Merkel "Georgia will become a member of Nato"

[1480]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080817/wl_afp/georgiarussiaconflictnatogermany_080817140015;_ylt =AuNp0bEAuk8OKt9ddw6g.aZg.3QA

Didn't know if it should garner it's own thread or be put into SkyBirds original thread.


"Georgia will become a member of NATO if it wants to -- and it does want to," she said before talks with President Mikheil Saakashvili in Tbilisi.


I'll open it up to the floor.

[Skybird]

And I'll become emperor of the world soon, so behave you all. You've been warned.

[geetrue]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080817/wl_afp/georgiarussiaconflictnatogermany_080817140015;_ylt =AuNp0bEAuk8OKt9ddw6g.aZg.3QA

Didn't know if it should garner it's own thread or be put into SkyBirds original thread.


"Georgia will become a member of NATO if it wants to -- and it does want to," she said before talks with President Mikheil Saakashvili in Tbilisi.


I'll open it up to the floor.

Don't worry about it this floor has saw dust mixed with beer and urine in it, but the passion for the Georgia/Russian conflict is the reason why.

Has Nato ever been tested is my question :hmm:

[Skybird]

Has Nato ever been tested is my question :hmm:
In Afghanistan.

Ignoring the questionable way in which NATO allowed to get drawn into it, just answer yourself one question: is NATO answering to the mission with one voice, and is every member pulling at the same end of the rope, and are all nations sharing comparable risks and investements?

Afghanistan is a textbook illustration of the state of things onside NATO. Want to take that condition as a basis for a war with Russia?

Ex-chancellor Gerhard Schröder called Saakashvilli a "hasardeur". It is a total exception from the rule that I agree with that man on something and I would love to see him being shot to the dark side of the moon, but in his assessement of Saakashvilli I agree.

If anything, Merkel'S statement shows just one thing: that although some assessements get changed under the influence of the russian demonstration, nevertheless the West seems determined to continue with a policy of self-deception, having fantasies about the russians, and over-estimating the importance the EU plays in Russian considerations.

But if anybody believes they will just sit by and only watch while Georgia - or the Ukraine - will enter NATO and the alliance moves directly to the borders of Russia, then he must be insane.

BTW, they have just declared their inention to rearm their fleet in Kaliningrad with nuclear weapons again, in response to US radar stations being build in Poland, they also told both Poland and Chech republic that the US program will make these installation a priority target for russian nulcear strikes in case of conflict with NATO. Irnoically both states get exactly that kind of nuclear attention against which the Us program was claiming to protect them.

For 20 years the West live din total ignorrance of understandable Russian interests. And now they have had enough, and start sending bills. continue with the old ways, and the bills will become higher and higher. after the ignorrant Western reactions of the past days I do not rule out the possibility of a new full aale cold war II. Juzst days agai I still thought different, but I cannot see the West learning anything from its past mistakes. Also, Russia knows very strongly what it wants, while the West is left bare of any realistic orientation. nobody should complain that we just suffered a serious strategic defeat, well-deserved.

A german commentator just compoared Russia with Iran, poiinting out that Iran pushes the West into the defensive in the very same way like Putin did: by knowing very strongly what it wants. Ahmadinejkadh is currently about payoing an official state visit to turkey, something that almost got lost here in the West. That visit was prepared for over 5 years, to bring him out of the isolation and to try move Turkey out of the already weak consensus of NATO regarding Iran. this visit is a great strategic victory for Iran - and does anybody here in the West even take note of this diplomatic desaster? No - we are busy bringing NATO into Russia's backyard.

Say, who is the one having hallucinations here - Putin, or Ahmadinejadh - or us: the West? In chess there is something that in german is called "Aufbaukunst" (= the art of [strategic] developement /the art of basic [strategic] construction). NATO not only has serious deficits regarding this skill, but replaces them with dangerous illusions. Nothing good can come from that, just defeat, loss and self-destruction.

[Frame57]

And I'll become emperor of the world soon, so behave you all. You've been warned.As long as you make Warsteiner available, you have my support!:D

[AntEater]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2029/2771046566_fbd8732a95_o.jpg

That vessel was german once, a Lindau Class wooden minesweeper M 1085 Minden.
Must be the first postwar german vessel to be sunk by enemy action....
Looks salvageable though

[Bruno Lotse]

Let me guess.
Russians? :arrgh!:
Again.

[AntEater]

Well, I suppose the russian scuttled pretty much every boat owned by the georgian government, but except for the missile boat Tbilisi (that burned) all I've seen look salvagable.
Actually that move was not as senseless as it seems.
I remember a documentary about Abkhazia from before the war, where Abkhaz fishermen complained they were not able to fish for years because the georgians block the coast.
In a conflict where one side has no navy and the other has (had) a small navy, this side is the dominant sea power...
But actually I suppose georgian coast guardsmen will be glad to get a modern replacement for ex-Minden.
Crews in the wooden minesweepers lived like rats, especially the enlisted in the forecastle.
I suppose the crew of a WW2 flower class Corvette had better acomodation!

The georgians must've felt a bit cheated when they turned to western navies to replace their soviet era junk and got western discards of similar age!
I mean german vessels are always well build and well maintaned, but a 40 year old wooden boat is not a good naval unit to give away if you want to impress, even if it is build by Abeking & Rasmussen or Lürssen...
I remember in 1999 we had the Latvians (or Estonians? or both) in Kiel to take over some of these boats. The guys looked like pirates, all bearded, most likely all ex soviet navy.
Men of steel for wooden ships, I suppose....

[Happy Times]

Has Nato ever been tested is my question :hmm:
In Afghanistan.

Ignoring the questionable way in which NATO allowed to get drawn into it, just answer yourself one question: is NATO answering to the mission with one voice, and is every member pulling at the same end of the rope, and are all nations sharing comparable risks and investements?

Afghanistan is a textbook illustration of the state of things onside NATO. Want to take that condition as a basis for a war with Russia?

Ex-chancellor Gerhard Schröder called Saakashvilli a "hasardeur". It is a total exception from the rule that I agree with that man on something and I would love to see him being shot to the dark side of the moon, but in his assessement of Saakashvilli I agree.

If anything, Merkel'S statement shows just one thing: that although some assessements get changed under the influence of the russian demonstration, nevertheless the West seems determined to continue with a policy of self-deception, having fantasies about the russians, and over-estimating the importance the EU plays in Russian considerations.

But if anybody believes they will just sit by and only watch while Georgia - or the Ukraine - will enter NATO and the alliance moves directly to the borders of Russia, then he must be insane.

BTW, they have just declared their inention to rearm their fleet in Kaliningrad with nuclear weapons again, in response to US radar stations being build in Poland, they also told both Poland and Chech republic that the US program will make these installation a priority target for russian nulcear strikes in case of conflict with NATO. Irnoically both states get exactly that kind of nuclear attention against which the Us program was claiming to protect them.

For 20 years the West live din total ignorrance of understandable Russian interests. And now they have had enough, and start sending bills. continue with the old ways, and the bills will become higher and higher. after the ignorrant Western reactions of the past days I do not rule out the possibility of a new full aale cold war II. Juzst days agai I still thought different, but I cannot see the West learning anything from its past mistakes. Also, Russia knows very strongly what it wants, while the West is left bare of any realistic orientation. nobody should complain that we just suffered a serious strategic defeat, well-deserved.

A german commentator just compoared Russia with Iran, poiinting out that Iran pushes the West into the defensive in the very same way like Putin did: by knowing very strongly what it wants. Ahmadinejkadh is currently about payoing an official state visit to turkey, something that almost got lost here in the West. That visit was prepared for over 5 years, to bring him out of the isolation and to try move Turkey out of the already weak consensus of NATO regarding Iran. this visit is a great strategic victory for Iran - and does anybody here in the West even take note of this diplomatic desaster? No - we are busy bringing NATO into Russia's backyard.

Say, who is the one having hallucinations here - Putin, or Ahmadinejadh - or us: the West? In chess there is something that in german is called "Aufbaukunst" (= the art of [strategic] developement /the art of basic [strategic] construction). NATO not only has serious deficits regarding this skill, but replaces them with dangerous illusions. Nothing good can come from that, just defeat, loss and self-destruction.

NATO is allready in Russian border in Baltics, Finland and Sweden are likely to also join and there are calls for more money to be put in defence, Russia is hurting itself. NATO enlargement has revealed Russias intentions to get back the areas it once held, hence if a new Cold war would emerge, it would be of Russias own doing. Their imperialistic interests they can shove where the sun dont shine, we have to worry about OUR interests. Its them that have fantasies of their own importance, nobody has corrected them because we know how fragile their self-esteem is, like an infant on tantrums. Russia cannot win this, they will loose like they did the last time. Europe doesnt need Russia as a "strategic partner", they are a supplier of energy. And its not like they are giving it for free, they get payed the market price. They need atleast one revolution more, hope thats finally enough and they can grow up.:lol:

[Bruno Lotse]

Georgian Navy Missile boat 'Tbilisi' burning in the port of Poti.
http://content.foto.mail.ru/list/t34ssmirnoff/illustrations/i-1614.jpg

That's how it looked like __http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Georgian_Navy_missile_boat_Tbilisi.jpg

Weapons confiscated/collected by Russians in Abkhazia
http://content.foto.mail.ru/list/t34ssmirnoff/illustrations/i-1613.jpg

Abandoned Georgian equipment
http://content.foto.mail.ru/list/t34ssmirnoff/illustrations/i-1616.jpg

http://content.foto.mail.ru/list/t34ssmirnoff/illustrations/i-1617.jpg



http://content.foto.mail.ru/list/t34ssmirnoff/illustrations/i-1618.jpg

http://content.foto.mail.ru/list/t34ssmirnoff/illustrations/i-1619.jpg

They were just running towards Tbilisi...

[Skybird]

Dream on, HT. Words is all that you - and Western leaders - have. So if you take comfort from speaking tough, feel free. But I - and for different reasons: the Russians - will not carry on to care for that. Sooner or later you learn for the better, or you don't - it does not really matter.

[Happy Times]

Dream on, HT. Words is all that you - and Western leaders - have. So if you take comfort from speaking tough, feel free. But I - and for different reasons: the Russians - will not carry on to care for that. Sooner or later you learn for the better, or you don't - it does not really matter.

Can you explain what the Russians have but words?

[Skybird]

Dream on, HT. Words is all that you - and Western leaders - have. So if you take comfort from speaking tough, feel free. But I - and for different reasons: the Russians - will not carry on to care for that. Sooner or later you learn for the better, or you don't - it does not really matter.

Can you explain what the Russians have but words?
With that question apparently meant serious, I can't take you serious any longer, sorry.

[Happy Times]

Dream on, HT. Words is all that you - and Western leaders - have. So if you take comfort from speaking tough, feel free. But I - and for different reasons: the Russians - will not carry on to care for that. Sooner or later you learn for the better, or you don't - it does not really matter.

Can you explain what the Russians have but words?
With that question apparently meant serious, I can't take you serious any longer, sorry.

You are free to do so, but can you answer?

[Schroeder]

@HT

Are you living on the same planet as I do?:huh:

[Happy Times]

@HT

Are you living on the same planet as I do?:huh:
Aparently not, Germanys orbit seems to be revolving around Russia.

[darius359au]

@HT

Are you living on the same planet as I do?:huh: Aparently not, Germanys orbit seems to be revolving around Russia.

Some people on this forum think so , but it seems their own government doesn't have the same opinion.

[1480]

@HT

Are you living on the same planet as I do?:huh: Aparently not, Germanys orbit seems to be revolving around Russia.

Some people on this forum think so , but it seems their own government doesn't have the same opinion.


Kind of strange that this would happen. I do not perceive Merkel as a cliens to the US. What I know about her, she has a background in science and russian as well.

Obviously she must have some nice down cards in this hand after the river was dealt.

[baggygreen]

NATO entry requires no unresolved disputes within a member nation's borders.

I dont quite think georgia fits this category...:doh:

[Sea Demon]

Dream on, HT. Words is all that you - and Western leaders - have. So if you take comfort from speaking tough, feel free. But I - and for different reasons: the Russians - will not carry on to care for that. Sooner or later you learn for the better, or you don't - it does not really matter.

Can you explain what the Russians have but words?
With that question apparently meant serious, I can't take you serious any longer, sorry.

The thing is, Russia is basically powerless to do anything about Georgia's entrance into NATO when it comes to it. What do you think they'll do? Nuke NATO? NATO, especially with U.S. nukes primarily, outnumbers Russia's deployable forces and actual deployed warheads by more than 2. It is stupid to believe Russia has the ability to be able to dictate who joins NATO and who doesn't. Georgia is a sovereign nation free to pursue their own interests last time I checked. Screw Russia, and their desires to view themselves as something they no longer are. They certainly don't have the muscle or influence to push NATO in any direction. You're dreaming if you think they do.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

The thing is, Russia is basically powerless to do anything about Georgia's entrance into NATO when it comes to it. What do you think they'll do? Nuke NATO? NATO, especially with U.S. nukes primarily, outnumbers Russia's deployable forces and actual deployed warheads by more than 2.
Schedule an (another?) incident during the negotiation process, invade, and call it a fait accompli? Sure, they'll have to pay a price for this, but they may decide to do so if they feel like they are going to lose anyway, and I seriously doubt NATO would go to war for it.
Georgia is a sovereign nation free to pursue their own interests last time I checked.
And every other power has the right to try and stop them from pursuing policies that threaten themselves.
While NATO power is stronger than Russian, this is counterbalanced by the fact that, let's face it, Georgia is probably about 10x more important to Russia than it is to NATO.
And I notice you are thinking very little of what's right or what's appropriate, just "Might Makes Right". And 1-2 weeks ago we were complaining about Russia going Might makes Right on Georgia...

