancel the payments.
On a side note - I am disgusted at U.S. inaction. I'm more impressed with European incentives even though they are a jumble.
We need to do something. Russia is threatening Poland with nuclear weapons an amping up its Georgian occupation and sabotage in the face of a ceasefire; this is quickly turning back into a bizarre cold war - only this time Russia is a Teddy rather than a Grizzly. This is rather ominous in that it shows small states that if you have nuclear weapons we will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop you in your territorial aggression. Russia is on its way to regime change itself if it stays this course. I hope it does something else massively stupid so that we can Hulk smash it and soon.
An American Hawk's perspective on the conflict (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2563260/John-Bolton-After-Russias-invasion-of-Georgia-what-now-for-the-West.html)
Everyone has put a military response off of the table - unfortunately it is on the other side's table and being used.
KukriKhan
08-15-2008, 14:59
Not very 'alarming', unless China, Russia (and India, in 3rd place, I think I read) all simultaneously demanded early (with puni's) payment and we couldn't cough up the dough. Treasury Dept would have to print more dollars, further weakening the dollar (and making the foreign-held securities worth even less). Step 3 would be if the scty-holders therefore refused dollars, but demanded something else; like Texas, or California, or Coca-Cola, or Exxon-Mobil, or 2 aircraft carriers, or controlling chairs on the Boards of FannyMae and FreddieMac (our mortgage giants).
That would be alarming, but kinda far-fetched, with lots of speed-bumps along the way.
Way back in the Bronze Age, when I went to High Scool, my civics teacher explained that the national debt was not really a problem, since the debt-holders were americans anyway. That has changed since the 70's, with non-US buyers of US debt far exceeding american holders. IMO, it's how we've financed our current consumerist-driven, buy-now-pay-later economy.
--edit--
To keep this on S. Ossetia, I add: The US is not doing 'nothing'. It's seriously running the diplo gauntlet right now. Condi's gonna be earning her paycheck for the next few weeks. I know that 'talk' seems to pale beside an actual shooting conflict, but it's the step we need to take. I reserve disgust for my (US) administration not seeing this coming ahead of time, and having a quicker reaction.
ICantSpellDawg
08-15-2008, 15:05
Not very 'alarming', unless China, Russia (and India, in 3rd place, I think I read) all simultaneously demanded early (with puni's) payment and we couldn't cough up the dough. Treasury Dept would have to print more dollars, further weakening the dollar (and making the foreign-held securities worth even less). Step 3 would be if the scty-holders therefore refused dollars, but demanded something else; like Texas, or California, or Coca-Cola, or Exxon-Mobil, or 2 aircraft carriers, or controlling chairs on the Boards of FannyMae and FreddieMac (our mortgage giants).
That would be alarming, but kinda far-fetched, with lots of speed-bumps along the way.
Way back in the Bronze Age, when I went to High Scool, my civics teacher explained that the national debt was not really a problem, since the debt-holders were americans anyway. That has changed since the 70's, with non-US buyers of US debt far exceeding american holders. IMO, it's how we've financed our current consumerist-driven, buy-now-pay-later economy.
It is also one of the reasons why our military is so absurdly well financed. Their money = Our ability to refuse payments. "Mind if I borrow that Nuclear arsenal? I'll pay you back with interest."
Adrian II
08-15-2008, 15:13
An American Hawk's perspective on the conflict (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2563260/John-Bolton-After-Russias-invasion-of-Georgia-what-now-for-the-West.html)I saw that earlier today. It's more of the old Europe bashing, but what does his own government have to show for? Still he makes some good points, like this one which some of our postets should take to heart:
"This confrontation is not about who violated the Marquess of Queensbury rules in South Ossetia, where ethnic violence has been a fact of life since the break-up of the Soviet Union on December 31, 1991 – and, indeed, long before. Instead, we are facing the much larger issue of how Russia plans to behave in international affairs for decades to come. Whether Mikhail Saakashvili “provoked” the Russians on August 8, or September 8, or whenever, this rape was well-planned and clearly coming, given Georgia’s manifest unwillingness to be “Finlandized” – the Cold War term for effectively losing your foreign-policy independence."I agree totally there. We have been hearing many pleas for 'understanding' Russia and its encirclement fears, and how we should tread cerefully around their country. What the Russians should understand is that after fifty years of abuse by Russia, her former satellites and the former minorities within the USSR should be treated with utmost care and respect. That is the only way in which Russia will ever make friends or allies in this world.
As to your point that Russia seems to be going through a regime change herself, that is very well observed. Heaven knows what Dr Frankenstein has in mind for her, once the last free media have been curtailed and the last real opposition politicians blown up, thrown into jail or killed in their own beds.
Hosakawa Tito
08-15-2008, 15:13
An interview with the President of the American Chamber of Commerce in Russia (http://www.cdi.org/russia/268-2.cfm). Looks like trade talks and Russia inclusion in the WTO may become part of the "negotiations". Better break out the big sticks though.
ICantSpellDawg
08-15-2008, 15:25
I saw that earlier today. It's more of the old Europe bashing, but what does his own government have to show for? Still he makes some good points, like this one which some of our postets should take to heart:
"This confrontation is not about who violated the Marquess of Queensbury rules in South Ossetia, where ethnic violence has been a fact of life since the break-up of the Soviet Union on December 31, 1991 – and, indeed, long before. Instead, we are facing the much larger issue of how Russia plans to behave in international affairs for decades to come. Whether Mikhail Saakashvili “provoked” the Russians on August 8, or September 8, or whenever, this rape was well-planned and clearly coming, given Georgia’s manifest unwillingness to be “Finlandized” – the Cold War term for effectively losing your foreign-policy independence."I agree totally there. We have been hearing many pleas for 'understanding' Russia and its encirclement fears, and how we should tread cerefully around their country. What the Russians should understand is that after fifty years of abuse by Russia, her former satellites and the former minorities within the USSR should be treated with utmost care and respect. That is the only way in which Russia will ever make friends or allies in this world.
As to your point that Russia seems to be going through a regime change herself, that is very well observed. Heaven knows what Dr Frankenstein has in mind for her, once the last free media have been curtailed and the last real opposition politicians blown up, thrown into jail or killed in their own beds.
I did see some anti-European sentiment in Bolton's writings and I didn't like it. I think Europeans handled this thing as well as they could have - knowing that neither they nor the US had grown a pair of balls over the last 30 years. What could the Europeans have said? Burlusconi - another pro-war despot and degenerate has reinforced his support for force in all conflicts. He was right in Iraq, wrong in Georgia. Merkel, who I like, is trying to avoid any fallout with the Russians - even so far as to sell out the rest of the west in this crisis. The UK is nancing and prancing in their underwear doing I don't know what under Brown.
Italy and Germany are HUGE players and without them nothing goes through. Without Blarian leadership, Sarkozy is the go to guy and he helped secure a ceasefire and theoretical withdrawal. He did a fine job in this.
On the point about "regime change" I'm not entirely sure what you meant because I had meant something else. Did you mean that they were heading for regime change because of a totalitarian cult of personality and the eventual collapse it would bring or because the West will attempt to pressure Putin and support opposition groups - possibly dropping the hammer if the aggressive foreign policies turn to NATO or the EU? I appreciate the statement that I was well observed, but I must admit that I hadn't thought of it the way you did.
Adrian II
08-15-2008, 15:40
On the point about "regime change" I'm not entirely sure what you meant because I had meant something else. Did you mean that they were heading for regime change because of a totalitarian cult of personality and the eventual collapse it would bring or because the West will attempt to pressure Putin and support opposition groups - possibly dropping the hammer if the aggressive foreign policies turn to NATO or the EU? I appreciate the statement that I was well observed, but I must admit that I hadn't thought of it the way you did.I mean to say that Russia, which is already a semi-dictatorship, runs the risk of becoming a full-blown one. This sort of confrontation with Nato with only serve as an excuse to quell internal dissent more effectively. Putin will be delighted at the prospect.
I mean to say that Russia, which is already a semi-dictatorship, runs the risk of becoming a full-blown one. This sort of confrontation with Nato with only serve as an excuse to quell internal dissent more effectively. Putin will be delighted at the prospect.
This will happen either way....Putin will castrate the presidency and turn Russia into a parlamentary republic before Medvedev's first turn is up. Why bother being a president when you can be a Fuhrer!
ICantSpellDawg
08-15-2008, 15:56
I mean to say that Russia, which is already a semi-dictatorship, runs the risk of becoming a full-blown one. This sort of confrontation with Nato with only serve as an excuse to quell internal dissent more effectively. Putin will be delighted at the prospect.
Right. I see that.
The story about Cheney starting the conflict is alarmingly odd.
Sarmatian
08-15-2008, 17:46
This will happen either way....Putin will castrate the presidency and turn Russia into a parlamentary republic before Medvedev's first turn is up. Why bother being a president when you can be a Fuhrer!
Bah, it's funny how people refuse to see what's really happening. I feel like I'm reading some threads from last year where almost everybody here were convinced that Putin is going to change the constitution to allow himself a third term. And somewhere in there, a small post by yours truly saying it's not gonna happen, that Putin is going to take up some other position in the government, thoroughly ignored in the discussion. When are people gonna see that changes in Russia are not "Putin". Putin is the man in the spotlight at the moment. Take him away and nothing would change. It's far bigger than any one man. Medvedev will have to work hard come out of Putin's shadow but ironically enough, Saakashvili have given him the opportunity to do so and make the first step. Putin is playing his part at the moment. Leading part true but that doesn't mean he's the entire cast. So - no, Putin will not castrate presidency and he won't turn Russia into a dictatorship...
Bah, it's funny how people refuse to see what's really happening. I feel like I'm reading some threads from last year where almost everybody here were convinced that Putin is going to change the constitution to allow himself a third term. And somewhere in there, a small post by yours truly saying it's not gonna happen, that Putin is going to take up some other position in the government, thoroughly ignored in the discussion. When are people gonna see that changes in Russia are not "Putin". Putin is the man in the spotlight at the moment. Take him away and nothing would change. It's far bigger than any one man. Medvedev will have to work hard come out of Putin's shadow but ironically enough, Saakashvili have given him the opportunity to do so and make the first step. Putin is playing his part at the moment. Leading part true but that doesn't mean he's the entire cast. So - no, Putin will not castrate presidency and he won't turn Russia into a dictatorship...
Time will tell.
Kralizec
08-15-2008, 17:51
It will be interesting to see what Putin does when Medvedev has completed his first term. From what I understand the Russian constitution only prohibits you from running for more than two consecutive terms.
Regardless, I never viewed Putin as a "real" dictator. Primus inter pares for the oligarchs, maybe.
"when you can be a Fuhrer": Again... This good word about ours enemies... After Saddam. Milosevic, now Putin...:beam:
Regardless, I never viewed Putin as a "real" dictator. Primus inter pares for the oligarchs, maybe.
Putin will eat the oligarchs for dinner as the case with Khodorkovsky has clearly shown. As long as they bow to him, he lets them be. If anyone starts to get smart with Putin, Putin will crush him like a bug. In a way, it is inspiring. But not in a good way.
Kralizec
08-15-2008, 18:15
Putin wasn't Khodorkovsky's only enemy. If Medvedev or Putin tried to do sanitize the system of all businessmen who did the same things (and wich are now pro-kremlin) he'd find the country much, much harder to govern.
I don't think that Putin is a powerless figurehead, just that he isn't as powerful as people make him out to be.
CrossLOPER
08-15-2008, 18:17
You guys really are blowing this "Russia is a dictatorship kill it now" thing out of proportion. This is becoming an obsession. Georgia has a pretty bad reputation itself. Remember those protests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Georgian_demonstrations) back in 2007? Oh, btw, guess who Saakashvili blamed?
You guys really are blowing this "Russia is a dictatorship kill it now" thing out of proportion. This is becoming an obsession. Georgia has a pretty bad reputation itself. Remember those protests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Georgian_demonstrations) back in 2007? Oh, btw, guess who Saakashvili blamed?
Kill it now? God no. Russian vacuum would be filled by China, which would be *really* bad news. As for dictatorship....Putin *has* disenfranchised his own people, there's no question about it. He has turned Governors from being locally elected officials who answered to their electorate into centrally-appointed cronies who report directly to him. He prevented the only meaningful opposition candidate (Kasyanov, I believe) from running in the election, he brought all the important mass media outlets under state control. He is an accomplished autocrat. He is very smart and very good at doing what he does, but the fact that he treats his people like cattle is unnerving.
ICantSpellDawg
08-15-2008, 18:47
As long as Ukraine joins NATO and eventually the EU - we are home free. We won't have to worry much about a "Eurasian Union" then. This is going to be the battle that we have to fight now.
CrossLOPER
08-15-2008, 19:21
He prevented the only meaningful opposition candidate (Kasyanov, I believe) from running in the election, he brought all the important mass media outlets under state control.
Let me tell you about Kasparov. Kasparov gathered his far right followers and decided that he had the right to occupy a major traffic vein in Moscow. The mayor told him "no, you will block traffic during a critical time". Kasparov ignored this and got himself arrested. He was sent to jail for an intolerable five days. He then called up a bunch of western media outlets and complained about how he was being denied exposure.
Also, certain Russian Internet sites are fairly unbiased and provide even coverage. Lenta.ru is an example. It resembles the BBC.
Putin wasn't Khodorkovsky's only enemy. If Medvedev or Putin tried to do sanitize the system of all businessmen who did the same things (and wich are now pro-kremlin) he'd find the country much, much harder to govern.
I don't think that Putin is a powerless figurehead, just that he isn't as powerful as people make him out to be.
The fact remains that currently there isn't a single oligarch in Russia who would dare cross Putin.
...Kasparov gathered his far right followers...
Wait a minute. Kasparov is the chess guy, isn't he? He's like the biggest bleeding heart liberal over there. What in the world was he doing with the far right? I was talking about the former PM guy ( I think he was a PM) Kasyanov.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-15-2008, 19:31
I was talking about the former PM guy ( I think he was a PM) Kasyanov.
Mikhail Kasyanov, right? He's the leader of the People's Democratic Union now. With the far-right idea, I think CrossLOPER may be referring to the National Bolshevik Party. The real far-right party in Russia, the Liberal Democratic Party, is not a member of the Other Russia coalition.
Banquo's Ghost
08-15-2008, 19:49
Before we all go off to discuss the government of Russia, it might be worth reflecting that this war is by no means over yet.
Despite ceasefires and treaties wafting around the Caucasus, there are some reports (broadcast news, no links I can find yet) that Russian tanks have moved from Gori to Kaspi - a town much closer to Tbilisi.
Oh, and Human Rights Watch have reported that the Russians have been using cluster bombs (http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2008/08/14/georgi19625.htm) against populated areas of Georgia.
ICantSpellDawg
08-15-2008, 20:13
Before we all go off to discuss the government of Russia, it might be worth reflecting that this war is by no means over yet.
Despite ceasefires and treaties wafting around the Caucasus, there are some reports (broadcast news, no links I can find yet) that Russian tanks have moved from Gori to Kaspi - a town much closer to Tbilisi.
Oh, and Human Rights Watch have reported that the Russians have been using cluster bombs (http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2008/08/14/georgi19625.htm) against populated areas of Georgia.
I'm not sure what is happening. If I were Georgia I would send troops to the mountainsides around Mtskheta and request American flights over Tbilisi. I think we could get away with this because everyone knows how important Tbilisi is and how crazy it is that Russia would be threatening it. Tbilisi is a fortress and it would be pure folly to allow Russia to take it without a fight.
In other news about how absurd Russia is being:
Ban Ki-Moon unable to reach Medvedev by phone (http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSN1535068820080815)
Tbilisi is a fortress
What do you mean by this?
ICantSpellDawg
08-15-2008, 20:20
What do you mean by this?
Tbilisi is surrounded by a natural fortress of mountains. It would be very difficult to gain entry if there was any resistance - particularly if you didn't have air superiority. This is in contrast to the towns and cities that Russia has been taking.
Kagemusha
08-15-2008, 20:24
Tbilisi is surrounded by a natural fortress of mountains. It would be very difficult to gain entry if there was any resistance - particularly if you didn't have air superiority. This is in contrast to the towns and cities that Russia has been taking.
And just how would you try to take away air superiority from the Russians? Order Nato planes to fire at the Russians?
ICantSpellDawg
08-15-2008, 20:26
And just how would you try to take away air superiority from the Russians? Order Nato planes to fire at the Russians?
Well if the ceasefire was internationally mediated, doesn't that mean it could be internationally enforced? Russia has hardly any jets in the skies - wouldn't a few U.S. or NATO fighters temporarily flying over Tbilisi to ensure the ceasefire be acceptable?
Well if the ceasefire was internationally mediated, doesn't that mean it could be internationally enforced? Russia has hardly any jets in the skies - wouldn't a few U.S. or NATO fighters temporarily flying over Tbilisi to ensure the ceasefire be acceptable?
Unless they actually make a move on Tbilisi I doubt we will do anything militarily.
ICantSpellDawg
08-15-2008, 20:30
Unless they actually make a move on Tbilisi I doubt we will do anything militarily.
They have made a move on Tbilisi. They are sending their military towards Tbilisi in the face of a cessation of hostilities. I'm not saying start fighting them now, but now might be the time to send some fighters into the area to establish air superiority over the capital city.
Kagemusha
08-15-2008, 20:37
Well if the ceasefire was internationally mediated, doesn't that mean it could be internationally enforced? Russia has hardly any jets in the skies - wouldn't a few U.S. or NATO fighters temporarily flying over Tbilisi to ensure the ceasefire be acceptable?
If Russians would have wanted to take Tblisi. They would have taken it before the middle of this week. I think that less provocations and dangerous situations will happen, the better. No need to rattle sabers intentionally at this point. There is so much misinformation coming from the area that over reacting to any news, before it has been verified from several sources, should be avoided.
ICantSpellDawg
08-15-2008, 20:40
If Russians would have wanted to take Tblisi. They would have taken it before the middle of this week. I think that less provocations and dangerous situations will happen, the better. No need to rattle sabers intentionally at this point. There is so much misinformation coming from the area that over reacting to any news, before it has been verified from several sources, should be avoided.
This is a total war forum. It should be reasonable to speculate or suggest strategy. Georgian troops are supposed to pull back to Tbilisi - they might as well pull back to those specific mountains and dig in.
This is a total war forum. It should be reasonable to speculate or suggest strategy. Georgian troops are supposed to pull back to Tbilisi - they might as well pull back to those specific mountains and dig in.
I don't know about that. If there's no time to upgrade it to a Citadel, I'd personally trash all the infrastructure and evacuate.
Kagemusha
08-15-2008, 20:54
This is a total war forum. It should be reasonable to speculate or suggest strategy. Georgian troops are supposed to pull back to Tbilisi - they might as well pull back to those specific mountains and dig in.
What there is told about the Russian force. It is a column of Armoured personnel carriers and trucks, supported atleast part of the time by attack helicopters, located about 50 kilometers from Tblisi, it has driven through some Georgian check points, but not opened fire at anything. It hardly sounds as a spearhead of an attacking formation.
ICantSpellDawg
08-15-2008, 23:09
What there is told about the Russian force. It is a column of Armoured personnel carriers and trucks, supported atleast part of the time by attack helicopters, located about 50 kilometers from Tblisi, it has driven through some Georgian check points, but not opened fire at anything. It hardly sounds as a spearhead of an attacking formation.
Hmmm. How did the U.S. spearhead against the inferior Iraqi forces? Columns of APC's, humvees, support trucks and helicopter support. What purpose would columns of personnel and support trucks have in your opinion?
CrossLOPER
08-15-2008, 23:53
Hmmm. How did the U.S. spearhead against the inferior Iraqi forces? Columns of APC's, humvees, support trucks and helicopter support. What purpose would columns of personnel and support trucks have in your opinion?
You generally don't ATTACK while in a column. You move about in one. It's a proven method. Military forces use it all the time.
Oh yeah, mountain passes stop being very useful when you can become a target of endless bombing runs. :no:
Sorry rvg, I thought you were talking about Kasparov. Yeah, Kasyanov was the one who allegedly forged a bunch of the signatures on his petition. Close, but not quite Kasparov. :juggle2:
ICantSpellDawg
08-16-2008, 21:23
Adrian,
You might like this article about reasonable NATO expansion. I don't agree with it 100%, but that obviously doesn't matter because I am not a Phd teaching diplomacy at a University.
But What Does it Mean for NATO?
The conflict between Georgia and Russia has reignited a long-standing debate over NATO expansion. Robert Farley explains.
Robert Farley | August 15, 2008 Link (http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=but_what_does_it_mean_for_nato)
The war between Russia and Georgia, on the heels of a NATO refusal to “fast track” Georgia’s application for membership, has reignited the debate over the wisdom of extending NATO to Russia’s borders. Realists on both the right and the left suggest that the war is a predictable reaction to NATO’s intrusion into Russia’s sphere of influence. Neoconservatives and their allies respond that the war could have been avoided if NATO had agreed to include Georgia this year, as the Bush administration desired. (This debate has reopened a discussion strategic theorists have been having about the continued relevance of NATO for more than a decade.)
The war has clarified this hypothetical debate by bringing the costs and benefits of the alliance and its expansion into relief. The controversy over NATO comes down to four questions. In answering them, I start from the premise that the United States and Europe have a strong interest in maintaining good relations with Russia but that this interest has limits and shouldn’t prevent the expansion of the NATO alliance to qualified members.
Was Russia's bad behavior caused by NATO expansion?
While there's plenty of rhetoric to this effect, there's not much evidence.
The case that NATO expansion was to blame goes something like this: If NATO had not extended to Russia's borders (the inclusion of the Baltic countries -- Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia -- is the push most often cited, although some people also feel that Poland should not have been included), then Russia would be more agreeable and less likely to abusively coerce its neighbors. I doubt that for several reasons.
First, Russian abuse is the No. 1 reason why most states seek NATO membership. The Poles, Baltic countries, Ukrainians, and Georgians want to get in because of Russian behavior. It's possible that the leaders (and in most cases, the populations) of these states are simply crazy and that NATO entry will make them more vulnerable to Russian coercion, but I'm pretty far from convinced.
Second, there are compelling reasons to believe that Russia rejected international norms regarding the territorial integrity and sovereignty of countries in its near abroad in the early 1990s, and that it continues to reject those norms today. As Henry Farrell of Crooked Timber has argued, Russia proceeds from a different set of assumptions about appropriate relations between great powers and their small neighbors.
This is not to single out Russia for criticism; there are (believe it or not) some good reasons to question those norms, and other states (the United States, for example) challenge norms of sovereignty on a regular basis.