[Sea Demon]

The thing is, Russia is basically powerless to do anything about Georgia's entrance into NATO when it comes to it. What do you think they'll do? Nuke NATO? NATO, especially with U.S. nukes primarily, outnumbers Russia's deployable forces and actual deployed warheads by more than 2.
Schedule an (another?) incident during the negotiation process, invade, and call it a fait accompli? Sure, they'll have to pay a price for this, but they may decide to do so if they feel like they are going to lose anyway, and I seriously doubt NATO would go to war for it.
Georgia is a sovereign nation free to pursue their own interests last time I checked.
And every other power has the right to try and stop them from pursuing policies that threaten themselves.
While NATO power is stronger than Russian, this is counterbalanced by the fact that, let's face it, Georgia is probably about 10x more important to Russia than it is to NATO.
And I notice you are thinking very little of what's right or what's appropriate, just "Might Makes Right". And 1-2 weeks ago we were complaining about Russia going Might makes Right on Georgia...

That's the thing. They will pay a price. And I'm not sure that it will be worth it to them in the end. We'll have to wait and see in the end. But we've already seen strong actions taken against Russia by former Soviet clients/factions. Poland has signed the missile defense deal, and Ukraine has offered up a former Soviet satellite center as part of the missile defense as well. This has solidified a stance against Russia for their meager actions against Georgia. Both the Ukraine, Poland, and a few others are drawn ever more into NATO's sphere with Russia's recent actions. And the USA itself is considering punitive actions (possible G8 elimination). Tell me that this has bolstered the Russian's standing in any way. It hasn't at all. It's actually done the opposite. The question is not if NATO is willing to go to war over Georgia (I don't think they want to), but is Russia willing to destroy itself over Georgia. That's the real question.

In addition, my response wasn't about "Might is right". It is about the real fact that Russia in it's current state is in no position to dictate to the USA or NATO anything. Nor does Russia have the influence or "might" to be able to tell NATO which sovereign nations they can accept into their alliance. Like it or not, we are going to setup a missile defense system. And we are going to invite other nations into the NATO alliance. Whether Georgia or the others actually get into NATO is between those states and NATO itself. We should consider Russia's view, and try to ease their fears. But they are not going to dictate the rules of the NATO alliance and who joins. I don't care what the stupid people in the press say about it. In reality, nothing they can do about it. Russia is utterly powerless in that regard.

[Skybird]

1. Confidence in NATO to embrace Georgia is lower, not higher, after the Russians created facts. The alliance is already apart over Afghanistan. Nobody wants another conflict that would not prove NATO's unity, but lack of it. for the same reason there would be no unified NATO military action over Georgia - especially not in active fighting against Russian troops: Georgia simply is not worth that worst case scenario to anybody in the West.

2. I have little doubt that Russia will not hesitate to stage a new event and then simply invade and occupy Georgia, if it would be short of getting accepted into the alliance nevertheless.

3. Abchasia and Ossetai will not return to Georgia. Keep your lips tight and swallow your anger - this simply is the fact that you and Georgia will need to live with. No matter how much noise Georgia makes, they will not get it back. Reason: Russia has decided against it. Period.

4. Right now they turn parts of the country upside down, they use the opportunity to destroy military equipment and weapons, even apparently set forest aflame. They form a bufferzone ahead of the two provinces, create the option for their military to move in Georgia in the future at will and increase the damage to Georgia while falling short of doing it in a way that would cause new diplomatic uproars (like bombing factories). This way, Gerogia will be kept busy i the forseeable future to spend it'S sparse income on repairing broken things. for you can bet your money on that Russia, if ever, will pay not more than symbolic financial aid - if even that.

5. even more, they partially brake the mental backbone of Georgians. Like in all wars were systematic rape for example is used as a regular weapon of war in order to crack open social communities from within and killing social feelings of belonging together, their delaying of withdrawal as well as the destruction they do in Gori probably could be seen in this light, again they do not escalate such methods to a level where the world public would openly go into yelling amok mode over it (like the rape camps on the Balkans).

6. The russians have cooly calculated their chances and their timing, picked the best chances, landed their coup, and they will get away with it. so far they have won everything they wanted, damaged Georgia's chances to become NATO member (let Merkel talk, she talks a lot when the day is long), won the two provinces as ground on which they can move freely and unobstructed, intimidated the Caucasian people, delivered NATO a crushing strategic defeat without NATO even being allowed to produce a scorable answer, and they emerge strengthened from this story, with NATO's as well as the EU's reputation being weakened. Game set and (this) match for moscow.

7. After perceiving the West's reaction being limited to mixed messages (compare Merkel to Sarkozy) and arrogant demands with no push and no option in them to enforce them, and the self-deception about one's own glory and importance to Russia being carried on, i am very sceptical that the next round will work out better for the West. the two most likely candidates are again the Caucasian region, and the Crimean peninsula. The Ukraine tries another daring step in provoking russia to demonstrate it's independence when offering radar data of theirs to the Western alliance, and trying to slip under the NATO umbrella that way. Add that to the conflict about the Black Sea fleet. They will pay for that in shortings of energy deliveries this winter. There is a chance for a military escalation on the Crimean.

8. Europe heavily depends on energy deliveries from Russia. Biting the hand that feeds you is a questionable tactic. If they do not sell it to us, they sell it to a happy China or India. - anyone noted any poltiicians taking any conclusions fromthis, regarding to reduce that dependency? I'm waiting. To reduce the dependency from arab oil as well is desirable, too - will this help to raise enthusiasm for pissing the Russians? He, no replies? Wind-energy, anyone? Noone standing up for more nuclear powerplants?

9. Advise to the West is to realise that WTO membership for Russia is not as important as the West likes to assume, again exaggerating it's own attractiveness that way. Advise to reflect over also is that the Russian stepped over a red line - the very same line that was overstepped by the West with Kosovo, and by the united states with the invasion of Iraq. not to see that means to judge the events with double standards. The West also accepted a pseudo-democracy that beats up the opposition with riot police and use of sticks, and uses declarations of states of emergency to suppress free broadcasting of radio stations. what kind of "democratic" ally is the West lining up with here? Isn't it more a variation of the old game "he may be a bloody bastard, but he is OUR bloody bastard?". with Iraq and Kosovo, the west simply has sold away it's argument of moral authority. I doubt the wins were worth it. the Russians simply exploit that open wound to their maximum advantage, like the West used the years after the end of the cold war to push it's own positions without taking care of anything. Historically, the local events reach back into the injustice committed by Stalin, and even centuries before. On a strategic contemporary level they have their roots when the first promises to president Yeltsin that NATO would not move onto russian borders were broken and proven to be opportunistic lies. Georgia is the bill e are presented, and the Georgian people are the ones paying for moral and intellectual deficits of the West: not to mention the ultra-nationalistic and man-hating arrogance of their elected yet criminal president.

Aren't we spectacular.


http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-572329,00.html

[1480]

SB, only took 9 days for you to state publicly that the Russians did step over the line :up: . (I read the disclaimer afterward so I'm not selectively taking it out of context)

As a little food for thought, did you ever pause to consider that when people live in an oppressed fashion for generations and the yoke of that oppression is removed, a certain progression of behaviors occur.

1. Elation about the new situation.

2. Examination of the new situation.

3. Adaptation or rejection of the new situation.

4. Apprehension of going back to the old ways or willingness to be subserviant again.

5. An independent nation or puppet state.


The first part of #4 ironically causes the most problems, yet it is the only way for said people to become truly independent.

History has shown time and again that the first part of #5 cannot be truely reached without help.

Since you can understand the Russian side of this, can you understand why a small country in the Baltics may have asked for help, and gotten it via the alliance in nato?

Did the Georgian government fall into the trap that Putin laid for them? Absolutely. What happened prior to the start of the olympics is still debatable. I think there is more to it then what has been reported. And until that time I will not judge who was wrong.

Nato used it's out clause to deny membership to Georgia. Russia laughed and stormed in. None of that is up for debate.

I still believe that had Nato had allowed Georgia membership, Russia would not have done this invasion.

[OneToughHerring]

Finland and Sweden are likely to also join

You sure about that sheet? You see I don't think there will be any joining without a referendum and the last time I checked Nato isn't that popular among Finns or Swedes for that matter. So...joining without a referendum? I don't think that's possible either, although I would like to see the right-wingers try it just to see how the **** would hit the fan. :D

[Sea Demon]

SB, only took 9 days for you to state publicly that the Russians did step over the line :up: . ....
......

Nato used it's out clause to deny membership to Georgia. Russia laughed and stormed in. None of that is up for debate.

I still believe that had Nato had allowed Georgia membership, Russia would not have done this invasion.

Putin and Co. screwed up big time. Their actions have been totally counterproductive to their own interests. And they say Bush is an idiot...geeesh.:lol: Look at Putin. This man (and Medvedev for whatever role he played) have driven Estonia, Latvia, Georgia, Ukraine, Poland, and a couple of others much deeper into Nato's sphere of influence. Almost assuring that they will all eventually enter into NATO's alliance eventually. Russia has assured that the missile defense deal will go through, probably even faster now. They have ensured their own potential economic isolation(loss of G8/WTO entry). I don't care what SB says about WTO membership and it's appeal. Without it, it's hard to maintain or ensure nominal trade balance/relations, and ensure sustained economic and technological trade with current standards. Russia has screwed themselves over because of some type of wish to view themselves as something they no longer are.

If Russia were smart (and I'm not sure they are anymore/nor am I convinced Putin is as smart as they say anymore), they would lose their grandois perceptions about themselves, lose their paranoia over NATO (which has never taken a pre-emptive offensive action as an alliance in it's history), quit arming Iran or ensuring their ease into nuclear technology, quit arming China, and seriously look at improving ties to NATO themselves. That's the only way they can ensure their own security. But their actions have served quite the opposite. Not too bright from where I sit.

[Skybird]

I am realist, 1480. I take the situation for what it is.

A longer but quite insightful essay. I agree with most of it.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-572811,00.html


(...)
So how to handle this arrogant Russia, and what tone to adopt in dealing with Vladimir Putin, the director of Moscow's Kremlin policy? Last week, this was a question with which superpower America was becoming more and more concerned by the day.
There are two ways, the official and the informal, of looking at Putin in Washington. To determine which one prevails one needs to look at where one is speaking rather than with whom. In the public spotlight, Putin is seen as an aggressor after Russia's completely excessive incursion into Georgia. But in confidential conversations in the private sphere, he is a Russian hero fully in command of the language of power politics.
President Bush calls the Russian invasion "inappropriate and unacceptable." Ralph Peters, a former lieutenant colonel in the US Army, who was invited to speak before the conservative American Enterprise Institute, calls the same action "brilliant." The headline in the Wall Street Journal read "Vladimir Bonaparte."
"Whether we like it or not, Putin will undoubtedly go down in history as one of his country's great leaders," says Clifford Gaddy, the leading Russia expert in Washington, who works for the liberal Brookings Institution and occasionally advises President Bush.
Bush and Putin came into power at almost the same time, Putin in late 1999 and Bush just over a year later. "I looked into Putin’s eyes and I saw his soul," the American president raved after their first meeting. He saw the man he wanted to see in Putin: the reformed communist who was forced to choose a path leading to a market economy and democracy.
Conservative triumphalism was in fashion at the time, and in this spirit Bush had the National Security Strategy of the United States, an official document outlining the nation's position on foreign policy, revised in 2002. To this day, the document contains the following sentence: "The great struggles of the 20th century between liberty and totalitarianism ended with a decisive victory for the forces of freedom -- and a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy, and free enterpris

Putin is living proof of the fallacy of this statement, and Bush, in the wake of Russia's invasion of Georgia, has been exposed, once again, as a loudmouth. The new Russia is in fact absolutely opposed to looking anything like the old West, says Strobe Talbott, who served as deputy to former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. According to Talbott, the message Putin sent to the West via Georgia consists of three partial messages. First, Russia is back on the world stage. Second, Russia wants new power, but not a return to the days of political ideology and economic autarchy. Third, Russia wants to set the terms of its integration into the new world order itself.
But this means nothing less than that the premises of American foreign policy, from former Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton to the current President Bush, were wrong, says Talbott. This policy was always based on the assumption, according to Talbott, that Russia wanted to allow itself to be integrated into the existing Western architecture, including NATO, the Group of Eight (G-8) Industrialized Nations, the World Trade Organization and, in the end, perhaps even the European Union. "Now we know that this premise is wrong."
(...)
Perhaps the rest of the world will now look more closely at the hidden spots between Europe and Asia, into provinces and ethnic groups whose names they can hardly pronounce. The West's outrage over Moscow's military escapade will likely subside in a few weeks, and even America will return to politics as usual. Washington urgently needs Russia, both to keep Iran in check and as a counterbalance to China, a rising major power. America's new president, whether it will be Democratic candidate Barack Obama or Republican John McCain, will have to seek allies again to grapple with the world's conflicts.