And Dan Drezner, a professor of international politics, has made clear that Russian rejection of the norms of territorial integrity and sovereignty, through actions such as economic sanctions and the support of irredentist groups, preceded either the attack on Serbia or the inclusion of the Baltics in NATO.
It is possible that if NATO and the United States had not expanded, Russia would gradually have accepted territorial norms that would have limited the tools it uses in relations with its neighbors. But possible is not the same thing as likely. Why would allowing Russia to evade territorial norms in its neighborhood make Russia more likely to respect those very same territorial norms?
While a Russia that felt more secure might feel less need to coerce, I'm not at all convinced that assuring Russia of its capability to violate norms of sovereignty and territorial integrity in certain areas is conducive toward winning eventual Russian acceptance of those norms.
It's also important to note that there are two variants to the argument about NATO causing Russian bad behavior. The liberal internationalist argument against expansion is more or less what I describe above; Russia would have become a good citizen if (strangely enough) it had been allowed to act badly toward its neighbors. The realist case against expansion rejects the norms argument, accepts Russian bad behavior as endemic, and essentially concedes Russia's sphere of influence on the grounds that Estonia isn't worth the bones of a Pennsylvanian grenadier. The realist argument makes logical sense, and represents simply a choice between different values.
What’s the case for NATO expansion to Eastern Europe?
I believe that NATO has had a strongly positive impact on Eastern Europe, and that the expansion undertaken so far was well conceived. NATO and the European Union are the two major institutional components of the post-World War II European peace. This institutional settlement has been remarkably successful, as Europe has enjoyed intra-continental peace and substantial economic growth. Although NATO has included non-democratic members in the past, both NATO and the EU now place democracy high on their list of values and thereby pushed prospective members to adopt democratic reforms.
The expansion of both to Eastern Europe has helped to solidify economic and political gains in the post-Cold War era. The European Union may have played the larger role of the two, but NATO has substantially accomplished two critical goals. The first is securing the states of Eastern Europe from external coercion and attack. This assurance has allowed the former Warsaw Pact states to moderate their defense spending and to pursue political reform without the threat of outside interference.
The second accomplishment of NATO has been to acclimate the military institutions of Eastern Europe to Western norms of civil-military relations. The militaries of the Warsaw Pact, unlike NATO, were designed primarily to protect the government from the people. The ability of NATO to facilitate a shift away from this model has helped make stable democracy in Eastern Europe possible. Stable democracy is good both for the people who live in it and for the national interest of the United States.
Should the West respect a Russian "zone of influence?"
No one in the West thinks, or at least says, that Russia should have a veto over NATO membership. NATO admission should instead depend on the desires of the country in question and the wisdom of extending a security guarantee to that country. To the extent that Russian interests matter, they affect the latter variable. NATO should not grant entry to countries it would be unwilling to defend against Russia.
But NATO should grant entry to those states that it can and will protect against Russian coercion. Protection against such coercion is a net positive for democracy, stability, and economic growth. This leads to the unsurprising conclusion that some, but not all, expansions of NATO are good -- even in the face of Russian threats. As the blogger Hilzoy has argued, unwise expansion in the face of Russian threat would serve to undermine, rather than to strengthen, the credibility of the organization.
What’s the practical case for NATO admission for Ukraine and Georgia?
Even before the war, the practical cases for admitting Ukraine and Georgia to NATO were very weak, weaker even than for the Baltic states. Neither Georgia nor Ukraine have stable, pro-Western democratic governments. The Saakashvili regime has made strides beyond previous Georgian governments but has been reluctant to allow full freedom of the press and freedom of assembly. Moreover, Georgian control over its own territory (including areas not part of Abkhazia and South Ossetia) is often suspect.
In Ukraine, the presence of a substantial Russia population means that a shift in geopolitical orientation (away from NATO and toward Russia) is easily conceivable through democratic means. It hardly makes sense to allow Ukraine to join NATO in order to defend it from Russia, then watch Ukraine adopt a pro-Russian stance after the next election.
The Baltic republics represent the weakest cases for entry into NATO, but their applications were nevertheless much better than Georgia's. Each was more democratic than Georgia when negotiations for entry began, and each had maintained that democracy for over a decade prior to entry. Georgia shares a border with Turkey (a longtime NATO member), but the Baltic states are geographically much closer to the NATO core. While all three have substantial Russia minorities, none were likely to see the rise of a pro-Russian government, and none had outstanding territorial conflicts with Russia.
Timing also matters. While the Russia of 2002 wasn't the basket case of 1994, it wasn't yet enjoying the oil boom, either. To the extent that Russia's practical ability to make trouble for NATO matters for deciding whether to accept a new NATO applicant, accepting new members to NATO made much more sense in 2002 than in 2008. To take the argument to its logical extreme, allowing Hungary to join NATO in 1999 was responsible statecraft, while allowing it to join in 1956 would have been reckless to the point of criminality. Moreover, the commitment acquires credibility over time. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have become deeply integrated in the institutions of NATO -- refusing to defend them now would throw the alliance into crisis. A membership invitation to Georgia today wouldn’t just be a slap in the face of Russia; it would be a slap lacking believability.
NATO's Future
The Russia-Georgia War has already had a balancing effect. Poland, which had been playing hardball with the United States over a missile defense system on its territory, struck a deal yesterday allowing the deployment of the interceptors. The reaction of Ukraine to the war will be particularly interesting to watch. Ukraine made noises about refusing to allow Russian Black Sea Fleet naval vessels deployed against Georgia to return to their base at Sevastopol (within Ukrainian territory) but did not prevent the return of four ships from combat operations earlier this week.
NATO membership remains a declared Ukrainian goal, but the country’s great size, its huge Russian minority, and the presence of Russian military bases on its soil make an invitation risky. NATO membership has been a hot topic in the Finnish strategic community for the last several years, with key members of the Finnish government challenging the Cold War commitment to neutrality and arguing for the alliance. Finland's small population and modern military make it an excellent candidate, and the Russia-Georgia War may push it to pursue membership more vigorously. NATO should continue to cautiously expand, mindful of both the benefits of extending the alliance and the costs that new expansion will produce.
Robert Farley is an assistant professor at the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce, University of Kentucky. He contributes to the blogs Lawyers, Guns, and Money and TAPPED
Adrian II
08-16-2008, 22:36
Adrian,
You might like this article about reasonable NATO expansion. I don't agree with it 100%, but that obviously doesn't matter because I am not a Phd teaching diplomacy at a University.Nor do I, my friend, but I have heard such nonsense out of the mouths of PhD holders in my life that I wouldn't be impressed anyway.
yeah, I like it a lot. The article makes several good points. You obviously don't agree with what Farley writes about Ukrainian Nato membership, but he makes a good case and I agree with him. I also agree with his point (and it can't be stressed enough) that we shouldn't give in to the familiar pleas regarding Russia's encirclement paranoia. It's the other way round. Russia has it's own recent past to blame for the paranoia of its neighbours. It is Russia's duty to be respectful of their sovereignty, not ours to be respectful of its desire for influence in the nations of that previous, ill-begotten empire.
We should stand firmly with Poland these days, all of Nato and all of the European Union. Medvedev's words that the defensive shield targets Russia should be exposed for the nonsense they are. As for the accompanying Russian sentiments, Russia has only itself to blame. Alas, it won't happen.
My biggest disappointment these days has been the total lack of unity within Nato. Silvio Berlusconi has said that the Georgian invasion is nothing out of the ordinary and Angela Merkel has stated that ´there is something to be said for both sides´. They seem to be adherents of realism in Farley´s definition: Georgia is not worth a hassle over Russian oil and natural gas. Of course other than Farley says, such realism isn't logical at all, particularly in light of the fact that Georgia was supposed to become Europe's conduit for non-Russian oil and gas. It only worsens our bargaining position in the future.
Idiots, all.
EDIT
Personally I found the RUSI pages (http://www.rusi.org/research/studies/european/commentary/) very helpful this week, allowing me to collect my own thoughts more systematically.
Louis VI the Fat
08-16-2008, 23:11
So much to say about this whole episode. I will, however, limit myself to climbing on my soapbox and shouting:
NOW will you people at last agree with me that fierce pan-Europeanism coupled with fierce Transatlanticism is the right course?
:soapbox:
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-16-2008, 23:16
NOW will you people at last agree with me that fierce pan-Europeanism coupled with fierce Transatlanticism is the right course?
Still no, sorry. NATO and free trade is all we need. We are more than capable of taking on Russia - even Germany and France can take Russia's increasingly out of date military. The nuclear question is Russia's only real military trump card.
NATO and free trade is all we need.
agreed.
rory_20_uk
08-17-2008, 23:24
MAD is Russia's only trump, and I don't imagine they'd use it any more than we would.
The Russians need to be corralled in Georgia, with the pipeline protected, and even more importantly Ukraine helped in getting the Russians out in 2017. Russia might want the sphere of influence - but if Britain suddenly wanted to own India again, does this somehow make it OK?
~:smoking:
So, it is OK for NATO to expend, but the Russians can’t.
Russia does use in Georgia what NATO did in Kosovo.
I am not in favour of Russia as such. As I said I was trained to fight the Red Army.
However, the general hysteria because, due to the fact that the “democratically” elected President wanted to genocide a little bit and Russia jumped on the opportunity, is little bit too much.
I don’t know if Russian Army is modern or not but with Russian material, the Serbian shot down few planes, one being the “invisible” bomber. And allegedly damaged another one…
And a T82 can do enough damage. A simple RPG can do enough damage…
So how many people do you want to put to occupy Russia: Because if you start a war, you have to finish it and it easier to start than to finish a war…
I can imagine the partisan in the vast forests, ambushing NATO line of communication, and the rasputitsa, putting all our beautiful tanks and material on hold… And if you pretend that a tank can’t be immobilise by mud it is because you never went in an armoured unit…
About air superiority, during 2 months of intensive campaign, NATO succeeded to destroy 5 Serbian tanks…
I saw the result of exercise and it not what the manufacturers pretend…
“NATO and free trade is all we need” Free trade is why NATO is not useful. We need the petrol, so we can’t use NATO.:beam:
So, it is OK for NATO to expend, but the Russians can’t.
Russia does use in Georgia what NATO did in Kosovo.
I am not in favour of Russia as such. As I said I was trained to fight the Red Army.
However, the general hysteria because, due to the fact that the “democratically” elected President wanted to genocide a little bit and Russia jumped on the opportunity, is little bit too much.
I don’t know if Russian Army is modern or not but with Russian material, the Serbian shot down few planes, one being the “invisible” bomber. And allegedly damaged another one…
And a T82 can do enough damage. A simple RPG can do enough damage…
So how many people do you want to put to occupy Russia: Because if you start a war, you have to finish it and it easier to start than to finish a war…
I can imagine the partisan in the vast forests, ambushing NATO line of communication, and the rasputitsa, putting all our beautiful tanks and material on hold… And if you pretend that a tank can’t be immobilise by mud it is because you never went in an armoured unit…
About air superiority, during 2 months of intensive campaign, NATO succeeded to destroy 5 Serbian tanks…
I saw the result of exercise and it not what the manufacturers pretend…
“NATO and free trade is all we need” Free trade is why NATO is not useful. We need the petrol, so we can’t use NATO.:beam:
I honestly don't believe that a country the size of Russia could be kept united in case it suffered defeats in West and East fronts. Most probably what would happen, would be a coup suceeded by a Civil War and several small nationalistic rebellions, with NATO picking sides and ending the war swiftly.
Adrian II
08-18-2008, 07:39
So, it is OK for NATO to expand, but the Russians can’t.That's right. Nato is a treaty organisation, whereas Russia is a country. Spot the essential difference, my friend. Russia has expanded quite a lot in her recent history, and none of it was pretty. Now all those little chickies have come home to roost. And they all want to join Nato.
De juro you're right. However, when you mass troops and materail near a paranoid neighbour, you shouldn't be surprise of a reaction, especially after a coup de Jarnac for Kosovo.
You tell your paranoid neighbour you don't want to harm him but he can see a loaded weapon just behind your fence, you have to be really diplomatic.
You don't give pretext to slap your kids, so you tell your kids NOT to pick up apples in his garden.
And you keep a safe area and don't agressively gesticulate at his door...
De juro, you can do all that, but a good doctor will tell you it not a think to do...
Adrian II
08-18-2008, 13:59
And you keep a safe area and don't agressively gesticulate at his door...Sovereign countries can and should not be reduced to 'safe areas' for bullying neighbours. Russia has been used to such policies for far too long, which is why nearly all of its neighbours want to be safe from Russia.
De juro, you can do all that, but a good doctor will tell you it not a think to do...A good doctor will treat causes, not alleviate symptoms.
In this case the neighbours wanted to expel violently without any regard to law and justice co-locataires relative to the neighbour.
And as said in law and showed by NATO few years ago, possession is half of right.
Then you decided if and what you want to give back and what price...
You can treat in knowing treatment will be long.
Adrian II
08-18-2008, 16:54
In this case the neighbours wanted to expel violently without any regard to law and justice co-locataires relative to the neighbour.Both sides went too far at various points in the recent history of Georgia. Tbilisi wasn't exactly the only one to blame. The way the Russians have aided and abetted Ossetia's separatism through the years, i.a. by bombing Georgian territory, supporting Ossetian sniping and incursions into Georgia proper &cetera, is well documented by the OSCE, journalists and other observers. S. thought he could do a 'Krajina', his plans and most of his country have been ruined, and if they were really interested in a solution the Russians would now be satisfied and start serious negotiations.
But they don't want to punish just Saakashvili or Georgia. They want to punish George Bush, Nato and the EU.
EDIT
I fear that we may have an even more serious problem on our hands that we thought. The Russian Prime Minister has promised that the withdrawal of Russian troops to pre-war positions would start today. It appears that they are, on the contrary, digging in at positions well inside Georgian territory. If this is what I fear it is, then we have either a duplicitous Prime Minister or, which is even worse, a Russian military that is no longer under civilian control.
ICantSpellDawg
08-18-2008, 19:49
This is pretty much my narrative on global affairs.
History's Back
Ambitious autocracies, hesitant democracies.
by Robert Kagan Link (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/426usidf.asp?pg=1)
08/25/2008, Volume 013, Issue 46
One wonders whether Russia's invasion of Georgia will finally end the dreamy complacency that took hold of the world's democracies after the close of the Cold War. The collapse of the Soviet Union offered for many the tantalizing prospect of a new kind of international order. The fall of the Communist empire and the apparent embrace of democracy by Russia seemed to augur a new era of global convergence. Great power conflict and competition were a thing of the past. Geo-economics had replaced geopolitics. Nations that traded with one another would be bound together by their interdependence and less likely to fight one another. Increasingly commercial societies would be more liberal both at home and abroad. Their citizens would seek prosperity and comfort and abandon the atavistic passions, the struggles for honor and glory, and the tribal hatreds that had produced conflict throughout history. Ideological conflict was also a thing of the past. As Francis Fukuyama famously put it, "At the end of history, there are no serious ideological competitors left to liberal democracy." And if there were an autocracy or two lingering around at the end of history, this was no cause for concern. They, too, would eventually be transformed as their economies modernized.
Unfortunately, the core assumptions of the post-Cold War years have proved mistaken. The absence of great power competition, it turns out, was a brief aberration. Over the course of the 1990s, that competition reemerged as rising powers entered or reentered the field. First China, then India, set off on unprecedented bursts of economic growth, accompanied by incremental but substantial increases in military capacity, both conventional and nuclear. By the beginning of the 21st century, Japan had begun a slow economic recovery and was moving toward a more active international role both diplomatically and militarily. Then came Russia, rebounding from economic calamity to steady growth built on the export of its huge reserves of oil and natural gas.
Nor has the growth of the Chinese and Russian economies produced the political liberalization that was once thought inevitable. Growing national wealth and autocracy have proven compatible, after all. Autocrats learn and adjust. The autocracies of Russia and China have figured out how to permit open economic activity while suppressing political activity. They have seen that people making money will keep their noses out of politics, especially if they know their noses will be cut off. New wealth gives autocracies a greater ability to control information--to monopolize television stations and to keep a grip on Internet traffic, for instance--often with the assistance of foreign corporations eager to do business with them.
In the long run, rising prosperity may well produce political liberalism, but how long is the long run? It may be too long to have any strategic or geopolitical relevance. In the meantime, the new economic power of the autocracies has translated into real, usable geopolitical power on the world stage. In the 1990s the liberal democracies expected that a wealthier Russia would be a more liberal Russia, at home and abroad. But historically the spread of commerce and the acquisition of wealth by nations has not necessarily produced greater global harmony. Often it has only spurred greater global competition. The hope at the end of the Cold War was that nations would pursue economic integration as an alternative to geopolitical competition, that they would seek the "soft" power of commercial engagement and economic growth as an alternative to the "hard" power of military strength or geopolitical confrontation. But nations do not need to choose. There is another paradigm--call it "rich nation, strong army," the slogan of rising Meiji Japan at the end of the 19th century--in which nations seek economic integration and adaptation of Western institutions not in order to give up the geopolitical struggle but to wage it more successfully. The Chinese have their own phrase for this: "a prosperous country and a strong army."
The rise of these two great power autocracies is reshaping the international scene. Nationalism, and the nation itself, far from being weakened by globalization, has returned with a vengeance. There are the ethnic nationalisms that continue to bubble up in the Balkans and in the former republics of the Soviet Union. But more significant is the return of great power nationalism. Instead of an imagined new world order, there are new geopolitical fault lines where the ambitions of great powers overlap and conflict and where the seismic events of the future are most likely to erupt.
One of these fault lines runs along the western and southwestern frontiers of Russia. In Georgia, Ukraine, and Moldova, in the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, in Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, in the Caucasus and Central Asia, and even in the Balkans, a contest for influence is under way between a resurgent Russia, on one side, and the European Union and the United States on the other. Instead of an anticipated zone of peace, western Eurasia has once again become a zone of competition, in which military power--pooh-poohed by postmodern Europeans--once again plays a role.
Unfortunately, Europe is ill-equipped to respond to a problem that it never anticipated having to face. The European Union is deeply divided about Russia, with the nations on the frontline fearful and seeking reassurance, while others like France and Germany seek accommodation with Moscow. The fact is, Europe never expected to face this kind of challenge at the end of history. This great 21st-century entity, the EU, now confronts 19th-century power, and Europe's postmodern tools of foreign policy were not designed to address more traditional geopolitical challenges. There is a real question as to whether Europe is institutionally or temperamentally able to play the kind of geopolitical games in Russia's near-abroad that Russia is willing to play.
There is some question about the United States, as well. At least some portion of American elite opinion has shifted from post-Cold War complacency, from the conviction that the world was naturally moving toward greater harmony, to despair and resignation and the belief that the United States and the world's democracies are powerless to meet the challenge of the rising great powers. Fukuyama and others counsel accommodation to Russian ambitions, on the grounds that there is now no choice. It is the post-American world. Having failed to imagine that the return of great power autocracies was possible, they now argue there is nothing to be done and the wise policy is to accommodate to this new global reality. Yet again, however, their imagination fails them. They do not see what accommodation of the great power autocracies may look like. Georgia provides a glimpse of that future.
The world may not be about to embark on a new ideological struggle of the kind that dominated the Cold War. But the new era, rather than being a time of "universal values," will be one of growing tensions and sometimes confrontation between the forces of liberal democracy and the forces of autocracy.
In fact, a global competition is under way. According to Russia's foreign minister, "For the first time in many years, a real competitive environment has emerged on the market of ideas" between different "value systems and development models." And the good news, from the Russian point of view, is that "the West is losing its monopoly on the globalization process." Today when Russians speak of a multipolar world, they are not only talking about the redistribution of power. It is also the competition of value systems and ideas that will provide "the foundation for a multipolar world order."
International order does not rest on ideas and institutions alone. It is shaped by configurations of power. The spread of democracy in the last two decades of the 20th century was not merely the unfolding of certain ineluctable processes of economic and political development. The global shift toward liberal democracy coincided with the historical shift in the balance of power toward those nations and peoples who favored the liberal democratic idea, a shift that began with the triumph of the democratic powers over fascism in World War II and that was followed by a second triumph of the democracies over communism in the Cold War. The liberal international order that emerged after these two victories reflected the new overwhelming global balance in favor of liberal forces. But those victories were not inevitable, and they need not be lasting. Today, the reemergence of the great autocratic powers, along with the reactionary forces of Islamic radicalism, has weakened that order and threatens to weaken it further in the years and decades to come.
Does the United States have the strength and ability to lead the democracies again in strengthening and advancing a liberal democratic international order? Despite all the recent noise about America's relative decline, the answer is most assuredly yes. If it is true, as some claim, that the United States over the past decade suffered from excessive confidence in its power to shape the world, the pendulum has now swung too far in the opposite direction.
The apparent failure in Iraq convinced many people that the United States was weak, hated, and in a state of decline. Nor has anyone bothered to adjust that judgment now that the United States appears to be winning in Iraq. Yet by any of the usual measures of power, the United States is as strong today, even in relative terms, as it was in 2000. It remains the sole superpower, even as the other great powers get back on their feet. The military power of China and Russia has increased over the past decade, but American military power has increased more. America's share of the global economy has remained steady, 27 percent of global GDP in 2000 and 26 percent today. So where is the relative decline? So long as the United States remains at the center of the international economy, the predominant military power, and the leading apostle of the world's most popular political philosophy; so long as the American public continues to support American predominance, as it has consistently for six decades; and so long as potential challengers inspire more fear than sympathy among their neighbors, the structure of the international system should remain as the Chinese describe it: "one superpower and many great powers."
If American predominance is unlikely to fade any time soon, moreover, it is partly because much of the world does not really want it to. Despite the opinion polls, America's relations with both old and new allies have actually strengthened in recent years. Despite predictions that other powers would begin to join together in an effort to balance against the rogue superpower, especially after the Iraq war, the trend has gone in the opposite direction. The rise of the great power autocracies has been gradually pushing the great power democracies back in the direction of the United States. Russia's invasion of Georgia will accelerate this trend, but it was already underway, even if masked by the international uproar over the Iraq war.