But Russian Prime Minister Putin is clearly the victor here, after having taken control of the Caucasus crisis decisively and efficiently, by Russian standards. The world now knows that Russia is asserting stronger claims to be a major power alongside the United States.
The war is as good as over, and Putin the military commander is withdrawing. It was Medvedev who was forced to meet with foreign dignitaries who had come to complain about the Georgian conflict. Russian state television also returned to coverage of the nominal head of state.
After completing his work, Putin returned to a more behind-the-scenes role. He was seen conferring with financial experts in the drab Moscow conference room at his headquarters. They were discussing the planning for the Russian national budget -- until 2023.

It looks like he will be around for some time to come



And this (German) essay compares Putin's importance to Russia with that of Kennedy to the US - just that Kennedy, when being challenged in the American's backyard (like Russia being challenged in it's own) showed far less scruples and self-restraint than Putin and even considered not only military but even ultimate military retaliation. We in the West must learn to accept that Putin is extremely popular in russia, and that many Russians attribute future hopes and perspectives to him, like Kennedy did in his time. He is popular especially with the young, and is seen by many as the one who brought russia after the years of decline under Yeltsin a new beginning. Or to use a currently popular american phrase: he brought a change. we need to accept that the Western social, political and economical model is not quite as popular with the rest of mankind, as the Eu and even more as Washington have ever imagined in past years, just like the essay above just said. Some weeks ago I linked a text with a study showing that democracies internationally are in retreat, and authoritarian regimes win in popularity. Georgia itself also is anything but a textbook example of a democracy and has more in common with the tyrant in Uzbekistan, than with Brussel or Washington.

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,druck-572691,00.html

If they translate it into English for their international edition, I'll post it.

[OneToughHerring]

Actually it's kinda odd how quiet Bush is about all this. All I've heard is something along the lines that "Russia shouldn't bully Georgia" and Russia not really even having to respond. That's it? That's all USA has in the way of condemning Russia's actions?

[August]

Actually it's kinda odd how quiet Bush is about all this. All I've heard is something along the lines that "Russia shouldn't bully Georgia" and Russia not really even having to respond. That's it? That's all USA has in the way of condemning Russia's actions?

It's too close to the elections. Lame duck presidents rarely make waves at this point in their term of office.

[Sea Demon]

Actually it's kinda odd how quiet Bush is about all this. All I've heard is something along the lines that "Russia shouldn't bully Georgia" and Russia not really even having to respond. That's it? That's all USA has in the way of condemning Russia's actions?
Why stir the pot? Russia is giving the Bush administration everything it hopes for. The missile defense deal is done, and more Eastern states are willing and hopeful to expand on it. More former Soviet client states are being brought further into NATO's sphere of influence. And Russia is making itself look bad enough, making it much more difficult to push against western aims to ensure Iran cannot destabilize the Persian Gulf or develop nuclear weapons. The USA will take punitive actions against Russia itself in trade normalization and entry into economic organizations. Just because you don't hear about it openly, don't assume things aren't getting done. In the same vein, don't expect the USA or NATO to take military actions against Russia over this incident. Ain't going to happen. But why should the US add anything significant when Russia is the one isolating itself and continuing policies that are counterproductive to itself. If that's what they choose, let em' continue. It's not strengthening Russia's position or aims in any significant way in the long or short term. And only will help justify the NATO alliance and missile defense in total.

[baggygreen]

thats because the west needs russia more than russia needs the west.

would i be amiss in saying realpolitik??

[Skybird]

Actually it's kinda odd how quiet Bush is about all this. All I've heard is something along the lines that "Russia shouldn't bully Georgia" and Russia not really even having to respond. That's it? That's all USA has in the way of condemning Russia's actions?

they can't afford to lose the russians, for they need them for many international critical issues. Alöso, there is little, or better: there is nothing Washington can do. simply that. nobody would riosk war over soemthing like Georgia. Even if Georgia would have been member of NATO - I am absolutely sure that NATO would NOT have jumped to it's military defense. Which would have meant an even greater diplomatic defeat and damage to NATO, than it is the case now.

the problem with NATO is the same like with the EU: too many cooks spoil the brew, additonally two different concepts of NATO'S new role after 1989, the american versus the old european conception, hamper NATO'S ability to react. Both organisations did not become stronger but weaker when accepting new members. At the same time, it meant to increase their chances to be faced by crisis, due to the greater surface of the organisation that could be hit easier by fate since they make a bigger target.

[Sea Demon]

thats because the west needs russia more than russia needs the west.

would i be amiss in saying realpolitik??
Nope. Without money flowing from the West, or someone to sell energy to, Russia basically has nothing. No leverage or relevance in any way. They know this as well. The fact that they have made themselves look a little rogue recently has made NATO more attractive to some of those they wish to try and control. In addition, they cannot truly afford to block our aims in the Iranian row. Russia screwed themselves big time here. And they have helped Bush get his missile defense. Probably on a more expedited time table as well.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Putin and Co. screwed up big time. Their actions have been totally counterproductive to their own interests. And they say Bush is an idiot...geeesh.:lol: Look at Putin. This man (and Medvedev for whatever role he played) have driven Estonia, Latvia, Georgia, Ukraine, Poland, and a couple of others much deeper into Nato's sphere of influence.

You are writing this as if Poland and Finland and all those others would have been friendly if Putin had done otherwise.

I think at this point, with reason after so many years of this, they see the situation this way:
1) Do nothing, or even try to be nice. Result: Poland and all those others might not hate them quite so much, but they'll still get snuggler and snuggler into NATO.
2) Get tough. Result: Poland and all those others might hate them even more, but just maybe they can scare them into a more neutral stance. It sure seems like a good bet considering what 1 had been getting them for years.

Of course, one can argue that 1 is the result of former Soviet policy in Eastern Europe and somesuch, but it doesn't matter. Putin, or any other Russian leader, would have to look out for Russia.

[Skybird]

Why stir the pot? Russia is giving the Bush administration everything it hopes for. The missile defense deal is done, and more Eastern states are willing and hopeful to expand on it. More former Soviet client states are being brought further into NATO's sphere of influence. And Russia is making itself look bad enough, making it much more difficult to push against western aims to ensure Iran cannot destabilize the Persian Gulf or develop nuclear weapons. The USA will take punitive actions against Russia itself in trade normalization and entry into economic organizations. Just because you don't hear about it openly, don't assume things aren't getting done. In the same vein, don't expect the USA or NATO to take military actions against Russia over this incident. Ain't going to happen. But why should the US add anything significant when Russia is the one isolating itself and continuing policies that are counterproductive to itself. If that's what they choose, let em' continue. It's not strengthening Russia's position or aims in any significant way in the long or short term. And only will help justify the NATO alliance and missile defense in total.

Your interpretation reminds me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

and hasn't your country allways insisted that the missile shield is not meant to be directed against Russia, but against Iran and North Korea and that the russians have no reason at all to feel concerned by modern radar stations close to their borders and looking deep into their territory...? :hmm:

[Happy Times]

thats because the west needs russia more than russia needs the west.

would i be amiss in saying realpolitik??
Nope. Without money flowing from the West, or someone to sell energy to, Russia basically has nothing. No leverage or relevance in any way. They know this as well. The fact that they have made themselves look a little rogue recently has made NATO more attractive to some of those they wish to try and control. In addition, they cannot truly afford to block our aims in the Iranian row. Russia screwed themselves big time here. And they have helped Bush get his missile defense. And for that I am truly grateful to Putin.

:yep:

And if it comes to that, the way to hit Russia today is to target the middle class, no visas to Europe, economic pressuring, that should heat things nicely in Russia.

[Digital_Trucker]

Your interpretation reminds me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4



Oh, no you don't! I protest:D You are not allowed to politicize the best scene from the best movie ever made:rotfl:

[August]

And if it comes to that, the way to hit Russia today is to target the middle class, no visas to Europe, economic pressuring, that should heat things nicely in Russia.
Yeah and take back that Riviera villa some Russian bigshot just purchased for a record amount.

No Riviera for you Ivan!

[Sea Demon]

Your interpretation reminds me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4
Your views are driven from internet articles, and bear no resemblance to what is really happening there. Russia has lost face big time and has helped put many more nations directly into NATO's sphere. In addition, missile defense is going to be expedited. I find it funny that some internet jockey's like you can't even view or analyze the true realities of this. And instead have to resort to frail/impotent attempts to insult using stupid youtube videos. Russia has not bolstered itself in anyway despite what your internet articles from derspeigel say. In fact, their actions have been totally counterproductive. And will prove to be even more so in the future.

I know you're a fatalist Skybird, but you're lost on all points in the geopolitics of this. Especially the long term.

and hasn't your country allways insisted that the missile shield is not meant to be directed against Russia, but against Iran and North Korea and that the russians have no reason at all to feel concerned by modern radar stations close to their borders and looking deep into their territory...?
It's not directed at them at all. This defensive system is no threat to them in anyway. Yet it will be deployed without their approval. And there is nothing they can do about it. Interestingly enough their actions have put it on the fast track.

[Happy Times]

Putin and Co. screwed up big time. Their actions have been totally counterproductive to their own interests. And they say Bush is an idiot...geeesh.:lol: Look at Putin. This man (and Medvedev for whatever role he played) have driven Estonia, Latvia, Georgia, Ukraine, Poland, and a couple of others much deeper into Nato's sphere of influence.

You are writing this as if Poland and Finland and all those others would have been friendly if Putin had done otherwise.

I think at this point, with reason after so many years of this, they see the situation this way:
1) Do nothing, or even try to be nice. Result: Poland and all those others might not hate them quite so much, but they'll still get snuggler and snuggler into NATO.
2) Get tough. Result: Poland and all those others might hate them even more, but just maybe they can scare them into a more neutral stance. It sure seems like a good bet considering what 1 had been getting them for years.

Of course, one can argue that 1 is the result of former Soviet policy in Eastern Europe and somesuch, but it doesn't matter. Putin, or any other Russian leader, would have to look out for Russia.

1. Is the result of past policies not recognized by the current Russia, instead they seek to continue these policies.

[Sea Demon]

but it doesn't matter. Putin, or any other Russian leader, would have to look out for Russia.

If this is the case, a smart Russia might want to change it's own policies in how it views itself in relationship to NATO. That's what a smart Putin/Russia who are looking out for their own security and interests would do. ;) Not invade potential NATO entrants or threaten another with nuclear attack when Russia themselves would be annihilated if they actively pursued that. (i.e. Empty rhetoric from the Russians).

And again...totally counterproductive to their interests.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

but it doesn't matter. Putin, or any other Russian leader, would have to look out for Russia.
If this is the case, a smart Russia might want to change it's own policies in how it views itself in relationship to NATO. That's what a smart Putin/Russia who are looking out for their own security and interests would do. Not invade potential NATO entrants or threaten another with nuclear attack when Russia themselves would be annihilated if they actively pursued that. (i.e. Empty rhetoric from the Russians).
And again...totally counterproductive to their interests.
From a Russian point of view, NATO's peace noises sounds about as convincing as the Soviets peace noises sounded to NATO.
Cold War NATO: Sees USSR claim peace as it modernizes and increases forces on the inter-German border.
Post Cold War Russia: Sees NATO claim peace as it modernizes and increases forces on the Russian border.
So, why is it OK that NATO saw the USSR peace claims with mistrust, but the Russians can't have the same worries about NATO?
As for counterproductive, that depends on your perception. You seem to think, for example, that they lost because they made Poland accept the missile defense system in 2008 instead of say 2009/10. But that's frankly a lost cause, and slightly accelerating the inevitable is no huge loss.
However, suppose (since that's the apparent rationale for their actions) that by acting tough, they manage to scare say the Ukraine from joining NATO, even if they scare a few others into accelerating their increased cooperation with NATO (which looked to be going to happen anyway). That will obviously be a huge gain for them, and one they'll be happy to take even with some costs elsewhere. And even if the plan didn't work, the worst that happens is that Ukraine joins NATO say in 2009 instead of 2012. From a long-term point of view, slightly accelerating what would happen anyway if you did nothing is a very small risk to take in comparison to the gains of success - a demi-permanent, Ukraine-sized chunk of relatively safe border. And who knows? One success there might just scare Poland and the others into a more neutral position.

[Sea Demon]

From a Russian point of view, NATO's peace noises sounds about as convincing as the Soviets peace noises sounded to NATO.
Cold War NATO: Sees USSR claim peace as it modernizes and increases forces on the inter-German border.
Post Cold War Russia: Sees NATO claim peace as it modernizes and increases forces on the Russian border.
So, why is it OK that NATO saw the USSR peace claims with mistrust, but the Russians can't have the same worries about NATO?
As for counterproductive, that depends on your perception. You seem to think, for example, that they lost because they made Poland accept the missile defense system in 2008 instead of say 2009/10. But that's frankly a lost cause, and slightly accelerating the inevitable is no huge loss.
However, suppose (since that's the apparent rationale for their actions) that by acting tough, they manage to scare say the Ukraine from joining NATO, even if they scare a few others into accelerating their increased cooperation with NATO (which looked to be going to happen anyway). That will obviously be a huge gain for them, and one they'll be happy to take even with some costs elsewhere. And even if the plan didn't work, the worst that happens is that Ukraine joins NATO say in 2009 instead of 2012. From a long-term point of view, slightly accelerating what would happen anyway if you did nothing is a very small risk to take in comparison to the gains of success - a demi-permanent, Ukraine-sized chunk of relatively safe border. And who knows? One success there might just scare Poland and the others into a more neutral position.

Then the Russian point of view is a lost cause for Russia as it has served to gain them the opposite results. This view that they can "scare" anybody into a neutral stance clearly has not worked and has assured resolve against it. Especially in the long term. Not a very smart move at all. Quite stupid really. I don't think Putin counted on the fact that the people of these former client states or other bordering nations are not willing to be controlled from Moscow's point of view, but see themselves as fully independant nations that are going to make decisions that suit their own interests. Including wanting to join the NATO alliance. Poland, nor the Ukraine were "scared" into doing anything Moscow's way. They are actually going in the opposite direction.

I'm not sure if Russia will actually learn the right lesson from this, or take the stubborn route and further bury themselves into a corner. Economic isolation is a potential we are seriously considering. This is not exactly going to help Russian interests if that happens. Sorry to say, but Russia has gained nothing here of any value, and will struggle in the future if they choose the stupid path that Putin has put them on as an opponent of NATO, and excluded from nominal trade relations and financial entities. This pride or counterproductive foreign policy of "force" will be the Russian nations downfall. If they were smart, they would choose to evaluate their foreign policy in regards to NATO, and lose the paranoia. That's truly the only option they have to keep things nominal between NATO/West and themselves. Militarily, they don't have the true might to make the NATO alliance or their candidates do anything. I think that's what you're missing here. And as have been demonstrated, the more they push, the more Poland, the Ukraine and others wil push right back.

[baggygreen]

If russia becomes isolated, be it by their own doing or by the west, its the west's problem - russia doesnt need the west for energy supplies, the west (europe) needs russia for its energy though.

Not a nice prospect!

People keep seeming to forget russia holds many cards if they feel obliged to use them.. energy is one, iran is another.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Then the Russian point of view is a lost cause for Russia as it has served to gain them the opposite results.
Are you sure? It is still very early in the new game. And even if you are right, again, it is just slightly speeding up the inevitable, so it is not a devastating loss.
Basically, from the National Security POV, it is be passive (or even try appeasement) and lose slowly like a man with a terminal disease, or be active and maybe lose quicker, but also maybe win something. It is a no-brainer what to choose.
Especially in the long term.
In the long term, barring a miracle, they would all join NATO the way the waters are pointing.
Not a very smart move at all. Quite stupid really. I don't think Putin counted on the fact that the people of these former client states or other bordering nations are not willing to be controlled from Moscow's point of view,
I think he's all too aware of that, which is why he's going on the Offense.
but see themselves as fully independant nations that are going to make decisions that suit their own interests.
In other words, if he does nothing, loss is guaranteed, because they'll all join NATO, no? Maybe a bit slower, but that's little comfort.
Including wanting to join the NATO alliance. Poland, nor the Ukraine were "scared" into doing anything Moscow's way. They are actually going in the opposite direction.
They are, at most, slightly accelerated in the direction they had already been taking.
Besides, a precedent had been set, at least for Ukraine. The Russians did something, and the West made a lot of its usual noise, but did little.
I'm not sure if Russia will actually learn the right lesson from this, or take the stubborn route and further bury themselves into a corner. Economic isolation is a potential we are seriously considering. This is not exactly going to help Russian interests if that happens.
Nor will it help the West. One can argue with Skybird about who gets hurt more, but it is a lose-lose solution.

[Happy Times]

Neo-Eurasianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Eurasianism
Aleksandr Dugin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Dugin

You have to wonder what is the interest of Russian embassy in Finland, to sponsor Dugin in Finland to lecture for young Russian imigrants.
He didnt get a visa though.:p

[Sea Demon]

If russia becomes isolated, be it by their own doing or by the west, its the west's problem - russia doesnt need the west for energy supplies, the west (europe) needs russia for its energy though.

Not a nice prospect!

People keep seeming to forget russia holds many cards if they feel obliged to use them.. energy is one, iran is another.

Russia needs money, trade, and investment. Without these, they have nothing in terms of leverage or relevance. The west can realign their own energy supplies if they need to, but at great cost. Other than that, Russia holds no cards at all. Iran certainly is no card for them to play at this point. It was a card for them until they screwed it up.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Russia needs money, trade, and investment. Without these, they have nothing in terms of leverage or relevance. The west can realign their own energy supplies if they need to, but at great cost. Other than that, Russia holds no cards at all. Iran certainly is no card for them to play at this point. It was a card for them until they screwed it up.

Note the bolded. It is a lose lose for the West to play it that way, so if they are smart they'll try something else.

[Sea Demon]

Basically, from the National Security POV, it is be passive (or even try appeasement) and lose slowly like a man with a terminal disease, or be active and maybe lose quicker, but also maybe win something. It is a no-brainer what to choose.
At this point, they may be smart enough to break even. We'll see if they've got the smarts to save face or not.

In the long term, barring a miracle, they would all join NATO the way the waters are pointing.
True. There is a large shift towards NATO. But now even more so. I have a hard time thinking how people can't see the Russian actions have accelerated the move in this direction by pushing some of these states further away from it. And are on the path to increased isolation in other regards. Trying to show Russia as a winner here simply doesn't work once you look at the true tally. They screwed the pooch bad.

I think he's all too aware of that, which is why he's going on the Offense.
A very stupid move as it turned out.

In other words, if he does nothing, loss is guaranteed, because they'll all join NATO, no? Maybe a bit slower, but that's little comfort.
It's none of Russia's business as they are all sovereign nations able to make decisions as to their own security, and make decisions that sovereign nations are able to make regarding their own interests. It's a shame you seriously cannot see that. These candidate nations owe Russia nothing. But are free to make their own decisions.

They are, at most, slightly accelerated in the direction they had already been taking.
Besides, a precedent had been set, at least for Ukraine. The Russians did something, and the West made a lot of its usual noise, but did little.
Russia is on the verge of increased economic isolation. That worked real well for them during the Cold War, right? In addition they have assured an enlarged NATO is not only a reality, but on an increased timetable. In addition to that, here comes missile defense (Thanks to an irritated Poland and potentially Ukraine) whether they like it or not. This hasn't given Russia anything to their benefit. Actually quite a bit was done and will be done punitively. All indicators point to that.

Nor will it help the West. One can argue with Skybird about who gets hurt more, but it is a lose-lose solution.
I agree to a certain extent that Russia and the West would both reap benefits with a more friendly outlook to one another. Trade normalizations between both sides would be very beneficial to both sides indeed. But you may want to convince Mr. Putin of this reality. I don't think he gets it. Let's see if he actually learns the lesson here. I think the man is full of too much stubborn pride myself.

[Sea Demon]

Russia needs money, trade, and investment. Without these, they have nothing in terms of leverage or relevance. The west can realign their own energy supplies if they need to, but at great cost. Other than that, Russia holds no cards at all. Iran certainly is no card for them to play at this point. It was a card for them until they screwed it up.
Note the bolded. It is a lose lose for the West to play it that way, so if they are smart they'll try something else.
Russia will fall the hardest since that's all they got. You can bet the bank on it.;) Hopefully Russia will see that they actually have more to lose against this alliance of many, many nations. Most of these being fully economically developed and still on the highest edges of R & D and capital investment. I gotta spell it out for you I see.

[1480]

President Bush calls the Russian invasion "inappropriate and unacceptable." Ralph Peters, a former lieutenant colonel in the US Army, who was invited to speak before the conservative American Enterprise Institute, calls the same action "brilliant."

SB this is sloppy writing and I figured you were beyond that. Peters actually called Putin brilliant, but you need to listen to the context of it.

http://www.aei.org/events/filter.,eventID.1769/summary.asp#


The entire panel event video is on the right side of the page, the link itself is a very brief summary of the entire presentation. A lot better then the yellow journalism from der spiegel.....

[Sea Demon]

Peters actually called Putin brilliant......

This is proof of how stupid and analytically incapable people (I don't refer to you 1480, I refer to those who think Putin is brilliant for his move against Georgia)have truly become. Putin is an idiot. He has put his country in a position against a major alliance, have pushed some nations he wanted control of directly into NATO's sphere of influence, has destroyed his influence on the Iranian situation, and has put the missile defense he so opposes on the fast track. And he's put himself into a corner of potential loss of face if he concedes. Either way, it's no good for him. At best Putin is a fool.

[1480]

Peters actually called Putin brilliant......

This is proof of how stupid and analytically incapable people (I don't refer to you 1480, I refer to those who think Putin is brilliant for his move against Georgia)have truly become. Putin is an idiot. He has put his country in a position against a major alliance, have pushed some nations he wanted control of directly into NATO's sphere of influence, has destroyed his influence on the Iranian situation, and has put the missile defense he so opposes on the fast track. And he's put himself into a corner of potential loss of face if he concedes. Either way, it's no good for him. At best Putin is a fool.

You need to check out the video. Just the first five minutes of Peters' panel and you'll understand what I mean, and you'll ask yourself, why isn't he the third choice for our next president. I understood what you are saying though, his is only 13 minutes but very compelling.

[Sea Demon]

You need to check out the video. Just the first five minutes of Peters' panel and you'll understand what I mean, and you'll ask yourself, why isn't he the third choice for our next president. I understood what you are saying though, his is only 13 minutes but very compelling.
Well, Peters has an interesting viewpoint for sure. I'd love to ask Peters if he views the losses Russia has incurred (currently occuring, potential and otherwise) will make it all worth it to them. In the end, Russia lost more than they gained. And still stand to lose more. The reverse is true for the USA and the NATO alliance. They got more than they bargained for. Albeit, not the way they wanted it to be done. Unfortunately, Georgia seems to be the hurt pawn in this whole game.

[1480]

You need to check out the video. Just the first five minutes of Peters' panel and you'll understand what I mean, and you'll ask yourself, why isn't he the third choice for our next president. I understood what you are saying though, his is only 13 minutes but very compelling.
Well, Peters has an interesting viewpoint for sure. I'd love to ask Peters if he views the losses Russia has incurred (currently occuring, potential and otherwise) will make it all worth it to them. In the end, Russia lost more than they gained. And still stand to lose more. The reverse is true for the USA and the NATO alliance. They got more than they bargained for. Albeit, not the way they wanted it to be done. Unfortunately, Georgia seems to be the hurt pawn in this whole game.

In the q&a he calls what russia did a terrorist act. Infer from it what you will:rock:

So yes, he agrees with you. Excellent points you make.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Russia will fall the hardest since that's all they got. You can bet the bank on it. Hopefully Russia will see that they actually have more to lose against this alliance of many, many nations. Most of these being fully economically developed and still on the highest edges of R & D and capital investment. I gotta spell it out for you I see.

The "fully economically" states also happen to be vitally dependent on energy, for one thing, so Russia, at least in the short-mid term, holds a large key to that.

You seem enormously reluctant to consider the possibility that, at the end of the consideration, they will come to the very logical conclusion that sanctions are not really worth it. At best they lose an arm to Russia's two (and how many in a Western democracy would happily do this for uh, Georgia?), or at worst it is them that can't hold the turn in the energy shortage and be forced to concede even more coming out of the turn.

While you are at it, Demon, you might as well say that if US or NATO do serious military intervention against Russia, the Russians will almost certainly take a drubbing, so they have more to lose. But you don't claim this into account, because the gain/risk dictates that such a move is not worth it and thus the chance of such a move being taken is near zero. And IMO, the sanctions, judged by gain/loss, is close to this. While they may indeed hurt Russia more than themselves, it would still be a stupid decision on their part!

Since they haven't decided yes or no yet, Demon, permit me to ask: If we assume that the Russians guessed right, and the West won't push serious sanctions (maybe a slap-on-the-wrist sanction), how would you re-assess the gain/loss ledger for the Russians?

He has put his country in a position against a major alliance,

You say this as if he could do something else and NATO would actually be friendly to Russia.
have pushed some nations he wanted control of directly into NATO's sphere of influence,

I don't understand why you assign such a high score to this, when at worst he slightly accelerated what would have happened had he done nothing. If Putin managed to play a move that delayed this progression by say one year, will you call it a huge victory for him?
The setup is such that relative to where they are now, Russia's actions could go only -1 (slightly accelerating the imminent NATOization of their border) on one hand, and +10 on the other (putting a stop to NATOization).

One move (the "Play Nice" move you recommend) gives access to at most +1 (slightly delaying the progression) to 0, while the other is -1 to +10. Given this, even if he winds up failing, I don't think this whole sphere thing is a good reason to call him a fool. It is a logical move that just didn't work.
has destroyed his influence on the Iranian situation,

A possible loss, but you'll have to amplify this one for me a bit before I can decide.
and has put the missile defense he so opposes on the fast track.

See point 2.

[Sea Demon]

The "fully economically" states also happen to be vitally dependent on energy, for one thing, so Russia, at least in the short-mid term, holds a large key to that.

It's quite unfortunate that the Euro's put themselves in this position. But realistically speaking energy realignment is alot easier for them than Russia's potential fallout from this. The Euro's (and American Democrats) need to learn that we don't need to be at the mercy of hostile regimes for our energy supplies. We indeed have our own. So do the Euro's. Russia ultimately has much more to lose if totally isolated in the long term.