On balance, traditional allies of the United States in East Asia and in Europe, while their publics may be more anti-American than in the past, are nevertheless pursuing policies that reflect more concern about the powerful, autocratic states in their midst than about the United States. The most remarkable change has occurred in India, a former ally of Moscow which today sees good relations with the United States as essential to achieving its broader strategic and economic goals, among them balancing China's rising power. Japanese leaders came to a similar conclusion a decade ago. In Europe there is also an unmistakable trend toward closer strategic relations with the United States, a trend that will be accelerated by Russian actions. A few years ago, Gerhard Schröder and Jacques Chirac flirted with drawing closer to Russia as a way of counterbalancing American power. But lately France, Germany, and the rest of Europe have been moving in the other direction. This is not out of renewed affection for the United States. It is a response to changing international circumstances and to lessons learned from the past. The Chirac-Schröder attempt to make Europe a counterweight to American power failed in part because the European Union's newest members from Central and Eastern Europe fear a resurgent Russia and insist on close strategic ties with Washington. That was true even before Russia invaded Georgia. Now their feeling of dependence on the United States will grow dramatically.
What remains is for the United States to translate this growing concern into concerted action by the world's democracies. This won't be easy, given the strong tendencies, especially in Europe, to seek accommodation with autocratic Russia. But this is nothing new--even during the Cold War, France and Germany sometimes sought to stand somewhere between the United States and the Soviet Union. Over time, France and Germany will have no choice but to join the majority of EU members who once again worry about Moscow's intentions.
So what to do? Instead of figuring out how to accommodate the powerful new autocracies, the United States and the world's other democracies need to begin thinking about how they can protect their interests and advance their principles in a world in which these are once again powerfully challenged. The world's democracies need to show solidarity with one another, and they need to support those trying to pry open a democratic space where it has been closing.
That includes in the great power autocracies themselves. It is easy to look at China and Russia today and believe they are impervious to outside influence. But one should not overlook their fragility and vulnerability. These autocratic regimes may be stronger than they were in the past in terms of wealth and global influence, but they still live in a predominantly liberal era. That means they face an unavoidable problem of legitimacy. Chinese leaders race forward with their economy in fear that any slowing will be their undoing. They fitfully stamp out even the tiniest hints of political opposition because they live in fear of repeating the Soviet collapse and their own near-death experience in 1989. They fear foreign support for any internal political opposition more than they fear foreign invasion. In Russia, Putin strains to obliterate his opponents, even though they appear weak, because he fears that any sign of life in the opposition could bring his regime down.
The world's democracies have an interest in keeping the hopes for democracy alive in Russia and China. The optimists in the early post-Cold War years were not wrong to believe that a liberalizing Russia and China would be better international partners. They were just wrong to believe that this evolution was inevitable. Today, excessive optimism has been replaced by excessive pessimism. Many Europeans insist that outside influences will have no effect on Russia. Yet, looking back on the Cold War, many of these same Europeans believe that the Helsinki Accords of the 1970s had a subtle but eventually profound impact on the evolution of the Soviet Union and the eastern bloc. Is Putin's Russia more impervious to such methods than Brezhnev's Soviet Union? Putin himself does not think so, or he wouldn't be so nervous about the democratic states on his borders. Nor do China's rulers, or they wouldn't spend billions policing Internet chat rooms and waging a campaign of repression against the Falun Gong.
Whether or not China and Russia are susceptible to outside influence over time, for the moment their growing power and, in the case of Russia, the willingness to use it, pose a serious challenge that needs to be met with the same level-headed determination as previous such challenges. If Moscow is now bent on restoring its hegemony over its near neighbors, the United States and its European allies must provide those neighbors with support and protection. If China continues to expand its military capabilities, the United States must reassure China's neighbors of its own commitment to Asian security.
The future is not determined. It is up for grabs. The international order in the coming decades will be shaped by those who have the power and the collective will to shape it. The great fallacy of our era has been the belief that a liberal and democratic international order would come about by the triumph of ideas alone or by the natural unfolding of human progress. Many believe the Cold War ended the way it did simply because the better worldview triumphed, as it had to, and that the international order that exists today is but the next stage in humanity's forward march from strife and aggression toward a peaceful and prosperous coexistence. They forget the many battles fought, both strategic and ideological, that produced that remarkable triumph.
The illusion is just true enough to be dangerous. Of course there is strength in the liberal democratic idea and in the free market. But progress toward these ideals has never been inevitable. It is contingent on events and the actions of nations and peoples--battles won or lost, social movements successful or crushed, economic practices implemented or discarded.
After the Second World War, another moment in history when hopes for a new kind of international order were rampant, Hans Morgenthau warned idealists against imagining that at some point "the final curtain would fall and the game of power politics would no longer be played." The struggle continued then, and it continues today. Six decades ago American leaders believed the United States had the ability and responsibility to use its power to prevent a slide back to the circumstances that had produced two world wars and innumerable national calamities. Reinhold Niebuhr, who always warned against Americans' ambitions and excessive faith in their own power, also believed, with a faith and ambition of his own, that "the world problem cannot be solved if America does not accept its full share of responsibility in solving it." Today the United States shares that responsibility with the rest of the democratic world, which is infinitely stronger than it was when World War II ended. The only question is whether the democratic world will once again rise to the challenge.
Robert Kagan, a contributing editor to THE WEEKLY STANDARD, is the author most recently of The Return of History and the End of Dreams.
EDIT
I fear that we may have an even more serious problem on our hands that we thought. The Russian Prime Minister has promised that the withdrawal of Russian troops to pre-war positions would start today. It appears that they are, on the contrary, digging in at positions well inside Georgian territory. If this is what I fear it is, then we have either a duplicitous Prime Minister or, which is even worse, a Russian military that is no longer under civilian control.
I wonder if Putin is trying out a "What are you going to do about it?" approach. He might be banking on us not doing anything besides making strongly worded statements. Maybe he's right. :shrug:
Adrian II
08-18-2008, 20:03
I wonder if Putin is trying out a "What are you going to do about it?" approach. He might be banking on us not doing anything besides making strongly worded statements. Maybe he's right. :shrug:Or maybe he is waiting for Ukraine to come apart at the seams (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2580485/Ukraine-leaders-split-under-Russian-pressure.html)as well.
Man, I wish August would pass quickly..
Louis VI the Fat
08-18-2008, 21:49
This is pretty much my narrative on global affairs.
History's Back
Ambitious autocracies, hesitant democracies.
by Robert Kagan Link (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/426usidf.asp?pg=1)
08/25/2008, Volume 013, Issue 46
One wonders whether Russia's invasion of Georgia will finally end the dreamy complacency that took hold of the world's democracies after the close of the Cold War. The collapse of the Soviet Union offered for many the tantalizing prospect of a new kind of international order. The fall of the Communist empire and the apparent embrace of democracy by Russia seemed to augur a new era of global convergence. Great power conflict and competition were a thing of the past. Geo-economics had replaced geopolitics. Nations that traded with one another would be bound together by their interdependence and less likely to fight one another. Increasingly commercial societies would be more liberal both at home and abroad. Their citizens would seek prosperity and comfort and abandon the atavistic passions, the struggles for honor and glory, and the tribal hatreds that had produced conflict throughout history. Ideological conflict was also a thing of the past. As Francis Fukuyama famously put it, "At the end of history, there are no serious ideological competitors left to liberal democracy." And if there were an autocracy or two lingering around at the end of history, this was no cause for concern. They, too, would eventually be transformed as their economies modernized.
Unfortunately, the core assumptions of the post-Cold War years have proved mistaken. The absence of great power competition, it turns out, was a brief aberration. Over the course of the 1990s, that competition reemerged as rising powers entered or reentered the field. First China, then India, set off on unprecedented bursts of economic growth, accompanied by incremental but substantial increases in military capacity, both conventional and nuclear. By the beginning of the 21st century, Japan had begun a slow economic recovery and was moving toward a more active international role both diplomatically and militarily. Then came Russia, rebounding from economic calamity to steady growth built on the export of its huge reserves of oil and natural gas.
Nor has the growth of the Chinese and Russian economies produced the political liberalization that was once thought inevitable. Growing national wealth and autocracy have proven compatible, after all. Autocrats learn and adjust. The autocracies of Russia and China have figured out how to permit open economic activity while suppressing political activity. They have seen that people making money will keep their noses out of politics, especially if they know their noses will be cut off. New wealth gives autocracies a greater ability to control information--to monopolize television stations and to keep a grip on Internet traffic, for instance--often with the assistance of foreign corporations eager to do business with them.
In the long run, rising prosperity may well produce political liberalism, but how long is the long run? It may be too long to have any strategic or geopolitical relevance. In the meantime, the new economic power of the autocracies has translated into real, usable geopolitical power on the world stage. In the 1990s the liberal democracies expected that a wealthier Russia would be a more liberal Russia, at home and abroad. But historically the spread of commerce and the acquisition of wealth by nations has not necessarily produced greater global harmony. Often it has only spurred greater global competition. The hope at the end of the Cold War was that nations would pursue economic integration as an alternative to geopolitical competition, that they would seek the "soft" power of commercial engagement and economic growth as an alternative to the "hard" power of military strength or geopolitical confrontation. But nations do not need to choose. There is another paradigm--call it "rich nation, strong army," the slogan of rising Meiji Japan at the end of the 19th century--in which nations seek economic integration and adaptation of Western institutions not in order to give up the geopolitical struggle but to wage it more successfully. The Chinese have their own phrase for this: "a prosperous country and a strong army."
The rise of these two great power autocracies is reshaping the international scene. Nationalism, and the nation itself, far from being weakened by globalization, has returned with a vengeance. There are the ethnic nationalisms that continue to bubble up in the Balkans and in the former republics of the Soviet Union. But more significant is the return of great power nationalism. Instead of an imagined new world order, there are new geopolitical fault lines where the ambitions of great powers overlap and conflict and where the seismic events of the future are most likely to erupt.
One of these fault lines runs along the western and southwestern frontiers of Russia. In Georgia, Ukraine, and Moldova, in the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, in Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, in the Caucasus and Central Asia, and even in the Balkans, a contest for influence is under way between a resurgent Russia, on one side, and the European Union and the United States on the other. Instead of an anticipated zone of peace, western Eurasia has once again become a zone of competition, in which military power--pooh-poohed by postmodern Europeans--once again plays a role.
Unfortunately, Europe is ill-equipped to respond to a problem that it never anticipated having to face. The European Union is deeply divided about Russia, with the nations on the frontline fearful and seeking reassurance, while others like France and Germany seek accommodation with Moscow. The fact is, Europe never expected to face this kind of challenge at the end of history. This great 21st-century entity, the EU, now confronts 19th-century power, and Europe's postmodern tools of foreign policy were not designed to address more traditional geopolitical challenges. There is a real question as to whether Europe is institutionally or temperamentally able to play the kind of geopolitical games in Russia's near-abroad that Russia is willing to play.
There is some question about the United States, as well. At least some portion of American elite opinion has shifted from post-Cold War complacency, from the conviction that the world was naturally moving toward greater harmony, to despair and resignation and the belief that the United States and the world's democracies are powerless to meet the challenge of the rising great powers. Fukuyama and others counsel accommodation to Russian ambitions, on the grounds that there is now no choice. It is the post-American world. Having failed to imagine that the return of great power autocracies was possible, they now argue there is nothing to be done and the wise policy is to accommodate to this new global reality. Yet again, however, their imagination fails them. They do not see what accommodation of the great power autocracies may look like. Georgia provides a glimpse of that future.
The world may not be about to embark on a new ideological struggle of the kind that dominated the Cold War. But the new era, rather than being a time of "universal values," will be one of growing tensions and sometimes confrontation between the forces of liberal democracy and the forces of autocracy.
In fact, a global competition is under way. According to Russia's foreign minister, "For the first time in many years, a real competitive environment has emerged on the market of ideas" between different "value systems and development models." And the good news, from the Russian point of view, is that "the West is losing its monopoly on the globalization process." Today when Russians speak of a multipolar world, they are not only talking about the redistribution of power. It is also the competition of value systems and ideas that will provide "the foundation for a multipolar world order."
International order does not rest on ideas and institutions alone. It is shaped by configurations of power. The spread of democracy in the last two decades of the 20th century was not merely the unfolding of certain ineluctable processes of economic and political development. The global shift toward liberal democracy coincided with the historical shift in the balance of power toward those nations and peoples who favored the liberal democratic idea, a shift that began with the triumph of the democratic powers over fascism in World War II and that was followed by a second triumph of the democracies over communism in the Cold War. The liberal international order that emerged after these two victories reflected the new overwhelming global balance in favor of liberal forces. But those victories were not inevitable, and they need not be lasting. Today, the reemergence of the great autocratic powers, along with the reactionary forces of Islamic radicalism, has weakened that order and threatens to weaken it further in the years and decades to come.
Does the United States have the strength and ability to lead the democracies again in strengthening and advancing a liberal democratic international order? Despite all the recent noise about America's relative decline, the answer is most assuredly yes. If it is true, as some claim, that the United States over the past decade suffered from excessive confidence in its power to shape the world, the pendulum has now swung too far in the opposite direction.
The apparent failure in Iraq convinced many people that the United States was weak, hated, and in a state of decline. Nor has anyone bothered to adjust that judgment now that the United States appears to be winning in Iraq. Yet by any of the usual measures of power, the United States is as strong today, even in relative terms, as it was in 2000. It remains the sole superpower, even as the other great powers get back on their feet. The military power of China and Russia has increased over the past decade, but American military power has increased more. America's share of the global economy has remained steady, 27 percent of global GDP in 2000 and 26 percent today. So where is the relative decline? So long as the United States remains at the center of the international economy, the predominant military power, and the leading apostle of the world's most popular political philosophy; so long as the American public continues to support American predominance, as it has consistently for six decades; and so long as potential challengers inspire more fear than sympathy among their neighbors, the structure of the international system should remain as the Chinese describe it: "one superpower and many great powers."
If American predominance is unlikely to fade any time soon, moreover, it is partly because much of the world does not really want it to. Despite the opinion polls, America's relations with both old and new allies have actually strengthened in recent years. Despite predictions that other powers would begin to join together in an effort to balance against the rogue superpower, especially after the Iraq war, the trend has gone in the opposite direction. The rise of the great power autocracies has been gradually pushing the great power democracies back in the direction of the United States. Russia's invasion of Georgia will accelerate this trend, but it was already underway, even if masked by the international uproar over the Iraq war.
On balance, traditional allies of the United States in East Asia and in Europe, while their publics may be more anti-American than in the past, are nevertheless pursuing policies that reflect more concern about the powerful, autocratic states in their midst than about the United States. The most remarkable change has occurred in India, a former ally of Moscow which today sees good relations with the United States as essential to achieving its broader strategic and economic goals, among them balancing China's rising power. Japanese leaders came to a similar conclusion a decade ago. In Europe there is also an unmistakable trend toward closer strategic relations with the United States, a trend that will be accelerated by Russian actions. A few years ago, Gerhard Schröder and Jacques Chirac flirted with drawing closer to Russia as a way of counterbalancing American power. But lately France, Germany, and the rest of Europe have been moving in the other direction. This is not out of renewed affection for the United States. It is a response to changing international circumstances and to lessons learned from the past. The Chirac-Schröder attempt to make Europe a counterweight to American power failed in part because the European Union's newest members from Central and Eastern Europe fear a resurgent Russia and insist on close strategic ties with Washington. That was true even before Russia invaded Georgia. Now their feeling of dependence on the United States will grow dramatically.
What remains is for the United States to translate this growing concern into concerted action by the world's democracies. This won't be easy, given the strong tendencies, especially in Europe, to seek accommodation with autocratic Russia. But this is nothing new--even during the Cold War, France and Germany sometimes sought to stand somewhere between the United States and the Soviet Union. Over time, France and Germany will have no choice but to join the majority of EU members who once again worry about Moscow's intentions.
So what to do? Instead of figuring out how to accommodate the powerful new autocracies, the United States and the world's other democracies need to begin thinking about how they can protect their interests and advance their principles in a world in which these are once again powerfully challenged. The world's democracies need to show solidarity with one another, and they need to support those trying to pry open a democratic space where it has been closing.
That includes in the great power autocracies themselves. It is easy to look at China and Russia today and believe they are impervious to outside influence. But one should not overlook their fragility and vulnerability. These autocratic regimes may be stronger than they were in the past in terms of wealth and global influence, but they still live in a predominantly liberal era. That means they face an unavoidable problem of legitimacy. Chinese leaders race forward with their economy in fear that any slowing will be their undoing. They fitfully stamp out even the tiniest hints of political opposition because they live in fear of repeating the Soviet collapse and their own near-death experience in 1989. They fear foreign support for any internal political opposition more than they fear foreign invasion. In Russia, Putin strains to obliterate his opponents, even though they appear weak, because he fears that any sign of life in the opposition could bring his regime down.
The world's democracies have an interest in keeping the hopes for democracy alive in Russia and China. The optimists in the early post-Cold War years were not wrong to believe that a liberalizing Russia and China would be better international partners. They were just wrong to believe that this evolution was inevitable. Today, excessive optimism has been replaced by excessive pessimism. Many Europeans insist that outside influences will have no effect on Russia. Yet, looking back on the Cold War, many of these same Europeans believe that the Helsinki Accords of the 1970s had a subtle but eventually profound impact on the evolution of the Soviet Union and the eastern bloc. Is Putin's Russia more impervious to such methods than Brezhnev's Soviet Union? Putin himself does not think so, or he wouldn't be so nervous about the democratic states on his borders. Nor do China's rulers, or they wouldn't spend billions policing Internet chat rooms and waging a campaign of repression against the Falun Gong.
Whether or not China and Russia are susceptible to outside influence over time, for the moment their growing power and, in the case of Russia, the willingness to use it, pose a serious challenge that needs to be met with the same level-headed determination as previous such challenges. If Moscow is now bent on restoring its hegemony over its near neighbors, the United States and its European allies must provide those neighbors with support and protection. If China continues to expand its military capabilities, the United States must reassure China's neighbors of its own commitment to Asian security.
The future is not determined. It is up for grabs. The international order in the coming decades will be shaped by those who have the power and the collective will to shape it. The great fallacy of our era has been the belief that a liberal and democratic international order would come about by the triumph of ideas alone or by the natural unfolding of human progress. Many believe the Cold War ended the way it did simply because the better worldview triumphed, as it had to, and that the international order that exists today is but the next stage in humanity's forward march from strife and aggression toward a peaceful and prosperous coexistence. They forget the many battles fought, both strategic and ideological, that produced that remarkable triumph.
The illusion is just true enough to be dangerous. Of course there is strength in the liberal democratic idea and in the free market. But progress toward these ideals has never been inevitable. It is contingent on events and the actions of nations and peoples--battles won or lost, social movements successful or crushed, economic practices implemented or discarded.
After the Second World War, another moment in history when hopes for a new kind of international order were rampant, Hans Morgenthau warned idealists against imagining that at some point "the final curtain would fall and the game of power politics would no longer be played." The struggle continued then, and it continues today. Six decades ago American leaders believed the United States had the ability and responsibility to use its power to prevent a slide back to the circumstances that had produced two world wars and innumerable national calamities. Reinhold Niebuhr, who always warned against Americans' ambitions and excessive faith in their own power, also believed, with a faith and ambition of his own, that "the world problem cannot be solved if America does not accept its full share of responsibility in solving it." Today the United States shares that responsibility with the rest of the democratic world, which is infinitely stronger than it was when World War II ended. The only question is whether the democratic world will once again rise to the challenge.
Robert Kagan, a contributing editor to THE WEEKLY STANDARD, is the author most recently of The Return of History and the End of Dreams.Thanks for posting that, Tuff. To quote a Texas proverb that I recently learned: God kills a kitten every time I agree with an American neo-conservative. (I mean Kagan)
ICantSpellDawg
08-18-2008, 21:58
Thanks for posting that, Tuff. To quote a Texas proverb that I recently learned: God kills a kitten every time I agree with an American neo-conservative. (I mean Kagan)
Hehe. I try to distance myself from neo-cons whenever they show signs of an expendable view of human life, but I agree with this narrative too much to disagree with them out of hand.
a kitten just died, that is an excellent article.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080818/ap_on_re_eu/georgia_russia
Article for what Adrian already mentioned.
God, I love Russians.
According to my article, Russian forces are smashing barricades and frolicking near the capital, and the Georgians have done nothing, actually following the cease-fire. Funny.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-19-2008, 01:32
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080818/ap_on_re_eu/georgia_russia
Article for what Adrian already mentioned.
God, I love Russians.
BBC seems to disagree, at least a little. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7567184.stm)
The BBC observed five Russian armoured personnel carriers, each with around a dozen men, heading in the direction of the capital.
However, there was no suggestion that they ventured any further than the village of Igoeti, where the furthest Russian checkpoint is located.
BBC seems to disagree, at least a little. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7567184.stm)
Oh come on. Weren't the Russians supposed to pull out by now? They said Monday, it's Monday in America, it's Tuesday in Moscow. They have not left, nor made any attempt. Though they may not want to take that town, they are still roaming around, destroying barricades, just moving with free will while Georgians watch. How can you still defend them?
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-19-2008, 02:27
Oh come on. Weren't the Russians supposed to pull out by now? They said Monday, it's Monday in America, it's Tuesday in Moscow. They have not left, nor made any attempt. Though they may not want to take that town, they are still roaming around, destroying barricades, just moving with free will while Georgians watch. How can you still defend them?
According to Russia troops were supposed to begin to move out, and moving out like that does take a few days. Troops have begun to move from Georgia proper back into South Ossetia.
According to Russia troops were supposed to begin to move out, and moving out like that does take a few days. Troops have begun to move from Georgia proper back into South Ossetia.
Your article, my article, and most every article out there say otherwise.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-19-2008, 02:41
Your article, my article, and most every article out there say otherwise.
A spokesman for the Russian defence ministry, Lt-Gen Nikolai Uvarov, told BBC News that troops were being withdrawn from Georgia and the process would take "days not weeks".
Basically, Russia says it is withdrawing troops to South Ossetia and Russia, and Georgia disagrees. So we can't be sure yet until we have independant reports that state, for sure, that Russia is not withdrawing.
Putin should tell me in german, he speaks our wonderful language, I'd believe his every word. :smitten:
Adrian II
08-19-2008, 07:51
Isn't it wonderful? Condi has reached 'peace for our time' with Prime Minister Medvedev. He signed a piece of paper and the UN Security Council is going to vote on it. I'm all excited!
Not.
On the ground Russian troops have advanced to within 25 miles of Tbilisi, they are blowing up bridges, docks and offices, starting fires and destroying other human and physical infrastructure all over the country.
Dead Georgian soldiers are left to rot in the sun, captive Georgian soldiers are paraded through the streets, forced to work for the Ossetian irregulars and publicly abused. All this comes from western journalists and other outside observers, not from Georgian authorities, and they have the pictures to show for.