You seem enormously reluctant to consider the possibility that, at the end of the consideration, they will come to the very logical conclusion that sanctions are not really worth it. At best they lose an arm to Russia's two (and how many in a Western democracy would happily do this for uh, Georgia?), or at worst it is them that can't hold the turn in the energy shortage and be forced to concede even more coming out of the turn.

While you are at it, Demon, you might as well say that if US or NATO do serious military intervention against Russia, the Russians will almost certainly take a drubbing, so they have more to lose. But you don't claim this into account, because the gain/risk dictates that such a move is not worth it and thus the chance of such a move being taken is near zero. And IMO, the sanctions, judged by gain/loss, is close to this. While they may indeed hurt Russia more than themselves, it would still be a stupid decision on their part!

No, we are not looking at UN sanctions. We are looking at Russia being put out to pasture regarding nominal trade, G8 agreements, and future capital investments. This is something they cannot afford. And nothing that will stop enlarging NATO or deploying a missile defense. Russia's pretty much pushing this whole thing. And so far, almost every repercussion has been against Russian interests and counterproductive to Russia's influence. Blame the West, count it as a Russian victory, call Putin a genius, or ignore the consequences......doesn't change the true dynamics in any way.

Since they haven't decided yes or no yet, Demon, permit me to ask: If we assume that the Russians guessed right, and the West won't push serious sanctions (maybe a slap-on-the-wrist sanction), how would you re-assess the gain/loss ledger for the Russians?

It's pretty clear that there wil be punitive action. And to date they screwed up by pushing former client states closer into the NATO basket. And missile defense is going forward very strongly. Big slap to Putin there. Don't act like these things are wonderful for Russia or Putin smells like a rose.....he doesn't.

And while we're at it KS, did Putin have a UN agreement in place authorizing his action against Georgia? Did any Russian legislative body vote for it or was it a "Unilateral" move by Putin/Medvedev not granted by the UN. I wonder why this hasn't been brought up by the peanut gallery idiots of both Europe and America. :hmm:

[Sea Demon]

You say this as if he could do something else and NATO would actually be friendly to Russia.
NATO has never threatened Russia as far as I know. Point to me where NATO forces have threatened a strike against Russia...please. NATO has gone as far as giving Russia a seat at the table to listen, an now you can be sure Russia will lose that access due to Putin's stupidity.

I don't understand why you assign such a high score to this, when at worst he slightly accelerated what would have happened had he done nothing. If Putin managed to play a move that delayed this progression by say one year, will you call it a huge victory for him?
The setup is such that relative to where they are now, Russia's actions could go only -1 (slightly accelerating the imminent NATOization of their border) on one hand, and +10 on the other (putting a stop to NATOization).
You have no idea what would happen. You're guessing. But you're right about one thing. It's going to happen, and now, Putin's actions have only served to strongly align these nations against Russian interests. Not smart in any way. If the inevitibility is there, wouldn't it be alot smarter to try and ease the situation in a way to leverage NATO's attitude for you....not against you?

has destroyed his influence on the Iranian situation,

With the current losses incurred up North, does he seek more problems by continuing to build Iran's nuclear weapons capabilities....further eroding relations with the USA/NATO? Does anybody on our side truly take Putin seriously if he chooses to speak out against us if we choose to attack Iranian weapons sites? Especially since he unilaterally engaged Georgia without UN approval? I know the idiot apologists in the West don't care. But their point of view simply doesn't matter anymore.

As far as the missile defense.....what can he truly do about it? Nuke the sites? Nope. We know he can't do that without himself being annihilated. And now he's just PO'd the ones who are setting it up. And looking for a way to humiliate him.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

It's quite unfortunate that the Euro's put themselves in this position. But realistically speaking energy realignment is alot easier for them than Russia's potential fallout from this. The Euro's (and American Democrats) need to learn that we don't need to be at the mercy of hostile regimes for our energy supplies. We indeed have our own. So do the Euro's. Russia ultimately has much more to lose if totally isolated in the long term.
Eventually, I'll grant. But not right now. Which is what any sanctions posted right NOW will have to deal with. Or do you really think they can do nothing to Russia, slowly prepare all those alternate energy sources, then three years later hit with sanctions?
No, we are not looking at UN sanctions. We are looking at Russia being put out to pasture regarding nominal trade, G8 agreements, and future capital investments.
I did not limit things to UN sanctions did I? I'll assume that they are currently doing "nominal trade", G8 agreements and investments because it is economically advantageous to them, energy or no energy. Why do you think the West will want to give up on its own economic advantage?
It's pretty clear that there wil be punitive action.
Your basis for this? It is to no one's advantage.
And to date they screwed up by pushing former lient states closer into the NATO basket. And missile defense is going forward very strongly. Big slap to Putin there. Don't act like these things are wonderful for Russia or Putin smells like a rose.....he doesn't.
They aren't great signs, but again, it is very early in the new game, and it is unrealistic to expect all of them to be completely moved into neutrality with one battle. In fact, it is almost predictable they'll start sucking up to NATO, desperately trying to increase their value coefficient and the probability NATO would save them if push comes to shove.
However, NATO has not seriously responded to this one. As such cases increase, the doubt will inevitably increasingly plant itself in Russia's neighbors. Yet the balance of strength in terms of interest level simply makes it very difficult for NATO to react seriously.
For example, take Yushchenko. He just poked the Russians. Let's say the Russians cut off his gas, or just charge Ukraine the correct price for gas (so the West has less of a moral leg to hang on). Does he go on? He would go on if he's sure the West would back him, of course. But thanks to Georgia he's less sure. The West will be unhappy, but they aren't going to save him. He cuts a deal with Russia. The West is perceived to have done nothing ... again.
Eventually, the two lines will cross, and Russia's neighbors realize NATO (dominated by the richer Western members) are not really all that interested in backing them against Russia. What would they do? Get neutral.
And while we're at it KS, did Putin have a UN agreement in place authorizing his action against Georgia? Did any Russian legislative body vote for it or was it a "Unilateral" move by Putin/Medvedev not granted by the UN. I wonder why this hasn't been brought up by the peanut gallery idiots of both Europe and America.
Well, considering it was supposed to be an emergency move in response to the Georgians, it is probably defensible for Putin and Medvedev to move the troops in under the President's Commander-in-Chief authority and so on.
As for the UN, yes, but here's where the US kind of kicked itself with that whole Iraq thing. Remember, they couldn't even find the WMD in the end... By extension, it is all right for Russia to claim to be stopping a genocide, go in, and find none...
NATO has never threatened Russia as far as I know. Point to me where NATO forces have threatened a strike against Russia...please. NATO has gone as far as giving Russia a seat at the table to listen, an now you can be sure Russia will lose that access due to Putin's stupidity.
In the meantime, they just continue to chew up the buffer zone, improve the COF and total frontier area (invasion avenues) against Russia. I bet the German ambassador was not threatening Molotov, even as they prepare for Operation Barbarossa. I think I can forgive the Russians for valuing actions over words.
As for the seat, a seat w/o a say is of extremely limited value.
You have no idea what would happen. You're guessing.
Just as you don't about the sanctions.
But you're right about one thing. It's going to happen, and now, Putin's actions have only served to strongly align these nations against Russian interests.
They weren't before?
Not smart in any way. If the inevitibility is there, wouldn't it be alot smarter to try and ease the situation in a way to leverage NATO's attitude for you....not against you?
Such a question is like asking whether unconditional surrender is good given that you have absolutely zip options left.
Try this: If you believe you have a faint chance to avoid unconditional surrender, will you take it, even though it might somewhat (not a lot) worsen your position if you fail and are forced to take the surrender?
As far as the missile defense.....what can he truly do about it? Nuke the sites? Nope. We know he can't do that without himself being annihilated. And now he's just PO'd the ones who are setting it up. And looking for a way to humiliate him.
Try and convince one nation not to go along, by hook or crook? Heck, if he gets only the Ukraine it'll still be worth a lot.

[Skybird]

Your interpretation reminds me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4
Your views are driven from internet articles, and bear no resemblance to what is really happening there. Russia has lost face big time and has helped put many more nations directly into NATO's sphere. In addition, missile defense is going to be expedited. I find it funny that some internet jockey's like you can't even view or analyze the true realities of this.
Says somebody who was driven by illusions abiut Iraq, claims moral superiuroirty for his side that it already had betrayed, and who makes arguments that are no arguments at all: becasue the shift towards NAO in Eatserneuropean nations already was there, for they almost irrationally hate Russia for historic reasons - no matter what Russia does or does not (we German can sing a song of that regarding Poland's nationalistic camp as well), and the missile shield would have been established anyway, with opr woithout Russia going into Georgia. And you reaction shows that the Russians saw it tiotally correct when they always claimed it is a project that is also directed against the, and a valid military threat. What NATO has gotten here is - a self-fulfilling prohecy.

NATO is meeting today. We will see a demonstration of tough words and helpless weak deeds or more symboli than practical value. Putin is not so stupid a man thta he has not calculated the possibility of the meetings with NATO or WTO talks being put on ice, and obviously he sees their damage value as very limited. That is, as the long essay alraeyd said, because the West totally overestimates the value Russia sees in these (Western) tools, for the West had hoped to bring russia under greater influence and control that way. But it's attractiveness to russia is limited. That Rice today already argued from a position of moral superiority, is rich - that moral authority the Us claims lies in shatters since the attack on Iraq. the US failed in the same way as it claims the russians does - more precisely, it even set the precedent by which the Russians follow, regarding Iraq as well as Kosovo. Okay, today'S evening news will pepper us with tough word that will acchieve nothing. I laugh about it not becaue i find th erusians so wonderful. I laugh about it becasue the Western display of double standards and bigottery is so very much black-humoured amusing. Lots of babbling there will be. but nopthing that could impress the russians. the Us needs them far more than they need the US., europe needs their energy much more, than they need europe. No american supeiroity to be seen. No Western glory, and certainly no west-doiminated century. Welcome to reality. As long as you people stick to your illusions that brought you to where oyu are - a major strategic defeat - you cannot hope that the next round you will not be outplayed again like this time. Obviously some of you prefer the taste of defeat as long as only you can march to the sound of your tough but misleading paroles. Okay, happy marching then. I shall find your mental distortions most amusing. :lol:

[Sea Demon]

Your basis for this? It is to no one's advantage.

It's already been said that it will happen. It is to no one's advantage to allow Russia's unwarranted hostile military movements with no consequences. When you put both on the scales, that appears to be the case.

They aren't great signs, but again, it is very early in the new game, and it is unrealistic to expect all of them to be completely moved into neutrality with one battle. In fact, it is almost predictable they'll start sucking up to NATO, desperately trying to increase their value coefficient and the probability NATO would save them if push comes to shove.
However, NATO has not seriously responded to this one.

Eventually, the two lines will cross, and Russia's neighbors realize NATO (dominated by the richer Western members) are not really all that interested in backing them against Russia. What would they do? Get neutral.

NATO has not seriously responded in a military fashion. But many negative repercussions have still happened against Russia. What response should NATO provide at this point? Russia's busy screwing themselves over, and giving gifts like more support from former Soviet states, and giving Bush his missile defense deal on a silver platter. Those dynamics are very helpful to the alliance whether you can see that or not.

Well, considering it was supposed to be an emergency move in response to the Georgians, it is probably defensible for Putin and Medvedev to move the troops in under the President's Commander-in-Chief authority and so on.
As for the UN, yes, but here's where the US kind of kicked itself with that whole Iraq thing. Remember, they couldn't even find the WMD in the end... By extension, it is all right for Russia to claim to be stopping a genocide, go in, and find none...

Oh please. I know that you truly wish to be the Minister of Propaganda for Russia. :lol: The US actually had a UN resolution and ceasefire agreement for Iraq. There was legal framework in place despite the nonsense from the idiots. Russia had no such thing. And the US had their legislative body actually vote for action. Russia's "Unilateral" military actions was unwarranted according to the sources that have been telling us how it should be done. I expected the whiny voices to be shouting for Russia to go to the UN for "approval". Don't try and mince the issue here. This doesn't work for me.

In the meantime, they just continue to chew up the buffer zone, improve the COF and total frontier area (invasion avenues) against Russia. I bet the German ambassador was not threatening Molotov, even as they prepare for Operation Barbarossa. I think I can forgive the Russians for valuing actions over words.

That's OK. Their actions are only defeating their own purposes.


They weren't before?

Nope. Not to such a negatrive extent. But Putin has now assured the hostile realignment against his country. I don't care what propaganda you provide for Russia KS. The Russians now have aligned states more watchful against a potentially hostile Russia on their borders now. It is almost assured they will all be a part of NATO in the near future. Not only that, but now with a negative vibe against Russia. And ready and eager to please the USA/NATO. Thanks Putin.

Such a question is like asking whether unconditional surrender is good given that you have absolutely zip options left.
Try this: If you believe you have a faint chance to avoid unconditional surrender, will you take it, even though it might somewhat (not a lot) worsen your position if you fail and are forced to take the surrender?

None of this has any bearing to the situation at hand. Russia had a chance to ensure peaceful relations with the inevitable and foiled it. Nothing you can do to clean that up.

Try and convince one nation not to go along, by hook or crook? Heck, if he gets only the Ukraine it'll still be worth a lot.

He's not going to get Ukraine. They themselves are making that clear. Neither by hook or crook. Ukraine is looking seriously to the West now more than ever as wanting to become a part of it. I'm certain that this will help them get into NATO on a quicker timetable. This could easily become part of the slap coming from NATO. The fool Putin has handed us gifts. Time for us to reap the rewards. And it looks like we will.

[Sea Demon]

Says somebody who was driven by illusions abiut Iraq, claims moral superiuroirty for his side that it already had betrayed, and who makes arguments that are no arguments at all: becasue the shift towards NAO in Eatserneuropean nations already was there, for they almost irrationally hate Russia for historic reasons - no matter what Russia does or does not (we German can sing a song of that regarding Poland's nationalistic camp as well), and the missile shield would have been established anyway, with opr woithout Russia going into Georgia. And you reaction shows that the Russians saw it tiotally correct when they always claimed it is a project that is also directed against the, and a valid military threat. What NATO has gotten here is - a self-fulfilling prohecy.

Okay, happy marching then. I shall find your mental distortions most amusing. :lol:

My goodness Skybird. Almost everything you predict never comes true. Every tragic consequence you have said regarding Iraq has been the opposite. You lost your credibility long ago. The Chalmers Johnson world of Skybird has never come true, nor is it looking likely. There is really no need to address your grand delusions any further. I have answered above everything you have said here. Including the energy situation Europe has gotten itself into. Nothing you or anybody can say at this point will show Russia a winner in this situation. The dynamics totally favor the NATO position, despite the rough road to get here. Russia ain't going to do anything regarding energy. That's their last and only link of influence. They don't want to lose that by forcing Europe into another direction. Believe me, there is plenty Europe can do to address this. Unfortunately Europe allows itself to be vulnerable and at the mercy of others. Whether it's Muslims or the Russians. When push comes to shove, I believe you guys will eventually learn. Until then, continue reading your fatalist books and internet articles, go in a corner and continue deceiving yourself that you're some kind of Nostradamus, or go watch your Sido video's on MTV or whatever else a guy like you likes to do.

[cobalt1]

Funny how everyone cries when Russia has a little scuffle with a neighbor, when the US, backed by NATO invades two countries half a world away. It's hilarious how some of you guys from the US call Russia imperialistic!

get a clue and take your blinders off.

[Sea Demon]

Funny how everyone cries when Russia has a little scuffle with a neighbor, when the US, backed by NATO invades two countries half a world away. It's hilarious how some of you guys from the US call Russia imperialistic!

get a clue and take your blinders off.
Sorry cobalt, but time for you to see the world for what it is. Where is the UN authorization for Russia's actions? Isn't that the way it's supposed to be done? Did you actually read the post GW1 ceasefire agreements and the legal framework within allowing the US to invade if Saddam broke those agreements? Did Russia take "Unilateral" action, or did they go to the UN to get "approval" like the whiny voices say it should be done? Seriously, what international approval did the Russians get to take the hostile actions they did?

[cobalt1]

Funny how everyone cries when Russia has a little scuffle with a neighbor, when the US, backed by NATO invades two countries half a world away. It's hilarious how some of you guys from the US call Russia imperialistic!

get a clue and take your blinders off.
Sorry cobalt, but time for you to see the world for what it is. Where is the UN authorization for Russia's actions? Isn't that the way it's supposed to be done? Did you actually read the post GW1 ceasefire agreements and the legal framework within allowing the US to invade if Saddam broke those agreements? Did Russia take "Unilateral" action, or did they go to the UN to get "approval" like the whiny voices say it should be done? Seriously, what international approval did the Russians get to take the hostile actions they did?


your ignorance must be bliss.

[Happy Times]

Funny how everyone cries when Russia has a little scuffle with a neighbor, when the US, backed by NATO invades two countries half a world away. It's hilarious how some of you guys from the US call Russia imperialistic!

get a clue and take your blinders off.
Sorry cobalt, but time for you to see the world for what it is. Where is the UN authorization for Russia's actions? Isn't that the way it's supposed to be done? Did you actually read the post GW1 ceasefire agreements and the legal framework within allowing the US to invade if Saddam broke those agreements? Did Russia take "Unilateral" action, or did they go to the UN to get "approval" like the whiny voices say it should be done? Seriously, what international approval did the Russians get to take the hostile actions they did?


your ignorance must be bliss.

His case would still be stronger in the court.

[Tchocky]

Ah yes, the court cases where one war is pitted against another. To see who wins.

[Digital_Trucker]

your ignorance must be bliss.
If he's ignorant of some fact, why don't you share those facts that are in your possession to disprove his point? Comparing Georgia to Afghanistan and Iraq is rather shallow, IMO.

[Sea Demon]

The word "specious" comes to mind :)
In what way? Either the UN is the vehicle used to get approval to go to war or it's not. If not, then the whiny little idiots of Europe and North America need to shut up about Iraq and a potential Iranian strike. If that's the way it is supposed to be done, then Russia should be condemned for their "Unilateral" actions. Many words come to mind here for me.

[Sea Demon]

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/iraqwho1.html

This and 687 gave the US defacto ability to reengage if Saddam did not comply with the ceasefire agreements of 687. But now, you're just deflecting the question Mikhayl. Did Russia seek UN approval or did they take "Unilateral" action without international approval? It all backfired on Putin anyway so it doesn't matter to me at all. But seriously, is the UN relevant to you or not? Are the whiners correct or not. I think the Russians answered this fundamental question correctly, even if counterproductive to their interests.

[Digital_Trucker]

UN Resolution 1441 http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement

Quote Mikhayl's source : Hans Blix, chief UN weapons inspector, delivered several reports to the UN Security Council (http://www.infoplease.com/id/A0001302) on his team's search for chemical and biological weapons inside Iraq. In his first report, Blix said, "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it." In February, he ordered Iraq to destroy its Al Samoud 2 missiles, which he determined had an illegal range limit; Iraq began complying in its typically foot-dragging manner. Once Iraq began to show signs of cooperation, Blix urged the members of the Security Council to give the inspectors more time to complete the task. President Bush was repeatedly angered by Blix's measured, circumspect reports that failed to provide the president with a "smoking gun" that justified an invasion of Iraq. He retired in June 2003.
The only actual fact in that quote is the quote from Blix's report. The rest is interpretation of events that transpired afterwards.

Transcript of Blix's presentation to the UN secutiry council http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/14/sprj.irq.un.transcript.1/

Instead of allowing journalists to decide for you what happened, why not read the resolution and blix's report and make your own decision.


Edit : As for what's happening now, I don't recall anything being brought before the UN regarding the attack on Georgia. I also don't recall any warnings being issued to Georgia by Russia to cease and desist or they would attack. If anyone has information on that, please correct me.

[Thomen]

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/iraqwho1.html
This and 687 gave the US defacto ability to reengage if Saddam did not comply with the ceasefire agreements of 687. But now, you're just deflecting the question Mikhayl. Did Russia seek UN approval or did they take "Unilateral" action without international approval? It all backfired on Putin anyway so it doesn't matter to me at all. But seriously, is the UN relevant to you or not? Are the whiners correct or not. I think the Russians answered this fundamental question correctly, even if counterproductive to their interests.

Uh.. 687 was the resolution about the invasion of Kuwait and its aftermath. Using that as justification for the 2003 campaign is really a stretch of things.

[Konovalov]

WARNING, WARNING WILL ROBINSON. YOU ARE IN DANGER!

We have another Iraq war UN resolution legality debate. :damn: :damn: :damn: :damn:

We're all doomed. :dead:

[Sea Demon]

WARNING, WARNING WILL ROBINSON. YOU ARE IN DANGER!

We have another Iraq war UN resolution legality debate. :damn: :damn: :damn: :damn:

We're all doomed. :dead:

You're right. It's clear the legal framework was in place to ensure enforcement of the peace agreement in Iraq from GW1 and only deflects from the real issue. How Russia screwed itself in multiple counterproductive ways, and whether or not these Russian hostile "Unilateral" actions are of any concern to the whiny little tarts of Europe and North America.

[Thomen]

WARNING, WARNING WILL ROBINSON. YOU ARE IN DANGER!

We have another Iraq war UN resolution legality debate. :damn: :damn: :damn: :damn:

We're all doomed. :dead:

I could not care less about the 'legality'. I do not even care if a war is sanctioned by the UN, as long it is fought for the right reasons. Seeking justification in a resolution that was not intended for the specific purpose and is rather out dated, because you can not reasonably justify it otherwise, that's when it becomes somewhat of a Grey area.

But, everyone is allowed to have his/hers own opinion. Would be truly sad and boring if everybody would allways agree.


Back on topic:

What people seem to forget is a.) Georgia was the aggressor in that case. They tried to invade and take back South Ossetia. b.) Russia still considered the citizens of the a fore mentioned province as Russian citizens. That makes it de facto a Russian affair. It is unfortunate, but that is how it is.

[Digital_Trucker]

"Declaring independence" and becoming a country are two distinctly different things, otherwise the entire US would become 50 separate countries and we could all quit complaining about the federal government. :rotfl:

Forget the UN recognizing SO as being independent, when did the EU recognize it?

[Sea Demon]

To be honest I don't give a damn about that war, really.
The Russian reaction is "overkill" yeah sure, so was Israel's reaction toward Lebanon in 2006, but I guess that's different. Despite what the US administration tryes to sell, Sakashvili is just a "democratically elected" moron just like the "democratically elected" general-president Musharraf and so on so I really don't care about him getting his ass kicked, especially after gambling his country in that stupid way.
Citing the UN approval or lack of is very convenient since the UN refused to aknowledge South Ossetia's independance, meaning that Sakashvili didn't need to bother about the UN prior to invading SO. We could also talk about people pissing on the UN all year long and suddenly backing it when it suits their agenda.
Comparing Georgia with Irak is a pretty cheap way to clean your conscience, no matter what Russia does today, Irak still gets to be the dumbest waste of the new century and will most likely hold the title for a long time.
Actually Mikhayl, I was just wondering where the UN whiners regarding nations taking "Unilateral" actions went to. Your answer speaks volumes to me about it. This whole thing doesn't matter to me either. Russia has backed themselves into a corner in this situation as has ensured NATO will get more backing from other states in the future. In addition Russia has helped the US get their missile defense on an expedited timetable. Russia's moves have further increased NATO's sphere. I just wanted to show the whiny little tarts for what they really are while the opportunity presented itself.......they are empty.

[1480]

UN Resolution 1441 http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement

Quote Mikhayl's source : Hans Blix, chief UN weapons inspector, delivered several reports to the UN Security Council (http://www.infoplease.com/id/A0001302) on his team's search for chemical and biological weapons inside Iraq. In his first report, Blix said, "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it." In February, he ordered Iraq to destroy its Al Samoud 2 missiles, which he determined had an illegal range limit; Iraq began complying in its typically foot-dragging manner. Once Iraq began to show signs of cooperation, Blix urged the members of the Security Council to give the inspectors more time to complete the task. President Bush was repeatedly angered by Blix's measured, circumspect reports that failed to provide the president with a "smoking gun" that justified an invasion of Iraq. He retired in June 2003.
The only actual fact in that quote is the quote from Blix's report. The rest is interpretation of events that transpired afterwards.

Transcript of Blix's presentation to the UN secutiry council http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/14/sprj.irq.un.transcript.1/

Instead of allowing journalists to decide for you what happened, why not read the resolution and blix's report and make your own decision.


Edit : As for what's happening now, I don't recall anything being brought before the UN regarding the attack on Georgia. I also don't recall any warnings being issued to Georgia by Russia to cease and desist or they would attack. If anyone has information on that, please correct me.

Hey DT, whats up?




<H2 align=center>Conflict in Georgia Reveals Russia's Strategic Aims, Who's in Charge at the Kremlin


WASHINGTON, AUGUST 14, 2008--The Russo-Georgian conflict has shed substantial light on Moscow's military capabilities and future intentions in the Caucasus, military analysts and regional observers said at an AEI event on August 13 (http://www.aei.org/events/eventID.1769/event_detail.asp). AEI scholars Frederick W. Kagan (http://www.aei.org/scholars/scholarID.99/scholar.asp), Leon Aron (http://www.aei.org/scholars/scholarID.2/scholar.asp), and Thomas Donnelly were joined by Lt. Col. Ralph Peters (U.S. Army, retired) and Lt. Col. Bob Hamilton (U.S. Army) to discuss and clarify the strategic, operational, and tactical military aspects of the recent conflict. The panel also provided an initial assessment of the political implications--for the United States and its allies in the region--of Russia's invasion of Georgia.

Having recently conducted significant military exercises in preparation for a potential contingency in Abkhazia, the Russian military was poised to mount a rapid mobilization in response to the hostilities in South Ossetia. Tanks surged south across the border from North Ossetia; a flotilla of the Black Sea fleet blockaded Georgia's coastline; and the Russian Air Force conducted an extensive bombing campaign against Georgian army targets throughout the country--"an operation that the Russians undertook for the strategic purpose of doing as much damage to the Georgian military as a whole as it possibly could," Kagan explained.