Moscow has also announced that Georgians will not be allowed to return to their homes in Ossetian territory. That's ethnic cleansing in the full legal sense, and we have it black on white from the highest Russian authorities. They are also giving free reign to the irregular scum from Ossetia, Chechnya &cetera that follows in the wake of their troops.
'Peacekeepers' my foot.
We could have had troops on the ground by now to teach them to behave, politely show them the way back to Moscow, chase away the irregulars, and assure stability to the country with an eye to (re)opening pipelines that are essential to our future.
Isn't it wonderful? Condi has reached 'peace for our time' with Prime Minister Medvedev. He signed a piece of paper and the UN Security Council is going to vote on it. I'm all excited!
Not.
On the ground Russian troops have advanced to within 25 miles of Tbilisi, they are blowing up bridges, docks and offices, starting fires and destroying other human and physical infrastructure all over the country.
Dead Georgian soldiers are left to rot in the sun, captive Georgian soldiers are paraded through the streets, forced to work for the Ossetian irregulars and publicly abused. All this comes from western journalists and other outside observers, not from Georgian authorities, and they have the pictures to show for.
Moscow has also announced that Georgians will not be allowed to return to their homes in Ossetian territory. That's ethnic cleansing in the full legal sense, and we have it black on white from the highest Russian authorities. They are also giving free reign to the irregular scum from Ossetia, Chechnya &cetera that follows in the wake of their troops.
'Peacekeepers' my foot.
We could have had troops on the ground by now to teach them to behave, politely show them the way back to Moscow, chase away the irregulars, and assure stability to the country with an eye to (re)opening pipelines that are essential to our future.
Guess who's going to be using there veto power?
Anyway, once Russia goes for, say, the Ukraine, then the higher ups may actually care. Maybe :juggle2:.
Ignoramus
08-19-2008, 08:14
Maybe when the Russians take London NATO will act.
Maybe when the Russians take London NATO will act.
They'd be freeing the English from the English in that case :2thumbsup:
Tribesman
08-19-2008, 08:32
Maybe when the Russians take London NATO will act.
Good point . Is that because London is in Britain and Britain is part NATO .
I heard a rumour that ANZUS is going to act when Putin threatens Nieu :yes:
Spengler on Russias ambitions:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/JH19Ag04.html
Isn't it wonderful? Condi has reached 'peace for our time' with Prime Minister Medvedev. He signed a piece of paper and the UN Security Council is going to vote on it. I'm all excited!
Not.
On the ground Russian troops have advanced to within 25 miles of Tbilisi, they are blowing up bridges, docks and offices, starting fires and destroying other human and physical infrastructure all over the country.
Dead Georgian soldiers are left to rot in the sun, captive Georgian soldiers are paraded through the streets, forced to work for the Ossetian irregulars and publicly abused. All this comes from western journalists and other outside observers, not from Georgian authorities, and they have the pictures to show for.
Moscow has also announced that Georgians will not be allowed to return to their homes in Ossetian territory. That's ethnic cleansing in the full legal sense, and we have it black on white from the highest Russian authorities. They are also giving free reign to the irregular scum from Ossetia, Chechnya &cetera that follows in the wake of their troops.
'Peacekeepers' my foot.
We could have had troops on the ground by now to teach them to behave, politely show them the way back to Moscow, chase away the irregulars, and assure stability to the country with an eye to (re)opening pipelines that are essential to our future.
Not to mention firing upon, injuring permanently (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkSULKRkcEM&feature=related), (By the way, I wouldn't advise the more sensible people watching the video) arresting journalists, only to release them under negotiations with the TV Company they were on.
Not to mention firing upon, injuring permanently (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkSULKRkcEM&feature=related), (By the way, I wouldn't advise the more sensible people watching the video) arresting journalists, only to release them under negotiations with the TV Company they were on.
No, see, these journalists were part of the opression of South Ossetia.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-19-2008, 17:57
Isn't it wonderful? Condi has reached 'peace for our time' with Prime Minister Medvedev. He signed a piece of paper and the UN Security Council is going to vote on it. I'm all excited!
The UN still, you know, does stuff? :inquisitive:
EDIT: And according, once again, to the BBC, some Russian troops have been witnessed withdrawing from places like Gori, but they're leaving checkpoints in place. In short, they're taking their sweet old time.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7570394.stm
ICantSpellDawg
08-19-2008, 18:14
Spengler on Russias ambitions:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/JH19Ag04.html
The author makes some good points about the nature of being "Russian", but his article starts off as foolishness and ends with foolishness. There seems like more emotion than thought in his opening and conclusion.
Adrian II
08-19-2008, 19:04
The UN still, you know, does stuff? :inquisitive:
EDIT: And according, once again, to the BBC, some Russian troops have been witnessed withdrawing from places like Gori, but they're leaving checkpoints in place. In short, they're taking their sweet old time.So much for Nato:
The United States had called for a formal suspension of ministerial meetings with Moscow by Nato countries, but European members made clear they favoured a much milder approach.
Even Britain, which has been broadly supportive of Washington's robust condemnation of the Kremlin, chose to side with the Europeans in rejecting a proposal to freeze the Nato-Russia council, established in 2002 to boost relations between Moscow and the West. "I am not one that believes that isolating Russia is the right answer to its misdemeanours," said David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary. "I think the right answer is hard-headed dialogue." Mr Miliband arrived in Georgia later to express Britain's support for the government of President Mikheil Saakashvili.
With France and Germany, heavily dependent on Russian energy, urging caution and Italy broadly supporting the Kremlin's actions, Nato issued a watered down statement expressing "grave concern".
link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2586051/Nato-offers-scant-comfort-for-Georgia-over-conflict-with-Russia.html)
Meanwhile on the ground, AP is reporting that the Russians are commandeering American vehicles in Poti harbour. How long will this charade be allowed to continue?
https://img126.imageshack.us/img126/1173/humveegeorgia1908047110ak8.jpg (https://imageshack.us)
How long will this charade be allowed to continue?
For a while unfortunately. At least Russia's intent is now clear, if it wasn't somehow before.
ICantSpellDawg
08-19-2008, 20:43
Everyone's intent is always clear enough. Russia wants the Soviet Union back and the West wants to avoid real confrontation at all cost.
People's fantasies govern everything else that make those intentions opaque.
"With France and Germany, heavily dependent on Russian energy, urging caution and Italy broadly supporting the Kremlin's actions, Nato issued a watered down statement expressing "grave concern"."
And what did I said? Free Market and NATO aren't compatible...
Adrian II
08-19-2008, 23:00
"With France and Germany, heavily dependent on Russian energy, urging caution and Italy broadly supporting the Kremlin's actions, Nato issued a watered down statement expressing "grave concern"."
And what did I said? Free Market and NATO aren't compatible...For once we are totally agreed. It appears that for all practical intents and purposes Nato is dead. The U.S. is trying to secure a country that could be a major future conduit for non-Russian oil and gas. Meanwhile Italy sides openly with Russia. Germany is building pipelines under the Baltic with the Russians to bypass Poland, so that Russia can cut off Polish gas separately in the future. All this in the name of free enterprise and markets-without-borders. We are selling out to the highest bidder, and if that bidder happens to be the Russian mafia.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-19-2008, 23:29
A question, however. NATO's primary purpose was a military alliance to defend against the Soviet Union/Russia. Do we even still need NATO?
Louis VI the Fat
08-19-2008, 23:39
A question, however. NATO's primary purpose was a military alliance to defend against the Soviet Union/Russia. Do we even still need NATO?Not if we simply sell out to Russia like we're doing now. :idea2:
Louis VI the Fat
08-19-2008, 23:42
Rant time!!
Merkel's been extremely disappointing. :wall:
Berlusconi is beyond an embarrasment. :no:
Spain is silent.
Sarkozy did fine last week with his diplomatic intervention. Now he needs to see his promises through and make Louis a happy boy. Show the other members that you are the EU president. Rejoin NATO's integrated command as a statement. Cut the marriage bond with Germany for now - that's old Europe *derisive hand gesture*. All cards on transatlanticism.
The new East European member states have been, and still are, too singularly anti-Russian instead of pro-European. And to anti-German too. And their rightful warnings about Russia have been smothered in singularly nationalistic rants. Like on the .org, Polish voices of reason are not heard over the shouting of nationalist tripe. (Which reminds me - where's Cegorach? He must be even more frustrated than I am over this whole episode?)
Saakashvili did not see that Russia was out to avenge Kosovo. He's overworked, overstressed, and overplayed his hand. :wall:
The EU is still in complete disarray. Lovely. JAG was right. Leadership was needed, not politicians who pandered to populistic objections from a spoiled electorate that thinks freedom comes free. :furious3:
Then again, maybe the real problem is simply that nobody is willing 'to die for Ossetia'. I don't either. :shame: Except the Russians.
Or maybe not - all they've shown is yet that they're willing to let Georgians die for Ossetia.
ICantSpellDawg
08-19-2008, 23:46
A question, however. NATO's primary purpose was a military alliance to defend against the Soviet Union/Russia. Do we even still need NATO?
We need NATO more than ever for countless reasons. NATO serves as a pretty good primer for the EU, it provides the glue that helps keep North American and European nations friendly an out of the reach of divisive forces that can so easily get up to monkey business and cause us to turn and do crazy things to one another.
NATO is essentially the building plan of commonality and mutual defense between peoples that are so similar - the people of North America and the people of Europe. It helps our nations stay away from the temptation to turn into what Russia has become; A temptation that Italy is finding irresistible as of late.
With the rise of China, India, African Nations, Middle east and now Russia it would be madness to allow ourselves to be divided by eliminating the one thing that has helped keep us together.
I can assure you that it would not benefit peace for anyone.
NATO is much more important for world peace than the UN will be in our lifetimes. It is our job to strengthen it - the real debate has been whether Georgia or the Ukraine would strengthen or weaken the alliance.
Dissolution of NATO would mark the beginning of the end of 1st world peace as well as democratically elected governments.
I'd die for whatever makes my country or any person around the world safer, more just and freer. I'd die in africa for it, i'd die in South Carolina for it and I'd die next door for it. Georgia seems like as good a candidate as any. The old saying "why should I die for so-and-so's freedom" if answered incorrectly would have ended the revolution that helped make me free.
People who are selfish and can't see past their own egoism will always find a reason not to die for anyone else. Locality is irrelevant. If the building blocks for a moral democracy exist somewhere if given the chance and my life can be of use - it is theirs.
"With France and Germany, heavily dependent on Russian energy, urging caution and Italy broadly supporting the Kremlin's actions, Nato issued a watered down statement expressing "grave concern"."
And what did I said? Free Market and NATO aren't compatible...
Why, it sounds more like the free market and a set of balls are not compatible, which is equally ridiculous.
A question, however. NATO's primary purpose was a military alliance to defend against the Soviet Union/Russia. Do we even still need NATO?
apparently yes.
Rant time!!
Merkel's been extremely disappointing. :wall:
Berlusconi is beyond an embarrasment. :no:
Spain is silent.
Sarkozy did fine last week with his diplomatic intervention. Now he needs to see his promises through and make Louis a happy boy. Show the other members that you are the EU president. Rejoin NATO's integrated command as a statement. Cut the marriage bond with Germany for now - that's old Europe *derisive hand gesture*. All cards on transatlanticism.
The new East European member states have been, and still are, too singularly anti-Russian instead of pro-European. And to anti-German too. And their rightful warnings about Russia have been smothered in singularly nationalistic rants. Like on the .org, Polish voices of reason are not heard over the shouting of nationalist tripe. (Which reminds me - where's Cegorach? He must be even more frustrated than I am over this whole episode?)
Saakashvili did not see that Russia was out to avenge Kosovo. He's overworked, overstressed, and overplayed his hand. :wall:
The EU is still in complete disarray. Lovely. JAG was right. Leadership was needed, not politicians who pandered to populistic objections from a spoiled electorate that thinks freedom comes free. :furious3:
Then again, maybe the real problem is simply that nobody is willing 'to die for Ossetia'. I don't either. :shame: Except the Russians.
Or maybe not - all they've shown is yet that they're willing to let Georgians die for Ossetia.
what your saying that what is important to some nations of the the EU is not important to others, a great argument for political integration.........
We need NATO more than ever for countless reasons. NATO serves as a pretty good primer for the EU, it provides the glue that helps keep North American and European nations friendly an out of the reach of divisive forces that can so easily get up to monkey business and cause us to turn and do crazy things to one another.
NATO is essentially the building plan of commonality and mutual defense between peoples that are so similar - the people of North America and the people of Europe. It helps our nations stay away from the temptation to turn into what Russia has become; A temptation that Italy is finding irresistible as of late.
With the rise of China, India, African Nations, Middle east and now Russia it would be madness to allow ourselves to be divided by eliminating the one thing that has helped keep us together.
I can assure you that it would not benefit peace for anyone.
NATO is much more important for world peace than the UN will be in our lifetimes. It is our job to strengthen it - the real debate has been whether Georgia or the Ukraine would strengthen or weaken the alliance.
Dissolution of NATO would mark the beginning of the end of 1st world peace as well as democratically elected governments.
I'd die for whatever makes my country or any person around the world safer, more just and freer. I'd die in africa for it, i'd die in South Carolina for it and I'd die next door for it. Georgia seems like as good a candidate as any. The old saying "why should I die for so-and-so's freedom" if answered incorrectly would have ended the revolution that helped make me free.
People who are selfish and can't see past their own egoism will always find a reason not to die for anyone else. Locality is irrelevant. If the building blocks for a moral democracy exist somewhere if given the chance and my life can be of use - it is theirs.
agreed.
Louis VI the Fat
08-20-2008, 02:23
what your saying that what is important to some nations of the the EU is not important to others, a great argument for political integration......... Surely this episode shows that there are more important issues than national, particularistic hang-ups? Like, oh, freedom and independence and democracy for Europe.
We are being divided-and-conquered by Russia. Each one of us trying to strike separate deals with that bullying bear, just to ensure that our gas and oil supply is secured. Let me remind you that Russia openly kills agents in London. Polonium being an autograph, signed 'From Russia with Love'. Nothing the UK could do about it.
Half of Europe is being humiliated by Russia, the other half outright threatened. And I'm sorry, but when push comes to shove, I'd rather polish the whole of Nelson's Column with nothing but a toothbrush while singing God Save the Queen, and dressed in a David Beckham shirt, than kneel down before Vladimir Putin in submission. :shame:
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-20-2008, 02:31
Surely this episode shows that there are more important issues than national, particularistic hang-ups? Like, oh, freedom and independence and democracy for Europe.
In Brussels it's more like freedom and bureaucracy, and scratch the independance altogether. I'd rather see a Russian Georgia and a free Germany than a free Georgia and a Germany ruled from Brussels.
Half of Europe is being humiliated by Russia, the other half outright threatened. And I'm sorry, but when push comes to shove, I'd rather polish the whole of Wellington's Statue with nothing but a toothbrush while singing God Save the Queen, and dressed in a David Beckham shirt, than kneeling down before Vladimir Putin in submission. :shame:
Why should it come to that? If Russia moves West into Poland, everyone will fight tooth and nail to defeat them, if we haven't forgotten how to do it. Poland will fight. Germany will fight. France will fight. We don't need the EU when NATO is enough.
Why should it come to that? If Russia moves West into Poland, everyone will fight tooth and nail to defeat them, if we haven't forgotten how to do it. Poland will fight. Germany will fight. France will fight. We don't need the EU when NATO is enough.
Speaking of an hypothetical war, if it would come to be, what would happen to poor, old tormented Afghanistan? Would Russia invade it because it could be a launching site for American troops?
Seamus Fermanagh
08-20-2008, 03:04
Putin should tell me in german, he speaks our wonderful language, I'd believe his every word. :smitten:
Wonderful language? :inquisitive: You've got words with more syllables than a haiku! Tell your "academy" or whatever wierd sect manages your language to discover the beauty of the adjective.
:devilish:
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-20-2008, 03:08
Speaking of an hypothetical war, if it would come to be, what would happen to poor, old tormented Afghanistan? Would Russia invade it because it could be a launching site for American troops?
Afghanistan? Never really thought of that, I suppose. The Americans would need to move into that region in considerable force and us, the Poles, and the French would have to hold most of Europe.
Incongruous
08-20-2008, 06:09
Surely this episode shows that there are more important issues than national, particularistic hang-ups? Like, oh, freedom and independence and democracy for Europe.
We are being divided-and-conquered by Russia. Each one of us trying to strike separate deals with that bullying bear, just to ensure that our gas and oil supply is secured. Let me remind you that Russia openly kills agents in London. Polonium being an autograph, signed 'From Russia with Love'. Nothing the UK could do about it.
Half of Europe is being humiliated by Russia, the other half outright threatened. And I'm sorry, but when push comes to shove, I'd rather polish the whole of Nelson's Column with nothing but a toothbrush while singing God Save the Queen, and dressed in a David Beckham shirt, than kneel down before Vladimir Putin in submission. :shame:
Oh dear, I'm sorry but arguments like this are not going anywhere...
"Freedom and democracy for Europe!", yeah right, what the heck is Europe anyway? At the moment it sounds like you are advocating for a European Empire:yes:, where is the freedom for me, an Englishman in that? bloody nowhere mate, this sounds like a lot of thunder and lightning talk with a burning bush to top off.
Humiliated? Why in heck should that be a precursor for conflict? The damned Iraq war was started over more reasonable charges.
And I'm sorry, but when push comes to shove, I'd rather polish the whole of Nelson's Column with nothing but a toothbrush while singing God Save the Queen, and dressed in a David Beckham shirt, than kneel down before Vladimir Putin in submission. :shame:
agreed, but it is the methods you would seem to advocate................. *shudders*
Speaking of an hypothetical war, if it would come to be, what would happen to poor, old tormented Afghanistan? Would Russia invade it because it could be a launching site for American troops?
it might have to be left to fend for itself, but we would leave with a stern warning about backsliding lest they awake to find a volley of tomahawks gliding in over the horizon.
Kralizec
08-20-2008, 22:40
I've said before that after this episode, Georgia ought to join NATO one way or the other. But on second thought that seems unwise for both. It's too far from NATO's core countries to be helped in a pinch, permanently stationing troops there would mean that they're just a protectorate and placing missiles...let's not go there.
Maybe Georgia should become neutral and enjoy a situation analogous to Austria during the cold war (or Finland, though that's perhaps not a good comparison) but any solution seems far fetched until there's a permanent solution for Abchazia or south Ossetia.
that rather relies on having neighbours that will respect their neutrality.
do you imagine that many Georgians feel that way about Russia?
Kralizec
08-20-2008, 22:50
It would need some sort of understanding between Russian and NATO, and it would count on Georgia not doing anything stupid even if they don't like the situation all that much.
Like I said, the status of the breakaway provinces would have to be settled first.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-20-2008, 23:47
apparently yes.
But now that the Bear has claws which are long but dull, can we (the powers of France, Germany, the UK, Poland) handle Russia ourselves?
no, we cannot unless it is on one of our contiguous borders.
But now that the Bear has claws which are long but dull, can we (the powers of France, Germany, the UK, Poland) handle Russia ourselves?
I'm guessing by the time Russia destroys the Ukraine, Baltic states and Finland, we may launch a missle or two as a warning.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-21-2008, 04:00
I think we need a new topic.
The last several posts make it clear that Ossetia is now only an example relating to the larger subject.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-21-2008, 04:02
I think we need a new topic.
The last several posts make it clear that Ossetia is now only an example relating to the larger subject.
By all means. This one was supposed to be mainly about the conflict itself. :bow:
Kagemusha
08-21-2008, 06:33
I doubt that Russians are trying to over run Finland at any point like Swedish Fish suggested. Like i said, EU should have a mutual defense clause, if others are worried about the neighbours of Russia. But in the current state of Russias military, i hardly see them able to defeat the modern equipment of Finnish army and ability to raise 500 00 well armed and motivated soldiers to defend our country, just like that.
Finland have had long and rocky road with Russia and after WWII our country has been able to have relatively good relations with them, without them being able to much inflict our politics. You dont see propaganda statements in Russian media against Finland, like many other countries. Finland is friendly to all her neighbours, but ready to defend itself to the end if needs to be and Russia knows that taking this frozen swamp would cost them alot more then they would gain from taking it.
I doubt that Russians are trying to over run Finland at any point like Swedish Fish suggested
Don't worry, said in humor. I very much doubt Russia will breeze by the Baltic States at this point. I mean, hell, it took them a couple days of advancing to get a considerable amount of Georgia, it took the Germans a couple weeks to overrun Poland, France, etc. Just to put it in perspective.
Besides, if Russia ever tried something as stupid as attacking Finland, a considerable amount of Scandinavian nations would be there in a second :yes:
Adrian II
08-21-2008, 08:22
[..] Russia knows that taking this frozen swamp would cost them alot more then they would gain from taking it.They already have a large chunk of it. Remember Karelia? :yes:
Not only was Karelia lost to the Russki's, but Finland later allied with nazi-Germany. Nice. Finland
should be grateful that it wasn't bombed to smithereens by the allied air force in 1944-45. Oh wait, that wasn't necessary because the Germans destroyed it for them, after they feel out with Finland.
If it hadn't been for the allied war effort, Finland would now be a German colony.
Instead, Finland has enjoyed de facto Nato protection since 1948 because only Nato and in particular the United States were able to keep the USSR from overrunning all of Europe. Including Finland.
Besides, Finland's threatened position necessitated censorship and self-censorship throughout the country, particularly in the media and national politics. Even foreign journalists were blacklisted and intimidated or deported by the Finnish authorities for writing about the Finno-Soviet relationship and the lack of freedom in Finland.
In short: no thanks, I think we can do without that sort of 'neutrality'.
*must resist joke about Finnish peacekeepers*
I don't think Allied bombers had that range.
Besides, I think the Finns were in the "Enemy of my enemy is my friend" mentality when they decided to fight the Soviets. Didn't the Soviets take Finnish land at the end of the Winter War? Germany comes a long, promises the destruction of the USSR, and more than likely more land for Finland than what the Soviets took away. Honestly, I bet the Finns were about to have a heart attack with that offer :smash:
Kagemusha
08-21-2008, 08:41
They already have a large chunk of it. Remember Karelia? :yes:
Not only was Karelia lost to the Russki's, but Finland later allied with nazi-Germany. Nice. Finland
should be grateful that it wasn't bombed to smithereens by the allied air force in 1944-45. Oh wait, that wasn't necessary because the Germans destroyed it for them, after they feel out with Finland.
If it hadn't been for the allied war effort, Finland would now be a German colony.
Instead, Finland has enjoyed de facto Nato protection since 1948 because only Nato and in particular the United States were able to keep the USSR from overrunning all of Europe. Including Finland.
Besides, Finland's threatened position necessitated censorship and self-censorship throughout the country, particularly in the media and national politics. Even foreign journalists were blacklisted and intimidated or deported by the Finnish authorities for writing about the Finno-Soviet relationship and the lack of freedom in Finland.
In short: no thanks, I think we can do without that sort of 'neutrality'.
*must resist joke about Finnish peacekeepers*
That good sir i would call Bollox, as tribesy might say.If you are so hysteric, please still remain in the facts. I will not go into commenting about Dutch efforts as peacekeepers or any other of their war efforts, because i dont find that being a good mannered behaviour. Finland has currently troops both in Kosovo and Afghanistan, while we are not part of your beloved NATO.:smash:
And did you know that in matter of fact, most the cold war there were NATO nuclear weapons targeted to Finland in order to slow the Soviet forces moving through Finland. It is not our fault that we lie between East and West and North Atlantic alliance or allied powers, except our neighbors before that had never real intentions to help us, which showed well in Winter War.
Please check you facts about WWII and time after it and then we can get back to the discussion, maybe in another thread.
Adrian II
08-21-2008, 08:54
That good sir i would call Bollox, as tribesy might say.If you are so hysteric, please still remain in the facts. I will not go into commenting about Dutch efforts as peacekeepers or any other of their war efforts, because i dont find that being a good mannered behaviour. Finland has currently troops both in Kosovo and Afghanistan, while we are not part of your beloved NATO.:smash:
And did you know that in matter of fact, most the cold war there were NATO nuclear weapons targeted to Finland in order to slow the Soviet forces moving through Finland. It is not our fault that we lie between East and West and North Atlantic alliance or allied powers, except our neighbors before that had never real intentions to help us, which showed well in Winter War.You call that 'facts'? It's not even a reply to what I wrote.
So that doesn't make them facts? :2thumbsup:
Kagemusha
08-21-2008, 09:09
You call that 'facts'? It's not even a reply to what I wrote.
Calm bit down Adrian. Give sources to your wild accusations maybe in another thread and we can continue talking about it.
Adrian II
08-21-2008, 09:24
So that doesn't make them facts? :2thumbsup:There are no facts that contradict my post about Finnish 'neutrality'. It invited war, it led to an alliance with nazi Germany and resulted in a truncated country with a truncated democracy. Not a model to follow.
There are no facts that contradict my post about Finnish 'neutrality'. It invited war, it led to an alliance with nazi Germany and resulted in a truncated country with a truncated democracy. Not a model to follow.
How exactly did Finland invite the Winter War? The Soviet Union violated the Treaty of Tartu, and held talks with Finland to move the border away from Leningrad by acquiring Finnish territory in fears of German attacks. Naturally, the talks didn't get far, and by the time of the non-aggresion pact between Germany and the Soviets, there was no need to continue. When Finland was set in the Soviet sphere of influence, they demanded the border be moved away from Leningrad and they demanded a 30 year lease on the Hanko Peninsula, in turn, the USSR would give Finland the Karelian. It was referred to as "gainign two pounds of dirt for one pound of gold". The Soviet Union then fired on their own village, saying it was a Finnish attack. There.
As for the Continuation War, this could simply be told as Finland trying to get even with the Soviets. Can you blame them?
Kagemusha
08-21-2008, 09:43
There are no facts that contradict my post about Finnish 'neutrality'. It invited war, it led to an alliance with nazi Germany and resulted in a truncated country with a truncated democracy. Not a model to follow.
You must be kidding me. Finland invited war in 1939 when Soviet Union attacked Finland based on Molotov-Ribbentrop pact? Last time at 1938, Finland had proposed a common defense pact between Scandinavian countries.
During Winter War, all Western Allies did was that they planned to send a relief force, which was not actually even purposed to go to Finland, but to secure the Iron Ore fields of Northern Sweden, which they felt were threatened once Finland would have quickly collapsed, fighting alone against Soviet Union, which did not happen. Stop being naive and idealistic, all Western Allies thought was themselves.
Yet in 1941 when Finland entered Continuation War, there was no choice of any kind for Finland. The year before had been spent with continuos threats and demands from Soviet Union and when Germany started talks of Cooperation and after they had taken Norway, which Western Allies were not able to stop again. There was "no" option available for Finland. That would have meant an attack from Germany, while Soviet Union was already hostile. If you are carrying that Historian badge, then stop being so black and white and naive. And study subjects, before you declare you know the ""facts". Maybe this is just not one of your days, but i didnt expect such nonsense from you.
agreed, finnish action against russia in concert (but not truly allied) with germany was totally understandable, although the post-war accommodations with the USSR in order to be regarded as 'friendly' are not my cup of tea.
Kralizec
08-21-2008, 09:56
I seriously doubt that Finland could have avoided war with the SU except on the most self-depracating terms. With the Winter War fresh in the past, I don't see how anyone can blame them for alligning with Germany. Neutrality might be something of a misnomer for its post-war situation, but all things considered I'd say the Finns did remarkably well in the 20th century.
Crandaeolon
08-21-2008, 10:01
Interesting discussion, gentlemen.
I believe Adrian means to criticise Finland's political neutrality even before the onset of WWII as a counter-example of successful defence policy in a larger context, rather than Finland's actions after the war broke out.
Kagemusha
08-21-2008, 10:05
Interesting discussion, gentlemen.
I believe Adrian means to criticise Finland's political neutrality even before the onset of WWII as a counter-example of successful defence policy in a larger context, rather than Finland's actions after the war broke out.
The problem in his statement lies in that Finland was not trying to be neutral before WWII, but failed in gaining allies.
Adrian II
08-21-2008, 10:33
I seriously doubt that Finland could have avoided war with the SU except on the most self-depracating terms.True. And let's not forget that Stalin's attack on Finland was invited by Scandinavian neutrality in general, not just that of Finland. Those countries were too neutral for their own good.
Finland was so 'neutral' that Stalin feared a German attack through Finland in the foreseeable future. Hence the invasion. Later, during the Winter War, Norway and Sweden refused transit to a British/French expeditionary force which could have helped Finland against the Soviets and future encroachments by Germany.
The notion that these troops were 'merely' offered in order to protect vital resources in Sweden and elsewhere is correct; why should they have been offered to fight for Karelia in the first place? Britain and France were involved in a much larger, much more vital conflict with Germany; a fight for the soul of Europe in which Finland refused to take sides. The implicit suggestion that British and French troops were somehow morally obliged to fight for Finland, with which they were not allied, is preposterous.
I would have thought such facts spoke for themselves.
It's remarkable how our Finnish protagonists adopt the same tricks as a certain Polish gentleman whenever someone has the temerity to suggest that Poland isn't the best of all possible worlds:
attack your opponent personally
attack the policies or history of your opponent's country
dismiss other nation's historic policies because 'they were only looking after their own interests'.
Besides, there is a general tendency among the 'losers' of WWII to blame their mistakes, defeats and national tragedies on the democratic western nations who tried to come to their rescue, albeit often not successfully. The fate of Poland, Italy, France (and now Finland) is blamed on those horrible, selfish Allies who declined to bleed themselves to death for [insert country of choice]. Like I said, I find that preposterous.
Kagemusha
08-21-2008, 10:39
True. And let's not forget that Stalin's attack on Finland was invited by Scandinavian neutrality in general, not just that of Finland. Those countries were too neutral for their own good.
Finland was so 'neutral' that Stalin feared a German attack through Finland in the foreseeable future. Hence the invasion. Later, during the Winter War, Norway and Sweden refused transit to a British/French expeditionary force which could have helped Finland against the Soviets and future encroachments by Germany. The notion that these troops were 'merely' offered in order to protect vital resources in Sweden and elsewhere is correct; why should they be offered to fight for Karelia in the first place. The implicit suggestion that British and French troops were somehow morally obliged to fight for Finland, with which they were not allied, is preposterous.
I would have thought such facts spoke for themselves.
It's remarkable how our Finnish protagonists adopt the same tricks as a certain Polish gentleman whenever someone has the temerity to suggest that Poland isn't the best of all possible worlds:
attack your opponent personally
attack the policies or history of your opponent's country
dismiss other nation's historic policies because 'they were only looking after their on interests'.
Besides, there is a general tendency among the 'losers' of WWII to blame their mistakes, defeats and national tragedies on the democratic western nations who tried to come to their rescue, albeit often not successfully. The fate of Poland, Italy, France (and now Finland) is blamed on those horrible, selfish Allies who declined to bleed themselves to death for [insert country of choice]. I find that preposterous.
Other statement that is bollox.You blame Scandinavia and Finland for themselves being victims and conviniently forget the Molotov Ribbentrop pact between USSR and Germany, where they practically shared the countries between them.The Soviet attack to Finland was not caused by Stalin being afreid of attack from Gemrnany through Finland, but because in agreement with Germany, Finland was given to Soviet Unnion. Personally Adrian, i have always respected you and where have i insulted you personally? Only personal attack i have seen is in that post of yours, demonizing me. I only adviced for you to calm down im my post before. I am sorry but i will leave this conversation, because you are attacking me personally.
Adrian II
08-21-2008, 10:47
I am sorry but i will leave this conversation, because you are attacking me personally.Sure, just leave whilst your views are exposed for what they are.
Mind you, there has been only one personal attack in this discussion so far, and that was when you called me 'hysterical'. I don't mind, nor do I mind attacks on Dutch policies which I never supported in the first place, or Dutch mistakes which I admitted (and tore to shreds) in previous threads.
Why is it so hard for some people to admit such mistakes? On this forum we've had Frenchmen trashing the stupid pre-war policies of their country, Brits doing the same with regard to British pre-war stances and policies, and here is one Dutchman who does the same. My country's pre-war policy of 'neutrality' was deeply stupid and irresponsible. There. That doesn't hurt me at all. It's only the chauvinists of all nations who experience guilt over such statements.
EDIT
Let me elaborate on that a bit. The Netherlands were officially neutral throughout the 1930's. Our Prime Minister was fond of Germany, he went there on holiday every year right through 1939, chatting up his Prussian officer friends and expressing his warm sympathy for the German nation. The government 'discouraged' horror stories in the papers about German concentration camps and other unpleasantries, for they might 'irritate' that 'friendly head of state', Mr. Hitler. Generally speaking the nation was lulled to sleep with the lie that Germany would never attack the country, had no designs on us, &cetera. Said Prime Minister himself probably believed this, he was enough of a provincialist to disregard any wider tendencies in international relations (or the world economy for that matter). This policy of neutrality was the main reason why the country was totally unprepared for the German onslaught in May 1940, not only for the war itself (which would have been short in any case) but also for the establishment of an effective resistance afterwards. In 1940 The Netherlands were crushed, militarily and morally, by Germany.
Kagemusha
08-21-2008, 11:02
Sure, just leave whilst your views are exposed for what they are.
Mind you, there has been only one personal attack in this discussion so far, and that was when you called me 'hysterical'. I don't mind, nor do I mind attacks on Dutch policies which I never supported in the first place, or Dutch mistakes which I admitted (and tore to shreds) in previous threads.
Why is it so hard for some people to admit such mistakes? On this forum we've had Frenchmen trashing the stupid pre-war policies of their country, Brits doing the same with regard to British pre-war stances and policies, and here is one Dutchman who does the same. My country's pre-war policy of 'neutrality' was deeply stupid and irresponsible. There. That doesn't hurt me at all. It's only the chauvinists of all nations who experience guilt over such statements.
Well what did you call me just in that post of yours? Comparing me to certain Polish member and now again you are painting me as blind nationalist. I never said that there was not mistakes, but can you honestly say that you know about the foreign policy machinations of Finland during 30´s, while you are saying that it was basically Finlands fault that it was attacked? If you want to debate about that, please start a thread in Monastery about it and i can give you facts with references, if you dont take my word for it.
Crandaeolon
08-21-2008, 11:03
Finland was not trying to be neutral before WWII, but failed in gaining allies.
The direction of Finnish diplomacy after Germany's defeat in WWI was primarily in "close areas" such as the Baltic states and Scandinavia. Also, the League of Nations was initially (and erroneously) seen as a source of military security. I'm sure we can agree on the relative toothlessness of these entities.
The SU was understandably out of the question, so in the focussed sphere of diplomacy that leaves Germany and Poland. Germany did prove to be a useful ally for a time and Finland managed to wriggle free from the conflict relatively unscathed, but it could be argued that Finland's limited diplomatic efforts resulted in some unnecessary conflicts and damage to national integrity.
Adrian II
08-21-2008, 11:07
If you want to debate about that, please start a thread in Monastery about it and i can give you facts with references, if you dont take my word for it.Maybe at some future time. I am aware that some would judge our discussion to be a derailment of the thread. Since earlier in this thread Finlandisation was recommended for Georgia, I thought I should state the obvious. I believe I have, so I'll give it a rest.
Kralizec
08-21-2008, 11:13
You can call the Dutch' neutral stance spineless of course, but that it would prove ineffective is probably hindsight. As far as I know there was no good military reason for Germany to invade us (as opposed to Belgium) so I don't think it was as stupid to count on it as you made it out to be.
As for Finland refusing to take sides in the quarrel over the "soul of Europe" as you term it, I don't blame them. History is rife with examples of smaller countries or entities taking sides in conflict with larger states and turning out to have chosen poorly. Taking sides against Germany might have pleased the French and the English but wouldn't have prompted them to support them against Soviet agression and I asssume the Finns came to the same conclusion. As far as diplomacy goes, I think Finland compares favourably with pretty much all other European countries.
Kagemusha
08-21-2008, 11:54
The direction of Finnish diplomacy after Germany's defeat in WWI was primarily in "close areas" such as the Baltic states and Scandinavia. Also, the League of Nations was initially (and erroneously) seen as a source of military security. I'm sure we can agree on the relative toothlessness of these entities.
The SU was understandably out of the question, so in the focussed sphere of diplomacy that leaves Germany and Poland. Germany did prove to be a useful ally for a time and Finland managed to wriggle free from the conflict relatively unscathed, but it could be argued that Finland's limited diplomatic efforts resulted in some unnecessary conflicts and damage to national integrity.
I agree with your words, but wouldnt you agree that the norm of politics those days was to find regional allies? Every country in Europe did that. Concerning after WWII, sure anyone can call Finlands foreign policy cowrdly, but it is made clear in History books that Finland as "collaborator" of Germany was left to Soviet sphere of influence. But being the only country that actually paid completely its war compensations and staying neutral in the international affairs, guaranteed Finland to remain as independent country. Another option would have meant another war against Soviet Union alone, like Finland was in Winter War. But as it has been said before. These issues are derailing the thread.
True. And let's not forget that Stalin's attack on Finland was invited by Scandinavian neutrality in general, not just that of Finland. Those countries were too neutral for their own good.
:dizzy2:
Finland was so 'neutral' that Stalin feared a German attack through Finland in the foreseeable future. Hence the invasion.
Stalin feared German attack in the early re-armament of the Wermacht. When the pact was signed, Stalin was not worried about any attack. Let me remind you, the reason for war was that the Soviets shelled a Russian village and blamed it on the Finns.
Later, during the Winter War, Norway and Sweden refused transit to a British/French expeditionary force which could have helped Finland against the Soviets and future encroachments by Germany.
Because Norway and Sweden did not want to get involved. Of course, later, Norway would be invaded anyway, but for Sweden, Hitler himself stated any Allied activity endorsed by the Swedes or in Sweden would provoke the Germans into an invasion. Besides, the Allies weren't any more interested in helping Finland than in helping Sweden. They were focused on the iron ore.
Besides, Svenska Frivilligkåren, the Swedish Volunteer Corps. 9,640 volunteering Swedes fought side by side with the Finnish. The Swedish Voluntary Air Force. All helped fight the Winter War, I should know, my deceased (may he rest in peace) grandfather fought in the Volunteer Corps. So Sweden had in fact contributed to the Winter War far more than resources. They did not allow the Allied force simply in fear of a very real retaliation.
Adrian II
08-21-2008, 12:49
:dizzy2:Alright, alright. Since yall keep sitting on your hands like true peacekeepers, I'll open that Monastery thread for ya. :mellow:
It's always funny to think about how Switzerland shot down any plane from any side that entered it's territory, axis or allies, yet noone ever bothered to invade them. ~D
The Black Ship
08-21-2008, 17:22
I notice that even the Soviets...errr, I mean Russias have down graded the number of S. Ossettian civilian deaths to less than 150 from well over 1500. What next?
has putin also downgraded his original statement where he said georgian tanks where driving over south ossettian children i wonder...................?
Meanwhile, in the Untied States:
https://i37.tinypic.com/2wnsp6w.jpg
the Untied States:
Tell me that was deliberate. :laugh4:
The Russians are advancing from Abkhazia, not Atlanta.
Kralizec
08-21-2008, 23:00
Tell me that was deliberate. :laugh4:
I suspect that Lemur is secretly Banquo's (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1993208&postcount=17) altar ego...
Louis VI the Fat
08-21-2008, 23:39
I suspect that Lemur is secretly Banquo's altar ego...
Tell me that was deliberate. :laugh4:
ICantSpellDawg
08-22-2008, 18:27
Russia's neighbors are not too happy (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7575813.stm)
Russia's neighbours go their own way
By Bridget Kendall
BBC diplomatic correspondent
It is easy to assume that escalating tensions between Russia and the West could mean an end to the blurry fudges of the post-Cold War years and a recasting of East-West relations into black and white antagonism, with two opposing camps, each surrounded by its own sphere of influence.
But look at how the Georgia crisis is being received around Russia's edges. The response is often evasive, and sometimes downright surprising.
Among the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), which 20 years ago were constituent parts of the USSR whose loyalty to Moscow was automatic, Russia has won remarkably few endorsements. Some Central Asian states have sent in aid to South Ossetia. But on the whole the response has been decidedly muted.
To be fair, Georgia too has drawn criticism. But gone are the days when Moscow could rely on satellite states to speak up for it. For Russia's leaders to declare that Russia was and always will be the "guarantor of stability" in the Caucasus is now a risky statement that could repel as well as draw regional backing.
Its neighbours are now independent countries whose priority is not to please the Kremlin but turn any crisis to their advantage, or worry about how it might adversely affect them.
Economic interests first
So Azerbaijan, a Caucasian neighbour of Georgia and now a confident oil producer, has unambiguously backed Georgia. Its main concern is to keep the pipeline that runs from Baku through Georgian territory to Turkey free from threat of attack by Russia.
Landlocked Turkmenistan too, with its immense gas fields on the other side of the Caspian Sea, has a lively interest in making sure the Baku pipeline is not disrupted and Georgia remains a stable reliable partner.
It competes as well as collaborates with Russia as an energy supplier. It does not want one of its main outlets threatened.
And beleaguered Armenia, at the southern tip of the Caucasus, has even more reason to be alarmed. Any prolonged conflict in Georgia would disrupt all its supply routes.
Further west and closer to Europe in the "former Soviet space", there has been an even more marked shift in governmental responses.
Tiny impoverished Moldova, on the border between Romania and Ukraine, has its own "frozen conflict" unsolved from Soviet days: the Russian-supported and heavily armed enclave of Trans-Dniester.
So this week Moldovan President Vladimir Voronin pointedly turned to the European Union for help in finding a peaceful way out of that stand-off.
Ukrainian ambivalence
In Ukraine, President Viktor Yushchenko from the very start saw Russia's military intervention in Georgia as an implied threat. Ukraine too is a Nato aspirant, and Russia has frequently warned it that Nato membership is something it will not tolerate.
So President Yushchenko was swift to define himself as the champion of Ukraine's right to join Nato and defy Russian pressure.
Not only did he fly to Tbilisi to offer moral support, he issued a presidential decree to remind Russia that its Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol in the Crimea does, after all, use a Ukrainian port.
In future, he demanded, Russia must give 72 hours' notice before moving its vessels and he once again raised the prospect that Ukraine might not renew its lease for the port when it expires in 2017.
But how Russia's relations with Ukraine might unwind is not straightforward.
The fear has certainly been expressed in Kiev that a restive pro-Russian population in the Crimea might provide a pretext for another Russian military intervention. Russian nationalists who see the Crimea as historically Russian territory would seize any pretext to realise their ambitions, goes the argument.
What is certainly true is that a clash between Moscow and Kiev over the Crimea would probably cleave Ukraine in half and open up a dangerous conflict with widespread repercussions. But a more likely scenario is less dramatic.
Russia has only to wait for a change in Ukrainian politics. President Yushchenko may be a prominent leader but his long term-durability is not guaranteed. Opinion polls put his popularity at under 10%.
With presidential elections due in 18 months, the Kremlin may well reckon it can look for a more reliable partner in his likely opponent and current Prime Minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, who has been remarkably quiet on the Georgia crisis.
Mixed signals from Minsk
But perhaps the most interesting response has come from Belarus and its President, Alexander Lukashenko, sometimes described as "Europe's last dictator".
Only a few years ago Russia was such a close ally, there was talk of the two countries merging, so one might have expected him to back Russia's action in the Caucasus.
But Belarus has had a series of bad-tempered rows with Russia over energy supplies and has recently shown more interest in improving Western contacts.
The initial response from Minsk to Russia's intervention in Georgia was decidedly ambivalent - so much so, that the Russian ambassador there even publicly expressed his displeasure.
President Lukashenko then travelled to Sochi to reassure President Medvedev that Moscow's military operation had been conducted "calmly, wisely and beautifully".
But he took steps to clear the way for better relations with the US and Europe.
In the last few days the final three political prisoners in Belarus have been suddenly released - the beneficiaries, it seems, of an unexpected presidential pardon.
"It's very significant," said Britain's Ambassador to Minsk, Nigel Gould Davies. "For the first time in a decade Belarus does not have any political prisoners."
And watch this space. Whether Belarus is really serious about improving its relations with the West will be tested in September, when it holds parliamentary elections.
Whether Belarus is really serious about improving its relations with the West will be tested in September, when it holds parliamentary elections.
Fraudulent elections FTW with Lukashenko at teh power.
Russia has formally recognized the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. (link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2626019/Russia-inflames-Georgia-crisis-by-recognising-separatist-republics.html))
To me, this means that Georgia can pretty much kiss those provinces good-bye (if they hadn't already). Russia will no occupy and defend both with impunity citing the protection of their independence and the West will still remain paralyzed.
Also, here's (http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2008/08/the-truth-about-1.php) an interesting writeup by Michael Totten that claims to show how Russia actually started the conflict. I'm not sure I buy all of it as stated, but it's interesting nonetheless.
Here's a small excerpt:
“On the evening of the 7th, the Ossetians launch an all-out barrage focused on Georgian villages, not on Georgian positions. Remember, these Georgian villages inside South Ossetia – the Georgians have mostly evacuated those villages, and three of them are completely pulverized. That evening, the 7th, the president gets information that a large Russian column is on the move. Later that evening, somebody sees those vehicles emerging from the Roki tunnel [into Georgia from Russia]. Then a little bit later, somebody else sees them. That's three confirmations. It was time to act.
“What they had in the area was peacekeeping stuff, not stuff for fighting a war. They had to stop that column, and they had to stop it for two reasons. It's a pretty steep valley. If they could stop the Russians there, they would be stuck in the tunnel and they couldn't send the rest of their army through. So they did two things. The first thing they did, and it happened at roughly the same time, they tried to get through [South Ossetian capital] Tskhinvali, and that's when everybody says Saakashvili started the war. It wasn't about taking Ossetia back, it was about fighting their way through that town to get onto that road to slow the Russian advance. The second thing they did, they dropped a team of paratroopers to destroy a bridge. They got wiped out, but first they managed to destroy the bridge and about 15 Russian vehicles.
:shrug:
Russia's neighbors are not too happy (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7575813.stm)
Russia's neighbours go their own way
By Bridget Kendall
BBC diplomatic correspondent
It is easy to assume that escalating tensions between Russia and the West could mean an end to the blurry fudges of the post-Cold War years and a recasting of East-West relations into black and white antagonism, with two opposing camps, each surrounded by its own sphere of influence.
But look at how the Georgia crisis is being received around Russia's edges. The response is often evasive, and sometimes downright surprising.
Among the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), which 20 years ago were constituent parts of the USSR whose loyalty to Moscow was automatic, Russia has won remarkably few endorsements. Some Central Asian states have sent in aid to South Ossetia. But on the whole the response has been decidedly muted.
To be fair, Georgia too has drawn criticism. But gone are the days when Moscow could rely on satellite states to speak up for it. For Russia's leaders to declare that Russia was and always will be the "guarantor of stability" in the Caucasus is now a risky statement that could repel as well as draw regional backing.
Its neighbours are now independent countries whose priority is not to please the Kremlin but turn any crisis to their advantage, or worry about how it might adversely affect them.
Economic interests first
So Azerbaijan, a Caucasian neighbour of Georgia and now a confident oil producer, has unambiguously backed Georgia. Its main concern is to keep the pipeline that runs from Baku through Georgian territory to Turkey free from threat of attack by Russia.
Landlocked Turkmenistan too, with its immense gas fields on the other side of the Caspian Sea, has a lively interest in making sure the Baku pipeline is not disrupted and Georgia remains a stable reliable partner.
It competes as well as collaborates with Russia as an energy supplier. It does not want one of its main outlets threatened.
And beleaguered Armenia, at the southern tip of the Caucasus, has even more reason to be alarmed. Any prolonged conflict in Georgia would disrupt all its supply routes.
Further west and closer to Europe in the "former Soviet space", there has been an even more marked shift in governmental responses.
Tiny impoverished Moldova, on the border between Romania and Ukraine, has its own "frozen conflict" unsolved from Soviet days: the Russian-supported and heavily armed enclave of Trans-Dniester.
So this week Moldovan President Vladimir Voronin pointedly turned to the European Union for help in finding a peaceful way out of that stand-off.
Ukrainian ambivalence
In Ukraine, President Viktor Yushchenko from the very start saw Russia's military intervention in Georgia as an implied threat. Ukraine too is a Nato aspirant, and Russia has frequently warned it that Nato membership is something it will not tolerate.
So President Yushchenko was swift to define himself as the champion of Ukraine's right to join Nato and defy Russian pressure.
Not only did he fly to Tbilisi to offer moral support, he issued a presidential decree to remind Russia that its Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol in the Crimea does, after all, use a Ukrainian port.
In future, he demanded, Russia must give 72 hours' notice before moving its vessels and he once again raised the prospect that Ukraine might not renew its lease for the port when it expires in 2017.
But how Russia's relations with Ukraine might unwind is not straightforward.
The fear has certainly been expressed in Kiev that a restive pro-Russian population in the Crimea might provide a pretext for another Russian military intervention. Russian nationalists who see the Crimea as historically Russian territory would seize any pretext to realise their ambitions, goes the argument.
What is certainly true is that a clash between Moscow and Kiev over the Crimea would probably cleave Ukraine in half and open up a dangerous conflict with widespread repercussions. But a more likely scenario is less dramatic.
Russia has only to wait for a change in Ukrainian politics. President Yushchenko may be a prominent leader but his long term-durability is not guaranteed. Opinion polls put his popularity at under 10%.
With presidential elections due in 18 months, the Kremlin may well reckon it can look for a more reliable partner in his likely opponent and current Prime Minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, who has been remarkably quiet on the Georgia crisis.
Mixed signals from Minsk
But perhaps the most interesting response has come from Belarus and its President, Alexander Lukashenko, sometimes described as "Europe's last dictator".
Only a few years ago Russia was such a close ally, there was talk of the two countries merging, so one might have expected him to back Russia's action in the Caucasus.
But Belarus has had a series of bad-tempered rows with Russia over energy supplies and has recently shown more interest in improving Western contacts.
The initial response from Minsk to Russia's intervention in Georgia was decidedly ambivalent - so much so, that the Russian ambassador there even publicly expressed his displeasure.
President Lukashenko then travelled to Sochi to reassure President Medvedev that Moscow's military operation had been conducted "calmly, wisely and beautifully".
But he took steps to clear the way for better relations with the US and Europe.
In the last few days the final three political prisoners in Belarus have been suddenly released - the beneficiaries, it seems, of an unexpected presidential pardon.
"It's very significant," said Britain's Ambassador to Minsk, Nigel Gould Davies. "For the first time in a decade Belarus does not have any political prisoners."
And watch this space. Whether Belarus is really serious about improving its relations with the West will be tested in September, when it holds parliamentary elections.
and?
Most of these nations have vested interests in Moscow not toppling their governments, so it's safe to assume they get a little nervous at the Georgian invasion.
The article also points out that countries like Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan like that oil pipeline running through Georgia.
ICantSpellDawg
08-26-2008, 20:50
and?
Most of these nations have vested interests in Moscow not toppling their governments, so it's safe to assume they get a little nervous at the Georgian invasion.
The article also points out that countries like Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan like that oil pipeline running through Georgia.
What do you mean "and?".
I remember when Russia first invaded Georgia, Medvedev said that he was only interested in what former Soviet states had to say on the matter. That article maintains that those former soviet states have spoken and their opinion is a rather resounding "BS" on the Russian action.
What is your point? Is it that these nations have a reason to feel the way that they do about this? The tone of your post is bizarre.
Who supports Russia's action? Belarus - the last dictator in Europe (or is he...) barely did.
Sarmatian
08-26-2008, 21:34
Russia has formally recognized the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. (link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2626019/Russia-inflames-Georgia-crisis-by-recognising-separatist-republics.html))
To me, this means that Georgia can pretty much kiss those provinces good-bye (if they hadn't already). Russia will no occupy and defend both with impunity citing the protection of their independence and the West will still remain paralyzed.
Copy/paste of the Kosovo issue, with reversed sides. Georgia/West now cite the same reasons South Ossetia and Abkhazia can't be independent as Serbia/the rest of the world on Kosovo.... Now it gets interesting. I wonder what China and India are going to say...
Copy/paste of the Kosovo issue, with reversed sides. Georgia/West now cite the same reasons South Ossetia and Abkhazia can't be independent as Serbia/the rest of the world on Kosovo.... Now it gets interesting. I wonder what China and India are going to say...
Quite right on the Kosova comparison.
If only the Ossetians had the support of Vanessa Redgrave, George Michael (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/332509.stm), Nicole Kidman, and 50 Cent, oh, and the rest of the western world (http://www.america.gov/st/peacesec-english/2008/February/20080218144244dmslahrellek0.9832117.html), Georgia and not Russia would have been vilified in the media.
This whole issue irks me. Georgia can declare itself independent from Russia (USSR) in 1991, and it is okay. But it is objectable when Ossetia and Abkhazia declares themselves independent from Georgia. Even if modern Georgia never really did fully control those regions. Can anyone enlighten me?
What do you mean "and?".
I remember when Russia first invaded Georgia, Medvedev said that he was only interested in what former Soviet states had to say on the matter. That article maintains that those former soviet states have spoken and their opinion is a rather resounding "BS" on the Russian action.
What is your point? Is it that these nations have a reason to feel the way that they do about this? The tone of your post is bizarre.
Who supports Russia's action? Belarus - the last dictator in Europe (or is he...) barely did.
I agree with most of your article, I was just pointing out that most of the things said are common sense.
The Russians honestly could care less what other states have to say, as long as they are top dog of the region and have the keys to vast supplies of oil/gas.
Crazed Rabbit
08-27-2008, 03:00
But now that the Bear has claws which are long but dull, can we (the powers of France, Germany, the UK, Poland) handle Russia ourselves?
No. Europe is in the process, it seems, of selling out. Would you really start WWIII with Russia over Poland?
Russia provoking and invading another country isn't enough for Euro-NATO to even support suspending NATO relations with Russia.
There's only two choices: stand up to Russia and stop this or don't and let this continue. For so very long now the EU has sought to undermine the US as sole superpower and then when they are confronted with a real enemy they freeze in fright. As soon as the SU fell the defence the US had provided was mostly forgotten. And now the French don't support having their troops in Afghanistan to help us.
It's the same damned appeasement, the hope that if you let the alligator eat enough of the others, he'll be hungry when he get to you.
Does anyone really think, if Russia gets away with this, they'll stop with Georgia?
CR
Does anyone really think, if Russia gets away with this, they'll stop with Georgia?
They won't. Take it for sure. I'm assuming that they are going to invade Georgia AND another country. I'm not sure if they are going to risk themselves on having NATO on them. But the interesting part is that first the US starts to be a pain to Russia. I mean, The US can annoy Russia but Russia can't annoy the US?
Marshal Murat
08-27-2008, 03:11
Does anyone really think, if Russia gets away with this, they'll stop with Georgia?
Perhaps they might. It reminds me, vaguely, of the Corinthian response to Corycra. The Corinthians weren't set on world domination of any sort. The Corycrians just simply pissed them off so much, the Corinthians decided that they needed to be brought down. While I don't support the Corinthian actions, it doesn't mean that every act of war is an act of imperialism.
Copy/paste of the Kosovo issue, with reversed sides. Georgia/West now cite the same reasons South Ossetia and Abkhazia can't be independent as Serbia/the rest of the world on Kosovo.... Now it gets interesting. I wonder what China and India are going to say...
That is true. I myself feel compassion for the Serbians since Kosovo was indeed the birthplace of their nation (And thus is, in my point of view, part of Serbia by historical right.)
I can't say I feel the same way with regards to the Georgian matter, but those nations are products of foreign meddling in internal affairs, something they share with Kosovo. My opinion is that Kosovo should be a part of Serbia, just as Abkhazia and South Ossetia belong to Georgia.
Regarding the recognition of independence, it just confirms that Russia is indeed defying the West by beginning to reshape the borders of it's neighbours nations as it pleases.
Next target is Ukraine, by the way.
Next target is Ukraine, by the way.
And Poland also.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-27-2008, 03:48
And Poland also.
Another partition, perhaps. :book:
Maybe we can have Prussia and kill the EU in the same move.
Maybe we can have Prussia and kill the EU in the same move.How can such a thing happen? Only if Russia conquered all the countries...
Now, what is the Russian objective in this? Is it only a fight for the pipeline? To kick NATO @sses? Both? New Soviet Union without Socialism? Global domination?
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-27-2008, 03:54
How can such a thing happen? Only if Russia conquered all the countries...
If Russia invades Poland and we request Prussia, or at least the (presently Russian) "Kaliningrad" territory as a condition for helping Poland...a dream, I know. :laugh4:
Adrian II
08-27-2008, 07:52
No. Europe is in the process, it seems, of selling out. Would you really start WWIII with Russia over Poland?Would your country? Georgia is (or was) America's big ally, not Europe's. All I'm seeing these days in the way of support is an American warship delivering nappies to Poti. Oh wait , it was turned back last night because the Rusians threatened to 'inspect the cargo'. Speaking of a lame attitude.
I am disappointed by Nato as a whole, not just some or all European countries. And I am interested in solutions, not in country bashing. If anything has damaged Nato since 1989, it is this relentless, stupid, counterproductive country bashing that has been going on between its members.
If anything has damaged Nato since 1989, it is this relentless, stupid, counterproductive country bashing that has been going on between its members.
No. It is the attempt to set up parallel institutions within the EU that has cut the ground from beneath NATO.
Too many stupid politicians trying to force a diplomatic role for a glorified free trade area with pretensions of grandeur. A diplomatic role (that actually matters) requires military muscle, but more importantly it requires a collective will to employ force. do you see any such collective will?
The most laughable aspect has been france's 'diplomacy' which has been agreed by russia then immediately ignored with stifled sniggering from within the kremlin. What use is eu diplomacy when bernard kouchner as foreign minister of the rotating head of the eu says this:
French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner told French television: "We fear a war and we don't want one, if its hot, we don't want it'."
What certified :daisy:* seriously believes that the act of flapping ones tongue in a verbose and eloquent manner makes any :daisy: difference to the calculation of national interest................ unless you are holding a knife with the glint of a nutcase in your eyes?
* not directed at you.
rory_20_uk
08-27-2008, 10:46
NATO works in that it used to be a defence organisation - even the French might risk chipping a nail to prevent another nation from again walking down central Paris. The current pseudo-defensive with some overseas activity means it is a mes - and another ogranisation is required.
Why is when the USA acts unilaterally it is not undoing NATO, yet when European countries want to create a system of "active overseas diplomacy" this is undermining NATO?
~:smoking:
because NATO is principally about defending europe from itself.
so when the US invades iraq this does not principally affect europe.
whereas france encouraging some ridiculous concept of eurofence* is an attempt to weaken NATO by prying its neighbours away from from US influence.
you are right to say that NATO is straying from its purpose in foreign interventions, when what is really needed is the unfortunately named "coalition of the willing". however the need to make things seem multi-lateral encourages the mis-use of NATO.
* not that i disapprove of collective defence for the EU in principle, but the practice weakens NATO and regardless has no muscular foreign policy ability.
Louis VI the Fat
08-27-2008, 13:11
French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner told French television: "We fear a war and we don't want one, if its hot, we don't want it'."
What certified :daisy:* seriously believes that the act of flapping ones tongue in a verbose and eloquent manner makes any :daisy: difference to the calculation of national interest................ unless you are holding a knife with the glint of a nutcase in your eyes?:coffeenews:
I say it is this relentless, stupid, counterproductive country bashing that has been going on between NATO and EU members that has created a working space for Russia to jump into. They play the game better than we do.
How to counter Russia? By a) a unified democratic voice and a relentless effort to spread European democracy into Russia's neighbouring states. Or b) by starting WWWIII over Ossetia.
Failing either, loudmouths who ridicule and obstruct the first and are too sane to do the second can also opt to just sit back and blame the French.
i do not blame france for ineffective EU diplomacy, i blame the lack of a coherent EU. if britain were heading the EU then our statements (on behalf of the EU) would be equally ineffective.
the difference is i recognise the lack of coherence for what it is; a total absence of common position among the member nations, and would choose therefore a coalition of the willing to respond to russia, rather than advocating the federalism necessary to squash the dissenting voices of EU nations.
on the other hand, i do in part blame france for pushing EU defence up the political agenda in a way which has undermined NATO, but that is a somewhat tangential matter to the issue at hand.
rory_20_uk
08-27-2008, 13:35
Oh dear (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4618388.ece)
Looks like Milliband is hoping that rhetoric alone will sort this out. I don't know what he's trying to achieve.
Unless the West in whatever form decides to get a naval contingent into the Black sea, and then peacekeepers relatively close to where the Ruskies are then it's all empty verbiage.
If Ukraine askes the USA to station some ships in a port with the aim of setting up a new naval base this would obviously irritate Russia - but then is something to offer to remove if Rissia backs down.
The other problem is that if Russia does decide to back down this time I don't imagine that the West will let things alone. I imagine that Georgia will be getting a lot of aid to ensure that this doesn't happen again - and Russia is probably aware of this and hence is unlikely to leave any time soon.
Roll on alternative energy sources!
~:smoking:
ICantSpellDawg
08-27-2008, 13:50
I keep thinking that summer is ending. This would probably not be the best time to get involved in a war with Russia. A black sea build-up isn't a bad idea, though. We could aggressively close off their black sea ports if we really needed to before any ground forces entered in the spring.
I think that Medvedv is a crazy person. His words are so absurdly pro-conflict that I wonder what planet he is from. His manner is a bit deranged. I'd like to see a psych eval on this guy.
Sarmatian
08-27-2008, 13:55
The problem is that nowadays NATO as a protector of European countries from USSR isn't longer needed. Firstly, because USSR doesn't exist anymore and secondly, because European countries are more than capable to defend themselves from Russia.
To justify the its existence, NATO turned from primarily defensive military alliance to some kind of mini UN that has military muscle to intervene anywhere in the world with or without UN mandate. Russia was clear that role of NATO is unacceptable.
This offensive nature of NATO was first seen Kosovo. After giving hints that Serbia is gonna get bombed, Russians were quick to point out that evidence of genocide and war crimes is pretty thin at best, that it is circumstantial and comes from unreliable sources most of the time (KLA). It was ignored and air strikes commenced, with purpose of destroying the bulk of the Serbian army within a week or two thus forcing Serbia to accept any kind of deal. After 78 days it was clear that Serbian army is barely scratched and popular support for the campaign was waning, NATO was left with two choices:
1. Invade
2. Get back to negotiating table
First option was very improbable since what little support that was left would disappear and NATO would be fighting highly motivated army that spent last half a century preparing for an invasion by superior enemy, in very unfavourable terrain. Not that Serbia did have any chance of winning, but it was quite possible that the army would be able to inflict considerable damage on any invading army.
So the second option was the only option available. Russia was called to mediate in those negotiations. Russia agreed to that if NATO promises it would respect territorial integrity of Serbia and if Russian forces are included in peacekeeping mission. It was agreed. Unfortunately, Russian forces were excluded from participating in peacekeeping and NATO broke the deal about respecting Serbian territorial integrity. While negotiations were still underway, US officials were sending signals that "some kind of independence" must be the outcome, in effect severely limiting the room for manouver and the purpose of negotiations. When US stated that it will recognize Kosovo on basis of war crimes that supposedly happened, Russian side pointed out that those war crimes didn't happen, and even if they did, the government that supposedly commited them is no longer ruling in Belgrade, for almost a decade.
Again, it was ignored. Serbia (and Russia with it) was cheated more than once. Russia said clearly that Kosovo can't be considered an unique case. Ignored once more. Thoroughly humiliated, Russia stood on the sidelines watching US break all diplomatic deals and even official documents it signed. Not the European members of NATO did any better, but at least their support for independence of Kosovo was lukewarm, except UK.
While this was happening NATO started to expand greatly, exerting pressure or promising economic aid (and most often combination of the two) to countries that would join NATO. And like a cherry on cake, they want to install the anti-missile shield that is supposedly not directed against Russia, but against Iran and North Korea. That scenario looks increasingly like Iraq scenario. USA invaded Iraq, country that didn't attack or threaten to attack US to take away from them the weapon they didn't have. Likewise today, USA is installing a missile shield to defend itself from Iran and North Korea, because they can put a nuclear warhead they don't have on a missile they don't have and attack USA or Europe. Very, very thin argument. Almost like saying that warships normally deliver humanitarian aid. Russia delivered some humanitarian aid to Kosovo, but it was delivered in normal cargo planes, not MIGs.
NATO (US mostly) has been pushing around and humiliating Russia for quite some time. When Saakashvili broke the ceasefire and attacked someone whose safety was guaranteed by Russia, not to mention Russian civilians and peacekeepers it was quite normal that Russia is going to respond. Doing otherwise would have been extremely humiliating and a severe blow for what's left of Russia's prestige.
Kosovo and South Ossetia/Abkhazia are very much connected. It doesn't work when you say Kosovo is unique case. It's like standing to a duck and calling it a chicken. You can't do that. I mean, you can, but it won't transform that duck into a chicken.
The only long term solution that I see is that both Kosovo and Georgian separatist regions be given back de jure to Serbia and Georgia, that both countries declare military neutrality and that Russian peacekeepers be allowed in Kosovo, fully incorporated in UN mission there and NATO peacekeepers be allowed in S. Ossetia and Abkhazia. Then they can set up temporary institutions in Georgian regions like they did in Kosovo. So, all those regions would be de facto independent, while they would be part of Serbia/Georgia de jure. Than the transition of authority from temporary institutions to regional and national institutions could be done slowly and carefully, in the next several decades. In the end, those regions would have highest possible autonomy, with everything expect their own army and foreign policy...
I knew it that Kosovo is going to open up Pandora's Box. I'm just sad Georgians had to be the first to suffer from Kosovo syndrome. They're guilty of nothing more than electing an idiot for a president. Even that is not granted, as opposition told of rigged elections during his re-election.
Before I finish, I want to say something about Ukranian situation. It seems that it's gonna solve itself. Mr Yushchenko support is very low and seems that he won't be re-elected. This is probably his last important position for a very long time. Since he is the only politician that pushes Ukraine into NATO, it seems that Ukraine is going to change its position and would no longer seek NATO membership...
ICantSpellDawg
08-27-2008, 14:09
The problem is that nowadays NATO as a protector of European countries from USSR isn't longer needed. Firstly, because USSR doesn't exist anymore and secondly, because European countries are more than capable to defend themselves from Russia.
To justify the its existence, NATO turned from primarily defensive military alliance to some kind of mini UN that has military muscle to intervene anywhere in the world with or without UN mandate. Russia was clear that role of NATO is unacceptable.
This offensive nature of NATO was first seen Kosovo. After giving hints that Serbia is gonna get bombed, Russians were quick to point out that evidence of genocide and war crimes is pretty thin at best, that it is circumstantial and comes from unreliable sources most of the time (KLA). It was ignored and air strikes commenced, with purpose of destroying the bulk of the Serbian army within a week or two thus forcing Serbia to accept any kind of deal. After 78 days it was clear that Serbian army is barely scratched and popular support for the campaign was waning, NATO was left with two choices:
1. Invade
2. Get back to negotiating table
First option was very improbable since what little support that was left would disappear and NATO would be fighting highly motivated army that spent last half a century preparing for an invasion by superior enemy, in very unfavourable terrain. Not that Serbia did have any chance of winning, but it was quite possible that the army would be able to inflict considerable damage on any invading army.
So the second option was the only option available. Russia was called to mediate in those negotiations. Russia agreed to that if NATO promises it would respect territorial integrity of Serbia and if Russian forces are included in peacekeeping mission. It was agreed. Unfortunately, Russian forces were excluded from participating in peacekeeping and NATO broke the deal about respecting Serbian territorial integrity. While negotiations were still underway, US officials were sending signals that "some kind of independence" must be the outcome, in effect severely limiting the room for manouver and the purpose of negotiations. When US stated that it will recognize Kosovo on basis of war crimes that supposedly happened, Russian side pointed out that those war crimes didn't happen, and even if they did, the government that supposedly commited them is no longer ruling in Belgrade, for almost a decade.
Again, it was ignored. Serbia (and Russia with it) was cheated more than once. Russia said clearly that Kosovo can't be considered an unique case. Ignored once more. Thoroughly humiliated, Russia stood on the sidelines watching US break all diplomatic deals and even official documents it signed. Not the European members of NATO did any better, but at least their support for independence of Kosovo was lukewarm, except UK.
While this was happening NATO started to expand greatly, exerting pressure or promising economic aid (and most often combination of the two) to countries that would join NATO. And like a cherry on cake, they want to install the anti-missile shield that is supposedly not directed against Russia, but against Iran and North Korea. That scenario looks increasingly like Iraq scenario. USA invaded Iraq, country that didn't attack or threaten to attack US to take away from them the weapon they didn't have. Likewise today, USA is installing a missile shield to defend itself from Iran and North Korea, because they can put a nuclear warhead they don't have on a missile they don't have and attack USA or Europe. Very, very thin argument. Almost like saying that warships normally deliver humanitarian aid. Russia delivered some humanitarian aid to Kosovo, but it was delivered in normal cargo planes, not MIGs.
NATO (US mostly) has been pushing around and humiliating Russia for quite some time. When Saakashvili broke the ceasefire and attacked someone whose safety was guaranteed by Russia, not to mention Russian civilians and peacekeepers it was quite normal that Russia is going to respond. Doing otherwise would have been extremely humiliating and a severe blow for what's left of Russia's prestige.
Kosovo and South Ossetia/Abkhazia are very much connected. It doesn't work when you say Kosovo is unique case. It's like standing to a duck and calling it a chicken. You can't do that. I mean, you can, but it won't transform that duck into a chicken.
The only long term solution that I see is that both Kosovo and Georgian separatist regions be given back de jure to Serbia and Georgia, that both countries declare military neutrality and that Russian peacekeepers be allowed in Kosovo, fully incorporated in UN mission there and NATO peacekeepers be allowed in S. Ossetia and Abkhazia. Then they can set up temporary institutions in Georgian regions like they did in Kosovo. So, all those regions would be de facto independent, while they would be part of Serbia/Georgia de jure. Than the transition of authority from temporary institutions to regional and national institutions could be done slowly and carefully, in the next several decades. In the end, those regions would have highest possible autonomy, with everything expect their own army and foreign policy...
I knew it that Kosovo is going to open up Pandora's Box. I'm just sad Georgians had to be the first to suffer from Kosovo syndrome. They're guilty of nothing more than electing an idiot for a president. Even that is not granted, as opposition told of rigged elections during his re-election.
Before I finish, I want to say something about Ukranian situation. It seems that it's gonna solve itself. Mr Yushchenko support is very low and seems that he won't be re-elected. This is probably his last important position for a very long time. Since he is the only politician that pushes Ukraine into NATO, it seems that Ukraine is going to change its position and would no longer seek NATO membership...
NATO's primary role is to defend "North Atlantic" nations. While the impetus for the alliance is important to understand from an historical perspective, the threat is irrelevant. NATO and its expansion will be THE source of western stability and democratic transition well into the future.
rory_20_uk
08-27-2008, 14:18
What an... interesting post.
Russia has something like 20,000 nuclear missiles. Many have multi warheads. The missile defence system has less than 10 missiles in it. Ergo, it is not going to stop Russia destroying the world.
Russia has no say as to the need for NATO to continue. It wasn't asked at the outset, and it wasn't asked now. Coutries can join or leave (look at France for example).
The evidence of war crimes were the piles of bodies in graves. I can understand that Russia may not view this as unusual, but then Russia has a longer history of shooting unarmed discontents than most countries.
European countries alone could defeat Russia possibly. But far better is to have a unified command. Your assertion that Russia is this weak is more to do with bias than fact I feel.
The USA delivered aid in a non-military ship. Even if it used an aircraft carrier, so what? Also you might be aware that there is longer for the USA to do than for Russia. This precludes flights. Russia also definitely delivered military aid.
And again, why can't the USA deliver military aid? Are all things to be considered if Russia likes them or not?
Russia not only "defended" the regions without going to the UN (rather similar to the way America did - and is of course deplorable), but then were so enthusiastic about "defending" the areas they had to go a long way into another country! They have also helped ease tensions by telling Georgian troops to withdraw when in Georgia...
I imagine that those who don't wish to be subsumed into Russia again will be more keen to tie up with NATO. This goes for the Baltic states and the Ukranians in Ukraine.
~:smoking:
..........stuff.........
i agree totally that the West should never have broken its promise to mess about with kosovo's territorial integrity.
i also believe the KLA played a blinder when they convinced the world about genocide in what were often minor reprisal attacks.
and i totally agree that we have only ourselves to blame for the georgia conflict, after all russia warned us that if we break up nation-states in its backyard a precedent will have been set.
personally speaking, with the exception of kosovo i have no problem with the wests treatment of russia, i believe russia to be essentially belligerent and will only get more so as declining population and mineral wealth threaten its great-power status, but they have played a masterly hand in georgia. i am also delighted that eastern europe is home to some ABM's as it provides poland, czech, etc a shelter from russian bullying.
i don't agree that Saakashvili is a fool or an idiot, yet, there is too much of this story yet to come out before i make that judgment, as per this article:
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2008/08/the-truth-about-1.php
but how i wish kosovo was never never allowed independence, de-sanctifying the territorial integrity of the nation-state is going to bring untold death and misery in the future, and it is the west's fault.
i am a thorough-going British unionist, but i would not attempt to forcibly halt the departure of wales or scotland if that was their wish, nor would anyone else but that's because we are relatively mature about these things. however there aren't many countries that can be said for, and westphalia prevented conflict if only because territory was inviolate therefore secession was mostly unthinkable. kosovo's independence has also provided a fantastic pretext for nations to interfere in other nations internal business as seen in georgia today.
Adrian II
08-27-2008, 15:36
To justify the its existence, NATO turned from primarily defensive military alliance to some kind of mini UN that has military muscle to intervene anywhere in the world with or without UN mandate. Russia was clear that role of NATO is unacceptable.As long as Russia isn't a full-fledged democracy I couldn't care less what its leaders find acceptable, although their views must be taken into consideration, not unlike the weight of dead matter is taken into consideration in physical calculations. As far as aggression and oppression in neighbouring countries go, Russia's have been so massive and are still so fresh in peoples' memories that the country should behave with utter modesty, much like post-war Germany had to do, instead of this bravado.
However, your view that Nato had deteriorated into an opportunist gang of the world's richest nations has some truth in it. Too much truth to be ignored. I agree with you that 'Ossetia' is 'Kosovo' in reverse. Nato was right to stop the Serbian oppression in Kosovo, but it failed to stop the Albanian revenge killing and ethnic cleansing, and then compounded this failure by supporting Kosovar independence.
Crazed Rabbit
08-27-2008, 15:40
Would your country? Georgia is (or was) America's big ally, not Europe's. All I'm seeing these days in the way of support is an American warship delivering nappies to Poti. Oh wait , it was turned back last night because the Rusians threatened to 'inspect the cargo'. Speaking of a lame attitude.
I am disappointed by Nato as a whole, not just some or all European countries. And I am interested in solutions, not in country bashing. If anything has damaged Nato since 1989, it is this relentless, stupid, counterproductive country bashing that has been going on between its members.
So I suppose the US is supposed to hold back Russia single-handed with no support from our supposed allies? Yes, our country certainly hasn't been stellar or even that good in this conflict, but our 'allies' undercut us by threatening "hard headed engagement" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7583486.stm) with Russia. Oh Noes!
I think after the fall of the USSR a lot of European countries thought they didn't need the US anymore and so begin to forget about NATO responsibilities.
Failing either, loudmouths who ridicule and obstruct the first and are too sane to do the second can also opt to just sit back and blame the French.
The first bit sounds exactly like what the Europeans have done.
Gah. It's like Europe think they can solve this through talk, when even their talk is divided.
CR
Woah. That link and it's text blew me off. I just fowarded it to the most proeminent journalist in Portugal (Who is curiously in Georgia, broadcasting about the war), to his mail.
Adrian II
08-27-2008, 16:02
I think after the fall of the USSR a lot of European countries thought they didn't need the US anymore and so begin to forget about NATO responsibilities.This barely a weak after ten Frenchmen died in Afghanistan on a Nato mission. Nice timing, CR. It seesm this subject is just an excuse for yo to indulge some pet peeves of American isolationism. Why don't you blame Barack Obama for the loss of Ossetia while you're at it?
Really, your posts on his entire subject couldn't be more useless or defeatist. :shame:
have those frenchmen been anywhere near the front-line?
to put it another way so it is less emotionally charged: how many non anglosphere NATO nations have been heavily involved in the front-line fight for a number of years? the dutch spring to mind.
i agree with CR that some continental NATO nations have been shirking their responsibilities in the crazy hope of a new era of peace.
ICantSpellDawg
08-27-2008, 16:25
CR - Adrian's opinions have been spot on in this thread. Europeans for the most part seem to have been affected positively by Russian actions against Georgia. I believe that support for a strengthened NATO will increase in the future - particularly now that they are starting to feel the heat again. Now is not the time to mock Europeans who agree with the American position on Russia.
I'm not even sure that such a strategy would win any political points on this board. I have as little tolerance for isolationist sentiment from the U.S. as I do from Europeans. ie; Pat Buchanan wrote a piece on the conflict that disgusted me in its isolationism here: link (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28157)
The Taleban attacked America, not France - I am happy for any support in Afghanistan from troops who would die for our country and the theoretical concept of western democracy. Georgia is a different scenario - it is a European nation - and a conventional military attack on any European nation by an ominous neighbor is of the utmost concern for all European and Western nations.
Afghanistan simply wasn't as much of a concern for them - we should be grateful that they are there at all.
Adrian II
08-27-2008, 16:29
have those frenchmen been anywhere near the front-line?Can you read newspapers? The answer is right there, you know. Unless you are too lazy to find out.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-27-2008, 16:31
i agree with CR that some continental NATO nations have been shirking their responsibilities in the crazy hope of a new era of peace.
You're right there, to a certain extent. I firmly believe that Germany needs more troops in Afghanistan.
Can you read newspapers? The answer is right there, you know. Unless you are too lazy to find out.
yes, yes , yes, i am aware that ten french troops sadly died bravely doing their duty in afghanistan*, but that has nothing to do with being on the frontline**.
* http://defenceoftherealm.blogspot.com/2008/08/this-was-not-supposed-to-happen.html
** i am not taking a swipe at french soldiers, they are doing a magnificient job within the constraints of their orders from gay' paris'.
Sarmatian
08-27-2008, 18:24
As long as Russia isn't a full-fledged democracy I couldn't care less what its leaders find acceptable, although their views must be taken into consideration, not unlike the weight of dead matter is taken into consideration in physical calculations. As far as aggression and oppression in neighbouring countries go, Russia's have been so massive and are still so fresh in peoples' memories that the country should behave with utter modesty, much like post-war Germany had to do, instead of this bravado.
However, your view that Nato had deteriorated into an opportunist gang of the world's richest nations has some truth in it. Too much truth to be ignored. I agree with you that 'Ossetia' is 'Kosovo' in reverse. Nato was right to stop the Serbian oppression in Kosovo, but it failed to stop the Albanian revenge killing and ethnic cleansing, and then compounded this failure by supporting Kosovar independence.
I don't think that you can compare Nazi Germany and USSR, but you're right - Russia needs to act better to its neighbours that joined NATO. Russia enjoys very good relations with other neighbouring nations. But the difference between post war Germany and today's Russia is that Russia is not a defeated nation. Likewise Germany was given help and was treated as a friend while Russia is still treated as an enemy.
Russia did make several important gestures of goodwill. It supported (albeit in limited form), war on terrorism. It supported American action in Afghanistan. It shared intelligence with the US. It opened even more channels of communication with NATO. Many analysts agree that Russian contribution in war on terrorism was bigger than that of any other country, including NATO countries. Russian support in non proliferation of nuclear weapons was immense. Russia did make several important steps. True, it could have made more, but it's also true that it received none in return. Instead it was completely ignored in many issues I've already pointed out in my previous post.
Russia used to treat NATO as a partner, but in return NATO used Russia as a tool: "Okay, we'll agree to your help and we'll use it when it suits us, but when it doesn't, sorry, you're out." That's not how you treat a partner.
Considering Kosovo, if NATO's goal was truly to stop the oppression, the easiest way was to tell Albanians not to boycott the elections as they have did in all post YUG elections. They make 15-20% of Serbian population and their support of any opposition candidate would have been enough to make Milosevic lose elections by a big margin. Problem is, no one really wanted Milosevic out. If he was out, US wouldn't get a base and Albanians in Kosovo wouldn't get a state. Everyone benefited from him being in power.
To return to original subject, there is mutual mistrust in relation Russia-NATO. After being sworn enemies for several decades, its quite normal. Actually not normal but understandable. But Russia did far more to improve relations and level of trust than NATO countries have. In my opinion, NATO bears far more blame than Russia in the current crisis. Russia hit the bar of how far it will go before it sees some change on the other side. You can see this best in western leader opposition of Russia doing what they themselves done six months ago, accusing Russia of breaking international law, they same law they themselves broke six months ago.
As I said before, if western leaders don't change their cold war frame of mind, this problem will persist. Relation between NATO and Russia will go up and down but nothing will truly change. Like Einstein said: "You can not solve your current problems with your current way of thinking" - your current problems are a consequence of your current way of thinking...
Russian support in non proliferation of nuclear weapons was immense.
not to disagree with the rest of your post, but i am not surpised russia could be so helpful on non proliferation, IMO most of it was ex-soviet material shipped through ex-soviet failed states, by arms dealers of ex-soviet equipment, facilitated by ex-soviet intelligence personnel, sold to ex-soviet client regimes.
they were in fact key to non-proliferation you might say!
CrossLOPER
08-27-2008, 20:19
And Poland also.
WHO NEEDS POLAND THAT BADLY??????
I keep thinking that summer is ending. This would probably not be the best time to get involved in a war with Russia. A black sea build-up isn't a bad idea, though. We could aggressively close off their black sea ports if we really needed to before any ground forces entered in the spring.
I think that Medvedv is a crazy person. His words are so absurdly pro-conflict that I wonder what planet he is from. His manner is a bit deranged. I'd like to see a psych eval on this guy.
Oh the irony...
ICantSpellDawg
08-27-2008, 20:54
WHO NEEDS POLAND THAT BADLY??????
Oh the irony...
Hehehe. I'm not the leader of a nuclear multi-continental country. I am a war gamer.
WHO NEEDS POLAND THAT BADLY??????
are you asking why would russia want poland that badly, or why we would want to defend poland against russian aggression?
Woah. That link and it's text blew me off. I just fowarded it to the most proeminent journalist in Portugal (Who is curiously in Georgia, broadcasting about the war), to his mail.
Already got the reply. Here's what it says:
Dear Telmo (Me.),
Thank you very much for your pleasent e-mail.
I've consulted the site you gave me and it seems that it is linked pretty clearly with Georgian propaganda.
In any case, it seems that Russia did indeed lure Georgia into a trap.
But the fundamental question isn't Georgia; the funamental question is the conflict Russia-West. The recognition of the Kosovar independence by the West has opened a grave precedent in the world and, in Georgia, Rússia limited herself to exploiting the precedent opened by the West.
My regards,
José Rodrigues dos Santos
Bleh. I suppose he knows what he speaks about.
WHO NEEDS POLAND THAT BADLY??????
I think they don't need the Po but they need the Land.
CrossLOPER
08-27-2008, 23:39
....Russia needs Poland's land.
OK.
Adrian II
08-28-2008, 00:57
I may be the odd one out here, but I think the Polish needed Poland more than anyone else. :rolleyes:
Crazed Rabbit
08-28-2008, 01:15
Defeatist? Perhaps I should be optimistic about the fragmented, weak front we're putting up against Russia. Russia is exerting new influence through energy supplies and brute military force, returning to their bullying soviet ways, and Europe either goes along with it or says 'we need to talk'.
Useless? Meh, I won't argue I've been a great contributor to this thread.
Afghanistan simply wasn't as much of a concern for them - we should be grateful that they are there at all.
Eh? NATO? Common defense? I don't begrudge them not being in Iraq, but Afghanistan is quite different.
Gah.
CR
I may be the odd one out here
We all are. Its a valid point, and its right. Everyone have their right to live under their own flag.
Would I be VERY hypocrital if I support Russia because they want to make South Ossetia and the other country free?
CrossLOPER
08-28-2008, 03:25
Would I be VERY hypocrital if I support Russia because they want to make South Ossetia and the other country free?
You'd be a commie, obviously.
ICantSpellDawg
08-29-2008, 01:46
Russia has gone totally insane. (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1621970.ece)
What is wrong with them? They are being so absurdly aggressive lately. It seems like they are going for a war with the west, using any excuse to start one that they can find.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-29-2008, 02:03
Russia has gone totally insane. (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1621970.ece)
What is wrong with them? They are being so absurdly aggressive lately. It seems like they are going for a war with the west, using any excuse to start one that they can find.
Russia has had Topol M missiles since what, 1997? The only reason anyone cares is because of the Ossetian thing. The USA and Russia have enough missiles that it really doesn't matter except for fearmongering. We're all dead in a nuclear war anyways, regardless of what kind of missiles the Russians have.
Sanctions plzkthx. And enough of these provocations of Russia. The UK shouldn't have postponed the military trainings in Georgia. We need to show Russia that the West doesn't give a :daisy: about it's pretensions in the region. We're there to help those countries who have been constantly opressed by the nation.
ICantSpellDawg
08-29-2008, 06:42
Does anybody believe this article? (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121988657412478425.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries) I'm giving it some second and third thoughts. It smacks of revisionism a little bit, but I wouldn't put it past the Russians. Saakashvilli says that he would have taken his crack troops out of Iraq if he had planned to attack, but I don't think he would have attacked if he expected to need his crack troops.
He says that he attacked as soon as the Russian tanks started flowing through the tunnel, knowing full well that there was a massive invasion force across the border? I don't get it.
Either way - it is hilarious that Putin is blaming the Bush administration for his nation's attack on a smaller neighbor. "Bush made me do it". Bush this, Bush that. Nobody has political ambitions except Bush - especially not the Russians. Putin and Mevedyev didn't have their eye on Georgia because they have the only oil pipeline from central asia outside of Russia. Why would Medvedyev, the former chairman of Gazprom, be interested in natural gas control in another unfriendly competitor country?
Also - I have checked the location listings for CV and CVN ships and none mention an Eastern Mediterranean or Black Sea deployment. There were a few CVN's listed as re-deployed to Westlant, but that's it. I hear that there are 18 NATO vessels near Poti and Batumi. Does anyone else know about buildup?
Does anybody believe this article? (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121988657412478425.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries) I'm giving it some second and third thoughts. It smacks of revisionism a little bit, but I wouldn't put it past the Russians. Saakashvilli says that he would have taken his crack troops out of Iraq if he had planned to attack, but I don't think he would have attacked if he expected to need his crack troops.I posted (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1999712&postcount=639) something similar from a different source. Maybe there's some truth to it, but maybe Georgia is just getting better at propaganda. :shrug:
i certainly am not sufficiently certain to believe either:
1. Saakashvilli is an idiot, and Georgia launched an unprovoked attack
2. Putin is being devious again, and the Russkies provoked the attack
CountArach
08-29-2008, 11:28
i certainly am not sufficiently certain to believe either:
1. Saakashvilli is an idiot, and Georgia launched an unprovoked attack
2. Putin is being devious again, and the Russkies provoked the attack
My money is on a mixture of the two.
rory_20_uk
08-29-2008, 12:21
I didn't think anyone was arguing that there was provocation from South Ossetia over several weeks if not months, it was the size of the response that some think was too excessive.
Ruskies provoked it? Well, they took no time to respond for a pretty backward military. If it'd taken them by surprise, I doubt this would have been possible.
~:smoking:
if reports about the armoured column moving to the roki tunnel actaully sparking the attempt to stop the bridgehead are true, then the response was not over the top, in fact it was not enough.
Sarmatian
08-29-2008, 14:12
i certainly am not sufficiently certain to believe either:
1. Saakashvilli is an idiot, and Georgia launched an unprovoked attack
2. Putin is being devious again, and the Russkies provoked the attack
Saakashvili is an idiot. He dragged his country into a military conflict with a much more powerful country without any chance of winning. If he managed to pull it off, he would have been a genius, but since he failed, got beaten down and in all probability irrevocably lost parts of his country, he is an idiot. And since the chance of him pulling it off were very slim indeed. He practically handed the Russian an invitation for invasion on a silver platter.
If I am allowed to compare it with Kosovo, I believe that Serbia has moral and legal right to assert its rule over its southern province, but I would call any politician who tried to do that an idiot, because there's no chance of that happening and the consequences would be military response from NATO, even more destruction and killings in Kosovo and Serbia proper and it would lower the chances of Kosovo ever being reintegrated into Serbia in the future.
if reports about the armoured column moving to the roki tunnel actaully sparking the attempt to stop the bridgehead are true, then the response was not over the top, in fact it was not enough.
Saakashvili now tries to play the role of the victim. That's always the best for propaganda. Everyone loves the victim.
Things are usually more complicated. Saakashvili was aware that situation with S. Ossetia and Abkhazia was the most important stumbling block with NATO membership. He tried, as Adrian said, to "pull a Krajina" and be done with it. He gambled on Russia not doing anything, or not doing anything long enough for him to finish his actions. It's not a coincidence that he started the attack during the opening of the Olympics. He gambled and lost.
What is highly illogical is that Saakashvili now tries to represent things now as an invasion by Russia. "We were sitting there, minding our own business, as Russian tanks rolled in across the border". That doesn't make sense. If that was true, he wouldn't admit breaking the ceasefire and starting the attack. He would use that as a propaganda weapon from day one, not after three weeks. Considering the "love" the West has for Russia, he doesn't need to think too much about logic, he just has to make sure he says what they want to hear.
lets look at it another way.
georgia is a small nation that craves NATO protection from its unloved neighbour next door.
since kosovo was wrenched from Serbia Saakashvilli knows that he will never be able to get ossettia back, and that it would never be acceptable for georgians to say goodbye to Georgian sovereign territory.
Saakashvilli also knows that as long as Georgia has a nasty territorial dispute with Russia the more timid NATO nations will never permit Georgian accession to the treaty organisation.
catch 22, Georgia has neither security nor territory
here is a solution; find a way to ditch the territory, get rid of the objections to NATO entry, and generate russian belligerence that will harden western attitudes and generate sympathy for ex-soviet states.
rory_20_uk
08-29-2008, 15:25
So, Ukraine is causing the problems.
~:smoking:
Sarmatian
08-29-2008, 16:01
lets look at it another way.
georgia is a small nation that craves NATO protection from its unloved neighbour next door.
since kosovo was wrenched from Serbia Saakashvilli knows that he will never be able to get ossettia back, and that it would never be acceptable for georgians to say goodbye to Georgian sovereign territory.
Saakashvilli also knows that as long as Georgia has a nasty territorial dispute with Russia the more timid NATO nations will never permit Georgian accession to the treaty organisation.
catch 22, Georgia has neither security nor territory
here is a solution; find a way to ditch the territory, get rid of the objections to NATO entry, and generate russian belligerence that will harden western attitudes and generate sympathy for ex-soviet states.
Possibly, but that also could have been done peacefully. Allow them to leave if they want, get PR boost and collect applause from the world, which would then be totally on your since you proved that you're a democracy even when it hurts you.
The only flaw with this scenario, as with yours, is that Saakashvili and Georgia can never let go of their claims on those two provinces so in the end, they remain disputed territory... Especially since Saakashvili played on national card during his campaign, promising he would bring back those two provinces back to Georgia. If he ever lets go of them, he's committing political suicide. And seeing how it usually works, anyone who publicly recognize that those two provinces are independent can kiss goodbye with holding any political office in the foreseeable future...
we don't know if Saakashvilli has any personal emotional attachment to those areas.
he may simply has made the realpolitik judgement that post-kosovo those territories were gone, and that his political fortunes would need a way to survive those promises to return SA and Az to the fold.
"sorry guv, it was russia 'init, nuffink i could do."
CrossLOPER
08-29-2008, 17:32
Russia has gone totally insane. (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1621970.ece)
What is wrong with them? They are being so absurdly aggressive lately. It seems like they are going for a war with the west, using any excuse to start one that they can find.
Put down the pipe, dude. You're not ready for that stuff yet.
Russia has gone totally insane. (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1621970.ece)
What is wrong with them? They are being so absurdly aggressive lately. It seems like they are going for a war with the west, using any excuse to start one that they can find.
I'm not sure I could trust The Sun... looks like a non serious newspaper.
ICantSpellDawg
08-29-2008, 23:23
Russia is handing out passports in the Crimea (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/08/29/do2904.xml)
Russians in Ukraine are asking Russia to claim Crimea (http://en.rian.ru/world/20080822/116217601.html)
Lets get on the ball here. Where are our carriers?
Tribesman
08-30-2008, 00:32
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russia is handing out passports in the Crimea
Russians in Ukraine are asking Russia to claim Crimea
So Russia is giving people passports if they ask for them , wow .
Lets see the Crimea SSR was part of the russian federation so its inhabitants can get russian citizenship if they ask for it , then the Crimea was part of the Ukraine SSR which was part of the russian federation which means that its inhabitants can get russian citizenship if they ask for it .
People who were not born when the Crimea was part of the federation can get russian citizenship if their parents were citizens of the federation and ask for it .
Its outrageous I tell ya:yes:
What is more outrageous is that Russians in Crimea are asking for Crimea to be part of Russian not Ukraine because it was part of Russia not Ukraine ...crazy stuff eh:coffeenews:
I did like your other news link though Tuff , Russia conducted another test firing of a missile as part of a series of ongoing tests that they years ago said would be completed by the end of 2008 , the Sun can really spot them unexpected events can't they:idea2:
Lets get on the ball here. Where are our carriers?
They are busy playing ball elsewhere . Besides which it wouldn't be very prudent to put them too close would it .
ICantSpellDawg
08-30-2008, 00:39
So Russia is giving people passports if they ask for them , wow .
Lets see the Crimea SSR was part of the russian federation so its inhabitants can get russian citizenship if they ask for it , then the Crimea was part of the Ukraine SSR which was part of the russian federation which means that its inhabitants can get russian citizenship if they ask for it .
People who were not born when the Crimea was part of the federation can get russian citizenship if their parents were citizens of the federation and ask for it .
Its outrageous I tell ya:yes:
What is more outrageous is that Russians in Crimea are asking for Crimea to be part of Russian not Ukraine because it was part of Russia not Ukraine ...crazy stuff eh:coffeenews:
I did like your other news link though Tuff , Russia conducted another test firing of a missile as part of a series of ongoing tests that they years ago said would be completed by the end of 2008 , the Sun can really spot them unexpected events can't they:idea2:
They are busy playing ball elsewhere . Besides which it wouldn't be very prudent to put them too close would it .
When the same Russian administration used those passports as an excuse to invade another sovereign nation just a month ago - I think it is news. Particularly when it is strategically continuous to annex Crimean and Azov areas.
I haven't read your opinions on this global event. Where do you stand - what is your opinion? No threat? Oh that's right - page one (post 2 and 25) of this thread clearly illustrates your lack of interest or foresight on this topic. We need more poeple like you in government making decisions based on what someone else says and then attacking it as a non issue. The future!
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-30-2008, 00:50
Russia is handing out passports in the Crimea (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/08/29/do2904.xml)
Russians in Ukraine are asking Russia to claim Crimea (http://en.rian.ru/world/20080822/116217601.html)
Lets get on the ball here. Where are our carriers?
This is where it's going to get really interesting.
This is where it's going to get really interesting.
And we haven't seen the beggining. (http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080827/116303880.html)
ICantSpellDawg
08-30-2008, 00:58
This is where it's going to get really interesting.
Will you still support them when they attack Ukraine or Moldova?
Tribesman
08-30-2008, 01:03
I haven't read your opinions on this global event. Where do you stand - what is your opinion? No threat?
My opinion ?
My opinion is that this was inevitable ever since Yeltsin siezed the reigns . It is happening now because Putin is a shrewd bastard and both Ukraine and Georgia have complete pillocks as leaders at the moment and the idiot in the white house (among others) has left the west in an over stretched position .
As for the missile tests , they were announced as a development to counter the missile shield at the same time the America announced its plans for the missile shield , they are completing their tests at the same time as America is completing the deals to deploy the shield .
All this is is a turning back of the clock to the cold war days , yes everyone was happy when America could outspend the soviets causing them to shrink back , but as a result of that the west then spent heavily to expand into the old warsaw pact area and poured massive investment into the remaining federation , now the federation is using its financial leverage to claw back some of that area while the west is enfeebled and some of it is so reliant on Russian resources that its protests cannot even reach the wimper stage of protest let alone bark or bite .
So is it a threat ? Yes , its a threat of a return to the inevitable , yet some didn't see it coming .
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-30-2008, 01:03
Will you still support them when they attack Ukraine or Moldova?
I will be watching the situation with curiosity, and I will either support a side on an issue-by-issue basis or wait until information becomes available to make a decision. Nothing has actually happened yet - it just probably will.
Tribesman
08-30-2008, 01:07
Oh dear Tuff edited his post
No threat? Oh that's right - page one (post 2 and 25) of this thread clearly illustrates your lack of interest or foresight on this topic. We need more poeple like you in government making decisions based on what someone else says and then attacking it as a non issue. The future!
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
You really do jump in without thinking don't you :yes:
So is it a threat ? Yes , its a threat of a return to the inevitable , yet some didn't see it coming .
Tribes, how can communism come back? Or are you saying that the CCCP/URSS is going to be reunificated like in the old days?
ICantSpellDawg
08-30-2008, 01:18
Oh dear Tuff edited his post
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
You really do jump in without thinking don't you :yes:
I've jumped in without thinking? Can someone else explain to me what they think tribesman means?
CrossLOPER
08-30-2008, 01:25
Tribes, how can communism come back? Or are you saying that the CCCP/URSS is going to be reunificated like in the old days?
No, the USSR will not be ressurected and communism is not going to come back since no one in the Rusian Federation will allow it to return in full form.
However, the possibility that the Russian Federation will probably be gaining some territories back within the next few decades is simply something that was bound to happen ever since the USSR was clumsily dissolved. I severely doubt that the RF will attack another nation and simply sieze its territory, but it will do its best to legitamize claims of people who ask to be absorbed by the RF. :shrug:
Welcome back to a multipolar world.
I've jumped in without thinking? Can someone else explain to me what they think tribesman means?
To jump in without thinking is to throw some statement without thinking it.
ICantSpellDawg
08-30-2008, 01:37
No, the USSR will not be ressurected and communism is not going to come back since no one in the Rusian Federation will allow it to return in full form.
However, the possibility that the Russian Federation will probably be gaining some territories back within the next few decades is simply something that was bound to happen ever since the USSR was clumsily dissolved. I severely doubt that the RF will attack another nation and simply sieze its territory, but it will do its best to legitamize claims of people who ask to be absorbed by the RF. :shrug:
Welcome back to a multipolar world.
This is not yet a multipolar world just because Russia has snapped and decided that it is a viable and equal threat.
Also - I like the idea that Putin is nothing like a Hitler or a Stalin; much more similar to a Russian Tsar than to any ideological dictator. There will be no USSR, but a 19th century styled "Russian Empire" may be in the cards - albeit one without the population advantage (which was the traditional hallmark of Russian power.)
What do they have? A third world AIDS rate, an increasingly aggressive autocrat, and land? Congratulations - it sounds like they are an ideological alternative to the West...
ICantSpellDawg
08-30-2008, 01:38
To jump in without thinking is to throw some statement without thinking it.
Do you think that statement applies to the post I made?
Tribesman
08-30-2008, 01:45
Tribes, how can communism come back?
I never mentioned communism . Think of it as a return to a neo-nationalist version of the Tsarist empire with nukes run by very corrupt financiers and an exceptionaly brutal secret police.
Or are you saying that the CCCP/URSS is going to be reunificated like in the old days?
Not all of it , some areas are just financially and militarily not worth the effort for Putin to bother with .
I've jumped in without thinking? Can someone else explain to me what they think tribesman means?
Is it too hard for you to understand ?:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Look Tuff its quite simple , throughout this topic yourself among others has come up with posts like "wow look whats happening " , "I wonder what this means " , "this is terrible whatever is going to happen next" , yet if you had any of that interest or foresight which you strangely accuse me of lacking you could have seen exactly how this was going to play out and could have seen that after the push for NATO membership , the proposals for the missile shield and finaly the recognition of Kosovo that given the current wider picture it was all a foregone conclusion .
Do you think that statement applies to the post I made?
No, I don't. I just explained what was for me that statement. Maybe Tribes can explain it better.
ICantSpellDawg
08-30-2008, 01:50
No, I don't. I just explained what was for me that statement. Maybe Tribes can explain it better.
Thanks. Maybe he can, but I would bet that it would take 13 posts full of whimsical obfuscation for him to do it.
after the push for NATO membership , the proposals for the missile shield and finaly the recognition of Kosovo that given the current wider picture it was all a foregone conclusion .
I don't buy foregone conclusions. I'm not that sure of myself to believe that the future is knowable in advance. You must win the lottery quite often.
KukriKhan
08-30-2008, 02:01
Let's keep it on South Ossetia, lads; or by extension, Russian intentions. Personal sniping is tedious for the reader to wade through. Please consider the wider audience we have here, and not devolve to intertubes chatroom 'licks'.
Thank you. :bow:
CrossLOPER
08-30-2008, 02:06
This is not yet a multipolar world just because Russia has snapped and decided that it is a viable and equal threat.
Oh yes, HOW DARE Russia think that it can do anything other than wag its finger, HOW DARE IT????
Also - I like the idea that Putin is nothing like a Hitler or a Stalin; much more similar to a Russian Tsar than to any ideological dictator. There will be no USSR, but a 19th century styled "Russian Empire" may be in the cards - albeit one without the population advantage (which was the traditional hallmark of Russian power.)
Quit rambling.
What do they have?
You got me.
A third world AIDS rate,
Well, so does the US. Actually this statement really proves nothing since it's founded on nothing.
an increasingly aggressive autocrat,
Who has stepped down a notch in power and not siezed a third term like so many have speculated. :rolleyes:
and land?
LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND!:beam:
Congratulations - it sounds like they are an ideological alternative to the West...
Nice try. Actually, that land part sounded like a compliment. Feels good man.
Let's keep it on South Ossetia, lads; or by extension, Russian intentions. Personal sniping is tedious for the reader to wade through. Please consider the wider audience we have here, and not devolve to intertubes chatroom 'licks'.
Thank you. :bow:
FINE. :smartass:
ICantSpellDawg
08-30-2008, 02:09
Are you Russian?
Tribesman
08-30-2008, 02:17
I don't buy foregone conclusions.
Given the current position of NATO and the economic situation , when you add in the complete inaction over Transdneister , events in Adjara and the serious questions over the current and possible future governments of both Georgia and Ukraine then how on earth would it be possible to reach any other conclusion but that this was inevitable ?
The only surpising thing in the whole sutuation was that Saakashvilli was stupid enough to try and fight it in the first place , but then again as his position was weakening by the day I don't suppose he felt he had much option .
ICantSpellDawg
08-30-2008, 02:23
Given the current position of NATO and the economic situation , when you add in the complete inaction over Transdneister , events in Adjara and the serious questions over the current and possible future governments of both Georgia and Ukraine then how on earth would it be possible to reach any other conclusion but that this was inevitable ?
The only surpising thing in the whole sutuation was that Saakashvilli was stupid enough to try and fight it in the first place , but then again as his position was weakening by the day I don't suppose he felt he had much option .
Adjara didn't turn violent and the population was largely Muslim bordering Turkey.I was suprised that Saakashvilli attacked Ossetia, but after reading about the rapid influx of Russian troops I'm not totally suprised at his response - depending on how the chain of events went down.
I simply don't believe that we can know the future of geopolitical relations. Expect what you will, but I am interested in global affairs precisely because we don't know as much as we think we know.
Tribesman
08-30-2008, 02:30
Adjara didn't turn violent and the population was largely Muslim bordering Turkey.
Ah but Adjara had a copperfasted guarantee that it could have autonomy and that Georgia would completely respect that autonomy , you can see why the other regions were in no way going to accept the same guarantee as it was shown to be worthless and it was all that was being offered (actually the offers didn't even go as far as that which Adjara had) .
ICantSpellDawg
08-30-2008, 02:41
Ah but Adjara had a copperfasted guarantee that it could have autonomy and that Georgia would completely respect that autonomy , you can see why the other regions were in no way going to accept the same guarantee as it was shown to be worthless and it was all that was being offered (actually the offers didn't even go as far as that which Adjara had) .
It is the job of the National leader to bring people together. All of the land in question had a Georgian majority up until 10 years ago when Russian backed Ossetian and Abkhazian obermench decided to violently purge the areas of ethnic Georgians - doing a pretty decent job. Why was it Russia's business to enable violent separatism in another country is a better question? I haven't heard of any claims of ethnic cleansing aside from the recent and patently false claims by the Russian government in South Ossetia.
[...]patently false[...]
That one made me laugh. :D
ICantSpellDawg
08-30-2008, 04:21
That one made me laugh. :D
Why? Because Putin has been using "patently false" indiscriminately? I like it.
Tribesman
08-30-2008, 04:33
It is the job of the National leader to bring people together.
What you mean like Putin is ? bringing all the people together into his little serfdom of mother russia to be protected by the big cuddly russian bear with its new missiles saving them from the evil western empire builders and their puppet governments sort of thing .
All of the land in question had a Georgian majority up until 10 years ago when Russian backed Ossetian and Abkhazian obermench decided to violently purge the areas of ethnic Georgians - doing a pretty decent job.
All of the land in question has a long long history of ethnic cleansing and purges . You should know that when it comes to crazy nationalists 10 years is relatively speaking only 5 minutes ago .
Why was it Russia's business to enable violent separatism in another country is a better question?
It was Russias business because they think it is in their interests , just like when other countries enable violent seperatism because they think it is in their interest .
So Russia is giving people passports if they ask for them , wow.
Its outrageous I tell ya:yes:
it is outrageous when a sovereign nation state suspects its much bigger neighbour of issuing passports as a way of leveraging internal dissent with the possible aim of secession........... especially after they just witnessed this very thing happen to a third state by the same neighbour.
What you mean like Putin is ? bringing all the people together into his little serfdom of mother russia to be protected by the big cuddly russian bear with its new missiles saving them from the evil western empire builders and their puppet governments sort of thing .
Georgia is not trying to annex North Ossettia which is the parallel you are trying to infer.
Tribesman
08-30-2008, 12:50
it is outrageous when a sovereign nation state suspects its much bigger neighbour of issuing passports as a way of leveraging internal dissent with the possible aim of secession
No thats just power politics .
Georgia is not trying to annex North Ossettia which is the parallel you are trying to infer.
I think you have a funny idea of what parallel means:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Or perhaps you just don't understand .
Talking of not understanding , back to Tuff .
when you mention post #2 as showing a lack of interest and foresight , how exactly does that post show that ?
Does it not in fact show completely the opposite , like an understanding that this event is just a really small sideline move in part of a long running very big and complex game of nations playing silly buggers .
No thats just power politics.
I think you have a funny idea of what parallel means:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Or perhaps you just don't understand .
so Georgia should just roll over and accept it? not the choice that Georgia made, and it is THEIR choice to make.
no, i have an excellent grasp of the concept of "a parallel", so where did i go wrong?
Tribesman
08-30-2008, 14:48
so Georgia should just roll over and accept it?
Should it ?
not the choice that Georgia made, and it is THEIR choice to make.
Yes , it was their choice , and now they have their result .
Not a very good result is it , says something about their choice they made doesn't it .
no, i have an excellent grasp of the concept of "a parallel", so where did i go wrong?
Where did you go wrong :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:by not understanding something extremely simple and instead trying to make a huge leap to the top of the ladder.
Why?
Because when I read that, I imagined the Russian Government issueing a world-wide patent for Falsehood. :P
so where did i go wrong?When you responded to him. :wink:
ICantSpellDawg
08-30-2008, 17:49
Because when I read that, I imagined the Russian Government issueing a world-wide patent for Falsehood. :P
hahaha.
When you responded to him. :wink:
i think that about sums it up. :juggle2:
Incongruous
08-31-2008, 00:03
No thats just power politics ..
How does that stop it being considered outrageous?
People constantly find such actions outrageous, I go as far to say that quite a lot of people find the concept of power politics outrageous, no matter how central it is to international relations.
Tribesman
08-31-2008, 08:07
How does that stop it being considered outrageous?
Once you consider that politicians and countries don't operate on the same moral wavelength as ordinary people would like to it ceases to be outrageous and becomes just business as usual .
Big_John
08-31-2008, 08:36
i take a different route. i choose to find all politics outrageous.
Incongruous
08-31-2008, 10:04
Once you consider that politicians and countries don't operate on the same moral wavelength as ordinary people would like to it ceases to be outrageous and becomes just business as usual .
But some actions may still, even by dark international standards, be considered rather poor form or outrageous if one must, yes?
I'm sure we can all agree along with govt's that sometimes, some things are done which should not have been. I mean look at Iraq, sure it was not universal but there sure was outrage from the international community.
Georgians in South Ossettia told: "Take a Russian passport or leave!"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2651836/South-Ossetian-police-tell-Georgians-to-take-a-Russian-passport-or-leave-their-homes.html
"The Russians are telling everyone in the town they must take a Russian passport," said Akhalgori shopowner Guram Chkhvidze. "One came to me and explained that if I did not take it, my safety could not be certain. I was scared, so I am leaving."
Welcome to Russia, comrade!
I just saw some guy in an interview on TV who said some german companies have had gas contracts with Russia for 40 years, established in the cold war obviously, and they didn't cut the gas for one day during that time so he obviously found it a bit weird to question whether they'd stik to their contracts now after they did that for 40 years during even harder times. I guess he may have a point so I thought I'd throw that into the discussion.
Tribesman
09-01-2008, 08:24
I guess he may have a point so I thought I'd throw that into the discussion.
The difference is that in those years the situation was relatively stable , the west was not in such a weak position , the Russians were on the slide and had not boosted their oil industry or exports to a large degree , plus of course while the leadership were not good they were not of quite the same strain as Putin and his cronies .
All that has changed now , Russia hit the bottom and is bouncing back and has a leadership who are determined to make that bounce as big as they can .
rory_20_uk
09-01-2008, 11:46
There's no shortage of others to purchase the gas now. China and India are new, big players.
~:smoking:
the words of Alex Stubb, the Finnish Foreign Minister: "We have to find a balance. The balance is between tough talk and economic consequences. My stance is yes to tough talk. No to economic consequences."
the grand nations of europe once again displaying a marvelously naive insight to diplomacy 101, whereby they seem to think that words alone can effect solutions in military disputes between nation states.
EU: "we would like to talk about how bad you have been in Georgia."
Ru: "ok, crack on..........."
EU: "well, you have been very bad and we think you ought to leave."
Ru: "and.............?"
EU: "well, you really ought to you know, you have been very bad after all."
Ru: "so, you think we ought to leave then?"
EU: "yes, in fact we really must insist you leave, as soon as possible."
Ru: "you insist, what does that mean?"
EU: "it means we would really, really like you to leave."
Ru: "i see."
EU: "so you will leave then?"
*sound of russia exiting the room*
rory_20_uk
09-02-2008, 12:06
Russia would never leave discussions. Look at the North Vietnam's diplomacy. They would happily talk for as long as the Americans wanted. And if discussions are underway, then there's no need to d aything... effective. Better talk ad nauseam.
~:smoking:
KukriKhan
09-02-2008, 16:19
Foto shoot (http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-34798.html) of Putin saving journo's from a tiger. Vlad, the Hunter - who knew?
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.