Yet, by failing repeatedly to strike strategic targets such as oil pipelines and radio towers, the Russian military also demonstrated that it "is still a blunt instrument," Peters argued. Regardless of these shortfalls, Russia's military success allowed it to engineer a ceasefire agreement in its favor.

"[The] peace agreement which is being offered as a compromise . . . is in no in any way a return to the status quo ante in military terms. The military balance in this area has been decisively shifted . . . and I suspect that probably most of the work that the U.S. has done over the years to increase the capacity of the Georgian forces has been destroyed," Kagan said.

Recently returned from a tour as the chief of the Office of Defense Cooperation in the U.S. embassy in Tbilisi, Hamilton explained that the American capacity-building program in Georgia has been focused on developing the skills necessary for conducting counterinsurgency and counterterrorism missions--not for prosecuting a "full-spectrum, maneuver war." An inexperienced senior leadership corps, limited command and control capabilities, and a severe numerical disadvantage against Russia further hindered the Georgian military. The small republic's armed forces were no match for those of their northern neighbor. "This was not a fair fight, and it was never going to be a fair fight," Hamilton said.

Perhaps more disconcerting than the rapid deployment of Russia's coercive capabilities, however, was its leaders' justification for employing them--and the alarming precedents they have sought to establish. According to Kagan, Russian leaders have implicitly and explicitly suggested that in order to protect the "dignity and lives of Russian citizens," Russia has the right to respond to conflicts in Georgia's separatist territories by attacking Georgia proper; that Russian Federation law protects all Russian citizens, regardless of where they might be located; that Russian Federation law can be used to bring charges against non-Russian citizens who are not residents in Russia for crimes not committed on Russian territory if their actions are "against the interests of the Russian Federation"; and that Russian military forces can take preemptive action, including ground occupation, to protect themselves from the possibility of danger posed by foreign forces on foreign soil.

The crisis in Georgia also confirmed what many suspected about the structure and character of Russia's political leadership: Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, not President Dmitry Medvedev, maintains a tight grip on the reins of power and remains the country's chief strategic architect. As Aron said, Putin's public leadership in the course of the Georgian conflict reveals that "the [2008 Russian presidential] elections were a sham . . . the constitution is a sham," and the "whiff of liberalization" that some perceived in Medvedev's early statements was deceptive. Any hopes of liberal reforms in the Kremlin, he said, are "buried under the rubble of Gori."

Peters said that Putin is "the most effective leader in the world today"--if only for his ruthlessness, decisiveness, and consequent ability to pursue strategic goals with little regard for the resistance he might receive. Indeed, though the conflict in the Caucasus was a long time coming, as Kagan and others have noted, Russia's incursion into Georgia caught the West flat-footed and has left it unprepared and fumbling for a response. Peters put it succinctly: Russia "invades a U.S. ally, and our president goes to a basketball game. This is not an effective diplomatic response."

As the United States and its allies in Western Europe craft their policies in response to Russia's recent aggression, they would be wise to understand the gravity and extent of Russian objectives in Georgia. "I don't think that this is over," concluded Kagan. "The Russians are going to try very hard to engineer [Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili's] removal from power, and we need to make it very clear that that is unacceptable."
--TIM SULLIVAN
For video, audio, and more event information, visit www.aei.org/event1769/ (http://www.aei.org/event1769/)
</H2>


I haven't seen anything about Putin or his puppet call for UN intervention, ever.

[Sea Demon]

I haven't seen anything about Putin or his puppet call for UN intervention, ever.

True. And fortunately for us, it looks like Putin's overreaching stupidity worked in our favor. And the clock is ticking whether or not he can save face or not. I think it's too late.

[Happy Times]

I haven't seen anything about Putin or his puppet call for UN intervention, ever.

True. And fortunately for us, it looks like Putin's overreaching stupidity worked in our favor. And the clock is ticking whether or not he can save face or not. I think it's too late.

Where is Putin? Anyone seen him?
Maybe they are shooting each other over this, that would be fun.:rotfl:

[Thomen]

I haven't seen anything about Putin or his puppet call for UN intervention, ever.
True. And fortunately for us, it looks like Putin's overreaching stupidity worked in our favor. And the clock is ticking whether or not he can save face or not. I think it's too late.

I would not be surprised if he actually does not care about saving face.

[Sea Demon]

I would not be surprised if he actually does not care about saving face.
Then he has proven that he is ruinous for the Russian nation. They will pay the price for his foolish pride. You can guarantee it.

[Thomen]

I would not be surprised if he actually does not care about saving face.
Then he has proven that he is ruinous for the Russian nation. They will pay the price for his foolish pride. You can guarantee it.
Maybe, maybe not. We will see about that sooner or later. I am sure he follows his own agenda, other wise he would not be still in THE position of power.

Atleast one thing is sure, imho.. something really fishy is going on over there.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

It's already been said that it will happen. It is to no one's advantage to allow Russia's unwarranted hostile military movements with no consequences. When you put both on the scales, that appears to be the case.
They are threatening it. I don't think anybody would expect the West not to make some noise over such an issue. But let's see what actually comes out of it, and then how fast they quietly take any sanctions out for their own good.

I'll agree it isn't exactly to the West's advantage to allow Russia's movements with no consequences either, but this is what a fait accompli is - it is already done, it is not worth reversing, and a smart government looks for the present and the future.

NATO has not seriously responded in a military fashion.
And that itself is bad, though pretty much inevitable.

But many negative repercussions have still happened against Russia. What response should NATO provide at this point? Russia's busy screwing themselves over, and giving gifts like more support from former Soviet states, and giving Bush his missile defense deal on a silver platter. Those dynamics are very helpful to the alliance whether you can see that or not.
Read what I wrote previously. Again, even if you are right, it is hard to see them being huge losses, seeing all that sh*t was virtually certain to happen in the original history too, as you apparently agree.

Oh please. I know that you truly wish to be the Minister of Propaganda for Russia. The US actually had a UN resolution and ceasefire agreement for Iraq.
They had it the first time, for Desert Storm I. The 2nd time nobody was interested, or demanded for continuance of inspection, and the US pressed on anyway. That's what half the row was about. The other half being that the US didn't find what they wanted. If it had been the Russians, nobody will even seriously consider the possibility the whole WMD thing was not pure disinformation.

There was legal framework in place despite the nonsense from the idiots. Russia had no such thing. And the US had their legislative body actually vote for action.
They also had more time. Remember the story is that the Russians did not plan for all this, and only reacted (though they were obviously ready for it). Given this, wouldn't a slow legislative approval be counterproductive?

That's OK. Their actions are only defeating their own purposes.
I see you are not even answering my reply to your question. Is it because you acknowledge that such actions can legitimately be seen as hostile, whatever cheap words had been passed around?

Nope. Not to such a negatrive extent.
Ahh, I see. So by your acknowledgment, they already had it in for Russia before this.

The Russians now have aligned states more watchful against a potentially hostile Russia on their borders now.
They were always watchful, or they won't all be naturally gravitating towards NATO and NMD.

It is almost assured they will all be a part of NATO in the near future.
You are actually pretending this will not be part of the original history...

Not only that, but now with a negative vibe against Russia.
Their vibes could hardly have been more negative to begin with.

None of this has any bearing to the situation at hand. Russia had a chance to ensure peaceful relations with the inevitable and foiled it. Nothing you can do to clean that up.
At worst, Russia slightly worsened what was already an adversarial relationship, as you basically agreed up there.

He's not going to get Ukraine. They themselves are making that clear.
Of course Yuschenko says that now. But like Skybird would say, wait till they starve of gas this winter. It is easy to make cheap bluffs you don't have to back.

[Sea Demon]

I would not be surprised if he actually does not care about saving face.
Then he has proven that he is ruinous for the Russian nation. They will pay the price for his foolish pride. You can guarantee it.
Maybe, maybe not. We will see about that sooner or later. I am sure he follows his own agenda, other wise he would not be still in THE position of power.

Atleast one thing is sure, imho.. something really is fishy is going on over there.

Please show me how this can bolster Russia's position in any way. Their actions have only served to be a primer of isolation in many sectors. His agenda looks idiotic at this point as everything he wants, the opposite is now coming true. His own actions push NATO further East, only with more suspicion. And his actions have accelerated missile defenses with the big radars that come with it. He has alienated totally states he wanted in his orbit and have directly placed them in the NATO basket. He is only in the position of power because as we all know that to oppose him may be a dangerous venture in Russia. Not for any other reason.

[Thomen]

I would not be surprised if he actually does not care about saving face.
Then he has proven that he is ruinous for the Russian nation. They will pay the price for his foolish pride. You can guarantee it.
Maybe, maybe not. We will see about that sooner or later. I am sure he follows his own agenda, other wise he would not be still in THE position of power.

Atleast one thing is sure, imho.. something really is fishy is going on over there.
Please show me how this can bolster Russia's position in any way. Their actions have only served to be a primer of isolation in many sectors. His agenda looks idiotic at this point as everything he wants, the opposite is now coming true. His own actions push NATO further East, only with more suspicion. And his actions have accelerated missile defenses with the big radars that come with it. He has alienated totally states he wanted in his orbit and have directly placed them in the NATO basket. He is only in the position of power because as we all know that to oppose him may be a dangerous venture in Russia. Not for any other reason.

I am not saying you are wrong. What I think is, you look at it from the wrong point of view.
Try to look at it from a Russian Government, especially Putin point of view.
Historically speaking, being surrounded by enemies is a great motivator for people to stick to their flags, ea, keep the thumb on the population and in control of the power in your country.

[Digital_Trucker]

and driving brand new hummers :)

Maybe only slightly used ones:rotfl:

[Konovalov]

and the Russian billionaires will still enjoy watching the premier league... and driving brand new hummers :)
Stinkin Chelsea Football club. :damn:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Please show me how this can bolster Russia's position in any way. Their actions have only served to be a primer of isolation in many sectors. His agenda looks idiotic at this point as everything he wants, the opposite is now coming true. His own actions push NATO further East, only with more suspicion. And his actions have accelerated missile defenses with the big radars that come with it. He has alienated totally states he wanted in his orbit and have directly placed them in the NATO basket. He is only in the position of power because as we all know that to oppose him may be a dangerous venture in Russia. Not for any other reason.

OK, compare the original history to the new history:

Original: Russia gets surrounded by NATO. The closest NATO nations hate Russians with a vengeance...
New: Russia gets surrounded by NATO. The closest NATO nations hate Russians with a vengeance...

So far, that's the same.

Original: ... and they treat Russia with contempt, thinking that Russia can't and won't take swipes at them, and that NATO will protect them.
New: ... and they treat Russia with fear, knowing now that Russia can and might just take swipes at them, and that NATO might not protect them, or not in time. Sure, they might retaliate, but that's a little too late for you.

Now, neither of the two above are very good, but if you are Russia, what would you pick?

I'll agree with you, Sea Demon, if the Poles and all those others started off at somewhere approaching neutrality. Then Putin's actions are indeed idiotic. But then, if they had started off somewhere approaching neutrality, they might not have been so inclined to join NATO or NMD and the Russians might be less motivated to stop them.

[Sea Demon]

I'll agree with you, Sea Demon, if the Poles and all those others started off at somewhere approaching neutrality. Then Putin's actions are indeed idiotic. But then, if they had started off somewhere approaching neutrality, they might not have been so inclined to join NATO or NMD and the Russians might be less motivated to stop them.

But the thing you're missing here is Russia is powerless to stop any of these countries from joining NATO or pursuing their own national interests anyway. Forgive them for being sovereign nations if you will. Russia has...or had two choices. Try and foster relationships that move away from hostile intent, or take the hostile approach and hope they cower. Looks like Putin tried the brute force method and didn't realize he's not so influential after all. He guessed wrong/stupidly. He's lost everything he's tried to guard against. And helped to push NATO further in his direction. And a missile defense system to go with it. I don't doubt he thought it would be in Russia's interests to go about it this way. In that regard, I'm not really disagreeing with you. But it has obviously bit Putin in the rear in regard to the reaction he is getting, and the posture from those he seeks to control. They're pushing back with a vengeance now, whereas before it wasn't so direct or confrontational. NATO as a whole is only happy to comply by bringing in more friendly states to the alliance as well. Putin simply stands as the loser.

[sergbuto]

Like if it werent the case before. All I see is wishful thinking from old farts who never woke up from the cold war era and who are having a hard one when thinking about nukes.
I bet in 2 months most normal people will have forgotten Georgia's position on the worldmap, Russia will still sell gas and oil to Europe as before and the Russian billionaires will still enjoy watching the premier league... and driving brand new hummers :)
It is so true both about old farts and Russian billionaries. :D

[1480]

Like if it werent the case before. All I see is wishful thinking from old farts who never woke up from the cold war era and who are having a hard one when thinking about nukes.
I bet in 2 months most normal people will have forgotten Georgia's position on the worldmap, Russia will still sell gas and oil to Europe as before and the Russian billionaires will still enjoy watching the premier league... and driving brand new hummers :)

I like interlocution ("wishful thinking") and don't consider myself old (since 37 is the new 27) and am still grateful every morning when I wake up with a stiffy that was not aided by Pfizer nor dreams of tactical nukes dancing in my head.

In two months time, college football will actually keep Georgia, (Bulldogs that is) fresh in everyones mind as they are likely to contend for the national championship. As for the one with the funny alphabet, we may forget that it ever existed, since it won't be there.

And finally, those sturgeon egg eating, birchwood self-flagellating, spinner wheels on the hummers having, capitalistic pigs will be watching the Chicago Cubs win the world series, since it only happens once a century! :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

But the thing you're missing here is Russia is powerless to stop any of these countries from joining NATO or pursuing their own national interests anyway.
Short of invasion, no nation has the "power" to stop other countries from exercising their sovereignty.
What any nation can do, however, is to make disliked decisions from other nations as painful for them as possible.
Forgive them for being sovereign nations if you will.
I forgive them. I bet even Putin and V whatever does (it really says a lot about who's really in power when we all remember Putin but not that V-guy :)).
But that means they have to understand that they are b/w two power hubs (albeit one stronger than the other, but the weak one holds a great key).
Russia has...or had two choices. Try and foster relationships that move away from hostile intent, or take the hostile approach and hope they cower. Looks like Putin tried the brute force method and didn't realize he's not so influential after all.
I won't repeat the "early in the game stuff".
He's lost everything he's tried to guard against. And helped to push NATO further in his direction. And a missile defense system to go with it.
For these, at the very worst, he failed to stop what we both agree was coming anyway. Not exactly a huge failure.
They're pushing back with a vengeance now, whereas before it wasn't so direct or confrontational. NATO as a whole is only happy to comply by bringing in more friendly states to the alliance as well. Putin simply stands as the loser.
You've been running on this theme for a bit now.
He guessed wrong/stupidly.
Moved for appropriateness as a conclusion.
Umm, you'll have to decide here about your thesis, because these two are separate concepts. It is even possible to be right but still stupid.
We both agree that given that the countries are joining NATO, their attitude is worth fighting for. But what kind of attitude?
You suggest that Russia continue its appeasement policy. But that doesn't gain Russia anything, based on historical evidence. They just suck cheap gas (and call you mean when you dare to charge them regular price...), join NATO, build a TMD that is very obviously anti-Russia (they are installing Patriots in Poland to defend against missiles coming from Iran... how obvious can you get). They might do it with a smile, but that's cold comfort.
Now, they ended their appeasement policy. You claim that it is a loss because they are joining NATO faster. But since they were doing it anyway, it's not much of a loss.
What had changed, as you've pointed out, is mindset. You are saying they do this because they are wary of Russia. But put another way, the place of Russia in their hearts had just increased. Every decision will have to be made taking the Russians more into account, and it'll manifest in different ways.
What the Russians will do is continue to slowly, staying under the thereshold of NATO retaliation, continue to rock the boat, degrading NATO's credibility and working the fear in the minds of those former WP nations.
If in the end, everyone joins NATO, but at every decision, Poland and Co have to worry seriously about Russia, then Russia arguably has more influence than if they join NATO, emptily claim Russia as a friend, and then vote with no further regard to Russia. Much better than a non-voting, listen-only seat! And if even one of them gets pried loose, all the better.

[Skybird]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-572973,00.html

Learning from Kennedy

By Gabor Steingart (steingartdebate@mac.com)

These days Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is often compared -- unfairly -- with Stalin and Hitler. In truth, Putin is a Russian Kennedy. And Putin's Cuba is called Georgia.
Russia's invasion of Georgia has brought lovers of historical comparisons out of the woodwork. Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, for one, compared Vladimir Putin with Hitler. And former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski felt reminded of Stalin's treatment of Finland.

But these analogies have more to say about the West's mood than about Putin. Although it may sound bold at first, and although the Americans won't like hearing it, the Vladimir Putin the world has experienced in recent days bears the strongest resemblance to former US President John F. Kennedy in the years 1961 and 1962.

First, the youthful Kennedy was seen as the embodiment of a new America, just as the wiry Putin represents Russia's revival. Kennedy was and Putin is deeply popular among his own citizens.

Second, even Kennedy drew a distinction between first-class and second-class sovereign states. He assumed that residents of the main house ought to have something to say in the backyard, as in Cuba, for example. Putin shares the same view, in the case of Georgia, for example. In America's case we call such behavior dominant, and in Russia's case aggressive. But we mean the same thing.

Third, thinking in terms of spheres of influence had military consequences for Kennedy, as it does for Putin. In Cuba, Kennedy even took things a step further than the Russian prime minister has done in Georgia. In April 1961, the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) supported the landing of Cuban exiles in Playa Girón on Cuba's Bay of Pigs. Kennedy wanted to bring about regime change in Havana by force, a step Putin stopped short of in Georgia. Nevertheless, his desire to evict the Georgian president from the seat of government was undoubtedly as great as Kennedy's interest in overthrowing Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.

The effort to bring about regime change in Havana failed, but Kennedy refused to recognized Cuba's sovereignty. When the Soviet Union began stationing nuclear warheads in Cuba, the US president threatened war. In October 1962, the world held its breath until Russia recognized America's claim to its own backyard and then Premier Nikita Khrushchev, on Sunday, Oct. 28, ordered the withdrawal of the missiles.

Now US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her president, George W. Bush, say that other laws apply today than in the 20th century. It sounds plausible, but it isn't true, as is clearly evident in the case of Cuba.

America still treats the Caribbean island, with its Stone Age communism, as a public enemy. American citizens can neither visit Cuba, a country with a gross domestic product a fraction the size of the US's, nor can they trade with it. Cuban cigars are considered contraband, and any American who smokes them is regarded as an enemy of state.

But the comforting message for Russians and Americans alike is this: The two nations are not as different as they would like to think. They think similarly, they act similarly and they even speak the same language -- namely that of power politics.
Europe's task is to prevent the current situation from escalating. At the present time, NATO expansion into Russia's front yard does not increase security -- it merely serves to heighten tensions in Europe. The Cuba crisis was followed by another 10 years of Cold War before a policy of détente came to prevail. Perhaps that road can be shortened this time around.

And what happens to Georgia? Respecting Russia's interests doesn't mean betraying democracy. Georgia's national integrity is not up for debate, but it would do the country good to tone down its pro-American rhetoric a bit.

A look to the Caribbean can also be comforting for the Georgian president. Kennedy is dead, but communism lives on.


The author compares, for the sake of talking about Kennedy, to cuba only, but one also has to refer to the US's willingness to totally ignore the sovereignity and territorial integrity of serbia during the Kosovo issue, as well as the violation of international law when the Us launched a war of attack against Iraq, and the total ignorration of even most basic legal standards and even minimal basic rights in guantanamo. In a deal with the devil, the US has sold away it'S moral authority, and thus is not in any position to lecture others about these - when they in fact follow the precedent set by the US. The US is guilty of the charges it accuses Russia of - this is a blowback of the failed neocon's policies one thought one could evade in the future with nationalistic rethoric. As one BBC reader put it at their comments page today: As an American I feel embarrassed to hear my government talking about territorial integrity.

The ironic thing is, that exactly htis setting of bad precedents that would be followed by others, has been predicted by many people in 2003, and after that. They were laughed at, and were waved off. and today? Putin and Medwedew are forming a formidable couple to govern in perfect division of labour, and what is interpreted as Medwedew being a puppet, to me appears as the youngster participating from the superior experience of his older mentor. NATO yesterday was able only to show up with the absolut and total minimum of what was to be expected in reaction, and proves that it is a papertiger only, divided and weakened as it already presents itself in Afghanistan. the effect yesterday's meeting caused, runs out with getsures meaning not much to russia, and angry appeals the Kremlin will only listen to if by chance they match with their own intentions. I got the impression that the desperate attempts of some forum members yesterday and before, to reverse the facts and try to display russia as hurting itself, and being the loser in this, only is an irrational last stand to defend an off-reality-state of mind that allows to carry on to laugh about others, and feel oneself like the glorious knight of shining justice, no need to think about and question oneself a bit. Denial of reality, it is called.

What is to be expected? russia cannot afford to return to the cold war in military terms, it'S economy, basing on exporting energy, cannot support such a huge arms program as america is running it. but we will eventually see a return to the cold war's language and diplomatic rituals for some time to come. The US needs russia for several international crisis, namely Iran, and europe needs Russia as distributor of energy. Also, I personally doubt that russia ever had any inention to return to the old status of the Warsaw Pact time and plans to invade one country at a time. That is paranoic and pro-Western nationalistic nonsens to demonise an opponent who proved to have outthought the west over Georgia.

What'S more, Russia has a huge potential to destabilize the Crimean, and the Ukraine cannot risk that to happen, it could lead to major war, and that is not just a small chance. Although the Ukraine shows admirable stubborness to give in to russia'S claim for influence and wants to slip under the NATO umbrella better yesterday than today, many NATO countries will not feel enthusiastic abiut that perspective. It is a risk to get drawn into a conflict one doies not want, and the example of the Baltic countires and Poland shows that these new members almost irrationally abuse the protection of NATO to straight out old bills with russia and provoke them at every opportunity, needlessly, for no other reason than to please their historically injured egos. the same did Saakashvilli, an authoritarian autocrat whose understanding of democracy includes to supress the democratic opposition, beat up deonstrators against his political course by sending in riot police, and suporessing free radio broadcasting by abusing states of emergency for that. What fine democratic Frankenstein has the US build up again here? - we will probably see NATO ofering both countries a vague, distant perspective of NATO membership in the future, but I am sure they will not be given a timetable, moving membership into the realm of non-existence for the firseeable future that way and hoping (in vain) to evade criticism for not giving them a NATO perspective that way. the past days have not increased but drastically lowered the NATO chances of both countries. That their drive to get into NATO may increase, does not change this opposing trend in chances.

Several people in the Caucasian region probably already have understood the example lectured by russia therse days. The leczture is: "mind your own business if you want, but don't serve as a platform for western influence threatening Russia's southern flank." russia also demonstrated, that it can threaten the oiepline existing and the pipeline in planning at will. Like the US pulled out some old resultions of the UN to construct a smelling excuse why to attack Iraq withoiut UN authorization, the Russians are presenting an old treaty from the nineties that they never enforced before, but now use to legalize their right to move in regions of Georgie close to the two provinces at will. Like the US over kosovo, they claim that the wish of the people ranks higher than the right of territorial integrity of Georgia. Like the Us they demonstrated their willingness and capability to strike into a foreing country without UN authorization. Like the US broke the rules, russia does as well - and still acts with more self-restraint than the US did. Same standards for both perpetrators please - I hate double-standards and nationalistic bias. So far there has not been an Abu ghraib scandals, and no guantanamo with the Russians in Georgia. Eyewitnesses of HRW yesterday said in German Die Welt that they saw evidence that the Georgians started first with firing cluster bombs into civilian areas of Tchinvali and populated rural places, and that the Russians did not react to that until one day later. they also said that by their counts in Ossetian hospitals, not so much two thousand, but more realistically some dozen civilians were killed, and not by russians, but marauding rebels - against whom the Russians formed guarding cordons to protect villagers from them. House-seraching for the most were descriobed to have been conducted correctly, all in all. Every war has it's stories of the hellish enemy eating babies - some demonization of the Russians were spread happily by some people at this board.

What is happening now is a diplomatical aftermatch. One side yells, and the other side makes an angry face and yells back. In the end, in some month, the West will have relaised that he needs the Russian cooperation on a multitude of issues much more than the Russians need talks with NATO or mkembership in the WTO. So best advise it: let it rest so that the troubled water cna clear, any effort to enforce that just stirrs up things again - and stay the hellmout of the russians backyard, like america repeatedly have shown that it even uses military force and terror in middle America because the Us in return does not accept foreign interference in their own backyard as well. the Russians, and Putin, are not the great saints of mankind, but in no way they are the diabolic hellhounds and warmongerers as which some people try to depict them. Putin demonstrated superior strategic skills and a good sense of timing, with both he outmanouvered the West and sort of payed back a bill that the west opened with it's breaking of promises when moving towards russia's borders, the Iraq war, the balkan war, the missile shield, the Kosovo independence, and then - one step over the line too much - trying to push into russia's backyard.

[1480]

and stay the hellmout of the russians backyard, like america repeatedly have shown that it even uses military force and terror in middle America because the Us in return does not accept foreign interference in their own backyard as well.

SB, care to expound on this......

[Skybird]

Supporting and assisting and keeping in power a not short list of brutal dictators in Middle (and South) America (as well as in Africa and the Far East) for whom death squadrons, torture, massmurder were a question of good manners, in my book qualifies for a description of actively supporting terror.

Most countries of Middle America have seen direct and indirect (proxy wars) military intervention by the US. During the cold war era, and especially the 70s and 80s, it was in "defense" against the rivalling global system that confronted the american system, and for its own part it was supported and propagated by the Soviet Union. Also, these operations, sometimes leading to years of bloody civil wars, sometimes carryied the consequences of the war onto american streets (contras, drug smuggling and the help of the CIA to sell the drugs on American streets so that the Contras could pay for the weapons they got from America). And it was about backing up economical interests of US companies in the countries at questions.

A massive attempt to project influence even as far as South America, can still be seen today, though with varying success.

[Bruno Lotse]

Grenada, Panama, Costa-Rica, Kolumbia and what's that country next to Guantanamo Bay detention camp:hmm:

[Zayphod]

And I'll become emperor of the world soon, so behave you all. You've been warned.

Hey, that's MY job. :stare:

Oh, wait, that's President of the Galaxy, Inc. :rock: